Quote from Zeus46

The context is obvious. Anything that reduces R0 is a good thing. As even the most scientifically illiterate Rossi devotee should be able to understand...

For example, lets say masks only reduce transmission by a measly 1% per day.

At the end of the year we will see 37 times less death, hospitalisations etc etc.

Marginal gains work.

Well, I agree, but the real situation is more complex than a single exponential.

With delta it now seems pretty well impossible to stop endemic COVID - even in vaccine-friendly countries like the UK. In which case controlling the infection is about achieving enough natural immunity for a minority unvaccinated or high contact segment of the population. In this context a small change in R spreads the epidemic peak out, but does not necessarily reduce total infections. However spreading things out is valuable:

• It reduces peak hospital demand
• It allows time for better treatments and more vaccination
• It potentially reduces disease burden by making the typical initial dose smaller, so harm for given number of infections is less.

In the UK we seem to have R=1 with 60% of whole population vaccinated. Although that is a combination of natural immunity and vaccination it is important to realise that natural immunity does not prevent transmission, so vaccinated those who have been infected before affects the overall course of the pandemic, and therefore high many people die, even though it has a smaller effect on personal outcomes (We do not have a lot of information on fraction of serious cases amongst those who have previously been infected). It seems quite likely that the only way to get COVID rates right down is vaccination + a bit of natural infection. Of course if the infection is after vaccination, the burden is much much less.

'This was a race and we lost': How US doctors really feel about Covid surge

'This was a race and we lost': How US doctors really feel about Covid surge

Healthcare workers react to the growing rise of Covid patients in US hospitals despite vaccines.

www.bbc.co.uk

This time around we have a vaccine that can prevent a majority of Covid hospital cases, yet our ICUs in certain states are fuller than ever. Fewer people are wearing masks and I am worried for a particularly brutal flu season combined with continued Covid Delta spread.

What concerns me is that last year when we were seeing our hospitals get full, our political leaders reacted to those challenges with policy measures. But this time around we are simply not doing that. Our governor in Texas has issued mask mandate bans and we are lagging behind in vaccines.

I truly hope we can find a way to depoliticise the pandemic, masks, and the vaccine. If we can do that, Covid can become a minor nuisance rather than a death sentence for thousands more Americans.

------------------------

We've not yet contained the pandemic. We have not been able to control it, and now we are probably headed into another surge, at least in the United States.

In Massachusetts, we are preparing our hospitals for this after seeing the rise of patients in other states.

I think this is primarily because vaccinations have not been where we want them to be. This was a race and we lost, because with the Delta variant the vaccine is not as effective. It's lower - but we don't know by how much.

Even vaccinated people are getting infected with Covid. This new strain was not incorporated into the vaccine studies initially. That's why companies like Pfizer and Moderna are now thinking of getting the booster with the Delta variant.

One of the worst things we're seeing is infected pregnant people - it's a heart-breaking situation.

Even though it's not mandated, as a doctor I'd recommend the vaccine. We anticipate that this won't be slowing down for a little while. We hope that if people get vaccinated and socially distance as we have done before, we can minimise the peak of this surge.

We need to be proactive.

-------------------------

Despite our efforts, it breaks my heart to hear about what is happening in hospitals across the country as Covid cases rise. Hospitals are short staffed and healthcare workers are burnt out - again.

Everyone in healthcare is bracing for a hard fall and winter this year. It's a bit unnerving to see hospitals overwhelmed at the end of summer before flu season even starts.

I am most concerned about the misinformation, conspiracies and propaganda circulating across the internet on the vaccine and the virus. I know that in the end it will only hurt our country and stifle efforts to curb the continued spread of Covid.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You know well that IQ for children less than 5 does not correlate with attainment later on and corresponds to a few months difference in time at which they develop speech etc - and that will be affected by lockdown.

No, I don't know well that. IQ in children less than 5 should indeed correlate with later 'attainment.' The hope is that it is a temporary IQ drop that is almost totally recoverable. We shall see.

Quote from Zeus46

The context is obvious. Anything that reduces R0 is a good thing.

Yeah that's what the the Chinese and Australians think.

Quote from Zeus46

For example, lets say masks only reduce transmission by a measly 1% per day.

Again, a CDC study reported that mask mandates reduce infection rate by about one percent in a 3 week interval. (Whoopee!)

Quote from Zeus46

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." John Stuart Mill

And that's the lie ; that unvaccinated, unmasked healthy people are of significant harm to others.

A true libertarian might encourage people to do certain things in order to lower risk to society, but to mandate people to do such? Please.

INSERM Researchers in France Raise an Uncomfortable Question about ADE & COVID-19 Vaccines

INSERM Researchers in France Raise an Uncomfortable Question about ADE & COVID-19 Vaccines

Recently, INSERM researchers produced a peer review assessment with disturbing implications for those who keep an open mind to what could occur as the

trialsitenews.com

Recently, INSERM researchers produced a peer review assessment with disturbing implications for those who keep an open mind to what could occur as the pandemic and mass vaccination programs unfold worldwide. The France-based team of investigators cautions public health authorities, academia, and the pharmaceutical industry that risks are associated with current vaccination programs. That is, first and foremost, the team detects infection-enhancing antibodies in symptomatic COVID-19. But that also antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) represents a concern for the current crop of vaccine products while enhancing antibodies recognize both the Wuhan (wild-type) as well as delta variant of interest. Moreover, they indicate that there is now a risk with current vaccines associated with ADE of delta variants, while finally, vaccine formulations should preclude ADE epitope.

Recently, three respected researchers from France’s INSERM sought to investigate the recognition of SARS-CoV-2 delta variants by infection-enhancing antibodies directed against the N-terminal domain (NTD). The INSERM team in France suggests previous research demonstrated less risk but only focused on the strain of SARS-CoV-2 known as the Wuhan/D614G strain. However, much has changed over the past months during the pandemic, as the delta variants now rein. Investigating the interaction of facilitating antibodies with the NTD of the new variants, the team employed molecular modeling methods, demonstrating that “enhancing antibodies have a higher affinity for Delta variants than for Wuhan/D614G NTDs.”

What is the risk here?

Once an individual receives a vaccine, they develop antibodies which is what is expected. After all, antibodies are vital for recovery from an infectious disease, whether triggered by a vaccine or from actually recovering from a virus. That’s how our immune systems become trained and ready to fight off future exposures.

But from time to time, one who receives a vaccine can experience a sort of overreaction the next time they are exposed to the pathogen. Now, this is quite rare, but it has occurred and is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).

In this case, the antibodies in this situation, those generated, do not help us anymore fight off a particular virus. Rather, they could possibly make the reaction worse. In fact, when ADE is occurring, an individual’s risk levels for more severe symptoms go up should they be exposed to the pathogen.

Much like the famous Greek tale of the “Trojan horse,” those antibodies indicating ADE serve to let the virus directly into the cells, triggering an overactive immune response. That direct entry enables the virus to attach to the cells, triggering the overactive response. To date, ADE hasn’t been formally detected in association with COVID-19. However, ADE has materialized in the reactions associated with past virus and vaccines, including the following:

Dengue fever in 2016 in association with the Philippines program.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) associated with vaccination programs with children back in 1967 in America.

A rejected developed associated with measles in the U.S. back in the 1960s.

Can enhancing antibodies reinforce the binding of the spike trimer to host cell membrane via clamping the NTD to lipid raft microdomains? These are discrete lipid domains present in the external leaflet of the plasma membrane. Could this “stabilizing mechanism” possibly mandate the conformational change, thereby inducing the demasking of the receptor-binding domain?

Implication

After finding that neutralizing antibodies target NTD, the study trio of authors argues that their data speculates that “the balance between neutralizing and facilitating antibodies in vaccinated individuals is in favor of neutralization for the original Wuhan/D614G strain.” But they caution that with the delta variant, such “neutralizing antibodies” have less attraction for the spike protein, but facilitating antibodies demonstrate greater attraction. The net takeaway for the authors: ADE could become a risk factor for those receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence, regardless of whether the vaccine product is based on mRNA or viral vectors.

Consequently, when developing second-generation vaccines, pharmaceutical producers should consider that “spike protein formulations” could lose “structurally-conserved ADE-related epitopes.”

What is INSERM?

The authors are affiliated The Institut National de la santé et de la recherche médicale (INSERM) is the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research. INSERM is the only public research institution solely focused on human health and medical research in France.

Lead Research/Investigator

Nouara Yahi

Henri Chahinian

Jacques Fantini

Quote from Fm1

Canada Learned from the Chinese Experience---Now Bets National Pandemic Response on Moderna, the New Pharma Power Elite

Canada has indeed had bad experiences with China over pandemic related supply issues. News is that a Moderna plant will be built in Montreal Canada in about two years, funded in large part by tax payer money. These poor corporations just couldn't get by without the help!

Speaking of Moderna, my wife got her first jab - Moderna vaccine - on Friday. She was coerced : her employer had very recently mandated all employees to be double jabbed by the end of September, or bye bye. So she had little choice but to get her first jab as soon as possible, which she did on Friday. She heeded my recommendation to get Moderna. A walk in to a local Shoppers Drug Mart in the evening was all it took. For the first day she had weird feelings down the left side of her body from the neck down to the feet. Today the discomfort is entirely localized in her shoulder, which is good. Her coworkers, who have all been vaccinated, have been 'dropping like flies' over the last many months, while my beautiful hardy wife never missed a day.

The Atlantic Launches Critique of TrialSite Advisory Board Member Dr. Robert Malone Regarding His COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns

The Atlantic Launches Critique of TrialSite Advisory Board Member Dr. Robert Malone Regarding His COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns

Depending on one’s point of view, on August 12, The Atlantic published what could be seen as a profile of, or a hit piece on, Dr. Robert Malone, a key

trialsitenews.com

Depending on one’s point of view, on August 12, The Atlantic published what could be seen as a profile of, or a hit piece on, Dr. Robert Malone, a key player in early mRNA research in the 1980s and 1990s. Dr. Malone explains his claim for credit in inventing mRNA vaccination on his website. At the outset, we note that this scientist and physician is part of the advisory board for TrialSite News, and we concede that our relationship with him makes us more inclined to trust him. That being said, we are offering our thoughts on this issue as we feel the article represents yet more of the quashing of debate on key elements of the COVID-19 pandemic, its treatments, and its vaccines. The Atlantic article is authored by Tom Bartlett, who, interestingly, has authored a prior piece titled, “Do We Really Need More Controversial Ideas?” This fits with the general attitude of the press that everything the CDC or Pharma players say must be true, but from our view, science is inherently contested and controversial at times. The bedrock assumptions of free speech jurisprudence are that “easy” or popular ideas do not need to be protected; it is in the consideration and resolution of “controversy” that science and humanity progress. In a nutshell, Bartlett claims that Malone overstates his role in mRNA vaccine development and that he wrongly points out problems with our current iterations of this technology, thereby feeding too much controversy. We note that there are some “big guns” at play here: the Atlantic magazine has always been close to an official organ of the establishment. And at the article’s end, we learn that“The Atlantic’s COVID-19 coverage is supported by grants from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,” representing big tech and the non-profit-industrial complex respectively.

Atlantic Implies Malone is No Expert

Much of Mr. Bartlett’s article is a compendium of assertions by Dr. Malone that the author takes issue with. First, he asserts or implies that Malone is reckless for “suggesting” that mRNA vaccines might make for worse COVID-19 cases. Yet Malone made clear in a recent Washing Times piece posted on his blog that, “While good at preventing severe disease and death, [the vaccines] only reduce, not eliminate, the risk of infection, replication, and transmission.” Dr. Malone has in fact raised many questions about the wisdom of our current approach to COVID-19 vaccination. Perhaps playing politics, Bartlett brings in the boogeyman of political odd-ball Steve Bannon, Trump’s original campaign manager. Reporting on a show that included Bannon and Malone, the article’s tone implies that no self-respecting scientist would sit down with Bannon. Bias on Bartlett’s part is also shown by the assertion that in his appearances, Malone is “presented as a scientific expert (emphasis added).” The writer is clearly implying that Malone is not an expert, but that is ridiculous given his training, research, and ongoing work. Other information crimes that Malone stands accused of include telling conservative host Tucker Carlson that the public does not have enough information to make informed decisions about whether to take a vaccine and also telling Glen Beck that offering, e.g., money in exchange for taking a vaccine is unethical. We note that a person’s decision about what to put in their body, their own personal weighing of benefits and risks, can be swayed by an offer of cash to increasingly downtrodden Americans. This decision should be made on the facts, not what amounts to bribery. Malone is critiqued for saying that there is inadequate data on how vaccines affect women’s reproductive physiology. Yet this is a legitimate discussion in the medical community.

BioNTech VP Thinks Malone is Overstating Credit

As a grad student in the late 1980s at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, Malone injected DNA and RNA into mice cells, hoping to create a brand-new type of vaccine. Dr. Malone was the first author for a 1989 paper showing how RNA can be delivered to cells via lipids, and a co-author of a Science paper from 1990 demonstrating that if you insert RNA or DNA into animal cells, “it can lead to the transcription of new protein.” The paper concluded that if the method worked for human cells the new tech, “may provide alternative approaches to vaccine development.” Bartlett quotes an expert to the effect that the two studies, “do indeed represent seminal work in the field of gene transfer.” Next we hear from biochemist Katakin Karikó. Per Bartlett, she drew the “ire” of Malone by being credited with pioneering mRNA vaccination technology. She is cited as a source for the assertion that Malone was overstating his contribution to this tech, yet only later in parentheses do we learn that she is also a senior VP at BioNTech. If Bartlett wanted objectivity about vaccines he probably should look elsewhere than the firms involved. Bartlett attempts to show that Malone is jealous that he was not able to monetize his expertise in the way Karikó has with her pharma position, noting that he declared bankruptcy at one time.

Does Everyone Need a Vaccine?

Bartlett notes that Malone’s main objections to the two mRNA vaccines in use in the US relate to the speedy approval and the current official adverse reaction tracking. We note that many informed people share both concerns, as covered in an ongoing way by TrialSite and others. Malone would likely advise folks at the highest risk to get vaccinated, but he thinks that for young and healthy people the known dangers of COVID-19 are tiny. Balanced against the still pending semi-known problems with vaccination, he calls for caution. And it is hard to argue with the general proposition that we should not conduct any medical intervention if we don’t have to. Malone thinks evidence regarding side effects is being downplayed in an effort to up vaccination rates. We note that once an official call to vaccinate all (regardless of individual factors such as recovered COVID-19 patients, pregnancy, etc.), there is a potential for conflict of interest: Getting everyone to take a vaccine involves marketing; figuring out what is going on with the pandemic involves science.

“Fucking Up…Chances for a Nobel Prize”

Bartlett alleges that Malone asserts that, “Pfizer and the Israeli government have an agreement not to release information about adverse effects for 10 years….” The tweet in which this arose involved Malone saying that an Israeli scientist told him this information. He did not claim more than that. And while this information is likely wrong, there is a 10-year trade-secret nondisclosure clause in the deal between the state of Israel and Pfizer. Next, The Atlantic covers Dr. Malone the patient: he got COVID-19 in February and took the Moderna vaccine later, “in hopes that it would alleviate his long-haul symptoms.” He now thinks the vaccine made his condition worse; he is still suffering from a cough, hypertension, and reduced stamina. Bartlett spoke with scientists and biotech players, “suggested by Malone himself” in support of his view that private colleagues are, “cheering him on.” These folks told the author that Malone can be “headstrong,” and that he sometimes butted heads and could be a bad team player. Stan Gromkowski, cellular immunologist, worked on mRNA vaccines in the early 1990s. He thinks that Malone has, “migrated from extrapolated assertions to sensational assertions.” Gronkowski also sees Malone as, “an underappreciated pioneer,” but that his currently expressed views are, “fucking up his chances for a Nobel Prize.”

Vaccines a “Godsend”?

At one point in his article, Bartlett refers to our vaccines as a “godsend.” This kind of religious analogy points out that there is an orthodoxy in science, the media, etc. relating to COVID-19. The big complaint of the article is that “No matter how nuanced Malone might try to be, or how many qualifiers he appends to his opinions, he is egging on vaccine hesitancy….” The author is essentially arguing against nuance and subtlety, in the belief that the public can’t handle an open debate. At the moment, Delta is raising hell. Most think the unvaccinated are to blame; many credible folks believe that immune-escape in which the vaccines actually caused the mutation is likely. This is an example of a “controversial” question that deserves to be asked. In the meantime, the declarations made many months ago by the mainstream press that the vaccines would lead to herd immunity are now in question as around the world in the most vaccinated nations many of the vaccinated succumb to delta variant infections.

Quote from Mark U

Again, a CDC study reported that mask mandates reduce infection rate by about one percent in a 3 week interval. (Whoopee!)

Mark, there’s a good reason why I chose a 1% daily reduction in the example above… Its comes from that very same CDC study you mention - And it’s also the lowest estimate around. Plenty of other studies suggest the effect is greater.

Based on your quote above, you seem to be confused about what the study says. It actually examines the reduction in “daily percentage point growth rate”, which is defined as:

“the difference between the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on a given day and the natural log of cumulative cases or deaths on the previous day, multiplied by 100.”

A 1% difference in daily growth rate can be expanded in a 365-step geometric sequence to show a 37X difference in outcomes on the 365th day. Incredible at first glance, perhaps - but also just basic maths.

Quote from Mark U

A true libertarian might…

True Scotsman Logical Fallacy 

Here is the evidence for all you conspiracy theorists.

Pharma giants set to make billions from Covid booster jab.

Medical companies Pfizer, Moderna and Germany's BioNTech are expected to see soaring profits to the tune of billions of dollars from Covid-19 booster shots, analysts and investors have announced.Following Germany’s news that it will start offering Covid booster shots from September, the pharmaceutical companies responsible for delivering them are set to generate an income high enough to rival the US flu vaccine market, reported Reuters.

Pfizer, along with its German partner BioNTech, and Moderna have made over $60 billion in sales of the shots in 2021 and 2022.

Two links to the thetimes.co.uk

Behind a paywall sadly.

Pfizer exploits NHS loophole as drug prices rise 2,600%

The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and a British company have been accused of exploiting a loophole to charge the NHS “unfairly high” prices for an epilepsy drug that rose overnight from £2.83 to £67.50 per pack.

The competition watchdog said that price rises of up to 2,600 per cent for phenytoin sodium capsules cost the NHS an extra £50 million a year. The medication is used by around 50,000 British patients to control seizures.

Vaccine booster doses for next year cost £1Bn after Pfizer puts prices up.

Britain has ordered 35 million doses of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine for next year’s autumn booster campaign at a significantly higher cost after the US drugmaker raised prices in response to demand, The Times has been told.

The government is poised to announce a £1 billion deal for the doses this week after ministers were warned that the UK could run out of jabs in 2022, leading to further lockdowns.

So what we learned is that the pharma mafia and media mafia do not seem to be working together on this scam.

Maybe they are different mafias. Anyway the media mafia are singing like a canary on the pharma mafia.

Also AstraZeneca must not be in the pharma mafia group. Maybe they did not get invited to the pre Covid release meeting.

From the Wall Street Journal

AstraZeneca loses money on Covid19 vaccine for second straight quarter

AstraZeneca PLC narrowed losses from its Covid-19 vaccine in the second quarter but its earnings fell below forecast, highlighting the divide between it and rivals, such as Pfizer Inc., that are profiting from their shots.

The British-Swedish drugmaker pledged last year to distribute the shot at no profit during the pandemic. AstraZeneca Chief Executive Pascal Soriot said Thursday the company and its manufacturing partners had released a billion doses of the vaccine for use in more than 170 countries. That included 700 million doses delivered by the end of June.

The vaccine boosted second-quarter revenue by $894 million, but contributed to about $13 million in losses in the quarter, shaving 1 cent off per-share earnings. AstraZeneca had a loss of around $40 million on its Covid-19 vaccine in the first three months of this year.

Quote from Zeus46

Mark, there’s a good reason why I chose a 1% daily reduction in the example above… Its comes from that very same CDC study you mention - And it’s also the lowest estimate around. Plenty of other studies suggest the effect is greater.

By gosh you're right, it is daily. My error. But that explains the otherwise puzzling tactic of why they broke it into several 21 day intervals. The pure exponential function does not increase a small value difference by much over 21 iterations.

1.01^365 =~ 37.8

1.01^21 =~ 1.23

If they did it over a much longer interval it would have been much less than 1 percent daily, and they wouldn't want it looking like mask mandates hardly make a difference, would they.

Quote from Zeus46

True Scotsman Logical Fallacy

That would apply to absolutist statements like "No true scotsman", not my statement which involved with word 'might'. Nice try though.

CONFIRMED! Graphene Oxide Main Ingredient In Covid Shots

CONFIRMED! Graphene Oxide Main Ingredient In Covid Shots

By Dr. Ariyana Love, ND A former Pfizer employee and current analyst for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, came forward with indisputable…

ambassadorlove.wordpress.com

By Dr. Ariyana Love, ND

A former Pfizer employee and current analyst for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, came forward with indisputable documentation proving that GRAPHENE OXIDE NANOPARTICLES is the key ingredient in Biotech’s Covid-19 serums.

This means that an unapproved industrial poison is being dishonestly marketed as “vaccines” and injected into children’s veins.

In her must-watch interview with Stew Peter’s on July 28th, Kingston reveals how graphene oxide was hidden under a trade secret. It was therefore not recorded in Biotech’s patent filing as an ingredient in the Covid-19 serums. It was also not disclosed to the public Kingston explains, because it was not required due to it being the registered intellectual property of the pharmaceutical cartel.

Prior to the Stew Peters interview, Karen Kingston did a series of four additional interviews with Doug Billings on The Right Side. These are all well worth listening to:

Graphene oxide has never been used on humans before but it’s been extensively researched for intended use on humans. There are over 2000 studies on Graphene Oxide Toxicity and 500 of them were published in 2017.

On August 5th, Kingston gave another crucial interview with Dr. Andrew Kaufman on the Alex Jones Show where they showed us documents confirming without a shadow of a doubt that Biotech’s Covid-19 jabs include graphene oxide and lipid-coated nanoparticles.

Kingston also exposed how Pfizer lied about their data reporting to coerce people into taking their poisonous Covid injections.

Dr. Kaufman showed a study entitled, Graphene oxide-incorporated hydrogels for biomedical applications, revealing that graphene oxide has been developed for biomedical gene and drug delivery under the EU’s “Graphene Flagship” which I wrote about here.

Under the one billion euros EU project, gene delivery for an intranasal SARS-Cov-2 flu vaccine was tested using… wait for it… graphene oxide!

A patent from China was filed and approved last year, using graphene oxide nanotechnology in gene and drug delivery and diagnostic purposes for… wait for it… a “coronavirus vaccine”!

There are a couple dozen articles describing the use of lipid-nanoparticles and graphene oxide for ovarian cancer treatment using gene therapy, Kingston points out. Moderna was in fact, researching and developing graphene oxide for cancer treatment. Moderna is specialized in cancer cures, not vaccines. Moderna was an oncology cancer therapy company.

Alexandra Henrion Caude is an RNA-based genetic scientist who confirmed in January that the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech “vaccines” are not vaccines at all but it’s a technology that is closer to gene therapy.

Caude goes on to say it’s also inappropriate to call the mRNA therapeutics or mRNA-based drugs “gene therapy” because they’re #1. Being administered to healthy people #2. mRNA technology was developed to treat cancer.

Graphene was considered a “wonder material” due to its never-before-seen properties. It’s the strongest material known to man with 1000 times the strength of titanium and yet, it’s nano-particularized.

Graphene oxide is super-elastic, and highly conductive, enabling it to enter even the brain. Its potential applications in biomedicine were enormous and a multibillion-dollar industry was looming that could revolutionize the diagnostic and treatment of diseases.

Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, etc, were in a race to research and development Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles as a cancer cure. So, Graphene oxide was injected into animals and used as the vector to deliver a novel mRNA drug technology directly into cells.

At first, the animals seemed fine and the cancer cells were successfully destroyed. But two months after inoculation all the animals got sick and DIED from Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE)! Healthy cells were destroyed by the Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles. Safety and toxicity were the pharma cartel’s main challenges in using this novel technology for biomedical applications such as gene therapy.

After two animal trials that resulted in the death of all the animals, graphene oxide could not be approved for use in humans due to its toxicity to healthy cells and due to ADE, which is where the immune system destroys itself.

Front line doctors are already seeing ADE in these unapproved Covid-19 human trials. Experts such as Europe’s leading virologist Professor Dolores Cahill, world-renown scientist Mike Adams of Natural News, world’s leading virologist Geert Vanden Bossche and Pfizer whistleblower, Dr. Michael Yeadon warned us that ADE would come!

Dr. Judy Mikovitz revealed in her exclusive interview with Mike Adams, that the pharma cartel was totally broke. Their novel technology could not be used for gene therapy after all, despite that pharma had invested a lot of money in the development of graphene oxide for biomedical devices.

According to the animal studies, the pharma cartel also knew that graphene oxide enables “self-replicating vaccines“; aka transmission.

This essentially means that the pharma cartel is falsely marketing gene therapies as “vaccines” in order to profit by injecting an unapproved industrial chemical into humans without their Informed Consent. That is in direct violation of the Nuremberg Laws. Is it apparent now that the pharma cartel is determined to profit anyhow, at the expense of all our lives?

I encourage you to read my article entitled, Graphene Oxide The Vector For Covid-19 Democide, which has added vital information about human exposure to Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles.

We are literally being saturated with this “evil dust” which is the very thing Julian Assange called graphene oxide during his last interview.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

So what we learned is that the pharma mafia and media mafia do not seem to be working together on this scam. Maybe they are different mafias. Anyway the media mafia are singing like a canary on the pharma mafia.

And let’s not forget, these are all public companies, so all that profit is really just funding our retirements…

Quote from Mark U

If they did it over a much longer interval it would have been much less than 1 percent daily, and they wouldn't want it looking like mask mandates hardly make a difference, would they.

I still think you are a little confused. The daily rate of change is what it is, and wouldn’t change - the 21 day interval is just for calculation purposes. (They could instead have said a 7.5% reduction in weekly case growth, for example).

And anyway, if they did use a larger window, say 100 days, it would probably push the daily rate up to somewhere around 1.5%…

CDC paper

Although thanks for another interesting glimpse into the conspiratorial mindset, always fascinating!

Quote from Mark U

That would apply to absolutist statements like "No true scotsman", not my statement which involved with word 'might'

Weak! Especially when considering the offending sentence as a whole.

Quote from Mark U

Again, a CDC study reported that mask mandates reduce infection rate by about one percent in a 3 week interval. (Whoopee!)

You mean this?

During November 16–December 11, 2020, many K–5 schools in Georgia had resumed in-person instruction,^§§§§ necessitating implementation of strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission within schools, including mask use and improved ventilation. This study found that before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, the incidence of COVID-19 was 37% lower in schools that required mask use among teachers and staff members and was 39% lower in schools that reported implementing one or more strategies to improve classroom ventilation. Preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools should be multifaceted (2). Mask requirements for teachers and staff members and improved ventilation are important strategies that elementary schools could implement as part of a multicomponent approach to provide safer, in-person learning environments until vaccines are available for children aged <12 years.

CDC recommends implementing multiple prevention strategies (2) (e.g., physical distancing, masking, improved ventilation, and contact tracing) that have been associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 transmission in kindergarten through grade 12 settings (3–5). Since the completion of this study, COVID-19 vaccines have become widely available, and CDC recommends vaccination for teachers, staff members, and students aged ≥12 years (2). Until vaccines are available for children aged <12 years, universal and correct mask use is a critical prevention strategy CDC recommends that schools prioritize regardless of vaccination status for in-person learning (2). In the current study, the lower incidence in schools requiring mask use among teachers and staff members is consistent with research on mask effectiveness (6), and investigations that have identified school staff members as important contributors to school-based SARS-CoV-2 transmission (7).

For the narrower question of children (not staff) wearing masks they found a 21% reduction in incidence

The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional. This finding might be attributed to higher effectiveness of masks among adults, who are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but might also result from differences in mask-wearing behavior among students in schools with optional requirements. Mask use requirements were limited in this sample; 65.1% of schools required teacher and staff member mask use and approximately one half (51.5%) required student mask use. Because universal and correct use of masks can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission (6) and is a relatively low-cost and easily implemented strategy, findings in this report suggest universal and correct mask use is an important COVID-19 prevention strategy in schools as part of a multicomponent approach.

So - there is strong evidence that children wearing masks reduces spread - less strong about whether mandating this is much better than not mandating it. Alas in the US it seems masks have become a political issue - many like Mark U would be proud not to wear masks, however encouraged, to demonstrate they were true libertarians. Such social issues at school always beat vague medical guidance unless things are required. And I'm sure even mark U admits that though he might himself choose to do what is overall likely best, that will not always work at school. Actually, I don't see convincing children to wear masks as the problem - I know the Primary School I was governor of for 9 years would have got 100% compliance - I see that children with strongly political parents will get a lot of stick at home if their parents find out they are wearing masks unless there is a mandate.

God help us from politics in schools.

21% reduction seems worthwhile especially because of the disruption to children self-isolating.

Quote from Mark U

And that's the lie ; that unvaccinated, unmasked healthy people are of significant harm to others.

A true libertarian might encourage people to do certain things in order to lower risk to society, but to mandate people to do such? Please.

Like, a true libertarian would see no reason to ban outdoor BBQs and smoking in forests when the risk of forest fires are very very high, but should just encourage this? That would only make sense if banning led to worse compliance than encouragement. In this case (masks) everyone can see who else is wearing masks - if you ban non-mark-wearing you get much better compliance than if you "encourage" it.

I just can't see this argument. Obviously I'm not a true libertarian but I have a very strong respect for personal space, believe people need to be free to make their own mistakes, do not like interfering, agree that giving people handouts can encourage dependence, etc.

What is this about true libertarians and rules at school?

Schools have all sorts of rules - mostly sensible - some stupid. You do not get State governors interfering to prohibit locally decided school rules in any other area - just mask-wearing. And you don't get 25% of parents demonstrating outside schools because they have some weird rule like no running in the corridors, or you must wear blue, grey or black jeans or skirt covering knees. And those rules do not result in a 21% reduction in child absenteeism due to COVID.

What is so special about masks?

Quote from Fm1

CONFIRMED! Graphene Oxide Main Ingredient In Covid Shots

https://ambassadorlove.wordpre…ngredient-in-covid-shots/

By Dr. Ariyana Love, ND

A former Pfizer employee and current analyst for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, came forward with indisputable documentation proving that GRAPHENE OXIDE NANOPARTICLES is the key ingredient in Biotech’s Covid-19 serums.

This means that an unapproved industrial poison is being dishonestly marketed as “vaccines” and injected into children’s veins.

In her must-watch interview with Stew Peter’s on July 28th, Kingston reveals how graphene oxide was hidden under a trade secret. It was therefore not recorded in Biotech’s patent filing as an ingredient in the Covid-19 serums. It was also not disclosed to the public Kingston explains, because it was not required due to it being the registered intellectual property of the pharmaceutical cartel.

Prior to the Stew Peters interview, Karen Kingston did a series of four additional interviews with Doug Billings on The Right Side. These are all well worth listening to:

Graphene oxide has never been used on humans before but it’s been extensively researched for intended use on humans. There are over 2000 studies on Graphene Oxide Toxicity and 500 of them were published in 2017.

On August 5th, Kingston gave another crucial interview with Dr. Andrew Kaufman on the Alex Jones Show where they showed us documents confirming without a shadow of a doubt that Biotech’s Covid-19 jabs include graphene oxide and lipid-coated nanoparticles.

Kingston also exposed how Pfizer lied about their data reporting to coerce people into taking their poisonous Covid injections.

Dr. Kaufman showed a study entitled, Graphene oxide-incorporated hydrogels for biomedical applications, revealing that graphene oxide has been developed for biomedical gene and drug delivery under the EU’s “Graphene Flagship” which I wrote about here.

Under the one billion euros EU project, gene delivery for an intranasal SARS-Cov-2 flu vaccine was tested using… wait for it… graphene oxide!

A patent from China was filed and approved last year, using graphene oxide nanotechnology in gene and drug delivery and diagnostic purposes for… wait for it… a “coronavirus vaccine”!

There are a couple dozen articles describing the use of lipid-nanoparticles and graphene oxide for ovarian cancer treatment using gene therapy, Kingston points out. Moderna was in fact, researching and developing graphene oxide for cancer treatment. Moderna is specialized in cancer cures, not vaccines. Moderna was an oncology cancer therapy company.

Alexandra Henrion Caude is an RNA-based genetic scientist who confirmed in January that the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech “vaccines” are not vaccines at all but it’s a technology that is closer to gene therapy.

Caude goes on to say it’s also inappropriate to call the mRNA therapeutics or mRNA-based drugs “gene therapy” because they’re #1. Being administered to healthy people #2. mRNA technology was developed to treat cancer.

Graphene was considered a “wonder material” due to its never-before-seen properties. It’s the strongest material known to man with 1000 times the strength of titanium and yet, it’s nano-particularized.

Graphene oxide is super-elastic, and highly conductive, enabling it to enter even the brain. Its potential applications in biomedicine were enormous and a multibillion-dollar industry was looming that could revolutionize the diagnostic and treatment of diseases.

Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, etc, were in a race to research and development Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles as a cancer cure. So, Graphene oxide was injected into animals and used as the vector to deliver a novel mRNA drug technology directly into cells.

At first, the animals seemed fine and the cancer cells were successfully destroyed. But two months after inoculation all the animals got sick and DIED from Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE)! Healthy cells were destroyed by the Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles. Safety and toxicity were the pharma cartel’s main challenges in using this novel technology for biomedical applications such as gene therapy.

After two animal trials that resulted in the death of all the animals, graphene oxide could not be approved for use in humans due to its toxicity to healthy cells and due to ADE, which is where the immune system destroys itself.

Front line doctors are already seeing ADE in these unapproved Covid-19 human trials. Experts such as Europe’s leading virologist Professor Dolores Cahill, world-renown scientist Mike Adams of Natural News, world’s leading virologist Geert Vanden Bossche and Pfizer whistleblower, Dr. Michael Yeadon warned us that ADE would come!

Dr. Judy Mikovitz revealed in her exclusive interview with Mike Adams, that the pharma cartel was totally broke. Their novel technology could not be used for gene therapy after all, despite that pharma had invested a lot of money in the development of graphene oxide for biomedical devices.

According to the animal studies, the pharma cartel also knew that graphene oxide enables “self-replicating vaccines“; aka transmission.

This essentially means that the pharma cartel is falsely marketing gene therapies as “vaccines” in order to profit by injecting an unapproved industrial chemical into humans without their Informed Consent. That is in direct violation of the Nuremberg Laws. Is it apparent now that the pharma cartel is determined to profit anyhow, at the expense of all our lives?

I encourage you to read my article entitled, Graphene Oxide The Vector For Covid-19 Democide, which has added vital information about human exposure to Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles.

We are literally being saturated with this “evil dust” which is the very thing Julian Assange called graphene oxide during his last interview.

Display More

The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not contain any graphene oxide. The ingredient list for both vaccines have been published and tested by outside parties. They were not found to contain any graphene oxide in their formulas, including their lipid nanoparticles.

Lipid nanoparticles, basically tiny balls of fat, are used in mRNA vaccines to protect delicate RNA molecules so the vaccine can enter the human body without being destroyed. Lipid nanoparticles have been recognized as potential drug delivery systems (ways to get medications into human cells, especially injectable drugs) since the 1960s. Lipids are fatty, oily, or waxy and include fats and oils (triglycerides), waxes, and steroids, among other things.

Sometimes a compound called polyethylene glycol (PEG) can be used to help keep lipid nanoparticles stable, as they are used in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. However, there is no graphene oxide in the PEG-lipid nanoparticles

No WHO authorized vaccines produced by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, CanSino, Sinovac, Sputnik V, or Janssen contain graphene oxide. The Novavax COVID-19 vaccine has not yet published a list of its ingredients in a peer-reviewed or open access publication.

Graphene oxide is a compound that contains carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. It is used in many applications, from sensors to textiles to the potential application of medicine. This material is cheap, readily available, and can disperse in water. It is water soluble, so it may be a great solution for helping medications be absorbed. It can be produced as a powder or a solution for various uses.

Graphene oxide may be a useful tool in vaccine delivery in the future, because scientists and chemical engineers believe it can be engineered to be a safe delivery vehicle for vaccines, and help increase their effectiveness. Like lipid nanoparticles, graphene oxide is also a nanoparticle and has recently been used in an intranasal influenza vaccine platform with promising results.

Additionally, these nanoparticles have been shown to increase macrophages and T cells, which can boost our immune systems and generate potentially stronger immune responses. Recent studies have shown that graphene and graphene-related materials may have antiviral and antimicrobial properties, so evaluating them for use in medication and vaccine design is warranted.

While certain amounts of graphene oxide could be toxic to humans, current research on the use of this compound in other vaccines indicate that the amount that would be in potential vaccines would be so small that it would not be toxic to human cells. A 2016 study showed that graphene-base materials (like graphene oxide) might cause dose-dependent toxicity, decreased cell viability, formations of lung granuloma, and cell apoptosis. Notably, these studies were performed on mice, but graphene oxide specifically showed no obvious toxicity at low doses or middle doses from .1 to .25 mg. It was chronically toxic at higher doses of .4 mg, where it was found to deposit in the lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys. It is important to note that this .4 mg of graphene oxide is proportionally much greater in mice than it would be in humans, considering their size and biological differences. Further, this study was completed 10 years ago and the graphene oxide was not chemically engineered in a manner that may make it safer or more tolerable for living organisms.

Many more studies and trials are needed to determine whether or not graphene oxide is an effective, completely safe, and useful material for biomedical applications including drug delivery, imaging, and biosensors. Current research on the compound has produced mixed results but optimism have been increased due to the success of recent research projects as of late.

To deal in more detail with the specifics in that link - and let me point out FM1 it is the type of online misinformation that is increasing vaccine hesitancy and costing lives - most people reading it will not have proper checking of its content (I'm sure they view fact checks as above as being wrong):

Dr. Kaufman showed a study entitled, Graphene oxide-incorporated hydrogels for biomedical applications, revealing that graphene oxide has been developed for biomedical gene and drug delivery under the EU’s “Graphene Flagship” which I wrote about here.

Under the one billion euros EU project, gene delivery for an intranasal SARS-Cov-2 flu vaccine was tested using… wait for it… graphene oxide!

A patent from China was filed and approved last year, using graphene oxide nanotechnology in gene and drug delivery and diagnostic purposes for… wait for it… a “coronavirus vaccine”!

There are a couple dozen articles describing the use of lipid-nanoparticles and graphene oxide for ovarian cancer treatment using gene therapy, Kingston points out. Moderna was in fact, researching and developing graphene oxide for cancer treatment. Moderna is specialized in cancer cures, not vaccines. Moderna was an oncology cancer therapy company.

Alexandra Henrion Caude is an RNA-based genetic scientist who confirmed in January that the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech “vaccines” are not vaccines at all but it’s a technology that is closer to gene therapy.

Caude goes on to say it’s also inappropriate to call the mRNA therapeutics or mRNA-based drugs “gene therapy” because they’re #1. Being administered to healthy people #2. mRNA technology was developed to treat cancer.

• Agreed - graphene oxide is being considers for many different medical uses.
• Agreed - its toxicity has been very widely studied which means of course that if regulators do allow its use anywhere it will be at super-safe levels.
• Agreed - i'm sure vaccine manufacturers are considering using it - patents are for things you might want to do in the future.
• False - all those links speak nothing as to whether it is one constituent of the Pfizer vaccine, and Pfizer would be in so much trouble (trillion-dollar US law suits) from lying about it that is not possible.
• False - gene therapy involves changing cell DNA or replicated elements of epigenetic expression. Vaccines use mRNA as a transient (< 48 hours) vehicle to deliver minute quantities of a protein efficiently to the body. In this they work just like viruses - but without the unlimited replicative ability of a virus. You can of course call it what you like - but you have to distinguish it from therapies that change cells replicated genes. They also exist, but are much riskier.
• Context - vaccines containing graphene are early-stage research - not known technology that can quickly be harnessed in an emergency situation

BTW - anyone who thinks I'm here to provide pro-vax PR should notice my technique (for PR, rather than information and detailed discussion) as all wrong:

COVID-19: four ways to respond to vaccine sceptics – and maybe even convince them

Think beyond facts to make your argument.

theconversation.com

Quote from Fm1

This essentially means that the pharma cartel is falsely marketing gene therapies as “vaccines” in order to profit by injecting an unapproved industrial chemical into humans without their Informed Consent. That is in direct violation of the Nuremberg Laws. Is it apparent now that the pharma cartel is determined to profit anyhow, at the expense of all our lives?

I encourage you to read my article entitled, Graphene Oxide The Vector For Covid-19 Democide, which has added vital information about human exposure to Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles.

We are literally being saturated with this “evil dust” which is the very thing Julian Assange called graphene oxide during his last interview.

I just want to highlight this segment of FM1's link. It is 100% lies - and lies, couched in scientific language, which if spread will contribute to vaccine hesitancy, death, higher COVID infection rates, continued poor world economic performace, etc.

If anyone here wants to defend it I will of course listen, and attempt to reply politely. because I believe in showing why the idiots are wrong, not banning them. But it makes me very, very angry.

Quote from THHuxleynew

What is so special about masks?

mandates are what fuels the dissent. In 1918 after the first wave, many states ordered mask mandates. Demonstrations broke out and lead to 195000 American deaths in 5weeks! So what did we learn from that? Americans were told early on to mask if infected. Cloth masks were not to be worn, they offered no protection. 3 weeks later we are told masks are now required, oh and cloth masks will do just fine. As I've said from the beginning, confusion rules! I have been wearing n95 masks since the beginning, I just don't think I need to be told to!!!

Quote from Alan Smith

My Niece is a school nurse in a posh private school inNew Jersey. The Covid rules have just about driven her crazy. There are federal rules, state rules, parents association rules, headmaster's rules. She told me she is not going back at the end of the summer break. 'I've had enough, they got me in tears once too often'.'

It is insane here Alan, confusion rules!

Quote from Fm1

Demonstrations broke out and lead to 195000 American deaths in 5weeks!

So what did we learn from that?

Americans are idiots?