Covid-19 News

Quote from Curbina

Regards to the presence of undisclosed ingredients in the vaccines.

There seems to be an avalanche of factcheckers denying graphene..

the fact of the Almeria report is here..

https://www.docdroid.net/Ov1M9…ity-of-almeria-pdf#page=8

Quote from RobertBryant

There seems to be an avalanche of factcheckers denying graphene..

the fact of the Almeria report is here..

https://www.docdroid.net/Ov1M9…ity-of-almeria-pdf#page=8

RB - I know you are capable of reading the literature - judging evidence - etc. But this is a poor show.

Do you rate that as evidence for graphene - and a conspiracy? Based on nothing except claimed visual similarity between TEM pics of a sample and a cherry-picked graphene picture?

Here are the differences:

• The vaccine shows ellipsoidal particles, of different sizes
• The graphene shows non-ellipsoidal particles (not surprising because of the structure induced by graphene plate cleavage). With folds.

But even if they looked similar that would be evidence for nothing, unless that image is characteristic of graphene and nothing else. The right -hand (graphene) one is perhaps quite distinctive. The left-hand (vaccine) one shows ellipsoidal nanoparticles.

The Pfizer vaccine, we know, uses lipid nanocapsules to protect and deliver the RNA. Hence the ellipsoids. They would look oval in the TEM. Like that (left-hand) picture. Unlike the right-hand one.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/1/65/pdf

But, in any case, there is something very very weird about this suspicion that Pfizer are trying to poison us. It is not quite as bad as Gates-originated microchips, or vaccines turning people's heads into powerful magnets. But it is almost as bad.

Politics is one thing: there will be different political reactions to the challenge of COVID - and so there should be.

But on the internet and (Shane you know this - fringe elements of the US right that seem to have become less fringe recently) there are anti-science memes in which because no experts are trusted anything scientists say is challenged - on evidence as bad as this. It is quite shocking that this stuff has traction.

Disclosal

I am Pfizer double vaccinated, as is my family (all of it). I did not choose Pfizer but am glad I got it over AstraZeneca or Moderna since it has slightly better statistics for efficacy.

I have no connection with the well known secret Bill Gates "control everyone with chips" conspiracy

I have no connection with the well known "US government figures are involved in child trafficking and have engineered COVID to cover it up" conspiracy

I have no connection with the "Chinese (?) agents made Trump lose the election by rigging the voting machines" conspiracy

I have some weird mental disorder which stops me from being able to take these conspiracies seriously - except as an extraordinary and rather worrying social phenomena

Some of you will think this disclosal is OT. Those conspiracy theories have no relationship to the "graphene in mRNA vaccine" one. Are you sure? Regulators around the world require disclosure of vaccine composition. For Pfizer to contain flakes of graphene, as suggested here, either Pfizer is lying to everyone - incredibly difficult for that not to be exposed - or regulators everywhere are similarly lying. Even more difficult.

So all these theories are linked by their outrageous (obvious) falsity and the way that they can be taken up in a totemic way by people with a deep and enduring distrust of governments, scientists, experts, etc.

Vice Media Takes a Cheap Pot-shot at the TrialSite’s Censorship Allegation

https://trialsitenews.com/vice…es-censorship-allegation/

TrialSite News has, off and on, faced what we feel are biased critiques that arise whenever we cover news that can be seen as contrary to the COVID-19-era orthodoxy that only official experts, and stories in line with their narratives, have anything legitimate to say. On the other hand, we feel that science proceeds best when both institutional and independent experts are allowed to talk—both likely have things to teach each other. A focal point here is that some in the mainstream media are taking the view that the news consumer is too susceptible to misinformation for a free flow of ideas to be practicable. We disagree; an informed public and informed professionals are sensible enough to take in different views without blindly accepting them. In a sense, the nature of our society going forward is at stake: are we a free people equal in rights, or are we merely consumer units to be pushed and prodded as deemed fit? As is normal, the latest critique comes from the media, as opposed to experts or medical groups. This is a continuation of what started as political censorship and has now moved into science and medicine: media going out of their way to “debunk” competitors in a biased manner. The latest broadside against medical freedom of speech came on July 1 from Vice Media (VICE). What’s apparent, however, is how little this New York-based media company actually knows about biomedical research and healthcare. Ironically, the very Titans of tech that TrialSite laments are repressing valid scientific dissention, will ultimately take out Vice itself, in a digital vice grip of financial demise. That’s right, Google and Facebook rule the advertising roost and successive waves of Vice layoffs and downsizings undoubtedly point to more reorganizations and, unfortunately, for what was a cool, hip and edgy media asset, now ever more half-baked analyses, such as the one that included the recent pot-shot at TrialSite.

It’s All in a Name

Before we address the issues raised by Vice, we offer some background on this source. And while we should ascribe a publication titling itself with the human trait that Merriam-Webster calls “moral depravity or corruption” to the general irony of culture, TrialSite argues that media should take itself slightly more seriously. Perhaps cover more important topics, such as life-saving medicines, research, matters of free speech, and the importance of scientific dissension for the progress of humanity itself.

Beware of the Titans

A June 30 Hollywood Reporter piece looked at “Last Resort” efforts by Vice (and BuzzFeed) to go public. The Reporter discussed how in the 2010s, many startups “voiced world-conquering ambitions.” Back in 2014, Vice’s cofounder had bragged that, “We won’t be the next CNN or ESPN or MTV. We’ll be 10 times that size.” In 2021, firms like Vice now “claw to claim a larger share of advertising revenue in a landscape dominated by Facebook and Google.” What will be showcased later on herein is the reality now of successive waves of layoffs, downsizing, and reorganizations, which lead to even more brash attempts at shoring up revenue, which unfortunately can contradict with the independent, almost rebellious journalism that became the group’s calling card. The chief censorship culprits—the topic that triggered this piece in the first place—place Vice and many others in a digital vice grip of financial death. That is, Google and Facebook. These are the digital Titans that are also systematically censoring and repressing legitimate scientific dissention. The Titans just struck again recently, taking down more TrialSite YouTube content simply because “ivermectin” was a topic. TrialSite isn’t an advocacy group nor does it really have any interests associated with ivermectin. Our analysts have simply chronicled the research since last spring. And we write summaries of these studies.

A Crude, Rudimentary Attempt to Frame Societally Important Discussion

Turning to the current issue, Vice’s July 1 piece is titled, “The Ivermectin Advocates’ War Has Just Begun.” The subtitle refers to ivermectin as a “dubious” COVID-19 treatment; as we will see, this itself is a dubious allegation given the confluence of research, activity in the independent clinic, and data points from numerous nations around the globe.

According to Vice, “several fringe doctors…are claiming [ivermectin] is a miracle preventative and cure for COVID-19.” This is a bit of a straw-man argument, as the issue is whether ivermectin helps with early onset, mild-to-moderate COVID-19, not the metaphysical question of miracles. The Vice article spends some time both quoting and disparaging pro-ivermectin doctors, but they get to the heart of their concern later in the article after some scare-mongering about the Intellectual Dark Web and a healthy sprinkling of the term “fringe.” Listing the YouTube “strikes” of ivermectin advocates like evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, Vice narrates a tale of out-of-control, self-made experts and the social ills caused by outsiders in medicine.

Vice sought to frame the issue as unfolding into two pathways; one as “the routine workings of science” while the other as the lumping together of all the challenges to censorship and even claims of conspiracy. But the writers don’t do justice to either thread. On the one hand, the scientific debate around ivermectin is far more pervasive and widespread then Vice lets on. Otherwise, why would there be over 60 studies now? Has Vice bothered to interview the principal investigators of studies in Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Peru or Brazil to name just a few places where intensive ivermectin-based research has occurred? Have they discussed with care providers here in the U.S. such as Florida’s Dr. Jacque Rajter, principal investigator of the ICON study that’s been published and peer reviewed? Have they bothered to objectively share just how many doctors are calling out the need to use existing repurposed drugs in early-care protocols? Did the piece consider to help the reader understand why there are so many lawsuits, where prominent attorneys are forced to litigate with hospital systems on behalf of dying patients and their families? The chasm deepens while players like Vice seek a quick haphazard snapshot in the hopes of capturing a few more bucks on views.

A One-Sided Point of View

Moreover, what about the nations that have authorized the drug’s use for the COVID-19 indication—even if just for emergency use purposes? Why would states in India, such as Uttar Pradesh, openly tout the use of the drug as a successful part of their public health fight against COVID-19? Why would the apex of Indian authority include the drug on their national recommended treatment guideline at least for the duration of the delta-triggered wave that’s since waned? Why would dedicated physicians, such as Jackie Stone, influence governments such as Zimbabwe so as to allow the drug’s use for research-as-a-care-option targeting SARS-CoV-2? What about Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populated nation, and its move to authorize use nationwide against COVID-19? Why did a court in South Africa fall on the side of ivermectin for that nation’s regulatory body to allow access for COVID-19 treatment? What about the nation of Slovakia that allowed the use of the drug for purposes of emergency pandemic conditions?

Why don’t these writers take the time to do the research to provide a more balanced and objective perspective? Why do Vice and others attack individuals that raise real concern about censorship, isolating them as fringe, paranoid conspiracy theorists?

A Bad ‘Picker’?

Not surprisingly, the “meat” of the Vice article focuses on the paper, “Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials” or “Roman et al.” That’s the one meta-analysis that strangely followed the release of the Bridge group’s positive findings.

This June 28 publication boldly concludes that ivermectin, “is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.” Importantly, the Vice writers don’t bother to look at the large accumulation of positive data, exemplified in a few other meta-analyses.

A review of the Roman et al. study shows several flaws. For starters, to properly evaluate ivermectin at this juncture in history requires simultaneously looking at the RCTs and the real-world evidence, including case studies, population studies, and more, such as interviewing government ministers where the drug has been authorized, if just on an emergency basis. Of course, none of this is considered; rather, the editorial approved of the one meta-analysis showing neutral findings. Isn’t this fact worthy of note by itself?

Roman et al. was critiqued by multiple sources, including contributors to TrialSite. The Bird group in the UK submitted an Open Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal “Clinical Infectious Disease” to recommend an investigation and consequent retraction of what they deemed a “highly problematic” Roman et al. piece. The group identified a number of material concerns associated with the study Vice opted not to bother with.

The Roman et al. authors chose to only use a select sampling of studies out of the dozens of randomized controlled trials now completed around the world (note there are over 60 ivermectin studies now complete, including observational and case series with the great majority demonstrating real promise). Of course, the math behind the handpicked sub-selection led to neutral-to-negative findings. Was that by accident or by design?

Numerous errors made by Roman et al., were duly acknowledged by the authors yet never updated in the manuscript! This represents sloppy science documentation at best.

What about the Other Meta-Analyses?

Of course, the sage’s over at Vice couldn’t find the time nor the space to review the other far more prominent and comprehensive meta-analysis indicating materially positive findings for this “dubious” drug, including the prominent researcher Dr. Andrew Hill et al., whose works were reviewed by the World Health Organization (WHO). While WHO declared that more trials were needed, key officials there, such as Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, went on the record publicly, articulating the drug’s promise in context of the coronavirus—not a mark that the drug is just another “dubious” COVID-19 treatment promoted by fringe quacks. Rather, it’s a serious contender for consideration by the most prominent and elite of institutions.

The Vice piece declared, “data in favor of ivermectin haven’t gotten much stronger in the meantime” yet just in June, a major meta-analysis covering numerous trials, far more comprehensive than the Roman et al. study, was published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. Authored by Tess Lawrie et al., TrialSite suggested the results merited close review by public health authorities.

Other peer reviewed, publicly available meta-analyses to review included the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC) Kory et al. (who Vice did feature prominently) along with a group of critical care physicians from Italy revealing real promise with the generic low cost option. Why weren’t these mentioned by the Vice writer? Don’t they want to provide a more fair and balanced review of the evidence?

The NIH Meeting

Importantly, the same doctors branded by Vice as fringy were invited to present in front of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guideline Panel in early January 2021. Interestingly, several days after that meeting, the NIH changed its formal guidance around ivermectin. The apex national research agency’s guidelines committee’s stance had been that the drug should only be used to treat COVID-19 in clinical trials but after that presentation, which included the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) representatives of Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik as well as Dr. Andrew Hill from the University of Liverpool, the government research body changed their position, taking a more neutral stance on the drug—meaning from their point of view, there wasn’t enough data to only recommend against (accept only for research) as they then declared they could not recommend against its use for COVID either. Why did the NIH publish this statement so imminently after the ivermectin researchers’ meeting with the panel? Some physician/commenters, such as “The Whiteboard doctor,” suggested the NIH was offering both physicians and patients the opportunity to consider the treatment. We cannot be certain.

More Major Research Activity

Vice starts its article that the drug is a “dubious cure” for COVID-19. If one bothers to actually listen to the researchers and physicians from the FLCCC or many others, they actually aren’t declaring this drug is a cure. It’s not. There is no cure for COVID-19 just like there is no cure for the common cold or HIV for that matter.

Rather, based on the 60+ studies from randomized controlled trials to observational studies and case series activity, the overwhelming accumulation of resulting data points indicate a promising treatment with both antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Of course, this doesn’t negate the importance for safe and effective vaccines nor highly advanced, engineered biologics, such as monoclonal antibodies, which can and do save lives. But what’s needed is an easy to administer, economical and highly available option for early onset care.

It’s not an either-or, false dilemma but rather a market demand that necessitates multiple care options at tiered price points based on ability to pay—that is, the socio-economic attributes of various market segments. Meaning, to combat a new virus like SARS-CoV-2 requires a combination of safe and effective vaccine and antiviral-like treatments that can and do originate both from branded pharmaceutical companies as well as generic, repurposed options. Of course, ivermectin would fall in that latter category.

Again, Vice seeks to diminish mounting positive ivermectin signals by declaring, “the data in favor of ivermectin haven’t gotten much stronger” while they do concede the PRINCIPLE trial at University of Oxford might “shed more light” on the drug.

But why doesn’t the Vice article bring up other just as large and prominent clinical trials sponsored by prominent entities in government, corporate, or medical academic interests? For example, Vice failed to mention that the NIH’s Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) initiative now sponsors an ivermectin arm in their ACTIV-6 program? Or for that matter, why wouldn’t Vice share with the reader that UnitedHealthcare, one of America’s largest insurers, underwrites the COVID-OUT study led by University of Minnesota? That study features same-day shipment of ivermectin to the subject’s home.

Groups like the U.S. government, UnitedHealthcare, or major universities such as University of Minnesota, don’t just decide, impromptu, to select a drug with “dubious” claims for major, high profile studies.

Unless the underlying subtext of the piece, perhaps inadvertently, serves to befuddle the reader? Simply by creating a false dilemma of an imminent clash, that of conjuring up simplistic either-or narratives concerning restless paranoid loons and right-wing curmudgeons who conveniently can be swept away into the dustbin of history. A cautionary note, however, that with such reporting follows rapidly diminishing advertising revenue and, ultimately, company viability.

No Recognition of the Competitive Matrix

A key point to the Vice argument demonstrates just how badly they seek to become a big, mainstream player. That is lumping all the concerns of censorship as hyperbole at best, or worse, fear-mongering conspiracy theorists. While Vice has put together marvelous pieces in the past—truly premium content—their team doesn’t do themselves any justice in this latest work.

Perhaps it’s because they don’t have a solid working knowledge of the world of clinical trials, of drug development, and the pharmaceutical industry. Nor do they eplain how pharmaceutical lobbying work leverages the true economic impact (pharma sector about $1.5 trillion), exemplifying considerable influence worldwide. But a review of the business behind drugs, one that can get bare knuckled and brash, isn’t touched by the once seemingly critical Vice.

The writer doesn’t educate the reader that 90% of COVID-19 cases are asymptomatic and mild-to-moderate in severity and that some form of oral antiviral medication, prescribed at early onset by a physician, is the key to overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic along with a safe and sound vaccination regimen and appropriate public health protocols.

Do the math: in America alone, this means about 30 million cases could have used a safe and effective antiviral-like tablet. At a price point of $250 per treatment course, that’s a staggering $7.5 billion. And factor in the rest of the world, and the amounts become exorbitant. Factor in that SARS-CoV-2 appears to be a virus that will not only stay around for a while, but will also mutate, and that means that in addition to the up to $100 billion worldwide per annum in vaccine revenue, comes the Blockbuster market for therapeutics. Pfizer projected $26 billion for its vaccine in 2021 alone. At a projected 9.7 billion doses projected worldwide at an average price point of $10, the market moves up to a staggering $97 billion per year.

All must participate. A sub-Saharan nation with little money? No worry, as “vaccine bonds” serve to securitize impoverished African national assets as TrialSite reported. Is it a surprise the African Union took a harsh stance on ivermectin even though it was really helping people in places like Zimbabwe and parts of Nigeria and South Africa? The leadership was clear—vaccines are a priority, and the market must be cleared for this reality. But what about the cost of waiting to human life?

As TrialSite has systematically detailed, the U.S. government has spent tens of billions on both pharmaceutical company subsidy for both vaccines and therapeutics. It just so happens that ivermectin competes with these prospects. TrialSite introduced this spend in “NIH’s Therapeutic Management of Patients with COVID-19 & Some Unanswered Questions About a Disturbing Chasm.” And recently, the NIH under Dr. Anthony Fauci announced another multi-billion dollar injection of public money into what will become a financial transfer from the taxpayer to private companies discussed in “Feds Now See the Need for Funding Antivirals: TrialSite will Track the Spend Carefully.”

As we have emphasized here, the market for early-onset, ambulatory type treatment is acknowledged by the NIH as inherently vital. In fact, Merck plays a special role in the pandemic. Why? It’s a maker of ivermectin and, in fact, its Mectizan program has been responsible for billions of donated doses of the drug to successfully fight tropical parasitic diseases primarily in Africa. Merck was and continuously is commended for this. Along with the fact that the scientists behind ivermectin won the Nobel Prize, the Vice editorial committee didn’t think that was relevant. Yet Merck’s become a misinformation generator, even employing scare tactics around its own drug—questioning the safety if used for COVID-19—the same drug that has an impressive safety record, is a WHO essential drug and again one that the New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company offers free of charge to hundreds of millions of people. The program has helped to control select dangerous tropical parasite-borne viruses.

But a combination of shareholder pressure, myopia, and what we call “Remdesivir-envy” has driven decision-makers there to participate in what amounted to what we believe is an ivermectin misinformation campaign. And they have material interests prompting this on. Not that receiving $356 million of taxpayer money to develop a competitive drug for this mission-critical early-onset COVID-19 ambulatory care space had anything to do with it as discussed by the TrialSite? Of course, their own drug ivermectin wouldn’t make any money but Molnupiravir could be the ticket to billions in revenue. But does Vice share with its readers that a prominent maker of ivermectin, Merck, also received $356 million from the U.S. government to develop a proprietary, and of course far more expensive, branded pharmaceutical?

Digital Vice Grip of Demise

Vice goes on to vilify the arguments that have been made about the censorship that is rampantly afoot in the medical world, mocking the very point made by TrialSite that the Trusted News Initiative may not be trustworthy; while implying the Initiative has no power, they note it involves BBC, “Associated Press, Agence France Presse, CBC/Radio-Canada, the European Broadcasting Union, the Financial Times, First Draft, The Hindu, Microsoft, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, and the Washington Post.” Vice even took a potshot at TrialSite News, accusing us of using “scare quotes” in an article involving the misinformation prevention initiative.

This is absurd, as such a quote involves using quote marks when not called for in order to get attention. Our use involved actually quoting material, the polar opposite of Vice’s claim. If you don’t think it’s real, just check around for news on tech Titan-driven censorship. YouTube (Google) just took down several more of TrialSite’s news roundup videos, apparently just because the term ivermectin was used. TrialSite reports on facts, not fiction. To take down videos because facts are raised, especially if a government agency issued any directions, is a Constitutional violation.

But ultimately, Vice will lose readership based on such editorial decisions as exemplified in “The Ivermectin Advocates’ War Has just Begun” piece. And that’s probably already occurring. They did need to, unfortunately, cut 155 staff just in 2020. While in 2021 more downsizing occurred, this time it was the precious digital staff members, key in the world of online media moving forward.

It’s ironic that the demise of Vice won’t come from a lack of opportunity for fresh, imminent, and compelling investigational reporting needs or demand in the market. Rather, the same tech giants that TrialSite has routinely challenged of late for quashing research reports on the positive outcomes associated with ivermectin research. Actually, the information suppression goes far wider and deeper as those that were put in charge of stopping misinformation are actually guilty of the crime. That is, they are supporting the egregious censorship of scientific dissention, from those scientists raising concerns about vaccine safety to being punished for simply sharing a link that ivermectin was approved temporarily in Slovakia for the COVID-19 indication. Google and Facebook now control the majority of online ad spend, and thus have become tech Titans that direct billions of eyeballs. They have the power to indiscriminately censor media content while absolutely squeezing ventures such as Vice Media, pushing them in the digital vice grip of financial demise.

Quote from THHuxleynew

RB - I know you are capable of reading the literature - judging evidence - etc. But this is a poor show.

Do you rate that as evidence for graphene - and a conspiracy? Based on nothing except claimed visual similarity between TEM pics of a sample and a cherry-picked graphene picture?

Here are the differences:

• The vaccine shows ellipsoidal particles, of different sizes
• The graphene shows non-ellipsoidal particles (not surprising because of the structure induced by graphene plate cleavage). With folds.

But even if they looked similar that would be evidence for nothing, unless that image is characteristic of graphene and nothing else. The right -hand (graphene) one is perhaps quite distinctive. The left-hand (vaccine) one shows ellipsoidal nanoparticles.

The Pfizer vaccine, we know, uses lipid nanocapsules to protect and deliver the RNA. Hence the ellipsoids. They would look oval in the TEM. Like that (left-hand) picture. Unlike the right-hand one.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/1/65/pdf

But, in any case, there is something very very weird about this suspicion that Pfizer are trying to poison us. It is not quite as bad as Gates-originated microchips, or vaccines turning people's heads into powerful magnets. But it is almost as bad.

Politics is one thing: there will be different political reactions to the challenge of COVID - and so there should be.

But on the internet and (Shane you know this - fringe elements of the US right that seem to have become less fringe recently) there are anti-science memes in which because no experts are trusted anything scientists say is challenged - on evidence as bad as this. It is quite shocking that this stuff has traction.

Disclosal

I am Pfizer double vaccinated, as is my family (all of it). I did not choose Pfizer but am glad I got it over AstraZeneca or Moderna since it has slightly better statistics for efficacy.

I have no connection with the well known secret Bill Gates "control everyone with chips" conspiracy

I have no connection with the well known "US government figures are involved in child trafficking and have engineered COVID to cover it up" conspiracy

I have no connection with the "Chinese (?) agents made Trump lose the election by rigging the voting machines" conspiracy

I have some weird mental disorder which stops me from being able to take these conspiracies seriously - except as an extraordinary and rather worrying social phenomena

Some of you will think this disclosal is OT. Those conspiracy theories have no relationship to the "graphene in mRNA vaccine" one. Are you sure? Regulators around the world require disclosure of vaccine composition. For Pfizer to contain flakes of graphene, as suggested here, either Pfizer is lying to everyone - incredibly difficult for that not to be exposed - or regulators everywhere are similarly lying. Even more difficult.

So all these theories are linked by their outrageous (obvious) falsity and the way that they can be taken up in a totemic way by people with a deep and enduring distrust of governments, scientists, experts, etc.

Display More

I agree, you have a mental disorder 😁

Highly mutated SARS-CoV-2 emerged from someone living with advanced HIV

https://medicalxpress.com/news…-cov-emerged-advanced.amp

A presentation at this year's European Congress on Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), held online this year, will discuss the growing evidence that the beta SARS-CoV-2 variant first identified in South Africa is leading to more severe disease in people living with HIV, and that failure to clear SARS-CoV-2 infection in a patient with advanced HIV creates conditions that can lead to evolution of dangerous mutations in SARS-CoV-2.

Control of HIV with antiretroviral therapy could be the key to preventing such evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with advanced HIV, since clearance of the virus is compromised if HIV is allowed to replicate for a long time and results in major damage to the immune system.

"Evolved mutations lead to escape from neutralisation, which means antibodies made as a result of previous natural infection or vaccination would work less well to protect you from a new infection," explains session presenter Dr. Alex Sigal, Africa Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany. "SARS-CoV-2 may mutate extensively within one person if infection persists."

In his talk, Dr. Sigal will present a case study of a patient with advanced HIV who, despite having only mild COVID-19 illness, tested SARS-CoV-2 positive for 216 days. Genomic sequencing revealed shifts in the patient's SARS-CoV-2 viral population over time, involving multiple mutations at key sites including the spike protein domain which SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter human cells. The evolved virus was tested and shown to have variant-like properties in terms of its ability to escape antibodies.

"Such findings underline the need to make sure everyone living with HIV has appropriate treatment. If not, it is possible that potentially more potent variants than the ones circulating now could emerge from people whose immune systems are severely damaged," he explains.

Quote from Fm1

I agree, you have a mental disorder

You are too harsh..Maybe it is just an overly fertile imagination

"This is the fact of the Almeria report" ... one sample... not conclusive...recommendations for more samples etc etc..

Before that happens I expect a measured response from Pfizer.or other vaccine makers ..will become a fact.

The truth about vaccines that the CDC doesn’t want you to know

https://trialsitenews.com/vaccine-truth-cdc/

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

CAUTION

The CDC and FDA prefer that you not read this article. They don’t want you to find out exactly how many people have been killed by the vaccines. They don’t want you to know the truth.

Here is the death count in the official database (VAERS: vaccine adverse event reporting system) that is used by the CDC and FDA to track adverse events (as of Jul 10, 2021).

Do you see anything different in 2021?

The 9,048 deaths might be under-counted by a factor of 10 or more, according to a report commissioned by the NIH.

When you consider that the rate of reporting this year was about the same as previous years (there were just a lot more events and we can prove this), we could be looking at well over 100,000 deaths caused by the vaccines in the US alone.

But the other thing you have to consider is that the 300 to 500 deaths each year on that chart are almost all “background deaths” that are coincidental because people die every day… The actual deaths caused by previous vaccines are fewer than 10 per year reported to VAERS. So when cases spike to close to 10,000 death reports in the first 6 months, and the propensity to report hasn’t changed at all (which we can show), something is very seriously wrong.

When we take a closer look at the VAERS data, we have multiple ways to prove the COVID vaccines are causing this (including the Bradford Hill criteria).

So when Anthony Fauci said on July 11 that it is “almost inexplicable” that some people resist getting vaccinated you have to wonder how Fauci can be so completely clueless about the safety data that is in plain sight.

The NIH, FDA, and CDC do not see anything wrong at all. They think this is a perfectly safe vaccine that has killed nobody.

It got us thinking…. wouldn’t it be great if we had a Q&A document that was … honest?

So we decided it was about time that somebody wrote a comprehensive FAQ that didn’t pull any punches and answers all questions honestly.

Questions such as:

How many previously healthy people have been killed or permanently disabled by these vaccines? Could it be more than 100,000 due to the VAERS under-reporting?

How do you prove causality for all the neurological and cardiovascular events caused by the vaccine? (there are many different ways and we cover all the methods we use in detail in the paper)

Since VAERS data and the CDC data clearly show that for people under 30 the vaccine kills more people than it would save, why would the CDC want to vaccinate anyone under 30? (Answer: because the CDC has no cost-benefit analysis by age that takes into account the VAERS fatality data).

Will the CDC ever figure out that the vaccines are unsafe and should have been stopped after 50 people were killed? (Answer: that is really unlikely. The are not focused on safety at all. Any unbiased statistician who looks at the VAERS data is appalled and the more they look, the more appalled they get).

Why does the FDA’s Director of the Office Of Biostatistics And Epidemiology (Steven Anderson) refuse to even look at the data showing that tens of thousands of people have been killed by the vaccines?

Will anyone in Congress ever ask for the FDA report showing there are no vaccine related deaths? Why not?

Why is the vaccine causing so many neurological and cardiovascular problems?

How can I treat my post-vaccine inflammation syndrome (PVIS)?

How can I fight vaccine mandates from my employer or school? What did they do wrong in the Houston Methodist case? Where can I join a class action?

Can I get compensated for my vaccine injuries?

Is this vaccine really more deadly than all of the other 70 vaccines combined in the last 30 years?

They claim there are no deaths from the vaccines. How are they categorizing all the dead bodies from the vaccine? (this answer to this one surprised us and it will really surprise you)

Why haven’t the FDA and CDC investigated the fraud in the Pfizer Phase 3 trial where a 12 year old became permanently paralyzed less than 24 hours after taking the vaccine and it was reported as a minor event?

Is early treatment a better option than vaccines? Why has the NIH not promoted any of these treatments despite clear and compelling evidence that they work?

Why aren’t there any autopsies for people who die after vaccination? Don’t people want to prove that it wasn’t the vaccine?

If the vaccine is so safe, then how come half the deaths happen within 3 days of vaccination? And why does the death rate peak on the second day?

If the vaccine is so safe, how come there are so many deaths of people under 30 in their sleep less than 24 hours after vaccination? That never happens, right? How do you explain those?

Why were people who died 15 minutes after vaccination removed from the VAERS reporting system?

How many people have to die before they call a halt to the nonsense?

Why isn’t the press asking any of these questions?

How can four British Airways pilots all die shortly after vaccination? How can BA claim that the deaths aren’t linked if they don’t know the vaccination dates of the four pilots? And why won’t they answer that question?

Why is it 2,500 times safer to opt for early treatment than the vaccine if you want to avoid permanent neurological or cardiovascular damage?

Why aren’t any Democratic committee chairmen asking NIH for Tony Fauci’s unredacted emails so we can expose the fact that he funded COVID and then tried to cover it up? And why isn’t the press asking them this question?

Why are the NIH and WHO pretending that early treatments don’t work when it is obvious to everyone, including the WHO’s top consultant on ivermectin, that they do work? He even published a paper in a top peer-reviewed journal about it.

How can Moderna send the University of North Carolina a coronavirus vaccine to test two weeks before anyone knew COVID even existed? How did Moderna know in advance the exact best vaccine to create?

Will a safe vaccine be available soon? From what company? When?

Why are top universities like Stanford and Harvard requiring vaccination for students when they’ve never done the calculation that would show the policy would kill (and disable) more students than it would save? Shouldn’t they at least have the numbers derived from the VAERS system to show the parents? Why aren’t any parents asking for this? How can we be telling our kids to get a vaccine that is more likely to kill them than to save them?

How come there is still no informed consent for the vaccine experiment underway?

Aren’t these experiments a violation of multiple parts of the Nuremberg Code?

Where is the proof that nobody has been killed or permanently injured from the vaccines? Since these vaccines are not approved, the burden is on the drug company to show that all the deaths and permanent disabilities in VAERS were not vaccine related. Where is the analysis? Can we at least see Pfizer’s analysis of Maddie de Garay’s case where she was permanently paralyzed less than 24 hours after the shot? Why is the press not asking for this analysis? Or asking why nobody at the CDC, FDA, or NIH followed up on this case. She was in the Pfizer 12-15 year old clinical trial. Surely, there must be an analysis proving her sudden paralysis was caused by “something else.”

How come nobody from any of the agencies or academia will debate Dr. Robert Malone and Professor Byram Bridle on vaccine safety? What are they so afraid of? (Answer: they are afraid of losing very badly)

If you want to know the answer to these and more questions, you’ve come to the right place.

Here’s the link to the answers you seek. It is a long document, you will find that the time you invest in reading it is time that is well spent. It may save your life or the lives of your kids.

Quote from Shane D.

For starters, the VP of the US Kamala Harris.

Typical woman. Excluded from membership of FM/R/J/B . So she can still use her brain....

Quote from THHuxleynew

Some of you will think this disclosal is OT. Those conspiracy theories have no relationship to the "graphene in mRNA vaccine" one. Are you sure? Regulators around the world require disclosure of vaccine composition. For Pfizer to contain flakes of graphene, as suggested here, either Pfizer is lying to everyone - incredibly difficult for that not to be exposed - or regulators everywhere are similarly lying. Even more difficult.

I initially had the same concerns.. , but there is a paper describing the use of graphene in RNA vaccines. Still no prove as we need the analysis of different samples.

Because we know - as its documented - that Pfizer was cheating the phase III study we have to expect more cheating.

As said best would be to finally do all the skipped animal studies by using the final human version of the vaccine not some fake. Pfizer had to fake because Biontec, the inventor of their brand, had no proper solution and only with cheating they could make it to market.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Typical woman. Excluded from membership of FM/R/J/B . So she can still use her brain....

I initially had the same concerns.. , but there is a paper describing the use of graphene in RNA vaccines. Still no prove as we need the analysis of different samples.

Because we know - as its documented - that Pfizer was cheating the phase III study we have to expect more cheating.

As said best would be to finally do all the skipped animal studies by using the final human version of the vaccine not some fake. Pfizer had to fake because Biontec, the inventor of their brand, had no proper solution and only with cheating they could make it to market.

question: are trade secrets excluded from disclosure.

Quote from Fm1

How can Moderna send the University of North Carolina a coronavirus vaccine to test two weeks before anyone knew COVID even existed? How did Moderna know in advance the exact best vaccine to create?

You should not forget the April 2019 New York corona event. Still details are undisclosed by CDC.

Quote from Fm1

Why aren’t there any autopsies for people who die after vaccination? Don’t people want to prove that it wasn’t the vaccine?

If the vaccine is so safe, then how come half the deaths happen within 3 days of vaccination? And why does the death rate peak on the second day?

Nobody younger than 45 should even think to take these vaccines. Same for healthy people age < 75. Your risk with Ivermectin is below the range of soap slipping. Somewhere in the region of 0.00001.

But today the western states are run by the FM/R/J/B fascist terror mafia. They only want your money or your cheap labor or stealing your intellectual property (like IH in LENR).

Ivermectin has not been banned last year. It has been banned more than 10 years ago, when one did find out it works against flu. No more Tamiflu, no more flu vaccines needed - very, very bad...

Same for Praziquantel that has been banned in many countries already 40 years ago to help selling chemo.

Even heroin/methadon is the better chemo than most you get at high cost...Yet we have a war against drugs, that used the correct way have very large benefits.

But not for shareholders living on the Seychelles, in a fun park for rich, in a claimed communist state...Just an other fake..

Quote from Fm1

question: are trade secrets excluded from disclosure.

FM/R/J/B members can only be forced to report to the grand master. All juries will protect them as the majority of jury/court members is in the mafia. USPTO will grant them anything without full disclosure what is best you can do anyway. Never show some details of how you do it. This usually is hidden behind the phrase somebody skilled in the art. A common tolerated fake argument.

Trade secretes are trade secretes. But any drug needs a complete description of the content. If there would be graphene in the Pfizer vaccine I would immediately sell all Pfizer shares. This is no covered by the contract with the CDC that grants them to not be in charge of any damage from vaccines. This grant is restricted to the disclosure only.

So this then would be deception.

Switzerland:: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/de/hosp-capacity/icu

We are now at 71% Delta. But ICU's drain out...cases up 2.5x but stable at bottom.

So please forget all the mafia spin. vaccines. CoV-19 pandemic is over!

Quote from Wyttenbach

FM/R/J/B members can only be forced to report to the grand master. All juries will protect them as the majority of jury/court members is in the mafia. USPTO will grant them anything without full disclosure what is best you can do anyway. Never show some details of how you do it. This usually is hidden behind the phrase somebody skilled in the art. A common tolerated fake argument.

Trade secretes are trade secretes. But any drug needs a complete description of the content. If there would be graphene in the Pfizer vaccine I would immediately sell all Pfizer shares. This is no covered by the contract with the CDC that grants them to not be in charge of any damage from vaccines. This grant is restricted to the disclosure only.

So this then would be deception.

Switzerland:: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/de/hosp-capacity/icu

We are now at 71% Delta. But ICU's drain out...cases up 2.5x but stable at bottom.

So please forget all the mafia spin. vaccines. CoV-19 pandemic is over!

Display More

I think I found how it would be in the vaccine. I suspect that it is woven in the salts used in the vaccine. This would be one way to stabilize the spike longer rather than using a gel

Quote from RobertBryant

You are too harsh..Maybe it is just an overly fertile imagination

"This is the fact of the Almeria report" ... one sample... not conclusive...recommendations for more samples etc etc..

Before that happens I expect a measured response from Pfizer.or other vaccine makers ..will become a fact.

RB - you are way out of line. Why on earth should anyone reply to that report non able to prove something it was trying to prove. What do you expect them to say. Like - we do not use graphene? The equivalent woiuld be demanding Biden stood up and said he was not a secret member of a paedophilia ring because some QAnon kook accuses him of being that! Would that stop the conspiracy theories? Because they have already disclosed ingredients to independent regulators all over the world who seem happy enough. Do you really think some photos of graphene and Pfizer vaccine looking very different needs to be replied to? Do you Pfizer is lying to the regulators about the vaccine composition - if what is claimed is true than that would be graphene as a main constituent?

I'm sorry - I don't get the whole conspiracy thing - and I don't get how anyone can see those two photos as even half-baked evidence that Pfizer vaccine contains graphene. You do know what lipid nanoparticles look like? And FM1 - yes I was being facetious in the above post. I guess I should not take this matter lightly - it is deadly serious given from Alain's post above that 18% of the US population are seriously out of touch with reality. What concerns me here is it seems some of the regular posters to this thread are similarly afflicted. I'm sorry.

I like to see both sides of issues. when it comes to these conspiracy theories there are not two sides. this is not left/right. I get that there are two sides to the lockdown vs not lockdown debate. I and Jed am on one side of that. Some people here on the other side. That is politics.

This conspiracy stuff is hated by decent Republicans as much as decent Democrats.

Quote from Fm1

I think I found how it would be in the vaccine. I suspect that it is woven in the salts used in the vaccine. This would be one way to stabilize the spike longer rather than using a gel

Cool idea, but you don't want to inject vaccine impregnated salt crystals into ones bloodstream. A better choice is pre-desolved in solution which is the case. The solid crystals whould be better for any long term storage or preservation of organic compounds.

Dear all those people here who doubt the efficacy of Pfizer mRNA vaccines, or give even 1% credence to the "Pfizer vaccine contains graphene" story.

Which of these two options do you believe?

(1) Pfizer is successfully lying to many different independent regulatory panels in different countries (all with different data requirements) about its vaccine composition. In fact it contains so much graphene that you can see the graphene flakes in a TEM scan as being the main structural component.

(2) The regulators all know Pfizer vaccine is mostly graphene. But many different regulators, in different countries with different ideas about transparency and whether it is OK to lie to the public (they and Pfizer have said the RNA encapsulation is lipid, not graphene) are lying.

The FDA list of ingredients is here:

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine includes the following ingredients: mRNA,
lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2
[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-
phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium
phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose

The MHRA (UK regulator) lits of ingredients is

What COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 contains:

• The active substance is BNT162b2 RNA.

After dilution, the vial contains 6 doses, of 0.3 mL with 30 micrograms mRNA each.

• This vaccine contains polyethylene glycol/macrogol (PEG) as part of ALC-0159

The other ingredients are:

• ALC-0315 = (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)
• ALC-0159 = 2[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide
• 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine
• cholesterol
• potassium chloride
• potassium dihydrogen phosphate
• sodium chloride
• disodium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate
• sucrose
• water for injections

EMA (European regulatory agency) Statement of unprecedented (not for any other medicine) transparency over approval process for COVID vaccines

https://www.forbes.com/sites/b…d-claims/?sh=30999fd274d7

The Covid-19 vaccines are not like those Monday morning surprise dishes at your local restaurant. They aren’t like some of those less regulated dietary supplements that may secretly contain Viagra or steroids either. No, Covid-19 vaccines should not have unexpected ingredients. To make sure people know what they are getting, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has posted an ingredient list for the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine on its website. So, has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Yet, there are now claims circulating that the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine is around 99% graphene oxide. This despite the fact that graphene oxide does not appear on either the FDA or CDC list. For example, an Instagram post included the following statement: “99% Graphene Oxide in Pfizer V4X? Spanish scientists obtain vial of Pfizer v4xin3 and find that 98-99%.” In this case, “V4X” presumably is shorthand for “vaccine” rather than “vagina for your ex.”

Keep in mind that vaccines are a lot more highly regulated than things like dietary supplements and various foods and beverages. Imagine what would happen if Pfizer were to not include a key ingredient, especially one that comprised 99% of the vaccine, on the ingredient lists submitted to the FDA and CDC. Such an omission could put Pfizer at major legal risk and jeopardize their entire business. The FDA also conducts periodic evaluations of the manufacturing processes involved in producing the vaccines. So slipping in an undeclared ingredient wouldn’t be that easy? Besides, what would be the purpose? Murder?

If there is real concern about what is going into any products in general, it may be best to strengthen the FDA. Rather than speculating wildly about what may be in products, how about pushing for more funding for the FDA and further extending it’s oversight over a broader range of products? Wouldn’t this make sense for those making anti-vaccination claims? Unless, of course, they are trying to get you to use dietary supplements instead of getting vaccinated.

And here is where graphene oxide may be used in treatments for cancer.

https://www.clinicalomics.com/…-cancer-more-effectively/

The research is still at an early stage and has not yet reached the clinic. But, the researchers have already achieved good results in a mouse model of melanoma skin cancer.

The hydrogel was injected into the treatment site and slowly generated mRNA plus vaccine boosting adjuvants for at least 30 days after injection. Wang and colleagues showed that just one injection of the vaccine in the hydrogel led to significantly increased levels of cancer targeting CD8 T cells being produced by the mouse’s immune system. This led to significant reductions in tumor size in mice treated with this therapy compared with controls after 22 days.

“This transformable hydrogel can not only encapsulate and protect mRNA from degradation but also target lymph nodes to activate immune cells,” explain the authors.

Although the success of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines means that the field will likely attract increased interest and investment over the next few years, therapeutic cancer mRNA vaccines are a harder target than prophylactic vaccines targeting infectious diseases.

Graphene oxide hydrogel is under investigation as way to deliver mRNA for cancer treatments. is it toxic? Well, maybe. It depends on many variables. but then most cancer treatments are toxic!

Note the difference between how it (gO hydrogel) looks, and how that Pfizer TEM picture helpfully given to us from Almerida Uni looked. The Pfizer image looks like ellipsoidal lipid nanoparticles. Oh, hey, what a surprise, they are on the list of ingredients...

https://www.nature.com/article…3578/figures/1?proof=true