5 ms·
Did you take the cookie? No But there is one less in the jar? My friends up and down the road have looked in the jar and have assured that no cookie was take
by forcry 5y ago
Did you take the cookie?
No
But there is one less in the jar?
My friends up and down the road have looked in the jar and have assured that no cookie was taken.
But there is one less in the jar?
You have no idea what you are talking about pal.
EDIT: Here is the mental gymnastics the article plays to justify it
>That makes it hard to say whether the altered virus’ ability to invade human cells was a function “gained” or was merely uncovered by WIV scientists.
It is not hard and it is quite simple. Because since "gaining" has to happen before "uncovering", either of the alternative will imply "gain of function".
- belltaco 5y ago>Because since "gaining" has to happen before "uncovering", either of the alternative will imply "gain of function" If it happened naturally in one of the viruses collected by the lab, it wasn't because of gain of function research.
- spfzero 5y agoWhat if it happened "naturally", as a result of workers infecting thousands of mice and killing the ones that stayed healthy, then reinfecting new mice from the remainder, over and over for many generations? Or you did the same except used tissue samples instead of live mice? Yes, you merely allowed evolution to "uncover" it, but if you paid for this work you certainly helped it along.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- forcry 5y ago> it wasn't because of gain of function research. May be. But they were doing GoF (even going by your statement above), which was the question being asked.
- jaywalk 5y agoThere have been and most likely will continue to be zero consequences for his actions. So he will continue to lie and mislead, and the media will still happily carry water for him. It's sickening.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- myWindoonn 5y agoIf we continue with your analogy, then you're going to not believe it, but a squirrel came in through the kitchen window and took a cookie. It sounds unlikely, but consider: * A raccoon took a cookie a few weeks ago, and of course you remember when the cat got onto the counter and took a cookie last year (remember SARS and MERS?) * We have footage from the home-security camera showing the squirrel entering the window from the outside and running off with the cookie (genetics comfirms natural evolutionary rate, disconfirms gene edits to SARS-COV-2) * There's a family of squirrels living in the tree whose branches come up to the window (SARS is prevalent in bats and key features of its virulence and provoked immune response come from known SARS viruses in bats and pangolins) You could be right, but you need non-circumstantial evidence in order to counter our molecular genetic studies. Edit: Downvoted in under a minute! Use your words, or forever be known as an anonymous coward.
- forcry 5y agoBasically, the point and the whole point I am making is the issue being how Faucci uses appeals to authority, instead of answering or explaining how it is NOT gain of function. I am quite surprised that he gets away with it in a public hearing.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]