On Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “The Lead,” CNN Medical Analyst and Teacher of Medication at The George Washington University Medical Center Dr. Jonathan Reiner mentioned that while the outcome of NIH-funded research study at the Wuhan Institute of Virology “was to gain function for the virus that they changed,” White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci was genuine in his testament on the subject. Since gaining function does not seem “the intent of the research study.” And that scientific concerns usually can’t be responded to with a yes or no, so Fauci “was being genuine, not artistic in his statement.”
Reiner stated, “I think it is essential to understand the intent of the research study and the impact of the research study. So, the intent of the research study was to comprehend whether specific bat coronavirus spike proteins might contaminate human cells, and the method they did the experiment was, they took a popular bat coronavirus called WIV1 and they contributed to that some other bat coronavirus spike proteins, and they considered that to mice become have the receptor, the ACE-2 receptor that human beings have that the virus uses to go into human cells. And what they discovered, was, yes, they could, those spike proteins could enter human cells, however they also discovered that the enhanced infection then was more virulent.”
He continued, “So, they proved that those spike proteins might enter human cells, however in so doing, they made the virus they utilized more lethal, basically. The mice were sicker. So, yes, the net result was to get function for the virus that they altered, but it does not appear, at least from the files offered by NIH, that was the intent of the research study. So, the method I take a look at it, Dr. Fauci and his associates were answering truthfully. It involves the intent and then the result.”
Host Jake Tapper then mentioned, “You have been vocal about your dissatisfaction in health firms throughout this pandemic when it comes to communication and messaging and trust. Do you think this contributes to those issues, even if Fauci and others have been telling the reality? Because there certainly was something there. It wasn’t as bad as others were portraying it, but there [were] gain-of-function experiments going on. Maybe NIH didn’t know about it, but it was going on.”
Reiner reacted, “Definitely. So, look, things are really seldom black and white, yes or no, and comprehending the nuance helps the general public to comprehend what the truth is. And we see on Capitol Hill all the time, witnesses are asked, yes or no, did you? However when it comes to science, it’s very seldom a concern that can be answered yes or no. And if NIH came out and– or Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins, months earlier, and in action to these attacks from Republican members of the Senate– particularly Rand Paul– described this difference between the intent of the research study and the effect and truly explained that sort of subtlety, I think the general public would understand that, and it would not appear that NIH was sort of withholding info. But that ends up being the effect of absence of clarity at the start. So, I believe in the end, Tony Fauci was being truthful, not artistic in his statement.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett