Did you even know that PCRs are used under the EUA too?
I called this a ‘PCRdemic’ in a meme last year and I’ve been proven right countless times.

A blast from a past pandemic

Let’s play dumb for a moment and pretend we believe SARS-COV-2 exists outside computers and human minds.

All Covid vaccine trials have shown is infinitesimally tiny decreases in symptoms for injected fools. To detect these tiny differences, they used the largely erroneous and unreliable non-tests known as PCR.
(They also ‘morphed’ some symptoms into adverse effects to get the needed numbers, but that’s another story).
If you can’t defend PCR tests, you can’t defend Covid injections.
And anyone with at least half a functional brain knows there’s nothing to defend, because there’s no such this as PCR Covid tests, there may be PCRs and SARS-COV-2 tests, as separate items only.
So these Covid injections trials and studies are worth precisely and exactly:
NOTHING.
They are as null as all Covid stats, the whole Covid sham and anything based on PCRs as a diagnose tool or as a quantitative detector.
All approvals based on these trials and studies are null.
Up until today, officials have maintained that PCRs are “the gold-standard of Covid testing”, so it’s not wrong to extrapolate their accuracy to the whole Covidiocracy.

“According to a Johns Hopkins study, this so-called gold standard RT-PCR test can have a false negative up to 20 to 66 percent of the time in even symptomatic patients depending upon the test’s timing. False negatives can be up to 100 percent on day one of exposure (asymptomatic) and down to 20 percent on day 8 of exposure (day 3 of symptoms) and then starts going up again. Statistics tell us that the false-negative rate goes up even higher as the prevalence of disease goes up, as is the case with COVID right now. A meta-analysis from Europe actually found an average false negative of 54 percent. These numbers are actually from monitored and regulated studies where things are done more meticulously than real-world scenarios. Performing many of these tests quickly in the clinical setting because of soaring demand, with each test resulting in sampling error, pressure on labs to provide quick turnaround, and rationing of scarce reagents in labs increase this percentage even higher. Some mutations could be potentially affecting the accuracy as well.” – KevinMD
Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MDKevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

I say flipping the coin would achieve similar results as PCRs, I dare everyone to test this.
But even if its error margin was only about 8%, as Mayo Clinic claims, that’s still eight times bigger than the variations detected in Pfizer’s or Moderna’s lab humans.
Fact-check this! Plenty more resources on this very website and its extensions.
If self-evidence and logic are not your thing, I have two guys here who seem to agree, they’re kinda advised in this field:

Now, just to flex a bit, allow me to fact-check the fact-checker that made even NYT to retract one of their best and most honest articles since Covid, claiming as much as 90% of PCR positives may be false.


Healthfeedback.org claims ultrasensitivity in tests doesn’t matter because PCRs are not used quantitatively, just to detect presence, as they should. They admit that people who are not sick or not even infectious, people who were sick in the past (but not anymore) and people who might be sick in the future (but not yet), are considered cases, just because the tiniest viral load is detected:

Some outlets have even called these high Ct positive results “false positives”, which is inaccurate. The term “false positive” indicates that a person tested positive but does not have the disease[1]. However, the New York Times report makes it clear that a person is or has been infected if they test positive, regardless of whether the test had a high or low Ct value. This also means that it is appropriate to consider a person with a positive result and high Ct value as a COVID-19 case.
Therefore, the sensitivity of the PCR test is not responsible for the high number of cases in the U.S. Simply put, case numbers are high because there are many infected people. This indicates a high level of virus transmission in the community and public health measures, such as physical distancing and lockdowns, are effective and important for reducing the number of infections and protecting the community[2,3].
Apoorva Mandavilli, the journalist who wrote the New York Times article, also stressed this point in a Twitter thread, clarifying that “people who test positive but with high CTs *were* contagious, just at an earlier time point. They are not contagious *anymore*. Doesn’t mean they were never infected, so doesn’t affect the case count.”

As they accuse NYT of using straw man arguments, fact-checkers do precisely that, as per usual. We, the independent scholars and media, were the first to cry out PCRs are not a quantitative tool, the establishment never bothered to educate, we dug out PCR inventor Kari Mullis’ teachings, as early as last summer. So we are more aware even than NYT presstitutes, vocational press-release copy-pasters, and when we accuse hypersensitivity in tests, it’s mainly about QUALITATIVE sensitivity. What happens if a tiny viral fragment detected is MISIDENTIFIED, not just misquantized, because hypersensitivity or overcycling?

WHO already admitted it, the numbers of amplification cycles influence the qualitative sensitivity, that’s why they lowered the threshold on Biden’s inauguration day: this trash was detecting anything and everything the way it was used.

What happens if the test reacts to something we all normally live with, since our virome is comprised of countless millions of varieties and we’re also full of viral debris? Don’t you get the perfect pandemic? Besides toasting bread and burping, is there anything simpler to achieve?
How else would you get dozens of labs sending 100% positives like they did last year?!
IMPOSSIBLE, YET OFFICIAL: 100% POSITIVE CORONAVIRUS TESTS RESULTS FROM OVER 30 LABS IN FLORIDA, ON JULY 11TH 2020

Prof. David Rasnick PhD is a reputed researcher, a friend of Kari Mullis’ and one of the first to whistleblow on the AIDS hoax. A bit of a hero to me

Now back to vaccine trials:
They can’t afford lumping together past, present and potential future sick people, as PCRs do, the trials are supposed to measure present symptoms in currently ill people, past and future are beyond the scope.
To these trials, the quantitative aspect is crucially relevant, because it’s different in each category.
I hope it goes without saying that the correct identification of the virus is paramount, and, as the PCR inventor put it: “These things can find anything if you keep cycling”.
So, top authoritative sources, logic and life experience confirm:

PCRs need to be backed by proper lab analysis, they mean nothing by themselves.

Why do you think they burn bodies without autopsy? At the coroner is where the real testing happens, so they illegally destroy murder evidence.

LATER UPDATE: TOP SHELF AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE ENDS THE DEBATE

I know, we need to enlarge our horizons, and by a lot, just to encompass how big the scam is… almost as large as the mass-mental-retardation pandemic sweeping the species with infinitely more casualties than any natural virus.
I know, it may be hard to flex that much, makes anyone dizzy, but if we’re not capable of doing it quickly and at mass-level, we are going to have a mass-level extinction instead.
But I also know I’d rather live to see a crowd-sourced investigation into Kari Mullis’ suspicious death just months ahead of the pandemic. It’s doable if we flex our horizon and brain more and more often.

It’s gonna be a Very Dark Winter and we need ‘flexi-brains’ to come out of it, among other skills.

To be continued?
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

Right off the bat:

SOURCE: FDA
  1. You can’t have a single product with two commercial names in the same place, at the same time. BionTech hasn’t been erased. So there are two Pfizer products: Comirnaty and Pfizer-BionTech.
  2. Until the vial content is independently audited, we can’t know the difference between the two, because this info has been redacted from the publicly available letters.
    But we know for sure there is one and it’s significant enough to earn a new commercial name.
  3. (After four updates that I had to erase to clarify and make this more readable)

    “BioNTech said it was developing four vaccine candidates under a programme named BNT162 with its partner, pharma giant Pfizer… BioNTech, which awarded the rights in China to BNT162 to Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical under a March collaboration deal…” – Reuters

    In its press release, Pfizer maintains:
    “The FDA-approved COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series. An individual may be offered either COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2.”

    In the same press release, we find out the Comirnaty concoct is scientifically identified as BNT162b2. Like the afore-mentioned program BNT162, version ‘b2’.
    It’s the same one as in the US EUA, so, officially, the EUA and the full approval (BLA) are awarded to the same formulation indeed, we can get that out of the way.

    However, the European EUA doesn’t mention any of the formulation, so we cannot know what they used there. A German government website does mention b2, EMA (the European FDA) doesn’t anywhere, or I haven’t found it yet.

    Let’s have a look at ‘b1’:
    COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and T H 1 T cell responses
    And here we find out that serial number corresponds to the lipid naono-particles formulations. So e found at least two different formulations:
    Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults
    The full approval is for BNT162b2.
    Well, CDC is the one to bring clarity this time:
    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-08/Pfizer-COVID-19-vaccine-ACIP-presentation-508.pdf
    Confirmed: they had four formulations, they picked b2 version but they interchanged and cherry-picked the trial data as needed: they licensed b2 in US based on German trials made with b1 and so forth.

    And when you think “this is it”, it’s never it:
    Looks like FDA itself picked b2 and knew the trial data is mixed up between formulations, had no problem with it, more so, I discovered there were even more versions used in trials, such as b3c and so forth. Don’t believe me, check page 15 in this FDA document (PDF), as pictured at the top of the article!

    One question remains: Comirnaty as commercial name has long been used in EU, maybe not much in ads or mainstream media for decerebrated plebs, but in anything more technical than that. Why not in US, if they used the same formulation?
    Symmetrically, EU used the name, but no so sure about the b2 formulation.

    And after all this, no one can be certain what formulation they actually put in the vials.
  4. Cominarty has been approved based on only two trial studies that end 2023. It has about a dozen more to complete, as stated in the letter. I don’t see how that can be legal, but if it is, the data can change by the end of the studies, at least theoretically, which means the legal basis for the approval may very well evaporate.

    In a sane world, the Pfizer approval blunder would be the medical equivalent of the Afghanistan ‘blunder’.
    Forget about informed consent, safety, data… all they have is more guns. Which brings me to…
  5. The US Government, like most others, has left legality in March 2020 and not governing. There are dozens of known old meds that can treat these respiratory problems labeled as Covid, more are screened and discovered, there was no evidence of a new virus, at least at the time when they introduced the Emergency state. So the Emergency, the government instating it and everything that started with it is illegal and an act of terrorism. So US doesn’t have a government, but a terrorist organization holding it hostage. Nothing they did after March 2020 is remotely legal, both Trump and Biden should stand in the accused box at Nuremberg 2 now. But sleepy ghosts are changing bed sides dreaming they wake up as people who still hold a little control over their lives.
    In fact, all this is held together solely by the gun, military superiority, and psychological abuse, legal talk is 200% off and it’s just deepening the mass-hypnosis.
    There is no law but the gun, if the government didn’t have a laser point on each forehead, it wouldn’t even exist at this point.
    It’s bare war.
    If you’re not ready to internalize reality, you are not ready to change it.
  6. What the cover pic says. Then check this out!
SOURCE
SOURCE

Marion. F. Gruber, PhD
Director, Office of Vaccines Research & Review
FDA/CBER
10903 New Hampshire Ave, Building 71, Rm. 3230
Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, USA
Tel: + 1 301 796 1856
e-mail: marion.gruber@fda.hhs.gov

SOURCE

UPDATE SEPT 2, 2021:

THE FDA GRUBER RESIGNS LEAVING THE PFIZER GRUBER ORPHANED
I BET MY ASS SHE’S AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAY SHE HAS OVERSEEN THE PFIZER APPROVALS

CHD reports:

<<Two of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) top vaccine regulators will leave the agency this fall, raising questions about the Biden administration and the way it sidelined the agency.

According to an email sent by Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), to staff members Tuesday, Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s vaccines office, will quit at the end of October, and her deputy, Dr. Philip Krause, will leave in November.

Gruber and Krause were upset about the Biden administration’s recent announcement that adults should get a COVID booster eight months after they received a second shot, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

Neither believed there was enough data to justify offering booster shots yet, the sources said, and both viewed the announcement, amplified by President Biden, as pressure on the FDA to quickly authorize them.

Officials within the FDA were stunned by the news, CNN reported. One source described it as a “big loss” for the FDA and noted it caught leadership off guard.ORDER TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s New Book — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’

Marks said he would serve as the acting director of the vaccines office while the agency searched for its next leader.

FDA Spokeswoman Stephanie Caccomo said the agency was “confident in the expertise and ability of our staff to continue our critical public health work.”

However, a former senior FDA leader told Endpoints News, Gruber and Krause are departing because they’re frustrated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its advisory panel — the Advisory Committee on Immunizations and Practices (ACIP) — are involved in decisions they think should be up to the FDA.

The source said he heard Gruber and Krause were upset with Marks for not insisting those decisions be kept inside the FDA, and with the White House for getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.

“These two are the leaders for biologic [vaccine] review in the U.S.,” wrote Rick Bright, former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, weighing in on the news. “They have a great team, but these two are the true leaders of CBER. A huge global loss if they both leave,” Bright said.

“Dr. Gruber is much more than the director,” Bright added. “She is a global leader. Visionary mastermind behind global clinical regulatory science for flu, Ebola, Mers, Zika, Sars-CoV-2, many others.”>>

Anyone who thinks she sweated harder than Trump for Pfizer’s approval, but all of a sudden had a change of mind and decided to sabotage the boosters is a baby. She’s hiding from justice.

I made this in June 2020. The Grubers are many.

I hope this helped, if anything, I’ll add it here.

To be continued?
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

Selling oregano for weed to kids in parking lots does more good and is more honorable than this lowest-level con job.

FDA approval letter (PDF)
Trial 1
Trial 2

Biden: “They looked at mountains of data”.

No words…

To be continued?
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 need to speed up our little awakening because we’re still light-years behind the reality.
This dwarfs Afghanistan and Covid is but a chapter in its playbook.
This connects all the trigger-words: 5G, Covid, Vaccines, Graphene, The Great Reset, Blockchain, The Fourth Industrial Revolution and beyond.

What Is the Internet of Bodies?

Source: The Rand Corporation (Download PDF)


A wide variety of internet-connected “smart”
devices now promise consumers and
businesses improved performance, convenience, efficiency, and fun. Within this
broader Internet of Things (IoT) lies a growing
industry of devices that monitor the human body,
collect health and other personal information, and
transmit that data over the internet. We refer to these
emerging technologies and the data they collect as
the Internet of Bodies (IoB) (see, for example, Neal,
2014; Lee, 2018), a term first applied to law and policy
in 2016 by law and engineering professor Andrea M.
Matwyshyn (Atlantic Council, 2017; Matwyshyn,
2016; Matwyshyn, 2018; Matawyshyn, 2019).
IoB devices come in many forms. Some are
already in wide use, such as wristwatch fitness
monitors or pacemakers that transmit data about
a patient’s heart directly to a cardiologist. Other
products that are under development or newly on the
market may be less familiar, such as ingestible products that collect and send information on a person’s
gut, microchip implants, brain stimulation devices,
and internet-connected toilets.
These devices have intimate access to the body
and collect vast quantities of personal biometric data.
IoB device makers promise to deliver substantial
health and other benefits but also pose serious risks,
including risks of hacking, privacy infringements,
or malfunction. Some devices, such as a reliable
artificial pancreas for diabetics, could revolutionize
the treatment of disease, while others could merely
inflate health-care costs with little positive effect on
outcomes. Access to huge torrents of live-streaming
biometric data might trigger breakthroughs in medical knowledge or behavioral understanding. It might increase health outcome disparities, where only
people with financial means have access to any of
these benefits. Or it might enable a surveillance state
of unprecedented intrusion and consequence.
There is no universally accepted definition of
the IoB.1
For the purposes of this report, we refer to
the IoB, or the IoB ecosystem, as IoB devices (defined
next, with further explanation in the passages that
follow) together with the software they contain and
the data they collect.

An IoB device is defined as a device that
• contains software or computing capabilities
• can communicate with an internet-connected
device or network
and satisfies one or both of the following:
• collects person-generated health or biometric
data
• can alter the human body’s function.
The software or computing capabilities in an
IoB device may be as simple as a few lines of code
used to configure a radio frequency identification (RFID) microchip implant, or as complex as a computer that processes artificial intelligence (AI)
and machine learning algorithms. A connection to
the internet through cellular or Wi-Fi networks is
required but need not be a direct connection. For
example, a device may be connected via Bluetooth to
a smartphone or USB device that communicates with
an internet-connected computer. Person-generated
health data (PGHD) refers to health, clinical, or
wellness data collected by technologies to be recorded
or analyzed by the user or another person. Biometric
or behavioral data refers to measurements of unique
physical or behavioral properties about a person.
Finally, an alteration to the body’s function refers
to an augmentation or modification of how the
user’s body performs, such as a change in cognitive
enhancement and memory improvement provided
by a brain-computer interface, or the ability to record
whatever the user sees through an intraocular lens
with a camera.
IoB devices generally, but not always, require a
physical connection to the body (e.g., they are worn,
ingested, implanted, or otherwise attached to or
embedded in the body, temporarily or permanently).
Many IoB devices are medical devices regulated by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).3
Figure 1 depicts examples of technologies in the IoB
ecosystem that are either already available on the U.S.
market or are under development.
Devices that are not connected to the internet,
such as ordinary heart monitors or medical ID bracelets, are not included in the definition of IoB. Nor are implanted magnets (a niche consumer product used
by those in the so-called bodyhacker community
described in the next section) that are not connected
to smartphone applications (apps), because although
they change the body’s functionality by allowing the
user to sense electromagnetic vibrations, the devices
do not contain software. Trends in IoB technologies
and additional examples are further discussed in the
next section.
Some IoB devices may fall in and out of
our definition at different times. For example, a
Wi-Fi-connected smartphone on its own would
not be part of the IoB; however, once a health app
is installed that requires connection to the body to
track user information, such as heart rate or number
of steps taken, the phone would be considered IoB.
Our definition is meant to capture rapidly evolving
technologies that have the potential to bring about
the various risks and benefits that are discussed in
this report. We focused on analyzing existing and
emerging IoB technologies that appear to have the
potential to improve health and medical outcomes,
efficiency, and human function or performance, but
that could also endanger users’ legal, ethical, and
privacy rights or present personal or national security
risks.
For this research, we conducted an extensive
literature review and interviewed security experts,
technology developers, and IoB advocates to understand anticipated risks and benefits. We had valuable discussions with experts at BDYHAX 2019, an
annual convention for bodyhackers, in February
2019, and DEFCON 27, one of the world’s largest
hacker conferences, in August 2019. In this report,
we discuss trends in the technology landscape and
outline the benefits and risks to the user and other
stakeholders. We present the current state of governance that applies to IoB devices and the data they
collect and conclude by offering recommendations
for improved regulation to best balance those risks
and rewards.

Operation Warp Speed logo

Transhumanism, Bodyhacking, Biohacking,
and More


The IoB is related to several movements outside of formal health care focused on integrating human bodies
with technology. Next, we summarize some of these concepts,
though there is much overlap and interchangeability among them.
Transhumanism is a worldview and political movement advocating for the transcendence of humanity beyond current human capabilities.
Transhumanists want to use technology, such as
artificial organs and other techniques, to halt aging
and achieve “radical life extension” (Vita-Moore,
2018). Transhumanists may also seek to resist disease,
enhance their intelligence, or thwart fatigue through
diet, exercise, supplements, relaxation techniques, or
nootropics (substances that may improve cognitive
function).
Bodyhackers, biohackers, and cyborgs, who
enjoy experimenting with body enhancement, often
refer to themselves as grinders. They may or may not
identify as transhumanists. These terms are often
interchanged in common usage, but some do distinguish between them (Trammell, 2015). Bodyhacking
generally refers to modifying the body to enhance
one’s physical or cognitive abilities. Some bodyhacking is purely aesthetic. Hackers have implanted horns
in their heads and LED lights under their skin. Other
hacks, such as implanting RFID microchips in one’s
hand, are meant to enhance function, allowing users
to unlock doors, ride public transportation, store
emergency contact information, or make purchases
with the sweep of an arm (Baenen, 2017; Savage,
2018). One bodyhacker removed the RFID microchip from her car’s key fob and had it implanted
in her arm (Linder, 2019). A few bodyhackers have
implanted a device that is a combined wireless router
and hard drive that can be used as a node in a wireless mesh network (Oberhaus, 2019). Some bodyhacking is medical in nature, including 3D-printed
prosthetics and do-it-yourself artificial pancreases.
Still others use the term for any method of improving
health, including bodybuilding, diet, or exercise.
Biohacking generally denotes techniques that
modify the biological systems of humans or other
living organisms. This ranges from bodybuilding
and nootropics to developing cures for diseases via
self-experimentation to human genetic manipulation
through CRISPR-Cas9 techniques (Samuel, 2019;
Griffin, 2018).
Cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, are people
who have used machines to enhance intelligence or
the senses.
Neil Harbisson, a colorblind man who can
“hear” color through an antenna implanted in his
head that plays a tune for different colors or wavelengths of light, is acknowledged as the first person to
be legally recognized by a government as a cyborg, by
being allowed to have his passport picture include his
implant (Donahue, 2017).
Because IoB is a wide-ranging field that
intersects with do-it-yourself body modification,
consumer products, and medical care, understanding
its benefits and risks is critical.

The Internet of Bodies is here. This is how it could change our lives

04 Jun 2020, Xiao Liu Fellow at the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, World Economic Forum

  • We’re entering the era of the “Internet of Bodies”: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn.
  • The result is a huge amount of health-related data that could improve human wellbeing around the world, and prove crucial in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • But a number of risks and challenges must be addressed to realize the potential of this technology, from privacy issues to practical hurdles.

In the special wards of Shanghai’s Public Health Clinical Center, nurses use smart thermometers to check the temperatures of COVID-19 patients. Each person’s temperature is recorded with a sensor, reducing the risk of infection through contact, and the data is sent to an observation dashboard. An abnormal result triggers an alert to medical staff, who can then intervene promptly. The gathered data also allows medics to analyse trends over time.

The smart thermometers are designed by VivaLNK, a Silicon-Valley based startup, and are a powerful example of the many digital products and services that are revolutionizing healthcare. After the Internet of Things, which transformed the way we live, travel and work by connecting everyday objects to the Internet, it’s now time for the Internet of Bodies. This means collecting our physical data via devices that can be implanted, swallowed or simply worn, generating huge amounts of health-related information.

Some of these solutions, such as fitness trackers, are an extension of the Internet of Things. But because the Internet of Bodies centres on the human body and health, it also raises its own specific set of opportunities and challenges, from privacy issues to legal and ethical questions.

Image: McKinsey & Company

Connecting our bodies

As futuristic as the Internet of Bodies may seem, many people are already connected to it through wearable devices. The smartwatch segment alone has grown into a $13 billion market by 2018, and is projected to increase another 32% to $18 billion by 2021. Smart toothbrushes and even hairbrushes can also let people track patterns in their personal care and behaviour.

For health professionals, the Internet of Bodies opens the gate to a new era of effective monitoring and treatment.

In 2017, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration approved the first use of digital pills in the United States. Digital pills contain tiny, ingestible sensors, as well as medicine. Once swallowed, the sensor is activated in the patient’s stomach and transmits data to their smartphone or other devices.

In 2018, Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare provider in California, started a virtual rehab program for patients recovering from heart attacks. The patients shared their data with their care providers through a smartwatch, allowing for better monitoring and a closer, more continuous relationship between patient and doctor. Thanks to this innovation, the completion rate of the rehab program rose from less than 50% to 87%, accompanied by a fall in the readmission rate and programme cost.

The deluge of data collected through such technologies is advancing our understanding of how human behaviour, lifestyle and environmental conditions affect our health. It has also expanded the notion of healthcare beyond the hospital or surgery and into everyday life. This could prove crucial in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. Keeping track of symptoms could help us stop the spread of infection, and quickly detect new cases. Researchers are investigating whether data gathered from smartwatches and similar devices can be used as viral infection alerts by tracking the user’s heart rate and breathing.

At the same time, this complex and evolving technology raises new regulatory challenges.

What counts as health information?

In most countries, strict regulations exist around personal health information such as medical records and blood or tissue samples. However, these conventional regulations often fail to cover the new kind of health data generated through the Internet of Bodies, and the entities gathering and processing this data.

In the United States, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), which is the major law for health data regulation, applies only to medical providers, health insurers, and their business associations. Its definition of “personal health information” covers only the data held by these entities. This definition is turning out to be inadequate for the era of the Internet of Bodies. Tech companies are now also offering health-related products and services, and gathering data. Margaret Riley, a professor of health law at the University of Virginia, pointed out to me in an interview that HIPPA does not cover the masses of data from consumer wearables, for example.

Another problem is that the current regulations only look at whether the data is sensitive in itself, not whether it can be used to generate sensitive information. For example, the result of a blood test in a hospital will generally be classified as sensitive data, because it reveals private information about your personal health. But today, all sorts of seemingly non-sensitive data can also be used to draw inferences about your health, through data analytics. Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law school, told me in an interview that even data that is not about health at all, such as grocery shopping lists, can be used for such inferences. As a result, conventional regulations may fail to cover data that is sensitive and private, simply because it did not look sensitive before it was processed.

Data risks

Identifying and protecting sensitive data matters, because it can directly affect how we are treated by institutions and other people. With big data analytics, countless day-to-day actions and decisions can ultimately feed into our health profile, which may be created and maintained not just by traditional healthcare providers, but also by tech companies or other entities. Without appropriate laws and regulations, it could also be sold. At the same time, data from the Internet of Bodies can be used to make predictions and inferences that could affect a person’s or group’s access to resources such as healthcare, insurance and employment.

James Dempsey, director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, told me in an interview that this could lead to unfair treatment. He warned of potential discrimination and bias when such data is used for decisions in insurance and employment. The affected people may not even be aware of this.

One solution would be to update the regulations. Sandra Wachter and Brent Mittelstadt, two scholars at the Oxford Internet Institute, suggest that data protection law should focus more on how and why data is processed, and not just on its raw state. They argue for a so-called “right to reasonable inferences”, meaning the right to have your data used only for reasonable, socially acceptable inferences. This would involve setting standards on whether and when inferring certain information from a person’s data, including the state of their present or future health, is socially acceptable or overly invasive.

Practical problems

Apart from the concerns over privacy and sensitivity, there are also a number of practical problems in dealing with the sheer volume of data generated by the Internet of Bodies. The lack of standards around security and data processing makes it difficult to combine data from diverse sources, and use it to advance research. Different countries and institutions are trying to jointly overcome this problem. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and its Standards Association have been working with the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health, as well as universities and businesses among other stakeholders since 2016, to address the security and interoperability issue of connected health.

As the Internet of Bodies spreads into every aspect of our existence, we are facing a range of new challenges. But we also have an unprecedented chance to improve our health and well-being, and save countless lives. During the COVID-19 crisis, using this opportunity and finding solutions to the challenges is a more urgent task than ever. This relies on government agencies and legislative bodies working with the private sector and civil society to create a robust governance framework, and to include inferences in the realm of data protection. Devising technological and regulatory standards for interoperability and security would also be crucial to unleashing the power of the newly available data. The key is to collaborate across borders and sectors to fully realize the enormous benefits of this rapidly advancing technology.

Now more from the Rand Corporation

Governance of IoB devices is managed through a patchwork of state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and consumer advocacy groups

  • The primary entities responsible for governance of IoB devices are the FDA and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • Although the FDA is making strides in cybersecurity of medical devices, many IoB devices, especially those available for consumer use, do not fall under FDA jurisdiction.
  • Federal and state officials have begun to address cybersecurity risks associated with IoB that are beyond FDA oversight, but there are few laws that mandate cybersecurity best practices.

As with IoB devices, there is no single entity that provides oversight to IoB data

  • Protection of medical information is regulated at the federal level, in part, by HIPAA.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) helps ensure data security and consumer privacy through legal actions brought by the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
  • Data brokers are largely unregulated, but some legal experts are calling for policies to protect consumers.
  • As the United States has no federal data privacy law, states have introduced a patchwork of laws and regulations that apply to residents’ personal data, some of which includes IoB-related information.
  • The lack of consistency in IoB laws among states and between the state and federal level potentially enables regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges.

Recommendations

  • The U.S. Commerce Department can put foreign IoB companies on its “Entity List,” preventing them from doing business with Americans, if those foreign companies are implicated in human rights violations.
  • As 5G, Wi-Fi 6, and satellite internet standards are rolled out, the federal government should be prepared for issues by funding studies and working with experts to develop security regulations.
  • It will be important to consider how to incentivize quicker phase-out of the legacy medical devices with poor cybersecurity that are already in wide use.
  • IoB developers must be more attentive to cybersecurity by integrating cybersecurity and privacy considerations from the beginning of product development.
  • Device makers should test software for vulnerabilities often and devise methods for users to patch software.
  • Congress should consider establishing federal data transparency and protection standards for data that are collected from the IoB.
  • The FTC could play a larger role to ensure that marketing claims about improved well-being or specific health treatment are backed by appropriate evidence.

ALSO READ: BOMBSHELL! 5G NETWORK TO WIRELESSLY POWER DEVICES. GUESS WHAT IT CAN DO TO NANOTECH (DARPA-FINANCED)

Internet of Bodies (IoB): Future of Healthcare & Medical Technology

Kashmir Observer | March 27, 2021   

By Khalid Mustafa

JAMMU and Kashmir is almost always in the news for one reason or another.  Apart from the obvious political headlines, J&K was also in the news because of covid-19.  As the world struggled with covid-19 pandemic, J&K faced a peculiar situation due to its poor health infrastructure.  Nonetheless, all sections of society did a commendable job in keeping covid  under control and preventing the loss of life as much as possible. The doctors Association in Kashmir along with the administration did  as much as possible  through their efforts.  For that we are all thankful to them. However, it is about time that we integrate our Healthcare System by upgrading it and introducing to it new technologies from the current world.

We’ve all heard of the Internet of Things, a network of products ranging from refrigerators to cars to industrial control systems that are connected to the internet. Internet of Bodies (IoB) the outcome of the Internet of Things (IoT) is broadly helping the healthcare system and every individual to live life with ease by managing the human body in terms of technology. The Internet of Bodies connects the human body to a network of internet run devices.

The use of IoB can be independent or by the health care heroes (doctors) to monitor, report and enhance the health system of the human body.  The internet of Bodies (IoB) are broadly classified into three categories or in some cases we can say three generations – Body Internal, Body External and Body embedded. The Body Internal model of IoB is the category, in which the individual or patient is interacting with the technology environment or we can say internet or our healthcare system by having an installed device inside the human body. Body External model or generation of IoB signifies the model where the device is installed external to the body for certain usage viz. Apple watches and other smart bands from various OEM’s for tracking blood pressure, heart rate etc which can later be used for proper health tracking and monitoring purposes. Last one under this classifications are Body Embedded, in which the devices are embedded under the skin by health care professionals during a number of health situations.

The Internet of Bodies is a small part or even the offspring of the Internet of Things. Much like it, there remains the challenge of data and information breach as we have already witnessed many excessive distributed denial of service (DDos) attacks and other cyber-attacks on IoTs to exploit data and gather information. The effects are even more severe and vulnerable in the case of the Internet of Bodies as the human body is involved in this schema.

The risk of these threats has taken over the discussion about the IOBs.  Thus,  this  has become a  great concern in medical technology companies. Most of the existing IoB companies just rely on end-user license agreements and privacy policies to retain rights in software and to create rights to monitor, aggregate and share users’ body data. They just need to properly enhance the security model and implement high security measures to avoid any misfortune. For the same the Government of India is already examining the personal data protection bill 2019.

The Internet has not managed to change our lifestyles in the way the internet of things will!


Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer

  • The author is presently Manager IT & Ops In HK Group

ALSO READ: OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

And this is some old DARPA research anticipating the hive mind:

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Dr. Bryan Jacobs

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Social media, sensor feeds, and scientific studies generate large amounts of valuable data. However, understanding the relationships among this data can be challenging. Graph analytics has emerged as an approach by which analysts can efficiently examine the structure of the large networks produced from these data sources and draw conclusions from the observed patterns. By understanding the complex relationships both within and between data sources, a more complete picture of the analysis problem can be understood. With lessons learned from innovations in the expanding realm of deep neural networks, the Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE) program seeks to advance the arena of graph analytics.

The HIVE program is looking to build a graph analytics processor that can process streaming graphs 1000X faster and at much lower power than current processing technology. If successful, the program will enable graph analytics techniques powerful enough to solve tough challenges in cyber security, infrastructure monitoring and other areas of national interest. Graph analytic processing that currently requires racks of servers could become practical in tactical situations to support front-line decision making. What ’s more, these advanced graph analytics servers could have the power to analyze the billion- and trillion-edge graphs that will be generated by the Internet of Things, ever-expanding social networks, and future sensor networks.

In parallel with the hardware development of a HIVE processor, DARPA is working with MIT Lincoln Laboratory and Amazon Web Services (AWS) to host the HIVE Graph Challenge with the goal of developing a trillion-edge dataset. This freely available dataset will spur innovative software and hardware solutions in the broader graph analysis community that will contribute to the HIVE program.

The overall objective is to accelerate innovation in graph analytics to open new pathways for meeting the challenge of understanding an ever-increasing torrent of data. The HIVE program features two primary challenges:

  • The first is a static graph problem focused on sub-graph Isomorphism. This task is to further the ability to search a large graph in order to identify a particular subsection of that graph.
  • The second is a dynamic graph problem focused on trying to find optimal clusters of data within the graph.

Both challenges will include a small graph problem in the billions of nodes and a large graph problem in the trillions of nodes.

Transhuman Code authors discuss digital ID’s and a centralized AI-controlled society. In 2018
More info 

ALSO READ: BEFORE MRNA AND WUHAN, DARPA FUNDED THE BIRTH OF GOOGLE, FACEBOOK AND THE INTERNET ITSELF

And then I learned that IOB is an integral plan of a ‘Cognitive Warfare’ waged by the MBTC: COGNITIVE WARFARE IS SO MUCH MORE THAN PSYOPS

To be continued?
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

You know how every piece of a broken hologram becomes a smaller hologram and projects the whole thing?
There.

I could waste more of your time with blah, but let’s be honest here.

To be continued?
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

New from your favorite coincidence-theories magazine:
There’s two timelines here that seem to meet somewhere in the recent past.

#1

CDC has just announced retiring Covid PCR tests, starting from 2022 because they can hardly tell Covid from Flu. Where Covid is caused by a virus that no one has seen in full, purified and isolated form:

We all knew that, last summer I even made a meme where I coined the term “PCRdemic”.
But just imagine how “based” their Delta Variant detection must be then!
And someone was found already preparing for this, while the plebs are shocked by the admission or not even processing it.

#2

Only weeks before this announcement, media just whispered about the new unholy alliance between Soros and Gates, who suddenly decided to buy together a major UK Covid test maker.

I mean, when did this type of prescience ever happen before, right?
(WORLD BANK SAYS COVID-19 TEST KITS ARE BEING SOLD SINCE 2017)

This alliance has a legal and formal representation as the Global Access Health (GAH), something very similar to GAVI, but focused on pillaging Africa, South America and South-Asia.


Only months before this announcement, Soros and Gates became some of the most downvoted personalities in the Northern Hemisphere, with very little competition and no benefits for the public image of the Great Reset. Meanwhile, I was writing on HOW BILL GATES AND BANKSTERS GANGED UP TO TAKE MOROCCO. AND NOW ARE RUINING IT..


Only years before that, teachers and intellectuals in US were marching against Gates’ medical and food machinations in Africa.


A decade before that, Bill Gates Sr. and George Soros could be seen shoulder to shoulder promoting Democratic Party’s fiscal policies.

Watch the full thing, a rare recording I just dug up


And so forth… as far as we’re willing to dig we find ourselves entrapped and enslaved by the same inbred class that wages now a class war against the lower classes under various guises.



Every conspiratorial correlation comes with two options: conspiracy theory (causative) or coincidence theory (non-causative). I’m too experienced to hesitate here.

To be continued?
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 was not published for the plebs, but for their own consumption. They’ve been intoxicating themselves for quite a while, but this is one of the most striking examples I’ve seen lately.
“No Means No!”
As opposed to “hesitancy”.



Here’s the study, my brief critical notes come after.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Canada: Content Analysis of Tweets Using the Theoretical Domains Framework

J Med Internet Res.  .Published online 2021 Apr 13. doi: 10.2196/26874

Monitoring Editor: Rita Kukafka and Corey Basch
Reviewed by Romaric Marcilly and Christina Cheng Janessa Griffith, BA, MSc,1,2,3 Husayn Marani, BHSc, MSc,4 and Helen Monkman, BSc, MA, PhD51

Abstract

Background

With the approval of two COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, many people feel a sense of relief, as hope is on the horizon. However, only about 75% of people in Canada plan to receive one of the vaccines.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to determine the reasons why people in Canada feel hesitant toward receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

Methods

We screened 3915 tweets from public Twitter profiles in Canada by using the search words “vaccine” and “COVID.” The tweets that met the inclusion criteria (ie, those about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy) were coded via content analysis. Codes were then organized into themes and interpreted by using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Results

Overall, 605 tweets were identified as those about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy stemmed from the following themes: concerns over safety, suspicion about political or economic forces driving the COVID-19 pandemic or vaccine development, a lack of knowledge about the vaccine, antivaccine or confusing messages from authority figures, and a lack of legal liability from vaccine companies. This study also examined mistrust toward the medical industry not due to hesitancy, but due to the legacy of communities marginalized by health care institutions. These themes were categorized into the following five Theoretical Domains Framework constructs: knowledge, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, social influence, and emotion.

Conclusions

With the World Health Organization stating that one of the worst threats to global health is vaccine hesitancy, it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of the reasons behind this reluctance. By using a behavioral science framework, this study adds to the emerging knowledge about vaccine hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 vaccines by analyzing public discourse in tweets in real time. Health care leaders and clinicians may use this knowledge to develop public health interventions that are responsive to the concerns of people who are hesitant to receive vaccines.

Introduction

The approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines sent waves of excitement and relief across the world. However, some people remain hesitant about receiving a vaccine for COVID-19 [1,2]. The World Health Organization noted in 2019 that one of the greatest threats to global health was vaccine hesitancy [3]. Emerging international evidence on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy suggests that there is a range of reasons for this reluctance, including doubts about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, political or pharmaceutical mistrust, belief in natural immunity, and the belief that the virus is mild or not life-threatening [46].

For herd immunity to any communicable disease to be effective, a considerable portion of the population needs to be vaccinated or have antibodies present from being recently infected. Achieving herd immunity is difficult when a large portion of the public is not vaccinated. For herd immunity to be effective for measles and polio, 95% and 80% of the population need to be vaccinated, respectively [7]. The exact percentage required for herd immunity to COVID-19 is difficult to estimate [7].

A Statistics Canada survey conducted in September 2020 (before a vaccine was approved) indicated that 75% of Canadians were either likely or somewhat likely to receive a vaccination [8]. An Angus Reid Institute [4] study conducted between December 8 and 11, 2020 found that 48% of Canadians sampled wanted to be vaccinated immediately if a vaccine was available, and 31% wanted to be vaccinated but preferred to wait. Additionally, 7% of respondents indicated that they were unsure if they would receive a vaccination, and 14% indicated that they would not get vaccinated [4].

In the context of influenza vaccinations, there remains a broad, ethical imperative to respect others’ agency over personal health decisions (eg, choosing to not get vaccinated). However, from a public health ethics perspective, the decision to not be vaccinated creates a conflict between population safety and personal liberty [9]. As of yet, COVID-19 vaccination has not been deemed mandatory by any nation, but conversations about whether such a public mandate should exist are emerging [10]. Whether vaccines are mandated, it is worthwhile for public institutions to understand how to change behaviors concerning vaccine hesitancy to ensure that informed decision-making practices are being exercised.

Previous research has suggested that behavioral change interventions are more successful when they are grounded in theory [11]. Thus, we selected a behavioral change framework to guide this study. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was selected because of its ability to help identify the barriers and facilitators to behavior change while taking into account social and environmental factors [12]. Other public health interventions have used the TDF. For example, Garbutt et al [13] used this framework to improve human papillomavirus vaccine uptake in primary care settings. The use of such theories can facilitate the development of comprehensive health education programs [11], but this requires correctly identifying the attributes of individuals and their surroundings, which influence behavioral patterns [14]. As Bandura [15] and other behavioral theorists have posited, social norms, social relationships, and social networks have a substantial and persistent influence on behaviors [15]. It is worth understanding public discourse about vaccine hesitancy in order to develop interventions that are responsive to the needs of the population and effectively address their concerns.

In the past decade, there has been a particular interest in the utility of Twitter as a tool for monitoring and surveilling public health [16], detecting trends [17], conducting research, and disseminating information [18,19]. A systematic review of using Twitter data for health research found that most studies were in the overlapping fields of public health (23%) and infectious disease (20%) [18]. With 187 million active users worldwide as of January 2021 [20], Twitter has become a powerful social network for disseminating important public health information.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, social networking platforms like Facebook and YouTube have become stricter with their oversight of the spread of COVID-19 misinformation by deleting false information and providing hyperlinks to government websites containing credible and validated information on COVID-19. Twitter took a similar screening approach in May 2020 [21], yet the scale, spread, and speed of information sharing has made this process challenging. Further, at the start of the pandemic, Twitter introduced a system for verifying COVID-19 experts (indicated with a blue checkmark), including physicians, epidemiologists, scientists, and academics, to provide credible information concerning COVID-19 [22]. Yet, there continues to be influential individuals who have also been verified by Twitter and have enough public credibility to contradict expert opinions or present false information.

We can combat the spread of misinformation by creating targeted approaches to changing behaviors and promoting the understanding of vaccines. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the reasons behind vaccine hesitancy among people in Canada by conducting a content analysis of tweets through the lens of behavioral science. Our findings can be used to develop behavior change strategies and policies that are responsive to target populations.Go to:

Methods

Study Design

Twitter is a social media platform that allows users to microblog and socially network. Each user is allowed up to 280 characters in a post (called a tweet). Users can post text, pictures, videos, or links to websites. Users who have registered for an account can tweet, like, and comment on another user’s tweet and repost tweets (called a retweet). Registered users can also follow accounts and send private messages to each other. Unregistered users can read tweets, retweets, and comments but cannot engage in any interactions [23].

Twitter was selected because of its ability to capture real-time data [19]. Other studies have used Twitter to capture data on vaccine hesitancy. One study compared survey results about vaccine hesitancy in 2018 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) to data captured from Twitter and found that the data were similar to each other [24]. The study argued that Twitter could potentially be used instead of surveys in some contexts and similar results would be obtained [24]. Another study went as far as saying that Twitter is a “sentinel tool” for identifying public opinions on vaccinations [25]. Thus, Twitter was selected as the site of data collection because it offers a publicly available repository of discourse data (ie, tweets) that are captured in a specific point in time for a specific geographic area.

This study did not require research ethics approval, as it was based on data that were publicly available. Other Canadian-based studies [26] have forgone ethical review by using publicly available Twitter data, as some sources are anonymous or unidentifiable. Only the Twitter user’s username (ie, handle), city or town, and tweet content were extracted. This paper only presents aggregated data. Moreover, no interaction occurred between the authors of this study and any of the Twitter users.

Data Collection

After the researcher (JG) was approved for a developer account on Twitter, she received credentials for accessing Twitter’s application programming interface. By using a Jupyter environment, the researcher created a Python program to access Twitter’s application programming interface. Twitter allows access to tweets up to 1 week after they are posted. Thus, the researcher collected data from two time periods (December 18 and 23, 2020) to access 2 weeks’ worth of tweets. Tweets that contained the words “COVID” and “vaccine” were extracted. Similar to a library search, tweets were returned based on variations of these words, such as “COVID-19,” “COVID19,” “vaccination,” and “vaccinate.”

Data were extracted from tweets from December 10, 2020, to December 23, 2020. These dates were selected because they followed the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine approval announcement in Canada (December 9, 2020) and included the dates for the first vaccine administration in Canada (December 14, 2020) and the approval of the Moderna vaccine in Canada (December 23, 2020). This date range also accounted for the time frame when the highest number of searches for terms that included both “COVID” and “vaccine” occurred on Google, which perhaps indicated a spike in interest [27]. Thus, our data reflects a time period when receiving a COVID-19 vaccine was close to becoming a reality. Figure 1 provides a graph that shows when data were extracted and when COVID-19–related events occurred in Canada. Figure 1 – see it in original

A graph depicting Google Trends data for the combined search terms “covid” and “vaccine” aligning with vaccine approval and administration dates in Canada. Tweets that were posted between December 10 and 23, 2020 were eligible for analysis. This date range aligned with the time when the highest peaks in related Google search activity occurred in Canada. This figure indicates that the number of searches on Google for the combined words “COVID” and “vaccine” was highest in December 9, 2020. All other searches were relative to this highest peak. For example, on December 14, 2020, roughly 70% of related searches occurred in December 9, 2020 [28]. It was not possible to obtain more detailed numbers.

To only include tweets from Canada, the researchers used five geographic radiuses that covered most of Canada. However, several small areas were unintentionally omitted (Figure 2). It was not possible to know how many tweets were missed. Figure 2 see it in original

A map of where Twitter users were located. Tweets from outside of Canada (ie, those from the United States) were excluded.

Demographic data beyond users’ locations (ie, city or town) were not collected. It was possible to obtain estimates for other demographic information, such as age and gender, from third-party companies. However, this study was operating within the confines of publicly available data so as to disseminate the findings sooner.

Data Analysis

The results were exported to a comma-separated values file and were analyzed in Microsoft Excel. Tweets were randomized (ie, reordered) in Excel so that tweets were not included based on date. As we expected, the number of tweets extracted was insurmountably high for manual analysis. Therefore, we randomly selected 20% of the tweets to be screened for eligibility. This exceeded the number of randomly selected tweets in other studies, which only included 10% of returned tweets for screening [28]. Double screening was performed for 10% of the tweets to ensure consistency. Manual analysis was selected because this study was exploratory in nature; it was unclear what themes might emerge a priori. As such, training an automated analysis program was unfeasible.

Eligible tweets included any tweets from a Canadian location that contained an expression of hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines. These included tweets that provided links to articles or other media that expressed hesitancy toward any COVID-19 vaccine. Eligible tweets also included those with graphics that expressed sentiments of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Tweets that expressed positive or unclear sentiments toward COVID-19 vaccines were excluded. Tweets captured from the United States (given the country’s geographic proximity to Canada) were also excluded. As data were extracted on two dates, several duplicate tweets were present. These were identified and deleted in Excel.

All tweets that were deemed eligible after screening were analyzed (ie, qualitatively coded) by 2 authors (JG and HMVM). These researchers had expertise in qualitative coding. Additionally, 10% of the eligible tweets were double-coded to ensure consistency.

In Excel, a content analysis was performed on all eligible tweets. The majority of health studies that use Twitter data (56%) have conducted content analyses [18]. Content analysis was performed as described by Sutton et al [28]; the content of each tweet was systematically reviewed by at least 1 researcher. The researcher(s) then coded the content of tweets according to their meaning. The resulting codes were then organized into thematic categories. Each eligible tweet could be coded into one or more themes.

Once themes emerged from the content analysis, they were mapped onto the TDF. The TDF was selected because it applies a theory-based approach to understanding behavior and has been used extensively in implementation science research. The TDF consists of the following 14 domains: knowledge; skills; social and professional roles and identities; beliefs about capabilities; optimism; beliefs about consequences; reinforcement; intentions; goals; memory, attention, and decision processes; environmental context and resources; social influences; emotion; and behavioral regulation. It has been used in other research pertaining to seasonal flu [29] and human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy [13] to identify barriers to vaccine uptake and plan for implementation interventions.

To these Pharma-junkies, logic sounds like The Force to an Imperial Trooper, rather used to miss the target all the time, if you catch my reference

Results

Tweet Characteristics and Themes

In total, 18,132 tweets were returned as search results. Overall, 3915 tweets were screened for eligibility. These tweets represented 21.6% of the total number of tweets. It took approximately 1 hour to manually screen 100 tweets. The 10% (400/3915) of tweets that were double-screened resulted in a Cohen κ coefficient of 0.89, indicating an almost perfect agreement. After screening, 605 tweets met the inclusion criteria. This was represented in a modified PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram (Figure 3).Figure 3

Modified PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram of the data extraction process.

Through content analysis, the included tweets were grouped into the following major themes concerning vaccine hesitancy: safety, political skepticism, influence from authority figures, a lack of knowledge, and legal liability. The final theme included medical legacies. This theme was different from the other categories of vaccine hesitancy. The themes were not mutually exclusive. Examples of tweets were not provided with the presentation of the themes to preserve the anonymity of Twitter users. In the following subsections, each theme will be described.

Safety

Overall, 48.3% (292/605) of tweets were about safety. These were largely centered around the worry that the vaccine would cause more harm than good. These tweets also expressed concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine was developed more quickly than other vaccines and that the COVID-19 vaccine was not tested to the same rigorous extent as other vaccines. Apprehension over severe side effects was also noted from tweets, including those that reported on nurses fainting and vaccine trial participants experiencing Bell palsy.

Political Skepticism

Another major theme found in 32.4% (196/605) of tweets was skepticism toward the political motivations behind vaccine development. Several Twitter users presented conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 vaccine being a vehicle for exerting political control over citizens. Other participants felt that the vaccine was not tested enough due to political pressures to reopen the economy. Several Twitter users in Canada were also highly influenced by politics in the United States; they cited rumors about the White House threatening the leadership of the US Food and Drug Administration to rush vaccine approval or face forced resignation. Tweets also indicated concern over the influence of big, government-backed pharmaceutical companies (“Big Pharma”) that were motivated by profits instead of the desire to help people.

Deficits in Medical and Epidemiologic Literacy Concerning the Benefits of Vaccination

Many tweets (159/605, 26.3%) indicated a lack of knowledge about vaccines among Twitter users. For example, several users expressed the idea that if those who contracted COVID-19 had a ≥99% survival rate, then they should not have to receive a vaccine that is said to be 95% effective. Additionally, Twitter users questioned why anyone else should be concerned if they do not receive the vaccine, indicating a lack of understanding of herd immunity. Twitter users also reported concerns about how the vaccine would alter human DNA. Several Twitter users also felt that a lack of a vaccine for cancer, heart disease, and AIDS was proof that a new virus could not be cured. Additionally, Twitter users viewed COVID-19 as a mild disease; therefore, their interest in undergoing vaccination was low.

Authority Figures

Another theme we found was mistrust toward the COVID-19 vaccine resulting from Canadian and international authority figures not taking the vaccine (51/605, 8.4%). For example, several tweets highlighted users’ mistrust toward the CEO of Pfizer and political figureheads in Canadian politics like Doug Ford (the elected provincial leader of Ontario), as they were not taking the vaccine. However, later tweets criticized public figures such as Dr Bonnie Henry (the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia) and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (a member of the US House of Representatives) for receiving the vaccine before frontline workers and older adults.

Legal Liability

To a smaller extent (19/605, 3.1%), Twitter users also expressed mistrust toward vaccines that was based on reports of not being able to take legal action against drug companies if a person experiences any side effects. Additionally, news of the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in Canada resulted in further skepticism toward vaccine safety.

Medical Legacies

The final theme was unlike all of the other themes of vaccine hesitancy in this paper—the legacy of harm caused by health care institutions that have traditionally targeted the Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) community and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ (LGBTQ+) community. Tweets (24/605, 4%) in this theme highlighted the lack of trust toward the COVID-19 vaccine resulting from how marginalized groups, such as the BIPOC and LGBTQ+ communities, have been historically targeted by the medical community. For example, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments were referenced in several tweets. Moreover, the first people who were vaccinated in the United States were Black health care workers, and several Twitter users viewed this as forced participation in medical experiments. Additionally, a poster promoting COVID-19 vaccination was viewed as paralleling the stigmatization of people who take pre-exposure prophylaxis, a medication for people living with HIV.

Theoretical Domains Framework

Themes were mapped to the TDF and categorized into the following five domains: knowledge, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, social influence, and emotion. The mapping of themes to TDF domains was an interpretive and consensus-driven exercise that was conducted by two study authors (JG and HM). Disagreement was reconciled by a third study author (HMVM). Figure 4 displays a representation of the themes that were mapped to the TDF. We provide insight into this framework in the Discussion section. Overall, themes were not mutually exclusive; themes were classified according to several TDF domains. Figure 4 see it in original

Themes were categorized based on the TDF. The TDF domains are represented by the dark-gray circles. The themes from the content analysis (smaller colored circles) were mapped to relevant TDF domains. TDF: Theoretical Domains Framework.

Discussion

Principal Results

Through content analysis and TDF application, this study identified the reasons behind vaccine hesitancy among Twitter users in Canada. The major themes that emerged included concerns over safety, suspicion about political or economic forces driving the COVID-19 pandemic or vaccine development, a lack of knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine, messages from authority figures, and a lack of legal liability from vaccine companies. An additional theme regarding the historical impact of medical mistrust among marginalized communities was also presented. These themes were categorized into the following five TDF constructs: knowledge, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, social influence, and emotion. Thus, efforts to overcome vaccine hesitancy should focus on targeting these constructs.

Although evidence concerning vaccine hesitancy toward the COVID-19 vaccine is still emerging, our findings are consistent with previous studies. A study from Israel found that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was related to concerns about safety and efficacy and the belief that the disease is mild [5]. This was similar to our study, wherein concerns about safety was the top reason for vaccine hesitancy. The efficacy of the vaccine and the belief that the virus is mild were grouped into the lack of knowledge theme, which was another top reason for vaccine hesitancy in our study. Another study surveyed individuals from Canada and the United States in May 2020 and reported that vaccine hesitancy correlated with a lack of trust about a vaccine’s benefit, concerns about safety (ie, unknown future health consequences), commercial profiteering, and a belief in natural immunity [6]. Of note, these respondents were more likely to receive a vaccine if there was evidence of rigorous testing and safety measures [6]. Both of these studies were conducted prior to the development and implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine. As such, their results were hypothetical.

This study identified the particular reasons why people in Canada may be hesitant to receive a vaccine, so that implementation scientists who are responsible for vaccine rollouts can become responsive to these concerns. Although the analyzed tweets were from Canada, we believe that the tweets’ themes may be generalizable to other contexts. To our knowledge, no other study has analyzed tweets to determine the reasons behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. This study’s contribution is especially important because the timing of our study coincided with the approval of the first two vaccines (ie, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines) and the first vaccine administration in Canada.

Our results relate to vaccine hesitancy in general (ie, past research on non–COVID-19 vaccines), as prior related research has provided similar findings. For example, the influence of the media and people’s knowledge about vaccines, past experiences, perceptions of risk, and trust have all been documented [30]. However, hesitancy toward the COVID-19 vaccines presents new, unprecedented challenges; namely, the global COVID-19 pandemic is unlike any pandemic that has been experienced in the past century, herd immunity depends on vaccine participation on a global scale, and new SARS-CoV-2 strains can emerge if the virus has opportunities (ie, time and vectors) to mutate. Additionally, the long-term health consequences of COVID-19 are unknown [31].

Our recommendation for the organizations responsible for implementing vaccination programs is to create behavioral interventions that are responsive to the concerns presented in this study. The mapping of these themes to the TDF provided us with preliminary insights into how to best target these behavioral interventions. For example, safety was a top concern that was found in the tweets, and we mapped safety to both knowledge and beliefs about consequences. Thus, targeting vaccine literacy may be beneficial, and this can be done by explaining how vaccines work, why they are safe, and how no steps were missed in the expedient process of COVID-19 vaccine development. However, trust in politicians and pharmaceutical companies is a vaccine hesitancy factor that is difficult to target because both groups are necessarily involved in vaccine rollouts. One approach to targeting this concern might be to have trusted physicians speak to their patients about why it is important to be immunized. This approach falls under the domain of emotion in the TDF.

Although providing details on interventions for responding to vaccine hesitancy was beyond the scope of this study, Table 1 provides example suggestions for interventions based on each TDF domain.

Table 1

Reasons for vaccine hesitation fell under several Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) constructs (left column). The rightmost column provides examples of intervention suggestions for responding to vaccine hesitancy in relation to the TDF construct.

TDF constructsContent analysis themeExample suggestions
KnowledgeLack of knowledgeIntroduce campaigns that educate the public about using clear language in media that are commonly used to digest content (eg, social media).
Social influenceAuthorityHave nonpolitical, respected older adult Canadian celebrities take the vaccine as an example. Such celebrities could be retired athletes or musicians.
Environmental context and resourcesPolitical skepticismEmphasize that vaccines are rooted in science and not politics. This is a difficult quality to understand.In action, this could be done by having messages come from trusted physicians instead of politicians.
Emotion and beliefs about consequencesSafetyHighlight examples of instances when the vaccine has worked.Reiterate the safety of the vaccine.Reiterate the fact that the steps in the scientific development of the vaccine were not missed.

Open in a separate window

More research is necessary to determine whether addressing these concerns is effective in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Limitations

As of January 2021, roughly 6.45 million (~17%) Canadians use Twitter [32]. Therefore, the perspectives on vaccine hesitancy presented in this paper are not wholly representative of the perspectives of all people in Canada. All users included in this study represent people in Canada with broadband internet access, which, as the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated, is an important determinant of health [33]. As such, we likely missed the perspectives of those who face challenges when accessing the internet. It is also possible that nonhuman Twitter users (bots) were represented in our sample. Previous research has found that Twitter bots have manipulated public opinion and fueled cascades of negative emotions related to topics about COVID-19 [34]. Without any way to systematically identify and exclude these tweets, we suspect that several such tweets were included in our analysis. We also searched for English-only tweets due to limitations in language expertise among this study’s authors. A more comprehensive content analysis that is representative of all people in Canada should include tweets that are written in other languages. This limitation may have resulted in themes not being identified, including those related to culturally specific concerns.

It was not possible to collect demographic data such as age, gender, and ethnicity while also preserving users’ anonymity. Thus, we were unable to analyze the demographic characteristics of Twitter users who expressed vaccine hesitancy.

Although the search strategy could have been expanded to include many more terms related to vaccination (eg, “shot,” “jab,” “immunization,” etc), the search results would have been insurmountable for conducting our manual analysis process. Additionally, terms related to hoax beliefs were not included; the inclusion of such terms would have likely produced more results. Although saturation was achieved for our search, we may have missed themes that used alternative language to express vaccine hesitancy.

Of note, the examples of interventions presented in Table 1 are merely suggestions. A behavioral scientist may have more informed suggestions about how to combat vaccine hesitancy according to the TDF.

Finally, the tweets related to the medical legacies discussed in this paper should not be viewed as tweets about vaccine hesitancy or conflated with those under the categories of safety, a lack of knowledge, political skepticism, messages from authority figures, and legal liability. As Mosby and Sridrovich [35] have emphasized, health care providers need to understand the history of “racially segregated health care and medical experimentation.” Additionally, Boyd [36] stated that the “hyper-focus on hesitancy implicitly blames Black communities for their undervaccination, and it obscures opportunities to address the primary barrier to COVID-19 vaccination: access.” Building trust in the medical system goes far beyond the suggestions presented in this paper.

Conclusions

Overall, this study identified the reasons why people in Canada may feel hesitant toward receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. These reasons fell under the following themes: safety concerns, suspicions about political or economic forces, a lack of knowledge, messages from authority figures, and a lack of legal liability from vaccine companies. Additionally, other tweets revealed the historical impact of medical mistrust among marginalized communities, which should not be viewed as hesitancy or as the result of the reasons identified in this paper. Overall, behavioral, implementation, and public health scientists can use theory-based approaches like the TDF to design interventions that are tailored to address the concerns that people have and improve the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, thereby increasing the chances of achieving the threshold necessary for herd immunity.Go to:

Acknowledgments

JG conceived the study idea and was involved in all study activities, including study data extraction and analysis and manuscript preparation. HM supported the literature extraction and manuscript preparation. HMVM supported the coding of tweets and manuscript revision. This study was conducted without financial support.Go to:

Abbreviations

BIPOCBlack, Indigenous, and people of color
LGBTQ+lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
TDFTheoretical Domains Framework

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

LIVE FROM THE TRENCHES, Here’s just a few of the many reasons this is trash and whoever takes it seriously is a self-deluded clown:

  1. There’s almost no hesitancy in 2021. Whoever was hesitant before, stopped being so in 2020. Same way many of us stopped hesitating on 9/11. If they are not favorable, most of the messages out there are anti-certainly-harmful-covid-injections. Most of us don’t even think of them as “vaccines”. By a large.
  2. As opposed to the people they studied, Pharmafia self-intoxicates itself lumping Covid injections with vaccines. But the two draw support from different crowds. Which leads to the next self-intoxication:
  3. There’s new categories that their radar doesn’t even have sensors for: general pro-vaxxers who are either hesitant or determined not to take covid injections, as they keep taking vaccines. And the hesitant fraction of the fraction is tiny.
  4. Twitter is filled with pharmabots who infiltrate anti-vaxx communities. Thus, Pharmafia did a Hunter Biden again, and fell asleep with a meth pipe still hot between the upper lips. That was for sale.
    Besides that, it’s been shown that Twitter is the least accurate reflection of the general population of all social media networks, so the flaw is embedded in the pool.
  5. “Many tweets (159/605, 26.3%) indicated a lack of knowledge about vaccines among Twitter users” – Where does “many” start, that’s actually only a quarter, very little compared to how they portrait anti-vaxxers as generally Neanderthals. Also very little compared to pro-vaxx scores, where medical illiteracy is predominant even when they’re ideologically aligned with Pharmafia.
    A minimal intellectual decency requires a bit of comparative study there on the literacy – vaccine-opposition correlation. Or causation.
    But their main problem here is that they lump together ignoramus and people unaligned with the official lies exactly because they are in the know. The two don’t respond the same to whatever you want to do to them. Pharmafia’s gonna have a bad time if it keeps swallowing its own baits, can’t wait for the next laugh from them.
    I mean how much BS can you pack in a single sentence in a self-served “scientific” work? How is this any healthier than meth?
  6. There’s a huge mindset difference between someone who understood the truth and stopped hesitating and someone who’s in the process and still hesitating. Much larger than the difference between “anti-certainly-harmful-covid-injections” and “vaccine-hesitant”. Respectively, once you know, you can’t unknow. Once you left the womb, you can’t go back to be fed through an umbilical cord.
    So they only have a chance at people who don’t know enough yet and they can only hope to prevent them from getting there.
    But Pharmafia is guaranteed to fail as it keeps consuming the propaganda stash it fabricated for sale.

I wrote this mainly so we can mock them again later and shout “Told you so, dum’asses!’

PS: Isn’t “The Journal of Internet Medical Research” doing exactly what anti-vaxxers were mocked for with those “Google diplomas” 0IQ jokes?

To be continued?
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

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.

To be continued?
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

The rare media reports on this case only mention WHO’s chief scientist, but after obtaining the original legal notice from IBA, we find out that Tedros and one more doctor are equally indicted.
The best part is that they repeatedly use the term “conspiracy”, and, finally, someone uses it correctly.

Quick update as of July 14th, 2021:
I’ve just learned of two more similar court cases that also involve Bill Gates, Fauci and GAVI, among others. Currently analyzing the documents and digging for more info. I will report more ASAP.

LEGAL NOTICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST DR. TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, DR. SOUMYA SWAMINATHAN AND THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES (DGHS)

POSTED BY INDIAN BAR ASSOCIATION ON  WITH 0 COMMENT

LEGAL NOTICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST DR. TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, DR. SOUMYA SWAMINATHAN AND THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES (DGHS)

The accused are served legal notice for their attempt to undermine the authority of the Bombay High Court and obstruct the use of Ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment.

DOWNLOAD

On 13th June 2021, Indian Bar Association has served a notice upon Dr.Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General, World Health Organisation, Dr.Soumya  Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at WHO and Prof. (Dr.) Sunil Kumar for contempt of judgment of Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court vide its judgment dated 28th May 2021 has already given a green signal for use of Ivermectin for treatment of Covid-19.

Despite this, all the three contemnors have hatched a conspiracy and by spreading misinformation through media, are fuelling confusion amongst doctors by introducing Guidelines allegedly published on 27th May 2021 by DGHS, which are in fact not mandatory and are overruled by the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 28thMay 2021.

The State Government of Goa, in their affidavit filed before Bombay High Court, has specifically pointed out that the WHO advisory against the use of Ivermectin is flawed and the research showed that the Ivermectin is effective for treatment of COVID-19. The Bombay High Court on 28th May 2021, after considering WHO advisory and all other contentions of the rival parties, came to the conclusion that the use of Ivermectin cannot be stopped. The High Court has also taken the note of the guidelines dated 17th May 2021 issued by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), thereby advocating the use of Ivermectin.

Thereafter, a detailed and impactful article was published by the leading newspaper ‘Free Press Journal’ on 6th June 2021 (updated on 14th June 2021) wherein the author has articulated very well as to how the advisories of WHO are dubious.

https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/covid-19-are-whos-directives-being-taken-seriously-on-the-ground

Surprisingly, in its first, the Directorate of Health Services (DGHA) on 27th May, 2021 announced ‘Comprehensive Guidelines for Management of COVID-19 patients’ which excludes Ivermectin and several popular drugs.

It is worthwhile to note that DGHS is a repository of technical knowledge and is an attached organisation of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. The Guidelines/National Protocol have always been issued by the Joint Task Force of All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) and Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) under the aegis of Government of India. Moreover, the document containing these impugned Guidelines does mention version/date and does not carry logos of Government of India, ICMR and AIIMS,suggesting lack of consensus between DGHS and the Joint Task Force.

Now, in order to diminish the impact of the article published on 6th June, 2021, the main accused Dr. Soumya Swaminathan hatched a conspiracy and managed some media houses to publish news on 7th June, 2021 for appreciating the overruled guidelines dated 27th May, 2021. Some of these media houses have showed astounding alacrity in publishing news hailing removal of Ivermectin and other drugs, thereby deliberately ignoring the mountains of clinical data on effectiveness of Ivermectin in treatment of COVID-19.

These impugned Guidelines issued by DGHS were circulated first on 7th June 2021, without any mention of the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 28thMay, 2021, which in fact is against the said guidelines, rendering these guidelines as null and void.

As per the judgment of Supreme Court of India, the person responsible for spreading information with object of creating confusion and to obstruct and undermine the judgment of court is liable for punishment under contempt of Court. Sections like 505,192,302, 115,109,409,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code are also attracted against the accused in this case, as their intention was to kill several people to fulfil their ulterior purposes.

The maximum punishment in above cases is death penalty.

The notice states that Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and the WHO are dishonest and have no scientific evidences to back their advisories and such loose statements are issued from time to time, to serve their ulterior purposes.

The relevant part of the notice reads this:

“53.1. Each time and particularly from following specific instances, it is sufficiently proved that You Notice 1 & 2 do not possess any authentic and scientific evidences;

i) When the earlier Notice was served on Notice 1 on 25.05.2021, she has neither replied to the notice nor has she approached any court of law against us. On the contrary, she chose to delete the controversial tweet advising against the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19;

ii) When the Health Secretary of the State Government of Goa relying on affidavit of Under Secretary of Union of India made their submission on oath before Hon’ble High Court, with specific allegations against WHO that there are reports which have observed that the analysis by WHO on this medicine (IVERMECTIN) is flawed and that the mortality rate is actually much lower if the said medicine is used for early treatment as well as prophylaxisneither you Notice 1 or 2 chose to produce any proof to counter the said report. As a result, Hon’ble High Court has refused to accept the advisory of WHO.

iii) When All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) had published a statement on 24.05.2021 that there is no evidence to predict the third wave and its effect on children, you Notice 1 did not give any “Evidence” in support of your statement dated 25.05.2021 which was contrary to the said statement of AIIMS.

After you Notice 1 were served with legal notice on 25.05.2021, you feared for being exposed and being summoned in Court of Law and therefore you Notice 1 took a U turn and stated that there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that children would be affected in the third wave.

The agenda of misinformation is also exposed in the statement published in Press Bureau of India on June 8, 2021

“It is a piece of misinformation that subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic are going to cause severe illness in children. There is no data – either from India or globally – to show that children will be seriously infected in subsequent waves.”

53.2. So it is crystal clear that You Notice 1 & 2 do not have scientific evidence except jugglery of words and you are thoroughly intellectually dishonest people who are playing with the lives and livelihood of the common people across the world.

However, in order to expose your intellectual dishonesty to the entire world, this notice is being served, calling for an explanation within 7 days of the receipt of this notice.”

The legal notice also explains the law of damages in India citing recently cases where Court had ordered compensation of Rs. 100 Crores ((USD 13.5 mn) to the aggrieved party, for loss of his reputation. Since the present matter involves death caused due to denial of early treatment resulting in deterioration and death of person, the damages claimed would be much higher that Rs. 100 Crores.

The notice also explains the liability of Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of WHO, for his act of commission and omission and also for his implied consent to the conspiracy.

In the similar manner, the DGHS Prof. (Dr.) Sunil Kumar is joined in as co-accused for his complicity in the conspiracy.

The three possible explanations for such an intense opposition to the use of highly promising, well-tolerated off-label medicine as Ivermectin are explained very well in following article:

WHO Celebrates As Indian Health Regulator Removes Ivermectin from Its Covid-19 Protocol | naked capitalism

  • “As a generic, Ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma if it became the go-to early-stage treatment against covid.
  • Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with Ivermectin.
  • If approved as a covid-19 treatment, Ivermectin could even threaten the Emergency Use Authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines.

It’s worth noting that while India’s DGHS has dumped most cheap off-patent treatment options against Covid, including even multivitamins, more expensive patented medicines continue to get the green light. They include Gilead’s prohibitively expensive antiviral Remdesivir, which DGHS continues to recommend for “select moderate/ severe hospitalised COVID-19 patients”, even though “it is only an experimental drug with potential to harm.” It has also authorised the use of the anti-inflammatory medicine to cilizumab, which costs hundreds of dollars a dose.” – IBA

I’m not very optimistic, I see this as another attempt to cement the existence of a fake virus in the collective mental, but either way this goes, the implications are huge.
Consider that WHO didn’t act alone, Big Tech, mass-mediots and politicians would be affected by the same logic and principles.
And if this falls flat, it’s only going to signal more corruption to the general population.

BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF THESE DRUGS ARE OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS EFFICIENT AGAINST COVID-19, THEN THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A LEGAL BASIS FOR EMERGENCY STATES / EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS FOR EXPERIMENTAL INJECTIONS DISGUISED AS VACCINES

If approved as a covid-19 treatment, Ivermectin could even threaten the Emergency Use Authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines.

IBA

Demand from India to #ArrestDrTedros grows louder on social media

Goa Chronicle 11/04/20200 

 Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organisation

Panjim: The call from journalist and social activist Savio Rodrigues encouraging people of India to raise their voices on social media platform Twitter demanding arrest Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is growing louder.

#ArrestDrTedros is currently trending in India.

Savio Rodrigues is the Founder & Editor-in-Chief of GoaChronicle.com. The online new portal has been exposing the complicit role of Dr Tedros during the coronavirus pandemic due to his closeness with China. In fact, Rodrigues, opines that China backed Dr Tedros to the position of Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Dr Tedros in turn was China’s puppet in WHO

Rodrigues in his several informative articles has raised questions on the dereliction of duty and cover-up of China’s questionable actions by the Director-General of (WHO).

Earlier today Rodrigues called for the people of India to unite and demand for the arrest of Dr Tedros, post the publishing of his article:

https://goachronicle.com/dr-tedros-must-be-arrested/

He took to social media platform Twitter stating:

Here are some of the Twitter messages demanding #ArrestDrTedros

https://twitter.com/nitinpurandare/status/1248922807506849792?s=20

Rodrigues opines : “The World Health Organisation under the leadership of its Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus failed in its core responsibility to detect a health crisis and contain the spread of this contagious virus globally.

It instead chose to side with China – the nation from which the coronavirus originates and was the first epicentre of the virus. It is from Wuhan, China that the China Virus has spread globally to reportedly 180 countries.

We can go pontificating on different theories of the blame game. The political leaders can continue to play their own political games. Nothing will ever change the truth.

The truth is that this is a virus that has come out of a lab. The truth is that China had knowledge about its human-to-human transmission as early as December. The truth is that Dr Tedros relied on  the report of the Chinese Health Authorities in his statement on January 14, 2020, “No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. The truth is that China has withdrawn the lockdown in Wuhan and city is back to normal business will the rest of the world is under lockdown.

But the most horrific truth is people are dying. They will continue to die. We have crossed 100,000 deaths but the count will not cease, it will only keep on increasing.”

Whether Dr Tedros is arrested is a question that can only be in answered in time but what is important to state the noise to get him to step down from his post is certainly getting louder.

Tedros is met with treason and genocide accusations even in his own country, Ethiopia, but the government there simply doesn’t have the balls to anger Tedros’ allies issuing and arrest warrant to complete the investigation. However, the chief of Ethiopian military, as well as much of Indian media and population, don’t seem to hold back anymore. It’s doubtful he’s ever going to step home again.

WHO Celebrates As Indian Health Regulator Removes Ivermectin from Its Covid-19 Protocol

Posted on  by Naked Capitalism

After India finally gets somewhat of a grip on its deadly second wave, one of its health regulators just took away one of its main lines of defense. 

India’s Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) has executed a policy reversal that could have massive implications for the battle against covid-19, not only in India but around the world. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, could be at stake. The health regulator has overhauled its COVID-19 treatment guidelines and removed almost all of the repurposed medicines it had previously recommended for treating asymptomatic and mild cases. They include the antibiotic doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, ivermectin and even multivitamins. The only medicines that are still recommended for early treatment are cold medicines, antipyretics such as paracetamol and inhaled budesonide.

“No other covid-specific medication [is] required,” say the new guidelines, which also discourage practitioners from prescribing unnecessary tests such as CT scans.

“Patients are advised to seek tele consultation; and Covid-19 appropriate behaviour must be observed such as mask, strict hand hygiene and physical distancing… [Patients are also advised to maintain] a healthy diet with proper hydration… [and] to stay connected [with family] and engage in positive talks through phone, video-calls, etc.”

The decision to remove ivermectin, multivitamins and zinc from the treatment guidelines is hard to comprehend given the current state of play in India — unless one assumes foul play. After suffering one of the worst covid-19 outbreaks since the pandemic began, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, India is not just flattening the curve, it is crushing it. And the widespread use of ivermectin, a potent anti-viral and anti-inflammatory with an excellent safety profile, appears to have played an instrumental role.

WHO’s Happy

Other countries in the region have already taken notice. Indonesia just approved the use of ivermectin in Kudus, a local contagion hotspot. 

This is the last thing the World Health Organization (WHO) and the pharmaceutical companies whose interests it broadly represents want. As such, it was no surprise that WHO was delighted with the DGHS’ policy reversal. “Evidence based guidelines from @mohfw DGHS – simple, rational and clear guidance for physicians,” tweeted WHO’s chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan, of Indian descent. “Should be translated and disseminated in all Indian languages.”

As I posited in my recent article “I Don’t Know of a Bigger Story in the World” Right Now Than Ivermectin: NY Times Best-Selling Author, there are three possible explanations for global health regulators’ opposition to the use of a highly promising, well-tolerated off-label medicine such as ivermectin:

  • As a generic, ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma if it became the go-to early-stage treatment against covid.
  • Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with ivermectin.  
  • If approved as a covid-19 treatment, ivermectin could even threaten the emergency use authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines

It’s worth noting that while India’s DGHS has dumped most cheap off-patent treatment options against Covid, including even multivitamins, more expensive patented medicines continue to get the green light. They include Gilead’s prohibitively expensive antiviral Remdesivir, which DGHS  continues to recommend for “select moderate/ severe hospitalised COVID-19 patients”, even though “it is only an experimental drug with potential to harm.” It has also authorised the use of the anti-inflammatory medicine tocilizumab, which costs hundreds of dollars a dose.

Crushing the Curve

The DGHS began recommending the widespread use of ivermectin as early as April, in direct contradiction of the recommendations of the World Health Organization. Treatment packs were assembled in many states and distributed to patients testing positive for Covid. In at least two states — Goa and Uttarakhand — the medicine was distributed as a preventive. As has already happened in over 20 countries where ivermectin has been used — from Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Peru to Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Bangladesh — case numbers, hospitalizations and fatalities have fallen in almost vertical fashion. On Monday the country recorded its lowest number of new cases in 61 days.

“When we started seeing more cases, we decided to take up a door-to-door survey,” Bagalkot District Health Officer Dr Ananth Desai told New India Express. “When the health officials noticed people with symptoms during the survey, they tested them immediately and provided them with home isolation kits, which had medicines like Ivermectin, calcium and zinc tablets along with paracetamol. We advised the patients to start with the medication even before their Covid-19 test results came out. With these measures, we noticed that many patients recovered faster. This helped in increasing the recovery rate”.

In India’s capital, Delhi, the number of people testing positive for Covid-19 daily has fallen 97% from a peak of 24,000 on April 24. The number of deaths is down by around 85%. Only 17% of the total beds earmarked for Covid-19 treatment in Delhi and around 40% of the ICU beds were occupied late last week, according to the government’s Delhi Corona app. At the peak, there were days when no ICU beds were available in the city.

Imagen

Out of the Darkness, But For How Long?

Just over four weeks ago India was in a very dark place. At one point it was accounting for almost half of all global cases and one in every four covid-19 deaths. The government had lost complete control. Four weeks later, the country, while not out of the woods, is in a much better place. While the official numbers of cases and deaths are probably still a fraction of the real numbers, the trend is clearly moving in the right direction.

An important reason for that is that doctors in India have been treating covid patients as early as possible — something that isn’t happening in most countries, particularly rich ones that play an outsized role in setting global health policy. In India early treatment has helped to reduce the number of cases becoming acute. And that has helped to reduce the pressure on hospitals and vital resources such as oxygen. Ivermectin also appears to have helped reduce the spread of the virus, thanks to its potent anti-viral properties.

Just about everywhere ivermectin is used, the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths fall precipitously. Of course, this is only a temporal correlation. But nonetheless a clear pattern across nations and territories has formed that strongly supports ivermectin’s purported efficacy. And that efficacy has been amply demonstrated in dozens of clinical studies and multiple meta-analyses. But it’s not proof enough for global health authorities, which have set the bar for ivermectin so high that it’s almost impossible to straddle. 

Of course, other factors such as lockdowns, travel restrictions and increased herd immunity have also played a part in India’s rapid turnaround. But vaccines’ role has been minimal given that just 16 doses have been administered per hundred people. It’s going to take many more months, if not longer, to vaccinate a majority of the population. In the meantime, hundreds of millions of people will remain unprotected from the virus. Many will end up catching and transmitting it. Yet the Directorate General of Health Services has taken away one of the country’s only lines of defense.

It remains to be seen whether state governors and health bureaucrats will comply with the recommendations. For the moment the separate treatment protocols recommended by India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) continue to include ivermectin. As such, many doctors are likely to continue prescribing the medicine. But what happens if MOHFW and ICMR follow the DGHS’ lead and also drop ivermectin. Will doctors stop using a medicine they know to work against a virus that has already caused so much devastation?

India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, has been using ivermectin since last summer. In this second wave the turnaround was so dramatic that even the World Health Organization (WHO) showcased its achievements. In a May 7 article titled “Going the Last Mile to Stop Covid-19” the WHO noted that aggressive population-wide health schemes, including home testing and “medicine kits”, had helped regain control of the virus. But what the WHO failed to mention is what was in those medicine kits.

Instead, three days later WHO’s chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan, of Indian descent, tweeted out a reminder that ivermectin is not recommended to treat covid-19 patients. The tweet included a press release issued by the company that manufactures the drug, Merck, saying it had found no evidence to support the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19. Merck, it’s worth recalling, is developing an antiviral compound, molnupiravir, that will have to compete directly with ivermectin, one of the cheapest, safest drugs on the planet — unless, of course, ivermectin is taken out of the picture.

A Cautionary Tale

But if that happens, the result is likely to be a lot more deaths. Peru, the first country to use ivermectin against Covid, is living proof of that. The medicine was first used in eight states during the very early stages of the pandemic (May-July). After showing promise, it was extended to the whole country. Excess deaths dropped 59% (25%) at +30 days and 75% (25%) at +45 days after day of peak deaths. But in October, after the first wave had been brought under control, a newly elected government in Lima took the inexplicable step of withdrawing a number of medicines, including ivermectin, from its treatment guide for the disease.

Image

Within weeks hospitalizations and deaths were soaring once again. The graph above, taken from a study by Juan Chamie, Jennifer Hibberd of the University of Toronto and David Scheim of the US Public Health Service, shows the sharp rise, fall and resurgence in excess deaths (among the over 60 year-old cohort) in Peru as the virus waxed, waned and waxed again. Since Peru dropped ivermectin the virus has raged through the population. Peru now has the highest per-capita death rate from covid on the planet. It’s a cautionary tale that India, with a population more than 30 times that of Peru, would do well to heed.


To be updated

To be continued?
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