Boston University Doctors Create New COVID Variant that Has 80% Kill Rate

[LevelUP]

I think I've seen this film before. And I didn't like the ending 

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/bos...n/2865815/

[rachel83az]

80% kill rate... in mice.

Compared to 100% kill rate... in mice.

[ss20ts]

Why would anyone create new strains of Covid?

[bjcheung77]

Why would anyone create new strains of Covid?

In the name of science! They're trying to decipher what happens if there is something similar that may occur naturally. Like the "double mutant" variant within India. Essentially, they're trying to make new models and see what effects there are and if there are options to better current immunization methods/vaccinations.

[LevelUP]

Why would anyone create new strains of Covid?

This is playing with fire, according to experts in this article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic...-rate.html

[rachel83az]

Daily Mail is only barely above The National Inquirer in journalistic integrity.

[ss20ts]

Why would anyone create new strains of Covid?

In the name of science!  They're trying to decipher what happens if there is something similar that may occur naturally.  Like the "double mutant" variant within India.  Essentially, they're trying to make new models and see what effects there are and if there are options to better current immunization methods/vaccinations.

Sounds great until some knucklehead brings it home with them.

[Alpha]

Why would anyone create new strains of Covid?

This is playing with fire, according to experts in this article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic...-rate.html

BU responds to the Daily Mail . . .
https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-univ...e/41677875#

[LevelUP]

Why would anyone create new strains of Covid?

This is playing with fire, according to experts in this article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic...-rate.html

BU responds to the Daily Mail . . .
https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-univ...e/41677875#

Boston University's position was already stated in the DailyMail article.

Quote from the DailyMail:

The University of Boston refuted that the experiments are gain of function, adding that the research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) and the Boston Public Health Commission.

A spokesperson said: 'This research mirrors and reinforces the findings of other, similar research performed by other organizations.

'Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit by leading to better, targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics.'

Daily Mail was reporting that:

1. This COVID research was being done at this facility.
2. Dr. Richard Ebright, a chemist at Rutgers University, said the research is a clear example of gain of function research.

NIH launches an investigation into whether Boston University COVID experiments should have triggered a review

NIH, the organization, cited in the paper as funding for the research, is now denying they gave funds for this research. They claim they only provided funding for the tools and platform. This thing is a hot potato, and nobody wants to touch it. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boston-univ...sitgation/

[LevelUP]

Sounds great until some knucklehead brings it home with them.

That already happened with COVID research less than 1 year ago and that person infected over 100 people. 

Why do labs keep making dangerous viruses?

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/...-biosafety

Here are quote highlights from the Vox article. (Far Left Leaning)

Gain of function research - when viruses are purposefully manipulated to be more infectious or deadly.

They likely invented a virus with omicron’s infectivity and a lethality somewhere between that of omicron and that of earlier strains of Covid. That’s worrying, to say the least.

And it’s worth noting that “as contagious as omicron, only slightly less deadly than original Covid” is overall a virus that, if it were released into the world, could kill more people than either omicron or original Covid.

Mistakes can be made

The researchers behind this work were doubtlessly trying to help the world, but you don’t have to look very far back in history to imagine what could have gone wrong here. Last November, in Taiwan, a lab assistant working with Covid-infected mice was bitten by the mice, caught Covid — almost certainly from the lab, as it wasn’t circulating in Taiwan at the time — and exposed 110 people.

As with the new omicron research, the Taiwan work took place at a BSL-3 (biological safety level 3) lab.

Doing biology better

There is genuine scientific value to studying and altering viruses in a lab, whether to trace the origins of an outbreak, to figure out how a pathogen spreads, or to develop potential medical countermeasures. But you can get most of the scientific value far more safely while refraining from research that creates new deadly pathogens with pandemic potential or artificially enhances existing pandemic-potential pathogens.

Playing viral Russian roulette

Under the Obama administration, the National Institutes of Health — which funds most bio research — imposed a moratorium on so-called gain of function research.

But in 2017, the moratorium was lifted and replaced with the P3CO framework for evaluating the risks and benefits of research with pandemic potential.

Summary

If we don’t do better, then someday, we’ll get unlucky like Taiwan did less than a year ago, and our efforts to engineer more dangerous and contagious variants of Covid will succeed beyond our wildest dreams.

(Again the text in this post was all direct quotes from Vox, not my words)