PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on October 21, 2021, 05:20:23 AM
-
NIH CONFIRMS gain of Fuction Funding For Wuhan Bat Lab.
So... Everything the communist biden regime, and the corrupt communist democrat party has been claiming about the scamdemic must be re-evaluated in light of the truth.
Your little god, tony the fraud, was LYING the entire time about gain of function research funding. The likelihood is that everything else he and the government has said about the scam is also a lie.
Do any democrat pussies have the courage to change your story, now?
I bet not. The lure of being told what to think, how to act, and what to say is far too attractive to liberals, for any of you to step an inch off the reservation.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/nih-confirms-it-funded-gain-function-virus-research-wuhan-calls-it
https://thestarnewsnetwork.com/2021/10/21/nih-corrects-claims-by-collins-fauci-that-u-s-had-not-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan/
-
Nothing will happen.
-
I just dug in to this "gain of function" hogwash, wish is what it was. The experiments were all blue sky science to figure out how viruses do what they do. At some point the government decided that this sort of research needed more regulation, though it was not very transparent who needed regulation for what.
As far as Wuhan, we've known NIH money was going there for years. Early in the Trump presidency an NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance was terminated with little explanation. The grant, to examine bat coronaviruses and zoonotic spillover, had received a 1% priority score from its study section. This was all over the news a few years back. No one was covering up any NIH money going to Wuhan.
-
I just dug in to this "gain of function" hogwash, wish is what it was. The experiments were all blue sky science to figure out how viruses do what they do. At some point the government decided that this sort of research needed more regulation, though it was not very transparent who needed regulation for what.
As far as Wuhan, we've known NIH money was going there for years. Early in the Trump presidency an NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance was terminated with little explanation. The grant, to examine bat coronaviruses and zoonotic spillover, had received a 1% priority score from its study section. This was all over the news a few years back. No one was covering up any NIH money going to Wuhan.
Wasn't that long ago we were being told that in no way money was going to Wuhan for GoF research.
It's fun watching the story keep changing as more and more evidence emerges. Your patron Saint Pope Tony is a fraud and a liar. He keeps getting caught in his lies, but fortunately he's a party member, so that means no consequences.
-
I just dug in to this "gain of function" hogwash, wish is what it was. ...
interesting typo.
:-)
-
Wasn't that long ago we were being told that in no way money was going to Wuhan for GoF research.
No money has gone fro GoF research. You don't even know what it is and wouldn't know it if it bit you in the six. My pet tortoises know more biology than you ever will. All you know is what you read on Twitter.
The money in Wuhan was to track coronaviruses in bats because - That's where the bats were that carried them
- the bat coronaviruses had previously jumped into domestic animals and humans
-
No money has gone fro GoF research. You don't even know what it is and wouldn't know it if it bit you in the six. My pet tortoises know more biology than you ever will. All you know is what you read on Twitter.
The money in Wuhan was to track coronaviruses in bats because - That's where the bats were that carried them
- the bat coronaviruses had previously jumped into domestic animals and humans
So you've now demonstrated you haven't been following any of this, and you are totally relying on CNN/MSNBC/WashPO etc to give you the daily talking points.
On a side note, do the Branch Covidians have a small gold face mask or a small gold syringe to wear as a symbol of your faith? Just curious.
-
I just dug in to this "gain of function" hogwash, wish is what it was. The experiments were all blue sky science to figure out how viruses do what they do. At some point the government decided that this sort of research needed more regulation, though it was not very transparent who needed regulation for what.
As far as Wuhan, we've known NIH money was going there for years. Early in the Trump presidency an NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance was terminated with little explanation. The grant, to examine bat coronaviruses and zoonotic spillover, had received a 1% priority score from its study section. This was all over the news a few years back. No one was covering up any NIH money going to Wuhan.
There goes mikey, NOT reading again.
His comprehension is just as bad a it has always been, though.
-
No money has gone fro GoF research. You don't even know what it is and wouldn't know it if it bit you in the six. My pet tortoises know more biology than you ever will. All you know is what you read on Twitter.
The money in Wuhan was to track coronaviruses in bats because - That's where the bats were that carried them
- the bat coronaviruses had previously jumped into domestic animals and humans
Here’s the issue with this and how it works. Most people applying for NIH grants have about 50%-75% of the work proposed done before they submit the grant. That makes the grant appear much stronger because you have a lot of preliminary data and can say pretty well what your specific aims are and what you expect to find.
Then when the grant is funded you use the money to fund the remainder and related work for the next grant application.
No one ever checks that what what proposed was what was done. So long as papers are being produced, no one is worried about it. The NIH just doesn’t maintain that level of control.
Biomedical science is not engineering and you can’t predict very well what the outcome of a particular experiment will be. The current grant environment is so competitive that no one would get funded for proposing “hey we have this cool idea let’s explore it”.
So in this case what was proposed for the research at the Wuhan lab was only loosely related to what was likely going on at the time this money was actually being spent.
I find it quite plausible that someone in the funded lab thought it would be a very informative experiment to insert that particular active site coded by human codons into a coronavirus and did so.
ETA - and some might wonder how did the original work to get the preliminary data on the first grant for an investigator get done? That’s what faculty startup funds and post-doctoral grants are for!
-
Here’s the issue with this and how it works. Most people applying for NIH grants have about 50%-75% of the work proposed done before they submit the grant. That makes the grant appear much stronger because you have a lot of preliminary data and can say pretty well what your specific aims are and what you expect to find.
Then when the grant is funded you use the money to fund the remainder and related work for the next grant application.
No one ever checks that what what proposed was what was done. So long as papers are being produced, no one is worried about it. The NIH just doesn’t maintain that level of control.
Biomedical science is not engineering and you can’t predict very well what the outcome of a particular experiment will be. The current grant environment is so competitive that no one would get funded for proposing “hey we have this cool idea let’s explore it”.
So in this case what was proposed for the research at the Wuhan lab was only loosely related to what was likely going on at the time this money was actually being spent.
I find it quite plausible that someone in the funded lab thought it would be a very informative experiment to insert that particular active site coded by human codons into a coronavirus and did so.
ETA - and some might wonder how did the original work to get the preliminary data on the first grant for an investigator get done? That’s what faculty startup funds and post-doctoral grants are for!
Peter, glad to have you here, the things you post bring thoughts to ponder.
-
I find it quite plausible that that fucking bastard fauci lied his ass of because that's what communists do.
The tendency of academics and intellectuals to babble about, justifying the lies is typical and bullshit.
-
Peter, glad to have you here, the things you post bring thoughts to ponder.
I gotta say, I love the intellectual level Peter brings. He's like a regulatory Superego. Lucifer and N7 are like my Id. Steingar and the rest of you are Ego level.
-
Lucifer and N7 are like my Id.
What is your id?
-
Here’s the issue with this and how it works. Most people applying for NIH grants have about 50%-75% of the work proposed done before they submit the grant. That makes the grant appear much stronger because you have a lot of preliminary data and can say pretty well what your specific aims are and what you expect to find.
While true, there are lots of other factors in play, including publication history, novelty of the proposed research, and perceived importance of the research. That's where Ecohealth Alliance really shined, their research was perceived as extremely important due to their expertise in the area. What was your highest priority score? I bet cash money it wasn't 1%
Then when the grant is funded you use the money to fund the remainder and related work for the next grant application.
No one ever checks that what what proposed was what was done. So long as papers are being produced, no one is worried about it. The NIH just doesn’t maintain that level of control.
If you don't do something productive and publish well you won't get the next grant no matter what you propose.
Biomedical science is not engineering and you can’t predict very well what the outcome of a particular experiment will be. The current grant environment is so competitive that no one would get funded for proposing “hey we have this cool idea let’s explore it”.
So in this case what was proposed for the research at the Wuhan lab was only loosely related to what was likely going on at the time this money was actually being spent.
I find it quite plausible that someone in the funded lab thought it would be a very informative experiment to insert that particular active site coded by human codons into a coronavirus and did so.
I'm afraid this is pure hogwash. I saw the fucking sequence when it came out, there wasn't any such thing.
ETA - and some might wonder how did the original work to get the preliminary data on the first grant for an investigator get done? That’s what faculty startup funds and post-doctoral grants are for!
For NGOs that's what charity donations are for.
-
I'm afraid this is pure hogwash. I saw the fucking sequence when it came out, there wasn't any such thing.
This is where your credibility goes straight to the toilet. Dr Peter answered you with a very professional answer based upon his background and knowledge. Your reply above shows your lack of knowledge as well as vindictiveness towards anyone you disagree.
Take a few lessons from Dr Peter.
-
What is your id?
Sometimes you and N7 say things I feel on a visceral level but don't verbalize. Not always, but often. Very often. Especially when it's general and not personal. It's not a perfect analogy.
-
No money has gone fro GoF research. You don't even know what it is and wouldn't know it if it bit you in the six. My pet tortoises know more biology than you ever will. All you know is what you read on Twitter.
The money in Wuhan was to track coronaviruses in bats because - That's where the bats were that carried them
- the bat coronaviruses had previously jumped into domestic animals and humans
You’re right. Money isn’t fungible, and really, what’s the risk of sending $40 MM US taxpayer dollars to a communist Chinese government lab right next to a Chinese military bioweapons lab? What could go wrong?
Lucifer is such an alarmist.
-
I'm afraid this is pure hogwash. I saw the fucking sequence when it came out, there wasn't any such thing.
Are you asserting that Wade has it wrong in this article when he says the furin cleavage site contains T-CCT-CGG-CGG-GC with the two side-by-side CGG codons ? (https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038)
Certainly that is important if he has that wrong. If so, please cite to the appropriate evidence which shows that is not the sequence in SARS2.
-
I'm afraid this is pure hogwash. I saw the fucking sequence when it came out, there wasn't any such thing.
This makes me want to learn enough genetics to look at it for myself and see if you are right. From what I have read what Peter says about it being plausible a codon was inserted also makes sense. Nullius in verba.
-
This makes me want to learn enough genetics to look at it for myself and see if you are right. From what I have read what Peter says about it being plausible a codon was inserted also makes sense. Nullius in verba.
The sequences overall are apparently 26-32k based long with 14 open reading frames.
The various sequences are uploaded publicly. This is one of the really nice things about molecular biology. The sequences are generally out there and there are a lot of freely available tools for looking at them.
Original report - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7180649/
-
What do you do when you've been caught funding GoF research, you edit your website of course.
https://twitter.com/JeremyRedfernFL/status/1451565600673828869
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/exclusive-reports-uncovered-show-covid-19-planned-bioweapon-chinas-peoples-liberation-army/
COVID-19 was a planned bioweapon of China’s People’s Liberation Army.
Already in 2005, Colonel Ji-Wei Guo of the People’s Liberation Army’s Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China described a new type of bioweapon.
Colonel Guo rejected the clumsy, traditional biological weapons that produced mass destruction, ones that:
depend on microbiology, especially bacteriology, which uses destructive bacteria, viruses, and toxic living bodies obtained directly from the natural world. These weapons are subject to nature, are difficult to control, and have irreversible effects.”
China would use biotechnology to create new forms of designed “biotechnological weapons” that would be “controllable” and “recoverable” for which China had sole possession of the vaccine or antidote.
Such weapons would be highly contagious, but of low lethality and capable of being deployed under “pre-war” conditions. Although artificially created, the new bioweapons would retain “plausible deniability,” that is, could be attributed to a disease of natural origin.
Thus, spawned the PLA’s massive joint bioweapon development-vaccine production program, which incorporated China’s universities and their access to international knowledge and skills, particularly those from the United States.
In a 2006 follow-up article, Colonel Guo expands on his thesis, advocating the weaponization of military medicine, in order to make it:
a fighting power in addition to a tool of maintaining and strengthening the fighting power of the army–that is, forming an aggression system of biotechnology.”
Unlike weapons of mass destruction, Colonel Guo proposed that military medical scientists use biotechnology to produce weapons that target specific physiological effects on the human body:
The goal of precision injury is not necessarily to terminate a life, but to choose a degree of injury depending on the purposes of operations and the types of enemies.”
In 2006, Colonel Guo concluded:
Since war is an act of violence aiming at annihilating enemies or depriving them of resistant abilities, the modern biological techniques used for attack purposes have a more direct and precise target at humans than other methods, which will play a more important role in future military operations.”
Sometime after 2011, Colonel Guo was trained in English and sent abroad, likely for espionage purposes, although it is unclear to what country he went.
Colonel Guo and his PLA colleagues continued to promote biotechnological weapons and “bio-based war” in Chinese language military journals in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2018.
Specifically, Colonel Guo’s student, Kun Huo, in his 2013 Chinese language Master’s thesis, described the military doctrine underlying the use of “non-lethal” biowarfare agents like COVID-19:
This paper is the first to systematically put forward the thought of “non-lethal” biological warfare in which future war will focus on ultrastructural biological field and demonstrate scientifically the necessity and feasibility of the construction of “non-lethal” biological warfare.”
It is perhaps no coincidence that Colonel Guo’s home institution, the Third Military Medical University in Chongqing played an outsized role in the PLA’s coronavirus research during and immediately after the 2002-2004 SARS pandemic.
Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan claims that the COVID-19 virus originated in laboratories overseen by China’s PLA, using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 collected from Zhoushan, China, and used as the viral “backbone” for genetic engineering.
Those bat coronaviruses were originally isolated and characterized between July 2015 and February 2017 under the supervision of the Third Military Medical University and the Research Institute for Medicine of the then PLA Nanjing Military Command.
There should now be no doubt that China has had an active and extensive biological warfare program of which COVID-19 was one of its “biotechnological weapons”.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He had a civilian career in international business and medical research.
-
Are you asserting that Wade has it wrong in this article when he says the furin cleavage site contains T-CCT-CGG-CGG-GC with the two side-by-side CGG codons ? (https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038)
Certainly that is important if he has that wrong. If so, please cite to the appropriate evidence which shows that is not the sequence in SARS2.
I posted the COVID DNA sequence on this site. You can look it up, do your own analysis, you know how. Don't take that guy's word for it, whoever he is.
-
Now that the sociopathic liars (democrat communists) have been outed covering up quackenheimer fauci's lies about gain of function research, what new lie will the democrat communists start spreading to keep the truth from coming out about the fifth reich (democrat party) and their little goddess (fauci)?
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/22/nolte-fake-fact-checkers-smeared-rand-paul-liar-gain-function/
-
https://twitter.com/MarkMeadows/status/1451032641634029568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1451032641634029568%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcitizenfreepress.com%2Fbreaking%2Fsenator-kennedy-lays-a-perfect-trap-for-fauci%2F
-
https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1453125064891719685
-
Are you asserting that Wade has it wrong in this article when he says the furin cleavage site contains T-CCT-CGG-CGG-GC with the two side-by-side CGG codons ? (https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038)
Certainly that is important if he has that wrong. If so, please cite to the appropriate evidence which shows that is not the sequence in SARS2.
Codon bias is just that. Not iron clad rules. Swing and miss. The best folks in the biz have said it's a naturally occurring virus. If this guy actually had any evidence he could post it in the best science journal there is.
-
Codon bias is just that. Not iron clad rules. Swing and miss. The best folks in the biz have said it's a naturally occurring virus. If this guy actually had any evidence he could post it in the best science journal there is.
I'm sorry. Are you saying that the sequence posted by Wade is or is not in the virus as part of the furin cleavage site?
-
Don't mind me, I'm just here for the popcorn
-
I'm sorry. Are you saying that the sequence posted by Wade is or is not in the virus as part of the furin cleavage site?
What I'm saying is the best folks in the biz (who know more about this stuff than you and me) posted in the biggest Science journal there is that COVID is a naturally occurring virus. I don't even know who your source is.
-
What I'm saying is the best folks in the biz (who know more about this stuff than you and me) posted in the biggest Science journal there is that COVID is a naturally occurring virus. I don't even know who your source is.
One of the things you said before was "I'm afraid this is pure hogwash. I saw the fucking sequence when it came out, there wasn't any such thing."
That was in response to my post that "I find it quite plausible that someone in the funded lab thought it would be a very informative experiment to insert that particular active site coded by human codons into a coronavirus and did so."
So your response appeared to be asserting that the active site was not coded by human codons. I gather you are now denying or retracting that interpretation of your post?
Your most recent post is essentially an appeal to authority. I'm not really interested in arguing about authorities.
If on the other hand you want to look at the case made by Wade that the sequence which is coded by human codons in the furin cleavage site suggests that it was inserted by man and did not arise through spontaneous mutation and debate the evidence for and against that proposition, that might be interesting. I actually thought that Wade did a fairly good job of both pointing out the likelihoods and citing to some other expert opinions on the subject.
Overall I regard the case for human engineering of this virus as plausible. It would probably meet a preponderance of the evidence standard. Maybe not a clear and convincing standard. I don't think we may ever really know because the CCP, a tyrannical regime which censors its media, has not allowed free inspection of the laboratories and their records.
-
One of the thing you said before was "I'm afraid this is pure hogwash. I saw the fucking sequence when it came out, there wasn't any such thing."
That was in response to my post that "I find it quite plausible that someone in the funded lab thought it would be a very informative experiment to insert that particular active site coded by human codons into a coronavirus and did so."
So your response appeared to be asserting that the active site was not coded by human codons. I gather you are know denying or retracting that interpretation of your post?
The present post is essentially an appeal to authority. I'm not really interested in arguing about authorities.
If on the other hand you want to look at the case made by Wade that the sequence which is coded by human codons in the furin cleavage site suggests that it was inserted by man and did not arise through spontaneous mutation and debate the evidence for and against that proposition, that might be interesting. I actually thought that Wade did a fairly good job of both pointing out the likelihoods and citing to some other expert opinions on the subject.
Overall I regard the case for human engineering of this virus as plausible. It would probably meet a preponderance of the evidence standard. Maybe not a clear and convincing standard. I don't think we may ever really know because the CCP, a tyrannical regime which censors its media, has not allowed free inspection of the laboratories and their records.
The real problem is we really don't know the source of the virus. What the wild-type COVID19 virus looked like before it jumped into humans is unknown. This isn't uncommon, there are so many coronaviruses running around that it is really hard to pin it down. Same could be said for Ebola. Cell recently had an expansive article about the genesis of the pandemic. They made a really good case for it coming from the wet markets. Moreover, all the other emergent viruses of the last couple decades have been transmitted zoonotically, mostly from folks eating bush meat.
Nicolas Wade is a hack who likes to take things way way way out of context even though he should (and probably does) know better. Tooting his own word to a receptive audience. But why take my word for it?
https://medika.life/debunking-nicholas-wades-origin-of-covid-conspiracy-theory/ (https://medika.life/debunking-nicholas-wades-origin-of-covid-conspiracy-theory/)
https://nautil.us/issue/102/hidden-truths/when-a-good-scientist-is-the-wrong-source (https://nautil.us/issue/102/hidden-truths/when-a-good-scientist-is-the-wrong-source)
-
One thing that some probably overlook - with some technologies, there is stuff in the classified realm that we don't have access to.
We might not even know how much classified stuff is out there (in vaults) related to bio-warfare and bio-weapons.
Maybe everything related to viruses is in the unclassified domain.
-
The real problem is we really don't know the source of the virus.
Agreed on that point. But a bit too much ad hominem attack in both your post and those sources you cited. The source of the argument doesn't matter -- what about the strength of the argument?
It appears that there are two human prevalent codons in the furin cleavage site. These appears to be quite rare in bat coronaviruses generally. Wade actually computes the likelihood of those arising by chance -- and it is not high. They might have come from some recombination event with other viruses -- that is true. So this fact is not absolute proof by any means.
But when you add up everything he notes -- no animal or viral intermediate identified as has been the case in the prior SARS and MERS outbreaks, the proximity of the lab to the initial infections, the unlikely combination of codons, I think it reaches a level of plausible and maybe even preponderance of the evidence.
His point is which is more likely -- a human engineered event or a jump with no known intermediates across a great distance?
The evidence is weak enough on both sides of this for reasonable people to disagree. I don't think it is a slam dunk one way or another. And thus again an area where lay people will generally have a hard time parsing the intermediate probabilities so we have these endless recriminations on the internet.
-
Agreed on that point. But a bit too much ad hominem attack in both your post and those sources you cited. The source of the argument doesn't matter -- what about the strength of the argument?
It appears that there are two human prevalent codons in the furin cleavage site. These appears to be quite rare in bat coronaviruses generally. Wade actually computes the likelihood of those arising by chance -- and it is not high. They might have come from some recombination event with other viruses -- that is true. So this fact is not absolute proof by any means.
But when you add up everything he notes -- no animal or viral intermediate identified as has been the case in the prior SARS and MERS outbreaks, the proximity of the lab to the initial infections, the unlikely combination of codons, I think it reaches a level of plausible and maybe even preponderance of the evidence.
His point is which is more likely -- a human engineered event or a jump with no known intermediates across a great distance?
The evidence is weak enough on both sides of this for reasonable people to disagree. I don't think it is a slam dunk one way or another. And thus again an area where lay people will generally have a hard time parsing the intermediate probabilities so we have these endless recriminations on the internet.
Again Peter, codon bias is just that. Yeah, to have those amino acids is unlikely. All it means is that they're important to the virus and its up to us to figure out why.
-
Again Peter, codon bias is just that. Yeah, to have those amino acids is unlikely. All it means is that they're important to the virus and its up to us to figure out why.
I fail to see how it can matter in terms of viral function that specific codons are there. The different codon possibilities code for the same amino acids in the protein itself.
What would be the mechanism of selective pressure for specific codons which code for the same amino acids?
ETA: I see that there are some examples where the specific codon usage apparently impacts transcriptional efficiency of other genes - https://www.pnas.org/content/115/21/E4940
So certainly this weakens that aspect of Wade's argument by offering a different explanation. Though it still leaves the question of why these two human prevalent codons in this specific bat coronavirus and not others if that is a factor.
That said, I still find the overall case made by Wade to be parsimonious and plausible. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.
-
Why do we not have a popcorn emoji ;D
-
The real problem is we really don't know the source of the virus.
And yet the experts and the best minds in the country have claimed that they do. No wonder we don't believe what we are being fed.
You yourself have said without a doubt that the virus came from bush meat.
-
And yet the experts and the best minds in the country have claimed that they do. No wonder we don't believe what we are being fed.
You yourself have said without a doubt that the virus came from bush meat.
Show me where this is true. No one knows or has claimed to know the source of the COVID19 virus that I know of. No conspiracy, it's just really hard to figure out which of the plethora of natural viruses is the right one. No one has found the source virus for Ebola or SARS either.
-
Why do we not have a popcorn emoji ;D
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/tyqcJoNjNv0Fq/giphy.gif)