Reasoning Behind Viral Gain of Function Studies

I've been scurrying around down in the COVID rabbit hole for days now. One area I hadn't explored too deeply had been the reports from scientists with evidence that COVID 19 was genetically modified in a lab versus reports about the natural origin of the virus. Recently the natural origin theory is being pushed by the MSM as the undisputed truth while all other evidence presented by scientists to the contrary is being retracted with apologies given. Then there is all the propaganda, censorship and character assassination of scientists with an opposing view and that especially has me thinking that the man made theories are likely correct.

While I was reviewing my notes from quite a while back, I was revisiting the links to the man made theory articles. Many of those articles had a retraction of some kind that refutes the man made theories by citing the latest "scientific proof" proclamation that it absolutely came from a natural source. They have even tossed the HIV golden boy Luc Montagnier under the bus because he stated that COVID 19 contained gene sequences from HIV.

French virologist and joint recipient, with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen, of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[4] He has worked as a researcher at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and as a full-time professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China

Wiki Link

How can we argue with the guy that discovered HIV causes AIDS, shouldn't he know what he's talking about? There are quite a number of scientists and researchers that have made claims like this, not to mention the whistle blowers that worked in the Chinese labs during the early days of the pandemic.

Now, from what I understand about the studies conducted by high level bio-safety labs.

Firstly, the Biological Weapons Convention prohibits the creation or stockpiling of biological weapons. So if the treaty is being honored there is no reason to believe that bio-labs are creating dangerous human pathogens for use as weapons or even for more benign research.

These labs do what is called "gain of function" studies that encourages the viruses to mutate and gain added functions giving it new capabilities. This is supposedly done to reduce the "pathogenicity", meaning make the virus less deadly and contagious, in order to create a safe and effective vaccine.

However, they are taking novel viruses from wild sources, like corona virus from bats, ones that have never been known to infect human hosts and using GOF to cause it to infect human tissues and to make it do more damage, making it more pathogenic. It seems that when they find a virus has the potential to become a deadly human pathogen, they give it the nudge to become just that. Why would they do that?

To me it makes no sense to do GOF on a virus that hasn't become a human pathogen. They should only be working with the known human pathogens, the ones that have a track record for outbreaks and epidemics. The GOF studies should only be used to reduce the pathogenic characteristics of a virus to create a vaccine, not to create the monster that they fear.

The only conclusion I can come to that might make some kind of sense is that this is a M.A.D. tactic. If the enemy can make it, we better make one better, a virology arms race to show that if you use that one we could use this newer more deadly one back, so don't even think about it.

Otherwise it may be to create the weapon they believe the enemy has in order to make the vaccine and for other defense purposes. If this is the case they are going against the treaty to do this type of research. Anyway you cut it with a man made virus scenario, it goes against the treaty and in my opinion there is plenty of solid evidence and testimony to prove that COVID 19 came from a lab and was not a natural occurrence. Of course, if there are treaty violations going on, I'm sure they don't want to be caught and so there would be a lot of propaganda and pressure to silence the truth.

I think the OP is correct about this being the creation of deterrence weapons.

There has been too much concern about PC because this sh**-fest emerged from China, and it became slowly clear that organizations like WHO were toeing a party line vice aggressively getting to the facts of what actually happened. That scientists are being smeared for not holding the approved views is nothing new.

Cheers

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

How can we argue with the guy that discovered HIV causes AIDS,

From my memory Gallo 1st made the claim that HIV causes AIDS. He couldnt replicate his theories. SO I guess they needed more scientists to feed the lie.


en.wikipedia.org...

Duesberg proposed his hypothesis that AIDS is caused by long-term consumption of recreational drugs or antiretroviral drugs, and that HIV is a harmless passenger virus. In contrast, the scientific consensus is that HIV infection causes AIDS;[5] Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims have been addressed and rejected as erroneous by the scientific community.[6][7][8] Reviews of his opinions in Nature[9] and Science[10] asserted that they were unpersuasive and based on selective reading of the literature, and that although Duesberg had a right to a dissenting opinion, his failure to fairly review evidence that HIV causes AIDS meant that his opinion lacked credibility.[10][11]

from other research I did way back in the 90's I came to the conclusion that AIDS ( cancers etc ) is what you get when you take the "therapy" for AIDS/ Pretty much like so many psychotropic drugs that actually make you go insane.



www.healthline.com...-side-effects

Other side effects
Other side effects from antiretroviral drugs can include:

hypersensitivity or allergic reactions, with symptoms such as fever, nausea, and vomiting
bleeding
bone loss
heart disease
high blood sugar and diabetes
lactic acidosis (high lactic acid levels in the blood)
kidney, liver, or pancreas damage
numbness, burning, or pain in the hands or feet due to nerve problem

One other thing to consider is that AIDS seemed to be prdesposed to male Homosexuality

www.google.com...

Being a receptive partner during anal sex is the highest-risk sexual activity for getting HIV. The bottom's risk of getting HIV is very high because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow HIV to enter the body during anal sex. The insertive partner is also at risk for getting HIV during anal sex

So it may have been a weapon against gays and apparently it all started from a Rockefeller grant

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

www.modernghana.com...

For example, there was the “Department of Defense Appropriations Hearings” in 1970. During this hearing, a 1969 document is discussed outlining how the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council NAS-NRC, advised the US military to develop synthetic biological agents against which no cure can be developed in order to depopulate the world.

Those viruses, in fact, were already developed a long time before and are functionally identical to HIV/AIDS.

The NAS-NRC was headed by Frederick Seitz at the time, also then President of Rockefeller University. The real smoking gun is the 1977 Pfizer contract for; “Large-Scale Tissue Culture Virus Production for Cancer Research.”

It’s hard to imagine what they meant by “large-scale,” as Pfizer was already making “over 28,000 liters of virus harvest fluids”, a mix of viruses now linked to the AIDS virus. Pfizer’s head at the time was Edmund T. Pratt, director of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank and member of Rockefeller’s Council on Foreign Relations.

Pfizer’s partner in this project was Rockefeller’s International Agency for Research in Cancer, the IARC. Pfizer has offices in New York City, and the IARC has offices in Uganda. AIDS first sprung up in NYC and Uganda at about the same time.

Another Pfizer director linked to Rockefeller’s cancer industry is Paul A. Marks, chief officer at Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center, director of treatment regimens at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and director of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The only reason for gain of function is to weaponize a virus. They cannot predict a virus mutation with great confidence. They get it wrong on the flu just about every year. And they are not going to create a vaccine without clinical trials including tens of thousands of volunteers and there arent enough gutter junkies out there strapped for cash to sign up for a medical trial and Africa cut off pharma from using africans as test subjects. The virus was almost certainly made in a lab. The stories and research you seek reference that the virus has "furin cleavage sites" that its closest relative ratg-13 does not have.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I've said this multiple times --

Husband works in the vaccine industry and there is a viable and reasonable excuse for gain of function. It can create more copies of a pathogen or do other things that are useful in your research and to produce vaccines.

Stop thinking that the only possible reason to do gain of function is to make something more deadly that isn't necessarily the case.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I thought aids was caused by poppers.

a reply to: ketsuko

Gain of function is banned in the US afaik. That is why fauci and others moved their operation to china. Now we see what happens. The benefit of creating gain of function viruses does not outweigh the risk. Name 5 virus created in a lab with gain of function that saved humanity because we already developed a vaccine.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I'm certain that the HIV virus is a U.S. military bio-weapon, I saw the report in the newspaper back in 1978 or 79. Doubt that article exists now except possibly in some Detroit area library collection, on micro film perhaps. Certainly lends credibility to the idea that HIV genes were inserted into COVID 19 considering the true origin of HIV. They're just using what they have available in their library of stockpiled bio-weapons they are not supposed to have.

a reply to: drewlander

Name five brand new vaccines (not retreads of the flu vaccine) that have been developed since we have developed the ability to do it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I've said this multiple times --

Husband works in the vaccine industry and there is a viable and reasonable excuse for gain of function. It can create more copies of a pathogen or do other things that are useful in your research and to produce vaccines.

Stop thinking that the only possible reason to do gain of function is to make something more deadly that isn't necessarily the case.

Thanks for giving us some hope with that. It sounds encouraging to know.

So I guess there must be some HIV sequences that make for some really good vaccines. That's a relief, I'll be sleeping better at night.

a reply to: ketsuko

Husband works in the vaccine industry and there is a viable and reasonable excuse for gain of function. It can create more copies of a pathogen or do other things that are useful in your research and to produce vaccines.

Aside from the vested interest in perpetuating "lies" I find it funny how everytime they create a flu vaccine its based on last years flu strain and a guess as to what will be this years.

Everytime I visit my GP he shakes my hand. I know he hasn't washed his hands from the last patient because when I leave he opens the door!!!. This is after he touches his keyboard taking notes using a pen not cleaning his blood pressure equipment. See where I'm going with this? I could point to more "contagious examples within a surgery

Now as to gain of function why wouldnt vaccine makers keep a more powerful agent aside for next years weapon to keep them in business? Thyu say it costs upto $1 Billion to create a new drug. They'd want to keep everyone depended on Pharma for 40/50 years.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I'm certain that the HIV virus is a U.S. military bio-weapon, I saw the report in the newspaper back in 1978 or 79. Doubt that article exists now except possibly in some Detroit area library collection, on micro film perhaps.

I read that in Nexus magazine back in the early 80's. Now like you say you'd probably have to use a engine other than google so you can get to the articles quicker.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

maronewellness.com...

In 19th century France, while Pasteur was advocating the notion of germs as the cause of disease, another French scientist named Antoine Bechamp advocated a conflicting theory known as the “cellular theory” of disease.

Bechamp’s cellular theory is almost completely opposite to that of Pasteur’s. Bechamp noted that these germs that Pasteur was so terrified of were opportunistic in nature. They were everywhere and even existed inside of us in a symbiotic relationship. Bechamp noticed in his research that it was only when the tissue of the host became damaged or compromised that these germs began to manifest as a prevailing symptom (not cause) of disease.

To prevent illness, Bechamp advocated not the killing of germs but the cultivation of health through diet, hygiene, and healthy lifestyle practices such as fresh air and exercise. The idea is that if the person has a strong immune system and good tissue quality (or “terrain” as Bechamp called it), the germs will not manifest in the person, and they will have good health. It is only when their health starts to decline (due to personal neglect and poor lifestyle choices) that they become victim to infections.

You can see this when a group of people go hiking in the woods. It often seems that the mosquitoes attack only one or two people out of the group. And as it turns out, it’s always the same person that always gets attacked by the mosquitoes. This person is usually the one who always catches the latest flu and has the weakest immune system. This is because these germs (including insects) are opportunistic in nature and only attack the weak.

The germ theory of disease suited the Rockefellers with their monopoly on petrochemical

"How the Rockefellers eliminated natural medicine to create the modern pharmaceutical industry"

amandala.com.bz...

It all started with John Davidson Rockefeller (1839-1937), a Pharisee-born Illuminati monopoly, oil magnate, thief, and America’s first billionaire. In the early 1900s, Rockefeller controlled 90% of all oil refineries in the U.S. through his oil company, Standard Oil, which later split to become Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, etc. At the same time, around 1900, scientists discovered “petrochemicals” and the ability to create all kinds of chemicals from petroleum. For example, the first plastic, called bakelite, was made from petroleum in 1907. Scientists discovered various vitamins and assumed that many pharmaceutical drugs could be obtained from petroleum. Rockefeller saw this as a wonderful opportunity to monopolize the oil, chemical, and medical industries at the same time. The best thing about petrochemicals was that everything could be patented and sold with high profits.

But there was a problem with Rockefeller’s plan for the medical industry: Natural / herbal medicines were very popular in America at the time. Almost half of the doctors and medical schools in the US practiced holistic medicine, using knowledge of Europe and Native Americans. Rockefeller had to find a way to get rid of his increased competition. So he used the classic Hegelian dialectic formula: “solution-problem-reaction.” That is, he and his associates created a problem to scare people, and then offered a pre-planned solution.Rockefeller turned to his friend Andrew Carnegie, another plutocrat who made his money by monopolizing the steel industry, who devised a plan. From the prestigious Carnegie Foundation, they sent a man named Abraham Flexner to travel across the country and report on the status of all hospitals and medical colleges. This led to the writing of the Flexner Report, which gave rise to modern medicine as we know it, through which the need to modernize and centralize medical institutions was discussed. Based on this report, more than half of all medical universities were closed a short time later. Homeopathy and natural medicine were mocked and demonized. Many doctors who worked with these methods were even jailed.

To help with the transition and change the minds of other doctors and scientists, Rockefeller donated more than $100 million to schools and hospitals and founded a group of philanthropic leaders called the “General Board of Education” (GEB). In a very short time, all medical schools were modernized and homogenized. All the students were learning the same thing, and medicine consisted of using proprietary medicines. The scientists received huge grants to study how plants cure diseases, but their goal was to first identify which chemicals in the plant were effective, and then to recreate a similar, but not identical, chemical in the laboratory that could be patented.

Who knows what they are doing or may have done in those labs.
If they ever release a virus (either accidentally of intentionally) that is actually bioweapon grade, just forget about masks and 6 foot social distancing.
All you can do is hope that you have not been exposed by the time you are made aware of the existence of the virus before you grab you boogie bag and pack out for the boonies.
Even then, chances are that an airborne virus would get you eventually anyway.

Report from the "whistleblower". Accuses China of waging biological warfare.

Cheers

HIV virus does not cause AIDS.


The terrain causes it...AKA the environment...all the crap that end`s in to body and then damage the immune system. This is why they never could make vaccine for AIDS .


Actually this is about the same that i suspect what happen with rona ...

a reply to: ketsuko

Ill start with gardasil. Causes more damage than it solves.

a reply to: Kenzo

Vascular damage is concerning. That is why i have been checking up on trials for thymosin beta 4 peptide and thymosin alpha 1 peptide therapy. They have been shown to treat hiv, cancer and even used for h1n1. I think we havent seen much on them in the news because they not only because of how much pharma stands to lose but also because they hold some secrets to longevity.

a reply to: drewlander

Here is a link to some info on thymosin covid treatment potential.

link here

Interesting excerpt:
That men with COVID-19 are 2.4 times more likely than women to die from the virus is extremely interesting because the gene for Thymosin beta 4 resides on the X chromosome.  Women have two X chromosomes while men only have one.  As the researchers suggested, this could explain the lower incidence of COVID-19 induced mortality in women because it is found on the X chromosome and escapes X-inactivation. Women, therefore, would have increased levels of Tβ4 compared to men; thus, the possible explanation why women have an improved chance of survival.