Connect with us

COVID-19

NIH Quietly Altered Definition For Gain-Of-Function Research On Its Website, Former Fauci Aide Confirms

Published

2 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By JASON COHEN

 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak confirmed on Thursday that his agency’s communications department altered NIH’s definition for gain-of-function research, with the change being “vetted” by “experts.”

The NIH until Oct. 20, 2021 defined this research as “modif[ying] a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent,” while “some scientists use the term broadly to refer to any such modification,” according to the House Oversight Committee. Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of New York questioned Tabak, a former aide to Dr. Anthony Fauci, about the agency changing its definition of the research on its website, asking him who authorized the alteration.

WATCH:

The current website does not define gain-of-function research, but asserts this research is usually uninvolved with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens.

“The change was made by our communications department because of the confusion that people have about the generic term of gain-of-function and the specific term gain-of-function,” Tabak testified.

Malliotakis responded by suggesting the communications department would not be qualified to make a change like this and must have had other input.

“The content was vetted,” Tabak testified. “By individuals who are subject-matter experts.”

Fauci firmly denied that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded gain-of-function research on bat-based coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) before the COVID-19 pandemic during a Senate hearing in May 2021.

“The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Fauci said.

Tabak testified on Thursday that the NIH did fund this research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but it “depends on [the] definition.”

The NIAID, which Fauci previously led, funded the nonprofit group EcoHealth Alliance to study bat-based coronaviruses in China that consisted of the transfer of $600,000 to the WIV, the Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Vaccines: Assessing Canada’s COVID Response

Published on

The Audit David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

I planned to be “first in line” for the shots as soon as my age cohort became eligible. By early March however, COVID itself dropped by the house, leading to the most uncomfortable (although non life-threatening) week of my life.

It’s been five years since COVID hit and one part of me wants to stuff it all in a closet somewhere and forget about it. But perhaps certain events – and especially government errors and overreach – should be documented. So this post will identify actions at all levels of government from those early days that, given our understanding of the threat available through the benefit hindsight, were both misguided and damaging.

I haven’t completely forgotten the mood through the early months in 2020. Politicians faced near-unanimous public demand for an aggressive response. Much of that sentiment was the result of messaging coming from foreign governments (mostly in the U.S.). But the local sentiment was definitely there.

To be fair, Governments got some things right and, taking into account the chaos and uncertainty of those early months, even some of their mistakes were understandable. But it’s the job of government to lead. And to avoid making choices – even popular choices – that will lead to predictable harms.

Vaccine mandates starting in 2021 were a case in point. Federal authority largely stemmed from the 2005 Quarantine Act and the Contraventions Act that allowed officials to issue tickets for non-compliance with the Quarantine Act. Provincial mandates were based on laws like Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The question isn’t whether the mandates and their enforcement were legal, but whether they caused more harm than good.

As the first vaccines started arriving in Canada around February 2021, I planned to be “first in line” for the shots as soon as my age cohort became eligible. By early March however, COVID itself dropped by the house, leading to the most uncomfortable (although non life-threatening) week of my life.

After recovering, my family doctor advised me to wait three months before getting the shots so my body could get back to normal. During those months, I got access to preprint results from the Israeli study into natural immunity which showed that:

Natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity

Those results were later confirmed by CDC and NEJM studies, among others.

Given that context, I didn’t see any justification for exposing myself to even minimal health risks associated with vaccines. Which meant that, despite demonstrably posing no threat to public health, I would (at various times) be unable to:

  • Board domestic commercial flights, VIA Rail, Rocky Mountaineer trains, and cruise ships within Canada
  • Board international flights or trains departing Canada
  • Freely return to Canada through an overland point of entry
  • Upon return to Canada, bypass the 14 day quarantine under the Quarantine Act
  • Upon return to Canada via air, bypass the three day quarantine in (expensive) government-approved hotels
  • Engage in ‘non-essential” activities like restaurants, gyms, events (details varied from province to province)
  • Enter Parliament
  • Seek employment in federally regulated air, rail, and marine sectors

What should Canadian governments have done? Remove restrictions on individuals with natural immunity, obviously. Which, by the way, would have come with the valuable bonus of entirely avoiding the truckers protest and consequent confrontations.

If authorities were reluctant to take us at our word on immunity, they could have followed the European Union’s lead by emulating their Digital COVID Certificate for proof of recovery. Were they worried about people without immunity creating fake certificates? Hard to take that one seriously. There were more fake vaccine passports littering the streets of Ontario than abandoned Toronto Maple Leafs car window flags in a normal early May.

In the end, my own suffering was negligible. I didn’t really want to visit family in the U.S. all that much anyway. But for millions of other Canadians, the real-world stakes were far higher. And all that’s besides the billions of dollars wasted during those years’ government policies.

To be sure, resisting unscientific street-level calls for vaccine mandates would have required courage. But shouldn’t acts of courage be a source of pride for public officials?

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Addictions

New Report – Five years on: Tracing the costs of lockdowns

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

In 2019, 67 percent of Canadians rated their mental health as “very good or excellent.” By 2023, that figure had dropped to just 54 percent.

A new report from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms examines the immediate and long-term negative impacts of Covid lockdowns, including physical, social, and economic harms. It also underscores the lack of transparent, evidence-based analysis by governments to justify these measures.

The report details how policies introduced with the stated goal of saving lives came at an extraordinary cost to Canadians’ mental and physical health, access to healthcare, economic security, and civil liberties.

One of the most concerning findings is the sharp decline in Canadians’ mental health. In 2019, 67 percent of Canadians rated their mental health as “very good or excellent.” By 2023, that figure had dropped to just 54 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of Canadians reporting “fair or poor” mental health nearly doubled—from 8 percent to 15 percent. This trend was seen across all age groups, but especially among young adults.

Indeed, despite facing minimal risk from Covid, young Canadians suffered some of the most serious consequences of lockdown measures. Non-Covid deaths among Canadians under age 45 rose by 22 percent, driven by factors such as disease, addiction, delayed treatment, and suicide. Physical activity among youth dropped significantly during this period, while time spent on screens—such as cell phones, computers, and tablets—increased sharply. Up to 70 percent of children and teens reported experiencing anxiety, depression, or other serious mental health issues.

A particularly alarming trend was the surge in opioid-related deaths. From 2020 to 2023, annual opioid overdose deaths increased by 108 percent. In 2023 alone, 8,606 Canadians died from opioid toxicity—more than double the pre-lockdown average. British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario recorded the highest rates, with the vast majority of deaths involving fentanyl.

During Covid, thousands of medical check-ups, diagnoses, and treatments were delayed or cancelled, resulting in a serious and ongoing backlog in Canada’s healthcare system.

Wait times for medical treatments increased by 43 percent between 2019 and 2024, reaching a median of 30 weeks. MRI wait times rose by 55 percent. For certain cancers, including breast and prostate, surgery delays increased by as much as 34 percent. Since 2018, more than 74,000 Canadians have died while waiting for surgery or diagnostic care—over 15,000 of them in 2023–24 alone. The actual number is likely higher, due to poor provincial tracking and reporting.

The economic impact was equally severe. Lockdowns resulted in widespread job losses, particularly among low-wage workers, while the “laptop class” remained largely unscathed. While many public sector jobs expanded during this time, Canadians in hospitality, retail, and service sectors faced prolonged unemployment. The expansion of public spending and government debt contributed to rising inflation, driving up the cost of food, housing, and other essentials.

Crime rates also rose during the lockdown years. Homicides peaked in 2022 at 17 percent above trend, with 882 victims across Canada. Cybercrime nearly doubled, rising from 48,000 cases in 2019 to over 93,000 in 2023. Identity theft and fraud increased to 120 percent above trend in 2020, with similar levels in the following years. Particularly troubling was the rise in online child sexual exploitation, which reached 18,650 reported cases in 2023—a 173 percent increase from 2019.

Benjamin Klassen, Education Coordinator at the Justice Centre, says the findings demand accountability. “This report calls for governments to take responsibility for the damage done during this period and ensure that future public health policies uphold the Charter rights and freedoms of all Canadians.”

Mr. Klassen continues, “The Charter requires governments to ‘demonstrably’ justify any freedom-limiting policy. To date, no federal or provincial government in Canada has conducted the kind of comprehensive impact assessment required to justify the lockdowns.”

He concludes, “The evidence is clear: the harms of lockdowns outweighed their benefits. Canadians deserve an honest and transparent evaluation of lockdown harms, so that these mistakes are never repeated.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X
OSZAR »