I know, but thanks for a nice summary. I agree entirely. Almost everyone who went after rapid production of a vaccine used nucleic acid-based approaches (e.g. adenovirus vectors encoding a transgene for the spike protein, the mRNA approaches encoding the spike protein, etc.). It was about what was easiest, not what would be projected to be most effective. But as you point out, ADE was/is a significant problem
Actually, having a virion structure that induces antibodies that promote ADE is probably a selected for property of these viruses. It would be highly advantageous for the virus.
Considering all of this, it was absolute stupidity mixed with hubris to promote gain of function research as Fauci did.
“Considering all of this, it was absolute stupidity mixed with hubris to promote gain of function research as Fauci did.”
If the Obama regime banned gain of function research as has been reported it’s one of the few things that they did right.
But Fauci apparently circumvented that ban by knowingly funding it in Wuhan. I’d sure like to see this pinned down so that we can know for sure.
It looks to me like there has been collaboration on research between Chapel Hill and China over the years. Transferring American GoF over to Wuhan probably wouldn’t have been difficult at all. It would have become even more dangerous because of Wuhan’s known lax safety record.
“I know, but thanks for a nice summary. “
I suppose I do that because the repetition helps me keep it straight and fix it in my memory. I appreciate the feedback- my education such as it is comes from reading PubMed papers and paying attention to what genomics companies have been trying to do for years. I can tell when I run across those of you who actually know what you’re talking about. A rare commodity around here.