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.
Thanks for further clarifying my point exactly.
Splitting hairs. Bottom line is that the virus was engineered by humans, not a bat virus mutation.
First, "technically correct" is not a phrase you will hear applied to Republicans, as "President Trump was technically correct when he said..."
Second, as I understand it's usage regarding "gain of function" definitions, it is spin to sidestep the fact that the "gain of function" (or whatever you want to call it) bypassed the highest lab security protocols for dangerous virus experimentation.
From what I've read, Fauci's "technically correct" definition was what was used to avoid having to go through the most rigorous laboratory procedures, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
-PJ
Did they modify the virus? That is a simple question that can be answered Yes or No.
Fauci got caught helping China modify viruses. He should be imprisoned for stupidity, even if no laws were broken.
Pure meaningless sophistry. They are taking animal viruses, and deliberately giving them the ability to spread wildly in humans.
The virus is gaining the function of being able to spread in humans. It’s illegal, and Fauci lied. Paul exposed him.
This article is like when our side hears a democrat mention an AR-15 or an AK as an assault rifle. We smugly explain that it is NOT an assault rifle because it does not go full auto. Then we strut around like we made a devastating point.
Meanwhile everyone else goes back to discussing upcoming assault rifle laws.
Paul was right, Fauci lied. Fauci facilitated the creation of this virus. The article is pointless except to hobbiests.
“I’m disappointed in Sen. Paul for not highlighting this very important distinction.”
You seem not to realize you do not describe or state what “this very important distinction” is.
Then your thread is useless. What the hell is Rand supposed to call it if there is no new term that you're aware of, even after searching?
Childish, meaningless and wonky sophistry only of interest to people deep in the field.
Fauci funded and championed illegal research. He pretended that the virus occurred naturally for a year. You say Fauci was laughing at Paul later. He was squirming on the stand.... he lied and got caught no matter what word games people play.
The article is an attempt to find a work around for the banning of gain of function activity in America. They decide to rename it.
Try again sport.
“I never wrote that Paul was wrong about Fauxi, but he’s horribly ignorant …”
There you go playing around with semantics again. He’s not wrong, but he’s horribly ignorant? What complete and utter horse shit.
Just admit what you are - don’t try to play both sides - it makes you sound trollish.
I hope you just failed to note that your article contained giant doses of sarcasm, else wise you are an @ss.
Have you bothered to read Fauci’s own emails where they call their experiments GAIN OF FUNCTION? Sheesh. Duuuuuh
Dr. Fauci’s testimony was what we would call in the Navy “a quibble”. A quibble is a small lie that hides a bigger one.
He want’s to tie you down arguing definitions so that he can avoid going to the next level of the questioning.
If you can’t dazzle
Then baffle with 1000’s of words.
The point is fraudici is a weasel.
A dangerouse, callous pompous weasel.
And you,,
are just demonstrating
you are fluent in weasel also.
.jmho.
.
And by the way, we all also know that bullets and clips are not the same as cartridges and magazines.
But knowing that doesn’t change a thing when a deranged democrat does a mass shooting and the news says he was carrying “350 bullets and had 12 30-round clips”. The problem is that Fauci is doctor Mengele, not the term.
@RandPaul was right.
Fauci was wrong.
https://twitter.com/nataliegwinters/status/1418648528251990017?s=21
Full story here:
https://twitter.com/nataliegwinters/status/1418648754383638535?s=21
https://thenationalpulse.com/exclusive/audio-fauci-funded-researcher-describes-gain-of-function-collaboration-with-wuhan-lab-reveals-nih-was-very-supportive/
Yes.
This guy is incoherent in argument or logic.
There’s no dispute that RNA viruses mutate as part of their natural selection process and “gain transmissibility” as they infect additional species. The problem with COVID-19 is that current research does not support a natural zoogenic pattern of transfer with mutations. The bat virus ancestor (RaTG13) was discovered in Northeastern China but the infections of humans leapfrogged 600 miles and originated in Wuhan. There were no interim species infected as is usually seen in natural spreading but instead the virus infected humans.
The virus “gained virulence” by a process that is outside the expected pattern of natural selection. Whatever you call it, it was intentional human activity of some sort which was then denied by the CCP which indicates malicious intent.
The people at NIAID and NIH trusted the CCP and PLA scientists because they were useful idiots and have now reaped the harvest of their stupidity. I don’t think Dr. Fauci is evil, just a dupe of CCP leaders who are laughing at the naivete of Western leaders.
Rand Paul was correctly using Fauci’s own language and definition.
We cannot have communication if everyone has different definitions.
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.