No! Boston University CREATES a new Covid strain that has an 80% kill rate

Researchers at Boston University have performed gain-of-function research using recombinant DNA. They combined the spike protein from the Omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus with the original strain of the virus and came up with an artificially created variant with an 80% mortality rate in mice. In mice the Omicron variant causes mild illness, not vast mortality.

When I first read the article I literally could not believe it. And I mean that seriously. It was too insane to believe.

But the Daily Mail has the goods, linking to the research itself, which indeed does say that scientists have developed such a virus. With an 80% mortality rate. Ugh!

The virus does not limit itself to infecting mice, either. It is 5 times more infectious in humans than the Omicron virus from which it was derived. Are they insane?

Gain of function research is incredibly controversial, and the CDC has been banned from providing grants to fund it, although we already know that the Eco-Health Alliance used CDC grant money to fund such research in Wuhan, China. Many people believe that the original strain of COVID was derived from this research and was accidentally released. This is a controversial topic and nobody knows beyond doubt where the virus originated, in an (undiscovered) animal host or from a lab. I lean toward the latter, but wouldn’t bet my life savings on it.

Many scientists defend gain-of-function research as a useful tool to discover defenses against potential emerging viruses; others believe that the world provides us with enough deadly viruses, thank you, and we don’t need to add to the world’s stores of man-killers since an accident could release them.

I would personally think any virus with an 80% mortality rate should be killed with fire, preferably of a nuclear variety. But that’s just me.

The primary researchers come from Boston University Medical Center and the Cleveland Clinic in Florida–big names in the medical field.

I, for one, am not especially comforted by the fact that they hope the new virus wouldn’t be as deadly in humans, although I expect they are correct about that. Their own tests indicate that it is 5 times more infectious in humans than Omicron, and we really have no idea how deadly it would be without human testing, and I vote against that!

Have we learned nothing at all from the past few years? While it is true that virologists simply must work with deadly pathogens in order to do their research, I can’t believe that we are actually creating deadlier versions in labs. Isn’t this how every zombie movie ever made kicks off?

RE: No research gets done in university labs without FUNDING. Where did the $$$ come from? to do this kind of thing? Who wrote the grant applications? To whom were they submitted?

From ZERO HEDGE

In an effort to research what makes Omicron so transmissible - and funded in part by grants from the NIH and Anthony Fauci's NIAID, the researchers cobbled the Omicron spike protein to the original strain of Covid-19. The resulting virus was five times more infectious than Omicron.

"The Omicron spike (S) protein, with an unusually large number of mutations, is considered the major driver of these phenotypes. We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate and compared this virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant," reads the pre-print.

Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicronhttps://t.co/Zpt1LVtUuy — Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) October 17, 2022

The new research, which has not been peer-reviewed, was conducted by a team from Boston and Florida.

"In...mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80 percent," the researchers wrote, adding that while the spike protein is responsible for infectivity, changes to other parts of its structure are responsible for its deadliness.

Researchers attached Omicron's spike to the original wildtype strain that first emerged in Wuhan at the start of the pandemic.
The researchers looked at how mice fared against the new hybrid strain compared to the original Omicron variant. -Daily Mail

The researchers also looked at the effect of different strains on human lung cells grown in the lab - which Covid latches on to before instructing healthy cells to make copies of itself. They found that the modified strain produces five times more viral particles than the original Omicron strain (which all the rodents survived).

This study provides important insights into Omicron pathogenicity. We show that spike, the single most mutated protein in Omicron, has an incomplete role in Omicron attenuation. In in vitro infection assays, the Omicron spike-bearing ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (Omi-S) exhibits much higher replication efficiency compared with Omicron. Similarly, in K18-hACE2 mice, Omi-S contrasts with non-fatal Omicron and causes a severe disease leading to around 80% mortality. This suggests that mutations outside of spike are major determinants of the attenuated pathogenicity of Omicron in K18-hACE2 mice. Further studies are needed to identify those mutations and decipher their mechanisms of action. -Biorxiv

According to the scientists, however, their chimeric virus is unlikely to be as deadly in humans as it was in the mice because the specific breed used in testing are more susceptible to severe Covid.

Last year we reported that 18 months before the pandemic, scientists in Wuhan, China submitted a proposal to release enhanced airborne coronaviruses into the wild in an effort to inoculate them against diseases that could have otherwise jumped to humans, according to The Telegraph, citing leaked grant proposals from 2018.

The bid was submitted by zoologist Peter Daszak of US-based EcoHealth Alliance, who was hoping to use genetic engineering to cobble "human-specific cleavage sites" onto bat Covid 'which would make it easier for the virus to enter human cells' - a method which would coincidentally answer a longstanding question among the scientific community as to how SARS-CoV-2 evolved to become so infectious to humans.

Daszak's proposal also included plans to commingle high-risk natural coronaviruses strains with more infectious, yet less deadly versions. His 'bat team' of researchers included Dr. Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as well as US researchers from the University of North Carolina and the US Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center.

Darpa refused the contract - saying "It is clear that the proposed project led by Peter Daszak could have put local communities at risk," while warning that Daszak hadn't fully considered the dangers involved in enhancing the virus via gain-of-function research, or by releasing a vaccine into the air.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.