News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by late2part on Sunday May 30, 2021 @03:32PM (#27335943)
Nonetheless:

1. Fauci runs funding for gain of function research 2. Attributing COVID-19 to gain of function research hurts future gain of function research 3. Cui bono

Some context: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/

Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by geofft on Sunday May 30, 2021 @03:56PM (#27336165)
The link you provide as context contradicts 1, if I'm reading it right? It says that Fauci does not want to fund this research.

(Maybe I'm misunderstanding the posited conspiracy and the idea is that if the NIH doesn't fund something, Fauci pockets the unspent money?)

Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by potiuper on Sunday May 30, 2021 @05:13PM (#27336850)
The link (2012) does not contradict 1 and does not say that Fauci does not want to fund "this" [SARS] research.
Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by middleclick on Sunday May 30, 2021 @03:52PM (#27336135)
> Fauci runs funding for gain of function research

Fauci has denied multiple times that they funded gain of function research. Please cite your sources.

Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by late2part on Sunday May 30, 2021 @05:52PM (#27337217)
Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by alien_ on Sunday May 30, 2021 @05:02PM (#27336717)
There's this other article https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop... which among other things explains that gain of function is technically defined as modifying existing human viruses to make them more dangerous.

The SARS2 quite likely isn't based on an existing human virus but on a bat coronavirus.

The NIH has been apparently funding modifying bat coronaviruses in Wuhan with minimal guardrails as to be able to infect humanized lab mice but that's not gain of function as per that definition.

Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by late2part on Sunday May 30, 2021 @05:53PM (#27337224)
Well, despite your technical definition, it would seem it gained function.
Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by ncmncm on Sunday May 30, 2021 @09:38PM (#27338997)
It gained function without involving any of what are formally considered gain-of-function operations. So, Fauci could fund it, and also truthfully testify under oath that he didn't fund anything that, by the definition, would count as GoF work. That a virus did gain function, by operations not covered by the definition, is a separate problem: The definition should be widened enough to cover what really happened.
Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by potiuper on Sunday May 30, 2021 @04:58PM (#27336673)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by NIH grants R01AI089728; (to F.L.) and R01AI110700 (to R.S.B. and F.L.).

"To evaluate the potential genetic changes required for HKU4 to infect human cells, we reengineered HKU4 spike, aiming to build its capacity to mediate viral entry into human cells."

Fauci has been director of NIAID since 1984, which is excessive.

Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by middleclick on Sunday May 30, 2021 @05:12PM (#27336836)
Fauci has categorically denied on record that they don't fund gain of function research. I am not qualified enough to comment if the re-engineering mentioned here is the same.

I trust Fauci to not lie in a public hearing and to know what he is saying.

Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by late2part on Sunday May 30, 2021 @05:55PM (#27337239)
Like when he said we shouldn’t use masks?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...

Re:Molecular biology clues portray SARS-CoV-2 as a lab manip... by randcraw on Sunday May 30, 2021 @09:32PM (#27338959)
Being wrong is not at issue, especially when the source reverses their position as better info arises. What's at issue is malevolent intent — knowingly spreading falsehoods. I'm aware of no credible basis for believing the latter about Fauci.