THERE’S NO BETTER PREVENTION THAN SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE FASTER THAN THEY SHARE THEIR PROPAGANDA!

By the end of last century, The Military has abandoned you and has joined Pharmafia and the super-rich elites in a plan to govern you with bioweapons and psy-ops. As I’ve said many times, Big Pharma and Big Tech are long gone, The Military BioTech Complex has been running the show for quite a while.
This is just a chapter from that book, more to come if we get some love.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:

INDIA BLACKLISTED US CDC FOR SECRETLY FUNDING BIOWEAPONS RESEARCH IN MANIPAL – Silview.media

Government pulls up U.S. agency for work on Nipah virus – The Hindu

NIPAH IS ONE OF THREE VIRUSES MODIFIED BY WUHAN LAB AT NIAD’S REQUEST, FAUCI E-MAIL REVEAL – Silview.media

In 2019, World’s deadliest viruses were ‘shipped to Wuhan ‘leak lab’ from Canada by rogue scientists linked to Chinese military’ – The Sun

Experts Say Nipah Virus Has Potential To Be Another Pandemic — With A Higher Death Toll – Yahoo

LATER UPDATE: JUST LEARNED THERE WAS NIPAH DRILL VERY SIMILAR TO EVENT201

‘For the next pandemic, we’ll have gigantic mRNA factories in India’ – Bill Gates

The next pandemic: Nipah virus? – Bill Gates’ GAVI

SOURCE

India fighting to contain Nipah, a virus deadlier than COVID-19 – NY Post

Experimental drug by Gilead completely effective against Nipah virus infection in monkeys – NIH

ALSO IN 2019, INDIA CONDUCTS NIPAH OUTBREAK DRILLS. OFFICIALS SAY THEY HOPE FOR FULL PREPAREDNESS BY 2022:

ECO-HEALTH ALLIANCE INVOLVED AGAIN!

Remember the host?

THERE ARE SEVERAL PATENTS FOR NIPAH DRUGS AND SOME ARE mRNA GENE THERAPIES REGISTERED AS VACCINES

SOURCE
SOURCE

BONUS

‘Contagion’ Reality Check: CDC Experts Explore Some of the Film’s Scenarios – PBS

WE ARE BEING PRIMED FOR THE DARKEST WINTER

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

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

What Is the Internet of Bodies?

Source: The Rand Corporation (Download PDF)


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

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

Operation Warp Speed logo

Transhumanism, Bodyhacking, Biohacking,
and More


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: McKinsey & Company

Connecting our bodies

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

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

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

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

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

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

What counts as health information?

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

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

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

Data risks

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

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

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

Practical problems

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

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

Now more from the Rand Corporation

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

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

Kashmir Observer | March 27, 2021   

By Khalid Mustafa

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Dr. Bryan Jacobs

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

I can’t find the irony because I’m distracted by the facts.
The highlights in the text are mine, they are the key.

Flipping a Switch Inside the Head

With new technology, scientists are able to exert wireless control over brain cells of mice with just the push of a button. The first thing they did was make the mice hungry.

By W. Wayt Gibbs, APRIL 1, 2017

READY YOUR TINFOIL HATS—mind control is not as far-fetched an idea as it may seem. In Jeffrey M. Friedman’s laboratory, it happens all the time, though the subjects are mice, not people.

Friedman and his colleagues have demonstrated a radio-operated remote control for the appetite and glucose metabolism of mice—a sophisticated technique to wirelessly alter neurons in the animals’ brains. At the flick of a switch, they are able to make mice hungry—or suppress their appetite—while the mice go about their lives normally. It’s a tool they are using to unravel the neurological basis of eating, and it is likely to have applications for studies of other hard-wired behaviors.

Friedman, Marilyn M. Simpson Professor, has been working on the technique for several years with Sarah Stanley, a former postdoc in his lab who now is assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and collaborators at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Aware of the limitations of existing methods for triggering brain cells in living animals, the group set out to invent a new way. An ideal approach, they reasoned, would be as noninvasive and non-damaging as possible. And it should work quickly and repeatedly.

Although there are other ways to deliver signals to neurons, each has its limitations. In deep-brain stimulation, for example, scientists thread a wire through the brain to place an electrode next to the target cells. But the implant can damage nearby cells and tissues in ways that interfere with normal behavior. Optogenetics, which works similarly but uses fiber optics and a pulse of light rather than electricity, has the same issue. A third strategy—using drugs to activate genetically modified cells bred into mice—is less invasive, but drugs are slow to take effect and wear off.

The solution that Friedman’s group hit upon, referred to as radiogenetics or magnetogenetics, avoids these problems. With their method, published last year in Nature, biologists can turn neurons on or off in a live animal at will—quickly, repeatedly, and without implants—by engineering the cells to make them receptive to radio waves or a magnetic field.

“In effect, we created a perceptual illusion that the animal had a drop in blood sugar.”

“We’ve combined molecules already used in cells for other purposes in a manner that allows an invisible force to take control of an instinct as primal as hunger,” Friedman says.

The method links five very different biological tools, which can look whimsically convoluted, like a Rube Goldberg contraption on a molecular scale. It relies on a green fluorescent protein borrowed from jellyfish, a peculiar antibody derived from camels, squishy bags of iron particles, and the cellular equivalent of a door made from a membrane-piercing protein—all delivered and installed by a genetically engineered virus. The remote control for this contraption is a modified welding tool (though a store-bought magnet also works).

The researchers’ first challenge was to find something in a neuron that could serve as an antenna to detect the incoming radio signal or magnetic field. The logical choice was ferritin, a protein that stores iron in cells in balloon-like particles just a dozen nanometers wide. Iron is essential to cells but can also be toxic, so it is sequestered in ferritin particles until it is needed. Each ferritin particle carries within it thousands of grains of iron that wiggle around in response to a radio signal, and shift and align when immersed in a magnetic field.
We all have these particles shimmying around inside our brain cells, but the motions normally have no effect on neurons.

Friedman and Stanley, with equipment they use to send radio waves.
Friedman and Stanley, with equipment they use to send radio waves. Photo by Zachary Veilleux

Friedman’s team realized that they could use a genetically engineered virus to create doorways into a neuron’s outer membrane. If they could then somehow attach each door to a ferritin particle, they reasoned, they might be able to wiggle the ferritin enough to jostle the door open. “The ‘door’ we chose is called TRPV1,” says Stanley. “Once TRPV1 is activated, calcium and sodium ions would next flow into the cell and trigger the neuron to fire.” The bits borrowed from camels and jellyfish provided what the scientists needed to connect the door to the ferritin (see How to outfit a brain sidebar, right).

Once the team had the new control mechanism working, they put it to the test. For Friedman and Stanley, whose goal is to unravel the biological causes of overeating and obesity, the first application was obvious: Try to identify specific neurons involved in appetite. The group modified glucose-sensing neurons—cells that are believed to monitor blood sugar levels in the brain and keep them within normal range—to put them under wireless control. To accomplish this, they inserted the TRPV1 and ferritin genes into a virus and—using yet another genetic trick—injected them into the glucose-sensing neurons. They could then fiddle with the cells to see whether they are involved, as suspected, in coordinating feeding and the release of hormones, such as insulin and glucagon, that keep blood glucose levels in check.

Illustration by Jasu Hu
HOW TO OUTFIT A BRAIN FOR RADIO CONTROL
Scientists have come up with a clever way to control neurons via radio by cobbling together genes from humans, camels, and jellyfish. They use an engineered virus to install a door into each target neuron’s outer membrane, then jostle the door open using ferritin particles that respond to strong radio signals. Once the door opens, calcium ions pour into the cell and trigger the neuron to fire.
1.
To install the radiogenetics system into neurons, the scientists equipped an adenovirus with the various genes needed to make the system work. Then they squirted the modified virus onto the brain cells they wanted to alter.
2.
One of the added genes produces TRPV1, a protein that normally helps cells detect heat and motion. Within each neuron, the TRPV1 protein (pink) embeds itself into the cell’s outer membrane. Like a door, it can change shape to open or shut an ion channel. To add a knob to the door, the researchers stitched TRPV1 to a “nanobody” (violet)—an unusually simple variety of antibody found in camels.
3.
Iron-filled ferritin particles (green) serve as the system’s sensor. To allow them to grab onto the nanobody doorknob, the researchers tacked on a gene for GFP—a jellyfish protein that glows green under ultraviolet light. By design, the nanobody and GFP stick together tightly.
The system is now connected. When exposed to strong radio waves or magnetic fields, the ferritin particles wiggle, the ion channel opens, and calcium ions (red) flow in to activate the cell.

Once the virus had enough time to infect and transform the target neurons, the researchers switched on a radio transmitter tuned to 465 kHz, a little below the band used for AM radio.

The neurons responded. They began to fire, signaling a shortage of glucose even though the animal’s blood sugar levels were normal. And other parts of the body responded just as they would to a real drop in blood sugar: insulin levels fell, the liver started pumping out more glucose, and the animals started eating more. “In effect,” Friedman says, “we created a perceptual illusion that the animal had low blood glucose even though the levels were normal.”

Inspired by these results, the researchers wondered if magnetism, like radio waves, might trigger ferritin to open the cellular doors. It did: When the team put the mice cages close to an MRI machine, or waved a rare-earth magnet over the animals, their glucose-sensing neurons were triggered.

Stimulating appetite is one thing. Could they also suppress it? The group tweaked the TRPV1 gene so it would pass chloride, which acts to inhibit neurons. Now when they inserted the modified TRPV1 into the neurons, the rush of chloride made the neurons behave as if the blood was overloaded with glucose. Insulin production surged in the animals, and they ate less. “This seems to indicate clearly that the brain as well as the pancreas is involved in glucose regulation,” Friedman says.

Friedman and Stanley hope that biologists will be able to use the remote-control system to tackle a range of neural processes other than appetite. And beyond being a basic research tool, the method could potentially lead to novel therapies for brain disorders.

For example, one could imagine using it to treat Parkinson’s disease or essential tremor—conditions that are sometimes treated by deep brain stimulation, via wires implanted into patients’ brains and connected to a battery pack tucked into the chest. Potentially, it would be less invasive to inject the crippled virus into the same spot of the brain and let it permanently modify the cells there, making them responsive to wireless control.

In theory, it might also be possible to make a patient’s own cells receptive to electromagnetic waves by removing them from the body, delivering TRPV1 and ferritin, and then putting the cells back, Friedman says. This would be a protocol not unlike those currently used in stem cell treatments and some cancer immunotherapies, in which patients’ own cells are engineered and reimplanted back into their bodies.

At this point, however, the system’s clinical usefulness is a question of speculation. “We are a long way from using it in humans for medical treatments,” Friedman says. “Much would need to be done before it could even be tested.”

Bench mouse illustration

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER

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

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

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

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNPRECEDENTED

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

Some of these includes the following.

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

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

3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market

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

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

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

7. First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans

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

Vaccine Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•Will Vaccines Stimulate the Immune Response?

•Will Vaccines Provide Sustainable Immune Endurance?

•How Will SARS-CoV-2 Mutate?

•Are We Prepared for Vaccine Backfires?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ / DOWNLOAD THE FULL PAPER IN PDF

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

The authors have no competing interests or conflicts to declare.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER

Less decency and honesty in science than in politics, these days.
I didn’t think there’s a few levels below politics.

You know when your juice bottle says “100% orange” and the small prints say it’s just 50% of fruit “concentrate”? They should be arrested for that.
Now concentrate on this:

SOURCE

If I were to sum it up in words, I’d quote the source of this revelation:

“It is like saying that there were 700 men and 127 women studied and only a small percent got pregnant. Well, from the start 700 could not have gotten pregnant in the first place.”

British oncologist Dr. Carmen Wheatley

Wheatley has just tipped LifeSite News on this, and I immediately did my own verification, anyone can and should do it.
The result became the cover image for this article, which really is the beginning and the end of the debate, sums up Covidiocracy for me.

The data was collected and “arranged” by a team of “CDC experts” who published it in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2021. It remained overlooked until mid July, when NEJM followed up with a shameless editorial that questioned nothing, just furthered the lie. And that’s when the small prints caught some diligent eyes and went to become our big headline today, as they deserve.
Evil is in the small prints, again, that’s why they hate you when you carefully read inserts and labels.


This is Covidiocracy Science for you, this is the highly esteemed New England Journal of Medicine, up there, close to the British Medical Journal as reputation.

Mind that 82% is 3x the normal rate. All that extra dead babies blood is on the hands of CDC, NEJM and the likes of.

UPDATE:

A reader pointed out that Jeffrey Jaxxen too blew the lid on this, on Del Bigtree’s show, a few days back, and they reached precisely the same conclusion.
BUT I noticed one very interesting detail that Del brought up and single-handedly proves intention in this fake narrative:
The study hast no less than 54 authors. There is no chance in heaven and hell that they all missed this.
If it’s not by mistake, it’s by intention.

This are just my highlights from the show, the full thing is linked above


And we really have to extrapolate this example to all walks of life, because they are all infected with the same corruption. None as blatantly as science, but you still can’t rely on anything you can’t research and verify yourself.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

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

BY THE DAILY EXPOSE ON  

A confidentiality agreement shows potential coronavirus vaccine candidates were transferred from Moderna to the University of North Carolina in 2019, nineteen days prior to the emergence of the alleged Covid-19 causing virus in Wuhan, China.

The confidentially agreement which can be viewed here states that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to tranfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The Universisty of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.

Found on page 105 of the agreement

The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019.

Recipient signatories found on page 107

The agreement was also signed by two representatives of the NIAID, one of whom was Amy F. Petrik PhD, a technology transfer specialist who signed the agreement on December 12th 2019 at 8:05 am. The other signatory was Barney Graham MD PhD, an investigator for the NIAID, however this signature was not dated.

NIAID signatories found on page 107

The final signatories on the agreement were Sunny Himansu, Moderna’s Investigator, and Shaun Ryan, Moderna’s Deputy General Councel. Both signautres were made on December 17th 2019.

Moderna signatories found on page 108

All of these signatures were made prior to any knowledge of the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus. It wasn’t until December 31st 2019 that the World Health Organisation (WHO) became aware of an alleged cluster of viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. But even at this point they had not determined that an alleged new coronavirus was to blame, instead stating the pneumonia was of “unknown cause”.

It was not until January 9th 2020 that the WHO reported Chinese authorities had determined the outbreak was due to a novel coronavirus which later became known as SARS-CoV-2 with the alleged resultant disease dubbed COVID-19. So why was an mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate developed by Moderna being transferred to the University of North Carolina on December 12th 2019?

The same Moderna that have had an mRNA coronavirus vaccine authorised for emergency use only in both the United Kingdom and United States to allegedly combat Covid-19.

What did Moderna know that we didn’t? In 2019 there was not any singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity which would warrant a vaccine, and evidence suggests there hasn’t been a singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity throughout 2020 and 2021 either.

Considering the fact a faulty PCR test has been used at a high cycle rate, hospitals have been empty in comparison to previous years, statistics show just 0.2% of those allegedly infected have died within 28 days of an alleged positive test result, the majority of those deaths by a mile have been people over the age of 85, and a mass of those deaths were caused by a drug called midazolam, which causes respiratory depression, and respiratory arrest.

Perhaps Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would like to explain themselves in a court of law? – THE DAILY EXPOSE 

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

When I first heard of blood clots in vaccinated people, I instantly recalled of a similar problem occurring while the mRNA platform was in study for a cancer therapy, by Moderna, I think, prior to Covid.
I couldn’t find that piece of information again, but during the research I discovered something even more revealing.

Blood clots in subjects of Covid gene therapies are very likely caused by defective coatings in magnetic particles used for magnetofection, which leads to cell-clogging.

Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

It has been more than plausibly theorized that the explanation for the magnetism in vaxxers is magnetofection, a method of transfection using magnetic fields.

Magnetofection is a very effective way of transfecting plasmid DNA into a variety of primary cells including primary neurons which are known to be notoriously difficult to transfect and very sensitive to toxicity.

From: Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2011

For coincidence theorists, let me just add that the inventor of transfection is one of mRNA jabs inventors, Dr. Robert Malone, who has warned FDA on the dangers of these technologies, according to himself.

Scientifically trained at UC Davis, UC San Diego, and at the Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories, Dr. Robert Malone is an internationally recognized scientist (virology, immunology, molecular biology) and is known as one of the original inventors of mRNA vaccination and DNA Vaccination. His discoveries in mRNA non viral delivery systems are considered the key to the current COVID-19 vaccine strategies. Dr. Malone holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines.
Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications and published abstracts and has over 11,477 citations of his peer reviewed publications, as verified by Google Scholar.  His google scholar ranking is “outstanding” for impact factors. He has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections.

Magnetofection basically involves attaching DNA onto a magnetic nanoparticle coated with a cationic polymer like polyethylenimine (PEI) [254,255]. The magnetic nanoparticles are generally made up of a biodegradable substance like iron oxide, and its coating onto the polymeric particle is done by salt-induced colloidal aggregation.
These prepared nanoparticles are then localized in the target organ by the application of an external magnetic field, which allows the delivery of attached DNA to the target organ, as shown in Figure 3.5. This method also increases the uptake of DNA into target cells as the contact time between the target organ and magnetic nanoparticles increases.
In addition, the magnetic field pulls the magnetic nanoparticles into the target cells, which also helps to increase the uptake of DNA [256,257]. In addition, the standard transfection using viral or nonviral vectors is also increased by the magnetofection.


This is a more powerful method of controlled and targeted delivery for gene therapies, in layman terms.

The problem with it is that it’s been proven to be very dangerous for lab animals and it’s not authorized for human use.

From Dr. Jane Ruby m as well as from Pfizer and Moderna we find out how these particles are packaged into the injectable concocts:

“Stew Peters interviews Dr Jane Ruby who confirms the magnetic effects that Covid vaxxed people have experienced. She says it is a deliberately made substance added to the vaccines. This shows criminal intent. It was added because it is an aggressive delivery system to get it into EVERY cell of your body. The process is called ‘Magnetofection’ and is available in scientific literature such as Pubmed. It concentrates the mRNA into people’s cells and forces your body to make these synthetic mRNA instructions even in places where they shouldn’t be located within the body.

It is a ‘forced delivery system’ and is called by the acronym of SPIONS – Supramagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. These particles use a lipid nanoparticle envelope to gain entry into the cells. It is done this way to protect mRNA because mRNA is easily degraded and this is also why the Pfizer vaccines are refrigerated at -70 degrees Fahrenheit as another form of protection.

There is a German company on the internet called ‘Chemicell’ which sells different chemicals which can make these magnetic fields around your molecules. You can buy 200 microgram vials of their product called, ‘Polymag’. These are developed and sold for research purposes only and are not to be used for human diagnostic or as a component of any drug intended for humans.

However at least Pfizer and Moderna are using this substance in their vaccines. Therefore it is vital that anyone thinking of taking a shot, obtain a full ingredient list to have full informed consent and to postpone getting the Covid Jab, as each day brings further information into the public domain. Dr Ruby is asked if this was deliberate by the manufacturers and answers that this substance doesn’t occur naturally. It had to be added into the vaccine.

Many have spoken about the Polyethelene Glycol or PEG which enables the vaccines to get through water based cell membranes as this is lipophilic – attracted to fats – but there are other places in the body where ‘God and Nature’ hadn’t intended these substances to be, but by using this delivery system of supra nanoparticles, you are creating a super delivery system which forces these substances into areas where they are not meant to be.”

. 2019 Nov;13(9):1197-1209. doi: 10.1080/17435390.2019.1650969. Epub 2019 Aug 22.

Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) modulate hERG ion channel activity

Roberta Gualdani 1 2Andrea Guerrini 1Elvira Fantechi 1Francesco Tadini-Buoninsegni 1Maria Rosa Moncelli 1Claudio Sangregorio 1 3Affiliations expand

Abstract

Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) are widely used in various biomedical applications, such as diagnostic agents in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for drug delivery vehicles and in hyperthermia treatment of tumors.

Although the potential benefits of SPIONs are considerable, there is a distinct need to identify any potential cellular damage associated with their use.

Since human ether à go-go-related gene (hERG) channel, a protein involved in the repolarization phase of cardiac action potential, is considered one of the main targets in the drug discovery process, we decided to evaluate the effects of SPIONs on hERG channel activity and to determine whether the oxidation state, the dimensions and the coating of nanoparticles (NPs) can influence the interaction with hERG channel.

Using patch clamp recordings, we found that SPIONs inhibit hERG current and this effect depends on the coating of NPs. In particular, SPIONs with covalent coating aminopropylphosphonic acid (APPA) have a milder effect on hERG activity. We observed that the time-course of hERG channel modulation by SPIONs is biphasic, with a transient increase (∼20% of the amplitude) occurring within the first 1-3 min of perfusion of NPs, followed by a slower inhibition. Moreover, in the presence of SPIONs, deactivation kinetics accelerated and the activation and inactivation I-V curves were right-shifted, similarly to the effect described for the binding of other divalent metal ions (e.g. Cd2+ and Zn2+).

Finally, our data show that a bigger size and the complete oxidation of SPIONs can significantly decrease hERG channel inhibition.

Taken together, these results support the view that Fe2+ ions released from magnetite NPs may represent a cardiac risk factor, since they alter hERG gating and these alterations could compromise the cardiac action potential.

MIT SAYS IT’S NOT JUST SPIONS, BUT ALSO LIONS:

HDT Bio, the biotechnology company in Seattle, has an alternative solution. Working with Deborah Fuller, a microbiologist at the University of Washington, it’s pioneering a different kind of protective bubble for the mRNAs. If it works, it would mean that an mRNA vaccine for covid-19 could be stable in a regular fridge for at least a month, or at room temperature for up to three weeks. 

Their method: instead of encasing the mRNA in a lipid nanoparticle, they’ve engineered molecules called lipid inorganic nanoparticles, or LIONs. The inorganic portion of the LION is a positively charged metal particle—so far they’ve been using iron oxide. The positively charged metal would bind to the negatively charged mRNA, which wraps around the LION. The resulting particle is solid, which creates more stability and reduces the reliance on refrigeration. 

A real-world study by the CDC backs up the clinical trial data from both mRNA vaccines—although the rise of the UK variant in the US is a cloud on the horizon.

“The cold chain has always been an issue for [the] distribution of vaccines, and it’s only magnified in a pandemic.”

Deborah Fuller

HDT Bio initially developed LIONs to treat liver cancer and tumors in the head and neck, but when the pandemic hit, they pivoted to trying the particles with mRNA vaccines. Early preclinical trials in nonhuman primates showed that the LION, combined with an mRNA vaccine for covid-19, worked as they’d hoped.

Carter of HDT Bio says that in an ideal situation, LIONs could be sent to clinics worldwide in advance, to be stored at room temperature or in a regular refrigerator, before being mixed into vaccine vials at clinics. Alternatively, the two could be premixed at a manufacturing facility. Either way, this method would make doses stable for at least a month in a regular refrigerator. 

Fuller says that some scientists have criticized the need for two vials—one for the LION and another for mRNA before they’re mixed together. “But I think the advantages of having an effective product more amenable to worldwide distribution outweighs those negatives,” she says.

HDT Bio is applying for permission to start human clinical trials in the US and is looking to start clinical trials in India this spring. In the US, it faces some unique challenges in FDA regulation, since the LION particles would be considered a drug separate from the vaccine. Regulators in Brazil, China, South Africa, and India—where HDT Bio is hoping to launch its product—don’t consider the LION a drug because it isn’t the active component, says Carter, meaning that there would be one less layer of regulation than in the US.

For now, it’s still very much an early-stage technology, says Michael Mitchell, a bioengineer at the University of Pennsylvania who works on drug delivery systems. He stresses that more research should reveal whether the iron oxide causes any side effects. – MIT Technology Review

Now here’s the bombshell:


This is no secret to experts, but it’s been revealed to me in the video presentation below, made in 2017 by reputed Prof Diana Borca, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who uses magnetic nanoparticles to treat diseases.
In order to get the magnetic nanoparticles into the right places, scientists like Diana have to figure out what kind of coating the nanoparticles need. Coatings help the nanoparticles get to the cells they want to treat without hurting the healthy cells.
And if the coating of the magnetic particles breaks, the result is “CLOGGING”, as Borca explains below. Which can translate as clotting, if in blood.
Who knows what they lead to when in other organs, strokes maybe?

So I think the only thing we’re missing from the puzzle is official hard evidence that they used magnetofection or magnetogentic methods.

But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, only the government needs government papers to confirm it’s a duck


What each and every one of you can do until we find that evidence?

On screens we’re sound. Please help with the statistical and empirical tests!


Please help finding out if there’s a strong data and empirical correlation between blood clots and magnetism. Anyone you know that has been jabbed and experienced blood clots, heart or circulatory problems needs to take the magnet challenge right now! A strong enough correlation indicates causation.
If you make such a test, please reach us on our socials and communicate the result, whether positive or negative!
Also VAERS is exploding with reports of magnetism, please help analyzing the data to see if it pairs with clotting.
Thank you!

Also food for thought: isn’t this also related to the problems these GMO dupes experience during air-travel?
I’ll investigate this in a soon coming report.

References:

Nanoparticles in Translational Science and Medicine

Akira Ito, Masamichi Kamihira, in Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, 2011

V Conclusion

This chapter highlighted magnetofection, magnetic patterning of cells, and construction of 3D tissue-like structures. Among them, Mag-TE for constructing 3D structures has been extensively studied, and various kinds of other tissues such as retinal pigment epithelial cell sheets,102 MSC sheets,44 and cardiomyocyte sheets,46 have been already generated. Tubular structures consisting of heterotypic layers of endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, and fibroblasts have also been created.43 In this approach, magnetically labeled cells formed a cell sheet onto which a cylindrical magnet was rolled, which was removed after a tubular structure was formed. If these processes can be scaled up, there is great potential for these techniques in the treatment of a variety of diseases and defects.

In the translational research, toxicology of functional magnetite nanoparticles is an important issue. The main requisite for a cell-labeling technique is to preserve the normal cell behavior. As for biocompatibility of MCLs, no toxic effects against proliferation of several cell types were observed within the range of magnetite concentrations tested (e.g., human keratinocytes,63 < 50 pg-magnetite/cell; HUVECs,41 HAECs,42 human dermal fibroblasts,41 human smooth muscle cells,43 mouse fibroblast cells,43 canine urothelial cells,43 human MSCs,44 and rat MSCs45 < 100 pg/cell). Moreover, MCLs did not compromise MSC differentiation44,45 or electrical connections of cardiomyocytes.46 In addition, an in vivo toxicity of magnetite nanoparticles has been extensively studied. As an MRI contrast agent, ResovistR was first applied clinically for detecting liver cancer, since ResovistR is taken up rapidly by the reticuloendothelial system such as Kupffer cells of the liver compared with the uptake by cancer cells of the liver. In a preliminary study,103 the authors investigated the toxicity of systemically administered MCLs (90 mg, i.p.) in mice; none of the 10 mice injected with MCLs died during the study. Transient accumulation of magnetite was observed in the liver and spleen of the mice, but the magnetite nanoparticles had been cleared from circulation by hepatic Kupffer cells in the spleen by the 10th day after administration.103

In conclusion, magnetic nanoparticles have been developed into “functional” magnetite nanoparticles which are highly promising tools for a wide spectrum of applications in tissue engineering. The proven lack of toxicity of the functional magnetite nanoparticles is expected to provide exciting tools in the near future for clinical tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.View chapter

Viral and Nonviral Vectors for In Vivo and Ex Vivo Gene Therapies

A. Crespo-Barreda, … P. Martin-Duque, in Translating Regenerative Medicine to the Clinic, 2016

2.2.1 Magnetic Nanoparticles

One of the pioneers using magnetofection for in vitro applications was Lin et al.91 There are various cationic magnetic nanoparticles types that have the capacity to bind nucleotidic material on their surface. With this method, the magnetic nanoparticles are concentrated in the target cells by the influence of an external magnetic field (EMF). Normally, the internalization is accomplished by endocytosis or pinocytosis, so the membrane architecture stays intact. This is an advantage over other physical transfection methods. Other advantages are the low vector dose needed to reach saturation yield and the short incubation time needed to achieve high transfection efficiency. Moreover, with the application of an EMF, cells transfected with magnetic nanoparticles can be used to target the region of interest in vivo.

2.2.1.1 Iron Oxide Nanoparticles

The magnetic nanoparticles most used in magnetofection include the iron oxide nanoparticles (IONPs). IONPs are biodegradable and not cytotoxic and can be easily functionalized with PEI, PEG, or PLL. Poly-l-lysine-modified iron oxide nanoparticles (IONP–PLL) are good candidates as DNA and microRNA (miRNA) vectors because they bind and protect nucleic acids and showed high transfection efficiency in vitro. In addition, they are highly biocompatible in vivo.

Chen et al.92 used human vascular endothelial growth factor siRNA bound to superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) and it was capable of hepatocellular carcinoma growth inhibition in nude mice. Moreover, Li et al.93 demonstrated that the intravenous injection of IONP–PLL carrying NM23-H1 (a tumor suppressor gene) plasmid DNA significantly extended the survival time of an experimental pulmonary metastasis mouse model.

Another advantage of this kind of nanoparticles is that they can be used as MRI agents. Chen et al.94 bound siRNA to PEG-PEI SPIONs together to a gastric cancer-associated CD44v6 single-chain variable fragment. This bound permitted both cancer cell’s transfection and their visualization by MRI.

But those complexes might be used for cell therapies as well. Schade et al.95 used iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) to bind miRNA and transfect human mesenchymal stem cells. As the binding between the MNPs and PEI took place via biotin-streptavidin conjugation, these particles cannot pass the nuclear barrier, so they are good candidates to deliver miRNA, as it exerts its function in the cytosol. They functionalized the surface nanoparticles with PEI and were able to obtain a better transfection than PEI 72 h after transfection. Moreover, they demonstrated that magnetic polyplexes provided a better long-term effect, also when included inside of the stem cells.View chapter

Synthesis of Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles

Marcel Wegmann, Melanie Scharr, in Precision Medicine, 2018

4.1.4 Magnetofection

Another attempt to apply magnetic IONPs is the so-called magnetofection (MF) approach. Key factors enabling this method are IONPs that are coupled to vector DNA and guided by the influence of an external magnetic field. By this means, DNA can be transfected into cells of interest. One possibility to enable enhanced binding capabilities of the negatively charged DNA to magnetic IONP beads is the coating IONPs with a positively charged material such as polyethylenimine. The efficiency of the vectors has hence shown to increase up to several thousand times (Scherer et al., 2002). The above depicted engagement of IONPs in MF has shown to be universally applicable to viral and nonviral vectors. This is mostly because it is very rapid and simple. Furthermore, it is a very attractive approach since it yields saturation level transfection at low-dose in vitro (Krotz et al., 2003). Fernandes and Chari (2016) have demonstrated an approach delivering DNA minicircles (mcDNA) to neural stem cells (NSCs) by means of MF. DNA minicircles are small DNA vectors encoding essential gene expression components but devoid of a bacterial backbone, thereby reducing construct size versus conventional plasmids. This could be shown to be very beneficial for the use of genetically engineered NSC transplant populations in regenerative neurology. The aim was to improve the release of biomolecules in ex vivo gene therapy. It could be demonstrated that MF of DNA minicircles is very safe and provided for sustained gene expression for up to 4 weeks. It is described to have high potential as clinically translatable genetic modification strategy for cell therapy (Fernandes and Chari, 2016). The last in vitro application for magnetic nanoparticles to be presented in this chapter will be tissue repair.View chapter

Scientific Fundamentals of Biotechnology

Aline Do Minh, … Amine A. Kamen, in Comprehensive Biotechnology (Third Edition), 2019

1.26.2.1.7 Magnet-Mediated Transfection

Two methods rely on the application of a magnetic field for gene transfer. Magnetofection uses magnetic nanoparticles coated with DNA in presence of a magnetic field. The nucleic acid-nanoparticle complexes are driven toward and into the target cells by magnetic force application. Gene transfer is enhanced by magnetofection as DNA-loaded particles are guided and maintained in close contact with the target cells. Cellular uptake through endocytosis is thus increased as well. The process has been mainly applied to cultured cells and has been proven more efficient than other chemical methods in some cases.8 The second method is magnetoporation in which membrane permeability is increased, triggered by the applied magnetic field.9View chapter

Fabrication and development of magnetic particles for gene therapy

S. Uthaman, … C.-S. Cho, in Polymers and Nanomaterials for Gene Therapy, 2016

9.4.1 Magnectofection-based gene delivery

For gene therapy applications, magnetic particles are generally used for increasing the transfection efficiencies of cultured cells, a technique known as magnetofection [91–104] in which magnetic particles and nucleic acids are mixed together and then added to the cell culture media. The nucleic acid-bound magnetic particles then move from the media to the cell surface upon the application of an external magnetic force, as shown in Figure 9.1. The principle advantage of this approach is the rapid sedimentation of the gene-therapeutic agent onto the target area, thereby reducing the time and dose of vector to achieve highly efficient transfection, with lower cell cytotoxicity.

In in vivo magentofection, the magnetic field is focused over the target site. This method has the potential not only to enhance transfection efficiency but also to target the therapeutic gene to a specific organ or site, as shown in Figure 9.2.

Generally, magnetic particles carrying therapeutic genes are injected intravenously. As the particles flow through the bloodstream, they are captured at the target site using very strong, high-gradient external magnets. Once they are captured, the magnetic particles carrying the therapeutic gene are taken up by the tissue, followed by release of the gene via enzymatic cleavage of cross-linked molecules or degradation of the polymer matrix. If DNA is embedded inside or within the coating material, the magnetic field must be applied to heat the particles and release the gene from the magnetic carrier [105].View chapter

Nonviral Vectors for Gene Therapy

Tyler Goodwin, Leaf Huang, in Advances in Genetics, 2014

3.4 Magnetic-Sensitive Nanoparticles (Magnetofection)

In an attempt to address the transient damage caused by the invasive methods mentioned above (i.e., hydrodynamic injection and electroporation), magnetofection techniques have been introduced. This technique uses the physical method of a magnetic field to direct the deliver of genetic material to the desired target site. The concept involves attaching DNA to a magnetic nanoparticle usually consisting of a biodegradable substance such as iron oxide and coated with cationic polymer such as PEI (Mulens, Morales, & Barber, 2013). These magnetic nanoparticles are then targeted to the tissue through a magnetic field generated by an external magnet. The magnetic nanoparticles are pulled into the target cells increasing the uptake of DNA. This technique is noninvasive and can precisely target the genetic material to the desired site while increasing gene expression. The drawback to magnetofection is the need to formulate magnetic nanoparticles complexed with naked DNA, as well as the need for strong external magnets.View chapter

Small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) as cancer therapeutics

G. Shim, … Y-K. Oh, in Biomaterials for Cancer Therapeutics, 2013

11.3.5 Stimulus-guided delivery

Stimulus-guided delivery is a non-invasive and convenient approach for clinical applications. Several methods in this category, including electroporation, ultrasound and magnetofection, have been used to deliver siRNAs to specific tissue sites. Owing to constraints associated with application of external stimuli under in vivo conditions, most such studies have been done in vitro. However, in vivo applications of stimulus-guided delivery of anticancer siRNAs are increasingly being reported.

Electroporation has been studied as a means for facilitating in vivo delivery of anticancer siRNAs. Notably, an electroporation method employing a new type of ‘plate and fork’ type electrode has been applied in vivo in mice (Takei et al., 2008). In this application, a chemically modified form of VEGF-specific siRNA in phosphate-buffered saline was intratumorally administered at three doses of 0.08, 0.17 and 0.33 mg/kg, or intravenously administered at a single dose of 6.6 mg/kg. Then, an electronic pulse was applied to a pair of plate and fork electrodes pre-inserted into PC-3-xenografted tumour tissues. Application of electroporation inhibited tumour growth to a similar degree after 0.17 mg/kg intratumoral and 6.6 mg/kg intravenous doses, in each case producing a 40-fold greater inhibitory effect than a local dose. Notably, the duration of the antitumour effect was maintained for 20 days after a single injection via the local or systemic route.

Magnetically guided in vivo siRNA delivery has been investigated using magnetic crystal-lipid nanostructures (Namiki et al., 2009). In this study, a magnetite nanocrystal was coated with oleic acid and a cationic lipid shell, and complexed to EGFR-specific siRNA. Following intravenous administration to mice, siRNA complexed to the magnetic core-encapsulated cationic lipid shell showed a rank order of tissue distribution of spleen followed by liver and lung. For in vivo magnetofection, titanium nitride-coated magnets were internally implanted under the skin peripheral to tumour lesions or were externally placed onto the skin. Mice were intravenously given a total of eight 0.3 mg/kg doses of siRNA complexed to cationic nanoshells administered every other day. Both internal and external applications of a magnetic field reduced tumour (MKN-74 or NUGC-4) volume by 50% compared with the control group 28 days after the initiation of treatment.

Ultrasound-guided siRNA delivery has also been used to increase the in vivo delivery of siRNAs. Ultrasound can produce cavitation, thereby resulting in transient disruptions in cell membranes within tissues (Vandenbroucke et al., 2008). Few studies have addressed the in vivo antitumour effects of ultrasound-guided anticancer siRNAs. To date, most such studies have evaluated the feasibility of the method using siRNAs specific for reporter genes, such as enhanced green fluorescent protein (Negishi et al., 2008). In this latter study, PEG-modified cationic lipid nanobubbles entrapping the ultrasound imaging gas perfluoropropane were complexed with enhanced green fluorescent protein-specific siRNA and intramuscularly administered at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg to mice transfected 1 day prior with enhanced green fluorescent protein-encoding plasmid DNA. Three days after siRNA injection and ultrasound application, fluorescent protein levels at the injection sites were reduced.

Although the feasibility of in vivo applications of stimulus-guided delivery of anticancer siRNA has been demonstrated and positive results have been reported, the ultimate success of these delivery methods may depend on the development of devices capable of providing a sufficient stimulus to tumour tissues deep within the body. Moreover, for in vivo systemic administration, delivery systems that carry both external stimulus-responsive agents and siRNA must meet more general requirements, such as in vivo stability, low toxicity and enhanced tumour tissue accumulation. With the concurrent progress in medical device bioengineering and siRNA delivery technologies, it can be expected that stimulus-guided strategies will be used in more diverse in vivo applications to facilitate anticancer siRNA delivery.View chapter

Gene Delivery Using Physical Methods

Kaustubh A. Jinturkar, … Ambikanandan Misra, in Challenges in Delivery of Therapeutic Genomics and Proteomics, 2011

3.9 Magnetofection

Various physical methods of gene delivery have been developed, and each one has its own merits and demerits. EP is particularly important for introducing DNA to superficial areas, but to deliver DNA to particular organs, surgery is required. To overcome this problem and to enhance the introduction of gene vectors into cells [254], the new means of physical gene delivery is magnetofection, which delivers DNA to the target organ, using the magnetic field. Magnetofection basically involves attaching DNA onto a magnetic nanoparticle coated with a cationic polymer like polyethylenimine (PEI) [254,255]. The magnetic nanoparticles are generally made up of a biodegradable substance like iron oxide, and its coating onto the polymeric particle is done by salt-induced colloidal aggregation. These prepared nanoparticles are then localized in the target organ by the application of an external magnetic field, which allows the delivery of attached DNA to the target organ, as shown in Figure 3.5. This method also increases the uptake of DNA into target cells as the contact time between the target organ and magnetic nanoparticles increases. In addition, the magnetic field pulls the magnetic nanoparticles into the target cells, which also helps to increase the uptake of DNA [256,257]. In addition, the standard transfection using viral or nonviral vectors is also increased by the magnetofection.

The magnetofection has some drawbacks: a particle size below 50 nm renders it not suitable for magnetic targeting and too large a particle size (more than 5 μm) retards the entry of magnetic nanoparticles inside the blood capillaries. The blood flow rate also affects the transfection efficacy of this method; for example, the flow rate of around 20 cm/s in the human aorta makes the transfection tricky. The external magnetic flux density and gradient decreases at a distance from the magnetic pole, which also affects the transfection efficacy.

Primary endothelial cells are effectively transfected by magnetofection [254,258]. In addition, magnetofection is effective for in vitro and in vivo delivery of DNA to target cells like those in the GI tract and blood vessels [254], and for antisense ODNs delivery [259]. Other applications include advances in ex vivo tissue engineering, development of tumor vaccines, localized therapy for cancer, and cardiovascular therapy [260]. Significant enhancement in reporter gene expression in a short time has been observed in the ex vivo porcine airway model; this may be attributed to an increase in contact time with mucociliary cells, thereby reducing their clearance from the target site [261]. A study carried out using magnetic albumin microspheres with entrapped doxorubicin in the rat model for tumors resulted in a high level of tumor remission in animals compared to animals treated with free doxorubicin, placebo microspheres, or nonlocalized doxorubicin microspheres, which resulted in considerable enlargement in tumor size associated with metastases and subsequent death [262,263]. The magnetic nanoparticles with doxorubicin are also under clinical trial [264]. Magnetofection has been widely used for viral and nonviral vectors and also for the delivery of DNA, nucleic acids, and siRNA [260,265,266].

In conclusion, magnetofection is an efficient system for gene delivery and has the potential to bring in vitro and in vivo transgene transfection in the target organ. The limitations of this delivery system are overcome by the application of proper formulations and novel magnetic field skills.View chapter

Gene therapy approaches in central nervous system regenerative medicine

Assumpcio Bosch, Miguel Chillon, in Handbook of Innovations in Central Nervous System Regenerative Medicine, 2020

10.2.6 Nonviral vectors

Nonviral vectors group a heterogeneous variety of elements that can be classified as naked DNA or RNA, liposome-DNA complexes (lipoplexes), and polymer-DNA complexes (polyplexes). Since the beginning of the gene therapy field, nonviral vectors have received significant attention due to their reduced pathogenicity, lower immunotoxicity, and low cost and ease of production over viral approaches. To date, a myriad of delivery systems grouped as physical methods and chemical carriers have been reported. Physical methods such as direct injection, ballistic DNA, electroporation, sonoporation, photoporation, magnetofection, hydroporation, and mechanical massage, employ physical force to cross the cell membrane barrier. Chemical carriers such as (1) inorganic particles (calcium phosphate, silica, gold, but also magnetic nanoparticles, fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, and supramolecular systems); (2) lipid-based (cationic lipids, lipid-nano emulsions, solid lipid nanoparticles); (3) peptide-based; and (4) polymer-based (i.e., polyethylenimine, chitosan, dendrimers, and polymethacrylate) form small size complexes with nucleic acids to help them cross the cell membrane efficiently (see ref [29] for extensive review). However, despite the large number of different nonviral vectors still, there is poor transduction efficiency of the target cells as well as low and transient transgene expression. Due to it, nonviral vectors account for less than 25% of the clinical assays, mainly for cancer and cardiovascular diseases, being naked/plasmid DNA (452 clinical assays) and lipofection (119 clinical assays) the systems more frequently used, while all the rest of the nonviral vector account only for 3% of the assays.View chapter

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER


If you’re a regular follower of ours or Dr. Lee Merrit’s, some of the info in the video below is not latest minute news. I wanted to save this presentation on the website though, for two main reasons: it brings a few new angles, such as the racial one, and it’s really well structured and rounded, managing to paint a complex picture in under 15 minutes. There may be a lot left to say, but this makes the case and it can stand alone. Reference material, at least until science proves otherwise, which seems highly unlikely to me, so far.

“Merritt has an impressive resume as an orthopedic surgeon and military doctor. However, she is also the former president of the conservative medical advocacy group the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which opposes vaccines, the Affordable Care Act and all government healthcare, including Medicare…

Dr. Merritt has certainly accomplished a great deal as a surgeon, including being the first woman to receive the Louis A. Goldstein Spine Surgery Fellowship at the Rochester Strong Memorial Hospital in New York.”  – The Millenial Source

This profile has been written by her detractors.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER

Except for that Note, the article below needs no further commentary from my part.

Scientists Find Cancer Drivers Hiding in a New Place

By Matthew Tontonoz,

Sloan Kettering Institute molecular biologist Christine Mayr
Christine Mayr is a member of the Cancer Biology and Genetics Program of the Sloan Kettering Institute.

Summary

Researchers at the Sloan Kettering Institute have found that changes in an information-carrying molecule called messenger RNA can inactivate tumor-suppressing proteins and thereby promote cancer. The findings pinpoint previously unknown drivers of the disease. 


IMPORTANT NOTE (added 2020*): This research does not relate in any way to the COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA. There are thousands of different kinds of mRNA in human cells. Each kind of mRNA does different things. The mRNA used in vaccines does not cause cancer or alter DNA. For accurate information about COVID-19 vaccines and why they don’t cause cancer, please visit here. This video explains how mRNA vaccines work. 

  • I personally I don’t see how the resources provided in the note, or anything I’ve ever read, supports the claims there. Nor have I seen why this study does not apply to the mRNA in Covid shots. Quite the contrary. Looks like they hope we won’t read or understand the science. So let’s read it and understand it, then make your own mind. – Silview.media

Most people think of cancer as a disease of disorderly DNA. Changes, or mutations, in the sequence of DNA alter the function of the proteins made from that DNA, leading to uncontrolled cell division.

But between DNA and proteins is another layer of information, called messenger RNA (mRNA), which serves as a crucial link between the two. New research suggests that some types of mRNA may carry cancer-causing changes. And, because genetic tests don’t usually look at mRNA, those changes have so far gone undetected by cancer doctors.

“If you sequenced the DNA in cancer cells, you would not see these changes at all,” says Christine Mayr, a molecular biologist at the Sloan Kettering Institute who is the senior author of a new paper on the topic published today in Nature. “But these mRNA changes have the same ultimate effect as known cancer drivers in DNA, so we believe they may play a very important role.”If you sequenced the DNA in cancer cells, you would not see these changes at all.Christine Mayrmolecular biologist

The findings turn some common assumptions about cancer on their head and point to the need to look past DNA for answers to questions about what causes the disease.

From DNA to mRNA

If DNA is the genetic blueprint for life, as is often said, then it’s a fairly cumbersome set of instructions. The information in DNA is encoded in the particular sequence of some 3 billion nucleotide “letters” — varying combinations of A, T, G, and C. Blocks of these letters — genes — are used to make particular proteins, a cell’s main workhorses. But DNA lives in the nucleus of a cell, while proteins are made in the surrounding cytoplasm. To bridge this gap, a cell must first make an RNA copy of a gene’s DNA. This RNA copy, called messenger RNA, is then transported out of the nucleus. It is this mRNA copy that cells read and translate into a protein.

Usually, the mRNA copy is a bit shorter than its DNA precursor. That’s because the useful pieces of information in DNA, called exons, are often separated by blocks of sequences that are not needed. These unnecessary parts, called introns, must be cut out to make a final product. After the introns are removed, the remaining exons are spliced together, not unlike splicing together pieces of film and leaving some on the cutting room floor.  These findings help explain a long-standing conundrum, which is that CLL cells have relatively few known DNA mutations.

If the mRNA copy doesn’t include all of the exons in a gene or is cut short, then the protein made from that mRNA will also be truncated. It may no longer function properly. And if that protein is a tumor suppressor — one that protects against cancer — then that could spell problems.

What Dr. Mayr and her colleagues, including postdoctoral fellow Shih-Han (Peggy) Lee, graduate student Irtisha Singh, and SKI computational biologist Christina Leslie, found is that many of the mRNAs in cancer cells produce these truncated tumor-suppressor proteins. The changes occur not only in known tumor-suppressor genes but also in previously unrecognized ones.

“The changes to the mRNA make proteins that are very similar to the proteins that are made when you have a mutation in the DNA that causes a truncated protein to be made,” she says. “In the end, the outcome for the cell is very similar, but how it happened is very different.”

Found: Missing Cancer Mutations

Dr. Mayr’s team looked specifically at chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a type of blood cancer. A colleague at MSK, Omar Abdel-Wahab, supplied them with blood samples from people with the condition. Using a method that Dr. Mayr’s lab developed to detect these particular mRNA changes, they found that a substantially greater number of people with CLL had an inactivation of a tumor-suppressor gene at the mRNA level than those who had it at the DNA level.

These findings help explain a long-standing conundrum, which is that CLL cells have relatively few known DNA mutations. Some CLL cells lack even known mutations. In effect, the mRNA changes that Dr. Mayr’s team discovered could account for the missing DNA mutations.

Because CLL is such a slow-growing cancer and people with CLL often live for many years, it’s too early to say whether these mRNA changes are associated with a poorer prognosis. 

There are some important differences between the mRNA changes and a bona fide DNA mutation. Most important, the inactivation of tumor suppressors through mRNA is usually only partial; only about half of the relevant protein molecules in the tumor cells are truncated. But in many cases this is enough to completely override the function of the normal versions that are present. And because this truncation could apply to 100 different genes at once, the changes can add up.

Lessons for Cancer Diagnostics

Though Dr. Mayr’s team identified the mRNA changes in CLL, they’re likely not limited to this blood cancer. The team found them in samples of T cell acute lymphocytic leukemia too, for example. Other researchers have found them in breast cancer. Dr. Mayr hopes that scientists will be inspired to explore the significance of mRNA changes in these and other types of cancers.

“Current cancer diagnostic efforts predominantly focus on the sequencing of DNA in order to identify mutations,” Dr. Mayr says. “But our research suggests that changes at the mRNA level might be as frequent.”

In other words, cancer diagnostics may need to change to include these previously unknown cancer drivers.

This work was funded by a National Cancer Institute grant (U01-CA164190), a Starr Cancer Consortium award, an Innovator Award of the Damon Runyon-Rachleff Cancer Foundation and the Island Outreach Foundation (DRR-24-13), a National Institutes of Health Director’s Pioneer Award (DP1-GM123454), the Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Alliance, and an MSK Core grant (P30 CA008748). – Sloan Kettering Institute

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

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