5 ms·

> Fauci runs funding for gain of function research Fauci has denied multiple times that they funded gain of function research. Please cite your sources.

potiuper 5y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by NIH grants R01AI089728; (to F.L.) and R01AI110700 (to R.S.B. and F.L.). "To evaluate the potential genetic changes required for HKU4 to infect human cells, we reengineered HKU4 spike, aiming to build its capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells." Fauci has been director of NIAID since 1984, which is excessive.
- middleclick 5y ago
  Fauci has categorically denied on record that they don't fund gain of function research. I am not qualified enough to comment if the re-engineering mentioned here is the same. I trust Fauci to not lie in a public hearing and to know what he is saying.
  - late2part 5y ago
    Like when he said we shouldn’t use masks? https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN26T2TR https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...
    - randcraw 5y ago
      Being wrong is not at issue, especially when the source reverses their position as better info arises. What's at issue is malevolent intent — knowingly spreading falsehoods. I'm aware of no credible basis for believing the latter about Fauci.
alien_ 5y ago
There's this other article https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop... which among other things explains that gain of function is technically defined as modifying existing human viruses to make them more dangerous. The SARS2 quite likely isn't based on an existing human virus but on a bat coronavirus. The NIH has been apparently funding modifying bat coronaviruses in Wuhan with minimal guardrails as to be able to infect humanized lab mice but that's not gain of function as per that definition.
- late2part 5y ago
  Well, despite your technical definition, it would seem it gained function.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    It gained function without involving any of what are formally considered gain-of-function operations. So, Fauci could fund it, and also truthfully testify under oath that he didn't fund anything that, by the definition, would count as GoF work. That a virus did gain function, by operations not covered by the definition, is a separate problem: The definition should be widened enough to cover what really happened.
late2part 5y ago
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fauci-paul-niaid-research-funding https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fauci-paul-niaid-researc...

potiuper 5y ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by NIH grants R01AI089728; (to F.L.) and R01AI110700 (to R.S.B. and F.L.). "To evaluate the potential genetic changes required for HKU4 to infect human cells, we reengineered HKU4 spike, aiming to build its capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells." Fauci has been director of NIAID since 1984, which is excessive.

middleclick 5y ago
Fauci has categorically denied on record that they don't fund gain of function research. I am not qualified enough to comment if the re-engineering mentioned here is the same. I trust Fauci to not lie in a public hearing and to know what he is saying.
- late2part 5y ago
  Like when he said we shouldn’t use masks? https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN26T2TR https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...
  - randcraw 5y ago
    Being wrong is not at issue, especially when the source reverses their position as better info arises. What's at issue is malevolent intent — knowingly spreading falsehoods. I'm aware of no credible basis for believing the latter about Fauci.

alien_ 5y ago

There's this other article https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop... which among other things explains that gain of function is technically defined as modifying existing human viruses to make them more dangerous. The SARS2 quite likely isn't based on an existing human virus but on a bat coronavirus. The NIH has been apparently funding modifying bat coronaviruses in Wuhan with minimal guardrails as to be able to infect humanized lab mice but that's not gain of function as per that definition.

late2part 5y ago
Well, despite your technical definition, it would seem it gained function.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  It gained function without involving any of what are formally considered gain-of-function operations. So, Fauci could fund it, and also truthfully testify under oath that he didn't fund anything that, by the definition, would count as GoF work. That a virus did gain function, by operations not covered by the definition, is a separate problem: The definition should be widened enough to cover what really happened.

late2part 5y ago

https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fauci-paul-niaid-research-funding https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fauci-paul-niaid-researc...