JustOneMinute

Its PolitiFact vs. PolitiFact and Dr. Fauci vs. Reality

Dr. Fauci and Sen. Rand Paul had a contentious exchange at a Senate hearing yesterday. The gist - Sen. Paul said the NIH funded 'gain of function' research (say what!) at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and Dr. Fauci emphatically denied it.

PolitiFact then ran a non-fact check interview with Dr. Fauci in which he denied it again.

But - awkward moment - in a Feb 2021 Fact Check, PolitiFact noted as an aside that, per MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt, the NIH had funded gain of function research at the WIV. In that article they exonerated Dr. Fauci of a broader claim, that he had funded research that directly led to the COVID-19 virus.

The Team Fauci spinners will be earning their paychecks today. Let's dive in.

First, Dr. Fauci's denial to PolitiFact:

Fauci told Paul at the hearing that the senator was "entirely and completely incorrect" as the NIH has never funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab.

Fauci reiterated his stance Tuesday afternoon during a conversation with PolitiFact’s Katie Sanders as part of the United Facts of America: A Festival of Fact-Checking.

"That’s actually preposterous," Fauci said. "It was just unfortunate that he said that. It was said in an accusatory way that just made no sense and was not based on any fact at all."

Now, watch Dr. Fauci try to shift the goalposts:

"In a very minor collaboration, as part of a subcontract of a grant, we had a collaboration with some Chinese scientists," Fauci said. "He conflated that … therefore we were involved in creating the virus, which is the most ridiculous, majestic leap I’ve ever heard of."

Well, no. Unlike the February dust-up, Sen. Paul wasn't accusing Dr. Fauci of funding development of the COVID-19 virus. Axios has a good excerpt:

• PAUL: "For years, Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist in the U.S., has been collaborating with Dr. Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing his discoveries about how to create superviruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH. ... Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH lab in Wuhan?"
• FAUCI: "With all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect. The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

Here is the PolitiFact piece from February which explained that yes, the NIH funded gain of function research at the WIV but no, there is no proof they funded COVID-19 research or that COVID-19 emerged from a lab. Different issues:

MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research. But he told PolitiFact that "the work reported in this specific paper definitely did NOT lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2" because the genetic sequences of the virus studied in the paper differ from that of the new coronavirus. 

...

Both the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance have denied that a grant to the Wuhan lab funded gain-of-function research, though a scientist told us that one paper published with assistance from the grant seems to describe techniques similar to gain-of-function. 

Well, then. The NIH denied it so we're all good?

Here is the paper in question, which acknowledges funding from the NIH. The bit on recombining genes and testing the lab creations for infectivity is excerpted below.

Does Team Fauci wants to insist this is not gain of function research? Given the partisan divide emerging on this, maybe hair-splitting will suffice. But I am pretty sure the no-GMO crowd, many of which live on the left, would consider this sort of gene manipulation to be of great concern.

And do note: Nicholas Wade, formerly of the NY Times, Science and Nature points an accusing finger at Dr. Fauci and the NIH funding process. As does Nicholson Baker in NY Magazine.

ERRATA:

C-SPAN has tape and transcript of the Paul/ Fauci exchange. A snippet:

 

Nicholas Wade on Dr. Fauci and the NIH / NiAID:

 

Enough for now.

Origin Stories

Nicholas Wade, formerly of Nature, Science and the NY Times, takes a long look at the origin stories for the COVID virus. Lots of interesting science points to a lab leak rather than a direct jump from nature. 

One of many intriguing factoids - whatever folks may have thought a year ago, its weird that evidence supporting natural origin has not yet been found:

Doubts about natural emergence

Natural emergence was the media’s preferred theory until around February 2021 and the visit by a World Health Organization commission to China. The commission’s composition and access were heavily controlled by the Chinese authorities. Its members, who included the ubiquitous Dr. Daszak, kept asserting before, during and after their visit that lab escape was extremely unlikely. But this was not quite the propaganda victory the Chinese authorities may have been hoping for. What became clear was that the Chinese had no evidence to offer the commission in support of the natural emergence theory.

This was surprising because both the SARS1 and MERS viruses had left copious traces in the environment. The intermediary host species of SARS1 was identified within four months of the epidemic’s outbreak, and the host of MERS within nine months. Yet some 15 months after the SARS2 pandemic began, and a presumably intensive search, Chinese researchers had failed to find either the original bat population, or the intermediate species to which SARS2 might have jumped, or any serological evidence that any Chinese population, including that of Wuhan, had ever been exposed to the virus prior to December 2019. Natural emergence remained a conjecture which, however plausible to begin with, had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year.

Mr. Wade also notes (as did Nicholson Baker of New York Magazine) that the global community of virologists has a stake in continued funding and research grants. A lowering of the Cone of Silence may have guided their pooh-poohing of the lab leak notion. Dr. Fauci gets dragged as well, since the NIH helped fund coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab in question.

4. The US Role in Funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology

From June 2014 to May 2019 Dr. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance had a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, to do gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Whether or not SARS2 is the product of that research, it seems a questionable policy to farm out high-risk research to unsafe foreign labs using minimal safety precautions. And if the SARS2 virus did indeed escape from the Wuhan institute, then the NIH will find itself in the terrible position of having funded a disastrous experiment that led to death of more than 3 million worldwide, including more than half a million of its own citizens.

The responsibility of the NIAID and NIH is even more acute because for the first three years of the grant to EcoHealth Alliance there was a moratorium on funding gain-of-function research. Why didn’t the two agencies therefore halt the Federal funding as apparently required to do so by law? Because someone wrote a loophole into the moratorium.

The moratorium specifically barred funding any gain-of-function research that increased the pathogenicity of the flu, MERS or SARS viruses. But then a footnote on p.2 of the moratorium document states that “An exception from the research pause may be obtained if the head of the USG funding agency determines that the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.”

This seems to mean that either the director of the NIAID, Dr. Anthony Fauci, or the director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, or maybe both, would have invoked the footnote in order to keep the money flowing to Dr. Shi’s gain-of-function research.

Troubling. We know the Chinese government would desperately want to cover up a lab leak. But the global virology community AND the esteemed Dr. Fauci of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases? Let's put it this way - instead of asking who benefits from a cover-up of the COVID origin, it might save time to ask "Who doesn't?".

Happy Mother's Day!

Happy Mother's Day!

OK, Back To Zoom Calls Everyone

The Biden Recovery hits a wall. Clearly the gloomy jobs report is due to fear of out-of-control Federal spending. Unless its due to a failure by Biden to propose free child care, pick up the tab on student debt, push for DC statehood, pack the Supreme Court and pound the table for the Green New Deal.

Or maybe this sort of recovery takes time? Nahh... crazy talk.

Go long candles. And start brushing up on your cave art.

Lock 'Em Up

Facebook continues its suspension of Trump. Trump has as much media access as anyone in the world, so I just can't get exercised about a 'free speech' issue here.

Banning lunatic fringe anti-vax groups gets closer to a danger zone. I generally think the anti-vaxxers are doing the public a disservice, but plenty of libs (and Facebook employees) would say the same about gun rights enthusiasts.

Now, if Facebook wants to ban their own highly lucrative practice of selling micro-targeted ads, we'd be getting somewhere. With their micro-targeting, good speech can't counter bad speech because (unlike radio, TV or print) most of those ads never hit the mainstream radar. Can't rebut what you haven't heard!

But yes, pigs will fly to the board meeting where FB changes their ad policies.

MORE: Trump has launched "From The Desk of Donald J. Trump". His latest missive suggests he has not yet Moved On:

Have You Herd?

'Herd immunity' for COVID probably won't happen, per the NY Times. Variants plus vaccine hesitancy mean we'll have COVID as background noise for a while:

Now, more than half of adults in the United States have been inoculated with at least one dose of a vaccine. But daily vaccination rates are slipping, and there is widespread consensus among scientists and public health experts that the herd immunity threshold is not attainable — at least not in the foreseeable future, and perhaps not ever.

Instead, they are coming to the conclusion that rather than making a long-promised exit, the virus will most likely become a manageable threat that will continue to circulate in the United States for years to come, still causing hospitalizations and deaths but in much smaller numbers.

How much smaller is uncertain and depends in part on how much of the nation, and the world, becomes vaccinated and how the coronavirus evolves. It is already clear, however, that the virus is changing too quickly, new variants are spreading too easily and vaccination is proceeding too slowly for herd immunity to be within reach anytime soon.

FWIW, its not just us. Circulating disease anywhere creates opportunities for new variants, and the developing world won't have a chance to get vaccinated (or not) for quite a while now.

Groan. Annual booster shots, like with the flu. Experts will study emerging variants and guess at the appropriate booster for the next season. I'll guess COVID season will overlap with flu season, since more of us are indoors breathing each others deadly air. 

And do keep in mind:

Herd immunity is often described as a national target. But that is a hazy concept in a country this large.

“Disease transmission is local,” Dr. Lipsitch noted.

“If the coverage is 95 percent in the United States as a whole, but 70 percent in some small town, the virus doesn’t care,” he explained. “It will make its way around the small town.”

Or vice versa. The Times presents a cool but sort of unreadable graphic showing poll results about vaccine hesitancy across the US. Northeasterners have a good shot at wanting a shot. Down South, less so.

Squint and see!

 

Saturday Afternoon

Away we go.

Energy Weapons Used Near White House?!?

This is the biggest story ever to be totally overlooked. From CNN:

Washington (CNN)Federal agencies are investigating at least two possible incidents on US soil, including one near the White House in November of last year, that appear similar to mysterious, invisible attacks that have led to debilitating symptoms for dozens of US personnel abroad.

Multiple sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that while the Pentagon and other agencies probing the matter have reached no clear conclusions on what happened, the fact that such an attack might have taken place so close to the White House is particularly alarming.

Defense officials briefed lawmakers on the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on the matter earlier this month, including on the incident near the White House. That incident, which occurred near the Ellipse, the large oval lawn on the south side of the White House, sickened one National Security Council official, according to multiple current and former US officials and sources familiar with the matter.

In a separate 2019 episode, a White House official reported a similar attack while walking her dog in a Virginia suburb just outside Washington, GQ reported last year.

 

Those sickened reported similar symptoms to CIA and State Department personnel impacted overseas, and officials quickly began to investigate the incident as a possible "Havana syndrome" attack. That name refers to unexplained symptoms that US personnel in Cuba began experiencing in late 2016 -- a varying set of complaints that includes ear popping, vertigo, pounding headaches and nausea, sometimes accompanied by an unidentified "piercing directional noise."

 

Apparently lawmakers have been briefed bit not Joe Biden. From Jim Geraghty:

 

Q    Mr. President, what do you know about this supposed direct energy attack on the Ellipse and the person who was injured?

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t know anything about it.

Q    So you have not been briefed on it?

THE PRESIDENT:  I have not been briefed on it.

Like Obama, Biden gets the bad news by watching the news.

Now To Be Fair, I am mildly sympathetic to the decision to not brief the President. That would be a heck of a brief:

"Mr. President, we aren't sure what, if anything happened. We don't know who did it and we don't have any decisions to be made about how to respond. We've been investigating seemingly similar incidents for years and don't have many answers."

This is not actionable intel at this point and the intelligence services probably don't need to hear Biden rant at them to get to the bottom of this. On the other hand, the media went wild over the idea that Trump was giving a pass to Russians paying bounties for dead American soldiers in Afghanistan. Yes, Trump said it was Fake News and it remains unconfirmed, but still - we expect a but more energy from our Media Lapdogs Watchdogs.

Oh, Yeah, A Speech

Last night Joe Biden gave his big speech on his vision for this and that. Per CDC guidelines I maintained proper social distancing by watching the Yankees trounce the Orioles. WaPo coverage here. When its big news that both the VP and the House Speaker are women, well, we have known that for months.

I am more intrigued by this WSJ story describing bipartisan opposition to Biden's proposed capital gains tax hikes. Menendez, Manchin and Mark Warner and others are fretting out loud. I'd guess those rates go up, but by how much?

Gun Up!

After years of ducking Second Amendment cases the Supreme Court takes up a New York case about concealed carry permitting.

We all know what side they're on, but the NY Times provides useful coverage:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would review a New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home, setting the stage for its first major Second Amendment case in more than a decade.

...

The Supreme Court has turned down countless Second Amendment appeals since it established an individual right to keep guns in the home for self-defense in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Since then, lower courts have generally sustained gun control laws. But they are divided on the fundamental and open question posed by the new case: whether states can stop law-abiding citizens from carrying guns outside their homes for self-defense unless they can satisfy the authorities that they have a good reason for doing so.

...

The new case is a challenge to a New York law that requires people seeking a license to carry a gun outside their homes to show a “proper cause.” Two men denied licenses, along with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, sued, saying “the state makes it virtually impossible for the ordinary law-abiding citizen to obtain a license.”

California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws, according to gun rights groups.

Showing "Proper cause" for a permit is required in the NY State law (NY Penal Law 400). But what does it mean? Ahh!  Various NY courts have concluded that it means the applicant must demonstrate (Klenosky v. N.Y. City Police Dep’t)

'a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’ 

So "Its a dangerous world out there and I want to be ready for it" is not acceptable - its a dangerous world for all of us!

[Stray aside - as my years advance I'm wondering if I could go with a Tired Old Man permit application - the 'general public' has to be more agile, mobile and hostile than me, amirite? I need an Equalizer!]

Well. The 2008 Heller decision established a right (at the Federal level) to have a gun in the home as a means of self-defense, subject to reasonable regulation. That was expanded to a state-level right by the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago, and here we have sat for a decade.

The Times recaps some relevant cases. Some restrictive laws similar to NY have been upheld, most recently in Hawaii (last year the SC ducked a New Jersey case similar to this one.)

On the other hand, a restrictive Illinois law was struck down at the appeals level in 2012 Moore v. Madigan. Judge Posner wrote the decision and it is a likely roadmap for the current Supreme Court. Another case to consider as a possible roadmap is the 2017 Wrenn v. District of Columbia, which struck down restrictive concealed permitting there.

OK, lots of homework! My current guess is that everyone will hate the court's decision, whatever it is. I'll guess NY State will howl because the result will be a requirement of a more permissive process; gun enthusiasts will howl that the result does not go far enough.

Here is an exceprt from Posner, and I'll say it first - "Indians?!?". C'mon, man - 'Native Americans'!

We should be able to find plenty of thoughtful, sober evaluations of the Illinois experience post-Posner. No reason to think any of the research is politicized!

And do let me add: The Heller and McDonald decisions were a big deal establishing an individual right to bear arms but asking states to allow guns within the home didn't change much in most states (I'll guess a few cities were rocked.) Obliging states to lighten up on concealed carry laws is a MUCH bigger deal. The Court has a bit of a political and legitimacy crisis, so we'll see how Roberts navigates that.

On To The Next Crisis

Derek Chauvin was convicted so the left is moving on to the next crisis. What kind of country are we living in if a mere child of sixteen can't chase girls around with a knife and try to stab them?

Body cam footage starts at 6:35. Slo-mo replay around 8:30.

Getting Ready For The Weekend

Away we go again.

This Gun Control Op-Ed In The Times Was Widely Ignored. Too Bad.

A week ago the NY Times gave space to Dan Gross, who "was the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence from 2012 to 2017 and is a co-founder of the Center for Gun Rights and Responsibility".

He delivered a truth bomb to the Times readership about the irrelevance of an assault weapons ban and made good points on other topics.

No one cared.

I Helped Lead the Gun Control Movement. It’s Asking the Wrong Questions.

A campaign galvanized by mass shootings and assault weapons will inevitably find itself in a dead end. But there’s a way out.

He bonds with his target audience by noting that hs own brother was critically injured in a mass shooting years ago. Then:

It also breaks my heart to see gun control supporters, part of a movement I once helped to lead, repeat the mistakes that doom us all to the unacceptable status quo: tens of thousands of shooting deaths a year.

The pattern is as familiar as it is tragic: In the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting, the main demand of political leaders and gun control groups is a federal assault weapons ban. The news media, which seems to pay attention to gun laws only in the wake of mass shootings, amplifies that call, mostly taking at face value the idea that an assault weapons ban is the best way to prevent “gun violence.” Then, as headlines about the latest calamity fade, so do the hopes of federal policy change.

The problem as he sees it is that since assault weapons aren't the crux of the problem, going after then won't be much of a solution. That is a familiar argument on the right but a breakthrough insight for much of the left:

I believe that is the wrong question and illustrates the problem with the gun control debate in the United States. Though it does not grab national headlines, the daily toll of gun deaths and injuries is just as horrifying as our mass shootings, and more preventable as a matter of policy. The gun control movement should focus on the deaths and injuries that are most common, rather than be galvanized by mass shootings like the one that put my brother in a coma.

Of the nearly 40,000 deaths involving guns in 2019, well under 1 percent were caused by what the F.B.I. defines as “active shooter” incidents. In an average year, around 60 percent of deaths involving guns are suicides and upward of 30 percent are homicides that don’t meet the “active shooter” definition, like episodes of domestic and gang violence. Even unintentional shootings (about 1 percent of the total) outnumber mass shootings.

There are far more effective means to prevent these sadly routine tragedies than by focusing on assault weapons. And that means that it is both wrong and counterproductive for advocacy organizations and elected leaders to use the moments when the public is focused on gun control to push an assault weapons ban.

He reassures his audience that he personally would be fine with an AWB, then continues:

But the fact is that if one were to objectively list solutions based purely on how much they would lower the number of gun deaths in our country, an assault weapons ban would not be high on the list.

When an assault weapons ban is debated, the conversation inevitably becomes a technical and confusing one. While there is no standard definition of an “assault weapon,” much of the focus in the wake of mass shootings is on semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles. Yet most mass shootings, like most gun fatalities in this country, are committed with handguns.

No kidding.

The most meaningful way to deal with the problem, though, is not to look at how to keep certain guns from all people, but how to keep all guns from certain people — the people almost all of us agree should not have guns.

I have spent the past two years building relationships with leaders in the gun rights community, and have found that this framing leads us to common ground. And it points to five specific moves that together would have an enormous impact:

• Vigorously pursue and prosecute the small percentage of gun dealers who are knowingly contributing to the illegal gun trade (a trade that is disproportionately hurting communities of color).

• Identify opportunities to strengthen the background check system by adding prohibited purchasers that we all, including 90 percent of gun owners, agree should not have guns. For instance, federal rules governing privacy for health records could be modified to allow mental health clinicians to identify those who are a threat to themselves or others, so that they could be temporarily added to the National Instant Check System. This would have to include exemptions for private sales that may make some gun control supporters uncomfortable; but in the end, in combination with the other measures listed here, it would result in a significant improvement to public safety.

• Invest in a large-scale education and awareness campaign on the dangers of owning and carrying guns, and what can be done to mitigate those dangers. It is crucial that these efforts be led in partnership with gun rights groups and public health experts and that they remain free from any judgment about gun ownership or connection with political advocacy. There are many initiatives already, such as public education about the warning signs of mental illness and suicide, which have proved effective and could be models.

• Expand on the work of “violence interrupters” and similar programs proved to reduce gun violence in cities.

• Clearly define what it means to be a federally licensed firearm dealer, with standards that include sales volume. For years, gun control groups have talked about closing the “gun show loophole.” The real problem is not specifically gun shows but people who are regularly selling multiple guns to strangers, regardless of the venue, without being required to conduct the same background check that a federally licensed dealer must. Not only does this clearly contribute to straw-man purchasing and gun trafficking; it also puts honest dealers at a competitive disadvantage.

That laundry list does not terrify me. Points one and five seem to involve stricter enforcement of current laws.

Strengthening the background check system always sounds good (Don't just 'modify' it, "strengthen" it!). Obviously, rules and an appeal process are required; we don't want this to end up like the mysterious 'no-fly' list. I'd guess some sort of judicial oversight would be appropriate to turn a mental health professional's concerns into a court order.

A public education will be a nightmare to work out that satisfies both sides. Probably not possible, actually, given the current and ongoing fury of the culture wars.

And urban interventions, such as 'violence interrupters', should be happening anyway,as big city mayors try something other than defunding the police.

Now, do let me add: my theory as to the impetus for an assault weapons ban suggests his approach, however sensible, doesn't address the underlying psychology of the mass shooting hysteria.

He correctly notes that 60% of gun violence is suicide and 30% is somewhat predictable - abusive domestic partner or gang-adjacent lifestyle (member, customer, live in high-crime neighborhood.)

suburban moms (and dads!) have a pretty clear idea of their domestic violence risk and are in the suburbs in part to avoid urban violence. Bolt From The Blue school shootings freak them out in a way that Chicago gang violence does not. Only one is on the doorstep. Urban violence is someone else's worry and frankly, right now there aren't a lot of votes to expand stop and frisk and Incarceration Nation.

Urban gang-bangers are not shooting it out in suburban malls and schools. People are worried about the danger they might experience, not the one that they only read about as happening in a place they'll never be.

A Fateful Moment

It was Sunday afternoon at The Masters in 2016 that the earth wobbled in its space-time continuum, Jordan Spieth blew up, and a Year of Weirdness began. This may not be in order but subsequent surprises included the Leicester City Foxes (5,000-1 at the start of the season) winning the English Premier League; the LeBron's overcoming a 3-1 deficit to beat the mighty Warriors; Brexit; the Cubbies winning their first World Series in a century in extra innings of the seventh game (and after a rain delay); Trump; Tom Brady coming back from 28-3 in the Super Bowl; and the Academy Awards announcing the wrong "Best Picture" winner.

OK, some of that was kind of fun, but here's hoping Hideki Matsuyama can hold on.