Originally posted by Mountain Man
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
-
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
-
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.
- 1 like
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.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
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI 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?
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."
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 PostThe 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.
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."
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?
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostPerhaps because it enabled them to continue their research that was not 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 PostIf 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 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.
- 2 likes
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.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.
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...87#post1303287
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
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.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
53 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
351 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Today, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
388 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
440 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 12:45 PM |
Comment