Youtube is censoring that story, while the MSM won't cover it ( for obvious reasons )
Doesn't seem like a breaking story to me.
Looking through university database gives over 200,000 hits for directed evolution of viruses, several being related to sars-cov-2, mrna, and trna. So it's a standard research program in virology going on at research institutions globally.
This seems more like an example of something that shocks everyone given a narrative and general ignorance towards a research field than something actually crazy or secretive.
According to phizer they are not conducting directed evolution research. it could be the case that given these things the guy describes is passed to him via meetings, he's not actually in the departments that conduct the real research, he may be passing a long an incorrect narrative. I've seen this before in research projects involving programmers and mathematicians.
Seems to check out with information online, though the distinction gets blurry.
The difference between gain of function research and research that would be expected to yield results showing gain of function in some cases is a subtle one. But that is apparently where the NIH has decided to make its stand. Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak said that "As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, rather than something the researchers set out to do", but he also just said in a letter to Rep. James Comer that EHA had "failed to report" on this work as required and the agency is giving the EHA five days to turn over all other such documents and unpublished results. Implying that We are very concerned about this work that does not warrant the level of concern that people are giving it is not a very good place to stand, either, it seems to me.
The arguments have highlighted questions about gain-of-function (GOF) research. But the classification is hard to define precisely. “What we mean by the term depends on who’s using the term,” says Gerald Keusch, associate director of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories at Boston University in Massachusetts.The meaning of GOFWhat is GOF? Debate over that question got heated at a US Senate hearing in July, when Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) and Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), went head-to-head over a 2017 paper by scientists at the Wuhan Institute. NIAID had supported the research through a New-York-based organization called EcoHealth Alliance. And it had done so at a time when funding for some GOF science was barred. The authors genetically grafted spike proteins — the viral keys that grant access to mammalian cells — from eight different, naturally occurring coronaviruses onto another coronavirus from the wild, called WIV1. They found that these new creations, in lab dishes, could infect monkey kidney cells, as well as human cells, through the same gateway — the widely expressed ACE2 receptor — that is used by SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2.
Senator Paul insisted that the work constituted GOF. Fauci was adamant that it did not.
It’s no surprise that politicians and scientists would disagree on GOF’s meaning, because it can mean different things in different contexts. At its most innocuous, GOF is a classic genetics term to describe mutations that give a gene, RNA or protein new abilities or expression patterns. Gain of function might result in bacteria that are extra sensitive to potassium ions, for example, or an Arabidopsis plant with short stems and curly leaves6. A complementary approach — loss-of-function — involves disabling a gene to see what happens to organisms that lack it.The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall,a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.
Virologists do regularly fiddle with viral genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models. “People do all of these experiments all the time,” says Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. For example, her lab has made mouse viruses that are more harmful to mice than the originals. If only mice are at risk, should it be deemed GOF? And would it be worrying?
The answer is generally no. Morrison’s experiments, and many others like them, pose little threat to humans. GOF research starts to ring alarm bells when it involves dangerous human pathogens, such as those on the US government’s ‘select agents’ list, which includes Ebola virus and the bacteria responsible for anthrax and botulism. Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses. “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory viruses because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. GOF studies with those viruses are “a really tiny part” of virology, he adds.
last edit on
1/30/2023 11:43:20 PM
Doesn't seem like a breaking story to me.
Looking through university database gives over 200,000 hits for directed evolution of viruses, several being related to sars-cov-2, mrna, and trna. So it's a standard research program in virology going on at research institutions globally.
This seems more like an example of something that shocks everyone given a narrative and general ignorance towards a research field than something actually crazy or secretive.
According to phizer they are not conducting directed evolution research. it could be the case that given these things the guy describes is passed to him via meetings, he's not actually in the departments that conduct the real research, he may be passing a long an incorrect narrative. I've seen this before in research projects involving programmers and mathematicians.
"Directed Evolution" is exactly what is says. Putting direct pressure on a virus to mutate it to your liking. Is this what you want ass holes like Pfizer doing? These fuckers are known criminals.
This is gain of function wolf in sheep's clothing.
FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!
Youtube is censoring that story, while the MSM won't cover it ( for obvious reasons )
These people are idiots. Censoring just draws more attention to it. If you want to know what's true just watch what they censor. lol
And the MSM sheep are hopeless in a cult.
FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!
Youtube is censoring that story, while the MSM won't cover it ( for obvious reasons )
These people are idiots. Censoring just draws more attention to it. If you want to know what's true just watch what they censor. lol
And the MSM sheep are hopeless in a cult.
I remember when they first started issuing the vaccine.
I was like nope... That's experimental, plus I'm pretty sure this COVID-19 ( Resident to SARS ) is a bioweapon considering there are no fucking SARS outbreaks.
The Wuhan Bat story went out the window, and even now the MSM is speculating it being engineered. Of course it is.
No matter what happens. The absolute truth can come out ( which it did, it's just not being talked about on the MSM ) and people won't accept it.
Joe Scarborough got all of his shots, and he was disabled from COVID-19 three times.
In Canada, we noticed some people got fucked up after taking the first vaccine. The Health Minister of Canada comes out and pulls one of these "Canadians must know the risks when taking the vaccine".
Increased risk of heart inflammation. For real. that's a serious illness, then we have people going on like "If you don't get vaccinated you're dumb"
Seems to check out with information online, though the distinction gets blurry.
The difference between gain of function research and research that would be expected to yield results showing gain of function in some cases is a subtle one. But that is apparently where the NIH has decided to make its stand. Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak said that "As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, rather than something the researchers set out to do", but he also just said in a letter to Rep. James Comer that EHA had "failed to report" on this work as required and the agency is giving the EHA five days to turn over all other such documents and unpublished results. Implying that We are very concerned about this work that does not warrant the level of concern that people are giving it is not a very good place to stand, either, it seems to me.The arguments have highlighted questions about gain-of-function (GOF) research. But the classification is hard to define precisely. “What we mean by the term depends on who’s using the term,” says Gerald Keusch, associate director of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories at Boston University in Massachusetts.The meaning of GOFWhat is GOF? Debate over that question got heated at a US Senate hearing in July, when Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) and Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), went head-to-head over a 2017 paper by scientists at the Wuhan Institute. NIAID had supported the research through a New-York-based organization called EcoHealth Alliance. And it had done so at a time when funding for some GOF science was barred. The authors genetically grafted spike proteins — the viral keys that grant access to mammalian cells — from eight different, naturally occurring coronaviruses onto another coronavirus from the wild, called WIV1. They found that these new creations, in lab dishes, could infect monkey kidney cells, as well as human cells, through the same gateway — the widely expressed ACE2 receptor — that is used by SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2.
Senator Paul insisted that the work constituted GOF. Fauci was adamant that it did not.
It’s no surprise that politicians and scientists would disagree on GOF’s meaning, because it can mean different things in different contexts. At its most innocuous, GOF is a classic genetics term to describe mutations that give a gene, RNA or protein new abilities or expression patterns. Gain of function might result in bacteria that are extra sensitive to potassium ions, for example, or an Arabidopsis plant with short stems and curly leaves6. A complementary approach — loss-of-function — involves disabling a gene to see what happens to organisms that lack it.The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall,a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.
Virologists do regularly fiddle with viral genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models. “People do all of these experiments all the time,” says Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. For example, her lab has made mouse viruses that are more harmful to mice than the originals. If only mice are at risk, should it be deemed GOF? And would it be worrying?
The answer is generally no. Morrison’s experiments, and many others like them, pose little threat to humans. GOF research starts to ring alarm bells when it involves dangerous human pathogens, such as those on the US government’s ‘select agents’ list, which includes Ebola virus and the bacteria responsible for anthrax and botulism. Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses. “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory viruses because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. GOF studies with those viruses are “a really tiny part” of virology, he adds.
I imagine if we were all a bit more educated we'd find it easier to pick out the distinction or whether or not there is actually a meaningful one.
Regardless, studying the evolution of viruses in any capacity seems to be an inherent aspect in the study of virology.
"Directed Evolution" is exactly what is says. Putting direct pressure on a virus to mutate it to your liking. Is this what you want ass holes like Pfizer doing? These fuckers are known criminals.
This is gain of function wolf in sheep's clothing.
The point is that everyone is doing this kind of research. Every major virology research department has publications on directed evolution of viruses. Phizer doing it would be a pretty natural given their focus, which makes it kind of uninteresting. Even if they are not they certainty have consultants across the country who are doing this kind of research at universities.
Should we conduct this kind of research at all is the question? I am not really against it.
This whole veritas drop is like learning that companies that do malware analysis often tweak malware for the sake of analysis.
Gain of function seems useful, and the fear of it seems to stem from the harm it can do. What if it was conducted with transparency?
Just a quick glance at university database makes it seem like it is transparent, 200,000+ hits and on the first page there's six experimental studies on several viruses in 2022 alone.
Of course there must be private organizations performing more secretive research under contract.
This is now a political issue so the subject in general is going to be heavily politicized. We seem to have entered the stage were everyone has an a political opinion on these matters without having any real understanding of the subject itself. Effectively, gain-of-function and virology will be like climate change in politics where those with the biggest opinions have no knowledge of climate physics or modelling.
I agree that gain-of-function and directed evolution seem incredibly useful. Plus Mrna tech will be a game changer, mostly for the better of civilization. Biotech is honestly really cool. Makes me want to study bioinformatics...if only I cared a little more.
The point is that everyone is doing this kind of research. Every major virology research department has publications on directed evolution of viruses. Phizer doing it would be a pretty natural given their focus, which makes it kind of uninteresting. Even if they are not they certainty have consultants across the country who are doing this kind of research at universities.
Should we conduct this kind of research at all is the question? I am not really against it.
This whole veritas drop is like learning that companies that do malware analysis often tweak malware for the sake of analysis.
Just to clarify.
Pfizer's statement said they do gain of function "after" the Government declares a virus of interest. So this is a known fact they are doing gain of function.
This is really not the issue here.
"Direct Evolution" means they design a vaccine that they know will not work and in fact allows the virus to mutate for more vaccine sales.
Like giving an intermuscular(IM) injection for a respiratory virus. You don't build mucosal antibodies with an IM injection.
Are they doing this on purpose? Don't know, but that's what is happening.
"Working with collaborators, we have conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern. This work is undertaken once a new variant of concern has been identified by public health authorities."
FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!
last edit on
1/31/2023 2:59:47 AM