Every time I hear Pharma dispensers like Paul Ofitt or Pharma trolls like Biden accusing non-vaccinated people of murder, this study comes to mind first thing.
This British Medical Journal analysis used to be one of the first shadow-banned links on Facebook, years before the term was even coined. Together with Google, they managed to fade it out from public attention and references, but it’s a staple of medical journalism and criticism.

Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US

British Medical Journal  03 May 2016

Summary points
-Death certificates in the US, used to compile national statistics, have no facility for acknowledging medical error
-If medical error was a disease, it would rank as the third leading cause of death in the US
-The system for measuring national vital statistics should be revised to facilitate better understanding of deaths due to medical care

Medical error is not included on death certificates or in rankings of cause of death. Martin Makary and Michael Daniel assess its contribution to mortality and call for better reporting

The annual list of the most common causes of death in the United States, compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), informs public awareness and national research priorities each year. The list is created using death certificates filled out by physicians, funeral directors, medical examiners, and coroners. However, a major limitation of the death certificate is that it relies on assigning an International Classification of Disease (ICD) code to the cause of death.1 As a result, causes of death not associated with an ICD code, such as human and system factors, are not captured. The science of safety has matured to describe how communication breakdowns, diagnostic errors, poor judgment, and inadequate skill can directly result in patient harm and death. We analyzed the scientific literature on medical error to identify its contribution to US deaths in relation to causes listed by the CDC.2

Death from medical care itself

Medical error has been defined as an unintended act (either of omission or commission) or one that does not achieve its intended outcome,3 the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (an error of execution), the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (an error of planning),4 or a deviation from the process of care that may or may not cause harm to the patient.5 Patient harm from medical error can occur at the individual or system level. The taxonomy of errors is expanding to better categorize preventable factors and events.6 We focus on preventable lethal events to highlight the scale of potential for improvement.

Case history: role of medical error in patient death
A young woman recovered well after a successful transplant operation. However, she was readmitted for non-specific complaints that were evaluated with extensive tests, some of which were unnecessary, including a pericardiocentesis. She was discharged but came back to the hospital days later with intra-abdominal hemorrhage and cardiopulmonary arrest. An autopsy revealed that the needle inserted during the
pericardiocentesis grazed the liver causing a pseudoaneurysm that resulted in subsequent rupture and death. The death certificate listed the cause of death as cardiovascular.

The role of error can be complex. While many errors are
non-consequential, an error can end the life of someone with a
long life expectancy or accelerate an imminent death. The case
in the box shows how error can contribute to death. Moving
away from a requirement that only reasons for death with an
ICD code can be used on death certificates could better inform
healthcare research and awareness priorities.


How big is the problem?

The most commonly cited estimate of annual deaths from
medical error in the US—a 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM)
report7—is limited and outdated. The report describes an
incidence of 44 000-98 000 deaths annually.7 This conclusion
was not based on primary research conducted by the institute
but on the 1984 Harvard Medical Practice Study and the 1992
Utah and Colorado Study.8 9 But as early as 1993, Leape, a chief
investigator in the 1984 Harvard study, published an article
arguing that the study’s estimate was too low, contending that
78% rather than 51% of the 180 000 iatrogenic deaths were
preventable (some argue that all iatrogenic deaths are
preventable).10 This higher incidence (about 140 400 deaths due
to error) has been supported by subsequent studies which suggest
that the 1999 IOM report underestimates the magnitude of the
problem.
A 2004 report of inpatient deaths associated with the
Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research Patient Safety
Indicators in the Medicare population estimated that 575 000
deaths were caused by medical error between 2000 and 2002,
which is about 195 000 deaths a year (table 1⇓).11 Similarly, the
US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the
Inspector General examining the health records of hospital
inpatients in 2008, reported 180 000 deaths due to medical error
a year among Medicare beneficiaries alone.12 Using similar
methods, Classen et al described a rate of 1.13%.13 If this rate
is applied to all registered US hospital admissions in 201315 it
translates to over 400 000 deaths a year, more than four times
the IOM estimate.
Similarly, Landrigan et al reported that 0.6% of hospital
admissions in a group of North Carolina hospitals over six years
(2002-07) resulted in lethal adverse events and conservatively
estimated that 63% were due to medical errors.14 Extrapolated
nationally, this would translate into 134 581 inpatient deaths a
year from poor inpatient care. Of note, none of the studies
captured deaths outside inpatient care—those resulting from
errors in care at home or in nursing homes and in outpatient
care such as ambulatory surgery centers.

A literature review by James estimated preventable adverse
events using a weighted analysis and described an incidence
range of 210 000-400 000 deaths a year associated with medical
errors among hospital patients.16 We calculated a mean rate of
death from medical error of 251 454 a year using the studies
reported since the 1999 IOM report and extrapolating to the
total number of US hospital admissions in 2013. We believe
this understates the true incidence of death due to medical error
because the studies cited rely on errors extractable in
documented health records and include only inpatient deaths.
Although the assumptions made in extrapolating study data to
the broader US population may limit the accuracy of our figure,
the absence of national data highlights the need for systematic
measurement of the problem. Comparing our estimate to CDC
rankings suggests that medical error is the third most common
cause of death in the US (fig 1⇓).2

Better data

Human error is inevitable. Although we cannot eliminate human
error, we can better measure the problem to design safersystems
mitigating its frequency, visibility, and consequences. Strategies
to reduce death from medical care should include three steps:
making errors more visible when they occur so their effects can
be intercepted; having remedies at hand to rescue patients 17;
and making errors less frequent by following principles that
take human limitations into account (fig 2⇓). This multitier
approach necessitates guidance from reliable data.
Currently, deaths caused by errors are unmeasured and
discussions about prevention occur in limited and confidential
forums, such as a hospital’s internal root cause analysis
committee or a department’s morbidity and mortality conference.
These forums review only a fraction of detected adverse events
and the lessons learnt are not disseminated beyond the institution
or department.
There are several possible strategies to estimate accurate national
statistics for death due to medical error. Instead of simply
requiring cause of death, death certificates could contain an
extra field asking whether a preventable complication stemming
from the patient’s medical care contributed to the death. An
early experience asking physicians to comment on the potential
preventability of inpatient deaths immediately after they
occurred resulted in an 89% response rate.18 Another strategy
would be for hospitals to carry out a rapid and efficient
independent investigation into deaths to determine the potential
contribution of error. A root cause analysis approach would
enable local learning while using medicolegal protections to
maintain anonymity. Standardized data collection and reporting
processes are needed to build up an accurate national picture of
the problem. Measuring the consequences of medical care on
patient outcomes is an important prerequisite to creating a
culture of learning from our mistakes, thereby advancing the
science of safety and moving us closer towards the Institute of
Medicine’s goal of creating learning health systems. (19)

Health priorities

We have estimated that medical error is the third biggest cause
of death in the US and therefore requires greater attention.
Medical error leading to patient death is under-recognized in
many other countries, including the UK and Canada.20 21
According to WHO, 117 countries code their mortality statistics
using the ICD system as the primary indicator of health status.22
The ICD-10 coding system has limited ability to capture most
types of medical error. At best, there are only a few codes where
the role of error can be inferred, such as the code for
anticoagulation causing adverse effects and the code for
overdose events. When a medical error results in death, both
the physiological cause of the death and the related problem
with delivery of care should be captured.
To achieve more reliable healthcare systems, the science of
improving safety should benefit from sharing data nationally
and internationally, in the same way as clinicians share research
and innovation about coronary artery disease, melanoma, and
influenza. Sound scientific methods, beginning with an
assessment of the problem, are critical to approaching any health
threat to patients. The problem of medical error should not be
exempt from this scientific approach. More appropriate
recognition of the role of medical error in patient death could
heighten awareness and guide both collaborations and capital
investments in research and prevention.
Contributors and sources: MM is the developer of the operating room
checklist, the precursor to the WHO surgery checklist. He is a surgical
oncologist at Johns Hopkins and author of Unaccountable, a book about
transparency in healthcare. MD is the Rodda patient safety research
fellow at Johns Hopkins and is focused on health services research.
This article arose from discussions about the paucity of funding available
to support quality and safety research relative to other causes of death.


1 Moriyama IM, Loy RM, Robb-Smith AHT, et al. History of the statistical classification of
diseases and causes of death. National Center for Health Statistics, 2011.
2 Deaths: final data for 2013. National vital statistics report. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/
leading-causes-of-death.htm.
3 Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA 1994;272:1851-7. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.
03520230061039 pmid:7503827.
4 Reason J. Human error. Cambridge University Press, 1990. doi:10.1017/
CBO9781139062367.
5 Reason JT. Understanding adverse events: the human factor. In: Vincent C, ed. Clinical
risk management: enhancing patient safety. BMJ, 2001:9-30.
6 Grober ED, Bohnen JM. Defining medical error. Can J Surg 2005;48:39-44.pmid:15757035.
7 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system.
National Academies Press, 1999.
8 Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in
hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med
1991;324:370-6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199102073240604 pmid:1987460.
9 Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Newhouse JP, et al. Costs of medical injuries in Utah and
Colorado. Inquiry 1999;36:255-64.pmid:10570659.
10 Leape LL, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, Johnson WG. Preventing medical injury. Qual Rev
Bull 1993;19:144-9.pmid:8332330.
11 HealthGrades quality study: patient safety in American hospitals. 2004. http://www.
providersedge.com/ehdocs/ehr_articles/Patient_Safety_in_American_Hospitals-2004.pdf.
12 Department of Health and Human Services. Adverse events in hospitals: national incidence
among Medicare beneficiaries. 2010. http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-09-00090.pdf.
13 Classen D, Resar R, Griffin F, et al. Global “trigger tool” shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff 2011;30:581-9doi:
10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0190.
14 Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, Hackbarth AD, Goldmann DA, Sharek PJ. Temporal
trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med
2010;363:2124-34. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1004404 pmid:21105794.
15 American Hospital Association. Fast facts on US hospitals. 2015.http://www.aha.org/
research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml.
16 James JTA. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital
care. J Patient Saf 2013;9:122-8. doi:10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182948a69 pmid:23860193.
17 Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Complications, failure to rescue, and mortality with
major inpatient surgery in Medicare patients. Ann Surg 2009;250:1029-34. doi:10.1097/
SLA.0b013e3181bef697 pmid:19953723.
18 Provenzano A, Rohan S, Trevejo E, Burdick E, Lipsitz S, Kachalia A. Evaluating inpatient
mortality: a new electronic review process that gathers information from front-line providers.
BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:31-7. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003120 pmid:25332203.
19 Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Continuous improvement and innovation
in health and health care. Round table on value and science-driven health care. National
Academies Press, 2011.
20 Office for National Statistics’ Death Certification Advisory Group. Guidance for doctors
completing medical certificates of cause of death in England and Wales. 2010.
21 Statistics Canada. Canadian vital statistics, death database and population estimates.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth36a-eng.htm.
22 World Health Organization. International classification of diseases.http://www.who.int/
classifications/icd/en/.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

ORDER


If you’re a typical millennial, schooled, not educated, and with no historical time perception, you may think this happened ages ago and it’s no longer relevant. But the victims would be younger than my mom today and the affair has been concluded just a few years before my birth. It is conceivable that some of the participants are still working and giving advice on Covid nowadays.

Pharmafia and its faucist lemmings have jumped on an imaginary flying white horse and are pointing fingers at all dissatisfied costumers and skeptics from some imaginary moral heights they fly in their empathy-deficient heads.
They call out racism, egoism and what not in everyone who’s not a Pharma-junkie yet, projecting their own faults all over the place like a garden sprinkler made by Goebbels Industries .
They need bitch-slapped back into reality with some historical facts.
Because if a person had Pharmafia’s criminal record, you’d ask for bodyguards and a restraining order, and the last thing you’d take from them would be health-advice.

THE HIDDEOUS THRUTHS OF TESTING VACCINES ON HUMANS

By Leah Rosenbaum, Forbes, June 12, 2020

Sixty years ago, a monstrous hepatitis experiment was performed on mentally disabled children at Willowbrook State School that raises serious ethical questions about vaccine challenge trials for Covid-19.

Nina Galen was ten years old when she became part of one of the most controversial human experiments in American history. Her mother, Diana McCourt, was looking for an institution that could care for her severely autistic daughter. “I was just desperate,” McCourt says now, more than 50 years later. “I think I was having a breakdown because I was just trying to take care of everything.”

McCourt finally settled on Willowbrook State School, a home for severely developmentally challenged children and adults on Staten Island, New York. In order to get Nina a spot at the overcrowded facility, however, she had to make a Faustian bargain—consenting to allow her daughter to be part of a quest to find a vaccine for hepatitis. “I had no choice,” McCourt says, “I had tried so many different places and so many arrangements, and they didn’t work out, so I went along with it.” 

Nina became one of more than 50 mentally disabled children, ages 5 to 10, under the care of Dr. Saul Krugman, a respected pediatrician from New York who wanted to determine if there were multiple strains of hepatitis, and whether a vaccine could be created to protect against the disease. Krugman and his partner, Dr. Joan Giles, used the Willowbrook residents to test a preliminary vaccine for this disease that had killed millions worldwide. From 1955 to 1970, the children were injected with the virus itself or made to drink chocolate milk mixed with feces from other infected children in order to study their immunity.

For much of human history, hepatitis caused some of the deadliest outbreaks in the world. The symptoms, including fever, liver damage and yellow skin, were written about by Hippocrates in the fifth century B.C.E. While we now know that there are multiple viruses (most famously, hepatitis A, B and C), in the first half of the 20th century researchers only knew of one form of the disease, which was then called epidemic jaundice. 

Finding a vaccine became particularly important for the United States during World War II, when hepatitis outbreaks affected more than 50,000 American troops. To fight this disease and others, the Surgeon General’s office established the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board.

Willowbrook-building
School for Scandal: In addition to conducting hepatitis experiments, Willowbrook’s staff physically abused residents.

In the early 1950s, Dr. Krugman, a former flight surgeon for the U.S. Army Air Corps, went to the Epidemiological Board with a proposition: he wanted to create a vaccine for hepatitis, and knew the perfect place where he could do his research. Willowbrook was overcrowded, already rampant with disease, and at the time it wasn’t uncommon to test vaccines on children.

The idea goes back to the grandfather of vaccines himself, Edward Jenner, who used an 8-year-old boy as the first test subject of his groundbreaking smallpox vaccine in the late 18th century. The Willowbrook hepatitis experiments would be vaccine challenge experiments, so-called because the body is intentionally “challenged” with a direct exposure to the virus to see if a particular treatment prevents someone from getting the disease. 

“He believed he was helping the children at this school deal with the epidemic,” says Dr. Krugman’s son Richard, a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital Colorado and former head of the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. “He certainly thought he was making a contribution to infectious disease research.”

Although there’s little doubt that Dr. Krugman accelerated the discovery of a hepatitis vaccine, the ethics of his experiment have resurfaced as vaccine challenge trials are being debated for Covid-19. Many politicians, medical ethicists and scientists have come out in favor of the idea, which would include giving healthy volunteers a dose of an unproven vaccine, and then deliberately exposing them to Covid-19 to see if it offers protection against the virus.

While the vaccine challenge trials would be done with healthy adult volunteers, the Covid-19 vaccine challenge trial and the Willowbrook hepatitis experiments beg the same question: Is it really necessary—or right—to risk the health of a few for the benefit of many? 


Saul Krugman arrived at the bucolic Willowbrook campus in 1955. Nestled on almost 400 acres on Staten Island, the large, U-shaped brick buildings were surrounded by a lush green forest. A painted yellow and blue carousel sat at the entrance to the grounds, and first-time visitors described it as enchanting, like a summer camp. Inside, however, Willowbrook was a nightmare. 

Do No Harm: RFK described Willowbrook's conditions as ″less comfortable and cheerful than the cages in which we put animals in a zoo.″
Do No Harm: RFK described Willowbrook’s conditions as “less comfortable and cheerful than the cages in which we put animals in a zoo.” 
But since the kids were mostly white and many of the “caregivers” black, I doubt libtards will get triggered by this

The school opened in 1947 and was built to hold 4,000 residents, but for years that number was over 6,000. Disease and neglect were everywhere, and multiple residents died from untreated illness and abuse. In 1965, Robert F. Kennedy, then a New York Senator, made an unannounced visit to Willowbrook and left appalled. “There are no civil liberties for those put in the cells of Willowbrook,” he later testified before Congress, calling the institution a “snake pit.” 

When Dr. Krugman and Dr. Giles began the Willowbrook hepatitis experiments, they used the conditions of Willowbrook to their advantage for recruiting new families. Despite its well-documented horrors, Willowbrook was still one of the only options for children with severe disabilities, and there was a long waitlist. Dr. Krugman offered several parents, including Nina Galen’s, the ability to jump the line and have their children put in the newer, cleaner research wards with more staff—if they joined the experiments. “I did feel coerced,” McCourt says, “I felt like I was denied help unless I took this [opportunity].” 

Krugman also told parents that since hepatitis was already prevalent at Willowbrook, their children may as well have the chance for a vaccine. McCourt remembers being told her daughter could get an “antidote” to hepatitis if she joined the experiment. When she asked why the hepatitis studies couldn’t be done on primates, she was told that using animals would be “too expensive.”

Despite understanding the optics of infecting mentally disabled children with a potentially deadly disease, Dr. Krugman felt the risk was worth the reward. “The decision to feed hepatitis virus to patients at Willowbrook was not undertaken lightly,” he wrote in a 1958 paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine. He noted that the strain of hepatitis in Willowbrook wasn’t very severe, that many of the children would get infected anyway, and that any knowledge gained from the experiment would in fact help other Willowbrook residents. He also emphasized that the study was sanctioned by the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, and the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board of the Surgeon General’s Office. 

“I don’t think you’re ever justified to inoculate a child with an infectious virus that might kill them,” says pediatrician Paul Offit. 

Some of Dr. Krugman’s trials built on previous research that giving children antibodies from patients who had recovered from hepatitis could prevent new infections. (A similar concept, using convalescent plasma of recovered Covid-19 patients to treat sick patients, is being explored today.)

The experiments also involved infecting healthy children with the virus through the chocolate milk concoction. The doctors eventually learned how much it took for the children to show symptoms of hepatitis, allowed them to recover, and then gave them the virus all over again. These experiments were done to test if someone who had recovered from hepatitis would remain immune or if they could be reinfected again. 

As each trial concluded, Dr. Krugman published the results in prominent medical journals including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. From the time of the first publication, the experiments were controversial within the medical community. In 1966, renowned medical ethicist Henry K. Beecher published an article titled, “Ethics and Clinical Research,” which listed Willowbrook as an example of an unethical clinical experiment and concluded that “there is no right to risk an injury to one person for the benefit of others.” 

Five years later, the editorial board of the Lancet apologized for publishing Dr. Krugman’s studies without greater skepticism. “The Willowbrook experiments have always carried a hope that hepatitis might one day be prevented,” the editors wrote, “but that could not justify the giving of infected material to children who would not directly benefit.” A year later, Krugman had to ward off protesters at a medical conference in Atlantic City. 

Consent-form_AK-redacted_1958
Bad Form: Willowbrook often accepted children in exchange for parental permission to conduct hepatitis testing. THE COLLEGE OF STATEN ISLAND ARCHIVES AND SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

“I think he got a lot of flak for it from people who didn’t understand the context or the reality of the institution,” Richard Krugman says. “It certainly got caught up in the politics of the day.”

But Dr. Krugman had as many fans as he did detractors. New York State Senator Seymour Thaler, originally a critic of the hepatitis experiments, later said that Krugman had “done a magnificent thing.” Dr. Franz Ingelfinger, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, also supported the research. “How much better to have a patient with hepatitis, accidentally or deliberately acquired, under the guidance of a Krugman than under the care of a zealot,” he wrote. 

In addition to discovering the hepatitis A and B strains, Dr. Krugman “certainly did speed up the development of a hepatitis B vaccine,” says Paul Offit, a pediatrician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. But, Offit adds, “I don’t think you’re ever justified to inoculate a child with an infectious virus that might kill them.” 

As members of the medical community protested Krugman’s experiments, a greater force was mobilizing to close down Willowbrook for good. 

In 1972, Geraldo Rivera, then a local television reporter in New York, snuck into the grounds of the school and broadcast the inhumane conditions of Willowbrook. He had been tipped off about the residents’ living conditions by Michael Wilkins, a doctor at the school who was not involved in the hepatitis trials. 

“It’s almost 50 years and speaking about it still makes me cry,” says Rivera, now a roaming correspondent-at-large at Fox News. “The conditions were so horrible.” Rivera remembers seeing children naked, smeared in their own feces and hitting their heads against the wall. “I would imagine that the situation I had was similar to the GIs that freed the concentration camps.”

Geraldo-Rivera-by-Michael-Ochs-Getty-Images
The Last Great Disgrace: As a result of Geraldo Rivera’s 1972 investigation of Willowbrook, a federal law was passed to protect people in institutions. MICHAEL OCHS/ GETTYIMAGES

At roughly the same time, a whistleblower exposed the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study in which researchers deliberately let hundreds of Black men go untreated and several died from the disease, even though there was a known cure. Willowbrook was one in a long line of human experimentations on children, prison inmates, people in mental health facilities, and minority communities, and Tuskegee was the tipping point.

Dr. Krugman, however, was rewarded for his work at Willowbrook. That year, he became president of the American Pediatric Society.

In 1974, the National Research Act was passed in an effort to create regulations that protected subjects in human research trials. One measure it implemented was the creation of an ethics task force, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. “The National Commission might never have come into being were it not for Willowbrook and Tuskegee and several other instances,” says Karen Lebacqz, one of the original members of the commission. 

By 1979 the commission had published the Belmont Report, a comprehensive guideline of basic ethical principles that guide modern clinical trials. The National Research Act also established the practice of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), independent committees that must take time to review the ethical aspects of human clinical trials to this day. 


Aside from potential ethical dilemmas, today’s coronavirus vaccine challenge trials have something else in common with the Willowbrook hepatitis experiments: they may not even be necessary. While Dr. Krugman is credited for speeding up the development of a hepatitis vaccine, other researchers were not far behind. In the late 1960s, Dr. Baruch Blumberg independently discovered the hepatitis B virus, and together with Dr. Irving Millman submitted the first patent for a hepatitis vaccine in 1969. Blumberg did all his research by taking blood samples and testing the liver functions on children and adults who were already infected, and his work earned Blumberg a Nobel Prize for Medicine.

“Whenever people are desperate,” ethics professor Karen Lebacqz says, “they always want to relax ethical standards.”

Similarly, even if a challenge trial for coronavirus gets approved, there’s no guarantee that it will lead to a faster vaccine development. The U.S. government’s initiative to develop a coronavirus vaccine may be called “Operation Warp Speed,” but Christine Grady, Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, says that a lot of time and thought have to be put into properly designing a trial.

“Whether or not doing a challenge trial would even speed up the trial is a question that is not exactly clear,” says Grady, who is married to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Paul Offit agrees. “You have to have the right dose. And to get the right dose, you have to have these mini-challenge trials,” he says. “I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

Karen Lebacqz, one of the original Belmont Report authors, also has concerns about the accelerated Covid-19 vaccine protocols. “Whenever people are desperate,” she says, “they always want to relax ethical standards.”

Saul Krugman’s controversial experiments at Willowbrook were only the beginning of his illustrious career. He later became the head of pediatrics at New York University School of Medicine, was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, authored a classic textbook of pediatric infectious diseases, received the prestigious Lasker Award, and helped to develop the first rubella and measles vaccines.

He defended the Willowbrook trials his whole life, writing in 1986, “I am as convinced today as I was at that time that our studies were ethical and justifiable.” Krugman passed away in 1995, and his obituary in the New York Times has only a small mention of his experiments at Willowbrook.

To this day, while many modern-day ethicists use the Willowbrook studies as an example of unjust human experimentation, there are always second opinions. “It’s complicated,” Grady says. To her knowledge, “Krugman’s first goal was to understand the disease…but I think there are some things about it that certainly don’t look good and would be hard to get approval today.” 

Mike Wilkins, the Willowbrook doctor who helped organize parents to shut down the institution in 1987, also doesn’t think that the experiments are black-and-white. “I’m not wanting to crucify Krugman,” he says now, “hepatitis B, for God sakes, is an international disease that there’s now a vaccine for. But let’s never ever do that again.”

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

ORDER

If a person had Pharmafia’s criminal record, you’d instantly ask for a restraining order.

10

Sanofi-Aventis

DEC 2012

Sanofi-Aventis agreed to pay $109 million to resolve allegations that the company gave doctors free units of Hyalgan (an injection to relieve knee pain) to encourage those doctors to buy their product. Sanofi lowered the effective price by promising these free samples to doctors, but at the same time got inflated prices from government programs by submitting false price reports, alleged the United States. Medicare and other government health care programs “paid millions of dollars in kickback-tainted claims for Hyalgan,” according to the DOJ announcement.

9

Endo

FEB 2014

Endo Health Solutions Inc. and its subsidiary Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. agreed to pay $192.7 million to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from Endo’s marketing of the prescription drug Lidoderm. As part of the agreement, Endo admitted that it intended that Lidoderm be used for unapproved indications and that it promoted Lidoderm to healthcare providers this way.

8

AstraZeneca

APRIL 2010

AstraZeneca was fined $520 million to resolve allegations that it illegally promoted the antipsychotic drug Seroquel. The drug was approved for treating schizophrenia and later for bipolar mania, but the government alleged that AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel for a variety of unapproved uses, such as aggression, sleeplessness, anxiety, and depression. AstraZeneca denied the charges but agreed to pay the fine to end the investigation.

7

Amgen

DEC 2012

Amgen agreed to pay a $762 million fine to resolve criminal and civil charges that the company illegally introduced and promoted several drugs including Aranesp, a drug to treat anemia. Amgen pleaded guilty to illegally selling Aranesp to be used at doses that the FDA had explicitly rejected, and for an off-label treatment that had never been FDA-approved.

6

Merck

NOV 2011

Merck agreed to pay a fine of $950 million related to the illegal promotion of the painkiller Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after studies found the drug increased the risk of heart attacks. The company pled guilty to having promoted Vioxx as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis before it had been approved for that use. The settlement also resolved allegations that Merck made false or misleading statements about the drug’s heart safety to increase sales.

5

Eli Lilly

JAN 2009

Eli Lilly was fined $1.42 billion to resolve a government investigation into the off-label promotion of the antipsychotic Zyprexa. Zyprexa had been approved for the treatment of certain psychotic disorders, but Lilly admitted to promoting the drug in elderly populations to treat dementia. The government also alleged that Lilly targeted primary care physicians to promote Zyprexa for unapproved uses and “trained its sales force to disregard the law.”

4

Abbott

MAY 2012

Abbott was fined $1.5 billion in connection to the illegal promotion of the antipsychotic drug Depakote. Abbott admitted to having trained a special sales force to target nursing homes, marketing the drug for the control of aggression and agitation in elderly dementia patients. Depakote had never been approved for that purpose, and Abbott lacked evidence that the drug was safe or effective for those uses. The company also admitted to marketing Depakote to treat schizophrenia, even though no study had found it effective for that purpose.

3

Johnson & Johnson

NOV 2013

Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay a $2.2 billion fine to resolve criminal and civil allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor. The government alleged that J&J promoted these drugs for uses not approved as safe and effective by the FDA, targeted elderly dementia patients in nursing homes, and paid kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider, Omnicare Inc. As part of the agreement, Johnson & Johnson admitted that it promoted Risperdal for treatment of psychotic symptoms in non-schizophrenic patients, although the drug was approved only to treat schizophrenia.

2

Pfizer

SEPT 2009

Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion, then the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States. Pfizer pled guilty to misbranding the painkiller Bextra with “the intent to defraud or mislead”, promoting the drug to treat acute pain at dosages the FDA had previously deemed dangerously high. Bextra was pulled from the market in 2005 due to safety concerns. The government alleged that Pfizer also promoted three other drugs illegally: the antipsychotic Geodon, an antibiotic Zyvox, and the antiepileptic drug Lyrica.

Also see: CORRUPTION UNLTD. 2: PFIZER IN NIGERIA – DEAD KIDS, DEATH THREATS AND DEADLY DRUGS

Pfizer sent this message to physician early 2021:

1

GlaxoSmithKline

JULY 2012

GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay a fine of $3 billion to resolve civil and criminal liabilities regarding its promotion of drugs, as well as its failure to report safety data. This is the largest health care fraud settlement in the United States to date. The company pled guilty to misbranding the drug Paxil for treating depression in patients under 18, even though the drug had never been approved for that age group. GlaxoSmithKline also pled guilty to failing to disclose safety information about the diabetes drug Avandia to the FDA.

Also see: CORRUPTION UNLTD: GSK AND “TRUMP’S VACCINE CZAR”. SEX TAPES, DEAD BABIES, BRIBES AND PROSTITUTES

Sources:
US Department of Justice
ProPublica

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

No, I’m not going tabloid, bare this knuckle-head with me for a minute!

I’m guilty of fermenting well-founded indignation against some celebritard and professional tough guy who last year was begging “the powers that be” (exact quote) to save his tough ass from the Macarenavirus by locking his people down and ruining their lives, with military intervention, if needed.
You may have heard of this clown that goes around unsupervised, yet heavily guarded, under the name of Conor McGregor. He beats people for money and he’s very good at it, apparently, and that’s the least annoying thing about him.
And thing is he has just addressed his stupidity, proving he has taken his vitamins and has grown half a testicle since.
So I have the professional obligation (no, I don’t, but it’s a good lesson) to reflect his latest brain-fart accurately.
Point being: if we don’t take our daily dose of intellectual vitamins, we end up like this nitwit. I sweat hard to make it easier, I provide, free of charge, donations welcome, and my monthly earnings from this probably can’t pay a ticked to this door-knob’s 5-minute performances. But l retain immensely more human dignity and tight sleep from my position. I wish you what you wish yourself after watching this:

No, dipshit, we weren’t all lied! As a matter of fact, many of us sounded the alarm long before you vomited that abomination, and you social parasites slandered us, some still do. You learned your lesson 20 years too late to be an useful member of your society. See about catching up before your tiny brain falls out through your big mouth!
There’s no scientific evidence for a novel coronavirus, it all points at your novel species of remote-controlled brainless NPCs being the cause for the current societal collapse.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

ORDER


This quote should be on her tombstone.
That’s why I decided to help make it more popular.

Five years ago, Wellesley College released some audio excerpts of a 21-year-old Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking at her 1969 commencement. But no seems to have picked up on this part.
The class selected Clinton as Wellesley’s first-ever student commencement speaker. Clinton discussed leadership, the political climate in the 1960s and making the art of the impossible, possible. Whatever that meant.
You can learn more about Clinton’s years as a student by visiting http://www.wellesley.edu.

Seeing her following career achievements and her adoration speeches for people like Margaret Sanger, I’d say she kept the course and this was a more honest moment of her life.

Some people just don’t feel people feelings.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

Much like the Fed, CDC isn’t a government agency, it’s more like a prototype of today’s PPP’s (Private-Public Partnerships) used by the WEF to siphon public wealth into private pockets and subvert the political self-determination of the people.

One way for CDC to attract funds is their Foundation.
And we can’t follow the money if we don’t even know who the sponsors are.
If you had difficulties before in finding them, though I can’t imagine one, now you have no excuse, you just need to CLICK HERE to find out more about the conflict of interests in which Pharmafia thrives like a baby in the amniotic juice.
Removing that womb would terminate this vile genocidal cartel.
There’s more than just that page, but that’s where you start YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

Interestingly, the CDC Foundation self-portrait looks very much like Klaus Schwab:

“The CDC Foundation is an independent nonprofit and the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s critical health protection work.

We are a catalyst for unleashing the power of collaboration between CDC and philanthropies, private entities and individuals to protect the health, safety and security of America and the world.

The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors. We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually. By aligning diverse interests and resources and leveraging all parties’ strengths, our focused collaborations with private and philanthropic partners help create greater impact than any one entity can alone. Your support saves and improves lives—right now and in the future.

Thanks to our donors, we have launched approximately more than 1,200 health protection programs and raised over $1.2 billion to support CDC’s work over the past two decades. To keep people healthy, safe and secure, we managed hundreds of programs in the United States and in more than 140 countries.” – SOURCE

Now, to make my point, I just need to highlight some of the names found there, for your later references.
These are some of the people who home-detain, muzzle and inject us.
Interestingly, most of them are also partners in the World Economic Forum.

Before fusing humans with technology, the Schwaborg has fused Pharmafia with Big Tech, mainstream media and the Governments. These are not independent voices confirming one another, they’re the same entity, like the Borg (and I’ll prove later that Star Trek’s Borg is not just science-fiction entertainment).


If your nutritionist has a McDonalds badge, you have no nutritionist.
Btw, many US and UK hospitals, maybe in other countries too, host McDonalds restaurants.
Same people.

Some things are not meant to be businesses, public health is one of them.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

ORDER

They knew about everything else, years ahead sometimes, so of course they’ve been aware of the jabs side-effects too…
By means of hiding these from us, they actively infringed upon our right to informed consent, as per the Nuremberg Code.

FDA Safety Surveillance of COVID-19 Vaccines :
DRAFT Working list of possible adverse event outcomes
Subject to change

 Guillain-Barré syndrome
 Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
 Transverse myelitis
 Encephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/
meningoencephalitis/meningitis/
encepholapathy
 Convulsions/seizures
 Stroke
 Narcolepsy and cataplexy
 Anaphylaxis
 Acute myocardial infarction
 Myocarditis/pericarditis
 Autoimmune disease
 Deaths
 Pregnancy and birth outcomes
 Other acute demyelinating diseases
 Non-anaphylactic allergic reactions
 Thrombocytopenia
 Disseminated intravascular coagulation
 Venous thromboembolism
 Arthritis and arthralgia/joint pain
 Kawasaki disease
 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
in Children
 Vaccine enhanced disease

TAKEN FROM:

DOWNLOAD PDF

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

The latest piece of evidence to confirm many of the revelations we’ve published for the past year or so. You have to read back to get more of the picture we’re about to sketch here.


We can’t offer informed consent for these experiments conducted on us because we are not offered much information. Only rich people can access some of it at prices most of us can’t dream. Maybe you can, or maybe people start donating enough so we can afford surviving another month and buying this info for the purpose of making it freely available to everyone, as it should be.

What am I talking about is the book pictured in our cover illustration and detailed below, which costs well over 1000$!

More precisely $1185 just for a single license PDF, the hardcover print would cost you about 100 more.

Why is this thing so expensive, you may ask?

THESE INFORMATIONS ARE SO EXPENSIVE EXACTLY TO BE PROHIBITIVE TO THE PLEBS AND OFFER A LEVERAGE OVER THOSE WHO ARE KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP, IN THE DARK

Predictably so, but:

These informations also must to have the highest degree of accuracy in order to sell as expensively!

Superb quality book delivered in a timely fashion with full financial documentation received via email.

Testimonial by Dr Tom Kidd, Associate Professor, University of Nevada

Bonus for us, this book is from May 2020, so it must have been elaborated prior to April 2020. This means it might be outdated by now for investors, but witty investigators like us find an advantage in this:

THE BOOK HAS BEEN ELABORATED WITH BEHIND THE SCENES SCIENCE ON THE INDUSTRIES WHICH, IN TURN MUST HAVE HAD PRE-SCIENCE ON THE PLANDEMIC!
There was no publicly available information in March to build such a book, and the industries they talk about must have been prescient, way ahead of the writers.
Only the fact that this book existed in May 2020 is single-handedly proving there was a whole lot of awareness in some industries about the pandemic.
Corroborated with all other evidence we’ve provided on this website, pandemic pre-planning, ergo pre-science, becomes a certitude.

Until plebs learn the GameStop lesson properly and start associating their financial power to break this classism and this information gatekeeping, we have to be happy with whatever meat we can chew from the bones they throw out.
Luckily for you, I can show you how to suck a bone dry and use it to find more.
It’s not going to be a full course, but it might become more than most people can load up.

Let’s start with the description (highlights are mine):

“Nanotechnology and nanomaterials can significantly address the many clinical and public healthcare challenges that have arisen from the coronavirus pandemic. This analysis examines in detail how nanotechnology and nanomaterials can help in the fight against this pandemic disease, and ongoing mitigation strategies. Nano-based products are currently being developed and deployed for the containment, diagnosis, and treatment of Covid-19.

Nanotechnology and nanomaterials promise:

  • Improved and virus disabling air filtration.
  • Low-cost, scalable detection methods for the detection of viral particles
  • Enhanced personal protection equipment (PPE) including facemasks.
  • New antiviral vaccine and drug delivery platforms.
  • New therapeutic solutions.

Report contents include:

  • Market analysis of nano-based diagnostic tests for COVID-19 including nanosensors incorporating gold nanoparticles, iron oxide nanoparticles, graphene, quantum dots, carbon quantum dots and carbon nanotubes. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Abbott Laboratories, Cardea, Ferrotec (USA) Corporation, E25Bio, Grolltex, Inc., Luminex Corporation etc.
  • Market analysis of antiviral and antimicrobial nanocoatings for surfaces including fabric (mask, gloves, doctor coats, curtains, bed sheet), metal (lifts, doors handle, nobs, railings, public transport), wood (furniture, floors and partition panels), concrete (hospitals, clinics and isolation wards) and plastics (switches, kitchen and home appliances).
  • Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Advanced Materials-JTJ s.r.o., Bio-Fence, Bio-Gate AG, Covalon Technologies Ltd., EnvisionSQ, GrapheneCA, Integricote, Nano Came Co. Ltd., NanoTouch Materials, LLC, NitroPep and many more.
  • Market analysis of air-borne virus filtration including photocatalytic Nano-TiO2 filters, nanofiber filers, nanosilver, nanocellulose, graphene and carbon nanotube filtration. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include G6 Materials, Daicel FineChem Ltd., NANOVIA s.r.o., Toray Industries, Inc., Tortech Nano Fibers etc.
  • Market analysis of nano-based facemask and other PPE products. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include planarTECH LLC, RESPILON Group s. r. o., SITA, Sonovia Ltd. etc.
  • Nanotherapies and drug delivery vehicles currently being produced and clinical trials of vaccines for COVID-19. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc., Arbutus Biopharma, BlueWillow Biologics, Elastrin Therapeutics Inc., EnGeneIC Ltd. etc.
  • Key scientific breakthroughs and developments that are underway right now.”

As you can see, the description alone offers enough evidence that embedding a whole range of nanotech in facemasks, tests, drugs and many other product.

You can bet your ass your new fridge connect to the internet and has some antimicrobial nanocoating that later will prove to be worse than DDT or asbestos, but at least it’s not gonna be Covid, right?

“You could put the computational power of the spaceship Voyager onto an object the size of a cell”.
And that was back in 2018

Can we dig more clues though?

Sir, yes, sir!

I’m going to do something unusual and seemingly unpractical copying here the whole table of contents, just in case, because almost every chapter and figure title deserves to be a separate post on this website as well, besides the multitude of leads as to what to research.

1 RESEARCH SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
1.1 Report scope
1.2 Research methodology

2 INTRODUCTION

3 DIAGNOSTIC TESTING
3.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
3.1.1 Current Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
3.1.2 Emerging Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
3.1.3 Nanosensors/nanoparticles (silver nanoclusters, Gold nanoparticles, Iron oxide nanoparticles, Quantum dot barcoding, nanowires, silica nanoparticles)
3.1.4 Carbon nanomaterials for diagnostic testing
3.2 Market revenues
3.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025.
3.3 Companies
3.4 Academic research

4 ANTIVIRAL AND ANTIMICROBIAL COATINGS AND SURFACES
4.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
4.1.1 Nanocoatings.
4.1.2 Applications
4.1.3 Anti-viral nanoparticles and nanocoatings
4.1.3.1 Reusable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
4.1.3.2 Wipe on coatings
4.1.4 Graphene-based coatings
4.1.4.1 Properties
4.1.4.2 Graphene oxide.
4.1.4.3 Reduced graphene oxide (rGO)
4.1.4.4 Markets and applications
4.1.5 Silicon dioxide/silica nanoparticles (Nano-SiO2) -based coatings
4.1.5.1 Properties.
4.1.5.2 Antimicrobial and antiviral activity
4.1.5.3 Easy-clean and dirt repellent
4.1.6 Nanosilver-based coatings.
4.1.6.1 Properties
4.1.6.2 Antimicrobial and antiviral activity
4.1.6.3 Markets and applications.
4.1.6.4 Commercial activity
4.1.7 Titanium dioxide nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.7.1 Properties
4.1.7.2 Exterior and construction glass coatings
4.1.7.3 Outdoor air pollution
4.1.7.4 Interior coatings
4.1.7.5 Medical facilities
4.1.7.6 Wastewater Treatment
4.1.7.7 Antimicrobial coating indoor light activation
4.1.8 Zinc oxide nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.8.1 Properties.
4.1.8.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.9 Nanocellullose (cellulose nanofibers and cellulose nanocrystals)-based coatings.
4.1.9.1 Properties
4.1.9.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.10 Carbon nanotube-based coatings
4.1.10.1 Properties
4.1.10.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.11 Fullerene-based coatings
4.1.11.1 Properties
4.1.11.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.12 Chitosan nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.12.1 Properties
4.1.12.2 Wound dressings
4.1.12.3 Packaging coatings and films
4.1.12.4 Food storage
4.1.13 Copper nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.13.1 Properties
4.1.13.2 Application in antimicrobial nanocoatings
4.2 Market revenues
4.2.1 Market revenues adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2030.
4.3 Companies
4.4 Academic research

5 AIR-BORNE VIRUS FILTRATION
5.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions (nanoparticles titanium dioxide, Polymeric nanofibers, Nanosilver, Nanocellulose, Graphene, Carbon nanotubes)
5.2 Market revenues
5.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
5.3 Companies
5.4 Academic research

6 FACEMASKS AND OTHER PPE
6.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions (Polymer nanofibers, Nanocellulose, Nanosilver, Graphene)
6.2 Market revenues
6.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
6.3 Companies
6.4 Academic research

7 DRUG DELIVERY AND THERAPEUTICS
7.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
7.1.1 Products
7.1.2 Nanocarriers
7.1.3 Nanovaccines
7.2 Market revenues
7.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
7.3 Companies
7.4 Academic research

8 REFERENCES

List of Tables
Table 1. Current Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
Table 2. Development phases of diagnostic tests
Table 3. Emerging Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
Table 4. Nanoparticles for diagnostic testing-Types of nanoparticles, properties and application
Table 5. Gold nanoparticle reagent suppliers list
Table 6. Carbon nanomaterials for diagnostic testing-types, properties and applications
Table 7. Global revenues for nanotech-based diagnostics and testing, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 8. Academic research in nano-based COVID-19 diagnostics and testing.
Table 9: Anti-microbial and antiviral nanocoatings-Nanomaterials used, principles, properties and applications.
Table 10. Nanomaterials utilized in antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings coatings-benefits and applications.
Table 11: Properties of nanocoatings.
Table 12: Antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings markets and applications
Table 13: Nanomaterials used in nanocoatings and applications.
Table 14: Graphene properties relevant to application in coatings
Table 15. Bactericidal characters of graphene-based materials
Table 16. Markets and applications for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings graphene nanocoatings
Table 17. Markets and applications for antimicrobial and antiviral nanosilver coatings.
Table 18. Commercial activity in antimicrobial nanosilver nanocoatings
Table 19. Antibacterial effects of ZnO NPs in different bacterial species.
Table 20. Types of carbon-based nanoparticles as antimicrobial agent, their mechanisms of action and characteristics
Table 21. Mechanism of chitosan antimicrobial action
Table 22. Global revenues for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Table 23. Global revenues for Anti-fouling & easy clean nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Table 24. Global revenues for self-cleaning (bionic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 25. Global revenues for self-cleaning (photocatalytic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 26. Antimicrobial, antiviral and antifungal nanocoatings research in academia
Table 27. Cellulose nanofibers (CNF) membranes
Table 28: Comparison of CNT membranes with other membrane technologies
Table 29. Nanomaterials in air-borne virus filtration-properties and applications
Table 30. Global revenues for nanotech-based air-borne virus filtration, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 31: Oji Holdings CNF products
Table 32. Academic research in nano-based air-borne virus filtration
Table 33. Nanomaterials in facemasks and other PPE-properties and applications
Table 34. Global revenues for nanotech-based facemasks and PPE, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 35. Academic research in nano-based facemasks and other PPE
Table 36. Applications in drug delivery and therapeutics, by nanomaterials type-properties and applications
Table 37. Nanotechnology drug products
Table 38. List of antigens delivered by using different nanocarriers
Table 39. Nanoparticle-based vaccines
Table 40. Global revenues for nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics, 2019-2030, billion US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 41. Academic research in nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics to address COVD-19

List of Figures
Figure 1. Anatomy of COVID-19 Virus
Figure 2. Graphene-based sensors for health monitoring
Figure 3. Schematic of COVID-19 FET sensor incorporating graphene
Figure 4. Global revenues for nanotech-based diagnostics and testing, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 5. Printed graphene biosensors
Figure 6. AGILE R100 system
Figure 7. nano-screenMAG particles
Figure 8. GFET sensors.
Figure 9. DNA endonuclease-targeted CRISPR trans reporter (DETECTR) system
Figure 10. SGTi-flex COVID-19 IgM/IgG
Figure 11. Schematic of anti-viral coating using nano-actives for inactivation of any adhered virus on the surfaces
Figure 12: Graphair membrane coating
Figure 13: Antimicrobial activity of Graphene oxide (GO)
Figure 14. Nano-coated self-cleaning touchscreen
Figure 15: Hydrophobic easy-to-clean coating
Figure 16 Anti-bacterial mechanism of silver nanoparticle coating.
Figure 17: Mechanism of photocatalysis on a surface treated with TiO2 nanoparticles
Figure 18: Schematic showing the self-cleaning phenomena on superhydrophilic surface.
Figure 19: Titanium dioxide-coated glass (left) and ordinary glass (right).
Figure 20: Self-Cleaning mechanism utilizing photooxidation.
Figure 21: Schematic of photocatalytic air purifying pavement.
Figure 22: Schematic of photocatalytic water purification
Figure 23. Schematic of antibacterial activity of ZnO NPs
Figure 24: Types of nanocellulose
Figure 25. Mechanism of antimicrobial activity of carbon nanotubes
Figure 26: Fullerene schematic
Figure 27. TEM images of Burkholderia seminalis treated with (a, c) buffer (control) and (b, d) 2.0 mg/mL chitosan; (A: additional layer; B: membrane damage)
Figure 28. Global revenues for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 29. Global revenues for anti-fouling and easy-to-clean nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 30. Global revenues for self-cleaning (bionic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 31. Global revenues for self-cleaning (photocatalytic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 32. Lab tests on DSP coatings
Figure 33. GrapheneCA anti-bacterial and anti-viral coating
Figure 34. Microlyte® Matrix bandage for surgical wounds
Figure 35. Self-cleaning nanocoating applied to face masks.
Figure 36. NanoSeptic surfaces.
Figure 37. NascNanoTechnology personnel shown applying MEDICOAT to airport luggage carts
Figure 38. Basic principle of photocatalyst TiO2
Figure 39. Schematic of photocatalytic indoor air purification filter.
Figure 40. Global revenues for nanotech-based air-borne virus filtration, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Figure 41. Multi-layered cross section of CNF-nw
Figure 42: Properties of Asahi Kasei cellulose nanofiber nonwoven fabric
Figure 43: CNF nonwoven fabric
Figure 44: CNF gel..
Figure 45. CNF clear sheets
Figure 46. Graphene anti-smog mask
Figure 47. Global revenues for nanotech-based facemasks and PPE, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 48. FNM’s nanofiber-based respiratory face mask..
Figure 49. ReSpimask® mask
Figure 50. Schematic of different nanoparticles used for intranasal vaccination
Figure 51. Global revenues for nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics, 2019-2030, billion US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.

So are you ready for your first “printed graphene bio-sensors”? Just picked a random item from the list above.

So what I’m going to do in the upcoming updates to this article is to follow every lead I got above, and I’m going to investigate every company they report on, as per their list below. You should do it too, independently, and compare your results with mine. It’s both science and investigative journalism, the juiciest combo.

  • Abbott Laboratories
  • Advanced Materials-JTJ s.r.o.
  • Arbutus Biopharma
  • Arcturus Therapeutics
  • Bio-Fence
  • Bio-Gate AG
  • BlueWillow Biologics
  • Cardea
  • Covalon Technologies Ltd.
  • Daicel FineChem Ltd.
  • E25Bio
  • Elastrin Therapeutics Inc.
  • EnGeneIC Ltd.
  • EnvisionSQ
  • Ferrotec (USA) Corporation
  • G6 Materials
  • GrapheneCA
  • Grolltex, Inc.
  • Integricote
  • Luminex Corporation
  • Nano Came Co. Ltd.
  • NanoTouch Materials, LLC
  • NANOVIA s.r.o.
  • NitroPep
  • RESPILON Group s. r. o.
  • SITA
  • Sonovia Ltd.
  • TECH LLC
  • Toray Industries
  • Tortech Nano Fibers

A taste of the future: Luminex, on of the companies listed above, makes PCR tests and stuff like magnetic micro-beads. They’ve just been bought for almost $2B by some Italians who can afford $1000+ books.

BESIDES THE DANGERS OF NANOBOTS, THIS INDUSTRY IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER AND A TOP CO2 PRODUCER

from Straight Magazine July 20th, 2011 :

Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem

Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth says consumers deserve a say in nanotech regulation. JIM THOMAS/ETC GROUP

Nanotechnology was supposed to revolutionize the world, making us healthier and producing cleaner energy. But it’s starting to look more like a nightmare.

Nanomaterials—tiny particles as little as 1/100,000 the width of a human hair—have quietly been used since the 1990s in hundreds of everyday products, everything from food to baby bottles, pills, beer cans, computer keyboards, skin creams, shampoo, and clothes.

But after years of virtually unregulated use, scientists are now starting to say the most commonly used nanoproducts could be harming our health and the environment.

One of the most widespread nanoproducts is titanium dioxide. More than 5,000 tonnes of it are produced worldwide each year for use in food, toothpaste, cosmetics, paint, and paper (as a colouring agent), in medication and vitamin capsules (as a nonmedicinal filler), and in most sunscreens (for its anti-UV properties).

In food, titanium-dioxide nanoparticles are used as a whitener and brightener in confectionary products, cheeses, and sauces. Other nanoparticles are employed in flavourings and “nutritional” additives, and to reduce fat content in “health” foods.

In the journal Cancer Research in 2009, environmental-health professor Robert Schiestl coauthored the first comprehensive study of how titanium-dioxide nanoparticles affect the genes of live animals. Mice in his study suffered DNA and chromosomal damage after drinking water with the nanoparticles for five days.

“It should be removed from food and drugs, and there’s definitely no reason for it in cosmetic products,” said cancer specialist Schiestl, who is also a professor of pathology and radiation oncology at UCLA’s school of medicine.

“The study shows effects [from the nanoparticles] on all kinds of genetic endpoints,” Schiestl told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview from his office. “All those are precursor effects of cancer. It’s a wake-up call to do something.”

After Schiestl’s study came out, he said, he started getting calls from nervous people saying they had discovered titanium dioxide was listed as a nonmedicinal ingredient in their prescription medication. “They wanted to know how to get it out,” he said. “I said, ”˜I don’t know how to get it out.’ ”

Schiestl’s study is cited by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in their calls for a moratorium on nanomaterials in food and consumer products.

“They were thought to be safe. Our study shows a lot of harm,” Schiestl said.

Nanoparticles can be harmful because they are so tiny they can pass deep into the skin, lungs, and blood. They are made by burning or crushing regular substances like titanium, silver, or iron until they turn into an ultrafine dust, which is used as a coating on, or ingredient in, various products.

Schiestl is now studying two other common nanoparticles, zinc oxide and cadmium oxide, and he has found they also cause DNA and chromosomal damage in mice.

Yet two years after Schiestl’s first study, titanium dioxide and other nanoparticles remain virtually unregulated in Canada and the U.S. Products containing nanoparticles still don’t have to be labelled, and manufacturers don’t have to prove they are safe for health or the environment.

In fact, only a small fraction of the hundreds of nanomaterials on the market have been studied to see if they are safe.

“The public has had little or no say on this. It’s mostly industry guiding government to make sure this material isn’t regulated,” said Ian Illuminato, a nanotech expert with Friends of the Earth, speaking from his home office in Victoria.

“Consumers aren’t given the right to avoid this. We think it’s dangerous and shouldn’t be in contact with the public and the environment,” he said.

Meanwhile, the number of products using nanomaterials worldwide has shot up sixfold in just a couple of years, from 212 in 2006 to more than 1,300 in 2011, according to a report in March by the Washington, D.C.–based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Those numbers are based on self-reporting by industry, and the real numbers are thought to be much higher. A Canadian government survey in 2009 found 1,600 nanoproducts available here, according to a report in December from the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based nonprofit that studies technology.

Nanotech is worth big money. More than $250 billion of nano-enabled products were produced globally in 2009, according to Lux Research, a Boston-based technology consultancy. That figure is expected to rise 10-fold, to $2.5 trillion, by 2015.

Lux Research estimated in 2006 that one-sixth of manufactured output would be based on nanotechnology by 2014.

Nanotech already appears to be affecting people’s health. In 2009, two Chinese factory workers died and another five were seriously injured in a plant that made paint containing nanoparticles.

The seven young female workers developed lung disease and rashes on their face and arms. Nanoparticles were found deep in the workers’ lungs.

“These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs,” wrote Chinese medical researchers in a 2009 study on the incident in the European Respiratory Journal.

When inhaled, some types of nanoparticles have been shown to act like asbestos, inflaming lung tissue and leading to cancer. In 2009, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research declared titanium dioxide to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans” after studies found that inhaling it in nanoparticle form caused rats to develop lung cancer and mice to suffer organ damage.

Nanoparticles can also hurt the skin. All those nanoparticles in skin creams and sunscreens may be behind a rise in eczema rates in the developed world, according to a 2009 study in the journal Experimental Biology and Medicine. The study found that titanium-dioxide nanoparticles caused mice to develop eczema. The nanoparticles “can play a significant role in the initiation and/or progression of skin diseases”, the study said.

Schiestl said nanoparticles could also be helping to fuel a rise in the rates of some cancers. He wouldn’t make a link with any specific kind of cancer, but data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute show that kidney and renal-pelvis cancer rates rose 24 percent between 2000 and 2007 in the U.S., while the rates for melanoma of the skin went up 29 percent and thyroid cancer rose 54 percent.

Schiestl said workers who deal with nanoparticles could be the most affected. That concern prompted the International Union of Food, Farm, and Hotel Workers to call in 2007 for a moratorium on commercial uses of nanotechnology in food and agriculture.

But despite all the health risks, we may already have run out of time to determine many of nanotech’s health impacts, Schiestl said.

“Nanomaterial is so ubiquitous that it would be very difficult to do an epidemiological study because there would be no control group of people who don’t use it.”

What happens when nanoparticles get out into the environment in wastewater or when products are thrown out?

Nanosilver is the most common nanomaterial on the market. Its extraordinary antimicrobial properties have earned it a place in a huge variety of products, including baby pacifiers, toothpaste, condoms, clothes, and cutting boards.

Virginia Walker, a biology professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, decided to study nanosilver one day after a grad student said her mother had bought a new washing machine that doused clothes with silver nanoparticles to clean them better.

It sounded intriguing, Walker recalled thinking, but what would happen if nanosilver in the laundry water wound up in the environment? “What would it do to the bacterial communities out there?” she wondered.

On a whim, Walker decided to study the question. She figured the nanosilver would probably have no impact on beneficial microbes in the environment because any toxicity would be diluted.

“I did the experiment almost as a lark, not expecting to find anything,” she said by phone. “I hoped I would not find anything.”

In fact, Walker found that nanosilver was “highly toxic” to soil bacteria. It was especially toxic to one kind of nitrogen-fixing bacterium that is important to plant growth.

“If you had anything that was sensitive to nanoparticles, the last thing you would want is to have this microbe affected,” Walker said in a phone interview from her office.

The study prompted Walker to do more studies on nanoparticles. In one study now being reviewed for publication, one of her students found that mice exposed to nanoparticles developed skeletal abnormalities.

“People should have their eyes open. There are so many different nanoparticles, and the consequences of their use could be grave. We know almost nothing about these things,” Walker said.

Other scientists have raised concerns about nanosilver too. Some clothes makers now put it in socks and shirts, promising it will help control body odour. In a 2008 study in the Washington, D.C.–based journal Environmental Science and Technology, researchers took nanosilver-laced socks and washed them in water. They found the socks released up to half of their nanosilver into the water.

“If you start releasing ionic silver, it is detrimental to all aquatic biota. Once the silver ions get into the gills of fish, it’s a pretty efficient killer,” said study coauthor Troy Benn, a graduate student at Arizona State University, in a ScienceDaily.com story in 2008.

“I’ve spoken with a lot of people who don’t necessarily know what nanotechnology is, but they are out there buying products with nanoparticles in them.”

And what about the promise that nanotech could produce cleaner energy? The idea was that nanoparticles could make solar panels more efficient, be used as fuel additives to improve gas mileage, and make lighter cars and planes.

Most of the promised efficiency gains haven’t materialized, according to a 2010 report from Friends of the Earth. And it turns out that making nanomaterial is itself a huge energy guzzler.

A kilogram of carbon nanotubes—a nanoparticle used in cancer treatment and to strengthen sports equipment—requires an estimated 167 barrels of oil to produce, the Friends of the Earth report said.

Carbon nanotubes are “one of the most energy intensive materials known to humankind”, said a 2010 report to a symposium of the U.S.–based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

That report said many nanoproducts may remain profitable despite their high energy cost only because of enormous government subsidies to the nanotech industry—$1.6 billion from the U.S. government last year.

But despite all this, regulation of nanotech remains glacially slow. The European Parliament voted nearly unanimously to recommend that nanoproducts be banned from food in 2009. But the European Commission rejected that recommendation last year, agreeing only that it may require labels on food containing nanomaterials. It will also require labels on cosmetics containing some nanoingredients starting in 2014.

Canada and the U.S. have yet to go even that far. At Health Canada, which regulates nanotechnology, a web page dealing with nanoproducts hasn’t been amended in four years and contains outdated information.

Health Canada spokesman Stéphane Shank did not return calls.

They used to say small is beautiful. But that was before small got scary. – Straight.com

NO MEANS NO, YES MEANS NO TOO

So yeah, that’s it for now, and if you think this is not enough to prove much, you can’t be more wrong, you’re probably bathing in dangerous or lethal nanotech as you read this, but feel free to return to this link in the coming days and weeks, I will be adding more evidence as I dig it out. I have about 100 leads there, it’s going to be a long process, friends!

Until then please read this:

YES, THEY CAN VACCINATE US THROUGH NASAL TEST SWABS AND TARGET THE BRAIN (BIOHACKING P.1)

and this:

Application of Nanotechnology in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

Take it with a pinch of salt, as per usual, this still a product of MIT.

Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19

Stephanie Seneff1 and Greg Nigh – Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge MA, 02139, USA, E-mail: seneff@csail.mit.edu / Naturopathic Oncology, Immersion Health, Portland, OR 97214, USA

ABSTRACT

Operation Warp Speed brought to market in the United States two mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Interim data suggested high efficacy for both of these vaccines, which helped legitimize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA.

However, the exceptionally rapid movement of these vaccines through controlled trials and into mass deployment raises multiple safety concerns. In this review we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail.

We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases.

Among these potential induced pathologies, we discuss the relevance of prion-protein-related amino acid sequences within the spike protein. We also present a brief review of studies supporting the potential for spike protein “shedding”, transmission of the protein from a vaccinated to an unvaccinated person, resulting in symptoms induced in the latter.

We finish by addressing a common point of debate, namely, whether or not these vaccines could modify the DNA of those receiving the vaccination. While there are no studies demonstrating definitively that this is happening, we provide a plausible scenario, supported by previously established pathways for transformation and transport of genetic material, whereby injected mRNA could ultimately be incorporated into germ cell DNA for transgenerational transmission.

We conclude with our recommendations regarding surveillance that will help to clarify the long-term effects of these experimental drugs and allow us to better assess the true risk/benefit ratio of these novel technologies.

Introduction

Unprecedented. This word has defined so much about 2020 and the pandemic related to SARS-CoV-2. In addition to an unprecedented disease and its global response, COVID-19 also initiated an unprecedented process of vaccine research, production, testing, and public distribution (Shaw,

2021). The sense of urgency around combatting the virus led to the creation, in March 2020, of Operation Warp Speed (OWS), then-President Donald Trump’s program to bring a vaccine against COVID-19 to market as quickly as possible(Jacobs and Armstrong, 2020). OWS established a few more unprecedented aspects of COVID-19.

First, it brought the US Department of Defense into direct collaboration with US health departments with respect to vaccine distribution (Bonsell, 2021).

Second, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) collaborated with the biotechnology company Moderna in bringing an unprecedented type of vaccine against infectious disease to market, one utilizing a technology based on messenger RNA (mRNA) (National Institutes of Health, 2020).

The confluence of these unprecedented events has rapidly brought to public awareness the promise and potential of mRNA vaccines as a new weapon against infectious diseases into the future. At the same time, events without precedent are, by definition, without a history and context against which to fully assess risks, hoped-for benefits, safety, and long-term viability as a positive contribution to public health.

In this paper we will be briefly reviewing one particular aspect of these unprecedented events, namely the development and deployment of mRNA vaccines against the targeted class of infectious diseases under the umbrella of “SARS-CoV-2.

”We believe many of the issues we raise here will be applicable to any future mRNA vaccine that might be produced against other infectious agents, or in applications related to cancer and genetic diseases, while others seem specifically relevant to mRNA vaccines currently being implemented against the subclass of corona viruses. While the promises of this technology have been widely heralded, the objectively assessed risks and safety concerns have received far less detailed attention. It is our intention to review several highly concerning molecular aspects of infectious disease-related mRNA technology, and to correlate these with both documented and potential pathological effects.

UNPRECEDENTED

Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population.

Some of these includes the following.

  1. First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)

2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent

3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market

4. First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction

5. First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text)

6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths

7. First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans

8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

Vaccine Development

Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies.

Unprecedented represents a category of vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)

Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).

With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations.

The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data released to the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).

A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna and Pfizer trials were deemed to be SARS-CoV-1-positive at baseline despite prior infection being grounds for exclusion. For these and other reasons the interim efficacy estimate of around 95% for both vaccines is suspect.

A more recent analysis looked specifically at the issue of relative vs. absolute risk reduction. While the high estimates of risk reduction are based upon relative risks, the absolute risk reduction is a more appropriate metric for a member of the general public to determine whether a vaccination provides a meaningful risk reduction personally. In that analysis, utilizing data supplied by the vaccine makers to the FDA, the Moderna vaccine at the time of interim analysis demonstrated an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% (p= 0.004), while the Pfizer vaccine absolute risk reduction was 0.7% (p<0.000) (Brown 2021).

Others have brought up important additional questions regarding COVID-19 vaccine development, questions with direct relevance to the mRNA vaccines reviewed here.

For example, Haidere, et. al. (2021) identify four “critical questions” related to development of these vaccines, questions that are germane to both their safety and their efficacy:

•Will Vaccines Stimulate the Immune Response?

•Will Vaccines Provide Sustainable Immune Endurance?

•How Will SARS-CoV-2 Mutate?

•Are We Prepared for Vaccine Backfires?

Lack of standard and extended preclinical and clinical trials of the two implemented mRNA vaccines leaves each of these questions to be answered over time. It is now only through observation of pertinent physiological and epidemiological data generated by widescale delivery of the vaccines to the general public that these questions will be resolved. And this is only possible if there is free access to unbiased reporting of outcomes –something that seems unlikely given the widespread censorship of vaccine-related information because of the perceived need to declare success at all cost.

The two mRNA vaccines that have made it through phase 3 trials and are now being delivered to the general population are the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The vaccines have much in common. Both are based on mRNA encoding the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Both demonstrated a relative efficacy rate of 94-95%. Preliminary indications are that antibodies are still present after three months. Both recommend two doses spaced by three or four weeks, and recently there are reports of annual booster injections being necessary (Mahose, 2021). Both are delivered through muscle injection, and both require deep-freeze storage to keep the RNA from breaking down. This is because, unlike double-stranded DNA which is very stable, single-strand RNA products are apt to be damaged or rendered powerless at warm temperatures and must be kept extremely cold to retain their potential efficacy (Pushparajah et al., 2021).

It is claimed by the manufacturers that the Pfizer vaccine requires storage at -94 degrees Fahrenheit (-70 degrees Celsius), which makes it very challenging to transport it and keep it cold during the interim before it is finally administered. The Moderna vaccine can be stored for 6 months at -4 degrees Fahrenheit (-20 degrees Celsius), and it can be stored safely in the refrigerator for 30 days following thawing (Zimmer et al., 2021).

Two other vaccines that are now being administered under emergency use are the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both are based on a vector DNA technology that is very different from the technology used inthe mRNA vaccines.

While these vaccines were also rushed to market with insufficient evaluation, they are not the subject of this paper so we will just describe briefly how they are developed. These vaccines are based on a defective version of an adenovirus, a double-stranded DNA virus that causes the common cold.

The adenovirus has been genetically modified in two ways, such that it cannot replicate due to critical missing genes, and its genome has been augmented with the DNA code for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. AstraZeneca’s production involves an immortalized human cell line called Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) 293, which is grown in culture along with the defective viruses (Dicks et al., 2012).

The HEK cell line was genetically modified back in the 1970s by augmenting its DNA with segments from an adenovirus that supply the missing genes needed for replication of the defective virus (Louis et al., 1997).

Johnson & Johnson uses a similar technique based on a fetal retinal cell line. Because the manufacture of these vaccines requires genetically modified human tumor cell lines, there is the potential for human DNA contamination as well as many other potential contaminants.

The media has generated a great deal of excitement about this revolutionary technology, but there are also concerns that we may not be realizing the complexity of the body’s potential for reactions to foreign mRNA and other ingredients in these vaccines that go far beyond the simple goal of tricking the body into producing antibodies to the spike protein.

In the remainder of this paper, we will first describe in more detail the technology behind mRNA vaccines. We devote several sections to specific aspects of the mRNA vaccines that concern us with regard to potential for both predictable and unpredictable negative consequences.

We conclude with a plea to governments and the pharmaceutical industry to consider exercising greater caution in the current undertaking to vaccinate as many people as possible against SARS-CoV-2.

READ / DOWNLOAD THE FULL PAPER IN PDF

Conclusion

Experimental mRNA vaccines have been heralded as having the potential for great benefits, but they also harbor the possibility of potentially tragic and even catastrophic unforeseen consequences.

The mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been implemented with great fanfare, but there are many aspects of their widespread utilization that merit concern. We have reviewed some, but not all, of those concerns here, and we want to emphasize that these concerns are potentially serious and might not be evident for years or even transgenerationally.

In order to adequately rule out the adverse potentialities described in this paper, we recommend, at a minimum, that the following research and surveillance practices be adopted:

•A national effort to collect detailed data on adverse events associated with the mRNA vaccines with abundant funding allocation, tracked well beyond the first couple of weeks after vaccination.

•Repeated autoantibody testing of the vaccine-recipient population. The autoantibodies tested could be standardized and should be based upon previously documented antibodies and autoantibodies potentially elicited by the spike protein. These include autoantibodies against phospholipids, collagen, actin, thyroperoxidase (TPO), myelin basic protein, tissue transglutaminase, and perhaps others.

•Immunological profiling related to cytokine balance and related biological effects. Tests should include, at a minimum, IL-6, INF-α, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and C-reactive protein.

•Studies comparing populations who were vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines and those who were not to confirm the expected decreased infection rate and milder symptoms of the vaccinated group, while at the same time comparing the rates of various autoimmune diseases and prion diseases in the same two populations.

•Studies to assess whether it is possible for an unvaccinated person to acquire vaccine-specific forms of the spike proteins from a vaccinated person in close proximity.

•In vitro studies to assess whether the mRNA nanoparticles can be taken up by sperm and converted into cDNA plasmids.

•Animal studies to determine whether vaccination shortly before conception can result in offspring carrying spike-protein-encoding plasmids in their tissues, possibly integrated into their genome.

•In vitro studies aimed to better understand the toxicity of the spike protein to the brain, heart, testes, etc.

Public policy around mass vaccination has generally proceeded on the assumption that the risk/benefit ratio for the novel mRNA vaccines is a “slam dunk.” With the massive vaccination campaign well under way in response to the declared international emergency of COVID-19, we have rushed into vaccine experiments on a world-wide scale. At the very least, we should take advantage of the data that are available from these experiments to learn more about this new and previously untested technology. And, in the future, we urge governments to proceed with more caution in the face of new biotechnologies.

Finally, as an obvious but tragically ignored suggestion, the government should also be encouraging the population to take safe and affordable steps to boost their immune systems naturally, such as getting out in the sunlight to raise vitamin D levels (Ali, 2020), and eating mainly organic whole foods rather than chemical-laden processed foods (Rico-Campà et al., 2019). Also, eating foods that are good sources of vitamin A, vitamin C and vitamin K2 should be encouraged, as deficiencies in these vitamins are linked to bad outcomes from COVID-19 (Goddek, 2020; Sarohan, 2020).

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in part by Quanta Computers, Inc., Taiwan, under the auspices of the Qmulus project.Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests or conflicts to declare.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

ORDER