Children's Health Defense deleted my interview segment after I cited peer-reviewed research confirming the measles vaccine virus was created with GOF techniques.
I am one of those who disagreed with you, and I would like to explain why, because there is an important backstory.
First, practically all vaccines for 100 years were developed by passage since Louis Pasteur in the 1880s developed the first vaccine after smallpox (which was anthrax), the purpose being to LOSE virulence, not gain it.
But more important, perhaps, is the fact probably unknown to you that the biodefense warriors have been active for the past several years in trying to obscure the meaning of the term "gain of function" so that GOF research will become impossible to ban, as it encompasses too many useful functions.
You got caught up in this swindle. There are many publications by GOF scientists and their hangers-on who will tell you that 98% of GOF experiments are helpful to mankind. Fauci also tried this linguistic subterfuge.
GOF is the replacement term for germ warfare research, which gradually was whitewashed into biodefense research and then GOF.
Passage to reduce virulence--call it what you will--is not biowarfare research. Biowarfare research needs to be ended, which was the intent of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972.
We must not allow deliberate confusions of terminology to get in the way of finally succeeding in ending biological warfare and the deliberate creation of deadly pathogens--now, more than ever.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Dr. Nass. I am so grateful for all of the work that you've done to promote health and freedom and truth. I feel indebted to your contributions. I am frankly very uncomfortable that I disagree with you here, as I hold your opinion in such high regard. It makes me not want to push back on any of your statements. I will just emphasize that my argument does not underscore virulence. My argument relies on the fact that the measles vaccine virus gained the function of being able to infect more host cells (CD150 to CD46); confirmations made by biodefense experts in peer-review that this could be considered as qualifying as gain-of-function; definitions of GOF provided by the Congressional Research Service and the American Society for Microbiology; and the fact that such virus manipulation is necessarily subject to the 1989 Anti-Terrorism Act. I am happy to correct any factual errors in my reporting. I hope to accomplish a fraction of the good you have achieved, Doctor. Your commitment to truth inspires many of us. Humbly and with gratitude -Jon
I have no expertise in this but it would seem GOF is a gain of function and LOF is a loss of function it does not matter what the intention was - the behavior of the end product in the host would determine if it was GOF or LOF as compared to the original virus.
IMO, vaccines have caused more morbidity and mortality then any other medical intervention and I believe many conditions attributed to viruses are caused by pesticides and other poisons, bacterial or fungus or simply the body ridding built up poisons.
Author of the quoted paper Jennifer Nuzzo is a member of the biodefense/GOF mafia
As I said, just because the ASM said this was GOF--well, what is the real point? Call it anything you want. Increased infectivity is a GOF, agreed--but still there is real biowarfare research , there is non biowarfare research, and perhaps there are gray areas, and maybe this is one.
Beware being played by professionals whose goal is to maintain the status quo.
1. Jon, I agree, it’s disturbing that, as you say, “CHC deleted my interview segment after I cited peer-reviewed research confirming the measles vaccine virus was created with GOF techniques.” That RFK is now mysteriously advocating for the measles shot be given to kids seems counter to MAHA. Not sure what’s going on there with RFK/CHD. I don’t like it.
2. I’ll admit that I’m outside my wheelhouse regarding the chemistry of viruses, vaccines, and GOF tech, but not so in the areas of linguistics, semantics, meaning-making and such, but I’m happy to say that I think you and Dr Nass are essentially on the same page. I agree with Dr Nass’ comment, and I'm guessing you do too, where she says: "We must not allow deliberate confusions of terminology to get in the way of finally succeeding in ending biological warfare and the deliberate creation of deadly pathogens..." I think the seeming disagreement between you both is that you’re both coming from different CONTEXTS in looking at “the” meaning of the “GOF” term and its usage. I do understand your using the term in an expanded sense to include both the attenuation and the enhanced-virility uses of the term (i.e., positive/attenuation uses as well as negative/dangerous/enhancement uses of GOF tech). But it looks to me like Dr Nass is using "GOF" as applied to the negative aspects of GOF, as the term has been conventionally used since Covid-19, e.g., the increased virility of GOF-made viruse; your example of that would be the CD150 to CD46 shift to greater virility (in the measles vaccine).
In any case, I like Jewell’s comment that the attenuation function should be referred to as LOF (loss of function) and gain, e.g., CD150 to CD46 enhancements to virility, should be referred to as GOF. Yes, the pre-Covid-19 research, at least, shows both functions to be referred to as GOF, as you say. But that govt has collapsed the two into just “GOF” as a means to preserve/hide the dangerous aspects of GOF is telling.
3. I have a related issue on confusion with your terminology, in case it's useful in clearing up the apparent disagreement between you and Dr Nass on the term "GOF": your term "vaccine virus" is used 11 times in your article; I don't recall ever seeing those two words put together that way before, for measles or anything else, not to suggest I'm an expert in all the GOF term distinctions. Specifically, I understand the terms "measles vaccine" (produced from GOF or otherwise) and "measles virus." Why are you using the term "vaccine virus?" Do you mean a/the measles virus that’s produced from the CD46 measles vaccine, i.e., more virulent viruses produced in a person from receiving that vaccine?
4. BTW, you seem to contradict yourself when you say, quote, “…that my argument does not underscore virulence. My argument relies on the fact that the measles vaccine virus gained the function of being able to infect more host cells (CD150 to CD46).” Aren’t you saying there that infecting more host cells means it’s more virulent?! I think you might have said, instead, that your argument underscores the expanded use of the term GOF to include both attenuation (LOF) and enhancement (GOF) of viruses.
Hopefully, I’m not just adding to the confusion here.
A little bit of good news the US cut off funding for animal experiments in China and a New York rep has submitted a bill to stop US funding for all animal experiments. They have been spending $20 billion a year on torturing and killing animals.
“ Passage to reduce virulence--call it what you will--is not biowarfare research.” But as Jon is pointing out, the viral manipulation in this case is increasing virulence, not reducing it — a GAIN…and one which completely fits ASM’s definition “to alter the function of an organism in such a way that it is able to do more than it used to do.”. Gains/losses, pros/cons, benefits/harms…call it what you will, I personally believe it should all be stopped. Whenever one tinkers with the Natural Order of things, there are hidden (and all too often deadly) consequences.
Yup after meeting Mary Holland briefly at WAPF last fall, being on zoom calls with her often- for health and wellness circles- living in the same town as Zen Honeycutt, and experiencing the RFK Jr campaign as a volunteer. I am not surprised about CHD.
The Edmonston strain was isolated from a 13 year old child named David Edmonston in 1954. Then, a scientist named John Enders did many serial passages in chick embryos to "attenuate" the virus or make it less virulent. In doing so, the attenuated version GAINED THE ABILITY to use a different cellular receptor. This is the strain used in shots today, and is propagated in fetal tissue cells. Whether the strain is less virulent or not, the fact is, the same serial passage method can be used to make something more virulent. So, Jon is right. The measles vaccine was created using GOF techniques.
Dear Jon,
I am one of those who disagreed with you, and I would like to explain why, because there is an important backstory.
First, practically all vaccines for 100 years were developed by passage since Louis Pasteur in the 1880s developed the first vaccine after smallpox (which was anthrax), the purpose being to LOSE virulence, not gain it.
But more important, perhaps, is the fact probably unknown to you that the biodefense warriors have been active for the past several years in trying to obscure the meaning of the term "gain of function" so that GOF research will become impossible to ban, as it encompasses too many useful functions.
You got caught up in this swindle. There are many publications by GOF scientists and their hangers-on who will tell you that 98% of GOF experiments are helpful to mankind. Fauci also tried this linguistic subterfuge.
GOF is the replacement term for germ warfare research, which gradually was whitewashed into biodefense research and then GOF.
Passage to reduce virulence--call it what you will--is not biowarfare research. Biowarfare research needs to be ended, which was the intent of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972.
We must not allow deliberate confusions of terminology to get in the way of finally succeeding in ending biological warfare and the deliberate creation of deadly pathogens--now, more than ever.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Dr. Nass. I am so grateful for all of the work that you've done to promote health and freedom and truth. I feel indebted to your contributions. I am frankly very uncomfortable that I disagree with you here, as I hold your opinion in such high regard. It makes me not want to push back on any of your statements. I will just emphasize that my argument does not underscore virulence. My argument relies on the fact that the measles vaccine virus gained the function of being able to infect more host cells (CD150 to CD46); confirmations made by biodefense experts in peer-review that this could be considered as qualifying as gain-of-function; definitions of GOF provided by the Congressional Research Service and the American Society for Microbiology; and the fact that such virus manipulation is necessarily subject to the 1989 Anti-Terrorism Act. I am happy to correct any factual errors in my reporting. I hope to accomplish a fraction of the good you have achieved, Doctor. Your commitment to truth inspires many of us. Humbly and with gratitude -Jon
I have no expertise in this but it would seem GOF is a gain of function and LOF is a loss of function it does not matter what the intention was - the behavior of the end product in the host would determine if it was GOF or LOF as compared to the original virus.
In Humphries and Bystrianyk book Dissolving Illusions there is referenced an interesting paper that reexamined a 1916 Polio outbreak in NYC https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOVACJ/TOVACJ-4-13.pdf
IMO, vaccines have caused more morbidity and mortality then any other medical intervention and I believe many conditions attributed to viruses are caused by pesticides and other poisons, bacterial or fungus or simply the body ridding built up poisons.
Author of the quoted paper Jennifer Nuzzo is a member of the biodefense/GOF mafia
As I said, just because the ASM said this was GOF--well, what is the real point? Call it anything you want. Increased infectivity is a GOF, agreed--but still there is real biowarfare research , there is non biowarfare research, and perhaps there are gray areas, and maybe this is one.
Beware being played by professionals whose goal is to maintain the status quo.
1. Jon, I agree, it’s disturbing that, as you say, “CHC deleted my interview segment after I cited peer-reviewed research confirming the measles vaccine virus was created with GOF techniques.” That RFK is now mysteriously advocating for the measles shot be given to kids seems counter to MAHA. Not sure what’s going on there with RFK/CHD. I don’t like it.
2. I’ll admit that I’m outside my wheelhouse regarding the chemistry of viruses, vaccines, and GOF tech, but not so in the areas of linguistics, semantics, meaning-making and such, but I’m happy to say that I think you and Dr Nass are essentially on the same page. I agree with Dr Nass’ comment, and I'm guessing you do too, where she says: "We must not allow deliberate confusions of terminology to get in the way of finally succeeding in ending biological warfare and the deliberate creation of deadly pathogens..." I think the seeming disagreement between you both is that you’re both coming from different CONTEXTS in looking at “the” meaning of the “GOF” term and its usage. I do understand your using the term in an expanded sense to include both the attenuation and the enhanced-virility uses of the term (i.e., positive/attenuation uses as well as negative/dangerous/enhancement uses of GOF tech). But it looks to me like Dr Nass is using "GOF" as applied to the negative aspects of GOF, as the term has been conventionally used since Covid-19, e.g., the increased virility of GOF-made viruse; your example of that would be the CD150 to CD46 shift to greater virility (in the measles vaccine).
In any case, I like Jewell’s comment that the attenuation function should be referred to as LOF (loss of function) and gain, e.g., CD150 to CD46 enhancements to virility, should be referred to as GOF. Yes, the pre-Covid-19 research, at least, shows both functions to be referred to as GOF, as you say. But that govt has collapsed the two into just “GOF” as a means to preserve/hide the dangerous aspects of GOF is telling.
3. I have a related issue on confusion with your terminology, in case it's useful in clearing up the apparent disagreement between you and Dr Nass on the term "GOF": your term "vaccine virus" is used 11 times in your article; I don't recall ever seeing those two words put together that way before, for measles or anything else, not to suggest I'm an expert in all the GOF term distinctions. Specifically, I understand the terms "measles vaccine" (produced from GOF or otherwise) and "measles virus." Why are you using the term "vaccine virus?" Do you mean a/the measles virus that’s produced from the CD46 measles vaccine, i.e., more virulent viruses produced in a person from receiving that vaccine?
4. BTW, you seem to contradict yourself when you say, quote, “…that my argument does not underscore virulence. My argument relies on the fact that the measles vaccine virus gained the function of being able to infect more host cells (CD150 to CD46).” Aren’t you saying there that infecting more host cells means it’s more virulent?! I think you might have said, instead, that your argument underscores the expanded use of the term GOF to include both attenuation (LOF) and enhancement (GOF) of viruses.
Hopefully, I’m not just adding to the confusion here.
A little bit of good news the US cut off funding for animal experiments in China and a New York rep has submitted a bill to stop US funding for all animal experiments. They have been spending $20 billion a year on torturing and killing animals.
“ Passage to reduce virulence--call it what you will--is not biowarfare research.” But as Jon is pointing out, the viral manipulation in this case is increasing virulence, not reducing it — a GAIN…and one which completely fits ASM’s definition “to alter the function of an organism in such a way that it is able to do more than it used to do.”. Gains/losses, pros/cons, benefits/harms…call it what you will, I personally believe it should all be stopped. Whenever one tinkers with the Natural Order of things, there are hidden (and all too often deadly) consequences.
Yup after meeting Mary Holland briefly at WAPF last fall, being on zoom calls with her often- for health and wellness circles- living in the same town as Zen Honeycutt, and experiencing the RFK Jr campaign as a volunteer. I am not surprised about CHD.
The Edmonston strain was isolated from a 13 year old child named David Edmonston in 1954. Then, a scientist named John Enders did many serial passages in chick embryos to "attenuate" the virus or make it less virulent. In doing so, the attenuated version GAINED THE ABILITY to use a different cellular receptor. This is the strain used in shots today, and is propagated in fetal tissue cells. Whether the strain is less virulent or not, the fact is, the same serial passage method can be used to make something more virulent. So, Jon is right. The measles vaccine was created using GOF techniques.
Thank you, Dr. Stillwagon.
So if measles makes a widespread comeback, would it be a vaccine-derived strain?
And if so, would it recover infectivity lost from whatever attenuation?
If so, at that point, is it worse than original measles because of the gain of function?
Are present-day measles cases known to be from a vaccine strain most of the time?
And if so, could that be what modern day mortality seems way highher than the historical 1 in 10,000?
Honest questions. No answers.
My favorite parts of Covid:
The Doctors
Of The Medical Freedom Movement
Are Fighting For Their Reputations.
They’re Not Fighting For The Truth. They Can’t.
Because The Truth
Will Destroy Their Profession
And Consequently Their Reputations.
And there is this from Dr Ana
https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/measles-mumps-rubella-and-varicella-876?publication_id=956088&post_id=158396425&isFreemail=true&r=khop7&triedRedirect=true