Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 28, 2021 | Sundance | 149 Comments
A rather interesting research discovery of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s previous statements reveals a motive for him to be so defensive now about supporting “gain of function” research. ‘Gain of Function’ is essentially researching how to weaponize lethal viruses to make them even more deadly as biological weapons.
Some in the scientific community claim the “gain of function” research actually helps to develop proactive vaccinations and mitigation against those lethal viruses. However, the risk of a virus getting out of a bioweapons laboratory and infecting people has always been present.
An article written in Australia [unfortunate paywall], discovers in 2012 Dr. Anthony Fauci was questioned about this exact scenario and he took the position: the benefits outweigh the risks of releasing a pandemic virus. Now that more evidence is surfacing showing the COVID-19 coronavirus was likely made in one of these bioweapons labs in Wuhan China, the previous statements by Dr. Fauci take on a new context.
In his congressional testimony around the same time in 2012, Fauci repeated his view that accidentally creating a global pandemic was worth the scientific risk.
In his testimony the term “dual use” research is essentially synonymous with “gain of function”. The dual aspect is (1) creating an antidote to the natural virus; and (2) weaponizing the virus as a bioweapon. The “gain of function” term is the actual process of creating the weaponized virus.
Once we realize that COVID-19 was actually a weaponized man-made virus; then it begs the question of whether a malicious actor with political intentions would purposefully release the virus. This type of query actually explains the vitriolic responses from Big Tech, corporate media and their benefactors, when the Wuhan lab leak theory first was discussed.
The reason those interests would not want any discussion of a lab leak is because once you accept that origination point, it’s not too much further to start questioning whether the lab leak was accidental or purposeful.