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

  • Stoic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 05:32 PM
0 responses
5 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 05:16 PM
2 responses
11 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by seer, Today, 02:36 PM
7 responses
32 views
1 like
Last Post tabibito  
Started by seer, Today, 09:23 AM
23 responses
98 views
1 like
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Started by seer, Today, 08:44 AM
10 responses
46 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Working...
X