Anthony S. Fauci: Research on Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Influenza Virus: The Way Forward

However, the issue that has been intensely debated is whether knowledge obtained from these experiments could inadvertently affect public health in an adverse way, even in nations multiple time zones away.

Putting aside the specter of bioterrorism for the moment, consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?

[OCS: Putting aside the fact that Communist China does not abide by U.S laws and restrictions, one might ask why dangerous “gain of function” research was performed in an offshore laboratory known to have significant procedural issues in handling dangerous pathogens?]

Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully. <Source>

[OCS: We now know the consequences of errant research supervised by government employees and conducted offshore by our sworn enemies.]

The controversial quest to make a 'contagious' vaccine
A new technology aims to stop wildlife from spreading Ebola, rabies, and other viruses. It could prevent the next pandemic by stopping pathogens from jumping from animals to people.

Imagine a cure that’s as contagious as the disease it fights—a vaccine that could replicate in a host’s body and spread to others nearby, quickly and easily protecting a whole population from microbial attacks. That’s the goal of several teams around the world who are reviving controversial research to develop self-spreading vaccines.

Their hope is to reduce infectious disease transmission among wild animals, thereby lowering the risk that harmful viruses and bacteria can jump from wildlife to humans as many experts believe happened with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 60 percent of all known infectious diseases and 75 percent of new or emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic. Scientists cannot predict why, when, or how new zoonotic diseases will emerge. But when they do, these diseases are often deadly and costly to control. What’s more, many researchers predict that climate change, biodiversity loss, and population growth will accelerate their spread.

Vaccines are a key tool for preventing diseases from spreading, but wild animals are difficult to vaccinate because each one must be located, captured, vaccinated, and released. Self-spreading vaccines offer a solution.

Advances in genomic technology and virology, and a better understanding of disease transmission, have accelerated work that began in the 1980s to make genetically engineered viruses that spread from one animal to another, imparting immunity to disease rather than infection. <Source>

Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes, Funded By Bill Gates, Approved for Release in US

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just approved a plan to release millions of Bill Gates-funded genetically-modified mosquitos into parts of the US.

The disturbing plan, which was created by the British biotech firm Oxitec, which is bankrolled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is apparently intended to combat the spread of diseases such as Zika, yellow fever and dengue.

While the EPA approved the plan, the company still needs approval from the individual states. However, there has been some criticism.

“When you disrupt an ecological system whether it’s a small disruption or a big disruption, you’re going to have an impact,” said Dana Perls, a program manager at Friends of the Earth, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental advocacy group.

“Once you release these mosquitos into the environment, you cannot recall them,” she said. “This could, in fact, create problems that we don’t have already.”

Perls says that without confirmed data about the rate of disease transmission from the Aedes aegypti mosquito, it’s unclear if the genetically-modified mosquitos will behave the way Oxitec predicts. <Source>

[OCS: Why is nobody mentioning mutations and adaptations?]

EPA Permits Experimental Release of 2.5 Billion Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes in California and Florida

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has authorized the “experimental use” and release of 2.5 billion genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes in Florida and California by the British-based firm Oxitec. While the goal of eliminating disease-carrying mosquitoes is an important public health challenge, public opinion has been consistently against the use of these animals, with nearly 240,000 individuals opposing a pilot program in the Florida Keys. Health and environmental advocates have a range of concerns with Oxitec’s approach, including the size of its latest experiment, lack of publicly verifiable efficacy data, and availability of alternative management practices not requiring GE mosquitoes. <Source>

[OCS: The EPA is a corrupt regime agency filled with progressive communist democrats.]