NIH Quietly Edits Section of Website on Gain-of-Function Research

NIH Quietly Edits Section of Website on Gain-of-Function Research

NIH Quietly Edits Section of Website on Gain-of-Function Research

The National Institutes of Health edited a section of its website explaining gain-of-function research this month as scrutiny over the research the NIH funded in Wuhan, China intensified.

The original page, seen on the Wayback Machine, displays several sections including Potential Pandemic Pathogens, Gain-of-Function Research, U.S. Government Funding Pause, HHS P3CO Framework, Research Within P3CO Scope, Research Outside P3CO Scope, and a Timeline.

The Gain-of-Function section stated:

The term gain-of-function (GOF) research describes a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent. Some scientists use the term broadly to refer to any such modification. However, not all research described as GOF entails the same level of risk. For example, research that involves the modification of bacteria to allow production of human insulin, or the altering of the genetic program of immune cells in CAR-T cell therapy to treat cancer generally would be considered low risk. The subset of GOF research that is anticipated to enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens, which are likely to make them more dangerous to humans, has been the subject of substantial scrutiny and deliberation. Such GOF approaches can sometimes be justified in laboratories with appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controls to help us understand the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, assess the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, and inform public health and preparedness efforts, including surveillance and the development of vaccines and medical countermeasures. This research poses biosafety and biosecurity risks, and these risks must be carefully managed. When supported with NIH funds, this subset of GOF research may only be conducted in laboratories with stringent oversight and appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controls(link is external) to help protect researchers from infection and prevent the release of microorganisms into the environment. (NIH)

Now the page lists only Potential Pandemic Pathogens, ePPP Research, and Oversight.

The edits come as Sen. Rand Paul is calling for Dr. Anthony Fauci to resign for lying about gain-of-function research.

“He should be fired,” Paul told “Axios on HBO” in an interview that aired Sunday. 

“The thing is, is just for lack of judgment of nothing else, and I, you know, he’s probably never going to admit that he lied, he’s going to continue to dissemble and try to work around the truth and massage the truth,” he added.

While Paul has been making this case for awhile, the sentiments were renewed after Lawrence Tabak, the principal deputy director at the NIH, revealed new details in a letter about an NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance, which conducted research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Republican And Democrat Lawmakers Demand Answers From Fauci On Beagle Experiments

Republican And Democrat Lawmakers Demand Answers From Fauci On Beagle Experiments

Carmine Sabia October 24, 2021

Getty Images


Republicans and Democrats have finally found something to be furious with Dr. Anthony Fauci about together.

A new report alleges that the National Institutes of Health, which is headed by Fauci, was involved in an indescribably cruel experiment with beagles and lawmakers from both parties are demanding answers, The Daily Mail reported.

Dr Anthony Fauci has been condemned for using taxpayers’ money to fund animal experiments, including one which saw beagles trapped in cages so flies could eat them, and another where they were ‘debarked’ before being pumped with drugs and killed.

One of the most disturbing incidents funded by Fauci’s National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases involved $375,000 given to a Tunisian research lab.

There, puppies had their heads held in cages, before being left for sand flies to eat them alive for research purposes.

Distressing snaps showed the pups with their heads kept inside the muslin-type cages filled with the hungry insects.

Another procedure – which the NIH funded to the tune of $1.8m – saw 44 beagle puppies undergo a ‘cordectomy,’ which saw their vocal cords cut to stop them barking.

That experiment, which took place in Menlo Park, California, saw the dogs then pumped full of drugs, before being killed and dissected.

A group of 24 lawmakers led by South Carolina Republican Rep. Nancy Mace are demanding answers for experiments they called “cruel” and a “reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.”

“According to documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project, and subsequent media coverage, from October 2018 until February 2019, NIAID spent $1.86million in taxpayer funds on drug tests involving 44 beagle puppies,” the letter said.

While documents state that the ostensible purpose of this study was to ‘provide data of suitable quality and integrity to support application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies,’ the FDA itself has recently stated that it ‘does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs,’” it said.

The White Coat Waste Project said two weeks ago that near $1.68 million was spent to conduct experiments on 44 beagles at Sri International in Menlo Park. The puppies were given cordectomies and were force-fed drugs before they were killed and dissected.

Another $375,800 was given to a lab in Tunisia when Beagles were horribly drugged, had their heads locked in mesh cages and then were eaten alive by sand flies.

In September 2020 another $424,000 was given to the University of Georgia where healthy beagles were drugged before being intentionally infected by parasite-carrying flies.

The records show that the dogs were “vocalizing in pain” before they were ultimately killed.

The group of lawmakers, which includes Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu and others, demanded answers to the following questions.

  • How many drug tests involving dogs have been funded by NIAID since January 2018? How much taxpayer money has been spent on this testing?
  • Since the Food and Drug Administration has clearly stated that it does not require dog testing for new drugs, why has NIAID continued to commission testing on dogs?
  • What has NIAID done to explore the use of non-canine and non-animal alternatives to meet FDA data requirements?
  • Has NIAID ever made any dogs available for adoption after the conclusion of an experiment or testing? If so, how many? if so, why not?
  • Why has NIAID contracted for cordectomies when they appear to be scientifically and medically unnecessary? What is the average cost for each cordectomy performed?

“It is true that obligated funds were issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the amount of $424,555 for research conducted at the University of Georgia to test the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle subjects. However, it is unclear whether Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at NIH, personally approved the project. Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president. A University of Georgia spokesperson indicated that testing on dogs was, in fact, necessary, and that all humane standards set by applicable agencies were adhered to,” it said.