Earlier this week, my colleague Mary Chastain reviewed an exclusive by the UK Daily Mail, which asserted that researchers at Boston University created a Franken-Covid strain using the Omicron spike protein (which makes attaching to lungs easier for the virus) with a “wild type” covid virus.
The article indicated that research resulted in a pathogen that killed 80% of the mice tested in the experiments.
Not surprisingly, given that we are still dealing with the after-effects of the pandemic and its many response failures, people were outraged and upset by this news. Now, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is examining whether Boston University’s experiments should have triggered a federal review.
Federal health authorities say they are looking into whether the scientists should have sought their permission before undertaking research that could lead to a “gain of function” in the virus gaining new or enhanced abilities, which can be “inherently risky.”And locally, a spokesperson for the Boston Public Health Commission says it is now reviewing application materials from the study’s scientists “to confirm that the research was conducted in conformity with protocols, and that they were properly overseen.”The commission approved a proposed research protocol submitted by the scientists in March 2020, the spokesperson said.However, Boston University says its research followed “all required regulatory obligations and protocols” to safely experiment with the viruses.
Boston University refutes the claims Daily Mail published about research at the University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL). Ronald B. Corley, NEIDL director and BU Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine chair of microbiology, offered this response:
“First, this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-CoV-2 virus strain or make it more dangerous. In fact, this research made the virus replicate less dangerous.”Corley says the line pulled out of context actually had nothing to do with the virus’ effect on humans. The study began in a tissue culture, then moved to an animal model.“The animal model that was used was a particular type of mouse that is highly susceptible, and 80 to 100 percent of the infected mice succumb to disease from the original strain, the so-called Washington strain,” says Corley. “Whereas Omicron causes a very mild disease in these animals.”That 80 percent number is what the media reports latched onto, misrepresenting the study and its goals.
Corley also noted that the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) reviewed and approved the research.
“The Boston Public Health Commission also approved the research. Furthermore, this research mirrors and reinforces the findings of other, similar research performed by other organizations, including the FDA. Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit by leading to better, targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics.”
A public records check shows the research was partly paid for using a grant awarded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the federal government’s primary research agencies. Typically, as part of any Government-funded research grants, researchers review how the money will be spent and how it will benefit the public.
However, Dr. Emily Erbelding, director of NIAID’s division of microbiology and infectious diseases, said the Boston team did not clear the work with the agency. Boston University researchers counter they were not obliged to do so.
Dr Erbelding said she ‘wished’ the scientists had informed NIAID of their work.She told Stat News: ‘What we would have wanted to do is to talk about exactly what they wanted to do in advance… [and then] we could have put a package forward for review.’A spokesman for Boston University today told DailyMail.com they ‘did not have an obligation to disclose this research’.They said the experiments were carried out with funds from Boston University.’NIAID funding was acknowledged as a courtesy because it was used to help develop the tools and platforms that were used in this research, they did not fund this research directly,’ they said.
Clearly, if this research was not “gain-of-function,” it was “gain-of-function” adjacent to the point that a deep dive by responsible investigators is warranted.
Unfortunately, I do not think our current batch of “experts” is up to the task of adequately assessing risks, correcting and evaluating research priorities, and fully appreciating the concerns of the non-scientific population who are impacted adversely by their “findings” (also, see “climate change”).
I also don’t think our scientists begin preparation for their experiments by asking an essential question and honestly answering it: Should you do this experiment?
Covid has been a warning shot across our bow. Hopefully, the warning will be heeded.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY