Cover your ar*se (CYA) Boston University, now running for the hills with their chimeric coronavirus gain-of-function (GoF) research; Emily Erbelding, director of the NIAID division of microbiology

& infectious diseases said that the University’s grant application was misleading & the research group didn't say it was doing research to possibly enhance a COVID variant; investigation now underway

Now an investigation by NIAID is underway as to how this could have happened. Mind you, sssshhhh, we won’t tell them, they approved the grant and gave the money, NIAID and NIH. sssshhhh, don’t tell them, just YET!

‘The NIH director Erbelding claims she only found out the experiments might have involved enhancing a pathogen of pandemic potential after reading reports in the media on Monday. Dr Erbelding admitted feeling uneasy about the type of research the grants had been used to fund — given the lingering questions about the role of virus manipulation studies and the origins of Covid.’

Note the death rate was 80% in the mice. They did not do a human study of course yet we extrapolate. So ensure we are talking about 80% in the mice but this could be 80% in humans, recognizing a primate study would have been the next best thing. Yet this is staggering. Moreover, Ebola and Marburg or even Nipah has a kill rate of 50 to 60% and this does not need to kill 80% in humans. If the mortality was 10% as was SARS-1 in 2003 or MERS (39%) middle eastern in 2012, it could wipe out half the globe. If it is as infectious as omicron. This was my and Bridle’s argument.

NIH/NIAID director running to the hills, trying to cover her ass, saying they were misled in the grant application.

OK, this is getting hot now for people know something is dangerously wrong here. Again, see my substack on this outrageously dangerous research and that of my esteemed colleague Dr. Byram Bridle but first see the photo of the lab and the researchers. Am I correct they are using the blue COVID surgical masks that did not stop any infection or transmission? And the discredited face shield. Does this lab look like a high-security BSL-3 lab? It is definitely not a BSL-4 lab that would have to handle that chimera lab manufactured coronavirus given its infectiousness and lethality. What I am looking at in this photo is insanely dangerous to the world! Where is the biological safety cabinets which filters both the inflow and exhaust air? Is this photo of their lab or their data entry computer space? The face shields are not on properly and the masks are not going to protect them from pathogen. Did they de-gown somewhere, step into a sanitary bath etc. before entering this computer room? With this clearly insufficient protective gear, is this the 6 foot social distancing rule Redfield et al. at CDC made up?

This is NOT the type of full properly ‘sealed (pressurized type facilities) protective gear needed for this high-risk chimera and this must be stopped NOW and this all destroyed. These researchers must also be tested. They in no way look protected and in no way look like their gear can stop them transmitting outside. This is disastrous! Is this the correct photo for if it is as reported, then this is very dangerous.

My substack:

MADMEN, real MADMEN, why would they create a GoF chimeric SARS-CoV-2 virus & 80% mortality? BIOWEAPON? Chen et al.: "Role of spike in the pathogenic & antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 2 Omicron"

Dr. Bridle’s substack:

Lab in Boston Made What Could Be A Super-Killer SARS-COV-2

see the media article today:

“Boston University issued a statement Tuesday defending its research of a COVID-19 Omicron strain when they took the variant’s spike protein and attached it to the original COVID-19 strain, leading to a higher mortality rate in a certain species of mice, triggering concern among lawmakers.

“The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly due to mutations in the receptor-binding motif… while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80 percent,” the preprint study said.

One lawmaker, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), said that the research entailed “lethal gain of function virus research” that creates the “potential to kill more people than any singular nuclear weapon.” Marshal, a doctor, added that “viruses have managed to escape even the most secure labs” and said such “research must stop immediately while the risks and benefits can be investigated.”

Meanwhile, Emily Erbelding, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’s division of microbiology and infectious diseases, told Stat News that the Boston University’s grant application didn’t specify that researchers wanted to perform this work and the group did not say it was performing experiments to possible enhance a COVID-19 variant. An investigation is now underway, she said.

Boston University issued a lengthy statement defending its research and said critics have misrepresented the goals of the study while refuting allegations that the study involved gain-of-function research, which can make a pathogen more deadly or transmissible.

“The research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), which consists of scientists as well as local community members,” the statement from Boston University said. “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.”

Certain reports about the study were “false and inaccurate,” Boston University official Ronald Corley said in a statement. A report from the Daily Mail, he alleged, took the “80 percent” line out of context.

“We want to address the false and inaccurate reporting about Boston University COVID-19 research, which appeared today in the Daily Mail,” said the 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.”

Lab Escape?

Addressing concerns that the manipulated COVID-19 Omicron strain could escape Boston University’s laboratory, Corley said the school takes safety seriously.

“We take our safety and security of how we handle pathogens seriously, and the virus does not leave the laboratory in which it’s being studied,” he said. “Our whole goal is for the public’s health. And this study was part of that, finding what part of the virus is responsible for causing severe disease. If we can understand that, we can then develop the tools that we need to develop better therapeutics.”

However, one doctor interviewed by the Daily Mail expressed alarm over the research.

“The issue is what you’re going to be using [the labs] for. If they’re for diagnostic purposes, then you need them. But I don’t think every country needs a BSL-4,” Dr. Paul Hunter, an expert in infectious diseases at England’s University of East Anglia, said, referring to the top level of biosecurity used in laboratories.

“If they start having a dual purpose for research that has offensive military implications, that is the concern,” he said.

There has been widespread speculation that scientists at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, contributed to the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan. Although Chinese Communist Party officials have officially blamed the emergence of the virus on a wet market in the Chinese city, some U.S. intelligence officials in 2021 said they believe COVID-19 either was created inside the lab or had escaped from the facility.”