Originally posted by Stoic
View Post
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.
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
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostThank 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostThe COVID-19 vaccines provide actual immunity.
Perhaps you just don't know what that means.
No, it's not different than immunity.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostPeter 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.
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.Last edited by Stoic; 11-07-2021, 09:11 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ronson View PostThis seems to be the problem with Leftists when it comes to the probability the covid pandemic is the result of a lab leak."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
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.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
- 2 likes
Comment
-
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.
- 3 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostOK 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.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIt'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.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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 05:11 PM
|
8 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:44 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
|
52 responses
278 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 08:42 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 01:48 PM
|
25 responses
113 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 07:34 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, 03-17-2024, 11:56 AM
|
66 responses
342 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 08:19 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
|
78 responses
399 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 07:05 AM |
Comment