Can someone in this group explain or provide a reference to the assertion of Rant Paul??

[Sancho]

Fauci says the research was vetted.

Sorry if I missed it, but with Paul interrupting and all the yelling there was no explanation.

Thanks...

[leftieNanner]

1. RANT Paul!

I like it!

[Jim__]

2. I think I can give you a link to the paper that Dr Fauci holds up.

Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus

[Sancho]

3. thanks...that's a start

[Jim__]

4. Here's a link to an interview with Dr Richard Ebright.

The interview contains a link to an Open Letter signed by Dr Ebright et al about investigating the origins of the coronavirus. This is probably not the document Rand Paul was citing; but it gives some idea of what Ebright's position is: the interview.

When I read this, I get the idea that there may be disagreement among some experts as to the proper classification of the research; but nothing that would indicate Dr Fauci was lying. I'm curious as to what you think.

[Warpy]

5. Not without a wall of text

explaining how cutting edge research into viruses with a potential of migrating into humans is accomplished. That's what the lab in Wuhan was doing. Yes, they had been cited for sloppy procedures, it's why the CDC and WHO got involved, to help them tighten up those procedures.

Even if I didn't know what was involved, I'd sooner believe an infectious disease specialist like Dr Fauci than a Lasik guy who had to fake a board to say he was board certified and then turned to politics, following his daddy.

One whopper Rando told was that the Wuhan lab infected humans. Uh, no, they didn't. They used human tissue cultures just like every other virology lab out there.

[NNadir]

6. Does it matter. A non-practicing optometrist calling a leading scientist with half a century...

...of research experience a liar is rather like a TV repairman calling Enrico Fermi a liar.

Paul is an illiterate fool.

[intrepidity]

7. Is there a link to the interaction in question?

I haven't been following it.

[Jim__]

8. Here's a video of the Dr. Fauci/Rand Paul exchange

[intrepidity]

9. Fauci seems to claim that the paper in question

was vetted and deemed to NOT be GoF work. On the surface, and by any laymen understanding of GoF, it seems the work *was* GoF. But, apparently, under the strict definition that was apparently part of the criteria for stopping NIH funding, the work described, according to Fauci, did not qualify. Personally, I disagree, but I don't run the NIH.

I think the more salient issue has to do with the circuitous route the funding took to get to WIV. Fauci is absolutely correct in saying that the NIH didn't fund the WIV--in the sense that Shi didn't apply to the NIH for a grant (and that she referenced the NIH grant by number may have been an example of her erring on the side of "more info is better"--although she certainly didn't practice that consistently (another--but related--story). That someone who *did* get an NIH grant (Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance) gave money to WIV, is a technically different matter. One could argue that these strategies were used to bypass restrictions, but that's a whole can of worms.

Dr. Ebright (noted upthread) is a qualified and highly informed voice to pay attention to, for those interested in this discussion.