X22-Report

The Dangers of Gain-of-Function Research and Its Impact on Human Health ❗️
In the realm of science and medicine, decisions are sometimes made that lead to unpredictable and dangerous consequences. One such case is the research known as "Gain of Function," in which viruses that do not naturally infect humans are manipulated to gain the ability to transmit to humans. These viruses are typically specific to certain species and do not naturally transfer to humans. But the question arises: why should we make such a change in the first place?

Gain-of-function research has been banned in many countries due to its inherent dangers. This type of research is considered so hazardous that even contemplating it seems inherently malevolent. The potential consequences of such actions can be catastrophic; for instance, we now see 13-year-old children developing pancreatic cancer—a disease that was previously extremely rare in this age group. How could anyone undertake such actions? And why aren’t those responsible for these actions held accountable and imprisoned?

In the United States, this type of research was banned. However, it appears that this prohibition was circumvented through collaboration with the Wuhan lab in China. This is where we see how a small number of individuals can cause harm to a vast number of people. The details of how this ban was bypassed are a matter for investigators to uncover. But for someone who has spent years working in laboratories and developing cancer drugs—someone who has achieved great success through their scientific endeavors—it is abundantly clear that such research is far too dangerous. You simply cannot control these viruses. In this research, animal viruses are manipulated, and a process called "affinity maturation," which might take millions of years in nature, is carried out in a lab in a short period of time.

During this process, fusion proteins were created, and these proteins were then used to develop a vaccine. Individuals like Barney Graham and Francis Collins played a role in this project and took pride in creating a protein called RBD, which was supposedly "stabilized." But let’s think about this for a moment: this protein is the spearhead that the virus uses to penetrate the body’s cells. Now, we have made this spearhead even more stable and injected it into the body in the form of an mRNA vaccine—like the Pfizer vaccine. This virus, which initially only existed in bats, has now been transmitted to humans due to gain-of-function research. Then, by creating this vaccine, we have enhanced the virus’s spearhead and introduced it into the body, essentially saying, "Here you go, here’s the virus!"

From the perspective of a layperson, this seems utterly insane. Suppose I have never had COVID-19 and received the Pfizer mRNA vaccine three years ago. Is it possible that traces of the COVID virus could still be in my body now? The answer is: probably yes. This is truly bizarre. I know of a real case—though I won’t mention her name—of a senior official at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). She only received the vaccine, and within weeks, she experienced brain fog and memory loss. There is clear evidence that sometimes the vaccine itself, and sometimes the virus, is the cause of these issues. But the key point is that these two are not necessarily separate; it all comes down to the spike protein.

The idea of introducing the COVID virus into a body that has not been infected with it is extremely strange. In fact, we have targeted the wrong protein. For years, I have been pleading for the focus to shift from the spike protein to the nucleocapsid protein. This protein is located in the core of the virus and is not the spearhead. If you activate T-cells, they can last for up to 17 years—we know this from previous studies on coronaviruses.

48 views16:12