Support NeoGAF

[SpiceRacz]

what's the reason the US would support this kind of research? seems like a bad idea all around. trust china? no thanks.
something to note too is that gain of function wasn't performed with the covid virus, so it didn't lead to covid
and while fauci said otherwise under oath, it's possible he wasn't aware of any NIH research, but then he should have said "i'm not aware", unless it was kept from him.
if he deliberately lied, then he should be charged.

It helps us get out in front of these virus' before they become a real problem.

 

[poppabk]

Yes, this is the case.

No it's not. The coronaviruses they tested were naturally occurring in bats. They engineered a human receptor into the mice so they could study the viruses in mice rather than humans. One of the new naturally occurring strains (SCH014 Wiv 1) they found made the mice sicker than the bat SARS like virus control virus (Wiv 1).
It's all explained very clearly in the letter, I'm struggling to see where the confusion is coming from.

 

[Narasumas]

what's the reason the US would support this kind of research? seems like a bad idea all around. trust china? no thanks.
something to note too is that gain of function wasn't performed with the covid virus, so it didn't lead to covid
and while fauci said otherwise under oath, it's possible he wasn't aware of any NIH research, but then he should have said "i'm not aware", unless it was kept from him.
if he deliberately lied, then he should be charged.

Going off memory…he didn’t use the “foggy brain” tone one would use when not certain. I wanna say he was quoted telling Rand Paul that his accusations were “uncategorically false”.

 

[poppabk]

Going off memory…he didn’t use the “foggy brain” tone one would use when not certain. I wanna say he was quoted telling Rand Paul that his accusations were “uncategorically false”.

Which is still correct?

 

[Metallix87]

No it's not. The coronaviruses they tested were naturally occurring in bats. They engineered a human receptor into the mice so they could study the viruses in mice rather than humans. One of the new naturally occurring strains (SCH014 Wiv 1) they found made the mice sicker than the bat SARS like virus control virus (Wiv 1).
It's all explained very clearly in the letter, I'm struggling to see where the confusion is coming from.

This is still gain-of-function research. The confusion is on your end.

 

[poppabk]

This is still gain-of-function research. The confusion is on your end.

If it is then every single bio lab in the world is doing gain of function research. Hell, having a baby is gain of function research.

 

[Metallix87]

If it is then every single bio lab in the world is doing gain of function research. Hell, having a baby is gain of function research.

Whatever you say.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

This is still gain-of-function research. The confusion is on your end.

Maybe I'm confused too then. I also don't see anything in that letter consistent with gain of function research. Using humanized mouse models is not gain of function research - this is standard practice for the study of disease in humans. The virus itself would need to have been altered for this to be gain of function research, and there is nothing in the letter to suggest that.

You'll need to explain yourself better.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

And therefore, why is that risk of death a problem? I'm not actually asking you at this point, I want to know that other user's point of view.

Risk of death is fien but someone does it out of thier free will. Now if it is mandated, it becoem an issue

 

[Metallix87]

Maybe I'm confused too then. I also don't see anything in that letter consistent with gain of function research. Using humanized mouse models is not gain of function research - this is standard practice for the study of disease in humans. The virus itself would need to have been altered for this to be gain of function research, and there is nothing in the letter to suggest that.

You'll need to explain yourself better.

Sure. To put it bluntly, when a virus is manipulated to infect an animal / organism other than the one that it typically infects, that is still considered to be gain-of-function research. This was explained overtly over the summer when Senator Rand Paul had a confrontation during a hearing with Doctor Anthony Fauci. The viruses in question were both manipulated to infect mice modified with human receptors.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

No it's not. The coronaviruses they tested were naturally occurring in bats. They engineered a human receptor into the mice so they could study the viruses in mice rather than humans. One of the new naturally occurring strains (SCH014 Wiv 1) they found made the mice sicker than the bat SARS like virus control virus (Wiv 1).
It's all explained very clearly in the letter, I'm struggling to see where the confusion is coming from.

I'll also note that the article posted here incorrectly paraphrases Dr. Tabak, referring to "modified viruses" when in fact Dr. Tabak's letter clearly states there were no modified viruses used. Hanlon's razor likely applies here. Most science reporting is very poor, and with the proliferation of alternative news sources the standards have only gotten worse.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

Sure. To put it bluntly, when a virus is manipulated to infect an animal / organism other than the one that it typically infects, that is still considered to be gain-of-function research. This was explained overtly over the summer when Senator Rand Paul had a confrontation during a hearing with Doctor Anthony Fauci. The viruses in question were both manipulated to infect mice modified with human receptors.

I don't follow this political feud closely, so I don't recall exactly what proof Rand Paul submitted. But the discussion seems to be centered on the letter you posted as "proof", whereas there is nothing within that letter to actually support the idea that there were modifications made to any viruses. In fact, the letter states the exact opposite. These were naturally occurring viruses.

 

[poppabk]

Whatever you say.

Explain what gain of function experiments they were doing.

 

[poppabk]

Sure. To put it bluntly, when a virus is manipulated to infect an animal / organism other than the one that it typically infects, that is still considered to be gain-of-function research. This was explained overtly over the summer when Senator Rand Paul had a confrontation during a hearing with Doctor Anthony Fauci. The viruses in question were both manipulated to infect mice modified with human receptors.

No the viruses were not modified. Where in the letter are you getting that from? The mice were modified to produce the human ACE2 receptor, that is it.

 

[SpiceRacz]

It reads to me like EcoHealth was performing GoF research unintentionally. NIH are saying EcoHealth weren't completely transparent with that information. Hence why NIH and Fauci were, allegedly, unaware. If that's really the case, then Fauci didn't exactly lie to Congress.

The issue here is that you guys are hung up on the idea that GoF research is strictly making chimaeric viruses. It's not.

 

[BadBurger]

I never got the shots. Not anti vax, just dumb

I don't feel too bad honestly

Well best of luck man, I hope it's mild to non-existent symptoms.

 

[poppabk]

It reads to me like EcoHealth was performing GoF research unintentionally. NIH are saying EcoHealth weren't completely transparent with that information. Hence why NIH and Fauci were, allegedly, unaware. If that's really the case, then Fauci didn't exactly lie to Congress.

The issue here is that you guys are hung up on the idea that GoF research is strictly making chimaeric viruses. It's not.

But the didn't do anything to change the viruses. The viruses didn't gain any function, a key part of gain of function research is ... gaining a function.

 

[Metallix87]

No the viruses were not modified. Where in the letter are you getting that from? The mice were modified to produce the human ACE2 receptor, that is it.

I never said modified with regards to the virus.

 

[Metallix87]

I don't follow this political feud closely, so I don't recall exactly what proof Rand Paul submitted. But the discussion seems to be centered on the letter you posted as "proof", whereas there is nothing within that letter to actually support the idea that there were modifications made to any viruses. In fact, the letter states the exact opposite. These were naturally occurring viruses.

Modification of the virus is not necessary for it to be considered gain-of-function, per the "feud" over the summer. All it takes is manipulation of the virus to target something other than it's normal victims.

 

[Chaplain]

From the very beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has been on the front lines of any analyzing, studying, and even personally fighting the pandemic. In this wide-ranging interview, Dr. Bhattacharya takes us through how it started, how it spread throughout the world, the efficacy of lockdowns, the development and distribution of the vaccines, and the rise of the Delta variant. He delves into what we got right, what we got wrong, and what we got really wrong. Finally, Dr. Bhattacharya looks to the future and how we will learn to live with COVID rather than trying to extinguish it, and how we might be prepared to deal with another inevitable pandemic that we know will arrive at some point. (Recorded on October 13, 2021)

Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute. He holds courtesy appointments as Professor in Economics and in Health Research and Policy. He directs the Stanford Center on the Demography of Health and Aging. Dr. Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Dr. Bhattacharya’s peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. He holds an MD and PhD in economics from Stanford University.

Edited

 

[12Goblins]

finally listened to the JRE episode with Gupta. contrary to pretty much everything I've read about it, it was actually a very laid back, cordial, and enjoyable discussion...

shame on all those who tried to make this out to be adversarial... then you go and complain when media spins stuffs for views - they do it for twats like you that can't appreciate any nuance

also got around to see that Nat Geo doc on Fauci - I wish I could sit down those who believe he is a villain to watch this film to see how appalling, idiotic, and hateful their behavior is towards this man.

 

[poppabk]

Modification of the virus is not necessary for it to be considered gain-of-function, per the "feud" over the summer. All it takes is manipulation of the virus to target something other than it's normal victims.

Which didn't happen.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

Modification of the virus is not necessary for it to be considered gain-of-function, per the "feud" over the summer. All it takes is manipulation of the virus to target something other than it's normal victims.

To be honest, it seems you aren't familiar with the use of humanized model organisms. To extend the definition of "gain of function research" to the use of model organisms is to render the term meaningless. As previously pointed out by poppabk, nearly all human medical research done on animals is done with model organisms at some point.

Gain of function research specifically refers to research where the organism of interest is genetically modified to enhances some biological function. There was no genetic modification to the coronavirus - the virus used was what was found in nature. It was unchanged. They used a humanized model organism to study the ability of the virus to infect humans in lieu of actual human test subjects. They could have used a human test subject, but obviously there are ethical considerations that would not allow that.

An actual example of gain of function research would be if they infected the humanized rodents, and then applied a selective pressure to the virus that allowed the virus to spread to non humanized rodents. This would involve a change in the virus' host range - a gain of function, so to speak. This is not what happened.

 

[Metallix87]

To be honest, it seems you aren't familiar with the use of humanized model organisms. To extend the definition of "gain of function research" to the use of model organisms is to render the term meaningless. As previously pointed out by poppabk, nearly all human medical research done on animals is done with model organisms at some point.

Gain of function research specifically refers to research where the organism of interest is genetically modified to enhances some biological function. There was no genetic modification to the coronavirus - the virus used was what was found in nature. It was unchanged. They used a humanized model organism to study the ability of the virus to infect humans in lieu of actual human test subjects. They could have used a human test subject, but obviously there are ethical considerations that would not allow that.

An actual example of gain of function research would be if they infected the humanized rodents, and then applied a selective pressure to the virus that allowed the virus to spread to non humanized rodents. This would involve a change in the virus' host range - a gain of function, so to speak. This is not what happened.

Again, I'm using the definition of gain-of-function as had been discussed during the hearings, which also seems to be the definition news outlets are using. I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, but what you are stating is more specific than what was previously outlined.

 

[poppabk]

Again, I'm using the definition of gain-of-function as had been discussed during the hearings, which also seems to be the definition news outlets are using. I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, but what you are stating is more specific than what was previously outlined.

I just listened to the Rand Paul questions to Fauci and he is very clearly talking about gain of function as modifying viruses to be more transmissible or transmissible to another species.
Where are you getting your definition from?

 

[Metallix87]

I just listened to the Rand Paul questions to Fauci and he is very clearly talking about gain of function as modifying viruses to be more transmissible or transmissible to another species.
Where are you getting your definition from?

It's the definition that I thought he had used back then, and since then I've seen it used repeatedly, and it's the definition Senator Paul is using now to consider this vindication.

 

[funkygunther]

It's the definition that I thought he had used back then, and since then I've seen it used repeatedly, and it's the definition Senator Paul is using now to consider this vindication.

"creating super viruses"

 

[BadBurger]

I mean on one side you have a decades-long immunologist and physician, the hero doctor who helped combat the AIDS epidemic and has served in top scientific and medical roles then and since. On the other you have a grandstanding, science-denying politician who is not afraid to loudly bark out mistruths and distortions to further his agenda. Yes, he was a self-certified eye doctor once upon a time, but those days are long gone and I don't get the feeling he's too concerned with facts these days just going by his behavior and well-documented remarks.

Aside from that, there's easily perused literature and studies on this subject anyone can read.

Given all of that, I can't understand why any rational person would err on the side of the conspiracy theory repeating politician and not the famed immunologist.

 

[Metallix87]

"creating super viruses"

I was in error on the definition used, though that doesn't really explain the framing from news sources.

 

[Guileless]

https://theintercept.com/2021/10/21/virus-mers-wuhan-experiments/

ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE CONDUCTED RISKY EXPERIMENTS ON MERS VIRUS IN CHINA​

Documents released by the NIH contradict previous assertions by the EcoHealth Alliance about its experiments on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan.​

DOCUMENTS RELEASED BY the National Institutes of Health yesterday raise new questions about government-funded research on viruses conducted in China. The annual grant reports from EcoHealth Alliance, which the NIH sent to The Intercept in response to a lawsuit, provided additional evidence that the U.S. nonprofit — which studies emerging infectious diseases — and its sub-awardee, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, were engaged in risky experiments and that the NIH may not have been fully aware of these activities...

Yesterday, the NIH provided that missing report for the period ending May 2019, which was inexplicably dated August 2021. That summary of the group’s work includes a description of an experiment the EcoHealth Alliance conducted involving infectious clones of MERS-CoV, the virus that caused a deadly outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome in 2012. MERS has a case-fatality rate as high as 35 percent, much higher than Covid-19’s. The scientists swapped out the virus’s receptor-binding domain, or RBD, a part of the spike protein that enables it to enter a host’s cells, according to the report. “We constructed the full-length infectious clone of MERS-CoV, and replaced the RBD of MERS-CoV with the RBDs of various strains of HKU4-related coronaviruses previously identified in bats from different provinces in southern China,” the scientists wrote.

“Changing the receptor binding site on MERS is sort of crazy,” wrote Jack Nunberg, a virologist and director of the Montana Biotechnology Center at the University of Montana, in an email to The Intercept after reviewing the documents. “Although these new chimeric viruses may retain properties of the MERS-CoV genetic backbone, engineering of a known human pathogen raises new and unpredictable risks beyond those posed by their previously reported studies using a non-pathogenic bat virus backbone.” The researchers’ intent, which some scientists consider integral to defining gain-of-function, remains unclear.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/06...aq-fifteen-years-ago-and-what-he-told-the-un/
“In the very same report, they showed data that one of their chimeric SARS-like viruses caused more severe disease in a humanized animal model than the original virus,” said Alina Chan, a Boston-based molecular biologist and co-author of the upcoming book “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.” “After seeing that result, why did they do similar work using the MERS human pathogen?”

 

[Guileless]

Explain what gain of function experiments they were doing.

With regard to the research described in that letter, the scientists in Wuhan engineered a SARS-like chimeric virus that made humanized mice sicker than the originalW1V1 virus backbone. They are arguing it doesn't meet the technical definition of gain of function because it was an unexpected result and that it happened to humanized mice and not actual humans.

Ecohealth didn't disclose it in violation of the grant procedures. We are finding out now 18 months after the pandemic started in the same city where the research was happening because The Intercept sued the NIH to enforce FOIA laws. If they didn't do that, we still would not know because the president of Ecoheatlh organized a global effort to stop any investigation of a possible lab leak by associating it with You Know Who.

 

[QSD]

This is kind of hilarious. But I would say that, I'm a leo.

 

[Chaplain]

edited

 

[SF Kosmo]

Gain of function research specifically refers to research where the organism of interest is genetically modified to enhances some biological function.

It doesn't have to be "genetically modified", some GoF research is just done through serial passage, basically accelerating or guiding the natural evolutionary process

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

It doesn't have to be "genetically modified", some GoF research is just done through serial passage, basically accelerating or guiding the natural evolutionary process

Yes, it does. Serial passage is one of the means to genetic modification. The example I cited earlier is an example of serial passage. In the end, no function is gained unless there was (usually) a genetic modification.

Anyway, the link Guilless posted has more than what Metallix posted. It does seem to be GoF in that document, albeit unintentional.

 

[poppabk]

Yes, it does. Serial passage is one of the means to genetic modification. The example I cited earlier is an example of serial passage. In the end, no function is gained unless there was (usually) a genetic modification.

Anyway, the link Guilless posted has more than what Metallix posted. It does seem to be GoF in that document, albeit unintentional.

I had a look through the actual papers and they do describe making chimeric viruses one of which inadvertently may have been more virulent than the parent virus.
I still don't think it is reasonable to consider this gain of function research or that the NIH letter was any kind of mea culpa, but there is a kernel of truth to what Rand was talking about.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[FunkMiller]

Coverage of the UK’s case rate is horribly misleading at the moment. We are testing far more than other EU countries. When comparing infection rates directly with test rates, we’re coming out at around an average.

 

[funkygunther]

Winter is going to be rough in all of Europe

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Winter is going to be rough in all of Europe

For countries without vaccine pass - yes. For those with one - why?

 

[funkygunther]

For countries without vaccine pass - yes. For those with one - why?

I don’t think a vaccine pass is going to make much of a difference when covid + winter has proved a really good combination so far. Vaccines will make a difference, but a vaccine passport (with whatever rules are given to it) I can’t see the direct benefit.

 

[Korranator]

I mean on one side you have a decades-long immunologist and physician, the hero doctor who helped combat the AIDS epidemic and has served in top scientific and medical roles then and since. On the other you have a grandstanding, science-denying politician who is not afraid to loudly bark out mistruths and distortions to further his agenda. Yes, he was a self-certified eye doctor once upon a time, but those days are long gone and I don't get the feeling he's too concerned with facts these days just going by his behavior and well-documented remarks.

Aside from that, there's easily perused literature and studies on this subject anyone can read.

Given all of that, I can't understand why any rational person would err on the side of the conspiracy theory repeating politician and not the famed immunologist.

Because that famed immunologist is a flat out liar. And has been proven to be a liar time and time again. He flip flops so much its ridiculous.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[sinnergy]

I don’t think a vaccine pass is going to make much of a difference when covid + winter has proved a really good combination so far. Vaccines will make a difference, but a vaccine passport (with whatever rules are given to it) I can’t see the direct benefit.

Vaccines won’t save us , how can you curb COVID , if vaccines are basically worthless after 6 months .. you need 90 % but everytime it lowers to less , because of variants , vaccines that aren’t as effective, there are new lock downs coming , this little guy will teach us that we will need to start thinking about changing our life’s .. maybe for the better .

 

[ManaByte]

there are new lock downs coming

Why are people so giddy about this concept?

this little guy will teach us that we will need to start thinking about changing our life’s

 

[funkygunther]

Vaccines won’t save us , how can you curb COVID , if vaccines are basically worthless after 6 months .. you need 90 % but everytime it lowers to less , because of variants , vaccines that aren’t as effective, there are new lock downs coming , this little guy will teach us that we will need to start thinking about changing our life’s .. maybe for the better .

yes, the younger groups who received their vaccine in the summer will be expected to get the booster and we’ll see what the rate of uptake is for that

but I think vaccines will help and won’t be as bad as last winter, we’re just not out of this yet and this winter will be a real test

 

[ManaByte]

but I think vaccines will help and won’t be as bad as last winter, we’re just not out of this yet and this winter will be a real test

At the rate numbers are falling in the US, it'll be endemic in a month. With vaccines + the dumbass anti-vaxxers getting COVID, the thing is running out of people to infect.

Even the CDC is saying this.

 

[funkygunther]

At the rate numbers are falling in the US, it'll be endemic in a month. With vaccines + the dumbass anti-vaxxers getting COVID, the thing is running out of people to infect.

Even the CDC is saying this.

your CDC that suggests people have virtual Christmases is saying coronavirus will be endemic before that?

 

[ManaByte]

your CDC that suggests people have virtual Christmases is saying coronavirus will be endemic before that?

Stop relying on Facebook antivaxxer meme images for your news.

CDC removes holiday guidance suggesting ‘virtual’ celebrations from website

A CDC spokesperson on Tuesday said guidance that was posted on the agency’s website suggesting “that families hold virtual holiday celebrations,” was outdated and removed from the agency’s website.

www.fox10phoenix.com

The agency told FOX TV Stations in an email on Tuesday that the guidance was "outdated."

"The guidance on that page was outdated holiday guidance. The page had a technical update on Friday, but doesn’t reflect the CDC’s guidance ahead of this upcoming holiday season," the spokesperson wrote.

 

[funkygunther]

Stop relying on Facebook antivaxxer meme images for your news.

Unfortunately it sometimes happens that foreigners may not be as up to speed with another county’s news, I’m about as pro vaccination as it comes. Do you have a link to CDC’s endemic statement?