Ill Advised COVID Research
The following is my interpretation of an article that appeared in Nature Medicine, December 2015.
TITLE: A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.
JOURNAL: Nature Medicine
DATE OF PUBLICATION: December 2015
AUTHORS: Vincet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel I Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi, Ralph S Baric
LINK TO THE ARTICLE: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
This research was done jointly by virologists at North Carolina University and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Unfortunately, one of these virologists has received death threats. I personally feel that it is unlikely that one or more of these authors has sinister intent. However, I do feel that this research is an example of the truism: just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should. These virologists have created a dangerous virus that does not exist in nature. Their methods certainly could be copied by persons with sinister intent, or their new virus could be accidentally or intentionally released into the environment.
I will take quotes directly from their article, and then follow that with my interpretation. By way of credentials: I have been a member of the American Board of Internal Medicine for over 30 years. I was a member of the American Board of Emergency Medicine for 30 years, and practiced as an ER doctor for 30 years.
Quote from the article:
“Therefore, to examine the emergence potential, that is, the potential to infect humans, of circulating bat Coronaviruses, we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic Coronavirus spike protein – from the RsSHCO14-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats – in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone.”
My interpretation in plain English:
CoV stands for Coronavirus. RsSHCO14-CoV is a SARS-like Coronavirus found in Chinese horseshoe bats. This virus does not readily infect humans. The researchers welded some genes from the RsSCH014-CoV virus to some genes from another SARS-like virus. By doing this, they created a new virus, one that has never occurred in nature. They named their new creation SHC014-MA15.
The researchers state that they created this new virus in order to study its properties, so that, if such a virus ever arose in nature, virologists everywhere would be able to better combat the threat.
Quote from the article:
“The data confirm the ability of the virus with the SHCC014 spike to infect human airway cells.”
My interpretation in plain English:
The researchers spread their new creation SCH014-MA15 onto a culture of human lung cells, and found that their virus replicated rapidly within the human lung cells. Elsewhere in the article, the two researchers from Wuhan are given credit for supplying the code for the spike that the new virus uses to enter human lung cells.
Quote from the article:
“The results demonstrate that broadly neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV may have only marginal efficacy against emergent SARS-like strains such as SHC014-MA15.”
My interpretation in plain English:
Many Chinese citizens alive today were infected during the SARS epidemic of 2002-2003, but survived because their bodies developed an antibody against the SARS virus. The researchers tested various anti-SARS antibodies against their new virus, and found that the usual anti-SARS antibodies did not kill their new virus.
Quote from the article:
“These results confirm that a double-inactivated vaccine would not be protective against infection with SHC014-MA15 and could possibly augment disease in the aged vaccinated group.”
My interpretation in plain English:
The researchers developed and tested a vaccine against their new virus: the vaccine did not prevent their new virus from replicating. In fact, somehow, older mice that were vaccinated seemed to do worse than if they hadn’t been vaccinated.
Quote from the article:
“On the basis of these findings, scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue, as increased pathogenicity in mammalian models cannot be excluded.”
My interpretation in plain English:
The researchers advised other scientists to refrain from creating new viruses based on SARS-like viruses circulating in nature, as they had done.
I feel that the researchers should have followed their own advice: destroyed their new virus, and refrained from publishing their method of creating it.
Quote from the article:
“Experiments with the full-length and chinmeric SHC014 recombinant viruses were initiated and performed befor the Gain Of Function research funding pause and have since been reviewed and approved for continued study by the NIH.”
My interpretation in plain English:
In October 2014, the NIH stopped funding experiments which could potentially create dangerous pathogens not previously found in nature. The creators of this new virus went to the NIH and got a review of their work, and the NIH gave them the clearance for this activity. In December 2017, the NIH resumed funding for all Gain of Function research projects, with the warning that such projects would have to be monitored very carefully.
Why the NIH would allow Gain of Function research is beyond me. The risks clearly outweight any possible benefits.
IN SUMMARY:
I feel that these researchers made a ghastly mistake by creating this new virus, then compounded their mistake by publishing their methods. I have considered carefully whether or not I should bring attention to this article, but the point is moot, since the article has been on the Internet for more than four years and easily discovered by a brief search.