The only thing worse than genocide is irreversibly compromising the human genetics with incalculable consequences for all current and future generations. And, once again, we bring proof they are knowingly doing this, and where there’s awareness, there’s also intention. So this video below should open the Nuremberg 2 trials.
The WEF published this video in 2016, one year prior to Moderna’s Tal Zaks video for TED that we’ve already manage to make quite viral. This crucial issue is hugely underrated and most people still are not so sure what to believe simply because The Military Biotech Complex is burning the books through its Big Tech arm. Hopefully the video before clarifies the issue for good.
Before we further discuss this, please see this “prequel” for very important context:
Actually, one of our first videos deleted by YouTube was just scientists describing their work in the field of epigenetics and epitratrascriptomics, a whole science dedicated to editing DNA using RNA as a screwdriver. See:
Now that we are on the same page, in terms of information, I’d like to go back to our new video, there’s a few key points that I’d like to stress:
They’ve been in the know since Day 1, this is not a surprising side effect, it’s the effect they pursued.
The above implies intention
Obviously they have no clue what this will lead to, other than genetic chaos. In the words of Bill Gates “If you want to see the effects after two years, you need to wait two years”. How about 20 or 200 years?
Cherry on the cake – the newest revelations: 50% truncated mRNA that no one has any clue what it does
All of the above is potentially irreversible, definitive and transmissible to the future generations. We have no clue what’s going to happen, but your grand-grand-grand kids may all suffer from it. Even if you’re a pure blood, you can get contaminated a million ways. AND THAT’S WHAT’S WORSE THEN GENOCIDING A GENERATION IN ONE COUNTRY OR ANOTHER.
Which brings me to another crucial question I launched in the public square long ago, without any satisfactory response:
You all know DNA is described as made of two protein spirals. If you take one and you break it to pieces, the result is hardly different from RNA or their description of a virus. In which case I would love an expert to explain:
What happens to the DNA debris resulted from cell death, where does it go and can it be mistaken for viruses? Are infections and diseases actually auto-immune attacks?
Here’s a possible starting point:
Mechanisms and physiology of the clearance of dead cells by efferocytosis
“Unlike PAMPs, which are derived from microbes, damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) are of cellular origin and can be liberated upon cell death. DAMPs trigger inflammatory responses, and may also serve as chemoattractants for macrophages. DAMPs are metabolically diverse entities, including genomic and mitochondrial DNA, nuclear proteins (HMGB, histones)25, cytoplasmic proteins (S100), cytokines (IL-1α, IL-33, IL-36), and other small molecules (ATP, UTP, uric acid crystals) (Table 1)26. In addition, inflammasome [G] -mediated caspase-1 activation generates inflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-18 during pyroptosis (see Box 1) that lead to inflammatory immune activation after cellular demise.27 Below, we review the relevance of DAMPs during efferocytosis, the ability of DAMPs to modulate inflammation, and specific DAMPs and their effects.
DNA as a DAMP.
Several mechanisms ensure low DNA burden following apoptotic death and contribute to its immune-silent phenotype. In healthy cells, caspase-activated DNase (CAD) exists in complex with its inhibitory chaperone ICAD and remains constitutively inactive in the cytosol28,29. Active caspase-3 cleaves ICAD28,30, promoting CAD homodimerization, nuclear translocation, and DNA hydrolysis between nucleosomes. Nuclear pieces are then neatly packaged with cytoplasm into apoptotic bodies that are eventually digested during efferocytosis31. In contrast, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), as well as pathogen-derived DNA molecules in those cells dying due to an infection, can be released to the extracellular environment from non-apoptotic dying cells. Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) is activated by unmethylated CpG sequences such as those found in mtDNA or bacterial DNA (Table 1), and activation of TLR9 triggers downstream inflammatory responses. circulating DNA DAMPs can accumulate in the body in cases where non-apoptotic cell death is widespread; for example, mtDNA was found to be elevated in the plasma of trauma patients32, likely as a result of injury-induced cell death.
DNA in the extracellular environment is processed by DNase-I33, while DNase-III (also known as TREX1) clears cytoplasmic DNA34, and DNase-II processes DNA from dying cells in the phagocyte’s lysosomes to help maintain negligible levels of DNA following efferocytosis. Should DNA escape to the cytosol, it can be recognized by cytosolic DNA sensors35, including cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS) and the inflammasome component AIM2. cGAS is activated upon cytosolic DNA binding and subsequently catalyzes a reaction between GTP and ATP to form cyclic GMP-AMP (cGAMP)36. The newly synthesized cGAMP binds to and activates the stimulator of interferon genes protein (STING), leading to TANK binding kinase 1 (TBK1)-dependent phosphorylation of the interferon regulatory factor IRF337. These events trigger the IRF3-mediated activation of a Type I interferon response.
DNase-II-deficient or DNase III-deficient mice die during embryogenesis and this embryonic lethality can be prevented if the response to misplaced DNA is abrogated through deletion of cGAS, STING, or the Type-I interferon receptor (IFNAR)38–41. It is possible that these DNases function to limit cytosolic DNA following efferocytosis during development, thereby preventing this lethal interferonopathy, although how the DNA of engulfed corpses might be released from the phagosome or lysosome to become cytosolic, triggering such responses, remains unknown.
Similarly, recognition of cytosolic DNA by AIM2 causes AIM2 to recruit and activate caspase-1, resulting in IL-1β processing and release, contributing to inflammation42,43. Again, when and how defects in the clearance of DNA during efferocytosis may engage AIM2 remains unclear.
Protein DAMPs.
High mobility group protein B1 (HMGB1) is a nuclear protein that binds to DNA and assists replication, repair and transcription44,45,46. Although some HMGB1 can be released to the extracellular milieu under steady state conditions47 or during apoptosis48, it is predominantly released during forms of immunogenic cell death25. Efficient efferocytosis can thus limit the release of HMGB1. Based on its redox status, HMGB1 can function as a chemotactic agent (reduced) or as an inflammatory agent (oxidized)49. In its reduced form, HMGB1 can prevent the induction of immune tolerance [G] to antigens associated with the dying cell48. Reduced HMGB1 may bind to TLRs or the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) (Table 1)50, leading to immune cell activation and cytokine production. Recently, binding of reduced HMGB1 to the chemokine receptor CXCR4 was observed during tissue regeneration following injury51, highlighting the possible importance of this molecule in the response to dying cells. S100 proteins can also be released from dying cells52, and efferocytosis can limit the release of these proteins from dying cells. Again, TLRs and RAGE appear to be the primary receptors on macrophages that promote inflammatory activation in response to S100 proteins.”
Efferocytosis is critical for tissue homeostasis.Efferocytosis can be carried out by professional phagocytes (red boxes), such as macrophages and dendritic cells, or to a lesser extent by non-professional phagocytes (blue boxes) such as epithelial cells. Disruption of normal efferocytosis can contribute to the development of a wide range of pathologies (light grey boxes) across a variety of tissues. (dark grey boxes). COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IPD, idiopathic pulmonary disease; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.
I keep my expectations low, but please surprise me!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
If you’re familiar with our reports, George Church is no stranger to you either. He’s a founder figure for the Human Genome Project, CRISPR and The BRAIN Initiative. But he’s totally not getting the deserved attention, seeing that he’s just turned our world upside down. Not by himself, of course.
Meet George Church
Remember when Fauci and Big Tech joined efforts to keep us in the dark in regards to the mRNA impact on our genetics and DNA?
We’ve shown that there’s an entire new field of science that does just that: argues what Fauci said by using RNA to reprogram DNA. YouTube ad Facebook censored this.
Let’s see how are they going to argue this gentle giant of the science world and all his dark entanglements:
Professor at Harvard & MIT, co-author of 580 papers, 143 patent publications & the book “Regenesis”; developed methods used for the first genome sequence (1994) & million-fold cost reductions since (via fluor-NGS & nanopores), plus barcoding, DNA assembly from chips, genome editing, writing & recoding; co-initiated BRAIN Initiative (2011) & Genome Projects (GP-Read-1984, GP-Write-2016, PGP-2005:world’s open-access personal precision medicine datasets); machine learning for protein engineering, tissue reprogramming, organoids, xeno-transplantation, in situ 3D DNA, RNA, protein imaging.
George Church is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Director of PersonalGenomes.org, which provides the world’s only open-access information on human Genomic, Environmental & Trait data (GET). His 1984 Harvard PhD included the first methods for direct genome sequencing, molecular multiplexing & barcoding. These led to the first genome sequence (pathogen, Helicobacter pylori) in 1994 . His innovations have contributed to nearly all “next generation” DNA sequencing methods and companies (CGI-BGI, Life, Illumina, Nanopore). This plus his lab’s work on chip-DNA-synthesis, gene editing and stem cell engineering resulted in founding additional application-based companies spanning fields of medical diagnostics ( Knome/PierianDx, Alacris, AbVitro/Juno, Genos, Veritas Genetics ) & synthetic biology / therapeutics ( Joule, Gen9, Editas, Egenesis, enEvolv, WarpDrive ). He has also pioneered new privacy, biosafety, ELSI, environmental & biosecurity policies. He is director of an IARPA BRAIN Project and NIH Center for Excellence in Genomic Science. His honors include election to NAS & NAE & Franklin Bower Laureate for Achievement in Science. He has coauthored 537 papers, 156 patent publications & one book (Regenesis).
He was part of a team of six[80] who, in a 2012 scientific commentary, proposed a Brain Activity Map, later named BRAIN Initiative (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies).[81] They outlined specific experimental techniques that might be used to achieve what they termed a “functional connectome“, as well as new technologies that will have to be developed in the course of the project,[80]including wireless, minimally invasive methods to detect and manipulate neuronal activity, either utilizing microelectronics or synthetic biology. In one such proposed method, enzymatically produced DNA would serve as a “ticker tape record” of neuronal activity. – Wikipedia
Wyss Institute Will Lead IARPA-Funded Brain Mapping Consortium
January 26, 2016
(BOSTON) — The Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University today announced a cross-institutional consortium to map the brain’s neural circuits with unprecedented fidelity. The consortium is made possible by a $21 million contract from the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) and aims to discover the brain’s learning rules and synaptic ‘circuit design’, further helping to advance neurally-derived machine learning algorithms.
The consortium will leverage the Wyss Institute’s FISSEQ (fluorescent in-situ sequencing) method to push forward neuronal connectomics, the science of identifying the neuronal cells that work together to bring about specific brain functions. FISSEQ was developed in 2014 by the Wyss Core Faculty member George Church and colleagues and, unlike traditional sequencing technologies, it provides a method to pinpoint the precise locations of specific RNA molecules in intact tissue. The consortium will harness this FISSEQ capability to accurately trace the complete set of neuronal cells and their connecting processes in intact brain tissue over long distances, which is currently difficult to do with other methods.
Awarded a competitive IARPA MICrONS contract, the consortium will further the overall goals of President Obama’s BRAIN initiative, which aims to improve the understanding of the human mind and uncover new ways to treat neuropathological disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, autism and epilepsy. The consortium’s work will fundamentally innovate the technological framework used to decipher the principal circuits neurons use to communicate and fulfill specific brain functions. The learnings can be applied to enhance artificial intelligence in different areas of machine learning such as fraud detection, pattern and image recognition, and self-driving car decision making.
See how the Wyss-developed FISSEQ technology is able to capture the location of individual RNA molecules within cells, which will allow the reconstruction of neuronal networks in the 3-dimensional space of intact brain tissue. Credit: Wyss Institute at Harvard University
“Historically, the mapping of neuronal paths and circuits in the brain has required brain tissue to be sectioned and visualized by electron microscopy. Complete neurons and circuits are then reconstructed by aligning the individual electron microsope images, this process is costly and inaccurate due to use of only one color (grey),” said Church, who is the Principal Investigator for the IARPA MICrONs consortium. “We are taking an entirely new approach to neuronal connectomics_immensely colorful barcodes_that should overcome this obstacle; and by integrating molecular and physiological information we are looking to render a high-definition map of neuronal circuits dedicated first to specific sensations, and in the future to behaviors and cognitive tasks.”
Church is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT.
To map neural connections, the consortium will genetically engineer mice so that each neuron is barcoded throughout its entire structure with a unique RNA sequence, a technique called BOINC (Barcoding of Individual Neuronal Connections) developed by Anthony Zador at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Thus a complete map representing the precise location, shape and connections of all neurons can be generated.
The key to visualizing this complex map will be FISSEQ, which is able to sequence the total complement of barcodes and pinpoint their exact locations using a super-resolution microscope. Importantly, since FISSEQ analysis can be applied to intact brain tissue, the error-prone brain-sectioning procedure that is part of common mapping studies can be avoided and long neuronal processes can be more accurately traced in larger numbers and at a faster pace.
In addition, the scientists will provide the barcoded mice with a sensory stimulus, such as a flash of light, to highlight and glean the circuits corresponding to that stimulus within the much more complex neuronal map. An improved understanding of how neuronal circuits are composed and how they function over longer distances will ultimately allow the team to build new models for machine learning.
The multi-disciplinary consortium spans 6 institutions. In addition to Church, the Wyss Institute’s effort will be led by Samuel Inverso, Ph.D., who is a Staff Software Engineer and Co-investigator of the project. Complementing the Wyss team, are co-Principal Investigators Anthony Zador, Ph.D., Alexei Koulakov, Ph.D., and Jay Lee, Ph.D., at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Adam Marblestone, Ph.D., and Liam Paninski, Ph.D. are co-Investigator at MIT and co-Principal Investigator at Columbia University, respectively. The Harvard-led consortium is partnering with another MICrONS team led by Tai Sing Lee, Ph.D. of Carnegie Mellon University as Principal investigator under a separate multi-million contract, with Sandra Kuhlman, Ph.D. of Carnegie Mellon University and Alan Yuille, Ph.D. of Johns Hopkins University as co-Principal investigators, to develop computational models of the neural circuits and a new generation of machine learning algorithms by studying the behaviors of a large population of neurons in behaving animals, as well as the circuitry of the these neurons revealed by the innovative methods developed by the consortium.
“It is very exciting to see how technology developed at the Wyss Institute is now becoming instrumental in showing how specific brain functions are wired into the neuronal architecture. The methodology implemented by this research can change the trajectory of brain mapping world wide,” said Wyss Institute Founding Director Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D., who is also the Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Medical School and the Vascular Biology Program at Boston Children’s Hospital and Professor of Bioengineering at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. – WYSS Institute
IARPA is CIA’s DARPA. DARPA IS RAN BY PENTAGON AND IARPA BY CIA. IARPA IS EVEN MORE SECRETIVE, DARING AND SOCIOPATHIC.
Machine Intelligence from Cortical Networks (MICrONS)
Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA)
Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies. (BRAIN)
Full Rosetta brains in situ A. Activity (MICrONS = Ca imaging) (Alternative=Tickertape, see figure to right) B. Behavior (MICrONS & Alt = traditional video) C. Connectome (MICrONS & Alt = BOINC via Cas9-barcode) D. Developmental Lineage (via Cas9-barcode) E. Expression (RNA & Protein via FISSEQ)
Flagship Pioneering’s Scientists Invent a New Category of Genome Engineering Technology: Gene Writing
Tessera Therapeutics emerges from three years of stealth operations to pioneer Gene Writing™ as a new genome engineering technology and category of genetic medicine
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., July 7, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Flagship Pioneering today announced the unveiling of Tessera Therapeutics, Inc. a new company with the mission of curing disease by writing in the code of life. Tessera is pioneering Gene Writing™, a new biotechnology that writes therapeutic messages into the genome to treat diseases at their source.
Tessera’s Gene Writing platform is a potentially revolutionary breakthrough for genetic medicine that addresses key limitations of gene therapy and gene editing. Gene Writing technology can alter the genome by efficiently inserting genes and exons (parts of genes), introducing small insertions and deletions, or changing single or multiple DNA base pairs. The technology could enable cures for diseases that arise from errors in the genome, including monogenic disorders. It could also allow precise gene regulation in other diseases such as neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune disorders, and metabolic diseases.
“While profound advancements in genetic medicine over the last two decades had therapeutic promise for many previously untreatable diseases, the intrinsic properties of existing gene therapy and editing have significant shortcomings that limit their benefits to patients,” says Noubar Afeyan, Ph.D., founder and CEO of Flagship Pioneering and Chairman of Tessera Therapeutics. “Our scientists have invented a new technology, called Gene Writing, that has the ability to write therapeutic messages into the genomes of somatic cells. We created Tessera to pioneer its applications for medicine. However, the breakthrough is broad and could be applied to many different genomes from humans to plants to microorganisms.”
A New Era of Genetic Medicine
Geoffrey von Maltzahn, Ph.D., an MIT-trained biological engineer; Jacob Rubens, Ph.D., an MIT-trained synthetic biologist; and other scientists at Flagship Labs, the enterprise’s innovation foundry, co-founded Tessera in 2018 to create a platform that could design, make, and launch Gene Writing medicines. A General Partner at Flagship Pioneering, von Maltzahn has co-founded numerous biotechnology companies, including Sana Biotechnology, Indigo Agriculture, Kaleido Biosciences, Seres Therapeutics, and Axcella Health.
“DNA codes for life. But sometimes our DNA is written improperly, driving an enormous variety of diseases,” says von Maltzahn, Tessera’s Chief Executive Officer. “We started Tessera Therapeutics with a simple question: ‘What if Nature evolved a better solution than CRISPR for inserting curative therapeutic messages into the genome?’ It turns out that engineered and synthetic mobile genetic elements offer the potential to go beyond the limitations of gene editing technologies and allow Gene Writing. Our outstanding team of scientists is focused on bringing the vast promise of this new technology category to patients.”
Mobile genetic elements, the inspiration for Gene Writing, are evolution’s greatest genomic architect. The first mobile genetic element was discovered by Barbara McClintock, who won the 1983 Nobel Prize for revealing the mobile nature of genes. Mobile genetic elements code for the machinery to move or copy themselves into a new location in the genome, and they have been selected over billions of years to autonomously and efficiently “write” their DNA into new genomic sites. Today, mobile genetic elements are among the most abundant and ubiquitous genes in nature.
Over the past two years, Tessera has been mining genomes to discover novel mobile genetic elements and engineering them to create Gene Writing technology.
Tessera’s Gene Writers write therapeutic messages into the genome using RNA or DNA templates. RNA-based Gene Writing uses an RNA template and Gene Writer protein to either write a new gene into the genome or guide the rewriting of a pre-existing genomic sequence to make a small substitution, insertion, or deletion. DNA-based Gene Writing uses a DNA template to write a new gene into the genome.
By harnessing the biology of mobile genetic elements, Gene Writing holds the potential to overcome the limitations of current genetic medicine approaches by:
Efficiently writing small and large alterations to the genome of somatic cells with minimal reliance upon host DNA repair pathways, unlike nuclease-based gene editing technologies.
Permanently adding new DNA to dividing cells, unlike AAV-based gene therapy technologies.
Writing new DNA sequences into the genome by delivering only RNA.
Allowing repeated administration of treatments to patients in order to dose genetic medicines to effect, which is not possible with current gene therapies.
Tessera has licensed Flagship Pioneering’s intellectual property estate, which was begun in 2018 with seminal patent filings supporting both RNA and DNA Gene Writing technologies.
Tessera’s Scientific Advisory Board includes Luigi Naldini, David Schaffer, Andrew Scharenberg, Nancy Craig, George Church, Jonathan Weissman, and John Moran, who collectively have decades of experience in developing gene therapies and gene editing technologies, and also have commercial expertise from 4D, UniQure, Casebia, Cellectis, Magenta, and Editas. Tessera’s Board of Directors includes John Mendlein, Flagship Executive Partner and former CEO of multiple companies; Melissa Moore, Chair of Tessera’s Scientific Advisory Board, Chief Scientific Officer of Moderna, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and founding co-director of the RNA Therapeutics Institute; Geoffrey von Maltzahn; and Noubar Afeyan. The 30-person R&D team at Tessera has deep genetic medicine and startup expertise, including alumni from Editas, Intellia, Beam, Casebia, and Moderna.
About Tessera Therapeutics Tessera Therapeutics is an early-stage life sciences company pioneering Gene Writing™, a new biotechnology designed to offer scientists and doctors the ability to write and rewrite small and large therapeutic messages into the genome, thereby curing diseases at their source. Gene Writing holds the potential to become a new category in genetic medicine, building upon recent breakthroughs in gene therapy and gene editing, while eliminating important limitations in their reach, utilization and efficacy. Tessera Therapeutics was founded by Flagship Pioneering, a life sciences innovation enterprise that conceives, resources, and develops first-in-class category companies to transform human health and sustainability.
About Flagship Pioneering Flagship Pioneering conceives, creates, resources, and develops first-in-category life sciences companies to transform human health and sustainability. Since its launch in 2000, the firm has applied a unique hypothesis-driven innovation process to originate and foster more than 100 scientific ventures, resulting in over $34 billion in aggregate value. To date, Flagship is backed by more than $4.4 billion of aggregate capital commitments, of which over $1.9 billion has been deployed toward the founding and growth of its pioneering companies alongside more than $10 billion of follow-on investments from other institutions. The current Flagship ecosystem comprises 41 transformative companies, including Axcella Health (NASDAQ: AXLA), Denali Therapeutics (NASDAQ: DNLI), Evelo Biosciences (NASDAQ: EVLO), Foghorn Therapeutics, Indigo Ag, Kaleido Biosciences (NASDAQ: KLDO), Moderna (NASDAQ: MRNA), Rubius Therapeutics (NASDAQ: RUBY), Sana Biotechnology, Seres Therapeutics (NASDAQ: MCRB), and Syros Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: SYRS). – Flagship Pioneering
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
“In the early nineties, pioneering steps were taken in the use of mRNA as a therapeutic tool for vaccination. In the following decades, an improved understanding of the mRNA pharmacology, together with novel insights in immunology have positioned mRNA-based technologies as next-generation vaccines.”
Like teenagers the world over, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Ralph Steinman had absolutely no idea what he wanted to do when he grew up.
In a 2009 essay, the Canadian-born immunologist and cell biologist described his early school career as unfocused, only landing on an interest in biology and medicine while taking “almost every other course” at McGill University in Montreal while on scholarship as an undergraduate.
This latent interest eventually led him to Harvard Medical School, where he earned his M.D. (also on scholarship), and an internship and residency at Massachusetts General Hospital. In 1970, the young Steinman joined the Laboratory of Cellular Physiology and Immunology at Rockefeller University in New York City as a postdoctoral fellow under cell biologist and immunologist Zanvil A. Cohn. Steinman wanted to know what triggers the body’s immune system to kick into gear to initiate a response, a question few scientists at the time were asking.
Just three years later, while working with cells from the spleens of mice, Steinman and Cohn made the discovery that would shape Steinman’s future: the identification and role of a particular type of white blood cell that sets into motion and controls the body’s immune system. They termed these cells dendritic cells, after the branching, tree-like shape the cells can form.
By identifying this chief component that initiates and regulates an immune response, Steinman had discovered why, when, and how the body’s immune system reacts the way that it does, especially in the face of foreign pathogens. He’d discovered what amounted to the boss cell that kicks off immune reactions and tells other cells what to do and what not to do. Dendritic cells also play a role in autoimmune diseases, inflammation, allergies, and transplant rejections.
This discovery would revolutionize immunotherapy and eventually launch the new field of dendritic cell biology. But at the time, Steinman’s discovery was generally disregarded. Dendritic cells were considered little more than an obscure anomaly by much of the scientific community. To top it off, the cells were difficult to isolate, and low in frequency and abundance to boot. It would take more than 20 years and Steinman’s development of a new method to generate large numbers of dendritic cells for experimental use for the scientific community to finally verify and accept his theories.
His chances for surviving another year were estimated at less than five percent.
Steinman was especially interested in clinical applications for dendritic cells, dedicating much of his career toward the development of new medical therapies and treatments based on his research. His discovery led to the first therapeutic cancer vaccine in 1973, a dendritic cell-based immunotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. Other potential immunotherapies that have resulted include cancer and transplantation treatments and vaccines for HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, and the Epstein-Barr virus, some of which have reached clinical trials.
Steinman’s desire to see his research put into practical medical application cannot be overstated. Despite his gentle, almost grandfatherly way of speaking, he often expressed frustration at the slow speed at which experimental therapies escaped the confines of the lab and its theoretical animal and data models to reach actual patients. This impatience took on a new sense of urgency in 2007 when Steinman was diagnosed with Stage 4 (advanced) pancreatic cancer. By the time of his diagnosis, the cancer had already advanced beyond the pancreas and spread to Steinman’s lymph nodes. His chances for surviving another year were estimated at less than five percent.
So, Steinman went to work. In response to his illness, he designed and coordinated a single-case medical study with himself as the sole subject.
In addition to undergoing conventional surgery and chemotherapy, Steinman reached out to the international network of researchers in industry and academia he’d built over his decades-long career. Banding together for this common cause, he and his colleagues developed a variety of personalized cancer treatments, many based on his design and research, including vaccines developed from Steinman’s own tumor cells.
“With ten million persons afflicted each year, no one is entirely immune to cancer and its devastating effects on individuals and families. But recent advances in the development of cancer vaccines—either as therapeutic agents or as preventative measures—are hopeful indicators of progress in this field. This volume comprises invited chapters from world-renowned researchers and clinicians that shed light on recent steps forward in immunotherapeutic and preventive approaches for future cancer vaccines.” – Blackwell Publishing
A close-up look at a dendritic cell, the boss cell that kicks off immune reactions and tells other cells what to do and what not to do.
Despite his general impatience with the speed of the traditional scientific process, Steinman insisted on conducting his personal trial according to established protocols, filing mounds of paperwork with official channels and seeking appropriate permissions for untested therapies just like any other trial. Although his personalized experiment was not controlled, he wanted it well-organized and well-documented so his treatment attempts might not only find a cure for himself but also gather knowledge that could be used to benefit others.
This adherence to protocol, however, became a source of frustration for some of Steinman’s colleagues. Steinman, for example, refused combined therapies that failed to get regulatory approval, even though he and many of his colleagues felt the combined approach had a higher likelihood of success. He also initially refused to undergo multiple treatments at once because doing so would confuse the data being collected. With time of the essence, colleagues had to argue with Steinman to get him to prioritize the possibility of his health and longevity over proper protocol and clean experimental results. All told, Steinman underwent as many as eight experimental therapies, in addition to surgery and chemotherapy, to combat his disease.
Four and a half years after his cancer diagnosis, he died just three days before the Nobel Prize announcement
During his long career, he received numerous awards and honors, including the prestigious Lasker Award (sometimes referred to as the American Nobel) in 2007. While in the midst of his illness and self-experimentation, he was also nominated for the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the dendritic cell and subsequent contributions to immunology research and medicine.
Steinman joked often about surviving long enough to witness the awards announcement, and as late as a week before, the possibility seemed likely. But on September 30, 2011, four and a half years after his cancer diagnosis, he died just three days before the Nobel Prize announcement. He was 68 years old.
Nobel Prize rules generally prohibit the awarding of a prize posthumously, but given the unusual circumstances and unfortunate timing of events, the Nobel Committee ruled to allow the honor to stand. Steinman shares the prize with American immunologist Bruce A. Beutler and French biologist Jules A. Hoffman, also for their work in the area of immunity research.
Although no one can be sure of the efficacy of the dendritic cell-based immunotherapies Steinman underwent or which one(s) might have helped, the Nobel Laureate lived more than four times longer than expected. His decades of work have contributed to clinical therapies for cancer and infectious diseases that will benefit patients for generations to come. And despite those early years of unfocused study, even his self-experimentation laid the groundwork for future treatments, including an immunotherapy against pancreatic cancer based on data gathered during Steinman’s final experiment. – Folks Magazine
Ralph Steinman died days before it was announced that he was to share the Nobel Prize for Medicine. His work had been part of an unorthodox experiment to save his life, wrote Politico journalist Brett Norman, quoted by BBC, 2011.
When Ralph Steinman learned he had pancreatic cancer, the dogged immunologist put his life’s work to the test.
He launched a life-and-death experiment in the most personal of personalised medicine.
By unlucky coincidence, he had been diagnosed with a disease that might benefit from the therapies he had spent his life researching.
Usually, medical research proceeds at a glacial, thorough pace: cell studies lead to studies in small animals which lead to studies in larger animals, which eventually lead to small, highly-selective clinical trials in humans. But Steinman didn’t have that kind of time.
He did, however, have access to world class facilities, cutting-edge technology, and some of the world’s most brilliant medical minds, thanks to his position as a researcher at Rockefeller University.
So Steinman decided to make his own body the ultimate experiment.
He had removed a piece of the tumour that would eventually kill him. He then trained his immune cells to track down any hint of the tumour that might have escaped the surgery, like putting hounds on a scent.
On Friday, four-and-a-half years after he was diagnosed with a disease that kills the vast majority of its victims in less than one, that experiment came to an end.
Steinman died at the end of a week in which he continued his work in the lab. It was a testament to the undying optimism of the scientific enterprise, to the unrelenting man, and to the limits of both.
An open secret
I joined Rockefeller as a science writer to chronicle the work of its researchers – Steinman included – about halfway through one of his experiments on himself.
His experiment was an open secret on campus, registered with the hospital and aided by a long-time friend and staff physician. The sense of hope was palpable, bound up in respect for the man but also something broader.
Could the painstakingly incremental research that seemed to have so much potential on lab animals this once grant a reprieve from certain death?
Of course everyone was rooting for him, and I had a special interest. Toward the end of 1999, my father had a stomach complaint. Over a few months, the initial diagnosis of an ulcer morphed into a death sentence: inoperable, metastatic cancer of the pancreas.
Pancreatic cancer is often known as the “silent killer” because it usually doesn’t produce truly scary symptoms until it has spread beyond repair. After chemotherapy, my dad bounced back for a few months, but the cancer inevitably did, too. He died at home in the early fall of 2000.
Could Steinman beat it?
I hoped so. The work had promise.
“In the last few years of his life, Dr. Ralph Steinman made himself into an extraordinary human lab experiment, testing a series of unproven therapies – including some he helped to create – as he waged a very personal battle with pancreatic cancer.”
In 1973, along with his mentor, Zanvil Cohn, Steinman published the discovery of a new class of cell in the immune system – the dendritic cell. Like many new discoveries, his faced a deeply sceptical reception.
The experiments couldn’t be immediately reproduced, but Steinman was convinced of his discovery. He fought for a decade before immunologists began to broadly recognise the central importance of those cells to their field.
In the past 20 years, the study of dendritic cells has spread to hundreds of labs all over the world. Researchers are exploring how they might be harnessed to fight cancer, HIV and transplant rejection, among other major medical problems.
Dendritic cells are the “sentinel cells” of the mammalian immune system. Named after the Greek word for tree, they develop distinctive probing branches when activated, sweeping their environment in search of unwelcome things – like bacteria, viruses, tumours.
When dendritic cells encounter something they don’t like, they take a physical marker of the invader, called an antigen, and present it to B and T cells, the defenders of the body’ s immune system. Those cells then adapt weapons to identify and destroy the interlopers.
Steinman bet that if he could train his dendritic cells to recognise and tag his cancer, they would be able to convince the T and B cells to do the rest.
Dream deferred
There was no good reason to expect that Steinman could fashion a cure for one of the world’s most vicious cancers in time to save his own life. But it was easy to think it was at least possible. The made-for-Hollywood story of the renegade scientist who fights the establishment to prove his discovery, and then uses it to cure himself, was powerful enough to compel hope.
Unfortunately, the dendritic cell-based treatments didn’t work – at least not well enough.
Training Steinman’s dendritic cells to the tumour did generate a “vigorous immune response to mesothelin, a tumour specific antigen,” said Dr. Sarah Schlesigner, a longtime colleague of Steinman’s who ran the trial.
In other words, while there were significant side effects, the therapy seemed to enable him to work much longer than he otherwise would have. Month after month, he remained at the University, continuing his work.
He survived much longer than expected, and continued his research until the end.
Over time, it wasn’t enough.
At least, not enough to save him.
But the research he pioneered continues – and the scientists who continue his work have an extraordinary example to follow. – BBC, 2011
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
“Imagine a biological computer that operates inside a living cell” – Dr. Andrew Phillips, head of bio-computation at Microsoft Research.
“The problem we’re trying to solve is really trying to have a more sophisticated diagnosis that can happen automatically inside cells… In this project, we’re trying to use DNA as a programmable material” according to Dr. Neil Dalchau, a scientist at Microsoft Research.
Moderna described mRNA as “an information molecule” and even trademarked the name “mRNA OS” – meaning ‘operating system’, according to bigtechtopia.com We have Moderna’s head honcho “on tape” describing the mRNA vaccine as “information therapy”:
“Molecular devices made of nucleic acids show great potential for applications ranging from bio-sensing to intelligent nanomedicine. They allow computation to be performed at the molecular scale, while also interfacing directly with the molecular components of living systems. They form structures that are stable inside cells, and their interactions can be precisely controlled by modifying their nucleotide sequences. However, designing correct and robust nucleic acid devices is a major challenge, due to high system complexity and the potential for unwanted interference between molecules in the system. To help address these challenges we have developed the DNA Strand Displacement (DSD) tool, a programming language for designing and simulating computational devices made of DNA. The language uses DNA strand displacement as the main computational mechanism, which allows devices to be designed solely in terms of nucleic acids. DSD is a first step towards the development of design and analysis tools for DNA strand displacement, and complements the emergence of novel implementation strategies for DNA computing.”
UPDATE OCT. 29 2021: 3RD DNA STRAND AND COVID INJECTIONS:
Is this 3rd strand anything like…
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
With one exception, everything YouTube banned from us was good and meaningful information that’s never been debunked, or legit skepticism and inquiry. This interview should be no exception. Besides the shocking “coincidences” with current events.
They deleted it before I even had the chance to edit the title 😀
The full text of my appeal to YouTube’s ban:
We all know you have no competence, capability, grounds or rights to do what you are claiming to do, and, in fact, you’re deleting stuff because it exposes your own business. But an YouTube ban brings me more traffic than I lose on your crappy narrative-enforcement machine, so keep up the great work! 😉
January 2014 interview with Anthony Patch, founder of Entangled Magazine an insightful and revelatory digital publication focused on current advances and pronouncements in: Quantum Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Cryptocurrencies/Blockchain, Quantum Mechanics, DNA/RNA Modification.
His YouTube channel has also been deleted, but he’s active on Bitchute.
I can’t vouch for some of the things he (or anyone) is saying on his channel, but smart people have a lot to learn from what he puts out. Other than that, see our motto in the website header 😉
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Our nano-grand-jury has settled: best scamdemic videos of 2021 so far, and for a while, are:
YOUTUBE BANNED OUR VIDEO IN LIKE 30 MIN, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE IT ON ODYSEE / BITCHUTE / BRIGHTEON
Seems like Youtube hurried to prove our point lmao
UPDATE: WE’RE FIRING BACK AT YOUTUBE CENSORSHIP WITH THEIR WEAPONS, OUR STRATEGY AND BACK-UP CHANNEL. FOR THIS TO WORK, WE VERY MUCH NEED TO SEE SOME LOVE FOR THIS ARTICLE AND THE VIDEO BELOW, WHICH HAS TO BECOME POPULAR ON YOUTUBE, NOT ELSEWHERE, WE NEED TO SCORE ON THEIR FIELD IF WE ARE TO WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP! THANK YOU!
THE PART 2 OF OUR EULOGY SURVIVED THE YOUTUBE SCIENCE SLAUGHTER
Amen
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Anyone who has any remnants of humanity inside has asked this question. One answer is no secret to anyone: poor countries. But that’s not always the case, and this is where it gets darker.
The ethics of deliberately infecting volunteers with Covid-19 to test vaccines are a complicated issue only if you value something more than human life, which is actually common, but not the case here. So I’m not making a secret that everything I know and feel made me conclude long ago that most medical tests that occurred on humans were abominations permitted only by a massive lack of empathy / humanity and usually driven by financial incentives. Everything that followed after that was but a confirmation. Point being: I’m long over that debate, there is absolutely no essential difference between the Bayer labs in Auschwitz and the Pfizer Labs in London (or wherever). And I know a large slice of society, if not the majority, still has major moral, rational and ethical concerns about this, luckily, and it can’t be that easy to find these kids without leveraging finances on poorest people, and even then… Proof to that, Moderna has just publicly admitted it has big difficulties in finding 3000 kids, and I hope they never sort it out. So much so that They appealed to all their presstitutes to make a roll call for them. Funnily, only days after Moderna’s appeal, CBS lies that they were having “more than enough volunteers, so basically these two messages are now still being propagated simultaneously: “Last fall, the Clinical Research Institute sent out letters to pediatricians’ offices and posted on Facebook looking for volunteers in the 12-year-old to 17-year-old age group. Though the study will run for 13 months, the researchers have more than enough volunteers for this trial.” – CBS
Since you can’t expect anyone involved to be honest and open about it, based on their past and present performance, and they’re not, where to find the answer? There’s about 50 vaccines being trialed right now, some are moving into babies as young as 6 months old, this IS urgent! If you need another reminder why, go to Forbes and read “The Hideous Truths of Testing Vaccines on Humans”, or watch the videos below.
To get back to the headline question, remember wherever demand forms, a market forms and an industry develops.
It does not access your doctor’s medical file. Here are some excerpts:
In the summer of 2015, Alexandra Franco got a letter in the mail from a company she had never heard of called AcurianHealth. The letter, addressed to Franco personally, invited her to participate in a study of people with psoriasis, a condition that causes dry, itchy patches on the skin.
Franco did not have psoriasis. But the year before, she remembered, she had searched for information about it online, when a friend was dealing with the condition. And a few months prior to getting the letter, she had also turned to the internet with a question about a skin fungus. It was the sort of browsing anyone might do, on the assumption it was private and anonymous.
Now there was a letter, with her name and home address on it, targeting her as a potential skin-disease patient. Acurian is in the business of recruiting people to take part in clinical trials for drug companies. How had it identified her? She had done nothing that would publicly associate her with having a skin condition.
When she Googled the company, she found lots of people who shared her bewilderment, complaining that they had been contacted by Acurian about their various medical conditions. Particularly troubling was a parent who said her young son had received a letter from Acurian accurately identifying his medical condition and soliciting him for a drug trial—the first piece of mail he’d had addressed to him besides birthday cards from family members.
Acurian has attributed its uncanny insights to powerful guesswork, based on sophisticated analysis of public information and “lifestyle data” purchased from data brokers. What may appear intrusive, by the company’s account, is merely testimony to the power of patterns revealed by big data.
“We are now at a point where, based on your credit-card history, and whether you drive an American automobile and several other lifestyle factors, we can get a very, very close bead on whether or not you have the disease state we’re looking at,” Acurian’s senior vice president of operations told the Wall Street Journal in 2013.
Yet there’s some medical information that Acurian doesn’t have to guess about: The company pays Walgreens, which uses a privacy exemption for research, to send recruitment letters to its pharmacy customers on Acurian’s behalf, based on the medications they’re using. Under this arrangement, Acurian notes that it doesn’t access the medical information directly; the customers’ identities remain private until they respond to the invitations.
And that is not the entire story. An investigation by the Special Projects Desk has found that Acurian may also be pursuing people’s medical information more directly, using the services of a startup that advertises its ability to unmask anonymous website visitors. This could allow it harvest the identities of people seeking information about particular conditions online, before they’ve consented to anything.
A letter sent out to a Walgreens customer in Connecticut on Acurian’s behalf. It invited her to visit a generic sounding website for people with pulmonary disease. At the time, she had a prescription from Walgreens for asthma.
If you’re suddenly thinking back on all of the things you’ve browsed for online in your life and feeling horrified, you’re not alone.
AcurianHealth has created dozens and dozens of generic sounding websites for the trials they’re recruiting for: www.trialforCOPD.com,www.studiesforyourarthritis.com, and www.kidsdepressionstudy.com are a few examples of the many websites they own. The sites all feature stock images of people in distress, sometimes include AcurianHealth’s logo, and include promises of up to $1,000 for participating, depending on the study.
Out of view, some of these sites include something else: code from a company called NaviStone—which bills itself as a specialist in matching “anonymous website visitors to postal names and addresses.” So if a person is curious about one of those letters from Walgreens, or follows one of Acurian’s online ads, and visits one of Acurian’s generic disease-specific sites, their identity could be discovered and associated with the relevant condition.
NaviStone says it can send personalized mail to anonymous website visitors with a day or two of their visit.
This tracking function undermines what’s supposedly a formal separation between Walgreens customer data and Acurian’s recruitment. If Walgreens sends out a bunch of letters to customers taking certain medications, and those customers then visit the generic website controlled by Acurian provided in the letter, Acurian can infer its wave of new visitors are taking those medications—and, if NaviStone delivers on its promise to identify visitors, Acurian can see who they are.
Walgreens gives itself permission to use customers’ health information for “research” purposes, which would include clinical trials, in its privacy policy. It’s been working with Acurian since at least 2013, and in 2015, Walgreens announced it was “leveraging” its 100 million customer database to recruit patients directly for five major drug companies.
When asked about its partnership with Acurian, Walgreens spokesperson Scott Goldberg pointed me to a Walgreens FAQ page about clinical trials. It states that Walgreens doesn’t share health information with third parties without permission, but that a third party may “receive your information if you contact the web-site and/or toll-free number in the letter to seek more information about the clinical trial.”
The question is whether users will know that one of Acurian’s websites has received their information—even if they haven’t necessarily agreed to submit it. NaviStone, an Ohio-based business spun out from the marketing firm CohereOne last year, claims to be able to identify between 60 and 70 percent of anonymous visitors to the websites that use its services.
When we contacted the firm last month to ask how it does this, Allen Abbott, NaviStone’s chief operating officer, said by phone that talking about how its technology works is “problematic.”
“A lot of our competitors would love to know how we made it work,” Abbott said. “We have an advantage that we would be silly to reveal.”
We asked whether the company had thought about the privacy implications involved in identifying people visiting a website for sensitive reasons, and whether there were certain customers the company wouldn’t work with.
“Our business is almost entirely e-commerce, helping retailers sell to their customers,” he said. “There was one site that came into our radar that was adult-related material that we decided not to pursue.”
We then described what Acurian does.
“We don’t work with anyone like that,” he said.
We explained that the call was because we’d found NaviStone’s code on AcurianHealth sites.
“It’s possible,” he then said. “We have a lot of customers.”
But Abbott insisted that NaviStone had found a “privacy compliant way” to identify anonymous website visitors—again saying he couldn’t describe it because it was a proprietary technology.
When we analyzed the NaviStone code on Acurian’s sites, we found one way that NaviStone’s technology works: It collects information as soon as it is entered into the text boxes on forms, before the person actually agrees to submit it. When we typed a test email address in the “Join Us” page on Acurian’s site, it was immediately captured and sent to the company’s servers, even if we later chose to close the page without hitting the “Send” button on the form.
In fact, the information was collected before we got to the part of the form that said, “Your privacy is important to us. By selecting this box, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree that we contact you by phone using automated technology or other means using the information you provided above regarding research studies.” – Gizmodo
But that was long ago in terms of technological progress.
However, the methods persist in 2021, an US local tv station reveals that exactly the same scenario occurred in Cincinnati, with the same company at the center of the scandal. Here’s what they’ve just published:
<<Nancy Brashear opened her mail at her Campbell County, Kentucky, home to find an offer to earn money if she joined a COVID-19 vaccine test.
“I got a letter from Acurian Health looking for volunteers for a COVID vaccine study, promising up to $1,200 if you participate or volunteer,” she said.
It looked promising, but Brashear said she started to wonder how they knew she would be a good candidate for a vaccine trial. Did someone with a hospital, doctor’s office or pharmacy sell her health information?
“How do they get my information?” Brashear said. “That really bothers me.”
We called and emailed Acurian Health to find out how they got her name, but did not hear back.
But Brashear found that if you decide to apply, you will then have to give much more medical information to see if you actually qualify. There is no guarantee you will be accepted for a trial, and no guarantee you will earn anything close to $1,200.
“If you go on the website, you have to go through steps to do that, so they are looking for information,” she said.
In the end, she said thanks, but no thanks, wondering if she would be sharing too much medical and personal information with a company she knew little about.
If you want to sign up for a COVID-19 trial, the NIH, National Institutes of Health, is a government site that lists all the authorized vaccine trials going on.
Many of them will pay money, typically a few hundred dollars. However, they may not cover treatment for any side effects.
So be sure to read all the fine print, so you don’t waste your money.>> – WCPO
I don’t know about you, but what I’ve learned so far is:
Pharmafia still does whatever it takes to get what it wants, even primitive hacking as described above.
These methods are still too primitive for the biggest actors in Pharmafia who are well into artificial intelligence and cutting edge technologies
So what are these top cats doing then? I’ve consulted some of my insider sources, put it together with my own digs and, as per usual with these creatures, the most obvious suspicions are also true.
If you’ve been around, you should be aware by now of three tendencies that are one, actually:
1. Big Tech and Big Pharma are merging
2. Healthcare and Big Data are merging
They’re not only after health data, don’t worry, all data helps a sale
3. The above are merging with media and the elected government
What are Google and Facebook selling, in fact? Your data. What for? So you can be best manipulated by different interests, with custom-design ads and policies.
Oracle’s National Electronic Health Records Cloud dates back to the beginnings of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, a couple of weeks after letting President Trump use his estate near Palm Springs for a $100,000-a-plate golfing fundraiser, Ellison placed a call to the White House. According to a Forbes cover story on Ellison, he “asked Trump if a clearinghouse existed for real-time data about treatment efficacies and outcomes.”
Within a week after the president asked “how much?” and Ellison said, “for free,” the tech titan had brought together a team of Oracle engineers “to build a database and website registering coronavirus cases” and work with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies.
The first public acknowledgment of Oracle’s progress came on July 3, 2020, when the NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), overseen by Dr. Anthony Fauci, launched the COVID-19 Prevention Trials Network (COVPN), aimed at enrolling thousands of volunteers in large-scale trials for a variety of investigational vaccines and monoclonal antibodies.
Fauci achieved this by merging four existing networks, all researching HIV/AIDS, something they would continue to do. “The network is expected to operate more than 100 clinical trial sites across the United States and internationally,” according to the NIAID press release which also stated “the COVPN website features a customized data collection platform, which Oracle (Redwood Shores, CA) built and donated, to securely identify potential trial participants.”
In August, a paper published by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security proposed that the “passive reporting” systems managed by the CDC and FDA ought to be revamped to forge “an active safety surveillance system directed by the CDC that monitors all [COVID-19] vaccine recipients — perhaps by short message service or other electronic mechanisms.”
By September, Operation Warp Speed director Moncef Slaoui was telling the periodical Science: “We’re working super hard on a very active pharmacovigilance system, to make sure that when the vaccines are introduced that we’ll absolutely continue to assess their safety.
In October, Slaoui told the New York Times: “The FDA is proposing that at least 50% of the individuals in the study population have at least two months of follow-up on safety before the vaccines are approved. And secondly, we are working really hard with the FDA and the CDC to make sure we have a very active pharmacovigilance surveillance system to allow us to continue to assess the safety of the vaccines as they are being used in the high risk population.”
And the Wall Street Journal reported in a profile of Slaoui that he’d said “tracking systems will have to be ‘incredibly precise’ to ensure that patients each get two doses of the same vaccine and to monitor them for adverse health effects. Operation Warp Speed has selected the medical-distribution company McKesson and cloud operators Google and Oracle to collect and track vaccine data.”
“This marked the first time that Oracle’s role was revealed to have expanded to include Operation Warp Speed.
Oracle Chairman Ellison’s lucrative government arrangements trace back to the data software pioneer’s origins. In 1975, then in his early thirties, Ellison worked on a project for the electronics company Ampex in the Bay area, building a large terabit memory system for the CIA.
Ellison revealed in 2014 that the CIA not only became his firm’s first customer for a “relational database” two years later, but that he adopted the name from a CIA project called Oracle. “The news about our hot little database traveled around the intelligence community pretty quickly,” Ellison was quoted as saying in the 2003 book, “Softwar.” “In a little over six months’ time we had won several deals — the CIA, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence and the NSA [National Security Agency].” – Technocracy News
From this industry’s perspective, you enrolling KFC’s Fidelity Club or a vaccine trial is the same technical challenge. One that they keep winning lately.
Remember when the sister of YouTube’s CEO and former wife of Google’s founder Sergey Brin, still a business partner, set up a DNA testing company and then sold the data for $300 million to pharma giant genocidal company GSK?
Oh, it’s all about science and health, sure, but what science and whose health? Because anyone who’s been in touch with reality lately knows a few more things: – Pharmafia invests much more in the science of marketing than in medical sciences – That data often comes from marketing experts such as Google and Facebook – Marketing and propaganda sell and persuade much more efficiently than science when it comes to large masses of people. Or all of them. It’s way easier and cheaper to manipulate the low-IQ majority than to heal it. Especially with these tools Big Tech brought aboard.
What keeps them from finding and manipulating the feeble minds they need for these new atrocities they call “vaccines human trials” and, in fact, are neither vaccines or human, just deranged human abuse experimentation? From what I’ve found out so far, the answer is: nothing. Everything you type on your computer is collected and can be processed to obtain a method to target and determine people to subject their kids to this. It’s probably much easier to sell than some of their other products. This is already a massive industry that often breaks ethical and even legal barriers.
What, you’ve never thought Cambridge Analytica can work for Pharmafia too? Well then remember we’ve passed that, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft (recording my typing right now) and Alphabet (Google) are not distinguishable from Pharmafia at all. The concept that they wouldn’t take any and all advantage of their new powers and domination is comically delirious. Moderna must be running out of money or love if Google won’t send them a mere 3000 kids, no joke.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
10.4.1. Male Participant Reproductive Inclusion Criteria Male participants are eligible to participate if they agree to the following requirements during the intervention period and for at least 28 days after the last dose of study intervention, which corresponds to the time needed to eliminate reproductive safety risk of the study intervention(s):
• Refrain from donating sperm.
PLUS either: • Be abstinent from heterosexual intercourse with a female of childbearing potential as their preferred and usual lifestyle (abstinent on a long-term and persistent basis) and agree to remain abstinent.
OR
• Must agree to use a male condom when engaging in any activity that allows for passage of ejaculate to another person. • In addition to male condom use, a highly effective method of contraception may be considered in WOCBP partners of male participants (refer to the list of highly effective methods below in Section 10.4.4).
10.4.2. Female Participant Reproductive Inclusion Criteria A female participant is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant or breastfeeding, and at least 1 of the following conditions applies:
• Is not a WOCBP (see definitions below in Section 10.4.3).
OR
• Is a WOCBP and using an acceptable contraceptive method as described below during the intervention period (for a minimum of 28 days after the last dose of study intervention). The investigator should evaluate the effectiveness of the contraceptive method in relationship to the first dose of study intervention.
The investigator is responsible for review of medical history, menstrual history, and recent sexual activity to decrease the risk for inclusion of a woman with an early undetected pregnancy.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
I unearthed a 2017 Ted Talk featuring the current Moderna boss Tal Zaks, where he describes the mRNA technology that was first meant to treat cancer, he call it “information therapy”, see for yourselves:
Ah, and also this:
UPDATE 2:
DR. TENPENNY EXCELLENTLY SUMS UP THE CASE AGAINST mRNA TECHNOLOGY, SOLIDIFYING EVERYTHING WE’VE EXPOSED:
WE’VE JUST GOT A BAN FROM YOUTUBE FOR TRYING TO MIRROR THIS VIDEO ON OUR CHANNEL, BUT THAT’S ANOTHER STORY. SO FAR IT HOLDS ON THE ORIGINAL CHANNEL, IF THEY TAKE IT DOWN, IT’S ALREADY BACKED ON OUR ODYSEE CHANNEL, SEE THE LINKS PAGE 😉
UPDATE: ANOTHER OPEN ADMISSION: APRIL 2021
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Related Projects:
SILVIEW.media 
