Posted on 07/25/2021 9:10:13 AM PDT by logi_cal869
I've posited something similar to the following in multiple threads as comments, yet the popular term 'gain of function' persists (a tell), particularly here at FR. The absolute worst example of the ignorance is that proffered by Senator Rand Paul himself in open session.
I suggest reading the following at a minimum:
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 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.
If anyone sources their new terminology beyond what is asserted in this 2013 paper as being newer than GOFOC, please share it in forum.
You’re full of it...
a rose...
Rand Paul is not ignorant, even if you keep saying it but since you do I figure you must be ignorant!
The meaningful part is simply did they modify the code so it would jump species and now infect humans. The rest is irrelevant.
You’re kidding me, right? Have you been drinking idiot juice?
You know nothing. You couldn’t be more wrong. You don’t even deserve to have the info shown to you. Stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Because attacking the credibility of someone who is on our side and one of the few members of the Senate who is an actual doctor is always such a good idea...
“Gain of function of concern” vs “Gain of function” would seem to most to be completely trivial nitpicking. It is along the lines of someone referring to the “Tour de France” as “The Tour” when referring to the recently concluded bicycle race. It has no importance depending on the context of the conversation.
Arguing semantics. Josef Fauci knew exactly what Paul was talking about.
Whether or not gain of function was taking place, I would argue that taxpayer $ should not have been used to fund Wuhan research. From what I understand, the French helped to build that lab and were then kicked out.
“whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time”
so . . . whenever scientists are working with RNA viruses, GOF mutations are naturally arising all the time?
Yeah I thought that’s how it read.
so . . . Scientists working with RNA viruses produce GoF mutations.
Kind of easy for most folks to see, unless you are too “nuanced” to think freely anymore.
Fauci can GOFOC himself. “Gain of Function” is a euphemism for the biological weaponizing of various viruses. The Chinee Communist Party and Chinese Military (sorry to be redundant) spearheaded this study which led to a leak at a poorly run lab that Fauci helped fund. Occam’s Razor leads us to some very easy dots that have yet to be openly connected.
Gain of Function is only three words. If something (anything) is modified to function in a whole new way, it has gained a function.
I don’t need Bill Clinton to say, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Words have meaning. Modifying an animal virus to infect humans is a gain of function.
“If we only knew the right phrase, then shazam!”
Fauci is doing the lawyer dance. It isn’t working. Rand is winning.
You and your man-crush Fauci remind me of Rapist-in-Chief Bill Clinton when he said “…it depends on what the definition of “is” is.”
You know perfectly well that Senator Paul is right and that Fauci is as corrupt as they come - an extremely well-paid liar.
Nobody cares about your Clintonian quibble over semantics.
so . . . Scientists working with RNA viruses produce GoF mutations.
We’re talking about purposely directing the GoF variants to attack humans, making a weapon. This does not happen all the time.
It is stupid comparing a naturally occurring mutation during simple research to making a biological weapon. What was happening in the lab funded by NIH was weapons research and Fauci was buried neck deep.
This was written by Fauci in 2015, after having been told to stop GOF funding in 2014.
So, ask yourself was this written with the intent to continue GOF funding using slight of hand by muddying the waters so to speak, to enable continuation of funding for GOF research?
Seems likely, as it absolves him from technically, as per definition of GOF research that was now defined, of engaging in GOF funding.
Just too darn convenient, don't you think? To further remove himself, he funded a 3rd party that he knew was funding the Wuhan Lab with the NIH/NIAID funds awarded to Peter Daszak president of EcoHealth Alliance, which had already resulted in another pandemic in 2014.
Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives
The following pertains to the link directly above:
Board on Life Sciences; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Board on Health Sciences Policy; National Research Council; Institute of Medicine. Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 Apr 13.
“You and your man-crush Fauci”...”Nobody cares about your Clintonian quibble over semantics.”
Except Fauxi and his handlers. I never wrote that Paul was wrong about Fauxi, but he’s horribly ignorant about GOF and Fauxi called him out on it.
Many FReepers are as well. That’s a shame, but it happens here with EVERY controversial topic.
They’re in full attack mode to defend the status quo and you deny the obvious, now stated clearly for the first time (in spite of the prognostications of other ignoramuses).
Maybe you should read my WHOLE post and see the very last line.
How do you type with your head so far up your backside?
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.