At it again - Scientists create new corona virus with 100% fatality rate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amity Island

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Experiments with a mutant Covid strain are said to have been carried out by Chinese scientists, despite concerns the research could spark another pandemic.

The mutant strain is thought to be 100 per cent lethal in mice and spreads through the body in a "unique way".


It has been claimed that the experiment saw the mice engineered to express a protein found in people, in a bid to see how the virus might react in humans.

Professor Francois Balloux, an infectious disease expert based at University College London, wrote on social media: "It's a terrible study, scientifically totally pointless.


"I can see nothing of vague interest that could be learned from force-infecting a weird breed of humanized mice with a random virus. Conversely, I could see how such stuff might go wrong..."



www.biorxiv.org

Lethal Infection of Human ACE2-Transgenic Mice Caused by SARS-CoV-2-related Pangolin Coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR)

SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX\_P2V(short\_3UTR) can cause 100% mortality in human ACE2-transgenic mice, potentially attributable to late-stage brain infection. This underscores a spillover risk of GX_P2V into humans and provides a unique model for understanding the pathogenic...
www.biorxiv.org www.biorxiv.org

 
Amity Island said:
Fear not, we are already developing a novel vaccine.
Click to expand...
And have been for years. We know there'll be pandemics so it makes sense to try and develop ways of generating vaccines quickly. (That's where the Oxford vaccine came from. I think the mRNA companies were looking more at other applications but they had a candidate flu vaccine before 2020.) And viruses fall into categories so working on vaccines for specific existing viruses can make it easier to target a new one (the Oxford vaccine was based on work they'd done for SARS and MERS).
 
Amity Island said:
I assume you mean for naturally occurring viruses not those developed and leaked from labs?
Click to expand...
There's a theoretical risk of a pandemic caused by a lab leak, but all of the previous ones have been naturally occurring so I imagine that's what they're thinking of. (Though I doubt it makes any difference to how you'd want to create vaccines.)
 
This stupidity is beyond "crass" and I cannot think any any words to describe this that would not result in this post being deleted! It makes me nervous as I believe the 2020 pandemic was man-made as the Chinese have been eating bizarre things of animal origin for decades!
 
Bruce Stephens said:
There's a theoretical risk of a pandemic caused by a lab leak, but all of the previous ones have been naturally occurring so I imagine that's what they're thinking of. (Though I doubt it makes any difference to how you'd want to create vaccines.)
Click to expand...
Amazing how they're busy making vaccines for an unknown virus before its even arrived, yet nothing for long established diseases (likely from a virus) like diabetes.
 
Amity Island said:
yet nothing for long established diseases (likely from a virus) like diabetes.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone believes a single virus is responsible for diabetes (let alone have a good idea of which one it is). As I understand it it's more that stress of a variety of forms might trigger it. People are working on immunotherapies to delay Type 1 (as I understand it by attacking the autoimmune antibodies). I can imagine vaccines being part of that, maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't work out at all.

In contrast, planning for vaccines against viruses similar to others that we've already seen seems entirely straightforward. As does a certain amount of preparation of PPE that you expect to need.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
In contrast, planning for vaccines against viruses similar to others that we've already seen seems entirely straightforward.
Click to expand...
They often can't even predict the correct flu strain each year, let alone make a vaccine for unknown, yet to arrive disease x.
 
Amity Island said:
They often can't even predict the correct flu strain each year, let alone make a vaccine for unknown, yet to arrive disease x.
Click to expand...
Two different things entirely.

They can prepare the mechanism of delivery/attachment etc of a vaccine even if they can’t fine tune for precise proteins etc it til it’s a known thing. Pretty much what they did already for Covid.
 
Amity Island said:
They often can't even predict the correct flu strain each year, let alone make a vaccine for unknown, yet to arrive disease x.
Click to expand...
They're not trying to produce a vaccine for X. They're trying to make sure that when an X appears (whatever it turns out to be), they'll be able to make a vaccine for it. Nobody (as far as I'm aware) is claiming to know what X will look like (which is why it's called X) so creating a specific vaccine isn't very likely.
 
HSSS said:
Two different things entirely.

They can prepare the mechanism of delivery/attachment etc of a vaccine even if they can’t fine tune for precise proteins etc it til it’s a known thing. Pretty much what they did already for Covid.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about mRNA technology (lipid nano particles) for delivery? If they were developing traditional vaccines using actual virus, could they make it ahead of a new virus emerging?

The trouble with the new lipid nano particles is they bypass the bodies ability to notice any foreign (non self) components like rogue d.n.a. and get rid of them asap. Which means if there is something in there (like d.n.a) which shouldn't be, it's going to get into places it has no earthly place to be e.g inside cells
 
Amity Island said:
Are you talking about mRNA technology (lipid nano particles) for delivery? If they were developing traditional vaccines using actual virus, could they make it ahead of a new virus emerging?

The trouble with the new lipid nano particles is they bypass the bodies ability to notice any foreign (non self) components like rogue d.n.a. and get rid of them asap. Which means if there is something in there (like d.n.a) which shouldn't be, it's going to get into places it has no earthly place to be e.g inside cells
Click to expand...
I’m not going to argue pros and cons with you. The fact is you said they couldn’t prepare for an unknown virus and they can. Whether you think they should is another debate. No one said preparing was limited to traditional vaccines either. mRNA and potentially other methods are all options too.
 
HSSS said:
The fact is you said they couldn’t prepare for an unknown virus and they can.
Click to expand...
The fact is I never said that. This is what I said.

"Amazing how they're busy making vaccines for an unknown virus before its even arrived, yet nothing for long established diseases (likely from a virus) like diabetes".
 
Amity Island said:
Are you talking about mRNA technology (lipid nano particles) for delivery?
Click to expand...
Anything that works. mRNA is one obvious technology but there are others.
Amity Island said:
Which means if there is something in there (like d.n.a) which shouldn't be, it's going to get into places it has no earthly place to be e.g inside cells
Click to expand...
Why do you imagine that our body can't deal with things like foreign DNA inside cells? There are DNA viruses, after all, so why would trace amounts of DNA in mRNA vaccines (really trace amounts, in fragments) be a problem?
Amity Island said:
If they were developing traditional vaccines using actual virus, could they make it ahead of a new virus emerging?
Click to expand...
You could make traditional vaccines from some actual virus that you think might be similar to some possible future pandemic, and if that doesn't seem to work very well you could investigate what changes would make it more effective (perhaps modifying how you deactivate the live virus or adding or changing the adjuvant). I agree such vaccines aren't likely to be the first ones you'd look to: mRNA looks like a much better platform.
 
Evening and nice discussion as it is a topic that can readily generate strong views on both sides.
Personally am on side of Pandemic preparedness as much as possible and Vaccines would be expected to play a major part.
The Oxford Vax which has already been highlighted was based on a Chimpanzee Adenovirus vector which had already been developed vs related virus’s like MERS and SARs so was a natural selection for advanced testing vs Covid.
The beauty of the mRNA platform is that they can be changed in very short time but Covid was the first time this Approach had been Approved.
It is the platform whether DNA/ RNA or mRNA that will be a key component depending on which is the best vector for getting the virus where you want it to get to and of course hopefully to generate both a cell mediated as well as a humoral response.
ATB
 
Bruce Stephens said:
Why do you imagine that our body can't deal with things like foreign DNA inside cells? There are DNA viruses, after all, so why would trace amounts of DNA in mRNA vaccines (really trace amounts, in fragments) be a problem?
Click to expand...
It should have been something they looked at prior to release, but from what I can gather they hadn't, particularly dna integration into the human genome and effects it can have.
 
Amity Island said:
It should have been something they looked at prior to release, but from what I can gather they hadn't, particularly dna integration into the human genome and effects it can have.
Click to expand...
The hypothesis is dismissed here: https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...ence-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-alter-dna-people/

I've no idea whether it was studied beforehand. I think it's reasonably likely (this is far from the first time anti vaccine people have suggested that a vaccine is changing our DNA) but it's also possible that it wasn't since it's so intrinsically unlikely (it's not easy to integrate DNA and there are plenty of DNA viruses which I'm sure would find doing so beneficial if it were easier).
 
As Bruce says the point of many Vaccines is that the body does recognise “ foreign “ entities and triggers a relevant immune response.
It depends entirely upon what Vaccine approach you decide to take and it is all about risk/ reward.So yes you can transport a virus into an individual but precautions are taken to minimise any safety issues.
So you would look at infectious nature and potential severity of the virus and then you would calculate whether you use a live/ modified live or killed virus and whether you need an adjuvant or not.You can use an attenuated Vaccine for eg.
In terms of generating an immune response much of the stimulation will take place on the cell surface so with Covid most current Vaccines target the Spike Glyco protein and mainly an nAB( neutralising Anibody)response but yes some of the newer DNA ones will target the Nucleocapsid protein ( more conserved) by activating a T cell response involving helper cells as well.
So to me we have to leave it to the experts and trust them to get it right and yes there are risks but history has proved that Vaccines have played a huge part in safeguarding the nations health.
 
Wendal said:
In terms of generating an immune response much of the stimulation will take place on the cell surface so with Covid most current Vaccines target the Spike Glyco protein and mainly an nAB( neutralising Anibody)response
Click to expand...
Yes, because the spike is how the virus enters cells, that was the first target chosen. I think there may have been some hope of a sterilising vaccine with that approach. Of course that didn't happen, but the closer you get the better. And yes, you're right that there have been groups looking at more conserved regions of the virus, which won't produce neutralising antibodies but potentially provide some protection against a very wide variety of coronaviruses (perhaps all of them).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top