Poll: Do You Agree With Dr. Rand Paul That Dr. Anthony Fauci Lied to Congress Regarding NIH Funding Gain of Function Research in Wuhan?

[otto105]

Oh you're a title winner alright...

Yes, yes I am.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

>Nothing alluding to gain of function in the abstract.

What an absolutely ridiculous comment.

The paper discusses how they modified bat viruses which could not previously infect humans, enabling them to infect humans.

There is nothing regarding gain of function in the abstract. Fact. Because it was not the point of the research. It was not what they were researching.

They did not develop any new techniques, nor did they preserve any modified viruses. This was only and specifically for speeding up the research to find relationships between existing SARS viruses, which -- again -- was not gain of function research.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure looks that way

Yes, that's the point. It is theater and misrepresented.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Address the entire statement or fuck off.

No, dickhead. And the rest of your whining doesn't grant any context to the idea to which I responded. Stop your whining.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously."

Not gain of function research meant to increase transmissibility of viruses. Not the evidence you think it is.

 

[Rigby5]

LOLOL

I just quoted Rand Paul admitting we don't know. You're demented to think you do know.

Ron Paul said we do not know for sure, but that it was highly likely from all the evidence, that the covid virus came from the lab in Wuhan.

 

[Rigby5]

Sorry, but those claiming there was no gain of function experimenting at Wuhan, on bat viruses, obviously are wrong.

{...
In 2014, the NIH awarded a grant to the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance to study the risk of the future emergence of coronaviruses from bats. In 2019, the project was renewed for another five years, but it was canceled in April 2020 — three months after the first case of the coronavirus was confirmed in the U.S.
...}

The ONLY way you can study the zoonotic risk from bat coronaviruses is to encourage gain of function selection.
The entire point of the WHO investment in Wuhan was gain of function research.
So then Fauci has to be lying.

 

[Rigby5]

Not gain of function research meant to increase transmissibility of viruses. Not the evidence you think it is.

I disagree.
It seems to me that the only way anyone could evaluate the risk of zoonotic crossover is to encourage is and see if it happens.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ron Paul said we do not know for sure, but that it was highly likely from all the evidence, that the covid virus came from the lab in Wuhan.

Which was a lie he made up on the spot for his bit of theater. See, that's why there is still so much confusion among the scientific community (ferret-headed former eye doctors aside). We have evidence for and evidence against.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

There is nothing regarding gain of function in the abstract. Fact. Because it was not the point of the research. It was not what they were researching.

They did not develop any new techniques, nor did they preserve any modified viruses. This was only and specifically for speeding up the research to find relationships between existing SARS viruses, which -- again -- was not gain of function research.

I should probably apologize for being slightly rude, but I expected more from you, as you have some intelligent posts, if if we generally disagree.

I couldn't believe I provided the whole paper, and you only read the abstract, and came to an incorrect conclusion as a result.

Let's say I was disappointed in you. You're on here arguing that the paper doesn't discuss gain of function research that they performed, and you haven't even read the paper.

Abstracts are often an interpretation of the data, to some extent, one could say reasoned opinoin. In this case, the virus manipulation is not even mentioned in the abstract.

The whole paper never mentions the phrase "gain of function," of course. The work is funded by the NIH, and that would be coming right out and saying that the NIH helped China do illegal gain of function research.

You gotta read the paper to understand it.

It includes:

"This work was jointly funded by... the National Institutes of Health (NIAID R01AI110964)..."

and

"Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously...."

"The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-...

"Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously..."

"HeLa cells expressing human ACE2 and Vero E6 cells were cultured on coverslips in 24-well plates (Corning) incubated with the newly isolated or recombinant bat SARSr-CoVs at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) = 1.0 for 1h..."

"Virus replication was detected by using rabbit antibody against the nucleocapsid protein of bat SARSr-CoV Rp3 followed by Cy3-conjugated mouse anti-rabbit IgG...."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I couldn't believe I provided the whole paper, and you only read the abstract, and came to an incorrect conclusion as a result.

That is not what I did. Now you are being kind of rude, in misrepresenting this as the reason for my entire conclusion.. That was one of several points i made: that there is no mention of gain of function in the abstract. Point being, they were not conducting gain of function research in general.

You gotta read the paper to understand it.

I did. Reading the paper overall (including the quotes provided by you) reveals that no new techniques were developed, the scientists were not conducting research purposed to improving the transmissibility of viruses between humans, and that they were not conducting gain of function research.

The fact that they made a structure to infect cells in vitro to help understand the relationships between SARS viruses is not gain of function research of the type at issue, nor is it gain of function research for the purpose of increasing transmissibility of a virus in vivo.

As it turns out: Rand Paul doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Rigby5]

That is not what I did. Now you are being kind of rude, in misrepresenting this as the reason for my entire conclusion.. That was one of several points i made: that there is no mention of gain of function in the abstract. Point being, they were not conducting gain of function research in general.


I did. Reading the paper overall (including the quotes provided by you) reveals that no new techniques were developed, the scientists were not conducting research purposed to improving the transmissibility of viruses between humans, and that they were not conducting gain of function research.

The fact that they made a structure to infect cells in vitro to help understand the relationships between SARS viruses is not gain of function research of the type at issue, nor is it gain of function research for the purpose of increasing transmissibility of a virus in vivo.

As it turns out: Rand Paul doesn't know what he is talking about.

Seems to me the point of the research was to evaluate what the zoonotic risk was, and I can't think of anyway to do that without encouraging a zoonotic cross over, to see how likely it is?

 

[Faun]

Ron Paul said we do not know for sure, but that it was highly likely from all the evidence, that the covid virus came from the lab in Wuhan.

And still ... "we don't know." He literally blamed Fauci for the deaths of 4 million people over "we don't know." He really is that fucked in the head.

 

[Faun]

I should probably apologize for being slightly rude, but I expected more from you, as you have some intelligent posts, if if we generally disagree.

I couldn't believe I provided the whole paper, and you only read the abstract, and came to an incorrect conclusion as a result.

Let's say I was disappointed in you. You're on here arguing that the paper doesn't discuss gain of function research that they performed, and you haven't even read the paper.

Abstracts are often an interpretation of the data, to some extent, one could say reasoned opinoin. In this case, the virus manipulation is not even mentioned in the abstract.

The whole paper never mentions the phrase "gain of function," of course. The work is funded by the NIH, and that would be coming right out and saying that the NIH helped China do illegal gain of function research.

You gotta read the paper to understand it.

It includes:

"This work was jointly funded by... the National Institutes of Health (NIAID R01AI110964)..."

and

"Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously...."

"The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-...

"Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously..."

"HeLa cells expressing human ACE2 and Vero E6 cells were cultured on coverslips in 24-well plates (Corning) incubated with the newly isolated or recombinant bat SARSr-CoVs at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) = 1.0 for 1h..."

"Virus replication was detected by using rabbit antibody against the nucleocapsid protein of bat SARSr-CoV Rp3 followed by Cy3-conjugated mouse anti-rabbit IgG...."

What paper? Why no link?

 

[otto105]

Ron Paul said we do not know for sure, but that it was highly likely from all the evidence, that the covid virus came from the lab in Wuhan.

From the sources that he selected? Sure, from real sources? No.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

No, dickhead. And the rest of your whining doesn't grant any context to the idea to which I responded. Stop your whining.

You obviously don’t have the attention span or the morals for a full discussion then. So fuck off it is.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

From the sources that he selected? Sure, from real sources? No.

Why would his sources not be real? You just don’t want to see them?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

What paper? Why no link?

How many times in this thread do I have to provide the paper?

This is the third time....

Poll: Do You Agree With Dr. Rand Paul That Dr. Anthony Fauci Lied to Congress Regarding NIH Funding Gain of Function Research in Wuhan?

Funny, the WaPo article concludes, "the NIH connection to possible gain-of-function research appears so far to be elusive." The paper Paul referenced includes: "This work was jointly funded by...the National Institutes of Health (NIAID R01AI110964)" Yes, because of the difference (important...

www.usmessageboard.com

Poll: Do You Agree With Dr. Rand Paul That Dr. Anthony Fauci Lied to Congress Regarding NIH Funding Gain of Function Research in Wuhan?

Can I ask you a simple question? If he’s the worlds most renowned epidemiologist how the fuck did he not know what to do when it first started spreading? I keep hearing you idiots say he was just learning on the job and coming up with new remedies on the fly. Yet he’s also supposed to be the...

www.usmessageboard.com

Faun, you're another one who has a strong opinion about the paper, but hasn't even read it...

Poll to condemn or condone "the violence and law breaking that took place inside the Capital on 1/6"

A few folks acting foolish is not an attack. Unless or until urban insurrection is put on equal standing, nobody should take these claims of 'attacks' on the Capitol as anything more than the political propaganda it is. "A few folks acting foolish"............................. I wonder...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[struth]

Their testy exchange, where each accused the other of lying is here.



It would be helpful to watch the whole thing in order to cast an informed vote.

Basically, Rand Paul uses Fauci's own testimony, a paper from one of the Wuhan virologists stating that the research was being funded by NIH, and the NIH's own definition of "gain of function" to make the case that Fauci lied.

Fauci defended himself by saying that Dr. Paul does not know what he is talking about and he is the one who is lying (effectively, "nuh-uh").

Your vote will be publicly viewable, and you cannot change your vote.

you didn’t have an operation for me, i can’t say for sure as i haven’t seen all his prior testimony…specifically the one Dr Paul was referring to.

With that said, something doesn’t seem to add up and Dr Paul has an obligation to refer any criminal probes to the proper authorities to investigate

 

[Missouri_Mike]

you didn’t have an operation for me, i can’t say for sure as i haven’t seen all his prior testimony…specifically the one Dr Paul was referring to.

With that said, something doesn’t seem to add up and Dr Paul has an obligation to refer any criminal probes to the proper authorities to investigate

He did. What do you think the democrat run DOJ will do with it?