Sunday, February 16, 2020

952 Ron Fouchier. NYTimes 2011. Heeft H5N1 tot WMD gemaakt


Hier een artikel uit dec. 2011 uit de NY Times. 
Hier lezen we dat dr Ron Fouchier het vogelgriep H5N1 door enkele mutaties te stimuleren, airborne heeft gemaakt, in juli 2011. 
Dat is goed geheim gehouden.  Een engelse viroloog is er in 2012 nog niet van op de hoogte: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23029-avian-flu-virus-learns-to-fly-without-wings/ 
In dit artikel zie je dat Marion Koopman in 2012 nog net doet alsof haar niet bekend is dat H5N1  airborne is....
In Nederland was in 2003 ontdekt dat een andere vogel griep H7N7, met de wind verspreid werd.   Misschien is daarom de opdracht uit de VS ( om het veel dodelijker H5N1 airborne te maken) in Rotterdam terecht gekomen. 

Qua jaartal (2011) klopt dit niet met Romanoff, die over 2013 spreekt.

Maar het is wel zeker dat het tot WMD wapen maken van H5N1 in Rotterdam gebeurde, en met Amerikaans geld.   ( Kan zijn omdat Amerikaanse wetten dit verbieden...  En NL is het braafste schaap van de kudde, zoals we uit Wikileaks cables weten..) 

Of heeft deze Fouchier in 2013 hetzelfde gedaan, maar dan met Corona ?
Het kan ook zijn dat Fouchier nmiks met Corona te maken heeft, en dat hij wegens N5H1 daarmee verward word, zoals ik op 25 januari in mijn eerste blog over Corona schreef, helemaal onderaan.

( Je kan bij de NY Times jezelf aanmelden, en dan kan je 3 artikelen poer maand gratis krijgen) 


Debate Persists on Deadly Flu Made Airborne

Ron Fouchier led a team that took one of the most dangerous flu viruses ever known and made it even more dangerous.

Ron Fouchier led a team that took one of the most dangerous flu viruses ever known and made it even more dangerous.Credit...Dirk-Jan Visser for The New York Times
·         Dec. 26, 2011

The young scientist, normally calm and measured, seemed edgy when he stopped by his boss’s office.
“You are not going to believe this one,” he told Ron Fouchier, a virologist at the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam. “I think we have an airborne H5N1 virus.”
The news, delivered one afternoon last July, was chilling. 

 It meant that Dr. Fouchier’s research group had taken one of the most dangerous flu viruses ever known and made it even more dangerous — by tweaking it genetically to make it more contagious.

What shocked the researchers was how easy it had been, Dr. Fouchier said. Just a few mutations was all it took to make the virus go airborne.

The discovery has led advisers to the United States government, which paid for the research, to urge that the details be kept secret and not published in scientific (Link naar NYT) journals to prevent the work from being replicated by terrorists, hostile governments or rogue scientists.

Journal editors are taking the recommendation seriously, even though they normally resist any form of censorship. Scientists, too, usually insist on their freedom to share information, but fears of terrorism have led some to say this information is too dangerous to share.

Some biosecurity experts have even said that no scientist should have been allowed to create such a deadly germ in the first place, and they warn that not just the blueprints but the virus itself could somehow leak or be stolen from the laboratory.

Dr. Fouchier is cooperating with the request to withhold some data, but reluctantly. He thinks other scientists need the information.

The naturally occurring A(H5N1) virus is quite lethal without genetic tinkering. It already causes an exceptionally high death rate in humans, more than 50 percent. But the virus, a type of bird flu, does not often infect people, and when it does, they almost never transmit it to one another.

Dus: Ro= heel laag.  Fatality = 50%   Nu heeft Fouchier de Ro opgeschroefd  !!

If, however, that were to change and bird flu were to develop the ability to spread from person to person, scientists fear that it could cause the deadliest flu pandemic in history.

The experiment in Rotterdam transformed the virus into the supergerm of virologists’ nightmares, enabling it to spread from one animal to another through the air. The work was done in ferrets, which catch flu the same way people do and are considered the best model for studying it.

“This research should not have been done,” said Richard H. Ebright, a chemistry professor and bioweapons expert at Rutgers University who has long opposed such research. 
He warned that germs that could be used as bioweapons had already been unintentionally released hundreds of times from labs in the United States and predicted that the same thing would happen with the new virus.

“It will inevitably escape, and within a decade,” he said, though he added that security measures like restricting possession of the virus to fewer scientists and fewer laboratories would lower the chances of that happening so soon.

But Dr. Fouchier and many public health experts argue that the experiment had to be done.
If scientists can make the virus more transmissible in the lab, then it can also happen in nature, Dr. Fouchier said.
Knowing that the risk is real should drive countries where the virus is circulating in birds to take urgent steps to eradicate it, he said. And knowing which mutations lead to transmissibility should help scientists all over the world who monitor bird flu to recognize if and when a circulating strain starts to develop pandemic potential.
“There are highly respected virologists who thought until a few years ago that H5N1 could never become airborne between mammals,” Dr. Fouchier said. “I wasn’t convinced. To prove these guys wrong, we needed to make a virus that is transmissible.”

Other virologists differ. Dr. W. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University questioned the need for the research and rejected Dr. Fouchier’s contention that making a virus transmissible in the laboratory proves that it can or will happen in nature.

 But Richard J. Webby, a virologist at the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said Dr. Fouchier’s research was useful, with the potential to answer major questions about flu viruses, like what makes them transmissible and how some that appear to infect only animals can suddenly invade humans as well.
 “I would certainly love to be able to see that information,” Dr. Webby said, explaining that he has a freezer full of bird flu viruses from all over the world. “If I detect a virus in our activities that has some of these changes, it could change the direction of what we do.”

Some scientists dismiss fears of bioterrorism via influenza, because flu viruses would not make practical weapons: they cannot be targeted, and they would also infect whoever deployed them.
Dr. Fouchier said it would be easier to weaponize other germs. Which ones? He would not answer.

“That should tell you something,” he said. “I won’t tell you what I as a virologist would use, but I would publish this work.”

However, some experts argue that appeals to logic are useless.
“You can’t know who might try to re-create H5N1,” said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
The A(H5N1) bird flu was first recognized in Hong Kong in 1997, when chickens in poultry markets began dying and 18 people fell ill, 6 of them fatally. Hoping to stamp out the virus, the government in Hong Kong destroyed the country’s entire poultry industry — killing more than a million birds — in just a few days.
 Buddhist monks and nuns in Hong Kong prayed for the souls of the slaughtered chickens, and world health officials praised Hong Kong for averting a potential pandemic.
But the virus persisted in other parts of Asia, and reached Europe and Africa; that worries scientists, because most bird flus emerge briefly and then vanish. Millions of infected birds have died, and many millions more have been slaughtered. Since 1997, about 600 humans have been infected, and more than half died.

Dr. Donald A. Henderson, a leader in the eradication of smallpox and now a biosecurity expert at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that even the notorious flu pandemic of 1918 killed only 2 percent of patients.
“This is running at 50 percent or more,” Dr. Henderson said. “This would be the ultimate organism as far as destruction of population is concerned.”

Dr. Fouchier was working on AIDS when the first bird flu outbreak occurred. He immediately became fascinated by the new disease and gave up AIDS to study it. He has worked on bird flu for more than a decade.
The medical center in Rotterdam built a special 1,000-square-foot virus lab for this work, a locked-down place where people work in spacesuits in sealed chambers with filtered air and multiple precautions to keep germs in and intruders out and to protect the scientists from infection. Dr. Fouchier said that even more security measures had been added recently because of the publicity about his work.

The Dutch government and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention approved the laboratory, and the National Institutes of Health gave the Erasmus center a seven-year contract for flu research.

Because a government advisory panel has recommended that the full recipe for mutating the bird flu virus not be published, Dr. Fouchier declined to explain much about how it was done.
But he previously described the work at a public meeting, and various publications have reported that the experiment involved creating mutations in the virus and then squirting it into the respiratory tracts of ferrets. When the ferrets got sick, the researchers would collect their nasal secretions and expose other ferrets to the virus. After repetitions of this process, a strain of virus emerged from sick ferrets last summer that could infect animals in nearby cages without being squirted into them — just by traveling through the air.
The published reports say five mutations were all it took to transform the virus. Dr. Fouchier declined to confirm or deny that, and would say only that it took “a handful” of mutations.
Looking back on that day in July with Sander Herfst, the member of his team who told him the virus had gone airborne, Dr. Fouchier said, “We both needed a beer to recover from the shock.”
Then they planned their next step, repeating the experiment to make sure the results were reliable. There was one major obstacle: they had run out of ferrets. They ordered a new shipment from Scandinavia. So they had to wait several weeks to find out whether their discovery was real. Dr. Herfst took a vacation, timed to end the day the ferrets arrived.
They ran the tests again. Once more, A(H5N1) went airborne.




13 comments:

  1. Vraag: Hoe kunnen laboratoria goed voorbereid zijn op een voor hen nog onbekend virus?

    Well-prepared laboratories, the first line of defense against the Novel Coronavirus in the European Region are

    http://www.euro.who.int/de/health-topics/health-emergencies/pages/news/news/2020/02/well-prepared-laboratories-are-first-line-of-defence-against-novel-coronavirus-in-europe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Overigens, een zoekopdracht binnen de WHO Europe over het EMC en het MERS-virus levert geen resultaat op.

      Delete
  2. Even terugkomen op de zgn ras specificiteit van Corona.

    Het gaat tegen alles wat ik als bioloog geleerd heb, maar zoals ik al eerder gezegd heb: never say never. Ik denk dat we dit niet totaal kunnen uitsluiten tot mei. Maar tot die tijd geloof ik er geen snars van.

    Hhhhhhhhoe kunnen ze zo goed op een nieuw virus voorbereid zijn?

    Nou, bv door de aanwezigheid van een goed boiolab, met electronenmicroscoop, kweekmogelijkheden, immunoassays en moleculaire biologie faciliteiten.

    En hoeveel er kan: een (wel heel slimme) idioot had de bijbel en de koran in DNA gecodeerd, in zijn garage. De gek had het bij zichzelf ingespoten en verloor bijna zijn poten! En dit was een amateur!

    https://www.livescience.com/64388-boy-encoded-and-injected-dna-bible-quran.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ik ga dus niet mee met de vermoedens over biowar.

    Maar zoals de neoliberalen altijd zeggen: never waste a good crisis.

    Ik vraag me af of de PLA (Chinees leger) voorbereid is op een verrassingsaanval. Immers: China is in lockdown, en alle aandacht gaat naar interne crisismanagement.

    Als de neocons oorlog met China aandurven, dan komt er geen gunstiger moment dat dit meer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rootman,

      dìt ìs de oorlog.

      Een echte oorlog is levensgevaarlijk,en je houdt er een vreselijk slecht imaago aan overr.
      De VS profteert enorm van haarimago als'Good Guy'.

      Daarmee kunnen ze elk land kapot maken.
      Jezal zien: eerste verspreiden ze dat virus in China en daarna gaan zede Chinezen helpen.

      Maar het kwaad is geschied.
      Dit is een zeer zware klap voor China.

      Vb:
      1) Opeen beurs was de hoek met chinezen totaal zonder bezoiekers.
      2) Ik ben gestopt met chinees eten te kopen, hier in NL. Voorlopig.
      3) Landen gaan denken aan het zelf produceren van goederen.
      4) Andere landen nemen de markt van China over: krijgen ze niet meer terug.
      5) Kan zelfs dat het Belt and Road idee nioet meer gaat lukken.
      6) Als er starks toch vele doden gaan vallen in Afrika, worden de chinezen op straat gelyncht. Àlle investeringen weg.

      ( Dit is maar een klein deel van de mogelijke gevolgen.)
      Een werkelijke inval met Amerikaanse legers? Totale idiotie. Daar denkt niemand aan, behalve Rootman, blijkbaar.



      Delete
  4. "STILL No White Deaths from Coronavirus - Why Won't the Media Talk About This?", bron: https://russia-insider.com/en/still-no-white-deaths-coronavirus-why-wont-media-talk-about/ri28302

    Uit het artikel:

    ["When it comes to “race” (the Chinese Government) is honest to a degree that should Americans public officials and journalists blush. And China’s honesty only confirms that this is not a virus from which white people die."

    "If we want to avoid future suffering, panic and and death—whether due to viruses or whatever else—we must be like the Chinese, able to talk frankly about race."]

    en

    [The story so far: There is still no confirmed case of the Coronavirus killing anyone other than ethnic East Asians.]

    en

    [The Chinese government may be one of the most secretive in the world. But, fortunately, when it comes to “race” they are an honest to a degree that should Americans public officials and journalists blush.]

    Overigens zijn het ook de Chinezen die hier onderzoek naar hebben gedaan. Uit het artikel "Asians Far More Susceptible to Coronavirus than Other Races, More Likely to Die, Just Like SARS - REPORT":

    [If it is true that only East Asians are dying of, or even catching, Corona, that would be consistent with long-established race differences in the susceptibility to such viruses. This has been explored in a fascinating study, by a group of Chinese researchers led by C. L. Chen of Soochow University, entitled: Ethnic differences in susceptibilities to A(H1N1) flu [African Journal of Biotechnology, 2009].]

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Jan, meer nieuws over Jordan Peterson, mij gaat het voornamelijk om de reden waarom hij voor behandeling naar Rusland is gegaan:

    "‘Western doctors overprescribe drugs’ – Jordan Peterson's daughter Mikhaila tells RT why he went to Russia for treatment.", bron: https://www.rt.com/news/480979-jordan-peterson-mikhaila-russia/

    Uit het artikel:

    "Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson chose Russia for his detox because the country's medical industry is less dependent on big pharma than North America’s,"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ja, ik had het gehoord. Ook Molyneux heeft er 1,5 uur over gesproken.
      Die gezondheidszorg in de VS is moorddadig.

      Delete
    2. Chris martenson beschrijft de situatie op het cruise schip als voorbeeld dat de niet Aziatische bevolking net zo gevoelig is voor het virus.

      Het is zo misleidend, ook voor WHO experts wegens da lange incubatietijd en het lange ziekteproces. In totaal 3-6 weken!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReMCn4GsviM

      Delete
  6. De discussie is dus:
    Zijn Chinezen extra gevoelig voor dit virus ?

    Ja,zeggen diverse bronnen, want er is nog niet 1 westerling gestorven.

    Nee zegt Rootman, want kijk maar hoeveel zieken er op dat Cruise schip zijn.

    Mijn opmerking daarover:
    Kans op besmetting =
    'gevoeligheid' x 'aantal infectie -pogingen'

    Ik denk dat de mensen op dat schip àllemaal dagen lang virussen in hun lichaam hebben gekregen, want als het via de air-conditioner rond wordt gepompt is er geen ontkomen aan.

    Wat je wil weten: Hoeveel chinese passagiers zaten aan boord? Hoeveel van hen zijn ziek geworden?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [Ik denk dat de mensen op dat schip àllemaal dagen lang virussen in hun lichaam hebben gekregen, want als het via de air-conditioner rond wordt gepompt is er geen ontkomen aan.]

      Hoe werkt dat eigenlijk zo'n virus "in" of "via" de airconditioning? Als ik het goed heb, wordt steeds verse lucht via een koelsysteem naar binnen gebracht (en wordt hetzij technisch, hetzij 'gewoon' weer afgevoerd), het is dus niet echt een gesloten systeem (waarbij steeds dezelfde lucht wordt rondgepompt).


      [Wat je wil weten: Hoeveel chinese passagiers zaten aan boord? Hoeveel van hen zijn ziek geworden?]

      Plus, hoe lang waren mensen ziek en hoe ernstig. We horen nu steeds alleen over nieuwe besmettingen en overledenen maar niets over mensen die hersteld zijn of nauwelijks ziek zijn geweest wat ook een scheef beeld geeft.

      Delete
  7. https://www.science.org/content/article/exclusive-controversial-experiments-make-bird-flu-more-risky-poised-resume


    EXCLUSIVE: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky poised to resume
    Two “gain of function” projects halted more than 4 years ago have passed new U.S. review process
    8 Feb 2019ByJocelyn Kaiser
    A worker at a laboratory harvests avian flu viruses
    A worker at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laboratory harvests avian flu viruses for sharing with other laboratories in 2013.James Gathany/CDC
    Share:
    Facebook
    Share on X
    Linked In
    Reddit
    Wechat
    Whatsapp
    Email
    Controversial lab studies that modify bird flu viruses in ways that could make them more risky to humans will soon resume after being on hold for more than 4 years. ScienceInsider has learned that last year, a U.S. government review panel quietly approved experiments proposed by two labs that were previously considered so dangerous that federal officials had imposed an unusual top-down moratorium on such research.

    One of the projects has already received funding from the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in Bethesda, Maryland, and will start in a few weeks; the other is awaiting funding.

    The outcome may not satisfy scientists who believe certain studies that aim to make pathogens more potent or more likely to spread in mammals are so risky they should be limited or even banned. Some are upset because the government's review will not be made public. "After a deliberative process that cost $1 million for [a consultant's] external study and consumed countless weeks and months of time for many scientists, we are now being asked to trust a completely opaque process where the outcome is to permit the continuation of dangerous experiments," says Harvard University epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch.

    SIGN UP FOR THE SCIENCEADVISER NEWSLETTER
    The latest news, commentary, and research, free to your inbox daily
    One of the investigators leading the studies, however, says he's happy he can resume his experiments. "We are glad the United States government weighed the risks and benefits … and developed new oversight mechanisms. We know that it does carry risks. We also believe it is important work to protect human health," says Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and the University of Tokyo. The other group that got the green light is led by Ron Fouchier at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

    In 2011, Fouchier and Kawaoka alarmed the world by revealing they had separately modified the deadly avian H5N1 influenza virus so that it spread between ferrets. Advocates of such gain of function (GOF) studies say they can help public health experts better understand how viruses might spread and plan for pandemics. But by enabling the bird virus to more easily spread among mammals, the experiments also raised fears that the pathogen could jump to humans. And critics of the work worried that such a souped-up virus could spark a pandemic if it escaped from a lab or was intentionally released by a bioterrorist. After extensive discussion about whether the two studies should even be published (they ultimately were) and a voluntary moratorium by the two labs, the experiments resumed in 2013 under new U.S. oversight rules.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Scientists Yoshihiro Kawaoka and Ron Fouchier stand together.
      Yoshihiro Kawaoka (left) and Ron Fouchier (right) in 2012, after their work with H5N1 bird flu virus sparked a global controversy over research that can potentially make pathogens more dangerous to humans.Martin Enserink/Science
      But concerns reignited after more papers and a series of accidents at federal biocontainment labs. In October 2014, U.S. officials announced an unprecedented "pause" on funding for 18 GOF studies involving influenza or the Middle East respiratory syndrome or severe acute respiratory syndrome viruses. (About half were later allowed to continue because the work didn't fit the definition or was deemed essential to public health.)

      There followed two National Academy of Sciences workshops, recommendations from a federal advisory board, and a new U.S. policy for evaluating proposed studies involving "enhanced potential pandemic pathogens" (known as ePPPs). In December 2017, NIH lifted the funding pause and invited new GOF proposals that would be reviewed by a committee with wide-ranging expertise drawn from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Washington, D.C., and other federal agencies.

      Now, the HHS committee has approved the same type of work in the Kawaoka and Fouchier labs that set off the furor 8 years ago. Last summer, the committee reviewed the projects and made recommendations about risk-benefit analyses, safety measures to avoid exposures, and communications plans, an HHS spokesperson says.

      After the investigators revised their plans, the HHS committee recommended that they proceed. Kawaoka learned from NIH on 10 January that his grant has been funded. Fouchier expects the agency may hold off on making a funding decision until after a routine U.S. inspection of his lab in March.

      Kawaoka's grant is the same one on H5N1 that was paused in 2014. It includes identifying mutations in H5N1 that allow it to be transmitted by respiratory droplets in ferrets. He shared a list of reporting requirements that appear to reflect the new HHS review criteria. For example, he must immediately notify NIAID if he identifies an H5N1 strain that is both able to spread via respiratory droplets in ferrets and is highly pathogenic, or if he develops an EPPP that is resistant to antiviral drugs. Under the HHS framework, his grant now specifies reporting timelines and who he must notify at the NIAID and his university.

      Fouchier's proposed projects are part of a contract led by virologists at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City (most of Project 5, Aim 3.1, and Project 6 in this letter). They include identifying molecular changes that make flu viruses more virulent and mutations that emerge when H5N1 is passaged through ferrets. The HHS panel did not ask that any proposed experiments be removed or modified. Suggestions included clarifying how his team will monitor workers for possible exposures and justifying the strains they plan to work with, which include H7N9 viruses, Fouchier says.

      HHS cannot make the panel's reviews public because they contain proprietary and grant competition information, says the spokesperson. But critics say that isn't acceptable. "Details regarding the decision to approve and fund this work should be made transparent," says Thomas Inglesby, director of Center for Health Security of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. The lack of openness "is disturbing. And indefensible," says microbiologist Richard Ebright of Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. The critics say the HHS panel should at least publicly explain why it thought the same questions could not be answered using safer alternative methods.

      One researcher who has sympathized with both sides in the debate finds the safety conditions imposed on Kawaoka reassuring. "That list… makes a lot of sense," says virologist Michael Imperiale of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "At this point I'm willing to trust the system."

      Delete