Sometime around October 20th, 2021, the NIH quietly deleted a section of their website that defined gain-of-function research.  Senator Rand Paul and Congressman James Comer, sent a letter to the NIH demanding answers as to why the information was deleted and questioning whether or not the deletion was related to the release of a letter, admitting to gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In the ongoing drama that is the NIH’s handling of Congressional inquiries into the funding of gain-of-function research, nothing has been more frustrating than the NIH’s lack of transparency when it comes to determining the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.  As I have shown again over the last several weeks (especially in my “Fauci Lied” series, Here, Here, and Here), the NIH has engaged in what can clearly be characterized as misinformation, as well as the withholding of information.  Statements made by Dr. Francis Collins, the former Director of the NIH, as well as those made by Dr. Anthony Fauci, about gain-of-function research amount to total and complete lies.

This latest run of fact-checking articles was started by a letter, sent by the NIH as a reply to a request from Representative Comer, which confirmed previous statements made by Fauci to be untrue.  In the letter, it described research, conducted by EcoHealth Alliance and funded by the NIH, which met the US Department of Health and Human Services’ published definition of gain-of-function research.  Those funded experiments had created a chimeric virus, SHC014-WIV1, which made humanized mice sicker than had either of the previous viral strains.  Fauci had previously denied that experiments of creating such viruses had ever occurred.

Among the frustrations I have had is that the NIH and the NIAID have kept changing the terms they were using as people caught on to the knowledge as to the results these types of experiments could produce.  Originally, it was called “gain-of-function research,” and then later, “dual use research of concern.” Now the NIH is referring to viruses created by this risky viral research as “Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens.” What this amounts to is a word salad shell game, as they continue to try to hide their shady research practices. In fact, the P3CO Framework as they call it, published in 2017, doesn’t mention gain-of-function research in it at all. The extent of mentions is only in a link, referring to previous recommendations regarding gain-of-function research published by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity in May 2016.  Curiously enough, that link is now dead.

In fact, in the lead-up to the NIH letter being sent to Representative Comer, the NIH quietly removed language from their website that detailed the definition of gain-of-function.

As it was reported:

The federal agency had a detailed explanation of gain-of-function research on its site, noting that the term refers to any research “that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.”

But the explanation was wiped between Oct. 19 and Oct. 21—possibly ahead of the NIH’s most recent disclosures on Oct. 20 about research it funded in China that increased the potency of a virus by modifying it.

The claims from the NIH are that the term “gain-of-function research” does not always mean that they are creating Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens and that gain-of-function research that does not do so falls outside of the oversight of the P3CO Framework.  This is a true statement.  However, as I have previously pointed out, pandemic predicting viral research inherently requires the use of gain-of-function research and literally attempts to mutate viruses that don’t infect humans, into viruses that do, meeting the three-part definition of an Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogen.  The EcoHealth Alliance grant was specifically for the prediction of SARS bat coronavirus outbreak potential in China.

It appears the change of the definition on the NIH’s website, has caught the attention of two of the frontline crusaders against the NIH’s falsehoods:  Senator Rand Paul and Congressman James Comer.  A letter, dated November 1, 2021, sent to Dr. Francis Collins, asked a series of questions regarding the removal of the definition.  A copy of the letter is below:

If the definition change was related to the NIH Letter to Comer, it could serve as an indicator that the NIH is engaging in a cover-up and damage control.  If the NIH is attempting to engage in deceptive tactics (which I have already proved to be the case numerous times) it could allow for Senator Paul and Congressman Comer to call for Congressional and Senatorial investigations into the NIH’s handling of this information.

My research and reporting from the last several days have raised several additional questions which I think the Senator and Congressman should be asking the NIH.  First, is that the NIH only provided the progress reports from the 2018-2019 grant period for the EcoHealth Alliance funding.  To me, this is an intentional distraction.  The 2018-2019 grant period would have been after the HHS had established the new P3CO Framework, thus qualifying Fauci’s statements that it was within that framework, as “true” (for the record, we’ve already proven even then, it wasn’t).  The problem with that?  The EcoHealth Alliance grant has been running since 2014 as we have reported here.  Where are the progress reports for those years?  Has the NIH reviewed the experiments they were funding during the US Government Ordered Pause on gain-of-function research?  Second, would be why the NIH accepted the EcoHealth Alliance progress report as gospel when the motivation to lie regarding the potential creation of a global pathogen would be so great?  And third, is why, even after the ever-growing evidence of a potential lab leak, the proof that Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens were created, the total and complete discrediting of the grant project leader, Peter Daszak, and the Chinese Government’s total and complete refusal to allow for a transparent and independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19, does the NIH continue to fund the EcoHealth Alliance Grant at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

Not sure we will ever get those answers, but the lack of having them answered would certainly start to point to those who may have been complicit in the murder of 5 million people to date.