You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF. I can understand why this irks people, but I can also understand why someone as habitually precise as a virologist would use the statutory definition of a given term of art in sworn Congressional testimony.
If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function.
> you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally haven't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab.
No they didn't. You can read the Slack messages and emails. There are literally hundreds of pages of the Proximal Origins authors debating the lab leak hypothesis... obviously. Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves?
Here are a few excerpts from their private communication:
> I am of the view that the natural selection hypothesis is the most likely (specifically the non-bat reservoir).
> I disagree with Ron that the passaging hypothesis is evidentially equal to the engineering hypothesis.
> Now, the presence of the furin site in pangos would nail it, but the absence (as it appears to be) wouldn't really
tell us much.
These are the words of people who believe one thing (which may or may not end up being true) and both interrogating it and advocating for it... i.e. "doing science."
And again: science doesn't work by every scientist advocating for every theory. That is not remotely realistic from either a practical or a psychological perspective.
It works by scientists vigorously advocating for the theories they find most plausible, and other scientists saying that they're stupid and pointing out why they're wrong, which again anyone was free to do!
"Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease,"
By the way that 2014 document above is exactly the document which was the base for the gain of function research to be moved from US to in particular Wuhan. And Fauci was instrumental in that move. So, Fauci lied. Blatantly.
>If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function.
Again, he lies here. Just look at the government definition of GoF above - according to it, using e. coli to produce insulin isn't gain of function.
>Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves?
Are you kidding? Or are you really don't know about Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence?
The research at WIV was assessed as not being GoF under this framework by multiple levels of reviewers when it was approved. Nobody really disputes this, they just argue that it should have been assessed as GoF (an argument that's circularly evidenced by the claim one of those viruses is responsible for the pandemic).
You seem to be willfully misunderstanding the E. coli point. Obviously it doesn't satisfy the P3CO definition, but nor did the research approved at WIV.
> Are you kidding? Or are you really don't know about Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence?
Hey now, don't get tired from moving those goal posts! Your claim was that Proximal Origins authors didn't consider the lab leak. You are unambiguously wrong.
Please share your evidence of "Daszak rushing there and cleaning up all the evidence." Not familiar with it!
(1) Gain-of-function research.--The term ``gain-of-function
research'' means any research that--
(A) involves the genetic alteration of an organism
to change or enhance the organism's biological
functions, which change or enhancement may include
increased infectivity, transmissibility, pathogenicity,
or host range (which is the spectrum of hosts that an
organism can infect); or
(B) may be reasonably anticipated to confer
attributes to an organism, such that the organism would
have enhanced infectivity, pathogenicity, or
transmissibility, or otherwise pose a threat to
national security, public safety, or the health of
humans, companion animals, or livestock, poultry,
seafood and aquaculture species, or game animals.
"Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually
does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens."
Both definitions clearly cover Wuhan research - genetically implanting ACE2 binding protein on non-human coronavirus so that the resulting virus infects and kill human cells containing ACE2 receptor. Thus hard fact numero uno - Fauci lied to Congress.
2.
>Your claim was that Proximal Origins authors didn't consider the lab leak.
No. My claim is that NIH didn't perform any scientific study - which would naturally include peer reviewed publishing of results - of Wuhan created viruses vs. COVID.
What doesn't count as such a study is the lazy email chat between several dudes who were recruited by Daszak without even letting them know of the conflict of interests that he and Fauci had on the matter.
3. Fauci as a top leader at a scientific institution had the duty to maintain scientific integrity of the institution. Giving his and Daszak conflict of interests on the matter, he catastrophically failed at maintaining that scientific integrity when he didn't not send independent investigators to Wuhan instead of Daszak.
Note how synergistically the fact 3. dovetails with the fact 1. and how that provides very plausible explanation for the fact 2.
I worked with researchers in this space - virology + combatting future pandemics - in the decade before the pandemic. The one fact that the last 5 years never readily disclosed is that the core ideology of this community of researchers was fundamentally divided. About half of the researchers, including many leading virologists whose names appeared in the news, believed and argued passionately for the lab-based creation of super-viruses and super-bacteria. They believed that the only way to save humanity from a catastrophic pandemic was to engineer absolute nightmare bugs in the lab so that they could develop cures and vaccines. The other half of us, myself included, thought that this was pure hubris and infinitely too dangerous because humans and labs are fallible and leaks happen with surprisingly regularity. The moment that this pandemic become broad public knowledge, the portion of the community that advocated for creating these super-viruses became shockingly quiet and everyone just started to cover-their-asses and their funding.
In about 5 years it will become common knowledge that longCOVID is simply the persistance of the SARS-CoV2 virus within the human body and that there are both symptomatic versions of this disease (aka "longhaulers") and asymptomatic versions of this disease (aka, many of the so called "fully recovered"). Note that we have zero direct evidence that the virus ever leaves the body; it is just assumed because nasal swabs test negative and, for some, symptoms go away. It is a good time to invest in pharmaceutical companies that have already developed antivirals.
This is partially why I think the whole "they're conspiratorially lying to us and it was for sure a lab leak!" is a huge distraction. First, we have literally hundreds of pages of emails of scientists saying they believed (correctly or incorrectly) it was not a leak. Second, there is approximately zero chance we will ever know that it came from a lab. Third, it doesn't actually give us any more information: it could have come from any one of countless labs doing work on viruses like this.
Dangerous GoF research should be outright banned regardless!
Insofar as there is huge ambiguity in what we did or didn't know at the time, I can fault scientists for covering their own asses and their preferred research directions (which I agree are dangerous), but I can't fault them for biasing themselves against statements that leaned on the side of ambiguous that might have, at the time, literally sparked a war.
If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function.
> you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally haven't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab.
No they didn't. You can read the Slack messages and emails. There are literally hundreds of pages of the Proximal Origins authors debating the lab leak hypothesis... obviously. Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves?
Here are a few excerpts from their private communication:
> I am of the view that the natural selection hypothesis is the most likely (specifically the non-bat reservoir).
> I disagree with Ron that the passaging hypothesis is evidentially equal to the engineering hypothesis.
> Now, the presence of the furin site in pangos would nail it, but the absence (as it appears to be) wouldn't really tell us much.
These are the words of people who believe one thing (which may or may not end up being true) and both interrogating it and advocating for it... i.e. "doing science."
And again: science doesn't work by every scientist advocating for every theory. That is not remotely realistic from either a practical or a psychological perspective.
It works by scientists vigorously advocating for the theories they find most plausible, and other scientists saying that they're stupid and pointing out why they're wrong, which again anyone was free to do!