Yesterday, The Gateway Pundit reported about the curious timing of the retirement of NIH Director Francis Collins.
NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins on Tuesday resigned just a few weeks after documents exposed he lied about his involvement in gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab.
“It has been an incredible privilege to lead this great agency for more than a decade,” Collins said in a statement.
“I love this agency and its people so deeply that the decision to step down was a difficult one, done in close counsel with my wife, Diane Baker, and my family. I am proud of all we’ve accomplished. I fundamentally believe, however, that no single person should serve in the position too long, and that it’s time to bring in a new scientist to lead the NIH into the future. I’m most grateful and proud of the NIH staff and the scientific community, whose extraordinary commitment to lifesaving research delivers hope to the American people and the world every day.”
Recall, Francis Collins over the summer said parents should wear masks at home in front of their unvaccinated children.
Collins conceded that it “may sound weird” that people should wear masks in their homes, but he advised it anyway.
“Parents of unvaccinated kids should be thoughtful about this, and the recommendation is to wear masks [at home] as well,” Collins said. “I know that’s uncomfortable. I know it seems weird, but it is the best way to protect your kids.”
In June, Francis Collins admitted to radio host Hugh Hewitt that the US collaborated with the Wuhan Virology Laboratory.
Dr. Collins then went on to defend the researchers and the virology lab in Wuhan, China.
Ten months ago, on January 25, 2021, Fox News’ Steve Hilton shared bombshell results from his investigation that revealed grant money from the NIH was used to fund the gain of function study that allegedly gave us COVID-19.
Hilton explained that about 10 years ago, scientists in Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands manipulated the influenza virus in ferrets until the virus was mutated enough to be transmitted through the air. The “Gain of Function” virus research was born. The idea was to engineer the most contagious, deadly viruses in a lab to help us better prepare to fight them.
Hilton asked his viewers:
“Imagine if a deadly virus engineered in a lab to be incredibly contagious somehow escaped from a lab; it could wreak havoc—precisely because it was designed to do this—not by nature, but by us!”
“Gain of Functions research has always been highly controversial,” Hilton explained.
“Despite the controversy studying this type of research, it always had one steadfast champion, a leading figure in the world of infectious diseases—Anthony Fauci,” Hilton explained. “His institute funded that first ferret study,” he explained, adding, “At the time, he co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post describing this research as ‘A flu risk worth taking…important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in a laboratory.’”
Despite the Obama administration’s ban on “Gain of Function” research, Hilton explained that Dr. Anthony Fauci gave over $3 million over the course of six years to zoologist Peter Daszak (known as the “bat man”) of Eco Health Alliance. Daszak first discovered the bat origin of the SARS pandemic over a decade ago. According to Hilton, Peter Daszak himself subcontracted the “Gain of Function” portion of Fauci’s project to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Hilton asks, “The question is—did they give it to us?”
Watch his interview here:
Almost immediately after Hilton shared the results of his bombshell investigation, “Fact-checkers” kicked their protection of Dr. Fauici into high gear, as they attempted to smear his research and shame anyone who shared it.
Now, the Daily Mail is reporting that leaked proposals show.US and Chinese scientists were planning to create a new coronavirus in 2018, well before the pandemic erupted.
Last month, a grant application submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) revealed that an international team of scientists had planned to mix genetic data of similar strains to create a new virus.
The grant application was made in 2018 and leaked to Drastic, the pandemic origins analysis group.
This would result in a virus that had no clear ancestor in nature, a World Health Organization (WHO) expert told The Telegraph.
The expert, who asked the paper not to publish their name, said that, if such a method had been carried out, it could explain why no close match has ever been found in nature for Sars-CoV-2.
The proposal was rejected, and the database of viral strains at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was taken offline some 18 months later, making it impossible to check what scientists there were working on.
The institute’s scientists have consistently denied creating the coronavirus in their lab.
The grant application proposal was submitted by British zoologist Peter Daszak on behalf of a group, which included Daszak EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the University of North Carolina, and Duke NUS in Singapore, The Telegraph reported.
Files obtained by The Intercept as part of an FOI request to drill down the possible root of COVID and whether the US had any role in it showed that in 2014, the National Health Institute (NIH) approved a five-year, yearly grant of $666,000 a year for five years ($3.3million) for EcoHealth Alliance, a US research organization, into bat coronavirus.
EcoHealth Alliance, in its proposal to the NIH, acknowledged the risks involved were ‘the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs’ among staff, who could then carry it out of the lab.
In a tweet last week, Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, asked:
How many times can one grantee violate the Terms and Conditions of one NIH grant without being penalized? (Apparently, if the grantee is EcoHealth Alliance, the number is at least four.)
How many times can one grantee violate the Terms and Conditions of one NIH grant without being penalized?
(Apparently, if the grantee is EcoHealth Alliance, the number is at least four.)https://t.co/9ni8ViX4FD
— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) October 1, 2021
The NIH gave them the money anyway – something Dr Anthony Fauci was previously forced to admit when testifying before Congress in May this year. EcoHealth Alliance then gave $599,000 of the money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
At the time and repeatedly since, Fauci has denied that the research constituted what’s known as ‘gain-of-function’ research.
Gain-of-function research is the scientific term given to research that deliberately changes an organism to make give it new functions in order to test a theory.
When applies to studying human viruses, it can mean making the virus more transmissible and or even deadly in order to test what can and can’t survive it.
‘The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful,’ Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, tweeted.
The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful.
— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) September 7, 2021
In another tweet, Ebright reminded everyone that there are “many threads of investigation available in the US and would be accessible–instantly—to a Congressional inquiry with subpoena power.”
Many threads of investigation are available in the US and would be accessible–instantly–to a Congressional inquiry with subpoena power.
At EcoHealth. At funding agencies (USAID, DTRA, DARPA, DHS, NIH). At publishers (Springer-Nature, Lancet).
No cooperation from China needed.
— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) October 2, 2021
Remember this bombshell report the next time you hear Dr. Fauci telling you whether you should or should not be allowed to spend Christmas with granny.