Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims(pfizer.com)
pfizer.com
Pfizer Responds to Covid Gain of Function Research Claims
https://www.pfizer.com/news/announcements/pfizer-responds-research-claims
78 comments
Engineering the virus doesn’t mean making gain-of-function mutations. “Function” has a specific meaning and it’s not a synonym for “does anything.” Instead, in broad strokes, think of “function” as referring to biological activities that give the virus some advantage over its host.
To make a simplistic analogy (necessarily imperfect but sufficient for these purposes), consider instead a computer virus. If an antivirus company patches the binary in order to make it easier to study its behavior (for example, in order to make it more debuggable), that’s “engineering” the virus but it’s not “gain-of-function.” If the company instead patches the virus so that it can take advantage of a new 0-day exploit and spread further, that’s “gain-of-function.”
Whether gain-of-function research is capable of revealing new insight into transmissible diseases not obtainable elsewhere is a point of debate among biologists, but one can be well assured that a for-profit operation isn’t going to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Engineering the virus on the other hand, or in other words making mutations in viral components, is basically a description of “doing basic molecular biology” and is non-optional.
The sort of allegation that Pfizer is responding to is more or less the equivalent of someone recording an engineer calling themselves “hackers,” visiting “Hacker News,” then writing an exposé claiming that this proves Company X is in the business of computer crime.
The activity mentioned in the Pfizer press release that skirts closest to “gain-of-function” is actually a bit you didn’t mention at all, where they’re required by regulatory bodies to determine how the virus might resist an antiviral. Unlike computer viruses, biological ones mutate under treatment pressure. The closest analogy for a computer virus might be if it phones home and downloads a new payload to modify its behavior when it detects the presence of some antivirus software. For obvious reasons, studying how a pandemic virus would mutate in response to approved drugs is both necessary and icky, hence why Pfizer discussed its biosecurity measures. The distinction they make (rightly) between this research and a “directed evolution” or “gain-of-function” experiment, is that they’re reading out an answer to the question “Does the virus mutate when we treat with this antiviral drug, and if so, how?”, not culturing viruses iteratively in the presence of drug until they obtain an optimized treatment-resistant virus.
To make a simplistic analogy (necessarily imperfect but sufficient for these purposes), consider instead a computer virus. If an antivirus company patches the binary in order to make it easier to study its behavior (for example, in order to make it more debuggable), that’s “engineering” the virus but it’s not “gain-of-function.” If the company instead patches the virus so that it can take advantage of a new 0-day exploit and spread further, that’s “gain-of-function.”
Whether gain-of-function research is capable of revealing new insight into transmissible diseases not obtainable elsewhere is a point of debate among biologists, but one can be well assured that a for-profit operation isn’t going to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Engineering the virus on the other hand, or in other words making mutations in viral components, is basically a description of “doing basic molecular biology” and is non-optional.
The sort of allegation that Pfizer is responding to is more or less the equivalent of someone recording an engineer calling themselves “hackers,” visiting “Hacker News,” then writing an exposé claiming that this proves Company X is in the business of computer crime.
The activity mentioned in the Pfizer press release that skirts closest to “gain-of-function” is actually a bit you didn’t mention at all, where they’re required by regulatory bodies to determine how the virus might resist an antiviral. Unlike computer viruses, biological ones mutate under treatment pressure. The closest analogy for a computer virus might be if it phones home and downloads a new payload to modify its behavior when it detects the presence of some antivirus software. For obvious reasons, studying how a pandemic virus would mutate in response to approved drugs is both necessary and icky, hence why Pfizer discussed its biosecurity measures. The distinction they make (rightly) between this research and a “directed evolution” or “gain-of-function” experiment, is that they’re reading out an answer to the question “Does the virus mutate when we treat with this antiviral drug, and if so, how?”, not culturing viruses iteratively in the presence of drug until they obtain an optimized treatment-resistant virus.
That interpretation makes sense.
One interesting thing to note is another weasel word "In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells." It sounds like they're saying "We might do gain of function without knowing it."
Obviously this shouldn't be interpreted as some tinfoil-hat "making a supervirus." But given lableaks have happened 50 or so recorded times[1], scrutiny is obviously warranted. I'd be cucious exactly what the oversight is at such labs, and whether there are whistle-blower protections/policies should anybody witness anything dangerous (be it deliberate or simply failing to follow safety procedures).
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
One interesting thing to note is another weasel word "In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells." It sounds like they're saying "We might do gain of function without knowing it."
Obviously this shouldn't be interpreted as some tinfoil-hat "making a supervirus." But given lableaks have happened 50 or so recorded times[1], scrutiny is obviously warranted. I'd be cucious exactly what the oversight is at such labs, and whether there are whistle-blower protections/policies should anybody witness anything dangerous (be it deliberate or simply failing to follow safety procedures).
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
> Then they quickly defend "It is important to note that these studies are required by U.S. and global regulators"
Right before that claim, they mention another set of studies that don't require gain-of-function engineering. The regulations probably refer to those, and Pfizer is hoping we'll misinterpret their statement and think the regulations demand gain-of-function.
I would be very surprised if regulations required genetically engineering more dangerous virus strains.
Right before that claim, they mention another set of studies that don't require gain-of-function engineering. The regulations probably refer to those, and Pfizer is hoping we'll misinterpret their statement and think the regulations demand gain-of-function.
I would be very surprised if regulations required genetically engineering more dangerous virus strains.
This is responding to an undercover video by the activists at Project Veritas.
They have released a video that appears to show a Pfizer director saying they are mutating new COVID lines for vaccine purposes.
They have released a video that appears to show a Pfizer director saying they are mutating new COVID lines for vaccine purposes.
It actually does show that, albeit he says they're considering/planning on doing it, not doing it right now. The clips where he talks about it are long and with plenty of context, the man in question does indeed have the title Veritas claimed for him (although they are now trying to scrub his internet presence), and when he was confronted with the recordings he freaked out and attacked the reporters.
On every thread about Veritas recordings, there's always people like hnbad who try to stop people watching the videos by labelling it as "far right" i.e. if you're progressive, you're not allowed to look. It's just more lies. There's nothing "far right" about what they do. The people in the videos literally speak for themselves, and often admit to the worst case scenarios that had previously been considered absurd conspiracy theories. Pfizer planning to create COVID variants so they can later sell vaccines for them - tinfoil crazy uncle stuff, except it comes direct from the mouth of a Pfizer employee who has been briefed on the initiative.
On every thread about Veritas recordings, there's always people like hnbad who try to stop people watching the videos by labelling it as "far right" i.e. if you're progressive, you're not allowed to look. It's just more lies. There's nothing "far right" about what they do. The people in the videos literally speak for themselves, and often admit to the worst case scenarios that had previously been considered absurd conspiracy theories. Pfizer planning to create COVID variants so they can later sell vaccines for them - tinfoil crazy uncle stuff, except it comes direct from the mouth of a Pfizer employee who has been briefed on the initiative.
You insult the intelligence of anyone to suggest that Project Veritas does not have a right-wing political agenda. Whether it is "far" to the right, I don't know. I'd certainly be curious to see the videos if they were to turn their spycraft/journalism (I'll admit there may be some overlap in those) on powerful right-wing figures, but we both know that will not be happening.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a vaccine maker is doing research on the virus and what all that entails. What would strike me as "tinfoil crazy uncle" stuff would be if he had said they had plans to release new viruses in order to sell vaccines. But who knows - the profit incentive can drive all sorts of innovation - especially in medicine where the stakes are life and death.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a vaccine maker is doing research on the virus and what all that entails. What would strike me as "tinfoil crazy uncle" stuff would be if he had said they had plans to release new viruses in order to sell vaccines. But who knows - the profit incentive can drive all sorts of innovation - especially in medicine where the stakes are life and death.
No insult to anyone's intelligence intended, because it feels actually the other way around. This supposed far right agenda is asserted but never proven. It's just claimed that it must exist.
Here is their agenda in their own words:
"Project Veritas journalists working undercover on their own or by, with and through idealistic insiders bring to the American people the corrupt private truths hidden behind the walls of their institutions."
That's classical investigative journalism. But given this mission statement it's pretty obvious why the left thinks they're being targeted: they managed to take over practically all powerful institutions, including media institutions that would once have held up Veritas style reporting proudly and given it awards. How many important American institutions are run by "powerful right wing figures", exactly? Maybe a handful at most? Now how many institutions explicitly and loudly align themselves with the agenda of the left (idpol, Follow The Sciencism etc)? It's uncountably more. Just given the sheer quantities of captured institutions in question, any Veritas style initiative will inevitably uncover more corruption on the left simply because that's where the power actually is.
He didn't say they plan to release new viruses, obviously none of the idiot scientists in this whole sorry saga actually intend to release the viruses they make. What we do know is they seem to delight in using vaccine development as the justification for fiddling with dangerous viruses, even though there's no clear link between the work Wuhan was doing and later vaccine development, that they much prefer doing dangerous work in very low safety conditions because the higher BSL levels are tedious and get in the way, and we also know that they'd rather engage in coverups than admit the possibility that a virus escaped from their own labs.
That's why the executive in the video states clearly that it's a secret, the journalist shouldn't tell anyone, and that the public would hate it if they found out.
Edit: reading a bit more, they say that their biggest scoop ever was an ABC News anchor saying she had the Epstein story and killed it due to pressure from the British Royal Family. So their top hit is actually one that attacks what is arguably the most conservative institution in Britain! It doesn't really get more "powerful right wing figure" than the Queen, yet Veritas didn't hesitate to reveal their machinations. So this far right claim is clearly just a smear.
Here is their agenda in their own words:
"Project Veritas journalists working undercover on their own or by, with and through idealistic insiders bring to the American people the corrupt private truths hidden behind the walls of their institutions."
That's classical investigative journalism. But given this mission statement it's pretty obvious why the left thinks they're being targeted: they managed to take over practically all powerful institutions, including media institutions that would once have held up Veritas style reporting proudly and given it awards. How many important American institutions are run by "powerful right wing figures", exactly? Maybe a handful at most? Now how many institutions explicitly and loudly align themselves with the agenda of the left (idpol, Follow The Sciencism etc)? It's uncountably more. Just given the sheer quantities of captured institutions in question, any Veritas style initiative will inevitably uncover more corruption on the left simply because that's where the power actually is.
He didn't say they plan to release new viruses, obviously none of the idiot scientists in this whole sorry saga actually intend to release the viruses they make. What we do know is they seem to delight in using vaccine development as the justification for fiddling with dangerous viruses, even though there's no clear link between the work Wuhan was doing and later vaccine development, that they much prefer doing dangerous work in very low safety conditions because the higher BSL levels are tedious and get in the way, and we also know that they'd rather engage in coverups than admit the possibility that a virus escaped from their own labs.
That's why the executive in the video states clearly that it's a secret, the journalist shouldn't tell anyone, and that the public would hate it if they found out.
Edit: reading a bit more, they say that their biggest scoop ever was an ABC News anchor saying she had the Epstein story and killed it due to pressure from the British Royal Family. So their top hit is actually one that attacks what is arguably the most conservative institution in Britain! It doesn't really get more "powerful right wing figure" than the Queen, yet Veritas didn't hesitate to reveal their machinations. So this far right claim is clearly just a smear.
Would you then classify Epstein as on the right? Certainly he had some power, but I’d classify him more as a toady of people like my ultimate boss for a time, Leon Black, the president of Apollo Private Equity. My own experience with these people would call them extremely right wing - I suspect that if they could abolish all government and install themselves as permanent monarchs, they would see it as a reasonable start. I wonder how you would classify such people and what you imagine the agenda of the right wing to be.
Are Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell on the right? I would think their success in re-shaping our federal judiciary where laws are actually made. I have not heard of these institutions like follow the sciencism or anything like that, although I will trust your characterization of them as being of the left, I haven’t noticed any influence on my local laws, but as a resident of Southern Texas, I have certainly noticed the right wing influence on local laws, most notably the medical procedures that the women around me are legally allowed to undergo.
I suspect that your example would more be seen as an investigation into ABC (and likely used as an avatar for the “mainstream media”) by the people carrying it out.
Nymag actually had an interesting article on Project Veritas recently that you may want to peruse. Apparently they were after Joe Biden’s daughter’s diary but it caused them some issues. That said, it sounded like they already had some problems brewing before then.
Are Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell on the right? I would think their success in re-shaping our federal judiciary where laws are actually made. I have not heard of these institutions like follow the sciencism or anything like that, although I will trust your characterization of them as being of the left, I haven’t noticed any influence on my local laws, but as a resident of Southern Texas, I have certainly noticed the right wing influence on local laws, most notably the medical procedures that the women around me are legally allowed to undergo.
I suspect that your example would more be seen as an investigation into ABC (and likely used as an avatar for the “mainstream media”) by the people carrying it out.
Nymag actually had an interesting article on Project Veritas recently that you may want to peruse. Apparently they were after Joe Biden’s daughter’s diary but it caused them some issues. That said, it sounded like they already had some problems brewing before then.
Don't know much if anything about Epstein so couldn't try to classify his politics.
"I suspect that if they could abolish all government and install themselves as permanent monarchs, they would see it as a reasonable start"
We are likely talking at cross purposes then because that's the exact opposite of what I consider right wing. Abolishing democracy and becoming dictator for life is something associated with hard left revolutionaries. Stalin, Mao, North Korea that sort of thing. To me right wing means pro market, pro capitalist, pro democracy, small government, it's all about decentralization of power. Libertarian stuff. If they'd really want to abolish government and take over they'd be the pastiche of WEF-attending elitist globalists, surely.
"Are Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell on the right?"
Maybe? I don't think Trump had politics clearly aligned with any party. He used to be a Democrat and sort of took over the GOP from the outside didn't he. Plenty of never trumpers who were also Republicans. Don't know anything about McConnell, not from the USA, that's too detailed for my knowledge.
Flicking through their results pages, there's one investigation they did into poor conditions in border detention centers. Isn't that normally a topic for the left in the US? I thought the US right normally just want more border enforcement and don't care much about how illegal immigrants are treated.
"I suspect that if they could abolish all government and install themselves as permanent monarchs, they would see it as a reasonable start"
We are likely talking at cross purposes then because that's the exact opposite of what I consider right wing. Abolishing democracy and becoming dictator for life is something associated with hard left revolutionaries. Stalin, Mao, North Korea that sort of thing. To me right wing means pro market, pro capitalist, pro democracy, small government, it's all about decentralization of power. Libertarian stuff. If they'd really want to abolish government and take over they'd be the pastiche of WEF-attending elitist globalists, surely.
"Are Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell on the right?"
Maybe? I don't think Trump had politics clearly aligned with any party. He used to be a Democrat and sort of took over the GOP from the outside didn't he. Plenty of never trumpers who were also Republicans. Don't know anything about McConnell, not from the USA, that's too detailed for my knowledge.
Flicking through their results pages, there's one investigation they did into poor conditions in border detention centers. Isn't that normally a topic for the left in the US? I thought the US right normally just want more border enforcement and don't care much about how illegal immigrants are treated.
>> Abolishing democracy and becoming dictator for life is something associated with hard left revolutionaries. Stalin, Mao, North Korea that sort of thing.
Left + Right in modern discussion are non-descriptive words and as such tend to vary widely in definition. The classic definition comes from european parliaments. In previous centuries, when monarchy was far stronger and the established power, in those lands where a parliament or senate existed, those who wanted to abolish monarchy and establish democracy sat left. The monarchists who wanted to keep or strengthen the established power of the king sat right. Keep slavery on the right, establish universal suffrage left. Liberalism demanding basic human rights was a far left concept for a very long time, and authoritarianism a far right concept. But it is not all about progressives and conservatives.
To understand "Left+Right" ask the question: if we seat these people next to each other on thanksgiving (or in parliament) how likely is physical violence.
In the early 20th century in Germany, in the Weimar Republic to be precise, monarchy has been abolished and democacy established. The monarchists were still sitting at the right in parliament, and they wanted to abolish democracy and establish a kingdom. At the far right sat the fascists. The monarchists and fascists both were nationalistic, authoritarian and somewhat accepting of capitalism.
At the far left sat the communists, who were about international communist revolution and abolishing capitalism. The communists themselves were split in liberal communists and authoritarian communists. The later took power in Russia and later Stalin became their dictator, and the european communists faced a dumb choice between "international communism" and "liberal-democratic communism". The Stalinists sat far left and the those favoring liberal democratic communism sat between them and those favoring democratic capitalism with social benefits within the current nation. Then the far right abolished democracy in Germany and established a dictatorship.
In early 20th century "liberalism and democracy" became a center opinion, because both the far left and the far right were pushing for an authoritarian dictatorship, with the "moderate left" and "moderate right" typically agreeing with their extremists on other things while being more liberal-democratic.
But those times are long gone in europa and have never the USA has a bit of a problem with this eurocentric view anyway, because they haven't had a party sitting anywhere in parliament being in favor of abolishing their facade of a liberal democratic republic hiding corporate rule in centuries. At the moment many far right groups are trying to claim liberalism as their concept, as a "conservative" thing pointing out that progressive political streams like environmentalism have authoritzarian tendencies as they strongly regulate the economy. But in truth the parliamentarian right wing is not about conserving your right to destroy the environment, they care far more about conserving the established power of large corporations.
Left + Right in modern discussion are non-descriptive words and as such tend to vary widely in definition. The classic definition comes from european parliaments. In previous centuries, when monarchy was far stronger and the established power, in those lands where a parliament or senate existed, those who wanted to abolish monarchy and establish democracy sat left. The monarchists who wanted to keep or strengthen the established power of the king sat right. Keep slavery on the right, establish universal suffrage left. Liberalism demanding basic human rights was a far left concept for a very long time, and authoritarianism a far right concept. But it is not all about progressives and conservatives.
To understand "Left+Right" ask the question: if we seat these people next to each other on thanksgiving (or in parliament) how likely is physical violence.
In the early 20th century in Germany, in the Weimar Republic to be precise, monarchy has been abolished and democacy established. The monarchists were still sitting at the right in parliament, and they wanted to abolish democracy and establish a kingdom. At the far right sat the fascists. The monarchists and fascists both were nationalistic, authoritarian and somewhat accepting of capitalism.
At the far left sat the communists, who were about international communist revolution and abolishing capitalism. The communists themselves were split in liberal communists and authoritarian communists. The later took power in Russia and later Stalin became their dictator, and the european communists faced a dumb choice between "international communism" and "liberal-democratic communism". The Stalinists sat far left and the those favoring liberal democratic communism sat between them and those favoring democratic capitalism with social benefits within the current nation. Then the far right abolished democracy in Germany and established a dictatorship.
In early 20th century "liberalism and democracy" became a center opinion, because both the far left and the far right were pushing for an authoritarian dictatorship, with the "moderate left" and "moderate right" typically agreeing with their extremists on other things while being more liberal-democratic.
But those times are long gone in europa and have never the USA has a bit of a problem with this eurocentric view anyway, because they haven't had a party sitting anywhere in parliament being in favor of abolishing their facade of a liberal democratic republic hiding corporate rule in centuries. At the moment many far right groups are trying to claim liberalism as their concept, as a "conservative" thing pointing out that progressive political streams like environmentalism have authoritzarian tendencies as they strongly regulate the economy. But in truth the parliamentarian right wing is not about conserving your right to destroy the environment, they care far more about conserving the established power of large corporations.
> Here is their agenda in their own words
Despite the group's self description, Veritas are not (only?) journalists, they are also a political spying operation.
But don't trust me on that -- instead review the submitted evidence that convinced the DC Circuit Court to permit describing the group in those exact terms. Start at page 14 of Democracy Partners v. Veritas (PDF):
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-010...
Despite the group's self description, Veritas are not (only?) journalists, they are also a political spying operation.
But don't trust me on that -- instead review the submitted evidence that convinced the DC Circuit Court to permit describing the group in those exact terms. Start at page 14 of Democracy Partners v. Veritas (PDF):
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-010...
Yeah that's interesting but seems like an incredibly technical reading of the term "political spying operation". They argue that it's an operation because it was planned. It was spying because the undercover journalist was recording everything secretly. And it was political because:
> Defendants make clear that they researched plaintiffs and developed the plan for this operation in response to plaintiffs’ activities related to supposed voter fraud and campaign events, supporting the “political” nature of their conduct
That's pretty nuts, saying that investigating voting fraud is "political". Any police force that enforces ballot laws would then be considered political too? They seem to be using it to mean "something related to politics" instead of the more obvious meaning of politically biased.
They also make a big deal out of some passages from a book O'Keefe wrote where he compares an undercover journalist living out a character to the same strategy as used by Soviet spies. Any undercover investigation could be described as spying in this way.
Doesn't seem very convincing overall? I can think of lots of investigations by big media orgs that could be described exactly the same way. The UK had one called cash for questions some years ago where politicians were recorded accepting bribes. Guess that was also a political spying operation lol.
> Defendants make clear that they researched plaintiffs and developed the plan for this operation in response to plaintiffs’ activities related to supposed voter fraud and campaign events, supporting the “political” nature of their conduct
That's pretty nuts, saying that investigating voting fraud is "political". Any police force that enforces ballot laws would then be considered political too? They seem to be using it to mean "something related to politics" instead of the more obvious meaning of politically biased.
They also make a big deal out of some passages from a book O'Keefe wrote where he compares an undercover journalist living out a character to the same strategy as used by Soviet spies. Any undercover investigation could be described as spying in this way.
Doesn't seem very convincing overall? I can think of lots of investigations by big media orgs that could be described exactly the same way. The UK had one called cash for questions some years ago where politicians were recorded accepting bribes. Guess that was also a political spying operation lol.
I disagree with your reading of the evidence and agree with the reading of the presiding judge. But I included the root document so that the rest of the thread can form an opinion.
In all, starting from the court's high bar of impartiality then continuing to the many, less impartial resources on the Internet which nonetheless largely support the point it feels like a situation of: "Who will you trust -- Veritas or your lying eyes"
In all, starting from the court's high bar of impartiality then continuing to the many, less impartial resources on the Internet which nonetheless largely support the point it feels like a situation of: "Who will you trust -- Veritas or your lying eyes"
There isn't any evidence to disagree over. It's just a dispute over whether "political spying operation" is a reasonable description of what they do or exaggerated. I don't think it's reasonable unless all undercover journalism about politicians gets described that way, which it isn't, and you do think it's reasonable. Don't think there's much that can be debated there.
The court disagreed that the term was an exaggeration, and the fact that, as you note, not all undercover journalism is called this way in court should hopefully send a signal that there's something real you are choosing not to see that distinguishes Veritas from more honorable investigation journalism.
But I can't make you see what you choose not to see.
But I can't make you see what you choose not to see.
Well, if you watch the original video, he said that he speculated that’s what happened in Wuhan, and that there had better not be more outbreaks.
Just the fact that a Pfizer employee would make a serious comment like that is terrifying and should spark investigations into that lab immediately.
Also, there should be investigations to our pandemic leadership for so heavily insisting that it almost certainly was not a leak - especially after the employee’s comments on regulatory capture.
Just the fact that a Pfizer employee would make a serious comment like that is terrifying and should spark investigations into that lab immediately.
Also, there should be investigations to our pandemic leadership for so heavily insisting that it almost certainly was not a leak - especially after the employee’s comments on regulatory capture.
I’d say as a rule, I think much more federal regulation of industry in the US (presuming you don’t mean the Wuhan lab) would be nice to have, but it seems pretty unpopular. If you do mean the Wuhan lab, then I gotta say that Xi seems like an even tougher sell on the idea.
As far as the whole leak thing goes, I always assumed it was just like every plague since antiquity; not a lab leak or creation (I think one of the problems that that crowd had was differentiating themselves from the whole “tinfoil crazy uncle” thing).
As far as the whole leak thing goes, I always assumed it was just like every plague since antiquity; not a lab leak or creation (I think one of the problems that that crowd had was differentiating themselves from the whole “tinfoil crazy uncle” thing).
It's unpopular for the reasons that the Pfizer executive helpfully spells out - regulators are useless because governments don't pay them enough, so make all their decisions with one eye towards a much better paying job in sector they're regulating. You get the appearance of regulation without it actually having teeth.
It's an open secret that this is a problem everywhere, not just medical regulation. The revolving door was once an issue that the left campaigned on, in fact, but you don't hear much about it any more. Probably because there's no obvious fix beyond ensuring that pay for regulators keeps up with whatever comp the private sector is willing to offer, which is the sort of solution that's not politically popular on that side of the aisle. Also it's hard. The value of less aggressive regulation to companies like Pfizer is very high. Governments meanwhile are ideologically optimized to hire more people at lower wages, not fewer people at higher wages. The whole culture of pay more to hire the best that you find in places like the tech industry just doesn't happen there, and in the USA there's even a rule limiting pay to be lower than the President (which mysteriously doesn't apply to Fauci, wonder how that one works).
You could also try hacks like laws forbidding regulators from (re)joining the industry they regulate, but that'd just make the job even less attractive and ensure that whoever the government does end up hiring are the industry rejects, who will either have an axe to grind or simply not be able to keep up with the technical issues, making them easy to bamboozle.
There's not really a great solution here, beyond maybe just being realistic about what government regulation is capable of. Private sector regulators is also a possibility. Uber is a taxi regulator of sorts, but a much more effective and innovative one, and one whose staff can't be bought off with the carrot of luxury jobs in the taxi sector.
It's an open secret that this is a problem everywhere, not just medical regulation. The revolving door was once an issue that the left campaigned on, in fact, but you don't hear much about it any more. Probably because there's no obvious fix beyond ensuring that pay for regulators keeps up with whatever comp the private sector is willing to offer, which is the sort of solution that's not politically popular on that side of the aisle. Also it's hard. The value of less aggressive regulation to companies like Pfizer is very high. Governments meanwhile are ideologically optimized to hire more people at lower wages, not fewer people at higher wages. The whole culture of pay more to hire the best that you find in places like the tech industry just doesn't happen there, and in the USA there's even a rule limiting pay to be lower than the President (which mysteriously doesn't apply to Fauci, wonder how that one works).
You could also try hacks like laws forbidding regulators from (re)joining the industry they regulate, but that'd just make the job even less attractive and ensure that whoever the government does end up hiring are the industry rejects, who will either have an axe to grind or simply not be able to keep up with the technical issues, making them easy to bamboozle.
There's not really a great solution here, beyond maybe just being realistic about what government regulation is capable of. Private sector regulators is also a possibility. Uber is a taxi regulator of sorts, but a much more effective and innovative one, and one whose staff can't be bought off with the carrot of luxury jobs in the taxi sector.
Then you do not believe the US government is capable of regulating the scientific research of its own citizens? I often see this thought applied to 3D printing of small arms, and I tend to agree that it’s quite problematic. I see no reason to limit this thinking to small arms though - as technology advances, what’s to stop individuals from doing their own viral research and development? If the government is incapable of stopping them, it’s probably worth thinking about your own contingency plans; it’s something I do.
I don't know any more if any government can do that. A few years ago I thought it was possible and normal. Now? We saw things like vaccine approvals based on 8 mice all of whom got COVID anyway, that doesn't sound much like what I thought regulators would do. But it makes sense given the Pfizer guys comments about revolving doors. You can suspect it but hearing it from the horses mouth is something else.
You're so right about viral engineering being done by individuals. I don't know what can be done about that. I guess it depends a lot on how many dual uses some of the ingredients have, how much the tech can be controlled. Sort of like how you can stop people doing stuff with uranium on their own, but not mixing up fertilizer bombs. But presumably it's easier to stop large companies and government labs doing this stuff, so why not start there? Today we fail even at that.
You're so right about viral engineering being done by individuals. I don't know what can be done about that. I guess it depends a lot on how many dual uses some of the ingredients have, how much the tech can be controlled. Sort of like how you can stop people doing stuff with uranium on their own, but not mixing up fertilizer bombs. But presumably it's easier to stop large companies and government labs doing this stuff, so why not start there? Today we fail even at that.
Readers in the thread should reference a few relevant resources before accepting the "honest, hard-nosed journalism" description of project Veritas proposed by fidgewidge.
Consider that they are also a political spying organization, as successfully argued in front of the DC Circuit Court (link at bottom)
Taking into account the court's findings and other easily available material like Wikipedia it beggars belief to include this group in the echelons of great investigative journalism and should cast skepticism on any "reporting" they release.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-010...
Consider that they are also a political spying organization, as successfully argued in front of the DC Circuit Court (link at bottom)
Taking into account the court's findings and other easily available material like Wikipedia it beggars belief to include this group in the echelons of great investigative journalism and should cast skepticism on any "reporting" they release.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-010...
[deleted]
You claim that the other side is biased and trying to stop people from seeing the footage, and yet it's your post that contains bullshit like "Pfizer planning to create COVID variants so they can later sell vaccines for them" -- a sentence intentionally crafted to imply Pfizer planning not just to create the variants, but also to spread them. What does "creating a variant" even mean? If you "create a variant" and then the same or similar variant ends up being dominant in the outside world, without the variant you created ever leaving the lab, that sounds like what you actually want the vaccine companies doing? If they can predict which variant vaccines will be needed and make them in advance, I don't really care how they did it, assuming reasonable risk management (no leaks and so on).
But no, you crafted your shitty statement so that the only reasonable reading is the technically incorrect one -- i.e. that Pfizer is planning to create AND SPREAD variants so they can later sell vaccines for them. Not exactly a shining beacon of integrity, are you?
But no, you crafted your shitty statement so that the only reasonable reading is the technically incorrect one -- i.e. that Pfizer is planning to create AND SPREAD variants so they can later sell vaccines for them. Not exactly a shining beacon of integrity, are you?
It's not just that Project Veritas has a far-right agenda. It's that they lie, and publish heavily edited footage taking people's statements way out of context, in order to push that agenda. They single-handedly destroyed the reputation of ACORN in the USA with their deceptive techniques.
Furthermore, they conduct surreptitious recording of their interviewees, which is illegal in some places they operate (a felony in California). They need to be shut down as a criminal organization.
Furthermore, they conduct surreptitious recording of their interviewees, which is illegal in some places they operate (a felony in California). They need to be shut down as a criminal organization.
gjsman-1000(1)
You got a source that those internal "admissions" are the allegations they are responding to and not any other floating around? Their vagueness on this point alone is far from transparent.
“Appears?” You appear to use the word “appears” when it is just a fact.
Also I guess soon chatgpt will gain this function by reading your narrative.
Also I guess soon chatgpt will gain this function by reading your narrative.
And Project Veritas has demonstrated they are not to be taken as a valid source.
Fortunately we don’t have to, we have the video that shows exactly what they said it did, unambiguously and with plenty of context.
What part of this video is in particular untrue?
If you lied 10000000 times before, so your claim that 1+1=2 is no longer valid?
If you lied 10000000 times before, so your claim that 1+1=2 is no longer valid?
Also, on that note, the average American lies 4 times every day, or 1,460 lies per year. Does that mean there is no such thing as trust?
I can make anyone look like a serial liar if I hate them enough.
I can make anyone look like a serial liar if I hate them enough.
By the claims people make against them, the mainstream media is many times more guilty.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34558690
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34558690
> the mainstream media is many times more guilty
This "activist" is financed by Koch brothers. How is he in opposition to "mainstream" media?
This "activist" is financed by Koch brothers. How is he in opposition to "mainstream" media?
He’s not, but they’re no more credible for the same reason.
For context, this is Project Veritas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
> Project Veritas is an American far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010. The group produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets, and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.
Regardless of what you may think of the recordings themselves, the presentation and editing is often extremely misleading and credentials of the recorded individuals are often overstated to help create a narrative.
> Project Veritas is an American far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010. The group produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets, and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.
Regardless of what you may think of the recordings themselves, the presentation and editing is often extremely misleading and credentials of the recorded individuals are often overstated to help create a narrative.
For more context, they consistently win defamation lawsuits and the chorus of "this is out of context" folks never seem to be able to provide any. Look up "Project Veritas RETRACTO" on YouTube to find their ongoing series where mainstream journalists have been forced to retract statements made about Veritas hundreds of times due to them being inaccurate.
> in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets, and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.
This looks like normal journalism.
This looks like normal journalism.
Something like this is always posted whenever Project Veritas comes up. I agree they're mostly finding things for outrage culture and are generally annoying... sometimes they uncover legitimately concerning things though.
That said, here's an example of why I dislike this "argument."
Joseph Bruno, Dean of Students, Francis W. Parker School: “So, I’ve been the Dean for four years. During Pride -- we do a Pride Week every year -- I had our LGBTQ+ Health Center come in [to the classroom]. They were passing around butt-plugs and dildos to my students -- talking about queer sex, using lube versus using spit.”
The school's response:
A school spokesperson said the dean was “filmed without his knowledge or permission while describing one example of our inclusive, LGBTQ+ affirming a comprehensive approach to sex education. Veritas deceptively edited the video with malicious intent.” [1]
Notice, they say absolutely _nothing_ about whether they [2] pass around butt-plugs and dildos. If anything, their statement lends to the idea that they do in fact do that. I do not care if the Dean was "misled" or the video is "edited" unless that disproves what the Dean claimed. My bar isn't that high at all.
--
[1] : https://www.wane.com/news/private-school-defends-dean-after-...
[2] : edit, as some believe my original wording (do give out sex toys to kids) was disingenuous
That said, here's an example of why I dislike this "argument."
Joseph Bruno, Dean of Students, Francis W. Parker School: “So, I’ve been the Dean for four years. During Pride -- we do a Pride Week every year -- I had our LGBTQ+ Health Center come in [to the classroom]. They were passing around butt-plugs and dildos to my students -- talking about queer sex, using lube versus using spit.”
The school's response:
A school spokesperson said the dean was “filmed without his knowledge or permission while describing one example of our inclusive, LGBTQ+ affirming a comprehensive approach to sex education. Veritas deceptively edited the video with malicious intent.” [1]
Notice, they say absolutely _nothing_ about whether they [2] pass around butt-plugs and dildos. If anything, their statement lends to the idea that they do in fact do that. I do not care if the Dean was "misled" or the video is "edited" unless that disproves what the Dean claimed. My bar isn't that high at all.
--
[1] : https://www.wane.com/news/private-school-defends-dean-after-...
[2] : edit, as some believe my original wording (do give out sex toys to kids) was disingenuous
Your substitution...
- passing around butt-plugs and dildos to my students
+ [giving] out sex toys to kids
...is an example of exactly the kind of transcription error via which controversy ignites into hysteria. If we are to interpret your intent charitably, we must also charitably assume that abstract anatomical models (sex toys) are a useful and valid demonstration tool in the context of sexual health education.
- passing around butt-plugs and dildos to my students
+ [giving] out sex toys to kids
...is an example of exactly the kind of transcription error via which controversy ignites into hysteria. If we are to interpret your intent charitably, we must also charitably assume that abstract anatomical models (sex toys) are a useful and valid demonstration tool in the context of sexual health education.
FWIW most dildos aimed at women are not actually "anatomical models" and would not be recognizable if you've never seen one before. Likewise, butt-plugs may sound kinky but they don't look particularly imposing unless you deliberately go for extreme sizes. Also presumably much like condoms often handed out to students in sex ed, it's safe to assume these aren't used. The "leak" deliberately evokes the image of a queer predator handing out their own massive butt plugs and veiny rubber dongs to children to seduce them into sexual acts.
The video is not just supposed to spark outrage with extreme conservatives who think giving "children" (I can't find any source specifying the age so this could be anything from 6 to 17) an opportunity to ask questions about sex is child abuse (or "grooming", "sexualizing children", etc), but also moderates who assume the worst because of how this "revelation" is reported on (after all, if it makes headlines, it must be bad).
The video is not just supposed to spark outrage with extreme conservatives who think giving "children" (I can't find any source specifying the age so this could be anything from 6 to 17) an opportunity to ask questions about sex is child abuse (or "grooming", "sexualizing children", etc), but also moderates who assume the worst because of how this "revelation" is reported on (after all, if it makes headlines, it must be bad).
Several good points of clarification. My own phrasing leaned heavily on "abstract".
I was actually trying to be _less_ polarizing in my phrasing.
The issue isn't that ppl are under the impression they got to take these items home. The issue is that there is 0 reason on earth for schools to be introducing kids to butt-plugs and passing them around like its show and tell.
The issue isn't that ppl are under the impression they got to take these items home. The issue is that there is 0 reason on earth for schools to be introducing kids to butt-plugs and passing them around like its show and tell.
I have not watched the video, but I will note that “passing around” can mean “passing around the room [and then taking back].” The linked article says only the toys were “shown.”
This is not the same as “[giving] out sex toys to kids.”
This is not the same as “[giving] out sex toys to kids.”
>This is not the same as “[giving] out sex toys to kids.”
I consider someone coming in and giving out butt-plugs to kids the same as "giving out sex toys to kids." I don't think anyone was under the impression that they got to take them home, if that's what you're thinking.
I was actually trying to be less polarizing in my phrasing.
I consider someone coming in and giving out butt-plugs to kids the same as "giving out sex toys to kids." I don't think anyone was under the impression that they got to take them home, if that's what you're thinking.
I was actually trying to be less polarizing in my phrasing.
For the people that the story targets, even if there may be that misunderstanding, does that make it any much better?
I'd wager the group of people outraged hearing that some person who is not even a teacher is invited to hand out veiny rubber dongs to their children is larger than the group of people outraged hearing that a sexual health educator passed around something that looks more like a smooth plastic carrot (and collected it before leaving). So yeah, the difference matters and leaving this open to interpretation aids embellishment and therefore reach. After all, where there's smoke, there's fire: if this gets reported on, it surely can't be the most charitable version of events.
>I'd wager the group of people outraged hearing that some person who is not even a teacher is invited to hand out veiny rubber dongs to their children is larger than the group of people outraged hearing that a sexual health educator passed around something that looks more like a smooth plastic carrot (and collected it before leaving).
Hardly a wager when the former population would undoubtedly be included in the latter.
Why does anyone need to be coming into the class room to pass around butt-plugs and dildos for kids to play with?
Hardly a wager when the former population would undoubtedly be included in the latter.
Why does anyone need to be coming into the class room to pass around butt-plugs and dildos for kids to play with?
That’s a very generous reading of what far right means. They’re not fascists.
„In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.“
via https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn/status/1619281947741806592#m
so they practice gain of function.
and i bet they don't do that in the us. wasn't there some interesting back and forth about ominous us led bio engineering labs in the ukraine? someone with a link to that senate hearing with rand paul iirc. </TFH>
via https://nitter.net/Tim_Roehn/status/1619281947741806592#m
so they practice gain of function.
and i bet they don't do that in the us. wasn't there some interesting back and forth about ominous us led bio engineering labs in the ukraine? someone with a link to that senate hearing with rand paul iirc. </TFH>
"It is important to note that these studies are required by U.S. and global regulators for all antiviral products" - i think this bit of the paragraph you highlighted changes the meaning somewhat.
big pharma definitely isn't known for handing large sums of money to regulators and outright creating many regulations to entrench themselves and creating a moat for startups. These multi-billion dollar multinational corporations having nothing but the publics best interest at heart and don't care about profit at all
In addition to the fact that pharma tends to write their own regulations, as ren_engineer pointed out, it's ambiguous what "these studies" refers to. It could refer only to the "in vitro resistance selection experiments" mentioned, and not require gain-of-function engineering - a requirement I would find highly surprising.
Exactly this.
It is laughable that the conservatives/Republicans/Fascists of my country (US) are all against evil X. And they literally do not understand what evil X is. But they are indeed against it.
It is hard to see what the end game of this nonsense. I am sure there is an ending part to it but so far it is just dummies saying gain of function over and over hoping it sticks.
It is laughable that the conservatives/Republicans/Fascists of my country (US) are all against evil X. And they literally do not understand what evil X is. But they are indeed against it.
It is hard to see what the end game of this nonsense. I am sure there is an ending part to it but so far it is just dummies saying gain of function over and over hoping it sticks.
Can someone explain this it's probably not relevant but baffles me why it's never spoken about.
Let's say you were tasked with making a virus like COVID-19. How would you go about it?
I think the answers obvious you take a potential source virus like the coronaviruses in bats and expose humans. You could literally culture the virus and inject it into a human.
Let's put on tinfoil hats, and say you could run this experiment in a prison. If you're careful you could introduce it at a bloc and culture the result if an infection seems to spread.
After a few cycles you're likely to get something like COVID out the other end. This is the bioengineering we do for attenuated pathogen vaccines.
So what exactly do they mean that it'd be impossible to bioengineer COVID?
Let's say you were tasked with making a virus like COVID-19. How would you go about it?
I think the answers obvious you take a potential source virus like the coronaviruses in bats and expose humans. You could literally culture the virus and inject it into a human.
Let's put on tinfoil hats, and say you could run this experiment in a prison. If you're careful you could introduce it at a bloc and culture the result if an infection seems to spread.
After a few cycles you're likely to get something like COVID out the other end. This is the bioengineering we do for attenuated pathogen vaccines.
So what exactly do they mean that it'd be impossible to bioengineer COVID?
You form a group, call it something like Eco Health Alliance, and the give financial stakes like offering to put names on any future patents to members of the NIH and FDA making it in their best personal interest to approve your "not gain of function", but really gain of function research in Wuhan China, then sit back the let the Chinese figure out the particulars. If it escapes the lab, just order the evidence deleted and have one of the members of the project write a paper that will be taken at face value, uncritically, that it's impossible that the virus came from a lab and use that paper as a justification for censorship of anyone on social media who says otherwise, you can also claim they are all racist.
Just make sure you have the world media prepared with an appropriate wargame to simulate what would happen if an unrelated coronavirus would start spreading. Give it a boring name like event 201. Since it's all out in the open it's clearly not a conspiracy.
Then have the world media present you as the Oracle of Delphi because you had such an accurate prediction.
Then have the world media present you as the Oracle of Delphi because you had such an accurate prediction.
Doesn’t take a genius to know live animal markets in urban centers are risky and that respiratory viruses can emerge + spread.
> Doesn’t take a genius to know live animal markets in urban centers are risky and that respiratory viruses can emerge + spread.
Yes and when that happens the virus is circulating in an animal population. And this results in multiple independent outbreaks overtime across the entire region the animals live in. For example MERS a few years earlier has independent outbreaks in multiple countries, same with SARS. And it is due to the fact the virus is circulating in an intermediate animal species that for both SARS and MERS they were able to identify the animal that infected patient zero within months.
For SARS2 we have not found any intermediate species with the virus, or has there been other spillovers. You'd think that if it was circulating in something like racoon dogs there would be an outbreak in LAOS or we would find the ancestor virus in racoon dogs in bordering countries of China.
Yes and when that happens the virus is circulating in an animal population. And this results in multiple independent outbreaks overtime across the entire region the animals live in. For example MERS a few years earlier has independent outbreaks in multiple countries, same with SARS. And it is due to the fact the virus is circulating in an intermediate animal species that for both SARS and MERS they were able to identify the animal that infected patient zero within months.
For SARS2 we have not found any intermediate species with the virus, or has there been other spillovers. You'd think that if it was circulating in something like racoon dogs there would be an outbreak in LAOS or we would find the ancestor virus in racoon dogs in bordering countries of China.
Sure. Doesn’t point at all to a deliberate leak like what GP was alluding to (the existence of a similar war game scenario implying that “they knew” it was going to happen).
Especially if there happens to be an Institute of Virology in close proximity
Don’t forget that you’re in China because EU and US regulations mandate an unaffiliated member of the public exercises active oversight of this research.
Some experimental gain-of-function work has been done by passaging viruses through transgenic animals such as mice that have been modified to have more human-like respiratory systems. So, it wouldn't strictly be necessary to use human test subjects.
This must be what theyve been calling 'humanized mice.'
[deleted]
Who says it’d be impossible to bioengineer COVID? Never heard that claim.
I fully expect this to be a guy spouting stories in the hopes of getting laid.
But, it could all be true. The level of detail is pretty convincing, not something you'd make up on the spot. So I am actually happy some congress people are taking it on and would like to see a more bipartisan effort there.
So, in the case this is real, now what? (I'd also think the next step would be to uncover more before going public and letting the investigated company purge everything, which makes me lean further towards assuming this is nothing but a publicity stunt).
But, it could all be true. The level of detail is pretty convincing, not something you'd make up on the spot. So I am actually happy some congress people are taking it on and would like to see a more bipartisan effort there.
So, in the case this is real, now what? (I'd also think the next step would be to uncover more before going public and letting the investigated company purge everything, which makes me lean further towards assuming this is nothing but a publicity stunt).
Who does Pfizer respond to? These claims were made by their own exec, so, by Pfizer themselves. Does Pfizer respond to Pfizer?
^ obviously sarcasm, but my bullshit detector goes off every single time Pfizer does something.
^ obviously sarcasm, but my bullshit detector goes off every single time Pfizer does something.
Then they later admit, " In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells." (I'm not exactly clear what that means, but it reads like they do gain-of-function to me. I've learned that when people are usually unclear on very important statements it's often the worse interpretation that's true, otherwise they'd have a reason to be clear).
Then they quickly defend "It is important to note that these studies are required by U.S. and global regulators for all antiviral products and are carried out by many companies and academic institutions in the U.S. and around the world."
So I'd take this to mean one of two things:
1) Gain of function research is required & happening everywhere and they just stopped telling everyone because it's so political so we now weasel-word around it; if you were technical you'd understand
or
2) They are twisting words very hard in this press statement about what is "required"