Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on October 22, 2021, 12:10:39 PM
-
NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan — despite Fauci’s denials
https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/
In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance — the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab — for not being transparent about the work it was doing.
NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan, Says EcoHealth Violated Reporting Requirements
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nih-admits-to-funding-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-says-ecohealth-violated-reporting-requirements/
So we were funding what was effectively bio-warfare in a foreign country.
-
Fauci lied, very untrustworthy, he is not an honest man.
-
I don't know very much about gain of function, but I am assuming there must be some scientific or medical purpose behind it other than biological warfare. Is it to figure out better ways of treatment or disease prevention or what, I wonder.
-
I don't know very much about gain of function, but I am assuming there must be some scientific or medical purpose behind it other than biological warfare. Is it to figure out better ways of treatment or disease prevention or what, I wonder.
I am sure there are a number of reasons for doing that sort of research. I figure the best would be looking at what your enemies might develop and try to do the same in order to develop defenses against it. However, I have to wonder if any of that outweighs the risk of such things escaping containment. It most certainly does NOT justify funding that research in a foreign lab that apparently had poor containment.
Funding foreign R&D at all seems like a pretty foolish thing to do.
-
I am sure there are a number of reasons for doing that sort of research. I figure the best would be looking at what your enemies might develop and try to do the same in order to develop defenses against it. However, I have to wonder if any of that outweighs the risk of such things escaping containment. It most certainly does NOT justify funding that research in a foreign lab that apparently had poor containment.
Funding foreign R&D at all seems like a pretty foolish thing to do.
Unless you want to offshore particularly dangerous work, in which case COVID shows the folly of that particular approach.
-
NIH tries to cover its tracks:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2021/10/22/nothing-to-see-here-nih-conveniently-edits-aka-deletes-gain-of-function-definition-from-site-within-the-last-2-3-days-gosh-wonder-why/
-
Funding foreign R&D at all seems like a pretty foolish thing to do.
I'm sure there's a trail of greased palms in DC that couldn't care less. Plus we're dealing with a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats nowadays that feel it's unfair if the US has an advantage in anything.
-
I don't know very much about gain of function, but I am assuming there must be some scientific or medical purpose behind it other than biological warfare. Is it to figure out better ways of treatment or disease prevention or what, I wonder.
You know what they say about assuming ...
-
And Karen with never hear about that, and if he does, he won't believe it.
-
Funding foreign R&D at all seems like a pretty foolish thing to do.
Particularly when it's our adversaries that we're funding. Why the hell would we do this?
I'm sure there's a trail of greased palms in DC that couldn't care less. Plus we're dealing with a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats nowadays that feel it's unfair if the US has an advantage in anything.
Ding ding ding - and, we have a winner in the "WHY" sweepstakes.
-
I don't know very much about gain of function, but I am assuming there must be some scientific or medical purpose behind it other than biological warfare. Is it to figure out better ways of treatment or disease prevention or what, I wonder.
I've already read plenty of articles defending gain of function research as the method to better understand and respond to future pandemics. As soon as the Wuhan lab was accused of making viruses more infectious the articles were published.
To believe that there are pure motives behind this research requires a level of trust in the authorities and gullibility that leaves me nearly speechless.
-
To believe that there are pure motives behind this research requires a level of trust in the authorities and gullibility that leaves me nearly speechless.
That.
-
Some interesting tid bits in another article about this
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ecohealth-throws-fauci-under-bus-over-wuhan-gain-function-report-researcher-claims
The NIH admits that the research it funded through EcoHealth under Fauci made bat coronaviruses more contagious, but Fauci didn't lie because he didn't know until now.
But EcoHealth insists Fauci knew all along because they told him & NIH:
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-function_research
https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Gain-of-Function-Research.aspx
https://source.colostate.edu/why-gain-of-function-research-matters/
I found some links to better educate myself on what the heck is gain of function work. Also interesting to read quite the controversy in the scientific community over whether the benefits equal the risk of this research.
-
Humans weaponize everything, if possible =|
-
I don't know very much about gain of function, but I am assuming there must be some scientific or medical purpose behind it other than biological warfare. Is it to figure out better ways of treatment or disease prevention or what, I wonder.
Why would you assume that?
Incidentally, I have heard the Obama administration shut down this GOF research at UNC because it was deemed too dangerous, and Fauci and Co. then moved it to Wuhan.
-
Why would you assume that?
Because I work with several academics with research projects, and I am pretty sure if you put 'biological warfare' on the grant application, you won't get funding.
-
Who the heck is EcoHealth? Not what, who.
I don't have much of a problem with funding foreign research. Kind of nice to have a foot in the door or a mike on the lapel to monitor what's a-cookin'. If the monitoring is done by agents favorable to the fate of the United States. These seem to be hard to come by of late.
I don't like foreign interests funding our research, though, for the same mike in the lapel reasons.
I've been trying to fend off Political Paranoia for years without much success. My latest craziness is thinking that the day and hour of the last bar and restaurant closing in the US had been carefully estimated long before the actual D-Day for the Covid-19 release. Just a kind of "plot element" for a Tom Clancy-ish book, if you will.
-
Why would you assume that?
Incidentally, I have heard the Obama administration shut down this GOF research at UNC because it was deemed too dangerous, and Fauci and Co. then moved it to Wuhan.
It seems as if we read the same article as I read about this several months ago.
These new disclosures appear to show that "Freaky Fauci" is either a pathalogical liar (typical "commucrat") or an incompetent buffoon. Take your pick. [popcorn]
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-function_research
https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Gain-of-Function-Research.aspx
https://source.colostate.edu/why-gain-of-function-research-matters/
I found some links to better educate myself on what the heck is gain of function work. Also interesting to read quite the controversy in the scientific community over whether the benefits equal the risk of this research.
A quote from one of those articles.
Regardless of the true origin of SARS-CoV-2, the pandemic has demonstrated that global infrastructure is largely unprepared for such an outbreak, and many scientists argue that gain-of-function research could have predicted and allowed the world to better prepare for the outbreak.
Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. The research created the outbreak that research is supposed to predict? =) I don't think either of those article present any ideas that come close to justifying the risk of what they were doing. There are lots of things in the natural world that we are still working to understand. No need to make them more dangerous.
-
It appears NIH is scrubbing gain of function language on its website:
The National Institutes of Health altered a key portion of its website last week around the time it disclosed to Congress that experiments it funded in China met the definition of gain-of-function.
The federal agency, known as the NIH, had a detailed explanation of gain-of-function research on its site, noting that the term refers to any research that modifies a biological agent in a way that confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.
But the explanation was wiped between Oct. 19 and Oct. 21—possibly ahead of the NIH’s most recent disclosures on Oct. 20 about research it funded in China that increased the potency of a virus by modifying it.
The updated page now says, in its only referral to type of research, that research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPPs) “is a type of so called ‘gain-of-function’ (GOF) research.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/nih-removes-language-on-gain-of-function-from-website-amid-criticism-over-funding-chinese-research_4067379.html
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x
I learned a lot about gain of function from this article in Nature, published today.
-
https://thenationalpulse.com/exclusive/wuhan-report-boasted-of-human-infecting-covid/
-
Isn't it amazing how all this information is coming out and showing that the news has been manipulated for at least 2 years?
-
https://www.propublica.org/article/senate-report-covid-19-origin-wuhan-lab
https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-wuhan-institute-of-virology-faced-an-acute-safety-emergency-in-november-2019/
https://nypost.com/2022/10/29/new-report-supports-claim-covid-19-came-from-wuhan-lab/
Yet more findings on Wuhan arising from a lab leak.
-
Isn't it amazing how all this information is coming out and showing that the news has been manipulated for at least 2 years?
And equally amazing how people who even ASKED THE "WRONG" QUESTIONS were silenced, denounced, or fired.
-
https://www.propublica.org/article/senate-report-covid-19-origin-wuhan-lab
https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-wuhan-institute-of-virology-faced-an-acute-safety-emergency-in-november-2019/
https://nypost.com/2022/10/29/new-report-supports-claim-covid-19-came-from-wuhan-lab/
Yet more findings on Wuhan arising from a lab leak.
Nuts. Does this mean I need to remove my "extremist" tag? Though the only reason I was an extremist was because I questioned the story that out of the bajillion open air food markets in China, the virus spread from the one down the street from one of the few virology labs in the world playing with deadly viruses, located in a country where brand new buildings constantly collapse because of a cultural lack of safety protocols.
Of course over two years later, I suppose the famous quote, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" comes into play.
-
Fauci lied, very untrustworthy, he is not an honest man.
That is what numerous people have suspected for a long time. That this information is coming out now just shows how overdue it is.
-
Why the hell are we funding laboratories in adversary countries in the first place? If it's for the purpose of espionage - keeping an eye on ChiCom bioweapon research - it failed miserably and our spy agencies need a thorough housecleaning.
Any reason other than espionage is IMHO nothing more than a smokescreen to hide corruption. (i.e., kickbacks to US policy makers)
-
Why the hell are we funding laboratories in adversary countries in the first place?
To get data from experiments that are too hazardous, too immoral, or flat-out illegal to carry out on our own soil. That is, to maintain plausible deniability.
-
To get data from experiments that are too hazardous, too immoral, or flat-out illegal to carry out on our own soil. That is, to maintain plausible deniability.
Except it wasn't plausibly deniable at all. The records and fingerprints were there from the start with regard to the funding. The information that the US was giving money to that lab was out pretty early on. All they could do was try to confuse the issue and misdirect (or ban people from internet platforms).
-
Except it wasn't plausibly deniable at all. The records and fingerprints were there from the start with regard to the funding. The information that the US was giving money to that lab was out pretty early on. All they could do was try to confuse the issue and misdirect (or ban people from internet platforms).
Are you implying the US involvment was sloppy and lazy, and then once the "bat" got out of the bag, the evidence of involvement became available, the numbers of reported deaths skyrocketed, so the state utilized existing political divisions and a complicit press to divert the nation into arguing over fear based emotions and statistics, silencing those who refused the manufactured narrative? Because if that's not what you're implying, then I will flat out say it. :laugh:
revised syntax and added a clause to an already run-on sentence
-
I think it is more plausible that some scientists who already believed that science should have no borders chose to outsource some work they deemed worth the risk - and thought they could have done for relatively cheap but this time it came back and bit all of us. Then those selfsame people - already in positions of authority - rushed to cover up their mistakes.