Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

COVID-19 prevention measures

Beware fake cures: "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." ~H L Menken

For the latest list of snake oil type of recommendations and cures see The Coronavirus Collection Prevention and Treatments -

News COVID-19 Epidemic Recommended Links  COVID-19 epidemic handing in the USA The threat of "Coronavirus recession" COVID-19 hoarding epidemics COVID-19 as a bioweapon hypothisis
COVID-19 fearmongering COVID-19 epidemic as the second stage of the crisis of neoliberalism Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test Absurdity of bureaucracies US Presidential Elections of 2020 Trump's impulsivity and incompetence The Real War on Reality
Media as a weapon of mass deception  Stability is destabilizing: The idea of Minsky moment Manufactured consent Groupthink The importance of controlling the narrative Trumpcare scam Nation under attack meme
Soft propaganda Nineteen Eighty-Four Casino Capitalism   Propaganda Quotes Humor Etc

Despite the regime of self isolation, you need additional physical load to prepare for the infection. In this sense walking is less efficient then running, biking, paying tennis/badmin, or swimming for training your lungs and heart, but of course better then nothing.  At least, walking outside  increases the level of vitamin D due to expose to the sun. Which to a certain extent determines the efficiency of your immune response to the infection. which decline in winter months.

Also standard hygienic measures allow to lessen the virus load which acts somewhat similar to the the dose of radiation; the higher the load the more chances you have to develop pneumonia.

With respiratory diseases no matter what level of precautions you adopt the question for people who are susceptible is not if you get it, but when. You need either be vaccinated, or infected and recover from the virus.  If you are susceptible, you simply can't escape your fate "in a long run". But, first of all,  not all people are susceptible to this virus. Among passengers and crew of Diamond Princess only 20% were susceptible despite large virus load typical for ship environment.  Similar picture can be found on the other cruise ships and USS Theodor Roosevelt. 

Also self-isolation can postpone infection until better methods treating the disease are found. What we will probably get is the temporary decline of epidemic in a month or two and then possibly the second, less drastic, wave starting from November-December.  Look at  the Hispanic Flu propagation: it was in three waves with the second wave being the most devastating.  The most victims were young people. For COVID-19 the main category of victims are old and frail people (especially 70+). 

Along with the status of your immune system, the health and excess volume of your lungs are two factors that determine whether you will survive acute form of  pneumonia in case of infection (or whatever this condition is -- is not very clear what it is ). But again, most people just get acute bronchitis type of disease. In this sense swimmers, singers, runners and serious badminton/tennis or similar sports players have a distinct advantage.

Other then known "generic" facts it is not clear why some people get severe cases  while other do not.  And that's the most important question to answer. Looks like in play are such factors as your  sex, age, medications you take, arterial pressure, blood group, and chronic conditions (especially cardiovascular, being overweight, and diabetis ), if any. Some like taking ACE medication for arterial pressure have significant influence on the outcome.  For obvious reasons cardiovascular diseases diminish your chances to survive as soon as you get pneumonia as this is a stress for the cardiovascular system.

Virus load definitely have a huge influence -- people with high virus load (medical workers) typically get more serious form of COVID-19.   People who take ACE inhibitors for arterial pressure might also be especially vulnerable and more often get severe forms.

It looks like younger people who do not smoke and exercise have some advantage (there are contradictory data that smokers are more affected but more rarely  get into severe levels of the disease) , although after 50-55  this advantage diminishes for men, as immune system became less and less efficient each year. Women of the same age are in better shape in this respect.   And generally constitute only around 33% of all patients. 

I hope that methods of treating this virus pneumonia will improve in a couple of months so winning the time before you get sick is very important.  In this sense, CDC is completely dysfunctional organization as it could get direct information from Korea autopsies and treatments. That was not done.

Add to this corruption and perverse incentives (hospitals get  more money putting you on ventilator, despite some evidence that it is not optimal way to treat COVID-19 and in most case oxygen is enough)

For example, there is some information that usage of ventilators actually worsen the prognosis for the severe cases of COVID-19 due to the additional damage to the lungs. It looks like oxygen-only treatment and less invasive methods are a better deal.

The disease is very nasty even in medium form. There are somewhat interesting interview with those those suffered from COVID-19 which gives you some clues what to expect:

One recent hypothesis that I have read is the virus among other thing attacks hemoglobin in blood (like malaria) and essentially  put you in conditions of high altitude living. If this is true, then NY Governor Cuomo quest for 40K ventilators is deeply misguided.  That's probably why anti-malarial drugs are somewhat effective  for treating COVID-19.  But this is still a pure speculation.

NOTE: In France, the sudden loss of smell is considered proof of Covid-19 infection, no further tests required

It is interesting how vulnerable modern interconnected society is to such viruses, despite all the progress in genomics. This virus actually in an extremely clever virus as it has long incubation period and hit hard only around 7% of infected. All others spread it while sick (around three weeks I think) but personally do not experience much inconvenience.  There are also rumors about the existence of a completely "asymptomatic" patients. But even if such exists they are a very small percentage of infected. Some (often minor) symptoms usually are present. Can asymptomatic patients transmit the virus is unclear and some researchers say that yes they can. If true this makes this epidemic almost impossible to contain. But I hope that this is false.

This infection is transmitted mostly from an infected person with symptoms like with cough of sneezing via aerosol with viruses and occurs in closed space (churches proved to be an idea place for spreading the infection), or at densely packed spaces outside (stadiums, lines, festivals, etc) over 80% of infected were infected in family settings. 

So wearing masks in public places is a necessary precaution. As here we are talking not about filtering of the viruses but about filtering of droplets. In this sense any mask is OK but of course it is not hermetic and decrease your chances to be infected five times or more. And if you are infected it prevent you from infecting many other people. 

For 93% of infected this is like a regular flu and does not have any adverse health consequences. Only around 7% get virus pneumonia detectable with X-rays. It usually develops one week or so from the onset of the disease.

All or most affected get some scarring of lungs (fibrosis) visible via X-ray. In severe cases (for example for people who were on ventilator) this is serious consequences that increase your chances dying later. But out of those unlucky 7%, only around 20% develop breathing problems. They are progressively worse for older population and, probably, smokers. Some tiny percent (do not remember exact percentage) need oxygen and in worst cases ventilator. Approximately half of those who need ventilator dies. Total mortality is probably around 0.2% (based of cruise ship data, where 100% of people were tested) despite the fact that often cited range is much higher (because total number of infected is probably much larger in countries affected than the number of tested positively.)

If you are less that 55 I would not worry too much. Your chances to get virus pneumonia are negligible, especially if  you are wearing a mask while shopping and in other public places, and take recommended hygienic measures. Viruses survive on phones and keyboards for a couple of days. So disinfection of such things on daily basis might be also a good precaution. On cardboard and clothing virus does not survive for long enough to represent a real danger outside of hospital setting or other settings with very high concentration of viruses.

There are half-dozen elementary measures that would lower your risk.  You might wish to watch WHO presentation Q&A on Coronavirus - COVID-19 with WHO's Dr Maria Van Kerkhove - YouTube

But the main factor -- your age and the state of your health can't be changed. And state of your immune system -- the main barrier for the virus can't be changed too.  Also spending more time on fresh air and under direct sun exposure might improve it a little bit.

Please avoid quackery and snake oil salesmen which now are propagating via Internet, especially Facebook. See A Doctor's Tips for Spotting Fake COVID-19 News

A good news is that judging from Diamond Princess cruise ship experience less then 20% of people are susceptible to the virus even if they are over 50.  For everybody else the immune system simply kills the virus and the person never becomes infected. Also a large number of people who are tested positive never develop any symptoms and might be false positives of the test. 

Like with everything luck depends on your lack.: contact with infected person often lead to infection. Especially in public transport where people are very close to each other.

Below are somewhat reworded CDC recommendations

Stop touching your face, especially eyes and nose!

The CDC also recommends that you avoid touching your face — specifically, your eyes, nose, and mouth, which are entry portals for coronavirus and other germs. If an infected person coughs or sneezes on a surface, and you touch that contaminated surface and then touch your facial mucous membranes — the eyes, nose, and mouth — you could become infected.

Wash your hands.

Washing your hands regularly is the best way to protect yourself from coronavirus — assuming you’re doing it correctly. The CDC recommends getting your hands wet with warm or cold water; lathering your entire hands, including under the nails, with soap; scrubbing your hands for 20 seconds; rinsing with clean water; and finally, either letting your hands air-dry or using a clean towel.

“Wash them especially well if you’re about to eat,” Aaron E. Carroll, a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, wrote in the New York Times. “Wash them after you’ve blown your nose, coughed or sneezed. Make it routine that all members of the household wash their hands when they get home.”

It’s also not a bad idea to carry around a hand sanitizer for times when you’re not near a sink, though you should make sure it contains at least 60 percent alcohol. However, experts stress that washing your hands thoroughly — and frequently — is the best preventative measure.

If you have a chronic illness, are elderly, or have a compromised immune system …

While COVID-19 will cause mild symptoms in the majority of infected people, Jan Carette, associate professor at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, says that the elderly — especially those with chronic conditions, like hypertension or diabetes — are at greater risk for more severe disease. In this case, he recommends that those who are especially susceptible practice the above precautions as well as avoid people who display flulike symptoms.

If you’re traveling …

If you have upcoming travel plans, it’s a good idea to stay up-to-date on the CDC’s travel warnings for specific countries. In general, it’s safest to avoid nonessential travel to countries with a sustained COVID-19 presence; right now, this includes Iran, China, South Korea, and Italy. For individuals who are especially susceptible to viral infections, including the elderly and those with existing medical conditions, the CDC advises avoiding travel to Japan as well.

Currently, the CDC doesn’t have any additional recommendations for domestic travel, though this could change as the virus spreads further in the United States. But according to the CDC’s website, the risk of infection on an airplane is low. “Because of how air circulates and is filtered on airplanes, most viruses and other germs do not spread easily,” they write. However, they recommend that travelers wash their hands frequently and avoid contact with sick passengers.

Top Visited
Past week
Past month


Old News ;-)

[Nov 23, 2020] What's Not Being Said About Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine

Nov 23, 2020 |

Down South , Nov 22 2020 17:17 utc | 9

Interesting read from F William Engdahl who takes a deeper look at the Pfizer vaccine

Suspicious events

However it seems Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, doesn't share the confidence of his own claims. On the day his company issued its press release on the proposed vaccine trials, he sold 62% of his stock in Pfizer, making millions profit in the deal. He made the sell order in a special option in August so it would not appear as "insider selling", however he also timed it just after the US elections and the mainstream media illegitimately declared Joe Biden President-elect.

It seems from appearances that Bourla had a pretty clear conflict of interest in the timing of his press release on the same day.

What's Not Being Said About Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine

karlof1 , Nov 22 2020 23:09 utc | 60

It appears the Outlaw US Empire has put all its chips on the table in favor of vaccines providing the path to "normalcy" :

"US Covid-19 vaccinations may begin as soon as December 11, reach enough people for return to normalcy in May – program chief."

When was it determined that the two potential vaccines on offer have "efficacy rates of about 95 percent" since the reports posted here were extremely dubious about them being effective at all? More:

"An FDA vaccine advisory committee is scheduled to meet on December 10 and may grant Pfizer's request for emergency use authorization that day, Dr. Moncef Slaoui said on Sunday during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. The Trump administration stands ready to ship the vaccine to immunization sites in all 50 states within 24 hours, he said, so the first doses would be administered to recipients on December 11 or December 12."

As for a vaccine being a panacea, this is from the editorial I linked @56:

"The US has made certain breakthroughs in vaccine development, but so have China, Russia and other countries. The US' attitude toward vaccines seems much too optimistic. As WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on November 16, ' A vaccine will complement the other tools we have, not replace them a vaccine on its own will not end the pandemic .'" [My Emphasis]

So yet again, the USA's citizenry is being told by the two institutions it trusts the least--federal government and media--that the End is Near IF they imbibe the new Miracle.

[Nov 20, 2020] WHO Rejects Gilead Remdesivir Drug Trump Took to Treat COVID-19

Nov 20, 2020 |

Gilead's remdesivir is not recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, regardless of how ill they are, as there is no evidence the drug improves survival or reduces the need for ventilation, a World Health Organization panel said on Friday.

[Nov 19, 2020] Far Deadlier Strain Of Coronavirus Discovered In South Australia -

Nov 19, 2020 |

As researchers struggle to understand what makes infection with COVID-19 so mild in some cases, and so deadly in others, we have kept a close eye out for any new links between symptoms different strains of the virus. And on Wednesday we noticed new comments from South Australia's top health official who warned that a particularly deadly strain of SARS-CoV-2 is circulating in the state.

Chief Health Officer Professor Nicola Spurrier explained that the reason for the recently imposed six-day lockdown is the fact that "this particular strain has had certain characteristics" she said.

The State of South Australia, which became home to this dramatic scene yesterday , is also bracing for the risk that this new strain could spread more quickly, in addition to being more deadly. Professor Spurrier said a typical generation, or stage, of the virus was only about three days.

"We also know, because of that characteristic, that what we call a generation, is only about three days and a generation is when one case is passing it on to the next level, and then that (next) level, so if they pass it on to two people, they will pass it on to another lot of people, and that is your third generation," she said.

Already, the virus has progressed to the fifth generation, she said.

"At the moment in SA we have done contact tracing to the fourth generation but the fifth generation is out there in our community and at the moment we are contact tracing to get on to that generation and that is the Woodville pizza bar."

Authorities have traced the local outbreak to a pizza shop in Parafield. The cluster began with a worker at Peppers Warmouth, which is being used as a quarantine hotel, was infected with the virus.

[Nov 02, 2020] rtPCR testing, under the current state of knowledge, is the equivalent of measuring a patient's temperature with a thermometer but no doctor knows the average body temperature, and its natural healthy interval, nor would the thermometer provide a number on a scale, merely reporting that a patient has something other than "0". This would constitute a USELESS thermometer.

Nov 02, 2020 |

Vasco da Gama , Nov 1 2020 23:49 utc | 56

Covid-19 is a dangerous disease and I take precautions to protect myself. However, the public depiction of the disease in the media and the actions being taken by most governments cannot but raise some very serious questions.

Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Nov 1 2020 18:14 utc | 16

THIS! Thank you for all your post Nathan! I was just about contributing some information that ties in precisely with your concern:
COVID-19: Council adopts a recommendation to coordinate measures affecting free movement (13-10-2020)

Based on this data, the ECDC should publish a weekly map of EU member states, broken down by regions, to support member states in their decision-making. Areas should be marked in the following colours:
  • green if the 14-day notification rate is lower than 25 and the test positivity rate below 4%
  • orange if the 14-day notification rate is lower than 50 but the test positivity rate is 4% or higher or, if the 14-day notification rate is between 25 and150 and the test positivity rate is below 4%
  • red if the 14-day notification rate is 50 or higher and the test positivity rate is 4% or higher or if the 14-day notification rate is higher than 150
  • grey if there is insufficient information or if the testing rate is lower than 300

You will notice how the measures to be taken by individual countries are absolutely (as in 100%) dependent on the worst metric possible according to the demonstrated performance of rtPCR tests. We are being recommended to use the wrong metric! None of us wishes any of our health systems to collapse, however their occupancy objectively varies with the cumulative individual immune response of the population NOT with the precariously measured transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 via rtPCR tests. Remember that the only reason we are worried about virus transmissibility is because of eventual severe developments of the disease in a fraction of the population and a possible breakdown of health systems as a consequence.

The relevant failure of rtPCR testing is its inability to estimate accurately the viral load (let's not put in question the assumption that viral load is the most important criteria for a severe development of C-19, while also leaving aside aggravating comorbidities). rtPCR testing, under the current state of knowledge, is the equivalent of measuring a patient's temperature with a thermometer but no doctor knows the average body temperature, and its natural healthy interval, nor would the thermometer provide a number on a scale, merely reporting that a patient has something other than "0". This would constitute a USELESS thermometer.

From the same recommendation as above, quote:

Free movement restrictions

Member states should not restrict the free movement of persons travelling to or from green areas. [LOL - great opening, they know full well under these criteria there will be barely any in the next months]

If considering whether to apply restrictions, they should respect the differences in the epidemiological situation between orange and red areas and act in a proportionate manner. They should also take into account the epidemiological situation in their own territory.

Member states should in principle not refuse entry to persons travelling from other member states. Those member states that consider it necessary to introduce restrictions could require persons travelling from non-green areas to:

  • undergo quarantine
  • undergo a test after arrival

Member states may offer the option of replacing this test with a test carried out before arrival.

Member states could also require persons entering their territory to submit passenger locator forms. A common European passenger locator form should be developed for possible common use.

"Test, test, test" remember? The above simply becomes arbitrary according to the criteria defined. This is not policy based on solid science! Such arbitrary policies usually serve unstated purposes (I'll refrain here to expand on those) while throwing some false pretext to the masses in order to seek their consent, exploiting their limited ability to validate the pretext as legitimate science.


So then... what could be a valid metric that allows us to prevent "eventual severe developments of the disease and a possible breakdown of health systems"? This is the question we should be asking! Myself, I would be satisfied, in substitution of rtPCR testing, with the use of new Hospitalizations, ICU and even Deaths as much better metrics, since these are true fractions of the disease development against any population and even allow to calibrate for its health system performance, much less vulnerable to duplications and false positive accounting.

rtPCR testing is absolutely absurd for the purposes it is being used (ie. country wide government response policy), instead of being limited to clinical diagnostic tool of the individual suspect of some respiratory disease to be used by a qualified practitioner, and, at best, a screening tool to get a handle on local outbreaks (schools, workplaces, residences, etc).

Hanging on this fallacy lies the destruction of most western economies and an ominous verge into the police state, neither are overstatements given what we have seen so far.

Nathan Mulcahy , Nov 1 2020 23:51 utc | 57

@ Posted by: Jen | Nov 1 2020 22:08 utc | 43

Thanks for the link, Jen. But it's not that a PCR test cannot detect a SARS-cov2 virus. The problem is that there is no standardized and validated PCR test for detecting SARS-Cov2 virus. I believe in Germany alone there are 200+ variations of the test currently being used.

My concerns about the remaining four points remain.

Nathan Mulcahy , Nov 2 2020 0:02 utc | 60

@ Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Nov 1 2020 23:49 utc | 56

Thanks for adding additional meat to my argument, including the issue with "viral load", which together with the state of the immune system of the host will decide whether or not an infected person will get sick. PCR can be extremely sensitive but that's only part of the picture.

And as I have mentioned in my response to Jen I am yet to find good answers to my remaining the 4 points in my first post (#16)

[Oct 31, 2020] Democracy Dies in Darkness. And also at the Washington Post, these days...

If this is humor, this is very dark humor. The saddest thing of all in this is that very little of Glenn's excellent article is new. One of Donald Trump's presidency greatest accomplishment has been to show me how the main stream media 'plays' its dirty games... The entire mainstream media collectively abandoned its integrity during the last decade.
Oct 31, 2020 |

It's beyond what Orwell could have ever possibly imagined. Targeted gaslighting on an individual basis using social media to brainwash people into believing whatever they want you to believe?

B.A. Berg
Oct 29

I just paid for an annual subscription out of a total frustration with the current outrageous, unfair, evil and dishonest media situation in the US (and elsewhere also). Totalitarism is approaching and I have decided to participate in the fight against the threatening darkness. Good luck.

[Oct 21, 2020] COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless

Oct 21, 2020 |

Loooks like they reliable detemine only that fact that you do not have infection.

But a positive test can well be a false positive, due to excessive multiplication.

Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to "diagnose" Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose By Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter Global Research, October 18, 2020 OffGuardian 27 June 2020 Theme: Intelligence , Science and Medicine

2327 3499

First published on June 29, 2020

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify "positive" patients, whereby "positive" is usually equated with "infected."

But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.

Unfounded "Test, Test, Test, " mantra

At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020 , the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test."

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC .

Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the Heute j ournal -- one of the most important news magazines on German television -- was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:

Test, test, test -- that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading."

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.

But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: "Where all think alike, no one thinks very much."

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection .

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn't .

Lack of a valid gold standard

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.

This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness -- strictly speaking their "sensitivity"[1] and "specificity" -- by comparison with a "gold standard," meaning the most accurate method available.

As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question "How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?" :

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we've already got blood cultures, that's our gold standard we've been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don't have a gold standard test."

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper "Interpreting a COVID-19 test result" , published recently in The British Medical Journal , she writes that there is a "lack of such a clear-cut 'gold-standard' for COVID-19 testing."

But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, "pragmatically" COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, "may be the best available 'gold standard'." But this is not scientifically sound.

Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].

And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis -- contrary to Watson's statement -- cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.

In addition, "experts" such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.

That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis "may be the best available gold standard," if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn't be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn't answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd : "I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance."

No proof for the RNA being of viral origin

Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.

As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state , particle purification -- i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende -- is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA -- but it cannot determine where these particles came from . That has to be determined beforehand.

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer that question with "yes" -- and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like "No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification" (see below).

We asked several study authors "Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?", they gave the following responses:

Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. "Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health" Nature Medicine , March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: "The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus."

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. "Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19", Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives , February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: "We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells."

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. "Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea", Journal of Korean Medical Science , February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: "We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification."

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., "A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China", 2019, New England Journal of Medicine , February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: "[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones."

Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.

That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term "isolation" in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term "isolation" is misused).

Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.

We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an "impassioned plea to the younger generation" from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction [ ] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint."[3]

And that's why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:

I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one."[4]

This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being "calibrated," belong to a specific virus -- in this case SARS-CoV-2.

In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.

In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch's postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian .

The Tests: The Achilles Heel of the COVID-19 House of Cards

The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.

One example is a study published in Nature on May 7 . This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.

For instance, the alleged "infected" laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. And the slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.

Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies . And let's not forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.

Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 -- the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) -- could answer the following question I have sent them:

If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?

Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can "stress" the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable -- an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983 .

It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany's most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be "accepted" ( not validated! ) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.

But we didn't get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.

Regarding our question "Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?," the Charité concedes that they didn't use purified particles.

And although they claim "virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus," in their paper ( Corman et al. ) they state:

RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),"

Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral .

Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn't even go through a proper peer review process , nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls -- although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.

Irrational rest results

It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.

For example, already in February the health authority in China's Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test "negative," and then tested "positive" again .

A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between "negative", "positive" and "dubious" .

A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from "positive" to "negative" back to "positive" at least once, and up to five times in one patient .

Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are "only 30 to 50 per cent accurate" ; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a l etter to the WHO's coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:

It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases."

In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the "positive" people tested.

This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).

The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly "positive" (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly "negative" (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).

With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.

In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios .

The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.

But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have "a shockingly low" PPV.

In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested "positive" are not "positive" at all . Yet "they are prescribed quarantine," as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically.

In a second scenario of the journal's article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the "positive" tests are false "positives."

That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered "positive" worldwide -- supposing that the true "positives" really have a viral infection -- we would get almost 2 million false "positives."

All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called "SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests" are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

In the "CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel" file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms"


This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens."

And the FDA admits that :

positive results [ ] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease."

Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics[ 5 ].

To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol -- which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol -- and distributed by Roche we can read:

These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection"


For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures."

Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the "viral load"?

There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes .

Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are "qualitative" tests , contrary to the fact that the "q" in "qPCR" stands for "quantitative." And if these tests are not "quantitative" tests, they don't show how many viral particles are in the body .

That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.

That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called "viral load," i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. "But this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal," as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out .

This is not only because the term "viral load" is deception. If you put the question "what is viral load?" at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They're surprised to learn it's actually RNA molecules.

Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is "burdened" with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out (which has not yet happened):

You take, let's say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they're in. The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found. Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick -- or are they fit as a fiddle?

With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. -- the so-called "Drosten PCR test" -- is a quantitative test.

But the Charité was not willing to answer this question "yes". Instead, the Charité wrote:

If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases these are [ ] limited to qualitative detection."

Furthermore, the "Drosten PCR test" uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay , while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay .

According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses , while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled "SARS-CoV-2".

Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as "positive" even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses! ) gives a "positive" result .

This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific .

That change of algorithm increased the "case" numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche , TIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm .

High CQ values make the test results even more meaningless

Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a "cycle quantification" (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the "Drosten PCR test", even have a Cq of 45.

The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.

"Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported," as it says in the MIQE guidelines .

MIQE stands for "Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments", a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.

The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, agreed, when he stated :

If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR."

The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin , Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called "the bible of qPCR."

In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that "the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false "positive" results)."

And, according to him, a Cq of 20 to 30 should be aimed at, and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.

If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.

Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase -- hence the "RT" at the beginning of "PCR" or "qPCR."

But this transformation process is "widely recognized as inefficient and variable," as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper .

Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.

For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10 (see above interview).

Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test's reliable informative value.

So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests -- even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?

Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding.

Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010 .

And experts criticize "that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown" since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is obviously no better off .

Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested "positive" and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.

And a "positive" result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article "Fatal Therapie."

Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the "COVID-19" death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a "positive" test result whose value could not be more doubtful.

Addendum: We thank Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Val Turner in particular who made valuable contributions to the realization of this article.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Torsten Engelbrecht is an award-winning journalist and author from Hamburg, Germany. In 2006 he co-authored Virus-Mania with Dr Klaus Kohnlein, and in 2009 he won the German Alternate Media Award . He has also written for Rubikon, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Financial Times Deutschland and many others.

Konstantin Demeter is a freelance photographer and an independent researcher. Together with the journalist Torsten Engelbrecht he has published articles on the "COVID-19" crisis in the online magazine Rubikon, as well as contributions on the monetary system, geopolitics, and the media in Swiss Italian newspapers.

[Oct 15, 2020] Three scientists give their best advice on how to protect yourself from COVID-19

Notable quotes:
"... COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet) for a prolonged period. ..."
"... "Current data do not support long range aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as seen with measles or tuberculosis. Short-range inhalation of aerosols is a possibility for COVID-19, as with many respiratory pathogens. However, this cannot easily be distinguished from 'droplet' transmission based on epidemiologic patterns. Short-range transmission is a possibility particularly in crowded medical wards and inadequately ventilated spaces ." ..."
"... Kimberly A. Prather, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Atmospheric Chemistry, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego. ..."
"... Linsey C Marr, PhD, Charles P. Lunsford Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech. ..."
"... Donald K Milton, MD, DrPH, Professor of Environment Health at The University of Maryland School of Public Health. ..."
Oct 15, 2020 |

Right now, the CDC website does not acknowledge that aerosols typically spread SARS-CoV-2 beyond 6 feet, instead saying :

" COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet) for a prolonged period. Spread happens when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks, and droplets from their mouth or nose are launched into the air and land in the mouths or noses of people nearby. The droplets can also be inhaled into the lungs."

The site says that respiratory droplets can land on various surfaces, and people can become infected from touching those surfaces and then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. It goes on to say,

"Current data do not support long range aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as seen with measles or tuberculosis. Short-range inhalation of aerosols is a possibility for COVID-19, as with many respiratory pathogens. However, this cannot easily be distinguished from 'droplet' transmission based on epidemiologic patterns. Short-range transmission is a possibility particularly in crowded medical wards and inadequately ventilated spaces ."

Confusion has surrounded the use of words like "aerosols" and "droplets" because they have not been consistently defined. And the word "airborne" takes on special meaning for infectious disease experts and public health officials because of the question of whether infection can be readily spread by "airborne transmission." If SARS-CoV-2 is readily spread by airborne transmission, then more stringent infection control measures would need to be adopted, as is done with airborne diseases such as measles and tuberculosis. But the CDC has told CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jonathan LaPook that even if airborne spread is playing a role with SARS-CoV-2, the role does not appear to be nearly as important as with airborne infections like measles and tuberculosis.

All this may sound like wonky scientific discussion that is deep in the weeds -- and it is -- but it has big implications as people try to figure out how to stay safe during the pandemic. Some pieces of advice are intuitively obvious: wear a mask, wash your hands, avoid crowds, keep your distance from others, outdoors is safer than indoors. But what about that "6 foot" rule for maintaining social distance? If the virus can travel indoors for distances greater than 6 feet, isn't it logical to wear a mask indoors whenever you are with people who are not part of your "pod" or "bubble?"

Understanding the basic science behind how SARS-CoV-2 travels through the air should help give us strategies for staying safe. Unfortunately, there are still many open questions. For example, even if aerosols produced by an infected person can float across a room, and even if the aerosols contain some viable virus, how do we know how significant a role that possible mode of transmission is playing in the pandemic?

Aerosols can be thought of as cigarette smoke. While they are most concentrated close to someone who has the infection, they can travel farther than 6 feet, linger, build up in the air and remain infectious for hours. As a consequence, to lessen the chance of inhaling this virus, it is vital to take all of the following steps:



Whether you are indoors or outdoors, remember that your risk increases with the duration of your exposure to others.

With the question of transmission, it's not just the public that has been confused. There's also been confusion among scientists, medical professionals and public health officials, in part because they have often used the words "droplets" and "aerosols" differently. To address the confusion, participants in an August workshop on airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine suggested these definitions for respiratory droplets and aerosols::

All respiratory activities, including breathing, talking and singing, produce far more aerosols than droplets. A person is far more likely to inhale aerosols than to be sprayed by a droplet, even at short range. The exact percentage of transmission by droplets versus aerosols is still to be determined. But we know from epidemiologic and other data, especially superspreading events , that infection does occur through inhalation of aerosols.

In short, how are we getting infected by SARS-CoV-2? The answer is: In the air. Once we acknowledge this, we can use tools we already have to help end this pandemic.

Kimberly A. Prather, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Atmospheric Chemistry, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.

Linsey C Marr, PhD, Charles P. Lunsford Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech.

Donald K Milton, MD, DrPH, Professor of Environment Health at The University of Maryland School of Public Health.

[Oct 06, 2020] 'False' positive Covid-19 tests saw non-contagious people counted as fresh infections triggered 2nd wave alarm Belgian media -- RT World News

Oct 06, 2020 |

'False' positive Covid-19 tests saw non-contagious people counted as fresh infections & triggered 2nd wave alarm – Belgian media 5 Oct, 2020 15:36 / Updated 2 hours ago Get short URL 'False' positive Covid-19 tests saw non-contagious people counted as fresh infections & triggered 2nd wave alarm – Belgian media FILE PHOTO © Global Look Press / Frank Hoermann / SVEN SIMON 66 Follow RT on RT Over a half of coronavirus infections revealed this summer by one of Belgium's biggest labs were old and no longer contagious, but were still reported as new cases, local media discovered.

Belgian daily newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws examined the tests carried out by AZ Delta, one of the largest labs in the country, and made a stunning discovery. Almost half of all positive cases reported throughout June, July and August were actually people with an old infection.

The problem, it turns out, lies in the PCR Covid-19 tests. The paper reports that scientific data reveals virus particles can be detected up to 83 days after the actual infection. This led to instances where people were no longer contagious, but were still registered as positive cases. According to HLN, all of these people had to be quarantined.

Belgian experts sounded the alarm in mid-July, when coronavirus numbers spiked after a relief in June, and even insisted that the second wave had already begun for the country.

"We may have had to deal with old infections largely in the summer months," the lab's clinical biologist Frederik Van Hoecke told the paper.

ALSO ON RT.COM Paris to shutter bars for 2 weeks as French capital placed on Covid-19 high alert

The revelation comes as countries look to reintroduce restrictions to curb the spread of the virus.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

[Oct 03, 2020] Following PCR-confirmation of the President's diagnosis, as a precautionary measure he received a single 8 gram dose of Regeneron's polyclonal antibody cocktail

Oct 03, 2020 |

vk , Oct 2 2020 23:09 utc | 145

It's confirmed: Trump won't be treated with hydroxycloroquine:

Physician to the President: Health Update on President Donald J. Trump, Oct. 2, 2020

"Following PCR-confirmation of the President's diagnosis, as a precautionary measure he received a single 8 gram dose of Regeneron's polyclonal antibody cocktail . He completed the infusion without incident. In addition to the polyclonal antibodies, the President has been taking zinc, vitamin D, famotidine, melatonin and a daily aspirin."

When the cookie crumbled, no hydroxycloroquine was taken - even in a case of of initial phase of the disease. It is below even a single aspirin in the COVID-19's treatment food chain (which is being ministered, among other supplements, just to keep Trump's body strong while the main drug takes effect, as is normal to old patients).

On the bright side, at least we know the name of the real deal: Regeneron.

[Sep 28, 2020] No wonder Pompey and his friend Jeffries won't give up on Syria! No wonder

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it. ..."
Sep 28, 2020 |

"Western government-funded intelligence cutouts trained Syrian opposition leaders, planted stories in media outlets from BBC to Al Jazeera, and ran a cadre of journalists. A trove of leaked documents exposes the propaganda network."

"Leaked documents show how UK government contractors developed an advanced infrastructure of propaganda to stimulate support in the West for Syria's political and armed opposition.

Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it.

The leaked files reveal how Western intelligence cutouts played the media like a fiddle, carefully crafting English- and Arabic-language media coverage of the war on Syria to churn out a constant stream of pro-opposition coverage.

US and European contractors trained and advised Syrian opposition leaders at all levels, from young media activists to the heads of the parallel government-in-exile . These firms also organized interviews for Syrian opposition leaders on mainstream outlets such as BBC and the UK's Channel 4.

More than half of the stringers used by Al Jazeera in Syria were trained in a joint US-UK government program called Basma, which produced hundreds of Syrian opposition media activists.

Western government PR firms not only influenced the way the media covered Syria, but as the leaked documents reveal, they produced their own propagandistic pseudo-news for broadcast on major TV networks in the Middle East, including BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Orient TV .

These UK-funded firms functioned as full-time PR flacks for the extremist-dominated Syrian armed opposition. One contractor, called InCoStrat, said it was in constant contact with a network of more than 1,600 international journalists and "influencers," and used them to push pro-opposition talking points.

Another Western government contractor, ARK, crafted a strategy to "re-brand" Syria's Salafi-jihadist armed opposition by "softening its image ." ARK boasted that it provided opposition propaganda that "aired almost every day on" major Arabic-language TV networks."

"The Western contractor ARK was a central force in launching the White Helmets operation.

The leaked documents show ARK ran the Twitter and Facebook pages of Syria Civil Defense, known more commonly as the White Helmets.

ARK took credit for developing "an internationally-focused communications campaign designed to raise global awareness of the (White Helmets) teams and their life saving work."

ARK also facilitated communications between the White Helmets and The Syria Campaign , a PR firm run out of London and New York that helped popularize the White Helmets in the United States.

It was apparently "following subsequent discussions with ARK and the teams" that The Syria Campaign "selected civil defence to front its campaign to keep Syria in the news," the firm wrote in a report for the UK Foreign Office." thegreyzone


Using really basic intelligence analytic tools; Occam's Razor, Walks like a duck, Smileyesque back azimuth's, etc. it has been clear that the UK government has been deeply involved in sponsoring and influencing the Syrian/ jihadi opposition in that miserable country. The wide spread British Old Boys network of aspirants to the tradition of imperial manipulation has been visible just below the surface if you had eyes to look and a brain to think.

A lot of the money for this folly came right out of USAID.


ISL , 27 September 2020 at 04:03 PM

Dear Colonel agreed.

I object to the line in the article that they "played the media like a fiddle" - as it implies the mainstream media is a victim as opposed to willing accomplice.

The American public very strongly told Obama they didn't want another invasion and war in the middle east (red lines or not) so rather ineffective propaganda.

Moreover, I suspect that given the US public inattention to overseas events that do not involve much US blood (in places they can not find on a map). Today's mess would be where more or less the same if the entire IO had never happened - though maybe with less cynicism of US/UK gov'ts and media.

OTH, it is curious how well the British Old Boys network (and US) aligns with Israeli interests (and runs counter to US or British interests). Maybe grayzone will investigate that (impressive) IO campaign. I think a small country in the middle east played US and UK elites like a fiddle.

The Twisted Genius , 27 September 2020 at 04:48 PM

I've only given this article a cursory reading so far and it is clear that the Brits are going balls to the wall on the PSYOPS/perception management front. This campaign flows naturally from the strong material support for the Syrian "moderate rebels" provided by the US, the Brits and probably others for years. We may still be blowing up IS jihadis, but we're also supporting our own brand of jihadis around Al-Tanf, giving free hand to Erdogan's jihadis along the Turkish-Syrian border and doing our best to stymie R+6 efforts to crush the remaining jihadis and unite Syria.

The article focuses on the contractors role in PSYOP. I'm not sure if it mentions the British government's role in this. The GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) probably manages most of those contractors. The British Army also has the 77th Brigade. This brigade's slogan is: "behavioural change is our unique selling point". Gordon MacMillan, a reserve officer with the 77th Brigade, is now Twitter's head of editorial operations for the Middle East.
The 77th was formed in 2015 and subsumed the 15th Psychological Operations Group which was headed by Steve Tathan, who went on to head the defence division of SCL, the now defunct parent of Cambridge Analytica. I'm sure the 77th is capable of managing some of those contractors, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of contractors were also reservists in the 77th.

I bet we're not letting the Brits have all the fun. The CIA Special Activities Center (formerly SAD) includes the Political Action Group for PSYOP, economic warfare and cyberwarfare. That dovetails nicely with what CENTCOM is doing in Syria. I knew some of those guys a while back. I remember scaring them with some of my own anarchist hacker rantings when I was penetrating those hackers.

Our Army has fours PSYOP groups brigade-sized), two active and 2 reserve. I would think they have advanced their methodology since I took the course at Bragg. For a few years, they were called military information support operations (MISO) groups rather than PSYOP groups. They have since reverted to their PSYOP name although their activities are referred to as MISO. I don't know what the difference is.

Babak makkinejad , 27 September 2020 at 05:10 PM


No, no, no.

There is no such small country as you describe in the Near East.

There is an self-disciplined proxy force masquerading as a state which is mostly funded by the United States to further the religious policies of the WASP Culture Continent.

It is no accident that in this context, the names of US and UK occur often in the same sentences; one declared a crusade to wrestle control of Plastine from Muslims, and the otber one carried out that crusade and escalated it.

That is also the reason that US cannot end the war over Palestine or leave Islamdom

(Oil, Geostrategic considerations, arms sales, Realpolitik are just pseudo-rationications to obscure the real war.)

Diana Croissant , 28 September 2020 at 07:45 AM

Where is Candide (aka Voltaire) when we need him?

BABAK MAKKINEJAD , 28 September 2020 at 09:14 AM

Ishmael Zechariah

How WASP-dom has arrived in this crusade is not, in my opinion, as significant as that it has been waging it for more than a hundred years.

fakebot , 28 September 2020 at 10:43 AM

"WASP Culture" is into golfing, not crusading. Erik Prince and the religious fundamentalists, maybe, but they don't drive US policy.

Russia and/or Chinese dominion over Eurasia cannot be permitted. Their means to achieve that would be less ethical, not that the US or UK have been prince among men and salts of the earth, as noted in the article.

The US has tried in vain to win over hearts and minds. It has been a mostly noble effort to bring countries like Iraq and Afghanistan into the 21st century, but it was always more of a losing game. The problem lies too much in Islam and tribal rivalries.

[Sep 28, 2020] Truth be told: political operatives own and run our MSM. This is why the press is called the 'Fourth Estate'

Highly recommended!
Aug 21, 2020 |
Ragno says: August 21, 2020 at 4:16 pm GMT 800 Words ⇑ @mark green

Truth be told: political operatives own and run our MSM. This is why the press is called the 'Fourth Estate'.

They are more correctly described as a Fifth Column , one far more open and sworn to destroy our country and its foundational citizens – and taxpayers – as any that ever operated during World War II. You would think this would be of vital interest to people who loudly declare themselves to be "Nazi-punchers", but who time and again show themselves to be merely low-level street terrorists informed and inspired by Mao's Red Guard and the irredeemable thugs of the African National Congress.

One wonders what's preventing them from mimicking the Red Terror waged by the leftists of Spain, when the battle for "freedom" involved the disinterment of the graves of Catholic clergy to better pose the corpses in blasphemous positions. Imagine how depraved those Mostly Peaceful protesters had to have been for even a leftist-supporting site such as Wikipedia to baldly state

The violence consisted of the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832 Roman Catholic priests, the vast majority in the summer of 1936 in the wake of the military coup), attacks on the Spanish nobility, industrialists, and conservative politicians, as well as the desecration and burning of monasteries and churches.

Directly in the crosshairs this time are small and medium-sized owner-operated businesses – the true backbone of American freedom and prosperity – who have largely been sacrificed in exchange for the knock-kneed offerings of Danegeld from our giant conglomerates, all of whom have prospered immensely from the suffering and privation brought on by the Democratic lockdown of society – and the total shutdown of our economy.

Think! – have you read a single article charting how the government war on small business directly enriched and world's richest autocrat, Jeff Bezos? . who then funnels his windfall into a newspaper that blatantly pimps for the Democratic Party, which translates into a vast payday for the DNC, not least from its newly-approved partnership with the shadowy and many-tentacled Soros-surrogate group, BLM?

The result is what you'd expect when a fringe group operates with the full cooperation and partnership of major industry and both political parties (don't confuse Trump with a standard-issue Republican, please – he may have terrible flaws, but that isn't one of them) – 10% of the population holding the other 90% in a chokehold with only one set of rules: no arrest and prosecution for Bolshevik violence and terror ..but the zero-tolerance heavy hand of corrupt Leviathan coming down hard against any and all citizens who fight back or, eventually – inevitably – who even struggle against their restraints.

Short of the sudden arrival of celestial horsemen to punish the guilty and reward the set-upon, it has become clear that the only answer is the one that the Powers That Be claim to be dead set against: racial separatism. (Particularly when we consider that all that will be necessary to turn America into Hell on earth will be the adoption of Ibram Kendi's First Law, sometimes known as equality of outcome :

To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals.

Could any "amendment" be more terrifyingly totalitarian than this?)

White and black separation would, instead, accomplish two goals, both more important than Kendi's quick fix: we would learn soon enough about actual equality of outcomes (which is why no Communist, black or white, wants anything to do with the creation of one more failed basket-case black state), and much more importantly, white families can sleep secure in their beds at night, without worrying about Apache raids at midnight, egged on and recorded for "posterity" by that Fourth Estate/Fifth Column referred to up top. Because the fact of the matter is that, even should some combination of government and law-enforcement halt the burning and looting of America – as things stand now, none of the worst malefactors will ever see the inside of a prison cell .which means any ceasefire will only be temporary, to be violently ripped asunder the moment they sense white Americans have at last lowered their guard once more. And living in perpetual paranoid readiness for violent uprisings and mindless destruction is no way to live at all.

Trump has it half right, a border wall is the answer: only it needs to run lengthwise , between the Southern and Northern borders. If we don't use the next four years to plan out such a separation, fretting over our children's children will be a fruitless exercise – those who aren't murdered will be captured and 'go native' .and in case you haven't looked at a globe lately, there's no place left to run.

Majority of One , says: August 21, 2020 at 4:33 pm GMT


As a recovering journalist, I can point out that even on a rinkydink rag in a small city, where I got fired for being a real journalist back in the early '70's; he who owns the presses and distribution networks calls the tune. It's a matter of working-class (no matter how middle-class your income or social-status) versus the ownership class. The latter wins every time.

[Sep 25, 2020] Blood type may affect COVID-19 outcomes, study shows - TMC News

Sep 25, 2020 |

Blood type may affect COVID-19 outcomes, study shows 3 MINUTE READ

Blood type may play a key role in determining who contracts COVID-19 and how severe the illness becomes, according to a recent report published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

Researchers studied 1,610 COVID-19 positive patients with respiratory failure.

"Our genetic data confirm that blood group O is associated with a risk of acquiring Covid-19 that was lower than that in non-O blood groups, whereas blood group A was associated with a higher risk than non-A blood groups," researchers concluded.

Looking for the latest on the CORONAVIRUS? Read our daily updates HERE .

Study participants were spread throughout seven hospitals in the Italian and Spanish epicenters of the pandemic and each were defined as having "severe" respiratory disease; those patients were compared to approximately 2,000 healthy individuals.

Based on the early data and despite the relatively small sample size, the study corroborates other reports, including one from Wuhan, China, where the SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak originated.

Yet inherent limitations of the NEJM study mean it's too soon to definitively link blood type to COVID-19 outcomes.

"I do believe there is likely a connection, and the question is: What does this word 'outcome' mean?" said Ang Li, M.D., an assistant professor of hematology and oncology at Baylor College of Medicine . "The cases are not a study of all COVID patients versus all non-COVID patients, and it's not a study of all severe COVID patients versus all non-severe COVID patients. It's comparing the severe COVID patients versus everyone else without COVID. So, it's hard to know if it's an increased susceptibility to infection or a severity question."

Still, Li said, the data suggests that a connection may exist. If it holds, he said, the conclusion would follow results from a 2005 study published in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) examining SARS-CoV-1 -- the "original" SARS virus that created an outbreak in 2003. That study also found an association between ABO blood groups and disease susceptibility, with individuals with Type O less susceptible to that virus, as well.

Scientists do not know exactly why blood type could influence a person's susceptibility to these viruses, but authors of the NEJM paper suggest that variations in biologic mechanisms in ABO blood groups may play a role, specifically in their immune response.

"We have different antibody profiles based on our ABO blood type," Li said. "Also, there are some theories about how some of these ABO genes, based on the protein they're encoding, might affect some of the receptors where the virus binds and can alter how someone becomes more or less susceptible to the virus."

A person's blood type is determined by the presence or absence of specific antigens -- A and B -- which are molecules on red blood cells that trigger an immune response. A person with Type A blood has the A antigen on red cells and a B antibody on their plasma; a person with Type B has the B antigen on red cells and A antibodies on their plasma. Individuals with Type AB have both A and B antigens on their red cells, but neither on their plasma, and those with Type O have neither A nor B antigens on their red cells, but both antibodies are present on their plasma.

One theory is that because the immune systems of people with Type O blood already have antibodies for both A and B, their bodies are more equipped to identify foreign proteins -- including those on the surface of viruses.

"There are potentially some changes in the immunogenicity in the human host based on the ABO typing," Li said.

Some of the conditions observed in COVID-19 patients -- including blood clots, strokes and thromboembolisms -- may also vary in severity based on blood type, adding another possible explanation, Li added.

"In the ABO blood group, there is evidence that there is increased susceptibility in Type A versus Type O for increased risk for venous thromboembolism, such as pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis," Li said. "That has been confirmed in multiple different studies."

In addition to finding a potential link between blood type and COVID-19 severity, authors of the NEJM paper detected a cluster of six genes with potential relation to COVID-19 severity, as well. The authors reiterated that further study was necessary for both connections, writing that the "pragmatic aspects leading to the feasibility of this massive undertaking in a very short period of time during the extreme clinical circumstances of the pandemic imposed limitations that will be important to explore in follow-up studies."

[Sep 25, 2020] Coronavirus- People with blood type O at less risk from Covid-19, research shows - The Independent - The Independent

Sep 25, 2020 |

People with blood type O appear to have a greater form of protection against coronavirus compared to those with other blood types, early data produced by a US genomics firm suggests.

More than 750,000 individuals have so far participated in an ongoing study conducted by 23andMe, the California-based company best known for direct-to-consumer genetic testing, which is examining the genetic make-up of SARS-CoV-2.

The preliminary data, which has not been peer-reviewed, shows that people with type O blood were on average 14 per cent less likely than other blood types to get Covid-19 and 19 per cent less likely to be hospitalised, after accounting for age, sex, ethnicity and co-morbidities.

These findings reflect similar results from other studies that have shown people with type O blood seem to report fewer incidents of infection and severe illness.

Among respondents to the 23andMe survey, the proportion of respondents reporting a positive test for Covid-19 was highest among those with the AB blood type.

Read more How to help the elderly and vulnerable during the coronavirus How to help the elderly and vulnerable during the coronavirus How to feel less anxious about the coronavirus How to feel less anxious about the coronavirus How to be productive when working from home during coronavirus How to be productive when working from home during coronavirus Which countries around the world has coronavirus spread to? Which countries around the world has coronavirus spread to? The dirty truth about washing your hands The dirty truth about washing your hands The company is still recruiting for its study, and is currently seeking 10,000 participants who have been diagnosed and hospitalised with Covid-19.

In March, researchers at the Zhongnan Hospital at Wuhan University examined blood group patterns of 2,173 people who had been diagnosed with the disease and found patients with blood type A had a "significantly higher" rate of infection.

Lead researcher Wang Xinghuan said people with blood type A may need "particularly strengthened personal protection" to keep their chances of infection lower, and infected patients with that specific blood type may need "more vigilant surveillance and aggressive treatment".

✕ More recently, Italian and Spanish scientists noted that the gene region which codes for blood type is associated with elevated levels of key immune molecules.

In their study, which was published earlier this month, DNA samples were extracted from 1,980 patients in hotspot sites such as Milan and Barcelona who were hospitalised for respiratory failure. Their analysis showed a higher risk for A-positive individuals and a protective element among blood type O.

Research conducted into the 2002 SARS epidemic supports the O blood type protection theory for the two coronaviruses.

Scientists at a Hong Kong hospital analysed an infected patient who came into contact with 45 healthcare workers. Of 18 people with type blood O, eight became infected (44 per cent), compared to the other 27 people having other blood types, of whom 23 contracted the virus (85 per cent, or almost twice as much).

Blood type can influence blood clotting – one of the pathologies seen among seriously ill Covid-19 patients. People with type O blood have lower levels of proteins that promote blood clotting.

[Sep 25, 2020] Relationship between the ABO Blood Group and the COVID-19 Susceptibility

Sep 25, 2020 |

To explore any relationship between the ABO blood group and the COVID-19 susceptibility, we compared ABO blood group distributions in 2,173 COVID-19 patients with local control populations, and found that blood group A was associated with an increased risk of infection, whereas group O was associated with a decreased risk.

[Sep 25, 2020] The effects of blood group types on the risk of COVID-19 infection and its clinical outcome - PubMed

Sep 25, 2020 |

Results: The most frequently detected blood group was blood group A (57%) amongst the COVID-19 patients. This was followed by the blood group O (24.8%). The blood group types did not affect the clinical outcomes. Blood group A was statistically significantly more frequent among those infected with COVID-19 compared to controls (57% vs 38%, p <0.001; OR: 2.1). On the other hand, the frequency of blood group O was significantly lower in the COVID-19 patients, compared to the control group (24.8% vs 37.2%, p: 0.001; OR: 1.8).

Conclusions: The results of the present study suggest that while the blood group A might have a role in increased susceptibility to the COVID-19 infection, the blood group O might be somewhat protective. However, once infected, blood group type does not seem to influence clinical outcome.

[Sep 24, 2020] What to know before getting a COVID-19 antibody test by Keith Zubrow

Jun 28, 2020 |

In March, as the United States faced a shortage of COVID-19 diagnostic tests to determine who was currently infected with the virus, the Food and Drug Administration began allowing antibody tests into the country without FDA review or formal clearance.

A COVID-19 molecular diagnostic test, sometimes referred to as a virology test, is often conducted through a nasal or throat swab. It is designed to detect if you presently have the COVID-19 virus.

A COVID-19 antibody test, or serology test, usually involves a blood sample and determines the presence of antibodies, which may signal that you previously had the viral infection.

"The two different types of tests give us complementary information about the pandemic," said Dr. Alex Marson, an infectious disease specialist and the director of the Gladstone UCSF Institute for Genomic Immunology. "The one tells us about who's actively infected. The other tells us who has been infected."

Dr. Marson and Dr. Patrick Hsu, an assistant professor of bioengineering at the University of California, Berkeley both told 60 Minutes it is presently unknown if a positive antibody test means protection from future infection.

"We do not know if a positive antibody test means that you have protective immunity," said Dr. Hsu. "It will certainly mean that in some cases, but how much, and for how long, and how many times? We do not yet know. People should not assume that, if you have a positive antibody test that you're immune, [that] you don't need to wear a mask, and [that] you don't need to socially distance."

A small sample size study from China published on June 18 in Nature Medicine found antibodies could fade in as soon as two to three months after the time of infection.

Both Dr. Marson and Dr. Hsu were interviewed by 60 Minutes correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi as part of a three-month investigation into the accuracy of antibody tests available in the U.S. The physicians assembled a team of scientists to study the accuracy of COVID-19 antibody tests in early March.

The accuracy of antibody tests are measured by their sensitivity and specificity. The sensitivity refers to a test's ability to determine if someone has COVID-19 antibodies present in his or her body. The specificity refers to a test's ability to distinguish who does not have COVID-19 antibodies.

In the early months of the pandemic, hundreds of companies from around the world were selling antibody tests in the U.S. with varying levels of accuracy.

In May, the FDA amended its policy and began requiring developers of antibody tests to apply for emergency authorization and submit data to prove their tests work. The FBI warns the policy change has not stopped scammers from trying to infiltrate the U.S. market with fraudulent or inferior quality tests.

The FDA also teamed with the other government agencies including the National Institutes of Health to track the accuracy of some antibody tests and on June 18 published performance results for 21 of them.

The FDA's list includes both rapid serology tests that are often processed on-location and tests that require blood samples be sent to a laboratory.


"I will say that the best tests, especially tests where blood samples are being sent off to labs, seem to have responsible test performance characteristics," Dr. Marson told Alfonsi. "Does that mean that they're perfect? No"

The FDA says the prevalence of COVID-19 in a specific area and amongst different groups of people will factor into the likelihood of false positive or false negative results.

"I think when you ever get a positive test, it's important to undergo confirmatory testing, whether with a different antibody test, or an independent test that looks for a different viral antigen, or a different antibody isotype," Dr. Hsu told 60 Minutes. "This will be a way that we can guard against false positives. The statistical likelihood that you would test false positive twice is generally quite unlikely if you use independent tests."

Getting multiple independent tests might be more difficult than it sounds.

Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp are two of the largest laboratory testing providers in the U.S. They have collectively processed more than 3.5 million COVID-19 serology tests.

Quest told 60 Minutes it presently offers antibody tests manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, EUROIMMUN AG, and Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. LabCorp said it currently uses serology tests made by Abbott and Roche.

Both lab companies told 60 Minutes they do not allow patients to choose which antibody test is used ahead of a sample being processed.

Quest said the testing platform used to process a sample depends on a lab's volume and capacity. The company said it can run 200,000 serology tests per day and has conducted 2.1 million since April.

LabCorp said it began serology testing on a limited basis in March and now has the ability to run 300,000 samples a day. It does not disclose the daily volume of antibody testing, but told 60 Minutes it has processed approximately 1.4 million tests so far.

As of June 27, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 32 million tests have been processed in the U.S. with a positivity rate of 9%. The CDC declined to tell 60 Minutes the specific sources of its aggregated data. A spokesperson told 60 Minutes the 32 million tests include both viral and antibody test results. The CDC also says not all test results are reported to them.

A Government Accountability Office report released on June 25, 2020 says the watchdog agency found that the CDC has made mistakes in its collection of data about COVID-19 testing. It says the CDC was gathering data about testing that combined antibody tests with diagnostic tests in their overall testing numbers, a practice that has been criticized by scientists as mixing apples and oranges.

The CDC made an effort to correct this practice and advise states to separate virology and serology test results, but the overall testing numbers from prior to June may still be inaccurate. Given the problems with accuracy of some antibody tests, it is also unclear whether all antibody positives should be considered true positives.

The video above was produced by Keith Zubrow and Sarah Shafer Prediger. It was edited by Sarah Shafer Prediger.

[Sep 24, 2020] COVID-19 antibodies may last for at least 4 months, Icelandic study suggests by Akshay Syal

Sep 24, 2020 |

Sept. 1, 2020

People may have antibodies for at least four months after they get COVID-19, a study published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests.

The study pulled from a massive dataset from Iceland, looking for the presence of antibodies in more than 30,000 blood samples. The samples came from three groups of people: those with confirmed COVID-19 cases, those who had been exposed to the virus but weren't necessarily infected, and those who had no known exposure.

The researchers focused on a small subset of 487 people who had had more than one antibody test, which allowed researchers to see whether antibody levels remained stable or faded over time. In this group, the researchers found, antibody levels increased in the first two months after diagnosis and remained stable for the next two months.

Stefánsson said the study detected antibodies in a significant number of people who had been asymptomatic and were never tested for COVID-19.

Not everyone developed antibodies after infection, the authors wrote, suggesting that some people might have weaker immune responses to the virus. It's possible, however, that those people had false positive diagnostic tests and were never sick in the first place.

The researchers noted several other interesting trends. Antibody levels were higher in older patients and in those with more severe disease. Women also had lower antibody levels compared to men, and smokers had lower antibody levels than nonsmokers.

"What they're seeing here is that they're inducing a pretty strong immune response," said Jason Kindrachuk, an assistant professor of medical microbiology & infectious diseases at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg.

But while the data suggest that antibody levels remain stable for at least four months, questions remain.

"What we don't know is really the million-dollar question: How do these antibodies reflect immunity against this virus and inhibition of this virus," said Kindrachuk, who wasn't involved with the research. "Just because you see antibodies being produced, it doesn't tell you that those antibodies are going to act specifically against the virus."

In other words, it's unclear whether the antibodies will protect people from being reinfected.

Confirmed cases of people being reinfected with the coronavirus are exceedingly rare. Last week, it was reported that four people were reinfected, the only such instances out of more than 25 million cases worldwide.

In August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed its quarantine guidelines, saying people with confirmed COVID-19 didn't need to be tested again for three months if they didn't develop any symptoms.

The study isn't the first to show that antibodies can stick around for some time after infection.

The data in the new study are in line with those in a July preprint article showing that antibody levels were stable for at least three months in patients who had recovered from the virus in New York City, said Elitza Theel, director of the infectious diseases serology laboratory at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

[Sep 24, 2020] If the PCR Test Is Unreliable - Why Are Health Officials Demanding the Public Be Tested-

Sep 24, 2020 |



In the months since the COVID-19 panic began health authorities around the world have told the public to "get tested" to help track the spread of SARS-CoV-2. However, as fear and hysteria subside, the scientific community and public at large are calling into question the efficacy of the test used to determine a patients status. This article is a brief examination of the evidence that the PCR test is unreliable and should not be used as a determinant for the number of COVID-19 cases or as a factor in political decisions.


On August 31, I attended a press conference in Houston to ask the Mayor and Houston Health Authority about reports regarding problems with the Texas Department of State Health Services' numbers on COVID-19 cases. TLAV has previously reported on these concerns with the COVID-19 case numbers in Texas. I also had a chance to ask Houston Health Authority Dr. David Persse about concerns around the test used to detect COVID-19.

The most common test is a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) lab test. This incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. The test is designed to detect the presence of a virus by amplifying the virus' genetic material so it can be detected by scientists. The test is viewed as the gold standard, however, it is not without problems.

The PCR test uses chemicals to amplify the virus's genetic material and then each sample goes through a number of cycles until a virus is recovered. This "cycle threshold" has become a key component in the debate around the efficacy of the PCR test.

Dr. Persse says that when the labs report numbers of COVID-19 cases to the City of Houston they only offer a binary option of "yes" for positive or "no" for negative. "But, in reality, it comes in what is called cycle-thresholds. It's an inverse relationship, so the higher the number the less virus there was in the initial sample," Persse explained. "Some labs will report out to 40 cycle-thresholds, and if they get a positive at 40 – which means there is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of virus there – that gets reported to us as positive and we don't know any different."

Persse noted that the key question is, at what value is someone considered still infectious?

"Because if you test me and I have a tiny amount of virus, does that mean I am contagious? that I am still infectious to someone else? If you are shedding a little bit of virus are you just starting? or are you on the downside?," Dr. Persse asked in the lobby of Houston City Hall. He believes the answer is for the scientific community to set a national standard for cycle-threshold.

Unfortunately, a national standard would not solve the problems expressed by Dr. Persse and others.


In the first weeks of September a number of important revelations regarding the PCR test have come to light. First, new research from the University of Oxford's Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England found that the PCR test poses the potential for false positives when testing for COVID-19. Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study, Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment – a systematic review , said there was a risk that an increase in testing in the UK will lead to an increase in the risk of "sample contamination" and thus an increase in COVID-19 cases.

The team reviewed evidence from 25 studies where virus specimens had positive PCR tests. The researchers state that the "genetic photocopying" technique scientists use to magnify the sample of genetic material collected is so sensitive it could be picking up fragments of dead virus from previous infections. The researchers reach a similar conclusion as Dr. David Persse, namely that, "A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health."

Heneghan, who is also the the editor of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, told the BBC that the binary approach is a problem and tests should have a cut-off point so small amounts of virus do not lead to a positive result. This is because of the cycle threshold mentioned by Dr. Persse. A person who is shedding an active virus and someone who has leftover infection could both receive the same positive test result. He also stated that the test could be detecting old virus which would explain the rise in cases in the UK. Heneghan also stated that setting a standard for the cycle threshold would eliminate the quarantining and contact tracing of people who are healthy and help the public better understand the true nature of COVID-19.

The UK's leading health agency, Public Health England, released an update on the testing methods used to detect COVID-19 and appeared to agree with Professor Heneghan regarding the concerns on the cycle threshold. On September 9, PHE released an update which concluded, "all laboratories should determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of detection."

This is not the first time Heneghan's work has directly impacted the UK's COVID-19 policies. In July, UK health secretary Matt Hancock called for an "urgent review" of the daily COVID-19 death numbers produced by Public Health England after it was revealed the stats included people who died from other causes. The Guardian reported:

"The oddity was revealed in a paper by Yoon K Loke and Carl Heneghan of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, called " Why no one can ever recover from Covid-19 in England – a statistical anomaly ".

Their analysis suggests PHE cross-checks the latest notifications of deaths against a database of positive test results – so that anyone who has ever tested positive is recorded in the COVID-19 death statistics.

A Department of Health and Social Care source said: 'You could have been tested positive in February, have no symptoms, then hit by a bus in July and you'd be recorded as a COVID death.'"

Only days after Hancock called for the review of PHE data, the UK government put an immediate halt to its daily update of death numbers from COVID-19.

On September 8, Heneghan tweeted out another study on the limitations of the PCR test. The study, "SARS-CoV-2 Testing: The Limit of Detection Matters" , examines the limit of detection (LoD) for RNA. The researchers note similar problems with the PCR test and the cycle threshold, concluding, "the ultimate lesson from these studies bears repetition: LoD matters and directly impacts efforts to identify, control, and contain outbreaks during this pandemic."

Heneghan also recently told the BMJ , "one issue in trying to interpret numbers of detected cases is that there is no set definition of a case. At the moment it seems that a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result is the only criterion required for a case to be recognised."

"In any other disease we would have a clearly defined specification that would usually involve signs, symptoms, and a test result," Heneghan explained. "We are moving into a biotech world where the norms of clinical reasoning are going out of the window. A PCR test does not equal covid-19; it should not, but in some definitions it does."

Heneghan says he is concerned that as soon as there is the appearance of an outbreak there is panic and over-reacting. "This is a huge problem because politicians are operating in a non-evidence-based way when it comes to non-drug interventions," he stated.


A recent report from NPR outlines the dangers of false positives with the PCR tests. Andrew Cohen, director of the Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions, was hired by the state of California to study an invasion of non-native mussels. The researchers took water samples and used a PCR test to search for genetic material from the mussels. After the tests came back overwhelmingly positive, Cohen grew suspicious.

"I began to realize that many of these -- if not all of these -- were false positives, especially when they started being reported in waters that had chemistry that would not allow the mussels to reproduce and establish themselves," he told NPR. NPR notes that, depending on the lab, there was a 2 to 8 percent false positive rate.

Once COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, Cohen said he began asking if the reports of people with absolutely no symptoms and positive PCR test results could be false positives. "I began wondering whether these asymptomatic carriers weren't in large part or in whole part the human counterparts of those false-positive results of quagga and zebra mussels in all those water bodies across the West," he said.

Cohen emphasized the importance of researchers taking potential false positive PCR results seriously. "As near as we can tell, the medical establishment and public health authorities and researchers appear to be assuming that the false-positive rate in in the PCR based test is zero, or at least so low that we can ignore it."

Cohen is correct that the scientific authorities need to take false positives seriously, especially when a person can be sent to isolate or quarantine for weeks due to a positive test result. Even the U.S. FDA's own fact sheet on testing acknowledges the dangers posed by false positives:

"The CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive test results. However, in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for isolation of the patient, monitoring of household or other close contacts for symptoms, patient isolation that might limit contact with family or friends and may increase contact with other potentially COVID-19 patients, limits in the ability to work, the delayed diagnosis and treatment for the true infection causing the symptoms, unnecessary prescription of a treatment or therapy, or other unintended adverse effects."

A CDC fact sheet also acknowledges the possibility of false positives with the PCR test.

Professor Heneghan believes the confusion around COVID-19 has come as a result of a shift away from "evidence-based medicine." In a recent opinion piece published at The Spectator , Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, wrote that patients have become a "prisoner of a system labelling him or her as 'positive' when we are not sure what that label means." The two scientists offer this conclusion and warning:

Governments are producing a series of contradictory and confusing policies which have a brief shelf life as the next crisis emerges. It is increasingly clear the evidence is often ignored. Keeping up to date is a full time occupation, and the advances of the last 30 years have at best been put on hold.

The duties of a good doctor include working in partnership with patients to inform them about what they want or need in a way they can understand, and respecting their rights to reach decisions with you about their treatment and care. Questions need to be asked as to how this will occur if you don't see your doctor, particularly if all you have to do is queue in at a drive in to get your answer.

And ultimately what is a 'good test'? We think it's the test which helps your doctor narrow the uncertainty around the origins and management of your problem.

RELATED ARTICLES: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 - "Dead" Virus Cells Frequently Trigger "False Positives" In Most Common COVID Test, New Study Finds

In the past, our reports raising questions about the accuracy of COVID-19 tests have been met with accusations of 'fearmongering' and spreading 'misinformation'.

Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - REPORT: Over 95% of UK "Covid19" deaths had "pre-existing condition"

Over 95% of "COVID Deaths" recorded in England and Wales had potentially serious comorbidities, according to statistics released by NHS England. RELATED ARTICLES: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 - "Dead" Virus Cells Frequently Trigger "False Positives" In Most Common COVID Test, New Study Finds

In the past, our reports raising questions about the accuracy of COVID-19 tests have been met with accusations of 'fearmongering' and spreading 'misinformation'.

[Sep 24, 2020] Covid-19- Do many people have pre-existing immunity

Sep 24, 2020 |

17 September 2020

  1. Peter Doshi , associate editor
Author affiliations

It seemed a truth universally acknowledged that the human population had no pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but is that actually the case? Peter Doshi explores the emerging research on immunological responses

Even in local areas that have experienced some of the greatest rises in excess deaths during the covid-19 pandemic, serological surveys since the peak indicate that at most only around a fifth of people have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2: 23% in New York, 18% in London, 11% in Madrid. 1 2 3 Among the general population the numbers are substantially lower, with many national surveys reporting in single digits.

With public health responses around the world predicated on the assumption that the virus entered the human population with no pre-existing immunity before the pandemic, 4 serosurvey data are leading many to conclude that the virus has, as Mike Ryan, WHO's head of emergencies, put it, "a long way to burn."

Yet a stream of studies that have documented SARS-CoV-2 reactive T cells in people without exposure to the virus are raising questions about just how new the pandemic virus really is, with many implications.

Not so novel coronavirus?

At least six studies have reported T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus. 5 6 7 8 9 10

In a study of donor blood specimens obtained in the US between 2015 and 2018, 50% displayed various forms of T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2. 5 11 A similar study that used specimens from the Netherlands reported T cell reactivity in two of 10 people who had not been exposed to the virus. 7

In Germany reactive T cells were detected in a third of SARS-CoV-2 seronegative healthy donors (23 of 68). In Singapore a team analysed specimens taken from people with no contact or personal history of SARS or covid-19; 12 of 26 specimens taken before July 2019 showed reactivity to SARS-CoV-2, as did seven of 11 from people who were seronegative against the virus. 8 Reactivity was also discovered in the UK and Sweden. 6 9 10

Though these studies are small and do not yet provide precise estimates of pre-existing immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2, they are hard to dismiss, with several being published in Cell and Nature . Alessandro Sette, an immunologist from La Jolla Institute for Immunology in California and an author of several of the studies ( box 1 ), told The BMJ , "At this point there are a number of studies that are seeing this reactivity in different continents, different labs. As a scientist you know that is a hallmark of something that has a very strong footing."

Box 1 Swine flu déjà vu

In late 2009, months after the World Health Organization declared the H1N1 "swine flu" virus to be a global pandemic, Alessandro Sette was part of a team working to explain why the so called "novel" virus did not seem to be causing more severe infections than seasonal flu. 12

Their answer was pre-existing immunological responses in the adult population: B cells and, in particular, T cells, which "are known to blunt disease severity." 12 Other studies came to the same conclusion: people with pre-existing reactive T cells had less severe H1N1 disease. 13 14 In addition, a study carried out during the 2009 outbreak by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 33% of people over 60 years old had cross reactive antibodies to the 2009 H1N1 virus, leading the CDC to conclude that "some degree of pre-existing immunity" to the new H1N1 strains existed, especially among adults over age 60. 15

The data forced a change in views at WHO and CDC, from an assumption before 2009 that most people "will have no immunity to the pandemic virus" 16 to one that acknowledged that "the vulnerability of a population to a pandemic virus is related in part to the level of pre-existing immunity to the virus." 17 But by 2020 it seems that lesson had been forgotten.


Researchers are also confident that they have made solid inroads into ascertaining the origins of the immune responses. "Our hypothesis, of course, was that it's so called 'common cold' coronaviruses, because they're closely related," said Daniela Weiskopf, senior author of a paper in Science that confirmed this hypothesis. 18 "We have really shown that this is a true immune memory and it is derived in part from common cold viruses." Separately, researchers in Singapore came to similar conclusions about the role of common cold coronaviruses but noted that some of the T cell reactivity may also come from other unknown coronaviruses, even of animal origin. 8

Taken together, this growing body of research documenting pre-existing immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2 may force pandemic planners to revisit some of their foundational assumptions about how to measure population susceptibility and monitor the extent of epidemic spread. Population immunity: underestimated?

Seroprevalence surveys measuring antibodies have been the preferred method for gauging the proportion of people in a given population who have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 (and have some degree of immunity to it), with estimates of herd immunity thresholds providing a sense of where we are in this pandemic. Whether we overcome it through naturally derived immunity or vaccination, the sense is that it won't be over until we reach a level of herd immunity.

The fact that only a minority of people, even in the hardest hit areas, display antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 has led most planners to assume the pandemic is far from over. In New York City, where just over a fifth of people surveyed had antibodies, the health department concluded that "as this remains below herd immunity thresholds, monitoring, testing, and contact tracing remain essential public health strategies." 19 "Whatever that number is, we're nowhere near close to it," said WHO's Ryan in late July, referring to the herd immunity threshold ( box 2 ).

Box 2 Calculating the herd immunity threshold

In theory, outbreaks of contagious disease follow a certain trajectory. In a population that lacks immunity new infections grow rapidly. At some point an inflection in this growth should occur, and the incidence will begin to fall.

The 1970s gave rise to a theory that defined this inflection point as the herd immunity threshold (HIT) and offered a straightforward formula for estimating its size: HIT=1−1/R 0 (where R 0 is the disease's basic reproduction number, or the average number of secondary cases generated by an infectious individual among susceptible people). This simple calculation has guided -- and continues to guide -- many vaccination campaigns, often used to define target levels of vaccination. 20

The formula rests on two assumptions: that, in a given population, immunity is distributed evenly and members mix at random. While vaccines may be deliverable in a near random fashion, from the earliest days questions were raised about the random mixing assumption. Apart from certain small closed populations such as "orphanages, boarding schools, or companies of military recruits," Fox and colleagues wrote in 1971, 21 truly random mixing is the exception, not the rule. "We could hardly assume even a small town to be a single homogeneously mixing unit. Each individual is normally in close contact with only a small number of individuals, perhaps of the order of 10-50."

Nearly 50 years later, Gabriela Gomes, an infectious disease modeller at the University of Strathclyde, is reviving concerns that the theory's basic assumptions do not hold. Not only do people not mix randomly, infections (and subsequent immunity) do not happen randomly either, her team says. "More susceptible and more connected individuals have a higher propensity to be infected and thus are likely to become immune earlier. Due to this selective immunization by natural infection, heterogeneous populations require less infections to cross their herd immunity threshold," they wrote. 22 While most experts have taken the R 0 for SARS-CoV-2 (generally estimated to be between 2 and 3) and concluded that at least 50% of people need to be immune before herd immunity is reached, Gomes and colleagues calculate the threshold at 10% to 20%. 22 23

Ulrich Keil, professor emeritus of epidemiology from the University of Münster in Germany, says the notion of randomly distributed immunity is a "very naive assumption" that ignores the large disparities in health in populations and "also ignores completely that social conditions might be more important than the virus itself." He added, "Tuberculosis here is the best example. We all know that the immune system is very much dependent on the living conditions of a person, and this depends very much on education and social conditions."

Another group led by Sunetra Gupta at the University of Oxford has arrived at similar conclusions of lower herd immunity thresholds by considering the issue of pre-existing immunity in the population. When a population has people with pre-existing immunity, as the T cell studies may be indicating is the case, the herd immunity threshold based on an R 0 of 2.5 can be reduced from 60% of a population getting infected right down to 10%, depending on the quantity and distribution of pre-existing immunity among people, Gupta's group calculated. 24


But memory T cells are known for their ability to affect the clinical severity and susceptibility to future infection, 25 and the T cell studies documenting pre-existing reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 in 20-50% of people suggest that antibodies are not the full story.

"Maybe we were a little naive to take measurements such as serology testing to look at how many people were infected with the virus," the Karolinska Institute immunologist Marcus Buggert told The BMJ . "Maybe there is more immunity out there."

The research offers a powerful reminder that very little in immunology is cut and dried. Physiological responses may have fewer sharp distinctions than in the popular imagination: exposure does not necessarily lead to infection, infection does not necessarily lead to disease, and disease does not necessarily produce detectable antibodies. And within the body, the roles of various immune system components are complex and interconnected. B cells produce antibodies, but B cells are regulated by T cells, and while T cells and antibodies both respond to viruses in the body, T cells do so on infected cells, whereas antibodies help prevent cells from being infected. An unexpected twist of the curve

Buggert's home country has been at the forefront of the herd immunity debate, with Sweden's light touch strategy against the virus resulting in much scrutiny and scepticism. 26 The epidemic in Sweden does seem to be declining, Buggert said in August. "We have much fewer cases right now. We have around 50 people hospitalised with covid-19 in a city of two million people." At the peak of the epidemic there were thousands of cases. Something must have happened, said Buggert, particularly considering that social distancing was "always poorly followed, and it's only become worse."

Understanding this "something" is a core question for Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford University epidemiologist who developed a way to calculate herd immunity thresholds that incorporates a variable for pre-existing innate resistance and cross protection. 24 Her group argues that herd immunity thresholds "may be greatly reduced if a fraction of the population is unable to transmit the virus."

"The conventional wisdom is that lockdown occurred as the epidemic curve was rising," Gupta explained. "So once you remove lockdown that curve should continue to rise." But that is not happening in places like New York, London, and Stockholm. The question is why.

"If it were the case that in London the disease hadn't disseminated too widely, and only 15% have experienced the virus [as serology tests indicate] . . . under those circumstances, if you lift lockdown, you should see an immediate and commensurate increase in cases, as we have observed in many other settings," Gupta told The BMJ , "But that hasn't happened. That is just a fact. The question is why."

Possible answers are many, she says. One is that social distancing is in place, and people are keeping the spread down. Another possibility is that a lot of people are immune because of T cell responses or something else. "Whatever it is," Gupta added, "if there is a significant fraction of the population that is not permissive to the infection, then that all makes sense, given how infectious SARS-CoV-2 is."

Buggert's study in Sweden seems to support this position. Investigating close family members of patients with confirmed covid-19, he found T cell responses in those who were seronegative or asymptomatic. 10 While around 60% of family members produced antibodies, 90% had T cell responses. (Other studies have reported similar results. 27 ) "So many people got infected and didn't create antibodies," concludes Buggert. Deeper discussion

T cell studies have received scant media attention, in contrast to research on antibodies, which seem to dominate the news (probably, says Buggert, because antibodies are easier, faster, and cheaper to study than T cells). Two recent studies reported that naturally acquired antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 begin to wane after just 2-3 months, fuelling speculation in the lay press about repeat infections. 28 29 30

But T cell studies allow for a substantially different, more optimistic, interpretation. In the Singapore study, for example, SARS-CoV-1 reactive T cells were found in SARS patients 17 years after infection. "Our findings also raise the possibility that long lasting T cells generated after infection with related viruses may be able to protect against, or modify the pathology caused by, infection with SARS-CoV-2," 8 the investigators wrote.

T cell studies may also help shed light on other mysteries of covid-19, such as why children have been surprisingly spared the brunt of the pandemic, why it affects people differently, and the high rate of asymptomatic infections in children and young adults.

The immunologists I spoke to agreed that T cells could be a key factor that explains why places like New York, London, and Stockholm seem to have experienced a wave of infections and no subsequent resurgence. This would be because protective levels of immunity, not measurable through serology alone but instead the result of a combination of pre-existing and newly formed immune responses, could now exist in the population, preventing an epidemic rise in new infections.

But they were all quick to note that this is speculation. Formally, the clinical implications of the pre-existing T cell reactivity remain an open question. "People say you don't have proof, and they're right," says Buggert, adding that the historical blood donor specimens in his study were all anonymised, precluding longitudinal follow-up.

There is the notion that perhaps T cell responses are detrimental and predispose to more severe disease. "I don't see that as a likely possibility," Sette said, while emphasising that we still need to acknowledge the possibility. "It's also possible that this absolutely makes no difference. The cross reactivity is too small or weak to affect the virus. The other outcome is that this does make a difference, that it makes you respond better."

Weiskopf added, "Right now, I think everything is a possibility; we just don't know. The reason we're optimistic is we have seen with other viruses where [the T cell response] actually helps you." One example is swine flu, where research has shown that people with pre-existing reactive T cells had clinically milder disease ( box 1 ). 12 13 14

Weiskopf and Sette maintain that compelling evidence could come through a properly designed prospective study that follows a cohort of people who were enrolled before exposure to SARS-CoV-2, comparing the clinical course of those with and without pre-existing T cell responses.

Understanding the protective value of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 T cell reactivity "is identical to the situation on vaccines," said Antonio Bertoletti, professor of infectious disease at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. "Through vaccination we aim to stimulate antibodies and T cell production, and we hope that such induction of immunity will protect but we need a phase III clinical study to really demonstrate the effect."

German investigators came to the same conclusion, arguing that their T cell findings represented a "decisive rationale to initiate worldwide prospective studies" mapping pre-existing reactivity to clinical outcomes. 31 Other groups have called for the same thing. 6

"At the start of the pandemic, a key mantra was that we needed the game changer of antibody data to understand who had been infected and how many were protected," two immunologists from Imperial College London wrote in a mid-July commentary in Science Immunology . "As we have learned more about this challenging infection, it is time to admit that we really need the T cell data too." 32

Theoretically, the placebo arm of a covid-19 vaccine trial could provide a straightforward way to carry out such a study, by comparing the clinical outcomes of people with versus those without pre-existing T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2. A review by The BMJ of all primary and secondary outcome measures being studied in the two large ongoing, placebo controlled phase III trials, however, suggests that no such analysis is being done. 33 34

Could pre-existing immunity be more protective than future vaccines? Without studying the question, we won't know.

[Sep 23, 2020] Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn t Be by Apoorva Mandavilli

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. "I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.
In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. "I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one," he said.
Notable quotes:
"... PCR tests still have a role, he and other experts said. For example, their sensitivity is an asset when identifying newly infected people to enroll in clinical trials of drugs. ..."
Aug 29, 2020 |

Updated Sept. 17, 2020

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.

Tests authorized by the F.D.A. provide only a yes-no answer to infection, and will identify as positive patients with low amounts of virus in their bodies. Credit... Johnny Milano for The New York Times

Some of the nation's leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .

Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests , even if they are less sensitive.

"The decision not to test asymptomatic people is just really backward," said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, referring to the C.D.C. recommendation.

"In fact, we should be ramping up testing of all different people," he said, "but we have to do it through whole different mechanisms."

In what may be a step in this direction, the Trump administration announced on Thursday that it would purchase 150 million rapid tests.

The most widely used diagnostic test for the new coronavirus, called a PCR test, provides a simple yes-no answer to the question of whether a patient is infected.

But similar PCR tests for other viruses do offer some sense of how contagious an infected patient may be: The results may include a rough estimate of the amount of virus in the patient's body.

"We've been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus -- that's all," Dr. Mina said. "We're using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making."

But yes-no isn't good enough, he added. It's the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient's next steps. "It's really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue," Dr. Mina said.

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk -- akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. "I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.

A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient's sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result -- at least, one worth acting on.

"It's just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests, that they're just returning a positive or a negative," one virologist said. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times

The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that " commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures "for policy decisions." The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures "can be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean."

The C.D.C.'s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles . Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.

For example, North Carolina's state lab uses the Thermo Fisher coronavirus test, which automatically classifies results based on a cutoff of 37 cycles. A spokeswoman for the lab said testers did not have access to the precise numbers.

This amounts to an enormous missed opportunity to learn more about the disease, some experts said.

"It's just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests -- that they're just returning a positive or a negative," said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.

"It would be useful information to know if somebody's positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load," she added.

Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York's state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times's request. In July, the lab identified 872 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles.

With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. "I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one," he said.

Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.

"I'm really shocked that it could be that high -- the proportion of people with high C.T. value results," said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. "Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing."

Dr. Jha said he had thought of the PCR test as a problem because it cannot scale to the volume, frequency or speed of tests needed. "But what I am realizing is that a really substantial part of the problem is that we're not even testing the people who we need to be testing," he said.

The number of people with positive results who aren't infectious is particularly concerning, said Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. "That worries me a lot, just because it's so high," he said, adding that the organization intended to meet with Dr. Mina to discuss the issue.

The F.D.A. noted that people may have a low viral load when they are newly infected. A test with less sensitivity would miss these infections.

But that problem is easily solved, Dr. Mina said: "Test them again, six hours later or 15 hours later or whatever," he said. A rapid test would find these patients quickly, even if it were less sensitive, because their viral loads would quickly rise.

PCR tests still have a role, he and other experts said. For example, their sensitivity is an asset when identifying newly infected people to enroll in clinical trials of drugs.

But with 20 percent or more of people testing positive for the virus in some parts of the country, Dr. Mina and other researchers are questioning the use of PCR tests as a frontline diagnostic tool.

People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after. But at the current testing rates, "you're not going to be doing it frequently enough to have any chance of really capturing somebody in that window," Dr. Mina added.

Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what's needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it -- even if the tests are less sensitive.

"It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the superspreaders," Dr. Mina said. "That alone would drive epidemics practically to zero."

An earlier version of this article, using information provided by a laboratory spokesman, misstated the number of positive coronavirus tests in July processed by Wadsworth Center, New York's state lab. It was 872 tests, not 794. Based on that error, the article also misstated the number of tests that would no longer qualify as positive with a C.T. value of 35 cycles. It is about 43 percent of the tests, not about half of them. Similarly, the article misstated the number of tests that would no longer qualify as positive if cycles were limited to 30. It is about 63 percent of the tests, not about 70 percent.

Apoorva Mandavilli is a reporter for The Times, focusing on science and global health. She is the 2019 winner of the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting. @ apoorva_nyc A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 30, 2020 , Section A, Page 6 of the New York edition with the headline: You're Positive. But Are You Contagious? Tests May Be Too Sensitive, Experts Say . Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

[Sep 23, 2020] DNA Amplification Through Polymerase Chain Reaction

Sep 23, 2020 |

By Theresa Phillips Updated October 25, 2019

PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction , a molecular biology technique for amplifying segments of DNA, by generating multiple copies using DNA polymerase enzymes under controlled conditions. As little as a single copy of a DNA segment or gene can be cloned into millions of copies, allowing detection using dyes and other visualization techniques.

me title=

Developed in 1983, the process of PCR has made it possible to perform DNA sequencing and identify the order of nucleotides in individual genes. The method uses thermal cycling or the repeated heating and cooling of the reaction for DNA melting and replication. As PCR continues, the "new" DNA is used as a template for replication and a chain reaction ensues, exponentially amplifying the DNA template.

PCR techniques are applied in many areas of biotechnology including protein engineering , cloning, forensics (DNA fingerprinting), paternity testing, the diagnosis of hereditary and/or infectious diseases, and for the analysis of environmental samples.

In forensics, in particular, PCR is especially useful because it amplifies even the smallest amount of DNA evidence. PCR can also be used to analyze DNA that is thousands of years old, and these techniques have been used to identify everything from an 800,000-year-old mammoth to mummies from around the world.

PCR Procedure Initialization

This step is necessary only for DNA polymerases that require hot-start PCR. The reaction is heated to between 94 and 96 °C and held for 1-9 minutes.


If the procedure does not require initialization, denaturation is the first step. The reaction is heated to 94-98 °C for 20-30 seconds. The DNA template's hydrogen bonds are disrupted and single-stranded DNA molecules are created.


The reaction temperature is lower to between 50 and 65 °C and held for 20-40 seconds. The primers anneal to the single-stranded DNA template. The temperature is extremely important during this step. If it's too hot, the primer might not bind. If it's too cold, the primer might bind imperfectly. A good bond is formed when the primer sequence closely matches the template sequence.


The temperature during this step varies depending upon the type of polymerase. The DNA polymerase synthesizes a completely new DNA strand.

Final Elongation

This step is performed at 70-74 °C for 5-15 minutes after the final PCR cycle.

Final Hold

This step is optional. The temperature is kept at 4-15 °C and strops the reaction.

Three Stages of the PCR Procedure Exponential Amplification

During every cycle, product (the specific piece of DNA that is being replicated) is doubled.

Leveling-off Stage

As the DNA polymerase loses activity and consumes reagents, the reaction slows.


 No more product accumulates.

[Sep 20, 2020] NYT First Reinforces, Then Silently Debunks Its False Claims About Russia's Covid-19 Vaccine

Vaccine against coronaviruses is a very tricky business as the virus tend to mutate with time. Still it looks like Russian found some nw avenue to tackle this problem which might be more efficient then alternatives.
Notable quotes:
"... Science Magazine ..."
"... Science Magazine ..."
Sep 20, 2020 |

Western reporters to not like to correct their own false reporting. They rather reinforce it as much as possible. Only when overwhelmed by the facts will they silently admit that they were wrong in the first place. Here is a prime example of how that's done.

In mid-August we exposed how 'western' media lied about the approval for phase-3 testing of the Russian Sputnik vaccine against Covid-19. They said that Russia claimed the vaccine was ready to go population wide. That never was the case.

'Western' Media Falsely Claim That Russia's Covid-19 Vaccine Is Ready To Go

Russia has not approved a vaccine against Covid-19 and it is not skipping large-scale clinical trials. The Russia regulator gave a preliminary approval for a vaccine candidate to start the large-scale clinical trial. [...]

Science Magazine is one of the few media who got it right : ...

One of the false reports we pointed out was by the New York Times Moscow correspondent Andrew E. Kramer:

Russia Approves Coronavirus Vaccine Before Completing Tests

Russia has become the first country in the world to approve a vaccine for the coronavirus, President Vladimir V. Putin announced on Tuesday, though global health authorities say the vaccine has yet to complete critical, late-stage clinical trials to determine its safety and effectiveness.
By skipping large-scale clinical trials, the Russian dash for a vaccine has raised widespread concern that it is circumventing vital steps -- and potentially endangering people -- in order to score global propaganda points.

Russia had, as we and Science Magazine reported, never the intent to skip large-scale clinical trials. Kramer made that up.

In new report today Kramer reinforces his previous false and disproven claims to lament about an alleged slow distribution of the Sputnik vaccine in Russia:

Russia Is Slow to Administer Virus Vaccine Despite Kremlin's Approval

More than a month after becoming the first country to approve a coronavirus vaccine, Russia has yet to administer it to a large population outside a clinical trial, health officials and outside experts say.

The approval, which came with much fanfare, occurred before Russia had tested the vaccine in late-stage trials for possible side effects and for its disease-fighting ability. It was seen as a political gesture by President Vladimir V. Putin to assert victory in the global race for a vaccine.

It is not clear whether the slow start to the vaccination campaign is a result of limited production capacity or second thoughts about inoculating the population with an unproven product.

The Times author reinforces his own lie that Russia had declared its vaccine ready for population wide application. It had never done that. The official registration of the vaccine by the relevant authorities was only a necessary precondition to start the large scale phase-3 testing of the vaccine. There never was a Russian intent to distribute the vaccine to a large population without phase-3 testing.

In the bottom third of his long piece Kramer comes near to admitting that. There he describes that the Sputnik phase-3 testing is now ongoing. That contradicts all of his previous reporting on the issues though he himself never says that. But even now he is getting the details wrong:

The trial in Russia began on Sept. 9, and Russian officials have said they expect early results before the end of the year, though the Gamaleya Institute, the scientific body that developed the vaccine, has scheduled the trial to continue until May.

That timeline is similar to the testing schedules announced by the three pharmaceutical companies testing potential vaccines in the United States, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer.
The Russian late-stage, or Phase 3, clinical trial is being carried out entirely in Moscow, where 30,000 people will receive the vaccine and 10,000 will get a placebo.

Yevgenia Zubova, a spokeswoman for the Moscow city health department, said in an interview that the vaccine was available only to trial participants.

Those last two paragraphs, which completely debunk Kramer's original reporting, should have been at the very top of the piece. They are buried down in paragraph 23 and 24 of a 29 paragraphs story that starts out with an epic repeat of the previously made false claims.

Kramer is wrong to say that the testing is limited to Moscow. As explained on the Sputnik Vaccine website :

Post-registration clinical trials involving more than 40,000 people in Russia will be launched in a week starting from August, 24. A number of countries, such as UAE, Saudi Arabia, Philippines and possibly India or Brazil will join the clinical trials of Sputnik V locally. [...] Mass production of the vaccine is expected to start in September 2020.

That testing of Sputnik V will also happen outside of Moscow has been confirmed by recent reports :

Russia's sovereign wealth fund will supply 100 million doses of its potential coronavirus vaccine to Indian drug company Dr Reddy's Laboratories, the fund said on Wednesday, as Moscow speeds up plans to distribute its shot abroad.
Dr Reddy's, one of India's top pharmaceutical companies, will carry out Phase III clinical trials of Sputnik-V in India, RDIF said.

It is not Russia that is fudging the testing of its vaccine. It is the Trump administration that is planning to do so out of political reasons:

Eric Topol @EricTopol - 18:10 UTC · Sep 19, 2020

We have the protocols. Now we know how there will very likely be an Emergency Use Approval (EUA) for a vaccine prior to November 3. The company and political motivations are fully aligned.

The criteria for an EUA is that it "may be effective" ...
16. If there was any doubt about @HHSgov @SecAzar's plan to make sure there is an EUA for a vaccine before Nov 3 (see 10. above), then you can read this by @BySheilaKaplan In 'Power Grab,' Health Secretary Azar Asserts Authority Over F.D.A.

In contrast to the U.S. the Russian testing of its Sputnik vaccine will be -as usual- of high integrity and will strictly follow the protocols such trials are supposed to follow. In paragraph 29, the very last one in today's NYT story, the author at last admits as much :

[W]hen medicines are tested, Russia has an exceptionally good track record on managing clinical trials , according to a database of U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspections of clinical trials around the world. The F.D.A. found a lower percentage of trials with problems in Russia than in any other European country or the United States.

If I get the chance to chose a vaccine for myself I will rather take the one which was developed by a highly qualified state financed research institution and approved in Russia than one developed by some profit oriented pharmaceutic conglomerate that is in cahoots with a politicized regulator under the Trump administration.

Posted by b on September 20, 2020 at 12:12 UTC | Permalink

foolisholdman , Sep 20 2020 12:21 utc | 1

Very interestng clarification of well-muddied waters! Thank you for that b.
vk , Sep 20 2020 12:53 utc | 2
If I get the chance to chose a vaccine for myself I will rather take the one which was developed by a highly qualified state financed research institution and approved in Russia than one developed by some profit oriented pharmaceutic conglomerate that is in cahoots with a politicized regulator under the Trump administration.

To top it off, Gamaleya's vaccine simply has the better science behind it. It uses two human adenoviruses, in opposition to the single chimpanzee adenovirus used by the AstraZeneca one (the Chinese one also uses only one adenovirus, but I don't remember if it is human or chimpanzee).

No other laboratory in the world is using Gamaleya's technology - which it already dominates. Two American laboratories (Moderna and one more that I forgot the name) are testing the untried and dangerous mRNA technology. It is very unlikely those two mRNA vaccines will ever come out to the public; those two labs probably just cashed in their USD 2 billion checks they received from the USG.

This gives force to my original hypothesis: the Anglo-Saxon laboratories are exploiting exotic technologies for their vaccines because they want something the can patent, thus charging astronomical prices to the national governments and thus emerge from this pandemic even richer.


Speaking of AstraZeneca (Oxford), it released its blueprints yesterday after "public pressure":

A Phase III Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Multicenter Study in Adults to Determine the Safety, Efficacy, and Immunogenicity of AZD1222, a Non-replicating ChAdOx1 Vector Vaccine, for the Prevention of COVID-19

The USG is, behind the scenes (I already posted the link here in the open thread), extremely worried about this vaccine.

AstraZeneca will try to get what it can get, but the fact is it's game over for them. The thing here is that the Gamaleya alternative is better and if the USA (where the vaccine makers will really make money) wants to get political, it will simply opt for one of the many American vaccines that will come out - ready or not, satisfactory or not - next year. As a British vaccine, AstraZeneca-Oxford will, at best, have to do with the British market, which is very tiny for a big pharmaceutical company.

It is better if they just cancel the trials and abandon production.

jo6pac , Sep 20 2020 13:07 utc | 3
If I had money I'd fly to Russia for their vaccine. They made theirs for the people and in Amerika we make it for profits and protect the makes from lawsuits.

Thanks b and vk

Clueless Joe , Sep 20 2020 13:19 utc | 4
To be frank, at this point, ironically, it's Big Pharma's own self-interest that might help us to counter Trump's lunacy. There are enough anti-vaxxers around for them not to want a screwed up vaccine and a big scandal that would only comfort the vaxxers and sow mistrust among the population. They need people to assume vaccines are well done and mostly harmless if they want to keep making profit with them. Trump is only interested in a victory in the next few weeks, Pharma business is interested in making profits for the next decades.
That's quite a damning indictment of our Western system, but then 2020 is a milestone, the threshold beyond which it won't be possible to consider the Western liberal capitalistic system as the superior one, if not the best one possible - quite the opposite.
Tuyzentfloot , Sep 20 2020 13:22 utc | 5
The Kramer reporting is highly unusual. Normally the important information should be in the third paragraph from the end and now it's in the sixth and seventh last.

Anyway, while I agree that this vaccine should be treated as an entirely legitimate effort I want to add:
- phase 1/2 testing did appear a too lightweight and the article on it in the Lancet has been criticized by russian scientists (
- one family of vaccines can be more controversial and experimental than another and the judgement of the testers can take this in account when considering shortcuts.
- One should distinguish what the makers of the vaccine claim with the political (exaggerated) statements from Putin about it .
- The statements on testing on the Sputnikvaccine have changed over time. In the beginning it said 2000 people in Russia and it listed 4 more countries(UAE, KSA, Brazil,Mexico). That was insufficient. Several of these countries have been omitted since, and others have been added. One can say that the intent to do decent testing was always there but the confirmed planning was not.
- rollout to large population was impossible anyway at an early stage because the production capacity was limited.

pnyx , Sep 20 2020 14:02 utc | 6
Kramer is not wrong, he simply lies. In the Relotius media this is standard practice when covering politically sensitive topics, combined with omissions.
Of course, many well-researched and truthful articles are published in the nyt, faz, nzz etc. That is exactly what makes these media so refined and what they base their claim to be quality media on. One lies and distort as little and as targeted as possible.
Steve , Sep 20 2020 14:05 utc | 7
The Europena and Australian vassals of the USA would not be given a choice to choose the more authetic option of the vaccine. But Israel would probably opt for the Russian version without consequence. It's over for the West!
morongobill , Sep 20 2020 14:10 utc | 8
Get your covid 19 news here folks!
Kramer vs Kramer , Sep 20 2020 14:15 utc | 9
Kramer appears to have the right kind of nose. It is all that matters
vk , Sep 20 2020 14:22 utc | 10
@ Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 20 2020 13:22 utc | 5

Nobody is saying the Gamaleya vaccine will be the second coming of the polio vaccine. Whichever COVID-19 vaccine comes out will inevitably be imperfect (in relation to the already tested and tried vaccines everybody takes nowadays).

Your worries are all legitimate. Indeed, Gamaleya publicly admitted phases 1 and 2 of its trials has small samples of subjects.

However, you also have to take into account that the science is solid (two human adenoviruses, a tested and tried technology) and that Gamaleya is the center of excellence in adenovirus vaccine technology. That's why - and not because it is Russian - we can trust Gamaleya's vaccine is, given the circumstances (pandemic), reliable. The fact Gamaleya already dominated the adenovirus technology also explains why it was the first laboratory to come out with a solution - it simply used a tested and tried method it already dominated, while the other pharmaceuticals are basically having to relearn how to develop a vaccine and/or are adventuring in uncharted territory because they want something they can patent.

So yes, we can search and find defects in Gamaleya's trials - but the strongest argument in its favor is not the trials, it's the solid science and technology behind it.

Jackrabbit , Sep 20 2020 14:34 utc | 11
What will the astro-turfed libertarian mob say about vaccines?

My guess: they will support them vociferously.

Because freedumb. And Big Pharma $$$ in their pockets.


Anne , Sep 20 2020 14:54 utc | 12
Vk and the wabbit - right on. And Thanks to you, B, for this clear and straightforwardly informative piece (as usual).

Is it any surprise that the NYT uses the usual propaganda format of truth (when it accords with the ruling elites perspective) and lies (when "reporting on" what is happening in those "bad hat" countries)? And might I add that NPR and the BBC World Service do exactly the same thing, boosting the US-UK-NATO worldview (which equals the western corporate-captitalist-imperialist, oh so exceptional, ruling elites world position) while denigrating Russia, China, Iran (and now Lukashenko - indeed the Beeb refuses to pronounce his name properly, always reducing it to the feminine form, and believe me, as born and raised Brit, that's deliberate) via lies, lies and more lies. And via those weasely words: "likely," "Highly likely" and so on and on ....

All that this latest vaccine competition (western) will produce is more anti-vaxxers. And this time round, sensibly so.

JohnH , Sep 20 2020 14:57 utc | 13
Tuyzefot (5): it is common for the NYT to lead with propaganda and bury the facts at the end of the article.

I noticed it decades ago in articles covering Palestine. I learned to skip whatever was printed on the front page and immediately jump to the final five paragraphs found deep within the paper. I guess they print the facts at all there only as a bizarre way of covering their asses in a feeble attempt at integrity.

vk , Sep 20 2020 15:22 utc | 14
Just saw this, should've posted here earlier. Highly recommend reading in full:

Kirill Dmitriev: Questions on Sputnik V Vaccine Answered, Critics need to Look for Plank in Own Eyes


The vaccine uses a unique two-vector human adenovirus technology which no-one else in the world currently has for COVID-19.


On the surface the Sputnik V trial with 76 participants seems smaller in size compared to 1,077 people that, for example, AstraZeneca had in its Phase 1-2 studies. However, the design of the Sputnik V trial was much more efficient and based on better assumptions.


The post-registration studies involving more than 40,000 people started in Russia on August 26, before AstraZeneca has started its Phase 3 trial in the U.S. with 30,000 participants. Clinical trials in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), the Philippines, India and Brazil will begin this month. The preliminary results of the Phase 3 trial will be published in October-November 2020.


Q.: Why has the Sputnik V vaccine already become eligible for emergency use registration?

Because of the very positive results of the Phase 1-2 trials and because the human adenoviral vector-based delivery platform has been proven the safest vaccine delivery platform over decades including through 75 international scientific publications and in more than 250 clinical trials.


Some other companies are using human adenoviral vector-based platforms for their COVID-19 vaccines. For example, Johnson & Johnson uses only Ad26 vector and China's CanSino only Ad5 while Sputnik V uses both of these vectors. The work of Johnson & Johnson and CanSino not only validates the Russian approach but also shows Sputnik V's advantage as studies have demonstrated that two different vectors produce better results than one.


The monkey adenovirus and mRNA vaccines have never been used and approved before and their research is lagging the proven human adenoviral vector-based platform by at least 20 years. However, their developers have already secured supply contracts worth billions of dollars from Western governments and may potentially apply for fast-track registration -- while receiving full indemnity at the same time.

At the end of the Q&A, Dmitriev counters his Western colleagues:

Question 1: Are there any long-term studies of mRNA and monkey adenovirus vector-based technologies for carcinogenic effects and impact on fertility? (Hint: there are none)

Question 2: Could their absence be the reason why some of the leading pharmaceutical firms making COVID-19 vaccines based on these technologies pushed the countries buying their vaccines for full indemnification from lawsuits if something goes wrong?

Question 3: Why is Western media not reporting a lack of long term studies for mRNA and monkey adenoviral vector-based vaccines?

Those are good questions. Very good questions.

Mark Thomason , Sep 20 2020 15:42 utc | 15
The constant Russia bashing is a disconnect from the truth and the real world.

It is annoying to wade through.

Far more important, it is crippling for a nation if its leadership actually does disconnect from reality and believe its own fantasy.

Disconnect from reality, belief in convenient fantasy, is exactly how the Democrats went from losing with Hillary to running again with Hillary II, the same donors and advisers and influence peddlers pushing the same right wing triangulation by the Democratic Party.

Maybe they can squeak out a win this time. It should not be close.

Far more important, there are things that need doing, things that would win like health care for all, that they simply won't offer or run on. We are not going to get from them what we need, we know that, and that is why they again have a squeaker election even against a joke like Trump.

Patrick Armstrong , Sep 20 2020 15:54 utc | 16
Perfect example of the free and unfettered press at work. What do you mean we're just a propaganda rag? See, right down at the bottom, the bit you didn't bother to read down to, right next to the denture ad, we told the truth. So there! Balanced and accurate reporting!
Kooshy , Sep 20 2020 16:21 utc | 17
Here in US we are getting 737maxed again this time with FDA
Kooshy , Sep 20 2020 16:28 utc | 18
Trump's "national security" state has managed to kill 200000 by him the autocrat in chief to come out and tell the truth as he admitted so to Woodward. This fucking American national security phobia is costing American lives more than all past 70 years of national security wars.
aquadraht , Sep 20 2020 18:14 utc | 19
The sick transatlantic mindset is exposed here:

Nice to read the comment on Global Times:

Tuyzentfloot , Sep 20 2020 19:34 utc | 20
@JohnH 13 , it was hm, a joke. There is indeed rule of thumb that you have to look fore the third to last paragraph. I upgraded it into something of a law, which is then violated in this case.
Tuyzentfloot , Sep 20 2020 20:10 utc | 21
@vk 10, I wouldn't call it my worries, just that I think B. posted a version which was too simple and rosy. In the meantime I saw your post 14 which I roughly expected but hadn't read about yet.
Jen , Sep 20 2020 20:17 utc | 22
Andrew Kramer's reporting on the Sputnik V vaccine is deliberately written to discredit the Russians and anything and everything they do, which includes the way they conduct scientific and medical research (because it's govt-funded, not funded by global pharmaceutical corporations) and the way they run their healthcare system (not privatised).

First, Kramer says the Kremlin approved the vaccine: this is to set up Moscow and Putin in particular as rash, so that the supposed "roll-out" of the vaccine can be (secondly) portrayed as inefficient.

Kramer knows he is lying which is why his piece is long (he knows most NYT readers are time-poor and want the celebrity news and baseball results) and the most important information is squeezed into the last two paragraphs of his article.

Jen , Sep 20 2020 20:24 utc | 23
Tuyzentfloot @ 5:

I tried linking to that Moscow Times article at your link and either I hit a dead end or the newspaper removed the article, which does not surprise me since that newspaper is as credible as The New York Times. It used to be given away f o r free in Moscow but I believe it now exists only as an online paper.

Tuyzentfloot , Sep 20 2020 20:32 utc | 24
@Jen, you have to remove the last two characters ').' because I omitted a space. The article in the moscow times is ok and not too alarming. It is also not discrediting the lancet article. Just raising concerns.

[Sep 06, 2020] Inactive fragments on virus RNA trigger false positives in most common COVID test due to way too many cycles of amplification which amplifies noise along with the signal and efffectly turns noise (inactive fragments on RNA) into signal, new study finds

Highly recommended!
From comments: "Article is poorly written by someone who does not know medical science. There are no viral "cells" so the headline is a put off right away. The comment about "sensitivity" is misplaced as PCR tests are too sensitive: ergo false positives. I believe "specificity" is the word the author was searching for. If a test lumps true positives with false positives, then it lacks specificity."
Sep 05, 2020 |

In the past, our reports raising questions about the accuracy of COVID-19 tests have been met with accusations of 'fearmongering' and spreading 'misinformation'.

But not today.

That's because new research from the University of Oxford's Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England has found that the swab-based technique used for most COVID-19 testing is at risk of returning "false positives" since copies of the virus's RNA detected by the tests might simply be dead, inactive material from a weeks-old infection. Although patients infected with COVID-19 are typically only infectious for a week or less, tests can be triggered by virus genetic material left over from a weeks-old infection.

The team's research involved analyzing 25 studies on the widely used polymerase chain reaction test. PCR tests use material collected with a swab - the most common type of test around the world, and especially in the US - then utilize a "genetic photocopying" technique that allows scientists to magnify the small sample of genetic material collected, which they can then analyze for signs of viral RNA.

What the researchers here have effectively found is that these PCR tests just aren't sensitive enough to distinguish if the viral material is active and infectious, or dead and inert.

For those who desire a more comprehensive understanding of how these tests work, the chart below can be helpful.

Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study, said there was a risk that a surge in testing across the UK was increasing the risk of this sample contamination occurring and it may explain why the number of Covid-19 cases is rising but the number of deaths is static.

"Evidence is mounting that a good proportion of 'new' mild cases and people re-testing positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with," he told the Spectator.

Professor Heneghan added that international scrutiny might be required to avoid "the dangers of isolating non-infectious people or whole communities." ZKnight 14 minutes ago

Fake science. How about purify the virus first and establish a gold standard for testing first. No, of course not because the CDC has a patent for Covid-19 and nobody is allowed to try find it to see if it exists. play_arrow LogicFusion 27 minutes ago

Everybody is a Covid-19 / Coronavirus expert now!

Read about the failed coin dealer and convicted felon's performance. It's hilarious!

Martin Armstrong becomes Covid-19 Coronavirus Expert overnight play_arrow ducksinarow 59 minutes ago

Covid -19 has been so politicized that I don't believe a word of any publication for or against testing, existence of the Virus, or anything that provokes testing or issues opinions about locking down communities. Just like the riots, Covid news is just plain boring. play_arrow ominous 3 hours ago

Link to goes to home page, not this story.

Where is the original story posted? play_arrow play_arrow ominous 3 hours ago (Edited)

Perhaps this y_arrow 1 Rabbi Blitzstein 38 minutes ago

"Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes the laws" - Mayer Amschel Rothschild. play_arrow play_arrow tangent 4 hours ago remove link

People who recommend a vaccine for an entirely cured virus should lose their license to practice medicine. 99.9% cure rate applying to people who take it before being hospitalized is one of the biggest success stories in the history of medicine for HCQ. Not only that, but there are multiple other likely cures that simply have not been studied well. You'd think people would appreciate the fact that the common cold has been cured, but instead they just whine that big pharma isn't getting those bucko bucks.

I honestly expected a ticker tape parade like in the movies when that first cure study came out. But instead they took a massive **** on the study and on the doctor... ****ty world we live in. ay_arrow Pair Of Dimes Shift 2 hours ago

An exec (55+) at my company is gung ho about the vaccine.

Unfortunately, I just had to give him a "wait and see" response although I know vaccines for coronaviruses are impossible. play_arrow 2 play_arrow ThanksIwillHaveAnother 4 hours ago (Edited)

Viruses are not full cells. They are DNA/RNA wrapped with a protein the clings to a cell then the cell imports the DNA/RNA to start making its proteins. So what is inactive? If that person sneezes on another person depending on immune system status that other person could get a bad infection. y_arrow 4 CrabbyR 3 hours ago

viruses utilizes CELL structures and host DNA to replicate dna or rna according to the viruses genetic code, the protein jacket is the final product to

disguise the virus from detection and to bind on another cell after the compromised cell RUPTURES, there's more to it but if it cannot copy itself effectively it can become nonviable and unable to infect another cell. It replicates DNA inside a host cell, It is not a complete organism and cannot replicate unless it can inject its DNA into a host cell. Antibodies cling to viruses and destroy this ability to bind to a target cell. A non viable virus has a damaged coat or DNA RNA that has to many Dimers (damage or code breaks) Bacteria is more in line with what you think a virus is y_arrow onewayticket2 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link

they lost me when they changed the definition of "death" to include "presumed, untested" cases (while bI@#$% ing at me that we needed to "follow the science")....and even got busted for the laughable motorcycle accident being classified as a covid death and the Labs that were sending in 100% positive results. (until they were caught) play_arrow OutaTime43 4 hours ago remove link

The test detects RNA. Not necessarily viable virus. Also, it will detect RNA presence in an individual who may already have antibodies and may be immune. We are bombarded daily by viruses of which we already have immunity. play_arrow sun tzu 10 hours ago

Shocking news that the South Koreans already discovered and published back in May. Western big pharma driven medicine is garbage 😂😂😂

play_arrow Roger Casement 10 hours ago


World Bank exporting COVID-19 Testing Kits in 2018??????

https: // play_arrow 7 play_arrow sun tzu 10 hours ago

Interesting play_arrow play_arrow Jack Mehoff 1 more time 9 hours ago

Business as usual play_arrow play_arrow Argon1 7 hours ago

Preparation for agenda 2021 in 2017. play_arrow 1 play_arrow CrabbyR 4 hours ago

WOW.......ties a few strands from other sources together into a real ugly picture play_arrow play_arrow Welsh Bard 10 hours ago

The professor who won the Nobel prize for work in this field, said that the way this test is being operated with over forty cycles, means that any results are entirely meaningless.

In Britain, having spent over £15 billion setting up PCR testing systems and a shaky test and trace apparatus on top of that, it appears that 90% of positive results now appear to be false. This is compounded by the fact that when a hot spot develops, more testing is done to show a rapid increase in more false positive results, meaning further new lockdowns and even more testing to prove yet more false positive results ad infinitum.

Now whether this is by design or ineptitude, people must decide for themselves but the outcome is utter chaos.

For those countries who have not followed the Swedish model especially countries like Australia and New Zealand who have set up complete isolation, now face a future perpetually cut off from the rest of the world.

Okay, new techniques will and are coming along to treat the disease like HCQ when used correctly maybe as a prophylactic and a vaccine that will need to be constantly upgraded like the Flu vaccine, means that the whole world has painted itself into a corner unless drastic revision is now made to the whole sorry mess.

In the meantime, we will now be stuck with digital currency and the introduction of ID Health Cards that will limit people in how they travel where they work and access to a whole heap of things like government services.

Welcome to the new world order! play_arrow 1 KuriousKat 11 hours ago (Edited) remove link

Don't tell the Shameless Aussie gov that after arresting hundreds for simply voicing doubt on need to lockdown entire city...Next time it will be thousands and not a damn thing they can do to stop it..These people are trickling us the truth how worthless the tests are when pretty much everyone knows. play_arrow espirit 12 hours ago remove link



Imperial College

John Hopkins


Line all those peeps up against the wall, and the first one to rat gets to live.

I'll provide my own ammo... ay_arrow Sick Monkey 6 hours ago

Not everyone working in these agencies are dishonest but like you and I we have to work and eat.

Most of them are trapped in this mess with bills to pay threatened by NDA.

play_arrow 1 Urban Roman 12 hours ago

Not particularly new news. Been talked about since April at least -- it's an RNA virus, it has its own polymerase, and it leaves lots of RNA fragments in its wake.

The Corona family of viruses make 5 or 6 strands with partial copies of their RNA molecule. negative copies are made first, and then copied again into positive copies. Finally the one big RNA is made with the entire genome on it.

So about a dozen RNA molecules are made for each finished virus particle that is produced. And finally, a variety of different primers are used for the PCR tests, some are matched to the small partial RNA copies and others are matched to various features on the large whole-virus RNA. They can give different results for the same sample.

So, someone who registers on a PCR test has probably been exposed to the virus, but the test gives no clue as to whether it is an active infection, or the person is contagious, or they are just coming down with it, or they got over it six months ago. play_arrow 4 play_arrow 1

10 play_arrow gordo 12 hours ago remove link

Sweden, no masks, no lock downs, ALL SCHOOLS OPEN, herd immunity, no second wave.

Still think your masks and lock downs are working muppets?

1 play_arrow The 3rd Dimentia 13 hours ago SARS-CoV2 and the Rise of Medical Technocracy. Lee Merritt, M.D. play_arrow 3 play_arrow hugin-o-munin 13 hours ago

I'm glad to see that many are starting to counter the official narrative.

We've been asleep for too long and allowed these agendas to fester to the point we're at now where a college dropout software salesman and a former 3rd world communist terrorist (neither of whom have any medical degree) are dictating to the world how everyone needs to get a DNA altering vaccine and a medical ID. It's completely nuts and bonkers yet more or less the entire planet's governments follow in 'lockstep' with ever more draconian laws and regulations incarcerating people in their own homes, making them wear masks causing oxygen deprivation and shutting down the entire world economy.

lay_arrow Warthog777 , 13 hours ago

Article is poorly written by someone who does not know medical science. There are no viral "cells" so the headline is a put off right away. The comment about "sensitivity" is misplaced as PCR tests are too sensitive: ergo false positives. I believe "specificity" is the word the author was searching for. If a test lumps true positives with false positives, then it lacks specificity.

Cabreado , 13 hours ago

"accusations of 'fearmongering' and spreading 'misinformation'.
But not today."

Well, much of the world has known for months now about the testing lies...

and I'd be remiss to not remind the Tylers that they indeed played a role in the fear mongering along the way; quite intently so.

Crush the cube , 13 hours ago

Busted, published 2018, what a scam.

Digital-Anarchy , 14 hours ago

Anyone who would use the term "virus cells", has no clue what they're talking about and should be completely disregarded. Viruses are not cells. PCR tests are searching for something your body produces in response to a virus as well. They are not produced specifically for a singular virus either. The entire concept of PCR testing is garbage. This **** was a scam from the get-go.

hugin-o-munin , 13 hours ago

Yes it is evident now that this entire pandemic is false and political. The goal seems to be to vaccinate entire populations and the question people need to ask is - why? what for? Aside from the obvious economic motives there are some more sinister plans that most people will have a hard time accepting but these need to be looked at. Several years ago there were a group of doctors and researchers that died of suspicious suicides who were collaborating and studying vaccines and the link to autism.

The effort was led by Dr.Jeffrey Bradstreet who was researching the natural substance GcMAF and how this could boost the immune system. What he discovered was that many vaccines had a compound/substance called Nagalase in them that is unnatural and has a detrimental effect on the immune system and function of GcMAF (which is produced by our own bodies) and has no business at all being in vaccines. Just before he was able to blow the whistle on this he also died of a suspicious 'suicide' and today most of the clinics and research groups working on GcMAF have been destroyed and ruined. Draw your own conclusions.

snblitz , 14 hours ago

Dr. Kary Mullis invented the PCR test. He said it was ineffective for this purpose.

Though he was addressing its use in a prior virus hoax unleashed upon the world.

I bet you didn't know this scam has been used before.

That is why I was able to call out the scam right from the start. The second I saw them using the PCR again, I knew it was from the same playbook.

snblitz , 14 hours ago

So many lies.

Viruses are not alive. They have no metabolic functions. They cannot move.

Don't believe me? Get a degree is virology or microbiology or just a read a book on the subject. Or capture a wuhan-virus yourself and watch it under a microscope. It won't move. It won't consume anything. It will just sit there inert.

The problem is that you are being lied to at a scale you cannot imagine.

I know, off to the fema re-education camp for me for spreading false information about the wuhan-virus.

Though I am not the one spreading fear and hysteria.

aldousd , 13 hours ago

There article is confused, but the work of the doctor is not. Viruses use your cells to reproduce. When your immune system targets the virus it actually kills your own cell which has become host to the virus. The virus particles and markers, and the DNA of the virus can be detected in these dead cells, but dead cells cannot serve as a factory for more viruses. So it's effectively a dead virus infected cell. Not a dead virus cell.

So while the transcription of the idea here was done by an idiot, it's not an idiotic idea. The tests cannot tell if the virus came in a living cell that is actively producing more viruses or a dead host cell that has been assassinated by your immune system. That's what they're talking about here.

mstyle , 11 hours ago

what about the chromosome 8 stuff that has been mentioned lately?

(since you appear to be rather intelligent)

hugin-o-munin , 11 hours ago

Thanks. Well the chromosome 8 discovery in the PCR test specifications/details is strange and worrying because it makes you wonder why it's part of this at all. Some believe it's to get more false positive results while others believe it is what the mRNA vaccines are intended to target and if that's right then it's really sinister. What exactly is the plan? To make all of us get Downs Syndrome? I don't know but judging by all their other lies and schemes it wouldn't surprise me.

IRC162 , 14 hours ago

Fuggin progressives and their pandemic political prop. But really this reaction is the same as their reaction to 'racial injustice'. They focus on feelings before the facts are known in order to achieve their end, and then do their best to bury/ignore the facts when they are gathered later.

94% COVID deaths with multiple comorbidities.

10 unarmed blacks killed by police in 2019 (6 were in self-defense).

adr , 15 hours ago

Why didn't you mention that nearly all labs are running 35-40 cycles which guarantees a positive test, simply from noise.

The inventor of the test said if you don't find anything after 15 cycles, it probably isn't there. After 20 cycles the noise starts to be greater than any real information. By 30, the test is mostly noise. More than 35, the test is completely worthless.

Of course I've been saying this for five months, but most people didn't listen. After the NYT article came out, people I know started saying, "How did you know?"

I said, "Because I have critical thinking skills. Why didn't you believe me? Name a time I've steered you wrong."

Antiduck , 14 hours ago

333 labs in florida had 100% positivity. (stupid word.)

ZenStick , 12 hours ago

Exactly correct.
Nobody will touch this line of reasoning in public or on media.

Identify as Ferengi , 15 hours ago

See above, Born2Bwired.

The PCR test is not useful for what they are using it for apparently. This has been known since the beginning. Here is quote regarding AIDS:

"Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the PCR, is thoroughly convinced that HIV is not the cause of "AIDS". With regard to the viral load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron." PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.

What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it enormously. It can accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; it can amplify that needle into a haystack. Like an electronically amplified antenna, PCR greatly amplifies the signal, but it also greatly amplifies the noise. Since the amplification is exponential, the slightest error in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of many orders of magnitude."

naro , 15 hours ago

NYTimes article last week suggested that only 10% of Covid positive PCR tests are clinically significant and infectious.

[Aug 24, 2020] Angry Bear " Some of the Gilead Remdesivir Results from Recent Studies

Aug 24, 2020 |

Some of the Gilead Remdesivir Results from Recent Studies

run75441 | August 24, 2020 9:00 pm

HEALTHCARE HOT TOPICS POLITICS Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19 A Randomized Clinical Trial , JAMA, Christoph D. Spinner, MD ; Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD ; Gerard J. Criner, MD, August 21, 2020

This is a freebie so you should be able to get into this article and pickup on additional detail. Those who were treated early on had a better result from remdesivir than those who were treated later after contracting Covid. This was already know,.

Results: Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group.

On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P  = .02).

The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different ( P  = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care.

Some Limitations: This study has several limitations. First, the original protocol was written when COVID-19 cases were largely confined to Asia and the clinical understanding of disease was limited to case series. This led to a change in the primary end point on the first day of study enrollment as it became clear that hospital discharge rates varied greatly across regions and the ordinal scale had become standard for interventional COVID-19 studies. Second, the study used an open-label design, which potentially led to biases in patient care and reporting of data. Third, because of the urgent circumstances in which the study was conducted, virologic outcomes such as effect of remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 viral load were not assessed. Fourth, other laboratory parameters that may have aided in identifying additional predictors of outcomes were not routinely collected. Fifth, the ordinal scale used to evaluate outcomes was not ideal for detecting differences in patients with moderate COVID-19, especially for a clinical situation in which discharge decisions may be driven by factors other than clinical improvement.

Conclusions: Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance.

[Aug 19, 2020] Russia's Ministry of Health names three drugs that can treat new Chinese coronavirus

This is from Jan 2020, but still interesting
Jan 30, 2020 |

While experts across the world search for a vaccine to tackle the dangerous new infection, Russian health bosses have identified a trio of existing medicines to combat 2019-nCoV in adults.

The new coronavirus can be fought with ribavirin, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon beta-1b, they believe. These drugs are typically used to treat hepatitis C, HIV and multiple sclerosis respectively.

The Ministry of Health advisory not only offers recommendations, but also describes how the treatments work and in what quantities they should be prescribed. The guidelines are intended for doctors in hospitals throughout the country.

... ... ...

One of the drugs recommended, ribavirin, was used in the treatment of the 2003 Chinese SARS outbreak, which infected over 8,000 people and killed 774 across 17 different countries. The new coronavirus has shown a sizeable genetic similarity with SARS, with one sequence comparison showing a match of 79.5%.

The ministry also instructs that, in order to prevent and reduce the severity of symptoms, medication should be consumed within two days of contact with an infected person. Their prevention recommendations also include sanitary and hygiene rules, such as handwashing and wearing protective masks.

[Aug 13, 2020] America's Obesity Epidemic Threatens Effectiveness of Any COVID Vaccine

Aug 13, 2020 |

Authored by Sarah Varney via Kaiser Health News,

As scientists race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, experts say obesity could prove an impediment -- a sobering prospect for a nation in which nearly half of all adults are obese.

For a world crippled by the coronavirus, salvation hinges on a vaccine.

But in the United States, where at least 4.6 million people have been infected and nearly 155,000 have died, the promise of that vaccine is hampered by a vexing epidemic that long preceded COVID-19: obesity.

Scientists know that vaccines engineered to protect the public from influenza, hepatitis B, tetanus and rabies can be less effective in obese adults than in the general population, leaving them more vulnerable to infection and illness. There is little reason to believe, obesity researchers say, that COVID-19 vaccines will be any different.

"Will we have a COVID vaccine next year tailored to the obese? No way," said Raz Shaikh, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

"Will it still work in the obese? Our prediction is no."

More than 107 million American adults are obese, and their ability to return safely to work, care for their families and resume daily life could be curtailed if the coronavirus vaccine delivers weak immunity for them.

In March, still early in the global pandemic, a little-noticed study from China found that heavier Chinese patients afflicted with COVID-19 were more likely to die than leaner ones, suggesting a perilous future awaited the U.S., whose population is among the heaviest in the world.

And then that future arrived.



me title=

As intensive care units in New York, New Jersey and elsewhere filled with patients, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that obese people with a body mass index of 40 or more -- known as morbid obesity or about 100 pounds overweight -- were among the groups at highest risk of becoming severely ill with COVID-19. About 9% of American adults are in that category.

As weeks passed and a clearer picture of who was being hospitalized came into focus, federal health officials expanded their warning to include people with a body mass index of 30 or more. That vastly expanded the ranks of those considered vulnerable to the most severe cases of infection, to 42.4% of American adults.

Obesity has long been known to be a significant risk factor for death from cardiovascular disease and cancer. But scientists in the emerging field of immunometabolism are finding obesity also interferes with the body's immune response, putting obese people at greater risk of infection from pathogens such as influenza and the novel coronavirus. In the case of influenza, obesity has emerged as a factor making it more difficult to vaccinate adults against infection. The question is whether that will hold true for COVID-19.

A healthy immune system turns inflammation on and off as needed, calling on white blood cells and sending out proteins to fight infection. Vaccines harness that inflammatory response. But blood tests show that obese people and people with related metabolic risk factors such as high blood pressure and elevated blood sugar levels experience a state of chronic mild inflammation ; the inflammation turns on and stays on.

Adipose tissue -- or fat -- in the belly, the liver and other organs is not inert; it contains specialized cells that send out molecules, like the hormone leptin, that scientists suspect induces this chronic state of inflammation. While the exact biological mechanisms are still being investigated, chronic inflammation seems to interfere with the immune response to vaccines, possibly subjecting obese people to preventable illnesses even after vaccination.

An effective vaccine fuels a controlled burn inside the body, searing into cellular memory a mock invasion that never truly happened.

Evidence that obese people have a blunted response to common vaccines was first observed in 1985 when obese hospital employees who received the hepatitis B vaccine showed a significant decline in protection 11 months later that was not observed in non-obese employees. The finding was replicated in a follow-up study that used longer needles to ensure the vaccine was injected into muscle and not fat.

Researchers found similar problems with the hepatitis A vaccine, and other studies have found significant declines in the antibody protection induced by tetanus and rabies vaccines in obese people.

"Obesity is a serious global problem, and the suboptimal vaccine-induced immune responses observed in the obese population cannot be ignored," pleaded researchers from the Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group in a 2015 study published in the journal Vaccine.

Vaccines also are known to be less effective in older adults, which is why those 65 and older receive a supercharged annual influenza vaccine that contains far more flu virus antigens to help juice up their immune response.

By contrast, the diminished protection of the obese population -- both adults and children -- has been largely ignored.

"I'm not entirely sure why vaccine efficacy in this population hasn't been more well reported," said Catherine Andersen, an assistant professor of biology at Fairfield University who studies obesity and metabolic diseases. "It's a missed opportunity for greater public health intervention."

In 2017, scientists at UNC-Chapel Hill provided a critical clue about the limitations of the influenza vaccine. In a paper published in the International Journal of Obesity , they showed for the first time that vaccinated obese adults were twice as likely as adults of a healthy weight to develop influenza or flu-like illness.

Curiously, they found that adults with obesity did produce a protective level of antibodies to the influenza vaccine, but they still responded poorly.



Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

"That was the mystery," said Chad Petit, an influenza virologist at the University of Alabama.

One hypothesis, Petit said, is that obesity may trigger a metabolic dysregulation of T cells, white blood cells critical to the immune response.

"It's not insurmountable," said Petit, who is researching COVID-19 in obese patients. "We can design better vaccines that might overcome this discrepancy."

Historically, people with high BMIs often have been excluded from drug trials because they frequently have related chronic conditions that might mask the results. The clinical trials underway to test the safety and efficacy of a coronavirus vaccine do not have a BMI exclusion and will include people with obesity, said Dr. Larry Corey, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, who is overseeing the phase 3 trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Although trial coordinators are not specifically focused on obesity as a potential complication, Corey said, participants' BMI will be documented and results evaluated.

Dr. Timothy Garvey, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes research at the University of Alabama, was among those who stressed that, despite the lingering questions, it is still safer for obese people to get vaccinated than not.

"The influenza vaccine still works in patients with obesity, but just not as well," Garvey said. "We still want them to get vaccinated."

[Aug 12, 2020] New Study Finds Potential Reason Why COVID-19 Occurs Less In Children

Aug 12, 2020 |

This new study detailed in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on May 20, discovered that the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which grows in abundance as the individual grows, might be the reason that less than two percent of all individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 - the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease - are children.

Researchers had suspected that COVID-19 susceptibility could be linked to the amount of gene expression of ACE2 seen in the nasal cavity, given that the enzyme acts as a receptor to allow the SARS-CoV-2 virus to pass into the body.

To investigate this potential link, researchers looked for a relationship between the two - the level of gene expression of ACE2 in the nose and COVID-19 infection - by taking nasal swabs from 305 people involved in an asthma study . Researchers hypothesized that the lower the levels of enzyme gene expression, the less likely it is a person will be infected by COVID-19.

Researchers said they chose to swab the nose because it is one of the first access points for SARS-CoV-2 to infect an individual.

Samples were taken from both asthmatic (49.8 percent) and non-asthmatic patients. The 305 people involved in the study were between four to 60 years of age.

Researchers said they found a clear association between ACE2 expression and age - opening up a possible explanation as to why most children, who tend to have lower levels of enzyme expression, are less susceptible to COVID-19.



Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Supinda Bunyavanich, professor of Genetics and Genomic Sciences and Paediatrics at Mount Sinai, said in a press release that the study found "that there are low levels of ACE2 expression in the nasal passages of younger children, and this ACE2 level increases with age into adulthood.

"This might explain why children have been largely spared in the pandemic," Bunyavanich said.

[Aug 03, 2020] Red Flags Soar As Big Pharma Will Be Exempt From COVID-19 Vaccine Liability Claims -

Aug 03, 2020 |

Last week we warned readers to be cautious about new COVID-19 vaccines, highlighting how key parts of the clinical trials are being skipped as big pharma will not be held accountable for adverse side effects for administering the experimental drugs.

A senior executive from AstraZeneca, Britain's second-largest drugmaker, told Reuters that his company was just granted protection from all legal action if the company's vaccine led to damaging side effects.


For more color on leading vaccines in development that produce "severe" side effects, read our latest piece titled "Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Adverse Reactions In "More Than Half" Of Trial Participants."

Maybe these rushed vaccines are more for optics, get consumers back into airplanes, hotels, resorts, and malls.

The major red flag is how governments are allowing big pharma to rush experimental vaccines, with no legal recourse if something goes terribly wrong.

[Aug 03, 2020] Next big COVID-19 treatment may be manufactured antibodies

Aug 03, 2020 |

As the world awaits a COVID-19 vaccine, the next big advance in battling the pandemic could come from a class of biotech therapies widely used against cancer and other disorders - antibodies designed specifically to attack this new virus.

[Aug 02, 2020] Red Flags Soar As Big Pharma Will Be Exempt From COVID-19 Vaccine Liability Claims

Aug 02, 2020 |

Last week we warned readers to be cautious about new COVID-19 vaccines, highlighting how key parts of the clinical trials are being skipped as big pharma will not be held accountable for adverse side effects for administering the experimental drugs.

A senior executive from AstraZeneca, Britain's second-largest drugmaker, told Reuters that his company was just granted protection from all legal action if the company's vaccine led to damaging side effects.

[Aug 02, 2020] Obese People Are Twice As Likely To Die From Covid

Notable quotes:
"... And while being overweight does not seem to increase people's chances of contracting COVID-19 according to the study, it can affect the respiratory system, and potentially immune function as well. ..."
Aug 02, 2020 |

Just in case Americans - the most obese nation in the world - needed another reason to lose some weight, here it is.

In what is emerging as a perfidious Catch 22, at a time when the US population is rapidly gaining weight due to mandatory work from home regulation (hence the Covid 19 pounds ) as described here and here , while a surge in domestic alcohol consumption is only making the matters worse...

... Public Health England has published a paper titled " Excess Weight and COVID-19 Insights from new evidence ", indicating that the risks of hospitalization, intensive care treatment and death increase progressively with increasing body mass index (BMI) above the healthy weight range even after adjustment for potential confounding factors, including demographic and socioeconomic factors. In other words, the fatter one is, the higher the risk that person may die from covid.

Some more details: according to the Public Health England paper, the hazard ratios of ICU admission patients who are overweight (BMI ≥25-29.9), obese (BMI ≥30-34.9) or severely obese (BMI ≥35) are 1.64, 2.59 and 4.35, respectively see figure below) relative to patients with a BMI of ≥20-24.9.

And while being overweight does not seem to increase people's chances of contracting COVID-19 according to the study, it can affect the respiratory system, and potentially immune function as well.

And since no crisis will ever be put to waste by a nanny state which after the covid pandemic will control virtually every aspect of our lives, the British government plans to initiate an anti-obesity campaign including strict rules on how junk food is advertised and sold in the UK.

[Aug 02, 2020] The Coronavirus Recovery Handbook: 19 Rehab Exercises for Mild to Severe Cases of COVID-19

Aug 02, 2020 |

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 1 2020 10:46 utc | 89

This book is likely required reading for those who have suffered from COVID-19. It's only 76 pages, but only costs $1.99 for the Kindle edition. I downloaded a copy from the Internet and will tuck it away for when I'm unlucky (assuming I would live long enough to try them.)

The Coronavirus Recovery Handbook: 19 Rehab Exercises for Mild to Severe Cases of COVID-19 - Dr. Liu Xiaodan and Dr. Shan Chunlei and their colleagues at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center and Lei Shenshan Hospital in Wuhan.

[Aug 01, 2020] Russia preparing mass vaccination against coronavirus for October

Aug 01, 2020 |

Russia's health minister is preparing a mass vaccination campaign against the novel coronavirus for October, local news agencies reported on Saturday, after a vaccine completed clinical trials.

Health Minister Mikhail Murashko said the Gamaleya Institute, a state research facility in Moscow, had completed clinical trials of the vaccine and paperwork is being prepared to register it, Interfax news agency reported.

He said doctors and teachers would be the first to be vaccinated.

[Aug 01, 2020] Length of interaction with tan infected person matter

Highly recommended!
Aug 01, 2020 |

monty42 , 2 hours ago

" We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."

Revisionist claims now- " In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less." "

[Jul 27, 2020] The problem of false positives from Covid-19 tests means UK is inflating its numbers – and taking wrong decisions by Rob Lyons

Jul 27, 2020 |

The problem of false positives from Covid-19 tests means UK is inflating its numbers – and taking wrong decisions Rob Lyons

Rob Lyons is a UK journalist specialising in science, environmental and health issues. He is the author of ' Panic on a Plate: How Society Developed an Eating Disorder'.

A sign is seen at a drive-through coronavirus disease (COVID-19) testing facility in Hyde Park, following the outbreak of the coronavirus disease, London, Britain, June 11, 2020

When seven staff at a Scottish football club tested positive for coronavirus, alarm bells went off. But really alarming was when six of those results turned out to be wrong. Such inaccurate tests are exaggerating the problem.

Last weekend, at very short notice, the UK reintroduced quarantine measures for people arriving from Spain. For those already in Spain, or for whom it was too late to postpone their trip, the decision is very inconvenient. For those who can't work at home when they return, it may mean missing out on wages for the two weeks they will have to spend in isolation when they get back. But what if the apparent rise in cases has been exaggerated by seemingly small flaws with testing?

The potential for problems was illustrated by Scottish football team St Mirren last week. The club, based in Paisley, a town just west of Glasgow, reported seven positive test results for Covid-19 among its staff. Alarm bells went off about what this might mean for the new Scottish football season. But this "cluster" was a mirage. When the seven people were re-tested using a more accurate method, just one of them was found to be Covid-positive.

In Spain, half of the reported cases have been in people who had no symptoms. We know that many people who test positive never suffer any symptoms. But what if many of these people don't have Covid-19 at all?

READ MORE International airline body slams UK's 'unilaterally decided blanket quarantine' on travellers from Spain

If that sounds implausible, it's important to know that tests are not perfect. There are currently two kinds of tests to see if you have the disease. One kind, the molecular real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, looks for genetic material from the virus. This kind seems to be very accurate, but it's expensive and time-consuming. The other kind, the antigen test, detects specific proteins on the surface of the virus. This is quicker, easier and cheaper, but it's much less accurate. In developed countries, RT-PCR testing is the norm, but poorer countries may have to make do with antigen testing.

The difficulty at the moment is that there are relatively few cases of Covid-19 in the community, but more and more testing is being done. So even if the RT-PCR test has a high "specificity" – that is, a tiny fraction of test results are false positives – the number could actually be quite significant. For example, let's say that 99.9 percent of the time, a test correctly identifies someone without the disease as negative. Just 0.1 percent of tests produce false positives.

Recently, in the UK, it was estimated that 0.04 percent of people had the virus outside of care homes and hospitals. So, if we tested 10,000 people, we should find four cases of Covid-19, on average. Of the 9,996 other people tested, in this hypothetical example, 0.1 percent who don't have the virus would also test positive – that's 9.996 – in other words, 10 people. So, even if the test is very accurate indeed, we could easily end up with four positive tests from people who really do have the virus and 10 false positives from people who don't.

For any particular individual, the chances of the test being a false positive is small. But when we look at the big picture, we could easily be fooled into thinking that there are many more cases than there really are. Indeed, with a test accuracy of 99.9 percent, if you tested a million people, none of whom actually had the disease, you would produce 1,000 positive results. And for tests with less accuracy – as with St Mirren FC – the situation could be even worse.

The UK government has now performed nearly 11 million tests. Could there be 11,000 "cases" that are simply a mistake ? In turn, that means governments and other authorities might be introducing additional restrictions on people's lives that are actually unnecessary.

The problem of false positives is much less significant when the disease really is in wide circulation. It doesn't change the picture much for the period from mid-March through to the start of June. (In any event, in the UK at least, there was very little testing capacity thanks to the jaw-dropping incompetence of bodies like Public Health England.)

Let's look at the latest figures. On Sunday, July 26, for example, 142,954 tests were processed. Of these, 747 were found to be positive. If 0.1 percent of tests are false positives, we would expect 142 of those 747 positives to be false. If the test turns out to be slightly less accurate – perhaps 'only' 99.5 percent accurate (which still seems very good), then 710, almost all the reported positives, could be false.

We should also bear in mind, when trying to assess the overall situation, that there will be some false negatives. There will also be people who don't show symptoms who do have the virus and never get tested. But this understanding shows that we do need to be careful about reading too much into every small blip in the number of cases. We should be particularly sceptical about imposing new restrictions like mandatory quarantine. And if we rely solely on these tests, we could have the crazy situation where Covid-19 apparently never disappears, even when nobody has got it.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Jul 27, 2020] How and when to wear masks

I remember signs on businesses that said "No shirts, no shoes: no service". I don't recall morons screaming at underpaid clerks about their constitutional right not to wear a shirt or shoes.
Population density has at least something to do with it. Big cities are the hardest hit, as would be expected. The US death rate per capita is below that of Belgium, the UK, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Peru (which is surprising), Chile (another surprise), and France.
Jul 27, 2020 |

John Michener20 hours ago

I fail to see your problem with masks. My grandfather wore a gas mask on the front during World War 1. I wear a mask, indeed a N99 mask, when sawing concrete or doing fine wood sanding. When I was in the chemical process industry, some stations had Oxygen rebreathers to deal with the hazards in case of accidents.

Medical staff have always worn respirators around patients with airborne diseases, as have researchers handling such agents. Covid-19, Tuberculosis, and late stage plague are all airborne. Wearing a mask when in a situation when you are potentially exposed is common sense.

So wearing my N99 mask when I go shopping is a trivial additional step. I actually wear nitrile gloves as well - I had them for dealing with paints and solvents.

Now I have had to give up eating out and going to my professional society meetings. I am not happy about that, but I am not willfully stupid. I am approaching 70...

[Jul 27, 2020] One element of being a proper person is having some regard for the wellbeing of other people.

Jul 27, 2020 |

d_hochberg Bradley Perry6 hours ago

One element of being a proper person is having some regard for the wellbeing of other people.

stephen pickard Bradley Perry5 hours ago

To me : A proper person dresses properly for the occasion. A proper person has high regard for both himself and others. A proper person does not smoke in a no smoking zone. A proper person places his child in a child restraint seat while riding in a car. And on and on with other safety festures that we accept.You get my point.

What I would have you do is to do the three things that I mentioned.

Social distance. Good hygiene protocol. And yes wear a mask. A rhetorical question. Would you permit a surgeon and every other person in an operating room go about the surgery masklessess?

SatirevFlesti Bradley Perry10 hours ago

Real science and evidence won't convince the Coronadoom kool-aid drinkers. Masks are all about signalling one's virtue and submission to arbitrary rules and to be seen as "doing something". That the virus has an IFR in the range of flu and that mask are ineffective in stopping spread of viruses doesn't matter to them. They want to force everyone to abdicate human dignity and act in the same paranoid, abject manner as they do. It's all political and has been form the beginning.

njoseph18 SatirevFlesti8 hours ago

So if masks are ineffective, are you comfortable having your surgery team not wear masks and breathe all over you while you're cut open? If not, why not, since masks are ineffective?

I work in a hospital. The people who say Covid is just flu both don't understand how bad Covid is and also don't understand how deadly the flu can be.

A third thing they don't understand is that cloth or surgical masks are about preventing asymptomatic transmission, which is a real thing. I've seen people die from Covid that they caught from someone who was "perfectly healthy."

It is such a simple, small thing to do, and has nothing to do with virtue signalling and everything to do with not killing other people because you're carrying a virus and don't know it. Some of the most Trump supporting people I've ever met work in this hospital and wear masks everywhere they go to protect others, because they understand what Covid is. C'mon people, if other countries can get this right without all the hand-wringing, so
can we.

Gswag99 njoseph188 hours ago • edited

weak straw man emotive argument with no basis in reason or education whatsoever.

njoseph18 Gswag997 hours ago

Umm, actually I am a frontline non clinical hospital worker. I guess you're a bot but if my reasoning is emotive can you kindly share the peer reviewed data upon which you base your perspective?

stephen pickard Gswag995 hours ago

It is a good counter point. One I made above using the same anology. Relevant anologies are powerful antidotes to careless thinking like yours.

Curious SatirevFlesti4 hours ago

I didn't realize Fisher Price ran a medical school

[Jul 25, 2020] Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus Vaccine

Jul 25, 2020 |

Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus Vaccine David Gelles and Jesse Drucker 11 hrs ago

Opinion: There is more to picking a place to retire than low taxes -- avoid these 5 Reserving a 2021 Ford Bronco? Get Ready To Wait 18 Months to Take Delivery The New York Times logo Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus Vaccine

On June 26, a small South San Francisco company called Vaxart made a surprise announcement: A coronavirus vaccine it was working on had been selected by the U.S. government to be part of Operation Warp Speed, the flagship federal initiative to quickly develop drugs to combat Covid-19.

a close up of a cell phone screen with text: Selling Vaxart stock made more than $197 million in profit for Armistice Capital, a hedge fund that owned two-thirds of the company's shares. © Rafael Henrique/Getty Images Selling Vaxart stock made more than $197 million in profit for Armistice Capital, a hedge fund that owned two-thirds of the company's shares.

Vaxart's shares soared. Company insiders, who weeks earlier had received stock options worth a few million dollars, saw the value of those awards increase sixfold. And a hedge fund that partly controlled the company walked away with more than $200 million in instant profits.

The race is on to develop a coronavirus vaccine, and some companies and investors are betting that the winners stand to earn vast profits from selling hundreds of millions -- or even billions -- of doses to a desperate public.

Across the pharmaceutical and medical industries, senior executives and board members are capitalizing on that dynamic.

They are making millions of dollars after announcing positive developments, including support from the government, in their efforts to fight Covid-19. After such announcements, insiders from at least 11 companies -- most of them smaller firms whose fortunes often hinge on the success or failure of a single drug -- have sold shares worth well over $1 billion since March, according to figures compiled for The New York Times by Equilar, a data provider.

A trial of a potential coronavirus vaccine announced by Moderna in January. Since then, Moderna insiders have sold shares totaling about $248 million. © Ted S. Warren/Associated Press A trial of a potential coronavirus vaccine announced by Moderna in January. Since then, Moderna insiders have sold shares totaling about $248 million.

In some cases, company insiders are profiting from regularly scheduled compensation or automatic stock trades. But in other situations, senior officials appear to be pouncing on opportunities to cash out while their stock prices are sky high. And some companies have awarded stock options to executives shortly before market-moving announcements about their vaccine progress.

a man smiling for the camera: Andrei Floroiu, the chief executive of Vaxart, received stock options worth about $4.3 million in June. A month later, they were worth more than $28 million. © Will Ragozzino/Patrick McMullan Andrei Floroiu, the chief executive of Vaxart, received stock options worth about $4.3 million in June. A month later, they were worth more than $28 million.

The sudden windfalls highlight the powerful financial incentives for company officials to generate positive headlines in the race for coronavirus vaccines and treatments , even if the drugs might never pan out.

Some companies are attracting government scrutiny for potentially using their associations with Operation Warp Speed as marketing ploys.

For example, the headline on Vaxart's news release declared: "Vaxart's Covid-19 Vaccine Selected for the U.S. Government's Operation Warp Speed." But the reality is more complex.

Vaxart's vaccine candidate was included in a trial on primates that a federal agency was organizing in conjunction with Operation Warp Speed. But Vaxart is not among the companies selected to receive significant financial support from Warp Speed to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses.

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has entered into funding agreements with certain vaccine manufacturers, and we are negotiating with others. Neither is the case with Vaxart," said Michael R. Caputo, the department's assistant secretary for public affairs. "Vaxart's vaccine candidate was selected to participate in preliminary U.S. government studies to determine potential areas for possible Operation Warp Speed partnership and support. At this time, those studies are ongoing, and no determinations have been made."

Some officials at the Department of Health and Human Services have grown concerned about whether companies including Vaxart are trying to inflate their stock prices by exaggerating their roles in Warp Speed, a senior Trump administration official said. The department has relayed those concerns to the Securities and Exchange Commission, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

It isn't clear if the commission is looking into the matter. An S.E.C. spokeswoman declined to comment.

"Vaxart abides by good corporate governance guidelines and policies and makes decisions in accordance with the best interests of the company and its shareholders," Vaxart's chief executive, Andrei Floroiu, said in a statement on Friday. Referring to Operation Warp Speed, he added, "We believe that Vaxart's Covid-19 vaccine is the most exciting one in O.W.S. because it is the only oral vaccine (a pill) in O.W.S."

Well-timed stock transactions are generally legal. But investors and corporate governance experts say they can create the appearance that executives are profiting from inside information, and could erode public confidence in the pharmaceutical industry when the world is looking to these companies to cure Covid-19.

"It is inappropriate for drug company executives to cash in on a crisis," said Ben Wakana, executive director of Patients for Affordable Drugs, a nonprofit advocacy group. "Every day, Americans wake up and make sacrifices during this pandemic. Drug companies see this as a payday."

Executives at a long list of companies have reaped seven- or eight-figure profits thanks to their work on coronavirus vaccines and treatments.

Shares of Regeneron, a biotech company in Tarrytown, N.Y., have climbed nearly 80 percent since early February, when it announced a collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a Covid-19 treatment. Since then, the company's top executives and board members have sold nearly $700 million in stock. The chief executive, Leonard Schleifer, sold $178 million of shares on a single day in May.

Alexandra Bowie, a spokeswoman for Regeneron, said most of those sales had been scheduled in advance through programs that automatically sell executives' shares if the stock hits a certain price.

Moderna, a 10-year-old vaccine developer based in Cambridge, Mass., that has never brought a product to market, announced in late January that it was working on a coronavirus vaccine. It has issued a stream of news releases hailing its vaccine progress, and its stock has more than tripled, giving the company a market value of almost $30 billion.

Moderna insiders have sold about $248 million of shares since that January announcement, most of it after the company was selected in April to receive federal funding to support its vaccine efforts.

While some of those sales were scheduled in advance, others were more spur of the moment. Flagship Ventures, an investment fund run by the company's founder and chairman, Noubar Afeyan, sold more than $68 million worth of Moderna shares on May 21. Those transactions were not scheduled in advance, according to securities filings.

Executives and board members at Luminex, Quidel and Emergent BioSolutions have sold shares worth a combined $85 million after announcing they were working on vaccines, treatments or testing solutions.

At other companies, executives and board members received large grants of stock options shortly before the companies announced good news that lifted the value of those options.

Novavax, a drugmaker in Gaithersburg, Md., began working on a vaccine early this year. This spring, the company reported promising preliminary test results and a $1.6 billion deal with the Trump administration.

In April, with its shares below $24, Novavax issued a batch of new stock awards to all its employees "in acknowledgment of the extraordinary work of our employees to implement a new vaccine program." Four senior executives, including the chief executive, Stanley Erck, received stock options that were worth less than $20 million at the time.

Since then, Novavax's stock has rocketed to more than $130 a share. At least on paper, the four executives' stock options are worth more than $100 million.

So long as the company hits a milestone with its vaccine testing, which it is expected to achieve soon, the executives will be able to use the options to buy discounted Novavax shares as early as next year, regardless of whether the company develops a successful vaccine.

Silvia Taylor, a Novavax spokeswoman, said the stock awards were designed "to incentivize and retain our employees during this critical time." She added that "there is no guarantee they will retain their value."

Two other drugmakers, Translate Bio and Inovio, awarded large batches of stock options to executives and board members shortly before they announced progress on their coronavirus vaccines, sending shares higher. Representatives of the companies said the options were regularly scheduled annual grants.

Vaxart, though, is where the most money was made the fastest.

At the start of the year, its shares were around 35 cents. Then in late January, Vaxart began working on an orally administered coronavirus vaccine, and its shares started rising.

Vaxart's largest shareholder was a New York hedge fund, Armistice Capital, which last year acquired nearly two-thirds of the company's shares. Two Armistice executives, including the hedge fund's founder, Steven Boyd, joined Vaxart's board of directors. The hedge fund also purchased rights, known as warrants, to buy 21 million more Vaxart shares at some point in the future for as little as 30 cents each.

Vaxart has never brought a vaccine to market. It has just 15 employees. But throughout the spring, Vaxart announced positive preliminary data for its vaccine, along with a partnership with a company that could manufacture it. By late April, with investors sensing the potential for big profits, the company's shares had reached $3.66 -- a tenfold increase from January.

On June 8, Vaxart changed the terms of its warrants agreement with Armistice, making it easier for the hedge fund to rapidly acquire the 21 million shares, rather than having to buy and sell in smaller batches.

One week later, Vaxart announced that its chief executive was stepping down, though he would remain chairman. The new C.E.O., Mr. Floroiu, had previously worked with Mr. Boyd, Armistice's founder, at the hedge fund and the consulting firm McKinsey.

On June 25, Vaxart announced that it had signed a letter of intent with another company that might help it mass-produce a coronavirus vaccine. Vaxart's shares nearly doubled that day.

The next day, Vaxart issued its news release saying it had been selected for Operation Warp Speed. Its shares instantly doubled again, at one pointing hitting $14, their highest level in years.

"We are very pleased to be one of the few companies selected by Operation Warp Speed, and that ours is the only oral vaccine being evaluated," Mr. Floroiu said.

Armistice took advantage of the stock's exponential increase -- at that point up more than 3,600 percent since January. On June 26, a Friday, and the next Monday, the hedge fund exercised its warrants to buy nearly 21 million Vaxart shares for either 30 cents or $1.10 a share -- purchases it would not have been able to make as quickly had its agreement with Vaxart not been modified weeks earlier.

Armistice then immediately sold the shares at prices from $6.58 to $12.89 a share, according to securities filings. The hedge fund's profits were immense: more than $197 million.

"It looks like the warrants may have been reconfigured at a time when they knew good news was coming," said Robert Daines, a professor at Stanford Law School who is an expert on corporate governance. "That's a valuable change, made right as the company's stock price was about to rise."

At the same time, the hedge fund also unloaded some of the Vaxart shares it had previously bought, notching tens of millions of dollars in additional profits.

By the end of that Monday, June 29, Armistice had sold almost all of its Vaxart shares.

Mr. Boyd and Armistice declined to comment.

Mr. Floroiu said the change to the Armistice agreement "was in the best interests of Vaxart and its stockholders" and helped it raise money to work on the Covid-19 vaccine.

He and other Vaxart board members also were positioned for big personal profits. When he became chief executive in mid-June, Mr. Floroiu received stock options that were worth about $4.3 million. A month later, those options were worth more than $28 million.

Normally when companies issue stock options to executives, the options can't be exercised for months or years. Because of the unusual terms and the run-up in Vaxart's stock price, most of Mr. Floroiu's can be cashed in now.

Vaxart's board members also received large grants of stock options, giving them the right to buy shares in the company at prices well below where the stock is now trading. The higher the shares fly, the bigger the profits.

"Vaxart is disrupting the vaccine world," Mr. Floroiu boasted during a virtual investor conference on Thursday. He added that his impression was that "it's OK to make a profit from Covid vaccines, as long as you're not profiteering."

Noah Weiland contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

[Jul 24, 2020] Cold Wars Profit by Craig Murray

Jul 24, 2020 |

Consortiumnews Volume 26, Number 206 – Friday, July 24, 2020


Craig Murray lambasts a Russophobic media that celebrates a supposed cyber attack on UK vaccine research, ignores collapse of key evidence of a "hack" and dabbles in dubious memorabilia.

The Guardian's headquarters in London. (Bryantbob, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

By Craig Murray

... ... ...

Attack on UK Vaccine Research

Andrew Marr, center, in 2014. ( Financial Times , Flickr)

A whole slew of these were rehearsed by Andrew Marr on his flagship BBC1 morning show. The latest is the accusation that Russia is responsible for a cyber attack on Covid-19 vaccination research. This is another totally evidence-free accusation. But it misses the point anyway.

The alleged cyber attack, if it happened, was a hack not an attack -- the allegation is that there was an effort to obtain the results of research, not to disrupt research. It is appalling that the U.K. is trying to keep its research results secret rather than share them freely with the world scientific community.

As I have reported before , the U.K. and the USA have been preventing the WHO from implementing a common research and common vaccine solution for Covid-19, insisting instead on a profit driven approach to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies (and disadvantage the global poor).

What makes the accusation that Russia tried to hack the research even more dubious is the fact that Russia had just bought the very research specified. You don't steal things you already own.

Evidence of CIA Hacks

If anybody had indeed hacked the research, we all know it is impossible to trace with certainty the whereabouts of hackers. My VPNs [virtual private networks] are habitually set to India, Australia or South Africa depending on where I am trying to watch the cricket, dodging broadcasting restrictions.

More pertinently, WikiLeaks' Vault 7 release of CIA material showed the specific programs for the CIA in how to leave clues to make a leak look like it came from Russia. This irrefutable evidence that the CIA do computer hacks with apparent Russian "fingerprints" deliberately left, like little bits of Cyrillic script, is an absolutely classic example of a fact that everybody working in the mainstream media knows to be true, but which they all contrive never to mention.

Thus when last week's "Russian hacking" story was briefed by the security services -- that former Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn deployed secret documents on U.K./U.S. trade talks which had been posted on Reddit, after being stolen by an evil Russian who left his name of Grigor in his Reddit handle -- there was no questioning in the media of this narrative. Instead, we had another round of McCarthyite witch-hunt aimed at the rather tired looking Corbyn.

Personally, if the Russians had been responsible for revealing that the Tories are prepared to open up the NHS "market" to big American companies, including ending or raising caps on pharmaceutical prices, I should be very grateful to the Russians for telling us. Just as the world would owe the Russians a favor if it were indeed them who leaked evidence of just how systematically the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders.

But as it happens, it was not the Russians. The latter case was a leak by a disgusted insider, and I very much suspect the NHS U.S. trade deal link was also from a disgusted insider.

When governments do appalling things, very often somebody manages to blow the whistle.

On the core subject here: By necessity, a pandemic requires a cooperative international response. Only one country has refused to do so: The US. In their supreme arrogance, our ruling class lost track the fact that the US needs the rest of the world, not the other way way around.

[Jul 24, 2020] Study identifies six different types of COVID-19

Jul 24, 2020 |

We Find the Best $500 Cars to Field in the 24 Hours of Lemons Race Series Sources: Trump erupted over Esper's flag ban

Study identifies six different "types" of COVID-19

A new study of COVID-19 , based on data from a symptom tracker app, determined that there are six distinct "types" of the disease involving different clusters of symptoms. The discovery could potentially open new possibilities for how doctors can better treat individual patients and predict what level of hospital care they would need.

Researchers from King's College London studied data from approximately 1,600 U.K. and U.S. patients who regularly logged their symptoms in the COVID Symptom Tracker App in March and April.

Typically, doctors will look for key symptoms such as cough, fever and loss of the sense of smell to detect COVID-19. The study, which has not been peer-reviewed, says the six different "types" of COVID-19 can vary by severity and come with their own set of symptoms.

"I think it's very, very interesting," Dr. Bob Lahita, who is not affiliated with the study, told CBSN anchors Vladimir Duthiers and Anne-Marie Green. "Among the patients I see, those who recovered, many of them present different ways: some people with fever and some without fever, and some with nausea and vomiting, some people with diarrhea , etc."

The six clusters of symptoms outlined in the study are:

  1. Flu-like with no fever: Headache, loss of smell, muscle pains, cough, sore throat, chest pain, no fever.
  2. Flu-like with fever: Headache, loss of smell, cough, sore throat, hoarseness, fever, loss of appetite.
  3. Gastrointestinal: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, diarrhea, sore throat, chest pain, no cough.
  4. Severe level one, fatigue: Headache, loss of smell, cough, fever, hoarseness, chest pain, fatigue.
  5. Severe level two, confusion: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, cough, fever, hoarseness, sore throat, chest pain, fatigue, confusion, muscle pain.
  6. Severe level three, abdominal and respiratory: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, cough, fever, hoarseness, sore throat, chest pain, fatigue, confusion, muscle pain, shortness of breath, diarrhea, abdominal pain.

The first level, "flu-like with no fever," is associated with headaches, loss of smell, muscle pains, cough, sore throat and chest pain. Patients at this level have a 1.5% chance of needing breathing support such as oxygen or a ventilator.

The second type, "flu-like with fever," includes symptoms like loss of appetite, headache, loss of smell, cough, sore throat, hoarseness and fever. Researchers say about 4.4% of patients at this level needed breathing support.

Patients with the third type, simply described as "gastrointestinal," do not have a cough as part of their illness. Instead, they experience headache, diarrhea, loss of smell, loss of appetite, sore throat and chest pain, and about 3.3% needed breathing support.

Lahita referred to the following three clusters of COVID-19 as the "really severe types."

In type four, or "severe level one," patients experience fatigue along with headache, loss of smell, cough, fever, hoarseness and chest pain. Patients at this level needed breathing support at a rate of 8.6%.

Type five, "severe level two," includes the symptoms of type four along with loss of appetite, sore throat and muscle pain, and is mainly distinguished by confusion .

"That means you don't know where you are or where you live, whether you are in or out of the hospital, who your relatives are," Lahita explained. "That is very scary." Almost 10% of patients at that level need breathing support.

The most severe type of COVID-19 is referred to as "severe level three, abdominal and respiratory," and has all the above symptoms along with abdominal pain, shortness of breath and diarrhea. Nearly 20% of these patients need breathing support.

"Those are the severe level threes who wind up on a ventilator, and then it is touch-and-go as to whether they survive the infection entirely," Lahita said.

The U.K. researchers also found that only 16% of patients with type one COVID-19 required hospitalization, compared with nearly half of the patients with type six.

Patients in the severe clusters also tended to be older or with pre-existing conditions and weakened immune systems, compared to those in the first three.

Scientists hope the discovery, once further studied, could help predict what types of care patients with COVID-19 might need, and give doctors the ability to predict which patients would fall into which category.

"I'm very happy that these six types have been identified and can give us an idea of a prognosis going forward for patients who are afflicted with this virus," Lahita said.

[Jul 23, 2020] COVID-19/nCOV/SARS-2 immunity comes from T-cell and B-cell activity

Jul 23, 2020 |

c1ue , Jul 23 2020 15:30 utc | 8

More talk about T-cells and B-cells (per Volchkov)
Australia T-cell and B-cell research
To recap: Volchkov, a Russian geneticist/medical researcher, was quoted in a John Helmer article that he believes the true COVID-19/nCOV/SARS-2 immunity comes from T-cell and B-cell activity. His view is based upon multiple European studies employing a very expensive T-cell/B-cell test called ELISPOT - and is that the actual nCOV infection rate is likely far higher than spot PCR or antibody tests can ever detect. In particular, if 20% of people tested by PCR or antibody tests show exposure, the likely actual exposure rate is 3 times higher (60% vs. 20%).
This has huge ramifications if true: it means places with high nCOV death rates have likely already achieved herd immunity levels.
One thing is true: death rates in every single nation and region with a high nCOV death/million count have fallen dramatically.
People are still dying, but they are dying at a far lower CFR/IFR rate.
IF, and I mean *IF*, this is true, this means the lockdown strategies actually did very little to "contain" the outbreak.
This is why looking at the historical behavior in different US states is so important.
California locked down early, but the nCOV mortality rates (both absolute and relative) have basically been flat from April until now.

[Jul 21, 2020] Scientists report that airborne coronavirus is probably infectious

Notable quotes:
"... This boosts the hypothesis that normal speaking and breathing, not just coughing and sneezing, are responsible for spreading COVID-19 -- and that infectious doses of the virus can travel distances far greater than the six feet (two meters) urged by social distancing guidelines. ..."
"... The paper was posted to the website, where most cutting-edge research during the pandemic has first been made public. ..."
"... The team managed to collect microdroplets as small as one micron in diameter. They then placed these samples into a culture to make them grow, finding that three of the 18 samples tested were able to replicate. For Santarpia, this represents proof that microdroplets, which also travel much greater distances than big droplets, are capable of infecting people. "It is replicated in cell culture and therefore infectious," he said. ..."
Jul 21, 2020 |

Scientists have known for several months the new coronavirus can become suspended in microdroplets expelled by patients when they speak and breathe, but until now there was no proof that these tiny particles are infectious.

A new study by scientists at the University of Nebraska that was uploaded to a medical preprint site this week has shown for the first time that SARS-CoV-2 taken from microdroplets, defined as under five microns, can replicate in lab conditions.

This boosts the hypothesis that normal speaking and breathing, not just coughing and sneezing, are responsible for spreading COVID-19 -- and that infectious doses of the virus can travel distances far greater than the six feet (two meters) urged by social distancing guidelines.

The results are still considered preliminary and have not yet appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, which would lend more credibility to the methods devised by the scientists.

The paper was posted to the website, where most cutting-edge research during the pandemic has first been made public.

The same team wrote a paper in March showing that the virus remains airborne in the rooms of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and this study will soon be published in a journal, according to the lead author.

"It is actually fairly difficult" to collect the samples, Joshua Santarpia, an associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center told AFP.

The team used a device the size of a cell phone for the purpose, but "the concentrations are typically very low, your chances of recovering material are small."

The scientists took air samples from five rooms of bedridden patients, at a height of about a foot (30 centimeters) over the foot of their beds.

The patients were talking, which produces microdroplets that become suspended in the air for several hours in what is referred to as an "aerosol," and some were coughing.

The team managed to collect microdroplets as small as one micron in diameter. They then placed these samples into a culture to make them grow, finding that three of the 18 samples tested were able to replicate. For Santarpia, this represents proof that microdroplets, which also travel much greater distances than big droplets, are capable of infecting people. "It is replicated in cell culture and therefore infectious," he said.

Why we wear masks

The potential for microdroplet transmission of the coronavirus was at one stage thought to be improbable by health authorities across the world. Later, scientists began to change their mind and acknowledge it may be a possibility, which is the rationale for universal masking.

The World Health Organization was among the last to shift its position, doing so on July 7.

"I feel like the debate has become more political than scientific," said Santarpia. "I think most scientists that work on infectious diseases agree that there's likely an airborne component, though we may quibble over how large."

The new Microsoft Edge
Download now the latest browser recommended by Microsoft

Linsey Marr, a professor at Virginia Tech who is a leading expert on aerial transmission of viruses and wasn't involved in the study, said it was rare to obtain measurements of the amount of virus present in air.

"Based on what we know about other diseases and what we know so far about SARS-CoV-2, I think we can assume that if the virus is 'infectious in aerosols,' then we can become infected by breathing them in," she told AFP.

[Jul 20, 2020] Russian Elite Received 'Experimental' COVID-19 Vaccine As Early As April -

Jul 20, 2020 |

Russian Elite Received 'Experimental' COVID-19 Vaccine As Early As April by Tyler Durden Mon, 07/20/2020 - 07:22 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Last week, we shared news of what Russia's scientific community had touted as a major breakthrough in the development of a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2: A vaccine trial at Moscow's Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University had yielded the first successful human trials. The American business press slavishly parrots every Moderna press release as the company regurgitates its Phase 1 trial results, despite the fact that the politically-connected biotech company's stage 3 clinical trials won't begin until later this month. Meanwhile, its CEO Stephane Bancel and other executives have cashed in on their Moderna shares, prompting SEC chief Jay Clayton to sheepishly caution against credibility-destroying insider selling.

Despite all of this, we didn't hear a peep out of the western press about the Sechenov trial's accomplishments . However, a few days later, with anxieties about Russia-backed electoral interference intensifying and 'national polls' hinting at a Biden landslide, the British press reported on a new 'policy paper' accusing those pesky Ruskies of trying to steal British research involving COVID-19 vaccines. Intel shared by Canada and the US purportedly supported this conclusion, though Russia has vehemently denied the accusations.

But that's not all: Around the same time, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab accused Russia of trying to meddle in the UK's December election (which returned the Tories to power and ended the reign of opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn).

Were these reports about Russia's vaccine-trial successes merely a smokescreen? The British might see it that way, but on Monday, US-based Bloomberg News published an interesting report claiming that certain Russian VIPs had been administered experimental doses of a vaccine prototype as early as April. Reportedly developed by Moscow's Gamaleya Institute and financed by the state-run Russian Direct Investment Fund, this Russian vaccine candidate is a so-called "viral vector vaccine" based on human adenovirus - a common cold virus fused with the spike protein of SARS CoV-2 to stimulate a human immune response.

It's similar to a vaccine being developed by China's CanSino Biologics, according to Bloomberg.

Scores of members of Russia's business and political elite have been given early access to an experimental vaccine against Covid-19, according to people familiar with the effort, as the country races to be among the first to develop an inoculation.

Top executives at companies including aluminum giant United Co. Rusal, as well as billionaire tycoons and government officials began getting shots developed by the state-run Gamaleya Institute in Moscow as early as April, the people said. They declined to be identified as the information isn't public.

The Gamaleya vaccine, financed by the state-run Russian Direct Investment Fund and backed by the military, last week completed a phase 1 trial involving Russian military personnel. The institute hasn't published results for the study, which involved about 40 people, but has begun the next stage of trials with a larger group.

Gamaleya's press office couldn't be reached by phone Sunday. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov didn't respond to a text message asking whether President Vladimir Putin or others in his administration have had the shots. A government spokesman couldn't immediately comment.

Wait... so the Russians hacked the British vaccine research, traveled back in time, then decided to test their vaccine prototype on some of the most powerful people in Russia's (highly unequal) society? Well, they had to first travel to the future to steal the time-travel technology from the Americans (bear with us...we're still piecing it all together).

The program under which members of Russia's business and political elite have been given the chance to volunteer for doses of the experimental vaccine is legal but kept under wraps to avoid a crush of potential participants, according to a researcher familiar with the effort. He said several hundred people have been involved. Bloomberg confirmed dozens who have had the shots but none would allow their names to be published.

It's not clear how participants are selected and they aren't part of the official studies, though they are monitored and their results logged by the institute. Patients usually get the shots - two are needed to produce an immune response Gamaleya says will last for about two years - at a Moscow clinic connected to the institute. Participants aren't charged a fee and sign releases that they know the risks involved.

Dmitriev of the RDIF said he and his family had taken the shots and noted that a significant number of other volunteers have also been given the opportunity. He declined to provide further details. The Gamaleya Institute said it vaccinated its director, as well as the team working on the trial, when it started. In May, state-controlled Sberbank recruited volunteers among employees to test the institute's vaccine.

O ne top executive who had the vaccine said he experienced no side effects. He said he decided to risk taking the experimental shots in order to be able to live a normal life and have business meetings as usual. Other participants have reported fever and muscle aches after getting the shots.



Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Is it so hard to believe that Russia had enough faith in its vaccine prototype that it would allow certain individuals the choice of receiving an early dose? After all, EU governments are already buying up millions of doses of Moderna's still-largely-untested vaccine candidate.

Similarly, is it possible that Russian spies were simply monitoring the competition?

Who knows? When it comes to the shadowy world of espionage, the public rarely hears the full story. Russia's outbreak has slowed in recent weeks as it has been overtaken by India, which now counts more than 1 million confirmed cases. Meanwhile Russia has confirmed more than 750,000 cases of Covid-19, the fourth-largest total in the world.

[Jul 20, 2020] Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Show -No Adverse Effects- -

Jul 20, 2020 |

pdate (0935ET): A coronavirus vaccine candidate developed by Oxford and AstraZeneca has shown promise in an early trial which found it to be safe for human consumption while reliably producing antibodies that are effective at stopping the virus.

In what looked like a coordinated one-two punch, one of the top researchers leading the Oxford-Astrazeneca trials said in an interview published Monday morning that the research was making "good progress". Minutes later, the Lancet published the first Phase 1/2 trial results, which showed that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine caused "robust immune responses" and was "tolerated" by all study subjects.

That interview was published Monday morning in the US, just minutes before the Lancet released the results of a Phase 1/2 study of the Oxford-AZ vaccine, the most highly anticipated COVID-19 news of the day.

There are currently more than 137 vaccine candidates undergoing preclinical development, and 23 in early clinical development, according to WHO. Of these, candidates from Moderna and the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership are two of the most closely followed prototypes. Governments have already started ordering the vaccine from Moderna, even though approval is still months, perhaps years, away.

According to the Lancet, research has shown that vaccine candidates from Cansino and Astra-Oxford trial have been making good progress, and while they couldn't say much conclusively, the Astra-Oxford trial showed no worrisome "adverse effects".

The Phase 1/2 trial, one of the first human studies of the vaccine, showed an appropriate "immune response". Patients who received 2 doses instead of one saw a stronger response. All patients who received the vaccine generated the desired immune response.

Oxford's candidate "showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results "support large scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 program." The Oxford-AZ study included 1,077 participants spread across 5 test sites in and around the UK.

By comparison, Moderna has released press releases touting findings from studies with fewer than 100 patients. The fact that 8 patients developed neutralizing antibodies in a study that involved dozens of additional subjects was apparently news enough for Moderna, which released a market-pumping press release on those findings a few weeks back.

Though to be sure, not everybody was impressed.

In the study, researchers measured the number of antibodies, and the strength of the immune response, after administering single doses and double doses of the vaccine to various groups of study subjects, and compared those results with a control group who received another vaccine. Pain and swelling caused by the injection were easily treated with paracetemol.

There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R²=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001).

The result: The vaccine candidate has been deemed safe enough to move on to 'Phase 3', which would involve large-scale human trials.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support largescale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme.

Read the full Lancet paper below:

[Jul 18, 2020] COVID-19- What Does Being Positive Really Mean- What Are We Really Detecting- - Fort Russ

Jul 18, 2020 |

By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny – May 21, 2020an osteopathic medical doctor, board-certified in three specialties. She is the founder of Tenpenny Integrative Medical Center, a medical clinic located near Cleveland, Ohio. Her company, provides online education and training regarding all aspects of vaccines and vaccination.


In 1965, scientists identified the first human coronavirus; it was associated with the common cold. The Coronavirus family, named for their crown-like appearance, currently includes 36 viruses. Within that group, there are 4 common viruses that have been causing infection in humans for more than sixty years. In addition, three pandemic coronaviruses that can infect humans: SARS, MERS, and now, SARS-CoV-2.

As the news of deaths in China, South Korea, Italy, and Iran began to saturate every form of media 24/7, we became familiar with a new term: COVID-19. To be clear, the name of the newly identified coronavirus is SARS-CoV-2, short for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2. This virus is associated with fever, cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath, the complex of symptoms that form the diagnosis of COVID-19.

The Trump administration declared a public health emergency on January 31, 2020, then on February 2 placed a ban on the entry of most travelers who had recently been in China. On February 4, Alex Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a declaration of public health emergency and activated the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, otherwise known as the PREP Act. This nefarious legislation provides complete protection of manufacturers from liability for all products, technologies, biologics, or any vaccine developed as a medical countermeasure against COVID-19. For those nervously waiting for the vaccine to become available, be sure to understand the PREP Act before rushing to the get in line.

Calls for testing – to see if a person is or isn't infected – began soon after the emergency was declared, but performing those tests was initially slow due to an inadequate number of test kits. As the kits became available, those developed by the CDC had a defect: The reagents reacted to the negative control sample , making the test inaccurate and the kits unusable.

In various countries, thousands of test kits purchased from China were found to be contaminated with the SARS-CoV-2 viruses. No one really knows how that happened, but theories spread like wildfire. Could the test kit infect the person being tested? Or, did it mean the test would return a false-positive result, driving up the numbers of those said to be infected so those in power could implement stronger lockdowns and accelerate the hockey-stick unemployment rates? Neither of those questions has been adequately answered.

Mandatory Testing of what?

Authorities claim that testing is important for public health officials to assess if their mitigation efforts – "shelter in place" and "social distancing" and "wearing a mask" – are making a difference to "flatten the curve." Officials also claim that testing is necessary to know how many persons are infected within a community and to understand the nature of how coronaviruses spread.

Are these reasons sufficient to give up our health freedom and our personal rights, being tested and shamed in public?

Despite the challenges with test kits, testing began. By the end of March 2020, more than 1 million people had been tested across the US. By May 9, the number tested had grown to over 8.7M. Testing methods include a swab of the nasal passages or by inserting a long, uncomfortable swab through the nose to scrape the back of the throat. Specimens have also been obtained bronchoalveolar lavage, from sputum , and from stool specimens.

The call for mandatory testing has been gathering steam and becoming ever more onerous. In Washington state, Governor Inslee has declared:

Individuals that refuse to cooperate with contact tracers and/or refuse testing, those individuals will not be allowed to leave their homes to purchase basic necessities such as groceries and/or prescriptions. Those persons will need to make arrangements through friends, family, or state provided 'family support' personnel .

But what do the results really mean?

Who Should Be Tested

On May 8, 2020, the CDC has listed specific priorities for when testing should be done. As of May 16, more than 11-million samples have been collected and more than 3700 specimens have not yet been evaluated.

High Priority


Read that last priority again: That means virtually everyone can be required to get a test.

Is that a violation of your personal rights? And, if you submit to testing, what does a "positive test" actually mean?

Types of Testing: RT-PCR

PCR, short for polymerase chain reaction , is a highly specific laboratory technique. The key to understanding PCR testing is that PCR can identify an individual specific virus within a viral family.

Has COVID-19 Testing Made the Problem Worse? Confusion Regarding "The True Health Impacts"

However, a PCR test can only be used to identify DNA viruses; the SARS-CoV2 virus is an RNA virus. Therefore, multiple steps must be taken to "magnify" the amount of genetic material in the specimen. Researchers used a method called RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, to specifically identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It's a complicated process. To read more about it, go here and here.

If a nasal or a blood sample contains a tiny snip of RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, RT-PCR can identify it, leading to a high probability that the person has been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

However – and this is important – a positive RT-PCR test result does not necessarily indicate a full virus is present. The virus must be fully intact to be transmitted and cause illness.

RT-PCR Testing: The Importance of Timing

Even if a person has had all the symptoms associated with a coronavirus infection or has been closely exposed to persons who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, the probability of a RT-PCR test being positive decreases with the number of days past the onset of symptoms.

According to a study done by Paul Wikramaratna and others:

In other words, the longer the time frame between the onset of symptoms and the time a person is tested, the more likely the test will be negative.

Repeat testing of persons who have a negative test may (eventually) confirm the presence of viral RNA, but this is impractical. Additionally, repeated testing of the same person can lead to even more confusing results: The test may go from negative, to positive, then back to negative again as the immune system clears out the coronavirus infection and moves to recovery.

And what makes this testing even more confusing is that the FDA admits that "The detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR does not necessarily equate with an infectious virus."

Let's break that down:

You've had all the symptoms of COVID19, but your RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is negative.

3 Ways Your Cat Asks for Help Dr. Marty Ad by Revcontent Find Out More > 97,209

- Advertisement -

So, what does a "positive" test actually mean? And that's the problem:

No one knows for sure.

Another Type of Testing: Antibodies

According to the nonprofit Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) , more than 200 serologic blood tests, to test for antibodies, are either now available or in development.

There are two primary types of antibodies that are assessed for nearly any type of infection: IgM and IgG. While several new testing devices are being touted as a home test, they are not the same as a home pregnancy test or a glucometer to you're your blood sugar. The blood spot or saliva specimen can be collected at home, must it must then be sent to a laboratory for analysis. It can take a few days – or longer – to get the results. With so many tests in the pipeline, the ability to test at home will be changing over time.

The first antibody to rise is IgM. It rises quickly after the onset of the infection and is usually a sign of an acute, or current, infection. The IgM levels diminish quickly as the infection resolves. The FDA admits they do not know how long the IgM remains present for SARS-CoV-2 as the infection is being cleared.

The interpretation of an IgG antibody is more difficult. This antibody is an indicator of a past infection. The test is often not specific enough to determine if the past infection was caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus or one of the four common coronaviruses that cause influenza-like illness.

The FDA says:

Because serology testing can yield a negative test result even if the patient is actively infected (e.g., the body has not yet developed in response to the virus) or maybe falsely positive (e.g., if the antibody indicates a past infection by a different coronavirus), this type of testing should not be used to diagnose an acute or active COVID-19 infection.

Similarly, the CDC says the following regarding antibody testing:

What? Wait!

If the FDA does not know if an IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2 after recovering from the infection is protective against a future infection, then they certainly don't know if an antibody caused by a vaccine will prevent infection either.

Doesn't this completely eliminate the theory that antibodies afford protection and antibodies from vaccines are necessary to keep you from getting sick?

Mandatory Testing – New Job Creation

Illinois U.S. Rep. Bobby L. Rush introduced the H.R. 6666 TRACE Act on May 1. On his website, Rush said ,

Until we have a vaccine to defeat this dreaded disease, contact tracing in order to understand the full breadth and depth of the spread of this virus is the only way we will be able to get out from under this.

H.R.6666 would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the CDC to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing and then to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals. The contact tracers would be authorized to test people in their homes and as necessary, quarantine people in place.

Where do they intend to do this testing? Besides mobile units to test people in their homes, the bill identifies eight specific locations where the testing and contract tracing could occur: schools, health clinics, universities, churches, and "any other type of entity" the secretary of HHS wants to use.

The bill would allocate $100 billion in 2020 "and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2021 and any subsequent fiscal year during which the emergency period continues."

But what are they looking for?

The virus is rapidly mutating, which is rather typical of RNA viruses. In a study published in April 2020, researchers have discovered that the novel coronavirus has mutated into at least 30 different genetic variations. If your RT-PCR test is positive, does this identify exposure to the pandemic virus or exposure to one of the genetic variations? The same can be said about the vaccines under development: With each mutation, is the vaccine more likely to be all risk and no benefit when it reaches the market?

What You Can Do

Across the nation, police are being told to not apprehend criminals but instead, to arrest parents at playgrounds, to arrest lone surfers on public beaches, to fine ministers and congregation members sitting in their cars listening to a service on the radio, and to restrict movement by creating one-way sidewalks.

People have had enough. They are beginning to see the huge scam that has been perpetrated on the entire world over a viral infection with a global death rate of 1.4% (meaning, 1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover). This is far fewer deaths than a severe flu season.

We're already starting to see the thrust to take our power back:

While they shut us down and held us hostage in our homes, they changed our society, our lives, our world.

It's time for Americans to resist with non-violent civil disobedience. Be brave. Be bold. Put on the full armor of God, as found in Ephesians 6:10-20 in the Bible, to stand against the world rulers of this present darkness. With God on our side, all things are possible.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

[Jul 18, 2020] Lee Camp- The Life-Saving COVID-19 Drugs You've Never Heard Of (and Why)

Jul 18, 2020 |

he American profit-based healthcare system impacts us in more ways than just our gargantuan bill at the excretion end of an emergency room visit. Right now, our lovable idiotic inhumane healthcare system is acting as a hurdle to the manufacture and procurement of the right drugs to treat Covid-19.

One of the drugs currently trumpeted as our savior is Remdesivir . Despite sounding like the name of a Hobbit in Middle Earth, some reports from the corporate media make it sound like the drug will thrust us face-first into a fresh world of happiness -- water parks and restaurants and random no-holds-barred make-outs with strangers. A world where when someone sneezes, we don't dive under our desk with an adult diaper strapped on our face as a makeshift mask.

There's only one problem. The big pharma company that owns Remdesivir, Gilead, has already made clear their plans to profiteer from this pandemic. As The LA Times put it

Drugmaker Gillead says it's doing you a favor by setting the price for its pending COVID-19 treatment, Remdesivir, at more than $2,000 for government agencies and over $3,000 for private insurers."

How does the CEO of Gilead, Daniel O'Day, justify this disgusting price point? He claims they're under-pricing Remdesivir. He said , "In normal circumstances, we would price a medicine according to the value it provides. Earlier hospital discharge would result in hospital savings of approximately $12,000 per patient."

Public Outcry Follows Gilead Decision to Charge $3000 for COVID Drug that Costs Pennies to Produce Gilead announced that a five-day course of its drug Remdesivir -- used to fight COVID-19 -- will cost $3,120 despite costing pennies to produce.

MintPress News | Alan Macleod | Jul 1

The value it provides?? So, if a doctor saves someone's life with heart surgery, then that guy owes the doctor the entire worth of the rest of his life? Millions of dollars? Maybe he should become the surgeon's butler or wet nurse.

Saying something should cost even close to the value it provides ranks up there as one of the stupidest arguments ever spoken. (Second only to when the people at Mountain Dew argued that human beings would love a Doritos-flavored soft drink named "Dewitos.") So, for a dude taking Viagra who can now get it up, he owes the makers of Viagra – what? – sex with his wife? Or does he just owe them 300 orgasms? Or perhaps he owes them the child he's able to produce while taking the pills. ("Dear Cialis Folks, I'm emailing to ask for a mailing address to send you my 2-year-old, Robbie. Fair is fair. I want to give you the value of your goods. Just be careful – he bites a lot. And he's already totally racist. Not sure how he picked that up so young.")

But there's another catch to Gilead's price-gouging shenanigans. They didn't create Remdesivir. We did. You and me.

Public Citizen revealed that Gilead raked in over $70 million from taxpayers. Plus, federal scientists ran the team that found out Remdesivir also worked against Coronaviruses. And, " The National Institutes of Health ran the trial that led to Remdesivir's emergency use authorization, and public funding is supporting clinical trials around the world today."

You and I paid for the creation and research behind Remdesivir. There is absolutely no reason we should fill the pockets of Gilead's preposterously rich CEO and its board. Most countries realize this. Most countries don't behave this way. Most countries have some tiny modicum of respect for the lives of their citizens. America is not most countries.

Back to the LA Times , "Nearly all other developed countries limit how much pharmaceutical companies can charge for prescription meds. The U.S. doesn't operate like that. We allow drug companies to charge as much as they please "

Perhaps prescription meds that cost the same as landing a man on Mars (in a pair of Jimmy Choo heels) are the reason 42 percent of new cancer patients have their entire life savings wiped out within two years. The average amount drained from a patient is nearly $100,000, and the entire medical costs for U.S. cancer patients per year is $80 billion . Why ever change a system that piles such bulbous mountains of cash in the vaults of those running the show?

Apparently most other national governments don't want to ruin the lives of every cancer survivor. As to why not, one can only guess.

But this story gets crazier. Not only is Remdesivir way over-priced, we're not even sure it does much. Some studies show it achieves almost nothing. Meanwhile, according to the Intercept

[A]nother Covid-19 treatment has quietly been shown to be more effective. A three-drug regimen offered a greater reduction in the time it took patients to recover than Remdesivir did. People who took the combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin got better in seven days as opposed to 12 days for those who didn't take it."

However, I have yet to hear of a mad rush to hoard those drugs. Why is that? Probably because those drugs don't have colossal marketing campaigns that would make Coca-Cola blush. In fact there appears to be no marketing campaign whatsoever for the more effective drugs. To figure out why that is, one simply must follow the money.

New Research Shows Anti-Coronavirus Drugs Could Be Produced for Pennies A new study shows that several drugs that have shown promise in fighting the coronavirus could be produced cheaply and in en masse.

MintPress News | Alan Macleod | Apr 10

[E]ach of the three drugs in the new combination is generic, or no longer under patent, which means that no company stands to profit significantly from its use."

Must cut-throat late-stage capitalism always be so predictable?

Only the ridiculously profitable drugs are worth hyping. Only the money makers deserve 80,000 commercials telling every consumer to irrationally demand them. The cheap drugs that simply – save lives – those are garbage. What's the point of saving a life if you can't make a bundle from it? I've always said, "A life saved without extracting a shitload of money from it, is a life lost."

I don't know that this last part needs saying, but I'm going to do it anyway. When a society has a system built on profit, run by sociopaths, based on the manipulation of lizard-brain impulses, then it will always end up in a race to the bottom. With unfettered capitalism we inevitably find ourselves with the worst drugs, priced at the highest amounts, hoarded by those who need them the least.

Unless we're talking about recreational illegal drugs. Those are cheaper than ever.

If you feel this column is important, please share it.

Feature photo | A lab technician works at the Eva Pharma facility in Cairo, Egypt, July 12, 2020, where Remdesivir is being produced. Nariman El-Mofty | AP

Lee Camp is the host of the hit comedy news show "Redacted Tonight." His new book "Bullet Points and Punch Lines" is available at and his standup comedy special can be streamed for free at .

This article was published with special permission from the author. It originally appeared at Consortium News .

Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

[Jul 15, 2020] These Are the Drugs and Vaccines That Might End the Coronavirus Pandemic

Jul 15, 2020 |

Vaccines Vaccines give broad parts of the population some level of immunity and are considered crucial to ending the pandemic. They also take longer to develop, in part because they must be proven to be extremely safe since they're given to healthy people. While some researchers say a vaccine could be ready by the end of the year, others say it could take far longer.
COMPANY Oxford University, AstraZeneca Plc NAME ChAdOx1 nCov-19 PROGRESS Phase 3

The vaccine is made from a harmless virus that's been altered to produce the surface spike protein from SARS-CoV-2.

LATEST NEWS With human trials underway, the U.S. government has pledged as much as $1.2 billion, and the company plans to produce as many as 30 million doses available in the U.K. by September. Other groups are moving to line up access elsewhere. COMPANY Moderna Inc. NAME mRNA-1273 RECENTLY UPDATED Phase 2

Moderna's mRNA-1273 uses messenger RNA to prompt the body to make a key protein from the virus, creating an immune response.

LATEST NEWS Moderna's vaccine produced antibodies to the coronavirus in all patients tested in an initial safety trial. The company expects a phase 3 trial to begin July 27. COMPANY CanSino Biologics Inc. NAME Ad5-nCoV PROGRESS Phase 2

CanSino's vaccine was developed alongside China's military and is genetically engineered with a replication-defective mutant virus.

LATEST NEWS CanSino's vaccine has received a special authorization to be used by China's military after a study showed it generated an immune response. President Xi Jinping says the country will make any vaccine available as a global public good. COMPANY BioNTech SE, Pfizer Inc. NAME multiple candidates PROGRESS Phase 2

BioNTech's BNT162 is another messenger RNA vaccine platform that the German company is developing with Pfizer. In China, BioNTech is co-developing vaccines with Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Group.

LATEST NEWS One of the companies' vaccine candidates has shown promising antibody responses. Further testing in up to 30,000 people may start as early as July. COMPANY Sinovac Biotech Ltd NAME No name yet PROGRESS Phase 3

The vaccine uses inactivated virus, which can help the body develop antibodies to the pathogen without risking infection.

LATEST NEWS Sinovac has begun human trials in China. The company says its vaccine candidate can neutralize different strains of the virus. COMPANY China National Biotec Group Co., Beijing Institute of Biological Products NAME No name yet PROGRESS Phase 3

The vaccine uses inactivated virus, which can help the body develop antibodies to the pathogen without risking infection.

LATEST NEWS With phase 2 trials complete, a vaccine could be available as soon as the end of this year, according to an official report in May. COMPANY Novavax Inc. NAME NVX-CoV2373 RECENTLY UPDATED Phase 2

Novavax's vaccine is meant to create antibodies that block a protein "spike" that the virus uses to infect its host.

LATEST NEWS Novavax has received $1.6 billion from the U.S. government as it prepares for a final-stage study as early as this fall. COMPANY Johnson & Johnson NAME No name yet PROGRESS Preclinical

J&J is working on an unnamed adenovirus-based vaccine as well as two backups.

LATEST NEWS J&J accelerated plans for human studies and aims to make up to 1 billion doses by the end of 2021 . J&J has said its vaccine could be ready for emergency use by January, and it has received $456 million from the U.S. COMPANY Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline Plc NAME No name yet PROGRESS Preclinical

Sanofi is working on a vaccine using technology already employed in one of its flu vaccines, which could speed development and production.

LATEST NEWS France's Sanofi has partnered with the U.K.'s Glaxo on a project backed by U.S. funding. The companies plan to start human trials in the second half of this year. Sanofi is also developing an mRNA vaccine with Translate Bio. COMPANY Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc. NAME INO-4800 RECENTLY UPDATED Phase 1

Inovio's experimental vaccine uses DNA to activate a patient's immune system.

LATEST NEWS Inovio says an early trial showed positive immune responses but investors complained about a lack of detail. COMPANY Merck & Co. NAME No names yet PROGRESS Preclinical

Merck's two vaccine candidates employ exisiting technology behind its Ebola virus shot and a measles virus vector platform discovered by the Pasteur Institute, respectively.

LATEST NEWS Merck has partnered with AIDS researchers to develop a vaccine using technology already employed in its Ebola virus shot. The company has also agreed to buy biotech Themis, gaining a vaccine candidate that uses an existing measles virus vector platform. COMPANY Imperial College London NAME No name yet PROGRESS Phase 1

When injected, the RNA vaccine candidate delivers genetic instructions to muscle cells to make the "spike" protein on the surface of the coronavirus.

LATEST NEWS Researchers have received U.K. funding and have begun human trials.

[Jul 11, 2020] The Great Covid-19 Deception and What You Need to Know to Survive by Gary Heavin

Jul 11, 2020 |
The Great Covid-19 Deception and What You Need to Know to Survive GARY HEAVIN JULY 10, 2020 1,600 WORDS 74 COMMENTS REPLY Tweet Reddit Share Share Email Print More RSS

I've been speaking with my friends who include medical doctors and other highly educated people about the treatments that they would seek if they were diagnosed with Covid 19. Most of them had no idea what course of treatment they or their families might seek. This conundrum is in part due to the massive volume of information that is being thrown at us. Much of this information is deliberately deceptive. I am writing this article to cut through the deception so that you and your physician can make informed decisions if and when the time comes.

This article has two purposes. First, it's imperative that you understand the great deceit that Big Pharma, their minions at the FDA, CDC, NIH, the WHO, the MSM, and officials in high government positions are perpetrating on you, your family, and likely your doctor.

The second purpose is to assure that you are armed with the necessary information to insure that you receive the best treatment options from your health care provider. Knowledge is power.

Allow me to repeat, you need to know you are being duped and you need a plan for you and your family if you become infected with Covid 19. So let's get to it. Let me begin by stating that I'm not a medical doctor and I m not offering medical advice. I do have a bachelors of science degree in health, nutrition, and counseling. I've written two NY Times bestselling books on women's health and fitness and I have been awarded an honorary doctorate degree. However, you will need to determine your treatment options with your personal physician.

The Great Deception

When it comes to safe, effective and affordable therapies for Covid 19, Big Pharma and its agents, i.e. Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx and many others, appear to have an agenda to lie to you and your physician.

The most obvious example is their ongoing effort to ridicule the treatment option of hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Zinc. We've all watched the harsh criticism that President Trump received when he promoted this protocol for Covid 19.

So, hydroxychloroquine has been around for almost 70 years as a treatment for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. The WHO has designated it as a safe and effective medication akin to taking an aspirin. A survey of 6,000 medical doctors affirmed it as their treatment of choice for Covid 19.

The treatment works like this. hydroxychloroquine is an ionophore, which means it can transport material through the cellular wall. Zinc is a mineral that stops the replication of the Covid 19 virus within the cell. hydroxychloroquine transports Zinc into the cell so that it can stop the replication of the virus. The Z-pak antibiotic is given to prevent opportunistic bacterial infections like pneumonia that can occur while your immune system is engaged in fighting your viral infection. The key to its effectiveness is to start this treatment at the early onset of Covid 19 so that it has time to work.

How much effort has Big Pharma put into subverting this treatment regimen? In addition to denouncing its effectiveness, from Dr. Fauci and company, constant MSM hit pieces, the censoring of medical doctor's articles and videos from the internet, there has also been a number of "studies" done that were literally sabotaged from the onset.

The VA hospital system reported in March that they had given hydroxychloroquine to a number of patients. Following their release of information, the MSM ran the story with the headlines, "VA hospital found that hydoxychloroquine doesn't work and increases the fatality rate of Covid 19." However, if you actually read the study (see link ) you will find that only the sickest of the cohorts were given the drug. They got the drug only after they were so far along that it would not have a chance to work and they were not given zinc. None of these details made the MSM articles.

Another example of the Great Deception came from the British medical journal, The Lancet. The Lancet reported that a meta study showed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective. As a result of this published study, France, Italy and other European countries immediately prohibited the use of this treatment option. Within a few weeks, it was found that the study was so badly designed and that the results were literally fabricated . The Lancet was forced to make a retraction of the "study." Of course in the meantime the MSM ran the original Lancet story and mislead millions of people and their physicians.

So what could possibly be the motive behind Big Pharma's Great Deception. Well there's three answers, money, money and money. That brings up the treatment option that Big Pharma is promoting, Remdesivir. This lovely experimental drug, costs above $3,000 per regimen, must be given intravenously in a hospital (five days stay around 15 grand) and evidence shows it doesn't really work .

The other treatment option is the promised Covid 19 vaccine that they allege is forthcoming. The NHS in Great Britain has committed to purchase a vaccine for the entire population of Great Britain. That's a commitment of 80,000,000 doses at an agreed price of around $600 for each vaccination. That's about $50,000,000,000. (50 Billion) That's a lot of incentive to mislead people. This week, a US pharmaceutical company received $1.6 billion dollars towards their efforts to make this vaccine which in the opinion of many experts, won't work on a coronavirus and will be untested and experimental.

How does Big Pharma have so much control over the dissemination of this information or should I say propaganda? Well, the same answer pops up again, money. Big Pharma gave $2 billion dollars during the last election cycle to US politicians. Big AG, the military/security complex and big oil each gave only a paltry $1.0 billion dollars to buy the votes of our political leadership.

The MSM counts Big Pharma's advertising revenue at up to 80 percent of their income. The internet's "masters of the universe" also kowtow to Big Pharma's influence and advertising dollars by censoring anyone who tries to tell the American people the truth about Covid 19. It certainly appears that anyone who is complicit in this Great Deception, a deception that is designed to kill and terrify enough people to ultimately beg for an experimental vaccine, well, these people would be accessories to murder.

What You Need to Know to Survive

Now, for some good news. There are several therapies that are being offered that appear to be safe, effective and affordable. However, these therapies must be utilized early in the disease progression.


Japan, Taiwan and other Asian countries have maintained a much lower fatality rate with Covid 19 then we have here in America, in spite of the fact they live in densely populated communities. Many people believe that it is due to their preferred method of treatment. They use a steroid medication that is inhaled in a mist through a home use nebulizer. I'm familiar with this since my 2 year old granddaughter needed this treatment with a similar drug for an upper respiratory issue that she had recently. That speaks to the safety and the commonality of this treatment. Watch the link of a Texas doctor who shares his patient's experiences with this therapy method using the drug Budesonide and a course of antibiotics.


Another treatment option that appears to be safe and effective is the use of the antiparasitic drug Ivermectin with the antibiotic Doxycycline. Just one Ivermectin pill and then the course of antibiotics for ten days resulted in a 100 percent cure rate for Covid 19 patients according to the attached study. Ivermectin has been widely used on the continent of Africa for many years as an anti-parasitic and is believed to be a primary reason that Covid 19 has not severely impacted the African population.

Hydroxychloroquine & Zinc

As we've seen above, this therapeutic regimen should be considered simply due to the efforts to prevent you from knowing the truth about it . As Shakespeare wrote, "Doth thou protest too much?"

The challenge with this therapeutic is both finding a doctor who will prescribe it and finding a pharmacy that will sell it. This should be between you and your doctor. Not the governors of certain states. Considering that 20 percent of all drugs are prescribed "off label", meaning that they are prescribed for a use other than intended, you and your doctor should have the liberty and the responsibility to make this health care decision.

There are several other therapies that appear to be safe, effective and affordable. You may want to research Chlorine Dioxide, intravenous ozone, high dose intravenous vitamin C and another, glutathione which are popular treatments in the homeopathic communities.

As for me and my family, we are going to make informed and responsible decisions regarding our health care. I hope the information I've given to you today along with the links for further information will help you, your family and your doctor make the best decisions as well.

Gary Heavin and his wife Diane are the founders of Curves, the world's largest fitness franchise. Gary is the author of two NY Times bestselling books, Curves and Curves on the go. Gary co-wrote and starred in the movie Amerigeddon. Gary is a pro-life libertarian and serves on the advisory board of Dr. Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Gary and his wife are philanthropists who feed 10,000 children a day in Haiti and operate an orphanage outside the slums of Mumbai. Most importantly, they are bible believing Christians.

Anon [694] Disclaimer , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:42 am GMT

Excellent article. Early treatment is definitely key. The French doctor who recommended hydroxychloroquine way back in Feb. said that it needs to be given early, by the time they go on ventilator it's no longer effective. I read in Zerohedge last week that in TX, doctors said they simply give patients who come into the emergency room a steroid shot and send them home with antibiotics. Usually they are already feeling much better after the steroid shot. Even those who are hospitalized are now only staying 3-5 days.

I find it incredulous that on their website, CDC is still telling people to stay home if they are sick, that "many people" get over it themselves without treatment, and to *not* go to the doctor's until we are having difficulty breathing. By then it is too late! Doctors have said that the main difference btwn Covid patients and flu patients is, with a flu patient, when their lungs are 10% fluid, they are already having difficulty breathing, but for some reason for Covid19, the patient does not have difficulty breathing until the lungs are 50 to 60% fluid, which is why it's too late by the time they sought treatment.

This article discusses the low fatality rate in HK(0.4%) and Singapore(<0.1%), the doctors there attributed it to early treatment using a different cocktail of drugs: interferon beta-1b, which was developed to treat multiple sclerosis; ribavirin, which is used in the treatment of hepatitis C; and lopinavir-ritonavir, also known by its brand name, Kaletra. But again, early treatment is key.

CDC is an absolute fail. I'm beginning to believe they want more people to die so Trump would lose the election. They need to change their advice on their website before more lives are senselessly lost. Pence as the Covid Tzar is also totally failing on his job by not calling him out.

I'm also beginning to believe those who claim hydroxychloroquine doesn't work simply want to keep it for themselves and their cronies to take as preventive drug. Trump has been on it and he hasn't gotten sick, even though he's been exposed to lots of people. Something tells me many of our congress critters and the effing Jews are already loaded up on it.

Anonymous [426] Disclaimer , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:50 am GMT

I can't wait for November 4th when COVID-19 ends for good and all the masks and social distancing bullshit ends. Thankfully this C-19 psyops will last just 8 months and not the 2+ years the Russian collusion BS was drawn out to. Though sadly with the former it has further eviscerated working/middle-class America. I'm guessing that was part of the plan as well.

Quinsat , says: July 11, 2020 at 5:24 am GMT

The great Covid deception is it hasn't fulfilled Koch's postulates.

Smokey , says: July 11, 2020 at 5:51 am GMT

I believe Mr. Heavin more than I believe the government, and the CDC in particular.

But that could also apply to a Numerologist vs the gov't, so there's that.

I don't believe Jeffrey Epstein died a natural death any more than I believe the mainstream media is the least bit impartial. They used to try. They tried to keep the news and the Op-Ed pages separate. But that was then and this is now

This is getting fun!

So, I used to believe that cops were always the good guys, and that federal judges were above politics. Oh, and they would never lie, or take a bribe. And I believed that priests would never, ever molest a boy, or even girl (did I get that backward?), or even use bad words around them. And I believed Scoutmasters took Boy Scouts up into the mountains for the fresh air and Indian lore OK, this is starting to sound ridiculous.

Except, now I'm not sure what to believe any more.

Can anyone tell me ?

Chris in Cackalacky , says: July 11, 2020 at 5:57 am GMT

No offense but do you know how many people claim to have had Covid before Covid was cool? I don't know anyone who has tested positive but I know 25 people who claim they had or have it. In the past three years there have been severe influenzas making the rounds, there is no denying that. And why should routine flu and colds take a holiday just because our criminal elites tell us there is a special disease we need to watch out for? My point is we are so deceived that nobody knows up from down anymore. But at least we know one thing for sure -- hostile elites are working to deceive us.

Achilles Wannabe , says: July 11, 2020 at 6:33 am GMT

My doctor suffers from a delusion common to her profession. She thinks she is a "Medical Scientist". Actually she is a retailer for pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. She is a sales person in a capitalist industry And should she have any questions about her real role in a health care field which is really a substance and med tech pushing industry, her colleagues – fellow sales people – will remind her of her professional obligations by threatening her board certification to insure her near absolute conformity to market standards.

But there is no getting her to understand her real role in the medical industry. She believes her own hype or the hype created about her profession back in the 1950s when a few genuinely useful drugs and technologies were discovered which then afforded the money making corporate establishment the opportunity to take a humane craft and, thru the "science" of Epidemiology -Medical speak for lying with statistics – turn professional Medicine into probably the largest boondoggle in history. Consider the flag ship for usurious medicine – cholesterol lowering statin drugs.

But why don't I get rid of my essentially brain dead doctor, go to to someone else? Practically speaking, there is no one else. There are doctors who understand all this and write books about it but they are so rare as to be useless when real sickness like bacterial infections for which there are useful technologies like antibiotics actually occur. The most useful thing these real scientific doctors have to say is "Don't see your doctor" unless you have a real emergency – like an old fashion visceral type sickness – as opposed to some epidemiologically hyped condition like, again, "high cholesterol" as the "cause" of heart disease.

But now we have a genuine epidemic that is killing and injuring people and Medical Science is lying to us about possible treatments. Even a Medical skeptic like myself could not have predicted this level of base greed by our Medical pharmaceutical establishment This is tantamount to MURDER. And we have no government -whether it be run by Democrats or Republicans- who will take action. They are all on the Med Pharm tit and/or deluded by "Medical Science" as well. Until we learn to help ourselves and overthrow this system, God help us

Valka , says: July 11, 2020 at 6:48 am GMT

$50 billion just for Britain America doesn't stand a chance.

TheTrumanShow , says: July 11, 2020 at 6:58 am GMT

Thanks, Gary.

I've been reading everything counter-&-alternative to the deception I could find since it first appeared, but had never thought to investigate therapies until reading your article. Fortuitously, for me (in Thailand), Hydroxychloroquine is being used therapeutically and may even be available OTC.

However, Big Medicine & Big Pharma are already here and steadily making inroads into health care and medicine.

Gleimhart Mantooso , says: July 11, 2020 at 7:10 am GMT

Whatever happened to that vaccine that some Israeli Genius Doctors claimed would be ready in a few weeks, which was months ago now? What a shock that that never materialized.

Trygve Blodøks , says: July 11, 2020 at 7:38 am GMT

You should also look into coodial silver water. I got rid of an hpv infection using it. No side effects.

Herald , says: July 11, 2020 at 9:14 am GMT

The author doesn't mention Vitamin D, which is rather strange.

skrik , says: July 11, 2020 at 9:29 am GMT

@Gary Heavin

The Great Covid-19 Deception and

Click-baitish, much? Well, you got me in, but you seem to have a good 'treatment' argument, and 'good luck,' both by avoiding Covid-19 in the 1st place and finding a 'collaborative+pursuasive' Dr in the 2nd = worst case, should you or one of yours gets 'hit.' [Perish the thought.]

But IMHO, the Great est Covid-19 Deception is the negligent way most 'Western' governments have *not* taken Covid-19 properly seriously, starting of course with US = Trump and UK = Johnson then perhaps SE 'led' by so-called expert Tegnell next in a looong list of apparent delinquents.

Again IMHO, when Wuhan realised that they were under a bio-warfare-like attack [possibly when they 1st saw the PRRA inclusion in the decoded genome], they reacted like cut snakes and proceeded with the speed of fear-stricken Gazelles in a very largely successful attempt to *suppress* the virus. But, of course, they are communists, eh? So-called 'democratic' [in-name-only governments, many largely bolshie 'wo/men in the street'] think differently [even to their own detriment; they just can't help themselves.]

With the possible exception of NZ = Ardern, most 'Western' governments went for 'mitigation' = 'flattening the curve,' if they took any action at all, see BR = Bolsonaro "has accused the media of "fear-mongering"" and IIRC said something like "What can I do?"

Here is an article, 1st found by me in March on MoA :

"Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance"

MoA blurb: 'Here is his latest in which he argues not only to "flatten the curve" but to eradicate the virus.'

For my last IMHO, all 'Western' leaders who have acted with less than full effort = incompetently meaning ineffectively on behalf of their 'own people' should be prosecuted for their negligence. rgds

GeeBee , says: July 11, 2020 at 9:34 am GMT

A good article all around, except that the population of the UK is nowhere near eighty million. The latest figure I can find gives 66 million. Also, your attempt to invoke the Bard ('As Shakespeare wrote, "Doth thou protest too much?"') is lamentably botched. Try 'Methinks the lady doth protest too much'. (Hamlet's mother Gertrude says it of what she regards as overacting in a play that Hamlet has arranged for his mother and her husband, the usurper Claudius, to watch).

Justvisiting , says: July 11, 2020 at 10:37 am GMT

It is a great idea to have a candid discussion with your doctor/nurse on the issue of big pharma's economic power and how it creates conflicts of interest in the medical profession.

Many doctors/nurses already knew it and will quickly agree, many more "get it" after you explain it to them.

If your doctor is so brainwashed by "experts" that they think you are an "anti-science kook", time to get a new doctor!

gotmituns , says: July 11, 2020 at 10:40 am GMT

Bingo – it's all a total bunch of malarkey. All the BS isn't aimed at people our age (I'm 76), it's aimed at the milennials and younger. It is shaping them for the "Brave New World" that they will live.

Simon Tugmutton , says: July 11, 2020 at 10:48 am GMT

First let me say that the virus has never been satisfactorily isolated and does not meet Koch's postulates, which leads some people to speculate that it does not exist at all. The symptoms are so various as to be nonsensical; whatever the virus may be, last winter, that led to all the hospitalizations is open to question. Certainly the fear-porn spewed out 24/7 by the corporate media led to high levels of anxiety among the credulous and many of these no doubt presented as Covid-19 patients even though they were in fact suffering from the flu or a bad cold. Once in the hands of the quacks, nosocomial infections and intubation really made them sick – or dead.

As for protection against any respiratory illness, vitamin D is essential and I am surprised the author fails to understand this. 4000 IU per day maximum.

All that aside, Covid-19 a gigantic psyop designed to usher in a world government. It was even rehearsed in 2019 and all the wrinkles worked out beforehand.

Mark G. , says: July 11, 2020 at 10:56 am GMT

If you can't get hydroxychloroquine there is some evidence that the natural substance quercetin found in apples and onions can act as an ionophore that transports zinc into the cell. Instead of the z-pak, a natural antibiotic like oregano or cinnamon oil might suffice. These items quercetin, zinc and oregano and cinnamon oil are all available down at the local health food store. There is more evidence for the hydroxychloroquine, zinc, z-pak combination so those would be the preferred combination if you can get them but these natural substances might help if you can't get them and might act as a preventative to keep from getting the virus if you use them regularly.

I have found only a few studies that support the use of these natural substances but you need to understand that since these aren't drugs they can't be patented so there isn't the same financial incentive to prove their effectiveness as there would be with drugs that can be patented and then sold exclusively by one company.

UncommonGround , says: July 11, 2020 at 10:59 am GMT

Whether hydoxy/chloroquine works or not is something that will be clear only after there are studies that allow to take a final conclusion. The question has been discussed critically by the press, by medical doctors, by people. Of course, everybody knows that it's possible that no vaccination will function or be available (we can hear this everyday on television). Contrary to what the author says, a phamaceutical firm was happy that the medicament could be possibly used when the question came up and some people were optimistic about it. The web site of a German television wrote in may that it was still conceivable that hydoxychloroquine could work in the very early stages of the disease (after first negative results). This was only speculation.

The author mentions a talk with some friends of him and some information that he has. But there have been a few studies, good or bad, with chloroquine with negative results. The study of the Lancet was taken back because the data that they used was apparently not trustworthy. This shows how difficult it is to have good and conclusive results in a short time. We can say the same about the evidence used by the author. It doesn't mean very much. We still have to see what happens and until now we don't know. There are efforts to find ways to treat better the disease. In German, I read yesterday:

chuckywiz , says: July 11, 2020 at 11:15 am GMT

The media never talks about those who recovered from Corona virus like BOJO, the prime minister of UK or others. What treatment the recovered patients received, how it helped them and other information. We hear only the scary stuff.
Dr. Fauci and associates could never develop his promised HIV vaccine. I read somewhere that he had been on the same job for the last 37 years. Go figure.

"DR" Bill Gate of MS is an expert of globalized vaccination and his articles on the subject have been published in several Medical Journals.
New Economy. Question More.

Linux_tyro , says: July 11, 2020 at 11:31 am GMT

I was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection in April. Was given a Z-pack for 5 days, an inhaler, Albuterol Sulfate that I am going to refill and a pill for cough, Benzonatate 200mg. They tested me for Flu, Pneumonia, Strep and Covid. All test came back negative.

Now I have a sinus infection and was prescribed another Z-pack with Prednisone 250mg twice a day for five days.

I've been feeling under the weather for months now.

Oh! Now I remember my question. How much zinc daily should we be taking?

Emslander , says: July 11, 2020 at 11:39 am GMT

So, now we know who the enemy is. When can we start arresting and executing them?

I've had a condition common to old men for a long time. I went to some MD from the Far East who started immediately talking about cutting me up. I went to a second doctor, a young American, and told him I guess I needed to be sliced and diced. He said, "Not so fast" and recommended the regular use of two substances I could get at the vitamin store. I did so and the matter improved to the point that I felt effectively cured.

Last week, I went back to him. He works at a large establishment that includes my regular MD. I started telling him about how miraculous and enlightened his advice was. He quickly shut me up and started talking about operations and antibiotics. He wouldn't even listen when I told him that his earlier advice had worked. My presumption is that the financial people got to him. I'd guess that they do a regular review of medical care by each physician to see how they can better monetize their practice. Anyway, his changed tone was remarkable enough that it had to be something like money that was involved.

mark tapley , says: July 11, 2020 at 11:47 am GMT

Covid 19 is just another in a long line of fake or hyped up illnesses. Remember H1N1, H5n1, SARS1, Swine flu, Bird flu, Zika and others. AIDS was another fake disease (read Dr. Peter Duesberg on this). The same type of hoax is being perpetrated with the current Corona "epidemic."

Notice it supposedly began in Wuhan China. This city of 11 million has the worlds worst air pollution. 350,000 people per year die of pneumonia in China. There are lots of people there that can be tagged as Covid 19 victims. Also quickly touted as a hot spot by our Jew controlled MSM was deaths in Italy. Official autopsies revealed over 99% of victims had pre existing illness, most of them had multiple ones at an avg. age go 69.5. Latter the age went up but I can't remember the exact figure. Remember CDC criminal Debra Brix said "we have told the hospitals to tag everything possible as Covid 19."

Remember the fake tents set up all over and the hospital ship that looked like a relic of WW1. The MSM kept talking about overflowing hospitals. Several people took videos of near vacant hospitals at this time including Brian Ruhe's exposure of Vancouver's practically empty hospital. Whenever you see the media jump all over something with all the official spokesmen and there is no alternative opinion allowed, you known it is a gov. false flag. All of a sudden climate change is no longer the critical topic of the day. I guess Greta Thunberg got the covid.

The covid 19 has never been identified by the standard scientific method of the Koch's postulates because they can't. If you have a fake virus you must have a fake test. That is the PCR test that gives ap. 200 false positives, does not determine one Corona (cold from another) and is not quantitative is a fake test. The numbers given by the CDC (holds 50 vaccine related patents) that is really an adjunct of big Pharma are a crock of baloney. Most of these figures are generated from old people in the nursing homes that are given a "visual" conformation as having covid. Note that Fauci said in February that the masks did more harm than good. Hospitals get paid big money for labeling patients as Covid victims and many times doctors just write it on the report.

The Zionists have hit a home run with this medical hoax and they will never give it up unless the cucks start using their brain a little bit and figure some things out. The next move will be manditory dangerous vaccines for all the cattle. There is big money to be made in the vaccine scam. To get the truth on vaccines read Dissolving Illusions by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and books by Forrest Maready.

The Covid scam has been planned for many years, this was an opportune time to spring it as a cover for the central banks theft of trillions more while bankrupting the workers and small businesses. The Jews at Blak Rock are big investors in masks and will now be scooping up failed businesses everywhere just like in 08.

Emslander , says: July 11, 2020 at 11:47 am GMT

Except, now I'm not sure what to believe any more.

Can anyone tell me ?

My uncle told me a story a long time ago about a man who had his young son climb a tree in the back yard. He let him get pretty high and then said, "Jump Johnny, Jump!" Johnny said, "If I jump, I'll get hurt." The Dad said, "No, I'll catch you." Johnny jumped and the Dad did nothing. The boy hit the ground and was crying, though not permanently injured.

He said to his Dad, "Father, you promised to catch me."

"Let that be a lesson," the Dad said. "Don't trust NOBODY."

Brás Cubas , says: July 11, 2020 at 12:03 pm GMT

Gary is a pro-life libertarian

Well, seeing as libertarians are against government action to stop abortions, I suppose all that a libertarian who opposes abortion is allowed to do is acting against it in their private life; seeing as that is exactly what the pro-choice option means, you see that Gary's position is rigorously meaningless: he is pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

That is a really grand deception, regardless of any other claimed by this article, and all I need to know about it.

Giancarlo M. Kumquat , says: July 11, 2020 at 12:17 pm GMT

Stop feeding those Haitians!

St-Germain , says: July 11, 2020 at 12:24 pm GMT

Thanks for your article.

I also prefer plain facts to eloquent fiction (MSM). Your article has obvious practical value for the public. It's a keeper. I also hope it circulates widely as an effective antidote to virulant MSM viruses.

BTW, my first act following retirement from four decades of professional news writing was to cancel all newspaper and magazine subscriptions. There is no utility in paying to be misinformed.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many people who have never set foot in a news room now regurgitate MSM propaganda as though it came down from Mt. Sinai. MSM journalism has now run the gamut from the duty to reveal what is true, even if it hurts, to the need to say what sounds nice, even if the reporter himself doesn't believe it. That's the definition of PR.

anonymous [400] Disclaimer , says: July 11, 2020 at 12:29 pm GMT

When this wears thin they'll discover another killer virus and there'll be another go-round. They started off saying the lockdowns were just for a brief time and then when they got their foot in the door it was extended. Now government herding people around by diktat is a permanent feature of American society. They'll never let it go. There's already been some report of some other mysterious killer virus coming out of Kazakhstan so get ready. This is the largest transfer of wealth scheme ever, the assets of the bankrupted scooped up by the big companies.

An Easterner , says: July 11, 2020 at 12:38 pm GMT

'Most importantly, they are Bible believing Christians.'

That for me, as a Muslim, is the best guarantee that the person writing this article will have written all in good faith because he or she is answerable to God.

Overall, the article was very informative and pertinent to the situation we face today.

macilrae , says: July 11, 2020 at 12:47 pm GMT

The article cites imperfect studies in which hydroxychloroquine was found to be an ineffective therapeutic for COVID19 – imperfect because the treatment was generally started too late in the progression of the disease. The author postulates that, if treatment were begun earlier, mortality would be drastically reduced but, unfortunately, there is no study to support this and the majority of people suffering the symptoms of early-onset COVID19 will recover spontaneously anyway.

Singapore, with its superb bureaucratic infrastructure, has reported over 45,000 infections but only 26 deaths – that is 4 deaths per million population. South Korea reports 13,000+ deaths and 287 deaths (6 per million population) and Japan 20,000 cases and 981 deaths (10 per million) compare this to the USA with 364 deaths per million or the UK with 718.

I have yet to see a convincing explanation of these shocking differences and, when asked recently, a British government spokesman said that it is "too early" to start drawing international comparisons – "too early" for whom you might ask? Evidently not for those who have succumbed – by now a huge effort should have been put forth to account for the disparity – even if the explanation is demographic as is being largely claimed. I assume that national pride has stood in the way of seeking answers by sending study teams to these countries.

The article recounts a number of inexpensive treatments that might work and points to "Big Pharma" as the major reason these are not being systematically studied – that may well be an impediment in the USA particularly – so gathering of data from East Asia, where that influence is far less and where dramatic positive results are seen, is all the more urgent.

Meanwhile my family will wear masks and hunker down because we have no particular plan to implement if one of us catches this bug.

Butch , says: July 11, 2020 at 1:01 pm GMT

Here is a clue, stop doing ALL the things they tell you to do because its all designed to make you sicker. Eat real food, so many people just don't get it, its garbage in and garbage out. Curves have always been flattened by the healthy freely moving about [oops, stay home], health from being outside, in the sun, and amongst nature is vital [oops stay inside], eating good REAL food is how you have a good immune system [oops, dont want that we need sick people for the pharma devils, therefore we'll allow FAST [shit] FOOD to be readily available [no contact of course [OMG can you actually believe this crap?] Wear a mask because the covid devil lurks everywhere [oops, retard the flow of healthy oxygen into your body, breath back in your own exhalations of CO2 and bacteria so you can increase your odds of getting sick, you just cant make this twisted stuff up!!!] Social distance, thats the best one? We should be wanting to be social for many many reasons, the least of which is because we ARE social animals, but the best way to flatten any curve is, as previously stated, assimilate it [as humans have with all viruses] to develop herd immunity [something that you CANNOT get with a toxic vaccination], like Sweden and Japan. STOP watching MSM and social platforms removing truth. Actually STOP watching TV, its all designed to make you think a certain way.

Off The Reservation , says: July 11, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMT

The biggest problem with this article is that it does not address the fundamental basis of the fraud that is CV19.

The Chinese supposedly identified a new coronavirus and named it SARS-CoV-2.

Then, the WHO made a vague list of symptoms and created a syndrome called COVID19.

There is no proven connection whatsoever between the supposedly identified virus and the syndrome.

Billing codes were created that allow the assumed or tested diagnosis of CV19.

To make matters worse, a test was created which only tests for "markers" of coronavirus and has never been proven to connect to the above viruses or the above syndrome. Thus testing positive or negative really has no meaning as proven by the disconnect between symptoms and diagnosis.

Then, the government incentivized and instructed the use of the above billing codes and created the commonly known situation of people dying "with" the syndrome even though they died of other causes.

Add to that the manipulation of the case count, etc. Then, you have New York and New Jersey basically murdering people with treatment. Loved ones banned from visiting homes – for reasons they might bring the virus in – while "positive" sick patients are brought in. Reconcile that.

I am not saying a few people aren't sick, but there is no way to deal with something while these language tricks are going on.

The virus, the syndrome, and the tests, and the count of cases have no scientific connection to each other. What is it you are talking about being treated for? The flu?

CW2isComing , says: July 11, 2020 at 1:14 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso

Yes, where IS that Wonder of Modern Medicine anyway? We were breathlessly told of its soon-to-be release; I even thought that it was peculiar that the Israelis were so serendipitously working on just the right strain of coronavirus as to be in the forefront of vaccine development.

Miracles happen.

Except when they don't. And, to summarize here, there has NEVER been a stable/effective vaccine for the coronavirus family of viruses. NEVER.

As in, NEVER.

Adûnâi , says: Website July 11, 2020 at 1:22 pm GMT
@skrik bio-warfare-like attack [possibly when they 1st saw the PRRA inclusion in the decoded genome], they reacted like cut snakes and proceeded with the speed of fear-stricken Gazelles in a very largely successful attempt to *suppress* the virus. But, of course, they are communists, eh?"

Finally some sense in the sea of conspiratards. It is fascinating to observe the insanity of White nations – they will cling to their clearly delusional beliefs to the end, even when an alternative is presenting itself this whole time.

Wearing a mask apparently turns you into a slave. Believing in the existence of the virus makes you a shill. Pure anarchism, just without the bombs.

The comment #19 by UncommonGround is decent as well.

anon [327] Disclaimer , says: July 11, 2020 at 1:25 pm GMT

Best cure for C-19: Put Dr. Fauxci and Dr. Birx , ilk,
on a SpaceX ship bound for Mars.

Doesn't need to be a big ship.
Use sardine packing method.

CW2isComing , says: July 11, 2020 at 1:35 pm GMT
@Mark G. As well (and mentioned in some of the above comments) there are many studies indicating that adequate levels of Vitamin D may be protective. Best source: sunlight; then fresh fish, then supplements.

The entire point of this article is "self-rescue." It is clear to me that the "official" recommendation is to "stay home, don't come to your doctor's office/E.R. until you get shortness of breath, etc." so as to not "overload the hospital system."

The latter advice will get you killed if you are elderly and/or have certain co-morbidities. Treat yourself early on, be proactive towards you health; oh, also, maybe stop shoving Cheetos down your neck, take a walk, lose some weight?

anon [624] Disclaimer , says: July 11, 2020 at 1:48 pm GMT

Moon of Alabama is a controlled website that censors dissenting commenters. The Covid-19 has completely blown the cover of that site and Mr. 'b'. Do not push that site. This site does not censor comments. Get back to us when Mr. 'b' (or is that German Intelligence?) decides to play his role properly again.

Gary Heavin , says: July 11, 2020 at 1:58 pm GMT

Hi Herald,
The reason I didn't mention vitamin D3 is that I classify it under prevention rather than therapeutics.
I take 2,000 iu daily, 2,000 mg of vitamin C, 30 mg of zinc and 200 mg of magnesium to help prevent illness.

Twodees Partain , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:04 pm GMT
@Quinsat ch's postulates.

That's the main point of information needed if "need to know" is at the top of the list on how to survive. A person "diagnosed with covid19" should know that the existence of this "novel coronavirus" has not been established in any way that is based in actual science.

Such a diagnosis subjects the purportedly infected person to treatments that would be, at best, useless. Diagnosis is the starting point for a political assault conducted by means of "contact tracing" prescribed by an Israeli intelligence operation, and can't possibly include any effective medical treatment.

No medical treatment exists that can cure infection with an imaginary virus.

Gary Heavin , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:06 pm GMT

Thank you for your corrections. When I found out that Ron was going to post my article on this website I was very excited due to the quality of its readership. People like you.

Really No Shit , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:08 pm GMT

A chinaman told me that lots of chopsuey with exotic wild animals worked for his country, whereas a wetback told me lots of beans and rice with hot sauce was the key to their success. Here in my neighboring neighborhood, the Borough Park, I hear that bubbies are offering up matzo ball soup with a scrawny chicken thrown in and the Bensonhurst Fredos are insisting that had the Italian government not abandoned the age old custom of over eating pasta fagioli, none of those paisans needlessly would have died. So, who do you believe?

Gary Heavin , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:10 pm GMT

25 mg of zinc daily is what I take

Agent76 , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:19 pm GMT

July 9, 2020 CDC May Officially Downgrade COVID From An 'Epidemic'

The coronavirus mortality rate in the United States has dropped so low that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may soon stop calling the virus an "epidemic."

Twodees Partain , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:32 pm GMT

"the regular use of two substances I could get at the vitamin store."

What two substances?

Alfred , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:39 pm GMT

I'm beginning to believe they want more people to die so Trump would lose the election.

I am surprised it is taking people so much time to work that one out.

The media don't want you to see this chart. That is why I won't stop shouting CASES

Anonymousse , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:53 pm GMT

I had symptomatic corona. It was a day and a half of mild fever and fatigue. Basically like the flu but not nearly as bad. Everyone else I've known that had symptomatic corona (already a small minority of those who actually got infected woth corona) experienced the same or even less.

If you're just about to die from something else anyway, yeah maybe such a mild disease can give you that last little push. At that point you need to be thinking about saying confession and your relationship to eternity not some magic drug extending your life another few months

It's just the flu bro.

Desert Fox , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:54 pm GMT

Coronavirus is one of the biggest scams, frauds, psyops, mass hypnosis, in history, see these sites for the truth about the coronavirus scam, ,, , .

Alfred , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:55 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso aled that they had designed a vaccine and tested it on hamsters. They wrote that a single dose "was able to protect hamsters against SARS-CoV-2."

Their best shots: Israeli efforts to invent a coronavirus vaccine, explained (Times of Israel)

You can be absolutely certain that the clowns above removed their masks as soon as they were off-camera.

Trinity , says: July 11, 2020 at 2:58 pm GMT

The (((CoronaRona?))) Well, put it this way, the same people pushing the (((CoronaRona))) story or the same people who told you that Germans gassed 6 gatrillion Jews in the "holocaust." You might have a better chance at seeing Santa Claus than dying from the (((CoronaRona.)))

During the riots, the weasel, Fauci and that female doctor whats her name, were nowhere to be seen, and now they have returned and the (((CoronaRona))) is being looped 24/7. My guess is that all these (((medical experts))) will recommend another lock-down until the election. IF Biden wins, which given the corruption out there, is highly likely whether we are in lock-down or not, the (((CoronaRona))) will fade away into the night. IF Trump is somehow is reelected, well the (((Antifa-BLM))) types will be having another meltdown that the (((media))) will cover 24/7, and the (((CoronaRona))) will be back page news again.

I'm (((CoronaRona))) and I approve this message.

Che Guava , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:13 pm GMT

This reply is both to Kirt and Garry Heavin.

For Kirt, yes, I think I already had it too, seven or eight weeks from NYE last year to mid-Feb. of this. As I have said several times, the area near my workplace was usually full of Chinese tourists.

I had a cough, extreme lethargy on many days, a slight fever. Water frnm my nose, always the case for me in winter, but no sneezing. I must raise the idea with my regular doc., since I saw him at least three times over that time.

As for our author, Heavin's article, he is clearly offering better ideas for treatments than big pharma, but who really needs treatment?

Those who have a persistent cold-like syndrome?

Anyome identified through the polymerase chain reaction tests, which prove nothing.

Just ignore it and it will go away seems by far the wisest course.

schrub , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:29 pm GMT

On an entirely different topic:


If you select NORDVPN's "CYBERSEC" option to "block ads and malicious websites" , you will no longer be able to get on sites like or many other right wing sites (like Mike Rivero's site: for instance).

NORDVPN's CYBERSEC will, however, allow you on all the left wing sites pushed by the ADL. This means that NORDVPN'S CYBERSEC option is probably using the ADL's filtering criteria.

I questioned NORDVPN about this "selectivity" and never received a reply.

This also means that your NORDVPN software could well be spying on you and recording your keystrokes if you try to access to certain unapproved sites EVEN IF if the CYBERSEC option hasn't chosen.

NORDVPN is now, curiously enough, based in Panama, a country which the US government has been shown in the past to have considerable influence over when the need arises. (Ask Manuel Noriega for examples)

Spread the word.

It might be time choose a different VPN sofware if you are now using NORDVPN. Anybody have any good suggestions?

Zarathustra , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:33 pm GMT

I believe!
I believe in CNN.
I believe that half of population of USA will die of Corona virus.
The other half because Corona virus infecting toe nails will become zombies.
Also their brains are now eaten out by Corona virus.
All US population will be replaced by natives from Africa.
First herd of Negroes are already swimming halfway in Atlantic toward America.

Its not really funny.
But than CNN is never funny.

CW2isComing , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Twodees Partain


Yes, why are you being cryptic here–on this site–where a free exchange of information is desirable?

Herald , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:38 pm GMT

Cases now mean positive tests and of course, no really knows what that means, other than that more useless tests have been carried out. As the graph clearly indicates these so called "cases" have little to do with deaths. Nor do they have anything to do with hospitalisations.

We are clearly in the midst of an almighty scam, which is much much bigger than simply getting rid of Trump.

Emslander , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:41 pm GMT
@Twodees Partain

Extract of cranberries and D-Mannos. Together they are very good. I presume that they can't cure serious problems, but they work pretty well.

I'm not a doctor and I don't even work on TV.

Alfred , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:50 pm GMT
@UncommonGround ut a thorough check.

A report in The Guardian also found that the key employees of Surgisphere included a science fiction writer and an adult movie star.

The HCQ study mess: How 3 Indian researchers put reputation of Lancet, NEJM at stake

How 3 'smart' Indian names have ruined 200-year reputation of most respected medical journals

Zarathustra , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:55 pm GMT

But putting all attempted jokes aside and talking a little bit more seriously, CNN did become certified criminal enterprise now.

Gary Heavin , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:56 pm GMT

To Bras my pro-life libertarian position does not become "meaningless" as if my prolife and libertarianism negate each other as you suggest. It's quite simple. Libertarianism demands we not harm other persons. An unborn baby is a person.
To Che I certainly agree with you that Covid 19 has been hyped, politicized, misrepresented, etc..
If I come down with a severe upper respiratory event that is heading toward pneumonia-like symptoms, I've lost my sense of taste and smell I'm going to talk with my Doctor and try one of the therapies I've written about. I hope you do the same.

Thomas Milton , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:57 pm GMT

"What you need to know" .is that this crisis has been spun from whole cloth.

Montefrío , says: July 11, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMT
@gotmituns e before the year is out. My bucolic life has been given a shake and I'm scrambling to best position our family (we live on the same property) financially and economically when BNW arrives with a vengeance. I wish to leave my grandchildren (my son, a water well driller, is prospering, happily, but still ) wholly owned property and the houses thereon plus one. I believe the BNW will have a distinctly local air to it in rural or semi-rural communities: little travel, local employment save for telecommuters, detachment from social media, different educational strategies and opportunities, etc. If you share this belief, get cracking and pretend that the reset has already arrived and act accordingly.
schrub , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:00 pm GMT

AS an answer to my own question about a new secure VPN service, I just came upon this. Anybody have any experience with this outfit?

I now wouldn't trust any VPN whatsoever service that wasn't entirely "open source". Protonvpn claims to be "open source". (On the other hand, NORDVPN isn't open source).

Definition of very important term "open source" for those are unfamiliar with it:

If a software isn't "open source" it could potentially be spying on you. Choosing a VPN service using "open source" software should be the PRIMARY and most critical consideration when choosing a VPN service.

Non "open source" VPN software is open to outside manipulation and possible government infiltration.

Wally , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:02 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso

"Whatever happened to that vaccine that some Israeli Genius Doctors claimed would be ready in a few weeks, which was months ago now?"

– The same thing that happened to the 'Israeli Geniuses' laughable, but "historic", attempt to put a spacecraft on the moon.

Israel's Beresheet spacecraft crashes during historic moon landing attempt :

Alfred , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:04 pm GMT

It suits her personality as she is a quite orderly and methodical person. However, it means that she is incapable of critical thinking. All doctors in Australia are invited to free seminars and meals at expensive restaurants – paid for by pharmaceutical companies.

Sadly, she did not listen to my opinion about vaccines for our two girls. In the State of Victoria, they give a mandatory HPV vaccine. However, HPV is only a problem for those who are promiscuous. Furthermore, this vaccine is essentially an unknown. It is highly-expensive at some US$300 – paid for by the tax-payers. I suspect the vaccine altered the personality of one of our daughters. It is uncanny.

Astuteobservor II , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:05 pm GMT

It seems the only way to convince retards is to kill them or let them see dead bodies everywhere.

It is like the old saying in IT.

Everything is working, wtf does the company need you for.

Everything is falling apart, wtf does the company need you for.

On covid.

Lockdowns and quarantine is working, wtf, covid is Nothing, flu is worst.

Death count is now twice the number of the worst flu year, the lockdowns and quarantine are the causes, not covid.

Lincoln was right, just need to make sure the 80% retards gets fooled, the other 20% doesn't matter as their voices would be drown out by the retards.

If this covid virus is as deadly as it needs to convince the retards, nukes would have flown. I wonder how many retards understands why that is.

Zarathustra , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:13 pm GMT
@Gary Heavin

Slightly increase the daily intake of butter you moron, and you will not need to worry anymore.

Montefrío , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:21 pm GMT

I neither wear a mask nor hunker down and I'm a "double-vulnerable" (nearly 74 and mildly diabetic). A close lady friend is the village pharmacist and when on duty wears the mask under mild duress; neither of us wears it when alone with each other. Unless you're in a densely populated area, better to go out and get at least half an hour of sun daily, fortify yourself and family, keep the faith and don't succumb to manufactured fear, sez I.

Sparkon , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:35 pm GMT
@macilrae ak links here in the USA, sad to say. During my most recent trip to the market, I saw perhaps 7-10% of shoppers with their masks pulled down so it was covering the mouth, but not the nose. For the most part, these non-complying shoppers were the fat, ugly, slovenly, and stupid looking types one would try to avoid anyway, so the pulled-down mask is a good signal to give these types a very wide berth.

Recall that the world's experience with COVID-19 amounts to just six or seven months. Nobody knows what this virus may do in the future, but odds are it will mutate, like all viruses.

Psst: If it's just the flu, bro, why is it still spreading in the summer?

Vandal , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:41 pm GMT

The regiment I've seen published is as follows

Hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days

ZPAK 500mg once a day for 5 days

Zinc Sulfate 220mg daily

Pragma , says: July 11, 2020 at 4:47 pm GMT

Mr. Heaven:

I found your figures regarding the vaccine cost and quantity remarkable, to say the least.

After some research, I could find no reference of a commitment by the UK government to purchase 80 million doses at $600 each.

I did find, however, reference to the Oxford/AstraZeneca potential vaccine AZD1222 which is estimated to cost around 2.5 euros or about $2.80 US. This appears to be the direction that the EU is going, but it is unclear if the UK will be part of it.

Could you please forward a link or reference for the source of your figures?

Gary Heavin , says: July 11, 2020 at 5:16 pm GMT
As you can imagine, this article has been lambasted by big pharmaceutical interests.

Thim , says: July 11, 2020 at 5:19 pm GMT

Your family will wear masks, because you are slaves. Absolutely no one claims wearing a mask will prevent you from catching a flu or cold (Corona virus).

Bardon Kaldian , says: July 11, 2020 at 5:20 pm GMT

So, it's all a giant conspiracy Interesting:

How coronavirus affects the entire body

TheTruthSeeker , says: July 11, 2020 at 5:30 pm GMT

Pavia, a cure that works, challenges media silence: "Plasma kills the virus"

"Plasma kills the coronavirus." The therapy developed by the Immuno-hematology Institute of Saint Matthew in Pavia is encouraging. In this exclusive interview with The Daily Compass given at the end of his experimentation, director Cesare Perotti reveals the positive results: "The treatment works; at the moment no one has died; the USA has asked for the protocols." But nobody is talking about it: "There are other interests opposing us, but we will address these after the scientific publication." This is how the shared treatment works, by "using" volunteers who have recovered to help heal those who are sick.

Reference and continuation:

Rubicon , says: July 11, 2020 at 5:53 pm GMT
@Achilles Wannabe

What Achilles Wannabe writes is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

If I have to, the ONLY way to purchase HDC is via my Canadian brothers. Naturally, I would need an American doctor's prescription, but push comes to shove, I absolutely refuse going to ANY American "medical doctor" to treat me.

Hopefully, the Canadian prescription stores would be able to fill that prescription. If not, oh well.
Living in this dying nation is death-defying.

[Jul 10, 2020] Vitamin D deficit potencially increases the probablity to catch COVID-19

Jul 10, 2020 |

jean , Jul 10 2020 17:59 utc | 105

There is a racial difference in that blacks and people of color are vitamin D deficient, as are the elderly.

Vitamin D linked to low virus death rate, study finds
New COVID-19 research finds relationship in data from 20 European countries

dbk , Jul 10 2020 18:05 utc | 107

For commenters who've remarked on the incidences of (a) obesity, (b) diabetes and (c) high blood pressure - other cardiovascular ailments (not sure anyone referred to [c] but it's on most lists), these are all ultimately rooted in poverty / stress.

For commenters who remarked on the "Southern" diet and McDonald's food, many urban neighborhoods and poor rural counties are food deserts, period. The urban elite in the South (Black and white alike) have diets that resemble those of residents of Manhattan.

For the commenter who remarked on the absence of a national health care program in the U.S. - yes, this is a major contributing factor but it's further complicated by other intersecting forms of injustice which contribute to the heightened risk for Blacks who contract the virus.

The premise of the OP is correct in my view, and the post correctly concludes the Identity Politics is being used (by both sides) to mask the real disease.

karlof1 , Jul 10 2020 18:34 utc | 108

I must applaud b for finally bringing in the Class War into his COVID-19 analysis. What you are genetically isn't the main factor; rather, it's your socio-economic-- CLASS --status that matters most regarding your potential exposure to the disease. Activists within the Outlaw US Empire have pointed to that fact going back to March, and it's certainly a big factor fueling the ongoing protests.

[Jul 10, 2020] AR Comes to the Fight Against Covid-19

Jul 10, 2020 |

Australian Financial Review
John Davidson
July 6, 2020

Researchers at La Trobe University in Australia have developed an augmented reality (AR) visualization of the effects of Covid-19 on the lungs, in an effort to aid diagnosis and treatment. The researchers converted two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) scans of Covid-damaged lungs into three-dimensional (3D) images. Microsoft's HoloLens 2 headset lets researchers view those images, superimposed into the space in front of their eyes. Said La Trobe's Henry Duh, "If you only see a 2D scan, without HoloLens, you need to do more mental rotations and reconstructions in order to figure out what it looks like in the body." The researchers hope to use machine learning to analyze original CT scans and identify areas of the lungs damaged by the disease.

Full Article
*May Require Paid Registration

[Jul 10, 2020] LancetGate- -Scientific Corona Lies- Big Pharma Corruption - Hydroxychloroquine Versus Remdesivir -

Jul 10, 2020 |

LancetGate: "Scientific Corona Lies" & Big Pharma Corruption - Hydroxychloroquine Versus Remdesivir by Tyler Durden Fri, 07/10/2020 - 19:05 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Prof Michel Chossudovsky via,


There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed "evaluation" published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.

The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.

me title= NOW PLAYING

Harvard And MIT Sue

Meatpacking Workers Are In Danger

Trump Not Happy With CDC School Guidelines

The Unreported Cases

The CDC Single Test

Censor In Chief? VP Pence To Control Coronavirus Info

The Yeezy Loan

Cruise Ships Might Be a Safer Way to Vacation During COVID-19, Health Expert Claims

While The Lancet article was retracted, the media casually blamed "a tiny US based company" named Surgisphere whose employees included "a sci-fi writer and an adult content model" for spreading "flawed data" (Guardian) . This Chicago based outfit was accused of having misled both the WHO and national governments, inciting them to ban HCQ. None of those trial tests actually took place.

While the blame was placed on Surgisphere, the unspoken truth (which neither the scientific community nor the media have acknowledged) is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra under the auspices of Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) which is a partner of the Harvard Medical School.

When the scam was revealed , Dr. Mandeep Mehra who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital apologized:

I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. However, we can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards.

It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry. (emphasis added)

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSC ( official statement on BWH website)

But that "truly sorry" note was just the tip of the iceberg. Why?

Studies on Gilead Science's Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Were Conducted Simultaneously by Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH)

While The Lancet report (May 22, 2020) coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra was intended "to kill" the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of Covid-19, another important (related) study was being carried out (concurrently) at BWH pertaining to Remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences Inc. Dr. Francisco Marty, a specialist in Infectious Disease and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School was entrusted with coordination of the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication Remdesivir under Brigham's contract with Gilead Sciences Inc :

Brigham and Women's Hospital began enrolling patients in two clinical trials for Gilead's antiviral medication remdesivir. The Brigham is one of multiple clinical trial sites for a Gilead-initiated study of the drug in 600 participants with moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and a Gilead-initiated study of 400 participants with severe COVID-19.

If the results are promising, this could lead to FDA approval, and if they aren't, it gives us critical information in the fight against COVID-19 and allows us to move on to other therapies."

While Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesevir BWH study under the supervision of his colleague Dr. Francisco Marty, he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead Sciences Inc: "He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate" (France Soir, May 23, 2020)

What was the intent of his (failed) study? To undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine?

According to France Soir, in a report published after The Lancet Retraction:

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra , professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results . (France Soir, June 5, 2020)

Was Dr. Mandeep Mehra in conflict of interest? (That is a matter for BWH and the Harvard Medical School to decide upon).

Who are the Main Actors?

Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as "America's top infectious disease expert" has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead's Remdesivir.

Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.

Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June (see details below). According to Fauci, Remdesevir is the "corona wonder drug" developed by Gilead Science Inc. It's a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.

Gilead Sciences Inc: History

Gilead Sciences Inc is a Multibillion dollar bio-pharmaceutical company which is now involved in developing and marketing Remdesivir. Gilead has a long history. It has the backing of major investment conglomerates including the Vanguard Group and Capital Research & Management Co, among others. It has developed ties with the US Government.

In 1999 Gilead Sciences Inc, developed Tamiflu (used as a treatment of seasonal influenza and bird flu). At the time, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). Rumsfeld was responsible for coordinating the illegal and criminal wars on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).

Rumsfeld maintained his links to Gilead Sciences Inc throughout his tenure as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). According to CNN Money (2005) : "The prospect of a bird flu outbreak was very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [who still owned Gilead stocks] and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences".

Anthony Fauci has been in charge of the NIAID since 1984, using his position as "a go between" the US government and Big Pharma. During Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense, the budget allocated to bio-terrorism increased substantially, involving contracts with Big Pharma including Gilead Sciences Inc. Anthony Fauci considered that the money allocated to bio-terrorism in early 2002 would:

"accelerate our understanding of the biology and pathogenesis of microbes that can be used in attacks, and the biology of the microbes' hosts -- human beings and their immune systems. One result should be more effective vaccines with less toxicity." (WPo report)

In 2008, Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president George W. Bush "for his determined and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier lives."

The 2020 Gilead Sciences Inc Remdesivir Project

We will be focussing on key documents (and events)


February 21: Initial Release pertaining to NIH-NIAID Remdesivir placebo test trial

April 10 : The Gilead Sciences Inc study published in the NEJM on the "Compassionate Use of Remdesivir"

April 29 : NIH Release: Study on Remdesivir (Report published on May 22 in NEJM)

May 22, The BWH-Harvard Study on Hydroxychloroquine coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra published in The Lancet

May 22 , Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 -- Preliminary Report (NEJM)

June 5: The (fake) Lancet Report (May 22) on HCQ is Retracted.

June 29 , Fauci announcement. The $1.6 Billion Remdevisir HHS Agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc

April 10: The Gilead Sciences Inc. study published in the NEJM on the "Compassionate Use of Remdesivir"

A Gilead sponsored report was published in New England Journal of Medicine in an article entitled "Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19" . It was co-authored by an impressive list of 56 distinguished medical doctors and scientists, many of whom were recipients of consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc.

Gilead Sciences Inc. funded the study which included several staff members as co-authors.

The testing included a total of 61 patients [who] received at least one dose of remdesivir on or before March 7, 2020; 8 of these patients were excluded because of missing postbaseline information (7 patients) and an erroneous remdesivir start date (1 patient) Of the 53 remaining patients included in this analysis, 40 (75%) received the full 10-day course of remdesivir, 10 (19%) received 5 to 9 days of treatment, and 3 (6%) fewer than 5 days of treatment.

The NEJM article states that "Gilead Sciences Inc began accepting requests from clinicians for compassionate use of remdesivir on January 25, 2020". From whom, From Where? According to the WHO (January 30, 2020) there were 82 cases in 18 countries outside China of which 5 were in the US, 5 in France and 3 in Canada.

Several prominent physicians and scientists have cast doubt on the Compassionate Use of Remdesivir study conducted by Gilead, focussing on the small size of the trial. Ironically, the number of patients in the test is less that the number of co-authors: "53 patients" versus "56 co-authors"

Below we provide excerpts of scientific statements on the Gilead NEJM project ( Science Media Centre emphasis added) published immediately following the release of the NEJM article:

" 'Compassionate use' is better described as using an unlicensed therapy to treat a patient because there are no other treatments available . Research based on this kind of use should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomisation, which are some of the hallmarks of good practice in clinical trials. Prof Duncan Richard , Clinical Therapeutics, University of Oxford.

"It is critical not to over-interpret this study. Most importantly, it is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir. Dr Stephen Griffin , Associate Professor, School of Medicine, University of Leeds.

"The research is interesting but doesn't prove anything at this point: the data are from a small and uncontrolled study. Simon Maxwell, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Prescribing, University of Edinburgh.

"The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable. It is very surprising, perhaps even unethical, that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it. It would be more appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has sponsored and written up the study. At least Gilead have been clear that this has not been done in the way that a high quality scientific paper would be written. Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

"It's very hard to draw useful conclusions from uncontrolled studies like this particularly with a new disease where we really don't know what to expect and with wide variations in outcomes between places and over time. One really has to question the ethics of failing to do randomisation – this study really represents more than anything else, a missed opportunity." Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol.

To review the complete document of Science Media Centre pertaining to expert assessments click here

April 29: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study on Remdevisir.

On April 29th following the publication of the Gilead Sciences Inc Study in the NEJM on April 10, a press release of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Remdevisir was released. The full document was published on May 22, by the NEJM under the title:

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 -- Preliminary Report (NEJM)

The study had been initiated on February 21, 2020. The title of the April 29 Press Release was:

"Peer-reviewed data shows remdesivir for COVID-19 improves time to recovery"

It's a government sponsored report which includes preliminary data from a randomized trial involving 1063 hospitalized patients. The results of the trial labelled Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) are preliminary, conducted under the helm of Dr. Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) :

An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery in this study was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level.

Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059). (emphasis added)

In the NIH's earlier February 21, 2020 report (released at the outset of the study), the methodology was described as follows:

A randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational antiviral remdesivir in hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Numbers. Where? When?

The February 21 repor t confirmed that the first trial participant was "an American who was repatriated after being quarantined on the Diamond Princess cruise ship" that docked in Yokohama (Japanese Territorial Waters). "Thirteen people repatriated by the U.S. State Department from the Diamond Princess cruise ship" were selected as patients for the placebo trial test. Ironically, at the outset of the study, 58.7% of the "confirmed cases" Worldwide (542 cases out of 924) (outside China), were on the Diamond Cruise Princess from which the initial trial placebo patients were selected.

Where and When: The trial test in the 68 selected sites? That came at a later date because on February 19th (WHO data), the US had recorded only 15 positive cases (see Table Below).

"A total of 68 sites ultimately joined the study -- 47 in the United States and 21 in countries in Europe and Asia." (emphasis added)

In the final May 22 NEJM report entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 -- Preliminary Report :

There were 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States (45 sites), Denmark (8), the United Kingdom (5), Greece (4), Germany (3), Korea (2), Mexico (2), Spain (2), Japan (1), and Singapore (1). Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either remdesivir or placebo. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment

The Washington Post applauded Anthony Fauci's announcement (April 29):

"The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony S. Fauci, fall short of the magic bullet or cure But with no approved treatments for Covid-19, [Lie] Fauci said, it will become the standard of care for hospitalized patients The data shows that remdisivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery," Fauci said.

The government's first rigorous clinical trial of the experimental drug remdesivir as a coronavirus treatment delivered mixed results to the medical community Wednesday -- but rallied stock markets and raised hopes that an early weapon to help some patients was at hand.

The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which led the placebo-controlled trial found that the drug accelerated the recovery of hospitalized patients but had only a marginal benefit in the rate of death.

Fauci's remarks boosted speculation that the Food and Drug Administration would seek emergency use authorization that would permit doctors to prescribe the drug.

In addition to clinical trials, remdesivir has been given to more than 1,000 patients under compassionate use. [also refers to the Gilead study published on April 10 in the NEJM]

The study, involving [more than] 1,000 patients at 68 sites in the United States and around the world (??) , offers the first evidence (??) from a large (??), randomized (??) clinical study of remdesivir's effectiveness against COVID-19.

The NIH placebo test study provided "preliminary results". While the placebo trial test was "randomized", the overall selection of patients at the 68 sites was not fully randomized. See the full report.

May 22: The Fake Lancet Report on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

It is worth noting that the full report of the NIH-NIAID) entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 -- Preliminary Report was released on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM, on the same day as the controversial Lancet report on Hydroxychloroquine.

Immediately folllowing its publication, the media went into high gear, smearing the HCQ cure, while applauding the NIH-NIASD report released on the same day.

Remdesivir, the only drug cleared to treat Covid-19, sped the recovery time of patients with the disease, "It's a very safe and effective drug," said Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. "We now have a definite first efficacious drug for Covid-19, which is a major step forward and will be built upon with other drugs, [and drug] combinations."

When the Lancet HCQ article by Bingham-Harvard was retracted on June 5, it was too late, it received minimal media coverage. Despite the Retraction, the HCQ cure "had been killed".

June 29: Fauci Greenlight. The $1.6 Billion Remdesivir Contract with Gilead Sciences Inc

Dr. Anthony Fauci granted the "Greenlight" to Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29, 2020.

The semi-official US government NIH-NIAID sponsored report (May 22) entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 -- Preliminary Report (NEJM) was used to justify a major agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc.

The Report was largely funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

On June 29, based on the findings of the NIH-NIAID Report published in the NEJM, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on behalf of the Trump Adminstration an agreement to secure large supplies of the remdesivir drug from Gilead Sciences Inc. for the treatment of Covid-19 in America's private hospitals and clinics.

The earlier Gilead study based on scanty test results published in the NEJM (April 10), of 53 cases (and 56 co-authors) was not highlighted. The results of this study had been questioned by several prominent physicians and scientists.

Who will be able to afford Remdisivir? 500,000 doses of Remdesivir are envisaged at $3,200 per patient, namely $1.6 billion (see the s tudy by Elizabeth Woodworth )

The Drug was also approved for marketing in the European Union. under the brandname Veklury.

If this contract is implemented as planned, it represents for Gilead Science Inc. and the recipient US private hospitals and clinics a colossal amount of money.

[error in above title according to HHS: $3200]

According to The Trump Administration's HHS Secretary Alex Azar (June 29, 2020):



Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

"To the extent possible, we want to ensure that a ny American patient who needs remdesivir can get it . [at $3200] The Trump Administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for COVID-19 and secure access to these options for the American people."

Remdesivir for Covid-19: $1.6 Billion for a "Modestly Beneficial" Drug?

Remdesivir versus Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

Careful timing:

The Lancet study (published on May 22) was intended to undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine as an effective cure to Covid-19, with a view to sustaining the $1.6 billion agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29th. The legitmacy of this agreement rested on the May 22 NIH-NIAID study in the NEJM which was considered "preliminary".

What Dr. Fauci failed to acknowledge is that Chloroquine had been "studied" and tested fifteen years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections. And that Hydroxychloroquine has been used recently in the treatment of Covid-19 in several countries.

According to the Virology Journal (2005) " Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread". It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002. It had the endorsement of the CDC.

HCQ is not only effective, it is "inexpensive" when compared to Remdesivir, at an estimated "$3120 for a US Patient with private insurance".

Below are excerpts of an interview of Harvard's Professor Mehra (who undertook the May 22 Lancet study) with France Soir published immediately following the publication of the Lancet report (prior to its Retraction).

Dr. Mandeep Mehra: In our study, it is fairly obvious that the lack of benefit and the risk of toxicity observed for hydroxychloroquine are fairly reliable. [referring to the May 22 Lancet study]

France Soir: Do you have the data for Remdesivir?

MM: Yes, we have the data, but the number of patients is too small for us to be able to conclude in one way or another.

FS: As you know, in France, there is a pros and cons battle over hydroxychloroquine which has turned into a public health issue even involving the financial lobbying of pharmaceutical companies. Why not measure the effect of one against the other to put an end to all speculation?

MM: In fact, there is no rational basis for testing Remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine. On the one hand, Remdesivir has shown that there is no risk of mortality and that there is a reduction in recovery time. On the other hand, for hydroxychloroquine it is the opposite: it has never been shown any advantage and most studies are small or inconclusive In addition, our study shows that there are harmful effects.

It would therefore be difficult and probably unethical to compare a drug with demonstrated harmfulness to a drug with at least a glimmer of hope.

FS: You said that there is no basis for testing or comparing Remdesivir with hydroxychloroquine, do you think you have done everything to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous?

MM: Exactly.

All we are saying is that once you have been infected (5 to 7 days after) to the point of having to be hospitalized with a severe viral load, the use of hydroxychloroquine and its derivative is not effective.

The damage from the virus is already there and the situation is beyond repair. With this treatment [HCQ] it can generate more complications

FS Mandeep Mehra declared that he had no conflict of interest with the laboratories and that this study was financed from the endowment funds of the professor's chair.

He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate.

- France Soir, translated by the author, emphasis added, May 23, 2020)

In Annex, see the followup article by France Soir published after the scam surrounding the data base of Dr. Mehra's Lancet report was revealed.

Concluding Remarks

Lies and Corruption to the nth Degree involving Dr. Anthony Fauci, "The Boston Connection" and Gilead Sciences Inc.

The Gilead Sciences Inc. Remdesivir study (50+ authors) was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 10, 2020).

It was followed by the NIH-NIAID Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 -- Preliminary Report on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM. And on that same day, May 22, the "fake report" on Hydroxychloroquine by BWH-Harvard Dr. Mehra was published by The Lancet.

Harvard Medical School and the BWH bear responsibility for having hosted and financed the fake Lancet report on HCQ coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra.

Is there conflict of interest? BWH was simultaneously involved in a study on Remdesivir in contract with Gilead Sciences, Inc.

While the Lancet report coordinated by Harvard's Dr. Mehra was retracted, it nonetheless served the interests of Gilead Sciences Inc.

It is important that an independent scientific and medical assessment be undertaken, respectively of the Gilead Sciences Inc New England Journal of Medicine (NEMJ) peer reviewed study (April 10, 2020) as well as the NIH-NIAID study also published in the NEJM (May 22, 2020).

* * *


Retraction by France Soir

The fraud concerning the Lancet Report was revealed in early June. France Soir in a subsequent article (June 5, 2020) points to the Boston Connection: La connexion de Boston , namely the insiduous relationship between Gilead Sciences Inc and Professor Mehra, Harvard Medical School as well as the two related Boston based hospitals involved.

(excerpts here, to access the complete text click here translation from French by France Soir, emphasis in the original article)

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, a physician specializing in cardiovascular surgery and professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results.

However, the reported information that Dr. Mehra had attended a conference sponsored by Gilead – producer of remdesivir, a drug in direct competition with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – early in April called for further investigation

It is important to keep in mind that Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a practice at the Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston.

That study relied on the shared medical records of 8,910 patients in 169 hospitals around the world, also by Surgisphere.

Funding for the study was "Supported by the William Harvey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital. The development and maintenance of the collaborative surgical outcomes database was funded by Surgisphere."

The study published on May 22 sought to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with a macrolide antibiotic.

It is therefore noteworthy that within 3 weeks, 2 large observational retrospective studies on large populations – 96,032 and 8,910 patients – spread around the world were published in two different journals by Dr. Mehra, Dr. Desai and other co-authors using the database of Surgisphere, Dr. Desai's company.

These two practising physicians and surgeons seem to have an exceptional working capacity associated with the gift of ubiquity.

The date of May 22 is also noteworthy because on the very same day, the date of the publication in The Lancet of the highly accusatory study against HCQ, another study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the results of a clinical trial of remdesivir.

In the conclusion of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, "remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection."

Concretely: on the same day, May 22nd, one study demeaned HCQ in one journal while another claimed evidence of attenuation on some patients through remdesivir in another journal.

It should be noted that one of the main co-authors, Elizabeth "Libby"* Hohmann, represents one of the participating hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, also affiliated with Harvard Medical School, as is the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, where Dr. Mandeep Mehra practices.

Coincidence, probably.

Upon further investigation, we discovered that the first 3 major clinical trials on Gilead's remdesivir were conducted by these two hospitals:

"While COVID-19 continues to circle the globe with scientists following on its trail, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) are leading the search for effective treatment.

"Both hospitals are conducting clinical trials of remdesivir."

MGH has joined what the National Institute of Health (NIH) describe as the first clinical trial in the United States of an experimental treatment for COVID-19, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH . MGH is currently the only hospital in New England to participate in this trial, according to a list of sites shared by the hospital.

" It's a gigantic undertaking, with patients registered in some 50 sites across the country, getting better .

"The NIH trial, which can be adapted to evaluate other treatments, aims to determine whether the drug relieves the respiratory problems and other symptoms of COVID-19, helping patients leave hospital earlier.**

As a reminder, the NIAID/NIH is led by Antony Fauci, a staunch opponent of HCQ.

Coincidence, probably.

" At the Brigham, two additional trials initiated by Gilead , the drug developer, will determine whether it alleviates symptoms in patients with moderate to severe illness over five- and ten-days courses. These trials will also be randomized, but not placebo controlled, and will include 1,000 patients at sites worldwide. Those patients, noted Francisco Marty, MD, Brigham physician and study co-investigator, will likely be recruited at an unsettlingly rapid clip."

As a result, the first major clinical trials on remdesivir launched on March 20, whose results are highly important for Gilead, are being led by the MGH and BWH in Boston, precisely where Dr. Mehra, the main author of the May 22nd HCQ trial, is practising.

Small world! Coincidence, again, probably.

Dr. Marty at BWH expected to have results two months later. Indeed, in recent days, several US media outlets have reported Gilead's announcements of positive results from the remdesivir clinical trials in Boston.:

"Encouraging results from a new study published Wednesday on remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.**

Brigham and Dr. Francisco Marty worked on this study, and he says the results show that there is no major difference between treating a patient with a five-day versus a 10-day regimen.

"Gilead Announces Results of Phase 3 Remdesivir Trial in Patients with Moderate COVID-19

– One study shows that the 5-day treatment of remdesivir resulted in significantly greater clinical improvement compared to treatment with the standard of care alone

– The data come on top of the body of evidence from previous studies demonstrating the benefits of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with IDVOC-19

"We now have three randomized controlled trials demonstrating that remdesivir improved clinical outcomes by several different measures," Gilead plans to submit the complete data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the coming weeks .

These results announced by Gilead a few days after the May 22 publication of the study in the Lancet demolishing HCQ, a study whose main author is Dr. Mehra, are probably again a coincidence.

So many coincidences adds up to coincidences? Really ?

[Jul 09, 2020] Vitamin D may be a good defense against the coronavirus, according to several new reports. Here's what you need to know-

Jul 09, 2020 |

While there's still no evidence that vitamin D can cure or prevent the coronavirus, three major health organizations in the UK are advising people to ensure they get enough vitamin D, from the sun or supplements, to be on the safe side.

me marginwidth=

The Scientific Advisory Commission on Nutrition , the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence , and the Royal Society all published reports last month detailing what we know (and don't) about the coronavirus and vitamin D, concluding that we need more research to fully understand the connection.

In the meantime, however, these organizations advise a stronger emphasis on meeting the current recommended vitamin D intake, not only as a precaution against coronavirus, but for general health too.

Vitamin D is important for health, and might even stave off some illnesses

Vitamin D is an essential nutrient for health, including the immune system.

Normally, humans can produce vitamin D naturally through direct exposure to sunlight -- we also get vitamin D in certain foods, like eggs, fatty fish, and beef liver. In total, the UK recommends people get 10 micrograms of vitamin D per day; the US recommendation is slightly higher, 15 micrograms for most people, and 20 micrograms for those over 70.

Spending too much time indoors, whether in the colder winter months or in quarantine, can potentially put you at risk of a vitamin D deficiency. Not enough of the nutrient is directly linked to muscle, tooth, and bone health issues, according to the recent Royal Society report.

That could be a problem when it comes to illness -- there's some evidence that a lack of vitamin D is linked to infections, particularly in the respiratory tract, according to the Scientific Advisory Commission on Nutrition report.

But there's no evidence showing a direct cause link between vitamin D and better coronavirus outcomes

However, while COVID-19 (the disease caused by the novel coronavirus) does attack the respiratory system, there's no evidence vitamin D can cure or prevent the illness.

Several previous studies have made a link between coronavirus outcomes and vitamin D deficiency -- however, that research has included other variables that could explain the number and severity of COVID-19 cases, and the research is far from showing a causal link.

But at least one study has also shown no apparent link between vitamin D and coronavirus outcomes, leading s ome researchers to remain skeptical about the possible connection .

Previous research has cautioned consumers about exaggerated claims about vitamin D and the coronavirus, particularly with regard to supplements or extremely high doses through an IV: too much vitamin D can can cause a toxic buildup of calcium and lead to kidney issues, according to the Mayo Clinic .

As such, there's still much more research to be done on the implications of vitamin D for different coronavirus outcomes.

Charles Bangham, professor of immunology at Imperial College London and co-author of the Royal Society paper, told the Financial Times that Vitamin D deficiency could in part explain why people with darker skin tones have been hardest-hit by the coronavirus. Black and brown people have more melanin that blocks UV rays from the sun, so naturally-producing the nutrient from sunlight takes longer for people with darker skin.

... ... ...

Read more:

Huge doses of vitamin D will not cure or protect you from the coronavirus, a new report says

Copper will not protect you from the coronavirus, despite its germ-killing properties, a microbiologist says

Race is not the reason Black Americans have a higher risk of dying from the coronavirus. It's racism.

Read the original article on Insider

[Jul 08, 2020] Copper will not protect you from coronavirus despite killing germs - Insider

Jul 08, 2020 |

me title=

As the US begins to tentatively return to business, despite the novel coronavirus still lurking among the population, any potential protection has become a hot commodity.

Copper metal, used in products such as door handles and key rings, is being touted as one such solution, advertised as killing the virus on contact.

But before you click "buy" on those Instagram ads for copper patches billed as "natural hygienic germ stoppers," it's important to distinguish between what copper is and isn't capable of doing against the virus.

It may help against germs in some instances, but it's not a panacea for prevention, since the coronavirus can still live on copper surfaces for hours. And it's certainly no substitute for other precautions, according to Dr. Miryam Wahrman, biology professor at William Paterson University and author of " The Hand Book: Surviving in a Germ-Filled World ."

me title=

"From what we're dealing with now, I don't think there's a lot of evidence to support the usefulness of copper in terms of reducing infections," Wahrman told Insider.

"Germ-killing" ads include everything from copper discs and stickers to cell phone cases, bracelets and socks

There is a huge variety of copper products sold as "prevention tools," but they fall into four general categories.

There are wearables, such as face masks, but also tee-shirts laced with copper, and jewelry, which vendors claim "self-sanitize" if they come into contact with contagious particles.

Then there are "sanitizers," which are bars or discs made of or coated in copper. These are designed to be rubbed on your hands or other objects in order to sanitize them.

me title=

Touch-tools, the third category, can vary widely, but picture something that looks like bottle opener or key. You might use these to open doors, push buttons, or even tap on touchscreens instead of directly interesting with those potentially germy surfaces.

Finally, there are copper-coated versions of everyday items you touch frequently, such as cellphone cases and door handles. The advantage of these over their ordinary counterparts is that germs (including coronavirus) can't survive as long on copper as on surfaces like plastic and other types of metal.

Copper can kill bacteria, but it's less effective against viruses

It's true that research has shown copper has antimicrobial properties -- it can kill germs on contact in several ways, including by damaging the cell membranes, but is most effective against bacteria, Wahrman explained.

"Copper is good as an antimicrobial against certain types of bacteria but when it comes to viruses, that's a whole different ballgame because viruses are not living cells," she said.

me title=

An April 2020 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found copper is inhospitable for the novel coronavirus as well, as the virus has a much shorter lifespan on copper than on other surfaces such cloth, plastic, or even other metals.

That's important for environments where a lot of potential viral and bacterial particles are present, such as hospitals. A 2016 study found that using copper components in hospitals could help prevent patients from contracting other infections while hospitalized. According to the study, copper surfaces reduced the infection rate of patients by 58% (from 8.1% to 3.4%), and reduced the viral load on surfaces by 83%.

However, the study found the coronavirus can still survive as long as 4 hours on copper, and it could take as long as 45 minutes for copper to reduce even a substantial amount of the virus on a surface .

copper sink
The soap, not the metal on the sink, is what really helps prevent viral contamination.
Maryna Andriichenko/Getty Images
Most copper products do nothing more than lull you into a false sense of security, experts say

Touch-tools, which you can use to open doors, push buttons or otherwise interact with high-touch surfaces, might help by creating a barrier between contagions and your hand, but only if you keep the tool clean, too. If you're not careful to do that, this protective touch tool could simply be lulling you into feeling you're protected, when you're not.

me title=

"The positive thing is, you're touching fewer surfaces," Wahrman said. "But then you're going to come into contact with the part that's been touching surfaces when you put it back in your purse or your pocket. It's going to give you a false sense of confidence and won't occur to you that you've actually transferred germs to yourself and your home."

As an antimicrobial surface, copper could potentially still slow the spread of infection. But experts say it's highly unlikely that, even in that unlikely scenario, it wouldn't instantly kill coronavirus germs.

"The suggestion that you can rub these items on your hands and that's going to keep you healthy, that's not scientifically supported, especially for viruses," Wahrman said.

And face masks containing copper might be even less helpful, since in order for it to be effective, the copper needs to come into direct contact with the virus. Copper-infused cloth would only work if the virus penetrates the fabric, defeating the purpose of the mask in the first place.

me title=

"The face mask is a great barrier. They have a tight fiber so that they do block a lot of the viral particles and blocking them is key," Wahrman said. "If the viral passes through the mask, it's not going to interact with the metal anyway, so it's not going to make a difference."

For that direct contact to occur, items would need to be fully coated in copper across the entire surface. Even then, however, the virus wouldn't be eliminated instantly. There's an additional complication, too, with cleaning copper-coated objects, since typical cleaning products could interfere with the chemical properties of the metal that make it effective against viruses in the first place, according to research.

Copper might help on surfaces over time, but it can't prevent droplets direct from another person

None of these uses of copper address the most common form of contagious for the novel coronavirus, which is airborne infectious directly from person to person.

"The big problem with the coronavirus is that it travels in droplets from one person to another who inhales it and that's how most of the infections are happening. So there's no real way to get copper involved," Wahrman said.

me title=

So, while copper could have some promising applications, particularly in high-risk settings such as hospitals, it's not a cure-all for the average person, and it can't replace traditional disinfectants, hand sanitizer, or good old fashioned soap and water, according to Wahrman.

"The original advice that's tried and true is wash your hands with soap and water or use alcohol based hand sanitizer, and you've really reduced the risk and reduced the germ load," she said.

Wearing a mask, washing your hands frequently, and maintaining social distancing are still your best bet against slowing the spread of the virus, per the CDC's advice .

[Jul 07, 2020] Approximately one in every 12 individuals, or 500 million people worldwide, is living with chronic viral hepatitis

Jul 07, 2020 |

somebody , Jul 6 2020 20:48 utc | 118

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Jul 5 2020 20:23 utc | 41

More math .

Perhaps the scariest numbers in microbiology relate to pathogenic microorganisms. Worldwide, 16 million people die from infectious disease every year, and many of these deaths are preventable. Approximately one in every 12 individuals, or 500 million people worldwide, is living with chronic viral hepatitis, and the estimated number of new chlamydial infections per year is approximately 50 million, more than the population of South Korea. The bacterium Clostridium botulinum produces a toxin so potent that 3 grams would be enough to kill the population of the United Kingdom and 400 grams would kill everyone on the planet.

In total, there are ∼1,400 known species of human pathogens (including viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and helminths), and although this may seem like a large number, human pathogens account for much less than 1% of the total number of microbial species on the planet. On this point, ignoring questions about what actually constitutes a species, estimates for the total number of microbial species vary wildly, from as low as 120,000 to tens of millions and higher. Part of the reason for this large range is that we have only sequenced 1 × 10−22% of the total DNA on Earth (although the Earth Microbiome Project should improve this dramatically to 1 × 10−20% in the next 3 years). This means that the fraction of microbial diversity that we have sampled to date is effectively zero, a nice abstract entity to end on.

Have you ever wondered how Sarv-Cov-2 made it to discovery? Or how humans have managed to survive up to now?

[Jul 07, 2020] Why closed spaces are them main avenue of COVID-19 propagation

Jul 07, 2020 |

Tuyzentfloot , Jul 5 2020 20:23 utc | 41

Airborne ballpark math: we breathe about 500 l/h when sitting down and up to 10 times that when exercising. When someone is ill and pushing 500 l/h of breath into a room with a halftime of say 4 hours then after about that time this person maintains roughly 2 cubic meters of breath in that room. For a room of 100 cubic meter that would be 2% of the air. So during a workday you'd be breathing the breath of that other person at a dilution of the order of 1%. Air conditioning recycles the air (maybe not completely I don't know the ratio) so it is not ventilation where the air is replaced. Maybe airco can pick off a large part of the particles. But that is the idea, assuming various losses and a large room you would still breathing someone elses breath diluted by a factor thousand.
I haven't found data on it but I suspect half time in cool air is considerately longer.
What talking and shouting then does is increase the amount of virus material in the air but there will be a huge increase at short distance and an unknown increase at large distance.
With this reasoning the question is not whether the virus can travel through air but how easy it is. Long halflife in air increases the chance.
High threshold of number of virus particles to have an effective transmission would decrease the chance. So I would start by measuring the amount of material we can push into the air in small droplets. How much variation is there.

So meat processing: cold air and to save energy ventilation is not good. Air is recycled a lot. People doing physical labour a whole day, not sitting. Sounds tricky independently of the hygiene question of dealing with industrially forcegrown animals

tucenz , Jul 5 2020 20:29 utc | 42

Tuyzentfloot | Jul 5 2020 20:23 utc | 40

You may need to put some gallons, pounds and feet in that post for the benefit "exceptional" nation readers.

[Jul 05, 2020] The main benefit of herd immunity is that it will allow the country to function again. And that would be good for everyone, healthy and sickly alike.

Jul 05, 2020 |

john cronk says: July 2, 2020 at 5:18 pm GMT 500 Words

There is no exit strategy for this haphazard insanity. Once this over-reaction to a fairly innocuous infectious agent was accepted as being necessary, there's no way to ever declare reversion to normalcy.

In my opinion, rather than endlessly focussing on this not particularly interesting virus, coming up with creative signboards and banners restricting movement, wrecking people's livelihoods and painting crosses on the pavement where one must stand, we should have been onto a more obvious problem by now. What if this HAD been a deadly pathogen? Why aren't we prepared to quickly open special quarantine/treatment centers, disconnected from regular hospitals? And what are we going to do about it?

This little rehearsal showed how unprepared we are should a real existential threat arise.
But no, we must instead continue to waste our time, money and effort in playacting that this is a real biological crisis, and creating an actual breakdown in our way of life. We must continue to double down, because if we take ever more extreme action about corona, that will prove that the idiocy we've demonstrated thus far was necessary ..right?

[Hide MORE]
Given the way corona virus is being handled, one would think we don't realize that people die quite regularly, especially when they're in bad condition. Now, we're practically demanding that nobody should die from catching a microbe – that we should stay home and hold our breath until everyone is guaranteed to survive. Since when have we ever believed that? Is that how we built civilization? The civilization that we're now destroying?

There's little reason for insulin-sensitive people – with healthy immune status and without metabolic disease – to stay home, wear a mask or 'social distance' themselves. Since they won't be getting seriously ill, their staying home wouldn't help 'flatten the curve' of sick people overburdening the healthcare system (as usual, to the expense of all of us). On the contrary, active healthy people can contribute something to the economy.

The main benefit of herd immunity is that it will allow the country to function again. And that would be good for everyone, healthy and sickly alike. The metabolically/immunologically compromised will be vulnerable to catching the corona virus from anyone who's contracted it and is temporarily contagious, no matter whether the carrier's general health is good or poor. And that's the same fix that people with poor immune function are in, always and everywhere. The answer for protecting these most vulnerable people from COVID – which is only one of the many dangers to their health that they face – can be one of two things; the best one being that they start eating right. And/or, we can build as much equipment and medical facilities, where they're most needed, as they may require. Either of these solutions is much more viable, less disruptive and less expensive than what we're doing now. And with either solution, healthier people would no longer be punished for possessing normal human vitality.

While governments, health agencies and scientists take steps to upgrade the availability of care facilities, equipment and treatments, individuals should follow this
Part A (Everyone)
Begin a therapeutic diet to quickly upgrade and regulate the immune system. This consists of, wholly or mostly:
Home cooked meat, oily fish, eggs (especially yolks), animal fat, bone broth, collagen or gelatin, and liver, and the elimination of corn, soy, canola, safflower, sunflower, grapeseed and rice bran oils as well as flours, sugar and prepared foods.

Part B (those most at risk for COVID complications- individuals with high BMI or chronic health issues, or taking prescription medications, etc.)
While following the part A protocol, take reasonable precautions to limit your exposure to possible infection from others, such as limiting time or wearing a mask when in close contact with other people.

AaronInMVD , says: Website July 2, 2020 at 6:16 pm GMT

@john cronk with this knowledge is talk about it. Lots of talk, little action. The only active pieces on the board are hopping around and trying to do a cultural revolution and proceeding with an absolute poverty of energy.

This might be the most sedentary collapse ever. The world is taking a hard turn towards a prolonged dark age and for the lack of reaction it seems people are just going with the flow. Welcome to the future. A little bit of 1984, a heavy dose of Idiocracy, and a whole bunch of pudgy kids trying to live out their Harry Potter headcanon.

Nevermind all the attention given to "Black Lives" while Black voices (Lest we forget the 'Shaun King is transracial' scandal of not long ago) are shut out of the conversation Nonsense reigns!

[Jul 03, 2020] Hydroxychloroquine lowers COVID-19 death rate, Henry Ford Health study finds - Detroit News

Notable quotes:
"... The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system's six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 26% of those who did not receive the drug died. ..."
"... Among all patients in the study, there was an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 18%, and many who died had underlying conditions that put them at greater risk, according to Henry Ford Health System. Globally, the mortality rate for hospitalized patients is between 10% and 30%, and it's 58% among those in the intensive care unit or on a ventilator." Detroit News ..."
"... A long "take down" of Fauci: ..."
"... This is not Fauci's first rodeo. He's been pumping hysteria for 36 years. He always gets it wrong. He was wrong about swine flu. He was wrong about bird flu. He was wrong about Zika. He was wrong about Ebola. He wildly exaggerated AIDS. And he always is wrong in the favor of pharmaceutical companies. And he's always wrong in favor of 'we've got to develop a vaccine now. We have to throw out all the rules. ..."
"... Observational studies are never the equivalent of double-blind randomized studies; but there can still provide important and fare more readily obtained early information about these connections and conditions. ..."
"... This stuff is hard. There are lots of variations in patient populations and treatment protocols. We have to consider doses, concomitant meds (such as azithromycin), patient status at time of treatment, age, and, comorbidities. ..."
"... the recently halted NIH trial was randomized, double-blinded; this was in a hospital setting. The prophylactic trial reported at the beginning of June in NEJM (author Boulware) was also randomized, double-blinded; this was in a prophylactic setting. ..."
Jul 03, 2020 |

"A Henry Ford Health System study shows the controversial anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine helps lower the death rate of COVID-19 patients, the Detroit-based health system said Thursday.

Officials with the Michigan health system said the study found the drug "significantly" decreased the death rate of patients involved in the analysis.

The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system's six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 26% of those who did not receive the drug died.

Among all patients in the study, there was an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 18%, and many who died had underlying conditions that put them at greater risk, according to Henry Ford Health System. Globally, the mortality rate for hospitalized patients is between 10% and 30%, and it's 58% among those in the intensive care unit or on a ventilator." Detroit News


No comment needed. pl

Fred , 03 July 2020 at 11:38 AM

I agree, no comment is needed. Some charges for medical malpractice and malfeasance certainly are.

John Credulous , 03 July 2020 at 01:06 PM


There will be no accountability: The b-stards have set the standards.

A long "take down" of Fauci:

BillWade` , 03 July 2020 at 01:09 PM

Damn it, it's too cheap!

Deap , 03 July 2020 at 01:54 PM

Uncharted research: areas where anti-malarial drugs are sold widely over the counter - in malaria prone parts of the world - eg: Central America, SEA and Pacific Islands. How do their covid rates relate to these specific localities (not just generalized country numbers), where ongoing prophylactic sales of OTC anti-malaria drugs are most prevalent?

Why does the CDC travel and tourism website info still recommend taking anti-malarial drugs, when the other hand of our deep state bureaucrats are screaming these drugs will kill you?

Observational studies are never the equivalent of double-blind randomized studies; but there can still provide important and fare more readily obtained early information about these connections and conditions.

jonst , 03 July 2020 at 01:56 PM

No comment/s needed perhaps. But deliciously anticipated. Here, from the Committee, and especially from the MSM. Even if only silence. Because "silence is really violence" in this case.

John Credulous , 03 July 2020 at 02:17 PM

FWIW, Jimmie Moglia's erudition is formidable, and as a stylist, not too distracting:
As for me I am reminded of the advice that Timon of Athens gave to two robbers who came to see him, "Trust not the physician, for his antidotes are poison, and he slays more than you rob."
And here is an example, a reported 'case-study'. A prince of Persia had melancholia and suffered from the delusion of being a cow. He would moo like a cow, crying "Kill me so that a good stew may be made of my flesh," and would never eat anything. Avicenna was persuaded to treat the case and sent a message to the patient, asking him to be happy as the butcher was coming to slaughter him. The sick man rejoiced. When Avicenna approached the prince with a knife in his hand, he asked, "Where is the cow so I may kill it."

The patient then mooed like a cow to indicate where he was. He was then laid on the ground for slaughter. When Avicenna approached the patient pretending to slaughter him, he said, "The cow is too lean and not ready to be killed. He must be fed properly and I will kill it when it becomes healthy and fat. The patient was then offered food, which he ate eagerly and gradually gained strength, got rid of his delusion, and was completely cured.

How relevant may be the Avicennian case study to the current dynamics of the pandemic I will leave it to my possible and patient readers to decide.

Ulenspiegel , 03 July 2020 at 02:20 PM

"No comment needed."

What was the difference between the Michigan study and the others, which found no positive ecffect?

How do you explain the low mortality of the control group in the Michigan study?

egl , 03 July 2020 at 02:31 PM

"Limitations to our analysis include the retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded study design."

turcopolier , 03 July 2020 at 02:51 PM


Dr. Marc Siegel a medical correspondent for Foxnews told T. Carlson weeks ago that an emergency treatment of this drug saved the life of his 96 year old father who was at the point of death, cured him overnight in fact.

Babak makkinejad , 03 July 2020 at 03:27 PM


It is a fact that cancer drugs are not uniformly effective in all patients.

The causes must be sought in the genotypes of the patients.

The differential response as well as effectiveness are not reasons to discard a therapy.

In further news on COVID-19 Treatments I have 2 items to report:

First one:

The 3-drug mixture of Azittomycin, Naproxen, and prednisolone (oral or injectable) have been used successfully for reduction of the inflammation of respiratory system.

3 systematic trials have been undertaken and results were conclusive in expediting faster recovery.

Second one:

Clinical trials in Iran (in Masih Daneshvari hospital) – indicated 100% cure of COVID-19 in 20 patients using a combination of ReciGen and Cultera (sic?) which is an AIDS drug.

A second group of patients – 152 – had a reduction in mortality of 20% as compared to those who were only receiving Cultera (sic.?)

The results are supposed to be published in the Journal of Immunopharmacotherapy.

The dosage was: 5 times day, 12 million units.

No side effects were reported.

egl , 03 July 2020 at 03:57 PM


This stuff is hard. There are lots of variations in patient populations and treatment protocols. We have to consider doses, concomitant meds (such as azithromycin), patient status at time of treatment, age, and, comorbidities.

A big difference: the Ford study was not randomized, not double-blinded. They used a statistical technique to try to make the groups comparable on factors believed to be relevant, but this is after fact. (It's a nice technique, I've used it myself, but it doesn't magically solve all of the difficulties of retrospective analysis.)

In contrast, the recently halted NIH trial was randomized, double-blinded; this was in a hospital setting. The prophylactic trial reported at the beginning of June in NEJM (author Boulware) was also randomized, double-blinded; this was in a prophylactic setting.

Seward , 03 July 2020 at 06:00 PM

Hydroxychloroquine is the active ingredient in the tonic portion of gin and tonics, which I've been drinking for prophylactic purposes since the pandemic began.

[Jul 03, 2020] The current reserach suggests that while the G614 variant may be more infectious, it is not more pathogenic.

Jul 03, 2020 |

Mina , Jul 3 2020 12:57 utc | 134

"The current work suggests that while the G614 variant may be more infectious, it is not more pathogenic. There is a hope that as SARS-CoV-2 infection spreads, the virus might become less pathogenic,"

i.e. that if schools had been left open, it would have spread and became less pathogenic earlier.

[Jul 02, 2020] Public Outcry Follows Gilead Decision to Charge $3000 for COVID Drug that Costs Pennies to Produce

Notable quotes:
"... Journal of Virus Eradication ..."
"... Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent . He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary . ..."
Jul 02, 2020 |

alifornia-based pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences has announced that a five-day course of its antiviral drug Remdesivir -- shown in tests to effectively fight COVID-19 -- will cost $3,120 to Americans with health insurance and $2,340 to those on Medicaid. Yet research published in April calculated that the drug could be produced at a profit for as little as $0.93 per day.

The study, led by Dr. Andrew Hill from the Department of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, U.K., and published in the Journal of Virus Eradication , found that a five-day course of lifesaving Remdesivir could be mass-produced for less than the cost of a Subway sandwich. So cheap is the drug that the saline solution and the syringe needed to administer it would be more costly. MintPress spoke with Dr. Hill, who was dismayed by the company's announcement.

We are in a health emergency. We can't have a situation right now where people are unable to access medicine because the prices are too high. Remdesivir is a drug that has had its development costs paid for, in large part, by independent donors like governments and ministries of health in China, the WHO, and the U.S. government. So why should a company be making money in the middle of a pandemic by selling a drug which has largely been developed independently of them?" he said.

News of the decision led to an explosion of public anger. "As Gilead charges $3,120 for its COVID drug, Remdesivir, remember that the drug was developed with a $70,000,000 grant from the federal government paid for by American taxpayers. Once again, Big Pharma is set to profit on the people's dime," wrote former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. "This isn't healthcare. It's extortion," appeared to be the overwhelming sentiment on social media.

Gilead itself, however, seemed not to share this sentiment. Indeed, its press release on the subject positioned its decision as a selfless and magnanimous gesture of corporate philanthropy. "We approached this with the aim of helping as many patients as possible, as quickly as possible and in the most responsible way," said its CEO, Daniel O'Day, adding that, "under normal circumstances" the company would have charged the public $12,000 per patient.

"A new low"

Remdesivir is an intravenous antiviral drug that has been used to fight other coronaviruses like SARS and MERS and has shown some effectiveness against Ebola. Although far from a miracle treatment, studies have concluded that it aids recovery, reducing the average hospital visit for COVID-19 patients from 15 days to 11 days when compared to a placebo. Like with everything coronavirus-related, there is no absolute scientific consensus. In late April, the WHO accidentally leaked a Chinese study that suggested Remdesivir may not be as effective as Gilead claims it to be. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has now bought up the entire world's stock of the drug, effectively confiscating it and shutting out every other country from the medicine.

"I've been working in medicine for 32 years and I have never seen anything like it. I've never seen a country be that brazen. We have to work together. This could be a taste of the future. They've tried to also do this with advanced orders of vaccines. Imagine if we had a 100 percent effective vaccine and it only went to Americans," Dr. Hill told MintPress .

At the moment people don't quite understand the gravity of the decision that the American government has made. This is a worldwide epidemic and we have got to remember that the clinical trials of Remdesivir were not just conducted in the United States; they were conducted around European and Chinese centers. Patients put themselves at risk to take part in an experimental drug trial, and the gratitude we get as other countries after our people were involved in these studies is to be shut out of the future supply of the drug?! It is simply ethically unacceptable. I think there are serious questions to be answered. This is a new low ground, unfortunately," he added.

Gilead has been under considerable public scrutiny of late. The company, which announced profits of $5.4 billion last year, has increased its value by $15 billion since the pandemic began. In December, MintPress reported that it was being sued, accused of deliberately holding back a lifesaving HIV drug to extend the profitability of their previous, inferior one. With shades of the Remdesivir announcement, the drug is sold in Australia for $8 per month, but the company charges Americans around $2,000 for the same dosage. "Gilead has a long history of profiteering," said Dr. Hill. "Its CEO is a billionaire and has been accused of tax avoidance; by keeping their intellectual property in Ireland they avoided $10 billion in taxes in 2016 and they sell drugs for between 100 and 1,000 times the cost of production. And nobody is stopping them. I think this is a taste of things to come if we don't have better controls on the pharmaceutical industry's excesses."

As of Wednesday morning, there have been 2.73 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States, the six worst days for the virus in terms of infections all occurring in the previous week.

Feature photo | A lab tech displays a package of the Remdesivir at the Eva Pharma Facility in Cairo, Egypt June 29, 2020. Amr Abdallah | Reuters

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent . He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

[Jun 29, 2020] Gilead Will Charge More Than $3,000 For A Course Of COVID-19 Drug Remdesivir

Highly recommended!
Corrupt Fauci, stupid customers. IT the same neoliberal story of profiteering as a virtue all over again.
The government bought by Big Pharma, and Big Pharma out or control with questionable drugs and methods are two side of the same coin
Jun 29, 2020 |

On Monday, Gilead disclosed its pricing plan for Gilead as it prepares to begin charging for the drug at the beginning of next month (several international governments have already placed orders). Given the high demand, thanks in part due to the breathless media coverage despite the drug's still-questionable study data, Gilead apparently feels justified in charging $3,120 for a patient getting the shorter, more common, treatment course, and $5,720 for the longer course for more seriously ill patients. These are the prices for patients with commercial insurance in the US, according to Gilead's official pricing plan.

As per usual, the price charged to those on government plans will be lower, and hospitals will also receive a slight discount. Additionally, the US is the only developed country where Gilead will charge two prices, according to Gilead CEO Daniel O'Day. In much of Europe and Canada, governments negotiate drug prices directly with drugmakers (in the US, laws dictate that drug makers must "discount" their drugs for Medicare and Medicaid plans).

But according to O'Day, the drug is priced "far below the value it brings" to the health-care system.

However, we'd argue that this actually isn't true. Remdesivir was developed by Gilead to treat Ebola, but the drug was never approved by the FDA for this use, which caused Gilead to shelve the drug until COVID-19 presented another opportunity. Even before the first study had finished, the company was already pushing propaganda about the promising nature of the drug. Meanwhile, the CDC, WHO and other organizations were raising doubts about the effectiveness of steroid medications.

Months later, the only study on the steroid dexomethasone, a cheap steroid that costs less than $50 for a 100-dose regimen, has shown that dexomethasone is the only drug so far that has proven effective at lowering COVID-19 related mortality. Remdesivir, despite the fact that it has been tested in several high quality trials, has not.

So, why is the American government in partnership with Gilead still pushing this questionable, and staggeringly expensive, medication on the public?

[Jun 28, 2020] New COVID19 treatment protocol specifically targets the cytokine storm and they use heparin for the blood clots

Jun 28, 2020 |

Richard Steven Hack , Jun 28 2020 14:08 utc | 3

"My hunch is that by now doctors have learned much more about the disease's progression (cytokine storm, blood clotting) and how to manage it."

I believe the UK is where the dexamethasone Study was done. Possibly more doctors are using it. The Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group have been pushing corticosteroids as the main treatment in their MATH+ Protocol, and they believe the UK study provides evidence that they are on the right track. Their Protocol specifically targets the cytokine storm and they use heparin for the blood clots. Now if they can only get a full-fledged trial going. Unfortunately their Web site doesn't provide much info about how much traction they're getting promoting their Protocol.

The 1918 SF article proves that morons are morons no matter how many years have passed. I'm sure there were such during the Black Plague. I sincerely hope the coronavirus mutates before the second wave and starts killing all the younger people just to see their reaction when they have to bear the brunt. Can't wait for all the "it's just the flu" BS from these morons to dry up.

[Jun 28, 2020] European study links genes, blood type with risk of severe coronavirus infection

Notable quotes:
"... "Our genetic data confirm that blood group O is associated with a risk of acquiring Covid-19 that was lower than that in non-O blood groups, whereas blood group A was associated with a higher risk than non-A blood groups," the researchers wrote in their report. They found people with Type A blood had a 45% higher risk of becoming infected than people with other blood types, and people with Type O blood were just 65% as likely to become infected as people with other blood types. ..."
Jun 28, 2020 |
Anonymous Fred C. Dobbs said...
European study links genes, blood type with risk of severe coronavirus infection

(CNN - June 18) A team of European scientists say they have found two genetic variations that may show who is more likely to get very sick and die from coronavirus, and they say they have also found a link to blood type.

Their findings, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, point to a possible explanation for why some people get so seriously ill with the virus, while most barely show any symptoms at all.

(NEJM: Genomewide Association Study of Severe Covid-19 with Respiratory Failure )

They found people with Type A blood have a higher risk of catching coronavirus and of developing severe symptoms, while people with Type O blood have a lower risk.

"Our genetic data confirm that blood group O is associated with a risk of acquiring Covid-19 that was lower than that in non-O blood groups, whereas blood group A was associated with a higher risk than non-A blood groups," the researchers wrote in their report. They found people with Type A blood had a 45% higher risk of becoming infected than people with other blood types, and people with Type O blood were just 65% as likely to become infected as people with other blood types. ...

June 27, 2020 at 9:41 AM

[Jun 28, 2020] Genomewide Association Study of Severe Covid-19 with Respiratory Failure

Jun 17, 2020 |
Anonymous said...

June 17, 2020

Genomewide Association Study of Severe Covid-19 with Respiratory Failure
By David Ellinghaus, Ph.D., Frauke Degenhardt, M.Sc., Luis Bujanda, M.D., Ph.D., Maria Buti, M.D., Ph.D., Agustín Albillos, M.D., Ph.D., Pietro Invernizzi, M.D., Ph.D., Javier Fernández, M.D., Ph.D., Daniele Prati, M.D., Guido Baselli, Ph.D., Rosanna Asselta, Ph.D., Marit M. Grimsrud, M.D., Chiara Milani, Ph.D., et al. for The Severe Covid-19 GWAS Group


There is considerable variation in disease behavior among patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Genomewide association analysis may allow for the identification of potential genetic factors involved in the development of Covid-19....

[Jun 28, 2020] Coronavirus Causes Weaponized 'Tentacles' To Sprout From Infected Cells, Directly Inject Virus Into New Ones

Jun 28, 2020 |

Coronavirus Causes Weaponized 'Tentacles' To Sprout From Infected Cells, Directly Inject Virus Into New Ones

by Tyler Durden Fri, 06/26/2020 - 19:25 The virus behind COVID-19 causes infected cells to sprout 'tentacles' which allow the virus to attack several nearby cells at once - poking holes which allow the disease to easily transfer inside.

This nightmare fuel was discovered by researchers led by the University of California, San Francisco.

" There are long strings that poke holes in other cells and the virus passes through the tube from cell to cell ," said UCSF's Director of the Quantitative Biosciences Institute, Professor Nevan Krogan. " Our hypothesis is that these speed up infection. "

The images taken by scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) laboratory in the US and University of Freiburg in Germany will be published in the medical journal Cell on Saturday.

Most viruses do not cause infected cells to grow these tentacles . Even those that do, such as smallpox, do not have as many or the same type of branching as Sars-Cov-2, the virus behind Covid-19. - FT

According to the report, the silver lining is that the tentacle discovery may pave the way for a number of drugs to work against the disease - most of which were previously being used to treat cancer.

"It totally makes sense there's an overlap in anticancer drugs and an antiviral effect," said Prof. Krogan, who added that cancers, HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are all searching for the "Achilles heel of the cell."

Potential drugs include silmitasertib, made by Taiwan-based Senhwa Biosciences - which is working with the NIH on trials in the US. The drug works by inhibiting the CK2 enzyme which is used to build the tubes.

The drug is one of five which were found to be more effective against the virus than Gilead's remdesivir , including FDA-approved Xospata (aka gilteritinib) made by Japan-based Astellas Pharma, Eli Lily's FDA-approved abemaciclib (Verzenio) and ralimetinib, and dasatinib, made by Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

Remember, the official narrative is that the virus - which specializes in infecting humans and packs ultra-rare 'infection tentacles' - did not emerge from a Chinese biolab located at 'ground zero' for the pandemic, where scientists had previously come under international scrutiny for conducting 'gain of function' experiments in which chimeric coronaviruses were genetically engineered for the sole purpose of infecting humans.

But we digress.

play_arrow Shemp 4 Victory , 1 hour ago

Remember, the official narrative is that the virus - which specializes in infecting humans and packs ultra-rare 'infection tentacles' - did not emerge from a Chinese biolab located at 'ground zero' for the pandemic, where scientists had previously come under international scrutiny for conducting 'gain of function' experiments in which chimeric coronaviruses were genetically engineered for the sole purpose of infecting humans.

Well, the funny thing is that, despite all the hand-wringing histrionics of the Falun Gong/Epoch Times cultists, the story of a "weaponized CCP virus" is still just a clickbait fairy tale. The fact remains that there is zero evidence that the virus emerged from a Chinese biolab. Zero. Nada. Null. The empty set.

But hey, US citizen society is articulated around monetization of conflicts (among other things) and cannot do without it. This is how the US has killed the possibility of debate.

Debate as a means of investigating truth requires to accept facts. In US citizenism, admittance of facts is counter-balanced by denial of facts. Which one is better to monetize?

When it comes to US citizens, it is always good to balance admittance with denial, trying to figure out which one is the most profitable. US citizens always weigh whether it is more profitable to deny or admit facts, and they usually choose profits over truth.

It is no critical thinking here, it is no education. It is US citizenism. If it is profitable to deny facts, well, US citizens deny. And will keep denying until it is no longer profitable.

You can apply this to all fields touched by US citizens. It never misses, because US citizens nature is eternal.

Truth, justice, freedom: US motto.

JGResearch , 1 hour ago

It was made in Japan., and the U.K.

Japan's Demon Of BioWar Kawaoka Inserted HIV Force Multipliers Inside The Wuhan Virus - No governments will ever state this truth. It would lead to war and even the Chinese do want that. They want business back to normal. The Chinese are not so concern about some workers and elders who are on the public welfare.

It is still a Bio-engineered virus, but it is from Veterinary labs that are not being watched like Bio 4 labs, from second generation of Unit 731. Who knows bat and fish better than anyone else, it is the Veterinary labs. Imperial Japanese have a long history with China. For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable -- Japan had never been successfully invaded or lost a war in its history, plus they were hit with two Atomic weapons. You think they forgot about at that?

The dark side of microbiology finds its haven inside the dozens of veterinary schools outside the authority of the WHO, CDC, NIH and equivalent professional supervisory bodies and reporting-review systems.

Exhibit A: To summarize, a decade ago at his lab in Wisconsin with generous funding from Japanese state institutions, Kawaoka was developing an "unstoppable flu", secretly derived from an illegal exhumation of the Arctic frozen corpse of an Alaskan native who died in the 1918-19 influenza pandemic, which killed up to 80 million worldwide. We learned of Kawaoka's reckless violations of science ethics from Robert Finnegan, former editor of the Jakarta Post, who was tracking the theft of MERS and other virus samples from NAMRU-2 (U.S. Navy Research Unit) by a senior local lab technician who personally smuggled the dangerous materials to U Wisconsin.

Exhibit B is a 2011 research paper by Y. Kawaoka and two colleagues at his animal virology lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, titled "HIV reverse-binding protein is essential for influenza A virus replication and promotes genome-trafficking in late-stage infection". Published in the Journal of Virology, September 2011, it's an admission of guilt for preparing the emergence of the Wuhan contagion.

JGResearch , 1 hour ago

The original plan: The dilution of toxicity indicates the objective as being mild symptoms diagnosed as a case of food poisoning. On a massive scale, a food poisoning scandal would lead to the shut down of fisheries and aquaculture in a huge blow to national food security.

However, what's so amazing about the Wuhan coronavirus was its regeneration after being clipped of virulence-causing genes that intensify the pain of symptoms in its victims. nCov2019 somehow reconstructed alternative sequences to replace the lopped-off gene sequence. The Japanese ignore the morphogenetic fields of the virus.

Therein lies the rub. Prophetically, Kawaoka foresaw HIV acting in unexpected ways in constructing new flu virions and their components, which likely explains how and why the at-first relatively mild version bio-engineered Wuhan coronavirus was self-altered in its third or fourth generation with highly lethal proteins, a spontaneous Gain of Function, which transformed 2019-nCov into a raging killer.

This is exactly what occurred in early January when the Chinese government banned fishing and consumption of fish along the entire 6,300 km (3,900 miles) length of the Yangtze River.

JGResearch , 1 hour ago

DefendYourBase , 1 hour ago


warsev , 2 hours ago

I've read any number of articles from "experts" in the field who claim that this thing is "engineered". The "experts" get very little play outside of a small echo chamber. I want to know when anyone with any political clout will start shouting about it more broadly. Doesn't seem likely.

Cthonic , 1 hour ago

accredited virologists are kept in line

Cthonic , 1 hour ago

have another 100 hits

DFCtomm , 2 hours ago

I caught an episode of peak prosperity on youtube the other day and they were talking about supercells and multiple nuclei. This makes sense. This virus behaves more like a colonizing bacteria.

4Celts , 2 hours ago

What I was most disgusted by the " Task Force " presser today, was that the orchestrators have noticed all of the pushback on the statistics showing the small demographic that was most effected by this " virus . So , they put the maggot Fauci out there to say the " young " who are asymptomatic were the cause of the " second wave " , and they should really curb their youthful bravado and instead be very mindful that " they " could spread this to the immunodeficient , both the elderly and the child with cancer. A totally spineless, and despicable tact.

FrankDrakman , 2 hours ago

In Ontario, 1.3 million have been tested for the virus. Outside of nursing homes, only 960 have died.

Can you divide 960 by 1.3 million, "boob"? Let me help you.. 130,000 is 10%, 13,000 is 1%, and 1,300 is 0.1%

960 is .078%. In other words, you have 99.92% chance of surviving this bug. Wow, 'far more deadly than originally thought', indeed.

[Jun 28, 2020] Diabetes is linked to a higher risk of death from the new coronavirus

Jun 28, 2020 |
ilsm said...

"11 May -- High risk of COVID-19 death for minority ethnic groups is a troubling mystery:"

"People who are not white face a substantially higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than do white people -- and pre-existing health conditions and socioeconomic factors explain only a small part of the higher risk."

"In the most sweeping study of its kind, Ben Goldacre at the University of Oxford, UK, and his colleagues examined the medical records of more than 17 million residents of England (E. Williamson et al. Preprint at medRxiv; 2020). The analysis, which has not yet been peer reviewed, showed that medical conditions such as diabetes are linked to a higher risk of death from the new coronavirus."

"But the prevalence of such conditions in people who belong to minority ethnic groups plays only a small part in the heightened risk, as does the prevalence of social disadvantages such as low income. The researchers say that there is an urgent need for better measures to protect people in minority ethnic groups from the disease."

This is from Nature daily Covid 19 update. Which is good reading and covers vaccines, and anti body treatments which may be used by Autumn. See ELI Lilly and Regenron debvelopments.

June 26, 2020 at 2:51 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

June 26, 2020

Many Latinos Couldn't Stay Home. Now Virus Cases Are Soaring in the Community.
Rates of coronavirus infection among Latinos have risen rapidly across the United States.
By Shawn Hubler, Thomas Fuller, Anjali Singhvi and Juliette Love

June 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM

[Jun 28, 2020] Nobel Prize winner Dr Michael Levitt postulated that the virus burns out when it has infected 15-20% of the population

Jun 28, 2020 |
Anonymous ilsm said...

Thanks for your forbearances, misguided as you may be.

You do not answer questions, you do not like. Okay, with me. You could attempt to revise my conclusions on your lack of openness to countering evidence.

For Fred, from my son's latest input. Fred is an RPI alum, within a years or two, with me:

"Stockholm is the best population to test Covid theory whereby it was hit hard early and did not have lockdowns.
Nobel Prize winner Dr Michael Levitt postulated that the virus burns out when it has infected 15-20% of the population.
According to this, he's right...What does this mean for the US?
If you look at the rest of Sweden, you see a bumpier curve because different counties get hit at later times

The same will probably happen in states which were not hit hard during the first wave"

The tweet thread goes on to list the states that have not yet reached the 20% threshold, which is many, though if these states only need to reach 15-20% to exit the first wave, then most of them are at least halfway there."

Why the US is in for rocky road with or without "second wave".

Concluding any of oit due to Trump is a stretch.

June 26, 2020 at 8:57 AM

[Jun 17, 2020] Polio vaccine may be useful to prep the body for COVID19.

Jun 17, 2020 |

Caliman , Jun 17 2020 17:28 utc | 9

Perhaps one of the well-read people here can help me find some sources. I've been puzzled by something before and it got exacerbated by the news recently that the Polio vaccine may be useful to prep the body, as it were, for COVID19.

What I'd be puzzled by is the following: we know there are four commonly circulating human coronaviruses that register as "colds" in the population, sometimes nasty but generally not dangerous, and that large %ages of us have gotten them over the years and will continue to. While these four viruses are not identical to COVID19, they are quite similar. And it seemed like there were some reports that people who had recently been sick with these more common coronaviruses had some immunity to COVID19.

Has this been investigated further? Would it not make sense, if true, that the "quick vaccine" we have been looking for could be purposeful infection by one of these common human coronaviruses? Would this not be like using the cowpox as a way to make ourselves more resistant to smallpox, which used to be done until the actual smallpox vaccine was discovered?

Anyway, anybody read anything along these lines?

hopehely , Jun 17 2020 17:47 utc | 10

@Caliman | Jun 17 2020 17:28 utc | 9
Anyway, anybody read anything along these lines?

Yes, we read it here a month ago.
albagen , Jun 17 2020 17:56 utc | 11
Well Caliman, why do you bother thinking about Covid19? It's just the flu, on tap. When they need, they open the tap. When it suits them, they close the tap. It's Covid19 on, Covid19 off. Sometimes it trickles or drips. We all will die some day.

In other words: "behave, or else we bring back the restrictions", but if the flow of money stops, we will lift them, just so that you work to produce something and keep us happy.

My suggestion: live your life to the fullest, enjoy nature and family, as if there is no covid19, no government, no bullshit. You won't regret it.

And don't forget to give feedback here, if you follow my advice.


[Jun 16, 2020] Hope for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia

Jun 16, 2020 |

Trial results announced on Tuesday showed dexamethasone, which is used to reduce inflammation in other diseases such as arthritis, reduced death rates by around a third among the most severely ill of COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital.

[Jun 16, 2020] Coronavirus- Dexamethasone proves first life-saving drug by Michelle Roberts

"This is an extremely welcome result," said Peter Horby of Oxford, one of the study leaders. "The survival benefit is clear and large in those patients who are sick enough to require oxygen treatment, so dexamethasone should now become standard of care in these patients. Dexamethasone is inexpensive, on the shelf, and can be used immediately to save lives worldwide."
Lead researcher, Prof. Martin Landray, says that hospital patients should now be given the steroid without delay, but that people shouldn't try to hoard it for private use. According to the study, Dexamethasone does not appear to help milder cases - those who don't need help breathing.
The drug has been used to treat a wide range of conditions, including asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.
Notable quotes:
"... Chief investigator Prof Peter Horby said: "This is the only drug so far that has been shown to reduce mortality - and it reduces it significantly. It's a major breakthrough." ..."
Jun 16, 2020 |

By Michelle Roberts Health editor, BBC News online

A cheap and widely available drug can help save the lives of patients seriously ill with coronavirus.

The low-dose steroid treatment dexamethasone is a major breakthrough in the fight against the deadly virus, UK experts say.

The drug is part of the world's biggest trial testing existing treatments to see if they also work for coronavirus.

It cut the risk of death by a third for patients on ventilators. For those on oxygen, it cut deaths by a fifth.

Had the drug had been used to treat patients in the UK from the start of the pandemic, up to 5,000 lives could have been saved, researchers say.

And it could be of huge benefit in poorer countries with high numbers of Covid-19 patients.

About 19 out of 20 patients with coronavirus recover without being admitted to hospital. Of those who are admitted to hospital, most also recover, but some may need oxygen or mechanical ventilation. These are the high-risk patients whom dexamethasone appears to help.

The drug is already used to reduce inflammation in a range of other conditions, and it appears that it helps stop some of the damage that can happen when the body's immune system goes into overdrive as it tries to fight off coronavirus.

The body's over-reaction is called a cytokine storm and it can be deadly.

In the trial, led by a team from Oxford University, around 2,000 hospital patients were given dexamethasone and were compared with more than 4,000 who did not receive the drug.

For patients on ventilators, it cut the risk of death from 40% to 28%. For patients needing oxygen, it cut the risk of death from 25% to 20%.

Chief investigator Prof Peter Horby said: "This is the only drug so far that has been shown to reduce mortality - and it reduces it significantly. It's a major breakthrough."

Lead researcher Prof Martin Landray says the findings suggest that for every eight patients treated on ventilators, you could save one life.

For those patients treated with oxygen, you save one life for approximately every 20-25 treated with the drug.

"There is a clear, clear benefit. The treatment is up to 10 days of dexamethasone and it costs about £5 per patient. So essentially it costs £35 to save a life. This is a drug that is globally available."

Prof Landray said, when appropriate, hospital patients should now be given it without delay, but people should not go out and buy it to take at home.

Dexamethasone does not appear to help people with milder symptoms of coronavirus - those who don't need help with their breathing.

The Recovery Trial has been running since March. It included the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine which has subsequently been ditched amid concerns that it increases fatalities and heart problems.

Eric Feigl-Ding @DrEricDing Replying to @DrEricDing

5) And again, Dexamethasone is cheap, available from any pharmacy, and easily obtainable anywhere in the world. This is EXACTLY what we need, instead of a $1000 drug like remdesivir that is just marginally effective for shortening illness but not yet fully proven for mortality.

[Jun 15, 2020] These San Francisco doctors flew to New York to fight the coronavirus -- and they have a warning for us

Jun 15, 2020 |

"I've worked in a lot of settings," said Dr. Michael Peters, a pulmonary critical care doctor, was assigned to a hospital in Queens overwhelmed with Covid-19 cases. "These patients were very sick, and they had a disease that we didn't know how to take care of yet."

All of the UCSF doctors said they saw patients in their forties and fifties, who didn't meet the "typical" profile for Covid-19 because they were otherwise healthy. In the Queens hospital, where Peters worked, many of the patients were Black or Hispanic. Data shows that the virus has hit racial and ethnic minorities worse, and studies are underway to better understand why.

[Jun 13, 2020] We Don't Need No Stinking Vaccine For COVID-19

Jun 13, 2020 |

Authored by Jeff Harris via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity, A Glaring Omission

With the 24/7 media circus coverage of Covid-19 I find it particularly interesting that there is an obvious glaring omission of some extremely important facts relative to dealing with a virus, especially one that is allegedly so virulent like this one. Yes, I read all about the critical need to shelter in place, stay inside away from other people, wash your hands constantly, avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth, wear your face mask and by all means observe social distancing if you MUST venture outside for food!

Then it's repeated ad infinitum that the ONLY hope we have of ever returning to a semblance of normalcy is to have a vaccine to protect us! Then to add some drama to this narrative the media highlights their death-o-meter scoreboard with the implied threat that you'll be next IF you don't obey the rules as dictated by the "experts".

But what is assiduously avoided at all cost is any reference to our most potent defense against any virus; our body's natural immune system. Try as I might I couldn't find anything about this first line of defense on the World Health Organizations (WHO) website or Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website. It's as if it doesn't exist and is completely irrelevant.

If these organizations were genuinely concerned about the health of citizens they would obviously discuss the vital role a healthy immune system plays in protecting us from illnesses. But since they don't its obvious some other motive is at work, at least to me, and I strongly suspect to other critical thinkers as well.

We now know from the science and data that over 90% of the people exposed to Covid-19 have no symptoms at all or at worst a mild cold. The flu vaccines we have are only effective 30% to 60% of the time and the bugs change regularly so a vaccine that worked OK last year may barely work at all this year. Let's learn some more about our body's immune system.

Virus protection without a vaccine

There is an enlightening article on Web MD titled: "How to use Your Immune System to Stay Healthy". That's a pretty straight forward title now isn't it? Early on Bruce Polsky, MD, interim chairman department of medicine and chief division of infectious disease at St. Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City says:

"We are endowed with a great immune system that has been designed evolutionarily to keep us healthy."

The article goes on. . .

"The immune system is your body's natural defense system. It's an intricate network of cells, tissues and organs that band together to defend your body against invaders. Those invaders can include bacteria, viruses, parasites, even fungus, all with the potential to make us sick. They are everywhere-in our homes, offices and backyards. . . "

The truth is no amount of social distancing, hand washing or face mask wearing is going to eliminate our exposure to these various bugs. That's why we were created with this amazing first line of natural defense.

Here's more from Web MD . . .

"The immune system can recognize millions of different antigens. And it can produce what it needs to eradicate nearly all of them. When it's working properly, this elaborate defense system can keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay. . . "

Wow! That's pretty amazing stuff isn't it! According to Web MD a properly functioning immune system can "keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay." So why isn't this "science" being included in all the other health recommendations we're being bombarded with daily? It seems to me that any "expert" worth their salt would be talking about the importance of a healthy immune system to stay healthy.

But there's more . . .

The Web MD article noted that failure to eat a healthy diet, sitting around not exercising, not getting enough sleep and chronic stress can all lead to a compromised immune system. To quote Dr. Polsky again:

". . . Lifestyle aspects are very, very important."

So if our lifestyle is very, very important to staying healthy as the good doctor says ask yourself this question? Based on the Web M.D. article virtually all the results of the lockdown serve to weaken our immune systems. The stress of unemployment, constant harping about infections and rising death rates, lack of exercise and now a crack in our food distribution system all are known to weaken the human immune system.

I also find it quite interesting that large groups of people can shop at Walmart, Home Depot or other big box stores but they can't attend their local church even if it's a "drive through" service?

Web M.D. says:

"Research shows that people with close friendships and strong support systems tend to be healthier than those who lack such supports."

During times of crisis people need encouragement and their faith built up more than ever before. Mandating people huddle in fear in their homes with constant media reports of infections and death bombarding them continually is there any wonder peoples immune systems are under severe stress?

[Jun 12, 2020] Russia registers new Covid-19 drug to keep complications caused by virus 'under control'

Jun 07, 2020 |

Russian developers have registered a new drug that may help alleviate the harshest complications caused by Covid-19, including lung failure. It's hoped the treatment can buy time before a vaccine is found. Levilimab is the second medication to receive state approval through a fast-track mechanism, implemented to give doctors more options to tackle the virus, which has already infected more than 459,000 and killed 5,725 in Russia, according to official statistics.

"I think we'll be able to keep Covid-19 complications under control and minimize the harshest problems it causes," Dmitry Morozov, general director of Biocad, the biopharmaceutical company behind the drug, wrote on Facebook. By reducing the Covid-19 mortality rate, Levilimab will allow Russia to "buy time" before the vaccine against the coronavirus is made, and "the vaccine is surely coming soon," he added.

The drug is aimed at curbing the so-called 'cytokine storm,' a common complication from Covid-19 when the sick person's immune system overreacts to the virus and the excessive inflammation leads to fatal outcome.

"The mechanism [used in Levilimab] is known to researchers around the globe. But all the rest was done in Russia, by our company, from scratch. There's an original patented molecule," Morozov told RT.

Levilimab's highlight is that it can be administered not only to patients already in a serious condition, but used as a prophylactic to "prevent the 'cytokine storm' from occurring and allowing the patient to avoid intensive care and lung ventilation," he pointed out.

The drug, which will go into the market under the brand ILSIRA, is administered hypodermically unlike its foreign counterparts, which get into the system through the intravenous route. "One shot and you don't go into the emergency room. There are two syringes in a package. Their injected simultaneously or with some interval. And in a week the person is discharged from hospital," Morozov said.

Levilimab has proven itself as effective as its foreign counterparts and increased the speed of recovery for patients, Ekaterina Trifonova, who heads the infectious ward at the Central Clinical Hospital in Moscow, where the drug underwent clinical testing, told RT. During the first two weeks of trials, out of 45 Covid-19 patients who got the drug, ten were discharged, including a 92-year-old-man, while the rest remained in satisfactory condition, she added.

[Jun 11, 2020] WHO now says asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is 'very rare'

Jun 11, 2020 |

WHO now says asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is 'very rare'

Jun. 09, 2020 - 4:06 - World Health Organization changes its tune on asymptomatic patients spreading COVID-19; reaction from Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel.

[Jun 11, 2020] Does asymptomatic spread exists or this is artifact of modeling and tests false positives?

Jun 11, 2020 |

Richard Steven Hack , Jun 11 2020 0:18 utc | 48

Coronavirus confusion reigns as World Health Organisation scrambles advice about masks and asymptomatic spread

Although numerous studies have suggested people can spread the virus before they show symptoms, the WHO has largely dismissed those as anecdotal or pointed out that they were based on modelling.

Babak Javid, an infectious diseases doctor at Cambridge University Hospital, says many scientists are persuaded by the studies published so far and think WHO should publish the data it is citing to explain why it believes transmission of the disease in people without symptoms is "rare".

"If you're going to make a really important statement like that, it would be good to back it up," Javid said. "I think WHO is an important organisation, but they've made a lot of statements that have been misleading."

[Jun 11, 2020] WHO official backtracks after claiming asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is 'very rare'

Jun 10, 2020 |

Reaction and analysis from Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel.

[Jun 10, 2020] Coronavirus vaccine developers are chasing outbreaks before they disappear Washpost - Sic Semper Tyrannis

Jun 10, 2020 |

"Coronavirus vaccine developers are chasing outbreaks before they disappear" Washpost

"The top teams rushing to develop coronavirus vaccines are alerting governments, health officials and shareholders that they may have a big problem : The outbreaks in their countries may be getting too small to quickly determine whether vaccines work

A leader of the Oxford University group, one of the furthest ahead with human trials, admits the reality is paradoxical, even "bizarre," but said the declining numbers of new infections this summer could be one of the big hurdles vaccine developers face in the global race to beat down the virus.

Even as new cases are growing worldwide, transmission rates are falling in Britain, China and many of the hardest-hit regions in the United States -- the three countries that have experimental vaccines ready to move into large-scale human testing in June, July and August." Washpost


Well, pilgrims it would seem that the Post staff does not see the irony in their own writing, or perhaps they do. There have been scattered evidences of rationality there lately. Even as Democrat governors and mayors across the country drag their feet on the re-opening of the American economy, infection rates are falling. In the Faucibirxist view of things everything depends on vaccine development (or herd immunity post holocaust). But, alas there just aren't enough new, vibrant infections to make development of the vaccines convenient. What will happen to the flow of government money to these projects if this phenomenon becomes general knowledge. Someone at the Post should be disciplined for this indiscretion. pl

Fred , 10 June 2020 at 09:34 AM

"What will happen to the flow of government money to these projects if this phenomenon becomes general knowledge."

Well Fauci is almost 80 so I think he's set for life. I hear the left wants lots of redevelopment funds and jobs programs, with the attendant opportunities for graft that comes with them, for thier cities which we are all assured had neither rioting nor looting.

Jim , 10 June 2020 at 11:50 AM
Thank you Col. Lang for all the posts on novel coronavirus.

For shining light on this, this utter failure by the medical community and their various and sundry enablers in government and in business.

On these liars and charlatans and killers and criminals.

The video below is about an hour long. It is a nurse, who worked in NYC hospital, the alleged epi center of epi centers.

She basically says, without saying directly, but points to the fact that doctors were murdering patients there, it seems.

She paints a picture of doctors not as scientists but as zealots, as neo neanderthals, as craven monsters, who care not about life, the elderly, the sick, the least among us.

As Nurse Ratchets

Towards the end of video, she recounts her last day at this hospital, discussing a patient she had nursed for many days, and who was doing fine, making progress, . . . and how she was removed from his bed on direct orders, sent to the ER where she was not assigned, and 20 minutes later, the man she was caring for is dead.

These sorts of stories abound; this rage is not going away anytime soon. This is the rage, and what caused it, that our "lords and masters" who censor us and tell us black is white, and want to destroy our country. . . this is the rage they don't want to see expressed and exposed. Will they get their way?


Laura Wilson , 10 June 2020 at 01:04 PM
Well...they can always test their vaccines in the USA. We seem not to be faring as well and can help out. (I believe this is a glass half-full moment.)
Walter Lang , 10 June 2020 at 01:27 PM
Laura Wilson

Still hysteric. if you are not over 65 and not in compromised health the disease is rarely fatal.

optimax , 10 June 2020 at 01:32 PM
Trump needs to stop the $600 a week federal bonus to the unemployed. My neighbor told me about how his daughter-in-law worked one day a week as a barmaid before the virus shut the bar down and made a little over a hundred a week. Oregon unemployment pays her 150 a week and with the added 600 she now makes over 7 times what she did working. How many protesters and rioters are just as flush getting paid to party in the street? Most i'd say. That makes these government funded protests a powerful voice and recruitment tool for the Democratic Party.

Ending the federal subsidy to the unemployed would reduce, if not stop, the demonstrations and mau-mauing of the country.

Fred , 10 June 2020 at 03:17 PM

Absolutely. There were howls of protests before Minneapolis when Georgia, Florida and Texas started tellling people that if they recieved a recall to work notice from an employer and refused to go they would be considered a voluntary quit and no longer eligable for unemployment insurance payments. They'll howl again when they figure out this is all taxable income.

LA Sox Fan , 10 June 2020 at 03:21 PM
Take everything the WaPo claims with a grain of salt. There is no real worry over lower covid infections. What made Covid decrease was the lockdowns. Remove the lockdowns and covid infection rates will climb, as we are seeing in the already reopened states.

Then when fall rolls around, and people are stuck indoors again, rates will skyrocket. There will be plenty of test subjects for a vaccine.

rho , 10 June 2020 at 09:29 PM
With the spread rate of the coronavirus, any outbreak of the infection will peter out once the total immunity rate of the population approaches 65-70 percent.

In Bergamo (Italy), 57 percent a population sample have tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, which means that they must have had the infection before and are now most likely immune.

If you are a Karen, then don't listen to me, but take it from the German government's very own propaganda outlet, Deutsche Welle:

"Out of nearly 10,000 Bergamo residents who had their blood tested between April 23 and June 3, 57% had antibodies, indicating they had come into contact with the virus and developed an immune response.

Health authorities said the sample size was 'sufficiently broad' to be a reliable indicator of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 among Bergamo province's population."

Nobody in Bergamo will need a coronavirus vaccine once its development is finished - whenever that may happen, if at all.

[Jun 10, 2020] Yale has published research that shows HCH + AZ has 50-fold benefits and insignificant risks

Highly recommended!
Jun 10, 2020 |

BM , Jun 10 2020 18:11 utc | 5

Yale has published research that shows HCH + AZ has 50-fold benefits and insignificant risks

Using Hydroxychloroquine and Other Drugs to Fight Pandemic

Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be
Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis

In the author's words:

COVID-19 is really two different diseases. In the first few days, it is like a very bad cold. In some people, it then morphs into pneumonia which can be life-threatening. What I found is that treatments for the cold don't work well for the pneumonia, and vice versa. Most of the published studies have looked at treatments for the cold but used for the pneumonia. I just looked at how well the treatments for the cold worked for the cold. There are five studies done this way, four of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and one with hydroxychloroquine plus doxycycline, and they all show that treating the cold part of COVID-19 -- the early part -- works very well.

The article completely decimates the arguments against using HCQ + AZ or HCQ + doxycycline, specifically in early outpatient use.

uncle tungsten , Jun 10 2020 22:29 utc | 41

BM #5

re Yale HCQ study.

The article completely decimates the arguments against using HCQ + AZ or HCQ + doxycycline, specifically in early outpatient use.

It is good to see real science being applied rather than voodoo shilling for big pharma.

Still waiting for the editor resignations at Lancet and NEJM on their publication of the hoax science article.

Let me be very clear about pharmaceuticles: the interaction of two dissimilar substances can be extraordinary beneficial. My personal example is from a Specialist Pharmacologist that treated a bone disease in my thumb arising from mechanical injury. He explained thus:

The bone problem has three quite separate stages of treatment.

At the first week common antibiotic remedies are vital and effective. I was too late for that.

If that stage is missed then a common and potent antibiotic combined with a substance commonly used to treat gout is vital. The combination of the two flattens the peak of the antibiotic such that it is sustained in the bloodstream for 24 hours until the next dose of the two. A fourteen day process as I recall. It was totally successful.

If that second stage is missed then late intervention is extensive use of antibiotics and the gout remedy over months as the bone decomposition bacteria have spread throughout ones metabolism and lodge randomly to wreak havoc. This treatment regime is punishing on the body and digestive tract and many people cannot endure it.

This Specialist was a high street operator in nice office NOT a pharmacy.

So lets not be jumping to hasty dismissals of what may or may not 'work' and when. Humans vary, diets vary and propensities are highly variable. It is the responsibility of scientists to be honest and act in the best interests of humanity. Clearly the study published in the Lancet and NEJM was fake science and those journals fell for it because of either inadequate editorial investigation of the paper, confirmation bias, inadequate consideration of human consequences.

The WHO stands condemned for being suckered by fake news, confirmation bias, malign financial manipulation or perhaps inadequate investigation of the authors and claims of the paper.

[Jun 08, 2020] Doctors were allowed to consider PCR results as a factor, cautioned not to rely on them. In current situation PCR results became the definition of COVID

Jun 08, 2020 |

oldhippie , Jun 7 2020 23:59 utc | 45

PavewayIV @ 36

Try doing a search on Kary Mullis, creator of the PCR process. He died last year so we can only go by past statements. He always stated that PCR was completely inappropriate and meaningless for diagnostics or for any other clinical purpose.

CDC guidance on PCR until earlier this year was that doctors do diagnosis, not laboratories. Doctors were allowed to consider PCR results as a factor, cautioned not to rely on them. In current situation PCR results are the definition of COVID.

If the test is allowed to run too many cycles any sample will test positive.

And it is never entirely certain how many cycles have elapsed, clock does not tell exactly what the RNA is up to.

[Jun 06, 2020] A fraction of infected people trigger the bulk of new cases, one reason the pandemic is far from over

Jun 06, 2020 |

Richard Steven Hack , Jun 6 2020 5:01 utc | 101

The Science of Superspreaders
A fraction of infected people trigger the bulk of new cases, one reason the pandemic is far from over

Meanwhile, the protests happening in this convulsed nation, with people often shoulder to shoulder, set the stage for new chains of infections. Any shouting, along with sneezing and coughing (perhaps in reaction to pepper spray) will spread the virus especially easily. "All things considered, there's little doubt that these protests will translate into increased risk of transmission for Covid-19," Maimuna Majumder, an epidemiologist at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, tells The Atlantic.

Putting an exact number on the impact of superspreaders is nearly impossible, since not all cases are ever traced back to any original source. The going best estimate is that 20% of infected people are responsible for 80% of onward infections, says William Hanage, associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Some evidence suggests as few as 10% of people trigger 80% of ongoing infections, Hanage told reporters in a recent teleconference.

Three separate studies have suggested the 20/80 ratio. A study of Hong Kong cases reached that conclusion and also found that 70% of people who contracted Covid-19 didn't spread it at all.

[Jun 05, 2020] Rush to trash hydroxychloroquine was based on faulty Surgisphere data exposes fundamental flaws in profit-based medical science

Jun 05, 2020 |

The latest data this disprove its efficiency in treating COVID-19, as it turned out, came from a tiny US healthcare analytics firm called Surgisphere, and calling it faulty would be excessively charitable. This is clearly a hired guns hit.

Not only is Surgisphere a company lacking in medical expertise – its employees included an "adult" entertainer and a science-fiction writer – but its CEO Sapan Desai co-authored two of the damning studies that used the firm's data to smear hydroxychloroquine, already thoroughly demonized in the media thanks to its promotion by US President Donald Trump, as a killer. All data is sourced to a proprietary database supposedly containing a veritable ocean of real-time, detailed patient information yet curiously absent from existing medical literature.

The Surgisphere-tainted study appeared to show increased risk of in-hospital deaths and heart problems with no disease-fighting benefits, confirming the suspicions of medical-industry naysayers already inclined to hate the off-patent drug due to the lack of profit potential and Trump's incessant boosterism. Italy, France, and Germany rushed to ban hydroxychloroquine, citing "an increased risk for adverse reactions with little or no benefit."

[May 31, 2020] Russian Health Ministry Approves First Domestic Drug for COVID-19

May 31, 2020 |

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - The Russian Health Ministry has approved the first domestic drug, called Avifavir, for treating coronavirus patients, according to a new entry to the national drug registry. The medicine was developed by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), a sovereign wealth fund, and ChemRar, a Russian pharmaceutical investment and R&D group.

"Avifavir is not only the first antiviral drug registered against coronavirus in Russia, but it is also perhaps the most promising anti-COVID-19 drug in the world. It was developed and tested in clinical trials in Russia in an unprecedentedly short period of time enabling Avifavir to become the first registered drug based on Favipiravir in the world", CEO of the RDIF Kirill Dmitriev said.

The final stage of Avifavir clinical trials involving 330 patients, approved by the national Health Ministry earlier in the month, is ongoing.

Previously, the new drug underwent several clinical trials at I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Lomonosov Moscow State University, and other medical and academic institutions.

Avifavir, is the first Russian direct antiviral drug that has proven effective in clinical trials. The drug has been used in Japan since 2014 against severe forms of influenza.

In April, the Russian Direct Investment Fund launched a project to diagnose and detect pneumonia , including that caused by the SARS-COV-2 coronavirus.

ChemRar Group includes R&D service and investment companies in the field of innovative pharmaceuticals for the development and commercialization of innovative medicines, diagnostics, preventive care, and new treatments of life-threatening diseases in Russia and abroad.

The latest data by the Russian Health Ministry shows that more than 396,000 cases of the coronavirus and 4,555 fatalities related to the disease have been confirmed in the country.

[May 30, 2020] Paul Craig Roberts Questions The Campaign Against HCQ

May 29, 2020 |
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought out many disturbing features of our society. Misinformation, or perhaps more accurately, disinformation, abounds in the service of agendas ranging from those who interpret the virus as a useful ploy for the construction of a police state, to Big Pharma and its allies who are moving us toward mass vaccinations, to the narcissistic views of those who would sacrifice the elderly and ill rather than to be inconvenienced by being denied access to bars and beaches. Every aspect of the pandemic, including Trump's own use of HCQ, is being used against the President of the United States.

At a time when accurate information is essential, the waters are instead muddied by disinformation in the service of political, ideological, and profit agendas. The irresponsibility of those putting their self-interests first is extraordinary. It indicates that the social bond between people that made America a country has been dissolved by greed, multiculturalism, and Identity Politics. America has become a country without a common interest. It is a narcissistic state.

This article is limited to the campaign against HCQ. HCQ -- hydroxychloroquine -- has been in use for 65 years for the prevention or treatment of malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. It is officially labeled a safe drug. Many doctors treating Covid patients have found and reported HCQ, when used early enough together with zinc and the antibiotic azithromycin to be an effective and safe treatment.

I have reported and made available many of the reports of HCQ's efficacy and safety. See for example:

Despite 65 years of safe use, HCQ is alleged to be dangerous and to cause heart attacks. Its use is officially approved only for "adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19." Generally, by the time a patient is hospitalized the virus has progressed to a later stage in which treatment is less successful. Studies of HCQ's effectiveness, such as the VA one and apparently the more recent one reported in The Lancet, are limited to later stage hospitalized patients and seem to exclude the essential zinc component of the HCQ treatment. In other words, the studies seem to be designed to exclude from official approval the treatment that doctors have found most effective. It is not easy for a layperson to know what the studies actually say as the media report the studies in an anti-Trump manner. For the media, what is most important is criticism of Trump, not the effectiveness of a treatment.

In contrast, the untested investigational antiviral drug, Remdesivir, which has no record of safe use and is extraordinarily expensive compared to HCQ, has been given the same clearence for use. The media is not interested in the effectiveness and safety, or lack of, of this new and untested drug. Trump isn't taking it, and it is a potential profit-maker for Big Pharma. If Remdesivir fails, the failure will be used to dispose of the hope for cures and to focus on vaccination.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that HCQ/zinc is being sidelined in order to clear the way for a profitable vaccine and a vaccination mandate.

But the vaccines are not panning out.

The Moderna vax touted by Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci caused severe illnesses in one-fifth of the test recipients.

The other fast-tracked vaccine developed by the Oxford Vaccine Group proved ineffective. The vaccine produced insufficient antibodies to prevent Covid-19 infection.


A few years ago the British medical journal, The Lancet , published a paper touting the safety of HCQ. But this was before HCQ with zinc was found effective if used earlier enough against Covid-19. Covid-19 turned HCQ's effectiveness into a big problem for Big Pharma's big profits.

The solution was another study by medical professionals some of whom have ties to Big Pharma and none of whom, apparently, are involved in the treatment of Covid patients. The study lumps together people in different stages of the disease and undergoing different treatments. It touts its large sample, but many of the patients in the sample received treatment too late after the virus had reached their heart and other vital organs. Most likely the people who died from heart failure died as a result of the virus, not from HCQ.

To be effective treatment has to stop the virus early. Waiting until the patient must be hospitalized has given the virus too much of a head start. Every doctor, and there are many, who reports success with the HCQ treatment stresses early treatment. President Trump used a two-week treatment with HCQ as a prophylactic as he was constantly coming into contact with people who tested positive for the virus. Many medical professionals who are treating Covid patients also use HCQ as a prophylactic.

The Lancet study was a rush job as it was essential for Big Pharma to prevent the spread of the HCQ treatment and awareness of its safety and effectiveness. The study's authors completed the data collection around the middle of April and the study was published on May 22. As soon as it appeared, it was used to close down the World Health Organization's clinical trial of hydoxychloroquine in coronavirus patients citing safety concerns. Most likely, the trial was aborted in order to prevent an official agency from finding out that HCQ worked.

The media, of course, used the suspended trial to cast more doubt on Trump's judgment for recommending and using the treatment, the implication being that Trump had put himself at more risk from a heart attack than from the virus itself.

The Daily Mail , which is often somewhat skeptical of official reports, even misreported French virologist Didier Raoult's report ) of his success with treating 1,061 patients with HCQ/AZ as consisting of o nly a small sample of 30 patients . A small sample is considered to be inconclusive. Thus 1,061 people became 30.

The Lancet study claims a high mortality from HCQ treatment, reporting a death rate ranging from 5.1% to 13.8%. In response to a journalist when asked about this claim, Didier Raoult said that he and has colleagues have followed 4,000 of their patients so far. They have had 36 deaths and none from heart problems for a death rate of 0.009%. According to The Lancet study, he should have between 204 and 552 patients dead from heart problems. He has zero. Raoult had more than 10,000 cardiograms analysed by rythmologists (a special kind of cardiologist) searching for any sign of heart problems.

NIH's Dr. Fauci denies that Raoult's hard evidence is evidence. On May 27 Fauci said, without showing shame of his ignorance or his lie, that there's no evidence that shows the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is effective at treating COVID-19.

Perhaps what Fauci means is that no study undertaken by NIH or another Big Pharma friendly official body has been done and that only such studies constitute evidence.

When hard evidence such as Raoult's is suppressed and misreported while "studies" doctored to produce a predetermined conclusion that serves Big Pharma profits are rushed into publication, we know that money has pushed ethics out of medical research. A number of concerned people have been telling us this for some time. We are past due to listen to them.

Private medicine is profit driven, which makes it susceptible to fraud. In long ago days fraud was restrained by the moral character of doctors and the respect for truth of researchers. These restraints, never perfect, have eroded as greed turned everything, integrity itself, into a commodity that is bought and sold.

The intent is to bury HCQ as a low cost effective treatment and to put in its place a high cost alternative whether effective or not, and to supplement this enhancement of profits with mass vaccination which might do us more harm than the virus itself. Big Pharma could care less. The only value it knows is profit.

This intent has garnered the support of the French, Belgium and Italian governments . Using The Lancet study and WHO's termination of its HCQ trial as the excuse, the French government revoked its decree authorizing HCQ treatment. Belgium's health ministry issued a warning against the use of HCQ except in registered clinical trials. Italy's health agency wants HCQ's use banned outside of clinical trials and suspended authorization to use HCQ as a Covid-19 treatment.

Does this mean that Raoult and his team who by treating Covid patients with HCQ have achieved the remarkable low death rate of 0.009% are prohibited from using the proven cure to save lives? Will Raoult and his team be imprisoned if they continue to save lives? What about the people who will die from the three government's prevention of a safe and effective treatment? Will France, Belgium, and Italy accept responsibility for these lost lives?

I can't avoid wondering if the revolving door between Big Pharma and the NIH and CDC which corrupts US public health decisions also operates in France, Belgium and Italy. Are European health officials elevating themselves by climbing over the dead bodies of their victims?

[May 29, 2020] Chris Whitty - the UK's Chief Medical Officer - says that, to most people, the coronavirus is entirely harmless.

May 29, 2020 |

Roberto , May 28 2020 20:12 utc | 10

2 or 8 meters away from everybody? it doesn't matter.

Please go to

In this clip from the Downing Street Corona Briefing on May 11th, Chris Whitty - the UK's Chief Medical Officer - says that, to most people, the coronavirus is entirely harmless.

Most people will never get it.
Most of the people who get it won't ever experience symptoms.
Most of the people who experience symptoms won't need medical care.
Most of the people who need medical care won't be need emergency or critical care.
And even the tiny percentage of people who need who DO need critical care will survive, regardless of risk factors or medical history.

[May 29, 2020] 'Thousands' Of Dutch COVID-19 Survivors Likely Have Permanent Lung Damage According To Top Pulmonologist

May 29, 2020 |

COVID-19 may be far less deadly than originally projected - and asymptomatic cases may be even more common than first suspected, but for those who have caught it and come down with symptoms, the disease can result in lasting symptoms, including shortness of breath, lethargy, recurrent fevers, headaches, itchiness and other mystery problems that aren't going away .

To that end, a top pulmonologist in the Netherlands says that thousands of Dutch residents who have recovered from COVID-19 may be left with permanent lung damage , resulting in decreased lung capacity and difficulty absorbing oxygen.

A computer tomography (CT) X-ray scan shows the signature "ground glass" tissue due to COVID-19 infection,
which is caused by fluid in the lungs. Weifang Kong and Prachi P. Agarwal

According to Leon van den Toorn, Chairman of the Dutch Association of Physicians for Pulmonary Disease and Tuberculosis NVALT, people are underestimating the consequences of the coronavirus .

"In severe cases, a kind of scar formation occurs, we call this lung fibrosis. The lungs shrink and the lung tissue becomes stiffer, making it harder to get enough oxygen," Van den Toorn told Dutch newspaper AD (via the NL Times ), adding that "there may be thousands of people in the Netherlands who suffered permanent injury to the lungs from corona."

Of the 1,200 Covid-19 patients who so far recovered after admission to intensive care, "almost 100 percent went home with residual damage", he said to AD. And about half of the 6 thousand people who were hospitalized, but did not need intensive care, will have symptoms for years to come.

So far 45,500 people in the Netherlands tested positive for the coronavirus. Many did not get sick enough to need hospital care. In this group, Van den Toorn expects that permanent problems will be less serious, but still possible. - NL Times

Van den Toorn says that patients experiencing lung issues should immediately see a pulmonologist, as "there may be a low oxygen level in the blood, which is harmful to the body."

"People with a history of corona infection should be monitored closely to see if recovery is complete," he added.

Drilling down on lung issues, let's flash back to March , when a New Orleans respiratory therapist dealing with coronavirus patients told ProPublica that coronavirus patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are extremely difficult to oxygenate .

Authored by Lizzie Presser via ProPublica

"Normally, ARDS is something that happens over time as the lungs get more and more inflamed. But with this virus, it seems like it happens overnight . When you're healthy, your lung is made up of little balloons. Like a tree is made out of a bunch of little leaves, the lung is made of little air sacs that are called the alveoli. When you breathe in, all of those little air sacs inflate, and they have capillaries in the walls, little blood vessels. The oxygen gets from the air in the lung into the blood so it can be carried around the body.

​ A screenshot of chest radiographs of a man suspected to have COVID-19. (Obtained by ProPublica via the Radiological Society of North America, cited in the paper "Severe Acute Respiratory Disease in a Huanan Seafood Market Worker: Images of an Early Casualty" by Lijuan Qian, Jie Yu and Heshui Shi.)

"Typically with ARDS, the lungs become inflamed. It's like inflammation anywhere: If you have a burn on your arm, the skin around it turns red from additional blood flow. The body is sending it additional nutrients to heal. The problem is, when that happens in your lungs, fluid and extra blood starts going to the lungs. Viruses can injure cells in the walls of the alveoli, so the fluid leaks into the alveoli. A telltale sign of ARDS in an X-ray is what's called 'ground glass opacity,' like an old-fashioned ground glass privacy window in a shower. And lungs look that way because fluid is white on an X-ray, so the lung looks like white ground glass, or sometimes pure white, because the lung is filled with so much fluid, displacing where the air would normally be. "


"It first struck me how different it was when I saw my first coronavirus patient go bad. I was like, Holy shit, this is not the flu . Watching this relatively young guy, gasping for air, pink frothy secretions coming out of his tube and out of his mouth . The ventilator should have been doing the work of breathing but he was still gasping for air, moving his mouth, moving his body, struggling. We had to restrain him. With all the coronavirus patients, we've had to restrain them. They really hyperventilate, really struggle to breathe . When you're in that mindstate of struggling to breathe and delirious with fever, you don't know when someone is trying to help you, so you'll try to rip the breathing tube out because you feel it is choking you, but you are drowning . ay_arrow 3 play_arrow

Bananamerican , 5 hours ago

Oxygen toxicity, caused by excessive or inappropriate supplemental oxygen, can cause severe damage to the lungs and other organ systems. High concentrations of oxygen, over a long period of time, can increase free radical formation, leading to damaged membranes, proteins, and cell structures in the lungs. It can cause a spectrum of lung injuries ranging from mild tracheobronchitis to diffuse alveolar damage.

smacker , 4 hours ago

I think you're right about ventilators being the wrong treatment. According to some doctors the patients needed oxygen not ventilation.

I spotted here in Brazil, patients were being placed inside plastic oxygen tents neatly fitted over the top half of their beds. So their breathing remained natural.

Battlefield USA , 6 hours ago

Co-existence of coronavirus with bacterial pathogen a major cause of fatalities

Battlefield USA , 6 hours ago

Did you know that the regular run-of-the-mill pneumonia causes lung damage and a host of other problems.

You would know that if you read up on it at the CDC and NIH website.

But just keep being an ignorant brainwashed dumb-***.

Getitright2016 , 7 hours ago

As soon as symptoms appear, a person should be treated. Waiting for shortness of breath is too late. Damage has been done. Early treatment, blood thinners, HCQ with zinc and Antibiotics Zpac to prevent pneumonia.

INeverForget , 7 hours ago

**** THAT "Z-PACK".

Harnar , 7 hours ago

Z-pack gave my mother in law afib (Atrial fibrillation). Although the doctor said it was just coincidence that 3 days after starting Z-pack she was in the hospital with chest pains and needed to be on beta blockers for the rest of her life....

Unfortunately she isn't always good about remembering her pills and died a couple years later due to a brain aneurysms (which can occur if you come off beta blockers too fast or forget to take them for a few days after taking them regularly for a year)

OutaTime43 , 8 hours ago

Lung injuries happen with Pneumonia. When your cells are killed by the virus, then they are replaced with fibroid tissue (scar tissue) just like any other injury. This is of course a problem with Lungs as it reduces vital capacity. If you smoke or have other lung diseases, then it affects you more. When you're young with healthy lungs, then the damage isn't enough to affect you.

I've had CT scans of my lungs and they can still see the damage caused to my lungs from pneumonia at age 5.

charlie_don't_surf , 8 hours ago

Details??? When they don't give details be suspicious. Were these very old patients with already damaged lungs? Are these former ventilator patients and their lungs were damaged by the ventilator? Were these patients with particular genetic weaknesses or predispositions regarding lung tissue? Until there are exact details of patient demographic, pre existing disease, and the nature of their treatment take with a grain of salt.

MX_DOGG , 8 hours ago

Approximately 22.4% of adults in the Netherlands smoked in 2018. This includes 16.0% daily smokers and 6.4% occasional (non-daily) smokers . Of people in the Netherlands who reported smoking , 71.6% smoked every day

charlie_don't_surf , 8 hours ago

the smart people tell you that extensive data collection shows that 50's and under have an extremely low risk, the vast majority of deaths are extremely old, in nursing homes and the smart also will tell that the death rate was jacked up by Cuomo and some other NE dem state guvs ordering infected patients be put in the nursing homes to increase infections and deaths and the smart people will also tell you that destroying the economy will definitely greatly increase injuries, illnesses and premature death...brah...that's what smart people will tell ignorant stiffs like you but it's like talking to a tree stump...brah.

charlie_don't_surf , 8 hours ago

that's probably damage from over expansion from ventilators or just inflammation can cause capillary breakage...capillaries are weak and break easily when stressed and then of course they clot...because they clotted is normal and not a "clotting disease"...I would bet similar happens when people get a bad pneumonia...lungs bleed from tuberculosis too...probably any significant infectious process in lungs will cause bleeding...I had bleeding from strep throat when I was in college.

John C Durham , 9 hours ago

This happens where ever one doesn't get an anti-viral drug from his doctor at his office in the first day or so. The Viral attack comes and goes in about 7 days.

An anti-viral drug does no good after that and giving anti-viral drugs to a hospital patient when the viral attack is long past, just loads them up with more toxins. This has been known since Hydroxychloroquine was given against SARS years ago. It worked great there early on and many doctors starting using it again for the current big panic.

It does nothing later as demonstrated in a recent study that is being used as firepower against that drug instead of against any doctor prescribing it for late treatment in the hospital.

Hydroxychloroquine should be in everyone's medicine cabinet, available over the counter, to be used against flu, colds and any virus starting on the first day. It's safer than an aspirin and much safer than Tylenol and I bet you have had either or both in your cabinet before without triggering WWIII.

She Love Me Long Time , 9 hours ago

Just like politics, the herd has separated into two sides.

Is it really so difficult to see that both sides are wrong?

Yes, there is a virus. No, it won't kill us all. It's more deadly than the flu but it's not the ******* plague. However, this could be the equivalent of an airborne HIV-type of infection that results in chronic long-term health issues and a weakened immune system. If that's true, wearing an N95 mask when you're at the grocery store, even if it makes you look like a sissy, is the smart thing to do.

Just my 2 cents

Drachma , 9 hours ago

The important test would be to determine how many of the worst affected were regular vaccine recipients, especially the flu vaccine, which has been linked to the phenomenon of viral interference, There are at least two proposed related mechanisms of action contributing to an enhancement of disease with subsequent respiratory viral infections, especially coronavirus, after vaccination with influenza vaccine. On the one hand there is an inflammation and scarring of the interstitial membrane of the lungs, subsequent to influenza inoculation, which lessens oxygen transfer to the blood. On the other hand there is an overreaction by the immune system at the time of the secondary infection with coronavirus, as the cross-reactivity from influenza group antibodies, in this case, acts to over-stimulate the immune system, leading to excessive tissue damage and compounding the disease symptoms.

Vaccines, by their very nature, are contaminated with RNA and DNA from latent and dormant viruses from different species cell lines. Since one of the most ubiquitous viruses in the mammalian cell lines is coronavirus, and many different mammalian as well as avian cell lines are used to produce vaccines, chances are that most people with a government-scheduled vaccine history are already infected with coronavirus. Ponder that subject for a while.

Cardinal Fang , 9 hours ago

I'm no radiologist but those 3 CT scans are of different people so it is not a progression.

It appears they are from Chinese study.

So you can throw that data out the window.

Fiscal Reality , 9 hours ago

Democrat Governors LOVE to kill geezers in nursing homes. Facts matter Cuomo, Murphy,Waltz, Wolf and Witmer.

While Fauxi, Birx, the MSM, Soros, the WHO, the CDC and the DNC/CCP scream SOCIAL DISTANCING AND WEAR YOUR MASK, Dem governors build a big body count by pushing COVID infected patients back into nUrsing homes. MONEY MATTERS MORE THAN LIVES.

bunnyswanson , 9 hours ago

Medical error causing death and the controversy around how ... › 2019/08 › topic › medical-error-cau...

Aug 1, 2019 - In May 2016, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an article with the headline: Medical error -- the third leading cause of death in the U.S. The article estimated that as many as 250,000 deaths per year in the United States were caused by medical error.

PrivetHedge , 9 hours ago

gasping for air, pink frothy secretions

That is a lung damaging cytokine storm that can be moderated with vitamin D and C, vitamins our government is staying remarkably quiet about. In a politics free medical system no patient would be allowed to get to that stage.

There are simple cures to these diseases:

  1. Stop Fort Detrick etc. from making them
  2. Use interferon 1, hydroxychloroquine, zinc and antibiotics to cure people before they are permanently damaged.
  3. Allow people to get sunshine and fresh air, and instead of banning useful medicines; ban junk food, GMO and the various other harmful things our government permits in our air and water.
Uncle Frank , 5 hours ago

Why? We didn't buy it the first time.

Don't lose sight of an important fact, one of the few verifiable ones in the piece -

His title - 'Chairman of the Dutch Association of Physicians for Pulmonary Disease and Tuberculosis'.

Ya think he might be motivated to go for grants by hyperbolizing the situation? I do. I'm not saying that some people aren't dying, just that pneumonia isn't ever a walk in the park, and it kills 100's of thousands every year. Try some perspective, and grow a pair. You might need to lose 100 lbs too, I can't tell from here.

JSG , 9 hours ago

Let's see the demographics of these folks. It's an incomplete story without that. My bet: it's people over 70 with pre-existing conditions so this is not remotely surprising. Their immune systems aren't as strong. Their pre-existing conditions likely already causes a lot of this damage (e.g. COPD does exactly this!)

PrivetHedge , 9 hours ago

(as directed by CCP military to the lab people)

The evidence says the CCP were the targets, not the makers.

smacker , 8 hours ago

Those who claim that China knowingly released this virus in China and elsewhere in Asia to attack America(!) conveniently ignore the vaping disease which was actually a severe respiratory infection.

Then there were multiple deaths in nursing homes by similar infections. All this happened months before CovID-19 came along.

Roacheforque , 10 hours ago

The question is ... is COVID 19 alone CAUSING this reaction, or is it TRIGGERING an immune system response from "something else"?

mrjinx007 , 10 hours ago

"It first struck me how different it was when I saw my first coronavirus patient go bad. I was like, Holy ****, this is not the flu . Watching this relatively young guy, gasping for air, pink frothy secretions coming out of his tube and out of his mouth . The ventilator should have been doing the work of breathing but he was still gasping for air, moving his mouth, moving his body, struggling. We had to restrain him. With all the coronavirus patients, we've had to restrain them. They really hyperventilate, really struggle to breathe . When you're in that mindstate of struggling to breathe and delirious with fever, you don't know when someone is trying to help you, so you'll try to rip the breathing tube out because you feel it is choking you, but you are drowning .

Caused by ventilator.

[May 29, 2020] France bans use of hydroxychloroquine as coronavirus treatment

May 29, 2020 |

Richard Steven Hack , May 28 2020 10:11 utc | 69

France bans use of hydroxychloroquine as coronavirus treatment
The country's public health agency advised against use outside of clinical trials.

WHO pauses study of hydroxychloroquine in global trial
The study has enrolled 3,500 patients in at least 17 countries since March.

US coronavirus death toll tops 100K as Trump pushes to reopen
The tragic milestone revives debate over the handling of the pandemic.

A day before the U.S. reached the 100,000-death mark, Trump once again blamed China for not stopping the virus before it spread across the globe, and touted his decision in January to restrict travel from China to the U.S.

"For all of the political hacks out there, if I hadn't done my job well, & early, we would have lost 1 1/2 to 2 Million People, as opposed to the 100,000 plus that looks like will be the number," he tweeted on Tuesday.

Yes, folks, *Trump* is claiming *credit* for saving 1-2 million lives! You can't make this shit up!

Mina , May 28 2020 11:47 utc | 74

Good to know, with regards to what the WHO is doing: "It is not the case that HCQ has been removed from the trial. The WHO has paused that arm of the trial to allow for a review of the interim data to see if they are seeing the same impacts on mortality as have been seen in some other studies."

[May 28, 2020] Is aerosol tranmission of the SARC-NCOV-2 virus possible?

May 28, 2020 |

Richard Steven Hack , May 28 2020 23:24 utc | 32

As for aerosols over droplets, I've been reading about that for the last month. I thought it was common knowledge. It's the obvious explanation for why some people get it and others don't. Fomites - the virus particles on surfaces - are supposedly responsible for only ten percent of transmission. The question was always to what *degree* aerosols were the transmission method over droplets. Quite a few articles I read debated that point, with evidence mounting that aerosols might have equal or more effect than droplets, at least as secondary transmission. Obviously if someone sneezes or coughs in your face at close range, droplets are the primary transmission. But there are tons of reports - and even video demonstrations on Youtube - of how far aerosols can be dispelled by breathing, talking, yelling, singing and coughs and sneezes. Aerosols can be spread up to 25 feet or more and hover in the air for up to 45 minutes, if not longer, depending on air temperature, humidity and air movement. Droplets can turn into aerosols depending on the same factors.

I started early on washing my hands religiously because due to the fact that I do not interact with hardly anyone in my building or elsewhere except during my supply runs, fomites would be the most likely way I could catch the virus. I have to use a common toilet - so touching the door and toilet lid would be my main risk. That's why I bought a thousand food service plastic gloves which I wear when using the john or going outside the building. When I return, I remove them by the recommended method, then wash my hands.

Initially I didn't have any masks because the depletion of the supply had already occurred. Now I have nineteen masks, 14 of which I use and rotate whenever going to the john or outside the building. I wear it when going to the john because I read recently that flushing a toilet aerosolizes fecal matter - and any virus particles - present in the water. In other words, you get a faceful of virus every time you flush a toilet. So close the lid before flushing. When I return, I wash my hands, remove the mask, then apply hand sanitizer or wash my hands again - which is the recommended procedure.

I now have an adequate supply of masks, hand sanitizer and disinfectant spray (with some more of the latter coming), so I think I'm in a good position to reduce my risk. But of course, as with the rest of life, it's still a crapshoot.

It will be a worse crapshoot as these idiots start crowding places I have to go to for supplies. I use convenience stores a lot and they tend to be crowded because they are very small. I also visit the Target store, but they initially had the crowding under control - because you had to wait in line to get in, which took twenty minutes or more. Now with the easing of restrictions, they have eliminated the door check, so the store is a bit more crowded, but not too much. People might still be wary, as has been suggested by some articles and polls. It's a big store, so ventilation and air movement might be better than a smaller space.

likbez , May 28, 2020 at 23:40

Verify your Comment Previewing your Comment

@Richard Steven Hack | May 28 2020 23:24 utc | 32

The question was always to what *degree* aerosols were the transmission method over droplets

They are not mutually excusive. Aerosol transmission can theoretically occur when a droplet that contains virus particles dry out and they start chaotically move via Brownian motion of air molecules.

Looks like the virus does not die instantly in this case. After all it looks like it survives in dry state on surfaces for a day or two in the absence of sun radiation (depending on the surface -- longest on steel surfaces, shortest on copper)

[May 28, 2020]

May 28, 2020 |

Recommends blood thinners in the same manner that the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group does...

There is another treatment that hasn't received as much coverage possibly because it isn't one individual drug. It's a broad category of blood thinners called anticoagulants. A recent pre-proof study of over 2500 patients from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology showed that anticoagulation can decrease the mortality of critically ill patients with the coronavirus from a frightening 63% to a somewhat less daunting 29%.

Medical providers, including myself, often use prophylactic doses of blood thinners such as heparin or enoxaparin to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients particularly in those with additional risk factors for blood clots, but now these medications are being administered to hospitalized patients who have no risk factors for clots other than having COVID-19.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | May 28 2020 10:22 utc | 70

[May 28, 2020] Interesting comments/reviews on the article which has supposedly debunked HCQ

May 28, 2020 |

Mina , May 28 2020 8:35 utc | 64

Interesting comments/reviews on the article which has supposedly debunked HCQ. (But see Somebody's links at the Nicotine-patch thread for the danger it presents in certain genetic groups)

[May 25, 2020] Two postulates of the establishment's propaganda on coronavirus

Outdoor maskism has zero to do with science, everything to do with irrational panic at best, and most of all top-down totalitarian control-seeking
Living in the Empire isn't quite as bad as being a victim of the Empire, but it's getting close.
May 25, 2020 |
Russ , May 25 2020 5:44 utc | 66

v> Thus in this case the propaganda has been largely monolithic:

1. Stay indoors. Don't breathe the air.

2. If you must venture into the hostile outdoors*, wear a mask**. Especially now that the air is the cleanest it's been our whole live s, do all you can to avoid breathing it.

"Covid-19 has forced modern medicine to broaden its outlook and look for new solutions, even in the wisdom of the past."

Indeed, it's clear where the establishment's propaganda has found wisdom.

Thus in this case the propaganda has been largely monolithic:

1. Stay indoors. Don't breathe the air.

2. If you must venture into the hostile outdoors*, wear a mask**. Especially now that the air is the cleanest it's been our whole live s, do all you can to avoid breathing it.

"Covid-19 has forced modern medicine to broaden its outlook and look for new solutions, even in the wisdom of the past."

Indeed, it's clear where the establishment's propaganda has found wisdom. /div

[May 25, 2020] BIG PHARMA steered public money away from pandemic research and into PROFIT-MAKING projects for years watchdog -- RT World New

Notable quotes:
"... EU money intended for underfunded public-benefit research such as preparing for a pandemic has been diverted by the pharmaceutical industry into areas where it can make more money, according to a scathing new report. ..."
"... The target of the criticism is the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), a public-private partnership that was equally funded, between 2008 and 2020, by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) lobbying group and the European Commission to the tune of 5.3 billion euros (US$5.8 billion). The money is supposed to go to areas of "unmet medical or social need," ..."
"... "We were outraged to find evidence that the pharmaceutical industry lobby EFPIA not only did not consider funding biopreparedness (ie, being ready for epidemics such as the one caused by the new coronavirus, COVID-19) but opposed it being included in IMI's work when the possibility was raised by the European Commission in 2017, ..."
"... "The research proposed by the EC in the biopreparedness topic was small in scope," ..."
"... "IMI's projects have contributed, directly or indirectly, to better prepare the research community for the current crisis, the Ebola+ programme or the ZAPI project." ..."
"... "belated interventions when an epidemic is already underway," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
May 25, 2020 |
EU money intended for underfunded public-benefit research such as preparing for a pandemic has been diverted by the pharmaceutical industry into areas where it can make more money, according to a scathing new report. Officials in Brussels wanted to co-fund research that would have ensured the European Union (EU) was better prepared for a pandemic akin to the one we are experiencing today. But their partners, the big pharmaceutical companies, rejected the proposal, ensuring that taxpayer money would go instead into studies with more potential for commercial application. In short big-pharma lobbyists were allowed to steer billions of euros of public funds as they saw fit, a damning new report claims.

The target of the criticism is the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), a public-private partnership that was equally funded, between 2008 and 2020, by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) lobbying group and the European Commission to the tune of 5.3 billion euros (US$5.8 billion). The money is supposed to go to areas of "unmet medical or social need," but, in practice, corporate priorities dominate the decision-making, according to the non-governmental organization Corporate Observatory Europe (COE).

"We were outraged to find evidence that the pharmaceutical industry lobby EFPIA not only did not consider funding biopreparedness (ie, being ready for epidemics such as the one caused by the new coronavirus, COVID-19) but opposed it being included in IMI's work when the possibility was raised by the European Commission in 2017, " a new COE report said.

Also on Head of EU's top science body quits after Covid-19 response plans get bogged down by Brussels bureaucracy

The rejected proposal would have directed money into refining computer simulations and the analysis of animal testing models, potentially speeding up regulatory approval of vaccines, according to the Guardian. But a spokeswoman for the IMI called the report "misleading".

"The research proposed by the EC in the biopreparedness topic was small in scope," she said. "IMI's projects have contributed, directly or indirectly, to better prepare the research community for the current crisis, the Ebola+ programme or the ZAPI project."

ZAPI, or the Zoonotic Anticipation and Preparedness Initiative, was launched in 2015 with a budget of 20 million euros (US$21.8 million) after the Ebola epidemic a year prior. The COE report said it exemplifies a pattern of "belated interventions when an epidemic is already underway," much like this year's emergency funding of coronavirus research.

Also on Hotly-touted Oxford coronavirus VACCINE trial has only 50 percent chance of success, project leader warns

The think tank questioned whether EU public money was well applied through IMI. Much of it went into research into cancer, Alzheimer's disease and diabetes – areas that are potentially profitable and thus are given close attention by private business. But epidemic preparedness, HIV/AIDS, and poverty-related and neglected tropical diseases have been overlooked by the initiative, the report said.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[May 24, 2020] 'How Could the CDC Make That Mistake?' The government's disease-fighting agency is conflating viral and antibody tests, compromising a few crucial metrics that governors depend on to reopen their economies. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, and other states are doing the same.

Notable quotes:
"... "According to CDC, the disease of obesity affects about 78 million Americans 1 and the ASMBS estimates about 24 million have severe or morbid obesity." ..."
May 24, 2020 |

Richard Steven Hack , May 24 2020 23:54 utc | 46

And the government botching of this crisis continues...

'How Could the CDC Make That Mistake?' The government's disease-fighting agency is conflating viral and antibody tests, compromising a few crucial metrics that governors depend on to reopen their economies. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, and other states are doing the same.

And overseas as well...

'Politicised nature' of lockdown debate delays Imperial report

And of course, the effect of that...

Nearly half of US states haven't contained their coronavirus outbreaks, a new study finds

And no, Sweden is not doing better...

Just 7.3% of Stockholm had Covid-19 antibodies by end of April, study shows
Official findings add to concerns about Sweden's laissez-faire strategy towards the pandemic

Finally, a large scale study on HCQ - 86,000 patients, with 15,000 receiving HCQ...

Trump drug hydroxychloroquine raises death risk in Covid patients, study says

The color of coronavirus:
COVID-19 deaths by race and ethnicity in the U.S.

Blacks are *twice* as likely to get it as whites and Latinos. American Indians are *five times* more likely to get it. They conclude the best indicator is poverty.

From The Lancet, a study of New York patients... Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study

Between March 2 and April 1, 2020, 1150 adults were admitted to both hospitals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, of which 257 (22%) were critically ill.

The median age of patients was 62 years (IQR 51–72), 171 (67%) were men. 212 (82%) patients had at least one chronic illness, the most common of which were hypertension (162 [63%]) and diabetes (92 [36%]).

119 (46%) patients had obesity.

As of April 28, 2020, 101 (39%) patients had died and 94 (37%) remained hospitalised.

203 (79%) patients received invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 18 days (IQR 9–28), 170 (66%) of 257 patients received vasopressors and 79 (31%) received renal replacement therapy.

The median time to in-hospital deterioration was 3 days (IQR 1–6).

In the multivariable Cox model, older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1·31 [1·09–1·57] per 10-year increase), chronic cardiac disease (aHR 1·76 [1·08–2·86]), chronic pulmonary disease (aHR 2·94 [1·48–5·84]), higher concentrations of interleukin-6 (aHR 1·11 [95%CI 1·02–1·20] per decile increase), and higher concentrations of D-dimer (aHR 1·10 [1·01–1·19] per decile increase) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality.

Note: 36% had diabetes; 46% were fat. Like I've said before, "diabetes" is a code word for "fat." And how many people in the US are fat and thus at risk? "According to CDC, the disease of obesity affects about 78 million Americans 1 and the ASMBS estimates about 24 million have severe or morbid obesity."

So much for "let's just isolate the elderly" we can attend our baseball games this summer and stuff ourselves with crap food...

[May 24, 2020] Lung volume as an important factor in coronavirus progrnnsys

May 24, 2020 |

Jen , May 24 2020 23:13 utc | 41

I think lung volume is indirect indicator of how well trained the person is. Coach potatoes have low lung volume. Most sportsmen -- a high or even very high.

From WSJ article "The Healing Power of Proper Breathing"

In the 1980s, researchers with the Framingham Study, a 70-year research program focused on heart disease, gathered two decades of data from 5,200 subjects, crunched the numbers and discovered that the greatest indicator of life span wasn't genetics, diet or the amount of daily exercise, as many had suspected. It was lung capacity. Larger lungs equaled longer lives. Because big lungs allow us to get more air in with fewer breaths. They save the body from a lot of unnecessary wear and tear.

Also a sedentary way of life with not enough movement during the day, especially during childhood and adolescence, along with poor sitting and standing postures can encourage shallow breathing instead of breathing with the whole body.

[May 23, 2020] The more you know Over a third of Americans apprehensive about Covid-19 vaccine, citing rushed development trust issues -- RT

May 23, 2020 |

The more you know? Over a third of Americans apprehensive about Covid-19 vaccine, citing rushed development & trust issues 21 May, 2020 21:37 Get short URL The more you know? Over a third of Americans apprehensive about Covid-19 vaccine, citing rushed development & trust issues © Global Look Press / Fotostand / K. Schmitt Follow RT on RT As the Trump administration pushes for Covid-19 vaccine development on an ever-shrinking timetable and companies report lackluster early trials, 35 percent of Americans are less than thrilled about getting the shot. Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration's unprecedented drive to create and roll out a vaccine for the coronavirus pandemic by the end of the year, may be doing more harm than good, at least where Americans' trust is concerned. Between the shockingly abbreviated timetable and the lack of long-term safety testing, almost one in four Americans (24 percent) said they were not interested in the shot, according to a Reuters poll published Thursday. An additional 11 percent were unsure about it.

Also on Study Trump cited in his latest attack on WHO does NOT EXIST, says editor-in-chief of prestigious medical journal

Compounding the distrust is the polarizing figure of President Donald Trump himself, who proudly announced the shortened timetable for vaccine development last week. Thirty-six percent of those polled by Reuters said they would be less likely to take a potential Covid-19 vaccine if it came recommended by Trump, while just 14 percent thought the president's seal of approval was a positive.

Trump's narrative flip-flops haven't helped his credibility on the vaccine front. From his early reassurances that the virus would vanish in weeks, to his public conflicts with his own health advisers over locking down and reopening the country, it's not hard to see why Americans are hesitant to fall in line behind him on this. But the problem isn't necessarily political. Nearly half of those uninterested in taking the vaccine said the speed of its development worried them, while over 40 percent said the vaccine would be riskier than actually contracting Covid-19 itself.

Read more Trump's WARP SPEED vaccine czar oversaw an infamously BOTCHED vaccination. Wonder why a THIRD of Americans want to dodge this one? Trump's WARP SPEED vaccine czar oversaw an infamously BOTCHED vaccination. Wonder why a THIRD of Americans want to dodge this one?

However, even 29 percent of those who said they were " not very interested " in the vaccine allowed they'd be willing to change their mind if the shot was approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The full approval process for vaccines usually takes over a decade, and even the most optimistic experts – including Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has become the public face of the US' Covid-19 policy – believe a shot won't be ready for another year to 18 months. Rushing a vaccine to market in the middle of a pandemic means sacrificing comprehensive safety checks for efficiency – a tradeoff that can be disastrous, as in the case of the 2009 swine flu shot Pandemrix, which caused permanent brain damage in over 1,000 British patients.

The parallels between Covid-19 and that epidemic are ominous – wildly inflated death predictions had spooked the UK government into approving Pandemrix without sufficient safety data – and it surely won't help Americans' trust in this vaccine that Trump's " vaccine czar " Moncef Slaoui ran GlaxoSmithKline's vaccine division during the swine flu debacle. Nor has it been especially heartening to discover Slaoui's extensive investments in not just Glaxo but many other drug companies working on potential vaccines.

Slaoui earned $3 million on Monday alone from Moderna, which is still considered the leading candidate in the vaccine race, even though the drug company has never brought a vaccine to market. After hyping up what were essentially meaningless preliminary results, Moderna's stock shot up 25 percent, bringing his holdings to over $10 million. He pledged to donate those earnings to " cancer research " after demands for him to divest reached a fever pitch. A vaccine produced at Oxford University hasn't fared much better, with all six rhesus monkeys who received the shot becoming infected anyway – despite a preliminary report that tried to spin the failure as representing " some " success.

Also on Define 'distribute'! Trump mobilizing MILITARY to deliver Covid-19 vaccine 'assuming we get it,' sparks conspiracy frenzy

Threats of mandatory vaccination have unsurprisingly not helped to soothe Americans' worries over a potentially unsafe vaccine. Fauci and other health officials have repeatedly warned the public that there will be no return to " normal " without a vaccine, even as lockdown restrictions are slowly lifted – a statement some have interpreted as a threat that the unvaccinated will be barred from crowded public places or travel. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz went further, declaring the government has " police power " to mandate Americans take a vaccine and claiming such power is " not debatable " constitutionally. And other experts downplayed the very real concerns voiced by poll respondents in favor of blaming the " very aggressive anti-vaccine movement ."

All this is bad news for the health experts Reuters cites, who say 70 percent of Americans would have to be immune in order to achieve " herd immunity " and stop the virus from spreading through the US, where upwards of 90,000 people have died since the pandemic began.

[May 23, 2020] Hydroxychloroquine After Action Report

May 23, 2020 |

Robert Waldmann | May 23, 2020 10:52 am

Healthcare Hot Topics I was a vehement advocate of prescribing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) off label while waiting for the results of clinical trials. I wasn't all that much embarrassed to agree with Donald Trump for once. Now I feel obliged to note that my guess was totally wrong. I thought that the (uncertain) expected benefits were greater than the (relatively well known) costs.

The cost is that HCQ affects the heart beat prolonging the QT period (from when the atrium begins to contract to when the ventrical repolarizes and is read to go again). This can cause arrhythmia especially in people who already have heart problems. I understood that one might argue that all people with Covid 19 have heart problems but didn't consider that argument decisive (I probably should have).

The positive expected value of the uncertain benefits was based on strong in vitro evidence that HCQ blocks SARS Cov2 infection of human cells in culture. (this is a publication in the world's top general science journal).

Already in early May, there was evidence that any effect of HCQ on the rate of elimination of the virus must be small. In this controlled trial conducted in China , the null of no effect is not rejected. Much more importantly, the point estimates of the effects over time are all almost exactly zero. I considered the matter settled (although the painfully disappointed authors tried to argue for HCQ and that their study was not conclusive).

There are now four large retrospective studies all of which suggest no benefit from HCQ and two of which suggest it causes increased risk of death. I am going to discuss the two studies most recently reported.

One is a very large study (fairly big data goes to the hospital) published yesterday in The Lancet. In this study patients who received HCQ had a significantly higher death rate with a hazard of dying 1.335 times as high. The estimate comes from a proportional hazard model with a non parametric baseline probability and takes into account many risk factors including crucially initial disease severity. It is also important that only patients who were treated within 48 hours of diagnosis were considered.

I am, of course, dismayed by this result. I am also puzzled, because it is quite different from the result obtained in a smaller retrospective study published in JAMA

I think the practical lessons are that it seems unwise to give Covid 19 patients HCQ. Also maybe Robert Waldmann should be more humble. After the jump, I will discuss the two studies in some detail and propose an explanation of the difference in results.

[May 22, 2020] Global report: don't count on vaccine, US scientist warns, as cases pass 5m

May 22, 2020 |

A top US scientist has said that people should not count on a Covid-19 vaccine being developed any time soon...

William Haseltine, the groundbreaking cancer, HIV/AIDS and human genome projects researcher, has said the best approach to the pandemic is to manage the disease through careful tracing of infections and strict isolation measures whenever it starts spreading. He said that while a vaccine could be developed, "I wouldn't count on it", and urged people to wear masks, wash hands, clean surfaces and keep a distance.

[May 22, 2020] Washington State conned out of a likely 'hundreds of millions of dollars' by Nigerian scammers

If Nigerian hackers can steal that much money, Israel, Chinese, and Russian, intel agencies probably are in the most Fed information systems doing what they want ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... officials in Washington State may have lost "hundreds of millions of dollars" to fraudsters filing bogus unemployment claim ..."
May 22, 2020 |
officials in Washington State may have lost "hundreds of millions of dollars" to fraudsters filing bogus unemployment claim s – all the way from Nigeria.

[May 22, 2020] The Remdesivir Study Is Finally Out Drug Only Helped Those On Oxygen, Finds Mortality Too High For Standalone Treatment Zero

May 22, 2020 |

Remember when the market soared on several days in April on the Facui-touted Remdesivir study which, according to StatNews and various other unofficial sources of rumors, was a smashing success only for the optimism to fizzle as many questions emerged , and as the Gilead drug quietly faded from the public's consciousness and was replaced by various coronavirus vaccine candidates such as those made by the greatly hyped Moderna ( whose insiders just can't stop selling company stock ).

Meanwhile, those who were waiting for the official version of Remdesivir's effectiveness had to do so until 6pm on a Friday before a long holiday, and for good reason...

Friday 6 pm. Fking ridiculous.

-- Adam Feuerstein (@adamfeuerstein) May 22, 2020

... According to a pivotal study published in the New England Journal of Medicine late on Friday, Remdesivir, which was authorized to treat Covid-19 in a group of 1063 adults and children (split into two groups, one receiving placebo instead of remdesivir) who need i) supplemental oxygen, ii) a ventilator or iii) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), only significantly helped those on supplemental oxygen.

Meanwhile, and explaining the 6pm release on a Friday, the study also found no marked benefit from remdesivir for those who were healthier and didn't need oxygen or those who were sicker, requiring a ventilator or a heart-lung bypass machine.

The NEJM, almost apologetically, stated that "the lack of benefit seen in the other groups might have stemmed from a smaller number of patients in each group."

Still, as a result of the partial benefit for patients in the supplemental oxygen group, the study from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was evaluated early and led to the authorization of remdesivir before the full trial was completed.

Our findings highlight the need to identify Covid-19 cases and start antiviral treatment before the pulmonary disease progresses to require mechanical ventilation.

Some more details on the study, which was a "rank test of the time to recovery with remdesivir as compared with placebo, with stratification by disease severity":

The primary outcome measure was the time to recovery, defined as the first day, during the 28 days after enrollment, on which a patient satisfied categories 1, 2, or 3 on the eight-category ordinal scale. The categories are as follows:

  1. not hospitalized, no limitations of activities;
  2. not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both;
  3. hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care (used if hospitalization was extended for infection-control reasons);
  4. hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen but requiring ongoing medical care (Covid-19–related or other medical conditions);
  5. 5, hospitalized, requiring any supplemental oxygen;
  6. hospitalized, requiring noninvasive ventilation or use of high-flow oxygen devices;
  7. hospitalized, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); and
  8. death.

The results are summarized below, highlighting the only group that showed a statistically significant improvement in outcomes as a result of taking the drug vs placebo.

A visual representation of the outcomes is below; it shows that whereas there was a modest benefit only to patients who were receiving oxygen, the results were statistically insignificant vs placebo for patients not receiving oxygen, while in a surprising twist patients on high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilator/ECMO did modestly better in the placebo group than those taking remdesivir. Also, the overall results showed a very modest, but not statistically significant improvement in the remdesivir group vs placebo (box A).

Another disappointment: the study found that overall "mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant ", in other words the alleged "miracle drug" has largely the same effect as a placebo in terms of overall disease mortality.

The study authors also note that the "findings in our trial should be compared with those observed in a randomized trial from China in which 237 patients were enrolled (158 assigned to remdesivir and 79 to placebo).... That trial failed to complete full enrollment (owing to the end of the outbreak), had lower power than the present trial (owing to the smaller sample size and a 2:1 randomization), and was unable to demonstrate any statistically significant clinical benefits of remdesivir. "

Finally, the study found that while mortality was modestly lower for the remdesivir arm, it was not significantly so, at 7.1% at 14 days on drug versus 11.9% on placebo.

In conclusion, while the "preliminary findings support the use of remdesivir for patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19 and require supplemental oxygen therapy" the study goes on to warn that " given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an antiviral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient."

The study's recommendation:

Future strategies should evaluate antiviral agents in combination with other therapeutic approaches or combinations of antiviral agents to continue to improve patient outcomes in Covid-19.

So a generally disappointing outcome, one which would lead to a drop in the market. Nonsense: think of all the spin, and why this is in fact great news for stocks: Remdesivir may be a dud as a "silver bullet" to curing covid, leading to statistically significant improvement in only a very limited subset of infected patients and "high mortality" for those taking it, but at least the algos will have a whole lot of other "miracle drugs" to levitate them as optimism that the next remdesivir is just around the corner. In short: rinse, rumor, and repeat... and then save the bad news for 6pm on a Friday.

Oh, and for those asking about the "official" reason why the NE Journal of Medicine waited until just the right time to make sure nobody reads the results, here it is:

I asked NEJM spox to explain the Friday 6 pm release of the remdesivir study. Her response is below.

-- Adam Feuerstein (@adamfeuerstein) May 22, 2020

The full study is available here .

[May 21, 2020] Smokers are at a lower risk of contracting covid19 infections

May 21, 2020 |

J Norwich , May 19 2020 5:43 utc | 108

Prior infection with other coronavirus strains appears to confer an enhanced immune response to covid19. Smokers are at a lower risk of contracting covid19 infections. Perhaps the two observations are related? Smokers generally have poorer lung health and may be more likely to acquire lung infections such as those caused by other varieties of coronavirus and to develop antibody protection. So maybe their vulnerability to such infections has proved an advantage in this case?

Hoarsewhisperer , May 19 2020 6:05 utc | 109

"Immune warriors known as T cells help us fight some viruses, but their importance for battling SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been unclear. Now, two studies reveal infected people harbor T cells that target the virus -- and may help them recover. Both studies also found some people never infected with SARS-CoV-2 have these cellular defenses, most likely because they were previously infected with other coronaviruses."

Thanks for drawing attention to this, b.

The T cell/Common Cold factor may help to explain why children are less likely to be infected by COVID-19 than adults. I can recall that when each of my own offspring went through that miserable, snotty-nosed toddler phase, there seemed to be no upside for them or their parents. In retrospect, maybe it was producing a hidden benefit?

[May 21, 2020] Is nikotin effective against COVID-19

May 21, 2020 |

gm , May 19 2020 16:13 utc | 129

With respect to highly addictive nicotine, it is not hard to find any number of "healthful" justifications for continuing with the (disgusting, imho) smoking habit.

Why, there is already an extensive body of scientific "evidence" one can latch onto that nicotine is beneficial in Parkinson's disease:

And of course, one can also find numerous reports nicotine also helps schizophrenics to manage their symptoms:

But with regard to anecdotal/unverified [touch'e] claims of nicotine benefits in covid, one should not reflexively ignore the evidence to the contrary that conflict with one's pro-nicotine bias/belief system:}

"Smokers more likely to express ACE2 protein that SARS-COV-2 uses to enter human cells"


"Tobacco smoking increases lung entry points for COVID-19 virus"

"They looked at the expression of ACE2, the molecule in the respiratory tract that the COVID-19 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells. They also looked at the expression of FURIN and TMPRSS2, human enzymes known to facilitate COVID-19 virus infection.

The researchers report in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine a 25 percent increase in the expression of ACE2 in lung tissues from ever-smokers, people who have smoked at least 100 cigarettes during their lives, when compared with nonsmokers. Smoking also increased the presence of FURIN, but to a lower extent compared to ACE2 . TMRPSS2 expression in lungs was not associated with smoking. They also found that smoking remodeled the gene expression of cells in the lungs so that the ACE2 gene was more highly expressed in goblet cells, cells that secrete mucus in order to protect the mucous membranes in the lungs ."

But if you are totally bent on using a non-addictive feel-good drug that Israelis say may prevent/fight against the Corona-chan, try CANNABIS:

[May 21, 2020] An MD wrote this op/ed dealing with the hypoxia caused by the coronavirus and provides evidence in support of Dr. Bush's video interview

May 21, 2020 |

karlof1 , May 19 2020 20:56 utc | 137

An MD wrote this op/ed dealing with the hypoxia caused by the coronavirus and provides evidence in support of Dr. Bush's video interview that can be reached through the link @135 above.

Yes, the op/ed's a month old, but the dynamics of the virus haven't changed nor have the frequency of deaths within the Outlaw US Empire.

Based on the doctor's first hand testimony and other studies, the initial treatment approach advocated by Dr. Bush and its reasoning seem quite pragmatic and logical.

Comparison with Malaria yields almost no correlation aside from the malaria parasite's use of red blood cells as nurseries and lairs, which may explain why anti-malaria drugs used against COVID-19 in its initial stages have some positive results.

[May 21, 2020] Our FLCCC Working Group currently believes that, if hydroxychloroquine proves to have any benefit, it will most likely be in the earliest stage of infection, while the virus replicates and the patient is still at home, before breathing difficulties or low oxygen levels necessitate a trip to the hospital.

May 21, 2020 |

Richard Steven Hack , May 19 2020 4:45 utc | 106

The Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (EVMS is part of that group) has this to say about HCQ:
Some have asked why our initial protocol included hydroxychloroquine, the anti-viral drug that was widely touted as a cure for the COVID-19 disease that is caused by the virus. Almost all ER and ICU physicians tried it before a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed it to have no effect on mortality in patients with severe cases of the disease. Our FLCCC Working Group currently believes that, if hydroxychloroquine proves to have any benefit, it will most likely be in the earliest stage of infection, while the virus replicates and the patient is still at home, before breathing difficulties or low oxygen levels necessitate a trip to the hospital.

A shortened version of their current treatment protocol (PDF):

Dr. Kory Senate Testimony before the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Hearing (Vimeo video)

Dr. Kory is Pierre Kory, M.D., M.P.A., Medical Director, Trauma & Life Support Center, Critical Care Service Chief, Associate Professor of Medicine Univ. of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health - one of eight medical professionals on the FLCCC team.

Note: I do *not* explicitly endorse any of this. I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on MoA. But I find their arguments reasonable to the degree I can comprehend them.

Richard Steven Hack , May 19 2020 6:26 utc | 110

Just watched Dr. Kory's testimony before the Senate Committee I referenced above... Link again:

I recommend it to everyone. Again, I can't speak to the medicine, but I think you'll find him highly persuasive, if rather desperate to fit his arguments into the time allotted him (which he overran.)

At least we got a number for the patients treated with their complete MATH+ Protocol - merely 100 (at the time of his testimony.) That's not a high number that persuades me. But he also cites a number of other doctors around the country and in Italy who have tried corticosteroids and apparently they consider it a "game-changer" in treatment, in that it massively reduces the number of people needing to be put on ventilators. He emphasizes that the treatment is safe, physiologically sound, well-recognized as useful for the conditions caused by the virus for years, and although "off-label" for this disease it is not unusual to do "off-label" and that is supported by all the medical association ethical standards.

But he emphasizes that the treatment needs to be started as soon as respirator symptoms develop and he is concerned that too many people are avoiding going to the hospital until it's too late. This of course raises the question as to whether this is another treatment - like HCQ - that "only" works at early stages and therefore is not necessarily proven by trials, but is only supported by "observation" in the hospital.

Of course, the solution to that is run the bloody trial. Or at least use the treatment on a greater number of treatments and see how it washes out. He's concerned that they can't get the White House to listen - big surprise, there.

[May 21, 2020] On the necessity and the duration of quarantine

May 21, 2020 |

likbez , says: Show Comment May 21, 2020 at 9:20 pm GMT

Hi The Kremlin Stooge,

Don't forget 'Covidiots'. The frontline-worker-lovin', government-narrative-believin' social-distance welcomin' simpletons are endlessly inventive when it comes to coining contemptuous nicknames for those who don't buy into their embrace of madness. I am happy to be able to say I thought the virus was bogus from the first, and said so to anyone who would listen.

That's too simplistic. You should agree that religious nuts who attend the church in large groups despite the risk can and should be called "Covidiots". Because they are. And the people who are trying to preserve their meager income generally should not.

Why religious nuts can't move to outdoors for the same purpose like first Chirstians did, is unclear to me ;-). Not sure about Orthodox Jews, which is pretty closed sect in any case so if they want to infect each other, be my guest.

The virus causes specific for it virus pneumonia which is no joke. People who recovered still have fibroses in this lungs of different degree. That's why people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 are ineligible to serve in US army. So for those unlucky who get virus pneumonia that's a crippling disease. You can't deny this.

For around 15-20% of people over 65 infected with COVID-19 it means the death sentence -- they will never recover and either die in hospital or soon after. Men over 65 are two third of those so for old men the risk can't be discounted.

So the question is what forms and length of quarantine was optimal, not whether it should or should not be enforced. I doubt that you want to argue that night clubs should remain open. Or that wearing masks in closed spaces is redundant (in open spaces they generally are redundant, unless you are standing in line, etc)

You also need some timeout to collect the vital information about the disease using first cases, enhance the protection of medical personnel, and access the level of actual risk to the population and the economy (the USA generally wasted it and Trump was inapt; so the effect of quarantine is more questionable for this particular country).

It was not that clear in March that the risk is generally low, although we can't deny that Fauci and Co were caught without pants (or, for some sinister reason were intended to be caught this way as if they waited until epidemic got to a certain point that masks something else )

That does not excuse incompetence of Trump administration and very strange behaviors of Fauci, who spent two months and then woke up and suddenly start crying Wolf, Wolf, but the USA is very mysterious country and in no way Canadians can understand it

[May 21, 2020] New York Times continues to prop up the vaccine hype

May 21, 2020 |

vk , May 21 2020 0:49 utc | 55

New York Times continues to prop up the vaccine hype:

Coronavirus Live Updates: Scientists See Progress in Path to Vaccine by Next Year

In addition to this Home Page highlight, there's an opinion piece as a side dish:

What to Expect When a Coronavirus Vaccine Finally Arrives

Buried a little bit more at the bottom, there's this borderline pseudoscientific, definitely reckless article:

Prototype Vaccine Protects Monkeys From Coronavirus

There is a statistical possibility a vaccine comes out next year. But his possibility is remote. The key here is that a vaccine must be tested to the exhaustion before being ok'd by any government for mass use. Any mistake can result in a number of deaths that will make this pandemic look like child's play. My opinion is that the NYT is feeding too much enthusiasm to its readers.

Circe , May 19 2020 12:05 utc | 119

The Moderna Vaccine the media is touting as a promising, miracle breakthrough that has only been tested on a limited group of 45 people, aged 18 to 55 has Grade 3 adverse effects in 100 and 250 microgram dosage.

So they're going to lower dosage to 50 micrograms and test it on the 56 to 70 and over 70 age groups. What about the group most Americans are in: the KFC, McDonald's, IHOP group?

[May 21, 2020] It is worth reminding of criticism of the untrustworthiness of modern medical science from the editors of some of the top medical journals

Notable quotes:
"... There are some who parrot Big Pharma vested interests in ridiculing and denigrating hydroxychloroquine, despite the very notable positive results several countries such as China, Russia, Iran and Turkey have had with it, while vainly spouting the benefits of smoking despite complete lack of quality research papers supporting it and abundant quality papers against. ..."
"... Research is not created equal. There is good research (some, not so much) and there is bad research (bundles of it), mostly funded by vested interests, who where necessary direct the desired results. In general, research from China and Russia arguably tends to be higher quality and more reliable because those countries place the emphasis on health for society, not on profits for the corporations. ..."
May 21, 2020 |

BM , May 20 2020 6:17 utc | 146

But with regard to anecdotal/unverified [touch'e] claims of nicotine benefits in covid, one should not reflexively ignore the evidence to the contrary that conflict with one's pro-nicotine bias/belief system:}
"Smokers more likely to express ACE2 protein that SARS-COV-2 uses to enter human cells"
"Tobacco smoking increases lung entry points for COVID-19 virus"
Posted by: gm | May 19 2020 16:13 utc | 129

Touché again gm!

It is indeed desperate grasping at straws to believe that smoking will protect against Covid-19 when far higher quality research clearly indicates increased risk from smoking that the disease will be more severe (the latter also being the more plausible result).

As I commented the last time B raised this issue, there is one genuine effect of a past history of smoking that statistically reduces risk of death from Covid-19 - namely smoking significantly reduces expected lifespan, and therefore reduces the risk of living long enough to reach the highest risk age groups for severe Covid-19. Alternatively expressed - smoking kills you off first before you get a chance to be killed by Covid, if that is what you want. Post-hoc nicotine patches at a late stage deny you even that advantage.

There are some who parrot Big Pharma vested interests in ridiculing and denigrating hydroxychloroquine, despite the very notable positive results several countries such as China, Russia, Iran and Turkey have had with it, while vainly spouting the benefits of smoking despite complete lack of quality research papers supporting it and abundant quality papers against.

At this point it is worth reminding of criticism of the untrustworthiness of modern medical science from the editors of some of the top medical journals:

Skeptical of medical science reports?

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine"
Angell M. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books magazine.

More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness"
Horton R. Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?

The first of these two commentaries on clinical research publications appeared in 2009, the second in April of this year. These statements are being taken seriously, coming as they do from the experiences of editors of two of the world's most prestigious medical journals. The first article showed how the relationships between pharmaceutical companies and academic physicians at prestigious universities impacted certain drug-related publications and the marketing of prescription drugs. Potential conflicts of interest seemed to abound: millions of dollars in consulting and speaking fees to physicians who promoted specific drugs, public research dollars being used by a researcher to test a drug owned by a company in which the researcher held millions of dollars in shares, failure of university researchers to disclose income from drug companies, company subsidies to physician continuing education, publishing practice guidelines involving drugs in which the authors have a financial interest, using influential physicians to promote drugs for unapproved uses, bias in favor of a product coming from failure to publish negative results and repeated publication of positive results in different forms. The author, Marcia Angell, cited the case of a drug giant that had to agree to settle charges that it deliberately withheld evidence that its top-selling anti-depressant was ineffective and could be harmful to certain age groups. ...

Richard Horton's statement was part of his comments on a recent symposium on reliability and reproducibility of research in the biomedical sciences and addresses a broader area of concern. Some of the problems he identified are seen in the veterinary literature. They include inadequate number of subjects in the study, poor study design, and potential conflicts of interest. He notes that the quest for journal