Scientist creates deadly new flu strain for pandemic research

a reply to: EternalSolace

S&F!

Wow! Level 2 Biosafety lab concoction!

Biosafety level

Biosafety level 1
This level is suitable for work involving well-characterized agents not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adult humans, and of minimal potential hazard to laboratory personnel and the environment (CDC,1997).

It includes several kinds of bacteria and viruses including canine hepatitis, non-pathogenic Escherichia coli, as well as some cell cultures and non-infectious bacteria. At this level, precautions against the biohazardous materials in question are minimal and most likely involve gloves and some sort of facial protection. The laboratory is not necessarily separated from the general traffic patterns in the building. Work is generally conducted on open bench tops using standard microbiological practices. Usually, contaminated materials are left in open (but separately indicated) waste receptacles. Decontamination procedures for this level are similar in most respects to modern precautions against everyday microorganisms (i.e., washing one's hands with anti-bacterial soap, washing all exposed surfaces of the lab with disinfectants, etc.). In a lab environment all materials used for cell and/or bacteria cultures are decontaminated via autoclave. Laboratory personnel have specific training in the procedures conducted in the laboratory and are supervised by a scientist with general training in microbiology or a related science.

Biosafety level 2
This level is similar to Biosafety Level 1 and is suitable for work involving agents of moderate potential hazard to personnel and the environment. It includes various bacteria and viruses that cause only mild disease to humans, or are difficult to contract via aerosol in a lab setting, such as C. difficile, most Chlamydiae, hepatitis A, B, and C, orthopoxviruses (other than smallpox), influenza A, Lyme disease, Salmonella, mumps, measles, scrapie, MRSA, and VRSA. BSL-2 differs from BSL-1 in that:

1.laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic agents and are directed by scientists with advanced training;
2.access to the laboratory is limited when work is being conducted;
3.extreme precautions are taken with contaminated sharp items; and
4.certain procedures in which infectious aerosols or splashes may be created are conducted in biological safety cabinets or other physical containment equipment.

So I could replicate this advance in [cough cough] biowarfare [cough] medical science ... in my own kitchen!


Didn't NASA recently say we are all doomed?

That due to a lab in a university someone acctually caught the plague and died because of it and the poor girl wasnt even on the same floor it traveled through the airvents infected and killed only hera reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

This makes one wonder if all of these flu-outbreaks are caused by these evil loons. When and where will this strain turn up? It should be against world law to mess around with such dangerous things that could wipe out humanity.

Well, if this one causes catastrophe, it won't be evil big pharma's fault.

Enquiring minds want to know if he named his new bug Captain Tripps. I'm also curious how he plans to study the "pandemic" part ... wait, maybe we better not ask that one ...

originally posted by: Fylgje
This makes one wonder if all of these flu-outbreaks are caused by these evil loons. When and where will this strain turn up? It should be against world law to mess around with such dangerous things that could wipe out humanity.

Yes and no. If we don't study them, we won't learn how to defend against them.

This seems completely ludicrous. I suppose they might be making it in case regular flu mutates to act that way, so they will have a cure or vaccine ready. It does seem risky though since viruses have completely vanished from the CDC before, so what's stopping this one from vanishing? This reminds me of the guy who introduced African bees to the Western world. It also reminds me of the movie 28 days later, "in order to cure something we must first understand it." And look how that turned out!

a reply to: EternalSolace

I know what's out there in the wild so I understand why this work is being done. There's no doubt our understanding of genetics/biology is way wrong and we have a lot of catching up to do. The criticisms come from traditional Big Pharma scientists who believe -and state- that we do not need to know how it all works before going for the gold (vaccines/treatments). Dumb, dumb, dumb, imho. That is exactly why we're facing multiple pandemics of virulent antibiotic and antiviral resistant diseases, and a horrific range of so-called "non-communicable" chronic disease.

“Viruses in clinical isolates have been identified that have these same changes in the [viral protein]. This shows that escape viruses emerge in nature and laboratory studies like ours have relevance to what occurs in nature,” he said.

"...this work is not to create a new strain of influenza with pandemic potential, but [to] model the immune-pressure the virus is currently facing in our bodies to escape our defences,” Ms Moritz said.

...Other approaches... obviate the practical value of understanding influenza transmission by providing alternative, direct means of mitigating influenza’s threat to public health.

a reply to: soficrow

My question is, is there any point to creating something that is unable to be vaccinated against? To me, I don't see any scientific value to it. I'm sure if given time, most anything can be cured, but how many have to suffer before that cure is viable?

a reply to: soficrow

Oh, my bad, it's still big pharma's fault after all. *quirks eyebrow*

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: soficrow

...I'm sure if given time, most anything can be cured, but how many have to suffer before that cure is viable?

What makes you so sure anything can be cured? What does it mean to be "cured"? What happens to the immune system when something is "cured"? What happens to the rest of the body?

Just curious.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: soficrow

My question is, is there any point to creating something that is unable to be vaccinated against? To me, I don't see any scientific value to it. I'm sure if given time, most anything can be cured, but how many have to suffer before that cure is viable?

This can be vaccinated against. Much like Hep B which can evade the immune system, you can get a vaccine to protect you. You are only really screwed if you get the virus without being vaccinated. That is the goal of this research, finding the vaccine before there is a need for it.