Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    ...what this letter does show is that Wuhan was experimenting with various bat corona viruses to see if they could get them to infect humans (humanized mice) which is a huge red flag, isn't it?
    Not just a red flag, it is gain of function research by definition.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      Point is, I'll go with the expert who calls it gain of function against the expert who's culpable if it is gain of function. Common sense. Though I realize the covid cult has no common sense.
      That's not common sense. That's just hating Fauci, and going with whoever says what you want to believe.

      Otherwise, you would realize that there are other experts you could listen to.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

        I see. So if I robbed a bank, and then wrote a letter explaining why it wasn't illegal, that would make it okay?
        If I didn't rob a bank, and someone else wrote a letter explaining that I was somewhere else that day, would that make me more likely to confess to robbing the bank?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post

          You could be correct regarding the technical term "gain of function", but what this letter does show is that Wuhan was experimenting with various bat corona viruses to see if they could get them to infect humans (humanized mice) which is a huge red flag, isn't it? It means that it is highly likely that they were the source of the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic. And that NIH was helping to fund them through the Ecohealth alliance.
          This letter doesn't tell us anything about the experiments that were being done in the Wuhan lab that we didn't know already. The intent of the experiments was not to create new viruses that were more infectious to humans, but to determine whether the natural viruses were able to make use of the ACE2 receptors. There was no reason to believe that the new viruses would be significantly more infectious to humans than the natural viruses. This means that it wasn't gain-of-function research per the NIH definition, which means it was okay for the NIH to fund them.

          As the letter states, SARS-CoV-2 could not have been the result of these experiments. It is certainly possible (AFAIK) that SARS-CoV-2 could be the result of similar experiments that the NIH wasn't told about, and that the NIH was not funding. But there does not appear to be a consensus about that.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Stoic View Post

            This letter doesn't tell us anything about the experiments that were being done in the Wuhan lab that we didn't know already. The intent of the experiments was not to create new viruses that were more infectious to humans, but to determine whether the natural viruses were able to make use of the ACE2 receptors. There was no reason to believe that the new viruses would be significantly more infectious to humans than the natural viruses. This means that it wasn't gain-of-function research per the NIH definition, which means it was okay for the NIH to fund them.

            As the letter states, SARS-CoV-2 could not have been the result of these experiments. It is certainly possible (AFAIK) that SARS-CoV-2 could be the result of similar experiments that the NIH wasn't told about, and that the NIH was not funding. But there does not appear to be a consensus about that.
            If you add in the information that I posted in the lab leak thread, you will see that they WERE genetically modifying those natural viruses to make them more infectious to the humanized mice.

            More smoking guns...
            Source: https://nypost.com/2021/09/22/wuhan-scientists-wanted-to-release-coronaviruses-into-bats/


            Wuhan scientists wanted to release coronaviruses into bats

            Chinese scientists wanted to genetically engineer coronaviruses that were more infectious to humans and then conduct experiments on live bats about 18 months before the first COVID-19 cases emerged — but a US Department of Defence agency rejected the funding proposal, leaked documents reveal.

            Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were planning to genetically enhance airborne coronaviruses and release aerosols containing “novel chimeric spike proteins” among cave bats in Yunnan, China, according to the 2018 proposal submitted to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

            They also planned to alter coronaviruses to infect humans more easily by introducing “human-specific cleavage sites” to bat coronaviruses.


            The purpose of the research was to assess the risk of coronaviruses, work on ways to prevent outbreaks and even vaccinate bats against the virus, according to the proposal.

            The proposal was spearheaded by New York City-based EcoHealth Alliance — the nonprofit headed by British scientist Peter Daszak that has previously funneled federal funds to the Wuhan lab for bat coronavirus research.

            But the $14 million grant ended up being rejected by DARPA over fears it could result in gain-of-function research, which could make a virus more transmissible and pathogenic.

            “It is clear that the proposed project led by Peter Daszak could have put local communities at risk,” DARPA said in rejecting the proposal.

            Details of the leaked proposal were released Tuesday by Drastic Research, a group of international scientists investigating the origins of the pandemic.

            Drastic said it was provided the papers by a whistleblower, and a former member of the Trump administration confirmed the proposal’s authenticity to the Telegraph.

            The group questioned whether the research — particularly altering the virus to make it more infectious to humans — still went ahead given the theory that COVID-19 spread from the Wuhan lab.

            “Given that we find in this proposal a discussion of the planned introduction of human-specific cleavage sites, a review by the wider scientific community of the plausibility of artificial insertion is warranted,” Drastic said.

            © Copyright Original Source


            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Stoic View Post

              If I didn't rob a bank, and someone else wrote a letter explaining that I was somewhere else that day, would that make me more likely to confess to robbing the bank?
              Not exactly a parallel to this situation. Fauci the Fraud claimed he never authorized gain of function of research. The NIH then produces a letter explicitly describing gain of function of research while trying to imply that it was really something else. As the saying goes, that doesn't pass the smell test (although liberals are so used to the stink of their own worldview that the smell test is no longer particularly useful).
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                If you add in the information that I posted in the lab leak thread, you will see that they WERE genetically modifying those natural viruses to make them more infectious to the humanized mice.
                On a different note, "humanized mice" is a lot less exciting than it sounds.

                Expectation:

                human1.jpg


                Reality:

                human2.jpg
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  Not exactly a parallel to this situation. Fauci the Fraud claimed he never authorized gain of function of research. The NIH then produces a letter explicitly describing gain of function of research while trying to imply that it was really something else. As the saying goes, that doesn't pass the smell test (although liberals are so used to the stink of their own worldview that the smell test is no longer particularly useful).
                  Pardon me if I don't trust your nose for any "smell test".

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    Pardon me if I don't trust your nose for any "smell test".
                    You don't need to trust me, you just need to read the letter from the NIH which explicitly describes gain of function research and contrast that with Fauci the Fraud's obviously false statements made under oath that he never authorized gain of function research.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                      This letter doesn't tell us anything about the experiments that were being done in the Wuhan lab that we didn't know already. The intent of the experiments was not to create new viruses that were more infectious to humans, but to determine whether the natural viruses were able to make use of the ACE2 receptors. There was no reason to believe that the new viruses would be significantly more infectious to humans than the natural viruses. This means that it wasn't gain-of-function research per the NIH definition, which means it was okay for the NIH to fund them.

                      As the letter states, SARS-CoV-2 could not have been the result of these experiments. It is certainly possible (AFAIK) that SARS-CoV-2 could be the result of similar experiments that the NIH wasn't told about, and that the NIH was not funding. But there does not appear to be a consensus about that.
                      If they were simply doing tests with plain ole mice that would be a fair point against it being GOF. But they were doing tests on humanized mice. Thus, they WERE by definition trying to make something more infectious or with more function in infecting human cells
                      "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                      - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        You don't need to trust me, you just need to read the letter from the NIH which explicitly describes gain of function research and contrast that with Fauci the Fraud's obviously false statements made under oath that he never authorized gain of function research.
                        Really? I don't think the letter describes any such thing. The research described doesn't match what I would understand by the term "gain of function"; it never even uses the term "gain of function"; and goes out of its way to point out that the viruses used were genetically significantly distant from SARS-CoV 2 (this is relevant because the concern over "gain of function" research is the possibility that the mutations generated in such research could be how SARS-CoV 2 originated). In contrast to Gondwanaland above, taking a virus and obeserving its behaviour in a different host is NOT gain of function research. To meet that criteria, you'd need to adapt the pathogen in some way (e.g. adding in genes from another organism, or re-arranging the spike RNA to bind better to ACE, or some such thing).

                        What IS puzzling to me is that Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist who has argued that GoF research was taking place, somehow thinks that this letter supports his view. If someone scientifically literate can tell me what I'm missing, I'd appreciate it. Or does Ebright have some potent bias that I'm unaware of?
                        ...because every forum needs a Jimbo

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                          If you add in the information that I posted in the lab leak thread, you will see that they WERE genetically modifying those natural viruses to make them more infectious to the humanized mice.

                          More smoking guns...
                          I think this shows the opposite of what you think. Firstly, the grant was rejected. Any sniff of being close to GoF work, and funding was denied.

                          Secondly, saying that some Chinese folk had the idea of doing GoF work does not mean that Fauci or NIH approved of this.
                          ...because every forum needs a Jimbo

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by JimboJSR View Post
                            Really? I don't think the letter describes any such thing. The research described doesn't match what I would understand by the term "gain of function"; it never even uses the term "gain of function"; and goes out of its way to point out that the viruses used were genetically significantly distant from SARS-CoV 2 (this is relevant because the concern over "gain of function" research is the possibility that the mutations generated in such research could be how SARS-CoV 2 originated). In contrast to Gondwanaland above, taking a virus and obeserving its behaviour in a different host is NOT gain of function research. To meet that criteria, you'd need to adapt the pathogen in some way (e.g. adding in genes from another organism, or re-arranging the spike RNA to bind better to ACE, or some such thing).

                            What IS puzzling to me is that Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist who has argued that GoF research was taking place, somehow thinks that this letter supports his view. If someone scientifically literate can tell me what I'm missing, I'd appreciate it. Or does Ebright have some potent bias that I'm unaware of?
                            Here is the critical portion of the confession letter:

                            "EcoHealth Alliance was testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring cornaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model. [...] In this limited experiment, laboratory mice infected with the SHC014 WIV1 coronavirus became sicker than those infected with the WIV1 bat coranavirus."

                            The designation "SHC014 WIV1" refers to a naturally occurring virus that was modified with the express purpose of making it more infectious to humans than the unmodified WIV1 virus, and indeed, it seems the experiment was a resounding success since the humanized mice infected with the modified virus became sicker. This is gain of function research by definition.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by JimboJSR View Post
                              I think this shows the opposite of what you think. Firstly, the grant was rejected. Any sniff of being close to GoF work, and funding was denied.

                              Secondly, saying that some Chinese folk had the idea of doing GoF work does not mean that Fauci or NIH approved of this.
                              I am not arguing that NIH or Fauci approved of it. Simply that the evidence is there that the Chinese lab in Wuhan WAS playing around with bat coronaviruses and trying to get them to infect humanized mice, and were probably using genetic manipulation to do so. Whether the NIH approved it or not, I am pretty sure they went ahead and did it, considering that C19 started right there.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                                If they were simply doing tests with plain ole mice that would be a fair point against it being GOF. But they were doing tests on humanized mice. Thus, they WERE by definition trying to make something more infectious or with more function in infecting human cells
                                They were trying to find out if the viruses were able to make use of human ACE2 receptors. They couldn't do that with plain ole mice.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, 12-01-2021, 10:53 PM
                                16 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 12-01-2021, 10:49 PM
                                13 responses
                                85 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by seer, 12-01-2021, 12:32 PM
                                8 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-01-2021, 10:11 AM
                                33 responses
                                228 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 12-01-2021, 08:27 AM
                                30 responses
                                215 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X