The unbounded hubris of scientists dangerously manipulating viruses is showing itself again.

This time, it involves news from the U.K., where researchers infected human lung cells in a plate with both influenza A and RSV viruses in order for the two unrelated viruses to come into contact, to encourage the creation of a hybrid.

It was a “success,” though many might object to using that word to describe such dangerous experimentation. 

Pablo Murcia, a virologist at the University of Glasgow, which helped lead the research, said “We observed quite a few cells that were coinfected with both viruses in them.”

RSV, or Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection is a respiratory virus that infects the lungs and breathing passages. It is most common in infants and toddlers, who, along with other younger people, were notably immune to the COVID virus.

Flu and RSV viruses combined by the U.K. research resulted in a unique bottle-shaped hybrid virus, with the RSV bit serving as the base and the flu virus bit serving as the narrow neck.

“How lovely the evidence is, that you can put these two viruses in the same cell at the same time, and produce chimeric particles,” Jeremy Kamil, a virologist at Louisiana State, commented about the Flu – RSV creation according to National Geographic.

The magazine noted that the type of manmade virus the researchers created is unlikely to occur under natural circumstances.

On an evolutionary time scale, such gene exchanges are uncommon and proceed slowly, the article admitted.

It detailed that though the body can be infected by multiple respiratory viruses, viruses fight for control at the level of the individual cell through a process known as viral interference. That means that a cell can often only be infected by one type of virus.

Necessary Research—Or Scientific Greed And Recklessness?

Most mainstream media, as well as most mainline research institutions and political bodies openly advocate for the supposed benefits and “necessity” of creating novel man-made viruses in order to study potentials that might occur in nature, as well as study how viruses can be treated.

The National Geographic article, for example, regurgitated standard boiler plate on the subject of ethics, discussing virtually nothing concerning the vast dangers and COVID related controversies surrounding the research:

“As with every major scientific advance, there are ethical issues that require discussion within the scientific and lay communities. Ethical issues related to the engineering of human–animal chimeras are no exception.”

Many researchers in the field have a personal financial stake in the matter, as well as reputational competitiveness, in “advancing” virus research, no matter how potentially dangerous.

But the COVID disaster, which may well have involved a manmade virus escaping from a Wuhan China Virology lab, has made at least some question whether dangerous research should be banned or more rigorously monitored and controlled.

A June 2021 New York Times article did discuss the dangers of creating man-made viruses.  It admitted:

“The stakes of the debate could not be higher. Too little research on emerging viruses will leave us unprepared for future pandemics. But too little attention to the safety risks will increase the chances that an experimental pathogen may escape a lab through an accident and cause an outbreak of its own.”

There was a pause in the U.S. on so-called gain-of-function virus research in 2012. At that time there was considerable opposition voiced concerning “gain-of-function” virus creation, which intentionally gave viruses new abilities and features that were not present in nature.

Some ten days before Donald Trump was sworn in as President in 2016, the ban on funding some kinds of research was lifted, with the approval of Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The NY Times said about the implemented “P3CO framework” for research on ‘enhanced potential pandemic pathogens’:

“The rule requires the agencies under the H.H.S. umbrella, like N.I.H. and its several institutes, to carry out a special review of grant applications for any research on ‘a credible source of a potential future human pandemic.’”

Fauci, of course, later served as a leading advisor during the COVID War. The retiring NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases) director has been implicated in supporting controversial research, and in overseeing funding it, including SARS virus experiments that were taking place in the Wuhan lab.

Concerning that funding, Fauci, in a recent court deposition, claimed he couldn’t recall specifically authorizing the funding, and still could not say who under his authority did authorize it.  

So much for “special review.”

For related reading, see: 

Skip to content