1 edit
@vivify saidThere is a reason the NIH imposed a moratorium on U.S. funding for certain studies with dangerous viruses, there were several accidents in U.S. biocontainment labs.
The 80 percent death rate is from lab mice:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/10/17/boston-university-covid-researchers-combine-omicron-spike-protein-with-original-virus-test-strain-on-mice/
Stop your alarmist nonsense.
https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-lifts-3-year-ban-funding-risky-virus-studies
@vivify saidIf testing on mice means nothing why was it created? To see how they can protect mice from new covid strains? Nice of them to care so much for the species they are testing with. Are they sacrificing mice for the good of all mousekind? LOL
The 80 percent death rate is from lab mice:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/10/17/boston-university-covid-researchers-combine-omicron-spike-protein-with-original-virus-test-strain-on-mice/
Stop your alarmist nonsense.
Are they normal mice or humanized mice?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28543438/
@wildgrass saidThe source isn't given (surprise, surprise)
Did you read the study?
you can read what the Boston university has to say about the claims: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/neidl-researchers-refute-uk-article-about-covid-strain/
Sadly enough the study was not linked there either...
@metal-brain saidMy, my, three responses to one post? Okay son, I'll give you my attention.
If testing on mice means nothing why was it created? To see how they can protect mice from new covid strains? Nice of them to care so much for the species they are testing with. Are they sacrificing mice for the good of all mousekind? LOL
Are they normal mice or humanized mice?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28543438/
80% of mice dying doesn't mean 80% of humans would die. Mice have died from having cosmetics tested on them; that doesn't necessarily mean humans would die from the same exposure. That's why your thread title is alarmist nonsense.
I hope I didn't hurt your feelings by ignoring your posts.
1 edit
@vivify saidThey are not normal mice. Here is what they are saying. They claim it is not gain of function because the virus they created is less deadly. So why the 80% death rate of the mice? They claim the mice were a lot more susceptible to the virus than normal mice.
My, my, three responses to one post? Okay son, I'll give you my attention.
80% of mice dying doesn't mean 80% of humans would die. Mice have died from having cosmetics tested on them; that doesn't necessarily mean humans would die from the same exposure. That's why your thread title is alarmist nonsense.
I hope I didn't hurt your feelings by ignoring your posts.
So what would than make those mice? Dehumanized mice? That is a weird explanation, especially since they defended gain of function at first and now they are claiming it was not gain of function.
This is what Boston University said is why they did that research:
"Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit by leading to better, targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics."
They always say it without explaining how it will allow them to do that. I want to know exactly how that is supposed to work. They expect us to have blind faith that it works that way without explaining the details. They are giving us the same vague reason they gave us for gain of function research. They never explained the details with that either.
They need to give us a better explanation. Gain of function or not, how does that help develop targeted therapeutic interventions?