3 ms·

From the article, it sounds like the response is "it wasn't gain-of-function research, it was just research that involved gains of function." It sounds like th

From the article, it sounds like the response is "it wasn't gain-of-function research, it was just research that involved gains of function." It sounds like the fact the money was going to the lab isn't in question, but the exact nature of the research is still a little handwavy.

refenestrator 5y ago
The point is the headline. "Risky Coronavirus China". The entire lab leak theory gets smuggled in as a background assumption.
Leparamour 5y ago
To me it sounds like damage control lawyer speak: "Only admit what you can't deny any longer". None of this is new information, only that you were called a 'conspiracy theorist' for bringing these up until now and at the risk of being ostracized, just like with the 'lab-origin' theory. Doesn't exactly inspire trust in BBC reporting when journalists could have asked these exact same questions 6 months or more ago, unless the reporting was suppressed on purpose. You have to wonder what else will be admitted as true and if they will throw Dr. Fauci under the bus eventually.
- alimw 5y ago
  On such a technical question journalists can only report on what they hear from scientific sources, and when those sources are new to them they'll have to decide on the fly how much trust to put in them.
rualca 5y ago
> From the article, it sounds like the response is "it wasn't gain-of-function research, it was just research that involved gains of function." Not really. The article states quite clearly that the research paid by the NIH was not deemed to be gain-of- function. From the article: > One of the US scientists who collaborated on the 2015 research on bat viruses with the Wuhan institute, Dr Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina, gave a detailed statement to the Washington Post. > He said the work they did was reviewed by both the NIH and the university's own biosafety committee "for potential of gain-of-function research and were deemed not to be gain-of-function". At most the article considers the theoretical possibility of non-gain-of-function research to accidentally involve viruses that mutate, which is the case for all researches that involve a living entity that reproduces. From the article: > This could imply that research on viruses may not intend to produce "gain-of-function", although that could be the end result of it. The main sticking point of this controversy is that patently false accusations and innuendo is being abused and repeated ad nauseum to try to attack public servants whose success in stopping a pandemic became politically inconvenient. Therefore, trying to blame said public servant for the pandemic is the only card they can play.

refenestrator 5y ago

The point is the headline. "Risky Coronavirus China". The entire lab leak theory gets smuggled in as a background assumption.

Leparamour 5y ago

To me it sounds like damage control lawyer speak: "Only admit what you can't deny any longer". None of this is new information, only that you were called a 'conspiracy theorist' for bringing these up until now and at the risk of being ostracized, just like with the 'lab-origin' theory. Doesn't exactly inspire trust in BBC reporting when journalists could have asked these exact same questions 6 months or more ago, unless the reporting was suppressed on purpose. You have to wonder what else will be admitted as true and if they will throw Dr. Fauci under the bus eventually.

alimw 5y ago
On such a technical question journalists can only report on what they hear from scientific sources, and when those sources are new to them they'll have to decide on the fly how much trust to put in them.

rualca 5y ago

> From the article, it sounds like the response is "it wasn't gain-of-function research, it was just research that involved gains of function." Not really. The article states quite clearly that the research paid by the NIH was not deemed to be gain-of- function. From the article: > One of the US scientists who collaborated on the 2015 research on bat viruses with the Wuhan institute, Dr Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina, gave a detailed statement to the Washington Post. > He said the work they did was reviewed by both the NIH and the university's own biosafety committee "for potential of gain-of-function research and were deemed not to be gain-of-function". At most the article considers the theoretical possibility of non-gain-of-function research to accidentally involve viruses that mutate, which is the case for all researches that involve a living entity that reproduces. From the article: > This could imply that research on viruses may not intend to produce "gain-of-function", although that could be the end result of it. The main sticking point of this controversy is that patently false accusations and innuendo is being abused and repeated ad nauseum to try to attack public servants whose success in stopping a pandemic became politically inconvenient. Therefore, trying to blame said public servant for the pandemic is the only card they can play.