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

  • #61
    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.
    I would have to trust you to know what qualifies as gain-of-function research, and I don't.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      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.
      It would be more appropriate to say that WIV1 was modified by giving it the spike protein from SHC014, in order to find out if that spike protein was capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor.

      Since it could not be reasonably anticipated that this would result in a significantly more infectious virus, it didn't qualify as gain-of-function research, by definition.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Stoic View Post

        It would be more appropriate to say that WIV1 was modified by giving it the spike protein from SHC014, in order to find out if that spike protein was capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor.

        Since it could not be reasonably anticipated that this would result in a significantly more infectious virus, it didn't qualify as gain-of-function research, by definition.


        Why would they be modifying the virus and testing it on human ACE2 receptors if they weren't attempting to make it more infectious? That was the whole point of the experiment. And it succeeded. Modifying a virus to try to make it more infectious to human cells is the definition of "gain of function" research. Surely you are not arguing they modified a virus that wasn't infectious to humans at all in an attempt to make it less infectious to humans?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Stoic View Post
          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.
          Right. So gain of function.
          "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


          • #65
            Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

            Right. So gain of function.
            I see where the hairs are being split here.

            According to one side, any research into into GOF is GOF. According to Stoic (if I understand correctly) they were only observing and not making alterations. Correct?

            But isn't a mouse with human ACE2 receptor an alteration?
            "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
            "
            Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              I see where the hairs are being split here.

              According to one side, any research into into GOF is GOF. According to Stoic (if I understand correctly) they were only observing and not making alterations. Correct?

              But isn't a mouse with human ACE2 receptor an alteration?
              No. It's not an alteration of the coronavirus - which is the issue at hand. Transgenic animals are very commonly used in research, and do not confer any risk to humans.
              ...because every forum needs a Jimbo

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                Right. So gain of function.
                No. Absolutely not. That makes no sense whatsoever.
                ...because every forum needs a Jimbo

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                  It would be more appropriate to say that WIV1 was modified by giving it the spike protein from SHC014
                  Do you have more information on this? I'm looking but can't easily deliniate how SHC014-WIV1 is made up.

                  Sources not involving Breitbart or Youtube would be preferable, Thanks.

                  ...because every forum needs a Jimbo

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    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.
                    I'm "going with" one expert over another. Ebright says it is gain of function, and I've seen no evidence he hates Fauci. You're "going with" the expert who claims it's not gain of function, who is culpable if it is gain of function.
                    "What am I doing here?" -- Joe Biden 2021

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Fox and Friends interviewed a former WHO investigator this AM. He opined that too many people are obsessing over the specific term, "gain of function," and that NIH lawyers constructed a very narrow definition of the term, such that the research being discussed probably did not qualify.

                      I'll see if there's a clip that I can find.
                      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                      Beige Federalist.

                      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                      Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                      Justice for Matthew Perna!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                        I see where the hairs are being split here.

                        According to one side, any research into into GOF is GOF. According to Stoic (if I understand correctly) they were only observing and not making alterations. Correct?
                        Nope.

                        According to one side, any modification of a virus is gain of function it you find out after the fact that there was a gain of function.

                        According to the other side, it's not gain of function unless there is an intent to create a new function, or one can reasonably anticipate that there will be a gain of function.

                        But isn't a mouse with human ACE2 receptor an alteration?
                        It is, but we're talking about altering viruses.

                        The research in Wuhan was making alterations to a virus. They were replacing the spike protein on the WIV1 virus with spike proteins from other bat viruses. They were doing this to see whether those other spike proteins could bind to the human ACE2 receptor. (They couldn't test the other bat viruses directly, because they were unable to culture them in the lab.)

                        It was not anticipated that the altered viruses would be significantly more infectious to humans. But it did turn out that two of the altered viruses were significantly more infectious to humans.

                        Thus, by one definition it was gain of function research, but not by the other.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by JimboJSR View Post

                          Do you have more information on this? I'm looking but can't easily deliniate how SHC014-WIV1 is made up.

                          Sources not involving Breitbart or Youtube would be preferable, Thanks.
                          https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ant-notice.pdf

                          The backbones they used were SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and WIV1.

                          On page 298, "Using the reverse genetic methods we previously developed, infectious clones with the WIV1 backbone and the spike protein of SHC014, WIV16 and Rs4231, respectively, were constructed and recombinant viruses were successfully rescued."

                          On page 486, "We infected transgenic mice expressing hACE2 with10 5 pfu of full-length recombinant WIV1 and three chimeric viruses (WIV1 backbone with SHC014S, WIV16S and Rs4231S)."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post



                            Why would they be modifying the virus and testing it on human ACE2 receptors if they weren't attempting to make it more infectious? That was the whole point of the experiment. And it succeeded. Modifying a virus to try to make it more infectious to human cells is the definition of "gain of function" research. Surely you are not arguing they modified a virus that wasn't infectious to humans at all in an attempt to make it less infectious to humans?
                            We've been over this.

                            https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...87#post1303287

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I got to tell ya, Fauci looks genuinely scared compared to their last encounter...

                              "What am I doing here?" -- Joe Biden 2021

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                I got to tell ya, Fauci looks genuinely scared compared to their last encounter...

                                And Paul seems confident and unrelenting.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, 05-19-2022, 10:59 AM
                                41 responses
                                336 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by rogue06, 05-18-2022, 07:43 AM
                                3 responses
                                33 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-17-2022, 09:33 AM
                                7 responses
                                95 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post KingsGambit  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 05-15-2022, 08:09 PM
                                9 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-15-2022, 11:46 AM
                                4 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X