Peter Daszak Admitted to What?

Hey guys, it is good to be back. Let’s get into it.

This week there was another useless committee hearing from our equally useless congress, but there was one bit of information that was highlighted that got my wheels turning.

So in a back in forth with Congress Woman Marrionette Miller-Meeks, Peter Daszak stated that the Ecohealth Alliance was not performing gain of function (GOF) research because in order for research to be classified as GOF it must increase the transmissibility OR pathogenicity of a known HUMAN PATHOGEN. And that bat coronaviruses have never infected humans ergo no GOF.

So this article will be dissecting how much of a load of bullshit that is. Here is the video

And as luck would have it, in the one place in all the world our tax dollars are paying a Chinese scientist to pluck coronaviruses out of bats assholes in a cave 1000 miles away then experiment on them, emerges a disease so dangerous that we shut down the entire world? And a very plausible lab leak is a conspiracy theory but trying to make Chinese people out to be like Ozzie Osbourne ripping off bat heads in his mouth in a wet market is better? AND LESS RACIST?

Back to the point, let’s examine for a moment the definition of GOF according to the Office of Science Policy at the NIH on January 23, 2020 simply defined Gain of Function, “Gain-of-function is a term used to refer to any modification of a biological agent that confers new or enhanced activity.” Do you see a caveat that requires the virus be known to infect humans? I do not.

Often the NIH ties information of GoF to potential pandemic pathogens or what falls into the framework of the P3CO. It gets a bit confusing but regular GOF does not necessarily fall into the highly regulated P3CO framework that is specific to known human pathogens. So what is a potential pandemic pathogen or PPP is according to the NIH, “Potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) are bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms that are likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans.” Would we dumping millions of dollars into research of bat coronaviruses if it wasn’t LIKELY, but I digress.

So when Peter Daszak is attempting to parse words he is misrepresenting what GOF is. In his own words, humans have never been infected by a bat coronavirus so none of his research could be designated as GOF. However, coronaviruses have already been determined to have pandemic potential so if you extract a coronavirus from a bat and genetically modify it to such a degree it does make it more transmissible or pathogenic than viola, GOF. What Peter is actually trying to conflate is Gain Of Function Research of Concern, but no one is drawing that line. Maybe when I dissect Fauci’s idiocy on this topic it’ll paint the fuller picture.

But anyway he’s a weasel, so when trying to outsmart the members of congress Daszak stated “Ecohealth never has and did not do gain of function research by definition” after he was asked about this exact email. It’s kind of gain of functiony.

This is awkward

Oddly specific assuming we are operating under his definition. Which is not the definition required for it to be determined gain of function. Even Erik Stemmy in this email exchange and others, thought that the work they were doing fell under the the Gain Of Function Moratorium and they expressed concerns about their proposed work and that it did look like GOF. But what doesn’t get brought up is the fact of whether it’s a known human pathogen or not. In my opinion, this is a lie Daszak tells so confidently it forces other people to believe it. So maybe it’s not that conspiratorial.

Looking at the snapshot below from the R01 grant information submitted by Ecohealth to NIH, if WIV1 was not shown to be transmissible or infectious what was the point of mixing it with a bunch of other strains and giving the infected mice monoclonal antibodies or vaccines? Is it because you are NOW making it transmissible and pathogenic? Peter wants to have his cake and eat it to, he wants you to believe that the research did not need appropriate oversight because these agents hadn’t caused a pandemic but at the same time they are so dangerous they could. That is a bit confusing.

So how about a quick fact check: This is directly from the progress report submitted to NIH

It appears to me that genetically modifying WIV1 seemed to have a rather negative effect on the mice it was given to, like kind of making it pathogenic. So I will leave you with this last aid bit from the same R01 grant proposal/renewal/summary

I’ll sum it up: the viruses we mixed up caused illness, they don’t sell bats in wet markets and we actually have serological evidence that humans have been exposed to bat coronaviruses.

Maybe I am off the mark or maybe, just maybe Peter is a lying wanker. I don’t know.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x