Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jasonm2128 t1_iss1zgl wrote

Boston University replied to these claims. Seems like poor journalism and the media taking things out of context.

From BU’s response;

“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,” says Corley. “Whereas Omicron causes a very mild disease in these animals.”

That 80 percent number is what the media reports latched onto, misrepresenting the study and its goals

Here’s a link to their response article.

(https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/neidl-researchers-refute-uk-article-about-covid-strain/)

Edit: Just wanted to point out it’s not an official response from BU, it’s by The Brink Staff. I’m guessing they have some involvement with the University being their article is on Bu.edu.

19

Careless-Goat-6184 t1_iss2z9c wrote

Yeah the reading and logical comprehension of the results presented in the article are so bad here lol. The native strain has 100% mortality rate, so adding the omicron spike protein to the native strain actually reduced mortality.

Thank you for the link.

3

Techjunkie81 t1_iss32sb wrote

Not a scientist here but why would they use a particular type of mouse that is highly susceptible to the virus?

2

jasonm2128 t1_iss3ckx wrote

Not a scientist either, but my guess is they wanted truly compare the viruses. Knowing the mice are susceptible it eliminates the possibility that they didn’t catch it in the experiment to see how the virus impacts the whole group for an accurate result.

2

PedalingHertz t1_iss3ta4 wrote

A more sensitive test instrument gives a better measure of results. The fact that these are living, emotional creatures sadly doesn’t factor.

2

Gibbonici t1_iss4gua wrote

So the susceptibility to the modified virus can be measured more easily and probably more accurately too.

1