- Nov 5, 2007
See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
No. The grant wasn't for gain of function research.So it's only GoF if it's directly related to C19? Piss of Fauci
On this paper published in 2015 by directing researcher Zhengli-Li Shi aka the 'bat woman' at WIV it states the following regarding who funds and who approves the research.
A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence - Nature MedicineRalph Baric, Vineet Menachery and colleagues characterize a SARS-like coronavirus circulating in Chinese horseshoe bats to determine its potential to infect primary human airway epithelial cells, cause disease in mice and respond to available therapeutics.www.nature.com
Does not matter what any specific grant was meant for.No. The grant wasn't for gain of function research.
lol, of course it does. What an absurd statement. This silly conspiracy theory depends entirely on it being true.Does not matter what any specific grant was meant for.
No one bothered to, conveniently so, check what the grant was actually used for. The stated goals of A are unimportant if the actor left in charge uses the funds for B...... whatever B does, A is responsible. At best this is a case of reckless negligence.
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH - COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
To support and stimulate basic, applied and advanced research at educational or research institutions, non-profit organizations, and commercial firms, which support the advancement of fundamental knowledge and understanding of the sciences with an emphasis on exploring new and innovative research for combating or countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Which one is the conspiracy theory? That the virus comes from a bat and pangolin sharing a cage together in a market because China says so.. or that it came from a lab which is known to do research on bat-borne coronaviruses? Not to mention the pentagon funded bio-weapon defence research to the same organisation the NIH funded for pandemic research relating to bat-borne coronaviruses, and that organisation partners with a research lab in Wuhan who is a leading expert on bat-borne coronaviruses. If Bio-weapon defence research was taking place, then it would be logical to assume gain-of-function research was part of the process in determining at what level would a natural bat-borne virus become more infectious to humans and what counter measures could be developed in defence.Paul's inference (and yours and etienne's) isn't difficult to determine.
Because China says so... or because zoonotic diseases are a thing?Which one is the conspiracy theory? That the virus comes from a bat and pangolin sharing a cage together in a market because China says so.. or that it came from a lab which is known to do research on bat-borne coronaviruses?
Neat little dot connection you make to imply something that currently has no supporting evidence.Not to mention the pentagon funded bio-weapon defence research to the same organisation the NIH funded for pandemic research relating to bat-borne coronaviruses, and that organisation partners with a research lab in Wuhan who is a leading expert on bat-borne coronaviruses.
Would it be? Why? And where did this supposed research take place?If Bio-weapon defence research was taking place, then it would be logical to assume gain-of-function research was part of the process in determining at what level would a natural bat-borne virus become more infectious to humans and what counter measures could be developed in defence.
The zoonotic origin is less likely due to a number of factors, this article outlines why the zoonotic origin is less plausible and looks at other genetic clues that indicate the virus was a gain-of-function manipulation.Because China says so... or because zoonotic diseases are a thing?
Genomic analyses show that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimera, with most of its sequence identical to that of the bat CoV RaTG13, except for the receptor binding domain (RBD), which is almost identical to that of a pangolin CoV and has been optimized to bind the ACE2 receptor in human cells. Such gain-of-function chimeras can in principle arise via natural recombination, but that would be unlikely in this case. The natural recombination would require that the viruses from bat and pangolin infected the same cell in the same organism simultaneously, a rather improbable event considering the low population density of pangolins, the dearth of CoV-infected specimens in their natural populations, and the fact that CoV RATG13 does not have significant affinity for the pangolin ACE2 and therefore is unlikely to penetrate the infected pangolin cell.
Department of defence funded bio-weapon defence research relating to bat-borne coronaviruses to Eco-Health Alliance. The evidence is right here, follow the the money.Neat little dot connection you make to imply something that currently has no supporting evidence.
Eh, unconvincing. It rests almost entirely on Wade's article, which has numerous problems.
Your first link has a point:
Lacking China’s data, we are missing valuable information needed to refute or prove the lab escape thesis. We don’t know what we don’t know.
What Wade failed to mention is that the US harangued China during the Trump administration, and the Chinese probably and understandably felt no inclination to openly share data with the US or the rest of the world.
We clearly need China to be a good global citizen and to be open and honest about what they have found,
to share their data as well as processes and procedures within their research institutes that may have in any way contributed to the pandemic (or not).
In order for China to act like a good global citizen, we need to treat them as such, the way we would want to be treated.
Jim Jordan? lol. Notable Big Lie proponent and guy who pretends not to have noticed the massive sexual assault spree at Ohio State University when he was coaching there.I think if I was Fauci I'd be desperate to deny any connection with this. The thing is, I don't think any of this was intentional or deliberate, but it was extremely reckless to do this kind of research. It hinges upon what you consider gain of function. Now, I consider making a virus that previously could not infect humans, able to infect humans as gain of function, and apparently so do many others. But Fauci does not, and if I was him, I'd do the same.
He knows that he, and the research he funded, is behind the deaths of 4 million people. I don't think he is evil or a murderer, I just think he was reckless and irresponsible, and is guilty of manslaughter.
Watch the video because it shows what Fauci said in actual emails about this. You'll see how suspicious this was.