all 9 comments

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Are we living through an episode of "The Last Ship"?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Then he wrote a paper where he said gain of function research was worth the risk of a pandemic

Is that a fair description of the paper?

The abstract that he wrote is:

The voluntary moratorium on gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus should continue, pending the resolution of critical policy questions concerning the rationale for performing such experiments and how best to report their results. The potential benefits and risks of these experiments must be discussed and understood by multiple stakeholders, including the general public, and all decisions regarding such research must be made in a transparent manner.

The full paper is here.

He did write Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.

He immediately goes on to explain It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.

And, completely counter to the spin by sky news then writes However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.

It reads to me as more thoughtful and cautious than Sky News Australia would like their audience to believe. And I don't trust the motivations of media that appear to be adding spin to a story. So much of their income derives from native advertising compared to selling stories, that I think it's fair to ask "Who is paying for Sky News to have me believe this spin on the story?"

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fuck Fauci. He is a liar, and you are trying to downplay his lies.

[–]Questionable[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Is that a fair description of the paper?

Yes.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The main argument of the paper is that the moratorium on gain of function research of influenza A should continue.

I think the point that gain of function research is worth the risk of pandemic is intentionally missing that point. Moreover it's even a little bit distorted from what he says in the paper at all. He doesn't use this paper to suggest that gain of function research is worth the risk of a pandemic, but that he has said that in the past.

For these reasons, I'm going to disagree with you there Questionable.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"The main argument of the paper is that the moratorium on gain of function research of influenza A should continue. I think the point that gain of function research is worth the risk of pandemic is intentionally missing that point. "

It seems you are easy to disagree with, as you yourself embrace double think. You have just claimed for these statement to have different meanings for using different wordings. Both of which insist that the research is to continue, despite the inherent risk.

"For these reasons, I'm going to disagree with you there Questionable."

And that is where you are wrong. As you are not disagreeing with me, as much as everyone here neither believes that you argue in good faith, nor does anyone seem to agree with you. You believe in nothing. You only care to argue and win. You are a tourist.

Ĥ̅͛ǝ̮̺͕̲̰llo ʍoɹlp' I,m Qnǝsʇᴉouɐqlǝ.̬̘̟ͅ

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Both of which insist that the research is to continue, despite the inherent risk.

No. Fauci argued the opposite: The voluntary moratorium on gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus should continue.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

OK so the paper he wrote doesn't say that gain-of-function research is worth the risk of a pandemic, it says that he has said that before.

Not much of a difference. He still said it.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In the paper, he advocates extending the moratorium on gain of function research.

That's a significant difference from what the article is trying to suggest. And demonstrates the caution of his position.

The next thing it says is the quote (and not the accusation that) "he had even funded coronavirus research in conjunction with the Chinese military". I can't find any evidence of this either.