NIH ADMITS Fauci Lied: ‘We DID Fund Gain-Of-Function At Wuhan Lab’

originally posted by: EvilAxis
a reply to: TzarChasm

Obviously that would be gain of function. But it doesn't say that in the linked sources.

Where did you read they modified the virus?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Every time I see this topic uploaded to the forum I am compelled to repost the following links which clearly illustrate field research and laboratory manipulation from the past decade which should never have been approved and has yielded nothing but calamity since successfully completed. Human interference has directly contributed to, and escalated, the pandemic and the information below concretely demonstrates that fact.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.nature.com...

www.nature.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Therefore, to examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs, we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein—from the RsSHC014-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats1—in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone. The hybrid virus allowed us to evaluate the ability of the novel spike protein to cause disease independently of other necessary adaptive mutations in its natural backbone. 

The November 2015 article (reacting to the study quoted above) reads:

An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus — one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) — has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks.

In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.

But other virologists question whether the information gleaned from the experiment justifies the potential risk. Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” he says.

a reply to: EvilAxis

Let me clear this up, because you're the one who misread....

The paper is not discussing the virus, from the horseshoe bat. It is not discussing how THAT virus attaches to the ace2 receptor... The paper does not discuss how or if the virus can infect humans...

The subject is NOT the virus... The subject is the protien spike specificly, and of it'self....

The research is how to bond that spike, to the ace2 receptor using a diffrent delivery avenue...

That means taking a virus that can infect people, and manipulating it to have the specified protien spike afore mentioned.

The research, is and was, about binding the protien spike and the spike only.




That is gain of function.

If someone can provide a scap of evidence to back up TzarChasm's claim, "They were engineering a human version by modifying the natural virus", I'm all ears.

a reply to: TzarChasm

None of those links back up the claim that the NIH funded GOF research at the Wuhan lab.

originally posted by: EvilAxis
If someone can provide a scap of evidence to back up TzarChasm's claim, "They were engineering a human version by modifying the natural virus", I'm all ears.

Uhm... the research paper that discusses humanised mice, with human ace2 receptors... its kind of a give away....

a reply to: EvilAxis

I edited my post for clarification.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It doesn't.

Please quote where you believe the paper states that the natural spike protein of this bat virus was modified.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

The paper is not discussing the virus, from the horseshoe bat. It is not discussing how THAT virus attaches to the ace2 receptor...

It is discussing how the spike protein of that virus attaches to the ace 2 receptor.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
The paper does not discuss how or if the virus can infect humans...

That is exactly what it discusses - how the spike protein of this natural bat virus may infect humans, "Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations."

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

The research is how to bond that spike, to the ace2 receptor...

No it isn't. The research was into how readily this naturally occurring spike bonds to the human receptor - of its own accord and without modification to that protein.

If anyone doubts this, I suggest they go to the source, but reading the title should suffice: A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence

a reply to: EvilAxis

Please quote where you believe the paper states that the natural spike protein of this bat virus was modified.

--- thats not what i said. Again your reading comprehension is off.


It is discussing how the spike protein of that virus attaches to the ace 2 receptor.


---- Ya... reread my post.....i said that...

You know what, arguing with people who cant understand what they read is pointless...

I'll say this, since you didnt grasp the gist.... they werent modifiying the spike protien, they modified WHAT GROWS the spike protien...

Smh...

Double post

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

OK, I read TzarChasm's edited post and confess I had not read the highlighted passage from the research paper. I don't think it's linked in the OP.

Therefore, to examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs, we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein—from the RsSHC014-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats1—in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone.

I accept that placing an unmodified naturally occurring spike protein into a chimeric virus to test its human infectivity is close enough to gain of function research, and contradicts Fauci's flat denial.

It doesn't look nefarious (it probably wouldn't be published if it was), but certainly potentially dangerous.

Usually, when animal viruses jump into humans, they are not very good at infecting humans, they need to adapt. This is a virus that is far better at infecting humans than any other animal, which begs the question, is it really natural? On top of that, to have it suddenly appear in December 2019 to throw off Trump in the election and put down Hong Kong protest has a chance that is astronomically small.

In the first link TzarGasm shared:

This paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the NIH. Continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.

Also from his post, emphasis mine:

...Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” he says.

This would presumably apply to any of these genetically engineered viruses that hadn't been extensively tested in humans. Of course the trajectory would be unpredictable, that makes perfect sense.

Yet, NIH, in admitting they funded gain-of-function research, explicitly stated that there's no way if the viruses they were studying escaped they could have caused the pandemic.

That's another flat-out lie. They don't know that with any degree of certainty.

ETA: This is actually old news. Steve Hilton did a piece on NIH funding gain-of-function at the Wuhan lab, with Fauci's approval, months ago. He documented all of it with NIH sources. He also showed that the Obama administration had banned NIH from funding such research because it was too dangerous. I'll see if I can find the clip.

This makes it pretty clear why Democrats and the media are so quick to dismiss any discussion of this. It looks really bad for their God, Fauci. We still don't know for certain the virus came from that lab, but it's looking more and more likely. And if it did, and if Fauci approved funding for this research the Obama administration banned for being too dangerous, I mean... damn... that's one of the biggest stories of our time. And everyone involved should face criminal charges.

originally posted by: EvilAxis
a reply to: TzarChasm

None of those links back up the claim that the NIH funded GOF research at the Wuhan lab.

Wasn't this already determined by congress not to be gain of function?

I'm pretty certain that I saw the testimony on C-Span or something.

a reply to: EvilAxis

Give this a watch. I know, I know, it's Fox. But it's well-sourced. I challenge you to watch it, it's only 10 minutes. Of course he sensationalizes it a bit and takes some partisan digs, but that doesn't change the facts presented.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: EvilAxis
a reply to: TzarChasm

None of those links back up the claim that the NIH funded GOF research at the Wuhan lab.

Wasn't this already determined by congress not to be gain of function?

I'm pretty certain that I saw the testimony on C-Span or something.

Congress isn't a scientific body, they have no say in what is or isn't gain of function.

ETA: And, if you watch the video I linked above this message, Fauci himself described the research being done as gain of function.

Any tempering of natural virus to make them better able to infect humans is GOF. There is no argument. This is GOF.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: EvilAxis
a reply to: TzarChasm

None of those links back up the claim that the NIH funded GOF research at the Wuhan lab.

Wasn't this already determined by congress not to be gain of function?

I'm pretty certain that I saw the testimony on C-Span or something.

The only thing Fauci said was "according to experts, this is not defined as gain of function"

A couple things to note here, he never denied giving them money, just denied it was for GOF. Second thing is he keeps pointing out that the definition of GOF doesn't fit here. So the question is, how exactly are they defining it? they changed the definition on what a Vaccine is from using a live virus to build immunity to mRNA reducing symptoms. Who to say they won't change the definition of GOF when they need to?

BTW I think Fauci knows more than he is admitting and I believe he should be investigated, although we know nothing will happen. Until a Big name like his is held accountable for something, we can kiss this country goodbye.

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: EvilAxis
a reply to: TzarChasm

None of those links back up the claim that the NIH funded GOF research at the Wuhan lab.

Wasn't this already determined by congress not to be gain of function?

I'm pretty certain that I saw the testimony on C-Span or something.

The only thing Fauci said was "according to experts, this is not defined as gain of function"

A couple things to note here, he never denied giving them money, just denied it was for GOF. Second thing is he keeps pointing out that the definition of GOF doesn't fit here. So the question is, how exactly are they defining it? they changed the definition on what a Vaccine is from using a live virus to build immunity to mRNA reducing symptoms. Who to say they won't change the definition of GOF when they need to?

BTW I think Fauci knows more than he is admitting and I believe he should be investigated, although we know nothing will happen. Until a Big name like his is held accountable for something, we can kiss this country goodbye.

Again, check the link I posted a few messages up. Fauci himself defined the research being done as gain of function in a speech he gave at a gain of function conference a few years back. When he said it wasn't gain of function to Congress, he was lying.

face - I watched the Fox piece. The 'gotcha' moment in the video from 2012 is supposed to be Fauci's statement that one of the techniques used in GOF research is reverse genetics. As the presenter says, the Wuhan research employed reverse genetics, "to construct a group of infectious bacterial artificial chromosome clones".

But - although reverse genetics can be used in GOF research, other (non-GOF) research also employs the technique.

The term 'clones' suggests the chromosomes are only artificial in the sense that they were reverse engineered copies of those that already occur in nature.

Problem is, there's quite a lot of wriggle room because gain-of-function is not a rigorously defined scientific term and somewhat vague.

As David Relman (professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University) said:

I suggest we avoid this term and talk instead about unusually and unnecessarily risky experiments... I personally would not have undertaken these experiments, and would have advised NIH not to have funded them, despite the worthiness of the questions they sought to address.