Originally posted by Sparko
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 seanD View PostPoint is, I'll go with the expert who calls it gain of function against the expert who's culpable if it is gain of function. Common sense. Though I realize the covid cult has no common sense.
Otherwise, you would realize that there are other experts you could listen to.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
I see. So if I robbed a bank, and then wrote a letter explaining why it wasn't illegal, that would make it okay?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
You could be correct regarding the technical term "gain of function", but what this letter does show is that Wuhan was experimenting with various bat corona viruses to see if they could get them to infect humans (humanized mice) which is a huge red flag, isn't it? It means that it is highly likely that they were the source of the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic. And that NIH was helping to fund them through the Ecohealth alliance.
As the letter states, SARS-CoV-2 could not have been the result of these experiments. It is certainly possible (AFAIK) that SARS-CoV-2 could be the result of similar experiments that the NIH wasn't told about, and that the NIH was not funding. But there does not appear to be a consensus about that.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
This letter doesn't tell us anything about the experiments that were being done in the Wuhan lab that we didn't know already. The intent of the experiments was not to create new viruses that were more infectious to humans, but to determine whether the natural viruses were able to make use of the ACE2 receptors. There was no reason to believe that the new viruses would be significantly more infectious to humans than the natural viruses. This means that it wasn't gain-of-function research per the NIH definition, which means it was okay for the NIH to fund them.
As the letter states, SARS-CoV-2 could not have been the result of these experiments. It is certainly possible (AFAIK) that SARS-CoV-2 could be the result of similar experiments that the NIH wasn't told about, and that the NIH was not funding. But there does not appear to be a consensus about that.
More smoking guns...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
If I didn't rob a bank, and someone else wrote a letter explaining that I was somewhere else that day, would that make me more likely to confess to robbing the bank?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 add in the information that I posted in the lab leak thread, you will see that they WERE genetically modifying those natural viruses to make them more infectious to the humanized mice.
Expectation:
human1.jpg
Reality:
human2.jpgSome 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
Not exactly a parallel to this situation. Fauci the Fraud claimed he never authorized gain of function of research. The NIH then produces a letter explicitly describing gain of function of research while trying to imply that it was really something else. As the saying goes, that doesn't pass the smell test (although liberals are so used to the stink of their own worldview that the smell test is no longer particularly useful).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
Pardon me if I don't trust your nose for any "smell test".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 Stoic View Post
This letter doesn't tell us anything about the experiments that were being done in the Wuhan lab that we didn't know already. The intent of the experiments was not to create new viruses that were more infectious to humans, but to determine whether the natural viruses were able to make use of the ACE2 receptors. There was no reason to believe that the new viruses would be significantly more infectious to humans than the natural viruses. This means that it wasn't gain-of-function research per the NIH definition, which means it was okay for the NIH to fund them.
As the letter states, SARS-CoV-2 could not have been the result of these experiments. It is certainly possible (AFAIK) that SARS-CoV-2 could be the result of similar experiments that the NIH wasn't told about, and that the NIH was not funding. But there does not appear to be a consensus about that.
Comment
-
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.
What IS puzzling to me is that Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist who has argued that GoF research was taking place, somehow thinks that this letter supports his view. If someone scientifically literate can tell me what I'm missing, I'd appreciate it. Or does Ebright have some potent bias that I'm unaware of?...because every forum needs a Jimbo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
If you add in the information that I posted in the lab leak thread, you will see that they WERE genetically modifying those natural viruses to make them more infectious to the humanized mice.
More smoking guns...
Secondly, saying that some Chinese folk had the idea of doing GoF work does not mean that Fauci or NIH approved of this.
...because every forum needs a Jimbo
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimboJSR View PostReally? I don't think the letter describes any such thing. The research described doesn't match what I would understand by the term "gain of function"; it never even uses the term "gain of function"; and goes out of its way to point out that the viruses used were genetically significantly distant from SARS-CoV 2 (this is relevant because the concern over "gain of function" research is the possibility that the mutations generated in such research could be how SARS-CoV 2 originated). In contrast to Gondwanaland above, taking a virus and obeserving its behaviour in a different host is NOT gain of function research. To meet that criteria, you'd need to adapt the pathogen in some way (e.g. adding in genes from another organism, or re-arranging the spike RNA to bind better to ACE, or some such thing).
What IS puzzling to me is that Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist who has argued that GoF research was taking place, somehow thinks that this letter supports his view. If someone scientifically literate can tell me what I'm missing, I'd appreciate it. Or does Ebright have some potent bias that I'm unaware of?confessionletter:
"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.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 JimboJSR View PostI think this shows the opposite of what you think. Firstly, the grant was rejected. Any sniff of being close to GoF work, and funding was denied.
Secondly, saying that some Chinese folk had the idea of doing GoF work does not mean that Fauci or NIH approved of this.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostIf they were simply doing tests with plain ole mice that would be a fair point against it being GOF. But they were doing tests on humanized mice. Thus, they WERE by definition trying to make something more infectious or with more function in infecting human cells
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
136 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
361 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment