Jump to content

BurninBeard

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BurninBeard

  • Rank
    Lepton

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Keep reading... "Baric’s study on the SHC014-chimeric coronavirus began before the moratorium was announced, and the NIH allowed it to proceed during a review process, which eventually led to the conclusion that the work did not fall under the new restrictions, Baric told Nature. But some researchers, like Wain-Hobson, disagree with that decision. The debate comes down to how informative the results are. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University, told Nature.
  2. I think this paper was edited for a reason. It has nothing to do with style or typos or the strength or weakness of the references. It is to hide the amount of gain of function research that is ongoing. The experiments at UNC (Baric's Lab) that this paper describes are dual use - gain of function experiments as defined by Professor Francis Boyle the author of the Biological Weapons Convention. The references removed were gain of function studies. The section removed from the body of the paper contained a gain of function study. The study in question should have been halted by the moratorium ye
  3. Was that question to me Strange? If so I am making no assumptions.
  4. Doesn't the removal of 6 references and the addition of 2 more seem strange? Is it normal for a journal to make that many changes to a paper? Also removed was the Biosafety and biosecurity section. That section makes reference to this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801244/ as well as a link to the PDF detailing US Govt Dual Use & Gain Of Function Pause. It seems highly odd that Nature would make this many changes to a paper. Also, all six of the removed references plus the link to the study above all concerned Gain Of Function experiments. The two added were
  5. I noticed that this study https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 (SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence) has been altered from the original paper published in 2015. It is missing 6 references that appeared in the original paper published. Here is the archived paper: https://archive.is/hY83J#selection-2449.0-3661.1 Is there any reason why these references would be removed from a paper? There is no disclaimer on the paper that is currently up saying that there was an alteration from the original paper excep
  6. I noticed that this study https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 (SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence) has been altered from the original paper published in 2015. It is missing 6 references that appeared in the original paper published. Here is the archived paper: https://archive.is/hY83J#selection-2449.0-3661.1 Is there any reason why these references would be removed from a paper? There is no disclaimer on the paper that is currently up saying that there was an alteration from the original paper except for the fundi
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.