Gain-of-Function Experiments by Drosten in Berlin, Germany

The Berliner Zeitung just ran a large feature on the dubious background and questionable role of Christian Drosten during the Covid Mania

This is a very long piece in the Berliner Zeitung on the origins of Sars-Cov-2, the role of Christian Drosten, and the implications for science and society at-large.

I’m reproducing the piece in its entirety, but please be advised that the first quarter of the text is a summary of ‘previously in this regard’, and I’ve ‘separated’ it from the discussion of what goes on in Germany by inserting one of the images from the original article. If you’re already familiar with the shenanigans called ‘Gain-of-Function (GoF)’ research™, you may as well scroll down to the picture.

Before you do so, though, please keep in mind that there are two aspects in this piece that merit both special attention and exhibit qualities that point well beyond the piece below and the topics discussed therein:

As regards, first, so-called ‘gain-of-function’ research™, let’s not forget that this is also a highly relevant legal issue in regards to the Bioweapons Convention (BWC):

Formally known as ‘The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction’, the Convention…entered into force on 26 March 1975. The BWC supplements the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which had prohibited only the use of biological weapons.

States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention undertook ‘never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:

1. microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;

2. weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.’

And this brings me to the first overarching aspect of the below piece: every virologist, researcher, or the like working on these kinds of things will always (have to) claim that whatever he or she is doing has some ‘prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes’.

In other words: this (loophole) is so wide, you could drive a tank through it without technically breaking the BWC: tinkering with (potentially) zoonotic viruses?—That’s done to prophylactly understand future threats. Developing injectable products against (sic) a not-yet zoonotic virus?—That’s done to protect injected people against the virus (like with the modRNA and modDNA-vectored concoctions by AstraZeneca, J&J, BioNTech/Pfizer, and Moderna, you know…). If none of these two things stick, one can always claim that this is done entirely for peaceful purposes, such as preventing poor African children from getting this of the other illness (by which is meant that Third World countries are seen as labs and their peoples as the function equivalent of lab rats). If you long for a telling, if disgusting example, please see this:

African Children as Guinea Pigs: A Look at GSK's Malaria Jab

The second major aspect concerns the independent journalist who goes by the nom-de-plume Aya Velázquez. During her university days (studying cultural anthropology), she worked as an escort in Berlin, which explains her first forays into the public limelight. This was B.C.—‘before Covid’—and the so-called, WHO-declared Pandemic™ witnessed her transformation into a kind of alt-media phenomenon, that is, within ‘certain’ circles (Ms. Velázquez maintains, it would seem, strong leftist leanings), but she has established herself as a quite loud and critical voice of the Covid Mania—and she’s done so in the most respectable manner: by kinda pissing off everybody who has more credentials, visibility, and possibilities to report on, say, court and parliamentary proceedings.

I’m mentioning this as Ms. Velázquez, last summer (2024), she was instrumental in leaking™ the infamous Robert Koch Institute’s internal deliberations on all things Covid to the public—and more respectable™ alt-media people (to say nothing about legacy media, experts™, and journos™) were indignant that ‘this person’ did so a few weeks before long drawn-out court proceedings would eventually order disclosure anyways. See here:

Fully Un-Redacted RKI Files Leaked

Why do I mention this? I’m doing so because Ms. Velázquez has both quite a following and credibility (this can be seen that virtually no-one tries to disqualify her by labelling her ‘a hooker’ any longer). This can be observed by the fact that the Berliner Zeitung below does something virtually all legacy media outlets in Germany were quite loath to do so far: relying on work done by an outsider like Ms. Velázquez that is incorporated into a bigger exposé as if she was a regular, credentialed fellow journalist. We’ll see where Ms. Velázquez—who virtually from the get-go was partially labelled ‘controlled alt-media’ by many in the anti-mandate crowd—will go from here…

So, enough with the prelims, now on to the main course. The below piece comes to you in my translation, with emphases and [snark] added.

---

Virus Experiments in the Centre of Berlin: How Dangerous is Gain-of-Function Research?

What role do Christian Drosten, Charité and a controversial virology method play in the origin of the coronavirus? A search for clues behind the lab doors.

By Franz Becchi, Berliner Zeitung, 6 June 2025 [source; archived]

For some time now, there has been growing evidence that the coronavirus did not spread to humans via a wet market in Wuhan, but that it originated in the Wuhan Lab of Virology. This view, which was dismissed as dubious during the pandemic, is supported by the US Congress, numerous international experts, and the Bundesnachrichtendienst [Germany’s CIA; as if these institutions would never lie to us…]. After some hesitation, even [sic] Germany’s top virus expert, Christian Drosten, no longer completely rejects this assumption [that hesitation can be explained: Dr. Drosten was the chief hystericist among the experts™ both the German gov’t and legacy media relied on for years].

But what would be the consequences of the realisation that the virus is not an accident of nature, but a human creation? What do these laboratories do, where do they exist and is a new pandemic conceivable that has its origins in a laboratory?

Gain-of-Function: What is Behind the Research Method?

Gain-of-function (GoF) research—i.e., experiments in which viruses are deliberately made more dangerous—was long considered a marginal topic for specialists [and/or bioweapons researchers]. However, since the outbreak of Sars-CoV-2 at the latest, it has moved to the centre of a debate that has so far mainly taken place in the USA [that’s actually, and factually, true: that is a topic that European legacy media has so far avoided].

What is scientifically necessary, what is ethically justifiable—and what is politically responsible? [lol, but at least the issue is spoken about, however perfunctorily] Critics speak of playing with fire. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that future pandemics could hardly be prevented without such research [isn’t this an absurdity in terms of the scientific method—if this was an ‘if clause’, that’s a prime example of a hypothetical].

At the centre of the debate is the question of biosafety and the ethical limits of scientific curiosity. What happens if an artificially manipulated, highly infectious pathogen finds its way out of the laboratory—or falls into the wrong hands? While GoF experiments are officially intended to protect civilian health, their methods are also of strategic interest to military actors [oopsie, the Berliner Zeitung just called GoF research™ military stuff? If so, it’s blatantly illegal, which speaks to both research ethics and whatever the functional equivalent of ethical behaviour in both politics™ and legacy media journo-ism™ may be…].

This leads to the so-called DURC dilemma—Dual Use Research of Concern: research that may be medically motivated, but at the same time creates knowledge and technologies that can also be used for the development of biological weapons. Who benefits from the research? [that’s of course a kind of obvious question with an even more obvious answer: the military and security services, as well as their less-friendly associates (contractors, incl. organised crime)] How much can researchers risk?

One incident sparked a storm of criticism back in 2011: virologists Yoshihiro Kawaoka and Ron Fouchier genetically modified the H5N1 bird flu virus—independently of each other—in such a way that the virus was transmitted between ferrets via the air for the first time. H5N1 is extremely deadly in humans, but in its natural form is hardly transmissible [these are flip sides of the same coin]. An artificially-enhanced transmissible virus—if it escapes or is misused—could trigger a pandemic [which is why we need to do this kind of research™ proactively to protect against future threats that may arise due to that kind of research™: find the mistake].

US Gov’t Restricts GoF Research

In the United States, the topic is politically hot once more. US President Donald Trump has comprehensively reorganised the health authorities [call me a cynic, what has happened is new leadership—so far, nothing of consequence has happened…]. Critics of the previous corona policy such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and epidemiologist Jay Bhattacharya have been appointed to central positions—respectively as Secretary of Health and Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The new US gov’t promises [that’s the key word here: it points to the future] a comprehensive review of pandemic policy. In particular, the origin of Sars-CoV-2 is now the focus of attention. At Easter, the White House reaffirmed its position that the virus could have originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)—as a result of gain-of-function experiments funded with US money [as if the White House would never lie to anyone…]. However, Trump’s willingness to clarify the situation is politically motivated: he wants to put the blame on the Chinese, and was already talking about the ‘China virus’ during the pandemic. This one-sidedness is problematic because it prevents an unsparing clarification [I note that ‘the Chinese’ are as much to blame whatever ‘their’ gov’t does as is ‘the average American’: that’s an extremely stupid standard (sic)].

Nevertheless, at the beginning of May, Trump signed a decree that severely restricts GoF research into dangerous pathogens and cancels government funding. There was already a moratorium of this kind under Barack Obama (2014), which was lifted three years later—during Trump’s first term in office.

A medical professional and a machine disinfect a provisional hospital in Wuhan. [also, if you saw this and didn’t think it’s a psy-op, you probably also wore masks sitting alone in your car, self-isolated upon testing™ ‘positive’, and took the poison/death juices without thinking even once].

[From here on, the Germany-related part commences.]

Gain-of-Function Research in Germany

In Germany, the federal government has invested heavily in virus research in recent years: since March 2020 alone, around 1.8 billion euros have been invested in programmes relating to coronaviruses, in particular Sars-CoV-2. The first laboratory of the highest security level (S4) was opened at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in Berlin-Wedding back in 2015. At the time, the Süddeutsche Zeitung ran the headline: ‘Killer viruses in Wedding’.

It is not the only such laboratory in the capital: at Campus Charité Mitte (CCM), the Institute of Virology conducts research in BSL-3 laboratories—also for risk group 3 pathogens such as influenza and coronaviruses. Scientists there work on virus replication, diagnostics, and analysing mutations, among other things. The head of the institute is Christian Drosten, who played a key role as a government advisor during the coronavirus pandemic [in case you’re wondering, the German word for conflict of interests is Interessenkonflikt].

In mid-May [2025], Drosten was heard as a guest in the Corona Investigation Committee of the Saxon state parliament. There, the virologist also commented on the topic of laboratory research. In response to a question from a member of parliament, Drosten explained that gain-of-function and loss-of-function are two approaches used in basic research in functional genetics to study individual gene functions. According to a report by journalist Aya Velázquez, this type of research does not necessarily have to be carried out on viruses. His laboratory would not carry out experiments on viruses. The term GoF is often confused in public [if that kind of paragraph confused you, it’s because Mr. Becchi seemingly doesn’t really want to write about this (Ms. Velázquez’ reporting is way more outspoken and clear-eyed about Dr. Drosten’s statements)].

Is Gain-of-Function Carried out in Germany?

But what is meant by GoF? A spokesperson for the Federal Ministry of Research (BMFTR) told the Berliner Zeitung:

The term Gain-of-Function (GoF) does not describe an independent and clearly defined field of research [note the legalese disclaimer here: since we don’t know what that un-defined term means, we don’t do it] and is not a funding priority of the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR) [of course not; grant proposals are written in such ambivalent ways that those who assess said proposals don’t recognise™ what is done because…they are either not competent to assess these proposals or don’t want to know: you be the judge].

GoF is an experimental methodology [well, that’s what scientific enquiries do: one formulates a hypothesis and arranges experiments to test it: this is simply an extra-stupid nonsens] that can be used in various biomedical research areas alongside other molecular biological methods: ‘The application of the GoF methodology is not centrally recorded’, said the spokesperson [because if what is to be done is related in ambiguous weasel-words in the grant proposals, there’s plausible deniability for both the applicants and the funding institutions].

The German government confirmed in 2021 that GoF research is taking place in Germany, and AfD members of parliament asked:

Does the German government have information on whether Charité employees, or Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten, are involved in research in the field of GoF?

The Federal Government’s answer:

Such research is also taking place in Germany (including at Charité, Berlin).

RAPID: What is the Virus Research at Charité All About?

Under the leadership of Christian Drosten, the Institute of Virology at Charité coordinates the RAPID (‘Risk Assessment in Pre-pandemic Respiratory Infectious Diseases’) research network, which was founded in 2017. The project, which was funded by the then Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) with four million euros over five years, aimed to develop a scientific basis for the risk assessment of novel respiratory pathogens [thus figuring out how to spot the new problem created by GoF research™ in the first place: this isn’t how science is done—re-read the last line if necessary: there was no ‘scientific basis for the risk assessment’].

In the RAPID research network, scientists worked on novel respiratory pathogens, in particular the MERS coronavirus, which can have a mortality rate of up to 30 per cent in humans. The project website explicitly refers to ‘gain-of-function’ and ‘loss-of-function’ experiments. According to the BMFTR [Germany’s R&D Ministry], however, no GoF methodology in the sense of a targeted increase in virulence or transmissibility of pathogens was done as part of the project. When asked, a Charité spokesperson also emphasised

The gain-of-function experiments in the Rapid research network do not relate to viruses, but to culture cells and are not associated with any risk.

However, the use of a gain-of-function approach is explicitly mentioned in the 69-page funding application—together with the applicants’ statement that it is assumed that ‘no viruses with increased virulence and DURC potential’ will be produced. In other words, this type of research should yield results that could be used for medical purposes as well as relevant for security or military policy. The fact that reference is subsequently made to the use of culture cells in order to categorise the risk level of the experiments is somewhat at odds with the original project documents available to the Berliner Zeitung. These suggest that infectious MERS viruses were used on human cell lines—a system in which adaptations to human receptors cannot be ruled out in principle.

Gain-of-Function: An International Affair

This kind of research has also been carried out in the USA: at the University of North Carolina (UNC) in Chapel Hill, virologist Ralph Baric is regarded as a leading expert in the targeted modification of coronavirus genomes, particularly spike proteins. The funding application for the Defuse project, which was made public by the DRASTIC research collective in September 2021, explicitly proposed the introduction of a so-called furin cleavage site—a molecular feature that distinguishes Sars-CoV-2 from its known relatives. Baric was listed as a co-applicant and part of the planned research consortium [at the Charité in Germany].

In contrast to the USA, GoF research has never been passionately discussed or even restricted in Germany. Drosten is one of the biggest GoF supporters internationally. Among other things, the virologist was a co-founder of the ‘Scientists for Science’ [sic; check out their website] initiative, which spoke out in favour of [that kind of] research during the American debate on a GoF moratorium in 2014.

A Charité spokesperson told the Berliner Zeitung that Drosten was not in favour of risky experiments [more weasel words: Drosten was, and is, apparently in favour of doing less-risky experiments]. The debate in the USA at the time was about ‘some interest groups within the scientific community developing the idea of fundamentally stopping some of the usual research work on pathogens’. However, this work is ‘essential in order to develop vaccines or antiviral agents, for example’. A fundamental ban would have had ‘disadvantages in the area of industrial and academic research and development in the USA’. The ‘now ten-year-old statement by the international ad hoc working group ‘Scientists for Science’ does not call for a relaxation, but on the contrary points to existing regulations and compliance with them’, said the spokesperson [which worked so wonderfully in the past 5-odd years, isn’t it?].

However, the ‘Scientists for Science’ website states:

Our main line of defence is to ensure that these facilities are operated safely and adequately staffed to minimise risk—not to restrict the types of experiments that can be carried out [as someone who routinely conducts research grant evaluations for both national and international (EU-level) research funding institutions, the term adequately is typically used to categorise budget, staffing, and other provisions in grant proposals as sufficient(ly explained) to merit further consideration: in other words—many more weasel words that the average, or casual, reader of legacy media reporting might overlook; yet it is important to understand that this term in particular bears great importance in academia].

The emphasis here is therefore not on limiting the research itself, but on safeguarding its framework [it’s all for the greater good of The Science™: this is also why academia is loath about transparency as there’s so many individuals who benefit from grant funding, to say nothing about what’s called ‘overhead’, i.e., part of the grant money (in the EU’s ‘higher research area’, that’s typically 25% of the total sum) automatically goes to the ‘host institution’].

For the Charité, this is a ‘group statement’ by American scientists, which Drosten has always ‘supported’. On the website, however, Drosten is listed as a ‘founding scientist’.

When Drosten Said: ‘We must accept these risks’

Back in 2012, Drosten and two colleagues published a guest article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung entitled: ‘We must accept these risks’ [orig. Wir müssen die Risiken aushalten]. In it, the authors spoke out against restrictions on the publication of risky virology experiments and argued that gaining scientific knowledge also entails uncertainties—risks that society must ‘accept’.

A plea for dangerous research? The Charité disagrees: at the time, they had spoken out against intransparency through publication bans [so, the GoF research™ undertaken was so relevant for military applications (contrary to the Bioweapons Convention), that regular academic outlets couldn’t be used: GoF is, therefore, very often a cover for bioweapon], not against safety requirements in the laboratory [which were there to begin with]. The term ‘risks’ should be understood in the context of risk-benefit considerations that are difficult to assess—not as a call to tolerate real dangers. But what risks were actually involved?

Physicist Roland Wiesendanger levelled serious accusations against Drosten. In February 2022, he accused the virologist in an interview with the magazine Cicero of having ‘deliberately misled’ the public about the origin of Sars-CoV-2 [for whatever™ reason, this is the one reference the Berliner Zeitung’s Mr. Becchi does not include in his piece]. A court prohibited the allegation due to a lack of evidence [needless to say, there has been no review yet of this injunction since ‘new information’—incl. the White House’s Easter egg on the origins of Sars-Cov-2 appeared]. Wiesendanger's statements, however, such as that Drosten spread disinformation and falsehoods in the scientific discourse, were deemed to be admissible expressions of opinion. Main proceedings are pending.

Drosten and the Origin of Sars-Cov-2

Wiesendanger claims that Drosten was part of a group of scientists led by British researcher Peter Daszak, who decided early on to declare that Covid-19 was of natural origin—without providing any evidence. In an open letter published in The Lancet in February 2020, the group classified the theory of laboratory origin as a ‘conspiracy theory’. Drosten was a co-signatory of the statement.

Daszak was president of the American NGO [sic; it’s gov’t-funding, hence rather a GONGO] EcoHealth Alliance, which was currently conducting GoF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, partly with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) led by Anthony Fauci. According to the lab-origin hypothesis, one of these experiments, ‘Project Defuse’, gave rise to Sars-CoV-2. The controversial research is said to have been led by the Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli [close confidante of Prof. Ralph Baric of UNC at Chapel Hill].

However, instead of being clarified, the lab-leak hypothesis was initially attacked by publications in renowned journals and media reports and labelled as nonsense. In the scientific article ‘The proximal origin of Sars-CoV-2’, which appeared in Nature-Medicine in March 2020, scientists identified the origin of the pathogen as the Huanan fish market in Wuhan. Only later did it emerge that Fauci himself had been in contact with the authors and had—de facto—commissioned the scientific article [which should immediately end the libel suit against Prof. Wiesendanger, by the way, which is also why, I think, the main trial is still pending…].

On 9 February 2020, Drosten wrote an email to the small group of scientists, including Fauci, Jeremy Farrar and Kristian Andersen. His question was: ‘Who came up with this story in the beginning? Are we working on debunking our own conspiracy theory?’ [here’s the rest of the email, as related by the Brownstone Institute’s Will Jones back in late November 2022:

He adds that he thought the aim of their discussions was to challenge a ‘certain theory:’ ‘Didn’t we congregate to challenge a certain theory, and if we could, drop it?’ The ‘certain theory’ is understood by the others to be the linking of the virus to HIV as found in a January 2020 pre-print.

Drosten’s questions are quickly answered by other group members. Edward Holmes explains what their group is up to (which, for context, follows the appearance of new data from pangolins):

I don’t know where this story came from, but it has nothing whatsoever to do [with] the HIV nonsense. Please don’t associate this with that. This is a broader story…

The eventual outcome of this discussion was the “Proximal Origins” paper in Nature on March 17th 2020. The final paper largely reflects the prior deliberations, though the earlier assessments of a preference for the lab origin are gone, which the authors would presumably attribute to the arrival of the pangolin sequences. (For the case for the virus being engineered see here; for the case for a lab origin (whether or not engineered) see here; for the problem with the pangolin sequences see here.)

Notably omitted from the published paper are the mentions that research to alter SARS-like bat coronaviruses had been taking place for many years in Wuhan at low biosecurity levels (i.e., BSL-2). Andersen noted on February 8th that “passage of SARS-like CoVs have been ongoing for several years, and more specifically in Wuhan under BSL-2 conditions,” While Andersen’s point seems to be that there was nothing new about this, so no reason to think it was suddenly the cause of a pandemic, equally others would note that it is clearly an accident waiting to happen.

[And now back to the Berliner Zeitung’s reporting.]

Drosten admits to participating in the video conference, but denied involvement in the publication of the article in Nature [see, if you’re in the email discussion but not a listed author, you’re off the hook: easy]

Immunologist Anthony Fauci was heard on the coronavirus origin in the US Congress.

The Charité spokesperson said that Drosten had already ‘denied during the telephone conference that he wanted to support any kind of publication intention because, in his opinion, there was insufficient data available’. [get that: Germany’s leading Sars-Cov and MERS expert™ didn’t want to have his name attached to the ‘Proximal Origins’ paper for lack of evidence]. The plan to publish was ‘explicitly denied in an answer by K. Andersen’. Drosten then considered the matter closed. He ‘was no longer involved in a later communication in which a manuscript was prepared’.

In view of this account, it is all the more astonishing that Drosten finally signed the statement on The Lancet initiated by Daszak on 19 February 2020, in which the laboratory thesis was dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ [see the actually quite comprehensively annotated Wikipedia entry].

The article [lol, that’s the open letter] had a major impact on the scientific and public debate on the origins of the pathogen: from then on, it was no longer conducted, and the natural origin was proclaimed as irrefutable dogma in the various fact checks. Anyone who raised the issue was, like Wiesendanger, defamed as an idiot or conspiracy theorist [well, that kind of ‘pre-bunking’ didn’t age well: shouldn’t these fact-checkers™ have to answer for their spreading of nonsense?].

Today, a laboratory leak of Sars-CoV-2 is considered by several international authorities to be the most likely scenario for the origin of the virus. US intelligence agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and [Germany’s] BND share this view [remember: none of these ‘intel agencies’ have ever lied about anything]. An action for disclosure of these findings was rejected by the Federal Administrative Court in April with reference to the public interest.

What is Drosten’s Connection to ‘Bat Woman’ Shi Zhengli?

The evaluation of Drosten’s role also raises the question of his acquaintance with the Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli, the former director of the Department of Virology at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and head of bat virus research. In response to the questions: ‘Can you confirm that you have published scientific work with the virologist Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology? If so, in what form did you collaborate with her?’, the Charité spokesperson for the virologist replied: ‘Professor Drosten cannot confirm this. There is no other collaboration. Any claims to the contrary would be false and lack any factual basis.’

It therefore remains to be seen how or in what form Drosten and Shi Zhengli met when both were joint members of the PREDICT consortium, an international research network of the American USAID programme that identified zoonotic diseases by monitoring pathogens in wild animals, such as bats, in high-risk regions. Despite the dissolution of the consortium in 2020, there is at least the question of whether a scientific exchange took place between Zhengli and Drosten [easy to resolve: get the NSA and NRO to divulge any existing phone and/or email contact between these two, isn’t it? The fact that the White House now claims a lab leak is how the Pandemic™ happened while not disclosing these electronic communications—which they surely gathered (h/t to Ed Snowden)—reeks of: obfuscation].

And an exchange did indeed take place at the beginning of the pandemic—at least this is what Drosten himself says in the book Alles überstanden, which relates journalist Georg Mascolo’s interview with Drosten: ‘On 6 January 2020, I wrote an email to my colleague Shi Zhengli, a leading Sars researcher in Wuhan,’ claims Drosten on page 15 of the book.

Meanwhile, there is resistance among scientists against the controversial GoF research method. In 2022, Wiesendanger initiated the so-called Hamburg Declaration—an international appeal signed by over 50 scientists. The aim of this appeal is a worldwide ban on gain-of-function research on pathogens with pandemic potential.

The signatories urgently warn of the risks of such experiments, in which viruses are deliberately made more dangerous or infectious—even under high-security conditions. They are calling for a general ban that also includes carrying out such research in high-security laboratories.

Researchers Call For a Halt to Risky GoF Experiments

‘Virologists are playing God—they create new viruses and expect the public to simply accept the risks’, Wiesendanger told the Berliner Zeitung. He would like to see an open scientific debate about gain-of-function research—something that hasn't happened in Germany so far.

There have always been accidents in laboratories working with viruses. If viruses are made more deadly or contagious through gain-of-function experiments, even a small accident like the one with SARS-CoV-2 can affect the entire world and have unpredictable consequences’

Thus immunologist Valentin Bruttel to the Berliner Zeitung. In addition to him, the signatories of the Hamburg Declaration include American molecular biologist Steven Quay and US security expert Milton Leitenberg.

Bruttel rose to prominence during the pandemic through an analysis that revealed striking patterns in the genome of SARS-CoV-2 in 2022, typical of laboratory-manipulated viruses. Together with Alex Washburne and Antonius VanDongen, the scientist argued that the pathogen exhibited molecular traces of targeted manipulation, similar to the patterns used in the production of synthetic viruses, for example, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology [what a surprising (not) coincidence: remember that correlation never equates causation /sarcasm].

For all its scientific potential, gain-of-function research is ultimately a risky gamble involving the safety of the planet and the health of large segments of the world’s population. The international community must ask itself what benefits it expects and what risks it is willing to take [that genie is out of the bottle].

---

Bottom Lines

This is a long piece—and I’ll delimit myself to two key take-aways:

First, as regards the issue of an int’l ban on GoF, that’s wishful thinking; the toothpaste is spilled and there’s no way to put it back into the tube.

The one and only thing that could reasonably be undertaken is—heavy penalties for transgressors and severe punishment if mistakes, honest or otherwise, happen. We’re talking life-time prison sentences and hefty fines at the bare minimum. Without a sound and, above all, enforced, legal code underwritten by moral standards, a formal ban will simply push GoF research™ underground and into the netherworlds of intel services and organised crime (see the US Prohibition of booze for comparative insights).

Second, people like Dr. Drosten and their ilk are weasels without any kind of guidance, moral or otherwise. They are the manifestation of the whacky scientist who would do literally everything to further his or her personal ambition without ever accepting a shred of personal responsibility.

This he does despite being very much on the record, saying stuff like this to the Swiss online magazine Die Republic in autumn 2021:

Moving on to the origins of Sars-Cov2, Drosten was adamant:

[Drosten:] ‘This idea [Wade’s article, dated 10 May 2021] of a research accident is extremely unlikely for me because it would be far too inconvenient. The idea of a malicious use of some intelligence operation somewhere is doubtful: if anything, such a thing would probably not come from the Wuhan Virology Institute, because this is a serious academic institute [you mean, serious™ like the Charité?]

[Q:] What is the most plausible theory of origin for you?

[Drosten:] Carnivore farming. The fur industry.

[Q:] Why?

[Drosten:] I don’t have any evidence for that, except the clearly documented origin of Sars-1, and this is a virus of the same species. Viruses of the same species do the same things and often have the same origin. With Sars-1, it is scientifically documented that the transitional hosts were viverrids and raccoon dogs. That is certain. It is also certain that in China raccoon dogs are used on a large scale in the fur industry. If you buy a jacket anywhere with a fur collar, it is Chinese raccoon dogs, almost without exception. And now I can tell you that there are no studies in the scientific literature—none whatsoever—that shed light on the question of whether tanuki breeding stock or even other carnivore breeding stock, mink for example, carry this virus, Sars-2, in China.’

Back in autumn 2021, Dr. Drosten was very open about his ignorance. These days, he’s adamant about never having said anything about this in the first place.

For the rest of the interview, please refer to the two-part translation of mine:

Drosten Speaks, Part 1

Drosten Speaks, Part 2

Weasel words of a weasel researcher—yet we note that the Berliner Zeitung is actually moving towards doing journalism, and for that I commend Mr. Becchi.

If and when legacy journos™ will catch up with these shenanigans, well, that remains to be seen.