Russians and Chinese have both implied there are deadly viruses in the facilities..
So a virus might skirt the prohibited list.. isn't necessarily a weapon.. but can obviously be weaponized.. so they can deny all they want, but they've got the viruses/research etc..
And if they simply have some series of shells and holding companies with some random nationals names on it, they can say its not theirs, too.
eh, depends on [their] new definition of weaponized and gain of function..
Totally agree with you, but my point is about how they're reassuring their denial with all the bullshit wordplay
gain of function Was a very straight forward concept… it very simply meant, either by natural mutation or otherwise (manipulation), a virus gaining a new function… whether that new function was becoming lethal, producing an entirely new protein that its predecessor didn't produce, or gaining the ability to infect a different species that its predecessor couldn't infect…
That was the whole thing with Fauci claiming that the wuhan bat virus research wasn't gain-of-function research, because they changed the definition of gain-of-function to be more specific and omit the dynamic that occurred with sars-cov-2 in wuhan, where they gave it the new function of infecting humans.
I'm just playing devils advocate here.. i agree they're full of shit..
But where is the line drawn between having a naturally occuring virus on hand for research, vs having a biological weapon..
If you look up "biological weapon" its definition appears to include any virus that even could* be used against people.. but by that definition… all virus research labs have biological weapons.. so what's the State's definition or guidelines on this..
Unless you think people invented rabies 2000 years ago, Yes.