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

[Ronson]

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

That's why I said "probably" - my estimate.

[Stoic]

That's why I said "probably" - my estimate.

Okay, just your unsupported opinion.

[Gondwanaland]

Okay, just your unsupported opinion.

That's just your unsupported opinion.

[Stoic]

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.

The COVID-19 vaccines provide actual immunity. Perhaps you just don't know what that means.

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.

No, it's not different than immunity.

[Stoic]

That's just your unsupported opinion.

No, Ronson admitted that it was his unsupported opinion.

[Gondwanaland]

No, Ronson admitted that it was his unsupported opinion.

That's just your unsupported opinon.

[Gondwanaland]

The COVID-19 vaccines provide actual immunity.

Except they don't.

Perhaps you just don't know what that means.

Nope, I understand what it means. So did the CDC, which is why they adjusted their definition in order to protect the orthodoxy.

No, it's not different than immunity.

[Stoic]

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.

If you read the article that the letter was taken from, and were rational, you would see that he isn't saying that the research is gain of function. He is saying that the funding pause was because of the suspicion that the research was gain of function. It was a "gain of function research funding pause" that got lifted, not a funding pause that was lifted from gain of function research.

How do I know this? Because he just got through convincing the NIH that it wasn't gain of function research. He's not going to turn around and call it gain of function research in an email to the NIH.

[Stoic]

Nope, I understand what it means.

I get the strong impression that you don't. You seem to think that if a vaccine provides immunity, then you can't get the disease if you've been vaccinated.

[Starlight]

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

Yawn. I'm a leftist and a scientist and I think it was almost certainly a lab leak. Get some better arguments.

[Mountain Man]

If you read the article that the letter was taken from, and were rational, you would see that he isn't saying that the research is gain of function. He is saying that the funding pause was because of the suspicion that the research was gain of function. It was a "gain of function research funding pause" that got lifted, not a funding pause that was lifted from gain of function research.

How do I know this? Because he just got through convincing the NIH that it wasn't gain of function research. He's not going to turn around and call it gain of function research in an email to the NIH.

I just... wow... I hardly know where to begin to address such clearly delusional thinking. The letter unambiguously says X. You insist the writer really meant not X. And I'll be honest with you, I am genuinely baffled by such an absurd rebuttal. I mean, why would it matter if their "Gain of Function research funding pause has been lifted" if it wasn't their express intent to continue Gain of Function research?

[Sparko]

OK from that tweet Gond posted here are the two "definitions"

Old:

Gain-of-Function Research

The term gain-of-function (GOF) research describes a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent. Some scientists use the term broadly to refer to any such modification. However, not all research described as GOF entails the same level of risk. For example, research that involves the modification of bacteria to allow production of human insulin, or the altering of the genetic program of immune cells in CAR-T cell therapy to treat cancer generally would be considered low risk. The subset of GOF research that is anticipated to enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens, which are likely to make them more dangerous to humans, has been the subject of substantial scrutiny and deliberation. Such GOF approaches can sometimes be justified in laboratories with appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controls to help us understand the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, assess the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, and inform public health and preparedness efforts, including surveillance and the development of vaccines and medical countermeasures. This research poses biosafety and biosecurity risks, and these risks must be carefully managed. When supported with NIH funds, this subset of GOF research may only be conducted in laboratories with stringent oversight and appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controls(link is external) to help protect researchers from infection and prevent the release of microorganisms into the environment.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211019...emic-pathogens

New:

ePPP Research

On limited occasions, when justified by compelling public health need and conducted in very high biosecurity laboratories, NIH has supported certain research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans. The U.S. Government and the Department of Health and Human Services define such research as enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research. NIH-supported ePPP research requires strict oversight and may only be conducted with appropriate biosafety and biosecurity measures. This research can help us understand the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, assess the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents such as viruses and inform public health and preparedness efforts, including surveillance and the development of vaccines and medical countermeasures. While such research is inherently risky and requires strict oversight, the risk of not doing this type of research and not being prepared for the next pandemic is also high. While ePPP research is a type of so called “gain-of-function” (GOF) research, the vast majority of GOF research does not involve ePPP and falls outside the scope of oversight required for research involving ePPPs.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/rese...emic-pathogens

I think the new definition is more damning. They actually admit to supporting research into increasing a pathogens transmissibility in humans.

"NIH has supported certain research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans."

I think that is enough to damn them and fire Fauci. Who cares if they want to call it "gain of function" or "ePPP?" What matters is they have supported research into making viruses more dangerous to humans.

[rogue06]

OK from that tweet Gond posted here are the two "definitions"

Old:

Gain-of-Function Research

The term gain-of-function (GOF) research describes a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent. Some scientists use the term broadly to refer to any such modification. However, not all research described as GOF entails the same level of risk. For example, research that involves the modification of bacteria to allow production of human insulin, or the altering of the genetic program of immune cells in CAR-T cell therapy to treat cancer generally would be considered low risk. The subset of GOF research that is anticipated to enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens, which are likely to make them more dangerous to humans, has been the subject of substantial scrutiny and deliberation. Such GOF approaches can sometimes be justified in laboratories with appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controls to help us understand the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, assess the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, and inform public health and preparedness efforts, including surveillance and the development of vaccines and medical countermeasures. This research poses biosafety and biosecurity risks, and these risks must be carefully managed. When supported with NIH funds, this subset of GOF research may only be conducted in laboratories with stringent oversight and appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controls(link is external) to help protect researchers from infection and prevent the release of microorganisms into the environment.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211019...emic-pathogens

New:

ePPP Research

On limited occasions, when justified by compelling public health need and conducted in very high biosecurity laboratories, NIH has supported certain research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans. The U.S. Government and the Department of Health and Human Services define such research as enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research. NIH-supported ePPP research requires strict oversight and may only be conducted with appropriate biosafety and biosecurity measures. This research can help us understand the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, assess the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents such as viruses and inform public health and preparedness efforts, including surveillance and the development of vaccines and medical countermeasures. While such research is inherently risky and requires strict oversight, the risk of not doing this type of research and not being prepared for the next pandemic is also high. While ePPP research is a type of so called “gain-of-function” (GOF) research, the vast majority of GOF research does not involve ePPP and falls outside the scope of oversight required for research involving ePPPs.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/rese...emic-pathogens

I think the new definition is more damning. They actually admit to supporting research into increasing a pathogens transmissibility in humans.

"NIH has supported certain research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans."

I think that is enough to damn them and fire Fauci. Who cares if they want to call it "gain of function" or "ePPP?" What matters is they have supported research into making viruses more dangerous to humans.

It's the same game they play with CRT. If you don't call it CRT then it isn't CRT even if you're following the CRT program to the letter.

[Ronson]

Yawn. I'm a leftist and a scientist and I think it was almost certainly a lab leak. Get some better arguments.

Well, good. You should give Fauci a call and tell him you're not fooled.

[Mountain Man]

It's the same game they play with CRT. If you don't call it CRT then it isn't CRT even if you're following the CRT program to the letter.

What's sad is that this ruse seems to fool a lot of people.