NIH Continues Pandemic Virus Research Despite Executive Order
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is reportedly pressing ahead with the development of a new pandemic virus, despite an executive order issued by President Donald Trump aimed at curbing such research. This information comes from three government sources who asked to remain anonymous to avoid potential backlash.
Officials from the NIH, along with members of the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, are working through interagency discussions that have finalized Trump’s policies concerning high-risk research into dangerous gains of function (GOF). According to a Presidential Order dated September 2nd, intelligence agencies concluded that the lab accident was responsible for the outbreak of Covid-19.
Jerry Parker, who previously directed pandemic response policy at the White House, played a key role in drafting the NIH’s GOF policies prior to the pandemic. However, Parker left the White House in July after only six months. He cited personal reasons for his departure rather than any issues related to his work.
There appears to be a pervasive inertia within the NIH, as noted by Ed Hammond, who tracked research funding over the years. He was dismissed from the NIH in August, and though he initially commented online about his exit, he did not elaborate further.
Bhattacharya has identified concerns over functional research as one of his top priorities, although he is not directly involved in GOF policy yet. Meanwhile, an NIH spokesperson declined interview requests related to this matter.
In a move that stirred some attention, Bhattacharya promoted Jeffrey Torvenberger to lead the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which was previously guided by Anthony Fauci. Taubenberger, known for his work on the influenza virus, is now responsible for leading reform efforts regarding GOF at NIAID.
A statement indicated that there is strong confidence in Taubenberger’s ability to foster reforms that enhance biosafety and align lab research with public health needs. It’s noteworthy that he has a history of advocating for GOF research, which raises questions about the objectivity of these reforms.
While around 50 million deaths from the 1918 influenza pandemic were recorded globally, concerns linger about whether any efforts tied to this historical research could be mismanaged today. Some experts argue that the same approaches taken previously have allowed significant risks without adequate oversight.
In the wake of Trump’s order that sets a 120-day deadline for a new GOF policy, confusion within various government agencies has arisen. A source pointed out that the current policy relies heavily on institutional leaders and may allow loopholes that could undermine safety measures.
Moving forward, the NIH is expected to retain certain pre-pandemic policies, particularly those that let coronavirus engineering projects proceed without thorough review. This pattern presents potential risks, reminiscent of past oversight failures that have faced criticism.
Furthermore, the NIH will still consider exemptions under national security claims, hinting at the complexities involved in regulating this sensitive research. A contractor from the NIH pointed out that there are calls to maintain GOF research to keep pace with activities in other nations, particularly those that pose a threat.
Some NIH researchers have commented that a focus on political battles may overshadow the more pressing needs surrounding pandemic management and control, which complicates the clarity of the agency’s mission.
As the NIH navigates through these challenges, critics continue to voice concerns about the potential repercussions of ongoing GOF research, emphasizing the need for improved oversight and transparency in such a critical area for public health.
