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.
“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”
Interesting.
But, no. He’s deep state through and through.
He has run a yearly multi-billion dollar budgeted institute for 35 years straight.
He is more powerful than any House member or Senator.
You arrogant toady. You defend Fauxi and his evil. You will be called to account for this one day. Just like he will.
“The article is pointless except to hobbiests.”
His vanity post is just pointless. To anyone.
He doesn’t actually ever make one.
I think they’re saying nature produces the mutations. The scientists observe them.
What’s next, are you going to tell us our names spelled in capital letters is somehow legally different than if spelled using lower case??
Get an education.
https://capforcanada.com/could-the-covid-virus-have-originated-at-a-lab-in-winnipeg-canada-2/
Where are the two chinese scientists?
What is the motivation for doing this, you need to ask yourself. To make money from "vaccines". But why would they expand money for something that may or may not ever occur? Because they were indeed working to make it occur, that's why.
If you think this is some kind of stupid conspiracy theory, you are just lying to yourself. Because they have made billions off of the GOF in the form of these vaccines
Every Democrat to a person, including Biden & Harris, stated that they would not take a vaccine that was rushed to the marketplace. But strangely they are all pushing it now very hard I might add, even with all the issues with all of the "vaccines" ,available. They all became available rather quickly too didn't they. How amazing, NOT. All by design.
The fact that you fail to connect all the dots does not surprise me in the least though. Even with the the fact that you just watched the theft of an election, you still believe in the science. Well, it's bad science that even I can spot, as are many others who are spotting it as well.
This is all about the Great Reset, which was moved up due to Trump winning the presidency. First they had to steal the election, so that they could speed up the Great Reset. The muddying of the water was to put into place the mechanism for which to claim that NIH/NIAID was not funding GOF research, so that when the virus was released (which at that time was supposed to happen in like 2030) would have already been well established. You have to realize that this change in definition came shortly after Obama said we can't be doing GOF research. That took Obama off the hook, and this change in definition took the u.S. off the hook for when the virus was released. It was moved to the Wuhan Lab, in order to make China the patsy when the release was eventually to be executed.
Bill Gates and the U.N. have been talking about the overcrowding of the earth for quite awhile now. So the virus could help in that function, What the true function of the vaccines is not quite clear, but one thing you can be sure of it isn't to cure the people and return to normal.
They are destroying small businesses because they want to limit business to the major big box outlets. Remember we will not have anything, and we will be happy that we don't, which is straight out of Agenda 2030.
Worse of all, you have the stinking audacity to stand up for Faudci and denigrate Rand Paul and Freepers. Shame on you for not seeing the errors of your way. Wake up my FRiend.
Potato Potahto, Tomato Tomahto
Arguing about one group or another group’s definition of a phrase is an utterly meaningless diversion. Fauci said they made viruses that were unable to infect humans into viruses that were able to infect humans.
The only relevant question is, “ How do the people of the United States feel about Fauci spending our tax dollars to do that? “
Even if you could succeed in getting Fauci off by changing the meaning of words, which I don’t buy for one second, your darling boy admitted to doing something the people of this country will soundly condemn. His reputation is burnt toast.
Find yourself another Darling Boy Who Can Do No Wrong.
A lot deeper: https://noqreport.com/2021/06/26/chinese-scientist-who-shipped-deadly-pathogens-to-wuhan-held-2-patents/
“…For the convenience of the plethora of FReepers who fail to click through and actually read anything:…”
***********************************************************************
Thank you for doing that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ROhP_3-Qk
Very simply...THEN FAUCI SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED IT
Instead he resorted to his little rant and obstructed Senator Rand Paul who isn’t only a doctor, but also a diligent legislator who actually understands swamp language.
Fauci didn’t answer and his body language demonstrate he had no reasonable answer. AND IN FACT that everyone is missing is the original statement was that he didn’t fund the Wuhan Lab research, in performing his little rant he ended up defending it and thus admitting it.
A really good attorney would have ripped him to shreds.
“The people at NIAID and NIH trusted the CCP and PLA scientists”
And THAT is the problem in a nutshell. Our “elites” have a blind spot for communist China, the largest mass murderer in human history. Image what you said with a few changes.
“The people at NIAID and NIH trusted the NKVD, KGB, and the Red Army.”
Boycott China and Chinese products everywhere you see a way to do so.
“I never wrote that Paul was wrong about Fauxi, but he’s horribly ignorant about GOF and Fauxi called him out on it.”
Bullcrap. Paul used the historic and well understood definition. Fauci tried to defend himself using HIS newly created term which was designed to skirt the law. Paul insisted on staying in reality and didn’t buy into Fauci’s fraud and word games.
You’re playing semantic word games just like “Dr.” FauXi did in the hearing.
No. The virologists and bureaucrats are playing word games.
Little minds can’t seem to grasp the obfuscation or the rationale thereof.
The definition changes after SARS.
FAIL.
It pertains to motive. But again, little minds can’t seem to grasp what’s going on in viral research. I would argue that they’re Hindi g a weapons program in plain sight. The facts will bear out as more pressure comes to bear, but only if those prosecuting it aren’t so ignorant as to misuse very specific terminology.
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.