Is this supposed to be news?...

[Kevin]

Second shortest post I ever made ^

I remember a "yep" reply once. Long ago.

[Mike]

Second shortest post I ever made ^

I remember a "yep" reply once. Long ago.

Does it hurt?

[Kevin]

I think I strained something. I'm going to go lie down...

[wacojoe]

I rather like how Jon Stewart put it long ago in Occam’s Razor terms —
"Oh my God, there’s been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania. What do you think happened?" he continued. "Oh I don’t know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean? Or it’s the f---ing chocolate factory! Maybe that’s it."

https://www.indy100.com/tv/jon-stewa...-leak-b1866634

I don’t think there has been any mystery of what “gain-of-function” ever meant before Fauchi, the chief advocate of researching it, felt it necessary to try to scramble the definition from “patching a foreign gene into the genetic code of an organism and deriving a new effect from it.” There are videos of Fauci from 2011 touting the need for research using the method even in the face of the perceived dangers, and which many posit came to fruition. Despite both the Obama and the Trump administrations prohibiting the practice or funding it, it is unquestioned that Fauci directed large sums to his gain-of-function acolyte, Peter Dazk @ Ecohealth, who funneled some of it to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, well known to be researching gain-of-function on coronavirus from bats. A spiffy tactic to off-shore such research to avoid scrutiny or sanction from the administrations who forbid it.

Here’s a video of Dazak lauding & bragging about his gain-of-function creds —
https://youtu.be/HD6wNZ2Xmi0

[wacojoe]

I rather like how Jon Stewart put it long ago in Occam’s Razor terms —
"Oh my God, there’s been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania. What do you think happened?" he continued. "Oh I don’t know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean? Or it’s the f---ing chocolate factory! Maybe that’s it."

https://www.indy100.com/tv/jon-stewa...-leak-b1866634

I don’t think there has been any mystery of what “gain-of-function” ever meant before Fauchi, the chief advocate of researching it, felt it necessary to try to scramble the definition from patching a foreign gene into the genetic code of an organism or altering existing genetic code and thereby deriving a new effect from it. Fauci was forced to play the duplicity and obfuscation game to try to get around his testimony under oath that the NIH or NAIH did not fund gain-of-function research through Ecohealth. The simple expedient of changing the definition was thus employed. There are interviews of Fauci from 2011 wherein he touts the need for research using the method even in the face of the perceived dangers, and which many posit came to fruition. Despite both the Obama and the Trump administrations prohibiting the practice or funding it, it is unquestioned that Fauci directed large sums to his gain-of-function acolyte, Peter Dazak @ Ecohealth Alliance, who subsequently funneled some of it to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, well known to be researching gain-of-function on coronavirus from bats. A spiffy tactic to off-shore such research to avoid scrutiny or sanction from the administrations who forbade it.

Here’s a video of Dazak lauding & bragging about his gain-of-function creds —
https://youtu.be/HD6wNZ2Xmi0

The guy is a GOF zealot.

As Pogo was fond of saying, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

[Kevin]

Fauci cannot change language definitions to protect himself. The field of virology is seeing an evolution in terminology that began long before the pandemic and Fauci can only be faulted for keeping up with changing usage.

In the most basic sense, gain-of-function, or GOF, research refers to the introduction of a mutation that enhances a gene's functional properties — farmers have arguably practiced it for thousands of years through plant breeding. But definitions applied in virology have also narrowed over time, such that some researchers now maintain that in the strictest sense of the term — increasing virulence or transmissibility in humans — "no GOF experiments have been performed," says Stanley Perlman, a virologist at the University of Iowa.

Absent consensus, public views on gain-of-function are vulnerable to polarized rhetoric, and policy makers continue to struggle with how to regulate the research. "No one knows exactly what counts as gain-of-function, so we disagree as to what needs oversight, much less what that oversight should be," Evans says.

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

With no agreement on terminology, there are bound to be issues. One of them is going to be what to provide oversight on, another is how to regulate this research, etc. This is not a plot. It is just a rapidly evolving science which is using highly technical terminology that means something different to different people.

The best that can be said is that EcoAlliance did not report properly its questionable project funding and NIH did not followup to demand that sort of accountability as it should have. That is much much different than the implication contained in a charge that Fauci funded the epidemic. EcoAlliance went off the chain, maybe, and NIH did not catch it. There was no intentionality or purpose by NIH to fund research that made bat coronavirus more virulent, which is what is at issue here.

(edited to remove snark)

[wacojoe]

A filing in a related court case lays out the case against Dr. Fauci and his credibility.

https://beckernews.com/dr-fauci-show...l-court-49536/

The assertions in the 300 pages establish that Dr. Fauci was a strong proponent of “gain of function” research on Covid virus and recognized the extreme danger of possible lab release of it by error or intention as early as 2011 in a paper coauthored by him. The facts asserted here do not establish that Fauci himself knowingly participated in the funding of Dr. Peter Dascak & EcoHealth Alliance, which is up to its eyeballs in funding gain of function experiments on bat coronavirus in the Wuhan lab. If true, the assertions establish that Dr. Fauci learned in early January of the distinct possibility or even probability that such experiments were the direct cause of SARS-CoV-2 on the public and ever since has undertaken deep efforts to deny or obscure the connection to his department, himself or the processes he champions. In his case it would seem that Fauci’s crime, if any, is the old saw of “it’s not the crime itself, but the cover-up.”

As for the term “gain of function” and Fauci’s sworn testimony that his department never funded such research in Wuhan because the term is no longer used, the facts asserted cite instances wherein Fauci himself uses the term in its common meaning. Fauci lied to the Senate. Dr. Redfield, former head of the CDC, did a clear job saying that yesterday in his testimony before Congress. Let’s see what he does before the House Committee when he is teed up soon.

Btw, the administration is still funding EcoHealth Alliance as of last year.
https://www.heritage.org/public-heal...-covid-19-role