4 ms·

>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 mag

by 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!
- trhway 2y ago
  You again failed to provide definition. And you seem to get confused about goalposts. So, let me reiterate 3 hard facts here: 1. as my previous link is gone here is 2 pretty same NIH and government definitions of GoF, 2016 and 2025: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/738/text/is?format=txt https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/738... (1) Gain-of-function research.--The term ``gain-of-function research'' means any research that-- (A) involves the genetic alteration of an organism to change or enhance the organism's biological functions, which change or enhancement may include increased infectivity, transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host range (which is the spectrum of hosts that an organism can infect); or (B) may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to an organism, such that the organism would have enhanced infectivity, pathogenicity, or transmissibility, or otherwise pose a threat to national security, public safety, or the health of humans, companion animals, or livestock, poultry, seafood and aquaculture species, or game animals. https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Gain-of-Function_Research_Ethical_Analysis.pdf https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Gain-of-Fu... "Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens." Both definitions clearly cover Wuhan research - genetically implanting ACE2 binding protein on non-human coronavirus so that the resulting virus infects and kill human cells containing ACE2 receptor. Thus hard fact numero uno - Fauci lied to Congress. 2. >Your claim was that Proximal Origins authors didn't consider the lab leak. No. My claim is that NIH didn't perform any scientific study - which would naturally include peer reviewed publishing of results - of Wuhan created viruses vs. COVID. What doesn't count as such a study is the lazy email chat between several dudes who were recruited by Daszak without even letting them know of the conflict of interests that he and Fauci had on the matter. 3. Fauci as a top leader at a scientific institution had the duty to maintain scientific integrity of the institution. Giving his and Daszak conflict of interests on the matter, he catastrophically failed at maintaining that scientific integrity when he didn't not send independent investigators to Wuhan instead of Daszak. Note how synergistically the fact 3. dovetails with the fact 1. and how that provides very plausible explanation for the fact 2. And with that i rest my case :)

by trhway 2y ago

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!

trhway 2y ago
You again failed to provide definition. And you seem to get confused about goalposts. So, let me reiterate 3 hard facts here: 1. as my previous link is gone here is 2 pretty same NIH and government definitions of GoF, 2016 and 2025: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/738/text/is?format=txt https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/738... (1) Gain-of-function research.--The term ``gain-of-function research'' means any research that-- (A) involves the genetic alteration of an organism to change or enhance the organism's biological functions, which change or enhancement may include increased infectivity, transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host range (which is the spectrum of hosts that an organism can infect); or (B) may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to an organism, such that the organism would have enhanced infectivity, pathogenicity, or transmissibility, or otherwise pose a threat to national security, public safety, or the health of humans, companion animals, or livestock, poultry, seafood and aquaculture species, or game animals. https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Gain-of-Function_Research_Ethical_Analysis.pdf https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Gain-of-Fu... "Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens." Both definitions clearly cover Wuhan research - genetically implanting ACE2 binding protein on non-human coronavirus so that the resulting virus infects and kill human cells containing ACE2 receptor. Thus hard fact numero uno - Fauci lied to Congress. 2. >Your claim was that Proximal Origins authors didn't consider the lab leak. No. My claim is that NIH didn't perform any scientific study - which would naturally include peer reviewed publishing of results - of Wuhan created viruses vs. COVID. What doesn't count as such a study is the lazy email chat between several dudes who were recruited by Daszak without even letting them know of the conflict of interests that he and Fauci had on the matter. 3. Fauci as a top leader at a scientific institution had the duty to maintain scientific integrity of the institution. Giving his and Daszak conflict of interests on the matter, he catastrophically failed at maintaining that scientific integrity when he didn't not send independent investigators to Wuhan instead of Daszak. Note how synergistically the fact 3. dovetails with the fact 1. and how that provides very plausible explanation for the fact 2. And with that i rest my case :)