This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gain-of-function research article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article history and other notices | |||||||
|
based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." ( RfC, December 2021)
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)
Surely "All of the six mice" 2601:CF:300:4B70:F9:2F77:5234:5134 ( talk) 17:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
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:
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:
-- Nbauman ( talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)