https://www.virology.ws/2021/09/09/gain-of-function-explained/
The production of recombinant coronaviruses to assess pandemic potential was carried out in several laboratories, all funded by the NIH. Recently Dr. Anthony Fauci told Congress that the NIH did not fund GoF coronavirus research. The press has suggested that he lied, but the truth is that his definition of GoF research is that it only involves passaged of organisms in animals. This interpretation is not correct but being wrong does not mean you are lying.
I want readers to understand that the goals of GoF research are
laudable, and only a small subset has the potential to harm humans.
Consequently these experiments are highly regulated and carried out
under high levels of biological containment. GoF is not a dirty word.
Chomsky said that America used nuclear weapons in Vietnam. How did he explain? They threatened to use them - so that is "use" as well, albeit in a different context.
ReplyDeleteSo GOF is also being stretched to show its benign side , but also to conceal the dangerous side.
So you acknowledge it is not essentially evil?!
ReplyDeleteYes, if you manipulate a rat to experiment on him with human diseases , at least for us it is not evil. The rat might disagree with me.
ReplyDelete"Being wrong does not mean you are lying" LOLOL
ReplyDeleteObfuscating, misleading, denying reality, shirking responsibility - Fauci is guilty of all.
Assigning to him a charitable interpretation does not make the lie true.
There is a definition of GOF according to US statute. As head of NIAID, Fauci doesn't get to make up his own definitions.
In addition, providing certain experiments with a waiver does not mean that they are not GOF experiments in actuality.
Racaniello is a hack and he's been dismissing the risks of this type of research for a long time. To no one's surprise upon reading this sycophancy, he previously portrayed the idea of Sarscov2 lab origin as a "conspiracy theory." Gee, I wonder why that is.
"Consequently these experiments are highly regulated and carried out under high levels of biological containment."
It would seem that you and he are both unaware that WIV was doing much of this work IN BSL2 LABS!
Even Ralph Baric admits this and criticizes it as extremely reckless!!!!!
There are obviously different types of GOF research. Racaniello doesn't say any chiddush here. The research is DANGEROUS. That is the point. Why do you bring good/evil into it?
ReplyDeleteThis research has risks, and certain types of GOF research are far more risky than others.
The creation of novel pathogens capable of infecting humans (or conferred with greater pathogenicity in humans) is specifically the type of GOF research we're talking about that is highly dangerous and carries pandemic risk. Ignoring this risk is foolhardy. And it doesn't make it go away.
Comparing the insertion of a gene into a mouse, with the creation of a novel pathogen, as each being equivalently "GOF research" is a convenient straw man for Racaniello.
Racaniello says in this article that a lab origin is "impossible" based on a faulty analysis. The Shi lab took down their public viral database in September 2019 and still haven't put it back up. They also have hundreds of viruses and sequences they haven't published in the literature. Pretending we know the sequence of every single virus they possess is simply a joke.
With the techniques the Shi Lab was using, which they've published on previously, making chimeric viruses, and the work they proposed in a rejected grant proposal inserting furin cleavage sites into such viruses, the existing virus sequences that we DO know about do not have to be "close enough to a precursor of the current pandemic virus" for it to have come from their lab. He is making a straw man argument. No one has argued that WIV-1 is itself the "precursor virus."
Ralph Baric: "Historically, the Chinese have done a lot of their bat coronavirus research under BSL-2 conditions..[L]ab-acquired infections occur much more frequently at BSL-2. There is also much less oversight at BSL-2."
ReplyDeletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/R_H_Ebright
--~~
Bio safety level 2 (BSL) is very poor., or not for adequate for these bat viruses.
It is, lehavdil like comparing the strictest kashrus certification, for something highly complex ( eg hindquarters, removing the nerves) to a self certified kashrus of an am haaretz, who isn't fully learned or observant of relevant Halacha.
> I want readers to understand that the goals of GoF research are laudable
ReplyDeleteFolks who died from a virus that was a possible result of GoF research might disagree.
I'd argue that BSL-2 would be more like eating the food while not having a hechsher at all, and while not knowing exactly what ingredients are in the product and not being sure if all ingredients are even kosher.
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe they didn't - that is what is being discussed!
ReplyDeleteKoheleth 10. 8
ReplyDeleteHebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)
חפר גומץ בו יפול ופרץ גדר ישכנו נחש
Similarly, disturbing bats, collecting their viruses and guano, ... And then manipulating them and storing them in a bsl2 lab - can lead to great harm.
Maybe they did and maybe they didn't? But you said the idea that they could have is a "conspiracy theory." Throwing in the towel now?
ReplyDelete