LyrArc Article Gist
The letter of December 2017 from Director NIH that announced the lifting of the ban on "gain of function" research. The lifting of the ban led to research at labs that is seen as a possible scenario of what happened to cause an accidental pandemic. 

LyrArc Article Gist
During question time in the US Congress US Senator Rand Paul stated that the US money was used to fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A ban on gain of function research on virus was lifted by the US in 2018. Following the lifting of this ban which was strongly opposed by scientists at Cambridge, Massachusetts, research was conducted that many of these scientists considered dangerous and risky. This report in the BBC shows Dr. Anthony Fauci. director of the NIAID, the Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases responding to Dr. Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky. Much of the discussion goes into definition of "gain of function research" and misses the broader implications. Scientists in Cambridge had warned early of the danger of doing research because of earlier mishaps such as the one involving anthrax research from accidents that are always a risk. Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard Chan School of Public Health warned of just such an "accidental pandemic" in Three Questions, Three Answers in the January 2018 issue of the Harvard Chan School of Public Health journal. He stated that an "accidental pandemic" could result from the lifting of a ban on a risky kind of research favored by some virologist professionals. Most of the medical and scientific community in Cambridge fiercely opposed the lifting of the ban on what they saw as risky research with little benefit in 2018.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in The Guardian on the lifting of the ban on a kind of risky research on virus in labs that involves increasing the power of pathogenic virus, first appeared on March 9, 2016. It is called gain of function research. The ban was lifted in 2018. It shows how fiercely this decision was opposed in the scientific community, even as some virologists and bureaucrats went ahead. An agency National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, going by the acronym NSABB would make the recommendations to National Institutes of Health or NIH agency, and the Health Ministry in the US called the HHS.

 

LyrArc Article Gist
Dr. Muller, Emeritus professor of physics at University of California, Berkeley, and Dr. Quay, founder of Atossa Therapeutics, point out why the presence of double CGG sequence  in the coronavirus genome is strong evidence of gene splicing done at the labs in research settings. The purpose of the research is to increase the lethal effect of existing virus and it goes under the harmless sounding term gain of function research when it is a risky and dangerous form of research. Other articles in the WSJ refer to the lifting of the ban on such research by NIH and HHS in 2018, in the face of fierce opposition from the scientific community at large, including the Cambridge community. Harvard's School of Public Health carried articles by epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch about the risks of "an accidental epidemic" which were ignored.

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in The Lancet published in February 2018 throws much light on how the ban on gain of function research on virus was lifted -research that carries with it the danger of increasing transmission of virus if something unexpected happens in the manipulation of a virus. It was lifted in 2018 in the US by officials in the US Health Ministry, NIH and HHS. The Cambridge group of scientists and experts opposed lifting the ban on such dangerous research that could make the virus more contagious through manipulation. Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of Harvard School of Public Health wrote at the time that the lab research to create a more lethal strain of virus could lead to "an accidental pandemic" yet he was ignored. The public in America and in the world is unaware of how this created serious risks for public health in the world through the coronavirus.  Did US health officials lift the ban on such research without consulting other countries such as India, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, and the EU on its ramifications. Were public health experts and the publics themselves in the US and around the world not drawn into the discussion of public health and the dangers that existed. Not only did officials in HHS and NIH restart the research by lifting the ban but also sent funds overseas for such research- was this a proper or thoughtful action considering the risks involved.  Is enhanced surveillance of virus- a dubious benefit from manipulation of a virus- something a few health officials can decide for the whole world in addition to the US. How are health officials in one or two countries responsible to the people in India, Brazil, Europe and the poorest populations in the world in the world in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, people who have suffered devastating consequences from transmissibility of the virus, including children and older people with health problems. India, Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, UK, and other countries worst hit by the coronavirus must ask serious questions about how they can protect their people if institutions in the US and international institutions are seen as failing to protect world public health. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After reading this editorial in the WSJ about the origins of the coronavirus, readers will have more questions about EcoHealth Alliance nonprofit which sent $3.4 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) for  research with potential for risky consequences to world public health if something went wrong.  What is gain of function research and what purpose is served in making virus more infectious and contagious such that the National Institutes of Health would send funding overseas for such research are questions that readers may have. Were all the risks considered for such research overseas. The editorial says the US Congress is not showing interest in the origins and the US president Biden has to take up this- some readers might have a question what would make the US Congress not interested in this when coronavirus has affected the US, India, Brazil, Europe, and the poorest countries on earth in unimaginable ways. Can such important matters as world public health fall under the authority of one person, such as Dr. Fauci and other health officials from one country or two countries, when other countries such as India, Brazil, UK, France, Italy, Germany, EU countries, are gravely affected. Global public health has suffered badly and billions of people around the world, in the poorest countries as well as the people in US and Europe have suffered unimaginably in 2020 and 2021 as a consequence of poor decisions. Much needs to be done to get the people themselves informed about public health and how it can be shaped in the future. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Kristian Anderson memo to Dr. Fauci is the No. 1 story in the WSJ on June 5. This memo written on Jan 31, 2020 shows the initial reaction of the leader of five virologists to the coronavirus genome. Nicholas Wade writing in WSJ cites this memo as having missed the censors marker as the emails to Fauci were released under the Freedom of Information Act. The initial reaction is cited in the Anderson memo to Dr Fauci as seeing "unusual features" in the virus. These were in a small percentage of the genome, "so that one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered." Mr. Anderson goes on to note that he and his team of virologists 'all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." What does Anderson mean by this important phrase? Anything inconsistent with evolutionary origin has to be man-made is the conclusion drawn by many virologists including David Baltimore, cited here in the WSJ. Virologist later modified their stand saying it was evolutionary because of professional interest in not starting a what WSJ calls "storm of condemnation" over gain of function research, a exotic name for genetically enhancing the pathogenic power of viruses or increasing its transmissibility effect. Nicholas Wade is a Science writer who has worked for Nature, Science and The New York Times. ...