Question Everything YOU are being told about the CoronaVirus Origin.
Gain of Function = Creating a Stronger Virus
There are many questions. Why would a researcher attempt create a stronger virus? Why Horseshoe Bat research in the USA? Why are Scientists manipulating a virus to increase it’s strength (Gain of Function)? What did Dr. Shi Zhengli create once whe returned to China? Why did the US Government shut down the research being conducted? Why were virus samples were taken out of Canada, and sent to China and later the staff was fired.
“the potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens.”- Shi-Zheng-Li et al.
This small club of scientists know exactly what happened.
Edited May 1, 2020: It is becoming clearer now that the those of us being called conspiracy theorists and censored by Google will be vindicated soon. Even the note below with the disclaimer is bull$h$t. This research is paid for by taxpayers and is open to discussion. Of course, the mainstream media won’t report it- until Newsweek did a couple days ago. So, for the naysayers only time will tell. Let’s hope that some of the truth comes out to the public, as the Chinese most likely will never admit fault. Why should they anyway and open themselves up to uncollectable monetary judgements?
There is a huge moral and ethical question why Dr. Fauci (the Coronavirus task force Doctor on TV) and his virus creating pals were allowed to perform this risky and dangerous work- that he himself even—-> admitted in 2011 with an editorial he wrote <—–(most likely with taxpayer funding) about doing this type of work is dangerous but of a huge value. The question is of value to who versus the risk. (Playing around with lab animals with dangerous pathogens- is like nuclear power- there is political downside to it- using dangerous highly radioactive materials to create boiling water to make steam and the end result is electricity- is the risk worth the reward?- look at the huge mess with the world economy and countless deaths this pandemic has already caused) The work was “paused” and restarted, since there were quite a number of objections to this work by scientists- over 200 commented. Then according to Newsweek the work was approved by should we say virus biology club members under a secret biology club meeting- nice huh?
For common sense thinking people- another question to ask Doctor Fauci was this a solution in search of a problem?
Why would you conduct dangerous research on a potential problem that never occurred?
Why were scientists doing this dangerous “spillover” work “In-vivo” on live animals?
The paper below has highlighted sections quoted that are understandable for just about anyone- “Mouse Lung”, “Human to Human transmission”, “Events leading to outbreaks in humans”, “Leading to rapid spread around the world with massive economic impact”.
If this study was successful in 2015, why didn’t the anti-viral treatment exist when this lab accident occurred in 2020?
A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence- Nature November 9, 2015
“The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV underscores the threat of cross-species transmission events leading to outbreaks in humans.
“SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells”
“replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung”
“cross-species transmission of severe respiratory illness with globalization leading to rapid spread around the world and massive economic impact”
“However, similar changes in related SARS-CoV strains had been reported to allow ACE2 binding”
“Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.”
“…Here we examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations”
“In addition to offering preparation against future emerging viruses, this approach must be considered in the context of the US government–mandated pause on gain-of-function (GOF) studies”
Biosafety and biosecurity: Reported studies were initiated after the University of North Carolina Institutional Biosafety Committee approved the experimental protocol (Project Title: Generating infectious clones of bat SARS-like CoVs; Lab Safety Plan ID: 20145741; Schedule G ID: 12279). These studies were initiated before the US Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses (http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf). This paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the NIH. Continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.”
“30 March 2020- Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.”-
Published on November 10, 2015, 5 years ago:
“Researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have discovered a new bat SARS-like virus that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans without mutation. However, researchers point out that if the SARS-like virus did jump, it is still unclear whether it could spread from human to human.
The discovery, reported in the Nov. 9 issue of Nature Medicine, is notable not only because there is no treatment for this newly discovered virus, but also because it highlights an ongoing debate over the government’s decision to suspend all gain of function experiments on a variety of select agents earlier this year. The move has put a substantial standstill on the development of vaccines or treatments for these pathogens should there be an outbreak.”
“In effect, they took the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) virus carried by bats, that was making the rounds back in 2003, and reverse-engineered the genetic coding inside the virus itself. They THEN inserted additional proteins to enhance the efficiency of the virus inside human lungs (making it more deadly), while at the same time making it extremely difficult to vaccinate against, because the new virus has multiple proteins with which to attack. (Please note the receptor designation ACE2, as you’ll see more of this again.)”- StateOfTheNation article
TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH
“…many participants argued that the word choice of “gain-of-function” to describe the limited type of experiments covered by the U.S. deliberative process, particularly when coupled with a pause on even a smaller number of research projects, had generated concern that the policy would affect much broader areas of virology research.
“..virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.
Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type.
The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses
He first explained that the SARS-CoV has evolved over the past ~800 years to efficiently infect human cells that expressed the ACE2 viral receptor.
Ultimately, GoF studies, which enhance viral yield and immunogenicity, are required for vaccine development.
but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.
..she is concerned that the pause in the current research “has swept far too many aspects of virologic research into the definition.” Dr. Mark Denison, Vanderbilt University,
The essence of the debate around the risks and benefits of GoF research and the concerns it raises have naturally encouraged virologists on both sides of the debate to consider alternative methodological approaches.
“you can develop safer approaches to do these types of experiments; it just needs a little bit of imagination on the part of researchers.”
https: // www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/
The US government is lifting a ban on engineering deadly viruses to make them more dangerous- Business Insider December 20, 2017
“The NIH is ending a three-year pause on funding research into ways to genetically engineer viruses so they become more contagious or deadly.”
“This sort of work is known as “gain of function” research. It could help us prepare for the possibility that a virus like this might evolve in nature.”
“But some fear that there are security risks — a potential accidental release would be dangerous, and the research could be used to create biological weapons.”
https:// www. businessinsider.com/nih-lifts-ban-on-flu-mers-sars-virus-gain-of-function-research-2017-12
Great Game India February 3, 2020
“In an explosive interview Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act has given a detailed statement admitting that the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive Biological Warfare Weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knows about it.
EXCLUSIVE: Coronavirus Bioweapon – How China Stole Coronavirus From Canada And Weaponized It (watch here Visualizing The Secret History Of Coronavirus)
Watch the exclusive interview of Bioweapons Expert Dr. Francis Boyle on Coronavirus Biological Warfare blocked by the Deep State”
“Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.
Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.
In an exclusive interview given to Geopolitics and Empire, Dr. Boyle discusses the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China and the Biosafety Level 4 laboratory (BSL-4) from which he believes the infectious disease escaped. He believes the virus is potentially lethal and an offensive biological warfare weapon or dual-use biowarfare weapons agent genetically modified with gain of function properties, which is why the Chinese government originally tried to cover it up and is now taking drastic measures to contain it. The Wuhan BSL-4 lab is also a specially designated World Health Organization (WHO) research lab and Dr. Boyle contends that the WHO knows full well what is occurring.”
TheGatewayPundit.com Reports Today:
This information has been around for awhile, but since the Gateway Pundit puts this up, it’s important to republish and emphasize the information. The pandemic we are being faced with originated in China, but it most likely wasn’t born in some wet market.
More than one source is reporting this. We questioned it over 2 months ago.