Viruses are strains capable of easily spreading via air droplets between mammals - like I've been saying.
GOF research can enable viruses to infect new species that they previously could not. This includes crossing the species barrier to infect humans, which poses significant risks for zoonotic outbreaks
Nature Sets Barriers to Risky Viruses, While China’s Gain-of-Function Study Is Breaking Them
While scientists strive to improve human health and well-being, gain-of-function research could cause more harm than good.
By Yuhong Dong
M.D., Ph.D.
We’re not afraid of the tigers in the zoo because we trust they cannot attack. But what if someone opens the cage?
Many viruses are highly lethal in nature but cannot infect humans. Fear arises when these viruses break the species barrier.
This can happen naturally or through risky research practices, particularly gain-of-function (GOF) research.
What Is GOF?
Just as all substances have functions, specific genes enable viruses to spread rapidly or cause severe diseases. GOF research involves introducing new functioning genes into a virus, enhancing its ability to infect hosts or increasing its virulence.
There are at least three main types of new functions a virus can gain:
Gain-of-function research on viruses often results in the viruses gaining new functions such as the ability to infect humans, enhanced transmissibility, or increased virulence
Expanded Host Range
GOF research can enable viruses to infect new species that they previously could not. This includes crossing the species barrier to infect humans, which poses significant risks for zoonotic outbreaks and potential pandemics. A 2015 Nature Medicine article provides a pertinent example. A bat-derived SARS-like coronavirus, initially noninfectious to humans, became capable of human infection after GOF studies at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Enhanced Transmission
GOF research can result in viruses gaining the ability to spread more efficiently between hosts. This includes changes that allow a virus to be transmitted through new routes or, more effectively, through existing ones. In 2012, GOF research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison significantly transformed the H5N1 bird flu virus. Initially non-airborne, the virus acquired the ability to transmit through the air, demonstrating the profound impact of GOF studies on viral capabilities.
Increased Virulence
Viruses can gain mutations that make them more virulent, meaning they can cause more severe diseases in infected hosts. This can involve an enhanced ability to evade the host’s immune system or increased replication rates within the host. A 2022 preprint paper shows researchers at Boston University created a lethal version of the Omicron variant.
GOF can also be used to generate positive traits in germs. For example, by adding a human insulin gene, a germ gains the new function of producing insulin.
GOF Research of Concern
Because viral genes are relatively easy to edit, GOF studies frequently involve viruses. However, some of these studies carry significant risks and can lead to dire consequences.
The U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) defines GOF research of concern as “research that can be reasonably anticipated to generate a pathogen with pandemic potential,” characterized by two attributes:
Highly transmissible, with the potential to spread widely and uncontrollably among human populations
Highly virulent and likely to cause significant morbidity and/or loss of human life
If accidentally released from a lab into the general population, such pathogens could cause uncontrollable hazards. Additionally, the military application of GOF falls within the scope of bioweapon threats.
Methods of GOF research generally include genetic editing, which involves directly modifying a virus’ genes, and reassortment, which involves combining genetic material from different viral strains to create new variants.
In reality, the scope of GOF research can be much broader. Due to viral genes’ highly variable and adaptable nature, even routine culturing of viruses in cells or animals can lead to unexpected genetic alterations.
Double-Edged Sword
Scientists often conduct GOF research to understand the viruses and develop drugs or vaccines.
While these reasons may sound scientifically justified, the main debate centers on the risks versus the assumed benefits. GOF research can theoretically aid in studying viral mechanisms and provide insights for developing drugs or vaccines. However, the associated risks are significant, particularly the potential to generate dangerous pathogens.
A decade ago, two published studies on bird flu viruses were conducted by a U.S. lab and a Dutch lab, sparking significant discussion.
Both studies were designed to better understand how the viruses’ genes could be modified to make them more transmissible in mammals. The goal was to help people better prepare for a potential future pandemic.
Unexpectedly, after both groups of researchers separately edited the genes of a deadly H5N1 bird flu virus, they produced new strains capable of easily spreading via air droplets between mammals.
The edited virus could spread more easily among mammals and became easier to transmit to humans.
“Why would scientists deliberately create a form of the H5N1 avian influenza virus that is probably highly transmissible in humans?” This critical question was raised in a 2012 Nature article.
Subsequently, in October 2014, U.S. authorities announced a “pause” on funding for 18 GOF studies involving influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses.
The pause was short-lived. In 2018, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Dutch Healthcare Authority approved funding for further GOF research, sparking another wave of objections. Harvard University epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch expressed concerns in a Science article, stating that scientists are being asked to “trust a completely opaque process where the outcome is to permit the continuation of dangerous experiments.”
Finally, after yielding to public pressure, investigators for the two research studies declined to renew the grants originally submitted for their GOF research. Consequently, such bird flu GOF studies were officially halted in the United States in 2020.
In the United States and most European countries, where scientists can express their opposing opinions, the development of GOF experiments faces multiple regulatory hurdles and ethical reviews.
However, in countries without these safeguards, the pursuit of GOF research could proceed unchecked, potentially putting the world at significant risk.
China’s Bird Flu GOF Research
Risky GOF studies on bird flu viruses in China have been underway since the 2010s.
In a study published in Science in May 2013, a group of scientists at Harbin Veterinary Research Institute in Harbin, China, conducted GOF research by combining the highly lethal but not easily transmissible H5N1 avian influenza virus, with the highly contagious H1N1 swine flu strain, which infected millions of people in 2009.
The resulting hybrid viruses were then tested for their ability to infect mammals, revealing the potential risks associated with such genetic manipulation of pathogens. This research underscored the dual-use nature of gain-of-function studies, highlighting both their potential to inform pandemic preparedness and the significant biosafety and biosecurity concerns they raise.
As a result, the researchers created a new, more virulent virus. An H5N1 hybrid strain, which integrated genes responsible for transmissibility from the H1N1 virus, acquired the capability to easily spread among guinea pigs through respiratory droplets.
In 2021, a collaborative project involving researchers from the United States, the United Kingdom, and China sought to enhance surveillance and vaccine development. While not explicitly labeled as a GOF study, these experiments conducted in a Chinese laboratory involved genetic modifications typical of GOF research.
The experiments used a routine viral laboratory research approach known as “serial passage,” which involves growing the virus from one cell or animal model to another. Viral mutations with greater transmissibility or pathogenicity can often be selected during this process. The animal models were also carefully chosen to reproduce the virus for specific research purposes. We’ve explained this in detail in a previous article.
Nonetheless, the most widely known GOF studies conducted in China involve research on coronaviruses.
Breaking the Barrier
Bats are known carriers or natural reservoirs of many viruses. Bat-hosting coronaviruses typically only infect bats or wild animals, not humans. However, this situation has changed with the advent of GOF research.
In 2015, a team of Chinese scientists conducted GOF studies on a bat coronavirus at the WIV, which is affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and under the administration and control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
In this study, the researchers took the gene for spike protein—the spike-shaped structure on the surface of a virus—from a bat SARS-like virus and inserted it into the backbone of a SARS virus, the virus that caused the first pandemic of this century.
The newly created SARS-like virus, coded as SCH-014-MA15, could infect human airway cells and achieve a transmission similar to the SARS virus. It also gained the ability to infect mammals like mice and successfully cause lung diseases.
WIV created a chimeric virus that was originally not infectious to humans but has gained a new ability to infect human cells. (Illustrated by The Epoch Times, Shutterstock)
The WIV has also conducted other GOF research on bat SARS-like viruses with effective results.
According to a leaked 2014 NIH report, WIV researchers experimented on a natural bat coronavirus capable of binding with human ACE2 receptors, significantly increasing its potency. They used this bat virus to engineer three new chimeric coronaviruses.
The results showed that in the lungs of mice, these newly created coronaviruses produced far more virus particles—up to 10,000 times higher than the original virus.
Between Day 2 and Day 4 post-infection, three viruses resulting from the GOF research at the WIV exhibited approximately a 10,000 times higher viral load in the lung tissues of humanized mice with a transgenic hACE2 gene than the normal virus. The graph illustrates the significant difference in viral load among the three viruses, depicted using cubes. (Illustrated by The Epoch Times)
Additionally, the body weight of the infected mice dropped rapidly, particularly with one new viral strain, SHC014, suggesting that the engineered virus caused severe disease. Body weight is commonly used as a marker of health status in mice.
Meanwhile, another new virus, WIV-16, did not cause a drop in body weight, possibly indicating an asymptomatic infection.
Viruses resulting from GOF research at the WIV caused a notable decline in the body weight of humanized mice carrying a human hACE2 transgenic gene. (Illustrated by The Epoch Times)
Loose Oversight
In contemporary China, under the totalitarian CCP regime, public oversight is limited, and Chinese citizens are often prohibited from voicing concerns about these risky biomedical experiments.
Many labs in China study dangerous pathogens, but the lack of transparency in public safety makes it difficult to assess how these labs are managed.
While benign viruses exist, most viruses close to humans are dangerous. When scientists handle risky viruses in their laboratories, misconduct or accidental leaks of these dangerous pathogens can occur, posing significant safety risks to researchers and nearby populations.
To protect human safety, biosafety regulations are established to manage these labs. There are four biosafety levels (BSLs), with BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs handling the most dangerous viruses.
According to a 2021 investigative report published in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, China had 48 BSL-3 labs and its first BSL-4 lab at the WIV. China still plans to increase the number of BSL-4 labs to five to seven by 2025.
While Chinese labs often have sufficient technical capacity, they face a major challenge due to relatively loose biosecurity regulations. Several documented lab leak incidents from BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in China have occurred.
In 2004, a World Health Organization spokesman in Beijing, Bob Dietz, reported that the SARS virus escaped twice from the Chinese Institute of Virology in Beijing, which is affiliated with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
In July and August 2019, a government-operated vaccine facility in Lanzhou experienced a leak, causing the spread of Brucella bacteria via aerosol to nearby communities and individuals.
Brucella is easily aerosolized and can cause brucellosis, a common livestock disease that can lead to chronic illness or death in humans.
Following the leak, in September 2020, the Lanzhou government health commission confirmed that at least 3,245 people were infected. According to Global Times, a Chinese regime-owned news organization, by December 2020, the number of confirmed cases had risen to 10,528.
The WIV was constructed in 2003, around the same time as the SARS outbreak in China. Ongoing projects at the WIV include research on the following viruses:
SARS
COVID-19
Ebola: a virus that causes severe bleeding and organ failure and can lead to death
West African Lassa: a rat-originated virus that can spread to humans and cause death
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever: a deadly tick-borne virus that affects livestock and can jump to humans
Secret activities at the WIV reportedly include extensive GOF research for military purposes. The military application of GOF research, also called dual-use research, is a significant concern.
A 2023 UK Biolabs report evaluated the statutory oversight of dual-use research. China scored zero out of 10 in the rating for conducting GOF studies for military purposes. A lower score indicates inferior safety regulation.
BSL-4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
‘Wooden Barrel Theory’
The risky nature of GOF research is unlikely to convince rational people or policymakers to support it in the name of drug or vaccine development. GOF is not the only method or the most efficient way to protect people and prevent future pandemics.
There is abundant scientific evidence supporting low-cost and accessible ways to enhance immunity in preparation for a pandemic caused by a virus or germ. These methods include taking vitamin D and other supplements, maintaining a balanced diet, engaging in regular exercise, practicing meditation, and sustaining a healthy mental state.
Following these practices can strengthen natural immunity, helping people to better defend themselves against pathogens. For example, those with robust and balanced immunity are less likely to be affected by a cold virus and can recover quickly if they do get infected.
On the other hand, those with weakened or unbalanced immunity may be more prone to developing pneumonia and might even require emergency medical care.
Moreover, there are less risky ways to develop drugs and vaccines.
To enhance public safety, the NSABB released draft guidelines in January 2023, introducing stricter oversight of GOF research in the United States.
In a recent U.S. congressional hearing held on June 18, 2024, regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2, there was significant debate over the definition of concrete data supporting a lab-related origin. However, there was some consensus on several key points:
The United States should not fund any GOF research.
The United States should not provide financial support to labs that do not adhere to international biosafety standards.
Whether from a wet market or the Wuhan lab, China is to blame. Complete transparency and accountability from those working in the WIV are essential.
In addition to the United States, regulatory authorities in other major countries, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Public Health Agency of Canada, have also raised concerns about GOF studies.
In 2022, a joint review paper by researchers from Japan and the UK reevaluated the need for research involving pathogens with pandemic potential. They concluded that “the risks of such research are clearer than before, whereas its benefits seem less apparent.”
However, such dangerous research is still ongoing in China. This includes creating new SARS-like viruses, using SARS-related viruses to study interspecies transmission, and isolating more ACE2-dependent viruses from bats.
The ongoing research conducted by Chinese labs poses a significant risk of producing more dangerous viruses or pathogens and potentially releasing them into the environment.
In current China under the totalitarian CCP regime, BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs studying dangerous pathogens lack adequate public safety oversight, posing significant threats to global safety. China holds the lowest bar in the world “barrel” in terms of viral GOF research. (Illustrated by The Epoch Times)
This is similar to the “wooden barrel theory,” which illustrates that a barrel’s capacity is not determined by the longest wooden bars but rather by the shortest. In other words, its capacity is determined by its weakest component.
In the context of global safety, it is crucial to uphold strict standards in highly regulated countries and address deficiencies in those with the lowest standards of medical ethics and minimal regulation. Highly risky GOF research under a totalitarian regime raises the stakes for a potential global disaster.
Epoch Times
Me: Easiest way to dispense an airborne virus, is to have a carrier carry it unknowingly, from a vaccine, which dispenses a Spike Protein lab into the individual injected, making that person infectuous and the outet of the virus, into everyone about them.
The purpose of any virus is to create a biological weapon which can be used against an enemy in wartime with dramatic consequences - like Weaponized Small Pox.
Small Pox was eradiced and only a small sample existed in a US Weapons BioLab and the question was should it be destroyed or kept, because it was a form of life and deserved to live.
To resolve the issue, the sample was divided into 2 parts and one part was sent to Russia while the American BioLab kept the other sample.
Some years later a Bio Chemist defected to America and in their debriefing, they let slip that the Russians had taken their Small Pox sample and weaponized it for use against America in some war in the future and had hundreds of gallons of weaponized Small Pox ready to go, whereupon the American's retrieved their Small Pox sample and made thousands of gallons of Small Pox for use as a bio weapon too - so now there is more Small Pox in existence than at any time previously.
So was it the right thing to do to give a half sample of the final Small Pox sample in existence, to Russia in the first place - and therein is the problem with viruses, which are air borne droplets of infection designed to injure and kill and they do exist - hence my free salt water cure, to kill them in the nasal passages of your head - QED - the only free, easy to make cure, available for creation in a kitchen near you.
Your life, your choice.
My FREE Salt Water Cure for Bird Flu and Covid and any other virus.
Refuse all vaccines.
Join me in NEVER being ill with my free salt water cure.
It is that simple.
3 minutes from preparation to job done: Mix one heaped teaspoon of table (or Iodine) salt in a mug of warm clean water, cup a hand and sniff or snort the entire mugful up your nose, in small lots, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If burning sensation, then you have a virus, so continue morning noon and night, or more often if you want, until the burning sensation goes away (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose with toilet paper and flush away, washing your hands afterwards, until when you do my simple cure, you don't have any burning sensation at all, when you flush - job done. Also swallow a couple of mouthfuls of salt water and if you have burning in your lungs, salt killing virus and pneumonia, there too.It washes behind the eyes, the brain bulb, brain stem (Long Covid), The Escutcheon Tubes to the inner ears and the top of the throat which is at a point roughly level with half way up your ears and not where your mouth is and it goes down the back of your throat, when infected there too.
I have been doing this simple cure for over 31 years and I am and others, never sick from viruses and there is no reason why any of you should be.
Simply put, if the inside of your nose is dry and crusty, you are OK, if your nose is runny, you really need to do a salt water sniffle as quickly as possible AND THERE IS STILL CLEAN SEA WATER, TO USE INSTEAD.
Nobody has been injured or killed by my above salt water cure
Re: They never isolated Covid.
They never had to: Updated Timeline 23.6.2024 for the evolution of Covid-19 virus from 1966 and its ultimate extermination process of humanity, down to around 250 million from 8.5 billion by 2025/26?
Including the MILITARY SECRET WEAPON installed - and my free salt water cure for all viruses - at the end.
Coronavirus has been in play as a biological weapon agent since 1966. Most people first heard about coronavirus in 2019 but “the fact of the matter is it has been around since 1966 as a biological weapon,” Dr. Martin said.
“Since 2002, there has not been a coronavirus; there has been an engineered pathogen. Engineered by Ralph Baric at the University of Carolina Chapel Hill where, in 2002, he patented the’ infectious, replication defective, clone of coronavirus’,” Dr. David Martin said.
“The ‘coronavirus’ that has been branded to be part of covid-19, does not exist. What does exist is a pathogen modelled off of properties of what was once upon a time isolated as coronavirus,” he explained. “Properties that increased its pathogenicity [and] increased its toxicity but … decreased its transmissibility … In 2002 it was patented to be non-transmissable.”
In other words, since 2002 coronavirus has been man-made and has not been a pathogen of nature. Why would they do this?
DARPA has openly bragged on Twitter that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine technology, and by extension Moderna’s Covid vaccine, was a product of their ADEPT program, however, research shows that Moderna did not merely apply for a patent in 2016 with US9587003B2: as reported in the Daily Mail. They actually applied in 2013 for 4 patents with US9149506B2, US9216205B2, US9255129B2, US9301993B2, as well for their “Covid-19 virus” patent #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG
ADEPT is a Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) program that began in 2012. The acronym stands for Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics. PROTECT is a sub-program of ADEPT, and it stands for Prophylactic Options to Environmental and Contagious Threats
“We have a commercially interested group of sociopaths who want to make money while killing people,” Dr. Martin said, “that’s the bottom line.”
On Wednesday, Dr. David E. Martin joined Alex Jones to explain where the biological weapon called SARS-CoV-2 originated, who are the criminals behind it, the criminal counts against the perpetrators and much more.
In 1990, Pfizer filed the first patent for a vaccine for coronavirus.
In 1999, Ralph Baric’s modification and manipulation programme took what used to be a respiratory and gastrointestinal bug and turned it into something that would cause cardiomyopathy in rabbits. This gave rise to a patent that was filed in 2002 for an infectious, replication defective, clone of coronavirus.
In 2014, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill was authorised to waive the gain-of-function moratorium. The pathogen they were working on at the time was the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus 1 (“WIV-1”) spike protein, Dr. Martin said. In 2016 they said WIV-1 was poised for human emergence.
Donald Trump's tenure as the 45th president of the United States began with his inauguration on January 20, 2017, and ended on January 20, 2021. Wikipedia - note "2017-2021"
“In 2018/2019,” he said, “The United States government reclaimed the patent from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. The Department of Health and Human Services at the National Institutes of Health took the UNC Chapel Hill patent on an infectious, replication defective coronavirus and reclaimed title and interest to it. (Those who pull puppet Trump's strings: 2017-2021)
On 18 September 2019, they said that by 20 September 2020, the world would accept a universal vaccine. And, as Dr. Martin said, “they said, ‘they would do so in response … to an accidental or deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen’.” They had been planning these mandatory injections since 2015.
“The masterplan [to vaccinate the world] was done by none other than the Wellcome Trust, NIAID Anthony Fauci, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (specifically Dr. Chris Elias), Dr. Gao from the CDC of the People’s Republic of China and a whole host of others who sit on what is called the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board,” Dr. Martin said.
“To advance the social and commercial interests of sociopaths that wanted to kill human beings for the sake of their agenda, they decided to unleash a lethal respiratory pathogen on the population so the population would be bamboozled into taking an mRNA shot which would permanently, permanently alter their human condition,” Dr. Martin said.
In November 2019, Ralph Baric sent a genetic sequence to the Vaccine Research Centre at the US National Institutes of Health (“NIH”). “[The sequence] was not for ‘the coronavirus’ and it was not for ‘the coronavirus vaccine’, it was for the mRNA that was used to instruct the human body to make a scheduled pathogen,” Dr. Martin said.
“What they did is, they said, ‘We’re going to inject into the arms of billions of people the instructions to turn each individual into a bioweapons factory’ … Every single person that took the shot became the manufacturer of a synthetic spike protein associated with the coronavirus model.
“The difference between this and everything that’s been done before is really simple. In the case of mRNA, there are two distinctions that are absolutely unique to the covid pandemic. Number 1, we are actually creating the mechanism to instruct the body to manufacture a toxin … Number 2, the response is actually a ‘hopeful’ response that failed to consider two very critical things: the lipid nanoparticle in which the shot is delivered actually is also a toxin … and then the worst part about it is that we introduced a thing called pseudouridine.”
Pseudouridine was published in 2018 to be a pro-cancer agent. What this means is that “it shuts down the body’s response to how we recognise tumours and suppress tumours,” Dr. Martin explained. Pseudouridine has been included in mRNA injections to stabilise the mRNA so it stays in the human body longer to achieve its effect, he said.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will host Event 201: a high-level simulation exercise for pandemic preparedness and response, in New York, USA, on Friday 18 October, 08.45 – 12.30 EDT 2019
Moderna's Patented virus #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG patented 2013, was released a few weeks after Bill Gates Event 201 (about November 1st 2019) and the BioLab at Fort Detrick was dismantled and taken away in a fleet of Army trucks at night, according to residents who were living there at the time.
Let’s start by looking at the confidential agreement proving Moderna had a Coronavirus vaccine candidate "at least nineteen days" before the alleged emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China - 1st January 2020.
The confidential agreement states that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to transfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.
NIAID, via Eco Health Alliance, clearly funded the creation of SARS-CoV-2-WIV. They are at least partially responsible for the millions of deaths that this genetically modified virus caused. NIAID has been involved in gain-of-function work with influenza that was so dangerous that it triggered the Obama administration to put a hold on gain-of-function research, which was lifted under Trump.
"Obama shut the NIAID down".
Barack Obama's tenure as the 44th president of the United States began with his first inauguration on January 20, 2009, and ended on January 20, 2017. Wikipedia
"which was lifted under Trump's administration 2017-2021", in other words:
"Trump let the NIAID out"