Fauci is a liar: letter proves that NIH did fund gain of function research

[Gondwanaland]

Really?

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/vaccine-basics/index.html

Historically, the vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated. In addition, the vaccine was proven to prevent or substantially lessen infection when given within a few days after a person was exposed to the variola virus.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella.

Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html

Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective.

© Copyright Original Source

Thank you for proving my point. Right now coutnries are gearing up for 3rd and 4th shots of covid vaccines just to reduce symptoms. The others in question provide actual immunity, and do so for long-term.

Making people less likely to die is not as trivial as you make it out to be.

But it's far different than immunity. Especially when it fades within a couple months and you need another hit of the drug. And another. And another.

I'll take a look at it. But I think you are reading more into the letter than is actually there.

Peter Daszak. The head of EcoHealth Alliance. The group that recieved the funds for the gain of function research. LITERALLY SAID. In response to emails from the NIH. with numerous NIH email addresses visible. On an e-mail literally talking about the grant in question. LITERALLY SAID "We are happy to hear that our gain of function research funding pause has been lifted"......

But sure, I'm 'reading more into the letter than is actually there'. Even though what is actually there is HIM DIRECTLY STATING IT IS FREAKING GAIN OF FUNCTION RESEARCH.

You, my friend, are truly brainwashed into the Branch Covidian cult. There is no hope for you. You'll drink whatever Kool-ade they press into your hands.

[Stoic]

There are many vaccines that provide immunity, and not just protection. Smallpox. MMR. Polio.

Really?

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/vaccine-basics/index.html

Historically, the vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated. In addition, the vaccine was proven to prevent or substantially lessen infection when given within a few days after a person was exposed to the variola virus.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella.

Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html

Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective.

© Copyright Original Source

It was only once their mRNA stuff got pushed, and then turned out to not be all all that good at anything other than a lessening of symptoms sometimes, that the definition of vaccination magically changed. It was no longer good for the orthodoxy's position.

Making people less likely to die is not as trivial as you make it out to be.

Maybe you should read the thread:

I'll take a look at it. But I think you are reading more into the letter than is actually there.

[Stoic]

Probably about 6,000 of them. And they all work under Fauci at the NIH.

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

[Gondwanaland]

Obviously the CDC did not think so, since then they wouldn't be talking about vaccines, since vaccines wouldn't exist.


Evidently some people (not the CDC) thought that "immunity" meant 100% protection.

There are many vaccines that provide immunity, and not just protection. Smallpox. MMR. Polio.

It was only once their mRNA stuff got pushed, and then turned out to not be all all that good at anything other than a lessening of symptoms sometimes, that the definition of vaccination magically changed. It was no longer good for the orthodoxy's position.

I haven't seen any communications that clearly identified the Wuhan research as gain of function research.

Maybe you should read the thread:

It seems that those actually conducting the research were under no illusions about exactly what they were doing.

daszak-glee.jpg

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/03/f...uhan-covid-19/

[Ronson]

There are plenty of scientists who would disagree with you about that probability.

Probably about 6,000 of them. And they all work under Fauci at the NIH.

[Stoic]

This seems to be the problem with Leftists when it comes to the probability the covid pandemic is the result of a lab leak.

There are plenty of scientists who would disagree with you about that probability.

[Stoic]

The CDC thought so, and said so, up until it became inconvenient to the orthodoxy.

Obviously the CDC did not think so, since then they wouldn't be talking about vaccines, since vaccines wouldn't exist.

The definition was about immunity. They changed it to 'protection' when their mRNA vaccines started to show some pretty distinct failure in providing immunity, after their attempts to ignore and not record breakthrough infections failed.

Evidently some people (not the CDC) thought that "immunity" meant 100% protection.

Now, about that gain of function research that fauci lied about and his organization tried to change the definition of after they got caught in their lies. Any comments on how the person who received the funding and used it in conjunction with Wuhan's research, clearly identified it as gain of function research, and did so plainly and clearly and without hesitation, in formal communications?

I haven't seen any communications that clearly identified the Wuhan research as gain of function research.

[Gondwanaland]

I guess that means you think that a vaccine is not a vaccine unless it is 100% effective.

The CDC thought so, and said so, up until it became inconvenient to the orthodoxy. The definition was about immunity. They changed it to 'protection' when their mRNA vaccines started to show some pretty distinct failure in providing immunity, after their attempts to ignore and not record breakthrough infections failed.

Now, about that gain of function research that fauci lied about and his organization tried to change the definition of after they got caught in their lies. Any comments on how the person who received the funding and used it in conjunction with Wuhan's research, clearly identified it as gain of function research, and did so plainly and clearly and without hesitation, in formal communications?

[Ronson]

Like many conservatives he lacks an understanding of probabilities ...

This seems to be the problem with Leftists when it comes to the probability the covid pandemic is the result of a lab leak.

[Starlight]

I guess that means you think that a vaccine is not a vaccine unless it is 100% effective.

Like many conservatives he lacks an understanding of probabilities and seems only able to think in absolutes. To him something is either 0% effective of 100% effective and he can't mentally handle the in-between possibilities.

[Stoic]

No, in order to dismiss people who don't hold to the current orthodoxy of Branch Covidian Scientism.

I guess that means you think that a vaccine is not a vaccine unless it is 100% effective.

[Gondwanaland]

In order to dismiss people who think that a vaccine has to be 100% effective in order to be a vaccine, anyway.

No, in order to dismiss people who don't hold to the current orthodoxy of Branch Covidian Scientism.

[Stoic]

Except new science wasn't what changed it. It was the need to adjust in order to dismiss people who questioned their mRNA vaccines.

In order to dismiss people who think that a vaccine has to be 100% effective in order to be a vaccine, anyway.

[Gondwanaland]

Refresh my mind on this, please.

I had a thread on the topic a while back (second post in particular addresses this, though the first is an interesting read as well):
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...hood-he-ruined

[NorrinRadd]

I honestly don't know how he still had a job after what he did during the AIDS epidemic. Let alone several more decades of bungling.

Refresh my mind on this, please.