Dr. Anthony Fauci Appreciation Thread

[BabaYaga 15116]

14 hours ago, Anastasis said:

He approves the relevant funding. He knew what was in play when we starting funding the off shoring more and more of this stuff.  But as I have stated earlier, Fauci isn't the issue.  Any bureaucrat in the position would have done similar.  And shit, if you really want get past the superficial, look at how much of the EcoHealth funding was DOD (which is exempt from restrictions on HHS). Fauci is a distraction imo.  

An interest article from MIT Technology Review.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/

 

Fauci's GOF research was shut down by Obama in 2014.  We all know this.  Do you really think "any bureaucrat" would have moved such sensitive research to such a woefully inadequate lab under the nose of a new administration as they did in 2017 and not tell the then current administration of their actions?  Then tried to cover any theories that implicated the lab and the work being done their as they did with Daszak?

Do you not think much more robust global responses would have been mobilized had we learned we were more than likely dealing with a GOF virus.  Early estimates predicted had China locked down and the rest of the world mobilized, 95% of the cases could have been prevented.  I see a clear conflict of interest taking direction from such a man propped up as the end all, be all of this pandemic.

[aggie08 20211]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's telling that you earlier in the thread begrudgingly admitted the virus "more than likely" came from a lab.  Again, it's not that you don't know.  It's that you don't care.  Funny how last year such an admission was heresy and conspiracy of the highest order.  

 

You need to stop with this. Questioning whether it escaped from the nearby lab was never a conspiracy. The conspiracy was suggesting that it was "engineered" (purpose built as a weapon in this context).

[aggie08 20211]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 

 

Double

Edited July 20, 2021 by aggie08

[Chuckie Finster 22252]

33 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus tap dancing Christ - do you not think early on, as the emails clearly indicated, that dozens of scientist who emphatically claimed that the virus was clearly modified should have been entertained?  Entertained and pressed on multiple fronts NIAH, Fauci, the Wuhan lab, and lastly China on this very credible theory early on in the pandemic could have mobilized much more robust national responses?  

Instead, this entire line of thought was covered up and dismissed as conspiracy theory as it directly implicated the GOF research Fauci and others directly funded

He orchestrated the move to Wuhan.  He funded in part the research.  He sent his cronies in to cover up any leak talk and you want to say with a straight face he knew nothing of what was being done in the lab?

 

32 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Congratulations on quite possibly the most stupid analogy in the history of Surly.  

 

27 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Yep.  Even in the US, there was a leak at Ft Detrich.  These leaks happen ALL THE TIME.  Was it you that cleared up that 4 out of the last 5 pandemics were from leaks?

To circumvent earlier white house research shut downs and instead fund research (2017) in a country that had never before worked with a RSL4 level biolab, ignore cables of woefully inadequate safety controls as the 2018 cables verified, and then dismiss all feedback from peers on the nature of the virus being engendered from GOF research......is criminal.   

 

23 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's telling that you earlier in the thread begrudgingly admitted the virus "more than likely" came from a lab.  Again, it's not that you don't know.  It's that you don't care.  Funny how last year such an admission was heresy and conspiracy of the highest order.  

 

 

None of this is in dispute, just take my word for it.

[wildcat09 28387]

14 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

You see they did show their work. Just know that every post from this user is going to be exactly the same. I stand by my assertion that BabaYaga either posts on abovetopsecret.com or reads it on a daily basis. The conspiracy angle that emanates from their posts are exactly what you will find on that site. 

Hell, he could just follow Bret Weinstein or watch Fox News. The shit from sites like abovetopsecret gets laundered into mainstream conservatism so fast these days it's head spinning.

[BabaYaga 15116]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Forget Fauci and NIH. Bigger picture, we should not be sending tax payer dollars abroad to conduct high risk research in facilities where we do not have full and effective oversight. This is just basic common sense. 

MY WHOLE POINT.  Nor should we have the person that engendered the research and funded it being the one to give direction on the responses.  

[BabaYaga 15116]

16 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

You need to stop with this. Questioning whether it escaped from the nearby lab was never a conspiracy. The conspiracy was suggesting that it was "engineered" (purpose built as a weapon in this context).

This is revisionist bullshit.  The "lab leak theory" was so scoffed and laughed at and was enough to earn you a ban on most social media sites.  

[BabaYaga 15116]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't accept anything those sites try to tell me as truth.  Find me a reputable source like MIT Technology Review, and I might start to pay attention.

 

Reputable?  Like, maybe the head of the CDC that early on made the claim and was castigated for it.  You mean guys like him?  Or the dozens of other scientists that reached out to Fauci back in January of 2020 about the virus origins being far from zoonic?  

[jimmyjazz 45055]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Do you not think much more robust global responses would have been mobilized had we learned we were more than likely dealing with a GOF virus. 

Do you actually think Trump, Boris and the rest would have done anything different?  Trump knew it was an airborne virus in February and continued to screw up US response well into the fall.

[BabaYaga 15116]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Do you actually think Trump, Boris and the rest would have done anything different?  Trump knew it was an airborne virus in February and continued to screw up US response well into the fall.

I do.  Enormous unified, global pressure from other nations tends to have that effect.  As they could also apply significant global pressure on China to come forth with the lab research, data, and samples (which we still don't have).  Pressure to understand what exactly was being done.  To understand what steps were taken with the virus, and most importantly, how it behaves and acts.

Early on, think back to Italy and NY - those fateful steps of stacking people on top of each other led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.  Nobody knew the "MO" of the bug and what to do or not to do?  Sheltering people inside to combat a virus that primarily spreads inside.  Etc.  

Or PPE?  China was quietly buying up more than half of the world's supply of PPE early on.  They further nationalized foreign PPE factories and held them hostage if they dared to back the lab leak theory.  Think of what that PPE could have done?

[TwiceHorn 30715]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Do you actually think Trump, Boris and the rest would have done anything different?  Trump knew it was an airborne virus in February and continued to screw up US response well into the fall.

In trying to magnify this dispute, he's conflating what laboratory scientists might do, with what public health people/scientists might do, with what politicians might do with the information.

I don't think the origin of the virus has much effect on public health people.  It might create a convenient wag the dog for some craven politicians.  And it probably has zero effect on laboratory scientists. 

If a laboratory scientist is interested in the origin of the virus, for whatever reason, and isn't too busy with other things, the lab scientist is going to investigate, regardless of what Fauci says, or Rand Paul, or Trump, or CNN or whoever.

Public health people/scientists aren't really in a position to use that information in response to the pandemic unless some lab scientists come up with something useful from it.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I do.  Enormous unified, global pressure from other nations tends to have that effect.

Good lord.  Exactly how often in his Presidency did you see Donald Trump bow to external pressure?  Half the time he went the opposite way, being the petulant narcissist that he is.

[Chuckie Finster 22252]

 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good lord.  Exactly how often in his Presidency did you see Donald Trump bow to external pressure?  Half the time he went the opposite way, being the petulant narcissist that he is.

Well, it is certainly going to take worldwide pressure on China for them to come clean about any of this, let alone anything that causes them to lose face.

Given that "the world" couldn't seem to unify or get its collective shit together on responding to the virus, I seriously doubt any of this would have galvanized them into pressuring China to come clean in the spring of 2020. And, as much as Trump would have liked to have the sideshow of blaming China, the world sure as fuck wasn't going to unite behind him or us in doing so.

It is, ultimately, an important issue.  As Ana says, shouldn't be limited to Fauci at all.  But it is something that has to come in due time and wasn't and shouldn't have been a priority at the outset.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33693]

 

[jimmyjazz 45055]

I probably wouldn't understand the paper Fauci is referring to, nor the expert evaluation that it did not constitute Gain of Function research, but I'd like a crack at it anyway.  I wish either he or some of the others who reviewed it would explain in simple English (if possible) why it is NOT GoF work. 

[Captainant 26861]

21 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

don't let @BabaYaga see this

[Anastasis 23191]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I probably wouldn't understand the paper Fauci is referring to, nor the expert evaluation that it did not constitute Gain of Function research, but I'd like a crack at it anyway.  I wish either he or some of the others who reviewed it would explain in simple English (if possible) why it is NOT GoF work. 

 

Here is the paper I believe that is being referred to: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

I believe this is the section in particular that Paul is referring to. 

Rescue of bat SARSr-CoVs and virus infectivity experiments

In the current study, we successfully cultured an additional novel SARSr-CoV Rs4874 from a single fecal sample using an optimized protocol and Vero E6 cells [17]. Its S protein shared 99.9% aa sequence identity with that of previously isolated WIV16 and it was identical to WIV16 in RBD. Using the reverse genetics technique we previously developed for WIV1 [23], we constructed a group of infectious bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones with the backbone of WIV1 and variants of S genes from 8 different bat SARSr-CoVs. Only the infectious clones for Rs4231 and Rs7327 led to cytopathic effects in Vero E6 cells after transfection (S7 Fig). The other six strains with deletions in the RBD region, Rf4075, Rs4081, Rs4085, Rs4235, As6526 and Rp3 (S1 Fig) failed to be rescued, as no cytopathic effects was observed and viral replication cannot be detected by immunofluorescence assay in Vero E6 cells (S7 Fig). In contrast, when Vero E6 cells were respectively infected with the two successfully rescued chimeric SARSr-CoVs, WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S, and the newly isolated Rs4874, efficient virus replication was detected in all infections (Fig 7). To assess whether the three novel SARSr-CoVs can use human ACE2 as a cellular entry receptor, we conducted virus infectivity studies using HeLa cells with or without the expression of human ACE2. All viruses replicated efficiently in the human ACE2-expressing cells. The results were further confirmed by quantification of viral RNA using real-time RT-PCR (Fig 8).

[jimmyjazz 45055]

Like I said, it was likely to be over my head, and it is.  The question is:  why does Rand Paul consider that GoF research, and why is he wrong?  (I'm believing Fauci in this case, if for no other reason than he seems more credible.)

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Like I said, it was likely to be over my head, and it is.  The question is:  why does Rand Paul consider that GoF research, and why is he wrong?  (I'm believing Fauci in this case, if for no other reason than he seems more credible isn't the shitheel Rand Paul is.)

Fixed it.

[BabaYaga 15116]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good lord.  Exactly how often in his Presidency did you see Donald Trump bow to external pressure?  Half the time he went the opposite way, being the petulant narcissist that he is.

You hate Trump.  Got it.  Anything else you want to contribute?

[Captainant 26861]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

You hate Trump.  Got it.  Anything else you want to contribute?

don't you have some murderous cop to be fellating or vaccines or facemasks to be discouraging? Go harm society somewhere else, bootlicker.

[mdmost 42167]

I'm glad Fauci finally called out Rand for the lying, utter piece of shit he is. 

[BabaYaga 15116]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Like I said, it was likely to be over my head, and it is.  The question is:  why does Rand Paul consider that GoF research, and why is he wrong?  (I'm believing Fauci in this case, if for no other reason than he seems more credible.)

He considers it GOF research because we have the paper and trials showing they ran thousands upon thousands of iterations of the virus and how it binds to the ACE2 receptors in human lung tissue in mice.  Thousands of "generations" of the virus were engendered.  This is why the Director of the CDC immediately made the statement that the attributes of the virus were were not aligned with the zoonic theory posited by Daszak and others.

Fauci is trying to tap dance on the pinhead and use the Clinton defense of what "it" really means.  These trials were designed to make the virus more transmissible so they can make predictive and prescriptive steps for future outbreaks.  How is this NOT gain of function?

Edited July 20, 2021 by BabaYaga

[jimmyjazz 45055]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

He considers it GOF research because we have the paper and trials showing they ran thousands upon thousands of iterations of the virus and how it binds to the ACE2 receptors in human lung tissue in mice.  Thousands of "generations" of the virus were engendered.  This is why the Director of the CDC immediately made the statement that the attributes of the virus were were not aligned with the zoonic theory posited by Daszak and others.

Fauci is trying to tap dance on the pinhead and use the Clinton defense of what "it" really means.  

And you know this how?  Which of those two men is more capable of judging research for what it is?  Which works daily with other scientists capable of the same, and who did just that?

Unless you're saying Fauci is lying, we have two radically different takes on that research.  The fact that you believe Rand Paul over Fauci is telling, given their scientific and medical backgrounds.

[F250 28379]

55 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

This reminded me of that scene from Porky's where the principal got in an argument with that preacher.

 

[BabaYaga 15116]

While we're at it, maybe Fauci can opine on why, in 2017 

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

And you know this how?  Which of those two men is more capable of judging research for what it is?  Which works daily with other scientists capable of the same, and who did just that?

Unless you're saying Fauci is lying, we have two radically different takes on that research.  The fact that you believe Rand Paul over Fauci is telling, given their scientific and medical backgrounds.

Jesus christ, Anastasia posted the paper.  It's been widely reported on.  Further, I'd like to know why the NIAH, under Fauci's NIH umbrella, bypassed in 2017 Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (the P3CO Review Framework) board that was put in place specifically within the DHHS to evaluate whether grants involving dangerous pathogens are worth the risks. 

Back to the paper - thousands of iterations of mice with human lung tissue with the intent to make the virus more transmissible.  How again is this not GOF?

[Horn Dog 9458]

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/18/fact-checking-senator-paul-dr-fauci-flap-over-wuhan-lab-funding/

Edited July 20, 2021 by Horn Dog

[jimmyjazz 45055]

9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

How again is this not GOF?

Well, a much smarter and more credentialed man than you, me, or Rand Paul claims it isn't.  This is why I want him to expound on his statement, because true believers like you seem to think you know better than him.

Is it possible for you to imagine that you might actually be wrong?

[jimmyjazz 45055]

Two interesting quotes from Horn Dog's first link:

Quote

“But we need to separate this fight about whether a particular project is GOF vs whether it has risk of lab accident + causing an outbreak.”

Quote

“This was not intentional gain of function,” Perlman said, adding that in this type of research “these viruses are almost always attenuated,” meaning weakened. The gain of function would be what comes out of the research “unintentionally,” but the initial goal of the project is what you would want to look at: can these viruses infect people, how likely would they be to mutate in order to do that, and “let’s get a catalog of these viruses out there.”

The question as to whether the research was GoF speaks to the possibility that Fauci stepped outside of approved funding protocols.  The question as to whether the research, GoF or not, could have led to a lab leak and subsequent non-zoonic spread, speaks to better understanding of the virus and its behavior.  Both are important, but I am far more concerned with scientific knowledge than individual malfeasance. 

If Fauci is lying, or ill-informed, so be it, but I have no reason to believe either.  Certainly there are some experts who disagree with his take, and plenty who agree with it.  Rand Paul is no expert and needs to stop bloviating and scapegoating.  (Oh, to dream.)

[Anastasis 23191]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, a much smarter and more credentialed man than you, me, or Rand Paul claims it isn't.  This is why I want him to expound on his statement, because true believers like you seem to think you know better than him.

Other experts seem to arrive at a different conclusion. Seems to me that they can emphasize different aspects of the work from different angles and arrive at different (and mostly reasonable) conclusions. I think that we should weight more heavily the views of knowledgeable individuals that do not have potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, involved in the determination.  But all of this is really tangential.  Bottom line again to me is that to the extent that taxpayer funding is being used to fund this type of work in foreign countries, we need to have robust oversight. If the NIH is going to fund work at WIV, they need to assign the grant directly, and be directly accountable for the oversight.  Running this stuff with degrees of separation as sub-grants is shady imo.   

FWIW, here is how that WAPO fact checker piece treats the paper that was linked. One think that I don't recall seeing previously, but is included in the WAPO piece, is the fact that publication of that paper triggered the state department to go check it out, which is what triggered the wires back to DC about the concerns re: safety protocols. 

 

In any case, is there evidence that NIH funded such gain-of-function research at WIV? To some extent, that depends on the definition of gain of function, which, as we noted, is open to dispute.

For instance, in 2017, WIV published a study that said researchers had found a coronavirus from a bat that could be transmitted directly to humans. WIV researchers used reverse genetics to deliberately create novel recombinants of wild bat coronavirus backbones and spike genes, then tested the ability of these chimeric (man-made) viruses to replicate in — not just infect — a variety of cell lines. The article reported the discovery of novel coronavirus backbone and spike combinations that do not exist in nature and are capable of replicating efficiently in human cells with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the protein that provides the entry point for the coronavirus to hook into and infect human tissue.

The article, under its list of funders, included: the National Institutes of Health.

The NIH grant that funded the project said it would study “the risk of future coronavirus (CoV) emergence from wildlife using in-depth field investigations across the human-wildlife interface in China.” The grant description included this line: “Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice.”

To some experts, that certainly sounds like gain-of-function research, though we should note that, based on what has been disclosed publicly by WIV, none of the virus samples used to conduct these experiments were or could have been transformed to be the new coronavirus that causes the disease covid-19.

“The research was — unequivocally — gain-of-function research,” Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University, a longtime critic of such research, told The Fact Checker. “The research met the definition for gain-of-function research of concern under the 2014 Pause.”

(Our colleague Josh Rogin reported that this 2017 research article prompted U.S. diplomats and scientists to visit the WIV facility. Afterward, they sent a cable to Washington expressing concern about the safety standards there, intended as “a warning about a potential public-health crisis.”)

But Robert Kessler, a spokesman for the nongovernmental organization EcoHealth Alliance that NIH funded, said claims about funding gain-of-function research are based on a misunderstanding of the grant’s role in the research. He said EcoHealth provided WIV $133,000 a year, except for $66,000 in 2020 (when the grant was terminated by the Trump administration), for a total of about $600,000.

“The NIH has not funded gain-of-function work,” Kessler said in email exchanges. “EcoHealth Alliance was funded by the NIH to conduct study of coronavirus diversity in China. From that award, we subcontracted work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to help with sampling and lab capacity.” He said the citation in the paper was mainly the result of researchers’ desire to cite any possible research that contributed to the findings, with much of the funding coming from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. (Another funder listed was USAID’s Predict program, which helped collect animal viruses and also funded EcoHealth.)

“As described in the paper, all but two of the viruses cultured in the lab failed to even replicate,” he said. “None of them had been manipulated in order to increase their ability to spread, all the researchers did was insert S [spike] proteins in order to gauge their ability to infect human cells.”

Kessler added that “much of that work [described in the grant] wasn’t done because the grant was suspended. But GoF was never the goal here.” As he put it, “gain of function research is the specific process of altering human viruses in order to increase their ability (the titular gain of function) either to spread amongst populations, to infect people, or to cause more severe illness.”

Edited July 20, 2021 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23191]

Oh, and those Kessler quotes smell like a pile of horseshit.  "All the researchers did was insert S [spike] proteins in order to gauge their ability to infect human cells."  WTF. He then rolls out a definition of GOF that restricts the concept to human viruses.  Some real hand waving there. 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 45055]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Other experts seem to arrive at a different conclusion. Seems to me that they can emphasize different aspects of the work from different angles and arrive at different conclusions.

Agreed, and I alluded to this in my response just before yours.

[BabaYaga 15116]

31 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, a much smarter and more credentialed man than you, me, or Rand Paul claims it isn't.  This is why I want him to expound on his statement, because true believers like you seem to think you know better than him.

Is it possible for you to imagine that you might actually be wrong?

Others?  Like the 200 other scientists that also affirmed that the trials to make the virus significantly more transmissible - whether is name or function, qualifies as GOF.  Or maybe, I don't know, the head of the CDC that said the same thing.  

[BabaYaga 15116]

18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Oh, and those Kessler quotes smell like a pile of horseshit.  "All the researchers did was insert S [spike] proteins in order to gauge their ability to infect human cells."  WTF. He then rolls out a definition of GOF that restricts the concept to human viruses.  Some real hand waving there. 

Again, they're tap dancing on a pin head to try and obfuscate the textbook definition of GOF.  This is ass-covering 101.  

[tigol 2374]

Like I said, it was likely to be over my head, and it is.  The question is:  why does Rand Paul consider that GoF research, and why is he wrong?  (I'm believing Fauci in this case, if for no other reason than he seems more credible.)

They are introducing mutations in the lab and analyzing their impact on the virus using various established molecular techniques.

This is completely normal in a research lab. In fact, it is happening right now in every molecular research lab in the world. Right now!

I have never heard of “gain of function” prior to it being used as the new bogeyman of the week.

[BabaYaga 15116]

1 minute ago, tigol said:

They are introducing mutations in the lab and analyzing their impact on the virus using various established molecular techniques.

This is completely normal in a research lab. In fact, it is happening right now in every molecular research lab in the world. Right now!

I have never heard of “gain of function” prior to it being used as the new bogeyman of the week.

Obama did.  Which is why he shut this research down in 2014, citing the dangers and possible outbreaks.  Shut it down in the US.  Of course if the research were to be carried out in other countries......

[workswithseed 2012]

On 7/17/2021 at 8:04 PM, JimmyJames said:

Y’all’s stupid ass obsession with fauci just shows your total stupidity and convinces nobody, I mean nobody,  but your fellow morons.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28574]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

This reminded me of that scene from Porky's where the principal got in an argument with that preacher.

I only remember one scene from Porky’s and that ain’t it. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20299]

43 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Obama did.  Which is why he shut this research down in 2014, citing the dangers and possible outbreaks.  Shut it down in the US.  Of course if the research were to be carried out in other countries......

He didn't shut it down in 2014, he paused it while risks the risks that you mentioned but also the benefits of GOF research were assessed.  That was in October, 2014.  At that time, the Obama administration said that it was issuing a moratorium on the funding of NEW "gain of function" projects.   

That moratorium lasted three years and was lifted in December, 2017.   https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/12/feds-lift-gain-function-research-pause-offer-guidance

Why do you insist on mischaracterizing what Obama did and why omit that the pause on GOF was lifted during the Trump administration?  








 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Flg8rfan 201]

 

Jeez. I’m sure he deserves a measure of respect but that’s insane. He’s a director, probably hasn’t done anything wrt actual medical research in over a decade.

I’m in IT, once you transition to an admin position, it doesn’t take long to forget how things actually work, especially since it changes so rapidly. My bosses know the lingo but have to come to me to fix things…….

[lmao 178]

4 hours ago, aggie08 said:

You need to stop with this. Questioning whether it escaped from the nearby lab was never a conspiracy. The conspiracy was suggesting that it was "engineered" (purpose built as a weapon in this context).

What? Suggesting it came from an accidental lab leak could put you in the Q/MAGA camp, banned from social media platforms, or even labeled racist (which is odd because saying it came from eating bats seems far much more culturally insensitive but whatever). For real though your recollection of this is wrong. Ostracizing people & scientists for suggesting it may have originated from a lab was wrong & flat out creepy. 

[lmao 178]

2 minutes ago, Flg8rfan said:

Jeez. I’m sure he deserves a measure of respect but that’s insane. He’s a director, probably hasn’t done anything wrt actual medical research in over a decade.

I’m in IT, once you transition to an admin position, it doesn’t take long to forget how things actually work, especially since it changes so rapidly. My bosses know the lingo but have to come to me to fix things…….

There are people on all parts of the political spectrum that have replaced religion with their political ideology.  

[BabaYaga 15116]

4 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

He didn't shut it down in 2014, he paused it while risks the risks that you mentioned but also the benefits of GOF research were assessed.  That was in October, 2014.  At that time, the Obama administration said that it was issuing a moratorium on the funding of NEW "gain of function" projects.   

That moratorium lasted three years and was lifted in December, 2017.   https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/12/feds-lift-gain-function-research-pause-offer-guidance

Why do you insist on mischaracterizing what Obama did and why omit that the pause on GOF was lifted during the Trump administration?  








 

Paused, froze, shut it down temporarily - either way it was suspended due to the dangers of the types of research being done.  

A rather pertinent expert of what you posted, don't you think?  Especially in light that the research done in Wuhan apparently bypassed completely such safeguards (P3CO Review Framework)

This is not an attack on GOF research.  We understand well their "intent" that such research was to be both predictive and prescriptive for future outbreaks.  The issue is the apparent ass covering and obfuscation once it seemed the leak happened in a shoddy, under-prepared lab where they were funding such research in the first place.  

I contend had the lab, the researchers, and the funding mechanism of the Eco Health alliance and the NIH been initially forthcoming that this is an EXTREMELY transmissible virus far advanced of what we see in nature, the global response would have been much more robust and the international pressure on China to be forthcoming with samples, data, and research much more effective.  You can directly correlate those tens early deaths in NY to not understanding how this virus operates.  Had we known, it seems obvious other steps would have been taken and lives saved.  

Quote

A potentially serious weakness of the new framework is that surveillance activities involving potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs), including sampling and sequencing, aren't considered to be enhanced PPPs and would be exempt from reviews, Inglesby said, adding that surveillance as a rationale doesn't change potential risks of novel PPP strains. "There are serious debates about whether specific enhanced PPP projects are materially useful to on-the-ground surveillance programs," he said.

 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

27 minutes ago, Flg8rfan said:

Jeez. I’m sure he deserves a measure of respect but that’s insane. He’s a director, probably hasn’t done anything wrt actual medical research in over a decade.

I’m in IT, once you transition to an admin position, it doesn’t take long to forget how things actually work, especially since it changes so rapidly. My bosses know the lingo but have to come to me to fix things…….

I suspect some of that "Fauci worship" is from/driven by Italian-Americans.  As referenced in the Sopranos, some of them can get pretty wild-eyed about how people of Italian descent perform and/or are portrayed in the media.  See also Columbus Day.

[DigglerontheHoof 20449]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suspect some of that "Fauci worship" is from/driven by Italian-Americans.  As referenced in the Sopranos, some of them can get pretty wild-eyed about how people of Italian descent perform and/or are portrayed in the media.  See also Columbus Day.

[WhatTheBuck 28574]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suspect some of that "Fauci worship" is from/driven by Italian-Americans.  As referenced in the Sopranos, some of them can get pretty wild-eyed about how people of Italian descent perform and/or are portrayed in the media.  See also Columbus Day.

That’s-a racist. 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That’s-a racist. 

Well, and another good bit of it is probably hipster irony.

Which is something, I guess.  Cultural appropriation?

Marone!

[workswithseed 2012]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suspect some of that "Fauci worship" is from/driven by Italian-Americans.  As referenced in the Sopranos, some of them can get pretty wild-eyed about how people of Italian descent perform and/or are portrayed in the media.  See also Columbus Day.

This one seems popular.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5695]

Lol etsy