The university also noted that the studies were reviewed and approved through the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), which is comprised of scientists and members of the local community, and that the Boston Public Health Commission approved the studies.
“They sensationalized the message, misrepresented it and its goals in its entirety,” Ronald B. said. Corley, Director of NEIDL and Director of Microbiology at Chobanian BU
The study aimed to read about the spike proteins in the omicron (BA. 1) variant of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers sought to compare the variant with the original viral strain, known as the Washington strain. They sought to know if the virus was less virulent, Corley says, “simply because it didn’t infect the same cells as the original strain. “They were “interested in the component of the virus that dictates the severity of a disease a user will contract. “
But Corley says the reports pulled a line of context from the paper’s summary, with the Daily Mail suggesting in its headline that researchers had created a “fatal strain of COVID with an 80 percent mortality rate. “The newspaper then made a number of other misleading claims, adding that they examine a “function gain finder,” claiming that researchers had set out to make a virus more fatal.
This isn’t true, Corley says. And the university flatly denies it.
“We need to address the false and erroneous data about Boston University’s COVID-19 studies, which were printed today in the Daily Mail,” the BU said. “First, this study is not a gain-of-function study, meaning it did not magnify the Washington state strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or make it more harmful. In fact, this study has made virus replication less harmful. “
Corley says the line taken out of context has nothing to do with the virus’ effect on humans. The study began in a tissue culture and then moved on to an animal model.
“The animal style that used a specific type of very vulnerable mouse, and 80 to 100 percent of the inflamed mice succumb to the disease of the original strain, the so-called Washington strain,” Corley says. “Whereas omicron causes very mild disease in those animals. “
This figure of 80% is what the media have clung to, distorting the and its objectives.
“It was taken out of context for the goal of sensationalism,” Corley says, “and completely distorts not only the results, but [also] the goal of the study. “
In fact, according to BU’s statement, “this study reflects and reinforces the effects of other studies conducted through other organizations, the FDA adds. “
“According to studies published by others, this painting shows that it is not the spike protein that drives omicron’s pathogenicity, but other viral proteins,” says Saeed, assistant professor of biochemistry at Chobanian BU.
Strict security procedures
Since its opening in 2009, NEIDL has enabled scientists to examine a diversity of infectious and pathogenic diseases in an environment. The laboratory is controlled by strict protective procedures. Long before a researcher starts reading a disease or pathogen, their proposal will need to go through a series of ripassrous protection reviews, says Robert Davey, a professor of microbiology at BU Chobanian.
“Before anything is done at NEIDL, you go through several layers of careful protection scrutiny and this is done through committees that are part of Boston University and also committees that are outside, independent of BU, like the Boston Public Health Commission. “Davey explains, “We get an absolutely independent look at everything that’s about to be done. Only after everything is approved and re-checked, you are allowed to proceed with the paintings. And these paintings are only made under the supervision of fitness and environmental protection. “organization of the UB. “
The examination was performed at the laboratory’s level 3 biosafety facility. All studies are conducted in a biosafety cabinet, and researchers have to enter their workspace through a series of closed doors. All floors and walls are sealed and the lab features complicated filtration and decontamination technology. And if the researchers had noticed something wrong with the study, they would have stopped it immediately and reported it.
“We take seriously the safety and security of how we treat pathogens, and the virus doesn’t leave the lab where it’s being studied,” Corley says. The virus is to blame for severe disease. If we can perceive this, then we can expand the team that we want to expand greater therapies. “
Please indicate the appropriate maximum category to facilitate the processing of your request
Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback to the editors.
Your opinion is for us. However, we do not guarantee individual responses due to the large volume of messages.