So does this sound like the beginning to a new horror movie?
At a Boston University, scientists have combined the original Wuhan strain along with the Omicron strain of Covid...with an 80% kill rate to do research on it for future occurrences.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
Well, in this case, it sounds like BAD JOURNALISM!
Apparently, The Daily Mail didn't read the whole report, or didn't understand what they read.
[sep][sep][sep]
“We want to address the false and inaccurate reporting about Boston University COVID-19 research, which appeared today in the Daily Mail," said the BU statement. “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.”
The school said the Daily Mail's reporting was sensationalized and took data from research on mice out of context.
“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,” the school said. “Whereas Omicron causes a very mild disease in these animals.”
[sep][sep][sep]
[b]https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/neidl-researchers-refute-uk-article-about-covid-strain/[/b]
[b]TL;DR:[/b] the mice BU used were far more susceptible to Covid than humans, so you can't in any way compare fatality rates.
Apparently, The Daily Mail didn't read the whole report, or didn't understand what they read.
[sep][sep][sep]
“We want to address the false and inaccurate reporting about Boston University COVID-19 research, which appeared today in the Daily Mail," said the BU statement. “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.”
The school said the Daily Mail's reporting was sensationalized and took data from research on mice out of context.
“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,” the school said. “Whereas Omicron causes a very mild disease in these animals.”
[sep][sep][sep]
[b]https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/neidl-researchers-refute-uk-article-about-covid-strain/[/b]
[b]TL;DR:[/b] the mice BU used were far more susceptible to Covid than humans, so you can't in any way compare fatality rates.
@ElwoodBlues i tried to look this up and couldn't find it. where did you get this? and they shouldn't be touching it at all. this is how it began in Wuhan
@SW-User OMG this again? it started there with a bang...they weren't allowed to say anything publicly about it. Even the scientists and doctors treating people were threatened. they had a wet market next to a laboratory where they were testing viruses that bats carry. Then when officials from WHO went to the lab, they weren't allowed to see anything. they were taken to a conference room and given pamphlets and escorted around the building but weren't allowed in any of the rooms where they were testing anything. and of course, it would have been cleaned up by then anyway
SW-User
[quote]OMG this again?[/quote]
Exactly, the same tired lab origin conspiracy theory again (and you didn't provide a source to your claim).
https://www.newsweek.com/wuhan-lab-leak-theory-undermined-new-research-points-wet-market-1683005
***
Look at a map, the market is not next to the lab at all
The Google Maps link, shortened = https://bit.ly/3saPaLg
This is the unshortened link if you prefer it:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Wuhan+Institute+of+Virology,+CAS:+Hubei+Engineering+and+Technology+Research+Center+for+Viral+Diseases,+%E5%B0%8F%E6%B4%AA%E5%B1%B1%E4%B8%AD%E5%8C%BA+Wuchang+District,+Wuhan,+Hubei,+China/Huanan+Seafood+Market,+207+Fa+Zhan+Da+Dao,+Jianghan+District,+Wuhan,+Hubei,+China,+430032/@30.581885,114.263589,10172m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x342ea56945e84d71:0x402ec92fd18fef96!2m2!1d114.3508524!2d30.5391912!1m5!1m1!1s0x342eaeb553b58fd7:0x355ff7d1fe8e8fb7!2m2!1d114.2622935!2d30.6165888!5i1
Screenshot of the above map (since the URL apparently won't include the straight line distance measurement tool)
![]()
@DIABLISS
Exactly, the same tired lab origin conspiracy theory again (and you didn't provide a source to your claim).
https://www.newsweek.com/wuhan-lab-leak-theory-undermined-new-research-points-wet-market-1683005
***
Look at a map, the market is not next to the lab at all
The Google Maps link, shortened = https://bit.ly/3saPaLg
This is the unshortened link if you prefer it:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Wuhan+Institute+of+Virology,+CAS:+Hubei+Engineering+and+Technology+Research+Center+for+Viral+Diseases,+%E5%B0%8F%E6%B4%AA%E5%B1%B1%E4%B8%AD%E5%8C%BA+Wuchang+District,+Wuhan,+Hubei,+China/Huanan+Seafood+Market,+207+Fa+Zhan+Da+Dao,+Jianghan+District,+Wuhan,+Hubei,+China,+430032/@30.581885,114.263589,10172m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x342ea56945e84d71:0x402ec92fd18fef96!2m2!1d114.3508524!2d30.5391912!1m5!1m1!1s0x342eaeb553b58fd7:0x355ff7d1fe8e8fb7!2m2!1d114.2622935!2d30.6165888!5i1
Screenshot of the above map (since the URL apparently won't include the straight line distance measurement tool)
@DIABLISS
ElwoodBlues · M
@SW-User Thanks for the map! Here's a quote from Newsweek:
[quote]Michael Worobey, who is a co-author on both studies, tweeted: "We found that cases in December were both nearer to, and more centered on, the Huanan market than could be expected given either the population density distribution of Wuhan, or the spatial distribution of COVID cases later in the the epidemic. Its epicenter was at the market."[/quote]
Of course all of the origin evidence we have is circumstantial, but since the preponderance of the evidence points to the wet market, I consider it the most likely source.
[quote]Michael Worobey, who is a co-author on both studies, tweeted: "We found that cases in December were both nearer to, and more centered on, the Huanan market than could be expected given either the population density distribution of Wuhan, or the spatial distribution of COVID cases later in the the epidemic. Its epicenter was at the market."[/quote]
Of course all of the origin evidence we have is circumstantial, but since the preponderance of the evidence points to the wet market, I consider it the most likely source.
SW-User
@ElwoodBlues moreover, it's not like diseases originating in wet markets is a novel concept, which why they are technically illegal in China
This link is from 2004 as an example:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)15329-9/fulltext
This link is from 2004 as an example:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)15329-9/fulltext
@SW-User what is it with you and your site your source crap? my info is from three years of reading. And this map means absolutely nothing. i see nothing on here that says what we are looking for. back when everyone was investigating...i saw a map where they were on the same block. by now, the wet market has been moved and the lab cleaned up. so none of this matters now.
and i recently read an article where an American woman says that when she went to investigate the lab that there were no bats being tested. But another woman that worked there said that this info is false because she herself had tested hundreds of bats and that is what the lab was mainly working on...Bats!
and i recently read an article where an American woman says that when she went to investigate the lab that there were no bats being tested. But another woman that worked there said that this info is false because she herself had tested hundreds of bats and that is what the lab was mainly working on...Bats!
@SW-User i tried to look up your map. the main road is renamed. and i cannot find the places that you are trying to point out.