Fauci: "Senator Paul, you don't know what you're talking about"

So you didn't start a thread and tag me.

The Dems wouldn't agree with that plan at all. I disagree with their immigration plan completely.

Thank you for bringing that up and illustrating my point -- your post about my agreeing with the Dems on everything was fantasy.

This is too easy.
Oh, so I have to start a NEW thread for any subsection of a topic AND I have to send you an invitation to said thread via certified mail, return receipt requested, and first class mail?
:laughing0301:
 
Oh, so I have to start a NEW thread for any subsection of a topic AND I have to send you an invitation to said thread via certified mail, return receipt requested, and first class mail?
:laughing0301:
I see you ignored the rest of my post and tried to put me on the defensive.

You lied. It's right there on your screen.

Next.
 
We can't bring up this thread where Mac is shown to be a complete gullible fool who obviously is a leftist pretending to not be.

We must start a NEW thread to talk about how stupid this thread was/is or Mac will not engage.

But, we also must give him personal service of said thread via a process server who will send a return of service affidavit after said delivery.
 
We can't bring up this thread where Mac is shown to be a complete gullible fool who obviously is a leftist pretending to not be.

We must start a NEW thread to talk about how stupid this thread was/is or Mac will not engage.

But, we also must give him personal service of said thread via a process server who will send a return of service affidavit after said delivery.
Leftists are sheep who need a Shepard.
 
You seem very happy.

I'm afraid I don't follow this stuff nearly as closely as you guys do. Is there a bottom line point to all this?

Is Fauci a Deep State Hitler Chinese Swamp Commie? Should I think differently about the vaccines now?

What has you so happy?

FYI!!
NOTE!
the letter from NIH doesn't say what the NationalReview article is opining on....
 
FYI!!
NOTE!
the letter from NIH doesn't say what the NationalReview article is opining on....
The Trumpsters are desperate to celebrate whatever it is that they're celebrating.

Me, I've got my shots, and I'm careful when and where I need to be. I don't mind.

I don't care enough about their opinion to bother verifying what they're saying.

:laugh:
 
FYI!!
NOTE!
the letter from NIH doesn't say what the NationalReview article is opining on....
Hey dumbass, do you know what gain of function means?
Gain-of-function is a term that could describe any type of virology research that results in the gain of a certain function. But the type that’s controversial, including among scientists, is research that causes a pathogen to be more infectious, particularly to humans.
Now that you know that, go back and read the letter :rolleyes:
 
The Trumpsters are desperate to celebrate whatever it is that they're celebrating.

Me, I've got my shots, and I'm careful when and where I need to be. I don't mind.

I don't care enough about their opinion to bother verifying what they're saying.

:laugh:
Exactly how big do the crowds get under your rock?
 
Hey dumbass, do you know what gain of function means?
Gain-of-function is a term that could describe any type of virology research that results in the gain of a certain function. But the type that’s controversial, including among scientists, is research that causes a pathogen to be more infectious, particularly to humans.
Now that you know that, go back and read the letter :rolleyes:


Gain of Function according to the NIH definition:


In 2014, the U.S. government put a pause on new funding of gain-of-function research, which it defined this way: “With an ultimate goal of better understanding disease pathways, gain-of-function studies aim to increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.” A 2016 paper on the ethics of gain-of-function research said: “The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures.”

The pause — intended to provide time to address concerns about the risks and benefits of these studies — applied to certain research on influenza, MERS and SARS.

“Specifically, the funding pause will apply to gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route,” the White House said in an Oct. 17, 2014, announcement.

As a Nature article at the time explained, there had been fierce debate among scientists on exactly what research should be deemed too risky. And some confusion on where the line would be drawn for this pause.

“Viruses are always mutating,” the article said, “and [Arturo] Casadevall [then a microbiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City], says that it is difficult to determine how much mutation deliberately created by scientists might be ‘reasonably anticipated’ to make a virus more dangerous — the point at which the White House states research must stop.”

 
Gain of Function according to the NIH definition:


In 2014, the U.S. government put a pause on new funding of gain-of-function research, which it defined this way: “With an ultimate goal of better understanding disease pathways, gain-of-function studies aim to increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.” A 2016 paper on the ethics of gain-of-function research said: “The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures.”

The pause — intended to provide time to address concerns about the risks and benefits of these studies — applied to certain research on influenza, MERS and SARS.

“Specifically, the funding pause will apply to gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route,” the White House said in an Oct. 17, 2014, announcement.

As a Nature article at the time explained, there had been fierce debate among scientists on exactly what research should be deemed too risky. And some confusion on where the line would be drawn for this pause.

“Viruses are always mutating,” the article said, “and [Arturo] Casadevall [then a microbiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City], says that it is difficult to determine how much mutation deliberately created by scientists might be ‘reasonably anticipated’ to make a virus more dangerous — the point at which the White House states research must stop.”

Lol. So pretty much what i just wrote.
Did you go back and read the letter? Are you here to apologize?
 
Flip Flop Fauci is part of the scam
Any competent person with half a brain should have realized the dangers of financing gain of function research in a sloppy Chinese lab that was also used for weapons research was a downright foolish idea.

Perhaps FaucI made some money in the deal. The Chinese have figured out they can buy the politicians and bureaucrats and take over our nation without a war.




 
Any competent person with half a brain should have realized the dangers of financing gain of function research in a sloppy Chinese lab that was also used for weapons research was a downright foolish idea.

Perhaps FaucI made some money in the deal. The Chinese have figured out they can buy the politicians and bureaucrats and take over our nation without a war.





So why did Trump allow the restrictions to be lifted?
 

Forum List

Back
Top