How is this NOT on every screen like the first batch of Fauci e-mails?!?!

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced on 4th of June 2021 that it obtained 280 pages of documents from the Department of Health and Human Services revealing that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. 

The documents, some of which were redacted or withheld in their entirely, were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records of communications, contracts and agreements with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:21-cv-00696)). The agency is only processing 300 pages records per month, which means it will take until the end of November for the records to be fully reviewed and released under FOIA.

The records include a chart of NIAID funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology sent on April 21, 2020, by NIAID’s Chase Crawford to Principal Deputy Director Hugh Auchincloss and other NIAID officials. The agency funds directed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology between the years 2014-2019 total $826,277. All of the projects listed in the chart are titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

In an April 15, 2020 email marked “high” importance, Principal Deputy Director of NIH Lawrence Tabak emailed Fauci, NIH Director Francis Collins, and other NIH officials with the subject line: “HEADS UP: Wuhan lab research:”

Tabak: WH has strongly embraced concerns raised by Congressman Gaetz who is publicly criticizing HHS/NIH for funding the Wuhan laboratory’s bat research. Here’s this quote from another article: “I’m disgusted to learn that for years the US government has been funding dangerous and cruel animal experiments at the Wuhan Institute, which may have contributed to the global spread of coronavirus, and research at other labs in China that have virtually no oversight from US authorities.” [Emphasis in original]

This is a large multi-country study with Wuhan being one site. The principal investigator, Peter Daszak, is based in NY at EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. [Emphasis in original]

Tabak provides details of the grant to Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, for a project titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” Tabak continues, saying, “The 3.7M dollar figure is over 6 years to all sites which include (several in) China, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Myanmar. We estimate that approximately $826,300 has been spent at this site since the inception of the grant. Yearly costs appear to be about 80K/year. The grant is in year 6 of a total of 10 year.”

Also read: US RAN GRUESOME BIOWEAPON RESEARCH IN OVER 25 COUNTRIES. WUHAN, TIP OF AN ICEBERG. ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE IMPLICATED AGAIN

A January 9, 2020, email exchange labeled “high” importance between NIAID Senior Scientific Advisor Dr. David Morens and Daszak details the relationship between the Fauci agency and the Wuhan Institute of Virology: 

Morens: Hi guys, do any of you have any inside info on this new coronavirus that isn’t yet in the public domain? Or any thoughts? 

Daszak: Yes – lots of information and I spoke with Erik Stemmy and Alan Embry yesterday before the news was released. Erik is my program officer on our coronavirus grant specifically focused on China…. 

Morens: Thanks, the excitement never ends, right?

Daszak: NIAID has been funding coronavirus work in China for the past 5 years … (1R01Al110964: “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” ). That’s now been renewed … Collaborators include Wuhan Institute of Virology (currently working on the nCoV), and Ralph Baric [of University of North Carolina]. 

*** 

Also-FYI, prior to the R01, we worked under an R01 with Eun-Chung Park as program officer on viral discovery in bats, where originally identified SARS-CoV as having a likely origin in bats (published in Science)….

Morens: Great info, thanks. Tony doesn’t maintain awareness of these things and doesn’t know unless program officers tell him, which they rarely do, since they are across town and may not see him more than once a year, or less…. Interested in your feeling about where this is going. The experts are buzzing around us are all over the map, between doomsday and not that big a deal, with everything in between.

On January 23, 2020, a senior NIH official Melinda Hoskins forwarded a Daily Mail article to colleagues discussing NIH/NIAID funding of the bat virus research, and noting that Fauci would be briefing senators the following morning. Hoskins says, “Would you please confirm the exact nature of our support to the Wuhan Institute of Virology/Biosafety Lab.” 

Another official, Barbara Mulach, responds that, “We’ve identified one grant with a sub-grant to Wuhan Institute of Virology (thanks for the lead) and one primary grant to Wuhan University. We are trying to get clarification whether or not the two organizations are related so we know if the second application is relevant to the request or not.”

She provides data showing a “Sub-award to Wuhan Institute of Virology,” with Daszak as principal investigator for a project titled, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” and she provides information on another award, grant number R01AI119064-06, with principal investigator Ke Lan, going to Wuhan University and titled, “Versatile functions of LANA in KSHV pathogenesis.”

In an April 13, 2020, email from NIH official Emily Erbelding to NIH colleagues, Erbelding notes that the “entire amount of the new Daszak grant (year 6 funded in FY19) is about 3.64 M. The total amount that will go to Wuhan Institute of Virology under this grant will be about $750K ($76,301 had already been sent to Wuhan in year 1 according to the NOA).” Additionally, the email notes that bat sampling work done during years 2011-2015, in addition to receiving funding from Daszak’s grant, “could also have been supported by USAID Predict program (which was also funding the Wuhan lab).”

Also read: TRIPLE-BOMBSHELL ON #WUHAN: #FAUCI, #WHO AND #CCP INVOLVED IN GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH JUST PRIOR TO “PANDEMIC”

Auchinloss forwards Erberlding’s note to Fauci, saying, “This is higher but not extraordinarily higher than I originally indicated which was for some earlier work.” Fauci replies, “Thanks.”

In an April 15, 2020, email exchange, Tabak asks his colleagues if Daszak’s team had “published anything seminal related to the current pandemic.” Erbelding responds, “Peter’s only publication on SARS CoV2 since the epidemic began is thought piece in NEJM [New England Journal of Medicine]” to which she provides a hyperlink. She adds, “Note that all of the prior work on zoonotic reservoirs of CoV’s was also supported by USAID funding through a program called PREDICT, which has since ended.”

On October 1, 2017, after receiving Daszak’s email related to his then-unpublished paper describing detailed research into a novel bat-born virus tied to Swine Acute Diarrheal Syndrome, Fauci forwards Daszak’s email and paper on to NIH official Greg Folkers, saying, “Confidential, but fyi for you.” Daszak says, “You should know that this work was supported by a NIAID ROl that [NIH’s] Erik Stemmy is the Program Officer for, and that I’m PI [principal investigator] on, with Zhengli Shi [the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Wuhan Institute of Virology] as co-PI.”

Also read: LMFAO! FAUCI’S WUHAN MIDDLEMAN, PETER DAZSAK CO-AUTHORED A STUDY WITH “ANTI-VAXX GURU” ANDREW WAKEFIELD

A person whose name is redacted on April 19, 2018, CCs an email to “International Cables (HHS/OS)” with the subject line “China Virus Institute Welcomes More U.S. Cooperation on Global Health Security,” includes a U.S. cable: 

China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, a global leader in virus research, is a key partner for the United States in protecting global health security. Its role as operator of the just-launched Biosafety Level 4 (or ‘P4’) lab- the first such lab in China – opens up even more opportunities for expert exchange, especially in light of the lab’s shortage of trained staff.

***

In the last year, the lab also hosted visits from the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and experts from the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. The institute reports to the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

P4 Lab is Open and Transparent, Officials Emphasize

 ***

Officials described the lab as a “regional node” in the global biosafety system and said it would play an emergency response role in an epidemic or pandemic. The lab’s English brochure highlighted a national security role, saying that it is “an effective measure to improve China’s availability in safeguarding national bio-safety if [a] possible biological warfare or terrorist attack happens.”

Institute officials said there would be “limited availability” for international and domestic scientists who had gone through the necessary approval process to do research at the lab. They stressed that the lab aimed to be a “worldwide, open platform” for virology. They said they welcomed U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) experts, noting that the Chinese Academy of Sciences was not strong on human disease expertise, having only focused on it in the last 15 years, after the SARS outbreak. A Wuhan-based French consulate official who works on science and technology cooperation with China also emphasized that the lab, which was initiated in 2004 as a France-China joint project, was meant to be “open and transparent” to the global scientific community. “The intent was to set up a lab to international standards, and open to international research,” he said. French experts have provided guidance and biosafety training to the lab, which will continue, the French official said. Institute officials said that France provided the lab’s design and much of its technology, but that it is entirely China-funded and has been completely China-run since a “handover” ceremony in 2016. 

In addition to French assistance, experts from the NIH-supported P4 lab at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston have trained Wuhan lab technicians in lab management and maintenance, institute officials said.… One Wuhan Institute of Virology researcher trained for two years at the Galveston lab, and the institute also sent one scientist to U.S. CDC headquarters in Atlanta for six months’ work on influenza.

            NIH-Supported Research Revises SARS Origin Story

NIH was a major funder, along with the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC), of SARS research by the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s [redacted.]

*** 

Ready to Help with the Global Virome Project

Institute officials expressed strong interest in the Global Virorne Project (GVP), and said Chinese funding for the project would likely come from Chinese Academy of Sciences funding already earmarked for One Belt, One Road-related initiatives…. GVP aims to launch this year as an international collaborative effort to identify within ten years virtually all of the planet’s viruses that have pandemic or epidemic potential and the ability to jump to humans. “We hope China will be one of the leading countries to initiate the Global Virome Project,” one Wuhan Institute of Virology official said. China attended a GVP unveiling meeting in January in Thailand and is waiting for more details of the initiative. The officials said that the Chinese government funds projects similar to GVP to investigate the background of viruses and bacteria. This essentially constituted China’s own Virome Project …

Also Read: INDIA BLACKLISTED US CDC FOR SECRETLY FUNDING BIOWEAPONS RESEARCH IN MANIPAL

U.S.-China Workshop Explores Research Partnerships

***

 Some workshop participants also expressed skepticism about the Global Virome Project’s (GVP) approach, saying that gaining a predictive understanding of viruses with pandemic potential would require going beyond the GVPs strategy of sample collection, to take an “ecological” approach that considers the virome beyond vertebrate systems to identify mechanisms driving pathogen evolution. A follow-on workshop will be held in June at the University of Berkeley. NSF and NSFC hope to jointly announce a funding call for collaborative projects later this year.

On April 14, 2020, NIH official Marshall Bloom forwarded a Washington Post article by Josh Rogin titled “State Department Cables Warned of Safety Issues at Wuhan Lab Studying Bat Coronaviruses,” and asked a colleague to “Please send to the HCTF [High Containment Task Force]. Thanks!”  

After receiving an article via an email on November 1, 2013, from NIH official Greg Folkers with a cartoon depicting a bat depositing coronavirus particles attacking human ACE2 receptor cells, his colleague, Fauci’s Special Assistant Patricia Conrad writes, “I think we need more slides like this…its too cute!”

A January 19, 2018, State Department cable from the US Embassy in Beijing about the Wuhan Institute of Virology with the subject “China Opens First Bio Safety Level 4 Laboratory” includes a section titled “Unclear Guidelines on Virus Access and a Lack of Trained Talent Impede Research,” which notes in its introduction that “its current productivity is limited by a shortage of highly trained technicians and investigators required to safely operate a BSL-4 laboratory and a lack of clarity in related Chinese government policies and guidelines.”

The memo continues: “To date, WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] has obtained permission for research on three viruses: Ebola virus, Nipah virus, and Xinjiang hemorrhagic fever virus (a strain of Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever found in China’s Xinjiang Province.)”

“These new documents show that funding for the Wuhan Institute was greater than the public has been told,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That it has taken a year and a federal lawsuit to get this first disclosure on COVID and Wuhan is evidence of cover-up by Fauci’s agency.”

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
But we’re underfunded for June, when we have heavy annual bills to pay for the websites, not counting the countless hours of work. Next target would be adding new features and plugins to the website and better equipment for faster work and more complex video productions.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

The sugar in sugar-coated truths ends up killing you

The e-mail makes up pages 2008-2013 of the 2nd and less discussed batch of Fauci e-mails provided by Del Bigtree’s ICAN and obtained through a FOIA request as well.
They discuss titaniumdioxide as antiviral coating for fabrics, but that bracket is undeniably historical.
The sender signs as
Richard J. Tubb, MD
Brigadier General (retired)
White House Physician Emeritus

BRIGADIER GENERAL (DR.) RICHARD J. TUBB

Retired   September 01,2009    

Brig. Gen. (Dr.) Richard J. Tubb is the Physician to the President, and Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for providing direct support and advice to the President of the United States, and he oversees all healthcare services within the White House, Camp David, the Western White House, aboard executive aircraft, while deployed and at contingency locations.  The general develops the international medical intelligence infrastructure, and deploys the medical elements necessary to support the global reach of the President, Vice President and their supporting staff as well as U.S. Secret Service, the White House Military Office, U.S. State Department and other Presidential support elements. He serves as senior medical adviser to the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. He advises the Director of the White House Military Office on, and directs all joint service, interagency and international operational assets in, medical contingency planning and execution supporting the continuity of the presidency and an enduring constitutional government. He also advises the White House Chief of Staff on implementation of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution.

General Tubb received his commission from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1981. He earned his Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Wisconsin and completed Family Practice Residency training at David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif., in 1988. He has held an appointment as Clinical Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at the Uniformed Services University since 1991, and has held leadership positions in all aspects of Air Force medicine including clinical, academic and operational medicine, garrisoned and deployed. President Clinton appointed him as Director, White House Medical Unit and Physician to the White House effective Jan. 20, 2000. President Bush reaffirmed Dr. Tubb’s leadership and subsequently commissioned him as Physician to the President (Deputy Assistant to the President) in March 2002.

EDUCATION
1981 Distinguished graduate, Bachelor of Science degree, U.S. Air Force Academy,
Colorado Springs, Colo.
1985 Doctor of Medicine degree, University of Wisconsin, Madison
1988 Aerospace Medicine Primary Course, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas
2000 Air War College, by correspondence

ASSIGNMENTS
1. June 1981 – May 1985, medical student, Health Professions Scholarship Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison
2. June 1985 – June 1988, family practice resident, Travis AFB, Calif.
3. July 1988 – July 1991, Chief, Acute Care Clinic, 10th Tactical Fighter Wing, Royal Air Force Alconbury, England
4. August 1991 – July 1994, faculty and Clinical Assistant Professor, Family Practice Residency Program, 375th Medical Group, Scott AFB, Ill.
5. August 1994 – June 1995, Flight Chief, Flight Medicine and Physical Exams, 375th Medical Group, Scott AFB, Ill.
6. June 1995 – June 1996, White House Physician, the White House, Washington, D.C.
7. June 1996 – January 2000, Director, Vice Presidential Medical Operations, and Deputy Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C.
8. January 2000 – March 2002, Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C.
9. March 2002 – present, Physician to the President (Deputy Assistant to the President), and Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C.

FLIGHT INFORMATION
Rating: Chief flight surgeon
Flight hours: More than 1,800
Aircraft flown: C-9, C-17, C-20, VC-25A, C-32, CT-43, C-130, C137, C-141, CH-3, CH-46, CH-53, VH-3 and VH-60

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Defense Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Force Commendation Medal
Air Force Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster
Joint Meritorious Unit Award with two oak leaf clusters
Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with oak leaf cluster
National Defense Service Medal with bronze star
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Humanitarian Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Air Force Overseas Ribbon – Long Tour
Air Force Longevity Service Award with silver oak leaf cluster
Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon
Air Force Training Ribbon

OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS
1979 U.S. Air Force Academy exchange student to U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.
1988 Diplomate, American Board of Family Practice
U.S. Secret Service Director’s Award (unit)
General Paul Meyer Award for Mentorship, Society of Air Force Physician Assistants

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS
American Academy of Family Physicians
Uniformed Services Academy of Family Physicians
Former member, Royal College of General Practitioners

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION
Second Lieutenant  May 26, 1981
Captain  May 3, 1985
Major  May 3, 1991
Lieutenant Colonel  May 30, 1996
Colonel  Jan. 20, 2000
Brigadier General  Nov. 1, 2005 

(Current as of July 2006)

SOURCE

Spraying nano-sized titaniumdioxide into the atmosphere to combat climate change

Posted on  by Science News Releases

Sun and clouds

Dispersing fine (sub-micron) light-scattering particles into the upper atmosphere could help to combat climate change, suggests a former UK government advisor and chemical engineer.

The technology concept developed in the UK and first revealed in this month’s tce magazine (“Up and away“; pdf), advocates dispersing benign titanium dioxide particles as used in paint, inks and sunscreens into the stratosphere to deflect the sun’s rays. In a tce webinar on 15 May, Peter Davidson, a Chartered Chemical Engineer, Fellow of IChemE and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and a former senior innovation advisor to a number of government departments, will call for this geoengineering concept to be researched as an insurance policy to cope with possible catastrophic effects of global warming if we don’t manage to reduce CO2 emissions fast enough.

“While it’s essential that we work to reduce carbon dioxide emissions now, it would be wise to have a well-researched emergency system in reserve as a Plan B,” says Davidson.

The idea may sound like science fiction; but the concept in fact mimics the earth-cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions which occur several times a century. When in 1991 Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines, it caused temperatures to drop by around 0.5°C around the globe for two years, ending most talk of global warming during this period. The eruption threw 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, forming a fine mist of sulphuric acid particles that spread over the globe in a matter of months.

As the size of volcanic aerosol particles is similar to the wavelength of sunlight, they scattered a small proportion of the light (~1 %), and hence its heat back into space. The Earth cooled.

Adding sulphuric acid to the stratosphere degrades the ozone layer, and may cause regional changes in precipitation. We need a benign but similarly sized particle; Davidson suggests Titanium Dioxide (TiO2), mankind’s most commonly-used pigment. It is stable in air, non-toxic and seven-times more effective at scattering light than sulphuric acid. Titanium is abundant in the earth’s crust and five million tonnes a year of pigment is produced currently so supply appears feasible. If you are reading this on a printed page the ink and the paper probably both have a TiO2 pigment in them.

With a candidate particle identified, the next challenge is devising a system to effectively and economically lift and disperse millions of tons of particles some 20 km (~ 65,000 feet) up into the stratosphere, so they stay up for a couple of years and do not immediately get rained out.

Davidson says: “The impact of global warming is predicted to be most severe on the world’s poorest peoples, both because of their lack of resources and because of where they happen to be living. I would hope we could ensure that these peoples have a stake in decision-making and the opportunity to have their voice heard, alongside the richer countries, and appropriate NGO’s (for example environmentalists), as well as other bodies.

“Ideally an independent charitable trust funded by a variety of stakeholders from around the world would research not only the technology but suitable governance, legal and ethical frameworks,” adds Davidson.

The total capital cost of the balloon, tethers, ultra high pressure pumps, and the production and transport of the particles is estimated to be £500m plus £600m in annual operating costs in a paper to be published by the Royal Society. These costs are perhaps thirty times lower than the next best technologies considered, such as large numbers of very sophisticated jet aircraft, and do not have the same carbon footprint. “Space mirrors on the scale needed and 20km tall towers are likely to be for the 22nd century not this one.”

Very approximate estimates are that we’d need to disperse over a million tonnes of titanium dioxide per year to keep planetary temperatures constant if CO2 levels in the atmosphere double. If such an insurance policy was needed we would have to do this for 50 to 150 years. Ocean acidification would be a worry but this might be still worse if such temperature control did not keep methane emissions from melting arctic tundra or seas under control.

At current prices, supplying these particles would cost around £3bn per year or around 50p per person per year.

Davidson says: “Creating a suitable insurance policy for climate remediation is a vital task. It will not do to underestimate the challenges. Much research and work on governance is still needed, but a vision is now on offer for debate, and development where potential means of solving some of the most difficult technical challenges have been identified. It would be short-sighted to put-off research of such a safety-device – like trying to develop a life-jacket when you’re swept out to sea and struggling in the water.”

SOURCE

Harvard states that they want to develop new methods, the go-to substances to spray in the air are listed below. If we take a look at SPICE, a United Kingdom government funded geo-engineering research project that collaborates with the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Bristol, this is what we get.

Evaluating Candidate Particles

Work Package 1: Finding the Perfect Particle

This section of the SPICE project is aiming to discover whether any particle other than sulphate is ideally suited for injection into the Stratosphere for the purpose of reducing global temperature while minimising unwanted side-effects. This phenomenon has been observed following major volcanic eruptions e.g. Mt Pinatubo in 1991.

If successful this might temporarily buy time to reduce carbon emissions and potentially prevent the worst effects of human-induced global warming.


Candidate Particles

If successful this might temporarily buy time to reduce carbon emissions and potentially prevent the worst effects of human-induced global warming. The particles SPICE is looking at is as follows:

  • Sulphate/Sulphuric Acid/Sulphur Dioxide
  • Titania (TiO2rutile)
  • Titania (TiO2anatase)
  • Silicon Carbide (SiC)
  • Diamond (C)
  • Dust(either Arizona test dust of NX-illite)
  • Calcium Carbonate
  • Alumina (alpha-Al2O3)
  • Silica (SiO2)
  • Zinc Oxide

Any particles action is goverened by the following characteristics:

  • Size
  • Surface properties
  • Chemical Composition 
  • Refractive Index

An ideal particle would have:

  • Be higly reflective of sunlight
  • Not too absorptive at longer (terrestrial) wavelengths
  • Little or no influence on the reactive chemistry of the stratosphere

Other Key Factors:

  • Lifetime of the particle in the stratosphere
  • Effects on human health
  • Supply/manufacture costs

To better understand the optical and chemical characteristics of the candidate particles we are using the following techniques:

  • AFT CIMS (Aerosol Flow Tube Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer)
  • PFTR CIMS (Plug Flow Tubular Reactor Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer)
  • AFT-OA (Aerosol Flow Tube Ozone Analyzer)
  • Coated-Wall Flow Tube
  • Dust Aerosol Generator
  • Laser Tweezers/Laser Beam Trap (Raman Spectroscopy)

Work is being undertaken at the Molecular Spectroscopy Facility (MSF) & the Central Laser Facility (CLF) at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) as well as at Bristol, Oxford & Cambridge Universities

HARVARD’S SOLAR GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH PROGRAM

Harvard Scientists Moving Ahead on Plans for Atmospheric Geoengineering Experiments

The climate researchers intend to launch a high-altitude balloon that would spray a small quantity of reflective particles into the stratosphere.by 

March 24, 2017

Harvard University professor David Keith

A pair of Harvard climate scientists are preparing small-scale atmospheric experiments that could offer insights into the feasibility and risks of deliberately altering the climate to ease global warming.

They would be among the earliest official geoengineering-related experiments conducted outside of a controlled laboratory or computer model, underscoring the growing sense of urgency among scientists to begin seriously studying the possibility as the threat of climate change mounts.

Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the balloon would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere.

The researchers first proposed these balloon experiments in a 2014 paper. But at a geoengineering conference in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Keith said they have begun engineering design work with Arizona test balloon company World View Enterprises. They’ve also started discussions about the appropriate governance structure for such an experiment, and they plan to set up an independent body to review their proposals.

“We would like to have the first flights next year,” he said at the Forum on U.S. Solar Geoengineering Research, held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In an earlier interview with MIT Technology Review, Keith stressed that the experiments would not be a binary test of geoengineering itself. But they should provide useful information about the proposed method that he has closely studied, known as solar radiation management. 

The basic idea is that spraying certain types of particles into the stratosphere could help reflect more heat back into space. Scientists believe it could work because nature already does it. Large volcanic eruptions in the past have blasted tens of millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the sky, which contributed to lower global temperatures in subsequent months.

What’s less clear is how precisely the technique could control worldwide temperatures, what materials would work best, and what the environmental side effects might be. Notably, previous volcanic eruptions have also decreased precipitation levels in parts of the world, and sulfur dioxide is known to deplete the protective ozone layer. 

Keith has previously used computer modeling to explore the possibility of using other materials that may have a neutral impact on ozone, including diamond dust and alumina. Late last year, he, Keutsch, and others published a paper that found using calcite, a mineral made up of calcium carbonate, “may cool the planet while simultaneously repairing the ozone layer.”

The balloon tests could provide additional insight into how these chemicals actually interact with precursors to ozone in the real world and offer additional information that could help refine their understanding of solar geoengineering, he says: “You have to go measure things in the real world because nature surprises you.” 

Keith stresses that it’s too early to say whether any geoengineering technologies should ever be deployed. But he has argued for years that research should move ahead to better understand their capabilities and dangers, because it’s possible they could significantly reduce the risks of climate change. He stressed that the experiments would have negligible environment impacts, as they will involve no more than a kilogram of materials.

Funding for the initial experiments would come from grants that Harvard provided Keith and Keutsch as new professors. Additional funds may come from Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, a multidisciplinary effort launching this spring to study feasibility, risks, ethics, and governance issues surrounding geoengineering. As of press time, it had raised more than $7 million from Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, the Hewlett Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Harvard-internal funds, and other philanthropists.

Geoengineering critics argue that the climate system is too complex to meddle with, that the environmental risks are too high, or that even talking about technological “fixes” could ease pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Only two known experiments have been carried out in the open air to date that could be considered geoengineering-related: University of California, San Diego, researchers sprayed smoke and salt particles off the coast of California as part of the E-PEACE experiment in 2011, and scientists in Russia dispersed aerosols from a helicopter and car in 2009. The so called SPICE experiment in the United Kingdom was quickly scuttled in 2012, following public criticism and conflict of interest accusations after several of the scientists applied for a related patent.

In an earlier interview, Jane Long, a former associate director at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, stressed that researchers moving forward with geoengineering experiments need to go to great lengths to ensure proper public notification, opportunities for input, and appropriate oversight, particularly if they’re relying on private funds. But she said it’s time to begin seriously studying the technology’s potential given the growing dangers of climate change.

“We should have started a decade ago,” she said. “It’s critical to know as much as we can as soon as we can.”

CIA’S’John O. Brennan Speaks to CFR on Chemtrails

Department of Homeland Security to Simulate Biological Weapons Test in Oklahoma

November 13, 2017 Off Grid Survival

In early 2018, The Department of Homeland Security is planning to conduct chemical and biological tests near the border between Kansas and Oklahoma.

Homeland Security officials plan to execute a “low-level outdoor release” of inert chemical and biological simulant materials during at two buildings within the Chilocco Indian Agricultural School (Chilocco campus) in Newkirk, Kay County, OK. The tests will take place January/February 2018 and then again during June/July 2018.

According to DHS, the biological weapons simulation is designed to see how protected people would be when staying inside if biological agents are used in a terror attack.

For the particle test, the government plans to release titanium dioxide, which it describes as a “white, odorless powder that is chemically insoluble in water, nonreactive, nonflammable and nonhazardous.”

Despite the government’s claims that the chemical is harmless, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Titanium dioxide dust, when inhaled, can be carcinogenic to humans.

For the biological portion of the test, the government plans to release genetic barcoded spores of an insecticide sold under the trade name of Dipel. Dipel is not considered hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency when handled appropriately, according to the assessment.

Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Estes of Kansas said Thursday he is “monitoring the situation closely.”

“I have numerous questions regarding this proposed test,” Estes said. “While it’s important for our federal agencies to test their abilities in response to threats, we need to be 100 percent certain this test is safe for the residents of south-central Kansas.”

The city of Arkansas City has also said it’s reviewing media reports of the testing.

“This is the first time the city has been made aware of any testing to occur at Chilocco,” the city posted on its Facebook page Thursday. “Inert means chemically inactive, which means by definition there should be no risk to the citizens. However, we are looking into the situation to gather more information for our citizens and their safety.”

What is Titanium Dioxide?

Many people are familiar with titanium dioxide as an active ingredient in sunscreen. Titanium dioxide works as a UV filtering ingredient in sunscreen – it helps protect a person’s skin by blocking absorption of the sun’s ultraviolet light that can cause sunburn and is also linked to skin cancer. Learn more about titanium dioxide and sunscreen.

Uses & Benefits

Pure titanium dioxide is a fine, white powder that provides a bright, white pigment. Titanium dioxide has been used for a century in a range of industrial and consumer products, including paints, coatings, adhesives, paper, plastics and rubber, printing inks, coated fabrics and textiles, as well as ceramics, floor coverings, roofing materials, cosmetics, toothpaste, soap, water treatment agents, pharmaceuticals, food colorants, automotive products, sunscreen and catalysts.

Titanium dioxide is produced in two main forms. The primary form, comprising over 98 percent of total production, is pigment grade titanium dioxide. The pigmentary form makes use of titanium dioxide’s excellent light-scattering properties in applications that require white opacity and brightness. The other form in which titanium dioxide is produced is as an ultrafine (nanomaterial) product. This form is selected when different properties, such as transparency and maximum ultraviolet light absorption, are required, such as in cosmetic sunscreens.

Pigment-grade Titanium Dioxide

Pigment-grade titanium dioxide is used in a range of applications that require high opacity and brightness. In fact, most surfaces and items that are white and pastel, and even dark shades of color, contain titanium dioxide. Pigment-grate titanium dioxide is used in a range of applications, including:

  • Paints and Coatings: Titanium dioxide provides opacity and durability, while helping to ensure the longevity of the paint and protection of the painted surface.  
  • Plastics, Adhesives and Rubber: Titanium dioxide can help minimize the brittleness, fading and cracking that can occur in plastics and other materials as a result of light exposure.
  • Cosmetics: Pigment-grade titanium dioxide is use in some cosmetics to aid in hiding blemishes and brightening the skin. Titanium dioxide allows for the use of thinner coatings of make-up material for the same desired effect.
  • Paper: Titanium dioxide is used to coat paper, making it whiter, brighter and more opaque.
  • Food Contact Materials and Ingredients: The opacity to visible and ultraviolet light offered by titanium dioxide protects food, beverages, supplements and pharmaceuticals from premature degradation, enhancing the longevity of the product. Specific classes of high purity pigment-grade titanium dioxide are also used in drug tablets, capsule coatings and as a decorative aid in some foods.

Ultrafine-grade, or Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide

Ultrafine-grades of titanium dioxide are most commonly used in the following specialty applications:  

  • Sunscreen: Nanoscale titanium dioxide becomes transparent to visible light while serving as an efficient UV light absorber. Because the particle size is so small, nano-titanium dioxide does not reflect visible light, but does absorb UV light, enabling a transparent barrier that protects the skin from the sun’s harmful rays. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, using sunscreens containing titanium dioxide can help prevent the occurrence of skin cancer.
  • Catalysts: Nanoscale titanium dioxide is used as a support material for catalyst applications. Major uses include in the automotive industry to remove harmful exhaust gas emissions and in power stations to remove nitrous oxides.

Safety Information

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has assessed the safety of titanium dioxide pigment as a color additive in food, drug and cosmetic applications. FDA had issued guidance clarifying the safe use of titanium dioxide pigment as a food colorant, and has stated that titanium dioxide may be safely used in cosmetics, including cosmetics intended for use around the eye. FDA also regulates the safety and effectiveness of sunscreens and their ingredients, including nanoscale titanium dioxide.

Workers at titanium dioxide manufacturing plants and downstream value-chain manufacturing plants where titanium dioxide is used can be exposed to titanium dioxide dust. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for titanium dioxide total dust and requires employers to control workplace exposure below that PEL.

Consumer exposure to titanium dioxide dust is presumed to be extremely low, because titanium dioxide is typically fully incorporated into the end product in which it is used.

SOURCE

Titanium dioxide: E171 no longer considered safe when used as a food additive

Published:6 May 2021

titanium dioxide

EFSA has updated its safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171), following a request by the European Commission in March 2020. 

The updated evaluation revises the outcome of EFSA’s previous assessment published in 2016, which highlighted the need for more research to fill data gaps.  

Prof Maged Younes, Chair of EFSA’s expert Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), said: “Taking into account all available scientific studies and data, the Panel concluded that titanium dioxide can no longer be considered safe as a food additive. A critical element in reaching this conclusion is that we could not exclude genotoxicity concerns after consumption of titanium dioxide particles. After oral ingestion, the absorption of titanium dioxide particles is low, however they can accumulate in the body”. 

The assessment was conducted following a rigorous methodology and taking into consideration many thousands of studies that have become available since EFSA’s previous assessment in 2016, including new scientific evidence and data on nanoparticles. 

Our scientific experts applied for the first time the 2018 EFSA Scientific Committee Guidance on Nanotechnology to the safety assessment of food additives. Titanium dioxide E 171 contains at most 50% of particles in the nano range (i.e. less than 100 nanometres) to which consumers may be exposed.  

Genotoxicity Assessment 

Genotoxicity refers to the ability of a chemical substance to damage DNA, the genetic material of cells. As genotoxicity may lead to carcinogenic effects, it is essential to assess the potential genotoxic effect of a substance to conclude on its safety.  

Prof Matthew Wright, both a member of the FAF Panel and chair of EFSA’s working group on E 171, said: “Although the evidence for general toxic effects was not conclusive, on the basis of the new data and strengthened methods we could not rule out a concern for genotoxicity and consequently we could not establish a safe level for daily intake of the food additive.”

Risk managers at the European Commission and in EU Member States have been informed of EFSA’s conclusions and will consider appropriate action to take to ensure consumers’ protection.

Background 

Titanium dioxide (E 171) is authorised as a food additive in the EU according to Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.  

The safety of the food additive E 171 was re-evaluated by the EFSA ANS Panel in 2016 in the frame of Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, as part of the re-evaluation programme for food additives authorised in the EU before 20 January 2009.  

In its 2016 opinion, the ANS Panel recommended new studies be carried out to fill the gaps on possible effects on the reproductive system, which could enable them to set an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Uncertainty around the characterisation of the material used as the food additive (E 171) was also highlighted, in particular with respect to particle size and particle size distribution of titanium dioxide used as E 171.   

In 2019, EFSA published a statement on the review of the risk related to the exposure to food additive titanium dioxide (E171) performed by the French Agency for Food, Environment and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES). In its statement, EFSA highlighted that the ANSES opinion reiterated the uncertainties and data gaps previously identified by EFSA and did not present findings that invalidated the Authority’s previous conclusions on the safety of titanium dioxide.

In the same year (2019), the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) also delivered an opinion on possible health effects of food additive titanium dioxide, which highlighted the importance of examining immunotoxicological effects in addition to potential reprotoxicological effects.

SOURCE

Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem

by Alex Roslin on July 20th, 2011 at 11:59 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Canada spokesman Stéphane Shank did not return calls.

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

SOURCE

Bill Gates Names 10 Breakthrough Technologies of 2019

By DANIEL LIBERTO  Updated Jun 25, 2019

Carbon Dioxide Catcher

Technology that aims to trap carbon before it enters the atmosphere is now steadily becoming available at a reasonable price. Experts reckon carbon capture and storage tools can slash CO2 emissions from power stations by up to 90%. Gates and two oil and gas companies, Occidental Petroleum (OXY) and Chevron (OXY), have invested in Canada’s Carbon Engineering.

Bill Gates Is Thinking About Dimming the Sun

The billionaire is backing a study of the controversial technology called solar geoengineering.

 POPULAR MECHANICS ,MAR 26, 2021microsoft hosts windows hardware engineering conferenceRON WURZERGETTY IMAGES


Bill Gates, who recently suggested the world should eat 100 percent synthetic beef and said bitcoin is bad for the planet, has set his sights on a new foe: the sun.

Gates and other private donors are backing Harvard University’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, which will soon launch a new study researching the efficacy of blocking sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface.

This week, the influential National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) also released a new report urging the U.S. government to spend at least $100 million to study solar geoengineering, a controversial technology.

What is solar geoengineering, anyway, and why are scientists suddenly interested in—and concerned by—the concept?

Solar Geoengineering, Explained

Geoengineering is a blanket term for technologies that try to alter Earth’s physical qualities on the largest scale possible. One example is cloud seeding, where airplanes flush clouds with particulate matter in order to coalesce into rain. Carbon capture, where emissions are taken and sequestered beneath Earth’s surface, is another major form of geoengineering.
This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Scientists have devised multiple ways to block sunlight from reaching Earth’s atmosphere or surface. These are gathered under the umbrella term “solar geoengineering.” The most common and studied method is to reflect sunlight away from Earth using aerosol particles in the atmosphere, but until now, this has been seen as more of a fringe idea. It’s the instigating event of the 2013 film Snowpiercer, for example, where blocking sunlight has turned Earth into a lifeless ice ball.

While the mechanism of an aerosol solar geoengineering study is simple—the physical structure of aerosol particles literally blocks and scatters light—the reality is more complex.

Remember the 2010 eruption of an Icelandic volcano that blocked the entire sky all the way into Europe? That was an atmospheric aerosol event. The meteor strike that might have killed the dinosaurs blanketed the Earth in a layer of aerosol dust. Almost any everyday substance can be aerosolized in the right conditions—the term is simply any airborne fine particulate that can float in clouds like a gas.

Why Do Scientists Want to Study This Now?

Solar geoengineering with aerosols runs head into the fact that aerosols, like ozone layer-destroying chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) spray aerosols, have often been a contributor to climate change. Scientists say this lack of concrete information and consensus is a critical failure that must be corrected with new studies.

The worst case scenario is that humankind faces an extreme climate emergency, but knows nothing about even the long-shot ways to address it. This is why scientists are asking now for a major investment in solar geoengineering research.

scopex experiment concept art

How the SCoPEx will work.KEUTSCH GROUP AT HARVARD

The researchers behind the forthcoming Harvard project, the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), say we must study solar geoengineering in case we need to take a drastic action against climate change. The Gates-supported study seeks to do exploratory, small-scale experiments in the atmosphere:

“We plan to use a high-altitude balloon to lift an instrument package approximately 20 km into the atmosphere. Once it is in place, a very small amount of material (100 g to 2 kg) will be released to create a perturbed air mass roughly one kilometer long and one hundred meters in diameter. We will then use the same balloon to measure resulting changes in the perturbed air mass including changes in aerosol density, atmospheric chemistry, and light scattering. [W]e plan to release calcium carbonate, a common mineral dust. We may also release other materials such as sulfates in response to evolving scientific interests.”

What Happens Next?

Calcium carbonate is a plentiful and harmless mineral that’s also the active ingredient in Tums. But “harmless” only goes so far—the repercussions of solar geoengineering aren’t necessarily found in the material released, but in the unexpected effects of mixing ingredients into the stratosphere. This is why, SCoPEx says, most research has focused on an aerosol chemical already found in the stratosphere: sulfuric acid, which is a pollutant. Both need to be studied, and likely more.

Meanwhile, for a new prepublication report, the NASEM convened a committee of 16 international science luminaries to develop solar geoengineering research. Researcher Chris Field writes:

“Globally, 2015-2019 were the 5 warmest years in the instrumental record. The creation of this study committee is one response to the need for understanding the full range of options for dealing with the climate crisis.”

Chapters in the report include the role of philanthropists like Gates, the goals of preparing future political decisionmakers, and the state of existing research about solar geoengineering.

So, is all of this a good idea or not? That’s hard to say right now, but all of the scientists and backers involved are only suggesting doing research—not taking large-scale action.

No one is suggesting we spray the clouds with calcium carbonate tomorrow, or even 10 years from now. But if we don’t understand how solar geoengineering will affect the world, by the time we need it as an option in our climate playbook, it will be too late. And that’s what this news really is: keeping options open and exploring the ramifications of a radical technology.

MORE COINCIDENCE THEORIES

If I were Bill Gates or other nefarious swamp creature like that, and if I needed a platform to manage and coordinate spraying the skies, as a prominent World Economic Forum sponsor, I could easily and efficiently coincide with WEF’s The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition:

“The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition provides a crucial global mechanism for top executives and public leaders, across and beyond the aviation value chain, to align on a transition to sustainable aviation fuels as part of a meaningful and proactive pathway for the industry to achieve carbon-neutral flying.

Stakeholders will work together to address the chicken-and-egg scenario whereby producers and consumers are both either unwilling or unable to carry the initial cost burden of investing in new technologies to reach a scale where they are competitive with existing fossil fuel-derived options.

Champions of the Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition will advance co-developed initiatives to break this impasse, to advance the commercial scale of viable production of sustainable low-carbon aviation fuels (bio and synthetic) for broad adoption in the industry by 2030. Initiatives include a mechanism for aggregating demand for carbon-neutral flying, a co-investment vehicle and geographically specific value-chain pilots.

The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition is led by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Energy Transitions Commission. It is advanced through close consultation with advisory partner, the Air Transport Action Group.

Founding champions include: Airbus Group, Heathrow Airport, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Royal Schiphol Group, Shell, SkyNRG, SpiceJet and The Boeing Company.”

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
But we’re underfunded for June, when we have heavy annual bills to pay for the websites, not counting the countless hours of work. Next target would be adding new features and plugins to the website and better equipment for faster work and more complex video productions.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

ICAN just got banned by Twitter for unloading another FOIA release with Fauci e-mails!
This happened like hours ago. I haven’t reviewed many of the e-mails yet. Developing story

DOWNLOAD E-MAILS

FIRST BOMBSHELL I FOUND:

PAGE 103-104

PAGE 103-104

I haven’t covered the Commission much on SILVIEW.media, for more info I recommend searching it on the Corbett Report website

SECONDLY…

PAGE 142-143

Check: VACCINE COMPANIES NEVER HAD THE VIRUS IN THEIR LABS, JUST A MEMO FROM CHINA – TOP INDUSTRY INSIDER

AND FOR MY 3RD NUMBER…

Well deserved separate post here:

MOAB! FAUCI’S E-MAILS ACCIDENTALLY VINDICATE EVEN CHEMTRAIL THEORISTS

A rhino-media NPC like Carlson will stare into these for eternity and see nothing, unless an assistant finds, three months later, some report from Corbett, or Swann, or… 😉

ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network, founded by Del Bigtree) website

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
But we’re underfunded for June, when we have heavy annual bills to pay for the websites, not counting the countless hours of work. Next target would be adding new features and plugins to the website and better equipment for faster work and more complex video productions.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

BREAKING! 2ND BATCH OF FAUCI E-MAILS: INVITE TO ROCKEFELLER’S TRILATERAL COMMISSION

There’s no way the intelligence communities from at least 4-5 countries didn’t know of this. Not acting on it is participating in it.

SOURCE (PDF) – SEEK PAGE 2286

https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561-leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails

This is an official FOIA release obtained by Jason Leopold, Buzzfeed contributor. His article on this is below, but first I want to raise an eyebrow, because the sender of the e-mail is this semi-notorious pro-Ivermectin militant who you wouldn’t expect to have this conversation with Fauci, would you? But there he is.

LATER UPDATES:

FAUCI PROPOSED ZUCKERBERG’S BIOTECH FIRM TO INVESTIGATE THE SARS-COV-2 ORIGINS. BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THERE ‘ARE PAYING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE WUHAN STRAIN’. IN FEBRUARY 2020!

Digging through Fauci’s e-mails is bad for your teeth and liver, I should stop

Page 3187

Apparently, this needs explained:
The e-mail above single-handedly proves the lab-leak suspicions are as old and based as the virus.

The guy who sent the e-mail above, later published this:

A second statement which had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on March 17, 2020, in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were a group of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter. – The Wire


Here’s the Buzzfeed report, mostly useless trash not worth your time, but for some context:

Anthony Fauci’s Emails Reveal The Pressure That Fell On One Man

Thousands of pages of communications obtained by BuzzFeed News show how Fauci tried to keep Americans calm and develop an effective strategy despite conflicts with the Trump administration. Natalie Bettendorf BuzzFeed Contributor Jason Leopold BuzzFeed News Reporter

Posted on June 1, 2021, at 1:59 p.m. ET

Anthony Fauci, wearing a face mask, looks down at his cellphone in his hands

The woman’s email arrived in Anthony Fauci’s inbox on Feb. 28, 2020, with a one-word subject line: “URGENT.”

The coronavirus crisis was still in its early stages, and Fauci, the US government’s top infectious disease scientist, was already under tremendous pressure, both because of the health threat facing the country and the political climate fostered by the Trump administration.

“I understand Vice President Pence has ordered you to not inform the public about Coronavirus without approval. This is quite terrifying, especially since Trump has already shown his desire to spread false or incomplete information about this public health crisis,” the woman wrote.

She had tracked down Fauci’s email, which is not easily accessible on government websites, because she had a pressing question: “I’m planning to fly domestically TOMORROW [REDACTED]. Is it safe??”

Of course, Fauci had urgent matters of his own to attend to, but he replied to the stranger anyway the next day. “There is much misinformation,” he wrote back. “I actually have not been muzzled at all by the Vice President. And BTW, it is safe to fly domestically [REDACTED].”

More than 3,200 pages of emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by BuzzFeed News — covering the period from January to June 2020 — provide a rare glimpse into how Fauci approached his job during the biggest health crisis of the last century, showing him dealing directly with the public, health officials, reporters, and even celebrities. (The Washington Post also received more than 800 pages of emails and published a story about them on Monday.)

The emails reviewed by BuzzFeed News reveal him sparring over an antiviral drug with Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama administration health adviser, fielding questions about vaccines, and receiving an update from Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook’s plans for a coronavirus “information hub.” Zuckerberg also asked whether the social media company could provide resources to accelerate vaccine testing. And Fauci even responded to an offer from actor Morgan Fairchild to use her Twitter account on his behalf.

An email from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to Anthony Fauci
Fauci discusses his response to Zuckerberg in an email to another NIAID official

“It would be great if you could tweet to your many Twitter followers,” he responded to Fairchild. “The American public should not be frightened, but should be prepared to mitigate an outbreak in this country by measures including social distancing, teleworking, temporary closure of schools, etc.”

An email from Morgan Fairchild to Anthony Fauci

The emails show Fauci received a flurry of correspondence about the theory that coronavirus leaked from a lab in Wuhan. One such email sent to Fauci on April 16, 2020 by Francis Collins, the director of the National Institute of Health, under the subject line “conspiracy gains momentum” contained a link to a news story highlighting a Fox News report that said the allegation had merit. Fauci’s response to Collins is entirely blacked out.

The records also lay bare Fauci’s ambivalence toward his newfound celebrity status but also his embrace of a documentary crew who would tell his story. Additionally, the emails hint at the personal toll this past year has taken on him. In one email sent on Feb. 18, weeks before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, he wrote that he had only been able to see his wife for 45 minutes in the previous 10 days.

Fauci, who has been director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, declined to comment for this story.

Some of the emails were reviewed by the Trump White House before being turned over to BuzzFeed News. They represent just a portion of what was requested, and they are filled with redactions, making them an incomplete record of the time period and Fauci’s correspondence. Additional tranches are expected to be released in the coming months.

However, the emails do give a sense of the type of communicator Fauci is: courteous, low-key, and empathetic. He politely interacts with the office assistants who help him with his correspondence, and he sweats over the proper way to let people down.

When a White House fellow and physician emails Fauci and offers to team up to write an opinion piece on the coronavirus and “unite the nation,” the NIAID director asks a colleague, “How do we nicely say no to this person?”

And when health professionals write him with harsh criticism of Trump’s handling of the pandemic, he doesn’t take the bait. Instead, he replies with a “thank you.”

An email from Dr. Fauci asking "How do we nicely say no to this person?"

His tone is a mix of friendly and formal, employing phrases like “let us discuss,” “many thanks,” and — in rare displays of displeasure — a delicate “yikes!” He signs off as “Tony.”

Even though he tends to sidestep controversy, Fauci does defend his decisions and push back.

In March 2020, Fauci and a few other colleagues received an email from Gregg Gonsalves, a prominent Yale School of Public Health epidemiologist, urging the NIAID director and his team to act promptly on the virus. The subject line was “We Are Desperate for Advice.”

“For those I know, I don’t doubt your commitment to public service,” Gonsalves wrote. “But time is running out. We need vocally, unequivocal leadership now, that offers real guidance to communities about what to do, what might happen next.”

An email from Gregg Gonsalves to Fauci and other officials at the CDC, NIAID, and NIH

Fauci clearly resented any implication that his health team’s response was being shaped by the political values of the Trump administration, and he responded curtly three hours later.

“Gregg: I am surprised you included me in your note,” he wrote. “I genuflect to no one but science and always, always speak my mind when it comes to public health. I have consistently corrected misstatements by others and will continue to do so.”

Fauci's response to Gonsalves
A followup email from Gonsalves

Fauci, 80, has tackled the world’s most difficult health crises and infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and Zika, earning respect in his field and the trust of many Americans. As the COVID-19 crisis deepened, his inbox filled with queries from people seeking guidance, solace, or morsels of medical advice.

On March 4, under the subject line “A humble request for your wisdom,” a woman wrote to Fauci and asked whether a person inoculated against pneumonia would be protected against COVID-19.

One hour later, at 9:45 p.m. on a Wednesday, Fauci replied that complications from COVID-19 are “heavily skewed” toward people who are older or have underlying conditions. He went into a lengthy explanation:

“Most of the pneumonias are pure viral pneumonia and so this vaccination will not help that,” he wrote. “However, on the chance that you have a pure viral pneumonia that gets secondarily complicated by a bacterial pneumonia (pneumococcal) the vaccine would be beneficial.

“If you are 65 years of age or older, you should get pneumonvax23 anyway regardless of the risk of coronavirus infection. Thanks, Tony.”

Five minutes later, the woman wrote back, “Oh my god. … I honestly never expected you to reply and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for being so generous!”

Some writers emailed mainly to vent. Among them: a Florida infectious disease specialist who was upset that some Americans were not taking proper precautions.

“I am putting my life on the line so folks can go pump iron, drink beer, have a burger and get a tan,” Doug Brust emailed Fauci on March 18.

“The band is playing on. Again,” Brust wrote, a reference to one of the most famous books of the AIDS epidemic, And the Band Played On, which exposed the hapless efforts of the government and the public medical establishment to address the health crisis.

Fauci's reply to Doug Brust

And reporters, of course, reached out with questions for the doctor considered the country’s foremost expert. One email exchange, however, shows how even Fauci couldn’t see all that was coming.

Just a day after the first reported COVID-19 death in the United States, the managing editor of ABC News’ medical unit emailed Fauci and asked him if he agreed with what a source at the Department of Homeland Security told him: that epidemiology models showed that 98 million people could be infected with COVID-19 and deaths from the virus could reach 500,000.

“That seems exceptionally high,” Fauci responded.

His guidance was not always welcomed by his own bosses at the White House. He faced a wide range of harassment, including angry tweets from Trump that questioned his expertise.

Those conflicts also get referenced in the emails. In April, a top Chinese health official emailed Fauci about vaccines. As part of that thread, the official expressed concern about him “being attacked by some people.”

“Thank you for your kind note. All is well despite some crazy people in this world,” Fauci replied.

Even as he gained enemies and roused critics, many of the emails also reflect his growing stature around the world.

“Dear — highly respected — Dr. Fauci,” a doctor from Austria writes in bolded text. “Why do I try to childishly support a respected expert and personally highly honored Gentleman like you — Dr. Fauxi? Because for me — it is heartbreaking and unbelievably disturbing, what was and is going on of the last 4 months in the USA.”

He goes on to lay out a strategy for nations to cope with the devastating effects of the pandemic.

“Not a crazy note. Please respond on my behalf,” Fauci writes to a staff member.

On May 5, 2020, Mary Harris, an NIAID employee, wrote: “I am grateful to say my Director is Dr. Anthony Fauci and share with my family, friends, and church that if you said it, it’s gospel.”

Along the way, the scientist was becoming a celebrity. Just a couple of months into the pandemic, T-shirts, bobbleheads, socks, and even prayer candles with his face plastered on them were being sold. Fauci’s emails show he was clearly uncomfortable with the attention.

“Click on the ‘Cuomo Crush’ and ‘Fauci Fever’ link below. It will blow your mind. Our society is really totally nuts,” Fauci wrote in an April 8, 2020, email he forwarded to undisclosed recipients after he received a Google alert about news stories mentioning his name.

The previous month, a colleague had emailed Fauci a Washington Post article headlined “Fauci Socks, Fauci Doughnuts, Fauci Fan Art: The Coronavirus Experts Attract a Cult Following.” The top of the article tells the story of a Rochester, New York, shop that had sold out of donuts with Fauci’s face on them.

“Truly surrealistic,” Fauci wrote. “Hopefully this all stops soon.” Later, he added: “It is not at all pleasant, that is for sure.”

But it didn’t stop, and, at times, Fauci actually couldn’t help but get a kick out of it, including when Brad Pitt played him on Saturday Night Live.

“One reviewer of the SNL show said that Pitt looked ‘exactly like me.’ That statement made my year, ” Fauci wrote to a colleague.

The emails also reveal behind-the-scenes negotiations over a documentary about Fauci’s work. He first sent a note to his team about the project on April 12, a month after the World Health Organization had declared the coronavirus a pandemic.

“Let us discuss this tomorrow before we do anything. No one has any ‘exclusives’ on anything about me,” he wrote to his team.

Still, there is little in his correspondence that strays from the central issues: the pandemic and how best to save lives. His exchanges with Ezekiel Emanuel, the former Obama health adviser, reflect the high stakes.

Emanuel, an oncologist, bioethicist, and vice provost of the University of Pennsylvania, sent Fauci an email on Feb. 25, 2020, asking for an updated assessment of the virus and noting that he was having a “hard time seeing this as serious as everyone else.”

“Am I blind? Yes very transmissible but low mortality like flu in many ways – the elderly, those with comorbidities, and total impact is likely to be less than flu,” Emanuel wrote.

Later, in April, Emanuel sent Fauci an email saying he was “perplexed” by his “seeming strong endorsement” of the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat COVID-19.

“Was it just a bit forced?” Emanuel asked. “My reading was the data was weak and in normal times for normal disease it is not enough to approve. And very unlikely to really impact COVID-19 disease pattern–regardless of supply issues.”

Fauci countered: “I did not ‘strongly’ endorse it. I specifically said it was not a knockout drug and was only a baby step in the direction of developing more and better drugs. I said that it was important because it proved in a well-powered, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that one can suppress the virus enough to see a clinical effect, as modest as the effect was. I do not think I forced anything.”

The next day, Emanuel sent another email, apologizing for misinterpreting Fauci’s comments about the drug and inviting him over for dinner “on the porch.”

“You are a national — international — treasure. And we are depending on your sanity and smarts.”

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
But we’re underfunded for June, when we have heavy annual bills to pay for the websites, not counting the countless hours of work. Next target would be adding new features and plugins to the website and better equipment for faster work and more complex video productions.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

Right off the bat:

Detection and comparative analysis of persistent measles virus infection in Crohn’s disease by immunogold electron microscopy
Daszak, Peter, Purcell, Matthew, Lewin, Jackie, Dhillon, Amar P, Pounder, Roy E and Wakefield, Andrew J (1997) Detection and comparative analysis of persistent measles virus infection in Crohn’s disease by immunogold electron microscopy. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 50(4), pp. 299-304. ISSN (print) 0021-9746
Official URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9215145

AFTER THAT, HE GOT 77 NOBEL PRIZES AND 31 MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS TO BACK HIS AND FAUCI’S GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

BONUS BOMBSHELL: CLICK HERE TO WATCH DASZAK AND HIS WUHAN TEAM ADMITTING THEY WENT THERE FOR COLLABORATION, NOT INSPECTION

Click here for a video version of this report, with some extra-spice and less cheese

Peter Daszak – who donated to Hillary Clinton 13 times in 2016 – serves as the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a research organization that has partnered with the Wuhan Institue of Virology (WIV) – the very same lab many count as the source of COVID-19.

The type of research conducted by the group in tandem with the WIV prompted concern among National Institutes of Health officials for its role in COVID-related research, as outlined in a letter by NIH’s Deputy Director for Extramural Research Dr. Michael Lauer.

Dr. Lauer announced the suspension of NIH grants to the group, which saw its studies engineer the “highly specific doorway into the human body” as COVID-19, as a response:

“It is our understanding that one of the sub-recipients of the grant funds is the Wuhan Institute of Virology (‘WIV’). It is our understanding that WIV studies the interaction between corona viruses and bats. The scientific community believes that the coronavirus causing COVID-19 jumped from bats to humans likely in Wuhan where the COVID-19 pandemic began. There are now allegations that the current crisis was precipitated by the release from WIV of the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. Given these concerns, we are pursuing suspension of WIV from participation in Federal programs.”

Chinese State Media.

While speaking at a conference sponsored by state-run media outlet China Global Television Network (CGTN), Daszak also revealed that he was a recipient of Chinese Communist Party cash.

He revealed he “has been working in China in collaboration with Chinese scientists and the government of China for over 15 years supported by federal funding from the U.S. and federal funding from China.”

Daszak has praised and attended the Beijing-based World Conference on Science Literacy, which is sponsored by the scientific group China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) that “serves as a bridge that links the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government to the country’s science and technology community.”

He has also appeared on panels at a CGTN-sponsored conference in cooperation with the Chinese Society for Science and Technology Journalism, a subsidiary of CAST.
.

The zoologist obtained his Ph.D. in parasitic infectious diseases from the University of East London – a college ranked 116th of 130 in the country. 

He has repeatedly appeared on CGTN, including praising the network as “fantastic” and “great” and defending scientific collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party as “important”

EcoHealth Alliance, Daszak’s nonprofit group, routed $600,000 in taxpayer funds to the WIV in form of subgrants as part of a project to study bat-based coronaviruses in China, funding that was terminated by the National Institutes of Health in May 2020.

From the onset of the pandemic, Daszak has denied he has a conflict of interest with the WIV, a claim that Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard H. Ebright said in April was a “brazen lie.

The WHO has defended its decision to appoint Daszak to the investigation of its COVID-9 origins despite accusations that his involvement mires the probe with major conflict of interests.

The WHO investigative panel shelved plans last week to release an interim report detailing how it concluded that it was “extremely unlikely” that COVID-19 could have accidentally leaked from the WIV. ”

Despite working at the onset of the pandemic to suppress debate on the lab leak theory, Daszak said former White House strategist Steve Bannon and the Chinese Falun Gong religious sect, which financially backs the Epoch Times newspaper and faces persecution from the Chinese Communist Party, are the ones responsible for China’s decision to block an outside investigation of the pandemic’s origins for over a year after the initial outbreak.

“I’ve seen incredible efforts from everything from Falun Gong to … Steve Bannon’s group pushing the conspiracy theories around China,” Daszak said during Wednesday’s panel discussion. “It’s useful to them. They’re funding it and pushing it and science has been to some extent caught up in that to other instances absolutely crushed by it.”

“We’ve not had access to work in China on the origins for the last 12 months, which is ironic because we could have been on the ground there working with our Chinese colleagues and by now we could have found some really important answers,” he said. “The rhetoric has held that up.”

Life is good when you share the bill with both Wakefield and Fauci

MORE RESOURCES:

TRIPLE-BOMBSHELL ON #WUHAN: #FAUCI, #WHO AND #CCP INVOLVED IN GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH JUST PRIOR TO “PANDEMIC”

CCP-Linked Peter Daszak Has Long-Standing Relationship With “Incomparable” Dr. Fauci.

Trump Critic Doctor Donated To Hillary Clinton 13 Times In TWO MONTHS

WHO Investigator Peter Daszak Authored Over 20 CCP-Funded, Linked Studies.

NIH awards $7.5 million grant to EcoHealth Alliance, months after uproar over political interference

US Researcher With Chinese Ties Admits He Convinced WHO Team That Missing Wuhan Lab Data Was Irrelevant

Nobel laureates and science groups demand NIH review decision to kill coronavirus grant

By Science News Staff May. 21, 2020 , 6:40 PM

Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center.

Seventy-seven U.S. scientists who have won a Nobel Prize today asked Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, and Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, to “act urgently” to review a controversial NIH decision to terminate a grant that supported research into bat coronaviruses in China. NIH’s explanation for killing the grant was “preposterous,” the laureates write.

Thirty-one scientific societies have also written to Collins, calling on NIH “to be transparent about their decision-making process on this matter. … The action taken by the NIH must be immediately reconsidered.”

On 24 April, NIH informed the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, led by wildlife disease specialist Peter Daszak, that it was ending a grant, first awarded in 2014 and renewed in 2019 because it no longer aligned with the agency’s priorities. The move came after Conservative U.S. politicians and media suggested—without evidence—that the coronavirus causing the pandemic escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, that employs a Chinese virologist who had received funding from the grant. The termination also came 1 week after President Donald Trump, when asked about the project at a press conference, said: “We will end that grant very quickly.”

In their letter, the Nobel laureates say they “are gravely concerned” about that decision. “We believe that this action sets a dangerous precedent by interfering in the conduct of science and jeopardizes public trust in the process of awarding federal funds for research. … Now is precisely the time when we need to support this kind of research if we aim to control the pandemic and prevent subsequent ones.”

They write that “despite the high relevance of the studies to the current pandemic, and despite the very high priority score that his application for renewal had received during peer review, the NIH informed Dr. Daszak and his colleagues that the grant was being terminated because ‘NIH does not believe that the current project outcomes align with the program goals and agency priorities.’ Such explanations are preposterous under the circumstances.”

Azar and Collins should, they write, “act urgently to conduct and release a thorough review of the actions that led to the decision to terminate the grant, and that, following this review … take appropriate steps to rectify the injustices that may have been committed in revoking it.”

The signers of the letter include researchers who won a Nobel Prize as recently as 2019, and as long ago as 1975.

The letter from the scientific societies was organized by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). “Our aim with this effort is to stand up for a scientific enterprise that should be free of political influence on sound scientific research,” said Benjamin Corb, public affairs director for ASBMB, in a statement. “The continued politicization of science during this pandemic crisis is an alarming trend that is risking not only the integrity of science, but also the lives of citizens.

The Honorable Francis S. Collins
Director
National Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20892
May 20, 2020
Director Francis Collins:
We, the undersigned scientific organizations representing tens of thousands of members of the American biomedical research enterprise, are alarmed by the National Institutes of Health’s revocation of a peer-reviewed research grant for studies of coronaviruses by EcoHealth Alliance. Not only is this decision counterintuitive, given the urgent need to better understand the virus that causes COVID-19 and identify drugs that will save lives, but it politicizes science at a time when, if we are to stamp out this scourge, we need the public to trust
experts and to take collective action.
The foundation of the American biomedical research enterprise rests on two principles: international collaboration and a robust peer-review process. Both must be vigilantly upheld. The abrupt revocation of the NIH grant for the EcoHealth Alliance concerns us for two primary reasons:
First, the decision seems to be a reaction to a theory about the origins of the COVID-19 virus that the intelligence community itself has publicly repudiated. EcoHealth Alliance at one point collaborated with a lab in Wuhan, China, which has recently been at the center of rumors about the origin of the pandemic. The overall goal of EcoHealth Alliance’s research project is to study coronavirus transmission from species to species. But the purpose of the research project has been conflated with these rumors. This is worrisome. International collaboration has propelled the American research enterprise to achieve vital innovations and discoveries; it is the gold standard for the scientific community. The United States is a beacon for the best and brightest minds, consistently attracting top scientists from around the world. However, with this incident, international
collaboration is being portrayed as a threat. The scientific enterprise requires diversity, and American scientists depend on their international colleagues to pool resources, expertise, and ultimately make scientific breakthroughs.
Second, the decision sets a dangerous precedent by revoking a grant that was awarded based upon scientific merit without a justifiable rationale such as issues related to scientific or financial fraud or misconduct. This grant is highly and uniquely relevant to all NIAID priorities to address the current COVID-19 pandemic. Most extramural research funds are awarded through a robust peer-review process. Scientists, not politicians, determine the merit of grant applications, and grant recipients are expected to be careful stewards of taxpayer
dollars. Throughout the lifetime of a grant, each recipient communicates regularly with scientific review officers at the funding agency and produces progress reports providing evidence that the work remains valuable and on
track. This has been the norm and until April 24, 2020 was applied to the now terminated grant. That has now been breached and this action must not become the norm going forward.
The scientific community urges federal funding agencies and policymakers to ensure the transparency, openness, and collaborative nature of the American biomedical research enterprise. We call on the NIH to be transparent about their decision-making process on this matter. We urge federal funding agencies to safeguard the American biomedical research enterprise. The action taken by the NIH must be immediately reconsidered.
Respectfully,
The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
The Academy for Radiology and Biomedical Imaging Research
The American Association for Anatomy
The American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Physiological Society
The American Psychological Association
The American Society for Investigative Pathology
The American Society for Virology
The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
The Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology Chairs
The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities
The Association of Medical and Graduate Departments of Biochemistry
The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health
The Biophysical Society
The Botanical Society of America
The Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences
The Endocrine Society
The Entomological Society of America
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
The Genetics Society of America
The HIV Medicine Association
The Infectious Diseases Society of America
The Natural Science Collections Alliance
The North American Vascular Biology Organization
The Shock Society
The Society for Freshwater Science
The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
The Society for the Study of Reproduction
The Society of Toxicology

Download original PDF

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
But we’re underfunded for June, when we have heavy annual bills to pay for the websites, not counting the countless hours of work. Next target would be adding new features and plugins to the website and better equipment for faster work and more complex video productions.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

If you’re familiar with our reports, George Church is no stranger to you either. He’s a founder figure for the Human Genome Project, CRISPR and The BRAIN Initiative. But he’s totally not getting the deserved attention, seeing that he’s just turned our world upside down. Not by himself, of course.

Remember when Fauci and Big Tech joined efforts to keep us in the dark in regards to the mRNA impact on our genetics and DNA?


We’ve shown that there’s an entire new field of science that does just that: argues what Fauci said using RNA to reprogram DNA.
But we’ve just reached a deeper level of the rabbit hole that we didn’t even know it’s there already. It’s been there for a while. As in 2020 minus “three years of stealth operations”. If you read carefully below, it will all make much more sense.

George M. Church biography as per Harvard website

Professor at Harvard & MIT, co-author of 580 papers, 143 patent publications & the book “Regenesis”; developed methods used for the first genome sequence (1994) & million-fold cost reductions since (via fluor-NGS & nanopores), plus barcoding, DNA assembly from chips, genome editing, writing & recoding; co-initiated BRAIN Initiative (2011) & Genome Projects (GP-Read-1984, GP-Write-2016, PGP-2005:world’s open-access personal precision medicine datasets); machine learning for protein engineering, tissue reprogramming, organoids, xeno-transplantation, in situ 3D DNA, RNA, protein imaging.

SEE MORE

George Church is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Director of  PersonalGenomes.org, which provides the world’s only open-access information on human Genomic, Environmental & Trait data (GET). His 1984 Harvard PhD included the first methods for direct genome sequencing, molecular multiplexing & barcoding. These led to the first genome sequence (pathogen, Helicobacter pylori) in  1994 . His innovations have contributed to nearly all “next generation” DNA sequencing methods and companies (CGI-BGI, Life, Illumina, Nanopore). This plus his lab’s work on chip-DNA-synthesis, gene editing and stem cell engineering resulted in founding additional application-based companies spanning fields of medical diagnostics ( Knome/PierianDxAlacrisAbVitro/JunoGenosVeritas Genetics ) & synthetic biology / therapeutics ( JouleGen9EditasEgenesisenEvolvWarpDrive ). He has also pioneered new privacybiosafetyELSIenvironmental & biosecurity policies. He is director of an IARPA BRAIN Project and NIH Center for Excellence in Genomic Science. His honors include election to NAS & NAE & Franklin Bower Laureate for Achievement in Science. He has coauthored 537 papers156 patent publications & one book (Regenesis).

THIS IS BGI
THIS IS ILLUMINA

PhD students from (* = main training programs for our group):
Harvard University: Biophysics* , BBS* , MCB , ChemBio* , SystemsBio* , Virology
MIT: HST*ChemistryEE/CSPhysicsMath.
Boston Universty: BioinformaticsBiomedical Engineering
Cambridge University, UK: Genetics

PublicationsCVs-resumesLab members , Co-author netELSI
Technology transfer & Commercial Scientific Advisory Roles
Personal info — News — Awards — Grant proposals
Director of Research Centers: DOE-Biotechnologies (1987), NIH-CEGS (2004), PGP (2005), Lipper Center for Computational Genetics (1998), Wyss Inst. Synthetic Biology (2009). Other centers: Regenesis Inst. (2017), SIAT Genome Engineering (2019), Space Genetics (2016), WICGR, Broad Inst. (1990), MIT Media Lab (2014)

Updated: 15-Jan-02021

The BRAIN initiative[edit]

He was part of a team of six[80] who, in a 2012 scientific commentary, proposed a Brain Activity Map, later named BRAIN Initiative (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies).[81] They outlined specific experimental techniques that might be used to achieve what they termed a “functional connectome“, as well as new technologies that will have to be developed in the course of the project,[80] including wireless, minimally invasive methods to detect and manipulate neuronal activity, either utilizing microelectronics or synthetic biology. In one such proposed method, enzymatically produced DNA would serve as a “ticker tape record” of neuronal activity.Wikipedia

SEE THE NAZI ORIGINS OF WYSS HERE

Wyss Institute Will Lead IARPA-Funded Brain Mapping Consortium

January 26, 2016

(BOSTON) — The Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University today announced a cross-institutional consortium to map the brain’s neural circuits with unprecedented fidelity. The consortium is made possible by a $21 million contract from the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) and aims to discover the brain’s learning rules and synaptic ‘circuit design’, further helping to advance neurally-derived machine learning algorithms.

The consortium will leverage the Wyss Institute’s FISSEQ (fluorescent in-situ sequencing) method to push forward neuronal connectomics, the science of identifying the neuronal cells that work together to bring about specific brain functions. FISSEQ was developed in 2014 by the Wyss Core Faculty member George Church and colleagues and, unlike traditional sequencing technologies, it provides a method to pinpoint the precise locations of specific RNA molecules in intact tissue. The consortium will harness this FISSEQ capability to accurately trace the complete set of neuronal cells and their connecting processes in intact brain tissue over long distances, which is currently difficult to do with other methods.

Awarded a competitive IARPA MICrONS contract, the consortium will further the overall goals of President Obama’s BRAIN initiative, which aims to improve the understanding of the human mind and uncover new ways to treat neuropathological disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, autism and epilepsy. The consortium’s work will fundamentally innovate the technological framework used to decipher the principal circuits neurons use to communicate and fulfill specific brain functions. The learnings can be applied to enhance artificial intelligence in different areas of machine learning such as fraud detection, pattern and image recognition, and self-driving car decision making.

See how the Wyss-developed FISSEQ technology is able to capture the location of individual RNA molecules within cells, which will allow the reconstruction of neuronal networks in the 3-dimensional space of intact brain tissue. Credit: Wyss Institute at Harvard University

“Historically, the mapping of neuronal paths and circuits in the brain has required brain tissue to be sectioned and visualized by electron microscopy. Complete neurons and circuits are then reconstructed by aligning the individual electron microsope images, this process is costly and inaccurate due to use of only one color (grey),” said Church, who is the Principal Investigator for the IARPA MICrONs consortium. “We are taking an entirely new approach to neuronal connectomics_immensely colorful barcodes_that should overcome this obstacle; and by integrating molecular and physiological information we are looking to render a high-definition map of neuronal circuits dedicated first to specific sensations, and in the future to behaviors and cognitive tasks.”

Church is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT.

To map neural connections, the consortium will genetically engineer mice so that each neuron is barcoded throughout its entire structure with a unique RNA sequence, a technique called BOINC (Barcoding of Individual Neuronal Connections) developed by Anthony Zador at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Thus a complete map representing the precise location, shape and connections of all neurons can be generated.

The key to visualizing this complex map will be FISSEQ, which is able to sequence the total complement of barcodes and pinpoint their exact locations using a super-resolution microscope. Importantly, since FISSEQ analysis can be applied to intact brain tissue, the error-prone brain-sectioning procedure that is part of common mapping studies can be avoided and long neuronal processes can be more accurately traced in larger numbers and at a faster pace.

In addition, the scientists will provide the barcoded mice with a sensory stimulus, such as a flash of light, to highlight and glean the circuits corresponding to that stimulus within the much more complex neuronal map. An improved understanding of how neuronal circuits are composed and how they function over longer distances will ultimately allow the team to build new models for machine learning.

The multi-disciplinary consortium spans 6 institutions. In addition to Church, the Wyss Institute’s effort will be led by Samuel Inverso, Ph.D., who is a Staff Software Engineer and Co-investigator of the project. Complementing the Wyss team, are co-Principal Investigators Anthony Zador, Ph.D., Alexei Koulakov, Ph.D., and Jay Lee, Ph.D., at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Adam Marblestone, Ph.D., and Liam Paninski, Ph.D. are co-Investigator at MIT and co-Principal Investigator at Columbia University, respectively. The Harvard-led consortium is partnering with another MICrONS team led by Tai Sing Lee, Ph.D. of Carnegie Mellon University as Principal investigator under a separate multi-million contract, with Sandra Kuhlman, Ph.D. of Carnegie Mellon University and Alan Yuille, Ph.D. of Johns Hopkins University as co-Principal investigators, to develop computational models of the neural circuits and a new generation of machine learning algorithms by studying the behaviors of a large population of neurons in behaving animals, as well as the circuitry of the these neurons revealed by the innovative methods developed by the consortium.

“It is very exciting to see how technology developed at the Wyss Institute is now becoming instrumental in showing how specific brain functions are wired into the neuronal architecture. The methodology implemented by this research can change the trajectory of brain mapping world wide,” said Wyss Institute Founding Director Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D., who is also the Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Medical School and the Vascular Biology Program at Boston Children’s Hospital and Professor of Bioengineering at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. – WYSS Institute

IARPA is CIA’s DARPA.
DARPA IS RAN BY PENTAGON AND IARPA BY CIA.
IARPA IS EVEN MORE SECRETIVE, DARING AND SOCIOPATHIC.

Machine Intelligence from Cortical Networks (MICrONS)

Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA)

Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies. (BRAIN)

Background
The science behind Obama’s BRAIN project. (BrainFacts, 15Apr-2013 | Jean-François Gariépy)
Wyss Institute Will Lead IARPA-Funded Brain Mapping Consortium (Wyss, 26-Jan-2016 |)
Project Aims to Reverse-engineer Brain Algorithms, Make Computers Learn Like Humans (Scientific Computing, 4-Feb-2016 | Byron Spice)
The U.S. Government Launches a $100-Million “Apollo Project of the Brain” (Scientific American, 8-Mar-2016 | Jordana Cepelewicz)

Grant Proposal
Tasks 2 & 3 PDF Harvard, Wyss, CSHL, MIT.
Task 1. CMU.


Molecular TickertapeRelated Projects:

Full Rosetta brains in situ
A. Activity (MICrONS = Ca imaging) (Alternative=Tickertape, see figure to right)
B. Behavior (MICrONS & Alt = traditional video)
C. Connectome (MICrONS & Alt = BOINC via Cas9-barcode)
D. Developmental Lineage (via Cas9-barcode)
E. Expression (RNA & Protein via FISSEQ)

Building brain components, circuits and organoids.
Busskamp V, Lewis NE, Guye P, Ng AHM, Shipman S, Byrne SS, Sanjana NE, Li Y, Weiss R, Church GM (2014)
Rapid neurogenesis through transcriptional activation in human stem cells. Molecular Systems Biology MSB 10:760:1-21

SOURCE

Flagship Pioneering’s Scientists Invent a New Category of Genome Engineering Technology: Gene Writing

Tessera Therapeutics emerges from three years of stealth operations to pioneer Gene Writing™ as a new genome engineering technology and category of genetic medicine

(PRNewsfoto/Flagship Pioneering)

NEWS PROVIDED BY Flagship Pioneering 

Jul 07, 2020, 08:00 ET


CAMBRIDGE, Mass., July 7, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Flagship Pioneering today announced the unveiling of Tessera Therapeutics, Inc. a new company with the mission of curing disease by writing in the code of life. Tessera is pioneering Gene Writing™, a new biotechnology that writes therapeutic messages into the genome to treat diseases at their source.

Tessera’s Gene Writing platform is a potentially revolutionary breakthrough for genetic medicine that addresses key limitations of gene therapy and gene editing. Gene Writing technology can alter the genome by efficiently inserting genes and exons (parts of genes), introducing small insertions and deletions, or changing single or multiple DNA base pairs. The technology could enable cures for diseases that arise from errors in the genome, including monogenic disorders. It could also allow precise gene regulation in other diseases such as neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune disorders, and metabolic diseases.

“While profound advancements in genetic medicine over the last two decades had therapeutic promise for many previously untreatable diseases, the intrinsic properties of existing gene therapy and editing have significant shortcomings that limit their benefits to patients,” says Noubar Afeyan, Ph.D., founder and CEO of Flagship Pioneering and Chairman of Tessera Therapeutics. “Our scientists have invented a new technology, called Gene Writing, that has the ability to write therapeutic messages into the genomes of somatic cells. We created Tessera to pioneer its applications for medicine. However, the breakthrough is broad and could be applied to many different genomes from humans to plants to microorganisms.”

A New Era of Genetic Medicine

Geoffrey von Maltzahn, Ph.D., an MIT-trained biological engineer; Jacob Rubens, Ph.D., an MIT-trained synthetic biologist; and other scientists at Flagship Labs, the enterprise’s innovation foundry, co-founded Tessera in 2018 to create a platform that could design, make, and launch Gene Writing medicines. A General Partner at Flagship Pioneering, von Maltzahn has co-founded numerous biotechnology companies, including Sana Biotechnology, Indigo Agriculture, Kaleido Biosciences, Seres Therapeutics, and Axcella Health.

“DNA codes for life. But sometimes our DNA is written improperly, driving an enormous variety of diseases,” says von Maltzahn, Tessera’s Chief Executive Officer. “We started Tessera Therapeutics with a simple question: ‘What if Nature evolved a better solution than CRISPR for inserting curative therapeutic messages into the genome?’ It turns out that engineered and synthetic mobile genetic elements offer the potential to go beyond the limitations of gene editing technologies and allow Gene Writing. Our outstanding team of scientists is focused on bringing the vast promise of this new technology category to patients.”

Mobile genetic elements, the inspiration for Gene Writing, are evolution’s greatest genomic architect. The first mobile genetic element was discovered by Barbara McClintock, who won the 1983 Nobel Prize for revealing the mobile nature of genes. Mobile genetic elements code for the machinery to move or copy themselves into a new location in the genome, and they have been selected over billions of years to autonomously and efficiently “write” their DNA into new genomic sites. Today, mobile genetic elements are among the most abundant and ubiquitous genes in nature.

Over the past two years, Tessera has been mining genomes to discover novel mobile genetic elements and engineering them to create Gene Writing technology.

Tessera’s Gene Writers write therapeutic messages into the genome using RNA or DNA templates. RNA-based Gene Writing uses an RNA template and Gene Writer protein to either write a new gene into the genome or guide the rewriting of a pre-existing genomic sequence to make a small substitution, insertion, or deletion. DNA-based Gene Writing uses a DNA template to write a new gene into the genome.

By harnessing the biology of mobile genetic elements, Gene Writing holds the potential to overcome the limitations of current genetic medicine approaches by:

  • Efficiently writing small and large alterations to the genome of somatic cells with minimal reliance upon host DNA repair pathways, unlike nuclease-based gene editing technologies.
  • Permanently adding new DNA to dividing cells, unlike AAV-based gene therapy technologies.
  • Writing new DNA sequences into the genome by delivering only RNA.
  • Allowing repeated administration of treatments to patients in order to dose genetic medicines to effect, which is not possible with current gene therapies.

Tessera has licensed Flagship Pioneering’s intellectual property estate, which was begun in 2018 with seminal patent filings supporting both RNA and DNA Gene Writing technologies.

Tessera’s Scientific Advisory Board includes Luigi Naldini, David Schaffer, Andrew Scharenberg, Nancy Craig, George Church, Jonathan Weissman, and John Moran, who collectively have decades of experience in developing gene therapies and gene editing technologies, and also have commercial expertise from 4D, UniQure, Casebia, Cellectis, Magenta, and Editas. Tessera’s Board of Directors includes John Mendlein, Flagship Executive Partner and former CEO of multiple companies; Melissa Moore, Chair of Tessera’s Scientific Advisory Board, Chief Scientific Officer of Moderna, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and founding co-director of the RNA Therapeutics Institute; Geoffrey von Maltzahn; and Noubar Afeyan. The 30-person R&D team at Tessera has deep genetic medicine and startup expertise, including alumni from Editas, Intellia, Beam, Casebia, and Moderna.

About Tessera Therapeutics
Tessera Therapeutics is an early-stage life sciences company pioneering Gene Writing™, a new biotechnology designed to offer scientists and doctors the ability to write and rewrite small and large therapeutic messages into the genome, thereby curing diseases at their source. Gene Writing holds the potential to become a new category in genetic medicine, building upon recent breakthroughs in gene therapy and gene editing, while eliminating important limitations in their reach, utilization and efficacy. Tessera Therapeutics was founded by Flagship Pioneering, a life sciences innovation enterprise that conceives, resources, and develops first-in-class category companies to transform human health and sustainability.

About Flagship Pioneering
Flagship Pioneering conceives, creates, resources, and develops first-in-category life sciences companies to transform human health and sustainability. Since its launch in 2000, the firm has applied a unique hypothesis-driven innovation process to originate and foster more than 100 scientific ventures, resulting in over $34 billion in aggregate value. To date, Flagship is backed by more than $4.4 billion of aggregate capital commitments, of which over $1.9 billion has been deployed toward the founding and growth of its pioneering companies alongside more than $10 billion of follow-on investments from other institutions. The current Flagship ecosystem comprises 41 transformative companies, including Axcella Health (NASDAQ: AXLA), Denali Therapeutics (NASDAQ: DNLI), Evelo Biosciences (NASDAQ: EVLO), Foghorn Therapeutics, Indigo Ag, Kaleido Biosciences (NASDAQ: KLDO), Moderna (NASDAQ: MRNA), Rubius Therapeutics (NASDAQ: RUBY), Sana Biotechnology, Seres Therapeutics (NASDAQ: MCRB), and Syros Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: SYRS). – Flagship Pioneering

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
But we’re underfunded for June, when we have heavy annual bills to pay for the websites, not counting the countless hours of work. Next target would be adding new features and plugins to the website and better equipment for faster work and more complex video productions.
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

UPDATE: LATER JOSH ROGIN APPEARANCE ON JOE ROGAN’S PODCAST

Washington Post’s Josh Rogin Calls Out Media for Ignoring Fauci’s Potential Connection to Wuhan Lab

Rudy Takala  April 25, 2021


Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin lamented the media’s refusal to discuss aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic, including Dr. Anthony Fauci’s potential connection to a Wuhan lab, in an interview with Megyn Kelly.

a man wearing a suit and tie: Anthony Fauci Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images© Provided by Mediaite Anthony Fauci Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

“This body of research, this gain-of-function research, the whole world of virologists … it’s very insular,” Rogin said in an interview on Kelly’s podcast. “I often talk to scientists who say the same thing, who say, ‘Listen, we really want to speak out about this, but we can’t do it.’ Why can’t we do it? Well, We get all of our funding from NIH, or NIAID, which is run by Dr. Fauci. … And so we can’t say anything like ‘Oh, gain-of-function research might be dangerous, or it might have come from a lab, because we’re going to lose our careers, we’re going to lose our funding, we’re not going to be able to do our work.’

“Gain-of-function” research focuses on artificially enhancing the transmissibility of pathogens. In the five years prior to the coronavirus pandemic, that research was spearheaded in China by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Fauci has led since 1984, oversees funding for most of the related research in America. The agency falls under the National Institutes of Health, which Rogin referenced.

“The head of the funding, the head of the entire field, really, is Anthony Fauci,” Rogin said. “He’s the godfather of gain-of-function research as we know it. That, what I said right there, is too hot for TV, because people don’t want to think about the fact that our hero of the pandemic … might also have been connected to this research, which might also have been connected to the outbreak.

“The problem is not that they were doing something wrong or illegal,” he noted. “The problem is that nobody knows what this legal stuff was that was going on. And now, all of a sudden, we have to take a look at it.”

Fauci has inspired critics in some quarters for his role in approving a $3.7 million grant to the Wuhan lab in 2015 to engage in related research, which came just a year after the Obama administration issued a moratorium on conducting such research in the U.S.

Rogin claimed in a book published last month that sources informed him China engaged in that research more aggressively than was previously understood, arguing that it contributed to evidence the Covid-19 pandemic stemmed from the lab in Wuhan.

“The Wuhan Institute of Virology had openly participated in gain-of-function research in partnership with U.S. universities and institutions,” Rogin noted in the book. “But [an] official told me the U.S. government had evidence that Chinese labs were performing gain-of-function research on a much larger scale than was publicly disclosed, meaning they were taking more risks in more labs than anyone outside China was aware of. This insight, in turn, fed into the lab-accident hypothesis in a new and troubling way.”

Rogin expanded on that statement in his interview with Kelly, saying, “Dr. Fauci, the hero of the pandemic, might also have had a role in the research that may have caused the pandemic.”

“People can’t get it through their heads, but that’s the reality,” he added, before lamenting that the topic was largely absent from public dialogue. “We don’t have a media environment where we can have that kind of discussion.”

Listen above via The Megyn Kelly Show.
The post Washington Post’s Josh Rogin Calls Out Media for Ignoring Fauci’s Potential Connection to Wuhan Lab first appeared on Mediaite, but we picked it up from Microsoft News.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
But we’re underfunded for June, when we have heavy annual bills to pay for the websites, not counting the countless hours of work. Next target would be adding new features and plugins to the website and better equipment for faster work and more complex video productions.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

This is a corroboration of a few recent reports from various news outlets in India and external sources. We face another grave under-reported fact in a “top-shelf authoritative source” CV. Or CR. The ramifications are vast.
We have much more of these to disclose in the near future.

<< India has asked the American frontline public health agency, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop funding virus research studies in the country. CDC was caught funding Karnataka’s Manipal Center for Virus Research (MCVR) for secretly carrying out research on the lethal Nipah virus – a pathogen considered potential bioweapon. The fact that an under-qualified private laboratory was secretly handling a dangerous virus under government’s nose at the behest of a foreign agency has raised major concerns within the health ministry apparatus.

The matter is more complicated with the fact that the CDC has a checkered history in India. The Indian defense establishment believes that the CDC was involved in the plague outbreak in the western Indian city of Surat in 1994, which they consider to be a case of bioterrorism. Earlier in February this year the Indian government launched an investigation into another secret research being conducted on bat hunters in the eastern Indian state of Nagaland, funded by the US Department of Defense in collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

CDC put on Watchlist

A $3.6 million donation from Atlanta-based US health agency CDC to Indian research agencies for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic has been put on hold by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The CDC has been placed on the watchlist since December 2019 for its involvement in funding virus research without government’s approval.

The Nipah research fiasco that came into light in October last year was the primary reason behind the MHA decision. As of now, any funding or donation from the U.S government body CDC would be first cleared by the MHA itself. They can no longer send funds directly to any government or private institution in India without MHA’s clearance.

No translation availables, sorry!

CDC secretly funds risky virus research in India

In October 2019, Hindustan Times reported that the Union health ministry wrote to both CDC and Manipal Center for Virus Research, ordering them to shut down the study related to Nipah virus that belongs to Risk Group 4 (RG4) classification. The RG4 viruses are considered highly dangerous and have no treatment or vaccine. They can only be tested in BSL4 lab which is the highest level of biological safety. The health ministry was upset that a study related to high risk pathogens like Nipah was being carried out at MCVR which is BSL2+ level facility.

A memorandum sent out by the health ministry said:

“It has been brought to our notice that CDC had trained MCVR for diagnosis of Nipah virus disease (NIV) in spite of the known fact that NIV is BSL 4 level pathogen whereas MCVR is a level BSL2+lab. Prior to this training to MCVR, CDC has not consulted national/govt agencies as per norm. Since Nipah is a high risk pathogen with potential for being used as agent of bio-terrorism the samples were to be handled more carefully and tested only in a BSL4.”

While CDC admitted that the training program didn’t have the necessary approval due to some confusion, it maintained that they did not commission the research directly. “The training was done through the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) and was aimed at strengthening laboratory systems in India which allowed for detection of Nipah virus.”

Manipal Center of Virus Research collaboration with US CDC
International collaborations of Manipal Center of Virus Research

CDC has partnered with MCVR to carry out illness surveillance across India under the project known as AFI surveillance which tracks mysterious diseases in the government hospitals. The Indian government has now asked both agencies to stop the surveillance project. It also warned CDC to ensure all funding is approved by the government.

In its defence, MCVR denied carrying out any risky virus isolation work at their lab. Dr. Arunkumar, Director of MCVR, said:

“We did not take approval from HMSC. Prior to testing, MCVR inactivated the virus. Inactivation of the virus was carried out in BSL3 facility at MCVR. Once inactivated, the virus cannot spread. Molecular testing was carried at MCVR in its BSL2 facility. No Nipah virus sample was transferred from MCVR to any other lab (except NIV Pune) within and outside the country.”

Investigation on secret research on Bat Hunters

This is not the first time a dangerous research took place in India without keeping the government in loop. Back in February this year, the officials confirmed to that foreign funded researchers were conducting study on bats and bat hunters (humans) in the northeastern state of Nagaland. Bats are known to often carry viruses such as ebola, SARS coronavirus, rabies,etc.

What’s more alarming was that two of the 12 researchers belonged to the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Department of Emerging Infectious Diseases – the same institute from where COVID-19 outbreak is believed to have originated. The Nagaland study was funded by the United States Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction agency (DTRA).

The results of the study were published in October last year in the PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases journal, originally established by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

To conduct a high-risk study in India, they would have needed special permissions from the Indian authorities which was not sought by the parties involved in the study. The fact that scientists from foreign countries were allowed to handle live samples of bats and bat hunters without permission prompted Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to send a five-member committee to investigate the matter.

Funding of controversial Gain-of-Function research

Even before the coronavirus outbreak, a number of controversial studies were being carried out at China’s Wuhan lab under the patronage of United States’ National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of the studies is the gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses which involves mutating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans.

The gain-of-function research has been widely criticized by the scientists around the world due to the risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.

However, last year the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research. A total of $7.5 million of American tax dollars have been spent since 2014 for conducting GoF studies.

Role of CDC in Surat plague

The plague outbreak in the western Indian city of Surat in 1994 has been mired in controversy just as COVID-19. Around 55 people died and close to a half of the city of 1.2 million people fled Surat for fear of the plague and of being quarantined.

The origin of the outbreak is still a mystery. Indian defense establishment believes the 1994 Surat Plague is a case of bioterrorism. Numerous media outlets at the time reported the involvement of American CDC. It was suspected that the germ with an extra protein ring was developed by a CDC lab in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Thus it comes as no surprise that Indian authorities are taking no chances this time around with CDC, especially since the world is already under the grip of a virus pandemic and the role of CDC is increasingly being seen as suspicious. >> GGI

Additionally, The Week Magazine from India reported recently:

<< Did the novel coronavirus leak similarly through a worker in a biowar lab in Wuhan? The Washington Times, which is known for its CIA links, has raised the suspicion in an article quoting Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who has studied Chinese biowarfare.

Indian scientists would not rule out the possibility. The Wuhan lab, said Dr William Selvamurthy, a former chief controller of the Defence Research and Development Organisation who was in charge of the life science labs, could have been keeping the virus under BSL-4 (biosafety level-4)—the most secure condition for reseach. So, the possibility of someone having been infected from the lab and inadvertently spreading it could not be ruled out, said Selvamurthy.

The Wuhan Institute is officially acknowledged to be China’s most advanced virus research lab complex. China, a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) since 1985, had, in 1993, declared the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products as one of eight biowarfare research facilities covered by the BWC. Yet, last year’s US state department report on arms control compliance had accused China of working on military pathogens for offensive purposes. It said the US had concerns with respect to “Chinese military medical institutions’ toxin research and development because of the potential dual-use applications and their potential as a biological threat”.

China has maintained that the virus has originated from wild animals sold at a market in Wuhan. The lab under suspicion is just about 30km from the market. The virus has been identified as a virulent strain, much like any classical germ warfare strain—they were designed to be virulent initially, but quickly controllable. The idea, as a military scientist explained, was for the germ to be released in hostile territory to disable the enemy, but the territory would have to be quickly sanitised for your own forces to capture it.

During the 1994 plague outbreak in Surat and Beed, it was found that the germs had an extra protein ring which could only have been inserted artificially. Indian scientists had raised concerns about a US biowar experiment having gone awry. THE WEEK had carried reports giving details of germ war research being carried on in labs under the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta and about a newly developed germ detector being tested. The US embassy had denied the allegations. There were also reports that the Surat germ could have been developed in a lab in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

There have been rumours and reports in Chinese cybermedia in the last few days suggesting that the Wuhan outbreak could have been a US biowar attack. This, US officials consider, was an attempt to preempt charges that the new virus had escaped from the Wuhan lab, which had been in the crosshairs of the west especially after a team of Chinese virologists working in a lab in Winnipeg, Canada, unauthorisedly sent samples of some of the deadliest viruses on earth to China.” >> – The Week Mag

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
But we’re underfunded for June, when we have heavy annual bills to pay for the websites, not counting the countless hours of work. Next target would be adding new features and plugins to the website and better equipment for faster work and more complex video productions.
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

Under 15 U.S. Code § 3710c, federal researchers, whose work was patented and commercialized, receive royalties at the rate of at least 15% of what the US government receives from the licensees, capped at $150,000 per person, per year. NIH and CDC pay their scientists 25% (on amounts over $50,000). These royalties are paid even after the person leaves the government employment and continue after his or her death.

NIH, NIAID, or CDC researcher who contributed to the development of a novel drug or therapy, and was named as one of the inventors on a commercialized patent, may be entitled to $3 million in royalties over the 20-year lifespan of the patent. 

Federal agencies and laboratories, including NIH, NIAID, and CDC, are also encouraged to spread collected royalties among employees “who are not an inventor of such inventions but who substantially increased the technical value of such inventions”.

These royalties directly conflict with the main purposes of the National Institutes of Health and federal medical labs:

 – to have the ability and independence to honestly evaluate drugs developed by private pharma companies

 – to undertake research and development for which the private sector has no incentives.

NIH Scientists Caught Concealing Millions in Royalties for Experimental Treatments

Tue, 11 Jan 2005 / AP (Scrubbed off the Internet, but not entirely)

The Associated Press has uncovered evidence of scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health flagrantly disregarding ethical and legal requirements of financial disclosure: “In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government.”

According to records obtained by the AP, among the 51 NIH scientists currently involved in testing products for which they secretly receive royalties, are Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and his deputy, Dr. H. Clifford Lane who “have received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented [interleukin-2]. At the same time, their office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on patients across the globe.”

According to the AP, the government has licensed the commercial rights to interleukin-2 to Chiron Corp: “Fauci’s division subsequently has spent $36 million in taxpayer money testing the treatment on patients in one experiment alone. Known as the Esprit experiment, it is one of the largest AIDS research projects in NIH history, testing interleukin-2 on patients at more than 200 sites in 18 countries over the last five years.”

Five years ago Donna Shalala, then Secretary of the Health and Human Services, issued federal requirements (2000) of financial disclosure requiring NIH scientists to disclose their financial interest in experimental treatments on informed consent documents reviewed by patients being recruited as test subjects. According to the Associated Press, NIH administrators did not even consider implementing the 5 year old federal requirement until AP filed a Freedom of Information request last week: “Quite frankly, we should have done it more quickly…”

Scientists at the nation’s premier research centers who violate ethical and legal requirements and use underhanded recruitment tactics, pose a very real and present threat to public safety: “hundreds, perhaps thousands, of patients in NIH experiments made decisions to participate in experiments that often carry risks without full knowledge about the researchers’ financial interests.”

The scope of ethical / legal violations and corrupt human recruitment practices by researchers at America’s premier medical research institutions is reaching the proportions of a tzunami. Self-regulation and peer review have proven about as reliable at ensuring ethical and scientific integrity as expecting the Mafia to vouch for the honesty of one of its own…

It will take more than pledges and promises by the director of NIH – it will take more than TALK about “transparency” to restore moral integrity. It will take a law accompanied by specified penalties to fit the crime – like the Sarbanes Oxley law. And most important, it will take an external enforcement mechanism to keep scientists honest. Say, a “corrupt science practice” division at the Department of Justice. It will also require effective whistleblower protection laws.

Profit Motive Hidden From Patients

JANUARY 11, 2005 / 10:05 AM / AP / CBS

Two of the U.S. government’s premier infectious disease researchers are collecting royalties on an AIDS treatment they’re testing on patients using taxpayer money. But patients weren’t told on their consent forms about the financial connection.

Drs. Anthony Fauci and H. Clifford Lane, who helped invent the experimental interleukin-2 treatment being tested around the globe, even tried to alert patients about their royalties but were rebuffed by their own agency.

They’re hardly alone.

More than 900 current and former scientists at the National Institutes of Health legally collected $8.9 million in such royalties last year for drugs and inventions they discovered while working for the government, according to information obtained by The Associated Press.

But until last week, none was required to tell patients about their royalties despite the government’s promise in May 2000 that all scientists’ financial stakes would be disclosed to patients.

That’s because NIH didn’t get around to enacting a policy requiring the disclosure until after AP requested the royalty payments and disclosure policies under the Freedom of Information Act in December. The policy was formally distributed last week.

The nearly five-year delay means hundreds, perhaps thousands, of patients in NIH experiments made decisions to participate in experiments that often carry risks without full knowledge about the researchers’ financial interests.

“Quite frankly, we should have done it more quickly. But as soon as Director (Elias A.) Zerhouni found out about it, he ordered it done immediately,” NIH spokesman John Burklow said.

Ethics experts said the delay ran contrary to a basic premise of government ethics — open and full disclosure.

“It’s hard for patients to make an informed decision when they don’t have all the information,” said Bill Allison of the Center for Public Integrity, which monitors the ethics of government employees.

“When a doctor says, ‘Here, try this experiment, it is safe, or it will help,’ and the patient isn’t aware he has a financial interest in the outcome of that treatment, it in essence is taking advantage of someone by not letting them have all the information,” Allison said.

In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government. They can collect up to $150,000 each a year, but the average is about $9,700, officials said.

In 2004, these researchers collected a total of $8.9 million. Only a dozen received the legal maximum.

The government owns the patents and the scientists are listed as inventors so they can share in licensing deals struck with private manufacturers. In addition to the inventors’ take, the government received $55.9 million in royalties for the same inventions and put that money back into research.

Fauci and Lane have each received $45,072.82 in royalties since 1997 when the government licensed the treatment they invented to drug maker Chiron Corp.

Both doctors said they, too, were concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest since the NIH division they oversee has been spending $36 million to test interleukin-2 on patients.

As a result, they took steps on their own to address the problem while NIH delayed in enacting a policy. For instance, the National Cancer Institute was brought in to independently review and approve the research in advance.

And Fauci tried to give back the royalty money he got from the interleukin-2 treatment and to disclose the payments on his public ethics forms. Both times he was rebuffed by his own agency, which declared he could do neither under the law.

So his only option was to donate all the money he has received since 1997 to charity. “I’m going to give every penny of it to charity … no matter what the yearly amount is,” Fauci said in an interview.

Lane is keeping his royalties, but said he pressed for years for a disclosure policy and occasionally gave interleukin-2 patients scientific journal articles that mentioned he was the inventor on the treatment’s patent.

“I believe patients should know everything that might influence their desire to be participants in research,” Lane said.

Both acknowledged they were unwilling to tell interleukin-2 patients about the royalties on consent forms until NIH developed its policy. Both will do so from now on.

“We were reluctant to make a formal policy until the broad policy came down from the department and NIH,” Fauci explained.

Their case illustrates the gulf between what the government promised nearly five years ago in the midst of controversy and what actually has been done.

Then-Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala pledged in May 2000 that the government would develop policies to require “that any researchers’ financial interest in a clinical trial be disclosed to potential participants.”

Congress, concerned by reports of conflicts of interest and researchers’ conduct in several high-profile experiments, was told the changes would happen. The government first published guidance for the disclosure in January 2001.

Current HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson issued new guidance in May 2004 that again clearly cited “compensation that may be affected by the study outcome” and “proprietary interests in the products, including patents, trademarks, copyrights or licensing arrangements.”

NIH, however, didn’t order the disclosure until last week’s policy.

By JOHN SOLOMON

First published on January 11, 2005 / 10:05 AM

© 2005 The Associated Press.

Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
But we’re underfunded for June, when we have heavy annual bills to pay for the websites, not counting the countless hours of work. Next target would be adding new features and plugins to the website and better equipment for faster work and more complex video productions.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE