Talk:Gain-of-function research

Any and all Genetic Modification is Gain of Function
The term "Gain of Function" (GoF) is a misnomer; any genetic alteration of an organism, including the modification of a micro-organism is GoF. What Fauci, Daszak, Lane,. and others commit is better described as (evil) augmentation, apparently for profit, population control - and infamy. But there is more than that to there workings. Sadly, pos writing rubbish on wiki enable criminals like those mentioned above to flourish at the expense of innocent peoples lives, health and livelihoods. 90.192.92.92 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * any genetic alteration. So loss of function would be gain of function research? Dunno about that. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Six of the six mice..."
Surely "All of the six mice" 2601:CF:300:4B70:F9:2F77:5234:5134 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * sure! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

PLOS article on NIH-funded GOF at Wuhan
Here's the article that Rand Paul showed Fauci in his Congressional testimony, to support his claim that the US funded gain of function research at Wuhan:


 * https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698
 * Hu B, Zeng L-P, Yang X-L, Ge X-Y, Zhang W, Li B, et al.
 * Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus.
 * PLoS Pathog 13(11): e1006698.
 * November 30, 2017
 * Doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

and here's a discussion of the paper arguing that Rand Paul was wrong, by Daniel Wilson, PhD, who runs a website devoted to correcting COVID-19 misinformation:


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGaqSoyv8Y0
 * Fauci did not fund gain of function research in China

--Nbauman (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 Gain-of-Function research updates
[https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nih-office-director/office-principal-deputy-director/lawrence-tabak-dds-phd#:~:text=Lawrence%20A.%20Tabak%2C%20D.D.S.%2C%20Ph.D.%20is%20the%20Principal,Director%20of%20the%20National%20Institutes%20of%20Health%20%28NIH%29. NIH deputy director Richard Tabak] recently confirmed in congressional testimony that the NIH did fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab as reported by Forbes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxGN8el7MA4&ab_channel=ForbesBreakingNews (relevant timestamp at 45:01)


 * Congresswoman Lesko: "Dr. Tabak, did NIH fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through EcoHealth?"


 * Dr. Richard Tabak: "It depends on your definition of gain-of function research.  If you're speaking about the generic term, yes we did, because- but this is research, the generic term goes on in many many labs around the country , it is not regulated, and the reason it is not regulated is because it poses no harm or threat to anybody.

This is a substantial department from what is written in this article and what was the general consensus prior to this hearing. As is stated in direct quotes in this article, the previous consensus was there was absolutely 0 NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the WIH.


 * "the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research [conducted at] the Wuhan Institute of Virology" (Quoting from this article, which is quoting Dr. Anthony Fauci)

Now, the stated position of the NIH is that there was NIH-funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but was only of a "generic form" of gain of function research. This is of course a substantial departure from previous statements made, unless Tabak has severely misspoke here, which I don't think has happened. As such I'm unsure how to present the current position of the NIH without substantively contradicting what was said before.

I'll make an edit adding the most recent evidence and testimony, but am happy to discuss it further. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)