Posted on 07/25/2021 8:08:22 AM PDT by Triple
Dear Dr. Fauci,
Based on your recent congressional testimony it is apparent that the NIH has a new official definition of “gain of function” research.
Please provide the public with the new definition, and the timing an process used to create this new definition.
Further, please apply the new and old definition to the research performed at Johnson & Johnson to develop their adenovirus vector approach to achieve COVID-19 immunity.
It is widely reported that JnJ modified an adenovirus that previously only infected monkeys, adding the coronavirus gene for the spike protein and deleting/removing several originally present adenovirus genes.
Isn’t this very adenovirus vector approach developed through an inherently gain of function process?
Please explain.
Best regards,
An ordinary American citizen
(Excerpt) Read more at Www.freerepublic.com ...
Rand, or another GOP senator, should have asked him to define Gain of Function research in the last outing. But, knowing Fauci, he would have made up his own, self-serving definition on the spot.
“Isn’t this very adenovirus vector approach developed through an inherently gain of function process?”
There is a difference between genetic engineering and gain of function. All gain of function is genetic engineering, but unless it gives a virus new abilities it is not gain of function.
Adding an extra protein to trigger an immune response, as in the J&J vaccine, does not enhance the virus in anyway.
“It is widely reported that JnJ modified an adenovirus that previously only infected monkeys,..”
That is gain of function into the human pool.
Technically, Fauxi doesn't lie when he says 'gain of function', parroting the terminology used by even ignorant Sen Paul. The correct term is GOFOC, i.e., 'gain of function of concern', aka 'gain of function research of concern', but the paper below highlights the fact that researchers are moving away from a particular term...a move I call "a convenient coincidence" in terms of obfuscation for this research.
To-wit:
"During Session 3 of the symposium, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type."Read the section entitled "GOF RESEARCH AS DEFINED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT" at the link below (re a 2013 workshop) and use the terminology within to do a deeper dive.
Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of a Workshop.
For the convenience of the plethora of FReepers who fail to click through and actually read anything:
"GOF RESEARCH AS DEFINED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
Many participants pointed out during the course of the meeting that the broad term “gain-of-function” needs some refinement that will differentiate the type of experiments typically performed for basic virological research from experiments that clearly raise concerns. When asked to define where virological research crosses the line into GoF research as defined by the U.S. government (White House, 2014a), Subbarao responded that “the term gain-of-function is used by geneticists and is a vague and unsatisfactory term for microbiologists.” This statement was echoed by Imperiale and many others during the discussion. Subbarao presented a list of experiments that encompass all influenza viruses, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV that can be reasonably anticipated to increase pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammalian species (see Box 3-2). Reflecting on this list, Dr. David Relman, Stanford University, and the panelists of Session 2 expressed the view that GoF experiments generating viruses with increased virulence, transmissibility, and pathogenicity would clearly define the line that would prompt the use of alternatives.Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can't make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited. Fineberg, the session moderator, after listening to this set of talks, asked whether proposed GoF experiments should be individually reviewed to make a better judgment. Subbarao proposed to first redefine the line because she is concerned that the pause in the current research “has swept far too many aspects of virologic research into the definition.” Dr. Mark Denison, Vanderbilt University, suggested that a case-based approach should be considered for coronaviruses, for which a better understanding of the biology is needed. Along the same lines, Imperiale added that we should “take each individual case and call it what it is rather than try to come up with some acronym or two- or three-word term that can easily be misinterpreted.” Baric reminded the audience during his talks that because there are currently no small animal models to study MERS-CoV, restrictions on this coronavirus should be lifted immediately.
Throughout the symposium, particularly in the final discussion session, there were calls for a clearer definition of precisely what types of experiments are really of concern. Dr. Tom Inglesby of the UPMC Center for Health Security noted that he thought that the origin of the term “gain-of-function” goes back to a 2012 meeting that he convened for the NIH on this topic. The term was used to replace more descriptive terms that indicated concerns about research that generates strains of respiratory viruses that are highly transmissible and highly pathogenic. According to Inglesby, this was the provenance of the term, and he suggested that it could be retired with something more descriptive. Dr. Gerald Epstein of the Department of Homeland Security also called for clarifying which experiments are of most concern. GoF is clearly not the right descriptor, and he stated that it would be a tremendous service to have terminology that accurately describes those things about which we are most concerned. The same point was made by others at various times during the workshop (see in particular the summary of Relman's talk in Chapter 5).
To-date, I've been unable to source a new term. Note: FReepers should take notice of the citation of DHS in the passage above.
I'm disappointed in Sen. Paul for not highlighting this very important distinction. And Fauxi is probably laughing about it (e.g. "You don't know what you're talking about." Fauxi is absolutely correct).
I was literally yelling at the radio when they played segments of Paul & Fauxi; perhaps someone reading this can send a dutiful message to someone else with a direct line to Dr. Paul so he actually sounds informed "about what he's talking about" next time and put that pr!ck Fauxi in his place.
He read Fauci’s definition
I’ll get right on it.
The definition Fauci gave in the past, and didn’t he all but deny that was the definition? I could be wrong about that part, but that was the impression I got from the clips I watched. If so, Rand should have asked for an updated definition.
Here is where I thought we'd find the distinction between what is and what is not GoF research. No luck. I've carefully read through what's presented in this post three times and there are no answers as to how Sen Paul is in error claiming that the NIH was funding GoF research that could be related to the pandemic. This passage backs up Paul's claim:
Dr. Tom Inglesby of the UPMC Center for Health Security noted that he thought that the origin of the term “gain-of-function” goes back to a 2012 meeting that he convened for the NIH on this topic. The term was used to replace more descriptive terms that indicated concerns about research that generates strains of respiratory viruses that are highly transmissible and highly pathogenic.
Which is exactly what the ChiComs have developed in their labs. Words have meaning. They do in business, engineering, and any other discipline. Paul was exactly right. Fauci perjured himself.
I wish I’d read your stuff.
That is how I saw it...
Anything added that causes the virus to do something ore than it naturally would do enhances it.
Rand Paul is the ONLY politician attepting to hold Fauci accountable, and you are trashing him because he didnt use the obscure terminology that 99.99% f the population sees as Greek. So, what are you accomplishing?
To give an analogy if a virus is a criminal:
Gain of function: See what happens if we give them a flamethrower
Genetically modified vaccine: Force them into an orange jumpsuit they can’t get out of.
One is gain of function, the other is a way of controlling them.
Well, if that’s the case, you & I are in the minority here, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.