Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2021 20:11:04 GMT -6
Rand Paul vs. Dr. Fauci - Who is lying, who is telling the truth and does it really matter?
I have been seeing the heated debates on this subject on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MSM, just about everywhere. I was not paying particularly close attention to it, but then a friend of mine asked me what I thought. I said that I hadn't read the actual publication linked as the smoking gun, but if they had a link, I would read it and give my opinions.
Why might my opinions matter? I am a Ph.D. chemical engineer with several years of bio-research experience and actually did my Master's Degree on recombinant DNA bacteriophages (viruses) for gain of function (producing green fluorescent proteins) results. I can understand the protocols and technical jargon used in the actual published work.
That being said, the details breakdown this way.
The primary point in question is did the NIAID as part of the NIH under the directorship of Dr. Fauci fund “gain of function” research on corona viruses at the Wuhan, China Research Facility.
In my review of the article, the answer can actually be argued from both sides. I will lay out the primary ideas as simply as I can and point out the arguments from both sides and leave you to draw your own conclusions. A link to the actual scientific publication is at the bottom of this (note it is EXTREMELY technical) and my opinion on the matter will be in the comments.
The study was paid for by a grant from the NIH (National Institute of Health, US Govt.) and most of the primary researchers are from the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases in Wuhan, China. Dr. Fauci has been the director of the NIAID, which is the research arm for infectious diseases, at the NIH since 1984 and would have had some level of approvals for these grants. The work was performed in 2011-2017 and was published in 2017. The original purpose of the research was to try and find the precursor viruses to SARS-CoV among bat-based corona viruses and thus prove the natural evolutionary pathway for SARS. COVID-19 was no part of the study and was not even a known variable at the point of publication.
First, the researchers studied bats in caves and found 11 distinct genetic variants of corona viruses with similarities to SARS-CoV. Research conducted in previous publications had found another 4 variants for a total of 15 corona virus strains with similarities.
2 of these viruses from the previous publication (WIV1 and WIV16) had already shown that they could effectively bind the ACE2 receptor and reproduce in a cell through that entry vector. Why is that important? ACE2 is the receptor that the “spike” protein on SARS and COVID-19 uses to infect humans. So, some of these bat viruses already had the ability to reproduce in human hosts, but may not have had the deadly effects of SARS and COVID-19 because of the rest of their genetic structure.
There are several parts of the study where researchers compare similarities between the discovered variants, the other variants and SARS-CoV. They also use analysis to show that some of the variants are likely combinations of 2-3 other variants and may have led to SARS-CoV through other recombinations in the proper locations, but none of the variants were close enough to SARS-CoV to prove the evolution outright.
Then they focused on the S-Gene part of the variants. This is the part of the virus that encodes the spike protein and determines the ACE2 receptor binding effectiveness of the virus. The part that makes it infectious to humans. WIV1 and WIV16 had already been found to be effective at binding ACE2 and reproducing. Did the researchers simply test the other variants? No, they wanted to isolate the function of the S-genes as much as possible and make sure that the experiment ONLY tested the S-gene portion. They chose 8 of the variants to experiment on. What they did was to cut out the S-gene of the WIV1 variant and leave the rest of it intact, then they cut off the S-gene of each of the other 8 variants and inserted them into the slot left where WIV1’s S-gene used to be. That way, the researchers know that the rest of the new, hybrid virus was not affecting the ACE2 binding effectiveness, because WIV1 was already good at that. Simple right? The results were that all hybrid variants (variant S-gene + WIV1 backbone) were effective at binding the ACE2 receptor and reproducing in the cells.
Those who side with Rand Paul can easily argue that this is gain of function research from two directions. 1 – they were technically researching the pathway by which random bat corona viruses gained the function of being able to infect humans and have deadly consequences such as those seen in SARS. By tracing the evolution of genetic mutations leading to S-genes that were able to bind to the ACE2 receptor they were researching how gain of function was done. Thus, gain of function research. 2 – since the original 8 variants of corona viruses were not tested for ACE2 receptor binding ability intact before their S-genes were separated, it is possible that by making the hybrid S-gene + WIV1 backbone variant the S-gene portion gained ACE2 binding ability that was not present in the original variant. The man-made hybrid gained the function of ACE2 receptor binding where the S-gene previously did not have it.
Those who side with Dr. Fauci can counter each of those arguments in the following ways. 1 – the original purpose of the study was not to create new functionality in virus variants, but to trace the possible evolution of an existing deadly variant (SARS-CoV) from existing animal based viruses and to find the source of it, if possible. Additionally, all variants isolated had high genetic similarity scores to SARS-CoV or they would not have been of interest to the study. Thus, the variants should have similar functionality to the virus being researched. No gain of function research exists. 2 – Given that the S-gene portion of each variant comprises less than 5% of the genetic code and the WIV1 variant had proven ACE2 binding capabilities, there is no gain of function available. WIV1 comprises 95%+ of the used genetic code and already has this function. Additionally, because funding was limited and the researchers wanted to limit the variability in the experiments, the individual variants were not tested for ACE2 binding ability and thus it is only an assumption that gain of function of the S-genes was made. Even if it is later proven that gain of function occurred, no researcher or funding organization went into the experiment intending to increase the functionality of the viruses. They were simply trying to effectively utilize the project funding and eliminate variables/unproductive pathways of investigation.
So, the devil truly is in the details and the argument can be made from either side. Feel free to draw your own conclusions on who is right and who is wrong, but remember the facts as laid out above.
My opinion on the whole thing is this. Rand Paul can find lies and Fauci can say that "gain of function" was never the intent of the study, even if it did occur. It is only an assumption that it did occur and further testing would be needed to prove it definitively.
What does that mean? It means that this is yet another effective means by which the ruling class is dividing us and distracting us.
It is an important point for Rand Paul to point out and it is possible that this lead to other "gain of function" research by China, but there is no real smoking gun here. Very disturbing stuff, but not proof of much at all.
Comments and questions are welcomed. Link to article is below.
journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698
I have been seeing the heated debates on this subject on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MSM, just about everywhere. I was not paying particularly close attention to it, but then a friend of mine asked me what I thought. I said that I hadn't read the actual publication linked as the smoking gun, but if they had a link, I would read it and give my opinions.
Why might my opinions matter? I am a Ph.D. chemical engineer with several years of bio-research experience and actually did my Master's Degree on recombinant DNA bacteriophages (viruses) for gain of function (producing green fluorescent proteins) results. I can understand the protocols and technical jargon used in the actual published work.
That being said, the details breakdown this way.
The primary point in question is did the NIAID as part of the NIH under the directorship of Dr. Fauci fund “gain of function” research on corona viruses at the Wuhan, China Research Facility.
In my review of the article, the answer can actually be argued from both sides. I will lay out the primary ideas as simply as I can and point out the arguments from both sides and leave you to draw your own conclusions. A link to the actual scientific publication is at the bottom of this (note it is EXTREMELY technical) and my opinion on the matter will be in the comments.
The study was paid for by a grant from the NIH (National Institute of Health, US Govt.) and most of the primary researchers are from the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases in Wuhan, China. Dr. Fauci has been the director of the NIAID, which is the research arm for infectious diseases, at the NIH since 1984 and would have had some level of approvals for these grants. The work was performed in 2011-2017 and was published in 2017. The original purpose of the research was to try and find the precursor viruses to SARS-CoV among bat-based corona viruses and thus prove the natural evolutionary pathway for SARS. COVID-19 was no part of the study and was not even a known variable at the point of publication.
First, the researchers studied bats in caves and found 11 distinct genetic variants of corona viruses with similarities to SARS-CoV. Research conducted in previous publications had found another 4 variants for a total of 15 corona virus strains with similarities.
2 of these viruses from the previous publication (WIV1 and WIV16) had already shown that they could effectively bind the ACE2 receptor and reproduce in a cell through that entry vector. Why is that important? ACE2 is the receptor that the “spike” protein on SARS and COVID-19 uses to infect humans. So, some of these bat viruses already had the ability to reproduce in human hosts, but may not have had the deadly effects of SARS and COVID-19 because of the rest of their genetic structure.
There are several parts of the study where researchers compare similarities between the discovered variants, the other variants and SARS-CoV. They also use analysis to show that some of the variants are likely combinations of 2-3 other variants and may have led to SARS-CoV through other recombinations in the proper locations, but none of the variants were close enough to SARS-CoV to prove the evolution outright.
Then they focused on the S-Gene part of the variants. This is the part of the virus that encodes the spike protein and determines the ACE2 receptor binding effectiveness of the virus. The part that makes it infectious to humans. WIV1 and WIV16 had already been found to be effective at binding ACE2 and reproducing. Did the researchers simply test the other variants? No, they wanted to isolate the function of the S-genes as much as possible and make sure that the experiment ONLY tested the S-gene portion. They chose 8 of the variants to experiment on. What they did was to cut out the S-gene of the WIV1 variant and leave the rest of it intact, then they cut off the S-gene of each of the other 8 variants and inserted them into the slot left where WIV1’s S-gene used to be. That way, the researchers know that the rest of the new, hybrid virus was not affecting the ACE2 binding effectiveness, because WIV1 was already good at that. Simple right? The results were that all hybrid variants (variant S-gene + WIV1 backbone) were effective at binding the ACE2 receptor and reproducing in the cells.
Those who side with Rand Paul can easily argue that this is gain of function research from two directions. 1 – they were technically researching the pathway by which random bat corona viruses gained the function of being able to infect humans and have deadly consequences such as those seen in SARS. By tracing the evolution of genetic mutations leading to S-genes that were able to bind to the ACE2 receptor they were researching how gain of function was done. Thus, gain of function research. 2 – since the original 8 variants of corona viruses were not tested for ACE2 receptor binding ability intact before their S-genes were separated, it is possible that by making the hybrid S-gene + WIV1 backbone variant the S-gene portion gained ACE2 binding ability that was not present in the original variant. The man-made hybrid gained the function of ACE2 receptor binding where the S-gene previously did not have it.
Those who side with Dr. Fauci can counter each of those arguments in the following ways. 1 – the original purpose of the study was not to create new functionality in virus variants, but to trace the possible evolution of an existing deadly variant (SARS-CoV) from existing animal based viruses and to find the source of it, if possible. Additionally, all variants isolated had high genetic similarity scores to SARS-CoV or they would not have been of interest to the study. Thus, the variants should have similar functionality to the virus being researched. No gain of function research exists. 2 – Given that the S-gene portion of each variant comprises less than 5% of the genetic code and the WIV1 variant had proven ACE2 binding capabilities, there is no gain of function available. WIV1 comprises 95%+ of the used genetic code and already has this function. Additionally, because funding was limited and the researchers wanted to limit the variability in the experiments, the individual variants were not tested for ACE2 binding ability and thus it is only an assumption that gain of function of the S-genes was made. Even if it is later proven that gain of function occurred, no researcher or funding organization went into the experiment intending to increase the functionality of the viruses. They were simply trying to effectively utilize the project funding and eliminate variables/unproductive pathways of investigation.
So, the devil truly is in the details and the argument can be made from either side. Feel free to draw your own conclusions on who is right and who is wrong, but remember the facts as laid out above.
My opinion on the whole thing is this. Rand Paul can find lies and Fauci can say that "gain of function" was never the intent of the study, even if it did occur. It is only an assumption that it did occur and further testing would be needed to prove it definitively.
What does that mean? It means that this is yet another effective means by which the ruling class is dividing us and distracting us.
It is an important point for Rand Paul to point out and it is possible that this lead to other "gain of function" research by China, but there is no real smoking gun here. Very disturbing stuff, but not proof of much at all.
Comments and questions are welcomed. Link to article is below.
journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698