Researchers' Hybrid COVID-19 Virus Isn't as Deadly as You May've Heard

Scientists at Boston University created a hybrid version of the coronaviruses.

University officials denounced the claims that the researchers made the virus more lethal as false and inaccurate.

The original Omicron version of the virus didn't kill any lab mice, but the new Omicron version killed 80 percent of them.

The original version of the virus killed 100 percent of the lab mice it was capable of killing.

The chimeric virus was created by scientists at Boston University's National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories to study how Omicron versions of the virus evade immunity and cause a lower rate of severe infections.

After exposing mice to either the chimeric virus or the naturally-occurring Omicron BA.1 virus, the researchers found that the Omicron virus was able to dodge immunity, but that it wasn't responsible for making Omicron less severe.

The researchers' findings were published on the preprint database bioRxiv, but they have yet to be peer reviewed.

There have been 21 of the worst epidemics and Pandemics.

The work shows that the spikeProtein is not the cause of Omicron pathogenicity. The lead author of the study said in a statement that it would lead to better diagnostics and disease management.

The study was approved by an internal bio safety review committee and Boston's Public Health Commission, but the researchers did not clear the work with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The scientists did not tell NIAID if their experiments could create an enhanced pathogen of Pandemic Potential.

To be awarded federal funding for research on viruses with potential, proposals have to pass through a committee process that assesses the pros and cons of the work.

If it met the requirements of the P3CO framework, we could have put a package forward for review.

We would have done that, that's what the framework says.

Eberling said that NIAID would have discussions with the researchers.

The P3CO framework's rules might have caused the mistake. To be considered an ePPP, a virus has to be expected to cause a lot of people to die.

The mice used in the study may not have been close enough to be an analogue.

The Daily Mail of the United Kingdom published an article that claimed the research had created a more dangerous variant.

Boston University said in a statement that they wanted to address the false and inaccurate reporting about their research.

This research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it didn't amplify the Washington state strain of the disease or make it more dangerous. The virus was less dangerous due to this research. A sample of the original Wuhan strain was gathered in Washington in the early days of the epidemic.

Ronald B. Corley, the director of NEIDL, said in the statement that the Daily Mail misrepresented the study and its goals.

An animal model that was used was a type of mouse that was highly susceptible to the original strain of the disease. There is a very mild disease in these animals.

There are related content.

The original article was published by Live Science. The original article can be found here.