Quote from Wyttenbach

There are clear signs or more clearly said facts from UK/Israel data: Pfizer/Astra do not protect from CoV-19 Delta. UK has > 18'000 cases and is now fully engaged in a 4th wave.

The two vaccines do also not protect from death from Delta at least not better than taking no vaccine. The only good news. Delta seem to be the harmless variant we all wait for, that gives us a free of cost/risk immunization!

I just wanted to point out that these comments from W here are 100% factually wrong.

UK data shows both Pfizer and Astra vaccine give very good protection against delta:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01696-3

Pfizer 2 doses (88% protection, ) Astrazeneca two doses (60% protection)

Against death the two vaccines protect by a factor of between 10 and 100. thus 1/10th to 1/100th of people die compared with who would have without vaccine.

thee is research, but more dramatic is the data on cases and deaths. Deaths lag cases by about 3 weeks but even so the uptick in UK infections has caused a muhc smaller uptick in deaths - for accurate data we must wait a bit longer.

Delta a harmless variant? 100% false. It spreads more easily. it appears to have spike modifications that make it more efficient at entering human cells. It makes people sicker faster (as you would expect if it is better at infecting cells).

https://www.gavi.org/vaccinesw…-two-things-we-still-need

it is quite simple: to maintain Wyttenbach's false view that delta is harmless you must also maintain his false view that vaccines do not protect the population...

Quote from THHuxleynew

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01696-3

Pfizer 2 doses (88% protection, ) Astrazeneca two doses (60% protection)

Our free-mason provax trumpet once more spreads Big-pharma propaganda. I explained in detail why the assumptions made by big pharma are wrong. We also do not discuss about hospitalization.

It's death from CoV-19 delta +++. Here the vaccines seems to totally fail.

This is not an invention and based on very recent data from the last few weeks.

What our FUD' er references is stone age data extrapolated from Pfizer payed and faked lab research.

Quote from Mark U

To quote Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the NIH (in a way Fauci's boss) from that video:

"Let these kids from 11 to 15 start to take advantage of the Pfizer dose, a two dose vaccine, which was shown in this trial, which FDA has been looking at, not just to be good, but to be one hundred percent effective and totally safe. So, hard to beat that!"

Well it could also cure pimples and give them great grades and lots of friends.

Seriously, I quote Collins as a matter of historical record.

Display More

The above post is from May 11th 2021.

The 12 year old in the video below was part of a Pfizer trial and took her second dose in January 2021. A 12 year old takes one for the team, is stilling paying the price, and Collins doesn't know this? What's going on?

Original Collins video on NBC from May 10:

https://www.cnbc.com/video/202…o-normal.html?jwsource=cl

I was going to go to our capital Nur-Sultan to be treated in good hospitals, but I ended up on self-isolation at home for 14 days with a diagnosis of COVID - 19 virus infection (primary) from the oropharynx/nasopharynx by real-time polymerase chain therapy. So instead of the hospital, I got to the treatment of covid at home. I wonder if if I had been completely stalled, they wouldn't have let me out either... But the main thing is that I don't have anything, I don't have a temperature, my consciousness is good, I'm sitting on a computer, doing articles, writing, etc.They say that it's still bad and you need to be treated, you can't go anywhere. Well, we'll sit at home, the hospital has opened a sick list, after all, covid is very bad, so many deaths, I thought I would be carried away. So it's time to get vaccinated, otherwise it's not very interesting to sit at home, you need to work.

But the main thing is that they put me on 14-day house arrest, and they will pay 30% for sick leave, which means I'm in a mess. Now there will be no money for what to go to Astana for. So the laboratory assistant said correctly, it was necessary to go to a new paid consultation, pay money, and after 14 days I didn't even hand over anything. It means that you can violate home isolation at your own risk, this is probably a struggle of covid paid and non-paid people who want to go just to the hospital for treatment. You have to think with your brains, not with your ass, you can pass it in another clinic, but you can also intercept it and do whatever is sick and not sick in the clinic itself. You doctors will decide what and how to do wisely, and then no one will sit in the house anymore and work will not help. (Kazahstan)

The present COVID-19 vaccines violate all 10 tenets of the Nuremberg Medical Ethics Code as a guide for permitted medical experiments.

https://trialsitenews.com/the-…tted-medical-experiments/

Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD, Paul E. Alexander, MSc, PhD, Parvez Dara, MD, MBA

We sought to examine how many of the Nuremberg Medical ethics codes are being breached by the present COVID-19 vaccine roll out given these codes were devised to constrain medical experimentation which would allow proper protections of the subject/participant/vaccinee. “Fifty years ago in Nuremberg, Germany, 23 physicians and scientists stood trial for war crimes committed before and during the Second World War. The medical trial, and its more famous predecessor, the international military tribunal, have left us with defining statements of ethical principle”.

It is imperative that the reader and all involved with these COVID-19 vaccines understand, that under the terms of the Nuremberg Code, individuals or anyone involved in the distribution of these yet to be approved, and therefore experimental, vaccines, can be accused of crimes against humanity, if they administer an experimental medical procedure or device to any subject, without the subject’s fully informed consent. “I was only following orders.” was not an acceptable defense in 1947. We will treat informed consent throughout this document as it is a very critical aspect of administration of a vaccine or any drug etc., and we feel it has been breached each time thus far, when these vaccines have been, and continue to be administered.

We became very troubled by our point-by-point analysis of the Nuremberg code and wish to present it for the reader. For this analysis, the term ‘vaccine’ refers to the COVID-19 vaccine, specifically the mRNA or DNA vaccines. ‘Vaccinee’ refers to the individual in receipt of the vaccine. It is important that we set the table for this examination. Why are we focused on this? We are focused on this because the vaccines are permitted by the government under emergency use authorization only (EUA) status and to reiterate are still, therefore, experimental in nature.

These vaccines have been granted provisional approval, subject to the manufacturers supplying ongoing results and data as part of the ongoing experimentation. Again, there has been no full regulatory approval with the proper assessment of the benefits and harms of these vaccines. As it stands, even for the EUA, proper toxicology studies or animal trials were not performed. Moreover, the initial human trials were performed on completely healthy people under 50 who had zero underlying conditions (e.g. they could even be overweight) and yet as will be mentioned below, the vaccinations are now being recommended to people who have conditions that were not included in the study and this includes pregnancy. Children were also excluded from the trials. The median follow-up for the vaccinations was approximately only two months. This means we did not take the time to test this novel vaccine technology. In relation to the novelty of the vaccine approach currently being used we point out that either the mRNA-lipid nanoparticle, or DNA adenoviral vector platforms perform in a manner heretofore never tried in human subjects and in such a massive vaccination campaign, no less. One of the most distinguishing features of these vaccines is that they program our own cells to manufacture (translate the genetic code) into a protein (spike protein) against which immunity develops. Given that the spike protein is an important part of the SARS CoV-2 virus, this was thought to be the most appropriate strategy. As creative as this approach is, we point out that at this time there are no data available that can elucidate what, if any, longer-term side effects or adverse events might be anticipated following vaccination. As noted above, we only followed these vaccines for a few months when, in order to confirm long-term safety, we need 10 to 12 to 15 years on average to bring any vaccine to market. One of the most critical aspects of vaccine development was ignored in that ‘time’ component where the vaccine and its effects (presence of effectiveness and/or harms) is followed closely under surveillance. Importantly, the placebo group in the original trials has now been allowed to be vaccinated, so the original control group is diminishing rapidly to the point where it will be non-existent. This alone has drastically reduced the impact of the randomized controlled trials that are still underway.

The ten points of the code were given in the section of the judges’ verdict entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments”.

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is essential.

Forcing, bribing, and coercing people to accept an experimental drug (vaccine) without providing any information regarding sequelae of this treatment contravenes this regulation. Coercion abounds and is coming both directly and indirectly by our governments, and globally. Directly by way of PSAs virtually shaming people who have not been vaccinated to get vaccinated. In terms of indirect coercion, the MSM, industries including but not limited to airlines, cruising, restaurants, are demanding that people must be vaccinated to use their services either at all, or at least without the need to mask, undergo inaccurate testing, and the like. Of equal concern regarding regulation 1 is that our governments have been exercising vast coercive power to promote participation in these experiments by using techniques such as offering vaccinees lotteries for cash prizes, free food, and reduced prison sentences for prisoners completely negating even the pretense of participation being in any way voluntary in nature. Finally, there is a surfeit of anecdotal (real world) evidence that potential vaccinees are provided with minimal to no information regarding potentially severe AEs that are known to arise following vaccination. The risks and benefits of a vaccine must be explained in full. Only until such time, can we say categorically that they (the people) are truly ‘informed’ and ethically consented. Given this, it is simply impossible for a potential research participant to provide informed consent. We argue that no one, not one person thus far in receipt of these vaccines, has been properly ethically consented to whereby they have given fully informed consent. You just need to look at the media demonstrations of the vaccine tents and locations and the administration of the vaccine, and you will see that it is operated almost alike a processing mill with no proper consenting. This is a serious breach of the 1st code of the Nuremberg codes. This strengthens further the arguments that participation in these experiments cannot be considered as being voluntary.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

The fact the vaccines are at this time still experimental in nature means that all of society is being coerced into participating in history’s largest clinical research study! Insofar as being designed to yield potentially fruitful results for the good of society, we point to the fact that the experimental vaccines are unnecessary for two major reasons and therefore could not yield results that will benefit society. First, we all know that before any vaccines were available, what WAS available was early multidrug outpatient therapy for COVID-19 that would reduce hospitalization and death (as well as long-COVID) by approximately the same percentage (and now we probably know it’s more effective), as the vaccines! The EUA’s were therefore granted illegally. Secondly, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vaccines carry more harm than admitted or expected by the developers. This is not consistent with results that are for the good of society.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

According to any of the information currently available, no animal studies have been done! The original experimental proposal was a Phase 1, 2, 3 study. Phase 1 cannot proceed without animal studies. This said we have seen some animal studies, but not of the sort that would be considered as adequate for authorization of Phase 1 trials, never mind Phase 2 and Phase 3, especially since the longitudinal artificial time constraints of a median of 2 months used for the follow-up, post-vaccination! Moreover, the natural history of COVID-19 was not understood fully (and is still not) and yet vaccine development proceeded.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

Given the incidence of adverse events up to and including death that are now being chronicled, it is almost impossible that the investigators did not know of these during the initial phases of the still-ongoing study. Subjects were therefore nearly assuredly exposed to unnecessary risk including physical and mental suffering! To reiterate, this was done and is being done without full consent as defined by this Code. Moreover, the administration of an experimental drug in settings such as parking lots and pharmacies fails to ensure that subjects are afforded protection against unnecessary harm, by including the employment of fully trained medical personnel, which was lacking.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

Concerning this part of the code, it is probable that many of the physicians participating in the prosecution of the ongoing experiment were vaccinated. So, while there is some reason to suggest that regulation 5 was contravened, it not completely contravened. However, given past knowledge regarding dangerous AEs including death associated with the use of mRNA-based trial vaccines, the investigators either knew or ought to have known that there were clear and present risks of death or disabling injury at the outset of the experiment.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

The degree of risk has to be assessed on an age-stratified basis. In this regard, one could argue conceivably that if the vaccines were successful, even with a certain low percentage of AEs, their use in elderly subjects should not exceed the risks associated with the problem to be solved by the experiment. Sadly, there is increasing evidence that this might not be the case. But that aside, the use of this vaccine or any vaccine carrying post-vaccination risks (and all do at some level) is in total contravention of the concepts described in regulation 6. In this regard, children and adolescents have virtually ZERO risk of dying from or even contracting symptomatic infection with SARS CoV-2. There is no rationale whatsoever for the inclusion of this age group as subjects in the current mRNA/DNA vaccine study.

7. Proper preparations should be made, and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

As noted above, the delivery of an experimental vaccine (or drug) must be performed in an environment where one can reasonably expect rapid treatment and immediate availability of treatment for any AEs that might occur shortly after administration of the trial injections. This is impossible in parking lot settings, pop-up vaccination centers, and pharmacies. Indeed, one of the greatest mysteries surrounding the administration of the vaccine within inadequate settings lies in the fact that, at least in Canada, the mRNA vaccines have been administered in pharmacies while only until recently were vaccines made available to MDs for delivery to trial subjects. Issues relating to the preservation of the vaccines also abound, where the temperature control below zero was not adhered to in some circumstances and the expiration dates were exceeded, which by themselves are cause for alarm and express the need for caution.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

Those conducting the study at large are most likely qualified. However, if one includes the fact that others who are carrying out the study include RNAs, pharmacists, and possibly other untrained personnel, then even this standard is not met.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

This has been addressed above. Despite people beginning to realize that there are some serious problems associated with mRNA or DNA vector vaccination, they are still encouraged to the point of coercion on the part of the Government by way of nonstop PSAs, and by its proxies (industries referred to above). We also refer again to the use of prison inmates who might have their sentences reduced if they’re vaccinated. The reduction of a sentence by up to 50% is the cruelest and frankly, the most offensive form of coercion possible. In line with this, Governments have exaggerated deaths to create even more fear of SARS CoV-2, additionally coercing subjects to enroll in the trials. We also point out that due to inaccuracies (an understatement) as to how the cause of death has been redefined to include anyone who has died with but not because of COVID-19 or SARS CoV-2 identification by hypersensitive PCR testing, this fuels the now worldwide environment of fear. This has immense coercive power, inducing even more unsuspecting people to enroll in this ‘vaccine’ research studies/experiments!

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

For the 1st stages of the study, and notwithstanding the contention that the investigators MUST have observed serious AEs, one might allow for some latitude here concerning the initial stoppage of the research trial. However, at this time, there is no question that the mRNA vaccines and similar, come with very serious AEs including death. Although the absolute risks are tiny for the whole population, this does not hold on an age-stratified basis as noted above. Furthermore, when compared to AEs, in this case, death, it is virtually guaranteed that potential participants in the study will be told that the risks are the same or won’t be informed at all. Not only is any equivalence patently false, but the number of deaths for comparable numbers of vaccinated people is at least 20-fold of those associated with the influenza vaccine! If the experiment was to be continued one would hope that at the very least the investigators would have decided to abort the trial as initially set and focus instead on patients at the highest risk level. This did not happen; study subjects did not receive all available information to formulate informed consent. Therefore, the study contravenes the regulations outlined in item 10.

Conclusion

Based on the above comments relating to the 10 points of the Nuremberg Regulations for Human Research, it is clear that this trial is continuing on an illegal basis. Subjects cannot be coerced as they are now. Although not mentioned above, it is also reasonable to state that the introduction of or threat to introduce Vaccine Passports, as well as the threat to not lift lockdowns, masking regulations, restaurant occupancy and so on, unless and until a certain percentage of the population has been vaccinated (note that we do not mean “immunized”), is an example of malicious coercion! We hold that based on the tenets laid out very clearly in the Nuremberg Code that the mRNA/DNA vaccine studies must be stopped now, the investigators charged with crimes against humanity, and along with them, the government leaders held accountable especially those who have supported this experimentation.

The shooting will be so and so, but they will shoot all of us, too.... So it's time to look for new energy, and no one helps, everyone wants to find energy themselves and is silent. One planet, one people-YOU WILL ALL DIE!!!

a second jab isn't necessary, i think big pharma, the CDC and the NIH will probably ignore this study

More Indicators That One Vaccine Dose Could Meet Societal Needs While Reducing Safety Signal

https://trialsitenews.com/more…e-reducing-safety-signal/

A recent study from Scotland reveals that one (1) dose of the COVID-19 vaccine confers roughly the same protection as two (2) doses when measuring the efficacy after allowing for a similar amount of time for immunity to develop. TrialSite’s been on the record that in the case of the mRNA-based vaccine,s perhaps Board Room revenue decision making trumped healthcare. In a recent correspondence piece in The Lancet, the authors share, “Overall, a strong vaccine effect did not clearly manifest until at least 28 days after the first vaccine dose (HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·22–0·46; appendix p 3). Among S gene-negative cases, the effect of vaccination (at least 28 days after first or second dose) was to reduce the risk of hospital admission (HR 0·28, 95% CI 0·18–0·43) compared to unvaccinated.”

Herein, the authors fail to state exactly what measure of vaccine effect they are quoting for the single dose. Are they referring to symptomatic infection, hospitalization, or other? However, when probing the Supplemental document, one can read the details more clearly. Refer to Table S2 where the authors list the hazard ratios for various dosing regimens and time offsets. The two that represent the fairest assessment of 1 dose vs 2 doses are highlighted below. v1_28+ stands for 1 dose-measuring efficacy starting at 28 days. v2_14+ represents two doses measuring efficacy starting 14 days after the second dose. This is a minimum of 35 days but in the UK with their delayed second dose approach (12 weeks), it’s typically a much longer interval (up to 98 days). Therefore, the 2 dose regimen is still offered greater duration for immunity to develop through well-established processes such as affinity maturation. However, even with the shorter time allowed for the single dose to develop immunity, the Hazard Ratios are almost the same at 0.32 vs 0.30 for 1 dose vs 2 dose.

Here is a link to the Supplemental Data that contains the above table. This study was looking at the UK (Alpha) variant and Wildtype. While the Delta variant would likely show a small reduction in vaccine efficacy, the reduction would be similar for the single and double-dose regimens. This study also looked at both the AstraZeneca/Oxford and Pfizer vaccines. That’s the reason the blended HRs are not as impressive as what you’d expect in a purely mRNA vaccine study.

TrialSite suggests regulatory agencies start reviewing the data without the bias favoring the second jab, and its lengthier duration for established immunity. What if it turned out done dose of the mRNA-based vaccines would suffice? We predict far fewer safety reports uploaded to VAERS, although according to the government, the data in VAERS isn’t proven to be associated with the vaccines.

WHO Stops Recommending Widespread COVID-19 Testing of Asymptomatic Cases

https://www.theepochtimes.com/…ic-cases_3878708.html/amp

In updated guidance on COVID-19 testing strategies, the World Health Organization (WHO) says it does not currently recommend widespread screening of people without symptoms, citing the cost of such a strategy and its ineffectiveness.

“Widespread testing of asymptomatic populations, including through self-testing, is not currently recommended, based on lack of evidence on impact and cost-effectiveness of such approaches and the concern that this approach risks diverting resources from higher priority testing indications,” the guidance stated.

However, “countries with the resources and desire to expand testing to the general public (regardless of symptoms) should demonstrate that they have the necessary public health infrastructure in place to respond to positive results and that resources are not being taken away from the testing of suspected cases, which is the top priority,” the WHO told The Epoch Times via email.

Testing should be directed “to where they are expected to have the biggest public health impact,” the WHO said, adding, “this means that all those who are suspected [as defined by the WHO] to have COVID-19 based on symptoms should be prioritized for testing,” irrespective of their vaccination status or disease history.

But in areas with ongoing community transmission, anyone who has come in contact with a probable or confirmed case should still quarantine for 14 days regardless if they are asymptomatic and have not been confirmed positive.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says in its most updated guidance that people who are asymptomatic and not vaccinated should be quarantined and tested if they were in close contact with a COVID-19 positive individual.

“Viral testing is recommended for unvaccinated individuals who are close contacts of persons with COVID-19,” the CDC said. “These individuals should be tested immediately after being identified, and if negative, tested again in 5-7 days after last exposure or immediately if symptoms develop during quarantine.”

Whereas, fully vaccinated individuals do not need to be quarantined, tested, “or be restricted from work” after being in close contact to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 if they do not have COVID-like symptoms, “as their risk of infection is low,” according to the CDC. However, they are recommended to self-monitor for symptoms of COVID-19 for 14 days after exposure.

The CDC says testing is still recommended for “fully vaccinated residents and employees of correctional and detention facilities and homeless shelters.”

People are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after their second dose of a messenger RNA vaccine or a single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The WHO’s current guidance on prioritizing tests for people with symptoms is consistent with what the guidance had been prior to the pandemic in treating and diagnosing respiratory viral outbreaks—including the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak and the 2012 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak—which was to predominantly focus on symptomatic cases to stop the transmission of the disease.

Data has indicated that asymptomatic spread is not as prevalent as earlier studies claimed it to be and that the risk of transmission from asymptomatic patients is low.

COVID Cases May Be Confirmed with Antigen Test

Throughout the pandemic last year, the standard for diagnosing a CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus infection was through a PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test with cycle threshold values of 40 cycles or higher. This raised concerns that there may be an overreliance on and a misuse of the test as a diagnostic tool since it can’t differentiate between a live infectious virus and an inactivated virus fragment that isn’t infectious.

Individuals who had a positive PCR test with or without symptoms of COVID-19 were considered a case and added to the daily COVID-19 case count.

The CCP virus causes the disease COVID-19.

The WHO then updated its guidance on the use of PCR tests on Jan. 20, 2021, cautioning lab experts and in vitro diagnostic medical devise users to not rely solely on the results of the PCR test to diagnose COVID-19. Rather, a patient’s health history and epidemiological risk factors should also be considered alongside the PCR test in diagnosis.

Now, verification of a COVID-19 case can be done through an antigen test, instead of through a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) such as the widely used PCR test.

In the updated recommendation, the WHO states that while “NAAT is considered as a reference standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” an antigen test can be used to diagnose a CCP infection “where NAAT is not available or where results will be delayed by more than 48 hours.”

Three scenarios where a nucleic acid amplification test is not required in addition to an antigen test result include:

In symptomatic people in high prevalence settings, it is not necessary to confirm positive antigen test results by NAAT, while a negative antigen test result “may be confirmed by NAAT at clinical discretion.”

In low prevalence settings, confirmation of negative antigen test results by NAAT is not necessary, whereas a positive antigen test result is up to the clinic to confirm it with NAAT.

In asymptomatic people “that are contacts of confirmed cases or are frequently exposed, such as health care and long-term care facility workers,” an antigen test result is not necessary to be confirmed by NAAT.

Antigen tests are immunoassays that can detect if an individual has an active CCP virus infection in about 15 to 30 minutes and is less sensitive than a PCR test. According to the WHO, antigen tests are “sensitive only for detection of patients with a high viral load e.g. cycle threshold (Ct) values [of approximately] 25-30.”

The US drug industry used to oppose patents – what changed?

https://theconversation.com/am…tents-what-changed-161319

The United States, Europe and other wealthy parts of the world have already vaccinated large parts of their populations, yet vaccine rates in poor countries are lagging badly. That’s why the surprise announcement this spring that the United States will support waiving patent protections on COVID-19 vaccines is so important.

Drugmakers quickly voiced their opposition to the move, but public health advocates were elated. Waiving patent rights, the thinking goes, will give poorer countries the ability to procure low-cost generic versions of COVID-19 vaccines, even if they are produced in another country, and help them to more effectively fight a public health crisis. The European Parliament now supports the idea as well.

A patent waiver would have major implications for global vaccine production, of course. But the U.S. announcement should also be understood in the context of longstanding debates about pharmaceutical patenting in the United States.

I am a historian who has studied these debates extensively. What is clear from my work is that heated disputes about the morality of drug patenting date back to the earliest days of the American Republic, as do efforts to limit – or even ban – patents on pharmaceuticals. Support for sharply limiting patent rights on drugs, or even eliminating them altogether, is far from the radical position that some critics imply. Indeed, in many ways it is a deeply conservative one.

Establishment opposition

In the United States, the first patent on a medicine was granted in 1796 for “Dr. Lee’s Windham Bilious Pills,” which was used to treat digestive and other problems. Over the next century, drug manufacturers produced an endless flood of products protected by both patents and trade secrets. Most of these remedies could be easily assembled in a pharmacy, and some clearly helped people.

Yet these so-called “patent medicines” were also highly controversial. Physicians and other critics loudly denounced them because many were advertised with false or misleading claims. Physicians also recoiled at the effort to monopolize these products.

Physicians at the time believed that medical science should benefit patients, not private commercial interests, and that medical knowledge should be shared and used freely. Both patents and trade secrets interfered with this process – after all, if a pharmacist could compound a remedy cheaply, shouldn’t he be allowed to do so? Restricting access to medicines based on patent rights struck American physicians as deeply unethical.

The moral critique of patenting was so strong that the American Medical Association made it a cornerstone of its first Code of Medical Ethics in 1847, declaring it was “derogatory to professional character” for a physician “to hold a patent for any surgical instrument, or medicine.”

This was no laughing matter. Conformity to the code was a requirement for licensing in many states. Violating the ban on patents could have serious professional consequences. In 1849, leaders in the medical community even tried to get a law passed prohibiting patents on drugs altogether.

This ethical framework also created the first market for what we now refer to as “generic” drugs. A handful of companies began to manufacture standard preparations and eschew the use of patents and trade secrets altogether. After the Civil War, these companies became the largest drug manufacturers in the country. They also began to build laboratories and invest resources into developing new products. Following World War II, these companies became massive enterprises and formed the backbone of the American pharmaceutical industry that we know today.

[Explore the intersection of faith, politics, arts and culture. Sign up for This Week in Religion.]

Shifting gears

Yet these companies also abandoned the commitment to open science that made them wealthy in the first place. Beginning in the 1880s, a small number of American drug manufacturers began to argue for the need to patent their products. They made what today are familiar arguments, suggesting that patents were necessary to spur investment in research.

Some physicians embraced the idea – mostly younger ones who chafed at the AMA’s rigid Code of Ethics – but it enraged conservative ones. They continued to denounce patents on pharmaceuticals as a form of quackery. As late as 1921, H.K. Mulford – one of the largest drug manufactures of the time – maintained the conservative position and refused to patent its products.

By the early 1950s, these debates had largely been settled. Drug companies had fully embraced patenting and, equally importantly, they had convinced the medical community to do so as well. Indeed, as historian Dominique Tobbell has argued, the two groups worked together to thwart efforts to reign in pharmaceutical patenting. By the 1980s, this powerful alliance had come to dominate government trade and regulatory policy. As a result, for the past several decades, the United States government has aggressively promoted pharmaceutical patents in the international arena. Indeed, the U.S. has led efforts to force other countries to strengthen their national patent laws in order to better defend industry profits.

Learning from the past

This is why I see the U.S.’s decision to support temporarily waiving the COVID-19 patents as so significant. It signals a new willingness on the part of the U.S. government to question the supposed sanctity of drug patents and other forms of intellectual property. It also reflects years of effort by reformers to highlight how pharmaceutical patents limit access to drugs in poor countries.

Still, I believe more must be done – and fast. The United States should push for a waiver not just on the COVID-19 vaccine patents, but also all forms of intellectual property that might interfere with the transfer of the knowledge and technology necessary to manufacture these complex products. As others have pointed out, this will not, in itself, be enough to increase global vaccine production. Still, it is a necessary step because the vaccine makers are not voluntarily sharing trade secrets and know-how at sufficient scale.

In my view, we desperately need to move toward an integrated, global system of vaccine development that ensures access for everyone. Whether there is a place for patents in such a system is an open question, but I am skeptical. Physicians in the 19th century believed that patents on medicines interfere with science and harm patients. The predecessors of today’s drug industry did as well. It is time for us all to remember that.

This article was updated to indicate that the European Parliament voted to back the patent waiver for COVID-19 vaccines, not the European Union.

Wuhan virologist who worked on bat coronaviruses tied to military scientists, report says

https://usanewslab.com/world/w…ientists-report-says/amp/

A high Chinese virologist has been tied to at the least two Chinese military scientists who collaborated along with her on coronavirus analysis up to now, together with one now listed as deceased, a report Tuesday stated.

In March, Dr. Shi Zhengli, the Wuhan-based virologist who has been accused of conducting dangerous experiments with bat coronaviruses, flatly denied allegations that the Wuhan Institute of Virology carried out research with the military, an NBC News report stated.

But the community reported that it uncovered proof linking Shi to military scientists. She collaborated with Ton Yigang, a military scientist, on coronavirus analysis in 2018 after which with Zhou Yusen, one other military scientist in December 2019. Zhou who was listed as deceased within the footnote of an article printed in 2020, the report stated. The report stated it couldn’t affirm the reason for his loss of life.

David Asher, a former State Department adviser who co-authored a truth sheet final January on exercise contained in the lab, advised NBC News that he’s “confident” that the Chinese military was funding a “secret program” that concerned coronaviruses.

He defended his principle by saying he obtained the data from a number of international researchers contained in the lab who noticed some researchers there in military garb. The report identified that the lab insists that that facility is just used for civilian functions. Asher and the WIV didn’t instantly reply to emails from Fox News.

China has known as claims that the virus escaped the lab “absurd.”

“Some people in the United States have fabricated and peddled absurd stories claiming Wuhan lab leak, which China is gravely concerned about,” a Chinese official stated earlier this month. “China urges the United States to respect facts and science, refrain from politicizing COVID-19 origin tracing and concentrate on international anti-pandemic cooperation.”

The U.S. and others have accused China of failing to present the uncooked information and entry to websites that might permit a extra thorough investigation into the place the virus sprung from and the way it initially unfold.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

.

Uganda approves use of herbal medicine to treat viral infections

https://www.theeastafrican.co.…cine-3454680?view=htmlamp

Uganda has approved the use of Covidex, a local herbal medicine, as a supporting treatment for viral infections, including Covid-19.

Addressing journalists in Kampala on Tuesday, National Drug Authority (NDA) executive director David Nahamya said after various assessments and inspection of the factory manufacturing the herbal medicine, they have approved its use to support treatment of viral infections.

"After engagements, the innovators have removed unsubstantiated claims that the product treats and prevents Covid-19 and revised it to supportive treatment in management of viral infections. NDA has granted Covidex an approval based on initial assessment, published literature and safety studies conducted by the innovator," Mr Nahamya announced.

The product has been formulated from herbal plants that have been traditionally used to alleviate symptoms of several diseases.

However, Mr Nahamya stressed that the medicine does not cure Covid-19 but it can supplement the medicine being used by medics to treat coronavirus patients.

The drug authority said it will continue to monitor the safety of Covidex through its post-market surveillance activities.

"We call upon the public to immediately report any side effects from the use of this product to our toll free line 0800101999," Mr Nahamya added.

The drug, made by Mbarara University scientists led by Prof Patrick Ogwang, had generated debate over its efficacy in treating the dreaded Covid-19.

But to further support the efficacy of the drug for other uses, NDA has advised the manufacturer to conduct random controlled clinical trials which are the highest level of evidence to ascertain any claims of treatment.

NDA had on June 14 asked the manufacturer of the drug to cease sales, citing safety concerns because the medicine had not yet been approved.

However, Daily Monitor reports that the drug, which users claim to be “very effective” against Covid-19 symptoms such as flu, is being ferried to various parts of the country as demand soars.

The Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda said there is still no proven cure for Covid-19 and all medicines (herbal and pharmaceutical) should be given equal chance.

The Effect of Berberine on Intestinal Function and Inflammatory Mediators in Severe Patients With Covid-19 (BOIFIM)

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04479202

Since I am not fluent in Spanish at all - what is the core message of this document in a nutshell? Fraud? Mislabeling? Deception? Or all in one?

Thx

Thx!

Quote from Fm1

“Fifty years ago in Nuremberg, Germany, 23 physicians and scientists stood trial for war crimes committed before and during the Second World War. The medical trial, and its more famous predecessor, the international military tribunal, have left us with defining statements of ethical principle”.

That's why I post since months that we will have a second Nürnberg trial.

Quote from Fm1

By the 1980s, this powerful alliance had come to dominate government trade and regulatory policy. As a result, for the past several decades, the United States government has aggressively promoted pharmaceutical patents in the international arena. Indeed, the U.S. has led efforts to force other countries to strengthen their national patent laws in order to better defend industry profits.

This is inline with FM/R/J mafia taking full control over western states. Money = power.

Quote from Curbina

One thing that can be quickly seen is that the amount of mRNA that was recovered from the vaccine sample is very small (6 nanograms per microliter, which would be the same than 6 micrograms per milliliter). The officially stated concentration per dose is 30 micrograms per 0,3 ml.

This explains some things: I guess somebody delivered fake vaccines to Chile buying original ones and doing the same as is done with cocaine and other drugs. You should inform the police -only if they are independent from the FM/R/J greedy mafia people ...

Great news from UK. Cases surpassed the India ones by miles now. But deaths are only up by 2x. So delta is really harmless. No need for vaccines.

All UK data can be found on:: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep…ndwalesprovisional/latest

Only drawback 2 weeks late.

I now believe that the biggest blunder in the vaccine game is the fake calculations about the efficiency. Measles e.g. will infect most people that didn't have it. Same with Hepatitis C or AIDS (still no vaccine). But with corona we face a completely different story. 80% are totally immune already. 95% do not get severe symptoms.

Now if test 10'000 people and see 8 breakthrough cases, then the effective - relative - rate is 40 of 10'000 because 8000 already had the protection.

Now in UK even worse things happen. More vaccinated people die than people without vaccine.

1) The people that die are mostly older ones. But also there, far more than 70% are already immune.

2) Most infected ones are younger and have only faint symptoms.

3) about 70% of the younger are not yet vaccinated but looking at deaths they are protected much better than the old vaccinated ones.

This supports the story that you have to vaccinate a huge number of people to save one live among younger. This figure . number of vaccinated needed grows each day (Study says around 250 in average) but for younger it is larger than 1000. So the vaccine risk for younger is definitively larger than the benefit.

And please do not believe the fake news about delta being more severe. This has already been said for 1.1.7.1 (UK) and was totally wrong. If the R value does increase you see more people in hospital not because the virus is stronger simply because the number of victims does increase.

We here have > 50% Alpha and the hospitals are close to vacant now. The reality is. Most people get a free immunization from Delta what big pharma would like to avoid...