No…I don’t approve of gain of function research.
This wasn’t that.
Yes it was.
1 Like
It’s the truth.
I mean…why should anyone go to college to learn this stuff.
Anybody on the Web can just pick it right up!
No- it wasn’t.
That’s correct. Much better.
Sure it was.
What do you, as the SME and World’s Smartest They/Them, call it?
Nope.
Read this guy. Get to know him. He’s awesome (I also had the pleasure of working with him for many years).
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/gain-function-not-so-fast
Here’s the critical paragraph you should know- one the Boston U researchers of course would have known about:
But what if? What if this chimeric strain turned out to be more lethal than expected in the human population? What happens if you take an older strain of the virus and swap in the Omicron-level spike; doesn’t that have the potential for trouble? Well, we’ve already seen a “natural experiment” like that, as Florian Krammer points out. There was a strain back in March called XD, which was a Delta that had the Omicron spike protein in it (via recombination). XD did not take off in the human population and did not seem to be more of a problem than the other strains, which is why you’ve probably never heard of it.
In other words, what the Boston U researchers were doing was making a strain that pretty much already existed in nature, and was known not to be able to take off in humans.
Not gain of function.
Answered.
Yeah…that’s what lying Fauci said too. 
Question, is your conclusion based on the old definition or the new one that was changed of the NIH website?
3 Likes
It was gain of function. If it “pretty much existed in nature” why did they need to “create it”?
Once again you are focusing on the outcome - which was unknown when they were doing it. It could have easily gone the other way. That’s how ■■■■ happens.
1 Like
Where? What do you call it?
Particularly since the articles I posted said NIAID knew nothing about the work until they read it in the media reports.
My definition is based on me understanding science and you…not so much.
Or just skip it all, and deny facts and expertise.
No it was not unknown when they were doing it. They were in effect replicating work that had already been done both in nature and by other organizations.
I’ve been working in the field for 30 years. It’s neither bragging nor hubris to say I know more than Smyrna about it.
It’s factual.
1 Like
Sure.
Yes, it was.
Horse ■■■■■
1 Like
Of course.
1 Like
