Posted on 01/08/2023 6:51:47 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
During an interview with CBS’ “The Takeout” podcast recorded on Thursday and released on Friday, former NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed that the term “is such a nebulous, generic term” and “we don’t even use the word gain-of-function.”
CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Major Garrett said, “There are acolytes of Elon Musk who say when you read gain-of-function, you should just translate that to bioweapon.”
Fauci responded, “That’s absolutely incorrect. For example — the reason we don’t even use the word gain-of-function. We use the word what kind of guardrails do you need to put on a proposed experiment, what are the rails that you put up of — in order to do the experiment, you have to get special permission. That was well worked out by bodies beyond the NIH, the National Academies of Science, the Office of Science and Technology Policy. And the experiments that were done were well within those guidelines. Gain-of-function is such a nebulous, generic term that, for example, the vaccine…that is made for influenza is to take a virus and give it the gain of function to grow in an egg to get the vaccine that is now protecting you against flu. So, we don’t use gain-of-function when we’re talking about that now because it’s such a broad category that it can get misinterpreted by people of gain-of-function means bad things. Well, no.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“Gain of Function” = Weaponize
No, I have a better idea. Give the lying weasel the mike FIRST. THEN call dozens and dozens of witnesses to tear apart every last word of his sworn and recorded testimony.
Do not allow Fauci a rebuttal. HANG HIM BY HIS OWN WORDS!
He will NEVER testify first because he knows he is already a proven liar. Waterboard the little bastard and if he dies SO WHAT!
I picture him getting Saddam’s final solution. Little turd with a big mouth swinging from a rope. He will see lots of dead people he made dead.
OK, Anthony. Then let’s call it “viral engineering to promote infection of human cells”. Actually, I would prefer that definition. It’s accurate and more descriptive for those who don’t have a background in molecular biology and/or virology.
“Weaponize” is what they use. Much better. And honest.
Fauxi, with more than 30 years as a deep state bureaucrat is adept at lying with half truths.
Yes, “gain of function” IS “nebulous” only i9n that the term does not by itself define what functions (making of different proteins) the application of gain of function methods produce in a given situation.
That detail is specific to the functions extracted from a source and by gain of function genetic engineering imptorted into a target set of cells.
But the methods of “gain of function” are not “nebulous” but instead defines a set of genetic engineering methods to provide a set of cells with function gaining DNA foreign to the cells and not what would have occurred in nature.
Wipe your chin, Major.
is this another global warming/climate change two step?
One of the best comedy sketches ever!
We don’t use the word. Then he tosses out this word salad. We use the word what kind of guardrails do you need to put on a proposed experiment, what are the rails that you put up of — in order to do the experiment, you have to get special permission. Talk about nebulous.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, that’s all.
In 2014 Obama called it hyperviralization… he defunded it in the US… yo dangerous.
So, since then, it has been outsourced so there is less accountability.
Make no mistake, this was a plandemic.
It’s Private Garrett now.
Ok. *Sigh*. He’s NOT lying. His deflections ARE working (I won’t hold my breath as to whether he’ll be called back to an ignorant Congress, let alone charged with anything whatsoever). FReepers SHOULD care that the semantics of the terminology serve to insulate him and ‘the machine’ from righteous scrutiny (and corresponding criminal charges).
One more time:
I’ve tried (and tried and tried and tried) to divert attention from “gain-of function” - aka “GOF”, labeling it a ‘red herring’, but GOF persists as a distraction. The interview is intended to deflect critics. It’s propaganda, pure & simple (the host should have been more than just a clue, besides the fact that Major’s sole intent in this interview was attack Musk while boosting Fauci).
Why do we keep falling for it?
It is of paramount importance for all here to grasp that, in wake of the pause of GOF research nearly 10 years ago, they subtly changed the terminology as they created entirely new criteria as a framework for research funding to insulate them and satisfy critics.
I would argue that all they accomplished was to release the hold on funding amidst a spiderweb of new bureaucratic-speak - including erecting a barrier to future oversight - and that the criticism of ongoing research is righteous, but that the term “gain-of-function” is NOW A TRAP.
Thus, he’s not wrong when he makes such statements. I’ve cited this numerous times over the past few years.
As an avid recreational online ‘fisherman’, this GOF thing has been manipulated to discredit critics who can’t/won’t/don’t take the time to perform due diligence research to navigate their use of propaganda in deflection of critics, which includes members of Congress.
Yes, this dives into the weeds. But that’s with intent on their part.
To-wit, I labeled GOF as ‘bait’ long ago; it’s tiring to continue reading comments which only invigorate this asshat (i.e., Fauci) and his supporters in the media (e.g., Major).
If Congress takes this seriously - a factor for which I have little faith - they’ll ask him about findings of NSABB, and details about DURC, P3CO & PPP.
For example, in one linked document below - which provides nearly all the referenced terms for others to remove cited ignorance - they make the following citation:
“The emergence of COVID-19 and debates on its origin
have refocused attention on GOF. A particular focus has
been the NIH funding of the EcoHealth Alliance study,
Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,
which collaborated with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology. Some have argued this project should have been
captured by the 2014 pause on GOF research and reviewed
under the HHS P3CO guidance. NIH asserts that the
research project did not meet the criteria of either policy.”
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12021
Translated: They extracted themselves out of the focus of scrutiny which froze ‘gof’ funding, created an entirely new set of framework policies under a new batch of terminology, hidden (and offshored) new research via use of ‘partners’ such as EcoHealth and, after initial reports back in 2020, have successfully wielded ‘gof’ as a cudgel against critics.
If I’m the only one who sees what they’ve done since 2014 - echoed by the ignorant questions posed to Fauci while answering direct questions to Congress - I’ve no further comment and will seek medical attention for the forthcoming forehead injury from repeated contact with my desk surface.
There are numerous documents that outline my references; I suggest that those fanning the red herring flames here get busy and do some long overdue background, because the wagons were LONG AGO circled around asshat Fauci by dolts such as Major Garrett and they use “GOF” with purpose, wielding it - ironically - as a weapon.
One such document is “Dual Use Research of Concern and the Debate about Gain-of-Function Studies” which, curiously, no longer exists online except in my sidebar google drive (I downloaded it years ago when gof funding was paused following reports on H5N1 research ‘accidents’). I’ve provided a pdf download link below (no sign-in required):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ssyH9FCySd0—9Fd_8r-UScycg-pJAuL/view?usp=sharing
This document - “Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions
about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens” - outlines the new ‘framework’ absent gof terminology:
https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/p3co.pdf
“Semantics”??? Somewhat, yes. But semantics that they are successfully wielding to play critics like a fiddle as they dance on the precipice of credibility destruction.
Let’s all arm ourselves - metaphorically in this case - and push them over the edge, pursuant to criminal charges and biting Congressional oversight of their research expenditures.
Does anyone volunteer to enlighten Rand Paul et al?
The phrase they probably use is “make it more lethal”
No. He - Fauxi - is lying and he knows the semantic switcheroos he and his ilk have peformed over the years were done to try to hide the lie.
Yes.
Evidence: This posted interview itself. Garrett brings it up specifically as I cited, to permit Fauxi to cloak himself in a weak defense.
We all know he’s lying.
But to expose the lie, we must cite the origin of the lie to destroy their continued use of it as a cudgel behind ‘gof’.
will somebody tell Fauci that gain-of-function is a phrase, not a ‘word’ ?
He has already testified repeatedly.
Take fresh testimony. Get a State to indict him.
Let him testify there.
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.