You're right, you don't know me! But that's why I provided you those links in my post. My statements are rooted from what is stated in those links. Its not just me saying it on a whim. In fact, if you follow this link that I included in my response:- Credentials? Why should anyone take your word over Ebright's? It's all about that source criticism, what is the sources leanings, history of gotten shit right over time so on and so forth. Not being an expert myself I have to approach this with a little bit Bayesian reasoning right, I got one expert (Ebright) saying it *is* gain of function, I got another saying that it's "muddying the water" and I have another handful of experts backing Fauci that says it's NOT gain of function. That means to me that it's 90% likely NOT gain of function.
On the other hand I have known you for all of three seconds, what weight do your words have? If I put hours into it I can come up with something similar to you to "prove" the opposite point... But why would I. It makes no sense.
Let me put it another way. I can follow your line of reasoning quite well, and to me it sounds very plausible. Problem is that I am not qualified to 1. judge the information you did provide and 2. judge the information you didnt provide. Know what you dont know and all that.
(as an evolved species, if we cant trust our institutions, experts in their fields, the house of cards comes down).
COVID-19 and GOF
The emergence of COVID-19 and debates on its origin have refocused attention on GOF. A particular focus has been the NIH funding of the EcoHealth Alliance study, Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence, which collaborated with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Some have argued this project should have been captured by the 2014 pause on GOF research and reviewed under the HHS P3CO guidance. NIH asserts that the research project did not meet the criteria of either policy
They specifically state it isn't gain of function when Ebright states it is. Shoot, even Wikipedia doesn't provide the definition of what Ebright claims it is.
Let me ask you this, do you think Ebright is the only person in the world that can define what is gain of function? Why are we beholden to only his opinion, when he uses a definition that many others don't use? As expressed in my previous post, his definition make all sorts of experimental work "gain of function."