ok why are we doing this ...

[littlewolf]

https://www.boston.com/news/health/2022/10/17/boston-university-researchers-hybrid-covid-virus-friction-government/

By Ross Cristantiello
October 17, 2022

Recent research conducted by Boston University scientists involving a hybrid version of the COVID-19 virus is causing a stir in the scientific community. The work seemingly caught one of the research’s primary funding sources off guard, and has generated headlines alleging that the researchers created a more lethal version of COVID-19.

A paper containing this research was published online Friday. This is a preprint, however, meaning that it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

This work, conducted at BU’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories, revolves around the creation of a chimeric, or hybrid virus.

Scientists took the spike protein of an omicron variant of the virus and attached it to a virus of the original strain that spread around the world in 2020. The goal was to study why omicron has a lower rate of severe infections.

The new, fused virus was then compared to naturally-occurring omicron virus samples. This was done to determine whether the mutations in the omicron spike protein were what caused omicron’s lower levels of severity and increased ability to evade immunity.

However, the hybrid virus created by BU’s researchers still killed 80% of the lab mice infected with it, making it more deadly than the natural omicron variants. It is crucial to note that the original virus killed 100% of the lab mice exposed to it.

In the end, researchers concluded that the mutations of the omicron spike protein allow the variant to evade immunity, but are not the cause of omicron’s decreased severity.

This research is reportedly causing friction between the scientists conducting it and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which helped fund the work. Director of NIAID’s Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emily Erbelding told STAT that the BU group’s original grant applications did not clarify that this specific work would be done. The BU researchers also did not make clear in their progress reports to NIAID that their experiments could enhance a pathogen of pandemic potential, STAT reported.

Asked if the BU researchers should have told NIAID of their desire to do this work, Erbelding reportedly replied “We wish that they would have, yes.”

She also told STAT that NIAID would have “conversations over upcoming days” with the BU team.

NIAID policy dictates that any proposals to conduct research that could produce enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential should be referred to a committee that then analyzes the risks and benefits of such work. This policy is called a P3CO framework, according to STAT.

“What we would have wanted to do is to talk about exactly what they wanted to do in advance, and if it met what the P3CO framework defines as enhanced pathogen of pandemic potential, ePPP, we could have put a package forward for review by the committee that’s convened by HHS, the office of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. That’s what the framework lays out and that’s what we would have done,” Erbelding told STAT.

BU pushed back against media reports that characterized this work as making COVID-19 more deadly.

“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 said in a statement to The Boston Herald. “In fact, this research made the virus replicate less dangerous.”

so they took the omicron variant which spreads fast but not as deadly
and married it to the original covid which killed lots of people
and they tell us it makes the virus less dangerous ... sure
sorry not a lab worker .. but find that hard to believe
and don't trust any of em ... most of them look at us as lab rats

[yardwork]

1. This is how cures and vaccines are made. Science requires taking risks.

I don't know anything about this particular instance, but I doubt it's part of any nefarious plot. Resist the Republican Party's efforts to cast doubt on scientists or scientific methods. I work with many, many scientists and they do not view people as "lab rats." They work very long hours and are genuinely trying to save people's lives.

[murielm99]

2. Yes!

[harumph]

4. I agree with you in the main - BUT

I think the problem is that some people who should have been in the loop - weren't.
And that fact by itself raises questions - whatever the benefit of the research.

[yardwork]

5. It's hard to say from this article whether there is an issue.

Federal agencies and their grantees sometimes disagree. This article seems biased toward trying to create fear and doubt. It's what we're up against.

[paleotn]

9. Exactly

[Phoenix61]

3. It made it the original virus less lethal.

“ It is crucial to note that the original virus killed 100% of the lab mice exposed to it.” The manipulated one killed 80% .

[harumph]

6. Infectivity is as important as lethality b/c of the

probability of creating many "pools" that are conducive to mutation. It looks like
interesting research but better communication/explanation is obviously required.

[Phoenix61]

7. The original virus had lower levels of infectivity than

later variants. There is nothing in the article to suggest that the changes in the spike that the researchers made changed that.

[intrepidity]

8. Well, it's an interesting finding

We need to understand this virus.

More important is whether proper and sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent release.

[paleotn]

10. And a key to proper safeguards is

ensuring everyone who should be in the loop is. Seems the research team failed to do that.

[intrepidity]

11. Yep. nt

[Samrob]

12. There are many weaknesses in the Peer Review system within the NIH and other government agencies.

Just like all things of the privileged class there is mostly no punishment severe enough to make malfeasance like corruption, fraud, cheating not worth the chance. Defrauding the government of grant funds is seldom, if ever, a reason to cancel a grant or to recoup government funds from the recipient schools. Most people do not realize that each research grant carries additional funding for it is called "overhead." Need I say more? The rich get richer because the overhead rates are highest for the wealthiest research facilities. The schools needing the money most have much lower overhead rates. At any rate, it's a lot to understand and would take more time and space than I can go into. Bottom line for this situation is that the grant should be terminated for not being honest about what the researchers were doing or wanted to do. Or, at a minimum the Principle investigators other funding should be looked at carefully and maybe even denied in the future. But that is likely not to happen. A thorough investigation of the nations scientific Peer Review systems in every agency that gives out grants and/or contracts under a so-called Peer Review system needs to be undertaken by non-conflicted investigators. But, nah...it won't happen. The circular, closed systems of the privileged are off limits to government real oversight.