The questions that dog gain-of-function research relates to monitoring these potentially deadly projects and the secrecy surrounding them. Did such research cause COVID-19 to leak from a lab in Wuhan, China?
The search for job gain involves great risks and insufficient transparency. These are just 2 of the topics explored in about 4700 words exposed speak Washington post Last week.
The article also focused on the role that 2 icons of the medical field had in such research. Reviews cited in the article suggest that Francis Collins, MD, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH); and Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical adviser to the president, could expose the company to nullifying the risks by supporting the controversial research method and not being fairly transparent about the projects they have approved.
Michael J. Imperiale, PhD, University of Michigan virologist who served on the Biosafety Board from 2005-2012 and is now Editor-in-Chief of mBio, a journal of the American Society for Microbiology, reports To post that “if you’re asking the company to take on a higher than normal level of risk, then I think there needs to be more openness. “
Richard H. Ebright, PhD, professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, told the newspaper that “everyone on the planet now knows what a pandemic is, what it means for their families, their communities, their communities. income ”.
The idea behind gain-of-function research is that scientists are increasing the lethality of pathogens in an effort to better understand how to contain future pandemics. But there are significant risks, says Kevin Kavanagh, MD, a member of Infection control today®‘s (TIC®‘s) Editorial Advisory Board (which was not cited in the To postof the article) – incidents that can lead to a global catastrophe.
“Gain-of-function research on viral pathogens is one of the most dangerous academic endeavors that can be undertaken by mankind,” says Kavanagh. “Avian influenza gain-of-function research alone has the potential to wipe out large percentages of the world’s population. It is difficult to imagine a benefit that justifies the risk, but when one is identified, such research should only be undertaken with the assumption that a laboratory accident could occur. There must be a viable plan that has a very high probability of success for the containment of any escaped pathogen and the identification and quarantine of exposed personnel, without risk of spread to the general population.
Such a “viable plan” to which Kavanagh refers appears to have been in place when investigators at Osaka University in Japan recently created the Delta 4+ pseudo-virus by arguing that future mutations in the Delta variant could l ‘help escape the antibodies in Covid19 vaccines. Kavanagh says the Osaka University research “is an example of gain-of-function research using a pseudo-virus that is extremely beneficial.”
In this example, the gain-of-function research may have helped sound the alarm bells, Kavanagh adds. “Research has reported that the Delta virus is one mutation away from completely escaping the vaccine.”
It’s one thing to create lethal experimental pathogens in a lab. It is another to contain them. Deadly pathogens can escape or leak from laboratories – as has been suggested, this could have been the event that triggered the COVID-19 pandemic. The theory is that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. The idea had been rejected out of hand for months and had hardly been studied by the mainstream media. However, in recent months, publications including (TIC®)– have published stories that the possibility deserves at least investigation. (See here, here and here.)
The To post‘s expose does not address this problem. “Speculation about the work in Wuhan has drawn new attention to research on job gain,” the article said. “This report details US support for such experiments and the secrecy behind them. It is not clear whether the coronavirus pandemic resulted from gain-of-function research. “
The To post enlightens that Fauci and Collins have supported research on gaining office over the years, handing out federal funds for the work, even though other health care experts have questioned whether it was wise.
David A. Relman, a Stanford University physician and microbiologist who has advised the NIH and other federal agencies on biosafety, told the To post that “the risks are absolutely real. These are not intellectual constructions or hypotheses…. [S]something you do or information you disclose will cause some sort of accident.
The NIH used ferrets to create a deadly flu virus about 10 years ago. When Obama administration officials learned of this, they were alarmed.
“NIH officials and the Department of Health and Human Services have committed to subjecting the work to increased transparency and auditing.” To post the article says. “This included forming a review group of federal officials – known informally as the ‘ferret committee’ – to review the proposed projects in terms of safety and value.”
The To post alleges that Fauci and Collins attempted to undermine the authority of the committee. In 2017, for example, the regulation giving the committee the power to block projects was removed.
The To post interviewed Fauci and Collins who denied that their actions diminished oversight of plans to gain office.
Collins told the To post that “reasonable people do not quite agree on the ideal way to frame the supervision of these very sensitive experiences…. Some see the risks as greater and the benefits less. And vice versa.”
Fauci said that “as long as we can be transparent, the system would allow us to be transparent, we are exaggerating to be transparent”.