Biden Still Supports Gain-of-Function Research Despite Potential Covid Links

The Biden administration remains supportive of gain-of-function research despite the potential risks as long as that research is pursued in a safe and transparent manner, national security council communications coordinator John Kirby explained on Monday.

The controversial practice involves making pathogens more deadly or transmissible in order to better understand current or future pandemics, and thus be able to respond faster. Funding for the research was halted in 2014 during the Obama administration due to concerns about the risks: if modified pathogens escape the laboratory setting, they can cause pandemics.

[OCS: As we have seen, funding continued, hidden from watchdogs by redefining “gain of function” and using unsupervised third-party cut-outs to convey funds and research materials to the Communist Chinese-controlled Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.] 

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) lifted that funding pause three years later after the creation of an oversight framework. In 2021, it emerged that U.S. taxpayers had funded research into bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through an intermediary — that is, EcoHealth Alliance.  The news gained new relevance last week after the Energy Department’s conclusion that the lab-leak theory of Covid’s origins is probable.

[OCS: The Chinese Communists have refused all cooperation with the international scientific community and destroyed research materials so that the “lab-leak” origin will always be classified as a theory, no matter what findings indicate. Where are the investigations into the EcoHealth Alliance and the Anthony Fauci-Peter Daszak relationship?]

Asked by White House reporter Philip Wegmann if the rewards of gain-of-function research outweigh the risks, Kirby expressed continued support for the practice.

“[The president] believes that [the research is] important to help prevent future pandemics, which means he understands that there has to be legitimate scientific research into…the potential sources of pandemics so that we understand [them] and so we can prevent them from happening,” Kirby said.

“But he also believes…that that research has to be done, must be done in a safe and secure manner,” Kirby explained, adding that transparency is key.

Last month, a report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that “NIH did not effectively monitor or take timely action to address” EcoHealth Alliance’s compliance with reporting requirements. The OIG also concluded that the grantee had misreported $90,000 in expenses.

At first, NIH had concluded the studies in question didn’t qualify as gain-of-function research because the hybrid viruses weren’t expected to be more dangerous to mammals than the starting viruses. The agency has faulted EcoHealth Alliance for not reporting unexpected growth in some experiments.

[OCS: The NIH and other government agencies lied to Congress and the American people—continuing to cover up their criminal malfeasance which resulted in the deaths of millions and the untold suffering of millions more. Pointing the finger is not exculpatory and Fauci, Daszak, and others should be held criminally and civilly liable for their actions.] 

The Wuhan Institute of Virology sub-award through EcoHealth Alliance was permanently suspended in August of 2022 for compliance issues, including failure to provide NIH with laboratory notebooks related to the funded experiments. <Source>

[OCS: It appears that EcoHealth Alliance may still be involved with gain of function activities, under a different nomenclature, different funding sources, different programs, and different locations – possibly with some in Ukraine as noted by State Department Official and coup-master Victoria Nuland.]

WHO Member States agree to develop zero draft of legally binding pandemic accord in early 2023

Member States of the World Health Organization today agreed to develop the first draft of a legally binding agreement designed to protect the world from future pandemics. This “zero draft” of the pandemic accord, rooted in the WHO Constitution, will be discussed by Member States in February 2023.

“Countries have delivered a clear message that the world must be better prepared, coordinated, and supported to protect all people, everywhere, from a repeat of COVID-19,” said Mr. Driece, Co-Chair of the INB [Intergovernmental Negotiating Body] Bureau. “The decision to task us with the duty to develop a zero draft of a pandemic accord represents a major milestone in the path towards making the world safer.”

Fellow INB Bureau Co-Chair, Ms. Matsoso, said government representatives stressed that any future pandemic accord would need to take into account equity, strengthen preparedness, ensure solidarity, promote a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach, and respect the sovereignty of countries. <Source>

[OCS: While claiming to respect the sovereignty of countries, the accord would be legally binding and enforceable in those countries, with provisions with massive fines and penalties for non-compliant entities. 

While the “voluntary” accord does limit any nation’s ability to pass individual pandemic-related policies, it is relying on the fact that member nations will codify WHO guidelines into their own laws on a federal, state, and local level, much like the CDC guidelines on childhood vaccinations are incorporated into law as a requirement to attend school. As for the rest of it, it is the typical U.N. institutional wealth redistribution plan to plunder productive countries to allow the U.N. to purchase political power throughout the world as the arbiter of distributed funds.]

Why the U.S. Should Oppose the New Draft WHO Pandemic Treaty

The WHO CA+ draft would dramatically expand WHO authority to declare a pandemic and, thereby, trigger provisions in the treaty that would reallocate resources and encourage governments to waive intellectual property rights.

It also proposes giving real-time access by WHO to 20% of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products, including diagnostics, vaccines, personal protective equipment and therapeutics, to enable equitable distribution, in particular to developing countries, according to public health risk and need and national plans that identify priority populations. Half of the 20 percent is to be provided as a donation and the other half at “affordable prices.”

Although the draft WHO CA+ treaty makes transparency and cooperation mandatory (using the term “shall” when referencing facilitating access and sharing of research and genomic data), there are no repercussions for non-compliance.

Thus, there is little reason to believe that China would comply with these obligations any differently than it did under the voluntary IHRs. Worse, emulating the WHO’s quiet abandonment of its COVID-19 investigation, the draft does not insist on completing an independent investigation of the origins of COVID-19, sending the wrong signal to China about its past intransigence.

In fact, the bulk of WHO CA+ focuses not on addressing the weaknesses in pandemic prevention and detection revealed in the COVID-19 pandemic, but on establishing a system to direct expenditures by the treaty parties, require regulatory and policy changes relating to pandemic-related products and intellectual property, and “equitably” redistribute knowledge, technology, and other resources.

Despite acknowledging that intellectual property plays a critical role in developing medicines, treatments, vaccines, and lifesaving technology, the draft WHO CA+ specifically calls on the parties to support waiving patent rights and sharing of proprietary technology and knowledge on pandemic-related products.

Of further concern is that this would establish precedent for waiving intellectual property rights on other medicines, treatments, or technology. Denying companies the opportunity to profit from investments by abrogating property rights will curtail future investment and force some companies out of business. Chilling investment in health research is exactly the opposite incentive needed to deal with future pandemics.

Despite China having the second-largest economy in the world, the U.N. considers China a developing country. This means that China will likely be a beneficiary of WHO CA+ obligations for parties to, among other provisions, incentivize transfer of technology and know-how to developing countries, support waiving intellectual property rights to grant the use of intellectual property and other “protected substances, products, technology, know-how, information and knowledge” to developing countries, encourage patent holders to waive or manage “payment of royalties by developing country manufacturers,” and ensure “equitable distribution” of pandemic-related products, including “diagnostics, vaccines, personal protective equipment and therapeutics."

Beijing already engages in theft of intellectual property on health technology. This agreement will provide legal cover, especially if it can be linked to pandemic preparedness.

Assault on Free Speech. The treaty calls on the parties to “tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.” This ignores the fact that governments and the WHO have themselves been sources of disinformation—notoriously, for instance, the WHO tweeted that “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission [of COVID-19].” 

During the upcoming fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to consider the draft WHO CA+ treaty, it is incumbent upon the Biden Administration to demand substantial changes to narrow the agreement and excise or modify its objectionable provisions. Only a treaty that would preserve American sovereignty, address the mistakes of the COVID-19 pandemic, and protect the intellectual property of U.S. companies should be considered for approval by the United States.  <Source> 

[OCS: There is no benefit to America and American citizens in this accord -- it is a clear and present danger to our sovereignty and our economy.]

National security adviser Jake Sullivan: 'No definitive answer’ from intelligence community on lab leak theory

Sullivan said he couldn't confirm or deny WSJ report that the Department of Energy concluded COVID-19 leaked from China lab

National security adviser Jake Sullivan said Sunday that he couldn't "confirm or deny" the Wall Street Journal's reporting on the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) recent conclusion that the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from an accidental lab leak in China and added there was "no definitive answer."

[OCS: Without the cooperation of the Communist Chinese authorities, there will never be a definitive answer—so those responsible for this crime against humanity will escape accountability.]

CNN's Dana Bash asked Sullivan about the Journal's report on Sunday and if he also believed coronavirus started in a lab.

"There is a variety of views in the intelligence community. Some elements of the intelligence community have reached conclusions on one side, some on the other. A number of them have said they just don’t have enough information to be sure," he said. <Source>