@Fm1, @Wyttenbach :As this thread is closing, you're invited to reddit forum ScienceUncensored
Or you can me just PM me links to unpaywalled articles and I'll handle the rest..
If you are interested in other source for news of this kind, I am following to this telegram channel:
wHO :spikevax induces Multiple Sclerosis
French Research Establishment Intensifies Attack Against Hydroxychloroquine Proponents during COVID-19
A controversial French physician-investigator and hydroxychloroquine proponent continues to find trouble, as it’s now reported in French media that top researchers in an op-ed in a popular media seek to punish Didier Raoult and colleagues given that they designed and conducted the large study investigating the use of hydroxychloroquine targeting COVID-19, what the opponents tout as being described as “the largest ‘unauthorized’ clinical trial ever seen.”
Why the ongoing, continued attacks, given French society has moved beyond the COVID-19 emergency? Just about nothing was more controversial than the use of repurposed drugs targeting COVID-19.
Of course, this news represents the continued controversy of the repurposed generic drug hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for COVID-19. Much of the medical establishment has written off this drug, yet the studies have trickled in suggesting some promise regardless of the naysayers. But whom to believe? This is the challenge.
The medical establishment, defined for purposes herein represents the leading opinions emanating from the predominant health care systems, hospitals and clinics, medical research universities and government health agencies from regulators to public health of a nation, region or even worldwide. In the intensive controversy and conflict over key topics during the COVID-19 pandemic, TrialSite observed that nothing can become more politicized than the topic of medicine and broader healthcare. It’s a $1+ trillion economy in America and a lot of smart people with a lot of evidence-backed options, at times on both sides of a polar oppositional equation. But the world can be a complex place, as can be science, and an open mind, with an objective stance is required, along with the wherewithal to continuously scan unfolding data from around the world.
Controversy & politicization
Perhaps, no drug was more politicized than hydroxychloroquine (of course unless its ivermectin), as early on in the pandemic as under the Trump presidency. The Food and Drug Administration in March 2020 reluctantly issued an emergency use authorization for the drug. This action was seen as the Trump administration trying to force a solution on the regulatory agencies, leading to mounting tension, and according to TrialSite accounts, outright information war between different factions of power. Ultimately, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), FDA and a majority consensus of the medical and research establishment, the drug was to be avoided for any use involving COVID-19. See the ongoing FDA recommendation to not prescribe the drug.
Similar tensions broke out in other countries, such as Brazil, where their conservative president Jair Bolsonaro also openly supported use of the drug in response to the pandemic. Along the way, strange and even shady situations emerged such as Surgisphere, a Chicago-based analytics company that came under scrutiny by May 2020. The company purportedly provided large datasets of COVID-19 patients, publishing the data in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine by May 2020. TrialSite openly questioned the credibility of the studies based on the highly questionable access to pervasive health data around the world.
TrialSite engaged with the company to elicit questions while the prestigious journals that strangely published the Surgisphere material ultimately retracted those articles.
But why did such prestigious journals publish such questionable material so fast? Was it the urgency of the moment—those early days in the pandemic? Or were more nefarious elements involved? The data suggested a “significantly higher risk of death” associated with hydroxychloroquine. An anti-hydroxychloroquine fervor intensified and even the World Health Organization dropped its clinical trials testing the drug.
The NIH backed off on any positive finding, only to recommend the drug if for a clinical trial. Several studies showed promising results as reported in TrialSite, such as an observational study conducted at Henry Ford Health System.
The situation became so ridiculous in America that at one point during the pandemic if someone raised the topic of hydroxychloroquine, they were immediately labeled a right wing, Trump-loving, MAGA supporter, or loon from the mainstream. And dare to challenge its efficacy to the drug’s proponents, and you were a bought off shill for Big Pharma. The pandemic revealed the worst of our character.
On the one side was an all-encompassing, uniform response that the drug just didn’t work against SARS-CoV-2—ignoring any positive data that may have been generated; while a vocal minority, backed at first by Trump and MAGA, swore the drug could do miracles. Both sides were incorrect.
The French study
TrialSite reported on some of the research led by Dr. Raoult, who used to head the IHU Mediterranee research hospital, and his colleagues who were, especially before the introduction of the COVID vaccines, open to the use of repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the height of the pandemic. The medical establishment in France is outraged that this cohort of physician-scientists continued their stance during vaccination.
In a recent France24 entry the French media highlights the influence of Dr. Raoult in his effort to “push” the anti-malaria drug “into public consciousness in the early days” of COVID-19.
In March, Raoult and colleagues published the results of a study involving more than 30,000 COVID-19 patients via the preprint server, meaning the results have yet to be peer reviewed.
By March 2022, TrialSite reported that the French Medicines Agency was investigating Raoult due to the claim that their research lacked ethics committee review.
TrialSite reported, “An infectious disease medical research center and hospital run by the controversial microbiologist Didier Raoult is in serious trouble in France. Criminal charges will be filed by the French Medicines Agency (ANSM) with the Marseilles public prosecution unit against hospital-university institute (IHU). Raoult was an outspoken proponent of using hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19.”
But the research ensued, and as TrialSite reported just in April that while still in preprint, “A large group of French researchers conducted a real-world retrospective study of monocentric cohorts comparing patients who were exposed or not exposed to antiviral regimen using a standard of care in a hospital setting in France from March 2, 2020, to December 31, 2021. All of this real-world patient data was obtained from the electronic health record and reported to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) standard. The patients were cared for at the Institut Hospital Méditerranée Infection Center in Marseille, France. Note, one of the lead authors has been a controversial figure during the pandemic and proponent of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).”
During the same month (April), ANSM, the French medication regulatory emphasized that the repurposed drug “exposes patients to potential side effects that can be serious.” Also, just last week, French media including France24 reported that French medical bodies reminded all providers that they should take “measures appropriate to the infractions” for the sake of patient safety as well as “the credibility of French medical research.”
The French media reports that so far none of the physicians have been charged in the Marseille-based investigation opened up in 2022, as reported by TrialSite. But the media is repeating the claim that the IHU Mediterranee clinical trials were both fraudulent and unwarranted—strong claims that need backing with evidence and a court trial assuming any criminal allegations.
The pressure mounts, however, as a group of 16 research bodies in France wrote an op-ed article in Le Monde alleging that Raoult engaged in “systematic prescription of medications as varied as hydroxychloroquine, zinc, ivermectin and azithromycin to patients suffering from Covid-19... without a solid pharmacological basis and lacking any proof of their effectiveness.” The authors argue that despite the drugs being shown to be absolutely ineffective the Marseille group continued to use them for care and research.
Ongoing investigations
An interesting observation, 17 clinical trials continue to investigate the use of hydroxychloroquine as a regimen for COVID-19 based on a search of Clinicaltrials.gov for active studies. TrialSite does note, however, that at least some of them are all but terminated.
What a difference an interpretation makes
A website tracking the study of repurposed drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine provides an interesting vantage point. While the site is controversial because the owners of the website don’t reveal themselves (likely for fear of losing their scientific and/or medical-based jobs), it reports 480 hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 studies, 388 peer reviewed, 393 comparing treatment and control groups. Late treatment and high dosages may be harmful, the aggregate of study interpretation points out, while early treatment consistently shows positive results. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment delay. Some In Vitro evidence suggested therapeutic levels would not be reached, however, that was incorrect, according to Ruiz. TrialSite reminds all that medical establishments have written any of these positive outcomes off to any number of reasons—badly designed study, etc.
U.S. medical & research establishment: rejects use for COVID-19
So, what’s the answer to the hydroxychloroquine question? Well, that depends on a number of factors, including point of view and paradigm, place of employment and sources.
Check the National Institutes of Health and its clear the apex research institute, along with the rest of the American medical establishment, along with the French and all of the West rejects the use of the anti-malarial drug for COVID-19, both in hospital and non-hospital settings.
The NIH points out, “The safety and efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin and azithromycin alone have been evaluated in randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and/or single-arm studies.”
References
Display MoreFrench Research Establishment Intensifies Attack Against HydroxychloroquineHydroxychloroquine Proponents during COVID-19
https://www.trialsitenews.com/…-during-covid-19-fe8546bc
A controversial French physician-investigator and hydroxychloroquine proponent continues to find trouble, as it’s now reported in French media that top researchers in an op-ed in a popular media seek to punish Didier Raoult and colleagues given that they designed and conducted the large study investigating the use of hydroxychloroquine targeting COVID-19, what the opponents tout as being described as “the largest ‘unauthorized’ clinical trial ever seen.”
Why the ongoing, continued attacks, given French society has moved beyond the COVID-19 emergency? Just about nothing was more controversial than the use of repurposed drugs targeting COVID-19.
Of course, this news represents the continued controversy of the repurposed generic drug hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for COVID-19. Much of the medical establishment has written off this drug, yet the studies have trickled in suggesting some promise regardless of the naysayers. But whom to believe? This is the challenge.
The medical establishment, defined for purposes herein represents the leading opinions emanating from the predominant health care systems, hospitals and clinics, medical research universities and government health agencies from regulators to public health of a nation, region or even worldwide. In the intensive controversy and conflict over key topics during the COVID-19 pandemic, TrialSite observed that nothing can become more politicized than the topic of medicine and broader healthcare. It’s a $1+ trillion economy in America and a lot of smart people with a lot of evidence-backed options, at times on both sides of a polar oppositional equation. But the world can be a complex place, as can be science, and an open mind, with an objective stance is required, along with the wherewithal to continuously scan unfolding data from around the world.
Controversy & politicization
Perhaps, no drug was more politicized than hydroxychloroquine (of course unless its ivermectin), as early on in the pandemic as under the Trump presidency. The Food and Drug Administration in March 2020 reluctantly issued an emergency use authorization for the drug. This action was seen as the Trump administration trying to force a solution on the regulatory agencies, leading to mounting tension, and according to TrialSite accounts, outright information war between different factions of power. Ultimately, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), FDA and a majority consensus of the medical and research establishment, the drug was to be avoided for any use involving COVID-19. See the ongoing FDA recommendation to not prescribe the drug.
Similar tensions broke out in other countries, such as Brazil, where their conservative president Jair Bolsonaro also openly supported use of the drug in response to the pandemic. Along the way, strange and even shady situations emerged such as Surgisphere, a Chicago-based analytics company that came under scrutiny by May 2020. The company purportedly provided large datasets of COVID-19 patients, publishing the data in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine by May 2020. TrialSite openly questioned the credibility of the studies based on the highly questionable access to pervasive health data around the world.
TrialSite engaged with the company to elicit questions while the prestigious journals that strangely published the Surgisphere material ultimately retracted those articles.
But why did such prestigious journals publish such questionable material so fast? Was it the urgency of the moment—those early days in the pandemic? Or were more nefarious elements involved? The data suggested a “significantly higher risk of death” associated with hydroxychloroquine. An anti-hydroxychloroquine fervor intensified and even the World Health Organization dropped its clinical trials testing the drug.
The NIH backed off on any positive finding, only to recommend the drug if for a clinical trial. Several studies showed promising results as reported in TrialSite, such as an observational study conducted at Henry Ford Health System.
The situation became so ridiculous in America that at one point during the pandemic if someone raised the topic of hydroxychloroquine, they were immediately labeled a right wing, Trump-loving, MAGA supporter, or loon from the mainstream. And dare to challenge its efficacy to the drug’s proponents, and you were a bought off shill for Big Pharma. The pandemic revealed the worst of our character.
On the one side was an all-encompassing, uniform response that the drug just didn’t work against SARS-CoV-2—ignoring any positive data that may have been generated; while a vocal minority, backed at first by Trump and MAGA, swore the drug could do miracles. Both sides were incorrect.
The French study
TrialSite reported on some of the research led by Dr. Raoult, who used to head the IHU Mediterranee research hospital, and his colleagues who were, especially before the introduction of the COVID vaccines, open to the use of repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the height of the pandemic. The medical establishment in France is outraged that this cohort of physician-scientists continued their stance during vaccination.
In a recent France24 entry the French media highlights the influence of Dr. Raoult in his effort to “push” the anti-malaria drug “into public consciousness in the early days” of COVID-19.
In March, Raoult and colleagues published the results of a study involving more than 30,000 COVID-19 patients via the preprint server, meaning the results have yet to be peer reviewed.
By March 2022, TrialSite reported that the French Medicines Agency was investigating Raoult due to the claim that their research lacked ethics committee review.
TrialSite reported, “An infectious disease medical research center and hospital run by the controversial microbiologist Didier Raoult is in serious trouble in France. Criminal charges will be filed by the French Medicines Agency (ANSM) with the Marseilles public prosecution unit against hospital-university institute (IHU). Raoult was an outspoken proponent of using hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19.”
But the research ensued, and as TrialSite reported just in April that while still in preprint, “A large group of French researchers conducted a real-world retrospective study of monocentric cohorts comparing patients who were exposed or not exposed to antiviral regimen using a standard of care in a hospital setting in France from March 2, 2020, to December 31, 2021. All of this real-world patient data was obtained from the electronic health record and reported to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) standard. The patients were cared for at the Institut Hospital Méditerranée Infection Center in Marseille, France. Note, one of the lead authors has been a controversial figure during the pandemic and proponent of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).”
During the same month (April), ANSM, the French medication regulatory emphasized that the repurposed drug “exposes patients to potential side effects that can be serious.” Also, just last week, French media including France24 reported that French medical bodies reminded all providers that they should take “measures appropriate to the infractions” for the sake of patient safety as well as “the credibility of French medical research.”
The French media reports that so far none of the physicians have been charged in the Marseille-based investigation opened up in 2022, as reported by TrialSite. But the media is repeating the claim that the IHU Mediterranee clinical trials were both fraudulent and unwarranted—strong claims that need backing with evidence and a court trial assuming any criminal allegations.
The pressure mounts, however, as a group of 16 research bodies in France wrote an op-ed article in Le Monde alleging that Raoult engaged in “systematic prescription of medications as varied as hydroxychloroquine, zinc, ivermectin and azithromycin to patients suffering from Covid-19... without a solid pharmacological basis and lacking any proof of their effectiveness.” The authors argue that despite the drugs being shown to be absolutely ineffective the Marseille group continued to use them for care and research.
Ongoing investigations
An interesting observation, 17 clinical trials continue to investigate the use of hydroxychloroquine as a regimen for COVID-19 based on a search of Clinicaltrials.gov for active studies. TrialSite does note, however, that at least some of them are all but terminated.
What a difference an interpretation makes
A website tracking the study of repurposed drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine provides an interesting vantage point. While the site is controversial because the owners of the website don’t reveal themselves (likely for fear of losing their scientific and/or medical-based jobs), it reports 480 hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 studies, 388 peer reviewed, 393 comparing treatment and control groups. Late treatment and high dosages may be harmful, the aggregate of study interpretation points out, while early treatment consistently shows positive results. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment delay. Some In Vitro evidence suggested therapeutic levels would not be reached, however, that was incorrect, according to Ruiz. TrialSite reminds all that medical establishments have written any of these positive outcomes off to any number of reasons—badly designed study, etc.
U.S. medical & research establishment: rejects use for COVID-19
So, what’s the answer to the hydroxychloroquine question? Well, that depends on a number of factors, including point of view and paradigm, place of employment and sources.
Check the National Institutes of Health and its clear the apex research institute, along with the rest of the American medical establishment, along with the French and all of the West rejects the use of the anti-malarial drug for COVID-19, both in hospital and non-hospital settings.
The NIH points out, “The safety and efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin and azithromycin alone have been evaluated in randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and/or single-arm studies.”
References
While governments around the world continue to harass doctors who prescribed Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the patients treated are not filing malpractice civil suits against these doctors. Hmmmmmmmmmm very telling!!!
Nefarious Plot or Not? David Martin on SARS-CoV-2 and Its Vaccines as Bioweapons & the Substack Gang
On May 3, 2023, Dr. David Martin gave a controversial presentation in Brussels—making a series of attention-grabbing declarations to the participants at the European Parliament International Covid Summit III. It was an attempt using intellectual shock and awe as well as his knowledge of intellectual property (IP) and patents to frame a different narrative than what we have all been fed by the mainstream media, government and the like. Dr. Martin most certainly has the credibility and pedigree. Not only did Martin found an intellectual property-based financial risk management firm (M-CAM), he has also been retained by all sorts of prominent clients to perform patent audits not to mention develop cunning actuarial risk management systems and capabilities for the finance and insurance sector. But Martin isn’t merely coin operated, he is commended as one who believes wholeheartedly in global intellectual property accountability and at least over the last decades, an advocate for reform of various corporate systems. We couldn’t agree more with these underlying principles. But in the age of COVID, talk of reform can quickly lead to at times irrational rants of rebellion, or even revolution. But what’s the cause? Martin’s latest presentation was meant to capture the rebellious sentiment of at least some segments of the scientific, legal and political spheres, who are angered and outraged about how governments, industry and medical establishments responded to and dealt with COVID-19. Herein, this group is at times, referred to as the “Substack gang.” Tapping into his deep knowledge of IP and patent records, Martin lectured to the Brussels audience that the origins of COVID date back to the mid-1960s and even a form of a coronavirus vaccine in 1990! His presentation, propelled by mounting populist resentment and calls on Twitter and in Rumble videos and via the Substack gang for reform of industry, government and medical establishments—if not outright overturn, appeared as a call to dramatically change course, or else.
David Martin offered to the European Parliament a series of what many COVID-19 rebels, or the Substack gang referred to as “scorching revelations” involving an evolving weaponized COVID reality.
Lobbing metaphorical bombshells, pointing at foreknowledge of Pfizer, and Moderna, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among others, Dr. Martin’s Brussels invective points to a premeditated, orchestrated pandemic; one not as a result of natural forces, or even of the natural consequences of a complex, intertwined interplay of government interventions and market forces in life sciences, but actually the result of “bio-warfare” as humans have gone too far “weaponizing nature.” The speech fueled the fire of the Substack gang, and the tweets exploded.
What follows is our pessimistic, but pragmatic view of this author’s presentation, supported by the truly independent platform that is TrialSite.
Importantly, It was this platform that first chronicled the ivermectin research at the start of the pandemic—that some of the front-line clinicians presenting at the recent International Covid Summit III heavily supported. TrialSite’s reporting brought awareness of ivermectin use and research in the context of COVID-19 to North America. It was TrialSite that first published evidence that Pfizer wasn’t necessarily following standard regulatory protocols. TrialSite was the first media to publish FOIA material from Japan raising questions about mRNA biodistribution impacts thanks to a Canadian researcher’s efforts. We are the world’s only clinical trials industry-centric media platform covering both the unfolding durability and safety challenges with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines while also chronicling where, and how the vaccines did help save lives. No other media can claim such objectivity. There is an independent force behind TrialSite.
Regarding Dr. Martin’s knowledge, expertise, prowess and overall wisdom of patents and intellectual property records which cannot be disputed, he’s up there in an elite few with expertise that TrialSite founder Daniel O’Connor terms “next level.” And Martin isn’t just out to make money. He’s fundamentally driven by a higher moral compass, an integrity yet seemingly, an understanding of the realities of market base systems, democracies and the like.
He, along with many other scientists and professionals, are angered and outright enraged by how society continues to unfold, with ever growing corporate power and influence over civil society, and much of this discord exploded into what, for some, feels like a movement for reform, maybe even we dare to say revolutionary change, during the COVID-19 crisis. But is this really the case for professionals caught to the other side, taking on the COVID juggernaut?
Virus escapes the vaccines
“Make no mistake, this is not a theory. This is a crime,” Dr. Martin told the ‘International Covid Summit III’ in Brussels. Specifically, he alleged that Pfizer’s patent of a Coronavirus spike protein in 1990 evidences malfeasance: “Isn’t it fascinating that we’ve been told that the spike protein is a novelty? We didn’t just find out. No, we discovered this in 1990, and Pfizer filed the first vaccine patents on the Coronavirus spike protein then.” Martin also attacked the efficacy of our vaccines in light of a rapidly-mutating virus: “The reality is that every scientific publication on Coronavirus vaccines, from 1990 to 2018, concludes that the virus escapes the vaccine impulse due to its rapid mutations. So, tell me, how can we pin our hopes on vaccines when they are fundamentally flawed?” Of course, we at TrialSite early on during the mass vaccination program raised similar questions. How could we control such a mutating pathogen with a novel vaccine? Wouldn’t it take a number of vaccine versions to stabilize higher performing attributes? But under the emergency conditions it became federal bureaucrats gone wild. The opportunity to overreach abounded.
“SARS is not nature’s creation”
Martin, in building his case that COVID-19 isn’t some natural occurrence, or for that matter merely a pathogen that accidently leaked out of some laboratory in Wuhan, China, goes back to 2002 and the SARS outbreak that year. And this where Martin kicks up the intensity factor several folds.
The patent expert posits that COVID-19 was a manufactured disease: “SARS is not nature’s creation. It’s a weaponized life system model, developed by humans to attack humans. The naturally occurring phenomenon is the common cold. SARS was patented in 2002. Think about that!” Martin went on to say, “The CDC, in 2003, violated biological and chemical weapons treaties and laws when they filed a patent on the SARS Coronavirus, isolated from humans----They downloaded a sequence from China and just casually filed a patent on it in the U.S. Now, isn’t that concerning?”
Unfortunately, he doesn’t educate the audience more holistically on such facts. The backgrounds, intentions and purpose for these patents become important.
“Intentional release of a respiratory pathogen”
Next, Martin maintains that the moratorium on gain-of-function research in 2014 was violated: “The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, received an exemption from NIAID. They were allowed to continue the gain-of-function research on coronaviruses even while the moratorium was in place. That is a recipe for disaster!” Most “shocking,” Martin discussed four patent applications by Moderna prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, “Moderna altered their applications to include the phrase ‘accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen’ seven months before the first known patient contracted SARS-CoV-2.” Was this accidental or intentional? A chilling foreknowledge some allege, especially in the Substack gang, where it’s declared on a daily basis, matter of fact, that COVID-19 was essentially a planned operation.
Rewrite the narrative?
A vocal minority movement builds, recently bolstered somewhat by Twitter’s opening and the wild west nature of Substack, collectively calling for accountability for COVID-19, or else.
A fragmented, frustrated, angry—often justified--and in many cases, naïve collection of academics, physicians and scientists, ignored or worse attacked during the pandemic, yet often intoxicated with the attention, hear Martin’s call in what for them is a validation for what needs to be a rebellion against the current corporate patronage-driven research and organized medicine.
Banning gain-of-function and the “weaponization of nature” become commonplace calls by the Substack gang. Calls to reject corporate scientific support and the myriad legal, economic and financial driving the biomedical research complex today, at least until “they” accept 100% product liability for any and all injuries and/or deaths that occurred due to their march of “science.”
Addicted now to the attention that members of the Substack gang achieved during the height of the pandemic, they not only make demands against universities, industry and government, they also cry for justice and a call for a new world of medicine and science, decentralized, likely a bottoms up more utopian-like tomorrow.
Pointing to David Martin’s meticulous review, appraisal and condemnation of the past three plus decades of capitalistic advancements at the intersection of life sciences, medicine, finance and commerce, the rebels are shocked beyond belief, shaken to the core that such patent activity described by Dr. Martin has actually occurred. Martin’s calls harken a counter force of scientists, physicians, lawyers and other professionals ready not only for imminent debate taking on the current corny capitalistic order, but also ready to launch inquiries, investigations into evil doing. Similar to a post-war investigation into war crimes, justice must be served, we often hear from the Substack gang. But what’s the evidence to date justifying the actions?
Spike protein patented in 1990
Turning to the transcript of Dr. Martin’s talk riling the rebels, the former offers that dog and pig breeders, “found that Coronavirus created gastrointestinal problems, and that became the basis for Pfizer's first spike protein vaccine. Patent filed. Are you ready for this In 1990? Did you hear what I just said? 1990. Operation warp speed. I'm sorry. Where's the warp and the speed? Pfizer 1990.” Martin also asserts that “we were told” that “the spike protein is a new thing.” In an anti-Pfizer outburst, Martin exclaims “And who would've thought Pfizer? Clearly, the innocent organization that does nothing but promote human health. Clearly, Pfizer, the organization that has not bought the votes in this chamber, in every chamber of every government around the world, not that Pfizer, certainly they wouldn't have had anything to do with this, but oh yes, they did.”
Of course, what was “novel” supposedly was the rush commercialization of mRNA vaccine technology. The patents behind the science for the current mRNA technology was featured by Mario Gaviria, Ph.D. and Burcu Kilic in spring of 2021, in the journal Nature. The duo accounted for a preliminary network highlighting what is aptly described as a “complex intellectual property landscape behind mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.”
Patent network analysis of mRNA-based vaccine candidates for COVID-19.
Source: Nature
Infectious, replication-defective
Martin’s next claim is that all research from 1990 to 2018 showed that Coronaviruses mutate too fast for any vaccine to work. He also focuses on the year 2002; that year “the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented, and I quote, an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus. Listen to those words. Infectious replication, defective. What does that phrase actually mean?--For those of you not familiar with language, let me unpack it for you. Infectious replication. Defective means a weapon. It means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individuals. That's what infectious replication defective means. And that patent was filed in 2002, on work funded by NAID'S Anthony Fauci from 1999 to 2002, and that work patented at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill mysteriously preceded SARS 1.0 by a year.”
Of course, Martin suggests that not only was the first coronavirus likely human-made, but also so was the most recent SARS-CoV0-2.
As Martin mentioned swine at the start, the context of that patent could use more explanation.
Designing an uber weapon to take out hostile forces? Sort of—those pathogens attacking our swine, in the form of transmissible gastroenteritis, a coronavirus afflicting the global pig population, a sizable worldwide commodity with the U.S. as a key place affected by the pathogen. In the patent, the group describes the varying swine vaccine pathways under development, pointing to a recent, emerging “simple and rapid approach for systematically assembling a full-length cDNA copy of the TGEV genomic RNA from which infectious transcripts can be produced has been described (Yount, et al. (2000) J. Virol. 74:10600-10611). This approach, as well as that of Almazan et al. ((2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:5516-5521), will facilitate reverse genetic methods that impact all aspects of coronavirology, however, the production of infectious TGEV replicon particles is still limited.” How to develop superior vaccines that ensure stable livestock appears front and central of the Baric et al. patent.
Natural Coronavirus is the common cold
Making a specific claim, Martin says that the only natural Coronavirus is the “common cold.” “Dave, are you suggesting that SARS 1.0 wasn't from a wet market in Wuhan? Are you suggesting it might have come from a laboratory in the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill?” “No, I'm not suggesting it. I'm telling you that's the facts we engineered sars [sic]. SARS is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. The naturally occurring phenomenon is called the common cold. It's called influenza-like illness. It's called gastroenteritis. That's the naturally occurring coronavirus. SARS is the research developed by humans weaponizing a life system model to actually attack human beings, and they patented it in 2002.”
But again, a literal read of the 2002 patent “Methods for producing recombinant coronaviruses” funded in part by the National Institutes of Health seemingly has nothing to do with weaponization in an effort to attack other human beings.
Rather, the primary target for the effort is the advancement of vaccines for livestock, after all to this day the market in America alone for Hog and Pig Farming was about $30.6 billion. The U.S. has 67,000 hog farms employing about 600,000 people. Worldwide, that same hog market approaches $418 billion by 2028.
Martin may be correct that much like human bred dogs or modified plants over the centuries to create new breeds or plants, the same goes with chemistry, and the like. Think about what humans did with carbon, the coal then the petrochemical complex. Of course, there are always a few ways to look at advancements. There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. At some point perhaps, the externalities associated with the petroleum-based economy leads to more sustainably driven ones. But there will be tradeoffs all the way. Life sciences are no different. The same market (e.g., capitalistic forces) driving the Petro-chemical drives biomedical research. Humans, organized in various efficient forms to raise and mobilize capital, talent and other resources, continue to modify nature with patents serving as the basis for property rights. This may be until, perhaps, the tradeoffs are so dear that another system emerges?
Martin doesn’t educate in his speech. Rather, it seems more an attempt to elicit strong emotional response, anger, disgust, planting the seeds of revolt.
For example, Martin’s definition of “Defective” in the context of the patent which defined “Replication defective” is of interest. According to Dr. Martin, “Defective means a weapon. It means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individuals. That’s what infectious replication defective means.”
According to the patent’s authors, the term “Replication defective” literally means “that the viral genome contained within viral particles produced by the present invention cannot of themselves produce new viral particles. Subjects which may be administered or treated by the viral particles or VLPs of the present invention may be any subject, generally vertebrates, for which the viral particles or VLPs are infectious, including but not limited to birds and mammals such as pigs, mice, cows and humans).”
The authors point out that the 2002 invention could be applied to both coronaviruses and TGEV, and it also may have applications for other “nidoviruses and its families.”
Regardless of the key, well described intention of the 2002 patent “The present invention describes the assembly of recombinant transmissible virus and replicons that express heterologous genes which can be used to make vaccines against homologous and heterologous pathogens.” Perhaps this is code for declaring war on humanity if we are the pathogens.
But why attempt and disrupt mother nature? The patent’s authors point out,
“The use of replicons as a vaccine delivery system offers a number of important advantages over the use of live, attenuated virus vaccines, which are capable of independent spread and recombination with wild-type virus populations. Replicon vectors are an inherently safer alternative to the use of live, attenuated virus vaccines due to the lack of progeny virus production. In addition, high-level expression of heterologous genes can result in the use of a relatively low dose of virus replication particles (VRPs) for vaccination and immune induction. Moreover, gene order rearranged viruses will be inherently more stable and less pathogenic than attenuated wild-type strains.”
What’s seems clear here is that the evolving body of discoveries, the ongoing tinkering and various breakthroughs again likely involving gain-of-function have far more to do with attempts to overcome challenges in mother nature more often than not to pave the way for new pathbreaking products that improve quality of life and of course generate wealth, lots of it, along the way, for those who own the patents and associated intellectual property rights.
That’s how our market system works. It could well be the case that ethical moral and human safety issues continue to be front and center to such a march of scientific progress; for that non sane person can argue against. But has the coronavirus story been all part of a designed, orchestrated, nefarious plot to overcome and ultimately take out humanity? It seems the ultimate intention is likely elsewhere.
Calls for 100% product liability
During his European diatribe, Martin continued with bold, big and controversial claims, closing with the declaration that no “independent IRB [institutional review board] ever empaneled” relating to Coronavirus: “So morality was suspended for medical countermeasures, and ultimately humanity was lost because we decided to allow it to happen. Our job today is to say, no more gain of function research period. No more weaponization of nature period.” Finally, Martin argues for “no more corporate patronage of science for their own self-interest unless they assume 100% product liability for every injury and every death that they maintain.”
While so much of what Martin says has important, truthful elements, much of what he was up to is likely more for theatrics than anything else. This speech lifts Martin to heretofore the next level of notoriety and position, offering opportunities for doing really good, or if nothing else, monetizing the situation across multiple channels.
After all, during COVID-19 taking a rebellious stand targeting scientific advancements in the life sciences not only has become trendy, but it’s also resonating with a worldwide growing populism, mistrust of government and industry entanglements, large NGO structures such as the WHO, captured regulatory bodies and the like.
Of course, Martin is not only brilliant, but he also makes important arguments for more corporate responsibility and accountability, which we applaud. But his main driving points don’t seem likely.
Really, we must ban all gain-of-function? Is this really feasible? His argument resonates powerfully for persons that believe SARS-CoV-2 is merely the aggregate of human intervention, which ultimately led to the cataclysmic COVID-19 pandemic. But is this the case really? We need more conclusive proof.
While TrialSite has chronicled the evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 comes from a lab leak, does this mean that any and all science associated with gain-of-function be cancelled forever? There is so much that would need to be conclusively proven.
Martin calls for no more weaponization of nature, period. But is that what the human race is doing—weaponizing nature as it seeks to advance our knowledge, insight, abilities and the like in the realm of life sciences? Do we just throw out all vaccine advancements, and stick to the inactivated approach? Some even call for chucking the most tried and true of vaccines.
Of course, humans continue to be associated with incredible creative, and destructive powers across scientific fields and disciplines, with no ideal solutions, only tradeoffs. Albert Einstein expressed his dire concerns about these tradeoffs. The brilliant scientist said in a Newsweek interview, "Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing.”
Finally, Martin argues for no more patronage of corporate science without 100% liability. There is most certainly something to be said for product liability and associated litigation as a means in a market-based society to check corporate excess, abuse and the like. Government intervention often disrupts these market forces, and government interventions, universally waiving any liability on industry certainly can and does lead to problematic, perverse outcomes.
Statistics, capitalism, logic
At this point in time, logic and reason in many ways cannot support Dr. Martin’s most inflammatory claims. Martin ignores many counterpoints that move his theories from fact to speculation; and statistics, capitalism, and rules of logic all tend to show this to be the case. For one thing, a good understanding of statistics demonstrates that there are so many gazillions of events happening all the time that accidental connections are inevitable—e.g., such a bulk of research is conducted that it is not shocking when projects overlap. We point out that various patents, such as the one in 2002, have less to do with warfare against our fellow humans and far more to do with finding ways to protect an industry worth over $200 billion worldwide today.
And of course, science based to support capitalistic advancement by its very nature is leveraged for other monetization pursuits. In the case of a potential vaccine for pigs, why not other livestock….even humans?
Martin seems to cast the profit motive as fatal to humane science, but history proves otherwise. Of course, there’s always a movement to go back to a simpler, easier, more holistic time of human existence. But that’s more a romanticized urge actually made possible by the accumulated advantages of today. As imperfect as they are with all of those tradeoffs, often favoring the rich, powerful and so often influential throughout human history.
Sagan Standard not met
The most important discoveries and advances in medicine have been to one degree or another motivated by market forces and capitalism, the latter being among the best motivations humans have produced to date. Put another way, Martin is pathologizing our economic system, but not in the real-world ways that it can actually veer into the pathological. In the final analysis, Martin does not meet the [Carl] Sagan Standard: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A big C “Conspiracy” to cull humanity with bioweapons is much less likely than a little c “conspiracy” to make money, exercise poor judgement, and generally be human. And just because an idea, such as a Coronavirus vaccine up to 2020, has never worked, it does not follow that those chasing the profit motive would not keep trying to develop such a vaccine. Pfizer did, after all, just generate nearly $100 million in revenue—by making shrewd moves securing access to the BioNTech intellectual property, as well as ruthlessly exploiting pandemic conditions as this media has often chronicled, well before much of the Substack gang. Importantly, the U.S. voter has already assured a waiver of vaccine liability thanks to laws passed decades ago. Does the U.S. public want accountability of vaccine producers—vote in politicians that will change the law.
What about Pfizer’s shewed, cut-throat, zero-sum game behavior? The pharmaceutical company’s investors wouldn’t have it any other way. That is, the investment houses such as the Vanguard Group, Blackrock, State Street Corp and Charles Schwab along with the other usual cast of characters managing the money of society, including the biggest pension funds, such as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CALPERS) as an example. If those accounts don’t grow over time, life as we know it comes to an end. That’s our current system; it drives the world.
If serious about seeking real change from this system? You better come to the table with a vision worthy of attention, backed by sound ideas and viable approaches for a better tomorrow.
References
FWIW I first heard David Martin’s account in late 2021. This was heavily censored back then.
While governments around the world continue to harass doctors who prescribed Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the patients treated are not filing malpractice civil suits against these doctors. Hmmmmmmmmmm very telling!!!
In the US, suing doctors, and winning, is not nearly so easy as it used to be. Doctors now go to seminars run by their malpractice insurer where they are taught how to minimize their chances of being sued, and how to win if sued. Insurance companies have honed their tactics also. So nowadays, only large and rich legal firms (the ones you see advertising all the time) dare take on a case, and they have a very rigid vetting process so that only the most egregious cases are litigated.
That brings me to what you mention about doctors not administering HCQ/IVM. Did the doctors let us down? Yes, IMO. But legally, they were only following their "Standard of Care" guidelines. That is an all important term that every doc, nurse, hospital employee, state medical boards, physician colleges, and the health care establishment as a whole, knows well, and lives by. If they do not abide by it, they put their license/job at risk, and expose themselves to a lawsuit.
And during the pandemic, the Standard of Care did not include the use of HCQ/IVM. Here in the US at least. Perhaps it wasn't excluded (in writing), but as long as it was not written into each hospitals SOC (each department has their own), they are probably safe from any action.
There were some doctors who did uphold their Hippocratic Oath and prescribe IVM/HCQ. But some of them lost license, while others were threatened, and harassed, by their State Medical Boards, Hospital Medical Staffs, media, and Washington politicians.
So I really don't place any blame on the docs, although they disappointed me. The blame starts at the top with the CDC/FDA/NIH/WHO, and goes all the way down to each Hospital Administrator, who together made it too risky for doctors to treat their patients the way they thought best.
Display MoreIn the US, suing doctors, and winning, is not nearly so easy as it used to be. Doctors now go to seminars run by their malpractice insurer where they are taught how to minimize their chances of being sued, and how to win if sued. Insurance companies have honed their tactics also. So nowadays, only large and rich legal firms (the ones you see advertising all the time) dare take on a case, and they have a very rigid vetting process so that only the most egregious cases are litigated.
That brings me to what you mention about doctors not administering HCQ/IVM. Did the doctors let us down? Yes, IMO. But legally, they were only following their "Standard of Care" guidelines. That is an all important term that every doc, nurse, hospital employee, state medical boards, physician colleges, and the health care establishment as a whole, knows well, and lives by. If they do not abide by it, they put their license/job at risk, and expose themselves to a lawsuit.
And during the pandemic, the Standard of Care did not include the use of HCQ/IVM. Here in the US at least. Perhaps it wasn't excluded (in writing), but as long as it was not written into each hospitals SOC (each department has their own), they are probably safe from any action.
There were some doctors who did uphold their Hippocratic Oath and prescribe IVM/HCQ. But some of them lost license, while others were threatened, and harassed, by their State Medical Boards, Hospital Medical Staffs, media, and Washington politicians.
So I really don't place any blame on the docs, although they disappointed me. The blame starts at the top with the CDC/FDA/NIH/WHO, and goes all the way down to each Hospital Administrator, who together made it too risky for doctors to treat their patients the way they thought best.
You have a very low threshold for accountability.
What’s the United Kingdom’s Covid Inquiry and Why Are UK Ministers So Hell Bent on Stopping It?
The UK’s Covid-19 Inquiry, headed by a Baroness, is an independent public inquiry into the British government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic across the UK. With public hearings expected to commence this year, Boris Johnson announced the inquiry May 12, 2021, to commence the spring of 2022. But many of the Ministers will have nothing to do with it if they have their way. In fact, as reported by Michael Savage and Toby Helm writing for The Guardian, the UK Ministers have little time to assess the pros and cons of launching an unprecedented legal attack against the Covid Inquiry. Now, 10 Downing Street appears to be scrubbing some of their texts, communications and notes. Suddenly they claim they don’t have to save everything on WhatsApp. Sounds fishy.
Why do they want to stop this inquiry? According to the liberal mainstream media founded in 1821, the political governing apparatus (e.g., the political ruling class of Britain) seeks to maintain a slew of secret sensitive messages involving the likes of former and present-day UK Prime Ministers Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
On Saturday, The Guardian reported just 48 hours remaining before the deadline to hand over unredacted messages and notes involving the former PM (Johnson) and the ministers. The Observer reported over the weekend that the government would remain resolute in not sharing any internal communications or notes, despite the fact that they are quite public in nature.
Well, those 48 hours are up, and the political class has bought itself more time to try to hide COVID-19 secrets, reports The Guardian today.
In what is sure to raise some eyebrows, even in the UK, the Covid Inquiry extended the deadline to receive the former PM’s messages, while No. 10 declares that “some of the PM’s messages at the time were not permanently stored.” What?
That’s right. Now, the political class in the UK at the highest levels is claiming that some of Boris Johnson’s messages sent via WhatsApp aren’t ‘permanently stored.’
Downing Street, which is the PM and their officials, has gone on the record that some of the former PM’s COVID-19 pandemic messaging just may not be stored.
Of course, this means that the British ruling political class, likely in an attempt to cover up various shenanigans during the pandemic, now is in a frenetic effort to destroy as much evidence as possible, right in plain sight!
The latest report from The Guardian points out that the heads of the British government claim there is no requirement to retain every WhatsApp message after the Cabinet Office informed the Covid-19 Inquiry it cannot hold all of the evidence requested about the former PM. Johnson’s spokesperson went on the record, “We do not permanently store or record every WhatsApp.”
TrialSite provides a brief summary of some of the more contentious issues.
Why is this conflict so heavily reported and important?
With an imminent public hearing, the inquiry will expose prominent Tories such as David Cameron and George Osborne interrogated about their instructions to underlings to prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as their quite private discussions about any impacts on austerity on the British National Health System (NHS).
Does the PM and Cabinet Office believe they have privacy exemptions for COVID-19 pandemic preparedness?
Yes. In fact, according to an account in The Observer, the Cabinet Office believes it has the power to supersede any Covid Inquiry powers to compel it to hand over unredacted material that the elites deem “unambiguously irrelevant.”
What’s the rationale—the basis for excluding themselves from such a public inquiry?
According to lawyers representing the top ministers, such disclosures of information would inhibit or impede comparable future policy discussion, establishing what they argue is a dangerous precedent. Human Rights Act and data protection laws are cited as bolstering sources of protection.
What’s the position of senior political figures countering the Ministers?
Represented by Tory attorney Dominic Grieve, the forces behind the Covid Inquiry are adamant as to the prospects of disclosure. The Guardian reported comments from Mr. Grieve:
“They’ve either got to hand the material over, or they have got to bring judicial review proceedings on the basis that her request is unreasonable. I think it is likely they will be given a pretty short shrift if they turn up at court to argue that.”
“Seeing that Heather Hallett is cleared to a very high level of security, why should it matter that she sees the entirety of [the material]? She will decide what is relevant.”
So, what does the Baroness have to do with it?
A Baroness, Heather Carol Hallett, a retired English judge of the Court of Appeals and a crossbench life peer, was just the fifth woman ever to sit in the Court of Appeal. She led independent inquest into the 7.7 bombings. And by December 2021, the Baroness was announced as the chair of the UK’s Public Inquiry into the UK Government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For those Anglophiles interested in British political intrigue in more detail follow the link to the local press. TrialSite tracks this inquiry based on ongoing interest in the COVID-19 pandemic, involving a confluence of forces from the biomedical research apparatus, government and health systems.
a twitter thread worth the read.
Dystopia or WHOtopia"
powergrab by "who"
"The #WHO is not a governmental organization. 80% of the funding is coming from private organizations likes oligarchs and Big Pharma.
We cannot handover national power to a private funded institute without any democratic legitimacy"
Just a reminder. This very good thread will close at midnight tonight, but will remain visible to all who look for it. If the pandemic returns with teeth, we will re-open the topic.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed so many polite, sensible, interesting, alarming, valuable - and useful - posts.
The Forum Team.
For dessert the first USA FM/R//B playbock for 9/11
Latest news:: https://thegrayzone.com/2023/0…1-hijackers-cia-recruits/
For dessert the first USA FM/R//B playbock for 9/11
Latest news:: https://thegrayzone.com/2023/0…1-hijackers-cia-recruits/
Fitting end to this thread with me having to edit Wyttenbach one last time! See everyone next pandemic.
