4 ms·

Rand Paul: You take an animal virus and you increase its transmissibility to humans. You’re saying that’s not gain of function? Anthony Fauci: Yeah, that i

Rand Paul: You take an animal virus and you increase its transmissibility to humans. You’re saying that’s not gain of function? Anthony Fauci: Yeah, that is correct. And Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially, you do not know what you are talking about, okay? You get one person … can I answer? The guy is clearly full of it. He's been at the helm of his org for 40 years. It's time for someone new.

hellomyguys 5y ago
After reading https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/scicheck-fauci-and-paul-round-2/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/scicheck-fauci-and-paul-ro... (happy for someone to provide a better source), I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Fauci is "full of shit" based off of this one exchange.
- dogorman 5y ago
  The article you link seems to talk in circles and dwell on the question of whether covid-19 came from that lab, but I don't see where it explains what definition of 'gain-of-function' Fauci is operating under, if not, > gain-of-function — a type of research the U.S. government generally defined in 2014 as aiming to “increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.” What does Fauci claim the meaning of gain-of-function is, which excludes "take an animal virus and you increase its transmissibility to humans"?
  - bookofsand 5y ago
    This is the 'it depends on what the meaning of the word is is' defense: > A few of their [2017] experiments combined different elements of viruses to better understand what’s required to infect human cells. Specifically, the 2017 research used the backbone of WIV1, a bat SARS-like virus reported in 2013, and swapped in the spike protein of two newly identified bat coronaviruses to see if they, like WIV1, can use the human ACE2 receptor to enter human cells. [...] > Is that gain-of-function? Again, there are different definitions and opinions on that. We reached out to the NIH asking for a more detailed explanation of why the 2017 paper didn’t meet its definition, and we’ll update this story if we get a response.
- at_a_remove 5y ago
  I don't know if he is "full of shit." What I do know is that if you accept the role of expert, spokesperson, face of the crisis, whatever, your Prevarication Budget is zero. Once one thing you say is caught out as not being true, people wonder about everything else you have said.
  - loopz 5y ago
    With the world so utterly unprepared, I find it raising people on too high a pedestal. Don't let it become a weapon for those who are insincere.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Yea Rand doesn't know what he's talking about.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  So Fauci said the taking an animal virus and making it more infectious in humans, isn't gain of function. Is there any non-crazy definition of gain of function you'd accept, or is it just whatever Fauci needs it to mean at this moment?
  - benmmurphy 5y ago
    It sounds like the NIH has a definition of 'gain of function' that it uses when deciding whether to fund research or not and the research that was done didn't meet that definition. I think Fauci's testimony is misleading because when Fauci say's no gain of function research was done then his questioners think that means no one was messing with viruses in a way that could have accidentally created a more dangerous virus. But apparently that is still possible under the NIH definition. This happens very frequently when people testify in Congress. They use words in a way that is interpreted in one way by the listener and then when that interpretation is found false they claim the words were meant to mean something different. It is very difficult to work out whether they were being honest and accidentally misled their listeners or whether it was deliberate.

hellomyguys 5y ago

After reading https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/scicheck-fauci-and-paul-round-2/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/scicheck-fauci-and-paul-ro... (happy for someone to provide a better source), I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Fauci is "full of shit" based off of this one exchange.

dogorman 5y ago
The article you link seems to talk in circles and dwell on the question of whether covid-19 came from that lab, but I don't see where it explains what definition of 'gain-of-function' Fauci is operating under, if not, > gain-of-function — a type of research the U.S. government generally defined in 2014 as aiming to “increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.” What does Fauci claim the meaning of gain-of-function is, which excludes "take an animal virus and you increase its transmissibility to humans"?
- bookofsand 5y ago
  This is the 'it depends on what the meaning of the word is is' defense: > A few of their [2017] experiments combined different elements of viruses to better understand what’s required to infect human cells. Specifically, the 2017 research used the backbone of WIV1, a bat SARS-like virus reported in 2013, and swapped in the spike protein of two newly identified bat coronaviruses to see if they, like WIV1, can use the human ACE2 receptor to enter human cells. [...] > Is that gain-of-function? Again, there are different definitions and opinions on that. We reached out to the NIH asking for a more detailed explanation of why the 2017 paper didn’t meet its definition, and we’ll update this story if we get a response.
at_a_remove 5y ago
I don't know if he is "full of shit." What I do know is that if you accept the role of expert, spokesperson, face of the crisis, whatever, your Prevarication Budget is zero. Once one thing you say is caught out as not being true, people wonder about everything else you have said.
- loopz 5y ago
  With the world so utterly unprepared, I find it raising people on too high a pedestal. Don't let it become a weapon for those who are insincere.

colinmhayes 5y ago

Yea Rand doesn't know what he's talking about.

merpnderp 5y ago
So Fauci said the taking an animal virus and making it more infectious in humans, isn't gain of function. Is there any non-crazy definition of gain of function you'd accept, or is it just whatever Fauci needs it to mean at this moment?
- benmmurphy 5y ago
  It sounds like the NIH has a definition of 'gain of function' that it uses when deciding whether to fund research or not and the research that was done didn't meet that definition. I think Fauci's testimony is misleading because when Fauci say's no gain of function research was done then his questioners think that means no one was messing with viruses in a way that could have accidentally created a more dangerous virus. But apparently that is still possible under the NIH definition. This happens very frequently when people testify in Congress. They use words in a way that is interpreted in one way by the listener and then when that interpretation is found false they claim the words were meant to mean something different. It is very difficult to work out whether they were being honest and accidentally misled their listeners or whether it was deliberate.