Given that this administration has now fully committed to an anti-vaccine agenda, just as a reminder 👇. What exactly do people think will happen next?

Adding these comments on DEFUSE, since that has also been coming up - from: www.newyorker.com/science/elem...

To conclude:

And in that article I keep hearing about: www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Further:

Since this has been coming up again, just a reminder of what I actually said (in public, no less) back in early 2020. Here's just one example from: www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/sci....

Apropos…

It's great to see all the comments being made in response to OMB wanting to make all grant funding decisions political: www.regulations.gov/document/OMB.... One key thing, though - unfortunately, many of the things in OMB-2026-0034 are *already happening* due to EO #14332: bsky.app/profile/kgan...

Still one of my better ideas... (of which there aren't many..) From: andersen-lab.com/about/#faq

This is one of the most insane and irresponsible things I have _ever_ seen from @theatlantic.com. And that's saying a lot. Just unbelievable stuff.

Now they're just trolling... 😆 Also, this is excellent reporting - report the news exactly as it is!

I'm getting the sense that more people are starting to get a sense of how utterly insane it is to live in the US right now... This, from @theguardian.com, is best described as "deadpan reporting" - and 100% accurate. We have real problems in this country, yet, here we are, arresting people. Again.

Also worth sharing the top comment because this is 🎯

I really do hope that people - scientists in particular - fully understand what's going on here. www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-r...

On my way to New York - I wonder what might be in Texas that would have the pilot fly this way… 🤔🏀👊

It's with great sadness to share that Pa Goba passed away over the weekend after his prolonged battle w. PSP. Thanks to all who contributed to support him and his family - it made a big difference! We'll keep the fundraiser open a little longer to help support the family with memorial costs ✨🙏 .

Specifically, because the scientist's samples were inactivated diagnostic specimens, they were no longer "select agents". This is under 42 CFR 73.3(d)(2). We already discussed the certification processes required for this and the FBI confirmed the samples were inactivated.

Select Agents are regulated under 42 CFR 73.3, where you'll find Mpox virus. That includes "Nucleic acids that can produce infectious forms" (42 CFR 73.3(c)(1)), but that is not the case for Mpox virus, which is a DNA virus (this instead applies to +sense RNA viruses). www.ecfr.gov/current/titl...

It is almost as if the scientists accused knew how to properly inactivate samples containing Mpox virus. Which is no surprise, given that they published some of the main protocols on exactly how to do that. www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/14...

It's true - Mpox virus, Clade I is a select agent, however, inactivated samples that previously contained the virus are not. And as the FBI itself confirmed, there was no live virus in the samples and therefore no select agent was present.

5️⃣ Continued references to Mpox virus Clade I being a "Select Agent". This is scattered throughout the complaint and press release that Mpox virus is scary and especially scary because it is a "Select Agent".

In this case, because the samples did not contain agents that can infect "livestock or poultry pathogen", USDA permit is not required to my understanding, so this just seems wrong. All of this is on the USDA's website. www.aphis.usda.gov/animal-produ... www.aphis.usda.gov/animal-produ...

4️⃣ The complaint also states that a "USDA permit, VS Form 16-6A" was required. That would certainly be news to me and I also don't believe is correct.

First of all, these samples - which were inactivated diagnostic specimens (or, possibly, extracted DNA derived from such) - do no seem to fall under 49 CFR 173.4b(b). Secondly, these samples should fall under the 49 CFR 173.134(b)(2) exceptions. www.ecfr.gov/current/titl...

The complaint further states that the samples should have been marked as “scientific research specimens” citing de minimis exception 49 CFR 173.4b(b)(5). I don't believe this is correct. www.ecfr.gov/current/titl...

Finally, declaration of materials are required upon entry into the United States. It is unclear if this was done when the scientists first talked to CBP officers, but appears to have been done when they were taken aside. www.cbp.gov/border-secur...

In other words, for the "certification", the scientists needed documents describing the samples and the inactivation method used. In this case, it appears the scientists had all of that, as required.

As for the "documentation/certification", this is not a rigid federal process, but a process between the principal investigator in charge of the project and his/her institution. This is codified in 42 CFR 73.17(a)(8)(vii) for Select Agents (we'll get back to this). www.ecfr.gov/current/titl...

For the institutional approvals part, there is a whole section of the complaint stating that the scientists did not have approvals from the NIH to do this work. I highly doubt that is the case, but since I don't know exactly what the scientists did or did not have, I can't comment on this further.

This whole process is codified via 42 CFR 71.54 www.ecfr.gov/current/titl...