[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh please.

He was aware. Especially at the time when he was asked 'on the record' which was long after the rumbling started that there had been funding to begin with.

It is very likely he wasn't. The grant process is very labyrinthine and confusing for those who do not deal with it regularly. For the common person it may not make sense, unless they actually immerse themselves into the process.

Money doesn't go to China to fund lab research, and when said lab has an outbreak that leads to a world pandemic that kills millions of people, you completely forget that you funded them to begin with and call it an oversight.

Money didn't go to a lab in China. Money went to an interest whose interest was studying specific vectors that could result in pandemic level events. The grant funds went to EcoHealth Alliance, a New York non-profit who studies such events. The interest in question had involvement with a number of labs around the world, and Wuhan was but one of those.

If he wasn't aware, he should be fired for gross incompetence.

It's really easy for a guy who wears a fry guy hat to make this statement, but the reality is that the processes behind these systems are much more complex than you are presenting.

There were concerns for many years in regards to the exact research that was being done. The same concerns are with the lab in Winnipeg, and the fact that the government is completely trying to bury what happened there.

Yeah, this is total bull####, which I completely expect from someone who doesn't deal with grants. Grant R01AI10694 was approved in 2019 and scheduled for completion in 2024. It was approved, and then cancelled, and then reinstated in 2020, predominantly because Trump tried to politicize the research instead of the truth about the grant process or the status of the approved grant.

I'm going to cut you some slack because you have no idea how the grant process works. Fry guys don't know how management processes work in managing the restaurant, and this is one of those instances for the process in question. The grant process is a multi-step process where information is compartmentalized, so the potential to influence outcomes is minimized. Grants go through a very regimented process where design and implementation is due for review. A project is expected to provide details in the application and review process, but many times the details of the application are vague (like which lab is to be used for such research) so the process can move forward. A lot of the technical details do are not provided until the monitoring process, which comes after the approval and is a years long process.

What this means is that interests submitting grant requests are providing generic details in regards to the project so the "proposal" can be be approved and the technical details can be fleshed out. Once the proposal is submitted, it is peer reviewed and determined whether it should be funded. Once approved it enters the operational phase and, and the project enters the monitoring phase. This is where variation can take place. Whether that be the lab where things take place, or minor variations in the study itself, there is some fluidity to grants that take place. In this one, it was the outcomes.

To Fauci, an administrator is going to have access to reports pertaining to a grant only specific to the current approved state. Fauci would not have access ot this information. It would be an underling who is the grant administrator who access to such information. So a project that was approved to study "herpes incidents within hammer swingers" is only going to have access to the "proposal" available for review, until the project has come to completion. Once the project is complete the full project report will become available for administrative review, and then later, a public review.
In this particular instance, the proposal is the only information available because the end of the grant cycle is expected by 2024. There are people within the process who will have access to budgetary details in regards to the grant, but the actually operational or finding details will not be available until the grant is closed out. This is how grants work, so there is no external interference and the research drives the outcomes.

You have no way of knowing this. You have no way of knowing anything in regards to the grant process. It is very complex and very confusing, even to those who are experienced grant administrators. To expect a senior administrator to know ever aspect of any grant is expecting a restaurant manager to know the status of every fry in the basket that the fry guy is overseeing. Putting it in terms you an understand, the site manager is not responsible for the crooked nails the carpenter drives into a wall. The site manager can only report the information available to them, and in this case, the information is incomplete, and not expected to be complete until 2024.