Boston University scientists deny that they conducted gain of function research resulting in a vaccine-resistant strain of COVID, called Omicron S, that is five times more infectious than Omicron and killed 80-100% of the mice used for experiments. Gain of Function is defined by The National Library of Medicine as “experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens.” The Boston University research report says, “we employed a modified form…that yielded concentrated virus stocks”—a modified form which was more deadly and spread faster than Omicron by their own admission.
The Boston University statement says, “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.” Later in the statement the University repeated, “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.” Ronald B Corley, director of the University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL), said, “They’ve sensationalized the message, they misrepresent the study and its goals in its entirety.” Boston University claims the purpose of the study is misrepresented—that researchers did not intend to conduct gain of function.
Corley says the 80% number is “taken out of context for the purposes of sensationalism.” However, the research paper expressly said Omicron S, spread much faster than the original Omicron—at a rate of 80% infected cells in 24 hours compare with Omicron at 48%. Omicron S produced over five times (5.1-5.5-fold) more infectious particles than Omicron with Omicron S virus titers 11-17-fold higher than Omicron.” As if that wasn’t enough, the scientists reported: “We next expanded our studies to lung epithelial cells, which are a major viral replication site in patients with severe COVID 19.” They also “leveraged the situation to compare the animal survival after viral infection.” The report said, “This (Omicron S) produced mortality rates of 100%…In contrast, all animals infected with Omicron survived.”
In an interview with STAT, a website that provides “in-depth analysis of biopharma and life sciences,” Emily Erbelding, director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) division of microbiology and infectious diseases, said the BU team’s original grant applications did not specify that the scientists wanted to do this precise work. Nor did the group make clear that it was doing experiments that might involve enhancing a pathogen of pandemic potential in the progress reports it provided to NIAID. In conclusion, Boston University’s denial appears to contradict the context of its own report. Intent or not, their scientists admitted gain of function in the report. The funders of the research say they were unaware of any work to enhance a pathogen.
This very public incident may provide great insight into how deadly pandemics are created. Maybe the scientists didn’t “intend” to conduct gain of function, but by their own report, some kind of gain of function was conducted. The administrators say the media took the information in the report out of context, but the report specifically says the modified form of Omicron was leveraged, it was five times more infectious than Omicron, and produced mortality rates of 80-100% in lab mice. These are results taken directly from the 38-page report. This feels very similar to Wuhan and COVID 19, including the charges of “misinformation” when calling scientists and science into question. Isaiah 59:15 says, “Yea, truth fails; and he that departs from evil makes himself a prey.” That seems to be the bottom line in how these people think.
Sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/neidl-researchers-refute-uk-article-about-covid-strain/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.13.512134v1.full.pdf
