The Gain of Function Research Debate

Credit: CDC/ Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAMS

ChiCom lies about the origins of the “COVID-19” virus were explored and confirmed in a previous article here. That article posed an “either-or” scenario regarding its release: either it was an accidental lab leak, or it was purposely engineered through gain-of-function research and released (likely by the PLA, which controls the Wuhan Institute of Virology – WIV). This February 2020 article from the UK Daily Mail gave us the hint as to its origins and purpose while also labeling it all as a “conspiracy theory” at the time:

China has reportedly appointed its top military biological weapon expert to take over a secretive virus laboratory in Wuhan after the outbreak of a new coronavirus, sparking conspiracy theories that the health crisis could be connected to the army.

How does that “conspiracy theory” look now after several months of revelations that have led many to conclude that the lab leak theory of an engineered virus is the only credible theory on its origins?

Shi Zheng-li, Communist China’s “bat woman,” has been in and out of the news on the ChiCom virus origins for over a year. The ChiComs have been feverishly selling the zoonotic theory while keeping her under wraps until she was dragged out three weeks ago to “categorically deny” that speculation that her lab at the WIV was the source for the virus, as if her denial somehow would overcome the revelations made by several researchers about the virus origins that preceded her dramatic announcement reported in the ChiCom-friendly The New York Times.

For example, two prominent suggested that the CGG-CGG amino acid sequence found in the ChiCom virus is manmade and can only have been inserted through gain-of-function research, as they detailed in an op-ed at The Wall Street Journal, because the CGG-CGG sequence is not found in nature. Read here what the Salk Institute says about what those spike proteins do in the human body. The Salk researchers and their collaborators show how the protein damages cells, which confirms COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease. And British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen completed a study that “claims that Chinese scientists created COVID-19 in a Wuhan lab,” and that they had evidence in hand of Chinese “retro-engineering” for over a year. Still waiting for the “bat woman” to explain that!

For more information on Shi Zheng-li’s career in viral research and management at WIV from 2005 through the present, read this excellent article from The Epoch Times. There is little doubt that she is at the center of gain-of-function research at WIV.

As noted in this 2016 report from the National Institute of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, “Gain-of-function (GoF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens.” There has been much discussion about whether GoF research is ethical and also whether the US – with full knowledge of Dr. Anthony Fauci and others – was involved in helping fund that research first in the US and then ultimately at the WIV. Heck, even ol’ Hunter Biden’s firm got into the act of funding a company that partnered with the WIV, as reported here:

Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners – an investment firm led by Hunter Biden  – was a lead financial backer of Metabiota, a pandemic tracking and response firm that has partnered with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Makes one wonder what The Hologram knew about WIV, and when he first knew it?

How long has GoF research been conducted at the WIV? The US State Department reported the following in a fact sheet entitled, “Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” that was glossed over by the legacy media in January 2021 (emphasis added):

  1. Research at the WIV:

  • Starting in at least 2016 – and with no indication of a stop prior to the COVID-19 outbreak – WIV researchers conducted experiments involving RaTG13, the bat coronavirus identified by the WIV in January 2020 as its closest sample to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% similar). The WIV became a focal point for international coronavirus research after the 2003 SARS outbreak and has since studied animals including mice, bats, and pangolins.
  • The WIV has a published record of conducting “gain-of-function” research to engineer chimeric viruses. But the WIV has not been transparent or consistent about its record of studying viruses most similar to the COVID-19 virus, including “RaTG13,” which it sampled from a cave in Yunnan Province in 2013 after several miners died of SARS-like illness.
  • WHO investigators must have access to the records of the WIV’s work on bat and other coronaviruses before the COVID-19 outbreak. As part of a thorough inquiry, they must have a full accounting of why the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses.
  1. Secret military activity at the WIV:
  • Secrecy and non-disclosure are standard practice for Beijing. For many years the United States has publicly raised concerns about China’s past biological weapons work, which Beijing has neither documented nor demonstrably eliminated, despite its clear obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.

  • Despite the WIV presenting itself as a civilian institution, the United States has determined that the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.

  • The United States and other donors who funded or collaborated on civilian research at the WIV have a right and obligation to determine whether any of our research funding was diverted to secret Chinese military projects at the WIV.

Let’s review:

  • An increasing number of independent reports tie the virus outbreak to the WIV.
  • The first known virus cases were in Hubei province in the city of Wuhan (possibly as early as November 2019, if not before).
  • WIV has conducted GoF research for an indeterminate number of years.
  • The PLA controls WIV and has conducted secret research projects there, at least since 2017, according to the US State Department and testimony before the House China Task Force last week.
  • The virus is man-made, containing protein sequences not found in nature.
  • The ChiComs have exploited the virus economic and political gain.

It would not be a stretch at all to conclude from the above points that the ChiComs have been engaging in biological warfare with the manmade COVID-19 virus.

BUT WAS THIS THE FIRST TIME?

Check out this extract from a research paper entitled, The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate, published in August 2015 by the American Society for Microbiology (emphasis added):

The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event, as the genetic sequence of the virus was nearly identical to the sequences of decades-old strains. While there are several hypotheses that could explain its origin, the possibility that the 1977 epidemic resulted from a laboratory accident has recently gained popularity in discussions about the biosafety risks of gain-of-function (GOF) influenza virus research, as an argument for why this research should not be performed. There is now a moratorium in the United States on funding GOF research while the benefits and risks, including the potential for accident, are analyzed. Given the importance of this historical epidemic to ongoing policy debates, we revisit the evidence that the 1977 epidemic was not natural and examine three potential origins: a laboratory accident, a live-vaccine trial escape, or deliberate release as a biological weapon. Based on available evidence, the 1977 strain was indeed too closely matched to decades-old strains to likely be a natural occurrence. While the origin of the outbreak cannot be conclusively determined without additional evidence, there are very plausible alternatives to the laboratory accident hypothesis, diminishing the relevance of the 1977 experience to the modern GOF debate.

Yes, there certainly are “very plausible alternatives to the laboratory accident hypothesis,” and one of those is a purposeful release as a biological warfare test. And what of the manmade COVID-19 release? The ChiComs certainly learned a lot by watching the US and other countries strangle their economies in response to a campaign of fear over the last 18 months that was aided and abetted by ChiCom state-run media. Is the biological warfare test accusation “over the top”? I think not. Consider this report:

A document written by Chinese scientists and Chinese public health officials in 2015 discussed the weaponisation of SARS coronavirus, reveals the Weekend Australian.

Titled The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons, the paper predicted that World War Three would be fought with biological weapons.

Released five years before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, it describes SARS coronaviruses as a “new era of genetic weapons” that can be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human ­disease virus, then weaponised and unleashed in a way never seen before”.

Conclusion. The ChiComs almost certainly have done it before, and they’ve done it again. They’ve talked about doing it in their own scientific journals. The US government confirmed that they’ve been conducting gain-of-function research for years. Given what has transpired over the past 18 months here in the US and around the world, are we to assume ChiCom altruism was behind their gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – or was something much darker and far eviler involved? It is long past time to wake up to reality.

The end.