The Coronavirus Thread

[pErvinalia]

But the mainstream is biased. These two aren't. Because they were on a podcast.

[NineBerry]

They are on their podcast constantly. And they are always talking about different topics and always have very strong opinions on these topics. A good reason not to value their opinion very highly.

[NineBerry]

governments have been lying daily for millennia!

And exactly this lets me sleep well every night. Politicians have been lying since forever. So, there's no need to mistrust them now more than usually.

[JimC]

Can someone do some gain of function research on me?

I want to be faster, stronger, smarter and richer...

[Tero]

Finland is known for honest reporting...things like this anyway. Death rare for known cases comes to 1.4%
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... in_Finland

US fatality rate is 1.7%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_ ... ted_States

Inititially Finland was keeping almost as well as the island nations. Then they allowed travel.

[pErvinalia]

They are on their podcast constantly. And they are always talking about different topics and always have very strong opinions on these topics. A good reason not to value their opinion very highly.

But we can trust people who are openly biased. Apparently.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Well then, better ignore The Lancet. Their bias isn't readily apparent, and what they have to say about the topic is nothing like 'banned by some presidents and allowed by others' so clearly they're lying.

'Ban on gain-of-function studies ends'

The situation has its roots in 2011, when the NSABB suppressed two studies involving H5N1 viruses that had been modified to allow airborne transmission from ferret to ferret. They worried that malign actors could replicate the work to deliberately cause an outbreak in human beings. After much debate, the studies were published in full in 2012. HHS subsequently issued guidelines for funding decisions on experiments likely to result in highly pathogenic H5N1 viruses transmissible from mammal to mammal via respiratory droplets. The guidelines were later expanded to include H7N9 viruses.

In 2014, several breaches of protocol at US government laboratories brought matters to a head. The news that dozens of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) might have been exposed to anthrax, that vials of smallpox virus had been left lying around in an NIH storeroom, and that the CDC had unwittingly sent out samples of ordinary influenza virus contaminated with H5N1, shook faith in the country's biosafety procedures. Over 200 scientists signed the Cambridge Working Group declaration arguing for a cessation of experiments creating potential pandemic pathogens “until there has been a quantitative, objective and credible assessment of the risks, potential benefits, and opportunities for risk mitigation, as well as comparison against safer experimental approaches”.

The debate is focused on a subset of gain-of-function studies that manipulate deadly viruses to increase their transmissibility or virulence. “This is what happens to viruses in the wild”, explains Carrie Wolinetz, head of the NIH Office of Science Policy. “Gain-of-function experiments allow us to understand how pandemic viruses evolve, so that we can make predictions, develop countermeasures, and do disease surveillance”. Although none of the widely publicised mishaps of 2014 involved such work, the NIH decided to suspend funding for gain-of-function studies involving influenza, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV.

The new framework stipulates that decisions on whether federal funding should be granted to a particular gain-of-function experiment will be decided on a case-by-case basis by a multidisciplinary review board at HHS. The board will evaluate the scientific merit of the experiment and examine whether there are viable, less risky approaches to tackle the same question.

[pErvinalia]

I don't think right wing talking points run that length.

[JimC]

I don't think right wing talking points run that length.

...and a lot of the words are too big and scary...

[Cunt]

How does gain of function research explain how the virus likely emanated from the lab in Wuhan?

Someone has misled you about what Weinstein claimed.

Yeah, some cunt misled me.

The talk about gain of function research and how it affected Weinsteins lab leak hypothesis is a pretty interesting subject.

Oh I see, you misread.

No worries mate. I just found the research and it's implications interesting. Obviously, some virologists also do.

The point is that the lab in Wuhan was doing gain of function research on bat corona viruses, so that it would be expected that things like the SARS-COV-2 virus are present in that lab.

Still, a myriad of experts who looked at the virus in detail say it is very unlikely the virus was the result of experiments in a lab. Those two guys in the podcast are both no specific experts on the question and in a minority position among experts, so I will go with the mainstream position.

The top dog at the Wuhan lab had a different reaction than you, until she confirmed that it wasn't one of 'hers'.

Your confidence is great, but so is Weinsteins. Do you disagree with him on some point specifically? He didn't say it DID come from a lab leak, just that it was still on the table as an origin.

I mean, pangolins didn't work out, apparently. Plus, the wet market notion seems implausable (too many coincidences required)

So what is the leading 'mainstream' one now?

[Cunt]

Well then, better ignore The Lancet. Their bias isn't readily apparent, and what they have to say about the topic is nothing like 'banned by some presidents and allowed by others' so clearly they're lying.

'Ban on gain-of-function studies ends'

The situation has its roots in 2011, when the NSABB suppressed two studies involving H5N1 viruses that had been modified to allow airborne transmission from ferret to ferret. They worried that malign actors could replicate the work to deliberately cause an outbreak in human beings. After much debate, the studies were published in full in 2012. HHS subsequently issued guidelines for funding decisions on experiments likely to result in highly pathogenic H5N1 viruses transmissible from mammal to mammal via respiratory droplets. The guidelines were later expanded to include H7N9 viruses.

In 2014, several breaches of protocol at US government laboratories brought matters to a head. The news that dozens of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) might have been exposed to anthrax, that vials of smallpox virus had been left lying around in an NIH storeroom, and that the CDC had unwittingly sent out samples of ordinary influenza virus contaminated with H5N1, shook faith in the country's biosafety procedures. Over 200 scientists signed the Cambridge Working Group declaration arguing for a cessation of experiments creating potential pandemic pathogens “until there has been a quantitative, objective and credible assessment of the risks, potential benefits, and opportunities for risk mitigation, as well as comparison against safer experimental approaches”.

The debate is focused on a subset of gain-of-function studies that manipulate deadly viruses to increase their transmissibility or virulence. “This is what happens to viruses in the wild”, explains Carrie Wolinetz, head of the NIH Office of Science Policy. “Gain-of-function experiments allow us to understand how pandemic viruses evolve, so that we can make predictions, develop countermeasures, and do disease surveillance”. Although none of the widely publicised mishaps of 2014 involved such work, the NIH decided to suspend funding for gain-of-function studies involving influenza, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV.

The new framework stipulates that decisions on whether federal funding should be granted to a particular gain-of-function experiment will be decided on a case-by-case basis by a multidisciplinary review board at HHS. The board will evaluate the scientific merit of the experiment and examine whether there are viable, less risky approaches to tackle the same question.

Wow, how embarrassing.

I should have said 'banned under some administrations, not in others'.

You sure showed me. Yup. You should be proud.

[pErvinalia]

You should be embarrassed. Yet you keep doing the same thing (being wrong/inaccurate) over and over again.

[rainbow]

He didn't say it DID come from a lab leak, just that it was still on the table as an origin.

So what is the leading 'mainstream' one now?

Space Aliens with pointy heads.

...they haven't been ruled out entirely.

It is like finding a Noodle in a Hubei Snack.

https://www.chinasichuanfood.com/hot-an ... n-noodles/

[Tero]

SCIENCE.jpg (25.41 KiB) Viewed 797 times

[Tero]

Oops. Back to FB.