Covid-19 News

  • In the US the press are free, and the Courts support them pretty well.

    Laughable , laughable,...The US press is owned/controlled by about 4 persons all from FM/R/X/B. Same for all western countries. Here some 4 years ago the FM/R/X/B mafia took control even over small countries side papers with runs less than 30'000. So this happened quite some time ago.

    Conclusion: Only WWW is free today but no fakypedia!

    So why is social media news so rubbish?

    Why is main stream media so rubbish? Because the FM/R/X/B mafia dictates and coordinates the content and non content...

    I stopped buying journals almost 10 years ago already. I do not pay for my own disinformation.

    TrialSite has written extensively about Favipiravir (trade name Avigan).

    Please do not use it! Is teratogenic for 3-6 months after use. Not in agreement with Thai sex live.....

    Previously infected people who encounter the virus again will combat the virus more robustly at an earlier stage - in the mucosa - than will people who were merely vaccinated. Thus vaccinated people will grow and shed more virus from their mucosa than will people with previous natural infection.

    Vaccine warriors can no longer use their brain - same is seen in India's state of Kerala the most educated one with the worst possible CoV-19 response = vaccination only. 100'000 cases comapared to 20 of Uttar Pradesh with Ivermectin.

    I find it really difficult to understand how this persists as an anti-vax meme (those FDA/CDC/Fauci-esque criminals are profiting personally from the vaccines and lying about it)

    Shall I tell you how the benefits system of the FM/R/X/B works? How they hand you over cash? It's plain simple. You get free banc card that allows you to draw money from a telling machine. I have witness for this....

    For larger junks of money Singapore/Australia are good destinations.

  • This does/can vary by Country, employment contract and any Company invention incentment program. For the US I wouldn't expect this to be more than a couple of thousand $ per patent application. For government grants to Corporations, the grant does not necessarily mean that the IP isn't owned by the Corporation receiving the grant; sometimes that's within the grant rules.

    However, I doubt that the $150,000 p/a royalty mentioned above is true or at the very least it would not be common and if it was true such conflicts of interests would of course have to be declared and I assume individuals recused from decision making. Or, to put it another way, the claim sure sounds like BS.

    Good point. I agree there might be some standard incentive to patent things clause in a contract. That however is very far from what is claimed. I'd welcome the details of this (which might exist) so we could see exactly how large (for example Fauci's) incentive was on any such patents and whether this was the standard amount or something different. I expect the anti-Fauci people here will have all the details of this so we can examine it (if that is there is any such clause for NIH employees). I did not find anything in my first 10s googling of the topic - but I'm sure others can do better.

  • Laughable , laughable,...The US press is owned/controlled by about 4 persons all from FM/R/J/B.

    I'll have to pass on this one since I've never known what your expression FM/R/X/B means. They may be others similarly ignorant so you might want to expand on it.

    I stopped buying for journals almost 10 years ago already. I do not pay for my own disinformation.

    That explains a lot.

    Shall I tell you how the benefits system of the FM/R/J/B works? How they hand you over cash? It's plain simple. You get free banc card that allows you to draw money from a telling machine. I have witness for this....

    So: that was not quite what I meant. But I am fascinated. Do you think the possession of these cards authorises the select few to spend arbitrary amounts of an institution's money, or are their spending limits.

    And, more importantly, how do i join?

  • Perhaps one thing both sides of the vax/antivax argument here can agree is the problem of elite influencers.

    The anti-vax myths are propagated mostly by 12 heavy-weight disinformation super-spreaders.

    W's idea here that the US press is controlled by 4 persons all from the same shadowy organisation is a bit similar.

    For transparency here is my evidence for the 12 main anti-vax super-spreaders:

    How The 'Disinformation Dozen' Spreads Vaccine Misinformation Online
    Just 12 accounts are behind 65% of all anti-vaccine disinformation on social media platforms. Most of them are still on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. We…

    There's a lot of anti-vaccine disinformation on social media. And 65% of it comes from just 12 people.

    “There’s Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who runs an anti-vaccine nonprofit called Children’s Health defense," disinformation expert John Gregory says. "There’s Dr. Joseph Mercola, who has kind of built an empire around natural health supplements, and getting people to believe that you can’t trust the rest of the medical industry; you can only trust people like me."

    So how did they do it, and why are those accounts still active?

    “Often what we see with misinformation is this kernel of truth idea," research analyst Erin McAweeney says. "So public health communication is so important when any sort of gray areas or gaps in information can be manipulated so quickly.”

  • THH,

    >I agree there might be some standard incentive to patent things clause in a contract.

    Typically the incentive scheme is not in the contract (the waiving of any rights to compensation granted by employment law in Countries such as in Germany, might be). However it should be open and accessible to all within said Company/Organisation. I.e. documented in a Company policy, intranet page, etc.

    Typically incentive payments would be made upon one or more of

    a) invention disclosure (writing up and submitting)

    b) Company agreement to file a patent (or some other action)

    c) first patent filing

    d) first patent grant

    e) "in use" annually (such as required by German Inventor law, not applicable to Fauci as far as I'm aware).

    Typically a few hundred to a few thousand per trigger.

  • ACTIV-6 Ivermectin Study Finally Gets Going: Kudos to DCRI for Taking it On

    ACTIV-6 Ivermectin Study Finally Gets Going: Kudos to DCRI for Taking it On
    Duke Clinical Research Institute recently announced the elite research center is participating in the latest National Institute of Health (NIH)

    Duke Clinical Research Institute recently announced the elite research center is participating in the latest National Institute of Health (NIH) Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV), which focuses on repurposed, generic therapies targeting COVID-19. Formally titled “The Randomized Trial to Evaluate Efficacy of Repurposed Medications,” this nationwide, double-blind study is expected to enroll up to 15,000 participants across America. Therapies include Ivermectin, Fluvoxamine, and Fluticasone. But other medications are under consideration, according to TrialSite sources. Unfortunately, this kind of study comes quite late in the pandemic process, but it’s better now than never.

    TrialSite has been reporting on significant investment in repurposed drugs for well over a year now. While dozens of ivermectin studies have been conducted worldwide, developed economies have been slow to embrace low-cost, effective treatments to help care for the vast segment of the COVID-19 patient market: the 90%+ of patients that are at home, either asymptomatic or with mild-to-moderate symptoms.

    At Duke, the ACTIV-6 study is led by Adrian Hernandez, MD, the study’s administrative principal investigator—Dr. Hernandez also serves as executive director of the DCRI. In a recent press release, he went on the record declaring the importance of finding easy-to-administer treatments early on to reduce the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death. He said, “Currently, there are no approved prescription medications that can be easily given at home to treat mild-to-moderate symptoms of the virus early in its course to prevent worsening of COVID-19.”

    This study leverages PCORnet® infrastructure, called the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Trial Innovation Network. This represents a collaborative initiative within the NCATS Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program that helps address critical roadblocks in clinical trials and accelerate the translation of novel interventions into life-saving therapies.


    TrialSite has been made privy to information of delays in getting this important study off the ground. The study of ivermectin is critical, given the dozens of studies and meta-analyses already completed that demonstrate at least some efficacy and safety. We are not certain the cause of the delays, but given the severity of the ongoing crisis, they are troubling.

    Other Repurposed Studies

    Another major ivermectin study in America is the COVID-OUT study. The University of Oxford PRINCIPLE study is also looking into ivermectin in the U.K., but TrialSite sources share a real concern with the PRINCIPLE protocol.

    Moving Forward

    Although TrialSite has been very critical of the NIH and their proclivity to favor vaccines and expensive novel, high-risk pharmaceutical therapeutics during this pandemic, we praise the NIH for finally getting this study going. Susanna Naggie, MD, is the DCRI principal investigator and oversees the coordinating center for the study. She undoubtedly is trying to contribute enough evidence to help society produce more low-cost options to help fight the pandemic. This media platform commends her and the team at DCRI.

    In a recent press release, Dr. Naggie declared, “Speeding enrollment in the ACTIV-6 study is of critical importance as the pandemic evolves and highly transmissible variants appear throughout the nation and around the world.” She continued, “The study will yield valuable data on whether repurposed medications can help address the unmet public health need for people experiencing mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms.”

    Big Stakes

    TrialSite has emphasized the importance of this market for COVID-19, considering the overwhelming number of cases involve either asymptomatic or mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2. For well over a year now, what has been desperately needed are both low-cost generic treatments (e.g., ivermectin, et al.) and pharmaceutical developed therapies that potentially will cost more. There are different markets for antiviral-type products with varying price point realities in this age of COVID-19.

    The reality is that much of the world cannot afford expensive medication and generic drugs, whether it be ivermectin or something else that needs to be available. That shouldn’t stop pharmaceutical companies from developing other compelling options. Presently, companies such as Merck, Pfizer, and Roche are working on treatments for this market. But on the other hand, there should be absolutely no consortiums actively interfering with access to studies and positive momentum.

    The goal now has to be to accelerate access to help transition the world out of this pandemic. This will not happen by vaccination alone, and the NIH knows this—hence why recently, Dr. Anthony Fauci went on the record as to the importance of early treatment orally administered options to combat COVID-19. All along, TrialSite has called out for a combination of vaccines, early treatments, and smart public health policy, factoring in data-driven risks of those most vulnerable to the pathogen.

    About DCRI

    The DCRI, part of the Duke University School of Medicine, is the largest academic clinical research organization globally. Their mission is to develop, share, and implement the knowledge that improves global health through innovative clinical research. The institute conducts multinational clinical trials, manages major national patient registries, and performs landmark outcomes research. The DCRI is a pioneer in cardiovascular and pediatric clinical research and conducts groundbreaking clinical research across multiple therapeutic areas, including infectious disease, neuroscience, respiratory medicine, and nephrology. The DCRI is also involved with ACTIV studies, serving as the U.S. coordinating center for ACTIV-6, a COVID-19 master protocol study testing immune modulators, and participating in ACTIV-4, which examines optimal oral use anticoagulants to prevent COVID-19-associated blood clots. The DCRI also serves as the coordinating center for major clinical research programs, such as the Environmental Influences On Child Health (ECHO) program, the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG), the NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory, and the Pediatric Trials Network (PTN).

    Lead Research/Investigator for DCRI

    Adrian Hernandez, MD, the study’s administrative principal investigator

    Susanna Naggie, MD, DCRI principal investigator

    Call to Action: Seek to participate in ACTIV-6? Check out the website, and call center, 833-385-1880. To be eligible, participants must be 30 years old or older, have had a positive COVID-19 test within the past 10 days, and have at least two symptoms of the illness for seven days or less. Symptoms include fatigue, difficulty breathing, fever, cough, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, body aches, chills, headache, sore throat, nasal symptoms, and/or new loss of sense of taste or smell.

  • Antivirals for COVID-19: Merck Secures TGA Provisional Determination for Australian Market

    Antivirals for COVID-19: Merck Secures TGA Provisional Determination for Australian Market
    TrialSite has written extensively about the need for antiviral-type, early-care treatments targeting COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, this platform

    TrialSite has written extensively about the need for antiviral-type, early-care treatments targeting COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, this platform tracked numerous studies involving repurposed drugs such as ivermectin, favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, and more. By May of last year, our physician advisors informed us of the grave importance of treating this pathogen early on. If not, the disease can progress to deadly stages. Many nations found this out, with over 4 million deaths worldwide. Over 90% of COVID-19 cases are either asymptomatic or mild-to-moderate, and early treatment could have stopped many more cases from progressing and hence reduced the death count. The U.S. and other prosperous economies have been slow to take on studies investigating ivermectin. Still, slowly and quietly, behind the scenes, Western pharmaceutical companies haven’t ignored the massive potential that the early COVID-19 treatment space represents. In places like Russia, generic producers embraced Favipiravir, which is approved in that country and many others for early-treatment use. TrialSite estimates this market could represent several billion dollars per annum if the market went completely to pharmaceutical producers. Of course, much of the world’s nations cannot afford such pricey medication. Hence the importance of repurposed, generic options. But select pharmaceutical companies have been actively working to reduce the momentum of generic options such as ivermectin to position and prepare for ownership of this lucrative space. Merck makes a version of ivermectin, executing a successful ongoing program that has helped eradicate several tropical parasitic-born diseases. Merck questioned the safety profile of its own drug, despite the incredible success of the Mectizan program. This ivermectin-based program has helped hundreds of millions of people. Ivermectin has been successfully tested in dozens of studies—a total of 62. Even though dozens of positive studies were conducted in numerous countries, Merck went on an aggressive attack against their own product. Of course, the great New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company had an agenda. They received $356 million of U.S. taxpayer money to develop a pharmaceutical treatment targeting COVID-19 and another $1.2 billion in secure contracts offered by the Biden administration, should the drug get accepted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Now, Merck is wheeling and dealing, most recently in Australia, to start monetizing the pandemic. Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) opened the door for a provisional approval Down Under.

    The Investigational Product

    The investigational product was first developed by the Emory Institute for Drug Development Drug Innovation Ventures (DRIVE). Right at the start of the pandemic, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics inked a deal with DRIVE to license the product called EIDD-2801.

    Merck didn’t fare well at developing COVID-19 vaccines, so it had to do something to make money off the pandemic. We implored that they develop an ivermectin research program, but there wouldn’t have been much money in that.

    Thus, over a year ago, they partnered with Miami-based Ridgeback Biotherapeutics to license Molnupiravir. We reported last year that this was a potentially lucrative market.

    Molnupiravir is considered to have broad-spectrum antiviral activity against a spectrum of antiviral viruses and works by inhibiting replication of SARS-CoV-2.

    In “Merck’s Incredible Quest for the COVID-19 Blockbuster: A Tainted Path to Early Onset Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Therapy,” TrialSite educates all about the background of this investigational product. We also reported on a once-great American pharmaceutical company’s moves to monetize the pandemic.

    Since then, Merck has been quietly inking deals around the globe to get Molnupiravir into clinical trials and then through regulatory authorities. TrialSite reported that the New Jersey pharma approached and closed a deal with a handful of generic drug makers in India and the Philippines. Now they appear close to regulatory access in Australia.

    While there was concern about the potential for safety issues with the product, that seems to be less of a risk now, given the ongoing studies. In addition, concerns were raised about mutagenic mechanisms. For example, there was controversy when a whistleblower filed a complaint about the drug and the company (Ridgeback). Rick Bright, who was an executive at the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), declared his concerns that the drug could produce congenital disabilities. Note the early drug developer, George Painter, CEO of DRIVE, the Emory Institute for Drug Development, denied this. He noted that toxicity studies had been carried out and shared with regulators. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been able to start clinical trials.

    Merck Attacks its Own

    While TrialSite wasn’t surprised that Merck dismissed ivermectin research, what we didn’t expect was for Merck to attack its own product (a version of ivermectin) and trash the work of numerous dedicated and committed investigators and public health professionals around the world in such a public way.

    Unfortunately, the company blatantly put the raw pursuit of money over all else during the pandemic. But in hindsight, and based on what we have observed, it’s entirely expected from most of these companies.

    TrialSite refers to this desire early on as “Remdesivir Envy,” as Gilead secured $3 billion in just the first nine months of the pandemic. Other pharmaceutical companies were under enormous pressure to replicate that feat.

    A few other companies are racing against Merck to open up this market, including Roche and Pfizer. Merck secured $356 million at the end of 2020 from U.S. taxpayer funds and then a guaranteed purchase of $1.2 billion, should the company make the regulatory finish line in America. The latest $1.2 billion is under the watch of the current POTUS.

    Moves in Australia

    As it turns out, Australia’s regulator, known as the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), is taking the first steps toward registering Molnupiravir. The TGA has granted provisional determination to Merck (Merck Sharp & Dohme, Australia Pty Ltd or MSD) concerning this drug initially developed by Emory University and then licensed to Ridgeback Pharmaceuticals.

    Now TGA is considering the oral antiviral for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults in this country. This is a significant milestone for Merck and establishes a competitive precedent against firms like Roche and Pfizer.

    What Does the Provisional Determination Mean?

    Now TGA is on the record that it has made a decision that Merck is now available to apply for provisional registration of Molnupiravir as a first step in the process toward use. Undoubtedly, Merck will move expeditiously now to capitalize on this regulatory invitation. The following TGA website explains their different determinations.

    Moving Forward

    Merck must still complete a global clinical trial with 1800+ patients for this pill taken twice daily upon early diagnosis of COVID-19. In Australia, TrialSite has heard reports from various news sources that thus far, their product looks promising with what is reported as only mild side effects.

    The company sponsors a few studies involving the antiviral drug. In one Phase 2/3 study (NCT04575584), the sponsor evaluates the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Molnupiravir (MK-4482) compared to placebo. The primary study hypothesis here is that the study drug is superior to placebo as assessed by the rate of sustained recovery through Day 29. This study should be wrapping up soon.

    In another global Phase 3 study (NCT04575597), the sponsor investigates the drug in a larger study involving 1,850 participants.

    And another major Phase 3 study (NCT04939428) runs through April 2022 and involves prophylaxis attributes for household contacts; this is a larger, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study seeking to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Molnupiravir in adults who reside with a person infected with COVID-19. Thus the drug is being used as a prophylaxis for household contacts—another huge potential market.

    The endpoint: Molnupiravir will be superior to placebo in preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection through Day 14 in participants who do not have confirmed or suspected COVID-19 at the time of screening and randomization.

    Molnupiravir is also one of the study drugs in a multi-drug study called AGILE based out of the University of Liverpool.

    The drug’s original licensor, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, reported in March on its Phase 1 study results.

    The company reported that the study drug (EIDD-2801/MK-4482) met the Phase 1 study endpoints; this was published in the peer-reviewed journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. They also share that the study drug met primary objectives of the study involving safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of single and multiple ascending oral doses of the study drug.

    Call to Action: TrialSite will continue to monitor Merck’s activity associated with MK-4482 around the world.

  • Indeed it has been discussed before. And it is false.

    It's old news and still true today. From a 2005 CBC article

    Profit Motive Hidden From Patients
    Scientists Didn't Tell Subjects About Financial Stake In Research

    In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government. They can collect up to $150,000 each a year, but the average is about $9,700, officials said.

    Four years, later, from a 2009 article:

    NIH Implements Royalty Disclosure Policy Five Years After Promise

    NIH officials last week implemented a policy requiring government researchers to disclose personal royalties they receive for developing medical treatments -- almost five years after HHS officials pledged to disclose such arrangements to patients, the AP/Hartford Courant reports. NIH issued the order after the Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Almost 1,000 current and former NIH researchers receive royalties for medical innovations they developed while federally employed, according to data obtained by the Associated Press. Those recipients affected by the new policy include 51 NIH employees who currently are working on clinical trials of the medical treatments they developed. In 2004, researchers affected by the new policy were paid $8.9 million in royalties. Personal royalties up to $150,000 annually are legal, and 12 NIH researchers received the maximum legal allotment in 2004.

  • Clinical Research Institute recently announced the elite research center is participating in the latest National Institute of Health (NIH) Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV), which focuses on repurposed, generic therapies targeting COVID-19.

    We can’t defeat COVID-19 without vaccinating children. There aren't even any kids' clinical trials yet | Duke Human Vaccine Institute The vaccine warriors...

    Lets hope they can jump over the shadow...

    But after Uttar Pradesh with > 200 mio study participants its difficult to justify a new study. We also have two fully independent control arms. Tamil Nadu (Gilead crap Remdesivir) failing after 3.5 weeks. Kerala full vaccine propaganda currently with 5000x cases of Uttar Pradesh...Currently 33 mio. Kerala people make up almost halve of India's cases/deaths...

  • Currently it is interesting to study the dynamics of Delta (>99.5%) in Switzerland.

    Covid-⁠19 Schweiz | Coronavirus | Dashboard
    Covid-⁠19 Pandemie Schweiz und Liechtenstein: Fallzahlen, Virusvarianten, Hospitalisationen, Re-⁠Wert, Spitalkapazitäten, internationale Lage, Zahlen zu Tests,…

    The PCR+ rate went up from 1% to 20% max this is a good indication of the infection rate for Delta that looks to be > 10 and really matches chicken pox. So only people with symptoms do test. Possibly 20x more have the virus without any symptoms what will lead to a fast population immunization. We all have to thank delta!

    The overall deaths did not go up. Most PCR+ cases are among 10..40 years that are known to not die from CoV-19...

    But we still see some more deaths among age > 70 despite a very high vaccination rate.

  • Vaccine skeptics actually think differently than other people

    LOLS …ya don’t say!

    Even if we ignore the alex-jones-esque parody ravings of Navid, the evidence for this is very strong. Check out this small sample of Wyttenbach’s disordered thoughts:

    • Huxley is two or more people
    • Zephir and I are the same person
    • Robert Bryant is “NSA deep state”
    • Several people posting here are freemasons, apart from (self-admitted freemason) FM1*
    • Sutherlandia and ivermectin cure cancer
    • People shouldn’t mass ingest favipiravir due to its teratogenic potential… But people should mass ingest ivermectin despite its teratogenic potential.

    * Can i borrow your special bank card please - I lost mine in a tunnel whilst high on adrenochrome, and I’m not scheduled for another session there until next month.

  • Couldn't resist.... this is one of the very few if not the only one post since long here that does not insult anybody nor uses any of the common W-wording like idiot, bloodsucker, rubbish, mafia, FM/R/XX/B, criminals, Pfizer crap, cricket brains, fools, Dr. Mengeles, fascists, etc.... well done! Keep it up. :thumbup:

  • Thanks very much Mark. That is useful context. It does not answer the two questions we need to evaluate whether this policy is good or bad:

    (1) How are royalties from vaccine IP shared, is this a standard scheme that applies to all HIH scientists, are something special. If so what is it? We do not know that these payments of innovations apply to the vaccine patents

    (2) How much (in practice) do research scientists gain from such schemes?

    Here is a recent right-wing paper arguing that these NIH incentives should be higher than they currently are:

    Government royalties on sales of biomedical products developed with substantial public funding - The Journal of Technology Transfer
    This paper proposes a policy of royalties paid to the government on the sales of biomedical products developed with public funds. The proposed policy would…

    It is an interesting topic. I can't see in practice any real conflict of interest here: but if there are I guess you would be against NIH approving the use of any medical device for which NIH had IP - and therefore did not need to pay and arm and a leg to some other company?

    Here is an interesting discussion on the topic:

    Point-by-Point 'Plandemic' Smackdown
    'Dr. Mike' dissects the viral video

    It includes:

    Mikovits: What he's saying is absolute propaganda and the same kind of propaganda that he's perpetrated to kill millions since 1984. That virus was spread through because of the arrogance of a group of people and it includes Robert Redfield, who's now the head of the CDC. They were working together to take credit and make money. They had the patents on it and tailored them to IL-2 therapy, which was absolutely the wrong therapy. Had that not happened, millions wouldn't have died from HIV.

    Varshavski: When I first saw that, I was moved. I was like, "Wait. Can it be possible that these doctors, these researchers for major government organizations, are making millions of dollars at the expense of millions of people dying?"

    I looked into it, and I stumbled upon an article in the British Medical Journal, which is a highly-respected medical journal. "The press agency reported that two leading researchers -- Anthony Fauci, head of the NIAID, and his deputy Clifford Lane -- received payments relating to their development of IL-2 as a treatment for HIV/AIDS. Dr. Lane told the BMJ that the payment was part of his federal compensation. He explained that the government patented the development and shared the payments it received with the inventors. Since 1997 he has received about $45,000."

    She's saying that Clifford Lane, the deputy of the NIAID, and Dr. Fauci did this for $45,000 to forego your creed to protect people and instead to watch millions die?

    "Dr. Anthony Fauci told the BMJ that as a government employee he was required by law to put his name on the patent for the development of IL-2 and was also required by law to receive a part of the payment the government received for use of the patent. He said that he felt it was inappropriate to receive payment and donated the entire amount to charity."

    If she wants me to believe the claim she's making here, she needs to disprove this.

  • Several people posting here are freemasons

    I think I've recently admitted here to being a freemason. Alan kindly posted a suitable emoji. Unfortunately that was tongue in cheek - I know nothing about freemasonry except that it motivated the second part of Mozart's The Magic Flute. Which I have never much liked in spite of being a very great Mozart fan.

    But I can see this may have confused W? Perhaps, also, he will not now believe this disavowal due to the well know psychological research on first opinions being difficult to dislodge? I guess i was not giving proper consideration to this very serious topic of whether I am (or am not) a freemason.

    To be fair, unlike W's nemetic organisation which has such high entry standards, it is pretty easy to join the freemasons here in the UK.


  • Thanks Mark U,

    These royalty payments appear to be the same kind of payments that (UK) Universities dish out to inventors (to share the proceeds of their innovation). The beef appears to the lack of declaring these to patients in trials rather than anything else. I suppose its obvious that, say, a trial of a Pfizer mafia drug is a financial interest for Pfizer but not necessarily so for an NIH trial. Personally I doubt that having such information would make any difference on my willingness or not to take part but I agree that transparency is a good thing.

  • We already have some 10'000 kids with severe nervous system disorder alone in Europe - from RNA gen therapy . Look up the database.

    Maybe it is time to examine this claim, made repeatedly here, more carefully?

    W - please tell us which database, how you get the number 10,000, what is the background rate for these disorders - calculating the number expected from this in the database - and finally what is your evidence that vaccines, rather than COVID, or something else, causes those things.