Less decency and honesty in science than in politics, these days. I didn’t think there’s a few levels below politics.
You know when your juice bottle says “100% orange” and the small prints say it’s just 50% of fruit “concentrate”? They should be arrested for that. Now concentrate on this:
If I were to sum it up in words, I’d quote the source of this revelation:
“It is like saying that there were 700 men and 127 women studied and only a small percent got pregnant. Well, from the start 700 could not have gotten pregnant in the first place.”
Wheatley has just tipped LifeSite News on this, and I immediately did my own verification, anyone can and should do it. The result became the cover image for this article, which really is the beginning and the end of the debate, sums up Covidiocracy for me.
The data was collected and “arranged” by a team of “CDC experts” who published it in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2021. It remained overlooked until mid July, when NEJM followed up with a shameless editorial that questioned nothing, just furthered the lie. And that’s when the small prints caught some diligent eyes and went to become our big headline today, as they deserve. Evil is in the small prints, again, that’s why they hate you when you carefully read inserts and labels.
This is Covidiocracy Science for you, this is the highly esteemed New England Journal of Medicine, up there, close to the British Medical Journal as reputation.
Mind that 82% is 3x the normal rate. All that extra dead babies blood is on the hands of CDC, NEJM and the likes of.
UPDATE:
A reader pointed out that Jeffrey Jaxxen too blew the lid on this, on Del Bigtree’s show, a few days back, and they reached precisely the same conclusion. BUT I noticed one very interesting detail that Del brought up and single-handedly proves intention in this fake narrative: The study hast no less than 54 authors. There is no chance in heaven and hell that they all missed this. If it’s not by mistake, it’s by intention.
This are just my highlights from the show, the full thing is linked above
And we really have to extrapolate this example to all walks of life, because they are all infected with the same corruption. None as blatantly as science, but you still can’t rely on anything you can’t research and verify yourself.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) has worked in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning to understand the future implications of human augmentation (HA), setting the foundation for more detailed Defence research and development.
The project incorporates research from German, Swedish, Finnish and UK Defence specialists to understand how emerging technologies such as genetic engineering, bioinformatics and the possibility of brain-computer interfaces could affect the future of society, security and Defence. The ethical, moral and legal challenges are complex and must be thoroughly considered, but HA could signal the coming of a new era of strategic advantage with possible implications across the force development spectrum.
HA technologies provides a broad sense of opportunities for today and in the future. There are mature technologies that could be integrated today with manageable policy considerations, such as personalised nutrition, wearables and exoskeletons. There are other technologies in the future with promises of bigger potential such as genetic engineering and brain-computer interfaces. The ethical, moral and legal implications of HA are hard to foresee but early and regular engagement with these issues lie at the heart of success.
HA will become increasingly relevant in the future because it is the binding agent between the unique skills of humans and machines. The winners of future wars will not be those with the most advanced technology, but those who can most effectively integrate the unique skills of both human and machine.
The growing significance of human-machine teaming is already widely acknowledged but this has so far been discussed from a technology-centric perspective. This HA project represents the missing part of the puzzle.
Disclaimer
The content of this publication does not represent the official policy or strategy of the UK government or that of the UK’s Ministry of Defense (MOD).
Furthermore, the analysis and findings do not represent the official policy or strategy of the countries contributing to the project.
It does, however, represent the view of the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC), a department within the UK MOD, and Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning (BODP), a department within the German Federal Ministry of Defence. It is based on combining current knowledge and wisdom from subject matter experts with assessments of potential progress in technologies 30 years out supporting deliberations and deductions for future humans and society. Published 13 May 2021 – UK DEFENSE WEBSITE
That disclaimer is a load of bollocks that means nothing, really, but covers the Ministry from some legal liabilities, just in case. You can totally ignore it. – Silview.media
The US Department of Defense has something similar going on, but it doesn’t target the general population in presentations. However, if you input “DARPA” in our search utility, you find out DoD has been going same direction for decades.
At least US has the decency to pretend these are for military use only, I know they all are meant to be used on the general population, but I don’t know any other open admission of civillian use before.
Does this guy shock you that much now, or does he fall in line like the perfect Tetris piece that he is, “another brick in the wall”?
Now remember mRNA therapies are “information therapies” and these injections are the perfect tools for achieving the above goals.
Anyone remember the plebs ever being consulted on their future evolution, or are they just SUBJECTED to it, like slaves to selective breeding?!
You read this because some of my readers are generous enough to help us survive, and at least as hungry for truth as we are, basically the best readers I could hope for. Such as Corinne, who we should thank for pulling my sleeve about this one! If you’re on Gab (which you should), follow her, she has tons of great info to share every day!
DEVELOPING STORY, TO BE CONTINUED, SO BE BACK HERE SOON
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
How can you call yourself “intelligent” when you can’t understand simplest concepts like “consent” and you’re completely disconnected from human nature and feelings? What better proof that the system is broken than the broken souls it produces industrially?
Fake news from Breitbart, Tucker didn’t tie him to human engineering, Tucker observed he’s so tied he barely speaks about anything else. More evidence below
You may have seen this show, yet Carlson gave you but a peak. I give you more than you can carry. Warning: The only people who will not lose sleep over this are those who paid attention to this scandal when it started, almost a decade ago, highest echelon elites and the pseudo-people who clap at Jimmy Kimmel’s IQ-19 brainfarts.
This video has been recorded in 2013, but the guys was already making waves since 2012, see below.
Note from TED’s YouTube channel, under this video: Comments are disabled on this video. We made this difficult decision for the TED Archive because we believe that a well-moderated conversation allows for better commentary from more people and more viewpoints. Studies show that aggressive and hateful comments silence other commenters and drive them away; unfortunately, YouTube’s comment moderation tools are simply not up to the task of allowing us to monitor comments on so many videos at once. (We’d love to see this change, YouTube.) So for now, if you’d like to comment on this talk, please use Facebook, Twitter or G+ to discuss with your networks”
Dude’s credentials are almost as spectacular as his talk. Meaning this is what it takes to prosper in the scientific environment lately.
2007
He’s always been this freaky and obsessed with shortening people, he must be the polar opposite of tall.
The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision-Making
by S. Matthew Liao , Julian Savulescu , and Mark Sheehan
“As a general point, it is entirely conceivable that in some natural, social, or psychological circumstances, having a normal body may be a disadvantage. In H.G. Wells’ short story “The Country of the Blind,” Nunez, a mountaineer in the Andes, falls and comes upon the Country of the Blind. Nunez has normal vision, but in this society of blind people, he is disadvantaged, and he eventually consents to have his eyes removed. Similarly, in a world of loud noise, being able to hear could be a disadvantage. In the case of apotemnophilia—a body dysmorphic disorder in which the patient feels incomplete possessing all four limbs—doctors justify amputation by reasoning that the patient’s psychology demands it. In Ashley’s case, having a normal-sized body could be a disadvantage.”
But within just a few hours of the interview going live a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online. As I tweeted at the time, the interview was indeed “unsettling”. Liao explained how his paper – entitled, “Human Engineering and Climate Change” – explored the so-far-ignored subject of how “biomedical modifications of humans” could be used to “mitigate and/or adapt to climate change“. The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”; lowering birth-rates through “cognitive enhancement”; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the “pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy” to engender a better “correlation” with environmental problems.
Both the interview and the paper itself include a prominent disclaimer. As the paper says:
To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here. Our central aim here is to show that human engineering deserves consideration alongside other solutions in the debate about how to solve the problem of climate change. Also, as we envisage it, human engineering would be a voluntary activity – possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored health care – rather than a coerced, mandatory activity.
However, that wasn’t enough to prevent an extremely hostile reception to such ideas. Climate sceptics were the first to vent their anger. Somewhat inevitability, terms such as “eugenics”, “Nazis” and “eco fascists” were quickly being bandied around. One sceptic blogger said that the “sick” Liao and his co-authors should be “kept in Guantanamo”. Another said the paper “presages the death of science, and indeed the death of reason, in the West”.
But prominent environmentalists were also keen to denounce the paper. Bill McKibben tweeted that the paper contained the “worst climate change solutions of all time”. Mark Lynas tweeted that he thought it was an “early April Fool”. It was hard to disagree.
So, were the philosophers who co-wrote the paper surprised by the reaction? Or had all their critics misunderstood what they were trying to achieve? I contacted each of the authors in turn, and a co-editor of the journal, and asked them.
Liao was the first to respond:
First, I think that our paper/position is being grossly misrepresented by some people online. As we specifically say in our paper, a) we are not necessarily endorsing any of the solutions we have canvassed; and b) if these solutions were available, it should be up to individuals to adopt them voluntarily. Ross Anderson, the writer of the Atlantic interview, also makes this clear. Secondly, the term “eugenics” often gets brought up whenever people mention human enhancements. This is unfortunate because my co-authors and I are positively against any form of coercion of the sort the Nazis had done in the past (segregation, sterilization, and genocide). The way the term ‘eugenics’ is used by some of the people who are against our proposal, it seems that voluntary use of contraception would be a form of eugenics. Finally, many people who are against our proposal explicitly deny that climate change is really a problem. Given this, it is not surprising that they would find our solution to what they perceive as a “non-problem” incredible. Indeed, some of these people have also said that encouraging people to drive less is an overreaction to climate change. Our paper is intended for those who believe that i) climate change is a real problem; and ii) who, owing to i), are willing to take seriously geoengineering. All bets are off if someone doesn’t accept i).
I then sent the following questions to Liao’s co-authors, Dr Anders Sandberg and Dr Rebecca Roache, both based at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. (Roache was at the institute when the paper was first being drafted 18 months ago, but has since left to be a “full-time mum”.)
Has your paper been misrepresented online? If so, how and why?
Sandberg: Most reactions are not based on what we actually wrote. People who comment on anything online have usually not read it, and then people comment on them, and so on. You are lucky if people remember the original topic, let alone any argument. People seem to assume we are some kind of totalitarian climate doomsters who advocate biotechnological control over people. What we are actually saying is that changing our biology might be part of solving environmental problems, and that some changes might not just be permissible but work well with a liberal ethics. Climate change and many other problems have upstream and downstream solutions. For example, 1) human consumption leads to 2) a demand for production and energy, which leads to 3) industry, which leads to 4) greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to 5) planetary heating, which leads to 6) bad consequences. One solution might be to try to consume less (fix 2). We can also make less emissive industry (fix the 3-4 link), remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (reduce 4), geoengineering that cools the planet (reduce 5) or adapt to a changed world (handle 6). Typically people complain about the downstream solutions like geoengineering that they are risky or don’t actually solve the cause of the problem, and say we should go for upstream solutions (where a small shift affects the rest of the chain). So, what would be the most upstream solution? Change human desires or consumption. While this can be done partially by persuasion and culture, there are many strong evolved drivers in human nature that act against it. But we can also affect the drivers. For example, making people smarter is likely to make them better at solving environmental problems, caring about the environment, adopting a more long-term stance, cooperate better and have fewer children. It is of course desirable for a long list of other reasons too, and many people would freely choose to use enhancements to achieve this even if they cared little about the world. If there was a modification that removed the desire for meat, it would likely have not just green effects but also benefit health and animal welfare – again many might decide to go for it, with no external compulsion.
Roache: Yes. We argue that it might be worth considering making available some seemingly bizarre solutions to climate change, for people to use or not as they wish. We have been represented as arguing – among other things – that people should be forced to adopt these bizarre measures for the good of the environment. I imagine that this is partly because people assume that nobody would dream up such bizarre solutions to climate change unless they believed that they should be implemented. Philosophers, however, spend a lot of time discussing views that they do not necessarily endorse – it’s part of the learning process.
What do you say to those who are claiming you and your fellow authors are “eco Nazis”, “eugenicists” etc, for publishing this paper?
Sandberg: Well, none of us are deep greens or totalitarian. We are fairly typical liberal academics thinking about the world. In fact, in my normal work with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity. That probably disqualifies me from being an eco Nazi. Certainly one can imagine nasty governments imposing various green policies on the population, forcing them to act in ways that benefit the environment. But our paper doesn’t give them any particular ethical support: if you are willing to infringe on people’s reproductory liberty, why not just prevent them from consuming as much as they want? Green totalitarianism might be possible, but it is hardly moral – because it is totalitarian and doesn’t respect individual rights. Of course, to many people even a hint that our biology might be subject to political considerations is horrific. Yet they do not seem to worry much about the political decisions that are constantly being made about our reproduction (laws against reproductive cloning are political decisons about the desired form of human reproduction), nutrition or health. We are living in an era of biopolitics. It is better to make the issues explicit and discuss them than assume they will go away if we ignore them. I think parents should be allowed to select genes for their children (“liberal eugenics” in the term of Nicholas Agar) – the reason eugenics in the past has been such a bad thing was because it was 1) coercive, 2) imposed centrally by the state, and 3) often based on bad science. If one can avoid these problems I do think it could be useful: in that sense I am an eugenicist. However, I suspect other technologies are going to change our species faster than genetics.
Roache: I say that they haven’t read the paper! We explicitly state that we do not endorse coercion, and that we envisage human engineering to be a voluntary activity. The solutions we discuss may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but that does not entail they are not worth exploring.
Did you predict this level/type of response?
Sandberg: A bit. When I wrote the paper I felt I was to some extent trolling – I admit I was delighted when some of my normally rather bio-radical colleagues protested against the idea after a presentation we gave here in Oxford. I was a bit more surprised that the blogosphere and popular press took notice of the paper. The problem with arousing emotions is that most people then become very stimulus-response driven. They don’t think very deeply about the issue, they react instead. We hoped the paper would be exciting enough to stimulate discussion but not to preclude thinking. You could claim this paper is a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that we should aim for upstream solutions to environmental problems rather than downstream solutions. I’m not convinced about that: there might indeed be win-win enhancements that are both good for us individually, for society and for the environment, and they should be supported. What the paper does is to take environmental goals and collide them with some common bioethical intuitions (the sacredness of the natural, that human biology must not be touched, etc.) – that hopefully produces an uncomfortable itch that will stimulate some real thinking about what we want to give prioritiy. Could there be ethical reasons not to do things that would help the environment? Could there be environmental needs so pressing we would be forced to budge our biological policies?
Roache: It was always a possibility. Our normally unflappable bioethicist colleagues were shocked by the idea of human engineering, so the wider public was bound to find it ghastly. The fact that we presented it as a response to the widely-discussed problem of climate change is also relevant here: it’s not unusual for philosophers to write about wacky and horrifying ideas, but non-philosophers are rarely interested in them because they often have no obvious bearing on real life. For example, I was working on this paper at around the same time as I was working on a paper about whether it is conceptually possible for more than one person to inhabit a single body; but the publication of the latter passed without comment from the Daily Mail.
Ultimately, what were you trying to achieve with the paper? Are people interpreting it too literally, namely, believing you personally would advocate for these ideas?
Sandberg: People are unused to ethical analysis. In philosophy we take ideas and test them to destruction. This means that we often bring up concepts or lines of thought we do not personally believe in and then argue them as strongly as possible to see where they go and what we can learn. This is very different from everyday life where most people who state an idea or belief also believe in it – and it makes people misunderstand this kind of thinking. To make matters worse most people debating it will not read the paper and see how we discuss the ethical problems or why even we think it is a preposterous idea… they will just think some eggheads blithely promote eugenics. The core idea is that we should not imagine that our biological nature is exempt from being part of a potential solution to environmental problems. In our opinion methods of changing people, habits, technology or the environment are all possible approaches, and what matters is whether they work, have good effects, are acceptable and practical, not what kind of method they are. My personal view is that human engineering on its own is unlikely to fix climate change. The methods we mention are all too weak, indirect and slow. But thinking about out-of-the-box approaches is useful: too much of the climate debate has been forced into doctrinaire camps where any consideration of alternatives is heresy. Big complex problems are unlikely to have simple and neat solutions: we need to investigate (and perhaps use) a lot of approaches. I do think that in the long run humanity has to become posthuman if it wants to be truly sustainable. I have a little essay about it here: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/03/a_really_green_and_sustainable_humanity.html But this is not feasible for the next few decades, at the very least.
Roache: We wanted to encourage people to think about a group of solutions to climate change that have so far been ignored, despite the fact that in many cases it would be scientifically possible to implement them. Human engineering may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but this does not mean it could not turn out to be feasible and promising: telephones, “test tube babies”, and personal computers are all important aspects of modern life that were once regarded as bizarre and unrealistic. Of course, human engineering may ultimately be unworkable; but this should be because it is impossible to implement, or because its costs outweigh its benefits. It should not be rejected merely because, at first glance, it seems unappealing. And discussing it is itself valuable: it is by exploring and assessing potential responses to a problem that we make progress towards solving it.
I also asked Benjamin Hale, assistant professor of philosophy and environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and co-editor of Ethics, Policy & Environment, why the paper is being published and whether the journal anticipated this sort of response. He said:
We accept submissions from scholars across the academic community. The article went through the same double blind peer reviewed process that all of our articles go through. We haven’t received any questions on it yet. You’re our first. By publishing this article, we are not endorsing it at all. We have circulated the paper widely and are publishing between seven to nine critical responses from ethicists across the field. The things I’ve seen written on it so far appear to miss the point. The article was clearly not a positive policy proposal. Instead, it was a series of Swiftian philosophical thought experiments more designed to contextualize actively discussed schemes like geoengineering, written by a professor who is not otherwise engaged with the climate community. In the same issue, we will be publishing several other articles critical of geoengineering.
In total, the responses indicate that both the authors and journal stand squarely behind the controversial paper and believe its critics have woefully misinterpreted its contents and the reasons for publishing it. One thing is sure: they have certainly been successful in courting attention (not to be sniffed at in the world of academic publishing, or any form of publishing, for that matter).
But if their aim was to generate a pensive, wide-ranging philosophical debate on the subject of human engineering and climate change I’m not convinced they have been successful. Well, not yet at least, if the online reaction is anything to go by. There remains a danger, too, that the paper will be used in the future as a stick to attack any suggestion of environmental action: “Let them do this, and this will be next on their agenda.” However, I agree with the authors that we should not fear debating such ideas – even if the end result is that we still roundly reject them.
2015
2017
He returns to TED with optogenetics and other DARPA-funded nightmares. Remember optogenetics, because you’ll hear a lot about it in the near future, at least from us.
— Spinte Orthobro ☦️ ∞/21M₿ (@bitcoinorthobro) June 22, 2021
Tucker Carlson: Is Google Funding “Human Engineering” Scientific Research?
Fox News On Date June 23, 2021
TUCKER CARLSON: How many other dangerous, potentially world-altering experiments are going on right now, in this and other counties, funded by the secretive daisy-chain of government health agencies, and powerful NGOs? Experiments you’ve never heard of but that could change your life forever? If they can engineer bat viruses to make them more infectious, and oops, they escaped from a lab, what else are they doing? You’re not supposed to ask of course. You’ve been commanded to “trust the science,” and get back to watching Netflix. Only a Neanderthal asks questions. That’s been the arrangement in science for quite a while now. You pay for it, we do it, it’s all good. But why should that continue? Now that we know liars and moral pygmies — people like Tony Fauci, and the soulless bots at Google HQ — and running global science, maybe it’s worth being slightly more inquisitive about what’s happening in labs around the world. Why not? It could affect us.
For example, take a look at this tape. It’s from an annual conference called the “World Science Festival.” A few years ago, the conference featured a professor of bioethics and philosophy at New York University named Mathew Liao.
Liao is among the most influential bioethicists in the world — a fact that will amaze you. Liao explained that climate change can be solved with something called “human engineering.”
MATTHEW LIAO: My view is that what we need is a really robust ethical framework and within this ethical robust framework I think there’s a way going forward where we can do this ethically. But there’s actually a lot of opportunities for this to solve big world problems, one thing is climate change. Climate change is a really big problem we don’t really know how to solve it but it turns out we can use human engineering to help us address climate change.
Here’s a tip: anyone who uses the phrase “robust ethical framework” wouldn’t know ethics if they got in the shower with them. And you know that for a fact because he uses the phrase “human engineering.”
Human engineering? The name alone should make you pause. People aren’t bridge improvements. You can’t just add rebar, pour a few yards of concrete, and improve the human condition, much less the human soul. People are living beings. They’re alive. They can’t be engineered. Liao the eminent bioethicist seems unaware of this. He outlined some of his proposals in a recent paper in the Journal of “Ethics, Policy & Environment.” In that paper, Liao suggests a solution to the problem, the pressing problem, of people eating hamburgers. People like hamburgers, it turns out. How can we get people to stop eating hamburgers? Not by convincing them that hamburgers are bad. That was the old way. That’s how democracy worked. You would tell people something, if they believed they did it, if they didn’t believe you, they didn’t. But it turns out that’s too time-consuming. The new model is we just use pharmaceuticals. Your kids are getting uppity? Dope them out, and they’ll obey. Liao proposes a nationwide system like that, a pill that would make people nauseous at the sight of red meat. Given that climate change is an “existential threat,” that’s limiting our time on earth to 20 years, or 12 years, or 6 months, or pick your exaggeration, it’s hard to imagine a pill like that would soon become mandatory. Sound like a dystopian fantasy? It’s not. Liao is deadly serious. He said so at the “World Science Festival.”
MATTHEW LIAO: So here’s a thought, we have this intolerance for example I have milk intolerance, some people on intolerant to fish so possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case where we are intolerant to certain types of meat, certain types of bovine proteins, so that’s something we can do through human engineering, possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.
TUCKER CARLSON: “Human engineering.” Why do we laugh at Alex Jones again? Sincere question.
Again, says the bioethicist, “human engineering” is the answer. But wait a second, you ask. Human engineering? That’s kind of creepy. Didn’t we decide this kind of thing in Europe 80 years ago, and at the time, didn’t we agree we’re not going to do that ever again? True. But bioethicists have short memories apparently. And in any case, climate change is a pressing emergency. We don’t have time to consider the consequences of our response to this existential crisis.
So here’s an idea, said Liao at the World Science Festival: let’s fiddle with the human genome to see if we can make human children smaller than they are now. A race of dwarfs. They’d eat less, and be cheaper to transport. And that would reduce greenhouse gasses.
MATTHEW LIAO: So it turns out the larger you are, think of the lifetime of greenhouse gas emissions that are required, the energy that’s required to transport larger people rather than smaller people right. But if we are smaller just by 15cm, I did the math that about mass reduction of 25%, which is huge. And 100 years ago we’re all on average smaller, exactly about 15 cm smaller. So think of the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions if we had smaller children. So that’s something we can do.
Imagine if we had smaller children. Little tiny children. Think of how little they would emit in greenhouse gasses. Think about how easy it would be to pick them up, juggle them around, control them. All we need to do is experiment on human children. And we can solve climate change. That was at a public conference five years ago. Nobody said anything. That’s where we are. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. In fact, it’s less ghoulish than some of the things happening in labs right now.
This is what science looks like when it’s been completely decoupled from wisdom, decency and Christianity. It’s a science fiction novel come to life, except it’s real. In fact, Google might be funding it right now.
Same day Carlson picked on him and he responded with this tweet, guess what else he spent two hours on? Discussing anti-natalism on YouTube with the Romanell Center for Clinical Ethics, who has three subscribers. Numerically. As the name suggests, anti-natalism is hardcore eugenics that would make Hitler frown.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
An editorial that stands by itself and speaks volumes for many of the incredible facts I’ve revealed in my own editorials. I don’t endorse all this, I just chew the meat on the bones. Published in a journal called Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery
Manipulative magnetic nanomedicine: the future of COVID-19 pandemic/endemic therapy
By Ajeet Kaushik, Pages 531-534 | Received 06 Nov 2020, Accepted 03 Dec 2020, Published online: 14 Dec 2020
1. Introduction: COVID-19 pandemic or endemic as health emergency
Since the Spanish flu outbreak (1918), many pandemics and/or endemics related to a viral infection such as H1N1, H5N1, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Ebola, Zika, and coronavirus have surprised mankind time-to-time due to their sudden appearance, severe adverse health effect, loss of lives, socio-economic burden, and a damaged economy. Such deadly infectious viruses originated from natural reservoirs and then infect humans via spillover mechanism. During infection progression, viruses affect the human biological system and become a part of the host genome and then make structural changes in its structure to survive or infect longer. These infections can cause permanent disorders, may be death, if a patient is immunocompromised and could not fight against virus life-cycle associated pathways and viral infection progression.
One such pandemic and/or endemic is the recent COVID-19 infection associated with new server acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), investigated by Chinese clinicians in Dec 2019. Chinese health agencies noticed a rapid increment in seasonal flu cases, and this emerged as a very serious health issue due to the ineffectiveness of prescribed therapies [1,2]. Systematic investigations conducted on this infectious disease by experts confirmed and claimed that SARS-CoV-2 virus infection is dramatically affecting the respiratory system of every age patient via affecting their lung function. Although SARS-CoV-2 virus protein exhibited 70% to 80% genomic profile like SARS-CoV-1 (2002 outbreak) and middle east respiratory syndrome (2012 outbreak), but its viral infection mechanism, pathogenesis, mortality per cent, and other risks are different, unknown, and serious than SARS and MERS [2]. Considering the severity of COVID-19 infection and variation in SARS-CoV-2 virus strains, this outbreak was first declared as an international health emergency; then, a pandemic due to global spread [2], and now experts are projecting this as an endemic due to post-infection effects and possibilities of reoccurrence like HIV [3]. This infection is emerging very challenging due to 1) human-to-human transmission via aerosolization, 2) ability to affect lung rapidly because of easy binding between Spike (S1) protein of SARS-COV-2 virus and host cell membrane receptors like angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) and TMPRSS-2 protein, this makes virus replication easy [4].
A successful COVID-19 infection management is not the only issue to deal with the respiratory system as it affects lung function. But the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection also severely affects other important body organs including the heart, liver, eye, gut, and brain as well. This is the reason that recovery of a COVID-19 infected patient is slow and sometimes the patient exhibits permanent disorder in biological function due to weak organs and organ function [2]. Such scenarios have been investigated in asymptomatic patients as well. Keeping complete COVID-19 outbreak into consideration, health agencies were focused on 1) preparation and execution of safety guidelines, 2) exploring virus structure, genomic profiles, variability, and generate bioinformatics to understand pathogenesis, 3) developing rapid diagnostic kits, 4) optimizing available therapies, alone or in combination, 5) exploring methodologies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, 6) exploring novel therapeutics, 7) exploring aspects of therapeutic delivery at disease location, and 8) exploring combinational aspects of nanobiotechnology to support rapid testing, trapping of SARS-CoV-2, and delivery of therapeutics for not only to eradicate SARS-CoV-2 but provide long-term immunity for COVID-19 infected patient [4–6].
Based on the outcomes of big data analytics based on artificial intelligence (AI), it is suggested that recognition and eradication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus may be a time-taking procedure. Thus, all the focus is toward rapid infection diagnostics and viral infection management using state-of-the-art technologies, for example, 1) promoting physical distance and using of a mask to avoid virus transmission, 2) developing AI and internet-of-medical-things (IoMT) based strategies for rapid testing, tracking of patients, big data analytics, bioinformatics generation, developing a novel sensor for early-stage SARS-CoV-2 detection [2,5,7], and novel therapeutics and successful delivery using nanobiotechnology approach [8], the main focus of this editorial.
2. Manipulative magnetic nanomedicine: the future of COVID-19 therapy
Nanobiotechnology is emerging very promising to investigate novel methodologies for managing COVID-19 pandemic/endemic successfully [2,5]. In this direction, experts have explored the opto-electro-magnetic nanosystem to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus using a biosensing approach. Such optical, electrical, or magnetic biosensors function based on geno-sensing and immune-sensing has detected the SARS-CoV-2 virus selectively at a very low level [7,8]. These efficient-miniaturized biosensors can be operated using a smartphone and promoted for clinical application for early-stage diagnostics of COVID-19 infection. The successful integration of these SARS-CoV-2 virus sensors with AI and IoMT enables virus detection at point-of-location and sharing of bioinformatics with the medical center at the same time for timely therapeutics decision. This approach is also useful for tracking tasks and managing COVID-19 infection according to patient infection profiling. To avoid human-to-human SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission, experts have developed stimuli-responsive nanotechnology enable which can not only trap aerosol of virus size but can eradicate viruses on applying external stimulation for example nanoenable photo-sensitive virus degradation. Various types of clothes containing nanoparticles have demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 virus trapping and eradication successfully [2,9]. However, significant attention is required to increase the production and distribution of these masks for public use.
Besides, the contribution of biotech-pharma companies is also of high significance in terms of investigating novel therapeutic agents of higher efficacy with least/acceptable adverse effects. Though the SARS-CoV-2 virus is new and has exhibited strain variation which is making treatment optimization challenging. But biotechnology experts are analyzing every aspect of bioinformatics to design and develop an effective therapy based on novel anti-viral agents, CRISPR-Cas, antibodies, and vaccines5. Another approach to manage COVID-19 infection is to introduce or boost immunity through nutrition, for example, nutraceuticals have acted as inhibitors to prevent binding between SARS-CoV-2 virus and ACE-2 enzyme [2,8].
Investigating a therapeutic agent against the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection seems possible now but the delivery of these agents is still a remaining challenge because this virus may have numerous reservoirs over the time. It is also demonstrated that COVID-19 infection patients may temporarily or permanently have immunocompromised biological systems. Such-related adverse effects include risk of cardiac arrest, vision issues, weak respiratory system, neurological disorders (one of the serious issues because SARS-CoV-2 virus crosses the blood-brain barrier), etc. Therefore, a single therapeutic agent designed against the SARS-CoV-2 virus may not be enough to treat COVID-19 infected patients completely [1,8].
Thus, a manipulative therapy, a combination of optimized therapeutic agents, consisting of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 virus agent and immune-supportive agents will require to be optimized based on the patient infection profiling. Experts have thought about it and raised/dealing the following concerns 1) drug-to-drug interaction, 2) delivery of drug/drugs at the targeted site, 3) control over the release of drug/drugs from a therapeutic formulation, and 4) immune-supporting long-acting therapies. These tasks are challenging but needed to be managed; therefore, exploring aspects of nanomedicine could be a promising approach to develop novel therapies to manage COVID-19 infection and support the immune system along with SARS-CoV-2 virus affected organs [8].
Nanomedicine (10 to 200 nm) is a therapeutic cargo designed using an appropriate drug nanocarrier and a therapeutic agent [9–15]. Nowadays magnetic nanomedicine has performed to manage viral infection at various reservoirs even in the brain because nanomedicine is capable to cross any barriers in the body via adopting the following approaches 1) functionalization of nanomedicine with barriers specific receptors, 2) applying external stimulation like ultrasound, and 3) noninvasive guided approach like magnetically guided drug delivery system [10–12].
Besides drug delivery, magnetic nanomedicine could be formulated to deliver multiple drugs at a targeted site to achieve desired therapeutic performance due to 1) control over the release by applying external stimulation like an ac-magnetic field, 2) formulating a magnetic cargo to load multiple drugs without drug-to-drug interaction, for example, layer-by-layer (LBL) approach, and 3) the sequence of drug release can be tuned and planned according to a stage/requirement of disease condition [13–15]. The performance of such nanomedicine mainly depends on the selection of a multi-functional stimuli-response drug nanocarrier such as magneto-electric nanoparticles (MENPs) [12], opto-magnetic, opto-electromagnetic, magneto-LBL, magneto-liposome, and magneto-plasmonics nanosystem. These advanced nanomedicines not only deliver the drug/drug but also help in the recognition of drug distribution and disease progression.
Combining above mentioned salient features, manipulative magnetic nanomedicine (MMN) as one of the potential future therapy wherein control over delivery and performance if required. Such MMN has the capabilities to recognize and eradicate the SARS-CoV-2 virus to manage COVID-19 infection and symptoms. Besides, due to the flexibility of using the therapeutic agent of choice, these manipulative nanomedicines can be designed and developed as long-acting therapy for COVID-19 infection where anti-virus and immune-supportive agents can stay longer in the body without causing any side-effects. Such personalized MMN (Figure 1) is an urgently required therapy and its development should be the focus of future research with the following aims
Figure 1. Systematic illustration of manipulative nanomedicine projected as future COVID-19 pandemic/endemic therapyDisplay full size
Exploring stimuli-responsive magnetic nanosystems for on-demand-controlled delivery and release.
Image-guided therapy to recognize the delivery site and confirm drug release.
A magnetically guided approach to delivering drugs across the barriers like the gut, BBB, etc.
Magneto-LBL/liposomal approach to delivering multiple drugs to avoid drug-to-drug interaction and control over the drug release sequence. For example, an anti-virus drug should be released first then an immune-protective agent.
The MMN can be customized according to patient disease profile and medical history, for example, selection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 virus agent (antibody, ARV, CRISPR-Cas, etc.,) based on patient genomic profiling.
The MMN can also be customized as long-acting therapeutics that allows drug-releasing for a longer time (2–3 months), as must require therapy to manage post-COVID-19 infection effects.
The MMN can be explored as personalized precision therapy.
3. Expert opinion
Based on the experiences of developing MMN to eradicate neuroHIV/AIDS, under a project of getting into the brain, using MENPs as a drug nanocarrier, magnetically guided drug delivery, and ac-magnetic field stimulation dependent controlled drug release, my team and me believes that MMN can be a future therapy against COVID-19 infection pandemic/or endemic. As it is also known that the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection is a combination of several diseases and symptoms. During the infection treatment, even after the hospital discharge, the patient may have several diseases at the same time for a longer time. Such-complicated medical conditions are not easy to deal with using conventional antiviral drugs. Thus, experts feel the demand for a new therapy that can handle multiple tasks at the same time. Keeping advancements and potentials into consideration, manipulative nanomedicine can be one of the potential COVID-19 infection therapies.
Some of the advancements in this field has been reported, for example, micro-needle-based vaccine delivery to manage COVID-19 infection. Early outcomes are exciting, but a lot must be done in terms of animal model-based trials, and followed up with FDA approval, needed prior to suggest clinical implication. To promote MNM against COVID-19 successfully, a public-private involvement-based significant research needed to be conducted in this field to create a path from a lab (in-vitro) to in-vivo (appropriate animal model) to risk assessments to clinical trials to risk assessment to human trial to risk assessment to FDA approval for public utilization. In the process of developing an anti-COVID-19 infection therapy, careful and critical safety-related risk assessments will be a crucial factor to decide progression step-by-step. This introducing AI will be a good choice to gather bioinformatics, perform big data analysis, avoid unnecessary hit-&-trial approaches, establish a relation with a biological and pathological parameter, and projection of a potential approach. Besides AI, it is also suggested to design several projects focused on every aspect of pre/post-SARS-CoV-2 virus infection, and based on assessments and analytics a potential drug nanocarrier and therapeutics agents should be selected. Developing such an approach is a multidisciplinary research approach and experts of various expertise are needed to work on the same platform to investigate MMN to combat against SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. Projecting the above mention as a necessity, this editorial is a call to experts to join hands for investigating and promoting MMN as a potential future COVID-19 pandemic/endemic therapy. I believe that the MMN approach will be in more demand as new therapeutic agents, such BNT162b2, and mRNA1273 [16], vaccine as will be investigated over the time.
References
From author’s references, I want to highlight this study which shows that magnetism is also used to cross the Brain Blood Barrier -Silview
Magnetically guided non-invasive CRISPR-Cas9/gRNA delivery across blood-brain barrier to eradicate latent HIV-1 infection
CRISPR-Cas9/gRNA exhibits therapeutic efficacy against latent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genome but the delivery of this therapeutic cargo to the brain remains as a challenge. In this research, for the first time, we demonstrated magnetically guided non-invasive delivery of a nano-formulation (NF), composed of Cas9/gRNA bound with magneto-electric nanoparticles (MENPs), across the blood-brain barrier (BBB) to inhibit latent HIV-1 infection in microglial (hμglia)/HIV (HC69) cells. An optimized ac-magnetic field of 60 Oe was applied on NF to release Cas9/gRNA from MENPs surface and to facilitate NF cell uptake resulting in intracellular release and inhibition of HIV. The outcomes suggested that developed NF reduced HIV-LTR expression significantly in comparison to unbound Cas9/gRNA in HIV latent hμglia/HIV (HC69) cells. These findings were also validated qualitatively using fluorescence microscopy to assess NF efficacy against latent HIV in the microglia cells. We believe that CNS delivery of NF (CRISPR/Cas9-gRNA-MENPs) across the BBB certainly will have clinical utility as future personalized nanomedicine to manage neuroHIV/AIDS.
Yamamoto V, Bolanos JF, Fiallos J, et al. COVID-19: review of a 21st century pandemic from etiology to neuro-psychiatric implications. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(2):459–504. . [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article explains COVID-19 outbreak, SARS-CoV-2 virus, and state-of-art approach for diagnostics, treatment, and post-infection management.
Kaushik AK, Dhau JS, Gohel H, et al. Electrochemical SARS-CoV-2 sensing at point-of-care and artificial intelligence for intelligent COVID-19 management. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2020;3:7306–7325 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores role of AI, electrochemical sensing, and IoMT for intelligent COVID-19 management. Besides role of nanotechnology to recognizing, trapping, and eradication of SARS-CoV-2 virus
Shaman J, Galanti M. Will SARS-CoV-2 become endemic? Science. 2020;370(6516):527–529 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores the possibilities whether COVID-19 can be claimed as endemic or not
Chauhan G, Madou MJ, Kalra S, et al. Nanotechnology for COVID-19: therapeutics and vaccine research. ACS Nano. 2020;14(7):7760–7782 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article summarizes role of nanotechnology to investigate novel therapies for COVID-19 outbreak
Mujawar M, Gohel H, Bhardwaj SK, et al. Nano-enabled biosensing systems for intelligent healthcare: towards COVID-19 management. Mater Today Chem. 2020;17:100306 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]•• Article explored role of smart biosensor to early-stage COVID-19 infection diagnotics
Weiss C, Carriere M, Fusco L, et al. Toward nanotechnology-enabled approaches against the COVID-19 pandemic. ACS Nano. 2020;14(6):6383–6406 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores nanotechnology for manage COVID-19 infection outbreak
Ahmadivand A, Gerislioglu B, Ramezani Z, et al. Femtomolar-level detection of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins using toroidal plasmonic metasensors. 2020. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08536. [Google Scholar]•• magneto-plasmonic based immunosensor to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus protein at fM level.
Paliwal P, Sargolzaei S, Bhardwaj SK, et al. Grand challenges in bio-nanotechnology to manage COVID-19 pandemic. Front Nanotechnol. 2020;2:3 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores the role of nano-bio-technology to handle the challenges associated to COVID-19 outbreak and
Jayant RD, Sosa D, Kaushik A, et al. Current status of non-viral gene therapy for CNS disorders. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(10):1433–1445 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article explore the role of drug-nano-carrier to deliver gene for therapeutics
Nair M, Jayant RD, Kaushik A, et al. Getting into the brain: potential of nanotechnology in the management of NeuroAIDS. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;103:202–217 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores aspects on nano-medicine to handle neuroHIV
Kaushik A, Jayant RD, Sagar V, et al. The potential of magneto-electric nanocarriers for drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2014;11(10):1635–1646 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores MENPs based manipulative nanomedicine
Kaushik A, Jayant RD, Bhardwaj V, et al. Personalized nanomedicine for CNS diseases. Drug Discov Today. 2018;23(5):1007–1015 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores manipulative magnetic nanomedicine to handle CNS diseases
Kaushik A, Yndart A, Atluri V, et al. Magnetically guided non-invasive CRISPR-Cas9/gRNA delivery across blood-brain barrier to eradicate latent HIV-1 infection. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):3928 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores MENPs-based nanomedicine to deliver CRISPR-Cas across the BBB
Tomitaka A, Kaushik A, Kevadiya BD, et al. Surface-engineered multimodal magnetic nanoparticles to manage CNS diseases. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(3):873–882 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article explore manipulative magnetic nano-medicine for multi-model therapeutic approaches
Jayant RD, Tiwari S, Atluri V, et al. Multifunctional nanotherapeutics for the treatment of neuroAIDS in drug abusers. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):12991 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores magneto-LBL approach for nanomedicine
Nanomedicine and the COVID-19 vaccines. Nat Nanotechnol. 2020. [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]•• Article explores need of nanomedicine approach for mRNA vaccine
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Seriously?! Do people still have any self-preservations instincts left if a tsunami wave is already casting shadow on their beach and they’re debating the future of sand castle architecture on social media? Are we still functional human beings or just furless panda bears?
UPDATE JAN 9, 2022
I found this fantastic story of an utility pilot who had a stroke inflight shortly after his Pfizer shot and doesn’t even remember landing the plane, but he did survive to tell his story on Stew Peters Show and confirm everything this expose meant to warn about half a year earlier!
A Singapore Airlines flight from Copenhagen to Singapore Changi was forced to divert to Moscow after a crew member had a “hypertensive crisis” or a stroke.
The Airbus A350-900, with registration 9V-SMO, departed Copenhagen at 13:37 local time as flight SQ351 on Saturday and was scheduled to arrive at Changi Airport at 06:20 local time the following day.
However, after the cabin crew was taken ill, the pilots requested a landing at Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport. The pilots requested for the emergency landing at around 18:00 local time and landed in Moscow after three hours and 23 minutes of flight time.
After leaving the crew member in Russia, the aircraft departed from Moscow at 20:01 later the same day and arrived at Changi Airport at 10:46 local time on Sunday.
The crew member was met by a medical team and was later taken straight to a nearby hospital, where doctors assessed him.
According to an airline spokesperson, he was discharged after his condition stabilised, and the airline has made all necessary arrangements to fly him back to Singapore. AIRLIVE.net –
What if your pilot starts answering with a 404 error too?
This piece started out as an investigation in the airlines personnel crisis and vaccine, but ended up a step or two further. Because I have this good habit of zooming out and contextualizing. And what I’ve seen when I did that is obviously bigger than the devil in details.
So I’m not going to rehash too much of what’s been already well covered by a wide range of independent and even mainstream media. My unique contribution to this has already been published a few days ago and it’s a good preamble to this discussion.
It all falls in line coherently. And then there’s a perpendicular line in the sand no one wants to cross.
My reasoning is simple and obvious, but previously untold:
About 80% of British commercial airline pilots got jabbed and they fall like flies hit with Raid, whistle-blowers claim.
Meanwhile, in America:
Internal documents obtained by Dr. Jane Ruby illustrate catastrophe waiting to happen! Airline pilots are dropping dead at alarming rates after being forced to take the jab, or face losing their careers. This is a MAJOR concern for hundreds of thousands of daily air travelers, and it’s only getting worse! – Stew Peters
Maybe it’s only 60% or 40% of them, you’d be insane to take a 1% chance.
When it doesn’t land well, everyone else is applauding louder.
Is that limited to UK? “C’mon, maaaan!”. I mean if you really looked for it, you’re flooded with reports coming from all over the place that this industry is precisely screwed. Let’s not waste our time, I could list 20 solid links like nothing. We miss time more than base here.
Last updated March 2021. Not quite recently. Source
As Thyme mentioned, it’s not just airline pilots, terrestrial transportation is affected too. And there’s a consistent number of car-crashes reported right after vaccination. It even started to show on VAERS too, commentators say, I didn’t verify this detail.
Magnetovaxxers, as I like to call vaxxers with a special magnetism, are no myth either, I alone, have crushed that topic already and there’s thousands others. Explain it as you please, it happens, besides a host of other strange phenomena that are potentially dangerous to others in some situations. What if one of these meat stickers touch sensitive lab equipment and life-support equipment, or…?
THEY TELL YOU TO SHUT DOWN YOUR PHONE IN THE PLANE, BUT YOU CAN’T SHUT DOWN THE MAGNETOVAXXER WHO CAN STICK PHONES TO HIS ARM.
We have to zoom in for the inner workings and zoom out for the general conclusions:
How can it be only about cars and transportations?! They’d love that, they’ve been trying to kill tourism and uncontrolled population movements for decades, it’s in the books. But whatever logic applies to pilots applies to everyone who has lives depending on him!
So, the past couple of weeks have cemented not one, but two evidences:
The Covid mRNA treatments sold as vaccines can incapacitate or even kill anyone, anytime, especially people genetically or professionally susceptible of blood clotting, heart inflammations or similar circulatory problems. Ergo:
VACCINATED PEOPLE ARE NOT DEPENDABLE ANYMORE.
Which inescapably draws another evidence that is bafflingly not shouted out loud yet:
The danger extends to the people whose lives / health / destiny depend on these genetically-modified dupes.
VACCINATED PEOPLE CANNOT BE ALLOWED ANYMORE IN LIFE/HEALTH THREATENING POSITIONS AND OCCUPATIONS.
Oh, sorry, Kev, are you already on the beach and this isn’t the reading you’re looking for there?
What if your life-guard rushed to work and collapses when a current pulls your kid?
If you’re so life-hesitant, you definitely can bear 0,xx% death-risk from a virus that China sent only by e-mail and, so far, no one has isolated, not even Chinese.
But sane people can’t afford the risk mRNA-inoculated covidiots pose in many of the positions they occupy.
BE SAFE FROM COVID SOMEWHERE ELSE, YOUR FAKE PROTECTION ENDANGERS EVERYONE!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
On my birthdays, I used to treat the world with free music / art, back in the previous regime. But that regime has changed, so I changed.
At least my cookies are real, I sell them by the dozen
This year, I created a new merch collection which I make available at no charge from my side, only the manufacturers/distributors need paid. Just like I did with facemasks, I waived my profit share from the price.
I am both a prisoner and a refugee, somewhere in Morocco, separated from my family, my aspirations and everything I love by the new global(ist) regime. I’ve never obeyed, bowed, or put a Covid mask on my face.
All the abominations in history have been made possible by obedience.
So, on my 45th b-day, maybe my last, my main message is simple.
Browse and enjoy a wide range of DEFY products in OUR SHOP.
UPDATE: THE CROWN JEWEL ARRIVED!
THE MAGNETS! AS IN “MAGNET CHALLENGE” 😉
Many many thanks for all the support, it gave me just enough motivation to wake up every morning and do this and make it to here!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
A confidentiality agreement shows potential coronavirus vaccine candidates were transferred from Moderna to the University of North Carolina in 2019, nineteen days prior to the emergence of the alleged Covid-19 causing virus in Wuhan, China.
The confidentially agreement which can be viewed herestates that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to tranfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The Universisty of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.
Found on page 105 of the agreement
The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019.
Recipient signatories found on page 107
The agreement was also signed by two representatives of the NIAID, one of whom was Amy F. Petrik PhD, a technology transfer specialist who signed the agreement on December 12th 2019 at 8:05 am. The other signatory was Barney Graham MD PhD, an investigator for the NIAID, however this signature was not dated.
NIAID signatories found on page 107
The final signatories on the agreement were Sunny Himansu, Moderna’s Investigator, and Shaun Ryan, Moderna’s Deputy General Councel. Both signautres were made on December 17th 2019.
Moderna signatories found on page 108
All of these signatures were made prior to any knowledge of the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus. It wasn’t until December 31st 2019 that the World Health Organisation (WHO) became aware of an alleged cluster of viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. But even at this point they had not determined that an alleged new coronavirus was to blame, instead stating the pneumonia was of “unknown cause”.
It was not until January 9th 2020 that the WHO reported Chinese authorities had determined the outbreak was due to a novel coronavirus which later became known as SARS-CoV-2 with the alleged resultant disease dubbed COVID-19. So why was an mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate developed by Moderna being transferred to the University of North Carolina on December 12th 2019?
The same Moderna that have had an mRNA coronavirus vaccine authorised for emergency use only in both the United Kingdom and United States to allegedly combat Covid-19.
What did Moderna know that we didn’t? In 2019 there was not any singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity which would warrant a vaccine, and evidence suggests there hasn’t been a singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity throughout 2020 and 2021 either.
Perhaps Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would like to explain themselves in a court of law? – THE DAILY EXPOSE
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
When I first heard of blood clots in vaccinated people, I instantly recalled of a similar problem occurring while the mRNA platform was in study for a cancer therapy, by Moderna, I think, prior to Covid. I couldn’t find that piece of information again, but during the research I discovered something even more revealing.
Blood clots in subjects of Covid gene therapies are very likely caused by defective coatings in magnetic particles used for magnetofection, which leads to cell-clogging.
Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
It has been more than plausibly theorized that the explanation for the magnetism in vaxxers is magnetofection, a method of transfection using magnetic fields.
Magnetofection is a very effective way of transfecting plasmid DNA into a variety of primary cells including primary neurons which are known to be notoriously difficult to transfect and very sensitive to toxicity.
For coincidence theorists, let me just add that the inventor of transfection is one of mRNA jabs inventors, Dr. Robert Malone, who has warned FDA on the dangers of these technologies, according to himself.
Scientifically trained at UC Davis, UC San Diego, and at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories, Dr. Robert Malone is an internationally recognized scientist (virology, immunology, molecular biology) and is known as one of the original inventors of mRNA vaccination and DNA Vaccination. His discoveries in mRNA non viral delivery systems are considered the key to the current COVID-19 vaccine strategies. Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines. Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications and published abstracts and has over 11,477 citations of his peer reviewed publications, as verified by Google Scholar. His google scholar ranking is “outstanding” for impact factors. He has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections.
Magnetofection basically involves attaching DNA onto a magnetic nanoparticle coated with a cationic polymer like polyethylenimine (PEI) [254,255]. The magnetic nanoparticles are generally made up of a biodegradable substance like iron oxide, and its coating onto the polymeric particle is done by salt-induced colloidal aggregation. These prepared nanoparticles are then localized in the target organ by the application of an external magnetic field, which allows the delivery of attached DNA to the target organ, as shown in Figure 3.5. This method also increases the uptake of DNA into target cells as the contact time between the target organ and magnetic nanoparticles increases. In addition, the magnetic field pulls the magnetic nanoparticles into the target cells, which also helps to increase the uptake of DNA [256,257]. In addition, the standard transfection using viral or nonviral vectors is also increased by the magnetofection.
This is a more powerful method of controlled and targeted delivery for gene therapies, in layman terms.
The problem with it is that it’s been proven to be very dangerous for lab animals and it’s not authorized for human use.
From Dr. Jane Ruby m as well as from Pfizer and Moderna we find out how these particles are packaged into the injectable concocts:
“Stew Peters interviews Dr Jane Ruby who confirms the magnetic effects that Covid vaxxed people have experienced. She says it is a deliberately made substance added to the vaccines. This shows criminal intent. It was added because it is an aggressive delivery system to get it into EVERY cell of your body. The process is called ‘Magnetofection’ and is available in scientific literature such as Pubmed. It concentrates the mRNA into people’s cells and forces your body to make these synthetic mRNA instructions even in places where they shouldn’t be located within the body.
It is a ‘forced delivery system’ and is called by the acronym of SPIONS – Supramagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. These particles use a lipid nanoparticle envelope to gain entry into the cells. It is done this way to protect mRNA because mRNA is easily degraded and this is also why the Pfizer vaccines are refrigerated at -70 degrees Fahrenheit as another form of protection.
There is a German company on the internet called ‘Chemicell’ which sells different chemicals which can make these magnetic fields around your molecules. You can buy 200 microgram vials of their product called, ‘Polymag’. These are developed and sold for research purposes only and are not to be used for human diagnostic or as a component of any drug intended for humans.
However at least Pfizer and Moderna are using this substance in their vaccines. Therefore it is vital that anyone thinking of taking a shot, obtain a full ingredient list to have full informed consent and to postpone getting the Covid Jab, as each day brings further information into the public domain. Dr Ruby is asked if this was deliberate by the manufacturers and answers that this substance doesn’t occur naturally. It had to be added into the vaccine.
Many have spoken about the Polyethelene Glycol or PEG which enables the vaccines to get through water based cell membranes as this is lipophilic – attracted to fats – but there are other places in the body where ‘God and Nature’ hadn’t intended these substances to be, but by using this delivery system of supra nanoparticles, you are creating a super delivery system which forces these substances into areas where they are not meant to be.”
. 2019 Nov;13(9):1197-1209. doi: 10.1080/17435390.2019.1650969. Epub 2019 Aug 22.
Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) modulate hERG ion channel activity
Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) are widely used in various biomedical applications, such as diagnostic agents in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for drug delivery vehicles and in hyperthermia treatment of tumors.
Although the potential benefits of SPIONs are considerable, there is a distinct need to identify any potential cellular damage associated with their use.
Since human ether à go-go-related gene (hERG) channel, a protein involved in the repolarization phase of cardiac action potential, is considered one of the main targets in the drug discovery process, we decided to evaluate the effects of SPIONs on hERG channel activity and to determine whether the oxidation state, the dimensions and the coating of nanoparticles (NPs) can influence the interaction with hERG channel.
Using patch clamp recordings, we found that SPIONs inhibit hERG current and this effect depends on the coating of NPs. In particular, SPIONs with covalent coating aminopropylphosphonic acid (APPA) have a milder effect on hERG activity. We observed that the time-course of hERG channel modulation by SPIONs is biphasic, with a transient increase (∼20% of the amplitude) occurring within the first 1-3 min of perfusion of NPs, followed by a slower inhibition. Moreover, in the presence of SPIONs, deactivation kinetics accelerated and the activation and inactivation I-V curves were right-shifted, similarly to the effect described for the binding of other divalent metal ions (e.g. Cd2+ and Zn2+).
Finally, our data show that a bigger size and the complete oxidation of SPIONs can significantly decrease hERG channel inhibition.
Taken together, these results support the view that Fe2+ ions released from magnetite NPs may represent a cardiac risk factor, since they alter hERG gating and these alterations could compromise the cardiac action potential.
MIT SAYS IT’S NOT JUST SPIONS, BUT ALSO LIONS:
HDT Bio, the biotechnology company in Seattle, has an alternative solution. Working with Deborah Fuller, a microbiologist at the University of Washington, it’s pioneering a different kind of protective bubble for the mRNAs. If it works, it would mean that an mRNA vaccine for covid-19 could be stable in a regular fridge for at least a month, or at room temperature for up to three weeks.
Their method: instead of encasing the mRNA in a lipid nanoparticle, they’ve engineered molecules called lipid inorganic nanoparticles, or LIONs. The inorganic portion of the LION is a positively charged metal particle—so far they’ve been using iron oxide. The positively charged metal would bind to the negatively charged mRNA, which wraps around the LION. The resulting particle is solid, which creates more stability and reduces the reliance on refrigeration.
A real-world study by the CDC backs up the clinical trial data from both mRNA vaccines—although the rise of the UK variant in the US is a cloud on the horizon.
“The cold chain has always been an issue for [the] distribution of vaccines, and it’s only magnified in a pandemic.”
Deborah Fuller
HDT Bio initially developed LIONs to treat liver cancer and tumors in the head and neck, but when the pandemic hit, they pivoted to trying the particles with mRNA vaccines. Early preclinical trials in nonhuman primates showed that the LION, combined with an mRNA vaccine for covid-19, worked as they’d hoped.
Carter of HDT Bio says that in an ideal situation, LIONs could be sent to clinics worldwide in advance, to be stored at room temperature or in a regular refrigerator, before being mixed into vaccine vials at clinics. Alternatively, the two could be premixed at a manufacturing facility. Either way, this method would make doses stable for at least a month in a regular refrigerator.
Fuller says that some scientists have criticized the need for two vials—one for the LION and another for mRNA before they’re mixed together. “But I think the advantages of having an effective product more amenable to worldwide distribution outweighs those negatives,” she says.
HDT Bio is applying for permission to start human clinical trials in the US and is looking to start clinical trials in India this spring. In the US, it faces some unique challenges in FDA regulation, since the LION particles would be considered a drug separate from the vaccine. Regulators in Brazil, China, South Africa, and India—where HDT Bio is hoping to launch its product—don’t consider the LION a drug because it isn’t the active component, says Carter, meaning that there would be one less layer of regulation than in the US.
For now, it’s still very much an early-stage technology, says Michael Mitchell, a bioengineer at the University of Pennsylvania who works on drug delivery systems. He stresses that more research should reveal whether the iron oxide causes any side effects. – MIT Technology Review
Now here’s the bombshell:
This is no secret to experts, but it’s been revealed to me in the video presentation below, made in 2017 by reputed Prof Diana Borca, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who uses magnetic nanoparticles to treat diseases. In order to get the magnetic nanoparticles into the right places, scientists like Diana have to figure out what kind of coating the nanoparticles need. Coatings help the nanoparticles get to the cells they want to treat without hurting the healthy cells. And if the coating of the magnetic particles breaks, the result is “CLOGGING”, as Borca explains below. Which can translate as clotting, if in blood. Who knows what they lead to when in other organs, strokes maybe?
So I think the only thing we’re missing from the puzzle is official hard evidence that they used magnetofection or magnetogentic methods.
But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, only the government needs government papers to confirm it’s a duck
What each and every one of you can do until we find that evidence?
On screens we’re sound. Please help with the statistical and empirical tests!
Please help finding out if there’s a strong data and empirical correlation between blood clots and magnetism. Anyone you know that has been jabbed and experienced blood clots, heart or circulatory problems needs to take the magnet challenge right now! A strong enough correlation indicates causation. If you make such a test, please reach us on our socials and communicate the result, whether positive or negative! Also VAERS is exploding with reports of magnetism, please help analyzing the data to see if it pairs with clotting. Thank you!
Also food for thought: isn’t this also related to the problems these GMO dupes experience during air-travel? I’ll investigate this in a soon coming report.
This chapter highlighted magnetofection, magnetic patterning of cells, and construction of 3D tissue-like structures. Among them, Mag-TE for constructing 3D structures has been extensively studied, and various kinds of other tissues such as retinal pigment epithelial cell sheets,102 MSC sheets,44 and cardiomyocyte sheets,46 have been already generated. Tubular structures consisting of heterotypic layers of endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, and fibroblasts have also been created.43 In this approach, magnetically labeled cells formed a cell sheet onto which a cylindrical magnet was rolled, which was removed after a tubular structure was formed. If these processes can be scaled up, there is great potential for these techniques in the treatment of a variety of diseases and defects.
In the translational research, toxicology of functional magnetite nanoparticles is an important issue. The main requisite for a cell-labeling technique is to preserve the normal cell behavior. As for biocompatibility of MCLs, no toxic effects against proliferation of several cell types were observed within the range of magnetite concentrations tested (e.g., human keratinocytes,63 < 50 pg-magnetite/cell; HUVECs,41 HAECs,42 human dermal fibroblasts,41 human smooth muscle cells,43 mouse fibroblast cells,43 canine urothelial cells,43 human MSCs,44 and rat MSCs45 < 100 pg/cell). Moreover, MCLs did not compromise MSC differentiation44,45 or electrical connections of cardiomyocytes.46 In addition, an in vivo toxicity of magnetite nanoparticles has been extensively studied. As an MRI contrast agent, ResovistR was first applied clinically for detecting liver cancer, since ResovistR is taken up rapidly by the reticuloendothelial system such as Kupffer cells of the liver compared with the uptake by cancer cells of the liver. In a preliminary study,103 the authors investigated the toxicity of systemically administered MCLs (90 mg, i.p.) in mice; none of the 10 mice injected with MCLs died during the study. Transient accumulation of magnetite was observed in the liver and spleen of the mice, but the magnetite nanoparticles had been cleared from circulation by hepatic Kupffer cells in the spleen by the 10th day after administration.103
In conclusion, magnetic nanoparticles have been developed into “functional” magnetite nanoparticles which are highly promising tools for a wide spectrum of applications in tissue engineering. The proven lack of toxicity of the functional magnetite nanoparticles is expected to provide exciting tools in the near future for clinical tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.View chapter
One of the pioneers using magnetofection for in vitro applications was Lin et al.91 There are various cationic magnetic nanoparticles types that have the capacity to bind nucleotidic material on their surface. With this method, the magnetic nanoparticles are concentrated in the target cells by the influence of an external magnetic field (EMF). Normally, the internalization is accomplished by endocytosis or pinocytosis, so the membrane architecture stays intact. This is an advantage over other physical transfection methods. Other advantages are the low vector dose needed to reach saturation yield and the short incubation time needed to achieve high transfection efficiency. Moreover, with the application of an EMF, cells transfected with magnetic nanoparticles can be used to target the region of interest in vivo.
2.2.1.1 Iron Oxide Nanoparticles
The magnetic nanoparticles most used in magnetofection include the iron oxide nanoparticles (IONPs). IONPs are biodegradable and not cytotoxic and can be easily functionalized with PEI, PEG, or PLL. Poly-l-lysine-modified iron oxide nanoparticles (IONP–PLL) are good candidates as DNA and microRNA (miRNA) vectors because they bind and protect nucleic acids and showed high transfection efficiency in vitro. In addition, they are highly biocompatible in vivo.
Chen et al.92 used human vascular endothelial growth factor siRNA bound to superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) and it was capable of hepatocellular carcinoma growth inhibition in nude mice. Moreover, Li et al.93 demonstrated that the intravenous injection of IONP–PLL carrying NM23-H1 (a tumor suppressor gene) plasmid DNA significantly extended the survival time of an experimental pulmonary metastasis mouse model.
Another advantage of this kind of nanoparticles is that they can be used as MRI agents. Chen et al.94 bound siRNA to PEG-PEI SPIONs together to a gastric cancer-associated CD44v6 single-chain variable fragment. This bound permitted both cancer cell’s transfection and their visualization by MRI.
But those complexes might be used for cell therapies as well. Schade et al.95 used iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) to bind miRNA and transfect human mesenchymal stem cells. As the binding between the MNPs and PEI took place via biotin-streptavidin conjugation, these particles cannot pass the nuclear barrier, so they are good candidates to deliver miRNA, as it exerts its function in the cytosol. They functionalized the surface nanoparticles with PEI and were able to obtain a better transfection than PEI 72 h after transfection. Moreover, they demonstrated that magnetic polyplexes provided a better long-term effect, also when included inside of the stem cells.View chapter
Another attempt to apply magnetic IONPs is the so-called magnetofection (MF) approach. Key factors enabling this method are IONPs that are coupled to vector DNA and guided by the influence of an external magnetic field. By this means, DNA can be transfected into cells of interest. One possibility to enable enhanced binding capabilities of the negatively charged DNA to magnetic IONP beads is the coating IONPs with a positively charged material such as polyethylenimine. The efficiency of the vectors has hence shown to increase up to several thousand times (Scherer et al., 2002). The above depicted engagement of IONPs in MF has shown to be universally applicable to viral and nonviral vectors. This is mostly because it is very rapid and simple. Furthermore, it is a very attractive approach since it yields saturation level transfection at low-dose in vitro (Krotz et al., 2003). Fernandes and Chari (2016) have demonstrated an approach delivering DNA minicircles (mcDNA) to neural stem cells (NSCs) by means of MF. DNA minicircles are small DNA vectors encoding essential gene expression components but devoid of a bacterial backbone, thereby reducing construct size versus conventional plasmids. This could be shown to be very beneficial for the use of genetically engineered NSC transplant populations in regenerative neurology. The aim was to improve the release of biomolecules in ex vivo gene therapy. It could be demonstrated that MF of DNA minicircles is very safe and provided for sustained gene expression for up to 4 weeks. It is described to have high potential as clinically translatable genetic modification strategy for cell therapy (Fernandes and Chari, 2016). The last in vitro application for magnetic nanoparticles to be presented in this chapter will be tissue repair.View chapter
Two methods rely on the application of a magnetic field for gene transfer. Magnetofection uses magnetic nanoparticles coated with DNA in presence of a magnetic field. The nucleic acid-nanoparticle complexes are driven toward and into the target cells by magnetic force application. Gene transfer is enhanced by magnetofection as DNA-loaded particles are guided and maintained in close contact with the target cells. Cellular uptake through endocytosis is thus increased as well. The process has been mainly applied to cultured cells and has been proven more efficient than other chemical methods in some cases.8 The second method is magnetoporation in which membrane permeability is increased, triggered by the applied magnetic field.9View chapter
For gene therapy applications, magnetic particles are generally used for increasing the transfection efficiencies of cultured cells, a technique known as magnetofection [91–104] in which magnetic particles and nucleic acids are mixed together and then added to the cell culture media. The nucleic acid-bound magnetic particles then move from the media to the cell surface upon the application of an external magnetic force, as shown in Figure 9.1. The principle advantage of this approach is the rapid sedimentation of the gene-therapeutic agent onto the target area, thereby reducing the time and dose of vector to achieve highly efficient transfection, with lower cell cytotoxicity.
In in vivo magentofection, the magnetic field is focused over the target site. This method has the potential not only to enhance transfection efficiency but also to target the therapeutic gene to a specific organ or site, as shown in Figure 9.2.
Generally, magnetic particles carrying therapeutic genes are injected intravenously. As the particles flow through the bloodstream, they are captured at the target site using very strong, high-gradient external magnets. Once they are captured, the magnetic particles carrying the therapeutic gene are taken up by the tissue, followed by release of the gene via enzymatic cleavage of cross-linked molecules or degradation of the polymer matrix. If DNA is embedded inside or within the coating material, the magnetic field must be applied to heat the particles and release the gene from the magnetic carrier [105].View chapter
In an attempt to address the transient damage caused by the invasive methods mentioned above (i.e., hydrodynamic injection and electroporation), magnetofection techniques have been introduced. This technique uses the physical method of a magnetic field to direct the deliver of genetic material to the desired target site. The concept involves attaching DNA to a magnetic nanoparticle usually consisting of a biodegradable substance such as iron oxide and coated with cationic polymer such as PEI (Mulens, Morales, & Barber, 2013). These magnetic nanoparticles are then targeted to the tissue through a magnetic field generated by an external magnet. The magnetic nanoparticles are pulled into the target cells increasing the uptake of DNA. This technique is noninvasive and can precisely target the genetic material to the desired site while increasing gene expression. The drawback to magnetofection is the need to formulate magnetic nanoparticles complexed with naked DNA, as well as the need for strong external magnets.View chapter
Stimulus-guided delivery is a non-invasive and convenient approach for clinical applications. Several methods in this category, including electroporation, ultrasound and magnetofection, have been used to deliver siRNAs to specific tissue sites. Owing to constraints associated with application of external stimuli under in vivo conditions, most such studies have been done in vitro. However, in vivo applications of stimulus-guided delivery of anticancer siRNAs are increasingly being reported.
Electroporation has been studied as a means for facilitating in vivo delivery of anticancer siRNAs. Notably, an electroporation method employing a new type of ‘plate and fork’ type electrode has been applied in vivo in mice (Takei et al., 2008). In this application, a chemically modified form of VEGF-specific siRNA in phosphate-buffered saline was intratumorally administered at three doses of 0.08, 0.17 and 0.33 mg/kg, or intravenously administered at a single dose of 6.6 mg/kg. Then, an electronic pulse was applied to a pair of plate and fork electrodes pre-inserted into PC-3-xenografted tumour tissues. Application of electroporation inhibited tumour growth to a similar degree after 0.17 mg/kg intratumoral and 6.6 mg/kg intravenous doses, in each case producing a 40-fold greater inhibitory effect than a local dose. Notably, the duration of the antitumour effect was maintained for 20 days after a single injection via the local or systemic route.
Magnetically guided in vivo siRNA delivery has been investigated using magnetic crystal-lipid nanostructures (Namiki et al., 2009). In this study, a magnetitenanocrystal was coated with oleic acid and a cationic lipid shell, and complexed to EGFR-specific siRNA. Following intravenous administration to mice, siRNA complexed to the magnetic core-encapsulated cationic lipid shell showed a rank order of tissue distribution of spleen followed by liver and lung. For in vivo magnetofection, titanium nitride-coated magnets were internally implanted under the skin peripheral to tumour lesions or were externally placed onto the skin. Mice were intravenously given a total of eight 0.3 mg/kg doses of siRNA complexed to cationic nanoshells administered every other day. Both internal and external applications of a magnetic field reduced tumour (MKN-74 or NUGC-4) volume by 50% compared with the control group 28 days after the initiation of treatment.
Ultrasound-guided siRNA delivery has also been used to increase the in vivo delivery of siRNAs. Ultrasound can produce cavitation, thereby resulting in transient disruptions in cell membranes within tissues (Vandenbroucke et al., 2008). Few studies have addressed the in vivo antitumour effects of ultrasound-guided anticancer siRNAs. To date, most such studies have evaluated the feasibility of the method using siRNAs specific for reporter genes, such as enhanced green fluorescent protein (Negishi et al., 2008). In this latter study, PEG-modified cationic lipid nanobubbles entrapping the ultrasound imaging gas perfluoropropane were complexed with enhanced green fluorescent protein-specific siRNA and intramuscularly administered at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg to mice transfected 1 day prior with enhanced green fluorescent protein-encoding plasmid DNA. Three days after siRNA injection and ultrasound application, fluorescent protein levels at the injection sites were reduced.
Although the feasibility of in vivo applications of stimulus-guided delivery of anticancer siRNA has been demonstrated and positive results have been reported, the ultimate success of these delivery methods may depend on the development of devices capable of providing a sufficient stimulus to tumour tissues deep within the body. Moreover, for in vivosystemic administration, delivery systems that carry both external stimulus-responsive agents and siRNA must meet more general requirements, such as in vivo stability, low toxicity and enhanced tumour tissue accumulation. With the concurrent progress in medical device bioengineering and siRNA delivery technologies, it can be expected that stimulus-guided strategies will be used in more diverse in vivo applications to facilitate anticancer siRNA delivery.View chapter
Various physical methods of gene delivery have been developed, and each one has its own merits and demerits. EP is particularly important for introducing DNA to superficial areas, but to deliver DNA to particular organs, surgery is required. To overcome this problem and to enhance the introduction of gene vectors into cells [254], the new means of physical gene delivery is magnetofection, which delivers DNA to the target organ, using the magnetic field. Magnetofection basically involves attaching DNA onto a magnetic nanoparticle coated with a cationic polymer like polyethylenimine (PEI) [254,255]. The magnetic nanoparticles are generally made up of a biodegradable substance like iron oxide, and its coating onto the polymeric particle is done by salt-induced colloidal aggregation. These prepared nanoparticles are then localized in the target organ by the application of an external magnetic field, which allows the delivery of attached DNA to the target organ, as shown in Figure 3.5. This method also increases the uptake of DNA into target cells as the contact time between the target organ and magnetic nanoparticles increases. In addition, the magnetic field pulls the magnetic nanoparticles into the target cells, which also helps to increase the uptake of DNA [256,257]. In addition, the standard transfection using viral or nonviral vectors is also increased by the magnetofection.
The magnetofection has some drawbacks: a particle size below 50 nm renders it not suitable for magnetic targeting and too large a particle size (more than 5 μm) retards the entry of magnetic nanoparticles inside the blood capillaries. The blood flow rate also affects the transfection efficacy of this method; for example, the flow rate of around 20 cm/s in the human aorta makes the transfection tricky. The external magnetic flux density and gradient decreases at a distance from the magnetic pole, which also affects the transfection efficacy.
Primary endothelial cells are effectively transfected by magnetofection [254,258]. In addition, magnetofection is effective for in vitro and in vivo delivery of DNA to target cells like those in the GI tract and blood vessels [254], and for antisense ODNs delivery [259]. Other applications include advances in ex vivo tissue engineering, development of tumor vaccines, localized therapy for cancer, and cardiovascular therapy [260]. Significant enhancement in reporter gene expression in a short time has been observed in the ex vivo porcine airway model; this may be attributed to an increase in contact time with mucociliary cells, thereby reducing their clearance from the target site [261]. A study carried out using magnetic albumin microspheres with entrapped doxorubicin in the rat model for tumors resulted in a high level of tumor remission in animals compared to animals treated with free doxorubicin, placebo microspheres, or nonlocalized doxorubicin microspheres, which resulted in considerable enlargement in tumor size associated with metastases and subsequent death [262,263]. The magnetic nanoparticles with doxorubicin are also under clinical trial [264]. Magnetofection has been widely used for viral and nonviral vectors and also for the delivery of DNA, nucleic acids, and siRNA [260,265,266].
In conclusion, magnetofection is an efficient system for gene delivery and has the potential to bring in vitro and in vivo transgene transfection in the target organ. The limitations of this delivery system are overcome by the application of proper formulations and novel magnetic field skills.View chapter
Nonviral vectors group a heterogeneous variety of elements that can be classified as naked DNA or RNA, liposome-DNA complexes (lipoplexes), and polymer-DNA complexes (polyplexes). Since the beginning of the gene therapy field, nonviral vectors have received significant attention due to their reduced pathogenicity, lower immunotoxicity, and low cost and ease of production over viral approaches. To date, a myriad of delivery systems grouped as physical methods and chemical carriers have been reported. Physical methods such as direct injection, ballistic DNA, electroporation, sonoporation, photoporation, magnetofection, hydroporation, and mechanical massage, employ physical force to cross the cell membrane barrier. Chemical carriers such as (1) inorganic particles (calcium phosphate, silica, gold, but also magnetic nanoparticles, fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, and supramolecular systems); (2) lipid-based (cationic lipids, lipid-nano emulsions, solid lipid nanoparticles); (3) peptide-based; and (4) polymer-based (i.e., polyethylenimine, chitosan, dendrimers, and polymethacrylate) form small size complexes with nucleic acids to help them cross the cell membrane efficiently (see ref [29] for extensive review). However, despite the large number of different nonviral vectors still, there is poor transduction efficiency of the target cells as well as low and transient transgene expression. Due to it, nonviral vectors account for less than 25% of the clinical assays, mainly for cancer and cardiovascular diseases, being naked/plasmid DNA (452 clinical assays) and lipofection (119 clinical assays) the systems more frequently used, while all the rest of the nonviral vector account only for 3% of the assays.View chapter
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
If you thought Rockefeller’s Lockstep Scenario was ahead of the curve, wait and see what New York Times can do in terms of anticipative powers! Here’s a really good collection for coincidence-theorists!
BONUS:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 