You’ve likely heard of IG Farben, bud have you ever heard of American IG and the follow up story?
Imagine that the brutal experiments at Auschwitz were better concealed and the prisoners were drugged and brainwashed to believe that’s the best world out there for them. Then find out that the management has never stopped winning, expanding and perfecting their business model, up to today’s Great Reset.
good stuff that i had to leave out the video documentary:
Founded in Binghamton, New York, in 1901, Ansco was a manufacturer of photographic products and film. Ansco was originally founded through the merger of E. Anthony & Company and Scovill Manufacturing. In 1928, Ansco merged with Agfa to form Agfa-Ansco. The new corporation was a division of General Aniline and Film (GAF) Corporation, which was controlled by the German chemical cartel IG Farben. After Germany declared war on the United States in 1941, the United States Government seized the assets of GAF, including Agfa-Ansco. In 1943, the company removed “Agfa” from its name, once again becoming Ansco. The United States Justice Department oversaw Ansco’s operation until 1965, when government-held stock in GAF was sold to the public. In 1977, GAF eliminated its line of consumer photography products, including those manufactured by Ansco at the Binghamton facility. GAF also sold the Ansco trademark to Haking Enterprises. GAF continued to manufacture film at the Binghamton plant for industrial and medical use until 1981, when it sold the plant to Anitec Image Corporation. Over the next two decades, the former Ansco facility was sold several times, and in 2000, it was demolished.
Prior to the late 1970s, dozens of asbestos-containing materials were utilized in the construction and maintenance of buildings at Ansco’s Binghamton facility, including fireproof insulation, pipe covering and insulating cement. Inhaling dust from the application and removal of asbestos-containing materials placed workers at risk for developing an asbestos-related disease, such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
Fireproof insulation was applied to structural steel during the construction of buildings at Ansco. Fireproofing materials were manufactured as a dry mixture of asbestos, linen and cement, packaged in fifty-pound paper bags. The dry mixture was mixed with water and sprayed onto the structural steel using a hose. Pouring, mixing and spraying fireproof insulation created clouds of asbestos-containing dust. After the fireproofing material was applied, it was typical for tradesmen, such as electricians or pipefitters, to scrape the fireproofing material from structural steel in order to install pipes and conduits. When the fireproof insulation was disturbed, asbestos fibers and dust became airborne.
Workers applied asbestos-containing pipe covering to pipes at the Binghamton Ansco facility. Pipe covering was applied to numerous piping systems in order to maintain stable internal temperatures and to protect pipes from damage. When pipe covering was applied, asbestos fibers were emitted. Insulating cement was also applied to pumps, valves and other equipment. It was manufactured as a powder and mixed with water to prepare it for application. Mixing insulating cement caused asbestos-containing dust to become airborne.
What’s Bayer been up to lately? We find out from their website:
The Bio Revolution is redefining innovation in the life sciences. How this might be a game changer.
The life sciences have made great advances in the past years. Biology, life sciences and the megatrend of digitization are growing closer together, enabling new inventions that impact our daily lives in a scope that we speak of a Bio Revolution. This revolution is reinforced by rapid increases in computing power and the emergence of new capabilities in AI, automation, and data analytics. These trends are further accelerating the pace of innovation and the potential for higher R&D productivity in the life sciences.
All this has led to new ways to understand and explore biology. The range of life forms on earth is incredibly complex and diverse. However, the methods to analyze them can be remarkably similar. Technologies and methods are transcending disciplinary boundaries even faster.
The implications across the life sciences can be enormous:
For human health, for example, a deeper understanding of the relationship between genetics and disease has led to the emergence of precision medicine, which can potentially be more effective than the one-size-fits-all therapies of the past. In the future, new technologies could help the healthcare industry not only treat, but cure or even prevent diseases. New gene and cell therapies, for example, aim to cure genetic diseases, potentially enabling sustainable organ replacement or reversing autoimmune diseases.
The Bio Revolution has the potential to help address some of the most critical global challenges, from climate change to pandemics, chronic diseases, and worldwide food security. Experts estimate that a significant portion of the economic impact of biological applications will be in health care, agriculture, and consumer products.3 Already today, the Bio Revolution with its convergence of science and technology has created an explosion of research projects in science and business. Each year, the amount of Intellectual Property related to the Bio Revolution is increasing.4 This can be seen, for example, by the number of patents in CrispR or plant biotech. In short: the revolution is gaining momentum and holds a great promise for health and food alike.
Total number of CRISPR patent applications worldwide per year from 1984 to 2018.
Fueled by digitalization, growing connectivity, and falling costs, important advances in biotechnology are intertwined with more systemic shift in how bio-innovation is undertaken and who is involved. Microbiome technologies, advanced genomics, gene editing and synthetic biology are among key enabling technologies that have the potential to change the face of bio-innovation. This broader redefinition of bio-innovation creates new prospects to help address important nutrition, environmental and development needs.
World Economic Forum, Bio-Innovation Dialogue Initiative
As a leading life science company, Bayer is aligned with the long-term market trends in health and nutrition and offers innovative and sustainable solutions to tackle some of the key challenges for humanity. Bayer brings to the table an extensive knowledge of human and plant science, supported by its expertise in regulatory processes and an impressive global footprint to ultimately bring innovations from labs to market. https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EYE1gya7XiM?autoplay=1&start=0&rel=0
The Bio Revolution marks the beginning of a new era: Innovations enabled by the convergence of biology and technology have the potential to significantly improve our lives, our nutrition, and our health.
Did you know that Bayer is at the forefront of the wave of innovation coming from the Bio Revolution?
The Bio Revolution is expected to transform healthcare and agriculture over the next decades – but the revolution is already happening now. With its newly established cell and gene therapy platform in Pharmaceuticals and innovative gene-editing tools such as CRISPR, Bayer operates at the core of the Bio Revolution and has tremendous opportunities to improve health and nutrition.
In Pharma, Bayer’s new Cell & Gene Therapy (CGT) platform steers our strategy in the area and orchestrates our activities along the value chain providing an innovation ecosystem for the companies – including BlueRock Therapeutics and Asklepios BioPharmaceutical (AskBio), which are fully owned by Bayer but operate autonomously. These therapies hold the potential to significantly impact patients’ lives by moving from treating symptoms to potentially curative approaches.
Bayer’s development portfolio of cell and gene therapies already comprises eight advanced assets in different stages of clinical development. These are applicable in multiple therapeutic areas with high unmet need, such as neurodegenerative, neuromuscular and cardiovascular indications, with programs in Pompe disease, Parkinson’s disease, hemophilia A, and congestive heart failure. With over 15 preclinical assets in the cell and gene therapy field, the pipeline is expected to grow steadily year by year.
Yet Bayer is not only using biotechnology to advance health – the promise for agriculture is just as inspiring. In the Crop Science Division, for example, tools like CRISPR can make changes to plant DNA with more precision than ever before and make plants more weather- or disease-resistant, enabling farmers to grow more or better-quality products under changing conditions.
Advancing genetic solutions for a sustainable future (1)PreviousNext
Did you know that Leaps by Bayer invests into potentially disruptive technologies to tackle some of the largest, unsolved challenges in the life sciences?
With Leaps by Bayer – our impact investment approach utilizing venture capital – we are constantly scanning for additional potential breakthroughs that hold promise to either cure or treat people from diseases or help feed a growing population with less impact on the environment.
Since 2015, Leaps by Bayer has invested over $1 billion in ventures that tackle fundamental breakthroughs and shift core paradigms in our industries.
Leaps by Bayer has an investment focus on potentially disruptive solutions in the fields of healthcare and agriculture. The Leaps investment approach is remarkable: It aims to invest into or build up new innovative companies. Bayer supports those companies by enabling the exchange of proprietary assets, which can include sharing own patents or providing access to the Bayer network’s technical capabilities and 150 years of expertise. The companies remain autonomous with respect to decision making, while Leaps facilitates and supports them in a so-called active incubation process. Experienced team members actively engage in the young companies’ development by providing resources and helping them to steer the initial strategic direction. Today, the investment portfolio includes more than 35 companies advancing potential breakthrough technologies.
Leaps is our way of thinking big.
Werner Baumann, CEO of Bayer AG
Many Leaps ventures have made significant progress towards unlocking the potential of new technology platforms with a promising and transformative potential. BlueRock Therapeutics, for example, started as a Leaps investment and is now an integral part of Bayer’s CGT platform and just received clearance to proceed with a phase I trial in Parkinson’s disease.
Other companies, like the biopharmaceutical player Triumvira, are specialized on next generation immuno-oncology treatments. Triumvira focuses on novel T-cell therapies that aim to be safer and more efficacious than current cell therapy cancer treatments. Treating, curing and preventing cancer is one of the focus areas of Leaps by Bayer, since this group of diseases still represents one of today’s biggest health challenges with limited curative or preventative therapies available.
We face a huge disease burden, and the way we produce food isn’t sustainable for the planet. I believe the Bio Revolution can help us overcome these issues.
Jürgen Eckhardt, Head of Leaps by Bayer
Leaps is also investing in the development of sustainable biotechnological solutions in the field of agriculture. One of the ventures in this field is Joyn Bio, a company that aims to significantly reduce the environmental impact of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers through a technology that fixes nitrogen into the soil. Nitrogen is one of the most important nutrients essential for every plant to grow, however, its use and production as a fertilizer is estimated to contribute 3-5% to all global greenhouse gas emissions. Joyn Bio is working on an engineered microbe that enables cereal crops like corn, wheat, and rice to convert nitrogen from the air into a form they can use to grow. This technology may have the potential to help farmers use nitrogen in new ways, and as a result, reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint.
The Leaps by Bayer investment portfolio includes more than 35 companies.
At least that’s what Bayer says. All I know is that they’re still running the show.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. 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
Given the ambitious scope of this pioneering endeavor, it was vital that planning be informed by a wide range of expertise and experience. Therefore, NIH established a high level working group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director (ACD) to help shape this new initiative.
This working group, co-chaired by Dr. Cornelia “Cori” Bargmann (The Rockefeller University) and Dr. William Newsome (Stanford University) sought broad input from the scientific community, patient advocates, and the general public. Their report, BRAIN 2025: A Scientific Vision, released in June 2014 and enthusiastically endorsed by the ACD, articulated the scientific goals of The BRAIN Initiative® and developed a multi-year scientific plan for achieving these goals, including timetables, milestones, and cost estimates.
Of course, a goal this audacious will require ideas from the best scientists and engineers across many diverse disciplines and sectors. Therefore, NIH is working in close collaboration with other government agencies, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA). Private partners are also committed to ensuring success through investment in The BRAIN Initiative®.
Five years ago a project such as this would have been considered impossible. Five years from now will be too late. While the goals are profoundly ambitious, the time is right to inspire a new generation of neuroscientists to undertake the most groundbreaking approach ever contemplated to understanding how the brain works, and how disease occurs. Source: NIH
Remarks by the President on the BRAIN Initiative and American Innovation
East Room 10:04 A.M. EDT
Thank you so much. (Applause.)
Thank you, everybody. Please have a seat. Well, first of all, let me thank Dr. Collins not just for the introduction but for his incredible leadership at NIH. Those of you who know Francis also know that he’s quite a gifted singer and musician. So I was asking whether he was going to be willing to sing the introduction — (laughter) — and he declined. But his leadership has been extraordinary. And I’m glad I’ve been promoted Scientist-in-Chief. (Laughter.)
Given my grades in physics, I’m not sure it’s deserving. But I hold science in proper esteem, so maybe that gives me a little credit. Today I’ve invited some of the smartest people in the country, some of the most imaginative and effective researchers in the country — some very smart people to talk about the challenge that I issued in my State of the Union address: to grow our economy, to create new jobs, to reignite a rising, thriving middle class by investing in one of our core strengths, and that’s American innovation. Ideas are what power our economy. It’s what sets us apart. It’s what America has been all about. We have been a nation of dreamers and risk-takers; people who see what nobody else sees sooner than anybody else sees it. We do innovation better than anybody else — and that makes our economy stronger.
When we invest in the best ideas before anybody else does, our businesses and our workers can make the best products and deliver the best services before anybody else. And because of that incredible dynamism, we don’t just attract the best scientists or the best entrepreneurs — we also continually invest in their success. We support labs and universities to help them learn and explore. And we fund grants to help them turn a dream into a reality. And we have a patent system to protect their inventions. And we offer loans to help them turn those inventions into successful businesses.
And the investments don’t always pay off. But when they do, they change our lives in ways that we could never have imagined. Computer chips and GPS technology, the Internet — all these things grew out of government investments in basic research. And sometimes, in fact, some of the best products and services spin off completely from unintended research that nobody expected to have certain applications.
Businesses then used that technology to create countless new jobs.
So the founders of Google got their early support from the National Science Foundation. The Apollo project that put a man on the moon also gave us eventually CAT scans. And every dollar we spent to map the human genome has returned $140 to our economy — $1 of investment, $140 in return.
Dr. Collins helped lead that genome effort, and that’s why we thought it was appropriate to have him here to announce the next great American project, and that’s what we’re calling the BRAIN Initiative.
As humans, we can identify galaxies light years away, we can study particles smaller than an atom. But we still haven’t unlocked the mystery of the three pounds of matter that sits between our ears. (Laughter.) But today, scientists possess the capability to study individual neurons and figure out the main functions of certain areas of the brain. But a human brain contains almost 100 billion neurons making trillions of connections.
So Dr. Collins says it’s like listening to the strings section and trying to figure out what the whole orchestra sounds like. So as a result, we’re still unable to cure diseases like Alzheimer’s or autism, or fully reverse the effects of a stroke. And the most powerful computer in the world isn’t nearly as intuitive as the one we’re born with. So there is this enormous mystery waiting to be unlocked, and the BRAIN Initiative will change that by giving scientists the tools they need to get a dynamic picture of the brain in action and better understand how we think and how we learn and how we remember. And that knowledge could be — will be — transformative. In the budget I will send to Congress next week, I will propose a significant investment by the National Institutes of Health, DARPA, and the National Science Foundation to help get this project off the ground.
I’m directing my bioethics commission to make sure all of the research is being done in a responsible way. And we’re also partnering with the private sector, including leading companies and foundations and research institutions, to tap the nation’s brightest minds to help us reach our goal. And of course, none of this will be easy. If it was, we would already know everything there was about how the brain works, and presumably my life would be simpler here. (Laughter.) It could explain all kinds of things that go on in Washington. (Laughter.) We could prescribe something. (Laughter.)
So it won’t be easy. But think about what we could do once we do crack this code. Imagine if no family had to feel helpless watching a loved one disappear behind the mask of Parkinson’s or struggle in the grip of epilepsy. Imagine if we could reverse traumatic brain injury or PTSD for our veterans who are coming home. Imagine if someone with a prosthetic limb can now play the piano or throw a baseball as well as anybody else, because the wiring from the brain to that prosthetic is direct and triggered by what’s already happening in the patient’s mind. What if computers could respond to our thoughts or our language barriers could come tumbling down. Or if millions of Americans were suddenly finding new jobs in these fields — jobs we haven’t even dreamt up yet — because we chose to invest in this project. That’s the future we’re imagining. That’s what we’re hoping for. That’s why the BRAIN Initiative is so absolutely important. And that’s why it’s so important that we think about basic research generally as a driver of growth and that we replace the across-the-board budget cuts that are threatening to set us back before we even get started.
A few weeks ago, the directors of some of our national laboratories said that the sequester — these arbitrary, across-the-board cuts that have gone into place — are so severe, so poorly designed that they will hold back a generation of young scientists. When our leading thinkers wonder if it still makes sense to encourage young people to get involved in science in the first place because they’re not sure whether the research funding and the grants will be there to cultivate an entire new generation of scientists, that’s something we should worry about. We can’t afford to miss these opportunities while the rest of the world races ahead. We have to seize them. I don’t want the next job-creating discoveries to happen in China or India or Germany. I want them to happen right here, in the United States of America. And that’s part of what this BRAIN Initiative is about. That’s why we’re pursuing other “grand challenges” like making solar energy as cheap as coal or making electric vehicles as affordable as the ones that run on gas. They’re ambitious goals, but they’re achievable. And we’re encouraging companies and research universities and other organizations to get involved and help us make progress. We have a chance to improve the lives of not just millions, but billions of people on this planet through the research that’s done in this BRAIN Initiative alone.
But it’s going to require a serious effort, a sustained effort. And it’s going to require us as a country to embody and embrace that spirit of discovery that is what made America, America. They year before I was born, an American company came out with one of the earliest mini-computers. It was a revolutionary machine, didn’t require its own air conditioning system. That was a big deal. It took only one person to operate, but each computer was eight feet tall, weighed 1,200 pounds, and cost more than $100,000. And today, most of the people in this room, including the person whose cell phone just rang — (laughter) — have a far more powerful computer in their pocket. Computers have become so small, so universal, so ubiquitous, most of us can’t imagine life without them — certainly, my kids can’t. And, as a consequence, millions of Americans work in fields that didn’t exist before their parents were born. Watson, the computer that won “Jeopardy,” is now being used in hospitals across the country to diagnose diseases like cancer. That’s how much progress has been made in my lifetime and in many of yours. That’s how fast we can move when we make the investments.
But we can’t predict what that next big thing will be. We don’t know what life will be like 20 years from now, or 50 years, or 100 years down the road. What we do know is if we keep investing in the most prominent, promising solutions to our toughest problems, then things will get better. I don’t want our children or grandchildren to look back on this day and wish we had done more to keep America at the cutting edge. I want them to look back and be proud that we took some risks, that we seized this opportunity. That’s what the American story is about. That’s who we are.
That’s why this BRAIN Initiative is so important. And if we keep taking bold steps like the one we’re talking about to learn about the brain, then I’m confident America will continue to lead the world in the next frontiers of human understanding. And all of you are going to help us get there.
So I’m very excited about this project. Francis, let’s get to work. God bless you and God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)
A LITTLE EARLIER, AT DARPA’S
DARPA Fold F(x) Program to Advance Synthetic Biomedical Polymers
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting proposals for advancing “Folded Non-Natural Polymers with Biological Function” under a new Broad Agency Announcement for the Fold F(x) program.
While the biopharmaceutical industry has realized many outstanding protein and oligonucleotide reagents and medicines by screening large biopolymer libraries for desired function, significant technical gaps remain to rapidly address the full suite of existing and anticipated national security threats in DoD medicine (e.g., diagnostics and remediation strategies for chemical/biological warfare agents and infectious disease threats).
The objective of Fold F(x) is to develop processes enabling the rapid synthesis, screening, sequencing and scale-up of folded, non-natural, sequence-defined polymers with expanded functionality. The program will specifically address the development of non-natural affinity reagents that can bind and respond to a selected target, as well as catalytic systems that can either synthesize or degrade a desired target.
While non-natural folding polymers (e.g., foldamers) are known, broad utilization of these systems is currently limited because there is no available approach for rapidly developing and screening large non-natural polymer libraries. Fold F(x) will address this technical gap to create new molecular entities that will become future critical reagents in sensor and diagnostic applications, novel medicine leads against viral and bacterial threats, and new polymeric materials for future material science applications.
DARPA anticipates that successful efforts will include (1) novel synthetic approaches that yield large libraries (>109 members) of non-natural sequence-defined polymers; (2) flexible screening strategies that enable the selection of high affinity/specificity binders and high activity/selectivity catalysts from the non-natural libraries; (3) demonstration that the screening approach can rapidly (<4 days) yield affinity reagents or catalysts against targets of interest to the DoD; and (4) demonstration of scalability and transferability to the DoD scientific community.
DARPA seeks proposals that significantly advance the area of non-natural polymer synthesis, screening and sequencing for DoD-relevant threats. Proposals that simply provide evolutionary improvements in state-of-the-art technology will not be considered.
A Proposers’ Day Webinar for the Fold F(x) Program will be held on January 28, 2014. Further details are available under Solicitation Number: DARPA-BAA-14-13. White papers are due by February 6, 2014.
They deleted this from their website, but not from Internet
Health threats often evolve more quickly than health solutions. Despite ongoing research in the government and the biopharmaceutical industry to identify new therapies, the Department of Defense currently lacks the tools to address the full spectrum of chemical, biological, and disease threats that could impact the readiness of U.S. forces. DARPA created the Folded Non-Natural Polymers with Biological Function program (Fold F(x)) to give DoD medical researchers new tools to develop medicines, sensors, and diagnostics using new libraries of synthetic polymers.
The human body contains natural, folded polymers such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. These are made up of strings of specific biological molecules, or monomers, with the potential for massive variation in sequence, structure, and function. The body’s library of natural polymers is massive, but ultimately limited by the number of naturally present monomers. Through Fold F(x), DARPA is looking to expand the body’s biomolecular arsenal using non-natural, sequence-dictated polymers built from lab-created monomers.
Broad use of folded, non-natural polymers has been limited because no approach yet exists for rapidly developing large libraries of such sequence-dictated polymers. However, recent advances in the theory for predicting folds in polymer structure enable a more targeted search for polymers with specific attributes. Additionally, new, high-throughput analytical chemistry tools may enable researchers to efficiently screen massive subsets of polymers to essentially find the needle in the haystack to confront a given health threat. Finally, recently developed tools for determining polymer structure, function, and in vivo effects can further accelerate the characterization of promising non-natural polymers once they have been identified.
To achieve its objective, Fold F(x) seeks to develop the following capabilities: 1) processes that enable rapid, high-fidelity synthesis of monomers and polymer libraries at scale; 2) automated screening of polymers against a target; and 3) automated sequencing and characterization of successful polymers. The capabilities developed will need to be generalized and extendable so they can be applied to a broad range of potential applications.
If Fold F(x) is successful, synthetic polymers, produced at low cost in libraries containing trillions of combinations, would give scientists vastly more molecules to work with in the search for new health solutions and greatly increase the likelihood that a molecule can be found to combat a given health threat. Synthetic polymers would also offer other benefits over natural polymers including greater lifetime in the blood and less immunogenicity.
DOES THIS REMIND YOU OF ANY PARTICULAR IMPLANT: SRI Biosciences DARPA Fold F(X) Synthetic Polymers Contract
The new contract is part of DARPA’s Folded Non-Natural Polymers with Biological Function program, known as Fold F(x). The initial goal of the program will be to develop biologically active non-natural polymers that are structurally similar to naturally occurring proteins, but without their limitations, such as sensitivity to heat denaturation or chemical degradation.
To develop the new polymers, SRI is combining its expertise in medicinal chemistry and biopolymer design with a breakthrough approach to screening vast numbers of compounds. The novel polymers are being made from entirely new types of monomer structures based on drug-like scaffolds with high functional group densities.
SRI’s compound screening innovation is based on its proprietary Fiber-Optic Array Scanning Technology (FASTcell™). Originally developed to identify circulating tumor cells in a blood sample, FASTcell can distinguish a single tumor cell among tens of millions of healthy ones in a few minutes.
With DARPA support, SRI is expanding this technology to screen 25 million compounds in just one minute.
“Our goal is to develop a method that can enable rapid, large-scale responses to a bioterrorism threat or an infectious disease epidemic,” said Peter Madrid, Ph.D., program director in SRI Biosciences’ Center for Chemical Biology and co-principal investigator and leader of the chemistry effort of the project. “We are looking for non-natural polymers to detect or neutralize identified chemical or biological threats. Once we find potent molecules, we will be able to produce them at mass scale.”
The overall goal of the Fold F(x) program is to expand on the utility of proteins and DNA, and to overcome their limitations byre-engineering their polymer backbones and side chain diversity—creating new molecules with improved functionality such as stability, potency and catalytic function in environments usually hostile for biopolymers.
The knowledge to design new functional molecules from first principles doesn’t exist yet. The alternative is to synthesize enormous libraries of non-natural polymers and screen for sequences that have a desired action. Finding a single effective compound, such as one that can block a virus, may require screening hundreds of millions of compounds.
“We are taking a full departure from how nature does things to come up with new ways of mimicking protein function in a highly tailored and controlled way,” said Nathan Collins, Ph.D., executive director of SRI Biosciences’ Discovery Sciences Section and principal investigator of SRI’s Fold F(x) project. “Our breakthrough has been to adapt SRI’s FASTcell technology to screen libraries of non-natural polymers. It’s very exciting to be doing such novel research.”
Initially the program will focus on screening massive numbers of non-natural polymers for potential uses against security threats.
As a proof of concept, the team will design, synthesize and screen chemically unique libraries of 100 million non-natural polymers for activity against a variety of agents, including toxins such as ricin and viruses such as the H1N1 bird flu strain of influenza.
As the program evolves it may progress to include a range of possibilities, such as how to synthesize molecules to fold such that they emit light, have enhanced levels of strength or elasticity, or store power.
Sources: SRI International, DARPA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stargate Project was the 1991 code name for a secret U.S. Army unit established in 1978 at Fort Meade, Maryland, by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and SRI International (a California contractor) to investigate the potential for psychic phenomena in military and domestic intelligence applications. The Project, and its precursors and sister projects, originally went by various code names—GONDOLA WISH, GRILL FLAME, CENTER LANE, PROJECT CF, SUN STREAK, SCANATE—until 1991 when they were consolidated and rechristened as “Stargate Project”.
Stargate Project work primarily involved remote viewing, the purported ability to psychically “see” events, sites, or information from a great distance. The project was overseen until 1987 by Lt. Frederick Holmes “Skip” Atwater, an aide and “psychic headhunter” to Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, and later president of the Monroe Institute. The unit was small-scale, comprising about 15 to 20 individuals, and was run out of “an old, leaky wooden barracks”.
The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues. The program was featured in the 2004 book and 2009 film, both titled The Men Who Stare at Goats, although neither mentions it by name.
THE LIST OF RESEARCHES THEY FUNDED MIGHT BLOW YOUR BRAIN
Key private sector partners have made important commitments to support the BRAIN Initiative, including:
The Allen Institute for Brain Science: The Allen Institute, a nonprofit medical research organization, is a leader in large-scale brain research and public sharing of data and tools. In March 2012, the Allen Institute for Brain Science embarked upon a ten-year project to understand the neural code: how brain activity leads to perception, decision making, and ultimately action. The Allen Institute’s expansion, with a $300M investment from philanthropist Paul G. Allen in the first four years, was based on the recent unprecedented advances in technologies for recording the brain’s activity and mapping its interconnections. More than $60M annually will be spent to support Allen Institute projects related to the BRAIN Initiative.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute: HHMI is the Nation’s largest nongovernmental funder of basic biomedical research and has a long history of supporting basic neuroscience research. HHMI’s Janelia Farm Research Campus in Virginia was opened in 2006 with the goal of developing new imaging technologies and understanding how information is stored and processed in neural networks. It will spend at least $30 million annually to support projects related to this initiative.
Kavli Foundation: The Kavli Foundation anticipates supporting activities that are related to this project with approximately $4 million dollars per year over the next ten years. This figure includes a portion of the expected annual income from the endowments of existing Kavli Institutes and endowment gifts to establish new Kavli Institutes over the coming decade. This figure also includes the Foundation’s continuing commitment to supporting project meetings and selected other activities.
Salk Institute for Biological Studies: The Salk Institute, under its Dynamic Brain Initiative, will dedicate over $28 million to work across traditional boundaries of neuroscience, producing a sophisticated understanding of the brain, from individual genes to neuronal circuits to behavior. To truly understand how the brain operates in both healthy and diseased states, scientists will map out the brain’s neural networks and unravel how they interrelate. To stave off or reverse diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, scientists will explore the changes that occur in the brain as we age, laying the groundwork for prevention and treatment of age-related neurological diseases.
“National Institutes of Health chief Francis Collins says the brain initiative builds on recent advances in attaching electronic implants to brain cells. That was demonstrated last year in dramatic scenes of fully paralyzed patients manipulating robot arms to sip coffee and grasp rubber balls. And through increased computer power, scientists are now better able to collect data from the 86 billion vastly interconnected cells within the 3-pound human brain.”
April 2, 2013, 12:00 PM CESTBy Peter Alexander and Alastair Jamieson, NBC News and Maggie Fox, Senior Writer
President Obama pitched a human brain research initiative on Tuesday that he likened to the Human Genome Project to map all the human DNA, and said it will not only help find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and autism, but create jobs and drive economic growth…
It’s not clear just what the initiative will do. Obama and collins said they’d appointed a “dream team” of experts to lay out the agenda — they should report back before the end of the summer. They are led by neurobiologists Cori Bargmann of Rockefeller University and William Newsome of Stanford University.
The public-private initiative, with money from groups such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s brain mapping project, aims to find a way to take pictures of the brain in action in real time.
“We want to understand the brain to know how we reason, how we memorize, how we learn, how we move, how our emotions work. These abilities define us, yet we hardly understand any of it,” said Miyoung Chun, vice president of science programs at The Kavli Foundation, which is taking part in the initiative and which funds basic research in neuroscience and physics.
The project has some big money and some big science to build on. Allen pumped another $300 million into his institute’s brain mapping initiative a year ago, and has published freely available maps of the human and mouse brains. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute built a whole research campus devoted to brain science, called Janelia Farm, in Virginia.
Arati Prabhakar, director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) pointed to a project that allowed a quadriplegic woman to control a robot arm with her thoughts alone.
“There is nothing like a project to inspire people to go to that next level,” Collins told a telephone briefing.
Not everybody is happy about a centralized, administration-led project. Michael Eisen, a biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, said earlier this year that grand projects in biology such as Project ENCODE for DNA analysis were emerging as the “greatest threat” to individual discovery-driven science.
“It’s one thing to fund neuroscience, another to have a centralized 10-year project to ‘solve the brain,'” Eisen wrote in a Twitter update in February.
“It’s great to see the president supporting basic neuroscience research. And the amount of money is enough to seed new initiatives, which is the way to start something,”
An MRI scan reveals the gross anatomical structure of the human brain. (Image credit: Courtesy FONAR Corporation)
The initial funding for a major new brain research initiative will come largely from the National Institutes of Health and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), with contributions from the National Science Foundation and private foundations, officials said today (April 2).
After President Obama announced the launch of the BRAIN Initiative this morning, the directors of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and DARPA took public questions via the Internet about specific plans for the project and who will pay. The agencies expect about $100 million in 2014 to start the initiative.
BRAIN stands for Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies. In it’s planning stages, the project was called the Brain Activity Map, because the goal is to understand how neural networks function. Currently, researchers can detect the activities of single brain cells; they can also measure brain activity on the macro level using technology such as functional magnetic resonance imaging. But the middle level — the actions of hundreds and thousands of neurons working together in circuits — remains largely mysterious.
“This initiative is an idea whose time has come,” NIH director Francis Collins said in the White House Q&A session. He called the human brain the “greatest scientific frontier you could think of.” [Gallery: Slicing Through the Brain]
Funding the brain map
President Obama announced this morning that the Fiscal Year 2014 budget would include about $100 million in seed funding for the BRAIN Initiative. Collins broke those numbers down: The NIH will provide about $40 million, much of that from the Neuroscience Blueprint, an NIH collaboration with a rolling investment fund for nervous system research. Some NIH discretionary funds will also go toward the project, Collins said.
The National Science Foundation will provide about $20 million in funding, Collins said, and DARPA will contribute about $50 million. Private foundations, including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the Kavli Institute, will also provide funds.
DARPA’s interest in the project stems largely from concerns about “wounded warriors,” said director Arati Prabhakar. The agency hopes the BRAIN Initiative will provide answers about how to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries and other neurological problems for injured soldiers. The project may also inspire new computing processes as scientists learn how the brain works and use that as inspiration for artificial circuits, Prabhakar said.
Federal funding for research has been flat in recent years, and the federal budget sequester has further squeezed agencies such as the NIH and NSF with 9 percent cuts across the board. The BRAIN Initiative is projected to last more than a decade, with no guarantee the fiscal situation will bounce back. Some neuroscience researchers, including Donald Stein of the Emory School of Medicine, have argued that funding is a “zero-sum game” and that the BRAIN Initiative will take resources from other worthy brain research causes.
Collins acknowledged the budget challenge.
“One might well ask, ‘Is this the wrong time to be starting something new and innovative?'” he said.
But with the technology needed to measure large neural networks just coming into its own, delaying would be counterproductive, Collins argued.
“If you could see the opportunity for the next big advance … it would be very hard to say we’re going to hunker down for awhile and wait until the budget gets better,” he said.
A $4.5 Billion Price Tag for the BRAIN Initiative?
The price of President Barack Obama’s BRAIN may have just skyrocketed. Last year, the White House unveiled a bold project to map the human brain in action, the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, and commanded several federal agencies to quickly develop plans to make it reality. To kick-start the project, the president allocated about $100 million this year to BRAIN, spread over the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Now, after more than a year of meetings and deliberations, an NIH-convened working group has fleshed out some of the goals and aspirations of BRAIN and tried to offer a more realistic appraisal of the funding needed for the agency’s share of the project: $4.5 billion over the course of a decade.
Neuroscientist Cornelia Bargmann, of Rockefeller University in New York City, who led the working group, sought to put that cost in perspective at a press conference today, saying it amounted to “about one six-pack of beer for each American over the entire 12 years of the program.”
NIH, which provides $40 million of BRAIN’s current funding, doesn’t have a plan in place for where to get extra money called for in the new report, NIH Director Francis Collins told reporters. “It won’t be fast, it won’t be easy, and it won’t be cheap,” he says. Regardless, Collins, who commissioned the new report to guide his agency’s role in the initiative, embraced the plan wholeheartedly:
The report lays out a 10- to 12-year plan for investing $300 million to $500 million per year to develop new tools to monitor and map brain activity and structure, beginning in fiscal year 2016. It suggests focusing on tool development for the first 5 to 6 years, then ramping up funding as new techniques come online. A key goal is to produce cheaper, more accessible tools that all researchers can use without needing special training, so that the overall cost of doing neuroscience research goes down over time, Bargmann says.
The panel acknowledges the uncertainty of their cost estimate. “While we did not conduct a detailed cost analysis, we considered the scope of the questions to be addressed by the initiative, and the cost of programs that have developed in related areas over recent years. Thus our budget estimates, while provisional, are informed by the costs of real neuroscience at this technological level,” the group writes.
The first round of requests for NIH grant applications already went out last fall, and awardees will be announced in September, according to Collins. Additional opportunities to apply for NIH funding will open up by fall, based on this new, more detailed report, he says. Researchers planning to apply “may now consider that [the report] is a blueprint of where we want to go,” Collins added.
*Correction, 10 June, 12:17 p.m.: This article has been corrected to reflect that the $4.5 billion proposed price tag for the BRAIN initiative refers only to NIH’s portion of the project, not all funding. – Science Mag.
Advisory Committee to the Director, Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® (BRAIN) Initiative Working Group
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a BRAIN Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH, to develop a rigorous plan for achieving this scientific vision. This report presents the findings and recommendations of the working group, including the scientific background and rationale for The BRAIN Initiative® as a whole and for each of seven major goals articulated in the report. In addition, we include specific deliverables, timelines, and cost estimates for these goals as requested by the NIH Director. Read more in the BRAIN 2025 Report.
As the NIH BRAIN Initiative rapidly approached its halfway point, the ACD BRAIN Initiative Working Group 2.0 was asked to assess BRAIN’s progress and advances within the context of the original BRAIN 2025 report, identify key opportunities to apply new and emerging tools to revolutionize our understanding of brain circuits, and designate valuable areas of continued technology development. Alongside, the BRAIN Neuroethics Subgroup was tasked with considering the ethical implications of ongoing research and forecasting what the future of BRAIN advancements might entail, crafting a neuroethics “roadmap” for the Initiative. Read more in the BRAIN 2.0 companion reports (BRAIN Initiative 2.0 report and Neuroethics report).
Wireless linkage of brains may soon go to human testing
Wireless communication directly between brains is one step closer to reality thanks to $8 million in Department of Defense follow-up funding for Rice University neuroengineers.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which funded the team’s proof-of-principle research toward a wireless brain link in 2018, has asked for a preclinical demonstration of the technology that could set the stage for human tests as early as 2022.
“We started this in a very exploratory phase,” said Rice’s Jacob Robinson, lead investigator on the MOANA Project, which ultimately hopes to create a dual-function, wireless headset capable of both “reading” and “writing” brain activity to help restore lost sensory function, all without the need for surgery.
MOANA, which is short for “magnetic, optical and acoustic neural access,” will use light to decode neural activity in one brain and magnetic fields to encode that activity in another brain, all in less than one-twentieth of a second.
Jacob Robinson (Photo by Tommy LaVergne/Rice University)
“What we’ve shown is that there is promise,” he said. “With the little bit of light that we are able to collect through the skull, we were able to reconstruct the activity of cells that were grown in the lab. Similarly, we showed we could stimulate lab-grown cells in a very precise way with magnetic fields and magnetic nanoparticles.”
Robinson, who’s orchestrating the efforts of 16 research groups from four states, said the second round of DARPA funding will allow the team to “develop this further into a system and to demonstrate that this system can work in a real brain, beginning with rodents.”
If the demonstrations are successful, he said the team could begin working with human patients within two years.
“Most immediately, we’re thinking about ways we can help patients who are blind,” Robinson said. “In individuals who have lost the ability to see, scientists have shown that stimulating parts of the brain associated with vision can give those patients a sense of vision, even though their eyes no longer work.”
The MOANA team includes 15 co-investigators from Rice, Baylor College of Medicine, the Jan and Dan Duncan Neurological Research Institute at Texas Children’s Hospital, Duke University, Columbia University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale’s John B. Pierce Laboratory.
The project is funded through DARPA’s Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) program. – RICE University
The BRAIN Initiative has never been concluded. We’re living it now.
UPDATE: LATER JOSH ROGIN APPEARANCE ON JOE ROGAN’S PODCAST
Washington Post’s Josh Rogin Calls Out Media for Ignoring Fauci’s Potential Connection to Wuhan Lab
Rudy Takala April 25, 2021
Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin lamented the media’s refusal to discuss aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic, including Dr. Anthony Fauci’s potential connection to a Wuhan lab, in an interview with Megyn Kelly.
“This body of research, this gain-of-function research, the whole world of virologists … it’s very insular,” Rogin said in an interview on Kelly’s podcast. “I often talk to scientists who say the same thing, who say, ‘Listen, we really want to speak out about this, but we can’t do it.’ Why can’t we do it? Well, We get all of our funding from NIH, or NIAID, which is run by Dr. Fauci. … And so we can’t say anything like ‘Oh, gain-of-function research might be dangerous, or it might have come from a lab, because we’re going to lose our careers, we’re going to lose our funding, we’re not going to be able to do our work.’
“Gain-of-function” research focuses on artificially enhancing the transmissibility of pathogens. In the five years prior to the coronavirus pandemic, that research was spearheaded in China by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Fauci has led since 1984, oversees funding for most of the related research in America. The agency falls under the National Institutes of Health, which Rogin referenced.
“The head of the funding, the head of the entire field, really, is Anthony Fauci,” Rogin said. “He’s the godfather of gain-of-function research as we know it. That, what I said right there, is too hot for TV, because people don’t want to think about the fact that our hero of the pandemic … might also have been connected to this research, which might also have been connected to the outbreak.
“The problem is not that they were doing something wrong or illegal,” he noted. “The problem is that nobody knows what this legal stuff was that was going on. And now, all of a sudden, we have to take a look at it.”
Fauci has inspired critics in some quarters for his role in approving a $3.7 million grant to the Wuhan lab in 2015 to engage in related research, which came just a year after the Obama administration issued a moratorium on conducting such research in the U.S.
Rogin claimed in a book published last month that sources informed him China engaged in that research more aggressively than was previously understood, arguing that it contributed to evidence the Covid-19 pandemic stemmed from the lab in Wuhan.
“The Wuhan Institute of Virology had openly participated in gain-of-function research in partnership with U.S. universities and institutions,” Rogin noted in the book. “But [an] official told me the U.S. government had evidence that Chinese labs were performing gain-of-function research on a much larger scale than was publicly disclosed, meaning they were taking more risks in more labs than anyone outside China was aware of. This insight, in turn, fed into the lab-accident hypothesis in a new and troubling way.”
Rogin expanded on that statement in his interview with Kelly, saying, “Dr. Fauci, the hero of the pandemic, might also have had a role in the research that may have caused the pandemic.”
“People can’t get it through their heads, but that’s the reality,” he added, before lamenting that the topic was largely absent from public dialogue. “We don’t have a media environment where we can have that kind of discussion.”
Under 15 U.S. Code § 3710c, federal researchers, whose work was patented and commercialized, receive royalties at the rate of at least 15% of what the US government receives from the licensees, capped at $150,000 per person, per year. NIH and CDC pay their scientists 25% (on amounts over $50,000). These royalties are paid even after the person leaves the government employment and continue after his or her death.
NIH, NIAID, or CDC researcher who contributed to the development of a novel drug or therapy, and was named as one of the inventors on a commercialized patent, may be entitled to $3 million in royalties over the 20-year lifespan of the patent.
Federal agencies and laboratories, including NIH, NIAID, and CDC, are also encouraged to spread collected royalties among employees “who are not an inventor of such inventions but who substantially increased the technical value of such inventions”.
These royalties directly conflict with the main purposes of the National Institutes of Health and federal medical labs:
– to have the ability and independence to honestly evaluate drugs developed by private pharma companies
– to undertake research and development for which the private sector has no incentives.
NIH Scientists Caught Concealing Millions in Royalties for Experimental Treatments
The Associated Press has uncovered evidence of scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health flagrantly disregarding ethical and legal requirements of financial disclosure: “In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government.”
According to records obtained by the AP, among the 51 NIH scientists currently involved in testing products for which they secretly receive royalties, are Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and his deputy, Dr. H. Clifford Lane who “have received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented [interleukin-2]. At the same time, their office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on patients across the globe.”
According to the AP, the government has licensed the commercial rights to interleukin-2 to Chiron Corp: “Fauci’s division subsequently has spent $36 million in taxpayer money testing the treatment on patients in one experiment alone. Known as the Esprit experiment, it is one of the largest AIDS research projects in NIH history, testing interleukin-2 on patients at more than 200 sites in 18 countries over the last five years.”
Five years ago Donna Shalala, then Secretary of the Health and Human Services, issued federal requirements (2000) of financial disclosure requiring NIH scientists to disclose their financial interest in experimental treatments on informed consent documents reviewed by patients being recruited as test subjects. According to the Associated Press, NIH administrators did not even consider implementing the 5 year old federal requirement until AP filed a Freedom of Information request last week: “Quite frankly, we should have done it more quickly…”
Scientists at the nation’s premier research centers who violate ethical and legal requirements and use underhanded recruitment tactics, pose a very real and present threat to public safety: “hundreds, perhaps thousands, of patients in NIH experiments made decisions to participate in experiments that often carry risks without full knowledge about the researchers’ financial interests.”
The scope of ethical / legal violations and corrupt human recruitment practices by researchers at America’s premier medical research institutions is reaching the proportions of a tzunami. Self-regulation and peer review have proven about as reliable at ensuring ethical and scientific integrity as expecting the Mafia to vouch for the honesty of one of its own…
It will take more than pledges and promises by the director of NIH – it will take more than TALK about “transparency” to restore moral integrity. It will take a law accompanied by specified penalties to fit the crime – like the Sarbanes Oxley law. And most important, it will take an external enforcement mechanism to keep scientists honest. Say, a “corrupt science practice” division at the Department of Justice. It will also require effective whistleblower protection laws.
Two of the U.S. government’s premier infectious disease researchers are collecting royalties on an AIDS treatment they’re testing on patients using taxpayer money. But patients weren’t told on their consent forms about the financial connection.
Drs. Anthony Fauci and H. Clifford Lane, who helped invent the experimental interleukin-2 treatment being tested around the globe, even tried to alert patients about their royalties but were rebuffed by their own agency.
They’re hardly alone.
More than 900 current and former scientists at the National Institutes of Health legally collected $8.9 million in such royalties last year for drugs and inventions they discovered while working for the government, according to information obtained by The Associated Press.
But until last week, none was required to tell patients about their royalties despite the government’s promise in May 2000 that all scientists’ financial stakes would be disclosed to patients.
That’s because NIH didn’t get around to enacting a policy requiring the disclosure until after AP requested the royalty payments and disclosure policies under the Freedom of Information Act in December. The policy was formally distributed last week.
The nearly five-year delay means hundreds, perhaps thousands, of patients in NIH experiments made decisions to participate in experiments that often carry risks without full knowledge about the researchers’ financial interests.
“Quite frankly, we should have done it more quickly. But as soon as Director (Elias A.) Zerhouni found out about it, he ordered it done immediately,” NIH spokesman John Burklow said.
Ethics experts said the delay ran contrary to a basic premise of government ethics — open and full disclosure.
“It’s hard for patients to make an informed decision when they don’t have all the information,” said Bill Allison of the Center for Public Integrity, which monitors the ethics of government employees.
“When a doctor says, ‘Here, try this experiment, it is safe, or it will help,’ and the patient isn’t aware he has a financial interest in the outcome of that treatment, it in essence is taking advantage of someone by not letting them have all the information,” Allison said.
In all, 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government. They can collect up to $150,000 each a year, but the average is about $9,700, officials said.
In 2004, these researchers collected a total of $8.9 million. Only a dozen received the legal maximum.
The government owns the patents and the scientists are listed as inventors so they can share in licensing deals struck with private manufacturers. In addition to the inventors’ take, the government received $55.9 million in royalties for the same inventions and put that money back into research.
Fauci and Lane have each received $45,072.82 in royalties since 1997 when the government licensed the treatment they invented to drug maker Chiron Corp.
Both doctors said they, too, were concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest since the NIH division they oversee has been spending $36 million to test interleukin-2 on patients.
As a result, they took steps on their own to address the problem while NIH delayed in enacting a policy. For instance, the National Cancer Institute was brought in to independently review and approve the research in advance.
And Fauci tried to give back the royalty money he got from the interleukin-2 treatment and to disclose the payments on his public ethics forms. Both times he was rebuffed by his own agency, which declared he could do neither under the law.
So his only option was to donate all the money he has received since 1997 to charity. “I’m going to give every penny of it to charity … no matter what the yearly amount is,” Fauci said in an interview.
Lane is keeping his royalties, but said he pressed for years for a disclosure policy and occasionally gave interleukin-2 patients scientific journal articles that mentioned he was the inventor on the treatment’s patent.
“I believe patients should know everything that might influence their desire to be participants in research,” Lane said.
Both acknowledged they were unwilling to tell interleukin-2 patients about the royalties on consent forms until NIH developed its policy. Both will do so from now on.
“We were reluctant to make a formal policy until the broad policy came down from the department and NIH,” Fauci explained.
Their case illustrates the gulf between what the government promised nearly five years ago in the midst of controversy and what actually has been done.
Then-Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala pledged in May 2000 that the government would develop policies to require “that any researchers’ financial interest in a clinical trial be disclosed to potential participants.”
Congress, concerned by reports of conflicts of interest and researchers’ conduct in several high-profile experiments, was told the changes would happen. The government first published guidance for the disclosure in January 2001.
Current HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson issued new guidance in May 2004 that again clearly cited “compensation that may be affected by the study outcome” and “proprietary interests in the products, including patents, trademarks, copyrights or licensing arrangements.”
NIH, however, didn’t order the disclosure until last week’s policy.
Whatever happened to Rule #0 in true journalism: “verify every statement from three or more independent sources”?! Mainstream media is just commentary and unverified press releases. This research below gets as close to the requirements as it can in this heavily censored and gate-kept environment. But it also aligns with everything we’ve already published on this matter (quite a lot) unlike Fauci’s words align with themselves. You may have heard already some of this news as it goes viral, but it’s our original combo that puts to rest the entire official pandemic narrative.
Judicial Watch has just uncovered correspondences from Dr. Anthony Fauci outlining his focus on being in compliance with the Chinese Communist Party and their demands on the USA for COVID restrictions. And two more bombshells align.
“These new emails show WHO and Fauci’s NIH special accommodations to Chinese communist efforts to control information about COVID-19,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
From the press release Judicial Watch has put out on Monday :
Judicial Watch announced today that it and the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) received 301 pages of emails and other records of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showing that National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.
Additionally, the emails reveal an independent journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in China to NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects Cliff Lane.
The lawsuit was filed after HHS failed to respond to the DCNF’s April 1, 2020, FOIA request seeking:
Communications between Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane and World Health Organization officials concerning the novel coronavirus.
Communications of Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane concerning WHO, WHO official Bruce Aylward, WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom, and China.
The new emails include a conversation about confidentiality forms on February 14-15, 2020, between Lane and WHO Technical Officer Mansuk Daniel Han. Han writes: “The forms this time are tailored to China’s terms so we cannot use the ones from before.”
A WHO briefing package sent on February 13, 2020, to NIH officials traveling to China as part of the COVID response ask that the officials wait to share information until they have an agreement with China: “IMPORTANT: Please treat this as sensitive and not for public communications until we have agreed communications with China.”
In an email dated January 20, 2020, a WHO official discusses the epidemiological analysis they conducted of COVID-19 earlier that month and states that it is “strictly confidential,” is “only for,” the Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Infection Hazards (STAG-IH), and “should not be further disseminated.”
In an email dated March 4, 2020, from Chinese journalist Zeng Jia to Lane, a reporter for Caixin Media, points out to Fauci deputy Cliff Lane that the number of cases reported in the WHO Joint China Mission’s report are inconsistent with the number reported by the Wuhan Public Health Committee:
It says on Page 6 [in the WHO report] that there was at least one clinically diagnosed case of coronavirus on December 2th, 2019, in Wuhan; and from Jan 11th to 17th there were new clinically diagnosed and confirmed cases every day in Wuhan, which is not consistent with Wuhan Public Health Committee’s numbers.
In an email dated February 15, 2020, Gauden Galea, head of the WHO office in China, informs the joint mission members traveling to China that all of their activities in China would be arranged by the Chinese Government’s National Health Commission.
“These emails set the tone early on in the coronavirus outbreak. It’s clear that the WHO allowed China to control the information flow from the start. True transparency is crucial,” said Ethan Barton, editor-in chief for the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“These new emails show WHO and Fauci’s NIH special accommodations to Chinese communist efforts to control information about COVID-19,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
This is the latest information obtained in Judicial Watch and the DCNF’s ongoing investigation into Fauci’s and NIH’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Judicial Watch and the DCNF previously uncovered emails showing a WHO entity pushing for a press release, approved by Dr. Fauci, “especially” supporting China’s COVID-19 response.
And this comes just 10 days after Taiwan News unearthed another bombshell we’ve just learned about:
TAIPEI (Taiwan News, 2021/01/18 00:31) — Video taken just days before the start of the coronavirus pandemic shows a current World Health Organization (WHO) inspector discuss the testing of modified coronaviruses on human cells and humanized mice in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), just weeks before the first cases of COVID-19 were announced in the city of Wuhan itself.
In a video that was originally taken on Dec. 9, 2019, three weeks before the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission announced an outbreak of a new form of pneumonia, virologist Vincent Racaniello interviewed British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance Peter Daszak about his work at the nonprofit to protect the world from the emergence of new diseases and predict pandemics. Since 2014, Daszak’s organization has received millions of dollars of funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which it has funneled to the WIV to carry out research on bat coronaviruses.
In the first phase of research, which took place from 2014 to 2019, Daszak coordinated with Shi Zhengli, (石正麗), also known as “Bat Woman,” at the WIV on investigating and cataloging bat coronaviruses across China. EcoHealth Alliance received US$3.7 million in funding from the NIH for this research and 10 percent was channeled to the WIV, reported NPR.
The second, more dangerous phase, which started in 2019, involved gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses and chimeras in humanized mice from the lab of Ralph S. Baric of the University of North Carolina. Funding for the program was withdrawn by the NIH under the Trump administration on April 27 amid the pandemic.
At the 28:10 mark of the podcast interview, Daszak states that researchers found that SARS likely originated from bats and then set out to find more SARS-related coronaviruses, eventually finding over 100. He observed that some coronaviruses can “get into human cells in the lab,” and others can cause SARS disease in “humanized mouse models.”
He ominously warned that such coronaviruses are “untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals [antibodies] and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine.” Ironically, he claims that his team’s goal was trying to find the next “spillover event” that could cause the next pandemic, mere weeks before cases of COVID-19 were beginning to be reported in Wuhan.
When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the GoF experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.
Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the WIV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. “You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily.” What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: “Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.”
Daszak mentions the WIV’s collaboration with Baric: “and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC [University of North Carolina] to do this.” As has been suggested by proponents that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimera made in a lab, he speaks of inserting the spike protein “into a backbone of another virus” and then doing “some work in the lab.”
Providing evidence of the creation of chimeras for the sake of a vaccine, he states “Now, the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s try to insert these other related diseases and get a better vaccine.”
Based on Daszak’s statements, it appears that just before the start of the pandemic, the WIV was using GoF experiments with chimeras in an attempt to create a vaccine. These experiments appeared to have included infecting mice genetically modified to express the human ACE2 protein with these chimeras.
In a presentation titled “Assessing Coronavirus Threats,” which was delivered four years before the pandemic in 2015, Daszak points out that experiments involving humanized mice have the highest degree of risk. Demonstrating his close ties with the WIV, he also listed the lab as a collaborator at the end of the presentation. – Taiwan News
(Assessing Coronavirus threats, Peter Daszak image)
Controversially, Daszak has been included among a team of experts from the WHO that has finally been allowed by Beijing to investigate the origin of the outbreak of COVID-19, over a year after it started. Scientists such as Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, are condemning Daszak’s participation due to conflicts of interest “that unequivocally disqualify him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic,” reported the Daily Mail.
“Peter Daszak’s organisation channelled cash to Wuhan scientists at the centre of growing concerns over a cover-up – and also collaborated on the sort of cutting-edge experiments on coronaviruses banned for several years in the United States for fear of sparking a pandemic.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been carrying out this risky research on bat viruses since 2015, including the collection of new coronaviruses and hugely controversial ‘gain of function’ experiments that increase their ability to infect humans.
Peter Daszak’s organisation channelled cash to Wuhan scientists at the centre of growing concerns over a cover-up
Many leading scientists argue that deliberately creating new and infectious microbes poses a huge danger of starting a pandemic from an accidental release, especially as leaks from laboratories have often occurred.
Despite his close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – and the way he has orchestrated efforts to stifle claims that the pandemic might not have happened naturally – Dr Daszak was invited by the World Health Organisation to join its team of ten international experts investigating the outbreak.
The prominent scientist, who runs a conservation charity originally founded by the famous naturalist and best-selling author Gerald Durrell, is also leading an investigatory panel on the pandemic’s origins set up by The Lancet medical journal
‘Peter Daszak has conflicts of interest that unequivocally disqualify him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic,’ said Richard Ebright, bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
‘He was the contractor responsible for funding of high-risk research on Sars-related bat coronaviruses at Wuhan Institute of Virology and a collaborator on this research.’
Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, has seen his career take him from researching rare land snails at Kingston University to his new key role investigating the eruption of the most destructive pandemic for a century.
The pugnacious scientist, originally from Manchester, spent much of the past year trying to counter claims of a possible laboratory leak while defending his friend Shi Zhengli, the Wuhan scientist known as Batwoman for her virus-hunting trips in caves.
‘Ignore the conspiracy theories: scientists know Covid-19 wasn’t created in a lab,’ ran the headline to one typical article he wrote in The Guardian.
But other scientists say there is no firm evidence at this stage to back Daszak’s insistence that Covid-19 crossed from animals to humans via natural transmission. Many point to the simple yet startling coincidence that Wuhan is home to Asia’s main research centre on bat coronaviruses as well as the place where the pandemic erupted.
Emails released through freedom of information requests have shown Daszak recruited some of the world’s top scientists to counter claims of a possible lab leak with publication of a landmark collective letter to The Lancet early last year. He drafted their statement attacking ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin’ and then persuaded 26 other prominent scientists to back it. He suggested the letter should not be identifiable as ‘coming from any one organisation or person’.
The signatories include six of the 12-strong Lancet team investigating the cause of the outbreak.
Yet it has emerged that Daszak had previously issued warnings over the dangers of sparking a global pandemic from a laboratory incident – and said the risks were greater with the sort of virus manipulation research being carried out in Wuhan.
In October 2015, he co-authored an article in the journal Nature on ‘spillover and pandemic properties of viruses’ that identified the risk from ‘virus exposure in laboratory settings’ and from ‘wild animals housed in laboratories’.
Seven months earlier, Daszak was a key speaker at a high-powered seminar on reducing risk from emerging infectious diseases hosted by the prestigious National Academies of Science in Washington.
Among materials prepared for the meeting was a 13-page document by Daszak entitled ‘Assessing coronavirus threats’ that included a page examining ‘spillover potential’ from ‘genetic and experimental studies’.
This identified steps that increased dangers from such research – rising from lower risk sampling of viruses through to the highest risk from experiments on infecting isolated cells and on so-called ‘humanised mice’ – animals created for labs with human genes, cells or tissues in their bodies.
Yet on January 2 – three days after news broke outside China of a new respiratory disease in Wuhan – Daszak boasted on Twitter of isolating Sars coronaviruses ‘that bind to human cells in the lab’.
He added that other scientists have shown ‘some of these have pandemic potential, able to infect humanised mice’.
Another tweet two months earlier talked about ‘great progress’ with Sars-related coronaviruses from bats through identifying new strains, finding ones that bind to human cells and ‘using recombinant viruses/humanised mice to see Sars-like signs and showing some don’t respond to vaccines’.
Daszak also told a podcast that bat coronaviruses could be manipulated in a lab ‘pretty easily’, explaining how their spike proteins – which bind to human receptors in cells – drive the risk of transmission from animals to humans.” – Daily Mail
In light of the WHO’s trip to Wuhan, a researcher who goes by the pseudonym Billy Bostickson and his colleagues at DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) have created a petition demanding that the international investigation team answer 50 key questions about the outbreak in Wuhan. Among the questions is a request to access to the facility’s database and laboratory records, which are supposed to go back 20 years and include a look at its safety procedures, safety audit reports, and safety incident reports.
And it gets even more explosive when we put all these in line with Daily Caller’s discovery that Daszak and his WHO commission boss have a long history of sucking China’s heels:
The chairman of a blue-ribbon commission working with the United Nations and the World Health Organization to investigate the origins of the coronavirus pandemic has a history of praising and working with China while criticizing the U.S. government.
Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia economist, formed the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, affiliated with the prominent British medical journal of the same name, in July 2020 to investigate the virus’s origins.
Commission member Peter Daszak, a zoologist who is on the Lancet commission, served as the only American on a WHO team that recently visited Wuhan, China, to investigate the spread of the virus.
Daszak has been accused of having conflicts of interest due to millions of dollars of grants he has received from the U.S. government for research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which some U.S. officials have said may have been the initial, accidental source for the coronavirus.
Daszak, Sachs and the Chinese government have all vehemently disputed the so-called lab leak theory.
In June 2020, Sachs accused the U.S. government of “trying to create a new cold war” with China.
In December 2018, he called the U.S. government “today’s greatest threat to the international rule of law” and “global peace” after the U.S. asked Canada to arrest an executive with the Chinese tech firm Huawei.
And in an interview last month, Sachs deflected questions about China’s human rights abuses against Muslim Uighurs, saying that there are “huge human rights abuses committed by the U.S. on so many fronts.”
He also accused former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of “stirring the pot to raise tensions” after the diplomat criticized Chinese authorities’ crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.
The Lancet COVID-19 Commission has afforded Sachs access to both the United Nations and the WHO, both of which have been accused of appeasing the Chinese government amid fallout over Beijing’s early cover up of the severity of coronavirus.
The commission’s website says it partners with The Lancet, the prominent medical journal, and with the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, which was formed in 2012 by then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.
It is unclear what influence the Lancet commission has had on WHO and UN’s coronavirus related efforts, but Sachs co-hosted an online forum on Dec. 17 with the WHO to discuss Asian countries’ handling of the pandemic.
Sachs, who served as an adviser to the UN from 2002 to 2018, also met with the president of the United Nations General Assembly on Jan. 22 to discuss the Lancet commission’s work.
Sachs hasalsoappeared on CNN to tout a study he co-authored at Columbia in October that estimated that then-President Donald Trump’s policies were responsible for between 130,000 and 210,000 additional COVID-19 deaths.
The Lancet commission claimed in its early statements that it would investigate all theories about the virus origins with an open mind, though remarks from Daszak and Sachs both suggest that they dismissed the lab leak theory long ago.
The commission listed 10 priorities for action in its initial statement on Sept. 14, 2020.
The top priority, the commission said, was to “Track down the origins of the virus in an open, scientific, and unbiased way not influenced by geopolitical agendas.”
Daszak, who leads the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, said in a statement on Nov. 23 that the commission would conduct “a thorough and rigorous investigation” into the early spread of the virus.
But emails recently released by U.S. Right to Know, a health care watchdog group, show that Daszak organized a group of 27 scientists back in February 2020 to sign a letter published by The Lancet calling the accidental lab leak hypothesis a “conspiracy theory.”
U.S. Right to Know asserted that the emails show Daszak had made up his mind about the theory nearly a year before he joined the WHO team investigating the virus origins in China.
Daszak, along with many other scientists, have embraced the theory that the virus jumped from an animal species to humans, likely at a food market in Wuhan.
The watchdog group has also accused Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance of having a conflict of interest because of grants the group has received from the U.S. government for work with the Wuhan lab.
Sachs also dismissed the lab leak theory before the Lancet commission had investigated the virus’s origins.
In a virtual discussion in September, Sachs called the lab leak hypothesis “an extremely dangerous point,” but said it was “important” to publicly dispute it.
Daszak has been one of the more vocal members of the 17-member WHO investigative team.
After State Department spokesman Ned Price said on Feb. 9 that the U.S. government planned to independently review the WHO team’s findings, Daszak shot back on Twitter, urging: “don’t rely too much on U.S. intel.”
The leader of the WHO team, Peter Ben Embarek, said last week that the theory that the virus was the result of an accidental lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was “extremely unlikely.”
The New York Times declared Embark’s remarks a “public relations win” for the Chinese government since officials there have long denied the lab leak hypothesis.
The WHO’s assessment has been met with wide skepticism, even within President Joe Biden’s administration, which has defended the WHO against conservative threats to defund it over its alleged appeasement of China.
Jake Sullivan, the Biden administration’s national security adviser, issued a statement Saturday saying the U.S. was “deeply concerned” by reports that Chinese authorities withheld raw data on early coronavirus cases from the WHO investigators.
Some scientists have cast doubt on the WHO’s findings, pointing to Daszak’s role on the team.
“I was not surprised at all about the conclusions of the WHO. Having Daszak on board and deciding to visit a few labs in Wuhan only after pressure from the media was not very promising,” Rossana Segreto, a researcher at the University of Innsbruck, told the Daily Caller.
While Sachs has no apparent financial ties to the Wuhan lab, he has for years been a reliable defender of China’s foreign and domestic policy. From 2001 to 2002, he advised China’s State Development Planning Commission, which sets the communist regime’s economic policies.
Sachs became a frequent guest of China’s state-controlled media outlets to voice criticism of Trump’s aggressive stance toward Beijing. The Washington Free Beacon reported some of his comments last year after progressive Democrats floated Sachs for a position in the Biden administration’s Treasury Department.
In an interview in April 2020 with CGTN, which the U.S. government considers a Chinese propaganda outlet, Sachs called Trump’s threat to cut funding to the WHO “disgusting” and “disgraceful.”
Trump had called for defunding the WHO based on allegations that it had failed to hold the Chinese government accountable for withholding data about the coronavirus.
Republicans accused WHO leaders of avoiding confrontation with China over the communist regime’s early handling of information about the coronavirus. In some cases, Beijing provided false information about the transmission of the virus and the number of cases detected in China.
Sachs does not appear to have criticized the Chinese government over its bungled pandemic response.
Prior to the pandemic outbreak, Sachs contributed to a position paper released in November 2018 by Huawei, which manufactures surveillance equipment that the Chinese government has used to track Uighurs.
Sachs praised China’s poverty alleviation program during an interview with another state-controlled TV network.
“China has done more to reduce extreme poverty in a short period of time than any other country in history,” Sachs told the Beijing-controlled Xinhua News Agency in an interview that aired earlier this month.
Sachs has also refused to condemn the Chinese government for engaging in intellectual property theft, and for human rights abuses against Uighurs in western China.
Instead, he accused the U.S. in an interview last month of engaging in similar human rights abuses and underhanded business tactics.
“It strikes me as odd that American policymakers think that the United States alone ought to run the show, or that the United States ought to gang up with other countries to corner China, as if this was the Cold War with the Soviet Union,” he said in an interview with The Wire China.
“Thereʼs no purity in this topic,” Sachs continued. “Thereʼs a lot of industrial espionage and cheating by U.S. companies.”
Sachs deflected questions about China’s human rights abuses against Uighurs, which Tony Blinken, the secretary of state under Biden, recently characterized as a “genocide.”
“We have huge human rights abuses committed by the U.S. on so many fronts,” Sachs said in the interview.
Sachs was on the advisory board to the China Energy Fund Committee, a think tank funded by CEFC China Energy, a now-defunct energy conglomerate affiliated with China’s People’s Liberation Army.
Sachs appeared at several events hosted by Patrick Ho, the chairman of the think tank.
During one event, Sachs praised China’s economic sustainability initiative, One Belt, One Road, at a China Energy Fund Event held in 2016.
Patrick Ho, the chairman of the think tank, was indicted and convicted on charges that he offered bribes on behalf of CEFC China Energy to two African leaders to purchase oil rights in their countries.
CEFC China paid Hunter Biden $6 million from August 2017, including $1 million to represent Ho.
Federal prosecutors obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Ho based on the suspicion that he was working as a secret foreign agent, according to court filings in his case.
Sachs is also on the board of the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development, a Serbian think tank founded by Vuk Jeremic, a former Serbian foreign minister who served as president of the UN General Assembly through 2012.
Jeremic testified at Ho’s trial that he made the introductions to the African officials who Ho tried to bribe.
Jeremic lobbied Hunter Biden to help him with his failed campaign for UN secretary-general in 2016, according to emails from Biden’s laptop.
The Lancet commission did not respond to questions about Sachs’ and Daszak’s past remarks, saying instead that the task force “will thoroughly and objectively review all publicly available evidence, and conduct interviews with key leaders in diverse fields.”
A spokesperson for the commission said that investigators “will carefully assess all leading hypotheses that have been raised about the origins of COVID-19, from a natural zoonotic event to a laboratory release.”
The commission plans to publish a final report in the Lancet.
Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that the statement in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance.
I mean, correlation does not prove causation, but it proves correlation, and that’s bad enough. No way in hell can anyone claim the “autoritah” is telling the truth.
BUT. Before we get too enthusiastic, we need to compare the archives against the mega-leak from December 2016, because there’s been suggestions that this is not newly hacked data. Looks like someone wanted to drive attention and legitimacy for some information, slapped a bunch of old e-mail credentials on it for make-up and wrapped it up like a fresh hack. To me, it smells more like amateur counter-intel than intel. If this is correct, it doesn’t discredit the authenticity of all the info in the leak, just the perpetrators. It’s all worth double-checking. And considering the 2016 leak counted over a billion addresses, let me know who’s up for this test drive!
“In December 2016, a huge list of email address and password pairs appeared in a “combo list” referred to as “Anti-Public”. The list contained 458 million unique email addresses, many with multiple different passwords hacked from various online systems. The list was broadly circulated and used for “credential stuffing”, that is attackers employ it in an attempt to identify other online systems where the account owner had reused their password. The information was just recently released and I was one of the victims, so I thought I would share with everyone. Stay safe online everyone. Change your passwords often!” – Troy Hunt, Australian Microsoft Regional Director and Microsoft Most Valuable Professional for Developer Security.
Latest update: several people on Internet claim that some of the e-mail credentials worked and they accessed information. Of course there must be a few good ones among the 25.000, but I bet most have been changed by now, if there’s been a few years between the actual leak and today. I’ll wait for credible bombshells, nothing so far and this still looks like a sloppy fake hack. More updates as they come in!