You are pushing complete nonsense again -- that has been totally been debunked. And by the way the researchers at UNC - Chapel Hill have a few words for you and your lies -- "Go f@ck yourself".
Douchebags like you lie about facts.. I already proved this to you... you piece of shit liar.. https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research- 1.18787 Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells. Declan Butler 12 November 2015 Article tools Rights & Permissions An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus — one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) — has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks. In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them. Although almost all coronaviruses isolated from bats have not been able to bind to the key human receptor, SHC014 is not the first that can do so. In 2013, researchers reported this ability for the first time in a different coronavirus isolated from the same bat population2. Related stories Viral-research moratorium called too broad US suspends risky disease research Biosafety in the balance The findings reinforce suspicions that bat coronaviruses capable of directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an intermediate animal host) may be more common than previously thought, the researchers say. But other virologists question whether the information gleaned from the experiment justifies the potential risk. Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” he says. Creation of a chimaera The argument is essentially a rerun of the debate over whether to allow lab research that increases the virulence, ease of spread or host range of dangerous pathogens — what is known as ‘gain-of-function’ research. In October 2014, the US government imposed a moratorium on federal funding of such research on the viruses that cause SARS, influenza and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, a deadly disease caused by a virus that sporadically jumps from camels to people). The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study. The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says. But Wain-Hobson disapproves of the study because, he says, it provides little benefit, and reveals little about the risk that the wild SHC014 virus in bats poses to humans. Other experiments in the study show that the virus in wild bats would need to evolve to pose any threat to humans — a change that may never happen, although it cannot be ruled out. Baric and his team reconstructed the wild virus from its genome sequence and found that it grew poorly in human cell cultures and caused no significant disease in mice. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” agrees Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Both Ebright and Wain-Hobson are long-standing critics of gain-of-function research. In their paper, the study authors also concede that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future. "Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue," they write, adding that discussion is needed as to "whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved”. Useful research But Baric and others say the research did have benefits. The study findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger”, says Peter Daszak, who co-authored the 2013 paper. Daszak is president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an international network of scientists, headquartered in New York City, that samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe. Studies testing hybrid viruses in human cell culture and animal models are limited in what they can say about the threat posed by a wild virus, Daszak agrees. But he argues that they can help indicate which pathogens should be prioritized for further research attention. Without the experiments, says Baric, the SHC014 virus would still be seen as not a threat. Previously, scientists had believed, on the basis of molecular modelling and other studies, that it should not be able to infect human cells. The latest work shows that the virus has already overcome critical barriers, such as being able to latch onto human receptors and efficiently infect human airway cells, he says. “I don't think you can ignore that.” He plans to do further studies with the virus in non-human primates, which may yield data more relevant to humans https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/
This is from the BBC you fucking lying commie moron.... and don't forget Obama paused the funding on this because it was (dual use research meaning it could be used for weapons... and this Fauci douchebag lifted that Ban under Trump and hence more funding went to the lab.... owned by the Chinese military. https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699 Coronavirus: Was US money used to fund risky research in China? By Reality Check team BBC News Published 5 days ago Related Topics Reality Check IMAGE COPYRIGHTGETTY IMAGES image captionDr Anthony Fauci clashed with Senator Rand Paul during a Senate hearing As the debate continues over the origins of the coronavirus, a fresh row has erupted over virus research being carried out in China using US funds. It's linked to the unproven theory that the virus could have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, the Chinese city where it was first detected. This idea centres on research carried out on bat viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Republican Senator Rand Paul alleges that US money was used to fund research there that made some viruses (not the coronavirus) more infectious and more deadly, known as "gain-of-function". But his assertion has been firmly rejected by Dr Anthony Fauci, the US infectious diseases chief. What is 'gain-of-function' research? "Gain-of-function" is when an organism develops new abilities (or "functions"). This can happen in nature, or it can be achieved in a lab, when scientists modify the genetic code or place organisms in different environments, to change them in some way. IMAGE COPYRIGHTGETTY IMAGES image captionModifying organisms can be a way to combat diseases like malaria For example, this might involve scientists trying to create drought-resistant plants or modify disease vectors in mosquitoes to make them less likely to pass on infections. With viruses that could pose a risk to human health, it means developing viruses that are potentially more transmissible and dangerous. Scientists justify the potential risks by saying the research can help prepare for future outbreaks and pandemics by understanding how viruses evolve, and therefore develop better treatments and vaccines. Did the US fund virus research in China? Yes, it did contribute some funds. Dr Fauci, as well as being an adviser to President Biden, is the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the US government's National Institutes of Health (NIH). IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS image captionLab-leak theories centre on the Wuhan Institute of Virology This body did give money to an organisation that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That organisation - the US-based EcoHealth Alliance - was awarded a grant in 2014 to look into possible coronaviruses from bats. EcoHealth received $3.7m from the NIH, $600,000 of which was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In 2019, its project was renewed for another five years, but then pulled by the Trump administration in April 2020 following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. Was US money used for 'gain-of-function' studies? IMAGE COPYRIGHTGETTY IMAGES image captionSenator Rand Paul believes US money helped create dangerous viruses In May, Dr Fauci stated that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) "has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology". Senator Rand Paul asked Dr Fauci this week if he wanted to retract that statement, saying: "As you are aware it is a crime to lie to Congress." Senator Paul believes the research did qualify as "gain-of-function" research, and referred to two academic papers by the Chinese institute, one from 2015 (written together with the University of North Carolina), and another from 2017. One prominent scientist supporting this view - and quoted by Senator Paul - is Prof Richard Ebright of Rutgers University. He told the BBC that the research in both papers showed that new viruses (that did not already exist naturally) were created, and these "risked creating new potential pathogens" that were more infectious. "The research in both papers was gain-of-function research", he said. He added that it met the official definition of such research outlined in 2014 when the US government halted funding for such activities due to biosafety concerns. The funding was paused to allow a new framework to be drawn up for such research. more at link ....
Here are the facts.... You should stop pushing unhinged nonsense. Fauci: ‘There’s no way’ the coronavirus was made with U.S. research funds. Here’s why https://www.latimes.com/science/sto...us-was-made-with-u-s-research-funds-heres-why From the pandemic’s earliest days,Dr. Anthony Fauci has drawn political fire from COVID-19 skeptics. As director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci is steeped in the scientific disciplines of virology, immunology and vaccine design. But critics, especially President Trump and his political allies, continue to excoriate him for supporting textbook public health measures like wearing face coverings and building immunity with vaccines. The latest example occurred this week on Capitol Hill, when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) effectively accused Fauci of sending U.S. tax dollars to China so scientists there could soup up coronaviruses culled from bats and make them more dangerous to people. Then he accused Fauci of lying to Congress about the purported project. In a final shot, Paul said Fauci could be responsible for more than 4 million deaths worldwide. Fauci has stoically endured a lot of molten rhetoric over the past 18 months, but he did not accept these charges quietly. “Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about, and I want to say that officially,” Fauci said. “I totally resent the lie you are now propagating.” Paul told Fox News the following day that he will ask the Department of Justice to explore whether Fauci committed a felony by lying to Congress, a crime which is punishable by up to five years in prison. That would stem from Fauci’s May 11 assertion to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that the National Institutes of Health never funded so-called gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — the type of work that would give a virus new and more dangerous capabilities. Paul’s claims rest on some very specific assumptions, not all of which have been demonstrated to be true. In science, at least, assumptions must be verified if the conclusions that emerge from them are to be taken seriously. Due to repeated interruptions, Fauci didn’t get a chance to respond to all of Paul’s charges at this week’s hearing. Let’s consider them now and see how well they are, or could be, backed by evidence. Assumption 1: NIAID funded gain-of-function at the Wuhan Institute of Technology. In 2014, the institute Fauci directs awarded a five-year, $3-million grant to the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance for a project titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” That project focused heavily on China, where novel coronaviruses had emerged from animals on several occasions. The work promised to explore the potential pandemic risk of such viruses by gathering samples from the field, studying viruses in the lab, and developing models about how they could evolve and spread in real life. In an interview, Fauci said that roughly $600,000 of the grant money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Scientists there — many of them U.S.-trained — were tasked with nailing down the precise origins of the original SARS-CoV-1 virus that arose in China’s Guangdong Province in 2002. They were also asked to “help us understand what we need to look for” to spot “what might be an inevitable subsequent SARS outbreak.” That grant allowed scientists to test coronavirus samples harvested from wild animals and their habitats to see whether they were capable of infecting human cells. To do that, the WIV researchers created an experimental “backbone,” a piece of inactivated virus that serves as a standardized testbed. Then, to examine a particular coronavirus sample, they spliced off its spike protein and fused it to the backbone before exposing it to human cells in lab dishes to see if it would grow. At the time, there was a prohibition against using federal funds for gain-of-function research. That specifically barred “research projects that may be reasonably anticipated” to make influenza and SARS viruses more transmissible and/or more virulent in mammals “via the respiratory route.” WIV’s adherence to that prohibition was monitored, and if in the course of an experiment a virus appeared to have been made potentially dangerous, the instructions were clear: “The experiments must stop and you’ve got to report to the [NIAID] immediately,” Fauci said. This bit involves a bit of trust. After all, some changes in transmissibility or virulence occur naturally during lab experiments, and watching for those changes is part of the point of doing them. To document when and how a virus might become capable of jumping to humans, it’s crucial to identify where genetic mutations arise, under what circumstances, and how they may change a virus’ behavior. But observing such changes and making them are two different things. The purpose of the WIV research was to investigate coronaviruses that were known to circulate in animals (but had not been seen in humans) and to explore their capacity to invade human cells. That makes it hard to say whether the altered virus’ ability to invade human cells was a function “gained” or was merely uncovered by WIV scientists. In addition, genetic tampering or editing will typically leave behind discernible marks. In a recent “critical review” of the origins of SARS-CoV-2, an international group of virologists notes that the virus “carries no evidence of genetic markers one might expect from laboratory experiments.” Assumption 2: Scientists funded by NIAID increased the virulence or transmissibility of the coronaviruses they sampled. Scientists at WIV created hybrid viruses, or chimeras, when they spliced the spike proteins of actual coronaviruses onto viral testbeds — a procedure that makes it easier to isolate the effects of the spike protein, which is key to invading cells. Two chimeras made with spike proteins from bat coronaviruses were able to infect human cells. Paul, who has a medical degree and trained in ophthamology, said such experiments “create new viruses not found in nature,” which is true. The work “matches, indeed epitomizes, the definition of gain-of-function” research barred by the NIH. “Viruses that in nature only infect animals were manipulated in the Wuhan lab to gain the function of infecting humans,” he said. But that view is subject to debate among scientists. Fauci said the practice of combining spike proteins from the wild with a lab-made viral backbone was standard laboratory procedure. This particular backbone was adapted from pieces of a bat virus “never known to infect humans,” he said. The experiments were reviewed at many levels by qualified professionals in virology, who judged that it was not gain-of-function work. “We’re looking at spike proteins of bat viruses that are already out there,” Fauci said. “We’re not manipulating them to make them more or less likely to bind to human cells. We’re just asking, ‘Do they, or not?’” He said the assurances he provided the Senate committee in May were similarly vetted up and down the NIH. “Neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans,” NIH Director Francis Collins said in a statement issued on May 19. One thing is clear: Federal scientists now have broad latitude to define whether a line of research could result in an “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen.” A 2017 document from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services allows the NIH to proceed if expert reviewers determine that it is “scientifically sound,” the pathogen that could be created “is a credible source of a potential future human pandemic,” and the investigator and his or her institution “have a demonstrated capacity and commitment to conduct [the research] safely and securely.” Assumption 3: The coronavirus chimeras escaped the WIV lab, either accidentally or deliberately. Whether SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the Wuhan lab is the subject of ongoing debate and investigation by scientists and the U.S. intelligence community. While the World Health Organization initially judged the prospect of a lab leak “extremely unlikely,” the organization’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has since said that “all hypotheses remain on the table.” President Biden has given the intelligence community until late August to conduct a review of the facts and “bring us closer to a definitive conclusion” about which of two scenarios — a laboratory accident or human contact with an infected animal — began the chain of events that led to the pandemic. Fauci rules out only one scenario: that the viruses examined under the NIAID contract initiated the pandemic. Assumption 4: Viruses that were altered in the Wuhan lab with NIAID funds seeded the pandemic. This is the leap of logic that Fauci, in an interview, called “absolutely inflammatory” and “slanderous.” It is also the claim that is most difficult to support with evidence. “Is it conceivable that somewhere in the Wuhan institute they were looking at viruses that may have leaked out? I’m leaving that to the people who are doing the investigation to figure out,” Fauci said. But there is “one thing that we are sure of,” he added: “The grant that we funded, and the result of that grant — given in the annual reports, given in the peer-reviewed literature — is not SARS-CoV-2.” How can he be so sure? There is just too much evolutionary distance between the coronavirus samples the Wuhan scientists were working with — all of them genetically sequenced and detailed in published work — and the virus that causes COVID-19. This is what Fauci meant when he told lawmakers this week that it was “molecularly impossible” for the viruses examined by WIV to evolve into SARS-CoV-2: Generally, the overlap between the genomes of the viruses in the lab and that of SARS-CoV-2 was no more than 80%. In evolutionary terms, that’s a chasm. In their critical review, the international group of virologists note that SARS-CoV-2 and its closest known relatives have an overlap of about 96%. That “equates to decades of evolutionary divergence,” they wrote. Given that, Fauci said, “there’s no way” the viruses studied at WIV could have evolved into the virus that has caused 4 million deaths around the world. Would it be possible to bridge that gap with some deft splicing and dicing in a lab? Perhaps, but if so, telltale marks likely would have been left behind. Those have not been seen by scientists who went looking. Those same scientists have noted that, were someone looking to make a coronavirus as transmissible as possible, he or she would have changed the spike protein in ways that were already known to improve the virus’ ability to spread.
You called facts nonsense... and now you are pushing this twisted garbage as your response to the true facts that you just saw again in the BBC article... And if you saw the traitor's testimony - " there was no way" only if you trusted the Chinese military to segregate the lab money... you lying stupid commie fuck. 1. from your article... "This bit involves a bit of trust. After all, some changes in transmissibility or virulence occur naturally during lab experiments," 2. Money is fungible you fucking idiot. The money went to the lab where gain of function research happened and the virus became contagious to humans. ...
gwb- Fauci did not fund gain of function research in China... and calls me names... and says fuck you from North Carolina researcher... BBC... Did the US fund virus research in China? Yes, it did contribute some funds. Dr Fauci, as well as being an adviser to President Biden, is the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the US government's National Institutes of Health (NIH). This body did give money to an organisation that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That organisation - the US-based EcoHealth Alliance - was awarded a grant in 2014 to look into possible coronaviruses from bats. EcoHealth received $3.7m from the NIH, $600,000 of which was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In 2019, its project was renewed for another five years, but then pulled by the Trump administration in April 2020 following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. --------------------------------------------------- ECO health... was run for the asshole professor from North Carolina... Dr. Peter Daszak - EcoHealth Alliance Just looking at that name... you know this was shady shit with the Chinese. Funding Covid gain of function research in China... and getting funding from fauci as eco health alliance... and asshole douchebag commie traitors like GWB cheering on the murder of hundreds thousand by these traitors.... as he spreads lies and fears... and demands lockdowns... for the healthy....
So Ecohealth is an NGO that is focused on the following: EcoHealth Alliance is a non-governmental organization with a stated mission of protecting people, animals, and the environment from emerging infectious diseases. The nonprofit is focused on research that aims to prevent pandemics and promote conservation in hotspot regions worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance In other words they are "a nonprofit organization focused on finding unknown viruses in nature". Sounds like they are doing exactly what they are expected to be doing to protect us from new novel viruses that jump from animals to humans. Working in tandem with other countries. Somehow you find this to be a bad thing.