Gain Of Function Research – As Fake As The Virus!
In this respect, the gain of function (GoF) discussions and inquiries are to create a distraction from the reality of the virus’s non-existence and the fraudulent science.
A GoF means modifying the original product or process to improve its functionality. In principle, GoF itself is not a bad or wicked practice.
For example, if one likes to take a photo of a large wall painting when the distance away from the painting is limited. Then one would use a wide-angle lens.
The wide-angle lens provides a gain of function for the camera with the standard lens.
Similarly, if the object is far away and appears very small, one uses a telephoto lens to bring the object near to take a reasonable-quality photo. Again, it will be considered as GoF as well.
The important point is that first, one must have a camera with a standard lens; only then improvement to it can be made and measured.
If the product and process have deleterious properties, those properties could also be enhanced under GoF.
Therefore, such studies are often conducted as a part of scientific research to learn the mechanisms of processes to control or further exploit the GoF.
In the case of virus research, it is assumed that GoF is about making a virus from dangerous to deadlier. However, it may not necessarily be an accurate assumption.
On the other hand, the questionable aspect of GoF concerning the virus is that it is a lie because no one has the “standard” virus specimen. Therefore, working or conducting research (aka GoF) with viruses is impossible.
Laboratories and experts do not show any tangible product from the research of any “altered” virus. It is hard to believe, but there is no evidence that scientific research on the GoF aspect related to the virus has ever been conducted.
The GoF research appears to be just another catchy phrase like the virus, virus-RNA, spike-protein, variant, isolation, sequencing, etc., without real-world evidence.
One can argue that experts and authorities have thoroughly fooled the public and others and wasted public and private financial resources.
An audit to clarify and settle the GoF debate is urgently needed by an independent (non-medical) third party, preferably science/chemistry-based.
However, as it stands now, the GoF research is as fake as the virus itself!
Header image: Boston University
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
GoF…I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a fauci invention designed to get more research funds. Not that he ever did any great research other than to figure out ways to murder people.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thanks for the comment.
Indeed that is the point. “They” never did any valid scientific research on the topic, but whatever “they” did (mostly witchcraft) was called, and still considered, “science” to gain funding and status.
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
From a rigorous scientific perspective, COVID-19 has not been defined by a unique set of symptoms (like other diseases). Rather, it is defined by an unreliable positive PCR test, which does not purport to detect the presence of any actual virus, dead or alive.
Therefore, COVID-19 is not defined by unique symptoms or by any unique, physical virus. At best, COVID-19 is associated with any number of coronaviruses (called variants), none of which has been uniquely identified and some of which may have originated from GOF research in laboratories.
We do not know whether COVID-19 exists or not, but we do know that the causality of COVID-19 by a unique, physical virus has not been proven according to known scientific criteria such as Koch’s postulate.
It is likely that the products of GOF research are found in the vaccines, but may not be found in unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19 infections. Saeed may be right, in that looking for the products of GOF research in “COVID viruses” may be a distraction from looking for GOF toxins in the vaccines.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Actually, for viruses, it’s Robert’s Postulates which parallel Koch’s Postulate’s but take into account the differences of bacteria and viruses.
Indeed, none of the disease viruses from which humans suffer have been properly isolated, analyzed, and characterized to cause disease. Historically, all of these diseases were on a steep decline even before the introduction of related vaccines, due to the advent of better nutrition, water supplies, and proper sewage treatment.
The problem is that there are many records of disease increasing with the introduction of the vaccines, be it the same disease or others as well.
And, yes, the “m RNA vaccines,” which they are not by any definition, are need to be viewed as disease sources.
First off, the jabs only focus on one surface protein (spike protein) and the mRNA sequence has been altered to make it stiffer, which is not good, as it breaks off more often.
Second, antibodies against only one virion protein will cause non-neutralizing antibodies which will partially coat a vision, encourage a T-cell to engulf it, and then the virion is free to reproduce, as the T-cell cannot digest it.
In a natural situation, the immune system makes antibodies against ALL of the virion surface proteins and generates neutralizing antibodies. A T-cell will then engulf it and digest it. Here’s the weird part. The non-neutralizing antibodies from the jab encourage T-cells to be infected with the virion—they are the cells that are meant to protect us, not infect us. This is SO backward, it’s evil at work.
So, one has to ask why they focused on the known to be most lethal of all the surface proteins and then effectively weaponized it? Not only is making spike proteins bad for the entire body, but the jabs also have the body’s own cells making spike proteins against which the immune system is to make antibodies. Thus, the circulating spike proteins take apart tissues (as that is their known activity), but the circulating antibodies attack the body’s own cells, doing even more tissue damage.
There is no way that this is good for the body.
Furthermore, these jabs can suppress the immune system for 6 weeks to 3 months. This means that dormant viruses in one’s genome or any other diseases encountered during this period can gain a foothold. [It can be argued that Long COvid is simply rebranded Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, a DNA-dwelling virus in about 8% of the population, being activated by immune system supression.]
This also explains the noted increase in soft cancers because the immune system is suppressed. Also, the heart sees the most spike proteins as all blood passes through there at high rates, increasing the effective exposure.
I say, it matters not where the purported fantastical virus, only identified by its PCR test shadow and thus no existing, came from. It behaved in every way like a flu-type-illness (FTI) and also evolved to lesses forms like all coronaviruses, ecoming less virulent and more contagious, just like the cold and flu season.
mRNA “vaccines” have never worked. At least five trials in Africa for ebola and HIV failed miserably, with at least one trial resulting in 50% mortality in the vaccinated. So, how in the real world is this technology suddenly the savior of the world.
A little known fact is that Moderna was founded by a researcher who showed that mRNA can be and is taken up by cells and reverse transcribed (by our own systems) into our DNA. This is categorically gene therapy.
That explains Moderna and Pfizer, but AstraZeneca and J&J jabs are also a problem. They use the adenovirus vector to transfer DNA for the spike protein into the jabbed. The problem here is that this is an even more effective gene therapy than the other jabs.
Why on Earth would anyone submit to gene therapy for a cold or flu virus? This amounts to a complete gaslighting of the world’s people, to force, coerce, or convince them to take jabs that can patently not do what was claimed by the companies and authorities. This directly subjects the jabbed to all of the side effects and more of these clearly not healthy jabs (some health-toxic foreign substances have been detected in these jabs).
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Charles and readers.
Interesting comment thank you Charles. The reference to chronic fatigue syndrome, ” a DNA-dwelling virus in about 8% of the population” begs the question,”is there a difference between a DNA dwelling virus and a DNA mutation?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch%27s_postulates#:~:text=Koch%27s%20postulates%20%28%2F%20k%C9%92x%20%2F%20KOKH%29%20are%20four,and%20refined%20and%20published%20by%20Koch%20in%201890.
I searched for Robert’s Postulates but was repeated back to Robert Koch’s Postulates.
Wikipedia explains how the cause of some illnesses cannot be isolated.
Reply