LyrArc Article Gist
Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard School of Public Health says in Jan 2018 issue of Harvard Chan Institute of Public Health journal that an "accidental pandemic" could result from the lifting of the ban on a risky kind of research favored by some virologist professionals.  In "Three Questions, Three Answers" Lipsitch tells why. Most members of the broader scientific and medical community had serious questions and were fiercely against such research which had questionable value and great risk. At the beginning the interviewer Karen Feldscher writes:  "January 8, 2018- Last month the US government lifted a three year moratorium on funding risky research to genetically alter deadly viruses in ways that could make them even more lethal. Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of Harvard Chan School thinks the move could create an accidental pandemic." Lipsitch says rejecting the virologists who supported this dangerous research: "Others, like myself, worry that the human error could lead to the accidental release of a virus that has been enhanced in the lab so that it is more deadly and contagious than it already is." He cites an accident in 2014 at US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Lab where workers were exposed to anthrax that was improperly handled. "Another accident like that- if it involved a virus that was both newly created and highly contagious- has the potential to jeopardize millions of people."  Lipsitch points out that this kind of research has given us modest scientific knowledge, was not essential to tackling the virus epidemics, was only one type of many types of research, and a type of research whose aims could be achieved in other ways that were not deadly to humans. Lipsitch pointed this out in The Journal of Medical Ethics stating the ethical considerations at stake. 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. The people of the world, and not just in America but the people of the whole world, and the poorest countries with little resources- Asia, Africa, Latin America bearing the consequences of this decision that violated medical ethical considerations of setting up a potential accidental pandemic.   ...

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
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 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. ...