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.
"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.
"... Given what's at stake, Bramstedt proposes an overhaul of the submissions process to make it more efficient, while also introducing mandatory ethics and integrity training for researchers. ..."
"... "Research has the potential to enter the public domain and be used by many stakeholders, including governments and policy makers, so the data must be robust," she concludes. ..."
A leading ethicist is
sounding the alarm over a flood of potentially substandard pandemic research which may endanger
lives through ill-informed public policy, while damaging medical and scientific practice itself
in the process.
There has been a surge of almost 4,000 recently-published papers related to Covid-19, many
of which have been of questionable quality, according to Professor Katrina Bramstedt from Bond
University, Queensland, who is also secretary general at the Luxembourg Agency for Research
Integrity.
Bramstedt recently published her own study examining the poor
quality of Covid-19 research, which forms the basis of her recent criticisms.
Amid the rush to print the latest updates and 'breakthroughs' in Covid-19 research, there
has been a slew of retracted research papers, following an unprecedented number of submissions
to pre-print servers, which carry out fewer quality assurance and due diligence checks than
established medical journals.
"No research team is exempt from the pressures and speed at which COVID-19 research is
occurring. And this can increase the risk of honest error as well as deliberate
misconduct," Bramstedt says.
The rapid spread of the pandemic and the growing public thirst for information forced
researchers into overdrive looking for treatments, vaccines, and cures potentially endangering
patients, medical practitioners, and potentially government policy.
As of July 31, 2020, 19 published articles and 14 preprints about Covid-19 have been
retracted, withdrawn or been seriously called into question with regards to the quality of
their data. Over 57 percent of these papers come from Asia, over half of which came from
China.
There were concerns reported over falsified data, issues with methodology, irregularities in
interpretation of data, and conclusions among a multitude of other issues.
Even the paragons of medical research best practice, the Lancet and New England Journal of
Medicine, were forced to retract two preprints and two research papers due to the presence of
unverified data shared by all four.
"Patient harm that is significant, permanent and irreversible could result from using
faulty research results from preprints as well as published papers," she adds.
Bramstedt highlights the time and resource constraints under which researchers, their
supervisors, as well as publishers and their editors are operating under as a major factor in
the plethora of poor quality research.
Add to the mix the fact that many peer reviewers work on a voluntary basis with competing
demands on their time, especially as they face uncertainty through the pandemic, and issues
with quality control are largely inevitable.
At the same time, convening cross-disciplinary meetings of leading immunologists,
microbiologists, and lung disease specialists on a consistent basis to share, review, and
discuss research during such trying times is increasingly difficult.
Given what's at stake, Bramstedt proposes an overhaul of the submissions process to make it
more efficient, while also introducing mandatory ethics and integrity training for
researchers.
"Research has the potential to enter the public domain and be used by many stakeholders,
including governments and policy makers, so the data must be robust," she concludes.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Medical research has for long been diluted in quality by inherently inconsequential studies,
incompetently designed and/or executed studies, and pressure to value quantity over quality.
Mediocrity and worse abounds among researchers. Thus, Bramstedt's findings are all too
plausible.
Tango 8 hours ago 2 Oct, 2020 08:42 AM
Unfortunately this "ethicist" doesn't focus on the quackery that has come from the leading
government experts and researchers including Ferguson, Drosten, Zambon, Fauci, Holmes,
Rambaut, Burioni and all the rest.
Hanonymouse Tango 1 hour ago 2 Oct, 2020 03:21 PM
Yeah epidemiology used to be about tracking a disease, not a form of government... If only
these constant lockdowns and re-openings weren't destroying people's lives then I would find
it funny that politicians think they can chase statistics that lag by 2+ weeks and have it
mean anything. But it IS destroying people's lives. Those businesses and jobs are not coming
back once this mess is over.
diessa 8 hours ago 2 Oct, 2020 07:58 AM
wave of fraud and quackery in medical research re convid, actually sums it up!
Timkun 3 hours ago 2 Oct, 2020 01:09 PM
Research is an expensive endeavour. Management typically doesn't like it, because there is
usually no profit. At the university level, many "experts" are ego driven, find it hard to
admit that their theory may be wrong. IMO from years working in research, I find that because
so much money is on the line, today, research is less of an exact science. The reason; more
money and recognition for being first.
Count_Cash 8 hours ago 2 Oct, 2020 08:21 AM
Demand has a habit of overwhelming any system. Of course Covid-19 has spurred increased
research - it should have. So the system has broken and needs a few changes to make it more
efficient..... However, when there is a huge financial benefit in driving the demand, you may
well find that no matter what you do, a way will be found around it. That is the bigger
issue!
Gerald Comeau Count_Cash 7 hours ago 2 Oct, 2020 09:16 AM
Demand? This has little to do with demand? It seems to me greed and opportunism on the part
of scientists aspiring career advancement is more in line, with what is going on, than
demand.
eyeofmice 7 hours ago 2 Oct, 2020 09:21 AM
check out a real doctors Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Vernon Coleman who are exposing this hoax
and are being censored.
Logicthought 7 hours ago 2 Oct, 2020 09:39 AM
Medical Research has brought the Medical Profession into disrepute ...
"... 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. ..."
"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 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.
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.
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.
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.)
"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.
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 Amazon.com 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
ARRAY / AP
"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.
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.
S EVIDENCE MOUNTS THAT THE "GOLD STANDARD" TEST FOR DETECTING COVID-19 IS UNRELIABLE, WHY ARE HEALTH OFFICIALS AROUND THE WORLD
CALLING FOR MORE TESTS?
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.
HOUSTON HEALTH AUTHORITY HAS CONCERNS ABOUT PCR TEST
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.
UK PARLIAMENT AND SCIENTISTS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PCR TEST
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:
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.'"
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.
THE EVIDENCE FOR FALSE POSITIVES IS OVERWHELMING
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."
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.
In the past, our reports raising questions about the accuracy of COVID-19 tests have been met with accusations of 'fearmongering'
and spreading 'misinformation'.
In the past, our reports raising questions about the accuracy of COVID-19 tests have been met with accusations of 'fearmongering'
and spreading 'misinformation'.
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 89 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.
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. ..."
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 .
"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.
Image
"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
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.
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 ProcedureInitialization
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.
Denaturation
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.
Annealing
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.
Extension/Elongation
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 ProcedureExponential 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.
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
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:
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.
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
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":
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.
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.
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.
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 (
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/09/08/leading-scientists-question-highly-improbable-russian-vaccine-results-published-in-lancet-a71384).
- 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee Wednesday morning, CDC Director Robert
Redfield entered further into quack doctor territory, claiming that wearing a mask protects the
wearer against the novel coronavirus, even more so than a high-efficacy vaccine.
"These facemasks are the important, powerful public health tool we have," Redfield said,
while touching both sides of his mask and unconsciously contaminating it with his hands. "I
might even go so far as to say that this facemask is more guaranteed to protect me against
COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine," he added.
This appears to be another "scientific" evolution on masks from the "public health expert"
class. At first, we were advised not to wear masks. Then, the "my mask protects you. Your mask
protects me" mantra became the widely disseminated narrative. Now, masks apparently have the
incredible power of protecting the mask wearer from the virus.
In the February hearing, Redfield told Americans not to buy medical-grade
masks , saying there's "no role for these masks in the community."
There remains zero evidence that cloth masks or the earloop masks displayed by Redfield
helps to slow the spread of COVID-19 or protect the wearer from infection. No country in the
world has proven a link in slowing or stopping the spread due to mask wearing mandates, which
are in effect in countless nations.
Given the lack of demonstrated evidence supporting it, mask-wearing has become a cult-like religious
movement in the United States , one that relies on complete subservience to total
mysticism. Members of the mask movement frequently target Americans who engage in
non-compliance, likening these individuals to evil, plague-carrying menaces. Redfield's
testimony will only add fuel to the mask mania that is sowing discord in America.
In his testimony, Redfield added that a COVID vaccine probably won't be available to the
general public until
at least the second or third quarter of 2021.
"If you're asking me when is it going to be generally available to the American public, so
we can begin to take advantage of vaccine to get back to our regular life, I think we're
probably looking at third, late second quarter, third quarter 2021," he testified, adding
that first responders may have access to the vaccine before the end of the year.
Like many institutional bureaucracies in the federal government, the CDC has become plagued
with corruption and "woke" politics. A whistleblower recently revealed that the CDC was forcing
its staff to undergo "critical race theory" training.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1305619445520318465&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmedical%2Fdr-quack-cdcs-redfield-claims-masks-guaranteed-protect-against-covid&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Under Redfield's leadership, the CDC dropped the ball on preparing Americans for the U.S.
coronavirus outbreak, as shown through
internal emails displaying the bureaucracy as an organizational mess.
* * *
Thanks for reading! I would be honored if you are willing to support my work and subscribe to The Mass
Illusion, my newsletter for people concerned about our "new normal."
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."
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!
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
"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 😂😂😂
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
Lessee.
WHO
Imperial College
John Hopkins
CDC
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
https://youtu.be/sjYvitCeMPc
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.
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.
Bastages.
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."
It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the
virus is fully intact and infectious, i.e. able to cause infection in other people. The
isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires virus culture methods. These
methods can only be conducted in laboratories with specialist containment facilities and are
time consuming and complex.
PCR is 90% false positive as far as detection of live infectious virus. IT IS A FRAUD
I Write Code , 15 hours ago
The "PCR" tests are only testing for fragments anyhow, if they did a full sequence it
would be much more reliable - but much more slow and expensive, too.
I saw this on RFB an hour ago . He showed how a link on this page had been scrubbed
already .
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."
Spiritual Anunnaki , 15 hours ago
Wrote a memoir of a incubation patient. The coronavirus Hospital staff are pressured to
hook you up to the tubes...
adr , 15 hours ago
If you walked into a hospital coughing, they gave you paralytics and hooked you up to a
vent. Something that is only supposed to be done if you are in imminent danger of death.
The problem with paralytics, is that your body believes it is dead, and your blood starts
to coagulate. It wasn't Covid that caused the problems, it was the drugs the doctors were
forcing down patient's throats.
They should be held criminally libel, but thanks to the emergency declaration, they are
immune to prosecution.
flim_flam_man , 11 hours ago
They wanted them intubated for two reasons: nurses didn't want to deal with patients on
bipaps and other respiratory support in a conscious patient as that increases THEIR risk of
infection. AND the hospitals collected $38K/intubated patient from the fed...significantly
more than a garden variety mildly sick patient.
This went on mainly in hospitals in crappy areas that largely serve the "socioeconomically
challenged" segment of the population, which then solves the mystery as to why blacks and
hispanics have been disproportionately affected by covid.
esident Trump recently introduced
four executive orders aimed at reducing drug prices for all Americans. Affordability
in health care is consistently a leading issue on the minds of the people, and the price of
prescription drugs is a key component of that. Every president, regardless of party, wants to
make medication more affordable. But more times than not, they fail to make much of a
difference. President Trump's orders, however, should.
Insulin, a drug that has been in existence for nearly a century, continues to be cost
prohibitive for many diabetics. We've all seen story after story of people having to choose
between groceries and lifesaving drugs -- even at a time when the Affordable Care Act is the
law of the land. Over the last 10 years, the price of
Humalog, a commonly prescribed insulin, has increased from $75 to $250, with no changes to
formula, packaging, or designs.
Over the same time frame, the list prices established by pharmaceutical companies have
skyrocketed, although their profits have remained relatively flat . The middlemen and insurers, however, have
seen record growth and
rampant consolidation due to the large rebates they command from the manufacturers that benefit
from being on the insurers' drug lists. This is a broken system; it sounds like a business
model straight out of The Godfather movies.
The next EO, the International Pricing Index (also known as the "most favored nation"
order), seeks to compel pharmaceutical manufacturers to charge the U.S. no more than the lowest
price available among economically advanced countries for Medicare Part B drugs. Clearly, this
is rate-setting and not a sustainable solution, but the order is the only one that comes with a
trigger mechanism. President Trump has given Big Pharma until noon August 24 to negotiate a
substantive plan to lower the cost of drugs for the American people.
If the manufacturers are unsuccessful in producing a viable plan, it will pull the trigger
that initiates most favored nation status. This tactic has given the president necessary
leverage to push for a deal that makes sense.
The importation order achieves the same end, but it will ultimately be up to the states to
implement, should they wish to import drugs from nations with which they negotiate. Governor
Ron DeSantis of Florida has been a long-time proponent of this policy and has been leading the
charge for his state.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.404.2_en.html#goog_1177227683 Ad ends in 40s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
Another order that focuses on bringing down the cost of insulin and epinephrine was issued
within the network of clinics known as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC). Patients that
are seen in these clinics will now be able to take advantage of newly extended purchasing
discounts that will allow them to get these life-saving drugs for pennies on the dollar.
The fourth and perhaps most substantive order makes rebates
for Medicare patients available at the pharmacy. Insurers and other middlemen have often kept
these rebates and counted them as revenue rather than passing them on to patients. This order
makes Medicare patients the beneficiaries of these rebates, which will result in much greater
affordability for our seniors who are often on fixed incomes.
Are the orders perfect? Perhaps not. But the absence of leadership from Congress to get this
done has resulted in needed action from President Trump. The physicians and patients who
attended the signing applauded this effort and encouraged the administration to press on to
make health care even more affordable. We are all patients, and efforts like this are
opportunities for us to unite in our effort to fix our broken health care system.
David Balat is the policy director of the Right on Healthcare initiative at the Texas
Public Policy Foundation.
I work for a Pharma company. I haven't heard anyone concerned about these EOs. If they
were actually going to impact pricing, I would have heard the concern as I deal directly with
upper level management.
Also, insulin and epinephrine are made by only a handful of companies. There are a ton
more drugs around than these generic drugs. It's the on patent drugs which drive the extreme
cost of healthcare. Focusing on genetics isn't remotely where the big dollars are for the
industry. Yea, there is gouging going in for insulin, it's certainly not the biggest thing
going on right now in pricing.
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.
Anthropologist Wade Davis on how COVID-19 signals the end of the American era
Food for thought ... 😉. Well written ...
Odious as he may be, Trump is less the cause of America's decline than a product of its
descent. As they stare into the mirror and perceive only the myth of their exceptionalism,
Americans remain almost bizarrely incapable of seeing what has actually become of their
country.
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very
informative
Reviewed in the United States on April 18, 2020
Verified Purchase
Update: I'm just about done reading this book. Here's a quotation:
P 278. "When scientific research interferes with politics, economics, or culture, science is most often the loser. Thus,
governments and businesses control health care for personal gains or concepts and disregard or avoid factual knowledge
and events." Sound familiar? This was written ten years ago. I understand that the last thing many people want is more
virus talk, but this book is very informative and may effect many of your actions. It also provides a long view on
identifying and treating viruses. For example, I didn't know that it took over forty years for an effective polio
vaccine. Same thing for measles.
Science now is a highly politicized science and that's a huge problem. Ask USSR scientists
about possible consequences. Is Kapitsa noted long ago in his obitiary on Ernest Rutherford death
as soon as science become rich it lost its freedom. "
"The year that Rutherford died (1938) there
disappeared forever the happy days of free scientific work which gave us such delight in our
youth. Science has lost her freedom. Science has become a productive force. She has become rich
but she has become enslaved and part of her is veiled in secrecy. I do not know whether
Rutherford
would continue to joke and laugh as he used to.
Lysenkoism in Stalins's USSR was the first robin of this process. Now it became commonplace.
That's why we see so many pseudo-scientists -- politicians who pretend to be scientists like
Fauci. and so much corruption like among Professors of economics (all those neoclassical economic
scoundrels)
"...a permanent modern scenario: apocalypse looms and it doesn't occur."
- Susan Sontag, AIDs and its Metaphors
"I should not misuse this opportunity to give you a lecture about, say, logic. I call
this a misuse, for to explain a scientific matter to you it would need a course of lectures
and not an hour's paper. Another alternative would have been to give you what's called a
popular scientific lecture, that is a lecture intended to make you believe that you
understand a thing which actually you don't understand, and to gratify what I believe to be
one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the
latest discoveries of science. I rejected these alternatives."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, A Lecture on Ethics
If you're reading this, then you've probably been called a conspiracy theorist. Also
you've been derided and shamed for questioning the "science" of the Covid debacle.
The idea of science is now a badly corrupted idea. In a nation, today, (the USA) which in
educational terms ranks 25th globally in science skills and reading, and well below that in
math; all one hears is a clarion call to science. In reading skills the US placed below
Malta, Portugal, and right about the same as Kazakhstan.
But in a nation that no longer reads, and *can* no longer read, it is not surprising that
knowledge is absorbed via the new hieroglyphics of gifs (interestingly the creator of gifs
wanted it pronounced with a soft g the more to sound like a peanut butter brand) and
memes.
So-called 'response memes' are the new version of conversation, and most register and
communicate (sic) confusion. As beer ad marketers know, the state of your brain after
consuming a six pack is pretty much the standard target ideal for advertising. And it relays
a message that six pack confusion is actually a good and perhaps even sexy state in which to
find oneself.
Education is for those with money, those who can afford the proper foundational skills to
get into Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech and the Stanford. For everyone else science is Star Trek.
But I digress. The point is that most Americans imagine that they revere science, and they
ridicule anyone they think of as unscientific. But they think of it in cult terms, really.
Its a religion of sorts. The only people who don't are those 'real' religious zealots,
Dominionist and Charismatic Christians (like Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Betsy DeVos
et al) who hold positions of enormous power in the US government under the least scientific
president in history.
The Christian right doesn't like any science, ANY science. But for most of that target
demographic (the educated mostly white 30%), the cry is to "trust the science" even the great
Greta says to "trust the science".
The problem is, science is not neutral, its as politicized as media and news and the
pronouncements of celebrities.
In May 2020, The Lancet published an article revisiting the 1957 and 1968 Influenza
pandemics.
The 1957 outbreak was not caused by a coronavirus -- the first human coronavirus would
not be discovered until 1965 -- but by an influenza virus. However, in 1957, no one could
be sure that the virus that had been isolated in Hong Kong was a new pandemic strain or
simply a descendant of the previous 1918–19 pandemic influenza virus.
The result was that as the UK's weekly death count mounted, peaking at about 600 in the
week ending Oct 17, 1957, there were few hysterical tabloid newspaper headlines and no
calls for social distancing. Instead, the news cycle was dominated by the Soviet Union's
launch of Sputnik and the aftermath of the fire at the Windscale nuclear reactor in the
UK.
By the time this influenza pandemic -- known colloquially at the time as "Asian flu" --
had concluded the following April, an estimated 20 000 people in the UK and
80 000 citizens in the USA were dead. Worldwide, the pandemic, sparked by a new H2N2
influenza subtype, would result in more than 1 million deaths.
To date, Covid 19 has not reached the million death marker in the US, and yet we are
seeing the most draconian lockdowns in modern history, the total suspension of democratic
process and a level of hysteria (especially in the U.S. and UK) unprecedented. I wrote about
some aspects of this on my blog here , mostly touching on the
cultural effects
Allow me to quote The Lancet again.
The subsequent 1968 influenza pandemic -- or "Hong Kong flu" or "Mao flu" as some
western tabloids dubbed it -- would have an even more dramatic impact, killing more than
30 000 individuals in the UK and 100 000 people in the USA, with half the
deaths among individuals younger than 65 years -- the reverse of COVID-19 deaths in the
current pandemic.
Yet, while at the height of the outbreak in December, 1968, The New York Times described
the pandemic as "one of the worst in the nation's history", there were few school closures
and businesses, for the most, continued to operate as normal.
I remember the 68 Hong Kong flu. I was in my last year of high school. The summer after
was Woodstock, the 'summer of love'. Not a lot of social distancing going on. But we are past
numbers and statistics having any real meaning. The Covid narrative is now in the realm of
allegory.
The media perspective is utterly predictable. Liberal outlets that have the inside track
to government are seen to be reinforcing the mainstream story (VOX, Slate, Huff Post, The
Guardian and Washington Post). In a recent VOX article the message was only a sociopath would
NOT wear a mask and that the 'science' was unanimous.
Of course its no such thing. But the message of sites like VOX, or Daily Beast, or Wa Po
or the truly reprehensible Guardian, are always going to be to hammer away 'on message'. The
same is true for what passes for moderate news organs like the NY Times, ABC News, The Hill,
and BBC. There has been virtually no dissenting opinions expressed in these rags.
All these news outlets are given clear messages by the spin doctors in government, by the
White House, and by contacts within the State Department and Pentagon. And by the advertising
firms employed by the state (such as Ruder Finn).
"Ad agencies are not in the business of doing science."
- Dr. Arnold S. Relman (Madison Ave. Has Growing Role In the Business of Drug
Research, NY Times 2002)
The WHO, the CDC, and most every other NGO or government agency of any size hires
advertising firms. The WHO, which is tied to the United Nations, is a reasonably sinister
organization, actually.
Just picking up a random publication from the WHO, on what they call 'the tobacco
epidemic' and you find on page 33 the following chapter heading "Objective: Effective
surveillance, monitoring and evaluation systems in place to monitor tobacco use."
Reading further and all this is really saying is that the populace of any country is best
put under surveillance. It's for their own good, you see.
Institutions of medicine, global and national possess
no more integrity than your average NGO (Amnesty International, Médecins Sans
Frontières, Oxfam et al). And that means not very much.
To understand the nature of institutional corruption one must understand Imperialism. The
institutions of Imperialist nations are going to further Imperialist ideology. (see Antonio
Gramsci, ideological hegemony). The US is not
in the business of helping Americans .
Modern monopoly forms better reflect that scientific knowledge, and its advanced
application to production, are concentrated, ultimately, not in physical objects but in
human beings and human interaction with those objects. It is monopoly of the labour power
of the most highly educated workers, by both imperialist states and Multi National
Corporations, that forms the ultimate and most stable base of imperialist reproduction.
– Sam King (Lenin's theory of imperialism: a defence of its relevance in the
21st century, MLR)
The idea of super-exploitation needs to be conceptually generalised at the necessary
level of abstraction and incorporated in the theory of imperialism. Super-exploitation is a
specific condition within the capitalist mode of production [ ] the hidden common essence
defining imperialism.
he working class of the oppressed nations/Third World/Global South is systematically
paid below the value of labour power of the working class of the oppressor nations/First
World/Global North. This is not because the Southern working class produces less value, but
because it is more oppressed and more exploited.
– Andy Higginbottom (Structure and Essence in Capital 1, quoted by John
Smith Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century)
The US jobless rate just hit 2.1 million. Officially. Making the total something over
forty million. Its much higher in reality. Nobody has work. There is no work and we are at
the start of a period of massive evictions, foreclosures, and delinquencies - and the
homeless population will soon reach Biblical proportions (in some cities, such as Los
Angeles, its already Biblical). Will be simply of a magnitude never before seen.
Hence the authoritarian policing of lockdowns in, for example, New Zealand, suggests
something like a practice run. The ruling class in western nations knows full well this is
coming. And one wonders if it's not, in fact, a part of the plan (oh here is where someone
says conspiracy theory probably Louis Proyect).
Yes it's a fucking conspiracy theory. It is a theory based on evidence, however.
Why are the US and UK and a host of other countries deliberately ensuring a massive
depression? Because they care about your health? They are worried we all might catch the flu?
Has the US ever demonstrated a concern with your health and well being before?
Remember how many discretionary tax dollars go to health care and how much to defense.
Conspiracies do occur. The denial of that fact seems to be a hallmark of the pseudo or false
left. Does the suspension of democratic process not cause this soft left any problems at all?
Look at Sweden, at Belarus no lockdown and no problem.
It should be noted that there are a great many terrific doctors in the US. Dedicated and
brilliant, often. But they are not the system. The system is run for profit.
With about three-fourths of Americans under lockdown, the unintended consequences will
be vast. There has been a notable decrease in the number of heart attack and stroke
patients arriving at hospitals, presumably because they are afraid of catching the
coronavirus or of not finding a hospital bed.
As the economy spirals downward, we can also expect an increase in mental health crises,
domestic violence and suicides. While lockdown supporters say that to have a functioning
economy, we must have good public health, the reverse is also true: To have good public
health, we must have a functioning economy.
– Alex Berezow PhD (Geopolitical Futures, 2020)
Alfred Willener wrote an interesting book in 1970, analysing May 68 in France. He analyses
the answers students gave to various questionnaires they responded to. The section regarding
science is worth quoting.
'The scandalous fact is that, for all the means that science has put at our disposal,
most people live not much better than in the Middle Ages'. The system benefits from science
in the following way: through the atom bomb, through 'the power of statistical research',
through computers, through the chemical industry being 'in the hands of the state', through
space research.
'In the end, you realize', concludes one reasonably logical reply, 'that technological
progress, which makes economic growth possible, does not satisfy the fundamental needs of
man and is used above all to maintain and strengthen the system'.
Lastly, I should like to quote one quite unexpected reply, which forms the extreme point
of pessimism: ' Everyone is oppressed by science.'
– Alfred Willener (The Action-Image of Society on Cultural
Politicization)
I doubt seriously one would get such responses today in any European or North American
country. The contemporary indoctrination regards science is acute. And the media abounds in
junk science. Click bait science. And this is where most people have their opinions formed
for them.
There is a paper put out by one of the founders of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab,
called The Great Reset. The conclusion of the book reads
...at a global level, if viewed in terms of the global population affected, the corona
crisis is (so far) one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the
last 2000 years."
In other words, a mortality of .06% is simply not commensurate with the extreme measures
the governments of the world (the West in particular) are taking.
There is no question, none, that those measures, the lockdown, the masks, the distancing,
and the attending *diseases of despair*, will kill more people by a factor of ten than the
virus itself.
This is not even to begin discussing the psychological harm done, in particular to
children. And not just harm to children, but severe
harm to the most vulnerable .
What is being internalized by children is three fold. One, there is something inherently
sick and contagious about ME. Two, everyone MIGHT be a threat to my health. And three, obey
authority, because you don't want to end up like those smelly homeless people were are trying
to hard to avoid.
Children take things personally. They tend to blame themselves. Even in the comparative
sanity of Norway, where I reside, children are increasingly anxious about the world. How
could they not be? All this for a health risk of .06%.
But it is more than just the decimation of the economy in the US and UK. It is a
dismantling of the culture. One in three museums closed because of Covid will not re-open.
Ever. Where does all that art go?
Just a guess but probably very wealthy collectors will gobble it up at wholesale
prices.
The predictable outcome of these lockdowns, certainly in the US, is a guaranteed minimum
income. Very minimum. Restrictions on travel, all freedom of movement in fact, will not soon
return to normal. Various forms of surveillance and tracking, as well as health
certifications, are the goal of the state.
Also, if this pandemic succeeded so well, with so little resistance, why not have another?
And there is another aspect to the SWAT mask police, and that is that western society is
becoming alarmingly hypochondriacal. Children are kept out of school for runny noses. If all
kids with snotty noses were kept out of class, nobody would get an education.
There is a dire future of two or three generations now developing and maturing with very
weak immune systems. So that if a natural mutation takes place one day, from a Corona virus
or any other, a genuinely serious pandemic could kill tens of millions.
It is not a speculation that there are people who prosper and even benefit during an
economic crisis -- as smaller business owners struggle, large corporations and banks
benefit from huge government subsidies, giving them more power to buy failing small
businesses, for example. And it is a fact that many of those people have enormous economic
power to shape the policies that can benefit themselves.
It is not a speculation that they would appreciate having strict measures of control
against the people by limiting their freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to
travel, or by installing means of surveillance, check points and official certifications
for activities that might give freedom to the people beyond the capitalist framework.
It is not a speculation that they would benefit from moving our social interactions to
the digital realm, which can commodify our activities as marketable data for the
advertising industry, insurance industry and any other moneyed social institutions
Including education, political institution, legal institution, and financial
institution.
Such matters should be seen within the context of the western history being shaped by
unelected capitalists with their enormous networks of social institutions.
– Hiroyuki Hamada (Wrong Kind of Green, April 2020)
The collapse of retail is accelerating. This is emerging as a monopolization of retail.
Few shops will remain, in fact, except luxury stores in select gated areas. The rest will be
online and probably rudimentary. The culture and the economy are being strip-mined and
recreated for a select clientele. The collapse of the economy means the collapse of the
bottom 90% or so.
The very richest men and corporations on the planet are making huge profits.
And yet, there are precious few voices of dissent to the master narrative in the US. In
Norway, the lockdown was about five weeks. But its a sparsely populated country and one
hardly noticed it save for the kids being home and not in school. But schools reopened and
the Prime Minister actually made a speech apologizing, in effect, for an *unnecessary*
lockdown. She had been frightened.
But now, with a mild uptick in positive cases the country is considering stricter
limitations on travel. Why?
There is no uptick in deaths, only in positive test results. The fact remains the virus
attacks the aged and the already sick. But this is very telling, I think. The Norwegian
government doesn't want to be seen as disobedient. They don't want to not follow the grand
plan provided by western agencies and experts. Even if they seemingly don't really believe
it.
(The saddest aspect is the voice of Dr. Mads Gilbert, a known advocate for Palestinian
rights, who has weighed in on the side of fear. Why? I have no idea. But it is worth noting
his predictions
from March 2020 were staggeringly wrong.)
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
But clearly the groupthink pressure is powerful and small nations do not want to be
singled out for bucking the *science* . There are economic coercions threatened, tacitly, as
well. The pressure to conform is huge and it takes a Herculean effort -- both individually
and as a nation, to resist. And *experts* seem to have a hard time admitting they were
wrong.
The science has been consistently wrong from day one.
As I say, this is now allegory. Or fable. There is nothing reasonable or rational in the
lockdown measures of the US and UK and NZ. Or anywhere. And this is not even to touch upon
the criminality of the Gates Foundation and Bill Gates buying public influence and
visibility. Not trained in any medical discipline, Gates has somehow made himself one of the
faces of the pandemic.
And to deconstruct Gates' language is to find a disturbing quality of authoritarian
hubris. Gates utters declarations as if he were God speaking to his flock. All from a man who
has done little save steal from his partners and exploit the poor of India and Africa. One of
the most striking aspects of this whole last few months has been the enormous and coordinated
effort the Gates machine has put into rehabilitating his image.
If you google "Crimes of the Gates Foundation" for example, you will get ten different
fact-checkers officially denying any crimes and another half dozen articles ridiculing those
who question Gates motives, his profit from vaccines, or even his alignment with eugenicists
(depopulation adherents)– all are derided as, yes, conspiracy theorists.
If you dare to question the rushing of an untested vaccine you are called an
anti-vaxxer.
My children are vaccinated. I just don't like the idea of a hurried untested vaccine
produced for a virus that needs no vaccine. And one promoted by a creepy millionaire.
But clearly the Gates charm offensive is in overdrive. The pastel cardigan is everywhere.
And yet, his favorable rating in recent surveys is around 56%. That is actually not very high
given the amount of self-promotion involved. It's better than Mark Zuckerberg and Joe Biden,
though. Gates is not likeable. No amount of spin can change that.
The final factor to note is the Trump effect. Many liberals would literally rather see
dead in the street if it meant discrediting Trump. It is no longer quite a zero sum game,
though. But overall the hatred of Trump is now at a religious level, too.
And behold, the opposition is Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. If you want a window in the
black heart of Biden, watch and/or listen to his testimony around the Waco inferno. The
inherent sadism and lack of humanity is glaringly apparent.
As for Kamala Harris:
As a San Francisco social worker, I sat on the school district committee that met with
families of chronically truant students. Once, when we asked a student why he didn't go to
school, he said there was too much police tape and shootings at his school bus stop.
Harris, as CA Attorney General, was putting parents/caregivers in jail if their child
was chronically truant. Also as Attorney General, she denied a DNA test to Kevin Cooper, a
very likely innocent man who came within hours of execution in 2004.
– Riva Enteen (Counterpunch Aug. 2020)
These are the servants of capital.
The left should be emphasising the economic aspect of lockdown because it is the working
class who are the principal victims of lockdown."
- Phil Shannon (Lockdown Skeptics, June 2020)
A Downing street tweet today:
We're putting tougher measures in place to target serious breaches of coronavirus
restrictions. Fines for not wearing a face-covering will double for repeat offences, up to
£3,200."
This is a class-based assault. The wealthy will not be fined for not wearing a
face-covering on their private beaches, or dinner parties at the yacht club.
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.
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.
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.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
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."
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.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
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.
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.
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.
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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
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.)
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.
" 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."
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?
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!
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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)
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.
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:
Flu-like with no fever: Headache, loss of smell, muscle pains, cough, sore throat, chest pain, no fever.
Flu-like with fever: Headache, loss of smell, cough, sore throat, hoarseness, fever, loss of appetite.
Gastrointestinal: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, diarrhea, sore throat, chest pain, no cough.
Severe level one, fatigue: Headache, loss of smell, cough, fever, hoarseness, chest pain, fatigue.
Severe level two, confusion: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, cough, fever, hoarseness, sore throat, chest
pain, fatigue, confusion, muscle pain.
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.
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.
"... 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 medrxiv.org 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. ..."
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 medrxiv.org 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."
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.
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.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
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.
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.
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.
He correctly points out the confusion created by certain "experts":
"For anyone who has forgotten, Fauci told 60 Minutes that:
[t]here's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an
outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better and it might even block a
droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think it is. And often
there are unintended consequences – people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep
touching their face."
That was how things stood when the epidemic was new and all stops were out. And now?"
The author of the article also notes that the mask doesn't prevent you from being
infected, but of course the point is that it reduces the probability of being infected.
But he does make an astute point:
"Recently I had the poor judgment to turn on National Public Radio for about an hour,
under the impression that I was going to learn something about the day's news.
...
No – for a solid hour, I heard the following: that COVID19 – in reality, at most,
a moderately serious flu virus – is the worst medical threat the United States has ever
faced.
...
But the real theme of the hour was masks, masks, masks: how to make them, how to wear them,
their different types, who doesn't seem to have enough of them, and why muffling our faces
(even though no such thing was ever demanded of us during dozens of past viral outbreaks) is
absolutely, positively good for us all."
Needless to say the author did not approve of us "muzzling" ourselves, but the MSM, like
commenters here, and perhaps b do seem obsessed with the mask.
IMO, the mask is an important component in preventing more people from becoming infected,
but does not prevent all people from being infected. So, what about the people who do become
infected? its too late for the mask to help them. How do we mitigate the effects of the
disease?
For the Big Pharma mafia and its political apparatchiks in the West, its expensive
patented drugs like Remdesivir, as opposed to inexpensive out of patent chloroquine, among
others, as well as the Holy Grail for Big Pharma - a highly profitable vaccine, yet to come.
A list of drugs mostly based on CDC sourcing. The CDC, like the WHO being seriously
compromised by its conections to Big Pharma: https://www.drugs.com/condition/covid-19.html
Unfortunately, politcally motivated scientific fraud as published in the retracted Lancet
article, among others, prevents us from having an intelligent discussion of this even on Moon
of Allabama.
A final area for discussion, as important or more important than the above, is how to
approach impending "lockdowns" of the economies in the future. A potential greater tragedy
than the virus itself may be the destruction wrought on the unemployed and small businesses
that has already occurred, but promises to continue should a second wave of the virus appaer
this fall.
Admittedly, such discussions seem hopeless. We can individually control whether we wear a
mask or not, but how do we mitigate the effects of those who have already contracted the
disease, and those whose livelihood is threatened or destroyed by the "lockdowns" in response
to the disease?
I would like to see these last two areas more seriously investigated on Moon of
Alabama.
By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny – May 21, 2020 – an 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, Courses4Mastery.com 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
Hospitalized patients with symptoms
Healthcare facility workers, workers in living settings, and first responders with
symptoms
Residents in long-term care facilities or other congregate living settings, including
prisons and shelters, with symptoms
Priority
Persons with symptoms of potential COVID-19 infection, including fever, cough, shortness
of breath, chills, muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, vomiting or diarrhea, and/or sore
throat
Persons without symptoms who are prioritized by health departments or clinicians
, for any reason, including but not limited to public health monitoring, sentinel
surveillance, or screening of asymptomatic individuals according to state and local
plans.
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.
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.
For a nasal swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 94% on day
0 to about 67% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 2% chance of a positive result.
For a throat swab , the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 88% on
day 0 to about 47% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 1% chance of a positive result.
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.
Does that mean you're "good to go" – you can go to work, go to school or you can
travel? OR
Does that mean your influenza-like illness was caused by some other pathogen, possibly
one of the four coronaviruses that have been in circulation for 60 years? OR
Does that mean the result is a false-negative and you still have the infection, but it
isn't detectable by current tests? OR
Does that mean it was a sample was inadequately taken due to the faulty technique by the
technician? OR
Does that mean you have not been exposed, and you are susceptible to contracting the
infection, and you need to stay in quarantine?
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.
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:
If you test positive:
A positive test result shows you have antibodies as a result of an infection with
SARS-CoV-2, or possibly a related coronavirus.
It's unclear if those antibodies can provide protection (immunity) against getting
infected again. This means that we do not know at this time if antibodies make you immune
to the virus.
If you have no symptoms, you likely do not have an active infection and no additional
follow-up is needed.
It's possible you might test positive for antibodies and you might not have or have
ever had symptoms of COVID-19. This is known as having an asymptomatic infection [ie you
have a healthy immune system!]
An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.
If you test negative
If you test negative for antibodies, you probably did not have a previous infection.
However, you could have a current infection because antibodies don't show up for 1 to 3
weeks after infection.
Some people may take even longer to develop antibodies, and some people may not
develop antibodies.
An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.
What? Wait!
Doesn't the vaccine industry call the IgG a "protective antibody"?
Isn't this the marker of immunity they assess after you've had an infection with measles
or chickenpox or mumps to determine if you are immune to future infections?
Isn't this the marker of induced immunity they are trying to achieve by administering a
vaccine?
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?
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?
Is your test supposed to be positive – saying you've been exposed and you've
possibly recovered?
Or is your test supposed to be negative , meaning, you are healthy?
Or does a completely negative test – negative RT-PCR test and no IgG antibody mean
you're susceptible to infection and you need to stay in quarantine?
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:
In Virginia, people went to the beaches en mass,
ignoring social distancing and the orders of the Governor to stay home.
The central California city of Atwater has declared itself a "sanctuary
city," allowing business owners and churches to open, openly defying Democratic
California
Gov. Gavin Newsom's coronavirus-related stay-at-home order.
The truth about wearing
masks is starting to come out and people are voting with their feet. Retired
neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, warns that not only do face masks fail to protect healthy
people from contracting an illness, but they create serious health risks to the wearer.
While they shut us down and held us hostage in our homes, they changed our society, our
lives, our world.
I am not willing to accept this is the "new normal."
I won't submit to testing.
I will refuse mandatory vaccination.
I will stop wearing a mask.
I will not be afraid of standing next to a friend or family member and will not obey the
concept of "social distancing."
I will understand that an asymptomatic carrier is a normal, healthy person and I will not
buy into the fear that I might "catch something" from a normal, healthy person.
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.
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 TheLA
Timesput
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."
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 theIntercept
–
[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.
[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 LeeCampBook.com and his standup comedy special can be streamed
for free at LeeCampAmerican.com
.
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.
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.
I am a Biomedical Scientist with expertise in this area. Made antibodies and PCR tests for
a living for 35 years, I did other stuff to but I did make some World Class Antibodies and
other discoveries. My gut feeling is that all of these tests are tremendously flawed and not
reliable in any way to make any kind of decision for either the patient or society. It is
almost impossible to create a truly specific test and and it would take a considerable amount
of time and effort to get one that could be performed on large numbers of samples. At least a
year or more even with a Herculean effort. So the bottom line is it is all Bull Shit at best.
Garbage in Garbage out is what you have. Would you base anything in your life on information
that you know is inaccurate? You would have to be intoxicated, greedy or needing sex badly to
go to that place. The Scum of humanity has pushed a large number of people to that state. I
think the outcome is going to be very unpleasant for many.
A new Motherboard article interviews William, a ventilator refurbisher who's repaired at
least 70 broken ventilators that he's bought on eBay and from other secondhand websites, then
sold to U.S. hospitals and governments to help handle a spike in COVID-19 patients.
He's part of a grey-market supply chain that's "essentially identical to one used by farmers
to repair John Deere tractors without the company's authorization and has emerged because of
the same
need to fix a device without a manufacturer's permission ..." The issue is that, like so
many other electronics, medical equipment, including ventilators, increasingly has software
that prevents "unauthorized" people from repairing or refurbishing broken devices, and
Medtronic will not help him fix them... Faced with a global pandemic, hospitals, biomedical
technicians, right to repair activists, and refurbishers like William say that medical device
manufacturers are profiteering by putting up artificial barriers to repair that drive up the
cost of medical care in the United States and puts patient lives in danger. They describe
difficulty getting parts and software, delays in getting service from "authorized" technicians,
and a general sense of frustration as few manufacturers appear ready to loosen their repair
restrictions during the COVID-19 crisis.
For the past decade, medical device manufacturers have refused to sell replacement parts
and software to hospitals and repair professionals unless they pay thousands of dollars
annually to become "authorized" to work on machines. The medical device industry has
lobbied against legislation that would make it easier to repair their machines,
refused to release repair manuals , and
used copyright law to threaten those who have made repair manuals available to the public.
The technicians who are unable to gain access to repair parts, manuals, and software are not
random people who are deciding on a whim to try to fix complex medical equipment that is going
to be used on sick patients. Hospitals and trained professionals are regularly unable to fix
the equipment that they own unless they pay for expensive service contracts or annual trainings
from manufacturers.
While hospitals deal with a resurgent coronavirus that is overtaxing intensive care units
across the country, their biomedical technicians are wasting time on the phone and in
Kafkaesque email exchanges with medical device manufacturers, pleading for spare parts,
passwords to unlock diagnostic modes, or ventilator repair manuals.
The article notes that newer medical devices even have "more advanced anti-repair technologies
built into them. Newer ventilators connect to proprietary servers owned by manufacturers to
verify that the person accessing it is authorized by the company to do so."
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.
Budesonide
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.
Ivermectin
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.
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.
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.
https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/singapore/how-hong-kong-singapore-kept-coronavirus-death-rates-low/ar-BB14CLbM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
:
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
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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.
@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?
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
unz.com site does not censor comments. Get
back to us when Mr. 'b' (or is that German Intelligence?) decides to play his role properly
again.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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
Coronavirus is one of the biggest scams, frauds, psyops, mass hypnosis, in history, see
these sites for the truth about the coronavirus scam, henrymakow.com , thetruthseeker.co.uk, chuckbaldwinlive.com , thedollarvigilante.com .
@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."
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.
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.
WARNING: FOR THOSE WHO USE NORD VPN for their VPN service
If you select NORDVPN's "CYBERSEC" option to "block ads and malicious websites" , you will
no longer be able to get on sites like unz.com
or many other right wing sites (like Mike Rivero's site: whatreallyhappened.com 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?
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.
Well?
Its not really funny.
But than CNN is never funny.
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.
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.
@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.
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: https://opensource.org/osd
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.
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.
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.
@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?
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.393.1_en.html#goog_1492485158
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)
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)
Chronology
February 21: Initial Release pertaining to NIH-NIAID Remdesivir placebo test trial
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.
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)
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 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)
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 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).
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 )
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):
NEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
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."
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).
* * *
ANNEX
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.
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 ?
Three UK organizations have released new reports advising people to get enough vitamin D,
either through sunlight or supplements, as a precaution against the novel coronavirus.
Several previous studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to higher risk of severe
coronavirus infection.
However, there's not yet sufficient evidence to fully understand if the nutrient plays a
causal role in preventing the disease, although it has been shown to support a healthy immune
system.
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.
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.
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.
Copper metal has antimicrobial properties and can kill germs through direct contact.
The metal has been used to coat high-touch surfaces like door handles, surfaces in hospitals, and even personal items such as
masks.
However, copper isn't a cure-all, and it takes time and direct contact to destroy contaminants, so it might not always be the
best solution for preventing viral infection, according to research.
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
."
"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.
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
"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.
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%.
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.
"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.
"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."
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.
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
.
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?
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
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
CORONA VIRUS PROTOCOL
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.
@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!
"... 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: https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_ken-mccarthy-tony-fauci-is-corrupt-to-the-core/ ..."
"... 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. ..."
"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
There will be no accountability: The b-stards have set the standards.
https://www.bcazlaw.com/surgical-mishaps/ Medical malpractice is a legal term used to describe a medical professional's failing to
uphold the acceptable standard of care in a situation. Doctors must adhere to accepted
medical community standards concerning treatment methods and technique, and failing to
do so can leave them liable for any resulting damages.
https://www.lynchlawyers.com/blog/hospital-medical-malpractice/ When a patient is under a hospitals care, the facility must operate at a level that meets the
medical community's standards for treating patients. This means the hospital or its
staff members cannot cause the patient harm as a result of negligence.
https://www.fortheinjured.com/blog/common-medical-errors/ When a doctor or medical facility's
failure to meet these standards results in a
patient's injury or death, the at-fault party can be held liable for medical malpractice
.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/TheCommunityStandard.html The community standard is the older standard and reflects the traditional deference of the
law toward physicians. It is based on what physicians as a group do in a given circumstance.
The community standard requires that the patient be told what other physicians in the same
community would tell a patient in the same or similar circumstances. "Community" refers both
to the geographic community and to the specialty (intellectual community) of the
physician.
It'll be 37 years this year he's had the same job in the federal bureaucracy.
There are two million people getting a paycheck from the federal government as
employees. Who do you think the third highest paid employee in the entire federal
bureaucracy is? It's Tony Fauci.
So just to sum all this up: 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.
And his wife is Christine Grady, chief of the Department of Bioethics of the National
Institute of Health and the head of the section on Human Subject Research. She is the
person that makes decisions on what's ethical to do with human subjects. That's his
wife.
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.
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.
https://www.yourdailyshakespeare.com/2020/06/08/the-world-upside-down/ 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.
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.
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.?)
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.
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.
"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,"
"... 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 . ..."
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, MintPressreported
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
"... Considering the evidence, the authors believe that soybean oil could increase the risk of Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and autism. However, there is no concrete proof yet that soybean oil causes these conditions, since this research was conducted on male mice only. But mice are used as a model organism for human health for a reason, as a mammal species they have similar tissues and genetics to us, and it is reasonable to provisionally project some of the authors' health warnings onto humans. ..."
"... There is a genetically engineered form of soybean oil that has a lower linoleic acid (LA) content, and this form is healthier for the heart. The authors also fed mice this form to see whether the results would be any better, but the low-LA form had a similarly detrimental effect on the mice's brains. ..."
New research has shown that despite being marketed as a healthy alternative, soybean oil, America's most
popular oil, causes neurological changes in the brains of mice, and may contribute to autism and dementia
in humans.
Extracted from the seeds of soybeans and used in everything from fast food to animal feed and even baby
formula, soybean oil is easily the most widely consumed oil in the US, ubiquitous in the national
cuisine.
It's in McDonald's fries, Pizza Hut crust, and the
"healthy"
9-grain bread used for
your Subway sandwich.
A research team from University of California, Riverside has been studying the impact of soybean oil
for several years. They
previously
found that it induces diabetes and obesity in mice, hardly surprising given that vegetable
oils are high in saturated and unsaturated fatty acids. By now, most people know that eating too much
fried food is bad for your ticker.
But what is really shocking about their latest findings is the effect soybean oil seems to have on the
brain.
From Alzheimer's to autism
The
study
is published in Endocrinology, a scientific journal, and it shows that when soybean oil is fed
to mice it has major impact on their hypothalamus, an area of the brain crucial for regulating mood and
behaviour.
More worryingly, it even affected over 100 of the mice's genes, including one for controlling oxytocin,
the love and bonding hormone. Soybean-fed mice showed lower levels of oxytocin in the hypothalamus. Other
genes affected had to do with metabolic and hormone pathways, including the insulin pathway, synonymous
with diabetes. There was also upregulation of genes associated with anxiety, depression, and
schizophrenia.
Considering the evidence, the authors believe that soybean oil could increase the risk of Parkinson's
disease, Alzheimer's disease, and autism. However, there is no concrete proof yet that soybean oil causes
these conditions, since this research was conducted on male mice only. But mice are used as a model
organism for human health for a reason, as a mammal species they have similar tissues and genetics to us,
and it is reasonable to provisionally project some of the authors' health warnings onto humans.
Lead author Poonamjot Deol said:
"If there's one message I want people to take away, it's this:
reduce consumption of soybean oil."
Is the GM version better?
There is a genetically engineered form of soybean oil that has a lower linoleic acid (LA) content, and
this form is healthier for the heart. The authors also fed mice this form to see whether the results
would be any better, but the low-LA form had a similarly detrimental effect on the mice's brains.
It is produced from what are
called
Roundup Ready soybeans, designed for use with the signature product of bought-out agrochemical
firm Monsanto, which is embroiled in a controversy of its own.
Peter Andrews is an Irish science journalist and writer, based in London. He has a background in the life sciences, and graduated from the University of Glasgow with a degree in Genetics.
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?
"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.
"... "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. ..."
(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.
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. ...
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
Abstract
BACKGROUND
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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 http://doi.org/dt9z; 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.
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
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."
A scientist known for his contrarian takes to dire COVID-19 predictions has released a paper
claiming that antibody evidence suggests the median coronavirus infection fatality rate for
those under 70 is just 0.04%.
The estimate throws into sharp relief the lopsided mortality figures for the disease, which
has claimed an inordinate number of elderly people across the planet while leaving younger
individuals mostly unscathed.
John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University,
argues in a paper published
earlier this month that COVID-19 "seroprevalence studies," which measure infection rates using
the presence of antibodies in blood samples, "typically show a much lower fatality than
initially speculated in the earlier days of the pandemic."
"It should be appreciated," he writes in the paper, "that [the fatality rate] is not a
fixed physical constant and it can vary substantially across locations, depending on the
population structure, the case-mix of infected and deceased individuals and other, local
factors. "
In the paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, Ioannidis surveyed 23 different
seroprevalence studies and found that "among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates
ranged from ... 0.00-0.23% with median of 0.04%."
The median fatality rate of all cases, he writes, is 0.26%, significantly lower than some
earlier estimates that suggested rates as high as over 3%.
In the paper, Ioannidis acknowledges that "while COVID-19 is a formidable threat," the
apparently low fatality rate compared to earlier estimates "is a welcome piece of
evidence."
"Decision-makers can use measures that will try to avert having the virus infect people
and settings who are at high risk of severe outcomes," he writes.
"These measures may be possible to be far more precise and tailored to specific high- risk
individuals and settings than blind lockdown of the entire society."
"... The Elite are gambling that a lid can be placed on the unrest by police/mercenaries, surveillance, and propaganda until a for-profit treatment or vaccine becomes available. That the hundreds of thousands of Americans, Britons or Swedes are dying is of no matter to the top 10% in these nations. ..."
"... The Western Establishment is also in full blown denial. The Empire has fallen. North and South America are sick continents that will have to be quarantined from the coronavirus free nations for the foreseeable future ..."
I think Thierry
Meyssan says it best here . The economic portion alone of the US reaction to the latest
thing we're all supposed to be freaking-out over should be sufficient to cast doubt on the
entire narrative. I make no claim to being the sharpest blade in the drawer, but frankly
something stinks about all this.
As to mask wearing, well I had to continue showing up to work (a grocery co-op) when
everything hit the fan, and mask wearing in all sections has been required.
It's true that US culture doesn't encourage regard for others in ordinary times, hence the
infrequent use of masks by those who are ill even when there isn't a pandemic in town
(hence my suspicion that this SARS2, or whatever has already been going around and resulted
in me being infected by those who'd continue showing up for work while still sniffling and
coughing, without masks ).
Couple this with the lack of humanely adequate, publicly mandated sick leave and it's easy
to see how diseases can get out of control.
So yes, I agree that mask wearing by those who are experiencing symptoms , is every
bit as conducive to common health (and courtesy) as covering ones mouth when sneezing or
coughing, along with frequent hand washing. Making mask wearing an overarching
requirement might be pushing things, imo. I guess my reasoning behind this is the
tendency to social ostracism that can result from making such societal wide requirements
(full disclosure; I wear the mask when required, too). In short, yes by all means wear an
effing mask if you're feeling sick, or if the allergies are particularly bad; you don't want
to get anyone else sick, and it's the nice thing to do. But do not give in to panic every
time someone sneezes, or your local flu season comes calling.
Most would agree that the US has been overtaken by cynical "political correctness (witness
the recent laughable displays of 'solidarity' from legislators and capitalists)." There's a
great line in the Tao De Jing ; "when there is an overabundance of morality, hypocrites
abound." This recent trend toward hyper-morality is being exploited once again by authorities
to keep the population at large divided against itself, same as "left" vs. "right" or "black"
vs. "white" have been so exploited. It is this sort of division that keeps the usual scumbags
happily in power over everyone else, and the future of our collective civilization can't take
it much longer.
Once again, humble thanks to you b. for being here and doing what you do, and thanks for
letting me blab on. Peace and health, barflies.
The only way to fight the coronavirus pandemic is with a functional national government
implementing public health measures of universal testing, contact tracing and isolation of
the infected. Where corporate neoliberalism is in control, the USA, UK and Sweden, a
conscious decision was made not to give power back to the national governments to tax,
regulate and use these old fashion methods to defeat the virus. These nations are following
their amoral aristocratic ideology and are allowing their citizens to die in order to keep
the rich in the money.
The Elite are gambling that a lid can be placed on the unrest by police/mercenaries,
surveillance, and propaganda until a for-profit treatment or vaccine becomes available. That
the hundreds of thousands of Americans, Britons or Swedes are dying is of no matter to the
top 10% in these nations.
The Western Establishment is also in full blown denial. The Empire has fallen. North
and South America are sick continents that will have to be quarantined from the coronavirus
free nations for the foreseeable future .
PARIS (Reuters) - French protesters on Saturday doused the country's health ministry with
red paint, to symbolize the blood of those who died from COVID-19 and to demonstrate against
poor working conditions for public sector healthcare workers.
"For years, health workers have been alerting us to the fact they don't have enough
resources with regards to staff, beds and equipment to be able to allow us to look after people
decently," Aurelie Trouve, a spokeswoman for the 'Attac' activist group which was behind the
protest, told Reuters.
They also placed a giant, medal-shaped banner dubbed 'Medal of Contempt' on the steps of the
French health ministry, to highlight what they said was the government's failure to listen to
the concerns of healthcare workers.
President Emmanuel Macron's government has decided to pay a 1,500 euros ($1,676) bonus to
public sector healthcare workers, in recognition of their role during the coronavirus
outbreak.
Yet many in the sector feel the government should do more for them, and violence broke out
this week at another protest held by healthcare workers in Paris.
FILE PHOTO © Global Look Press / Frank Hoermann / SVEN SIMON 66 Follow RT on
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.
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
Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus Vaccine
© 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.
© 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.
© 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.
97,209
Fred C. Dobbs said...
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB16rmax.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"}})
Opinion: There is more to picking a place to retire than low taxes -- avoid these 5
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17bxwx.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"}})
Reserving a 2021 Ford Bronco? Get Ready To Wait 18 Months to Take Delivery ![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.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpp.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=808&y=530"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpp.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=808&y=530"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpp.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=808&y=530"}})
© 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.
![A trial of a potential coronavirus vaccine announced by Moderna in January. Since then, Moderna insiders have sold shares totaling about $248 million.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpj.img?h=450&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1045&y=466"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpj.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1045&y=466"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aQpj.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1045&y=466"}})
© 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.
![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.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aOkc.img?h=449&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=824&y=414"},"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aOkc.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=824&y=414"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17aOkc.img?h=351&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=824&y=414"}})
© 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.