Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
|
Hahahahaha. The article you just presented complete supports what has been said. Again, you don't understand the grant process and how reporting takes place. It also seems the author didn't either, which is a little concerning. I'll go through this slowly, but try and keep up. From the report:
"On September 20, a group of internet sleuths calling themselves DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) released a leaked $14 million grant proposal that EcoHealth Alliance had submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)."
This would be the grant proposal that was approved in 2019 and was scheduled to be completed in 2024. Consistent with the grant process. We are talking about the proposal, and the proposal stage, which is the only information publicly available. The Internet sleuths outdid themselves, digging up a document that is public knowledge and available through a FOIA request.
"The NIH’s letter to Congress stated that the agency is giving EcoHealth five days to submit any unpublished data from the experiments it funded."
This is again consistent with the process. The unpublished findings are part of the reporting process, which this grant is currently in, and would remain in until the grant runs out and is to be closed out. This is where you publish your findings and have them peer reviewed. So in this particular instance, the grant would have a number of quarterly and yearly reports made to the grant coordination office, and only they would have that to validate the grant was on course and money could be released.
Oh, maybe you didn't know this. Money is not just doled out once the grant is awarded. There are quarterly and yearly reports (depending on the type of grant) that have to be submitted so money can be released to pay for equipment, salaries, and research. In this particular instance, they have been awarded a $14M grant, but they must provide supporting documentation for the release of funds before any money hits the project. They don't get a $14M money drop, they have access to up to $14M in funding, and have to provide support for spending requests in these quarterly or yearly reports. The only ones who know about this is stuff are the grant administrators who make a general report on the status of grants, whether they are ahead of schedule, on schedule, or behind schedule, and then the money allocated. No other details are shared.
The quote you some how misunderstood,
"On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold."
They failed to report. When would this report have happened? That's right. During the quarterly or yearly progress report check in. Would this have mattered? Maybe, maybe not. The information would have been shared and a deficiency would have been noted. The grantee would have been asked to explain the deficiency and the grant administrators would have reviewed the terms to determine of the deficiency was worthy of the grant being canceled. Usually this type of thing results in a suspension of the grant until the grantee and provide explanation. If the explanation is not sufficient, the grant can be terminated and the final report required usually within 90 days. This appears to be the case since the grant was suspended, then reinstated, and the research continued.
"The NIH based these disclosures on a research progress report that EcoHealth Alliance sent to the agency in August, roughly two years after it was supposed to."
There we go. The research progress reports were late. Were there extenuating circumstances that could have explained this that Vanity Fair did not bother to delve into? Yep. There was a global pandemic sourced back to this particular lab that the Chinese placed a massive gag order over and controlled all information coming in and out. This may have prevented the results from that lab being available for a progress report.
"An NIH spokesperson told Vanity Fair that Dr. Fauci was “entirely truthful in his statements to Congress,” and that he did not have the progress report that detailed the controversial research at the time he testified in July. An NIH spokesperson told Vanity Fair that Dr. Fauci was “entirely truthful in his statements to Congress,” and that he did not have the progress report that detailed the controversial research at the time he testified in July.”
As expected. These reports are confidential and not available until the grant closeout is completed.
Here's where things get really sketchy.
"But EcoHealth Alliance appeared to contradict that claim, and said in a statement: “These data were reported as soon as we were made aware, in our year four report in April 2018.”
EcoHealth Alliance submitted their proposal in 2018. The grant was approved in 2019. How could they have made a year four report made prior to the awarding of the grant? This isn't right. Their year four report would have been due in 2023. So this is obviously a dodge on their part, attempting to limit damage to their organization and reputation. Which is supported in this from the article.
"EcoHealth Alliance said in a statement that the science clearly proved that its research could not have led to the pandemic, and that it was “working with the NIH to promptly address what we believe to be a misconception about the grant’s reporting requirements and what the data from our research showed.”"
This is also where the article goes off the path and leads me to believe they are talking about two different grants and have the facts completely mixed up.
"Early last month, The Intercept published more than 900 pages of documents it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the NIH, relating to EcoHealth Alliance’s grant research. But there was one document missing, a fifth and final progress report that EcoHealth Alliance had been required to submit at the end of its grant period in 2019."
This is NOT the same grant they were talking about at the start of the article. These grants run a five year cycle and the first discussion was about a proposal submitted in 2018, and then approved in 2019. This last paragraph states that there was a 5th and final progress report (the close out report) missing from 2019. You can't have a 5th reporting period for a grant that was just approved. They are talking about two separate grants here.
Which leads us to this gem to close out.
"Meanwhile, members of the DRASTIC coalition have continued their research. As one member, Gilles Demaneuf, a data scientist in New Zealand, told Vanity Fair, “I cannot be sure that [COVID-19 originated from] a research-related accident or infection from a sampling trip. But I am 100% sure there was a massive cover-up.”"
It would help if the article and DRASTIC were not talking about two separate grants and making people believe there was just one. These are clearly separate grants and outcomes being discussed, so again, all statements can be true and can be wrong at the same time.