New Strain Created - Kills 80% of Mice

[SkepticThinker]

you are not reading what it said...

I repeat:

They extracted the spike protein from Omicron and attached it with the strain first detected at the onset of the pandemic that began in Wuhan, China. They then documented how the mice reacted to the hybrid strain.

“In … mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80 percent,” they wrote in a research paper.


Very specifically they took Omicron and made it more deadly.

That's called "gain of function"

whether it is less than the original is irrelevant.

You're not reading what it says.

So I guess the researchers are lying then, when they say it's not "gain of function." ?

And you apparently think that 80% is more than 100% ?
And you apparently think that "less dangerous" = "more dangerous" ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I need to get more on this when I have more time, but please do double-check sources as the New York Post is best used to put at the bottom of a birdcage as it is what is called "yellow journalism".

A more reasonable analysis:

Science - Was a study that created a hybrid COVID-19 virus too risky?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Boston University statement on following National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) guidelines:

“We fulfilled all required regulatory obligations and protocols. Following NIAID’s guidelines and protocols, we did not have an obligation to disclose this research for two reasons. The experiments reported in this manuscript were carried out with funds from Boston University. NIAID funding was acknowledged because it was used to help develop the tools and platforms that were used in this research; they did not fund this research directly. NIH funding was also acknowledged for a shared instrumentation grant that helped support the pathology studies. We believe that funding streams for tools do not require an obligation to report. Secondly, there was no gain of function with this research. If at any point there was evidence that the research was gaining function, under both NIAID and our own protocols we would immediately stop and report. All research at Boston University, whether funded by NIAID or not, follows this same protocol. We are in continued conversation with NIAID leadership and program officers.”


NEIDL Researchers Refute UK Article about COVID Strain

 

[SkepticThinker]

A more reasonable analysis:

Science - Was a study that created a hybrid COVID-19 virus too risky?

Excellent.


"But several virologists argued on Twitter that the study is not as alarming as it first appears. For one thing, the hybrid virus was less lethal than the early variant modified in the study. They also noted that other researchers have published the results of similar experiments that did not draw similar concerns. And it’s not clear the study is very different from other chimeric virus studies that NIAID has exempted from review. ...

The study was “far less alarming” than some suggest, tweeted virologist Stuart Neil of King’s College London, emphasizing that the hybrid virus was less lethal than the original Washington state strain. ...

It was also tested in mice that are “exquisitely sensitive” to SARS-CoV-2 because they have been engineered so their lung cells are packed with the receptor that SARS-CoV-2 uses to break into human cells, Neil noted. The scientists forced a huge amount of virus up the noses of the mice, far more than a person would typically encounter. As a result, the mouse mortality rate of 80% was far higher than the human mortality from the original SARS-CoV-2 variant, which is about 1% or less."

 

[Wildswanderer]

Boston University researchers claim to have developed new, more lethal COVID strain in lab

Why are we creating it?

Where is the face palm button? Shut them down!

 

[Kenny]

You're not reading what it says.

So I guess the researchers are lying then, when they say it's not "gain of function." ?

And you apparently think that 80% is more than 100% ?
And you apparently think that "less dangerous" = "more dangerous" ?

Obviously you don't understand that from "mild" to "dead" is not "less dangerous".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Obviously you don't understand that from "mild" to "dead" is not "less dangerous".

Obviously you aren't reading.


"But several virologists argued on Twitter that the study is not as alarming as it first appears. For one thing, the hybrid virus was less lethal than the early variant modified in the study. They also noted that other researchers have published the results of similar experiments that did not draw similar concerns. And it’s not clear the study is very different from other chimeric virus studies that NIAID has exempted from review. ...

The study was “far less alarming” than some suggest, tweeted virologist Stuart Neil of King’s College London, emphasizing that the hybrid virus was less lethal than the original Washington state strain. ...




“We fulfilled all required regulatory obligations and protocols. Following NIAID’s guidelines and protocols, we did not have an obligation to disclose this research for two reasons. The experiments reported in this manuscript were carried out with funds from Boston University. NIAID funding was acknowledged because it was used to help develop the tools and platforms that were used in this research; they did not fund this research directly. NIH funding was also acknowledged for a shared instrumentation grant that helped support the pathology studies. We believe that funding streams for tools do not require an obligation to report. Secondly, there was no gain of function with this research. If at any point there was evidence that the research was gaining function, under both NIAID and our own protocols we would immediately stop and report. All research at Boston University, whether funded by NIAID or not, follows this same protocol. We are in continued conversation with NIAID leadership and program officers.”

 

[Kenny]

Obviously you aren't reading.


"But several virologists argued on Twitter that the study is not as alarming as it first appears. For one thing, the hybrid virus was less lethal than the early variant modified in the study. They also noted that other researchers have published the results of similar experiments that did not draw similar concerns. And it’s not clear the study is very different from other chimeric virus studies that NIAID has exempted from review. ...

The study was “far less alarming” than some suggest, tweeted virologist Stuart Neil of King’s College London, emphasizing that the hybrid virus was less lethal than the original Washington state strain. ...




“We fulfilled all required regulatory obligations and protocols. Following NIAID’s guidelines and protocols, we did not have an obligation to disclose this research for two reasons. The experiments reported in this manuscript were carried out with funds from Boston University. NIAID funding was acknowledged because it was used to help develop the tools and platforms that were used in this research; they did not fund this research directly. NIH funding was also acknowledged for a shared instrumentation grant that helped support the pathology studies. We believe that funding streams for tools do not require an obligation to report. Secondly, there was no gain of function with this research. If at any point there was evidence that the research was gaining function, under both NIAID and our own protocols we would immediately stop and report. All research at Boston University, whether funded by NIAID or not, follows this same protocol. We are in continued conversation with NIAID leadership and program officers.”

Ok Dr. Fauci!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok Dr. Fauci!

Sure thing Trump!

 

[metis]

I found it on multiple sources as I wanted to check the veracity. Don't find anything different than what was said.

Again, I was not saying that the article was wrong but that one should always "cross-check" as we were taught to do even in elementary math.

As has already been posted, I guess the question is what is meant by "created", especially since scientists do experiment in this area that has so often led to new vaccines and better methods to deal with disease.

IOW, "nothing ventured, nothing gained".

 

[SkepticThinker]

"According to Fox News, researchers said the new strain has five times more infectious virus particles than the Omicron variant.

When the subjects were exposed to Omicron, they experienced only to mild symptoms.

But the variant, a combination of Omicron and the original virus in Wuhan, killed 80 per cent of the subjects infected with it, as per the report.

But there’s no reason for us to worry. And here’s why.

Because researchers were documenting how mice – not humans – reacted to the hybrid strain.

“In… mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80 percent,” they wrote in a research paper.

For context, 100 per cent of mice infected with the original COVID-19 strain died when infected. ...

...
Well, scientists say we shouldn’t stress.

The new strain is unlikely to be as deadly in humans as it is mice they posit, as per Metro UK.

They also noted their study was limited to a specific breed of mice used rather than other mice which are more similar to humans.

Then you have the differences in DNA and genes between mice and humans, which generate varied responses.

Scientists said genes that regulate the immune system in mice and humans behave differently and respond differently to stress.

University slams ‘false and inaccurate’ reports

“First, this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-COV-2 virus strain (original virus from 2020) or make it more dangerous,” the university told Boston Herald following a flood of breathless headlines it dubbed as “false and inaccurate.”

“In fact, this research made the virus replicate less dangerous,” the university pointed out in its statement.

“Consistent with studies published by others, this work shows that it is not the spike protein that drives Omicron pathogenicity, but instead other viral proteins,” lead study author Mohsan Saeed told the newspaper.

“Determination of those proteins will lead to better diagnostics and disease management strategies,” Saeed said.

The truth behind Boston University’s new COVID strain with 80% kill rate

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Well, let’s take a look at the preprint. The preprint described how the team had started with the original SARS-CoV-2 that spread in early 2020. This was the virus that started the pandemic before a fraternity and sorority of Greek alphabet-named variants and subvariants subsequently emerged. The research team then used a recombinant technique to introduce a different type of spike protein, the ones that stud the surface of the BA.1 Omicron subvariant, on to the surface of this original SARS-CoV-2. Next they infected sets of mice in the laboratory with three different versions of the SARS-CoV-2: the original virus, the Omicron variant, and this new lab-made hybrid. Each mice got only one version of the virus. The lab-created hybrid virus ended up being not very mice for 80% of them who received it, killing 80% of the squeakers. This was indeed more than the 0% of mice who died after being infected with the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2. However, it was still less than the 100% of mice who died after being infected with the original SARS-CoV-2.


So if adding the Omicron spike protein to the original SARS-CoV-2 made it kill 20% fewer mice, was creating the hybrid virus technically gain-of-function research? The phrase gain-of-function research does include the word “gain” rather than “loss” or “no change.” This implies that the organism that’s being genetically altered has to actually gain in ability as a result. For example, giving a virus the ability to infect a species of animal that it wasn’t previously able to infect would qualify as gain-of-function research. So would helping a virus become more transmissible or more likely to cause worse disease. Therefore, technically, the experiments described by the pre-print may have actually been more like loss-of-function research or reduce-the-function-a-bit research.

New Lab-Made Covid-19 Coronavirus At Boston University Raises Questions