Synthesizing the 1918 flu virus from scratch would be difficult but far from impossible.

Judge as of October 2005, against the state of knowledge then (and documented expert assessment of that period). TRUE: authoritative sources (e.g., the 2005 Science/Nature papers on the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus, CDC/NIH statements, published virology commentary, or later retrospective accounts of 2005 capabilities) show that de novo synthesis of the 1918 influenza virus from its published genome sequence was technically achievable by a competent laboratory, i.e. technically demanding but feasible with then-existing reverse-genetics and gene-synthesis methods. MOSTLY TRUE: the above holds but with a minor qualification (e.g. feasibility demonstrated only for related influenza viruses, or requiring resources somewhat greater than the claim implies). MIXED: expert sources of the period are genuinely split on whether synthesis from published sequence was feasible outside a handful of elite labs. MOSTLY FALSE: evidence shows synthesis was possible only in principle and in practice far beyond the reach of all but a uniquely equipped state programme, so that 'far from impossible' overstates a real underlying capability. FALSE: evidence shows the full genome had not been published or that de novo synthesis of such a virus was not technically possible in 2005 (e.g. the reconstruction relied on material unavailable from sequence alone and no synthetic route existed).

Set before the research began.

Research or judging failed: research_extract:c_f365b974910a: refusal