Tony Fauci is correct, Rand Paul is not: the research described in this paper is NOT gain of function: no new properties were given to the bat CoV by substitution of the spike gene.
118
135
468
Replies
@profvrr
Receipts
No biggie...
Just shuttled some S genes around to see which ones will kill monkey cells.
Letβs do this in a BL2 lab over in China while itβs outlawed here in the States.
3
19
50
0
0
1
@profvrr
There is also a prohibition against creating novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens, and the article states: "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".
4
3
28
@profvrr
My dear Vincent, see the name of the attachment that the boss used. Greetings from a fellow countryman of Tony.
4
7
94
0
0
0
@profvrr
Vincent, in the 2017 study that you linked, "they", Chinese scientists, do not mention gain of function (only the abstract checked). But in a 2008, Chinese scientists describe gain of function.
0
0
15
@profvrr
"Live from New York it's the A&V show!" Ty again dears, you're national treasures and Wednesday's have never been better.
0
0
0
@profvrr
I believe it means more than the regulatory definition. Wiki describe GOF as also increasing host range... Daszak with NIH funding ran potential pathogens through humanized mice thereby adapting viruses to human cells and thus doing GOF. Yes... it's a broad term.
0
1
11
@profvrr
If you play with the definition enough and squint... it still looks like gain of function research... but it's gain of function research that had legal loopholes.
0
0
16
@profvrr
Bullshit. Can a robot break the first law? Yes. The task must be broken down into a series of intrinsically harmless steps.
0
0
3