2012 Fauci reports says GoF is worth the risk
09-20-2021, 01:19 PM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Position: B777 CA, Ret.
Posts: 77
2012 Fauci reports says GoF is worth the risk
I just heard about this info, not sure if it was previously posted. Anthony Fauci stated in a 2012 NIH Report that Gain of Function was worth the possible outbreak of a pandemic. The unthinkable then happened for whatever unknown or undisclosed reason.
Link to report is below.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/
"Putting aside the specter of bioterrorism for the moment, consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?
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." Anthony Fauci 2012
Link to report is below.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/
"Putting aside the specter of bioterrorism for the moment, consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?
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." Anthony Fauci 2012
09-20-2021, 02:01 PM
#2
All is fine at .79
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,082
We need to see these kinds of things in perspective.
Every country in the G8 and probably another legit dozen or so on the side like Israel and probably a dozen 3rd World dictatorships are doing research to weaponize and counter the weaponization of biological hazards.
Reality is bioweapons are remarkably cheap.
This is in a way similar to hacking in IT, you’ve got the “white hat” that try and gain access to improve security and you have the malicious attempts for nefarious reasons.
So you need “white hat” hackers to protect yourself from the malicious ones.
Scenario:
What if somebody combines Ebola with the Flu? Let’s see what happens and how we can fight it.
What would happen if we combine bilharzia (water borne) with SARS? Can we protect our water supply?
Every country with a somewhat responsible government would do this.
Why?
Because the bad guys are.
Every country in the G8 and probably another legit dozen or so on the side like Israel and probably a dozen 3rd World dictatorships are doing research to weaponize and counter the weaponization of biological hazards.
Reality is bioweapons are remarkably cheap.
This is in a way similar to hacking in IT, you’ve got the “white hat” that try and gain access to improve security and you have the malicious attempts for nefarious reasons.
So you need “white hat” hackers to protect yourself from the malicious ones.
Scenario:
What if somebody combines Ebola with the Flu? Let’s see what happens and how we can fight it.
What would happen if we combine bilharzia (water borne) with SARS? Can we protect our water supply?
Every country with a somewhat responsible government would do this.
Why?
Because the bad guys are.
09-20-2021, 02:43 PM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,252
Originally Posted by TiredSoul
Reality is bioweapons are remarkably cheap.
Of course if one country develops stuff like that then everybody else has to study the defense (same research basically). As you say white hat and black hat are the same skill set.
And even if you successfully developed and deployed one, it would spread globally and get you nuked... probably by multiple enemies.
Originally Posted by TiredSoul
What if somebody combines Ebola with the Flu? Let’s see what happens and how we can fight it.
What would happen if you combined an SR-71 and 747... you could fly halfway around the world at mach 3 with 400 people and enjoy the upper-deck bar on your 2-hour flight to Tokyo. A few problems with that...
Hemorrhagic fever is bad because of the tissues which it damages, and that leads to transmission by contact with bodily fluid, not respiratory. If you want a dangerous bug that's highly transmissible by respiration you're looking for measles... or maybe a coronavirus.
Any really, really bad super-bugs might well have to be built as nano-machines (ie not based on biology at all). That's way out to the right somewhere, somewhere around self-aware AI and probably about as potentially dangerous too.
Originally Posted by TiredSoul
What would happen if we combine bilharzia (water borne) with SARS? Can we protect our water supply?
09-20-2021, 05:30 PM
#6
All is fine at .79
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,082
Originally Posted by rickair7777
They're also useless as battlefield weapons, terror value only.
Of course if one country develops stuff like that then everybody else has to study the defense (same research basically). As you say white hat and black hat are the same skill set.
And even if you successfully developed and deployed one, it would spread globally and get you nuked... probably by multiple enemies.
Fortunately it doesn't work that way.
What would happen if you combined an SR-71 and 747... you could fly halfway around the world at mach 3 with 400 people and enjoy the upper-deck bar on your 2-hour flight to Tokyo. A few problems with that...
Hemorrhagic fever is bad because of the tissues which it damages, and that leads to transmission by contact with bodily fluid, not respiratory. If you want a dangerous bug that's highly transmissible by respiration you're looking for measles... or maybe a coronavirus.
Any really, really bad super-bugs might well have to be built as nano-machines (ie not based on biology at all). That's way out to the right somewhere, somewhere around self-aware AI and probably about as potentially dangerous too.
No. That's a parasite, while SARS is a virus. Kind of like combining our 747 with a moped.
Of course if one country develops stuff like that then everybody else has to study the defense (same research basically). As you say white hat and black hat are the same skill set.
And even if you successfully developed and deployed one, it would spread globally and get you nuked... probably by multiple enemies.
Fortunately it doesn't work that way.
What would happen if you combined an SR-71 and 747... you could fly halfway around the world at mach 3 with 400 people and enjoy the upper-deck bar on your 2-hour flight to Tokyo. A few problems with that...
Hemorrhagic fever is bad because of the tissues which it damages, and that leads to transmission by contact with bodily fluid, not respiratory. If you want a dangerous bug that's highly transmissible by respiration you're looking for measles... or maybe a coronavirus.
Any really, really bad super-bugs might well have to be built as nano-machines (ie not based on biology at all). That's way out to the right somewhere, somewhere around self-aware AI and probably about as potentially dangerous too.
No. That's a parasite, while SARS is a virus. Kind of like combining our 747 with a moped.
Although parasites can be infected with viruses to increase the transmission to humans.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27876650/
09-24-2021, 10:20 AM
#8
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,490
Originally Posted by rickair7777
WSJ article today on virus research and GoF. Pretty good read, but paywall. Biden looking at better oversight for both US and overseas research.
09-24-2021, 10:46 AM
#9
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,252
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Overseas oversight? Maybe just stop Fauci from funding it…
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pantera
Regional
1
02-21-2008 09:27 AM
Breton
Hangar Talk
0
06-24-2005 02:53 PM
