zlacker

>>datafl+(OP)
“ It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.””

This is news to me. Wtf?

>>menset+mY
I read Josh Rogin earlier articles on the subject. He also recently implicated Fauchi for covertly funding gain of function research, and he is pushing for congressional oversight/investigation https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/cong...

>>AzzieE+0Z
Fauci and his close colleagues (including the current head of the CDC) were ardent proponents of gain of function research, and funded gain of function research at the WIV to the tune of millions of dollars.

Didn't anybody think it was weird that the head of the NIH, a research institution, not a public health institution, became the top public health communicator during COVID instead of the heads of the CDC? He had a massive conflict of interest and wanted to protect it.

>>pclmul+j01
>Didn't anybody think it was weird that the head of the NIH, a research institution, not a public health institution, became the top public health communicator during COVID instead of the heads of the CDC? He had a massive conflict of interest and wanted to protect it.

1. How does being the "top public health communicator" protect his conflict of interest?

2. Fauci isn't the head of the NIH, his position was "Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases"

3. Sure, it might sound weird, but what does previous pandemics show? Who was "top public health communicator" during the previous pandemics?