Rand Paul: I'm Referring Fauci For Criminal Charges, and Here's the Proof He Lied to Congress

[Faun]

Yes, that’s the one. What part of it do you not understand?

Why you maintain it shows Fauci paid them for gain-of-function research when that document states no such thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you have nothing to refute the point I made and just descended into insulting me...

Thanks for showing you are unable to defend your case...

Stop flattering yourself, Meme Boy. I also don't waste time trying to refute drunken homeless lunatics on street corners, shouting about how everyone is an alien pod-person. Nor do I care if the drunken homeless lunatic then congratulates himself on "winning" because I tell him, "Get away from me, you smelly bum."

Thanks for showing that you're on par with drunken homeless lunatics.

 

[Lesh]

He has a PhD in BioChemistry and works in the areas of gene drives, directed evolution, genome engineering, molecular biology, microbiology and ecological engineering.

He has relevant publications, including this one...

Concerning RNA-Guided Gene Drives for the Alteration of Wild Populations


Gene drives may be capable of addressing ecological problems by altering entire
populations of wild organisms, but their use has remained largely theoretical due to technical
constraints. Here we consider the potential for RNA-guided gene drives based on the CRISPR
nuclease Cas9 to serve as a general method for spreading altered traits through wild populations
over many generations. We detail likely capabilities, discuss limitations, and provide novel
precautionary strategies to control the spread of gene drives and reverse genomic changes. The
ability to edit populations of sexual species would offer substantial benefits to humanity and the
environment. For example, RNA-guided gene drives could potentially prevent the spread of
disease, support agriculture by reversing pesticide and herbicide resistance in insects and
weeds, and control damaging invasive species. However, the possibility of unwanted ecological
effects and near-certainty of spread across political borders demand careful assessment of each
potential application. We call for thoughtful, inclusive, and well-informed public discussions to
explore the responsible use of this currently theoretical technology.

The problem is that you people (including assholes the eye doctor Rand Paul) don't bother to even read that which you quote

MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research."

However, Esvelt said the work reported in that paper "definitely did NOT lead to the creation" of COVID-19.

This is the expert both you and Paul are quoting

 

[badger2]

Why you maintain it shows Fauci paid them for gain-of-function research when that document states no such thing.

You’re confusing the financial argument with the intellectual argument. Fau Chi and Daszak are the prime suspects for esoterica knowledge of military grade viruses and what they can do, lest you forget Arab POTUS, O, and Biden as sidekick also funding gof for military vaccines.

 

[badger2]

The problem is that you people (including assholes the eye doctor Rand Paul) don't bother to even read that which you quote

MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research."

However, Esvelt said the work reported in that paper "definitely did NOT lead to the creation" of COVID-19.

This is the expert both you and Paul are quoting

So what? We already have the study that refutes the lab-manufactured theory. So what, Einstein? Where the hell is the Esvelt text you are not excerpting?

 

[Faun]

You’re confusing the financial argument with the intellectual argument. Fau Chi and Daszak are the prime suspects for esoterica knowledge of military grade viruses and what they can do, lest you forget Arab POTUS, O, and Biden as sidekick also funding gof for military vaccines.

That you think Obama is Arab is yet another symptom of your pathology.

 

[Lesh]

So what? We already have the study that refutes the lab-manufactured theory. So what, Einstein? Where the hell is the Esvelt text you are not excerpting?

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

If the lab manufactured theory has been refuted then this entire argument is moot

 

[WEATHER53]

Faustus wants a new definition of Gain of Function so that he didn’t do it.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

The problem is that you people (including assholes the eye doctor Rand Paul) don't bother to even read that which you quote

MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research."

However, Esvelt said the work reported in that paper "definitely did NOT lead to the creation" of COVID-19.

This is the expert both you and Paul are quoting

>However, Esvelt said the work reported in that paper "definitely did NOT lead to the creation" of COVID-19.

No kidding, Sherlock.

This thread is about if NIH funded gain of function research, not if a specific experiment resulted in COVID-19.

By arguing that the cited research did not directly result in COVID-19, you have let your thinking cap fall off.

The definition of gain of function has nothing necessarily to do with a specific virus or pandemic, silly. It's about manipulating a virus and making it more infectious.

You are arguing a strawman with yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jim H - VA USA And here is where the argument stands:

Rand Paul claims it was and cited a gain of function critic who says it was. All of the scientists at NIH say it was not. They cite that the study showed no research into improving the virulence of viruses or creating and maintaining such viruses. Rand Paul cites the study that seems to align with their claim, resting his argument on the technicality raised by Ebright that viruses were altered for the study in order to speed their infection of cells in vitro.

 

[badger2]

It looks Fauci is fully in the clear...

The origins of the COVID-19 virus: Knowns and unknowns

Confronting Dr. Anthony Fauci at a Senate committee hearing on the COVID-19 pandemic, Sen. Rand Paul argued that the Uni

www.politifact.com

It would have to be a very broad definition of 'Gain of Function'. Even the scientists who said it could be Gain of Function said it has nothing to do with COVID 19...

So what is Rand Paul's plan... He gave a question to Fauci in the context of a COVID investigation, I would presume that 'Gain of Function' even by a wide definition would be linked to COVID 19... It wasn't... Sorry but you are getting no one on perjury for that...
Where is the text showing what these unnamed said?

It looks Fauci is fully in the clear...

The origins of the COVID-19 virus: Knowns and unknowns

Confronting Dr. Anthony Fauci at a Senate committee hearing on the COVID-19 pandemic, Sen. Rand Paul argued that the Uni

www.politifact.com

It would have to be a very broad definition of 'Gain of Function'. Even the scientists who said it could be Gain of Function said it has nothing to do with COVID 19...

So what is Rand Paul's plan... He gave a question to Fauci in the context of a COVID investigation, I would presume that 'Gain of Function' even by a wide definition would be linked to COVID 19... It wasn't... Sorry but you are getting no one on perjury for that...

Where is the text of these scientists saying that it could be gof but has nothing to do with COVID 19? They must be aware of the schizoid split that is produced when a virus is brought into the lab.

 

[badger2]

That you think Obama is Arab is yet another symptom of your pathology.

Letter from Matar, Women in Green, Jerusalem contains your ego death.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Where is the text of these scientists saying that it could be gof but has nothing to do with COVID 19? They must be aware of the schizoid split that is produced when a virus is brought into the lab.

Here's one...

MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research."

However, Esvelt said the work reported in that paper "definitely did NOT lead to the creation" of COVID-19.

MSN

www.msn.com

It's a big "no kidding" from me. Any intelligent person who read the paper would come to the same conclusion.

 

[badger2]

Jim H - VA USA And here is where the argument stands:

Rand Paul claims it was and cited a gain of function critic who says it was. All of the scientists at NIH say it was not. They cite that the study showed no research into improving the virulence of viruses or creating and maintaining such viruses. Rand Paul cites the study that seems to align with their claim, resting his argument on the technicality raised by Ebright that viruses were altered for the study in order to speed their infection of cells in vitro.

Where does Rand Paul cite the study that includes Ebright? What is the citation that backs your claim? China Joe Biden appointed Bright to the Coronavirus Task Force in November. This was because he had gotten his ass demoted during the Trump administration to an NIH job. Are we talking about the same corksucker, or not?

Why you maintain it shows Fauci paid them for gain-of-function research when that document states no such thing.

LYRa11 is one virus for you to study, RaTG13 is another. Because of the GOF ambiguity in Fau Chi’s and NIH’s record, they may or may not have been funding at the time. Military vaccine was the object, Arab son and POSPOTUS, O, knows that much. Because the baddest SARS-COV is subject to the most potent military vaccine. Chinese commie avarice is only one aspect of their desire to buy the planet.

 

[badger2]

Here's one...

MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research."

However, Esvelt said the work reported in that paper "definitely did NOT lead to the creation" of COVID-19.

MSN

www.msn.com

It's a big "no kidding" from me. Any intelligent person who read the paper would come to the same conclusion.

And this is on top of the study that refutes any deliberate tampering of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, especially the spike.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jim H - VA USA well you can laugh all you like. But for all intents and purposes, you seem to currently be on the losing side of the debate.

 

[badger2]

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

If the lab manufactured theory has been refuted then this entire argument is moot

No it’s not, just more complex than you think.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where does Rand Paul cite the study that includes Ebright?

Do i have my "E" names mixed up?

 

[badger2]

Here's one...

MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research."

However, Esvelt said the work reported in that paper "definitely did NOT lead to the creation" of COVID-19.

MSN

www.msn.com

It's a big "no kidding" from me. Any intelligent person who read the paper would come to the same conclusion.

Having looked at it, Esvelt does not name the study he is drawing his conclusions from. What an excellent way to castrate progress, since we cannot read it ourselves.

 

[badger2]

Do i have my "E" names mixed up?

Where is the citation for this corksucker Ebright, Einstein?