Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

119

  1. critics have misrepresented the goals of the study while refuting allegations that the study involved gain-of-function research, which can make a pathogen more deadly or transmissible.

  2. The research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC)

  3. Certain reports about the study were “false and inaccurate,”

  4. this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-CoV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous

  5. We take our safety and security of how we handle pathogens seriously, and the virus does not leave the laboratory in which it’s being studied

Sure. You can trust them, ask Fauci, Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates.

1. critics have misrepresented the goals of the study while refuting allegations that the study involved gain-of-function research, which can make a pathogen more deadly or transmissible. 2. The research was reviewed and **approved** by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) 3. Certain reports about the study were “false and inaccurate,” 4. this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-CoV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous 5. We take our safety and security of how we handle pathogens seriously, and the virus does not leave the laboratory in which it’s being studied Sure. You can trust them, ask Fauci, Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (5).
[–] • 2 pts

it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-CoV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous

Well the actual strain going around Washington state (if there even is one) is obviously not 80% lethal so either that's exactly what they did or they deliberately used already sick and dying mice, producing false results. Either way, they are lying quite blatantly here.