> 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

> 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.