To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
You get 1000 Internet points if you find a definition for “criminal” that Bourla doesn’t fit.
this is huge and I thought it will blow up without my help, but it has actually kind of sank under the many smoke grenades launched lately, and even I forgot about it, luckily for social media, where no crime goes forgotten or forgiven. So it’s my duty to stir this some more, I hope you will share my feeling.
On December 2nd 2021, the BBC published on its website, its popular news app and in the BBC News at One programme a video interview and an accompanying article under the headline ‘Pfizer boss: Annual Covid jabs for years to come’.
The interview by the BBC’s Medical Editor, Fergus Walsh, conducted as a friendly fireside chat, gave Dr. Albert Bourla, the Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, a free pass promotional opportunity that money cannot buy — as the U.K.’s national public service broadcaster, the BBC is usually prohibited from carrying commercial advertising or product placement.
Pfizer CEO Bourla commented on “vaccinating” British children under 12:
“There is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely are in favor of doing it [vaccinating 5-to-11-year-olds in the UK and Europe].”
“Immunizing that age group [children under the age of 11] in the UK and Europe would be a very good idea.”
“Covid in schools was thriving.”
“So, there was no doubt in my mind that the benefits completely were in favor of doing it.”
The interview was conducted before the vaccine was approved for children between the ages of five and 11 in the UK.
After the interview was published, parent campaign group UsForThem filed a complaint with the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA). The complaint accused Dr. Bourla of making “disgracefully misleading” comments about vaccinating children and that the comments were “extremely promotional in nature,” and that he violated several clauses of the code of practice by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).
“There is simply no evidence that healthy schoolchildren in the UK are at significant risk from the SARS COV-2 virus and to imply that they are is disgracefully misleading,” the complaint said.
PMCPA convened a code of practice panel that found that Dr. Bourla had indeed violated the code of practice in a few ways, including failure to present information to the public in a factual and balanced manner, misleading the public, and making claims that cannot be substantiated.
The Appeal Board considered that the subsequent strong opinion statements, including ‘So, there was no doubt in my mind that the benefits completely [completely] were in favour of doing it [vaccinating children against Covid-19]’ and ‘I believe it’s a very good idea’ might infer to the ultimate audience, including members of the public, that there was no need to be concerned about potential side-effects of vaccination in healthy children aged 5-11 which was not so. The Appeal Board considered that this implication was misleading and incapable of substantiation. The Appeal Board therefore upheld the Panel’s rulings of breaches of the Code.
The Appeal Board considered that the CEO’s opinion statements, including ‘So there is no doubt in my mind about the benefits completely are in favour of doing it’ might infer to the ultimate audience, including members of the public, that the benefits outweighed the risks when the UK regulatory authorities had not yet made any conclusions in relation to the vaccination of 5 to 11 year olds; no Covid-19 vaccine was licensed in the UK in that age group when the article at issue was published and the Appeal Board therefore upheld the Panel’s rulings of breaches of the Code.
The process took a year to complete. The group published its story here.
The Telegraph reported Pfizer appealed against the findings of the panel and strongly disagreed with UsForThem’s claims that the CEO violated the code of practice. The company argued that Dr. Bourla’s remarks were based on “up-to-date scientific evidence” and they could be proven through “publicly available independent benefit-risk assessments.”
An appeal board upheld that Dr. Bourla misled the public, made claims that were unbalanced, and made unsubstantiated claims.
However, it ruled against claims that Pfizer discredited the industry, encouraged reckless use of a treatment, and did not maintain high standards.
Now, I would also like to bring to your attention this expose that’s too massive to copy/paste here and I don’t even want to deprive independent citizen journalist Anthony Colpo of his well deserved website hits, so please follow these links:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
No money for energy? Warm yourselves with some billion-dollar biotech research!
ARPA-H is modeled after similar agencies that advance innovation in their sectors, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is known for contributing to achievements such as the internet, GPS and even Moderna’s vaccine for COVID-19.
If you’re not familiar with DARPA yet, please see these posts first.
What all these ARPAs do is one thing: spend countless billions from public money to do research that’s later handed to private companies through the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) scam. Universities used to provide these services, they still do to a smaller scale, but they can’t be as secretive and can’t be involved in some highly sensitive projects from a national security perspective.
ARPA-H launches path to speed public-private partnerships
The mission of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) is to advance better health outcomes for everyone. To realize this mission, innovations sparked by ARPA-H must be able to transition into the real world. Transition strategies are often left to the last phase of a program, which significantly reduces the likelihood of a solution to reach the people that need it. ARPA-H seeks to facilitate public-private partnerships for accelerating technology transfer and transition by launching an effort to form Partnership Intermediary Agreements (PIA) that will make transition resources available throughout the entire program life cycle.
“Since the launch of ARPA-H almost a year ago, we have been building the team, tools, and capabilities that each program manager will need in order to launch audacious programs capable of advancing the state of the art in health innovation,” said Renee Wegrzyn, inaugural director of ARPA-H. “The PIA capability is critical to ensure that incoming program managers can hit the ground running and pursue big challenges in health.”
A PIA is an agreement established with a nonprofit partner with deep commercial sector and transition expertise, to engage academia and industry on behalf of the government. Speed and flexibility are the two main advantages of PIAs. PIAs allow for novel approaches that mirror commercial practice to get solutions to market. PIAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. §3715 to create public-private partnerships.
“We at ARPA-H care deeply about getting solutions to everyone, and this is a powerful tool to ensure those solutions survive in the wild,” said Craig Gravitz, director of ARPA-H’s Project Accelerator Transition Innovation Office (PATIO). “This ensures ARPA-H programs address the market dynamics that matter for success, early and often.” PATIO is ARPA-H’s transition and commercialization office and focuses on ensuring that technologies developed through ARPA-H programs are readily accessible and scalable.
ARPA-H’s PIA application is designed to be easy to understand and implement, enabling potential intermediaries from all eligible communities who may not have deep government expertise to rapidly submit.
The PIA application is now closed. Awards will likely be made approximately 30 days from release date.
Dr. Renee Wegrzyn serves as the first director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), appointed on Oct. 11, 2022, by President Joseph R. Biden.
Previously, Wegrzyn served as a vice president of business development at Ginkgo Bioworks and head of innovation at Concentric by Ginkgo, where she focused on applying synthetic biology to outpace infectious diseases – including COVID-19 – through biomanufacturing, vaccine innovation, and biosurveillance of pathogens at scale.
Wegrzyn comes to ARPA-H with experience working for two of the institutions that inspired the creation of the agency – the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA).
As a Program Manager in the DARPA Biological Technologies Office, Wegrzyn leveraged the tools of synthetic biology and gene editing to enhance biosecurity, support the domestic bioeconomy, and thwart biothreats. Her DARPA portfolio included the Living Foundries: 1000 Molecules, Safe Genes; Preemptive Expression of Protective Alleles and Response Elements (PREPARE); and the Detect it with Gene Editing Technologies (DIGET) programs.
Wegrzyn received the Superior Public Service Medal for her work and contributions at DARPA. Prior to joining DARPA, she led technical teams in private industry in the areas of biosecurity, gene therapies, emerging infectious disease, neuromodulation, synthetic biology, as well as research and development teams commercializing multiplex immunoassays and peptide-based disease diagnostics.
Wegrzyn served on the scientific advisory boards for the National Academies Standing Committee on Biotechnology Capabilities and National Security Needs, National Academies of Science Board on Army Research and Development, Revive & Restore, Air Force Research Labs, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and the Innovative Genomics Institute. She holds doctoral and bachelor’s degrees in applied biology from the Georgia Institute of Technology, was a fellow in the Center for Health Security Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Initiative and completed her postdoctoral training as an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow in Heidelberg, Germany.
With ARPA-H’s billions in Congressional funding and broad mandate to solve intractable health challenges, several audience members asked Wegrzyn what success might look like for the nascent agency. In addition to accelerating breakthroughs in disease prevention and health care delivery, “We want to create tools and products that people want to use,” Wegrzyn said. “We want it to be so obvious to the rest of the world why ARPA-H is here. … So that’ll look like success.” “And paradoxically,” she added, “success should also look like failure.” If the agency doesn’t experience failure, she argues, it may not be taking big enough risks. Another key indicator of success for ARPA-H will be in its diversity — in the problems it solves, in the communities it serves and in the program managers it hires. Spreading the word to people around the world, including those in underrepresented communities, will be pivotal.
The acceleration of COVID-19 testing platforms and vaccine development has demonstrated the possibility of expediting research for similar biomedical breakthroughs. However, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lacks a framework to regularly sustain this type of research. A new federal agency, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), offers a unique opportunity to capitalize on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and drive federal investment into high-risk, high-reward biomedical research. ARPA-H will mirror the flat bureaucratic structure of the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) through the employment of independent project managers. ARPA-H is also unique in how it centers equity in the agency’s core mission. These unique traits could enable the agency to fill the gaps in current biomedical research under the NIH. Nonetheless, ARPA-H’s implementation is not without challenges: its incorporation within the NIH has raised concerns regarding its ability to specialize in high-risk research and the diversion of funding away from the rest of the NIH. These worries can be mitigated through the separation of ARPA-H and the NIH. Successful implementation of the ARPA-H framework would supplement current NIH work, diversify the US federal research strategy, accelerate promising breakthroughs, promote equity in health, and transform the nature of biomedical research in the US.
And this is not the last ARPA you’ll hear about. We’re in a world of ARPAs.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
“Act Up, Fight Back, Fight AIDS!” The angry chanting grew louder as hundreds of protesters wove through the usually placid campus of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda on May 21, 1990.
With signs that read “Red Tape Kills Us” and “NIH — Negligence, Incompetence and Horror,” members of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, or ACT UP, marched toward a row of police officers in riot gear guarding Building One. Suddenly, the pack parted and a small group of protesters ran through the middle of the crowd, right to the police line, bearing torches spewing rainbow-colored smoke. Chaos erupted between the screaming crowd and police, each pushing and shoving back and forth.
ACT UP’s “Storm the NIH” had begun.
“It was spectacular,” Mark Harrington, a leading member of the group, remembered in a phone interview.
As confused NIH scientists and administrators looked out of their windows, the 1,000-strong demonstration then marched to Building 31, which housed the offices of the protests’ target: Anthony S. Fauci, then and now the chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
For months, ACT UP had been formally urging Fauci to include their members in the government’s development process for AIDS drugs. Fauci, now under attack by some Trump supporters for his response to the coronavirus pandemic, was in favor of the group’s participation.
“I was trying to get them into all the planning meetings for the clinical trials,” Fauci said last week, taking time out from the coronavirus fight to look back at another deadly disease he managed 30 years ago. But he met increasing resistance from the scientific community, who were put off by ACT UP’s tactics.
“We were putting Tony in a tough spot,” acknowledged Peter Staley, the ACT UP leader who spearheaded the protest.
ACT UP had formed in New York City in 1987 as an angry response to government inaction on finding drugs and treatments for AIDS patients. The group was motivated by rage, helplessness and grief, Harrington said, as they stood by and watched thousands of friends and lovers die of the human immunodeficiency virus that led to AIDS — what was then called a “gay plague.”
As more and more gay men died in the mid-1980s, and homophobia flourished, ACT UP staged theatrical protests at the Food and Drug Administration, on Wall Street and at New York’s City Hall. The most famous was a 1989 die-in at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York to protest then-Cardinal John O’Connor’s opposition to teaching safe sex and distributing condoms.
The “Storm the NIH” protest was the culmination of the group’s public demonstrations about the deadly disease.
“We wanted a seat at the table,” Staley said, and for months before the protest pushed to have ACT UP organizers become voting members on all the scientific committees that set the research agenda at NIAID.
“One of the things that people in ACT UP said is that we are the people who are experiencing this novel disease, and we are the experts, not just the scientists and doctors,” said Garance Ruta, executive director of GEN magazine and an ACT UP member who was at the NIH protest.
The NIH demonstration also advocated for the group’s quest to reduce the dose and price of the only AIDS-fighting drug approved by the FDA at the time, AZT, made by Burroughs Wellcome Co.
“At $8,000 a year for users, AZT is said to be the most expensive prescription drug in history,” read a New York Times column in August 1989. The column also pointed out that about 35 percent of AIDS patients had either no health insurance or policies that did not pay for drugs.
Fauci was one of the younger scientists working on AIDS research at NIAID at the time, and Staley said ACT UP members began to get to know him. “All the older scientists thought we were crazy,” he said. “But Fauci wanted to hear what we had to say.”
“We liked Tony personally. He’s a brilliant scientist, a brilliant fighter of epidemics,” Staley said.
“I was becoming friends with some of them, like Peter Staley and Mark Harrington,” Fauci agreed. “I felt very strongly that we needed to get them into the planning process because they weren’t always right, but they had very, very good input.”
Fauci attended an ACT UP meeting in October 1989. After that, some of the group’s leaders on its Treatment and Data Committee would meet the NIAID chief and his deputy, Jim Hill, for dinner at Hill’s townhouse on Capitol Hill.
Fauci said he urged the scientific community and his own staff to include ACT UP members in the drug trial process. “I was pushing and pulling these people and screaming, ‘Hey, we have to deal with them,’ ” he said. “I was in a difficult position because I was trying to convince the establishment that ACT UP had something to offer.”
Fauci promised NIAID would become more inclusive, but after months with no action, ACT UP decided the only choice they had was a protest, Harrington said.
At a dinner with Fauci in March, Staley said, “Tony, we’ve got some bad news for you. We know you’ve been advocating for us on this. But we’ve decided to do a gigantic demonstration at the NIH, and it will be in front of your building.”
Fauci tried to talk them out of it, but Staley vowed not just to demonstrate, but to get arrested, too, according to Fauci.
Between March and May, ACT UP spread the word about “Storm the NIH” to its chapters across the country. The group took out full-page ads in The Washington Post.
ACT UP was renowned for creating what Staley called a six-ring circus at its demonstrations, and the NIH protest was no different. Gathering at the NIH gates that Monday morning in May, chapters were divided into “affinity groups,” each of which organized its own presentation, skit or protest focus.
“All the affinity groups gave themselves campy names, like CHER!, the Juicers or the Marys,” Staley explained. “I was in charge of a group called the Power Tools.”
A movie he saw featuring military pyrotechnics made him think about using colored smoke. He looked through a military magazine and learned smoke bombs in the shape of grenades were available in different colors. “I ordered all the colors of the rainbow, thinking, ‘That will make a statement,’ ” he said.
The day of the demonstration, he and Power Tools members taped the canisters to poles and hid them behind posters to get on campus.
Staley’s group stayed behind the bulk of the protesters, who marched ahead to confront about 200 police officers, some on horseback, who were clubbing some activists. Others set up a mock graveyard in front of Building 31, with tombstones describing deaths from “drug profiteers” or “AZT poisoning.”
Chanting, “NIH, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide,” according to United Press International, affinity groups carried banners, posters, mock coffins, and effigies — including one of Fauci. One group staged a die-in. Another formed a human snake that slid its way through the raucous crowd, each section labeled with a different opportunistic AIDS infection.
“One guy even had Fauci’s head on a stick,” Staley said.
It might have seemed otherwise, “but this was not a protest against research,” Ruta said. “It was a protest on behalf of research.”
Staley and his crew lit the smoke bombs and ran through the parting crowd. A roar went up from protesters as billows of red, yellow, blue, purple and green smoke filled the air. An Associated Press photo of screaming activists under a cloud of rainbow smoke eventually made it onto the cover of newspapers across the country.
Meanwhile, Fauci, looking out his office window, grew frustrated. “I didn’t like that degree of disruption on campus,” he said, concerned the rowdy action would further alienate scientists from including ACT UP in the drug development process.
Then Fauci noticed a protester climbing onto the building’s front overhang. It was Peter Staley. Police officers pulled Staley off the roof, lowering him into a band of officers who immediately handcuffed him. Fauci said he raced down to the first floor to make sure Peter was okay.
“I didn’t want him to get hurt because there were mounted police and that could be dangerous,” he said.
“A big, burly African American cop dragged me through the first floor of the building, and who should I run into, but Tony Fauci,” Staley said.
“Peter?” Fauci said.
“Hey, Tony,” Staley responded with a grin.
“Are you guys okay?” Fauci asked.
Staley laughed. “See — I told you I’d get arrested,” he said, adding, “I’m just doing my job,” surprising the officer that his perpetrator knew the head of the institute.
Staley was the first arrest of the day, he said, with about 80 more arrests following, according to The Post.
In The Post story, Fauci was critical of the protest, expressing concern that it could hurt AIDS researchers’ morale.
“It was interesting theater,” Fauci said at the time, “but it was not helpful.”
The next month, however, ACT UP could definitively declare victory. At the International Conference on AIDS in San Francisco, Fauci gave Harrington the good news: Activists, journalists and people with AIDS would be let into the AIDS Clinical Trials Group, Harrington said, and the trials would expand to include women of color, drug users and children.
It was a turning point — for both ACT UP and biomedical research, Harrington said.
All drug testing committees at NIH now have patient advocates, he noted, including NIH’s trial to test hydroxychloroquine and azythromicin.
Staley points out that community activists are now involved in coordinating efforts to combat covid-19, an outgrowth of ACT UP. Activists “are now in lockstep with scientists,” he said.
“Ever since the 1990 demonstration, we’ve been partners in fighting illnesses and diseases, and our enemies now are hesitant politicians and anti-science radio hosts,” he said. “We are now Fauci’s great defenders against the anti-science. And the world is better for it.” – WASHINGTON POST
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
We’ve all heard of existing cancer cures, whether you believe in them or not, you can’t rationally hope they will be made available to plebs for as long a Pharmafia exists.
Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’
Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering “gene therapy” treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run.
“Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled “The Genome Revolution.”
“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies,” analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. “While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”
Richter cited Gilead Sciences’ treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.
“Gilead is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients,” the analyst wrote. “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”
The analyst didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The report suggested three potential solutions for biotech firms:
“Solution 1: Address large markets: Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually.”
“Solution 2: Address disorders with high incidence: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects the cells (neurons) in the spinal cord, impacting the ability to walk, eat, or breathe.”
“Solution 3: Constant innovation and portfolio expansion: There are hundreds of inherited retinal diseases (genetics forms of blindness) … Pace of innovation will also play a role as future programs can offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets.”
So you don’t see anyone pushing for any cures.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Biden’s moonshot examined: Researchers say cancer cure is a long ways off
The White House is pressing ahead, saying a combination of research on cures and prevention efforts will end the scourge.
Congress has appropriated $1.8 billion for the “cancer moonshot” President Joe Biden began in 2016, and the positive reaction to Biden’s request for more suggests it’s eager to maintain the momentum. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo
President Joe Biden’s pledge to “end cancer as we know it” is a rare sliver of common ground between Democrats and Republicans.
Congress has appropriated $1.8 billion for the “cancer moonshot” Biden began in 2016, and the positive reaction to Biden’s request for more during Tuesday’s State of the Union suggests it’s eager to maintain the momentum.
But cancer researchers are less unified about the moonshot than Washington policymakers. A contrarian cadre question whether the money appropriated is being well spent. Cancer research is funded well enough, they said, and investing more in high-tech individualized treatments is more likely to help the wealthy live longer than it is to save those most likely to die of the disease: the poor and people of color.
“It’s a lot harder than getting a man to the moon,” Gilbert Welch, an internist and senior investigator at the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said of curing cancer. “It’s a very complex set of diseases. You need to think of it as a family of diseases. The moon is just one thing. Just gotta get there. This is hundreds of different things.”
Biden wants to press ahead on a bipartisan initiative. He has called on Congress to maintain funding for the 2016 law that launched the moonshot, the 21st Century Cures Act. He pledged to cut cancer death rates by 50 percent in the next 25 years and to turn fatal cancers into treatable diseases.
Biden also has asked Congress to reauthorize the National Cancer Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Reauthorization would help the National Cancer Institute support researchers around the country by building clinical trial networks and more robust data systems, according to Danielle Carnival, the White House’s moonshot coordinator.
But some experts, such as Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former White House adviser, said there’s plenty of money devoted to cancer research. The National Cancer Institute had a nearly $6.4 billion budget for cancer research in 2021 and its annual spend has been growing since 2015. Cancer non-profits like the American Cancer Institute also raise hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
President Joe Biden has asked Congress to reauthorize the National Cancer Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1971. | AP Photo
Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry is incentivized to put money behind increasingly lucrative cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. Research shows that from 2010 to 2019 revenue generated from cancer medicines increased 70 percent among the top 10 pharmaceutical companies to reach $95 billion.
And not everyone thinks more funding is a good thing. “There’s so much money sloshing around,” Welch said of the cancer industry, adding, “Both academic and biotech or industry are excessively enthusiastic and just trying to put out as many products as they can.”
We’ve overinvested in cancer, according to Welch, especially in expensive cancer drugs with modest or unproven benefit for patients and in screenings — Welch’s research area. He’s particularly opposed to the Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), which would require Medicare to cover cancer blood tests if they’re approved by the FDA. From Welch’s vantage point, benefits from screenings have been exaggerated, while its harms have been minimized.
Other critics, such as Keith Humphreys, a public health professor at Stanford University who has published academic articles on the link between alcohol use and cancer, see cancer prevention as a more immediate way to save lives.
Managing disease and curing it
The president’s agenda goes beyond money, Carnival told POLITICO, emphasizing prevention efforts, such as improving nutrition for kids, discouraging smoking, and decreasing environmental risks.
“We’re going to have to reach more people with the tools we already have and those we develop along the way,” Carnival said. “The purview is much broader than research. I don’t think anyone would say we have all of the research advancements and knowledge and treatments that we need today to end cancer as we know it.”
Those closely involved in developing cutting-edge cancer therapeutics said the field has shifted dramatically in recent years. It’s gone from treating cancer as a chronic disease, to trying to cure patients.
During his medical fellowship in the early 2000s, improving patient survival by months or years was the goal, explained Marco Davila, a physician-scientist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who helped pioneer some of the first CAR-T cell therapies for patients with blood cancer.
Since then, treatment breakthroughs for some previously incurable cancer have upended the cancer-as-chronic-disease philosophy. Now, doctors and researchers believe cancer-curing therapies are within reach. “It’s changed the nature of how we manage patients. There’s that option there. It’s on the table,” Davila said.
For Davila, moonshot funds earmarked for cancer research and therapies created a new pool of money for his work. It doesn’t fix the problem of underfunded science as a whole, he said, but it makes his work as a cancer researcher a priority.
“It’s great for us, because that’s our field. It’s also great for patients, because cancer is still going to be one of the most common causes of people’s death in the United States,” Davila said. (In the U.S., it’s second behind heart disease, taking more than 600,000 lives in 2020, the most recent year for which there are statistics.)
Indeed, since the late 1980s, scientists have developed effective treatments for lung cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. There are caveats, of course. They don’t work for all patients.
“It’s maybe 20 percent, 30 percent,” Davila said. The goal now is to keep improving those cure rates over time — to 50 percent or 60 percent, for example.
“Will it get to 100 percent in your lifetime? I don’t know,” he said.
What Davila does know is that each 10 percent cure-rate increase means saving tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives.
‘Prevention takes action’
But some cancer experts said there’s a downside to the shift toward precision medicine and individualized treatments. Attempting to test everyone or characterize every tumor more precisely is a bit of magical thinking, according to Welch.
“The more you subset people, the more difficult it is to know whether your treatments help. It’s too small of a group,” Welch said. “It used to be just lung cancer. Now we’ve got eight genetic variants we’re testing in adenocarcinomas of the lung,” he added.
“Ironically, the more precise we get, the more types of cancer there are, as we genetically signature each cancer, all of a sudden we don’t really know what to do with any one of them.”
Others think there needs to be a fundamental shift away from screening and treatment and toward preventing cancer in the first place.
“It’s terrific when we develop new treatments for cancer, but it certainly is always better to prevent something than to treat it,” said Humphreys, who served as a drug policy adviser under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
“Very high-end, complicated treatments are never going to be accessible to the whole population,” he added. “Congress could definitely do more.”
“We have very good evidence that when we raise the federal alcohol tax that fewer people die.”
Keith Humphreys, public health professor at Stanford University
Tobacco taxation is widely considered one of the most effective practices in preventing people from starting to smoke in the first place, leading existing smokers to quit, and reducing deaths from tobacco-related cancers. Humphreys said Congress could take the same taxation approach to the alcohol industry. “We have very good evidence that when we raise the federal alcohol tax that fewer people die,” he said.
While broad blood-based cancer screening may not be a cost-effective strategy for stopping cancer early, targeted cancer screening for colorectal, breast, cervical, prostate, and lung cancers could be. Rules could stoke participation or ensure that patients on Medicaid, who are more likely to be at risk of cancer, are getting regular screenings.
“It’s important to acknowledge that our biggest success in cancer really reflects prevention,” Welch said. “It’s nothing fancy. It’s discouraging cigarette smoking.”
There’s a lot of money already in the moonshot cancer system. It just needs to be redirected and allocated differently, said Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and former White House adviser.
The White House touts prevention in its moonshot agenda. In 2022, the first year of the reignited moonshot, the FDA proposed rules to prohibit menthol cigarettes. Among other agenda items, the moonshot program plans to increase cancer screenings in at-risk communities and facilitate donations of sunscreen to schools and youth organizations.
But prevention is a trickier cancer-prevention mechanism than treatment. It could mean cleaning up Superfund sites or removing lead pipes to reduce environmental cancer risk. It often requires people to change their behavior — to drink less alcohol and exercise more or stop smoking — a more challenging mission at the population level than directing patients to take a pill or offering them a diagnostic test.
“It’s not necessarily clear how one spends money on prevention,” Welch acknowledged. “It’s much easier to sell a test or a drug. It’s a concrete thing. Prevention takes action on the part of individuals,” he said. “You gotta say, that’s harder.”
More funding wouldn’t necessarily solve the problem, according to Emanuel.
There’s a lot of money already in the system. It just needs to be redirected and allocated differently, Emanuel explained.
Who is spending that money also matters. The government sponsors roughly one-third of clinical cancer research, according to Emanuel. Industry accounts for the remaining two-thirds of funding. “It’s good that they’ve got a lot of drugs that they’re testing. What’s bad is having industry shape the clinical research agenda, because industry has a bias.”
Emanuel’s solution: stronger government leadership and more non-industry sponsors.
“The NCI [National Cancer Institute] is the biggest NIH institute,” Emanuel said. “It’s not exactly like they’re starving.”
You also have to be a monster to sell halving the cases long after your death as a “cure”
Biden keeps rambling about curing cancer because he and Obama set up and funded the delusional mRNA industry, which was initially aimed at cancer. The Moderna guys promised him this and he ran with it. He still does, poor dumb fv<k…
And if you have a MAGA hat, don’t flash it before reading this:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The only thing worse than genocide is irreversibly compromising the human genetics with incalculable consequences for all current and future generations. And, once again, we bring proof they are knowingly doing this, and where there’s awareness, there’s also intention. So this video below should open the Nuremberg 2 trials.
The WEF published this video in 2016, one year prior to Moderna’s Tal Zaks video for TED that we’ve already manage to make quite viral. This crucial issue is hugely underrated and most people still are not so sure what to believe simply because The Military Biotech Complex is burning the books through its Big Tech arm. Hopefully the video before clarifies the issue for good.
Before we further discuss this, please see this “prequel” for very important context:
Actually, one of our first videos deleted by YouTube was just scientists describing their work in the field of epigenetics and epitratrascriptomics, a whole science dedicated to editing DNA using RNA as a screwdriver. See:
Now that we are on the same page, in terms of information, I’d like to go back to our new video, there’s a few key points that I’d like to stress:
They’ve been in the know since Day 1, this is not a surprising side effect, it’s the effect they pursued.
The above implies intention
Obviously they have no clue what this will lead to, other than genetic chaos. In the words of Bill Gates “If you want to see the effects after two years, you need to wait two years”. How about 20 or 200 years?
Cherry on the cake – the newest revelations: 50% truncated mRNA that no one has any clue what it does
All of the above is potentially irreversible, definitive and transmissible to the future generations. We have no clue what’s going to happen, but your grand-grand-grand kids may all suffer from it. Even if you’re a pure blood, you can get contaminated a million ways. AND THAT’S WHAT’S WORSE THEN GENOCIDING A GENERATION IN ONE COUNTRY OR ANOTHER.
Which brings me to another crucial question I launched in the public square long ago, without any satisfactory response:
You all know DNA is described as made of two protein spirals. If you take one and you break it to pieces, the result is hardly different from RNA or their description of a virus. In which case I would love an expert to explain:
What happens to the DNA debris resulted from cell death, where does it go and can it be mistaken for viruses? Are infections and diseases actually auto-immune attacks?
Here’s a possible starting point:
Mechanisms and physiology of the clearance of dead cells by efferocytosis
“Unlike PAMPs, which are derived from microbes, damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) are of cellular origin and can be liberated upon cell death. DAMPs trigger inflammatory responses, and may also serve as chemoattractants for macrophages. DAMPs are metabolically diverse entities, including genomic and mitochondrial DNA, nuclear proteins (HMGB, histones)25, cytoplasmic proteins (S100), cytokines (IL-1α, IL-33, IL-36), and other small molecules (ATP, UTP, uric acid crystals) (Table 1)26. In addition, inflammasome [G] -mediated caspase-1 activation generates inflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-18 during pyroptosis (see Box 1) that lead to inflammatory immune activation after cellular demise.27 Below, we review the relevance of DAMPs during efferocytosis, the ability of DAMPs to modulate inflammation, and specific DAMPs and their effects.
DNA as a DAMP.
Several mechanisms ensure low DNA burden following apoptotic death and contribute to its immune-silent phenotype. In healthy cells, caspase-activated DNase (CAD) exists in complex with its inhibitory chaperone ICAD and remains constitutively inactive in the cytosol28,29. Active caspase-3 cleaves ICAD28,30, promoting CAD homodimerization, nuclear translocation, and DNA hydrolysis between nucleosomes. Nuclear pieces are then neatly packaged with cytoplasm into apoptotic bodies that are eventually digested during efferocytosis31. In contrast, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), as well as pathogen-derived DNA molecules in those cells dying due to an infection, can be released to the extracellular environment from non-apoptotic dying cells. Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) is activated by unmethylated CpG sequences such as those found in mtDNA or bacterial DNA (Table 1), and activation of TLR9 triggers downstream inflammatory responses. circulating DNA DAMPs can accumulate in the body in cases where non-apoptotic cell death is widespread; for example, mtDNA was found to be elevated in the plasma of trauma patients32, likely as a result of injury-induced cell death.
DNA in the extracellular environment is processed by DNase-I33, while DNase-III (also known as TREX1) clears cytoplasmic DNA34, and DNase-II processes DNA from dying cells in the phagocyte’s lysosomes to help maintain negligible levels of DNA following efferocytosis. Should DNA escape to the cytosol, it can be recognized by cytosolic DNA sensors35, including cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS) and the inflammasome component AIM2. cGAS is activated upon cytosolic DNA binding and subsequently catalyzes a reaction between GTP and ATP to form cyclic GMP-AMP (cGAMP)36. The newly synthesized cGAMP binds to and activates the stimulator of interferon genes protein (STING), leading to TANK binding kinase 1 (TBK1)-dependent phosphorylation of the interferon regulatory factor IRF337. These events trigger the IRF3-mediated activation of a Type I interferon response.
DNase-II-deficient or DNase III-deficient mice die during embryogenesis and this embryonic lethality can be prevented if the response to misplaced DNA is abrogated through deletion of cGAS, STING, or the Type-I interferon receptor (IFNAR)38–41. It is possible that these DNases function to limit cytosolic DNA following efferocytosis during development, thereby preventing this lethal interferonopathy, although how the DNA of engulfed corpses might be released from the phagosome or lysosome to become cytosolic, triggering such responses, remains unknown.
Similarly, recognition of cytosolic DNA by AIM2 causes AIM2 to recruit and activate caspase-1, resulting in IL-1β processing and release, contributing to inflammation42,43. Again, when and how defects in the clearance of DNA during efferocytosis may engage AIM2 remains unclear.
Protein DAMPs.
High mobility group protein B1 (HMGB1) is a nuclear protein that binds to DNA and assists replication, repair and transcription44,45,46. Although some HMGB1 can be released to the extracellular milieu under steady state conditions47 or during apoptosis48, it is predominantly released during forms of immunogenic cell death25. Efficient efferocytosis can thus limit the release of HMGB1. Based on its redox status, HMGB1 can function as a chemotactic agent (reduced) or as an inflammatory agent (oxidized)49. In its reduced form, HMGB1 can prevent the induction of immune tolerance [G] to antigens associated with the dying cell48. Reduced HMGB1 may bind to TLRs or the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) (Table 1)50, leading to immune cell activation and cytokine production. Recently, binding of reduced HMGB1 to the chemokine receptor CXCR4 was observed during tissue regeneration following injury51, highlighting the possible importance of this molecule in the response to dying cells. S100 proteins can also be released from dying cells52, and efferocytosis can limit the release of these proteins from dying cells. Again, TLRs and RAGE appear to be the primary receptors on macrophages that promote inflammatory activation in response to S100 proteins.”
Efferocytosis is critical for tissue homeostasis.Efferocytosis can be carried out by professional phagocytes (red boxes), such as macrophages and dendritic cells, or to a lesser extent by non-professional phagocytes (blue boxes) such as epithelial cells. Disruption of normal efferocytosis can contribute to the development of a wide range of pathologies (light grey boxes) across a variety of tissues. (dark grey boxes). COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IPD, idiopathic pulmonary disease; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.
I keep my expectations low, but please surprise me!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is still spreading worldwide, and there is an urgent need to effectively prevent and control this pandemic. This study evaluated the potential efficacy of Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgY) as a neutralizing agent against the SARS-CoV-2. We investigated the neutralizing effect of anti-spike-S1 IgYs on the SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, as well as its inhibitory effect on the binding of the coronavirus spike protein mutants to human ACE2. Our results show that the anti-Spike-S1 IgYs showed significant neutralizing potency against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, various spike protein mutants, and even SARS-CoV in vitro. It might be a feasible tool for the prevention and control of ongoing COVID-19.
Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become a global pandemic disease that has social and economic chaos. An alternative mitigation strategy may involve the use of specific immunoglobulin (Ig)-Y derived from chicken eggs. Our study aimed to evaluate the neutralizing potential of specific IgY targeting S1, receptor-binding-domain (RBD) of spike glycoprotein and nucleocapsid (N) of SARS-CoV-2 to inhibit RBD and angiotensin-converting-enzyme-2 (ACE2) binding interaction. Hy-Line Brown laying hens were immunized with recombinant S1, RBD spike glycoprotein, and nucleocapsid (N) of SARS-CoV-2. The presence of specific S1,RBD,N-IgY in serum and egg yolk was verified by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Specific S1,RBD,N-IgY was purified and characterized from egg yolk using sodium-dodecyl-sulfate-polyacrylamide-gel-electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), and was subsequently evaluated for inhibition of the RBD-ACE2 binding interaction in vitro. Specific IgY was present in serum at 1 week post-initial immunization (p.i.i), whereas its present in egg yolk was confirmed at 4 weeks p.i.i. Specific S1,RBD,N-IgY in serum was able to inhibit RBD-ACE2 binding interaction between 4 and 15 weeks p.i.i. The results of the SDS-PAGE revealed the presence of bands with molecular weights of 180 kDa, indicating the presence of whole IgY. Our results demonstrated that S1,RBD,N-IgY was able to inhibit RBD-ACE2 binding interaction in vitro, suggesting its potential use in blocking virus entry. Our study also demonstrated proof-of-concept that laying hens were able to produce this specific IgY, which could block the viral binding and large production of this specific IgY is feasible.
Aims: COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has become a public health crisis worldwide. In this study, we aimed at demonstrating the neutralizing potential of the IgY produced after immunizing chicken with a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit.
Methods and results: E. coli BL21 carrying plasmid pET28a-S1 was induced with IPTG for the expression of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein. The recombinant His-tagged S1 was purified and verified by SDS-PAGE, Western blot and biolayer interferometry (BLI) assay. Then S1 protein emulsified with Freund’s adjuvant was used to immunize layer chickens. Specific IgY against S1 (S1-IgY) produced from egg yolks of these chickens exhibited a high titer (1:25,600) and a strong binding affinity to S1 (KD = 318 nmol L-1 ). The neutralizing ability of S1-IgY was quantified by a SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped virus-based neutralization assay with an IC50 value of 0.99 mg ml-1 . In addition, S1-IgY exhibited a strong ability in blocking the binding of SARS-CoV-2 S1 to hACE2, and it could partially compete with hACE2 for the binding sites on S1 by BLI assays.
Conclusions: We demonstrated here that after immunization of chickens with our recombinant S1 protein, IgY neutralizing antibodies were generated against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit; therefore, showing the potential use of IgY to block the entry of this virus.
Significance and impact of the study: IgY targeting S1 subunit of SARS-CoV-2 could be a promising candidate for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19. Administration of IgY-based oral preparation, oral or nasal spray may have profound implications for blocking SARS-CoV-2.
Egg-Derived Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoglobulin Y (IgY) With Broad Variant Activity as Intranasal Prophylaxis Against COVID-19
COVID-19 emergency use authorizations and approvals for vaccines were achieved in record time. However, there remains a need to develop additional safe, effective, easy-to-produce, and inexpensive prevention to reduce the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. This need is due to difficulties in vaccine manufacturing and distribution, vaccine hesitancy, and, critically, the increased prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with greater contagiousness or reduced sensitivity to immunity. Antibodies from eggs of hens (immunoglobulin Y; IgY) that were administered the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were developed for use as nasal drops to capture the virus on the nasal mucosa. Although initially raised against the 2019 novel coronavirus index strain (2019-nCoV), these anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgY surprisingly had indistinguishable enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay binding against variants of concern that have emerged, including Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron (B.1.1.529). This is different from sera of immunized or convalescent patients. Culture neutralization titers against available Alpha, Beta, and Delta were also indistinguishable from the index SARS-CoV-2 strain. Efforts to develop these IgY for clinical use demonstrated that the intranasal anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgY preparation showed no binding (cross-reactivity) to a variety of human tissues and had an excellent safety profile in rats following 28-day intranasal delivery of the formulated IgY. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1 study evaluating single-ascending and multiple doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgY administered intranasally for 14 days in 48 healthy adults also demonstrated an excellent safety and tolerability profile, and no evidence of systemic absorption. As these antiviral IgY have broad selectivity against many variants of concern, are fast to produce, and are a low-cost product, their use as prophylaxis to reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral transmission warrants further evaluation.
I found more science backing this, but sufficiency is underrated in our society, I’d like to set a good example.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Joe Biden should be in a diaper in a nursing home and not spreading fear.
Vladimir Zev Zelenko MD
journals.plos.org
Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses…
Author Summary Positive-stranded RNA (+RNA) viruses include many important pathogens. They have evolved a variety of replication strategies, but are unified in the fact that an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) functions as the core enzyme of their RNA…
On DECEMBER 12, 2019 an agreement was signed (pg 105) that Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina would receive "mRNA corona virus vaccine candidates developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna"@Rossana38510044@ydeigin@BillyBosticksonhttps://t.co/taAbB9FIvp
Full text: Coronavirus Research Conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric’s Team at University of North Carolina2021-11-09 10:45
The full text of the non-paper entitled “Coronavirus Research Conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric’s Team at University of North Carolina.”
Dr. Ralph Baric and his team from the UNC have been systematically working on coronavirus-related researches for a long time, including Gain-of-Function (GOF) research. They possess synthetic biology techniques used for manipulation and modification of coronavirus genome and have applied for multiple patents related to coronavirus research.
In the aftermath of the SARS outbreak in 2003, the Baric team collaborated with the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID) and developed a novel reverse genetic system for synthesis of a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV, which was published in a paper in 2003. The paper claimed that within two months after obtaining the RNA of the SARS virus, the full-length cDNA of the virus was successfully synthesized, which shows that as early as 2003, these institutes already had advanced capabilities to synthesize and modify SARS-related coronavirus.
In December 2008, Dr. Baric co-authored another paper on the successful reconstitution of a chimeric virus with the genome backbone from a bat SARS-like coronavirus and the receptor binding domain (RBD) from SARS-CoV using similar synthetic biology techniques, arguing that the design and synthesis of various SARS-related coronaviruses are important steps to prevent similar outbreaks in the future.
It is worth noting that the Baric team has close collaboration with the USAMRIID, and they co-own the patent related to manipulation of coronavirus genome and have published multiple papers together. The scope of this cooperative relationship was further expanded after Lisa Hensley, one of Dr. Baric’s students, joined the USAMRIID.
In November 2015, the Baric team published a paper titled “A SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence”. According to the paper, a chimeric coronavirus was made with the genome backbone from a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV virus provided by the U.S. team and the RBD from a bat SARS-related CoV SHC014 discovered by Zhengli Shi’s team from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Dr. Baric’s lab tested the pathogenesis of the chimeric virus in mice and even reconstituted the full length SHC014 virus. In this study, both the virus modification and the experiment on mouse infection were conducted at the UNC and the chimeric virus was not provided to Shi’s team.
Some people in the United States claim that GOF researches by the Wuhan Institute of Virology have caused bat coronaviruses to mutate into SARS-CoV-2 and a lab leak led to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a matter of fact, the United States have sponsored and carried out more such researches than any other country. In particular, the Baric team leads the world in researches in this field. A thorough investigation into Dr. Baric’s lab will help clarify whether such researches have led to or can lead to SARS-CoV-2.
Remember when ferritin in Covid bioweapons was a conspiracy theory and we were getting our YouTube channels and socials wiped out for exposing it? That was fun!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Except in the process of “doing it”, very interesting undisclosed trades have occurred.
An amazing researcher / whistleblower, former pharma and medical device R&D executive Sasha Latypova has recently confirmed and furthered our research on several topics. Here’s a fragment from a recent Substack post:
I know what is in the redacted part of the above paragraph and it was not hard to figure out. The first redaction under 1.1.1 BACKGROUND is “Fosun Pharmaceuticals”, so the sentence reads “Fosun Pharmaceuticals”, Pfizer and BioNTech entered into an agreement for the co-development…”
Note: the only journalist I am aware of in either “mainstream” or “resistance” who mentioned Fosun was Naomi Wolf, kudos to her. I was in touch with The Epoch Times to try to publish this information, and even they decided to bury the story (but they published my other materials). I did discuss this on Dr. Jane Ruby’s show, and kudos to her as well for not being afraid to cover the truth.
Below is the timeline of some of the key investments and R&D deals I was able to identify from public SEC shareholder disclosures, immediately preceding and following the “pandemic”:
Just to make sure, we are talking about the exact technology in the mRNA shots. Here is the definition from March 17, 2020 agreement between Pfizer and BioNTech (p. 4):
The same document describes a data sharing agreement, “pharmacovigilance” globally among the 3 parties. They will count the bodies and share the data with each other:
On the “pharmacovigilance” aspect, there is a 4th participant in this arrangement – the Israeli Ministry of Health, which entered into a data sharing agreement with Pfizer on January 6, 2021 and gave Pfizer (and by extension, US DoD and anyone who controls it, BioNTech and anyone who controls it, Fosun and anyone who controls it, i.e. CCP) access to all their citizens’ centralized electronic health records. But don’t worry, Benjamin Netanyahu promised to keep the data de-identified. Right.
Side note – Israeli government recently “misplaced” the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement with Pfizer mentioned in the data sharing agreement above (so we know for sure it exists). The government sadly cannot find it for some reason…
This gets even larger and more interesting when looking at the sources of “R&D” financing. Turns out, there were numerous financial backers and co-investors in the BioNTech “venture” in the years preceding the global fraud and mass murder exercise. According to Crunchbase, BioNTech, a tiny company with just a handful of employees and NO PRODUCTS or scale manufacturing, raised $1.7B in 9 rounds of investments since around 2008. Large portion of the money, $1B+ was raised before 2020. What was it for, since no big clinical trials or scale manufacturing was happening then? That’s a good question, worth examining at some point. Cursory review of some of the investment rounds indicates wide and very international involvement of a variety investors from US, Europe, UK, Australia, South Africa, mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore among others. These likely included many government actors: “sovereign” funds, pension funds and the like who often do these investments by allocating money to “private venture funds” (limited partners in a private venture funds are confidential). Maybe I will do a separate article on this at a later date.
Note, many people ask me “what about China and Russia?” when I talk about our own government and DoD engaged in mass genocide of Americans. I answered about China – they are allied with the US DoD on this. The CCP is profiting from the financial windfall of the US government printing dollars and throwing them into the mRNA furnaces where they are driving masses of the brainwashed citizens to suicide themselves. China claims to use “traditional vaccines” – if you believe what the Chinese say, I have a bridge to sell you.
I have not seen evidence of any similar alliance with Russia. This makes sense, because ultimately this boils down to the war of US vs Russia using proxies and alliances (as it always does). This does not mean that Russia are “the good guys”. Simply that the owners of Russia (whoever they are, not necessarily based in Russia) disagree with the owners of the US (whoever they are, not necessarily based in the US). Russia is running the same “covid script”, using knock off RNA/DNA injections, probably buying materials from the same suppliers, and also using war to kill off their own younger population. It’s just that they are doing it for THEIR OWN interests, not that of the US and their allies. – Sasha Latypova
For more context and a larger horizon on the topic, you also need to see this essential piece:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 