Wowww...study was done at the lower level-2 biosafety

Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has genetically manipulated the 2009 strain of pandemic flu in order for it to “escape” the control of the immune system’s neutralising antibodies, effectively making the human population defenceless against its reemergence.

Most of the world today has developed some level of immunity to the 2009 pandemic flu virus, which means that it can now be treated as less dangerous “seasonal flu”. However, The Independent understands that Professor Kawaoka intentionally set out to see if it was possible to convert it to a pre-pandemic state in order to analyse the genetic changes involved.

The study is not published, however some scientists who are aware of it are horrified that Dr Kawaoka was allowed to deliberately remove the only defence against a strain of flu virus that has already demonstrated its ability to create a deadly pandemic that killed as many as 500,000 people in the first year of its emergence.

Professor Kawaoka has so far kept details of the research out of the public domain but admitted today that the work is complete and ready for submission to a scientific journal. The experiment was designed to monitor the changes to the 2009 H1N1 strain of virus that would enable it to escape immune protection in order to improve the design of vaccines, he said.

“Through selection of immune escape viruses in the laboratory under appropriate containment conditions, we were able to identify the key regions [that] would enable 2009 H1N1 viruses to escape immunity,” Professor Kawaoka said in an email.

“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.

Ultra low interest rates and the failure of policy to "lean against" the build-up of financial imbalances are in danger of making the global economy permanently unstable, the Bank for International Settlements has warned.   In its annual report, the Swiss-based "bank of central banks" spelled out the risks of relying too heavily on monetary policy to stimulate the economy. The BIS warned that central banks including the Bank of England and US Federal Reserve could keep monetary policy loose for too long, with potentially damaging consequences.   "The prospects for a bumpy exit together with other factors suggest that the predominant risk is that central banks will find themselves behind the curve, exiting too late or too slowly," the BIS said on Sunday.  It added that a "persistent easing bias" by fiscal, monetary and prudential policymakers had lulled governments "into a false sense of security" that delayed needed consolidation and created a risk that instability could "entrench itself" in the system. "Policy does not lean against the booms but eases aggressively and persistently during busts," the BIS said. "This induces a downward bias in interest rates and an upward bias in debt levels, which in turn makes it hard to raise rates without damaging the economy – a debt trap.

"Systemic financial crises do not become less frequent or intense, private and public debts continue to grow, the economy fails to climb onto a stronger sustainable path, and monetary and fiscal policies run out of ammunition. Over time, policies lose their effectiveness and may end up fostering the very conditions they seek to prevent." ... I've been saying this all along. If you lend money without charge then it mean the money can be borrowed for the most inefficient of businesses. It doesn't weed out the wrongfulness meaning the customer doesn't get what he wants and does get what he doesn't want. With higher rates the dead wood goes and money is employed more efficiently with less waste. That means less work, bigger houses, more food on your plate. Who could possibly argue with that?... The truth is, the 'Ponzi Scheme' that is the worlds current monetary system is fast reaching its point of collapse. And were it not for the consistently low interest rates, well, then the system would have already collapsed.  The criminals who are running the show know this, as do those who are paid to misinform at the likes of the Telegraph.  Historically, debt based monetary systems have had an average life span of around 40 years.  And seeing as all currencies came off a gold backing in 1971. We are now of course fast running out of time. The likes of the Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians know this, which is precisely why they are now attempting to get rid of all of their paper holdings.  Purchasing tangible assets such as the precious metals wherever possible. Just remember folks, whoever is left holding the paper at the end of the game is the loser. For that paper will then have 'no value' at all.

Jean-Claude Juncker, expected to soon be the EU's most powerful politician, has come to dislike Britain with an abiding passion – but Luxembourg is our traditional friend There had been speculation that the appointment of Mr Juncker could result in Mr Cameron campaigning to leave the EU if the new president made it impossible to reform Britain’s relationship with Brussels.

However, when asked directly if he could end up recommending a British exit in a referendum, he said: “I believe Britain’s national interest lies in reforming the EU, holding a referendum about that reform in the EU and recommending that we stay in a reformed European Union.

“Has that got harder to achieve? Yes. Is it still the right thing to do? Yes. Will I give it absolutely everything I have got to achieve it? Yes, I will.”

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, said on Friday that Mr Cameron had suffered “humiliation” in Europe. But Mr Cameron said he had taken a “principled” stand and “would do it all over again in pretty much the same way”.

The Prime Minister criticised the “cosy deals” done by European leaders including Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who had privately backed him over his plans to stop Mr Juncker before switching her allegiance due to domestic political concerns.

“There’s a sense in this place that people say one thing and then they get in the cosy crowded room and they all just go along with the flow and appoint, to this job, the career insider in Brussels,” he said.

The Prime Minister said that while Europe had taken “one big step backwards” over Mr Juncker, Britain had “made some small steps forward”.

He claimed that the council had “broken new ground” in two areas during the discussions, including an agreement that “ever-closer union” allows for different paths of integration and respects the wishes of countries such as Britain that do not want a closer relationship.

However, Mrs Merkel appeared to offer Britain few concessions. She insisted that the status quo would remain in EU treaties but that, as is already the case, leaders would accept that Britain will reach “ever closer union” at a slower speed.

“It was made clear — yet again — that the idea of an ever closer union as it is stated in the treaties does not mean that there is equal speed among member countries,” she said. “There can be different speeds for member countries to come to ever closer union,” she said.

In a consolation prize for Mr Cameron, European leaders agreed that Britain would not be asked to transfer more sovereignty to Brussels.

However, they appeared to rule out Mr Cameron’s demand for powers to flow back to national capitals.

Mrs Merkel said she hoped that British voters would not choose to leave the EU. She said: “I have a great interest in Great Britain staying a member of the European Union. In this spirit I will continue to work.”

Mrs Merkel also denied that any “backroom deals” had been done over Mr Juncker’s nomination.

There are growing signs that in exchange for imposing Mr Juncker on Britain, Brussels may appoint Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Danish prime minister and daughter-in-law of Lord Kinnock, to the post of president of the European Council.

Miss Thorning-Schmidt is considered to be a reformist candidate and would be welcomed by Mr Cameron.

The Conservative leader said she “has a good understanding about some of the things that need to change in Europe”.

However, he said that he was reluctant to endorse her because he does not want to “blight anyone’s chances by recommending them for such an important position”.

Over a tense lunch on Friday, Mr Cameron warned EU leaders that they “could live to regret” the decision to allow Mr Juncker to be appointed.

He was supported only by Hungary when he forced the issue to an unprecedented vote. Downing Street said Mr Cameron wanted to make EU leaders “put their support for Mr Juncker on the record”.

Mr Cameron tried to defend the principle that candidates for the EU’s top jobs should in future be picked by national leaders meeting in the European Council and not by political groupings in the European Parliament.

Mr Juncker’s claim on the presidency rests on his position as the chosen candidate of the European People’s Party, which emerged as the largest grouping of MEPs after last month’s elections.

EU leaders have agreed to review the process for presidency elections, Mr Cameron said. His stand was welcomed by Eurosceptic Conservative MPs.

Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, said Mr Juncker’s appointment was the “tip of a very large federalist iceberg” and suggested that it could lead to Britain pulling out of the EU.

John Redwood, a former Conservative Cabinet minister, said Mr Cameron’s battle was a sign that Europe was not willing to change or reform.

“If the rest of the EU continues to be so unsympathetic to UK requirements, more UK voters will draw their own conclusions about the desirability of our continued membership,” he said.

Alistair Burt, a former Foreign Office minister, said Mr Cameron’s position would leave him in a stronger position during future negotiations with Brussels.

“The Prime Minister is right,” he said. “He is clearly marking out a position that says that when he believes something he sticks to it.”

However, John Baron, the Tory MP for Basildon and Billericay, criticised Mr Cameron’s attacks on Mr Juncker.

“Having played the man, we now need to play the ball,” he said. “We need greater clarity regarding our reform agenda to better form alliances across the EU and convince a sceptical public at home that we are serious about reform.”

Nigel Farage, the UK Independence Party leader, said it was “game, set and match to Brussels”.

“David Cameron thought he could put together a coalition of countries to form a blocking minority,” he said. “His judgment has been woeful.”

Senior Tories said Mr Farage’s comments were a sign that Ukip felt threatened by Mr Cameron’s increasingly tough stance towards the EU.

The European Parliament will vote to confirm Mr Juncker on July 16. European leaders will meet the same evening.

It will be the first encounter between Mr Cameron and Mr Juncker since the Prime Minister campaigned to block his candidacy.

Mr Cameron insisted that he would work with Mr Juncker despite opposing his appointment.

Mr Sarkozy is being held at Nanterre, near Paris, in an unprecedented step against a former president.

Mr Sarkozy is being questioned about whether he sought inside information from a judge concerning an investigation into campaign funding. The latest developments are seen as a blow to Mr Sarkozy's attempts to challenge for the presidency in 2017.

Investigators are trying to find out whether Mr Sarkozy, 59, who was president from 2007 to 2012, had promised a prestigious role in Monaco to a high-ranking judge, Gilbert Azibert, in exchange for information about an investigation into alleged illegal campaign funding.

They are looking into claims that Mr Sarkozy was warned his phone was being bugged as part of the funding probe.

Mr Azibert, one of the most senior judges at the court of appeal, was called in for questioning on Monday. Another judge, Patrick Sassoust, was also questioned, as was Mr Sarkozy's lawyer Thierry Herzog. This is thought to be the first time a French former head of state has been held in police custody.

His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, was given a suspended prison sentence in 2011 for embezzlement and breach of trust while he was mayor of Paris. But he was never questioned in custody.

It used to be that the Council of Europe (i.e. the heads of national governments) elected the President without consideration of the wants of MEPs. During the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 it was decided by all EU nations, including the UK, that that the President would instead be drawn from the party bloc with the most votes in the Euro elections, thus giving the President greater democratic legitimacy. This process came to be called the Spitzenkandidaat process and was implemented in 2009.

What the UK proposes is unilaterally vetoing a process they previously agreed to during the Treaty of Lisbon, essentially chucking their toys out of the pram because they don't like the candidates and ignoring the voting choice made by millions of continental Europeans.

Again I reiterate, the candidate, Junker, drawn from the party bloc who won the most votes in the Euro elections, the EPP. This is democracy, against which British politicians are acting against because they don't like the candidate.

Further, the UK Conservative party because they are part of an anti-EU party bloc have no spitzenkandidaat, they left the centre right bloc to join the Nazis and freaks on the fringe instead. A massive strategic error which they refuse to admit.

Just because the UK public did not understand the gravity of the Euro elections does not mean Junker is being voted in on an anti-democratic platform. Quite the opposite, the new system is more democratic than the old, where the Council of Europe simply decided who they wanted to become President with no influence from the EU Parliament, (the vehicle for direct public representation via MEPs).

Essentially the British government and British media have shot themselves in the foot: because the British public have not been given the information required to understand the new EU voting system the British public shunned the EU elections.

In doing so the British have reduced their voice in Europe and thus removed themselves from any real influence on the proceedings on electing a President, a blunder of quite epic proportions.

Nothing but a shambolic strategically inept joke, and yet the usual chorus of uninformed Brits will continue to rant about the EUSSR, socialists and Marxists when the real inhibitors of democracy are poncing about in Westminster and dining with right-wing media barons

Very hypocritical of Obama accusing Iran of sectarianism while it is clearly Saudi Arabia and US who are supporting Wahabism in the region and beyond causing the massacre of Shias from Pakistan to Syria. It is not Iran that is sectarian but US and its allies like Turkey and Qatar. Iran is just defending itself against Wahabi terror. It is also very hypocritical of Obama accusing Maliki of not being inclusive while he just won another election just last month. In democratic societies you respect the rule of the majority vote and if you have some differences, then you wait for the next election. You do not take up arms and become terror groups. It is not Maliki's fault. It is the fault of Obama's sectarian policies in Syria, supporting terror Sunni groups there in order to bring about a regime change... Now...Take it easy. He is just a confused president. He does not know how to take responsibility or even what should be done and that all these problems are making of the US.

He should have categorically announced a US policy aimed at stopping US and its allies aid to groups such as Isis. Also he should have come down hard on Saudi Arabia the World Terror Central Bank of Money and Ideology. He should have clarified why Turkey an ally of US is buying oil from Isis: http://goo.gl/TL4tvN

He should have clarified why US is not stopping its close ally of Undemocratic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from supporting terror all the around the world: http://goo.gl/fS35PF

He should have clarified why US is training and equipping Isis: http://goo.gl/xMsFKN He should have clarified why US is on the side of Wahabism the ideology which is the same ideology behind 99.99% of all terror attacks in the world, whether be it in UK or Iraq or US or Pakistan or etc?

The Austrian press claims that the Vienna visit of the Russian president was scheduled for May. But the visit was postponed due to the irreconcilable positions of the West and Russia regarding the situation in Ukraine. All the formalities were resolved only after the Russian leader’s trip to Normandy, where he met with many Western leaders for the first time after the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. According to the Austrian Die Presse, Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, as well as the leaders of France and Germany Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel approved the visit.  One must admit that the Austrian authorities are a lot more neutral than many of their Western partners. Despite the fact that Fischer along with everybody in the EU denounced Crimea joining Russia, he later stated that a hard choice between Russia and the West was impossible for Kiev. According to the Austrian president, Ukraine has centuries’ long ties to Russia, which are especially clear in the East of the country, while the Western part leans more towards the economic conversion with the EU. The Austrian leader is convinced that no consensus in the Ukrainian society is possible if exclusively one path is chosen.

Earlier, prior to the referendum in Crimea, Fischer warned his European colleagues of the danger of new sanctions against Russia. In his opinion, the correct policy should be based on geography and history; it should put together both economic ties with Russia and Europe. As Austrian political analysts point out, Austria itself is very interested in Russian money. Russia is very important for the Austrian economy: significant amount of Russian capital has been invested in Vienna and the territory around the capital. In general the volume of trade between the two countries last year reached 7.5 billion euro.

Besides his colleague Heinz Fischer the Russian president will meet with Austria’s Federal Chancellor Werner Faymann. Vladimir Putin will discuss with his joint projects. Naturally, the main issue is the destiny of the South Stream pipeline. Gazprom and the Austrian oil company OMV signed a memorandum of understanding regarding the implementation of the South Stream project on Austria’s territory back on April 29. Unlike other participants, Vienna has not taken any steps to review the agreement with Russia in connection with the Third Energy Package. However, naturally, there is pressure put on Austria, not only by the European Commission, but also by Washington. The US plans to force the European Commission to block South Stream and, as it puts it, "decrease the dependency of the European markets on the Russian gas" by increasing the supply of imported shale gas from America.

Speaking of Washington, it considers Vladimir Putin’s invitation to Vienna to be "a wrong signal at the wrong time" – it supposedly indirectly justifies Moscow’s actions in Ukraine. Poland and the Baltic countries are of the same opinion. However, Austria not being a NATO member back in the Cold War years performed the intermediary function between the USSR and the West. Political analysts even called it "bridge builder".

Thus, experts don’t exclude that Vienna once again could be chosen as a broker between Brussels and Moscow. Analysts are convinced that the talks will not be "ourely bilateral" – they will be translated to the other European capitals. There is some hope that the European capitals will understand Austria’s pragmatic position and will finally listen to Moscow’s arguments.