[trhway]

You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci outright and knowingly lied to the Congress about funding the gain-of-function research in WIV. That research in particular includfed successful inserting of human ACE2 receptor binding protein into non-human coronavirus with the resulting virus successfully killing off mice engineered with the human cells with ACE2 receptors. That happens to be exactly what COVID is, and that happened right before the official COVID emergence in Wuhan.

>to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus.

you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally hadn't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. That is dishonest manipulation which in particular killed the NIH scientific credibility.

[sorcerer-mar]

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!

[trhway]

>Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF.

that is just not true. Otherwise feel free to provide that magical definition. In the meantime this is definition by the government:

https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pd...

"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?

[sorcerer-mar]

Your link doesn't work (oops forgot to actually read your sources?). Here's the right document: https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Documents/P3CO.pdf

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!

[trhway]

You again failed to provide definition. And you seem to get confused about goalposts. So, let me reiterate 3 hard facts here:

1. as my previous link is gone here is 2 pretty same NIH and government definitions of GoF, 2016 and 2025:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/738...

            (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.

https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Gain-of-Fu...

"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.

And with that i rest my case :)

[sorcerer-mar]

Ah yes, now linking to the GoF definition that 1) doesn't govern NIH's decisions and 2) includes E. coli for insulin manufacturing.

Great stuff.

And just totally bailing on your claim that "Daszak ran into WIV and destroyed evidence" lol

Have a good night!

[randm_sequence]

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.