The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins react with Au and Si, are electrically conductive and denature at 3 × 108 V m−1: a surface bonding and a single-protein circuit study

SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins react with Au and Si, are electrically conductive and denature at 3 × 108 V m−1: a surface bonding and a single-protein circuit study

Developing means to characterise SARS-CoV-2 and its new variants is critical for future outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins have peripheral disulfide bonds…

pubs.rsc.org

Abstract

Developing means to characterise SARS-CoV-2 and its new variants is critical for future outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins have peripheral disulfide bonds (S–S), which are common in all spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 variants, in other types of coronaviruses (e.g., SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV) and are likely to be present in future coronaviruses. Here, we demonstrate that S–S bonds in the spike S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 react with gold (Au) and silicon (Si) electrodes. Bonding to Si is induced by a spontaneous electrochemical reaction that involves oxidation of Si–H and the reduction of the S–S bonds. The reaction of the spike protein with Au enabled single-molecule protein circuits, by connecting the spike S1 protein between two Au nano-electrodes using the scanning tunnelling microscopy-break junction (STM-BJ) technique. The conductance of a single spike S1 protein was surprisingly high and ranged between two states of 3 × 10−4G0 and 4 × 10−6G0 (1G0 = 77.5 μS). The two conductance states are governed by the S–S bonds reaction with Au which controls the orientation of the protein in the circuit, and via which different electron pathways are created. The 3 × 10−4G0 level is attributed to a single SARS-CoV-2 protein connecting to the two STM Au nano-electrodes from the receptor binding domain (RBD) subunit and the S1/S2 cleavage site. A lower 4 × 10−6G0 conductance is attributed to the spike protein connecting to the STM electrodes from the RBD subunit and the N-terminal domain (NTD). These conductance signals are only observed at electric fields equal to or lower than 7.5 × 107 V m−1. At an electric field of 1.5 × 108 V m−1, the original conductance magnitude decreases accompanied by a lower junction yield, suggesting a change in the structure of the spike protein in the electrified junction. Above an electric field of 3 × 108 V m−1, the conducting channels are blocked and this is attributed to the spike protein denaturing in the nano-gap. These findings open new venues for developing coronavirus-capturing materials and offer an electrical method for analysing, detecting and potentially electrically deactivating coronaviruses and their future variants.

Deciphering the Potential of Pre and Pro-Vitamin D of Mushrooms against Mpro and PLpro Proteases of COVID-19: An In Silico Approach

Deciphering the Potential of Pre and Pro-Vitamin D of Mushrooms against Mpro and PLpro Proteases of COVID-19: An In Silico Approach

Vitamin D’s role in combating the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), the virus causing COVID-19, has been established in unveiling…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract

Vitamin D’s role in combating the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), the virus causing COVID-19, has been established in unveiling viable inhibitors of COVID-19. The current study investigated the role of pre and pro-vitamin D bioactives from edible mushrooms against Mpro and PLpro proteases of SARS-CoV-2 by computational experiments. The bioactives of mushrooms, specifically ergosterol (provitamin D2), 7-dehydrocholesterol (provitamin-D3), 22,23-dihydroergocalciferol (provitamin-D4), cholecalciferol (vitamin-D3), and ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) were screened against Mpro and PLpro. Molecular docking analyses of the generated bioactive protease complexes unravelled the differential docking energies, which ranged from −7.5 kcal/mol to −4.5 kcal/mol. Ergosterol exhibited the lowest binding energy (−7.5 kcal/mol) against Mpro and PLpro (−5.9 kcal/mol). The Molecular Mechanics Poisson–Boltzmann Surface Area (MMPBSA) and MD simulation analyses indicated that the generated complexes were stable, thus affirming the putative binding of the bioactives to viral proteases. Considering the pivotal role of vitamin D bioactives, their direct interactions against SARS-CoV-2 proteases highlight the promising role of bioactives present in mushrooms as potent nutraceuticals against COVID-19.

Covid Vaxxine damage in Germany now a reality:: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/po…k-gestiegen-18745229.html

You get a free new live...or some Euro...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Covid Vaxxine damage in Germany

from Aussie

"SHIT HITS THE FAN IN GERMANY"

Health Minister admits vaccines injuries!
1 in 10000 doses (not people)
Says:
“ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING”
“Why did you claim it was safe and effective?” -

“It was a failed tweet!”
“First of all, I didn’t sign the contracts!”
“BioNTech-EXORBITANT PROFITS!”

This is “old news” already for anyone that doesn’t relies on mainstream media for information. In fact, the only way to become aware of this is by not following mainstream media.

This was posted by Steve Kirsch today on the same subject.

https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1635370825577803776?s=20

I really liked one meme I saw the other day that went something along the lines of:

I identify as a conspiracy theorist and my pronouns are “I Told You So”.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Covid Vaxxine damage in Germany now a reality:: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/po…k-gestiegen-18745229.html

You get a free new live...or some Euro...

Hmmmmmm Google search didn't find this story had to use duck duck go

Health Minister admits vaccines injuries!

1 in 10000 doses (not people)

Watch: German Health Minister Admits Gov’t Aware Vast Number Suffered ‘Severe’ Covid Vaccine Injury

Watch: German Health Minister Admits Gov’t Aware Vast Number Suffered ‘Severe’ Covid Vaccine Injury

Karl Lauterbach admits government aware '1 in 10,000' severely injured by vaccine, says he's not responsible for Big Pharma liability waiver contracts.

www.infowars.com

not my fault only following orders! Seems Germans love to use this phrase

(GERMAN) KARL LAUTERBACH, FEDERAL MINISTER OF GERMANY FOR HEALTH, SAYS VAX INJURIES NOT HIS FAULT...

(German) Karl Lauterbach, Federal Minister of Germany for Health, Says Vax Injuries Not His Fault...

(Mirrored from Steve Kirsch): Karl Lauterbach, Federal Minister of Germany for Health, is basically saying it wasn’t his fault because he didn’t sign the…

www.bitchute.com

Moderna’s Murky Past

Moderna’s Murky Past

On December 2, 2020, with all attention focused on the UK regulator Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) which prematurely kickstarted the global…

www.trialsitenews.com

On December 2, 2020, with all attention focused on the UK regulator Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) which prematurely kickstarted the global covid-19 vaccine rollout by issuing a batch-specific temporary use authorization for Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA vaccine, another announcement about BioNTech’s rival Moderna escaped the attention it merited.

The venerable vaccine manufacturer Merck and Co announced to investors it had divested from Moderna saying, in a manner that hints at a desire to relieve itself of reputational risk, it ‘retains exposure indirectly to Moderna through its holding in venture funds.’

Merck acquired an equity stake in January 2015, when Moderna sought a strategic alliance to bolster its nascent mRNA vaccine program for infectious diseases. The terse language in the December 2020 Merck press release is at odds with the language used by Moderna in its press release of October 8, 2020, saying it had ‘regained the rights to RSV (mRNA-1172) from Merck including for adult populations’. Moderna put a positive spin on the news saying it had ‘consolidated global commercial rights to all development candidates in its core prophylactic vaccines modality.’

The Merck press release does not identify the counterparty in the sale, but it is apparent that it was Moderna itself suggesting that the material breach clause was used by Merck to secure an early exit to the contract which had been due to run until January 2022. The question that has escaped attention, is what precisely led to the severing of the relationship.

Merck is an acknowledged leader when it comes to developing vaccines, as Merck’s then Chief Executive Officer Ken Frazier explained in a July 2020 interview with Harvard Business School.

“Let me just give you one data point. In the last quarter century, there have only been seven, truly new vaccines introduced globally at the clinical practice,” said Frazier. “When I say new, that means that they were effective against a pathogen for which there had previously been no vaccine. There are only seven in the last quarter century, Merck has four, the rest of the world has three.”

Under the 2015 Master Collaboration agreement, between the two companies, Merck was paying Moderna to develop an RSV vaccine (mRNA-1777) and a second vaccine candidate, mRNA-1278 which Moderna said was a shingles vaccine. Under this agreement, Merck was to commercialize resulting vaccines that succeeded in achieving regulatory approval on behalf of Moderna and pay Moderna royalties on them.

When Moderna made its stock market debut in November 2018, it said in its prospectus that “On the basis of the Phase 1 results for the RSV vaccine (mRNA-1777), Merck has initiated planning for a Phase 2a clinical trial. We are working with Merck to identify and advance improvements to the RSV vaccine.” Merck paid Moderna to run the phase 1 clinical trial on mRNA-1777 which it ran in Australia, away from the scrutiny of the FDA.

mRNA-1777 was intended to be a single-dose vaccine and was designed with a stabilized prefusion F-protein, a technique developed by Dr. Barney Graham, the then Deputy Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) Vaccine Research Centre. As the contractual documents obtained by Axios News show, the NIAID licensed RSV patents to Moderna in January, and October 2018.

But where things become curious is that in May 2019, just prior to Moderna signing a Research Collaboration Agreement on MERS and Nipah virus with the NIAID (effective June 2019), Moderna reported in its quarterly filing with the securities regulator, that an amendment was agreed to the 2015 Master Collaboration agreement. It stated, “We and Merck agreed to certain exceptions to the existing exclusivity obligations, pursuant to which we will no longer be restricted from researching, developing, and commercializing an mRNA investigational medicine for the prevention of a specific set of respiratory infections, including RSV, for the pediatric population.” (my emphasis)

At the same time, Moderna said Merck was returning the rights to the Shingles vaccine mRNA-1278, which was in preclinical development. Shingles is a latent infection, not a respiratory infection so an agreement to develop a real shingles vaccine would not have precluded Moderna from collaborating on a MERS vaccine with the NIAID. If on the other hand, the ‘specific set of respiratory infections’ were caused by a coronavirus of some kind, that would be an obstacle.

Merck simultaneously elected to run a phase 1 clinical trial of its own on a new RSV candidate mRNA-1172 in the USA. Moderna then added mRNA-1345 to its product development pipeline, saying it was a pediatric RSV vaccine.

The story gets murkier.

Buried in the Exhibits attached to the 2018 Moderna stock market Prospectus are copies of the 2015 Master Collaboration Agreement with Merck and a series of amendments to it which Moderna requested confidential treatment of parts of until 2028.

In Amendment 1 made in January 2016, and signed by Moderna’s CEO, Stephane Bancel, Moderna asked Merck to ‘substitute VZV (Varicella Zoster Virus)’ for something else which was redacted. Having agreed, Merck appeared to have misgivings and sought a second Amendment in June 2016, giving it the right to elect new products. It exercised this right in May 2019, when it nominated mRNA-1172.

The jointly owned Moderna-NIAID vaccine for SARS CoV2 was given the identifier mRNA-1273. In March 2022, Moderna announced that it was developing a new pan-coronavirus vaccine candidate mRNA-1287 to counter the common cold. The obvious inference is that mRNA-1278, the vaccine which Moderna claimed publicly in 2018 and 2019 was a shingles vaccine candidate, was in fact, a coronavirus vaccine and that VZV was ‘substituted’ in name only, as Moderna wished for some unknown reason to keep the development of this vaccine secret.

It appears that the two vaccines (mRNA-1777 and mRNA-1278) were being developed in tandem, with RSV being used as a front-runner for clinical trials to test out the pre-fusion stabilization approach to tackling the VAERDS. When Moderna published the Phase 3 trial protocol in September 2020, the background section on page 29 lists six infectious disease vaccines it had in development but makes no mention of the RSV vaccine, which is odd given the fact they share a common technical hurdle.

Moderna needed to extricate itself from its agreement with Merck before it could participate in the Manhattan Project for biosecurity which Dr Robert Kadlec began planning for in 2014, while he was a consultant to vaccine manufacturer Emergent Biosolutions as a vehicle for expanding manufacturing capacity and ‘modernizing’ the manufacture of vaccines.

During the July 2020 Harvard Business School interview, Frazier was asked what it would take to find a reliable vaccine for COVID-19. His answer in full was:

“Well, first of all, it takes a lot of time. I think the record for the fastest vaccine ever brought to market was Merck in the mumps vaccine. It took about four years. Our most recent vaccine for Ebola took five and a half years. And why does it take so long? First of all, it requires a rigorous scientific assessment. And here we didn't even understand the virus itself or how the virus affects the immune system. We're starting there.”

“We're starting with a spike protein as the antigen. What we're hoping to be able to do with these different approaches is to create a vaccine that we can study quickly that can be both safe and effective and can be durable. Those are three different issues. No one knows for sure whether any of these vaccine programs will produce a vaccine like that. What worries me the most is that the public is so hungry, so desperate to go back to normalcy, that they are pushing us to move things faster and faster. But ultimately, if you're going to use a vaccine in billions of people, you better know what that vaccine does.”

Under the terms of the 2015 Master Agreement, Merck would have had to commercialize the mRNA-1278 vaccine and pay Moderna royalties, so either Moderna got greedy and wanted all the profits or Merck had misgivings about its involvement with them.

Merck ran its own trial on the second RSV candidate mRNA-1172, between 2019 and 2020, having given itself the ability in 2016 to conduct due diligence of its own on Moderna’s mRNA gene therapies via amendment 2 of the Master Collaboration Agreement. It returned the rights to Moderna in October 2020, as the COVID-19 vaccines were hurtling down the final regulatory strait. As the extended agreement between Moderna and Merck was due to run until 2022, it is perhaps, the case that Merck was concerned that Moderna had misled investors and used the material breach clause of the contract, the existence of which was explicitly mentioned in Moderna’s 2019 SEC filings, to exit. Neither company made express mention of the clause in their 2020 public statements.

Merck stood down its in-house Covid-19 vaccine program on January 26, 2021, saying, “The immune responses were inferior to those seen following natural infection, and those reported for other SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccines.” Questions remain as to the full story behind why its collaboration with Moderna ended in October 2020.

COVID-19 Vaccines were Proven Ineffective Before Vaccine Campaign Roll Out

COVID-19 Vaccines were Proven Ineffective Before Vaccine Campaign Roll Out

When people assess the evidence of a scientific study, they sometimes overlook an extremely important feature--the strength of the evidence. Tons of…

www.trialsitenews.com

When people assess the evidence of a scientific study, they sometimes overlook an extremely important feature--the strength of the evidence. Tons of observational studies with weak evidence are no match for a few well-designed controlled studies with strong evidence. A similar comparison of evidence applies to the strong evidence of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials and the much weaker evidence of the vaccine post-marketing studies. The final phase 3 results of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trial were published in the New England Journal of Medicine as early as December 10, 2020, approximately 9 months after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared on March 11, 2020. Within a mere 9 months, it was already firmly established that the absolute risk reduction of Pfizer/BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection with a mild or moderate symptom was approximately 0.7%., essentially providing no clinical benefits whatsoever. In other words, the public roll out of the vaccine campaign to contain the spread of the coronavirus was doomed to failure before it barely started!

Nevertheless, the absolute risk reduction of the COVID-19 vaccine was hidden from the public, and in its place the public was told about the glorious relative risk reduction of approximately 95%. So impressed was the public with this media hype that employers started mandating vaccination for all employees, and universities mandated vaccines for students. In the meanwhile reports of harm from the vaccines mounted.

It wasn't long before numerous observational post-marketing studies started reporting "waning effectiveness" of the vaccines. Lacking strict controls to eliminate biases, the evidence in these negative reports was weak, but the sheer number of negative findings eventually forced public health authorities to concede that the vaccines were failing to prevent transmission of the coronavirus.

However, this is simply NOT the whole truth, which is much worse. The public to this day largely remains unaware that the COVID-19 vaccines were proven ineffective (non-efficacious) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections BEFORE the vaccine roll out. The much stronger evidence of the clinical trials proved that the vaccines were never effective to begin with, and the chance that they could contain the coronavirus was nil. It was just a matter of time before the clinically-proven results showed up within the population. The entire launch of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign during the pandemic was based on biased information and misleading half-truths!

Even the FDA that authorized the vaccines for emergency use ignored their own advice to include absolute risk reductions when communicating risks to the public: Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User's Guide | FDA. Consequently, the public was denied their right to full discloscure of risks and benefits when deciding to consent to a medical treatment or procedure.

The media had full access to studies like mine published in February 2021, Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials. But the media continued to ignore the truth and even censor discussion about it. And the public, including most scientists, practitioners, and public health administrators, continue to remain ignorant of the misuse of the relative risk reduction in reporting clinical trial results: Relative risk reduction: Misinformative measure in clinical trials and COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

And the next media-hyped vaccination campaign lies in waiting right around the corner!

Quote from Zeus46

“HAPPY FRIDAY ALL YOU POISONOUS HORSE PASTE EATING SURVIVORS !!!”

He was found dead three hours later. Moderators on the forum where he pushed his daft ideas onto other dupes, made light of the situation with this weird quote:

The brown leather jacket boy again posts what he believes is happy news for his Dr. Mengele friends.

Today NZZ made it clear. This poor guy did suffer from a serious gene defect? induces illness following a Borrelia infection . He took Ivermectin since 11 years. So it was never Covid related.

What makes it more serious is the believe of our child that we should feed our most precious medicament to all animals we make money of. Today cows and horses eat more Ivermectin and Praziqauntel than ever. Unluckily with the same consequences as we see for antibiotics.

Top British Immunologists: COVID-19 MRNA Vaccine Platform Appears a Dead End

Top British Immunologists: COVID-19 MRNA Vaccine Platform Appears a Dead End

With 70% of the population targeted with mass COVID-19 vaccination, herd immunity was promised as a natural positive outcome by the promoters of the COVID-19…

www.trialsitenews.com

With 70% of the population targeted with mass COVID-19 vaccination, herd immunity was promised as a natural positive outcome by the promoters of the COVID-19 vaccines early on. So communicated the World health Organization, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and countless other agencies. But how could that have happened with a non-sterilizing vaccine that failed to fully stop viral transfer targeting a pathogen, an RNA virus that mutates frequently like influenza? Of course, the value of the vaccine correctly was pivoted to focus on reduction of morbidity and mortality. But the 70% targets remained along with pervasive mandates which by summer of 2021, were unethical as the platform failed to neutralize and with mutating variants became ever less durable. The experts that tried to call this out early on in the pandemic found themselves ignored, or even censored. A recent editorial in The Lancet infectious Diseases by a pair of scientists from Imperial College of London, both immunology experts, stated that as we enter the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than having a clear path to herd immunity, instead we face a far “less certain” tomorrow. The pair of highly respected British immunologists including Prof. Rosemary Boyton, and Prof. Danny Altmann reveal the COVID-19 vaccination reality of today in surprisingly frank terms. Despite this unprecedented mass vaccination program worldwide, “societal attempts to live with the virus have relied on hybrid immunity,” meaning the measurable plus non-measurable, tangible and intangible protective benefits afforded by both vaccination and the natural immunity bestowed by pre-existing infection. After reviewing the comment “Imprinted hybrid immunity against XBB reinfection,” it becomes cleared just how much we have missed the mark with the mass vaccination program.

Although the most recent bivalent vaccines are adapted to BA.4 and BA.5 in the United States, those pathogens have disappeared months ago. But the Imperial College London immunologists point out that less viral sequencing tracking leads to far less certainty as to what any particular variant is doing around the world. Protection from infection seems less now, but overall, Omicron appears less virulent a virus, so there are tradeoffs.

But what about differential immune imprinting, after tracking the various combinations of infection and vaccination? The authors raise first a couple points, including that hybrid immunity from the pre-2022 antigenically distant, pre-omicron variants failed to confer protection against XBB reinfection.

They observe: “A new biomedical interface arose during the pandemic from the iterative rapid exchanges between real-world, national cohort epidemiology and laboratory, mechanistic immunology.”

It’s a serious matter, warn the British immunologists, stating:

“High prevalence of breakthrough infections is evidence of us failing in our war of attrition against the virus, measurable by increased caseload, hospitalizations and health-care provision, lost days from work, chronic disability from persistent symptoms, and an inability to simply return to normal life. Among the immunological challenges is the imperative to better define the rules underpinning the differential immune imprinting exemplified by these findings.”

The authors here point to Tan and colleagues from Singapore who feature epidemiological observations backing the concept of “differentially imprinting hybrid immunity conferred by previous infections during the period in which the omicron variant was dominant.”

With this data in mind, the authors report, disturbingly, in how little we really know:

“This dataset…reminds us not only how far we are from understanding these imprinting rules but also how great would be the benefits of understanding them better.”

Raising an even more ominous note the immunologists point out that potentially “we are arguably even further from decoding the details of differentially imprinted immune waning.”

But what was the hope? The British authors tell us directly that there would be robust protection bolstered “by highly effective vaccine platforms.” This is not the case.

They present a possible fork in the vaccination road now, or worse, possibly a dead end. They declared:

“If we now appreciate that even hybrid immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection is (differentially, depending on previous immune experience) poorly durable and annual debates on booster strategy are required, how should we move forward?“

Warning to bureaucrats in America

The two immunologists have a message as well that may be targeted at America’s health bureaucracies---places like the FDA, CDC and NIH: They [the British immunologists] don’t think one can just keep tweaking the vaccines and produce an influenza model, which by the way is a lousy model in the first place.

Rather, Boyton and Altmann report, “The dataset from Singapore reminds us that suggesting the booster strategy will simply involve tweaking vaccines annually, as for influenza, seriously underestimates the complexity of the current challenge.”

So, what’s the answer?

Well considering the current approach is failing (they don’t state that directly, but that’s exactly what they are implying, strongly), the only long-term strategy involves what the academics refer to as “considerable effort towards the development of both next-generation vaccines (for example targeting neutralizing epitopes that are actually conserved and difficult for mutations) and vaccine platforms that provide durable, local protection in the nasal mucosa, thereby blocking viral transmission.”

What’s the takeaway on the mass COVID-19 vaccination scheme?

It depends on one’s point of view. Yes, the vaccine products especially earlier in the pandemic (first part of 2021, for example) created surges of robust protection which we here at TrialSite believed saved millions of lives, but also involves a gargantuan spend, and possibly more damaging, locked in commitment to a platform that was supposed to be flexible and robust, but turns out to be not much of either if these two top immunologists are correct.

Imprinted hybrid immunity against XBB reinfection

In the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the picture of population immunity has become increasingly complex and the certainties have become less certain.1…

www.thelancet.com

well it looks like the pandemic has uncovered another dirty little secret the authorities keep from the people. Rising maternity deaths for over 3 decades. All happening under the nose of Frances Collins and fauci!

US maternal death rate rose sharply in 2021, CDC data shows, and experts worry the problem is getting worse

US maternal death rate rose sharply in 2021, CDC data shows, and experts worry the problem is getting worse | CNN

www.cnn.com

The US has the highest maternal death rate of any developed nation, according to the Commonwealth Fund and the latest data from the World Health Organization. While maternal death rates have been either stable or rising across the United States, they are declining in most countries.

“A high rate of cesarean sections, inadequate prenatal care, and elevated rates of chronic illnesses like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease may be factors contributing to the high U.S. maternal mortality rate. Many maternal deaths result from missed or delayed opportunities for treatment,” researchers from the Commonwealth Fund wrote in a report last year.

Ladapo with Gloves off: COVID-19 Vaccines have a ‘Terrible Safety Profile’

Ladapo with Gloves off: COVID-19 Vaccines have a ‘Terrible Safety Profile’

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo recently was chastised by both the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Robert Califf and director of…

www.trialsitenews.com

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo recently was chastised by both the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Robert Califf and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Rochelle Walensky. Responding to a letter on the safety signals the Florida’s Surgeon General identified, the two agency heads attacked Ladapo for essentially endangering lives by not recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for everyone. Ladapo recently changed the state’s position, not recommending the COVID-19 vaccines to healthy young people due to the cardiovascular safety signals. But clearly the letter from Califf and Walensky ticked off the independent Surgeon General who went on the offensive declaring “These vaccines have a terrible safety profile!” He continued “At this point in the pandemic, I don’t think anyone should be taking them.” Again, pointing to the safety profile.

Ladapo continued his attack on the FDA and CDC heads declaring that the most consistent thing they have done throughout the pandemic has been to “Deny the truth.”

From pushing masks on everyone with no clear scientific benefit to aggressively promoting vaccines in little kids, both low value and highly divisive policy drivers.

Meanwhile look the truth—one in The Lancet and what did the authors show—after 7 months against protection wanes markedly to a negative impact. And the Surgeon General for the Sunshine State continued, the magnitude of negative impact continues over time.

What does it mean? Ladapo doubles down---it means that people who have received the COVID-19 vaccines have a higher likelihood of contracting the disease than others as time passes. Yet he continued like with everything else during the pandemic the agencies that we are supposed to trust did everything but tell the full truth.

The event was tweeted by Florida’s Voice, a local news network.

Of course both Califf and Walensky are well aware that the antibody inducing effects of the COVID-19 vaccines wane especially against Omicron. The latest data with the boosters most certainly isn’t great news for the official narrative. The overall product performance continues to decline.

Tweet / Twitter

Puzzle Pieces or Random Snippets: What Happened at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland?

Puzzle Pieces or Random Snippets: What Happened at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland?

A March 8, 2019 paper by Allison Totura, who was affiliated with the Division of Molecular and Translational Sciences, United States Army Medical Research…

www.trialsitenews.com

A March 8, 2019 paper by Allison Totura, who was affiliated with the Division of Molecular and Translational Sciences, United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, MD, shows us that this facility was researching coronaviruses prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Titled, “Broad-spectrum coronavirus antiviral drug discovery,” the abstract notes that, “The highly pathogenic coronaviruses severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are lethal zoonotic viruses that have emerged into human populations these past 15 years. These coronaviruses are associated with novel respiratory syndromes that spread from person to person via close contact, resulting in high morbidity and mortality….” The paper goes on, “the potential for the future emergence of novel coronaviruses indicate antiviral drug discovery will require activity against multiple coronaviruses…Based on lessons learned from SARS and MERS outbreaks, lack of drugs capable of pan-coronavirus antiviral activity increases the vulnerability of public health systems to a highly pathogenic coronavirus pandemic.”

Lab Shut Over Safety Concerns

Our next data point comes from the New York Times on August 5, 2019, titled, “Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns.” TrialSite has looked into the matter in the past. Apparently “safety concerns” at the Fort Detrick lab, “led the government to shut down research involving dangerous microbes like the Ebola virus.” Lab spokesperson Caree Vander Linden stated that “Research is currently on hold.” She added that the shutdown was likely to last for months. She noted that CDC had issued a “cease and desist order” in July 2019 calling for a stop to research because the Institute lacked “sufficient systems in place to decontaminate wastewater” from high-risk labs. The research put on hold involved toxins and “germs called select agents, which the government has determined have ‘the potential to pose a severe threat to public, animal, or plant health….”

Per the Times, “There are 67 select agents and toxins; examples include the organisms that cause Ebola, smallpox, anthrax and plague and the poison ricin.” Per the CDC order, this research must have been ongoing as of July 2019.

Respiratory Illness Outbreak in Neighboring Virginia

Around the same time, Virginia Department of Health issued a warning about an “Increase in Respiratory Illnesses.” The press release notes that: “Since the end of flu season in May, the Virginia Department of Health has received increased reports of respiratory (breathing) illness across the Commonwealth greater than observed in previous summers. Most of the reports have occurred among older adults and those with chronic medical conditions in assisted living and long-term care facilities. The reports involve different regions of the state and different diseases, including pertussis (whooping cough), influenza, Haemophilus influenzae infection, Legionnaire’s disease, and pneumonia caused by rhinovirus or human metapneumovirus.” They go on to state that, “Certain groups are especially vulnerable for developing severe respiratory illness, including young children, adults 65 years or older, those with chronic medical conditions (such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart conditions) and those with weakened immune systems.” Located about 55 miles from the Fort Detrick Institute, Greenspring Retirement Community in Springfield, Virginia experienced a “respiratory outbreak,” according to a July 11, 2019, ABC News article. 54 Community residents were infected, and two died. Per the county health department, the illnesses started around July 1: “The Fairfax County Department of Health said that 54 individuals had become ill with ‘respiratory symptoms ranging from upper respiratory symptoms (cough) to pneumonia’ in the last 11 days at Greenspring Retirement Community in Springfield.”

Six Violations of Federal Regulations

On November 23, 2019, the Frederick News-Post covered the CDC’s inspection of the Institute. After noting the earlier shut-down, the Post stated that the Institute would “restart its operations on a limited scale.” The paper had obtained an “inspections findings report” via a FOIA request. “Due to redactions to protect against the notification of the release of an agent under the Federal Select Agent Program, it is unclear the result of the two breaches,” the Post said. The CDC findings included that there were six violations of federal regulation for the handling of “select agents.” In addition to two “breaches,” “the military laboratory systematically failed to implement biosafety and containment procedures. In one instance, personnel deliberately propped open the door to the autoclave room while the employee removed biohazard waste.” The report goes on, “This deviation increases the risk of contaminated air from room [redacted] escaping and being drawn into the autoclave room, where individuals do not wear respiratory protection.” According to the Post, “The [CDC] report includes a large section redacted to protect against the release of a report or inspection of a specific registered person that would endanger public health or safety.”

SARS-CoV-2 Research not Affected?

With the onset of the pandemic, TrialSite reported “Fort Detrick researchers ominously prescient in their analysis of a new dangerous coronavirus.”

Fort Detrick had some kind of viral-related potential incident the summer before the pandemic, and yet by 2018 two researchers with the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick put forth an ominous warning that coronavirus represents a highly pathogenic and dangerous virus that has emerged in human populations over the past decade and a half. Associated with novel respiratory syndromes, these viruses move from person to person via close contact and can result in high morbidity and mortality caused by the progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). These two researchers were incredibly, and ominously, prescient.

On April 1, 2020, Military.Com reported on the reopening of the Army biolabs at Fort Detrick: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention restored full operating capability to all U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) labs at Fort Detrick, Maryland, last week following a shutdown last July of some high-level facilities out of safety concerns.”

They continue, “The CDC cleared USAMRIID's Level 3 and 4 laboratories -- those where the world's most dangerous pathogens are studied -- for full operations on March 27. The labs had been operating under partial capacity since last November, following a cease-and-desist order issued last July by the CDC over lapses in biosafety standards.”

Interestingly, “Army officials said April 1 that the shutdown did not have any impact on the institute's research on the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which causes the COVID-19 illness.” (Italics added.) The officials added, “that work continues at USAMRIID and elsewhere in the Army to study countermeasures for the novel coronavirus.” Military.Com noted that “a Pentagon decision in February to withhold $104 million from Fort Detrick and Aberdeen Proving Ground, another installation in Maryland that houses the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense. Defense Department officials did not give a reason for withholding the money from the facilities.”

What about the DARPA Memo?

This author has reported that a Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) formal-looking memorandum acknowledged that SARS-CoV-2 was an American-developed technology.

TrialSite reached into DARPA, and a top communications spokesperson responded first declaring that DARPA could not confirm or deny that the memo was the agency’s….however she did go on the record that they could acknowledge that they had no dealings with EcoHealth Alliance. Of course, this latter group has been associated with serving as an intermediary, bringing U.S.-funded gain-of-function coronavirus research to China.

While the pieces of this puzzle may add up to nothing, it’s interesting that the Fort Detrick lab had been acknowledged to working on coronavirus, a couple of years prior a couple scientists from the lab had some disturbingly prescient observations about the dangers of coronaviruses, and of course, the lab incident occurred just months before some evidence of a novel respiratory disease showed manifested in China. There were some investigators that speculated that SARS-CoV-2 may have been in circulation already by September 2019. See the link. All perhaps just coincidental, as one notable character once told this author that history is often just a series of coincidences. On the other hand, the issues around Fort Detrick deserve public scrutiny in this information environment: until recently, the lab-leak hypothesis was banned. Now it is officially recognized. But did they say which lab COVID-19 came from?

The fauci/ Collins propoganda machine is now in full swing. New samples? Recently uploaded? Oh sure of coarse!

New Data Links Pandemic’s Origins to Raccoon Dogs at Wuhan Market

Genetic samples from the market were recently uploaded to an international database and then removed after scientists asked China about them.

New Data Links Pandemic’s Origins to Raccoon Dogs at Wuhan Market

Genetic samples from the market were recently uploaded to an international database and then removed after scientists asked China about them.

www.nytimes.com

Kristian Andersen, Michael Worobey, and Edward Holmes remember these names. True Fauci minions!

This Shouldn’t Happen”: Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy

“This Shouldn’t Happen”: Inside the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy

Chasing scientific renown, grant dollars, and approval from Dr. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak transformed the environmental nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance into a…

www.vanityfair.com

Bloom had submitted the paper to a preprint server, a public repository of scientific papers awaiting peer review, on the same day that he’d sent a copy to Fauci and Collins. It now existed in a kind of twilight zone: not published, and not yet public, but almost certain to appear online soon.

Collins immediately organized a Zoom meeting for Sunday, June 20. He invited two outside scientists, evolutionary biologist Kristian Andersen and virologist Robert Garry, and allowed Bloom to do the same. Bloom chose Pond and Rasmus Nielsen, a genetic biologist. That it was shaping up like an old-fashioned duel with seconds in attendance did not cross Bloom’s mind at the time. But six months after that meeting, he remained so troubled by what transpired that he wrote a detailed account, which Vanity Fair obtained.

After Bloom described his research, the Zoom meeting became “extremely contentious,” he wrote. Andersen leapt in, saying he found the preprint “deeply troubling.” If the Chinese scientists wanted to delete their sequences from the database, which NIH policy entitled them to do, it was unethical for Bloom to analyze them further, he claimed. And there was nothing unusual about the early genomic sequences in Wuhan.

Instantly, Nielsen and Andersen were “yelling at each other,” Bloom wrote, with Nielsen insisting that the early Wuhan sequences were “extremely puzzling and unusual.”

Andersen—who’d had some of his emails with Fauci from early in the pandemic publicly released through FOIA requests—leveled a third objection. Andersen, Bloom wrote, “needed security outside his house, and my pre-print would fuel conspiratorial notions that China was hiding data and thereby lead to more criticism of scientists such as himself.”

Fauci then weighed in, objecting to the preprint’s description of Chinese scientists “surreptitiously” deleting the sequences. The word was loaded, said Fauci, and the reason they’d asked for the deletions was unknown.

That’s when Andersen made a suggestion that surprised Bloom. He said he was a screener at the preprint server, which gave him access to papers that weren’t yet public. He then offered to either entirely delete the preprint or revise it “in a way that would leave no record that this had been done.” Bloom refused, saying that he doubted either option was appropriate, “given the contentious nature of the meeting.”