Covid-19 News

    Quote from Fm1

    I guess this is a right-wing anti vax study from TSN . Someone really needs to get a grip!

    Antivax never used to be just right-wing. I'm not sure why during COVID the two seem to go together. Anyway i don't claim that all TSN's posts are antivax - only about 75%.

    Quote from Fm1

    TrialSite reports that it is worth noting that one source referenced in the article reveals that of the hospitalized adolescents in the Spring of 2021 for COVID-19, 71% had one or more underlying medical conditions, obesity being the most common (36%). Of course, this study didn’t cover data during the height of the Delta surge, which may have altered the findings, although the strong association between obesity and more severe COVID appears to have held during the Delta wave as well.

    I don't understand why the fact that ill / overweight people are more at risk from COVID is interesting.


    I think some antivaxers have this rather unpleasant "I am fit and not old - only unhealthy or old people get COVID - the old will die anyway, the unhealthy probably deserve it and don't count" mentality. Reminiscent of Nazi adulation of fit Aryan youth. I notice it in some of W's posts here, though after we convinced him that age 60+ healthy were at risk from COVID he seems to have gone quiet.


    The serious point is that the data here is as expected. Being severely overweight increases risk. As do other comorbidities. True for young and old alike. The point is that in both cases the increased risk seems relatively small - a factor of 2 or so. And perfectly healthy people are also at risk not muhc smaller than the population average. That makes sense because a lot of whether COVID hurts you is down to how strongly your immune system removed the infection balanced against how badly affected are you by the way COVID mucks up your immune system. Both have a lot of variability between people that does not correlate with general health.


    Since most people get over COVID fine, most of those people who pride themselves on being healthy will see their personal fast recovery as proof that COVID only hurts the vulnerable. It is not true, and also a dangerous way to think.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I think some antivaxers

    I do not believe that you do anything like thinking else you would use the correct wording that is:


    We oppose monoclonal cancer chemo treating for CoV-19.


    And we know that Ivermectin will stop CoV-19 within 2 days as some other drugs do too.


    And best we have them ready!


    But you seem to be a slave of your fears and not able to buy the treating drugs...

    Fear and Coercion in Public Health Vaccination Campaigns: A Long Tradition Continues


    Fear and Coercion in Public Health Vaccination Campaigns: A Long Tradition Continues
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion
    trialsitenews.com



    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.


    Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial


    October 31, 2021


    During the U.S. public health campaign for smallpox vaccination in the early 20th century, the following text from an article by Dr. John P. Keller, Commissioner of Health of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, appeared in the November 1925 issue of the Wisconsin Medical Journal: “Since people cannot be vaccinated against their will, the biggest job of a health department has always been and always will be to persuade the unprotected people to get vaccinated. This we attempted to do in three ways: first by education, second by fright; and third by pressure. We dislike very much to mention fright and pressure. Yet they accomplish more than education because they work faster than education, which is normally a slow process. During the months of March and April, we tried education and vaccinated only 62,000. During May we made use of fright and pressure and vaccinated 223,000 people.” Fast forward to 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the long tradition of using fear and pressure (coercion) in public health vaccination campaigns continues. ‘Coercion is not consent’: NY firefighters and police against vaccination mandate.


    Returning to Dr. Keller’s 1925 article in the Wisconsin Medical Journal: “We sent out a third letter to all employers requesting them to have all of their employees vaccinated and at the same time informing them that if a small-pox case developed in their place of employment in the future we would consider their place of business a menace to the health of the community and very likely place the entire establishment under quarantine until it could be cleaned up and made safe for the public. Putting this responsibility on the employer drove in thousands of anti-vaccinationists who could better afford to get vaccinated than lose their jobs. All employees co-operated very bravely with this last request, although in a few instances it was necessary to lay off old, reliable and valuable employees.”


    The reference for the above quoted text is from the book The Facts Against Compulsory Vaccination, by H. B. Anderson, published in 1929 by Citizens Medical Reference Bureau, New York City, NY. This book is free and available online at f.htm (vaclib.org).


    A review of Anderson’s book appears in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH). AJPH | Vol. 19 Issue 4. The AJPH review mentions that “most of the sentences and paragraphs in this book are ‘quotations’ or extracts from a great variety of sources, including public health officers, reputable physicians and scientists,” and that “there is no reason to question the accuracy of the citations.”


    The uncanny resemblance of the above text cited from the early 20th century to today’s vaccine mandates further verifies the accuracy of Anderson’s citations. Employers Enforce Vaccine Mandates Even Though Some Workers Quit.


    The implications of these revelations are astonishing. Public health authorities freely admit that people have a right to refuse vaccination. This removes the issue of defending an individual’s rights and freedoms to control what medications they allow to enter their bodies. Neither is this an issue of truly protecting safe workplaces, where the elimination of alternative antigen testing has expunged an excuse not to vaccinate.


    This public health policy is simply about promoting vaccinations, good or bad, effective or non-effective, safe or dangerous. Vaccinating the most people can be achieved by threatening to shutdown employers who refuse to comply with compulsory vaccination.


    Moreover, this public health policy is also not about the greater good for the public and employees. It has always been and continues to be about fear and coercion.


    A long tradition in public health continues

    By supplementing vitamin D and L-arginine daily you won't get Covid. Period!

    RNA is parasitic, ivermectin is an anti parasitic! Period!

    CATalyst | VAERS Data and the Ethics of Health


    Rumble — In this episode of CATalyst, Shabnam Palesa Mohamed engages scientist Dr Jessica Rose, and medico-legal specialist Dr Herman Edeling.


    In a must watch conversation, they explore VAERS data, the experience of bringing jab injury data to the attention of authorities, and the catastrophic implications of the ongoing cover up.


    They also engage the importance of the independent THJ SAVAERS project, lessons learned from the WHO-lead pandemic, and a hopeful message to the public - to reclaim the right to health.


    #CATalyst #TrialSiteNews #TrialSiteNewsAfrica #TSNA #Health #Science #VAERS #PublicInterest


    CATalyst | VAERS Data and the Ethics of Health
    In this episode of CATalyst, Shabnam Palesa Mohamed engages scientist Dr Jessica Rose, and medico-legal specialist Dr Herman Edeling. In a must watch…
    rumble.com

    CDC VISION Network Study Showcases Protective Powers of mRNA Vaccines


    CDC VISION Network Study Showcases Protective Powers of mRNA Vaccines
    New study results raise more questions about the vaccine vs. natural immunity debate as outcomes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    trialsitenews.com



    New study results raise more questions about the vaccine vs. natural immunity debate as outcomes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) VISION Network suggest when looking at hospitalization, COVID-19 vaccination immunity is five times more durable than from natural antibodies elicited from recovering from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study authors ignored accumulating data about waning vaccine effectiveness, as well as studies showcasing robust natural immunity observations, particularly in the mild to moderate COVID-19 cases which represent the great majority of infections.


    TrialSite provides a brief breakdown of these findings derived from the study called CDC Vision Network. With mounting awareness across American society about the concept of natural immunity, actual benefits are not well understood. Although TrialSite has reported on several observational studies on this topic, more granular level analysis is required for a more thorough and deep understanding. This goes for the COVID-19 vaccines as well, as it’s well established now that vaccine effectiveness wanes within three months for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine called BNT162b2, for example. The paper “Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19–Like Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity — Nine States, January–September 2021” undoubtedly triggers even more discussion about vaccination.


    Study Question

    Is COVID-19 vaccination associated with significantly greater immunity than natural immunity from previous infection?


    What is the CDC’s VISION Network?

    Leading this recent CDC-backed study, the VISION Network consists of several scientists and affiliated health systems, including Columbia University Irvine Medical Center (New York), HealthPartners (Minnesota and Wisconsin); Intermountain Healthcare (Utah), Kaiser Permanente Northern California (California), Kaiser Permanente Northwest (Oregon and Washington), Regenstrief Institute (Indiana), and the University of Colorado (Colorado).


    What did the study entail?

    CDC VISION Network accumulated data from over 201,000 hospitalizations in nine different states. This retrospective observational study included 7,000 subjects who met the study inclusion criteria. The investigators analyzed data involving the number of unvaccinated people who had a positive COVID-19 test over three months before hospitalization due to COVID-19. They also analyzed the number of people who received vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna, and who were not diagnosed with COVID prior to hospital admission.


    What did the study team find?

    According to the press release form, the CDC VISION Network found that overall, those unvaccinated adults with a previous COVID-19 infection were approximately five times more likely to be hospitalized due to COVID than people that are vaccinated.


    What’s the CDC’s main argument?

    Shaun Grannis, MD, MS, Vice President for data and analytics at Indiana’s Regenstrief Institute, summed up the findings declaring, “This data provides powerful evidence that vaccinations offer superior protection against COVID-19 than relying on natural immunity alone.”


    What’s the goal of the CDC with these study results?

    The CDC wants as many people vaccinated as possible. Growing numbers of people across America wonder if they have already been infected with COVID-19 should they even get vaccinated. According to the Regenstrief Institute’s Grannis, “Many have been asking if they should get vaccinated if they’ve already been infected—this research shows the answer is yes. “


    How does vaccination help the elderly?

    The VISION Network data reveals that elderly (65+) people were far more protected with COVID-19 vaccines—because they are 20 times more impactful at protecting against hospitalization than natural immunity does.


    Does the study have limitations?

    Absolutely. TrialSite lists these below:


    Potential patient misclassification

    Confounding errors

    Selection bias

    Residual confounding

    Assumption of hospitalization data “generalizable” to non-hospitalized patients

    Weighted propensity score method subject to biases

    Where is the published paper?

    The CDC’s study was published in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.


    What’s the takeaway?

    This CDC-funded study’s findings suggest vaccination with mRNA-based vaccines offers more protection to people than natural immunity, especially if the person experienced only mild symptoms or was asymptomatic.


    What are critical questions not raised?

    The study doesn’t mention studies such as ones tracked by TrialSite from Israel, the UK, and America that indicate natural immunity could trump vaccine-based immunity. For example, the authors don’t mention waning effectiveness of vaccines combined with virulent variants such as Delta diminish vaccine effectiveness.


    Moreover, studies such as the recent national study in Sweden indicate that after 6 months even the mRNA-based vaccines wane considerably in effectiveness, while other studies on natural immunity suggest a year or more of protection.


    What are some troubling trends with the vaccines?

    While a major milestone for mRNA-based product development, the vaccines are still what TrialSite would consider version 1.0 products. Effective particularly for the elderly and some at-risk cohorts, waning effectiveness means that frequent boosters may be necessary. What are the risks to the human body with multiple booster? What if boosters are needed every six months? What about claims that adverse events are far more regular than officially accepted? Many questions that directly influence risk analyses must be answered.


    Does any study (or group of studies) settle this debate?

    No. There is not enough firm evidence yet to answer this question.


    About Regenstrief Institute

    The Regenstrief Institute participated in the CDC VISION Network and issued the press release referenced herein. Founded in 1969 in Indianapolis, the Regenstrief Institute is a local, national, and global leader dedicated to a world where better information empowers people to end disease and realize true health. A key research partner to Indiana University, Regenstrief and its research scientists are responsible for a growing number of major healthcare innovations and studies. Examples range from the development of global health information technology standards that enable the use and interoperability of electronic health records, improving patient-physician communications, and creating models of care that inform practice and improve the lives of patients around the globe.


    Sam Regenstrief, a nationally successful entrepreneur from Connersville, Indiana, founded the institute with the goal of making healthcare more efficient and accessible for everyone. His vision continues to guide the institute’s research mission.


    Regenstrief Institute affiliates with Indiana University, the largest medical school in America.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    VISION Network authors originate from 10 states and 14 institutions from academic medical centers and health systems to the public sector


    COVID vaccines 5 times more effective at protecting against COVID-related hospitalization than prior infection alone
    A study from the CDC shows that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are associated with significantly more immunity than a prior COVID-19 infection.
    www.regenstrief.org

    That is clear, and I am happy to be fair.


    Antivaxxers have two specific prejudices - not things that they reflect upon, but things that they know:


    (1) opposition to mRNA vaccines - on zero evidence. (I've translated this into what I know W means, since cancer therapy, although also possibly using mRNA tech, is quite different).

    (2) ivermectin (and some other drugs) will prevent COVID within 2 days. Again on zero evidence.


    I will just comment, that in order to be consistent, in order to hold these beliefs, they have to think that 90% of the world's scientists are either very bad people or totally incompetent.


    Again, to be fair, W is consistent in this. He truly believes 90% of the wold's scientists are very bad people, in league with some sinister conspiracy.

    I posted a study that a supplement prevents Covid, killing on contact. It's called nitric oxide. Aspirin takes about 3days to convert but by taking l arginine it converts almost immediately and dispersed into the blood stream. The pandemic is over, over the counter supplents are available to everyone. Treat Covid as you do flu, early treatment and a robust immune system response. Covid is seasonal, and it's endemic! The pandemic is over!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    He truly believes 90% of the wold's scientists are very bad people, in league with some sinister conspiracy.

    No he doesn't, silly.

    Also, we're not talking independent scientists and doctors, but those whose pay is ultimately tied to a larger organization and big money, whether it be hospital networks, insurance, big pharma, and universities They want to please their bosses and keep their jobs, probably more so than other professions. As I recall, doctors were especially prolific joiners to the Nazi party.

    Quote from Mark U

    No he doesn't, silly.

    Also, we're not talking independent scientists and doctors, but those whose pay is ultimately tied to a larger organization and big money, whether it be hospital networks, insurance, big pharma, and universities They want to please their bosses and keep their jobs, probably more so than other professions. As I recall, doctors were especially prolific joiners to the Nazi party.

    More than 50% of American doctors are affiliated with large healthcare systems who are owned by big pharma


    More Than Half of Doctors Now Part of Healthcare Systems
    Study finds big jump in hospital employment from 2016 to 2018; what will happen as a result of the pandemic remains to be seen.
    www.medscape.com


    Who are the 22 pharma board members who also lead healthcare nonprofits?

    An analysis by BioPharma Dive found most of the largest corporate boards in the industry had directors serving in dual roles. Here's who they are.

    By Andrew Dunn


    Who are the 22 pharma board members who also lead healthcare nonprofits?
    A review by BioPharma Dive found most of the largest corporate boards in the industry had directors serving in dual roles. Here's who they are.
    www.biopharmadive.com

    Quote from Fm1

    New study results raise more questions about the vaccine vs. natural immunity debate as outcomes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) VISION Network suggest when looking at hospitalization, COVID-19 vaccination immunity is five times more durable than from natural antibodies elicited from recovering from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study authors ignored accumulating data about waning vaccine effectiveness, as well as studies showcasing robust natural immunity observations, particularly in the mild to moderate COVID-19 cases which represent the great majority of infections.

    Zephir posted on this CDC study yesterday. My take away on the data was this:

    From people in hospital for Covid like symptoms, there were about 6 times more people there who were double jabbed, compared to unjabbed people. If they tested positive, it was about half that.


    The Center for Data Contortion did their magic and made it look like it was persuasive evidence to get vaccinated. But this is what one should expect from big pharma's dealer.

    Most here probably know about exosomes, which are small, (fat) membraned packets released from cells and containing contents that often serve as signalling molecules to other cells, which can be quite distant.


    From a study many months ago, I read that these exosomes are released in greater numbers upon infection with covid. In part, cells were sending out an SOS. On rare occasion the exosome would contain viral RNA. The inventory of what biomolecules these exosomes would carry was thoroughly detailed. (Sorry I don't have the link handy now). But I remember what was notably absent : there was no mention of these exosomes carrying spike protein.


    Now I read from a recent study (sorry, no link handy now) that upon injection with Pfizer's mRNA , exosome production increased, as expected. But there was something new: Viral spike proteins were sticking out of the exosomes. (It should be noted that exosomes go just about everywhere in the body, even exhaled in the breath.) Furthermore, it was discovered that the spike proteins were interacting with certain surface proteins on certain types of (bone marrow produced) blood cells. (Nothing to do with the ACE2 RBD though. )


    Finally, it was discovered that these spike carrying exosomes were detected for 4 months in the body, with their quality (later edit : should say quantity) decreasing in parallel to IgG antibody count.


    I thought this was scary enough to share for halloween.

    Quote from Fm1

    Leading this recent CDC-backed study, the VISION Network consists of several scientists and affiliated health systems,

    We already did comment in this. This fake study is obvious science fraud to increase private big pharma income from vaccine. The role of CDC and FDA did see a dramatic change during the past few years from protecting people --> protecting big company income --> damage people.


    I hope that one day all the involve get a live long hotel room behind lattice windows.

    Quote from Mark U

    Finally, it was discovered that these spike carrying exosomes were detected for 4 months in the body, with their quality decreasing in parallel to IgG antibody count.

    Lets hope all the fascist got their two jabs... The more lucky ones got Moderna.

    Quote from Mark U

    No he doesn't, silly.

    Also, we're not talking independent scientists and doctors, but those whose pay is ultimately tied to a larger organization and big money, whether it be hospital networks, insurance, big pharma, and universities They want to please their bosses and keep their jobs, probably more so than other professions. As I recall, doctors were especially prolific joiners to the Nazi party.

    Yes, I see you believe this too. And your definition includes more than 90% of the world's competent scientists. The day's of self-funded dilettantes are largely over, and anyway most people need to put bread on the table.


    If you meet a scientist who claims they have no science job out of principle you might just wonder if in fact it is because they are not good enough to get one.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This fake study is obvious science fraud

    So - is it the data that is fraudulent or do you have specific issues with the study methodology?


    I agree, it is a retrospective, and in the US with a non-unified health system which makes the data less reliable than normal. So I would not give the results high confidence. Still it is an attempt to make this comparison and I have not seen any others.


    There is pretty secure info out there now on how well vaccines protect against hospitalisation.


    Less secure is the info on how well does prior COVID protect.


    THH

    This is really poor antivaxxer non-science. Do I need to tell you what is being mixed up here?


    Let me just agree, in part.


    Yes COVID infection generates exosomes that can contain viral DNA. They also (and it is pretty obvious though maybe antivaxxers would have selective attention reading the literature) contain S proteins:


    Exosomes derived from SARS-CoV-2-infected cells contain specific proteins that serve as important biomarkers for the disease. Kim et al. cultured subgenomic SARS-CoV-2 RNAs in Vero cells (9). High levels of the S (Orf2), Orf3a, E (Orf4), M (Orf5), Orf6, Orf7a, and N (Orf9) proteins, and low levels of Orf7b were observed within the subgenomic RNAs (106).


    Diverse Effects of Exosomes on COVID-19: A Perspective of Progress From Transmission to Therapeutic Developments
    Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a new strain of coronavirus and the causative agent of the current global pandemic of…
    www.frontiersin.org


    Worth noting that the vaccine mRNA is fragile - it does not last long at room temperature let alone inside the body - so the lipid-encapsulated mRNA will have a short lifetime inside the body.


    As for exosomes with S proteins sticking out of them - well since this is what the immune system is being provoked with it seems pretty likely. Luckily, although S proteins will interact with other cells - it is after all what they are deisgned to do, unlike in a real COVID infection the mRNA generated S proteins do not carry all that other nasty stuff nor do they have the ability to replicate more of themselves.


    As with all this stuff, biology is complex, and these foreign proteins are scary things. There is lots of stuff we do not fully understand. Much scarier however is a real COVID infection where there are more of them, they persist (due to continued production) and they include many other proteins evolved to do specific nasty things to our immune system. S proteins on there own are not evolved to trigger human biological systems in the way that otehr Sars-CoV-2 proteins are. The S protein has the job of getting the viral RNA into a cell.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Luckily, although S proteins will interact with other cells - it is after all what they are deisgned to do, unlike in a real COVID infection the mRNA generated S proteins do not carry all that other nasty stuff nor do they have the ability to replicate more of themselves.

    Here the expert speaks. For making tee you need water. As water is healthy tee is healthy too....


    S proteins alone cause deadly damage of capillaries due due local clothing. S proteins damage any tissue they touch. According Pfizer papers S proteins should no be transported and stay inside muscle tissues ....


    What obviously fails in most vaccinated and leads to as strong immune defect we already see in the UK statistics with 6x more infection among only vaccinated....

    Long-Time Efforts to Bargain for Prescription Drug Prices Stymied by Pharma Influence


    Long-Time Efforts to Bargain for Prescription Drug Prices Stymied by Pharma Influence
    The motto for the website Open Secrets is, “Following the Money in Politics,” and their entry for pharma and health products provides a good introduction
    trialsitenews.com



    The motto for the website Open Secrets is, “Following the Money in Politics,” and their entry for pharma and health products provides a good introduction to that industry’s impact on public policy. The site notes that drug makers, medical product firms, and nutritional and dietary supplement purveyors are, “consistently near the top of all spenders when it comes to federal campaign contributions and lobbying spending.” This spending has dramatically grown with both the COVID-19 pandemic and the related vaccine issues. Historically, contributions went up before the 2003 Medicare prescription law and then ramped up even further after the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. In that same year super PACS and other groups took off after the Citizens United case in which the supreme court decided that some contribution limitations violated the First Amendment. These donations also “jumped” during every presidential election cycle from 2012 on, with a 170% increase from 2010 to 2020 to total $89,091,362 in the later year. For the curious, Open Secrets is a good source to find our who is giving how much money to whom.


    15 Years of Promises

    On October 29, The Intercept took a deeper look at the ways that the Democratic party is taking massive contributions from big pharma that make it “inconvenient” to take on this industry. Back in 2006, the Dems released, “A New Direction for America” in which they set out six key policy points. One of the promised reforms was to allow Medicare to bargain for drug prices with pharma firms and then, “use the savings to expand Medicare benefits.” With this New Direction platform, the party took back the House of Representatives which Republicans had held since 1994. Today, 15 years later, the Dems have a chance to actually follow up on the 2006 pledge. And despite news that this tool was not in the House budget bill released on Thursday October 28, Senator Catherin Cortez-Masto, D-Nev. Says, “The negotiations are still going on—-It’s the number one issue I hear about in Nevada. And rightly so, we have to reduce drug costs. Negotiation is a key part of it.”


    Dems Substantially Bankrolled

    Also on Thursday, Democrat progressives fought back against efforts by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House to disconnect the pending bipartisan infrastructure bill from the larger Build Back Better Act, supported especially by the progressives. The later along with allies from the Senate indicate that they will use their leverage to, “get some form of drug-pricing legislation back into the bill over the weekend.” Yet per the Intercept, Democratic politicians are highly conflicted between what they say to get elected and where they get the funds to spread that message. Ever since 2006, they have said to voters that if they had the chance they would “take on the power of Big Pharma” and make the industry lower drug prices to be more in line with those in other nations. Yet as noted, the Dems have also been “substantially bankrolled” by this industry so face an internal conflict over how to proceed.


    Filibuster Busts Reform Efforts

    A week after she became speaker in early 2007, Pelosi led the House Democrats in approving a drug negotiation bill, but this died due to aa filibuster in the Senate. And had it passed, President Bush likely would not have signed in. But the prospects for this bill changed when in 2009 Barack Obama was sworn in as our president. And by July of that year, he had a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Yet the White House promptly cut a deal with Pharma, “promising not to push for drug price negotiations in exchange for the industry agreeing not to oppose reform and to cut $80 billion in costs over 10 years.” At the time, Pelosi said she was not bound by this dealt, yet none of the promised drug price negotiations were passed into law.


    Two Wins in One?

    Then, in 2018 the Medicare for All movement was surging, and the Democrats who were focused on winning the House cautioned candidates to not run on either single-payer or other “sweeping” reforms, but to instead follow the polling and focus more narrowly on lowering drug prices. A campaign memo to candidates said that the best-polling position was, “to allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices.” In TV ads that cycle and also in 2020, the party made reducing drug prices their top issue. Kyrsten Sinema was able to “flip” a Senate seat to the Dems with promises of lower drug prices. And when President Joe Biden came into power, he made price negotiation via Medicare a central theme in his American Families Plan, while some Dems saw this potential cost-saving measure as a mechanism to afford expanded Medicare coverage, in essence “two wins in one.”


    An Issue of Democracy

    But this plan was not favored by pharma-backed Dems, with Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey being a key player. His state has more pharma firms than any other, and he offered a different drug cost reform this year which put a cap on senior citizens’ out-of-pocket expenses yet preserves industry’s profit margin and denies Medicare recipients the lower prices that folks in other nations pay. The drug pricing bill was lost at the Energy and Commerce Committee based on defections by three Democrats: Ohio’s Scott Peters, Connecticut’s Kurt Schrader, and New York’s Kathleen Rice. The first two were known to be backed by and loyal to the pharma industry. Over at the Senate, Sinema has declined to support the provision, and she also declined to comment to the Intercept. Angus King, an Independent Senator from Maine, has said he does not understand Sinema’s reluctance to offer support: “All it is is making Medicare consistent with the [Veterans Affairs Department] and Medicaid, which have had this…negotiated discount for many years,” King said. Senator Bernie Sanders noted pharma is, “spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make sure that they continue to make outrageous profits to charge us, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs—-So this is not just an issue of the pharmaceutical industry. This is an issue of American democracy. And whether or not the United States Congress has the ability to stand up to incredibly powerful special interests like the pharmaceutical industry.”


    Law a “Major Gift” to Pharma

    PhaRMA, the industry’s trade and lobbying group, spends above $500 million per year to shape policy and help, “speak with one voice when it comes to any attempt to regulate drug prices.” And they are effective. Medicare’s inability to negotiate prices goes back to the creation of Medicare Part D in 2003, a Republican plan. Opposed by the Dems, the law added prescription drugs as a Medicare benefit, thereby helping out older folks’ both health-wise and financially. The Intercept notes that this was a “major gift” to pharma firms as it, “included a provision that would bar the Health and Human Services Department from negotiating lower prices.” When Obama first ran for president he said, “First, we’ll take on the drug and insurance companies and hold them accountable for the prices they charge and the harm they cause—-And then we’ll tell the pharmaceutical companies, ‘Thanks but no thanks for overpriced drugs.’ Drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada and Mexico. We’ll let Medicare negotiate for lower prices.”


    From $1,000 Checks to a “Financial Sieve”

    While Obama banned pharma donations to his campaign, drug money kept flowing into the Democratic Party. And in spite of the ban of lobbyists’ money, individual contributions soared, e.g., Pfizer officials paid $1 million for hi-end seats to watch Obama get the Democratic nomination, “at a party convention made possible by donations from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Merck.” In the next year, in the heated fight over the Affordable Care Act, PhRMA kept price negotiation out of the deal, and in what the Intercept calls an exchange, “Democrats were promised $150 million in ads designed to boost public support for health reform.” And then the 2010 Citizens United decision reshaped the, “political landscape” for pharma firms and opened a “financial sieve” for these companies to control elections. PhRMA moved from $1,000 checks to individual politicians to, “dumping seven-figure sums of largely undisclosed corporate cash into the coffers of dark-money groups and super PACs.”

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Yes COVID infection generates exosomes that can contain viral DNA. They also (and it is pretty obvious though maybe antivaxxers would have selective attention reading the literature) contain S proteins:


    Exosomes derived from SARS-CoV-2-infected cells contain specific proteins that serve as important biomarkers for the disease. Kim et al. cultured subgenomic SARS-CoV-2 RNAs in Vero cells (9). High levels of the S (Orf2), Orf3a, E (Orf4), M (Orf5), Orf6, Orf7a, and N (Orf9) proteins, and low levels of Orf7b were observed within the subgenomic RNAs (106).

    That is a strange paper. First, did you look at links 9 and 106 from your quoted text from the paper you cite? I see no relation to what the author is talking about in that text! Secondly, the quoted text is not describing viral infection of humans. Rather they are putting partial bits of Sars-Co2 RNA into monkey kidney cell culture and seeing what proteins are produced. In other words, after the first sentence the author goes off on a tangent. He is not talking about viral infection and is not talking about exosomes. To make matters worse, when he says that certain proteins were "observed within the subgenomic RNAs" it makes no sense! Was something lost in translation? Did he mean "with the subgenomic RNAs?" Lordy.


    I'll try to dig up the papers I had in mind.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.