WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K
  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)

[–] 2 pts

“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,” he said.

Seems it must’ve been dangerous.

“Our whole goal is for the public’s health. And this study was part of that, finding what part of the virus is responsible for causing severe disease. If we can understand that, we can then develop the tools that we need to develop better therapeutics.”

So you did do a gain of function study but didn’t do it?