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

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    What's sad is that this ruse seems to fool a lot of people.
    Only those already determined to be fooled.

    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 Post
      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.
      If you ask me, calling it "enhanced potential pandemic pathogen" sounds way worse than "gain of function" - I think Rand Paul should just switch over to use the new term and corner Fauci with that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

        If you ask me, calling it "enhanced potential pandemic pathogen" sounds way worse than "gain of function" - I think Rand Paul should just switch over to use the new term and corner Fauci with that.
        The issue at hand is that gain of function research was explicitly verboten. If Paul switched to the other terminology, Fauci would smile and say, "According to our new guidelines, that's not gain of function. Therefore, the research wasn't illegal."
        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


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          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?
          The reason the funding pause was lifted was because the NIH decided that the research was not "gain of function".

          I have to admit, I'm not at all surprised that you are baffled.

          Your interpretation is that after Daszak managed to convince the NIH that the research was not "gain of function", he then turned around and sent them an email referring to it as "our gain of function research", thereby thumbing his nose at the agency that he is going to depend on to fund his research year after year.

          That's not absurd at all.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            The issue at hand is that gain of function research was explicitly verboten. If Paul switched to the other terminology, Fauci would smile and say, "According to our new guidelines, that's not gain of function. Therefore, the research wasn't illegal."
            The definition of ePPP makes it clear it is a subset of "gain of function" - it just delineates it as the more dangerous of 'gain of function' research.

            from the definition:
            "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."

            The less dangerous being doing things like modifying bacteria to produce insulin.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
              The reason the funding pause was lifted was because the NIH decided that the research was not "gain of function".

              I have to admit, I'm not at all surprised that you are baffled.

              Your interpretation is that after Daszak managed to convince the NIH that the research was not "gain of function", he then turned around and sent them an email referring to it as "our gain of function research", thereby thumbing his nose at the agency that he is going to depend on to fund his research year after year.

              That's not absurd at all.
              And yet the dude literally said, and I quote, "We are very happy to hear that our Gain of Function research funding pause has been lifted."

              Why would he happy about their "Gain of Function research funding pause" being lifted if it wasn't their intent to pursue Gain of Function research? He wasn't thumbing his nose at the NIH, he was thanking them for allowing their Gain of Function research to continue under whatever scheme the NIH had come up with to allow it (apparently by redefining terms until it was no longer disallowed). Like I said, nobody was under any illusions about exactly what they were doing.
              Last edited by Mountain Man; 11-08-2021, 10:57 AM.
              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


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                And yet the dude literally said, and I quote, "We are very happy to hear that our Gain of Function research funding pause has been lifted."
                Yes, he literally said that, but despite your claim that it was unambiguous, I've already pointed out how it is ambiguous.

                The term "Gain of Function research funding pause" could refer to a funding pause on Gain of Function research, or it could be a funding pause on research that is suspected of being Gain of Function research. My argument is that the latter interpretation makes more sense, both because that is how it is described in the article you linked, and because Daszak's email to the NIH doesn't make sense otherwise.

                Why would he happy about their "Gain of Function research funding pause" being lifted if it wasn't their intent to pursue Gain of Function research?
                Perhaps because it enabled them to continue their research that was not Gain of Function research. That would make me happy if I was them.

                He wasn't thumbing his nose at the NIH, he was thanking them for allowing their Gain of Function research to continue under whatever scheme the NIH had come up with to allow it (apparently by redefining terms until it was no longer disallowed). Like I said, nobody was under any illusions about exactly what they were doing.
                The blanket moratorium on Gain of Function research had not been lifted at that time. If this was part of a conspiracy to allow EcoHealth Alliance to continue Gain of Funding research surreptitiously, it would have made a lot more sense to not pause the funding in the first place.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                  Perhaps because it enabled them to continue their research that was not Gain of Function research.
                  And that's why he expressed thanks for restoring funding for 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


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    If you ask me, calling it "enhanced potential pandemic pathogen" sounds way worse than "gain of function" - I think Rand Paul should just switch over to use the new term and corner Fauci with that.
                    The research in Wuhan didn't qualify under either definition. The key point is that there was no anticipation that the modified viruses would be significantly more infectious in humans than the original virus.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      And that's why he expressed thanks for restoring funding for Gain of Function research.
                      You can continue to pretend that you don't understand my point, but only at the risk of people suspecting that you really are that dumb.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                        The research in Wuhan didn't qualify under either definition. The key point is that there was no anticipation that the modified viruses would be significantly more infectious in humans than the original virus.
                        They were modifying the spike protein in viruses and testing them in humanized mice. Why would they bother if they didn't anticipate and were actually TRYING to make the viruses more infectious in humans? Are you an idiot? Your excuses are getting lamer by the post.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                          You can continue to pretend that you don't understand my point, but only at the risk of people suspecting that you really are that dumb.
                          You can continue to pretend that any of us here are dumb enough to fall for your increasingly desperate spin.
                          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


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                            They were modifying the spike protein in viruses and testing them in humanized mice. Why would they bother if they didn't anticipate and were actually TRYING to make the viruses more infectious in humans? Are you an idiot? Your excuses are getting lamer by the post.
                            I'm experiencing Déjà vu.

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                              Great so you do remember we discussed this all before and you just handwaved it away and repeat yourself. Like I said, at this point it isn't worth my time having to repeat myself over again since you never listen.


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                                Great so you do remember we discussed this all before and you just handwaved it away and repeat yourself. Like I said, at this point it isn't worth my time having to repeat myself over again since you never listen.
                                Since you never seem to actually absorb the answer, it's probably best that we not discuss it again.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:51 AM
                                4 responses
                                34 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 06:57 AM
                                6 responses
                                44 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 05:22 PM
                                2 responses
                                31 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 03:37 PM
                                10 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 09-28-2022, 08:05 PM
                                30 responses
                                210 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Working...
                                X