Gain of Function research–What is it? The Good, The Bad and The Biological Weapons


In my relentless pursuit of understanding covid—I have often heard the term, “gain of function research”. Curious—I looked it up. A definition is difficult to find and even more difficult to understand.  The Conversation asked four experts in the field,

What does gain of function mean?

“Any organism can acquire a new ability or property, or “gain” a “function.” This can happen through natural selection or a researcher’s experiments. In research, many different types of experiments generate functions, and some pose certain safety and security concerns. Scientists use a variety of techniques to modify organisms depending on the properties of the organism itself and the end goal. Some of these methods involve directly making changes at the level of genetic code. Others may involve placing organisms in environments that select for functions linked to genetic changes.

Gain of function can occur in an organism in either nature or the laboratory. Some lab examples include creating more salt- and drought-resistant plants or modifying disease vectors to produce mosquitoes that are resistant to transmitting dengue fever. Gain of function can also be useful for environmental reasons, such as modifying E. coli so that it can convert plastic waste into a valuable commodity.

In the current debate around SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, gain of function has a much narrower meaning related to a virus becoming easier to move between humans, or becoming more lethal in humans. It is important to remember, though, that the term “gain of function” by itself covers much more than this type of research.”

That didn’t help much. Let’s step back for a moment.

Gain of function research is not new. It wasn’t always called gain of function. In fact, it dates back to the 1930’s.

In 2001, when my husband was diagnosed with cancer, one of the tests ordered was a PET Scan. Despite working for two years on an oncology floor of a community hospital, I had never heard of a PET Scan. The technician was very nice and explained to me that the scan looks for cancer metastasis. Cancer cells have many more glucose receptors than normal cells. Cancer cells require 19 times more glucose than normal cells. To prepare for the PET scan–you fast the night before the scan, then you are given a mixture containing sugar and radioactive tracers either by mouth or IV—the cancer cells in your body will grab that sugar faster than any other cells. After an hour, they scan your body and the radioactive glucose molecules will light up wherever there is cancer. Only cancer cells can consume glucose at that high amount because of the extra glucose receptors.

I was so excited. If doctors KNEW that cancer cells must have sugar to survive—why couldn’t they starve the cancer cells of sugar and watch them die?  Sugar hoarding is a well-known function of a cancer cell’s biochemistry.  And yet—they give chemotherapy and candy to cancer patients. How many people have even heard of a PET scan—yet alone how it works as a diagnostic tool.

Here’s where the gain of function comes in. How does a diabetic regulate their blood sugar? With insulin. Diabetics test their blood sugar and administer insulin to regulate it. The goal is the same with cancer. The goal is to open up cancer cells and allow the insulin and a much smaller dose of chemotherapy (10%) into the cancer cell to kill it. This is a targeted therapy with much less collateral damage than giving chemotherapy IV. You get the benefits of chemotherapy without the horrible side effects because the insulin goes straight to the cancer cells and the small dose of chemo that is attached kills the cancer. So you get the benefits without all the terrible side effects. That’s a “gain of function”.

Imagine fasting the night before a chemo treatment, getting a fraction of the dose attached to insulin, and target killing just the cancer cells. Very little side effects, no death. This therapy isn’t for everyone, and health professionals must be trained to administer it—but it is safe and effective. Why haven’t conventional oncologists embraced it?

Turns out the treatment has been around for quite a while. It’s called Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT). It was considered a “biological response modifier” and has been used successfully since the 1930’s to treat various conditions. In fact, IPT predates chemotherapy.

Dr. Thomas Lodi has successfully treated patients with IPT for 14 years.

Insulin is the trojan horse. There is a window of time when the cancer cells can absorb the sugar before normal cells because normal cells do not have the extra receptors. This is the therapeutic window for treatment. This is when insulin plus chemotherapy and other drugs like antibiotics or even targeted biological therapies like IV vitamin C, curcumin, or resveratrol are most effective. These botanicals can be used to reduce inflammation and turn off oncogenes. It has been proven safe and effective time and again.  

In a recent PubMed article, glucose metabolism was suggested as a targeted treatment for Covid.

A recent study published in Cell Metabolism by Codo et al.1 shows that metabolic rewiring of human monocytes by SARS-CoV-2 infection cultured under high glucose highly induces viral replication and cytokine production compromising T-cell response and function. Ultimately, this triggers lung epithelial cell death and, mechanistically, provides an explanation why people with diabetes might be more susceptible to develop severe COVID-19.”

Obviously, you can’t give insulin across the board to everyone. So new treatments have been developed (assuming with good intentions) to treat cancer and now viruses, with gain of function research.

Magnetic nanoparticles containing small doses of chemotherapy were to be used with external magnets to move those particles directly to the cancer and release them. Once again, this was designed to be targeted release without the whole-body complications. It is a well-known function of a cancer cells biochemistry or cellular physiology that assures the insulin will work. It goes straight to the sugar. But these nanoparticles don’t always go where they should and actually do travel throughout the body. In fact, just like insulin, these magnetic particles can also cross the Blood Brain Barrier. But unlike insulin, it isn’t a good thing. When you can direct these nanoparticles to change brain chemistry and protein enzymes in the brain—either internally or externally—that’s a bad thing. Some say the magnetized particles are designed to work with 5G radiation.

According to Canadian viral immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle,

“mRNA uses the cells machinery to synthesize proteins that are supposed to resemble the spike protein of the corona virus, which is what the virus uses to enter cells via the ACE2 receptor. These proteins are then identified by the immune system, which builds antibodies against them. The concern many experts had is that these proteins could accumulate in the body—especially in regions of high concentrations of ACE2 receptors, like testicles and ovaries.”

Here’s the thing. Scientists knew, doctors knew, three letter agencies (CDC, FDA) knew, Dr. Fauci knew—the ACE2 receptors are present all over the body.  In addition, we now know that the nanoparticles do not stay in the shoulder where they inject you—more than 75% leave the injection site and travel throughout the body. Why? Because ACE2 receptors are all throughout the body. Certain blood pressure meds and statins actually upregulate (increase) ACE2 receptors.

“Until now we were assuming that these were acting like traditional vaccines, where they go in the shoulder muscle and they don’t go anywhere else.” Dr. Byram Bridle.

You know what they say about “assuming”.

Do you think that’s why both vaccinated and unvaccinated (but had close contact/exchanged bodily fluids with vaccinated people) are having so many cardiovascular and reproductive side effects?

The side effects are REAL. I’ve talked with so many people in the last two months who have experienced heart inflammation, pneumonia, blood clots, unexplained bleeding, and miscarriages. These things alone should be enough to halt this human experimental insanity.

Does this nanotechnology provide gain of function? Or is it, as some say, a biological weapon? Is it designed to work with 5G radiation to control the human body?

Dr. Bridle: “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”

From The Conversation: “In the past decade, the United States has developed oversight for research that could be directly misused for nefarious purposes. This includes policies on “dual-use research of concern” (DURC) and policies on “pathogens of pandemic potential” enhanced to gain transmissibility or virulence.”

Always do your own research. Your life could very well depend upon it.

Thomasina Copenhaver on InstagramThomasina Copenhaver on Twitter
Thomasina Copenhaver
Thomasina Copenhaver is a naturopathic doctor and registered nurse with over 30 years experience in the healthcare profession. Her passion is writing, researching, and empowering all humans with knowledge of healing at the cellular level; to enable them to make educated and informed choices regarding their health. For more information visit her website: or to buy her book, "Notes from a Naturopath" visit Amazon or Barnes and Noble.