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

  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    There is no new information here that could cause Fauci to step down.
    I suppose you're right in a way. It's not as though Fauci is going to say, "Wait a minute, so I did lie about funding illegal research!" as if he didn't already know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post

    I don't think any criminal charges will happen, but this may be what is used to get him to step down. He's publicly damaged goods, especially on social media, so they need a new face to sell this BS.
    There is no new information here that could cause Fauci to step down.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Some people (Ebright, Rand Paul, et al) consider research to be "gain of function" if there is any chance that a change in the virus could make it significantly more infectious in humans, or if it turns out after the fact that the virus is significantly more infectious in humans.

    Others (Fauci, Collins, et al) consider it to be "gain of function" research only if it can be reasonably anticipated that the virus will be significantly more infectious in humans.
    Fauci is obviously a biased source. Ebright isn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    I think they're building him up as a fall guy if things go south
    I don't think any criminal charges will happen, but this may be what is used to get him to step down. He's publicly damaged goods, especially on social media, so they need a new face to sell this BS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    So, infecting mice with a bat virus is not "gain of function" because the specific term wasn't used? Or is it because humans were not mentioned as being involved in the experiement?
    They altered the virus with the express purpose of making it more infectious to humans using mice with human DNA as their test subjects which is gain of function research by definition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    So, infecting mice with a bat virus is not "gain of function" because the specific term wasn't used? Or is it because humans were not mentioned as being involved in the experiement?
    Some people (Ebright, Rand Paul, et al) consider research to be "gain of function" if there is any chance that a change in the virus could make it significantly more infectious in humans, or if it turns out after the fact that the virus is significantly more infectious in humans.

    Others (Fauci, Collins, et al) consider it to be "gain of function" research only if it can be reasonably anticipated that the virus will be significantly more infectious in humans.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
    Rather than trusting Breitbart, a source long since acknowledged as suspect by even the partisans here, or simply dismissing them without consideration, one could bend over backwards to be fair, read the letter, and see what it actually says.

    2021-10-21_11-25-17.jpg
    Once again, it appears Breitbart is peddling reckless untruths.
    "These are not the droids you're looking for"

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    The man is bulletproof.
    I think they're building him up as a fall guy if things go south

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    So, infecting mice with a bat virus is not "gain of function" because the specific term wasn't used? Or is it because humans were not mentioned as being involved in the experiement?
    As I understand it, gain of function as fauci is using it refers to research designed to give additional functionality to a virus. And that differs from research to understand what changes to a virus we might need to be concerned about. Fauci's detractors are calling any research that might cause a change to a virus 'gain of function' research.

    But I'm not an expert and I defer to anyone working in the field that can shed light on why this particular bit of discussion keeps getting twisted about.

    but it appears to me to be the uneducated not understanding the technical nuances of how and when to apply the term.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimboJSR
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    So, infecting mice with a bat virus is not "gain of function" because the specific term wasn't used? Or is it because humans were not mentioned as being involved in the experiement?
    I would have thought that "gain of function" research involved analysing or generating mutations which allow a virus to gain (or enhance) a function. I cannot see how simply showing a bat virus to a mouse could possibly be seen as "gain of function" research.

    Ebright has the CV that should mean he knows what he's talking about, so perhaps I'm missing something. Then again, Breitbart ain't exactly the best place to get educated on the intricacies of molecular biology...

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    So, infecting mice with a bat virus is not "gain of function" because the specific term wasn't used? Or is it because humans were not mentioned as being involved in the experiement?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on Wednesday demanded Dr. Anthony Fauci be “investigated and prosecuted” for funding gain-of-function research in Communist China’s Wuhan lab.

    “Fauci knew,” Cotton tweeted about Fauci’s previous denial to the Senate in May that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. “He should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Cotton said.

    When Fauci was asked before the Senate if the NIH had funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, Fauci replied that the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

    But a letter from the NIH, revealed by molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright, admits the NIH did fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab in China.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rch-wuhan-lab/
    I agee that Fauci should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, given that "to the fullest extent of the law" in this case means "not at all".

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    How many more fish are you going to bag with this Nostradamus-like prediction?
    It's not a prediction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on Wednesday demanded Dr. Anthony Fauci be “investigated and prosecuted” for funding gain-of-function research in Communist China’s Wuhan lab.

    “Fauci knew,” Cotton tweeted about Fauci’s previous denial to the Senate in May that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. “He should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Cotton said.

    When Fauci was asked before the Senate if the NIH had funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, Fauci replied that the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

    But a letter from the NIH, revealed by molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright, admits the NIH did fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab in China.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rch-wuhan-lab/

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    Ah, but you see, it didn't specifically use the phrase "gain of function", therefore it proves nothing.
    How many more fish are you going to bag with this Nostradamus-like prediction?

    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    It's curious that Ebright, who has a PhD from Harvard, can't figure out that the letter is explaining why the research was not considered "gain of function" research.

    Perhaps it was because the letter didn't use the phrase "gain of function".
    Who's left? Starlight, perhaps?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Bill the Cat, Today, 12:30 PM
15 responses
95 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Started by Sparko, Today, 10:43 AM
14 responses
93 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by firstfloor, Today, 03:17 AM
24 responses
130 views
2 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:17 PM
190 responses
895 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Started by rogue06, 08-07-2022, 12:45 PM
22 responses
154 views
1 like
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Working...
X