4 ms·

You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci outright and knowingly lied to the Congress about funding the gain-of-function research in WIV. That research in par

• sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF. I can understand why this irks people, but I can also understand why someone as habitually precise as a virologist would use the statutory definition of a given term of art in sworn Congressional testimony. If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function. > you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally haven't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. No they didn't. You can read the Slack messages and emails. There are literally hundreds of pages of the Proximal Origins authors debating the lab leak hypothesis... obviously. Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves? Here are a few excerpts from their private communication: > I am of the view that the natural selection hypothesis is the most likely (specifically the non-bat reservoir). > I disagree with Ron that the passaging hypothesis is evidentially equal to the engineering hypothesis. > Now, the presence of the furin site in pangos would nail it, but the absence (as it appears to be) wouldn't really tell us much. These are the words of people who believe one thing (which may or may not end up being true) and both interrogating it and advocating for it... i.e. "doing science." And again: science doesn't work by every scientist advocating for every theory. That is not remotely realistic from either a practical or a psychological perspective. It works by scientists vigorously advocating for the theories they find most plausible, and other scientists saying that they're stupid and pointing out why they're wrong, which again anyone was free to do!
  • trhway 2y ago
    >Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF. that is just not true. Otherwise feel free to provide that magical definition. In the meantime this is definition by the government: https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pdf https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pd... "Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease," By the way that 2014 document above is exactly the document which was the base for the gain of function research to be moved from US to in particular Wuhan. And Fauci was instrumental in that move. So, Fauci lied. Blatantly. >If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function. Again, he lies here. Just look at the government definition of GoF above - according to it, using e. coli to produce insulin isn't gain of function. >Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves? Are you kidding? Or are you really don't know about Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence?
    • sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      Your link doesn't work (oops forgot to actually read your sources?). Here's the right document: https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Documents/P3CO.pdf https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Documents/P3CO.pdf The research at WIV was assessed as not being GoF under this framework by multiple levels of reviewers when it was approved. Nobody really disputes this, they just argue that it should have been assessed as GoF (an argument that's circularly evidenced by the claim one of those viruses is responsible for the pandemic). You seem to be willfully misunderstanding the E. coli point. Obviously it doesn't satisfy the P3CO definition, but nor did the research approved at WIV. > Are you kidding? Or are you really don't know about Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence? Hey now, don't get tired from moving those goal posts! Your claim was that Proximal Origins authors didn't consider the lab leak. You are unambiguously wrong. Please share your evidence of "Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence." Not familiar with it!
      • 2y ago