Category: COVID

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Opinion Reprints from others.

Just putting this out there. COVID Drops to Fourth Leading Cause of Death, CDC Says — Virus-linked deaths in 2022 dipped below those caused by unintentional injury

CDC admits folks aren't getting the jab. Especially children.

by Sophie Putka, Enterprise & Investigative Writer, MedPage Today

Just putting this out there. COVID Drops to Fourth Leading Cause of Death, CDC Says — Virus-linked deaths in 2022 dipped below those caused by unintentional injury.

COVID-19 dropped to the fourth leading cause of death in 2022, down from third place in 2020opens in a new tab or window and 2021opens in a new tab or window, according to provisional mortality data from the CDC.

Taking its place was “unintentional injury,” which followed heart disease and cancer as the longstanding top killers, reported Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and colleagues in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reportopens in a new tab or window (MMWR).

Unintentional injury deaths, driven in large part by drug overdose deaths, actually dropped slightly compared with 2021, but COVID-19 deaths dropped more — by 47%. COVID-19 was listed as the underlying or contributing cause of 244,986 deaths (61.3 per 100,000) in 2022 compared with 462,193 deaths (115.6 per 100,000) in 2021.

The overall age-adjusted death rate also decreased 5.3%, from 879.7 to 832.8 per 100,000 from 2021 to 2022 (P<0.05).

The decrease in COVID-19-associated deaths came as “a welcome relief, given the overall burden of the pandemic since its global eruption in late 2019,” said David Aronoff, MD, director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and a member of the MedPage Today editorial board.

The highest weekly numbers of overall and COVID-19-associated deaths happened in the early months of 2022; they have since fallen furtheropens in a new tab or window in 2023.

Though Aronoff predicted that the CDC will keep providing guidance on preventing COVID-19, “cancer, heart disease, and unintentional injuries (including drug overdoses) remain major causes of illness and death, and it is likely that these will remain front and center in public health improvement strategies led by the CDC, state, and local health departments.”

Ahmad and colleagues suggested that their data “can guide public health policies and interventions aimed at reducing mortality directly or indirectly associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and among persons most affected, including persons who are older, male, or from members of certain racial and ethnic minority groups.”

Both COVID-19 and overall death rates were highest among non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native people.

COVID-19-associated death rates were higher in males than females (76.3 vs 49.8 per 100,000), which was true for deaths overall as well. Of people who had COVID-19 on their death certificate, around 76% had it listed as the primary cause, while 5.9%, 3.9%, 1.6%, respectively, had heart disease, cancer, and chronic respiratory disease listed as the primary cause, as was detailed in a related MMWRopens in a new tab or window.

In 2022, heart disease caused 699,659 deaths, cancer caused 607,790 deaths, and unintentional injury caused 218,064 deaths. The number of unintentional injuries was slightly higher in 2021, at 219,487.

Deaths from drug overdose have more than doubled since 2015, according to CDC dataopens in a new tab or window, and rose from 2021 to 2022. Deaths from opioids and synthetic opioids like fentanyl have increased dramatically, and hit 106,699 in 2021opens in a new tab or window — a rate of 32.4 per 100,000.

The report drew on National Center for Health Statistics’ (NCHS) National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), which is based off of U.S. death certificate data. It uses provisional data, or an early estimate of deaths before a final release of data, based on the flow of death certificate data to the system. Trends in deaths throughout the year used the number of deaths each week from all causes and from COVID-19.

COVID-19-associated death rates decreased for many demographic groups in 2022, but increased for those younger than 15opens in a new tab or window. They decreased in those ages 85 or older, although still remaining higher than in other age groups.

A higher proportion of COVID-19 deaths occurred at homes, nursing homes, or long-term care facilities. The proportion of inpatient hospital deaths decreased but still made up most of the COVID-19 deaths.

Limitations to the study included the use of provisional data, which are estimates. The authors also mentioned the variation in timeliness of death certificate date by jurisdiction and the potential for misclassification of some categories of race and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates.

  • author['full_name']

    Sophie Putka is an enterprise and investigative writer for MedPage Today. Her work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Discover, Business Insider, Inverse, Cannabis Wire, and more. She joined MedPage Today in August of 2021.

Categories
Child Abuse COVID Crime Drugs How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch

OUTRAGEOUS! Pfizer, FDA & CDC Knew It Harmed Babies: Dr. Walensky Urged Vaccination for Pregnant Women Anyway

The Big lie.

“They knew. They knew. Absolutely criminal.”

By The Vigalant Fox

Originally Published on DailyClout

“Of all the 69 reports we now have, this is the most disturbing,” expressed DailyClout CEO Dr. Naomi Wolf in a live stream on Sunday. “Because the bottom line is, according to a new tranche of Pfizer documents released just this month, this past month, April of 2023. And these are documents that go back to April of 2021 — exactly two years ago. Both Pfizer and the FDA knew that the mRNA COVID vaccine caused dire fetal and infant harms, including death.”

Dr. Wolf’s commentary comes at the heels of Pfizer Report 69 titled, Pfizer and FDA Knew in Early 2021 That Pfizer mRNA COVID “Vaccine” Caused Dire Fetal and Infant Risks, Including Death. They Began an Aggressive Campaign to Vaccinate Pregnant Women Anyway.

Pfizer Documents Analysis Project Director Amy Kelly wrote:

The batch of Pfizer clinical trial documents released in April 2023 by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under court order contains a shocking, eight-page document titled, “Pregnancy and Lactation Cumulative Review” …

This document is among the most horrifying yet to emerge into public view. It reveals that both Pfizer and the FDA knew by early 2021 that Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine, BNT162b2, resulted in horrible damage to fetuses and babies.

Amy Kelly detailed the “horrible damage to fetuses and babies,” as sourced from Pfizer’s Pregnancy and Lactation Cumulative Review:

• Adverse events in over 54% of cases of “maternal exposure” to the vaccine (248 out of 458). The language “maternal exposure” implies that Pfizer acknowledged intercourse, inhalation, and skin contact as methods of exposure to its mRNA injection, as also evidenced by Protocol Amendment 14.

• “53 reports [or 21% – 53/248] of spontaneous abortion (51)/ abortion (1)/ abortion missed (1) following BNT162b2 (Pfizer mRNA) vaccination.”

• Six premature labor and delivery cases resulting in two newborn deaths.

• 19% (41/215) of babies in Pfizer’s records exposed to the company’s COVID mRNA vaccine via their mothers’ breast milk were recorded as suffering from 48 different categories of adverse events.

The damage and suffering feel even more real when you narrow it down to individual stories.

The following reports are from Pregnancy and Lactation Cumulative Review in Pfizer’s own writing:

• “A 15-month-old infant with medical history of vomiting experienced skin exfoliation and infant irritability while being breastfed (latency <7 days). The outcome of the event’ skin exfoliation’ was not recovered and outcome of event’ infant irritability’ was unknown.”

• “A 9-month-old infant with a medical history of meningococcal vaccine and no history of allergies, asthma, eczema or anaphylaxis experienced rash and urticaria a day after exposure via lactation.”

• “A day after the mother received vaccination, a baby developed a rash after breastfeeding. At the time of the report, the event was ‘not recovered.”

• “An 8-month-old infant experienced angioedema [an area of swelling of the lower layer of skin and tissue just under the skin or mucous membranes] one day after his mother received vaccination.”

• “There were 2 cases reporting ‘illness’ after exposure via breast milk’. In the first case, a 6-month-old infant developed an unspecified sickness 2 days post-mother’s vaccination. The outcome of the event sickness was recovered, and no causality assessment was provided. The second case, a 3-month-old infant developed an unspecified illness and required hospitalization for 6 days post-exposure via breast milk (>7 days latency).”

Pfizer employee, Robert T. Maroko, approved the Review with these horrific findings on April 20, 2021.

“This is a real person working at Pfizer, Mr. Robert T. Maroko, who looked at this damage to babies, these dead babies, these dead fetuses, these miserably-injured babies — approved it and sent it on to the FDA. The FDA approved it and gave it to Rochelle Walensky and the CDC,” shared Dr. Wolf.

And three days later, on April 23, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky held a press conference, which kicked off an aggressive campaign to get pregnant women vaccinated.

Here’s what she said:

“No safety concerns were observed for people vaccinated in the third trimester or safety concerns for their babies. As such, CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.”

“Words fail me,” grieved Dr. Naomi Wolf.

“The FDA signed off on this document showing dead babies, sick babies, dead from the injection, sick from nursing, the spontaneous abortions, or dead subsequent to the injection, the spontaneous abortions, the respiratory distress, babies hospitalized … These monsters looked at whether the babies would get sick and die or whether the fetuses would spontaneously abort, and they did. And they saw that they did, and they kept going.”

“This was just [four] months into the rollout,” Dr. Wolf mentioned. “And I want to remind you that breastfeeding has gone from 34% of moms and babies at the start of the pandemic to only 15% now, meaning that babies are having a terrible time with their mother’s breast milk. Pfizer knew they would!” she exclaimed. “Pfizer knew they would! The FDA knew they would, and they told pregnant women and lactating women to get vaccinated anyway.”

“At the end of this horrific, demonic analysis of all these sick and dying babies, all these aborted fetuses, all these babies getting sick from poisoned breast milk. Seriously sick. Damaged. They held a press conference. And Dr. Walensky, who has this report in hand, who has this report in hand,” Dr. Wolf said twice with emphasis, “told the women of America and anyone else who is listening in the world that these vaccines were safe and effective for pregnant women and for their babies. And that to protect their babies, they had to get vaccinated. They knew. They knew. Absolutely criminal.”

All the harrowing details of Pfizer Report 69 are available on DailyClout.io.

And there are 68 other damning reports — just like this one — using primary source Pfizer documents released under court order by the U.S. FDA.

These important summaries, which detail astonishing ranges of deaths, disabilities, and other systematic harms to subjects — damage that both Pfizer and the FDA sought to keep hidden from the public for 75 years — contain vastly important headlines: twenty forms of menstrual damage to women — how Pfizer covered up a flood of adverse events — PEG in breast milk — within a month of rollout, Pfizer knew the mRNA vaccines did not work.

Now, the information Pfizer and the FDA wanted to keep hidden for 75 years is available in paperback form. Funds and proceeds raised go to the research project, which helps makes more Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports possible. So, please, show your support and get your hands on this critical information in one place — by ordering your copy today.

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch Uncategorized

Tony the Fauch retcons the pandemic in laughable NYT interview. The doctor, once again, proved himself a master of illusion and obfuscation. Edited.

Tony the Fauch. (Getty)

Fauci retcons the pandemic in laughable NYT interview.
The doctor, once again, proved himself a master of illusion and obfuscation. Article was found here.

The New York Times published an extensive interview with Anthony Fauci on Tuesday, and the doc still shows little remorse. To his credit, Times reporter David Wallace-Wells did not let Fauci off easily — there was no Joe Biden treatment in this one. 

Fauci, as usual, showed himself a master of illusion. Take his assertion that “only 68 percent of the country is vaccinated. If you rank us among both developed and developing countries, we do really poorly.” Really? Well that depends on what you mean by “vaccinated”. If that means you got the first shot — the only one that actually provided transmission protection — then the US actually did quite well, with 80 percent receiving at least one dose. Germany, Luxembourg and Austria are at 78 percent, and progressives’ favorite Scandinavian country, Sweden, sits at 76 percent. Even if you assume he meant “fully vaccinated” with the latest jab, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the Baltic states are all pretty darn close to the US’s 68 percent.

He plays the same game with the lab leak theory. Asked about the “lab leak versus natural origin” debate, Fauci said, “until you have a definitive proof of one or the other, it is essential to have an open mind. And I have been this way from the very beginning, David, notwithstanding the criticisms to the contrary.” Is that so? Cockburn certainly does not remember that, and neither, apparently, does Doctor Robert Redfield, the CDC director at the time, who claims that Fauci slammed the door shut on the lab leak hypothesis pretty early on. 

And that’s not all! Fauci, in response to an inquiry about gain of function funding, claimed:

 

[A]ll of the intelligence groups agree that this was not an engineered virus. And if it’s not an engineered virus, what actually leaked from the lab? If it wasn’t an engineered virus, somebody went out into the field, got infected, came back to the lab and then spread it out to other people. That ain’t a lab leak, strictly speaking. That’s a natural occurrence. 

Let’s unpack that marvelous trickery. There is some limited truth that intelligence agencies agree that the virus was not “genetically engineered,” as the DNI reported in 2021 that “most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered”. The first wrinkle, obviously, is that this assessment is from “most agencies” and is “low confidence.” The second wrinkle is that “two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way.” Not exactly a resounding renunciation of an engineered virus. It is not clear to Cockburn how the agencies have shifted their opinions, if at all, on the topic since 2021, though we may know soon once the intelligence is declassified.

Further, his definition of a lab leak is comically oversimplified. For Fauci, the way it could be a “lab leak” is if the scientist caught the virus from some natural source and then infected his or her colleagues. Admittedly, Fauci gets points for creativity: he effectively coopts the lab leak theory to confirm his own belief that that virus spread from a natural origin point. 

Now on to the pandemic response. Fauci complained that “I happened to be perceived as the personification of the recommendations [lockdowns],” that he only “gave a public-health recommendation that echoed the CDC’s recommendation, and people made a decision based on that.” If he did not want to be the “personification” of pandemic policy, then maybe he should not have played into the panegyrics — like going on the cover of InStyle magazine. And anyway, Fauci can’t claim to have been a mere bystander — he knew very well that his and the CDC’s recommendations were taken and used to enact a very particular set of policies. 

Fauci would like to think that public health institutions can look “at it from a purely public-health standpoint. It was for other people to make broader assessments — people whose positions include but aren’t exclusively about public health.” The problem here is that public health institutions are, by their very nature, inseparable from the “broader assessments.” Public health must deal with the public — shocking, but it’s true — and that means there is an interface with policy. That is what makes public health a messy, difficult thing to wrangle with, because you cannot simply make the calculations and run; you have to make the calculations and then mold them into recommendations that are workable for the society to which they will be applied. That did not happen, not because of maliciousness, but because of human error. That is all people want Fauci to admit — actually admit, not massaging an admission with obfuscation and deflection. 

By far the most irritating for Cockburn, though, is the moralizing and grumbling about the public’s skepticism of the public health establishment and its recommendations. At the beginning of the condensed interview, Fauci mentions the “smoldering anti-science feeling, a divisiveness that’s palpable politically in this country.” The irony is that Fauci is at the epicenter of the crisis that caused that very “smoldering anti-science feeling.” 

Take the mask debacle. At the beginning, in March 2020, Fauci argued that masking was unnecessary, that “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” The argument — which, it turns out, was correct — was that masks were not effective enough to wear. Underlying that contention, though, was what those in government felt was a noble lie: the masks were not recommended not because they did not work, but because they wanted to make sure healthcare workers had access to them, primarily the N95. Then, all of a sudden, the guidance did a 180 and masks were not only protective, but mandated. Even when evidence began to pour in that cloth and surgical masks were not effective enough to warrant mandating them, nothing changed. This is why there is a crisis of trust, a “smoldering anti-science feeling”; it is not so much anti-science as it is skepticism of government claims to science.

And then there was the lockdown policy. The doctor said in the interview that “somehow or other, the general public didn’t get that feeling that the vulnerable are really, really heavily weighted toward the elderly. Like 85 percent of the hospitalizations are there.” Why was that the case? It happened because the public health establishment failed to communicate. Fauci would likely disagree: “Did we say that the elderly were much more vulnerable? Yes. Did we say it over and over and over again? Yes, yes, yes.” Fair enough, but the public health institutions paired those warnings with policy recommendations that said the contrary. Why was he suggesting that students still be masked mid-2021? Why were the teachers’ unions so involved in crafting school reopening processes? Where was Fauci when a voice of reason was needed in the school reopening process? He can point to a few meek comments, but where was the pandemic warrior he likes to portray himself as? It was this kind of behavior that helped produce an “anti-science feeling” in the country; it was a lack of honesty, a lack of consistency and the appearance of foul play. 

Does Fauci deserve all the blame? Of course not — but nor does he get to exonerate himself either.

Apparently, though, he does not feel he has anything worth exonerating himself of. When Wallace-Wells asked Fauci if the idea that gain-of-function research may (however unlikely and improbable it may be) have had some relation to Covid-19’s origins, weighed on him, the doctor was both defensive and dismissive. “Now you’re saying things that are a little bit troublesome to me. That I need to go to bed tonight worrying that NIH-funded research was responsible for pandemic origins.”

“Well, I sleep fine, I sleep fine”, he added, before defending the research as “not conceived by me as I was having my omelet in the morning. It is a grant that was put before peer review of independent scientists whose main role is to try to get data to protect the health and safety of the American public and the world.” Whatever the facts are in this case, the response is a microcosm of the broader problem: Fauci cannot seem to accept any culpability, it is always someone else’s fault — the politicians, the Republicans who “don’t like to be told what to do,” or the “independent scientists” — and rarely his own. 

Cockburn, more than anything else, would just like to see Fauci show — even if it’s feigned — some understanding of the concerns his critics bring to the table, some recognition of his own faults. That would require introspection, though, and despite all of his skills, that one is conspicuously lacking.

 

 

Categories
COVID Crime Medicine

The Worst Atrocity in the History of the World has been Confirmed!

"Conspiracy theory" no more!

 

And no accountability or justice is forthcoming.

The estimated deaths from the COVID crisis are probably around ten million people or more

The World Health Organization estimates that (worldwide) there have been 763,740,140 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,908,554 deaths as of April 19, 2023. This does not include additional components of the excess mortality during the COVID crisis being documented by many in Western nations, for which scientists and the various governments seem to not know what the causative agent is, and no government seems to want to investigate… Although most will agree privately that these deaths are also related to COVID-19 “public health” policies in some way or another. These include deaths from lockdowns (famine, suicide, violence, alcohol, and drug abuse), long COVID, vaccine deaths, lack of medical care for cancer and other diseases, etc. All told the estimated deaths from the COVID crisis are probably around ten million people or more. Ten million people is a very big number. It is hard to even fathom.

For comparison, the largest natural disaster (excluding famine) of the 20th century was the Chinese Yangtze River Floods in 1931, which killed 3.7 million people both directly and indirectly, with many people dying from poor sanitation and diseases. In 1958, the Chinese Yellow River Flood killed around a million people, although estimates widely vary. Other floods, cyclones, earthquakes all killed countless people. But none did so with as much devastation to human life as was done by the SARS-CoV-2-WIV virus.

This disaster was man-made!

But we also know this was not a natural disaster; this disaster was man-made.

A list of genocides on Wikipedia shows that there have been no single human atrocities in the history of mankind that have come close to the deaths caused from the COVIDcrisis.

How do we “know this”? Because we have the receipts thanks to Judicial Watch, as well as the Congressional investigations – still ongoing.

This week, Judicial Watch received 552 pages from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). These documents include the initial grant application, biosketches, budgets and annual reports to the NIH from EcoHealth Alliance. They describe the specific aims of the project, which include creating mutant viruses SARS (and MERS viruses) “to better predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to infect people.”

I spent the afternoon reading these documents and the 552 pages are a gold mine of information. But the specific aim 3 of the contract is particularly important. It reads in full:

Specific Aim 3: Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. We will test our models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments in cell culture and humanized mice. With bat-CoVs that we’ve isolated or sequenced, and using live virus or pseudovirus infection in cells of different origin or expressing different receptor molecules, we will assess potential for each isolated virus and those with receptor binding site sequence, to spill over. We will do this by sequencing the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes from all our bat-CoVs, creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors. We will then use receptor-mutant pseudovirus binding assays, in vitro studies in bat, primate, human and other species’ cell lines, and with humanized mice where particularly interesting viruses are identified phylogenetically, or isolated. These tests will provide public health-relevant data, and also iteratively improve our predictive model to better target bat species and CoVs during our field studies to obtain bat-CoV strains of the greatest interest for understanding the mechanisms of cross-species transmission.

Later, they write (page 195):

we will assess potential for each isolated virus and those with receptor binding site sequence, to spill over. We will do this by sequencing the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes from all our bat-CoVs, creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors.

It is important to understand that, although these quotes are technical and well beyond many to understand, the bottom line is that this project was and is gain of function research. In contrast to Dr. Fauci’s sworn testimony to Congress.

It is important to pull out these sections highlighting the gain of function research conducted that led to the deaths of millions of people. This is the only way I know of to make scientists, the courts and policy makers aware that this is not a conspiracy theory. This is real. That these deaths were caused by manslaughter.

The only question now is was this an accidental or intentional release of the man-made virus? Was it manslaughter or murder?

According the 552 pages released, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was so safe, there were assurances made to this effect and the facilities were never inspected by the US government. The risk of mutant viruses escaping the laboratory was never even discussed in the risks associated with conducting this research.

If it was so safe, doesn’t the intentional release of this mutant virus have to be considered?

This only gets worse. The year 2 report (2016) clearly states that AIM 3 for year 3 had been expanded to also include conducting gain-of-function research using the MERS virus!

Specific Aim 3: Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. The following experiments will be undertaken in Year 2 (page 197)

-An infectious clone of full-length MERS-CoV will be constructed using reverse genetic method. Using the S sequence of different MERS-related viruses identified from Chinese bats, the chimeric viruses with S gene of bat MERS-related coronaviruses and backbone of the infectious clone of MERS-CoV will be constructed to study the receptor usage and infectivity of bat MERS-related coronavirus.

The MERS virus (MERS-CoV) is highly pathogenic. During the 2012 outbreaks, there were about 2,500 known cases and 800 deaths. If these numbers are correct, this would be a case fatality rate of 31%! MERS-CoV did not appear to be highly infectious, unlike SARS-CoV-2-WIV (the virus created by Ralph Baric/EcoHealth/WIV).

Note that the above passage includes references to creating new chimeric variants and linking them to the infectivity of MERS! Could you imagine if they also created a more highly infectious MERS virus, that they spread through out the world, like SARS-CoV-2-WIV? The devastation would be like nothing the world has ever seen.

Moving on to the 2017 report (page 253):

In Year 3, we successfully isolated Rs4874 from the single fecal sample. Using the reverse genetic system we previously developed, we constructed two chimeric viruses with the WIV1 backbone replaced with the S gene of Rs7327 and Rs4231, respectively. Vero E6 cells were respectively infected with Rs4874, WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1- Rs7327S, and efficient virus replication was detected by immunofluorescence assay in all infections. To assess the usage of human ACE2 by the three novel SL-CoVs, we conducted virus infectivity studies using Hela cells with or without the expression of human ACE2. All viruses replicated efficiently in the human ACE2-expressing cells. The results were further confirmed by quantification of viral RNA using real-time RT-PCR (Fig.11).

The full-length infectious eDNA clone of MERS-CoV has been successfully constructed. The full-lengthS gene of 12 different novel bat MERS-related coronaviruses have been amplified and cloned into the T-vectors. In Y4, we aim to use the reverse genetic method, and construct chimeric viruses with the backbone of MERS-CoV and the S genes from diverse newly identified bat MERS-related coronaviruses, to examine the pathogenicity of bat MERS-related coronaviruses on cell and animal levels.

More gain of function research.

Moving on to Year 4 (page 275):

Specific Aim 3: Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission.

In Vivo Infection of Human ACE2 (hACE2) Expressing Mice with SARSr-CoV S Protein variants


Using the reverse genetic methods we previously developed, infectious clones with the WIV1 backbone and the spike protein of SHC014, W IV16 and Rs4231, respectively, were constructed and recombinant viruses were successfully rescued. In Year 4, we performed preliminary in vivo infection of SARSr-CoVs on transgenic mice that express hACE2. Mice were infected with 105 pfu of full-length recombinant virus of WIV1 (rWIV1)and the three chimeric viruses with different spikes. Pathogenesis of the 4 SARSr-CoVs was then determined in a 2-week course. Mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S have experienced about 20% body weight loss by the 6th day post infection, while WIV1 and rWIV-4231S produced less body weight loss. In th emice infected with rWIV1 -WIV16S, no body weight loss was observed (Fig. 35a). 2 and 4 days post infection, the viral load in lung tissues of mice challenged with rWIV1-SHC014S, rWIV1-WIV16S and rWIV1-Rs4231 S reached more than 106 genome copies/g and were significantly higher than that in rWIV1-infected mice (Fig. 35b). These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.

In the year 2020, it appears that the contract was revised and extended for an additional FIVE years!

For this period (2020-2025, it appears that AIM 3 on the cover page was re-written to remove any gain-of-function research from the proposal front page. It is as if they might think that they could be blamed for having conducted gain of function research that resulted in development of a virus that was released onto the global population! Seriously, the complete rewrite of AIM 3 on the new contract cover page to remove all allusions to the creation of mutant viruses has the appearances of a cover-up of one of the most highly lethal atrocities in the world.

Aim 3. In vitro and in vivo characterization of SARSr-CoV spillover risk, coupled with spatial and phylogenetic analyses to identify the regions and viruses of public health concern. We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential. We will combine these data with bat host distribution, viral diversity and phylogeny, human survey of risk behaviors and illness, and serology to identify SARSr-CoV spillover risk hotspots across southern China. Together these data and analyses will be critical for the future development of public health interventions and enhanced surveillance to prevent the re-emergence of SARS or the emergence of a novel SARSr-CoV.

It is interesting that deeper into the text, the proposal is a little more specific about AIM 3.

Aim 3: In vitro and in vivo characterization of SARSr-CoV spillover risk, coupled with spatial and phylogenetic analyses to identify the regions and viruses of public health concern. We will characterize the propensity of novel SARSr-CoVs to infect people in vitro using primary human airway epithelial cells and in vivo using the transgenic hACE2 mouse model. We will use mAb and vaccine treatments to test our hypothesis that SARSr-CoVs with 10-25% divergence inS protein sequences from SARS-CoV are likely able to infect human cells. and to evade mAb therapeutics and vaccines. We will then map the geographic distribution of their bat hosts and other ecological risk factors to identify the key ‘hotspots’ of risk for future spillover.

Note the use of the word “novel.” It is unclear if these novel mutants have already been “developed” (gain of function research) in prior years or whether they are to be developed.

Farther into the documents, they write (page 496):

3.3 Virus characterization: 3.3.a Construction of chimeric SARSr-CoV viruses: Infectious clones with the S gene of novel SARSr-CoVs and the SARSr-CoV WIV1 genome backbone using the reverse genetic system developed in our previous R01 (24). The correct infectious BAC clones will be screened by BAC DNA digestion with appropriate restriction enzyme or PCR amplification. The chimeric viruses will be rescued in Vero cells and then verified by sequence analyses.

The proposal goes on to describe how the chimeric viruses will infect primary epithelial cells and humanized mice (pages 496-497).

Yep! Nothing has changed. Deep in the text is the gain of function research that they still have left to do! It is just removed from the front page of the proposal.

The are no more annual reports – so whatever research has been conducted subsequently is not known past the 2019 annual report.

This research has to stop now. Congress must stop the funding immediately. There must be accountability. There must be justice for the injured and the dead.

There are ten million people dead from this research “project”. Do we need another man-made outbreak to fully grasp how dangerous this type of research is?

Just like Hunter Biden’s laptop was “misinformation” that turned out to be true. The “conspiracy theory” about the origin of Covid-19 has also proven true. –TPR

Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Links from other news sources.

What an Ass. Biden loon claims the Pandemic was a good thing.

Someone who lost touch with reality. Breitbart-ABC News

 

What an Ass. Biden loon claims the Pandemic was a good thing. Outgoing Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the Department of State Monica Medina saw the Biden-Obama Pandemic as being beneficial.

So millions of people dying, the thousand upon thousands who suffered side effects was good? What a sicko. Sat what? “people really appreciated how much they enjoyed getting to be in the environment more days than they would” if they had been at work and that “we saw pollution levels go down and people went, huh, my quality of life is a little bit better now” because they didn’t have to worry as much about air pollution as they did before.

One sick person.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xfFf1J3r7g&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2F&source_ve_path=OTY3MTQ&feature=emb_imp_woyt

Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Drugs Life Science Stupid things people say or do.

White House to invest $5 billion in next-generation COVID vaccines. Here’s why we [don’t] need new ones.

The old vaxes haven't killed/injured a high enough percentage of the people.

Story by Karen Weintraub, USA TODAY

Bracketed comments by Phoenix

The Biden Administration Monday announced a $5 billion program to accelerate the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.

[Of course, the elephant in the room is: “Why? We already have effective treatments, ones that don’t kill people.” Oh, wait: they’re cheap, and Big Pharma can’t make more Billion$ from them. Carry on…..]

Like Operation Warp Speed, which developed and distributed vaccines in the early days of the pandemic, Project NextGen will cut across government agencies and involve public-private collaborations, a senior Biden official told USA TODAY.

Current vaccines, developed rapidly in the heat of the emergency, are “really good, but they’re not great,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who worked with the administration to develop the new program. “There is a substantial amount of work (to be done) to take these good vaccines and hopefully achieve better vaccines.”

Project NextGen has three primary goals, which Osterholm and colleagues laid out in a “roadmap” issued in February: Develop a nasal vaccine that will hopefully prevent infection as well as severe disease; develop longer-lasting vaccines; and create “broader” vaccines that protect against all variants and several different coronaviruses

[ Why do they need a “new” nasal vax when two already exist? Oh, wait. Same answer.]

It will also include funding to develop more durable monoclonal antibodies resistant to new variants, according to the administration. Antibodies were highly effective treatments earlier in the pandemic but have not been able to keep up with the virus as it evolved and are no longer available.

The Biden administration Monday announced a $5 billion program to accelerate the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.

Like Operation Warp Speed, which developed and distributed vaccines in the early days of the pandemic, Project NextGen will cut across government agencies and involve public-private collaborations, a senior Biden official told USA TODAY.

Current vaccines, developed rapidly in the heat of the emergency, are “really good, but they’re not great,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who worked with the administration to develop the new program. “There is a substantial amount of work (to be done) to take these good vaccines and hopefully achieve better vaccines.”

Project NextGen has three primary goals, which Osterholm and colleagues laid out in a “roadmap” issued in February: Develop a nasal vaccine that will hopefully prevent infection as well as severe disease; develop longer-lasting vaccines; and create “broader” vaccines that protect against all variants and several different coronaviruses

It will also include funding to develop more durable monoclonal antibodies resistant to new variants, according to the administration. Antibodies were highly effective treatments earlier in the pandemic but have not been able to keep up with the virus as it evolved and are no longer available.

The administration said the initial allocation of $5 billion for Project NextGen would be financed through money saved from contracts costing less than originally estimated. The investment was first reported Monday by the Washington Post.

Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group who was also involved in the earlier roadmap, said he and others have been advising the White House since last summer to launch something like Project NextGen.

The funding is a start, he said, “but much more will be needed to accomplish all three goals,” he said. “The need though is urgent and now – something government generally doesn’t do well, hence the key will be prioritization and implementation.”

The Biden administration Monday announced a $5 billion program to accelerate the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.

Like Operation Warp Speed, which developed and distributed vaccines in the early days of the pandemic, Project NextGen will cut across government agencies and involve public-private collaborations, a senior Biden official told USA TODAY.

Current vaccines, developed rapidly in the heat of the emergency, are “really good, but they’re not great,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who worked with the administration to develop the new program. “There is a substantial amount of work (to be done) to take these good vaccines and hopefully achieve better vaccines.”

Project NextGen has three primary goals, which Osterholm and colleagues laid out in a “roadmap” issued in February: Develop a nasal vaccine that will hopefully prevent infection as well as severe disease; develop longer-lasting vaccines; and create “broader” vaccines that protect against all variants and several different coronaviruses

It will also include funding to develop more durable monoclonal antibodies resistant to new variants, according to the administration. Antibodies were highly effective treatments earlier in the pandemic but have not been able to keep up with the virus as it evolved and are no longer available.

The administration said the initial allocation of $5 billion for Project NextGen will be financed through money saved from contracts costing less than originally estimated. The investment was first reported Monday by the Washington Post.

Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group who was also involved in the earlier roadmap, said he and others have been advising the White House since last summer to launch something like Project NextGen.

The funding is a start he said, “but much more will be needed to accomplish all three goals,” he said. “The need though is urgent and now – something government generally doesn’t do well, hence the key will be prioritization and implementation.”

Why do we need new coronavirus vaccines?

When the current vaccines were developed, speed was a priority along with safety and effectiveness. They were 95% effective at preventing all disease when first released in late 2020. But their effectiveness against mild disease, in particular, wanes over just a handful of months.

Protection may also not be as good as the virus continues to evolve. The current bivalent booster is aimed at both the original virus and the BA.5 variant.

But SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, is the third new coronavirus to pop up in the last two decades, following Middle-Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory (SARS). If and when a fourth turns up, it would be great to already have a vaccine that could protect against” it,’ said Osterholm, who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

[ “…when a fourth turns up, it would be great TO ALREADY HAVE a vaccine that could protect against it…”  Hmm, Bill Gates & friends have already told us there’s another pandemic coming, is there something they know that we don’t?]

A nasal vaccine is the third item on the wish list. The idea is that by delivering a vaccine directly to the area where the virus enters the body, scientists could set up a barrier of protection to prevent even mild infections and transmission from one person to the next.

[But didn’t they tell us initially that surface contact would spread it? DISINFECT EVERYTHING! And what about people who breathe more through their mouths — like people with allergies such as Hay Fever?]

“I think an initiative like this is much needed and should have been put in place much sooner,” said John Moore, an immunologist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York.

What happens next?

Reaching these goals will likely be more difficult than it sounds, Moore said. 

“Anyone familiar with vaccine development knows that translation into a practical product is a much harder and more expensive process” than simply creating a basic vaccine, he said. “A lot of designs that look good in the early stages fizzle out because they cannot be manufactured efficiently under the conditions required for human trials.”

[And when did they have time for human testing under Warp Speed?]

Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician who directs the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is skeptical that any of these goals are realistic.

Researchers have been trying for more than 40 years to develop vaccines against multiple strains of flu and against HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Both have proven elusive, he said, because the viruses mutate so much, as does SARS-CoV-2.

Meanwhile, nasal vaccines are still being tested in clinical trials, so it’s not yet clear how effective they’ll be against COVID. A nasal vaccine for the flu doesn’t provide any more protection than a shot, Offit said, and it’s most effective in young children who have never been exposed to the flu virus before. At this point, nearly every American has already been exposed to the virus that causes COVID.

Moore agrees that developing a nasal vaccine should be a high priority, but “it’s seriously naive to believe that it will be easy to make one.”

Offit worries that the emphasis on making COVID vaccines better will undermine public trust in the ones we already have. He said the current vaccines have been “amazing,” but that vaccines can only do so much.

What did Operation Warp Speed do?

Under the Trump administration, Operation Warp Speed spent about $30 billion beginning in March 2020 to develop, manufacture and distribute COVID-19 vaccines.

The federal government essentially placed bets on six different drug companies hoping at least a few of them would prove successful. Each received over $1 billion (although Pfizer/BioNTech developed its vaccine without government support) with a promise of a guaranteed market if they succeeded. 

►Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech both developed, tested, passed regulatory hurdles and produced millions of doses of their mRNA vaccines in under a year. Previously, the fastest vaccine had taken four years to bring to market.

►Johnson and Johnson also developed a vaccine based on a different technology. While effective, the vaccine led to a rare side effect and is no longer widely available in the United States.

►Novavax pursued a third type of vaccine technology and has also won emergency regulatory approval, though it is not widely available.

►The other two efforts, one by Sanofi and another by AstraZeneca, fell behind early and were not advanced beyond preliminary testing.

[It’s obvious I’m skeptical of the claims here. If the previous record for developing a vaccine was FOUR YEARS, how did they manage to develop –AND TEST– them so quickly (less than a third of that time)? Why weren’t these vaccines pulled after the deadly side effects became apparent? It only took a ‘mere’ 50 deaths to yank the swine flu vaccine; how many THOUSANDS have died/been seriously affected by the clot shots?]

Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Just my own thoughts Links from other news sources.

Biden Signs Bill Ending Coronavirus National Emergency.

Junk Science Emergency is finally stopped. AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Biden Signs Bill Ending Coronavirus National Emergency.

President Joe Biden on Monday signed a Republican-led bill to terminate the coronavirus national emergency that former President Donald Trump first enacted in March 2020.

Biden’s White House was planning to wind down the national emergency next month on May 11. However, House Republicans put forth bills to end the national emergency before May.

This should have been done in January of 2021. But Biden, Tony the Fauch, CDC, NIH, and the FDA KEPT THIS GOING.

“Under the guise of COVID, President Biden and the Democrats were able to abuse emergency powers and go on a spending spree in order to prevent the American people from returning to normal,” Murphy said in a statement. “After bipartisan votes in both chambers voted to end this declaration, President Bided finally was forced to end this declaration. Medicine needs to be rooted in hard, objective science, not politics.”

“First, @HouseGOP overturned Washington, D.C.’s pro-criminal, anti-police agenda. Now, President Biden signed into law our resolution ENDING the COVID-19 emergency,” Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA) tweeted. “Under @SpeakerMcCarthy, House Republicans are delivering real results for American families.”

The GOP-led bill, introduced by Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar (R) passed the House in February by a 229-197 vote. Despite nearly 200 House Democrats voting against the bill, it received bipartisan support in the Senate, which approved it in a 68-23 vote.

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

No, Getting Vaccinated Was Not “Doing the Right Thing” Why the Propaganda Campaign for the COVID-19 Shots Matters Today

Getting Vaccinated Was Not “Doing the Right Thing. Medium Photo

With our expectations having dwindled for the ability of the COVID-19 vaccines to end the pandemic, and with growing unease surrounding their longterm side effects, those of us who got the shots are left with the consolation prize of having done the right thing.

But rolling up our sleeves wasn’t a matter of right versus wrong, even though our leaders wanted to make it seem that way.

The prospect of saving lives made it easy to frame vaccine mandates as a moral imperative, but to some that promise was a carrot on a stick they were unwilling to follow. And there was nothing wrong with that.

From the beginning, the pandemic response had us running in lockstep towards unprecedented safety extremes that we were discouraged from questioning, even as those measures began to look increasingly unnecessary. In the back of our minds we had hoped that a vaccine would end the outbreak along with the authoritarian streak that seemed to have been stalking us.

But when the vaccine arrived, it only traded us up from one level of tyranny to the next.

Instead of being leery of the power we were handing our leaders, we let them convince us that snap, unquestioning acceptance of it was a moral urgency.

The science we so dutifully had been following happened to have bent and wended in just such a way to make it necessary that a single QR code scan would stand between every citizen and their access to society, healthcare, education, and employment — perhaps in perpetuity.

The new normal, which we thought couldn’t demand any more from us — between lockdowns, masking, and distancing — now wanted a sacrifice of our bodily autonomy and to install a non-theoretical, centralized mechanism for shutting off disobedient citizens from society.

No amount of moralizing about saving lives was going to convince a conscientious minority that such mounting edicts were a fair trade for our safety. And as we careened toward a future that looked indistinguishable from an authoritarian one, it was precisely their counterbalancing voices that we desperately needed.

So as the majority of us complied, doing our duty to stop the germ, we should have felt solace that others were doing theirs also, doggedly pushing back against a control system we had just given a blank check and all of our trust.

But instead of being leery of the power we were handing our leaders, we let them convince us that snap, unquestioning acceptance of it was a moral urgency.

What we got looked like wartime propaganda, once used to galvanize a nation against an external enemy, now used to turn us against our neighbours and to radicalize support for objectionable government policy.

We were given an hyperbolic choice between total compliance or mass death and were bombarded with daily examples of the good citizen — masked, jabbed, and willing to prove it — compared with the bad — selfish, ignorant, distrusting of authority and clinging to stupid ideas like freedom.

An entire caricature emerged of the “anti-vaxxer,” putting a stink around the mere thought of resistance. Doubt stayed silent and proud displays of compliance became a way to spite the disobedient.

What we got looked like wartime propaganda, once used to galvanize a nation against an external enemy, now used to turn us against our neighbours and to radicalize support for objectionable government policy.

And so we now either hold onto the mobilizing notion that getting vaccinated was “doing the right thing” — in spite of the alternative response being just as principled — or we realize that we lived to experience, first-hand, the kind of mind control that reshapes societies into dystopias overnight.

If we didn’t come close to permanent social restructuring, we went through all of the motions for it. And the backbone of that change was the effort to foist an exclusionary moral ultimatum onto a policy we should have seen in a spectrum of greys. What’s left to be done is to understand that goodwill can be hijacked and to recognize from the example of COVID exactly what it looks like when it happens again.

Article was first posted here.

Categories
Corruption COVID Medicine Reprints from others. Science

News from the Front Lines – Robert Malone MD-Switzerland stops the COVID vaccines & more

Winning. Switzerland stops the COVID vaccines.

Robert W Malone MD, MS Inventor of mRNA & DNA vaccines, RNA as a drug. Scientist, physician, writer, podcaster, commentator, and advocate. Believer in our fundamental freedom of free speech.

Dr. Malone’s comments are in italics and enclosed in <brackets>

Switzerland stops the COVID vaccines, Spike protein kills brain cells, Twitter at war with Substack.

<Note: Switzerland, a non-aligned nation (not NATO, EU, or BRICS) is generally considered the global hub of the pharmaceutical industry. The Government of Switzerland coming out with this position is a clear recognition that objective scientific analysis of the risk/benefit ratio of COVID-19 “vaccines” does not justify “vaccination” in any cohort. Note that the Swiss position is that physicians can prescribe, but will need to carry the risk of liability in the case of adverse events – the exact opposite position of the US HHS position. This clearly demonstrates that this issue has become politicized in the USA, and that the objectivity of HHS decision-making has been compromised. This decision is based in part on the widespread natural immunity which has developed in Switzerland, something which was long denied by the US Government, US corporate media, and US information technology (social media) companies and their NGO surrogates.>

Machine translated from the original German

By Vanessa Renner Report24 April 07, 2023

Bang: Switzerland withdraws all Covid vaccination recommendations

Switzerland stops the Covid vaccinations: all vaccination recommendations have been withdrawn, doctors can only administer the controversial vaccines in individual cases under certain conditions – but then bear the risk of liability for vaccination damage. When will countries like Germany and Austria follow this example?

The Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) and the Federal Commission for Vaccination Issues (EKIF) stated in their vaccination recommendation (as of April 3rd, 2023) (to be found on this website):

In principle, the FOPH and EKIF will not formulate a recommendation for vaccination against Covid-19 in spring/summer 2023 due to the expected low virus circulation and the high level of immunity in the population.

Vaccination is only possible in individual cases – namely:

Vaccination is possible for people who are particularly at risk (BGP) ≥ 16 years of age if the attending physician considers it to be medically indicated in the respective epidemiological situation in the individual case, a temporarily increased protection against serious illness is to be expected and the last vaccination dose at least 6 months ago.

However, no vaccination recommendation for risk patients is explicitly given here.

In the following, it will be discussed that the effectiveness of vaccinations against current variants is reduced and short-lived – especially for people who are at risk. The adaptation of the mRNA vaccine could not keep up with the development of the variants. The recommendations of the BAG could change if there is a new wave of outbreaks, but even then, according to the document, vaccinations are no longer recommended for people under the age of 65.

No positive risk-benefit ratio

The remarks on “Adverse Vaccination Symptoms” (UIE) are also piquant:

According to the current state of knowledge, the risk of severe UIE with a recommended vaccination is much lower than the risk of a complication from Covid-19, against which the vaccination protects. The benefit of the vaccination administered according to the recommendation therefore outweighs the possible risks.

In the case of the valid non-recommendation, this essentially means that there is no longer a positive benefit-risk ratio for any Covid vaccination.

Liability: the federal government is out, doctors have a duty

The new recommendations also have consequences for liability. This is what the BAG document on the Covid vaccination strategy (as of November 29th, 2022) says:

Compensation by the federal government to injured persons for vaccination damage can only be considered for vaccinations if they were officially recommended or ordered (see Art. 64 EpG).

However, the federal government only stepped in if the damage was not covered by the vaccine manufacturer, the person vaccinating or an insurance company. The person vaccinating – i.e. generally the doctor – can be held liable if he has breached his duty of care. In this context, it is pointed out that the same rules regarding patient information apply to the Covid vaccination as to all other vaccinations.

The fact is, however, that very few doctors are likely to have informed their patients correctly about all the risks and side effects and the limited effectiveness of the Covid vaccinations. The off-label use of vaccines (not unusual for Covid vaccinations, for example, the bivalent mRNA vaccines in Switzerland are not approved as first vaccinations, not as a booster for people under the age of 18, and not as a fifth vaccination) must be discussed become. For doctors, the justification of vaccinations is becoming more difficult due to the changed recommendations, according to a BAG document on liability issues:

If the doctor treating you bases his/her choice or prescription on the vaccination recommendations of the BAG, he/she can prove that he/she has observed the recognized rules of medical and pharmaceutical sciences and has therefore complied with the duty of care under the law on medicinal products.

The “Weltwoche” reports that from now on the doctors have to be liable for the vaccination – which should probably decrease their willingness to vaccinate significantly.

<And then there is this article from the same Swiss source, Report 24. Those paying attention may recall that I was perhaps the first to raise the alarm that the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein is a toxin and that it interacts with the brain, a statement for which I was repeatedly attacked for spreading false information by a wide variety of media including various “fact-checker” organizations which (falsely) asserted that the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein used in the vaccines had been modified to make it non-toxic. Are those organizations now liable for the damage incurred when patients accepted the COVID-19 genetic vaccines which caused their bodies to make high levels of Spike protein due to their suppression of scientific information required for true informed consent?>

I guess Nancy Reagan was right after all. Drugs kill brain cells. Only different drugs than she was thinking of. Specifically, the drugs that the FDA and CDC call safe and effective “vaccines” which deliver SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein into your body. This is your brain on C-19 vaccines.

German study: Spike proteins from viruses and vaccines cause brain cells to die

The spike protein can be detected on patients’ immune cells for more than a year after infection

By Heinz Steiner

08 April 2023

A recently published German study indicates that the spike proteins from Covid-19 and the Covid vaccines cause brain cell death. Repeated vaccinations seem to be counterproductive in this respect. This can result in permanent brain damage.

How dangerous are the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins really? In view of more and more critical study results, the question arises as to whether the ongoing injections with the gene syringes, which also contain these spike proteins, are not just incredibly dangerous. This is also shown by the BioRxIV pre-print study SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Accumulation in the Skull-MeningesBrain Axis: Potential Implications for Long-Term NeurologicalComplications in post-COVID-19, which examines the effects of these proteins on the brain. It says:

Our results showed accumulation of spike protein in the cranial medulla, meninges and brain parenchyma. Injection of the spike protein alone resulted in cell death in the brain, indicating a direct effect on brain tissue. We observed the presence of spike protein in the skulls of deceased individuals long after their COVID-19 infection, suggesting that spike protein persistence may contribute to long-term neurological symptoms.

Of all the SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins, only the spike protein was detected in the brain parenchyma. “This suggests that the spike protein might have a long lifespan in the body. This notion is supported by the observation that spike protein can be detected on patients’ immune cells for more than a year after infection – a recently published preprint suggests that spike protein can be detected in plasma samples up to 12 months after the diagnosis persists.” And further: “Injection of Spike protein induced a wide range of proteomic changes in the cranial cord, meninges, and brain, including proteins associated with coronavirus disease, the complement and coagulation cascades, neutrophilic degranulation, the formation of NETs and the PI3K-AKT signaling pathway, demonstrating the immunogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the absence of other viral components.”

The researchers further report: “Our molecular analysis suggests an activation of the immune response in the craniocerebral axis, possibly through the recruitment and increase in activity of neutrophils, similar to what has been reported for the respiratory tract.” Furthermore, the viral proteins would act as an inflammatory stimulus, triggering a “significant immune response in the brain”. The study also states: “Proteins associated with neurodegeneration and damage to the blood-brain barrier were the most dysregulated molecules in the brain. The viral spike protein leads to the activation of RHOA, which triggers the disruption of the blood-brain barrier”.

That is why there are mini infarcts in the brain parenchyma and an increased number of microbleeds in Covid patients (vaccinated people, who are also contaminated with large amounts of spike proteins, were obviously not examined by the scientists). This work proves that the spike protein of the SARS-CoV2 and Covid-19 mRNA vaccine enters the skull marrow, meninges, and brain parenchyma. The spike protein also breaks through the blood-brain barrier. Spike protein alone causes cell death in the brain, activates complement and coagulation pathways leading to blood clots, mini-infarcts[heart attacks], and cerebral hemorrhage, and causes inflammation and local changes associated with neurodegeneration (dementia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s).

We should be aware that the repeated administration of such spike proteins via the experimental gene syringes can be compared to multiple corona infections in terms of contamination of the human body with these spike proteins. But the more often such spike proteins are administered, the greater the potential health problems – in this case also in the human brain. We are talking about irreparable damage here, because the brain cells no longer regenerate.

Twitter at war with Substack: So much for the commitment to free speech.

 

Twitter restricts posts featuring Substack after it rolls out rival service

Washington Examiner

by Christopher Hutton, Technology Reporter

April 07, 2023 10:40 AM

Twitter is limiting any tweets that include links to Substack in an apparent response to the blogging platform’s launch of a competitor.

Users reported on Friday that any tweets with Substack links in them could not be liked, retweeted, or replied to.

The restrictions were imposed shortly after Substack, a platform for newsletters, announced Notes, its own Twitter competitor. Twitter also restricted the ability of users to embed tweets onto Substack the day before.

“We’re investigating reports that Twitter embeds and authentication no longer work on Substack,” Substack stated on Thursday after users reported that embedding tweets into Substack posts did not work. “We are actively trying to resolve this and will share updates as additional information becomes available.” The Washington Examiner tested the feature and found that direct Substack links were limited, while those with custom URLs were unaffected.

“We’re disappointed that Twitter has chosen to restrict writers’ ability to share their work. Writers deserve the freedom to share links to Substack or anywhere else,” Substack founders Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie, and Jairaj Sethi said in a statement sent to the Washington Examiner. “This abrupt change is a reminder of why writers deserve a model that puts them in charge, that rewards great work with money, and that protects the free press and free speech. Their livelihoods should not be tied to platforms where they don’t own their relationship with their audience, and where the rules can change on a whim.”

Categories
COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Federal Agencies Again Resist a Likely COVID Preventative and/or Treatment Are Government Health Agencies acting in the best interest of the public?

The rubber stamp.
Federal Agencies Again Resist a Likely COVID Preventative and/or Treatment?
Are Government Health Agencies acting in the best interest of the public?

Dr. Peter McCullough has a new, interesting post regarding a study about a safe and effective, simple, inexpensive nasal spray for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. This study was a relatively large, double-blind, Randomized Control Trial (RCT).

I haven’t seen or heard a word about this in the mainstream media, even though it was published back in October of 2022. Maybe it’s me.

So, I did a brief investigation, and found out a few surprising things…

The actual spray used in the above study is a product called pHOXBIO. This doesn’t seem to be approved yet by the FDA (surprise), or available in the US. However, the multiple ingredients of pHOXBIO are listed in the study (section 2.1).

An existing US product that you can buy, Xlear, seems to be comparable, and may also provide similar benefits. It contains Xylitol, which is likely the active agent (see below).

Why haven’t you heard more about this US product? Here is a rough chronological history of the interesting story of Xlear and COVID-19…

01-01-20: Very early on it was understood by the medical community that COVID-19 was an upper respiratory affliction.

05-01-20: An in vitro (e.g., lab petri dish) study concluded that Xlear was effective as a COVID preventative and treatment. (Note: For ailments like COVID-19, treating upper respiratory passages with an anti-viral nasal spray makes logical sense.)

06-01-20: Xlear approached the FDA about doing clinical trials on their nasal spray for COVID-19. Initially, the FDA was responsive, but that was short-lived.

07-23-20: A medical commentary (JAMA) enumerated some likely benefits of an appropriate nasal spray for the treatment of COVID-19.

07-29-20: The FTC sent the Xlear company a Warning Letter. It cites several examples of what they say are unsupported assertions about Xlear and COVID-19. For example, the FTC faulted Xlear for making claims without adequate human studies, etc.

It’s puzzling that this complaint came from the FTC, rather than the FDA.

The claims the FTC objects to appear not to have been made by the Xlear company, but by others. Xlear cited scientific research.

For my scientifically mixed audience, I’m saying that the Xlear nasal spray prevented or treated COVID-19. The Xlear company is using the more technically accurate term: that an appropriate nasal spray can block the COVID-19 virus.

I was told that most of Xlear’s nasal spray competitors (e.g., Nielmed, Navage, Blue Willow Biologics, Halodyne) also received FTC or FDA warning letters.

Apparently, Xlear is the only company that is fighting back.

12-02-20: There was another in vitro study that concluded that Xlear was effective as a COVID preventative. It seemed to say that Xylitol was the main active agent.

12-30-20: Evidently the Xlear company continued to go along with the publicity of others about the possible benefits of using Xlear regarding COVID, like this.

10-28-21: The FTC (again, not the FDA!) filed this lawsuit against Xlear for purportedly making claims about it being a COVID preventative or treatment.

Based on how government medical agencies have treated HCL, IVM, etc, this lawsuit could be construed as a back-handed endorsement of Xlear.

07-16-22: The Xlear company legally pushed back against the FTC.

10-01-22: As stated above (at the beginning), this is a relatively large, double-blind, Random Controlled Trial (RCT) of a similar (Xylitol-based) nasal spray. The conclusion was that the nasal spray is highly effective with COVID-19:

“The test agent significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers, with 62% fewer infections when compared to placebo. It was found to be safe and well-tolerated, and offers a novel treatment option for prophylaxis {prevention} against SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Note that the FTC is unlikely to give Xlear credit for the positive results in this RCT study, as it used a similar nasal spray, not specifically Xlear.

10-06-22: This intermediate court ruling was against Xlear, denying them some of the information they had asked the government to produce (e.g., FDA data).

01-30-23: The FTC filed a further demand that Xlear pay civil penalties. Xlear has 30 days to respond, and I was unable to find one.

So the question here is: why are medical agencies of the government doing things like this? They automatically say that it is “for the public’s benefit” — but is it?

Yes, there are certain unanswered questions here, but consider that for Xylitol based products like Xlear: a) they have an excellent safety profile, b) it’s likely that an appropriate nasal spray would benefit an upper respiratory infection, c) in vitro tests have demonstrated efficacy years ago, d) now an RCT comes to the same conclusion, e) the consumer cost is small, f) such a product could not only be a treatment but a preventative. So such an option is safe and effective and inexpensive.

Considering all that, why hasn’t the FDA seen that appropriate RCTs were done in mid-2020? or in 2021? or in 2022? What am I missing here?

The FDA’s mission statement says:

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices… FDA is responsible for advancing public health by helping to speed innovations that make medical products more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medical products to maintain and improve their health.

The FTC’s mission statement says:

The FTC’s mission is to protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and education.

Evidently, I am missing something here, as I don’t see the actions/inactions of either of these government agencies, to be genuinely in the best interest of the public.

 

PS — I just bought some Xlear and Xlear Max to have on hand. Now that I have a reasonable idea of the claims and evidence, it seems to me that the downsides are tiny.

PPS — Here is a reasonable Petition to the CDC started a while back on this topic. It lists several applicable studies that are interesting. Please sign it and pass it on.