Posted on 10/26/2022 9:02:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
There was quite a stir going around a couple of weeks ago when we learned that researchers at Boston University had created (possibly inadvertently) a new strain of the novel coronavirus that caused an 80 percent mortality rate in laboratory mice. (The “normal” version of the virus only causes mild illness in mice with few deaths being recorded.) Of course, you might not have been aware of that unless you were following conservative news outlets because CNN and MSNBC barely mentioned it. This type of “gain-of-function” research is highly controversial and has been the subject of many debates since the earliest days of the pandemic. But are people simply overreacting to something that they don’t understand while these scientists have everything under control? That’s what some of the experts at the journal Nature seem to believe. If you were all masters of The Science like the researchers at Boston U, you’d know to keep your opinions to yourself and just let the masters of medicine get on with their work.
When researchers at Boston University (BU) in Massachusetts inserted a gene from the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 into a strain of the virus from the beginning of the pandemic, they were trying to understand why Omicron causes mild disease.
But the experiments, described in a 14 October preprint1, have ignited a red-hot controversy over what constitutes truly risky SARS-CoV-2 research — especially now that much of the world’s population has some immune protection from the virus and COVID-19 treatments are available.
At issue is whether — and when — researchers modifying SARS-CoV-2 or other deadly pathogens need to keep regulators and funding agencies such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) informed about their work, even if the agencies didn’t fund the experiments in question. Studies that make pathogens more transmissible or virulent are sometimes called ‘gain of function’ research.
Ewen Callaway and Max Kozlov, the authors of the linked report, refer to the controversy over the experiments at Boston University as a “brouhaha.” One virologist interviewed for the article said that the public’s horrified response to this news demonstrates “the lack of clarity that people have on exactly what sorts of experiments have benefits that outweigh risks, and who decides how it’s all reviewed.”
I see. So the public is simply overreacting because of a “lack of clarity” regarding what’s going on at Boston U. Keep in mind that the original experiment was described as a process where they inserted a gene from the Omicron variant into an earlier form of the virus to find out why Omicron produced such mild symptoms. But instead of another mild variant, they produced one with an 80% lethality rate. I’m no doctor (and I don’t even play one on TV) but that sounds kind of like the opposite of the intended effect, doesn’t it?
To their credit (I suppose), the authors acknowledge the fear that people have over the possibility that the new variant might “escape” from the lab and begin running wild all over the world. Because, you know… it’s not like that’s ever happened before, right? Except this time it could turn out to be an actual pandemic and wipe out 80% of the planet’s population.
But the study’s authors argue that such a concern should be largely unfounded. The new variant, they say, was created from two older variants that have largely been “outcompeted” by newer strains, so it would be “unlikely to spread widely if it ever escaped.” I don’t know about you, but there are an awful lot of “shouldn’t” and “unlikely” descriptions in that explanation when the word most of us were looking for was “impossible.”
It was not accurate.
RE: It was not accurate.
Could you please elaborate further?
They didn’t make a more deadly strain.
It was sensationalist reporting.
— My opinion is the reason for the sensationalism was to keep the “Covid is dangerous” narrative going. Trying to claim it could mutate in to a deadly form at anytime so lockdowns, voting dropboxes, vaccine mandates etc… are all still necessary.
RE: They didn’t make a more deadly strain.
Then what is this sentence doing in the article:
“But instead of another mild variant, they produced one with an 80% lethality rate.”
It’s nonsense.
You have not proven that at all.
They are claiming deliberately creating a variant with an 80% lethality rate.
That’s not nothing. That’s very serious.
Boston U is saying their researchers did in fact do this. Where’s your hard evidence they in fact haven’t?
“ They are claiming deliberately creating a variant with an 80% lethality rate.”
What’s the “lethality rate” of the strain they varied.
We can do that math after they're swinging from lamp posts.
You want to kill people over media distortion and hype that serves the narrative.
No, I want them punished appropriately for the attempted murder of the human race.
Do you trust our Deep State to tell us the truth about what was going on with that research?
“ Do you trust our Deep State to tell us the truth about what was going on with that research?”
No. They lied about it, trying to make it sound like there could be a new dangerous strain.
The deep state continuous fear narrative.
So you trust people who've proven themselves to be liars to tell you the truth about what they're lying about?!
Dude, denial ain't just a river is Egypt, is it...
What are you talking about?
I know the science and I know the media was lying about a new and dangerous variant.
It’s not a matter of believing or not believing what anyone says.
I’m starting to think maybe you’re a deep state Covid hysteria toady.
Or you’re just a cowardly dumb person.
You know that how?
I know you’re cowardly and dumb from your comments.
Why are you so scared of Covid?
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.