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.
Your essay is ...
Not when you’re combatting propaganda intended to obfuscate key facts pursuant to a criminal inquiry. Paul dropped the ball. Watch for a change in language next go around.
You can’t read. Speaks volumes, it seems.
This research fits the definition of the research that the NIH said was subject to the pause in 2014 to 2017
The words from that pause policy
New USG funding will not be released for gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. The research funding pause would not apply to characterization or testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.
The virus causing Covid-19 is the SARS virus SARS-CoV-2.
Seems like an open and shut case of Senator Paul being 100% correct and Fauci lying like a rug.
Well, you can’t connect dots. Speaks even more volumes its evident.
Wouldn’t GoFoC be subset of GoF? Therefore research developing GoFoC is developing GoF. If Sen. Paul was talking about research that does not develop the functions of concern and referred to it as GoFoC you would have a point but talking about the more general gain of function is not inaccurate even if imprecise.
Fair enough. I don’t know all the language of virology. It will be interesting
Rarely have I ever seen anyone so condescending, insulting and obnoxious all while FAILING completely to make a convincing argument.
Let’s try to salvage the wreckage of this thread and your credibility. Perhaps by taking a different approach. Instead of cutting and pasting long paragraphs of inconclusive bureaucratic communications, try presenting your “facts” in one or two sentences. I’ll help get you started.
“Rand Paul claims GOF is ...”. “He is wrong because ...”.
As I expected. You debate like a leftist. Attack someone with lies and insults (Rand Paul), then when challenged to defend your baseless claims you respond with nothing but insults.
You didn’t ask for a debate, i.e. an exchange of ideas.
Ironically, YOU got triggered and responded like a leftist.
Paul’s no litigator; he had the opportunity to go for the jugular and blew it. He was unprepared. Don’t like it? Talk to his staff. I’m just pointing out the obvious for the normally intelligent (that’s another slur, btw; BATTER UP).
My response was well deserved. Stock up on q-tips, buttercup: That brown stuff ain’t wax.
Still waiting for you to explain why what Rand Paul said was wrong. Obviously you CANNOT answer the question and so you respond with nothing but blither, insults and the seeming inability to understand that commonly used words such as “debate” and “argument” have multiple meanings. I will waste no more time on you.
Already did dumbass. Take your trophy and go home.
Yep, this is the new line from The Left. They can’t deny Fauci’s role in the Covid-Wuhan leak, so they are now downplaying the danger of G-O-F research.
Yes you did. Barking up the wrong tree.
You should take off your blinders before picking a target and engage that tissue between the ears.
It’s amazing how many here were triggered by my sidebar critique of Paul; that should bear some self analysis (not on my part).
Having retained his position as a bureaucrat for 30 years, I do not believe he is incompetent. I believe that he is shrewd and conniving.
But if you read some of these comments here one would think I’m a sycophant.
Those who proclaim to be the smartest in the room, like yourself, usually do so because no one recognizes them as such, and usually think just the opposite of what he proclaims himself to be.
You are what the Russian's would call a useful idiot.
So much words
LORD, Can I please have the two minutes of my life back that I wasted reading this and replying? WHAT
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.