PfizerGate: What Robert Barnes is Missing

have you read over Kevin Mckernan's substack article on directed evolution? and also, i dont think you can expect most lawyers and non scientists to distinguish the difference between GoF vs DE. But, Kevin Mckernan's point seems very valid. one more thing - whether Project Veritas was correct or not, it stirred a response from Pfizer and that response was very interesting - and i think Barnes was looking at this from lawyer's perspective that pfizer never denied the content of that Project Veritas video. like the response said 'in limited cases' - or the fact the response didnt mention about 3rd party affiliation doing GOF. but yes i agree, that it is reckless to jump in right away.

OK, I have a question about your statement about what "hasn't happened in history", Matthew. The Covid Virus that swept the world recently escaped from or was deliberately released from a lab, and they lied about it for years, so their ability to weaponize viruses is a real thing that we cannot ignore. What hasn't happened in history is that scientists now have tools at their disposal that they never had before, would you not agree? Scientists today are doing a LOT of things that have never been done in history, some of which SHOULDN'T be done.

Biffle

2 years ago

It's not gain of function. It's directed evolution. All you need is hosts and monkeys will work fine.

And without naming names, some of the players in this space are very committed to one political view & doing battle identifying that way, and really don't know the nuances in science. Neither do I, but I'm not leading any charges anywhere. I appreciate this political faction's willingness to expose corruption, but their side's hands are not spotless in the bigger drama of American corporate/social/political strategies. There seem to be few nonaligned, really objective voices. Thanks for all your work!

(PART 1 OF 2) It appears from the Barnes clip herein, that there's a suggestion that Barnes is mistaken in asserting that GoF research exists? To say it doesn't exist Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Laboratory at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) opened the workshop on GoF by stating: "The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function". Apart from eliminating a huge body of focus/work in Virology, is it your assertion that in its entire history of research across this country... the NIAID of the NIH or its research sponsored universities across this country have never once, altered a genotype and its resulting phenotype? (Gain e.g., higher yields for vaccine strains--- or loss, e.g., loss of the ability for a virus to replicate, would both be considered GoF research in the Virology /scientific world). How do you explain how vaccines are made (prior to this latest creation)? Is it possible that the difference of opinion on the existence of GoF.. perhaps exists in your differing definitions as to what is GoF? I hear how you define it... not sure why, you would so rigorously limit it to basically one technique (of many) where you use the word cloning a lot.. (is that what most would call genetic duplication as a mechanism.. ? I'm not sure... or are you basically referencing reliable replication as a hopeful outcome)? Your GoF definition doesn't at all follow the NIAID (who controls .. what 83% of all university research funding)? How are you connecting (scientifically) "robust" with replication. Are you adding the criterion of 'robust' to the criterion of reliable replication, as measuring a successful outcome... (outside of the lab)? or as a condition of longevity... or perhaps an indicator of virulence factors? [continued to next page]

you sound like fauci. gain of function per say or not. lets look at the intent of what pfizer wanted to do.