If you’re a typical millennial, schooled, not educated, and with no historical time perception, you may think this happened ages ago and it’s no longer relevant. But the victims would be younger than my mom today and the affair has been concluded just a few years before my birth. It is conceivable that some of the participants are still working and giving advice on Covid nowadays.

Pharmafia and its faucist lemmings have jumped on an imaginary flying white horse and are pointing fingers at all dissatisfied costumers and skeptics from some imaginary moral heights they fly in their empathy-deficient heads.
They call out racism, egoism and what not in everyone who’s not a Pharma-junkie yet, projecting their own faults all over the place like a garden sprinkler made by Goebbels Industries .
They need bitch-slapped back into reality with some historical facts.
Because if a person had Pharmafia’s criminal record, you’d ask for bodyguards and a restraining order, and the last thing you’d take from them would be health-advice.

THE HIDDEOUS THRUTHS OF TESTING VACCINES ON HUMANS

By Leah Rosenbaum, Forbes, June 12, 2020

Sixty years ago, a monstrous hepatitis experiment was performed on mentally disabled children at Willowbrook State School that raises serious ethical questions about vaccine challenge trials for Covid-19.

Nina Galen was ten years old when she became part of one of the most controversial human experiments in American history. Her mother, Diana McCourt, was looking for an institution that could care for her severely autistic daughter. “I was just desperate,” McCourt says now, more than 50 years later. “I think I was having a breakdown because I was just trying to take care of everything.”

McCourt finally settled on Willowbrook State School, a home for severely developmentally challenged children and adults on Staten Island, New York. In order to get Nina a spot at the overcrowded facility, however, she had to make a Faustian bargain—consenting to allow her daughter to be part of a quest to find a vaccine for hepatitis. “I had no choice,” McCourt says, “I had tried so many different places and so many arrangements, and they didn’t work out, so I went along with it.” 

Nina became one of more than 50 mentally disabled children, ages 5 to 10, under the care of Dr. Saul Krugman, a respected pediatrician from New York who wanted to determine if there were multiple strains of hepatitis, and whether a vaccine could be created to protect against the disease. Krugman and his partner, Dr. Joan Giles, used the Willowbrook residents to test a preliminary vaccine for this disease that had killed millions worldwide. From 1955 to 1970, the children were injected with the virus itself or made to drink chocolate milk mixed with feces from other infected children in order to study their immunity.

For much of human history, hepatitis caused some of the deadliest outbreaks in the world. The symptoms, including fever, liver damage and yellow skin, were written about by Hippocrates in the fifth century B.C.E. While we now know that there are multiple viruses (most famously, hepatitis A, B and C), in the first half of the 20th century researchers only knew of one form of the disease, which was then called epidemic jaundice. 

Finding a vaccine became particularly important for the United States during World War II, when hepatitis outbreaks affected more than 50,000 American troops. To fight this disease and others, the Surgeon General’s office established the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board.

Willowbrook-building
School for Scandal: In addition to conducting hepatitis experiments, Willowbrook’s staff physically abused residents.

In the early 1950s, Dr. Krugman, a former flight surgeon for the U.S. Army Air Corps, went to the Epidemiological Board with a proposition: he wanted to create a vaccine for hepatitis, and knew the perfect place where he could do his research. Willowbrook was overcrowded, already rampant with disease, and at the time it wasn’t uncommon to test vaccines on children.

The idea goes back to the grandfather of vaccines himself, Edward Jenner, who used an 8-year-old boy as the first test subject of his groundbreaking smallpox vaccine in the late 18th century. The Willowbrook hepatitis experiments would be vaccine challenge experiments, so-called because the body is intentionally “challenged” with a direct exposure to the virus to see if a particular treatment prevents someone from getting the disease. 

“He believed he was helping the children at this school deal with the epidemic,” says Dr. Krugman’s son Richard, a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital Colorado and former head of the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. “He certainly thought he was making a contribution to infectious disease research.”

Although there’s little doubt that Dr. Krugman accelerated the discovery of a hepatitis vaccine, the ethics of his experiment have resurfaced as vaccine challenge trials are being debated for Covid-19. Many politicians, medical ethicists and scientists have come out in favor of the idea, which would include giving healthy volunteers a dose of an unproven vaccine, and then deliberately exposing them to Covid-19 to see if it offers protection against the virus.

While the vaccine challenge trials would be done with healthy adult volunteers, the Covid-19 vaccine challenge trial and the Willowbrook hepatitis experiments beg the same question: Is it really necessary—or right—to risk the health of a few for the benefit of many? 


Saul Krugman arrived at the bucolic Willowbrook campus in 1955. Nestled on almost 400 acres on Staten Island, the large, U-shaped brick buildings were surrounded by a lush green forest. A painted yellow and blue carousel sat at the entrance to the grounds, and first-time visitors described it as enchanting, like a summer camp. Inside, however, Willowbrook was a nightmare. 

Do No Harm: RFK described Willowbrook's conditions as ″less comfortable and cheerful than the cages in which we put animals in a zoo.″
Do No Harm: RFK described Willowbrook’s conditions as “less comfortable and cheerful than the cages in which we put animals in a zoo.” 
But since the kids were mostly white and many of the “caregivers” black, I doubt libtards will get triggered by this

The school opened in 1947 and was built to hold 4,000 residents, but for years that number was over 6,000. Disease and neglect were everywhere, and multiple residents died from untreated illness and abuse. In 1965, Robert F. Kennedy, then a New York Senator, made an unannounced visit to Willowbrook and left appalled. “There are no civil liberties for those put in the cells of Willowbrook,” he later testified before Congress, calling the institution a “snake pit.” 

When Dr. Krugman and Dr. Giles began the Willowbrook hepatitis experiments, they used the conditions of Willowbrook to their advantage for recruiting new families. Despite its well-documented horrors, Willowbrook was still one of the only options for children with severe disabilities, and there was a long waitlist. Dr. Krugman offered several parents, including Nina Galen’s, the ability to jump the line and have their children put in the newer, cleaner research wards with more staff—if they joined the experiments. “I did feel coerced,” McCourt says, “I felt like I was denied help unless I took this [opportunity].” 

Krugman also told parents that since hepatitis was already prevalent at Willowbrook, their children may as well have the chance for a vaccine. McCourt remembers being told her daughter could get an “antidote” to hepatitis if she joined the experiment. When she asked why the hepatitis studies couldn’t be done on primates, she was told that using animals would be “too expensive.”

Despite understanding the optics of infecting mentally disabled children with a potentially deadly disease, Dr. Krugman felt the risk was worth the reward. “The decision to feed hepatitis virus to patients at Willowbrook was not undertaken lightly,” he wrote in a 1958 paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine. He noted that the strain of hepatitis in Willowbrook wasn’t very severe, that many of the children would get infected anyway, and that any knowledge gained from the experiment would in fact help other Willowbrook residents. He also emphasized that the study was sanctioned by the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, and the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board of the Surgeon General’s Office. 

“I don’t think you’re ever justified to inoculate a child with an infectious virus that might kill them,” says pediatrician Paul Offit. 

Some of Dr. Krugman’s trials built on previous research that giving children antibodies from patients who had recovered from hepatitis could prevent new infections. (A similar concept, using convalescent plasma of recovered Covid-19 patients to treat sick patients, is being explored today.)

The experiments also involved infecting healthy children with the virus through the chocolate milk concoction. The doctors eventually learned how much it took for the children to show symptoms of hepatitis, allowed them to recover, and then gave them the virus all over again. These experiments were done to test if someone who had recovered from hepatitis would remain immune or if they could be reinfected again. 

As each trial concluded, Dr. Krugman published the results in prominent medical journals including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. From the time of the first publication, the experiments were controversial within the medical community. In 1966, renowned medical ethicist Henry K. Beecher published an article titled, “Ethics and Clinical Research,” which listed Willowbrook as an example of an unethical clinical experiment and concluded that “there is no right to risk an injury to one person for the benefit of others.” 

Five years later, the editorial board of the Lancet apologized for publishing Dr. Krugman’s studies without greater skepticism. “The Willowbrook experiments have always carried a hope that hepatitis might one day be prevented,” the editors wrote, “but that could not justify the giving of infected material to children who would not directly benefit.” A year later, Krugman had to ward off protesters at a medical conference in Atlantic City. 

Consent-form_AK-redacted_1958
Bad Form: Willowbrook often accepted children in exchange for parental permission to conduct hepatitis testing. THE COLLEGE OF STATEN ISLAND ARCHIVES AND SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

“I think he got a lot of flak for it from people who didn’t understand the context or the reality of the institution,” Richard Krugman says. “It certainly got caught up in the politics of the day.”

But Dr. Krugman had as many fans as he did detractors. New York State Senator Seymour Thaler, originally a critic of the hepatitis experiments, later said that Krugman had “done a magnificent thing.” Dr. Franz Ingelfinger, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, also supported the research. “How much better to have a patient with hepatitis, accidentally or deliberately acquired, under the guidance of a Krugman than under the care of a zealot,” he wrote. 

In addition to discovering the hepatitis A and B strains, Dr. Krugman “certainly did speed up the development of a hepatitis B vaccine,” says Paul Offit, a pediatrician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. But, Offit adds, “I don’t think you’re ever justified to inoculate a child with an infectious virus that might kill them.” 

As members of the medical community protested Krugman’s experiments, a greater force was mobilizing to close down Willowbrook for good. 

In 1972, Geraldo Rivera, then a local television reporter in New York, snuck into the grounds of the school and broadcast the inhumane conditions of Willowbrook. He had been tipped off about the residents’ living conditions by Michael Wilkins, a doctor at the school who was not involved in the hepatitis trials. 

“It’s almost 50 years and speaking about it still makes me cry,” says Rivera, now a roaming correspondent-at-large at Fox News. “The conditions were so horrible.” Rivera remembers seeing children naked, smeared in their own feces and hitting their heads against the wall. “I would imagine that the situation I had was similar to the GIs that freed the concentration camps.”

Geraldo-Rivera-by-Michael-Ochs-Getty-Images
The Last Great Disgrace: As a result of Geraldo Rivera’s 1972 investigation of Willowbrook, a federal law was passed to protect people in institutions. MICHAEL OCHS/ GETTYIMAGES

At roughly the same time, a whistleblower exposed the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study in which researchers deliberately let hundreds of Black men go untreated and several died from the disease, even though there was a known cure. Willowbrook was one in a long line of human experimentations on children, prison inmates, people in mental health facilities, and minority communities, and Tuskegee was the tipping point.

Dr. Krugman, however, was rewarded for his work at Willowbrook. That year, he became president of the American Pediatric Society.

In 1974, the National Research Act was passed in an effort to create regulations that protected subjects in human research trials. One measure it implemented was the creation of an ethics task force, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. “The National Commission might never have come into being were it not for Willowbrook and Tuskegee and several other instances,” says Karen Lebacqz, one of the original members of the commission. 

By 1979 the commission had published the Belmont Report, a comprehensive guideline of basic ethical principles that guide modern clinical trials. The National Research Act also established the practice of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), independent committees that must take time to review the ethical aspects of human clinical trials to this day. 


Aside from potential ethical dilemmas, today’s coronavirus vaccine challenge trials have something else in common with the Willowbrook hepatitis experiments: they may not even be necessary. While Dr. Krugman is credited for speeding up the development of a hepatitis vaccine, other researchers were not far behind. In the late 1960s, Dr. Baruch Blumberg independently discovered the hepatitis B virus, and together with Dr. Irving Millman submitted the first patent for a hepatitis vaccine in 1969. Blumberg did all his research by taking blood samples and testing the liver functions on children and adults who were already infected, and his work earned Blumberg a Nobel Prize for Medicine.

“Whenever people are desperate,” ethics professor Karen Lebacqz says, “they always want to relax ethical standards.”

Similarly, even if a challenge trial for coronavirus gets approved, there’s no guarantee that it will lead to a faster vaccine development. The U.S. government’s initiative to develop a coronavirus vaccine may be called “Operation Warp Speed,” but Christine Grady, Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, says that a lot of time and thought have to be put into properly designing a trial.

“Whether or not doing a challenge trial would even speed up the trial is a question that is not exactly clear,” says Grady, who is married to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Paul Offit agrees. “You have to have the right dose. And to get the right dose, you have to have these mini-challenge trials,” he says. “I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

Karen Lebacqz, one of the original Belmont Report authors, also has concerns about the accelerated Covid-19 vaccine protocols. “Whenever people are desperate,” she says, “they always want to relax ethical standards.”

Saul Krugman’s controversial experiments at Willowbrook were only the beginning of his illustrious career. He later became the head of pediatrics at New York University School of Medicine, was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, authored a classic textbook of pediatric infectious diseases, received the prestigious Lasker Award, and helped to develop the first rubella and measles vaccines.

He defended the Willowbrook trials his whole life, writing in 1986, “I am as convinced today as I was at that time that our studies were ethical and justifiable.” Krugman passed away in 1995, and his obituary in the New York Times has only a small mention of his experiments at Willowbrook.

To this day, while many modern-day ethicists use the Willowbrook studies as an example of unjust human experimentation, there are always second opinions. “It’s complicated,” Grady says. To her knowledge, “Krugman’s first goal was to understand the disease…but I think there are some things about it that certainly don’t look good and would be hard to get approval today.” 

Mike Wilkins, the Willowbrook doctor who helped organize parents to shut down the institution in 1987, also doesn’t think that the experiments are black-and-white. “I’m not wanting to crucify Krugman,” he says now, “hepatitis B, for God sakes, is an international disease that there’s now a vaccine for. But let’s never ever do that again.”

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

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

ORDER

Much like the Fed, CDC isn’t a government agency, it’s more like a prototype of today’s PPP’s (Private-Public Partnerships) used by the WEF to siphon public wealth into private pockets and subvert the political self-determination of the people.

One way for CDC to attract funds is their Foundation.
And we can’t follow the money if we don’t even know who the sponsors are.
If you had difficulties before in finding them, though I can’t imagine one, now you have no excuse, you just need to CLICK HERE to find out more about the conflict of interests in which Pharmafia thrives like a baby in the amniotic juice.
Removing that womb would terminate this vile genocidal cartel.
There’s more than just that page, but that’s where you start YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

Interestingly, the CDC Foundation self-portrait looks very much like Klaus Schwab:

“The CDC Foundation is an independent nonprofit and the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s critical health protection work.

We are a catalyst for unleashing the power of collaboration between CDC and philanthropies, private entities and individuals to protect the health, safety and security of America and the world.

The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors. We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually. By aligning diverse interests and resources and leveraging all parties’ strengths, our focused collaborations with private and philanthropic partners help create greater impact than any one entity can alone. Your support saves and improves lives—right now and in the future.

Thanks to our donors, we have launched approximately more than 1,200 health protection programs and raised over $1.2 billion to support CDC’s work over the past two decades. To keep people healthy, safe and secure, we managed hundreds of programs in the United States and in more than 140 countries.” – SOURCE

Now, to make my point, I just need to highlight some of the names found there, for your later references.
These are some of the people who home-detain, muzzle and inject us.
Interestingly, most of them are also partners in the World Economic Forum.

Before fusing humans with technology, the Schwaborg has fused Pharmafia with Big Tech, mainstream media and the Governments. These are not independent voices confirming one another, they’re the same entity, like the Borg (and I’ll prove later that Star Trek’s Borg is not just science-fiction entertainment).


If your nutritionist has a McDonalds badge, you have no nutritionist.
Btw, many US and UK hospitals, maybe in other countries too, host McDonalds restaurants.
Same people.

Some things are not meant to be businesses, public health is one of them.

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

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

ORDER

They knew about everything else, years ahead sometimes, so of course they’ve been aware of the jabs side-effects too…
By means of hiding these from us, they actively infringed upon our right to informed consent, as per the Nuremberg Code.

FDA Safety Surveillance of COVID-19 Vaccines :
DRAFT Working list of possible adverse event outcomes
Subject to change

 Guillain-Barré syndrome
 Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
 Transverse myelitis
 Encephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/
meningoencephalitis/meningitis/
encepholapathy
 Convulsions/seizures
 Stroke
 Narcolepsy and cataplexy
 Anaphylaxis
 Acute myocardial infarction
 Myocarditis/pericarditis
 Autoimmune disease
 Deaths
 Pregnancy and birth outcomes
 Other acute demyelinating diseases
 Non-anaphylactic allergic reactions
 Thrombocytopenia
 Disseminated intravascular coagulation
 Venous thromboembolism
 Arthritis and arthralgia/joint pain
 Kawasaki disease
 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
in Children
 Vaccine enhanced disease

TAKEN FROM:

DOWNLOAD PDF

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

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

The latest piece of evidence to confirm many of the revelations we’ve published for the past year or so. You have to read back to get more of the picture we’re about to sketch here.


We can’t offer informed consent for these experiments conducted on us because we are not offered much information. Only rich people can access some of it at prices most of us can’t dream. Maybe you can, or maybe people start donating enough so we can afford surviving another month and buying this info for the purpose of making it freely available to everyone, as it should be.

What am I talking about is the book pictured in our cover illustration and detailed below, which costs well over 1000$!

More precisely $1185 just for a single license PDF, the hardcover print would cost you about 100 more.

Why is this thing so expensive, you may ask?

THESE INFORMATIONS ARE SO EXPENSIVE EXACTLY TO BE PROHIBITIVE TO THE PLEBS AND OFFER A LEVERAGE OVER THOSE WHO ARE KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP, IN THE DARK

Predictably so, but:

These informations also must to have the highest degree of accuracy in order to sell as expensively!

Superb quality book delivered in a timely fashion with full financial documentation received via email.

Testimonial by Dr Tom Kidd, Associate Professor, University of Nevada

Bonus for us, this book is from May 2020, so it must have been elaborated prior to April 2020. This means it might be outdated by now for investors, but witty investigators like us find an advantage in this:

THE BOOK HAS BEEN ELABORATED WITH BEHIND THE SCENES SCIENCE ON THE INDUSTRIES WHICH, IN TURN MUST HAVE HAD PRE-SCIENCE ON THE PLANDEMIC!
There was no publicly available information in March to build such a book, and the industries they talk about must have been prescient, way ahead of the writers.
Only the fact that this book existed in May 2020 is single-handedly proving there was a whole lot of awareness in some industries about the pandemic.
Corroborated with all other evidence we’ve provided on this website, pandemic pre-planning, ergo pre-science, becomes a certitude.

Until plebs learn the GameStop lesson properly and start associating their financial power to break this classism and this information gatekeeping, we have to be happy with whatever meat we can chew from the bones they throw out.
Luckily for you, I can show you how to suck a bone dry and use it to find more.
It’s not going to be a full course, but it might become more than most people can load up.

Let’s start with the description (highlights are mine):

“Nanotechnology and nanomaterials can significantly address the many clinical and public healthcare challenges that have arisen from the coronavirus pandemic. This analysis examines in detail how nanotechnology and nanomaterials can help in the fight against this pandemic disease, and ongoing mitigation strategies. Nano-based products are currently being developed and deployed for the containment, diagnosis, and treatment of Covid-19.

Nanotechnology and nanomaterials promise:

  • Improved and virus disabling air filtration.
  • Low-cost, scalable detection methods for the detection of viral particles
  • Enhanced personal protection equipment (PPE) including facemasks.
  • New antiviral vaccine and drug delivery platforms.
  • New therapeutic solutions.

Report contents include:

  • Market analysis of nano-based diagnostic tests for COVID-19 including nanosensors incorporating gold nanoparticles, iron oxide nanoparticles, graphene, quantum dots, carbon quantum dots and carbon nanotubes. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Abbott Laboratories, Cardea, Ferrotec (USA) Corporation, E25Bio, Grolltex, Inc., Luminex Corporation etc.
  • Market analysis of antiviral and antimicrobial nanocoatings for surfaces including fabric (mask, gloves, doctor coats, curtains, bed sheet), metal (lifts, doors handle, nobs, railings, public transport), wood (furniture, floors and partition panels), concrete (hospitals, clinics and isolation wards) and plastics (switches, kitchen and home appliances).
  • Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Advanced Materials-JTJ s.r.o., Bio-Fence, Bio-Gate AG, Covalon Technologies Ltd., EnvisionSQ, GrapheneCA, Integricote, Nano Came Co. Ltd., NanoTouch Materials, LLC, NitroPep and many more.
  • Market analysis of air-borne virus filtration including photocatalytic Nano-TiO2 filters, nanofiber filers, nanosilver, nanocellulose, graphene and carbon nanotube filtration. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include G6 Materials, Daicel FineChem Ltd., NANOVIA s.r.o., Toray Industries, Inc., Tortech Nano Fibers etc.
  • Market analysis of nano-based facemask and other PPE products. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include planarTECH LLC, RESPILON Group s. r. o., SITA, Sonovia Ltd. etc.
  • Nanotherapies and drug delivery vehicles currently being produced and clinical trials of vaccines for COVID-19. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc., Arbutus Biopharma, BlueWillow Biologics, Elastrin Therapeutics Inc., EnGeneIC Ltd. etc.
  • Key scientific breakthroughs and developments that are underway right now.”

As you can see, the description alone offers enough evidence that embedding a whole range of nanotech in facemasks, tests, drugs and many other product.

You can bet your ass your new fridge connect to the internet and has some antimicrobial nanocoating that later will prove to be worse than DDT or asbestos, but at least it’s not gonna be Covid, right?

“You could put the computational power of the spaceship Voyager onto an object the size of a cell”.
And that was back in 2018

Can we dig more clues though?

Sir, yes, sir!

I’m going to do something unusual and seemingly unpractical copying here the whole table of contents, just in case, because almost every chapter and figure title deserves to be a separate post on this website as well, besides the multitude of leads as to what to research.

1 RESEARCH SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
1.1 Report scope
1.2 Research methodology

2 INTRODUCTION

3 DIAGNOSTIC TESTING
3.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
3.1.1 Current Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
3.1.2 Emerging Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
3.1.3 Nanosensors/nanoparticles (silver nanoclusters, Gold nanoparticles, Iron oxide nanoparticles, Quantum dot barcoding, nanowires, silica nanoparticles)
3.1.4 Carbon nanomaterials for diagnostic testing
3.2 Market revenues
3.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025.
3.3 Companies
3.4 Academic research

4 ANTIVIRAL AND ANTIMICROBIAL COATINGS AND SURFACES
4.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
4.1.1 Nanocoatings.
4.1.2 Applications
4.1.3 Anti-viral nanoparticles and nanocoatings
4.1.3.1 Reusable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
4.1.3.2 Wipe on coatings
4.1.4 Graphene-based coatings
4.1.4.1 Properties
4.1.4.2 Graphene oxide.
4.1.4.3 Reduced graphene oxide (rGO)
4.1.4.4 Markets and applications
4.1.5 Silicon dioxide/silica nanoparticles (Nano-SiO2) -based coatings
4.1.5.1 Properties.
4.1.5.2 Antimicrobial and antiviral activity
4.1.5.3 Easy-clean and dirt repellent
4.1.6 Nanosilver-based coatings.
4.1.6.1 Properties
4.1.6.2 Antimicrobial and antiviral activity
4.1.6.3 Markets and applications.
4.1.6.4 Commercial activity
4.1.7 Titanium dioxide nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.7.1 Properties
4.1.7.2 Exterior and construction glass coatings
4.1.7.3 Outdoor air pollution
4.1.7.4 Interior coatings
4.1.7.5 Medical facilities
4.1.7.6 Wastewater Treatment
4.1.7.7 Antimicrobial coating indoor light activation
4.1.8 Zinc oxide nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.8.1 Properties.
4.1.8.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.9 Nanocellullose (cellulose nanofibers and cellulose nanocrystals)-based coatings.
4.1.9.1 Properties
4.1.9.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.10 Carbon nanotube-based coatings
4.1.10.1 Properties
4.1.10.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.11 Fullerene-based coatings
4.1.11.1 Properties
4.1.11.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.12 Chitosan nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.12.1 Properties
4.1.12.2 Wound dressings
4.1.12.3 Packaging coatings and films
4.1.12.4 Food storage
4.1.13 Copper nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.13.1 Properties
4.1.13.2 Application in antimicrobial nanocoatings
4.2 Market revenues
4.2.1 Market revenues adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2030.
4.3 Companies
4.4 Academic research

5 AIR-BORNE VIRUS FILTRATION
5.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions (nanoparticles titanium dioxide, Polymeric nanofibers, Nanosilver, Nanocellulose, Graphene, Carbon nanotubes)
5.2 Market revenues
5.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
5.3 Companies
5.4 Academic research

6 FACEMASKS AND OTHER PPE
6.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions (Polymer nanofibers, Nanocellulose, Nanosilver, Graphene)
6.2 Market revenues
6.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
6.3 Companies
6.4 Academic research

7 DRUG DELIVERY AND THERAPEUTICS
7.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
7.1.1 Products
7.1.2 Nanocarriers
7.1.3 Nanovaccines
7.2 Market revenues
7.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
7.3 Companies
7.4 Academic research

8 REFERENCES

List of Tables
Table 1. Current Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
Table 2. Development phases of diagnostic tests
Table 3. Emerging Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
Table 4. Nanoparticles for diagnostic testing-Types of nanoparticles, properties and application
Table 5. Gold nanoparticle reagent suppliers list
Table 6. Carbon nanomaterials for diagnostic testing-types, properties and applications
Table 7. Global revenues for nanotech-based diagnostics and testing, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 8. Academic research in nano-based COVID-19 diagnostics and testing.
Table 9: Anti-microbial and antiviral nanocoatings-Nanomaterials used, principles, properties and applications.
Table 10. Nanomaterials utilized in antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings coatings-benefits and applications.
Table 11: Properties of nanocoatings.
Table 12: Antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings markets and applications
Table 13: Nanomaterials used in nanocoatings and applications.
Table 14: Graphene properties relevant to application in coatings
Table 15. Bactericidal characters of graphene-based materials
Table 16. Markets and applications for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings graphene nanocoatings
Table 17. Markets and applications for antimicrobial and antiviral nanosilver coatings.
Table 18. Commercial activity in antimicrobial nanosilver nanocoatings
Table 19. Antibacterial effects of ZnO NPs in different bacterial species.
Table 20. Types of carbon-based nanoparticles as antimicrobial agent, their mechanisms of action and characteristics
Table 21. Mechanism of chitosan antimicrobial action
Table 22. Global revenues for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Table 23. Global revenues for Anti-fouling & easy clean nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Table 24. Global revenues for self-cleaning (bionic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 25. Global revenues for self-cleaning (photocatalytic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 26. Antimicrobial, antiviral and antifungal nanocoatings research in academia
Table 27. Cellulose nanofibers (CNF) membranes
Table 28: Comparison of CNT membranes with other membrane technologies
Table 29. Nanomaterials in air-borne virus filtration-properties and applications
Table 30. Global revenues for nanotech-based air-borne virus filtration, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 31: Oji Holdings CNF products
Table 32. Academic research in nano-based air-borne virus filtration
Table 33. Nanomaterials in facemasks and other PPE-properties and applications
Table 34. Global revenues for nanotech-based facemasks and PPE, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 35. Academic research in nano-based facemasks and other PPE
Table 36. Applications in drug delivery and therapeutics, by nanomaterials type-properties and applications
Table 37. Nanotechnology drug products
Table 38. List of antigens delivered by using different nanocarriers
Table 39. Nanoparticle-based vaccines
Table 40. Global revenues for nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics, 2019-2030, billion US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 41. Academic research in nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics to address COVD-19

List of Figures
Figure 1. Anatomy of COVID-19 Virus
Figure 2. Graphene-based sensors for health monitoring
Figure 3. Schematic of COVID-19 FET sensor incorporating graphene
Figure 4. Global revenues for nanotech-based diagnostics and testing, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 5. Printed graphene biosensors
Figure 6. AGILE R100 system
Figure 7. nano-screenMAG particles
Figure 8. GFET sensors.
Figure 9. DNA endonuclease-targeted CRISPR trans reporter (DETECTR) system
Figure 10. SGTi-flex COVID-19 IgM/IgG
Figure 11. Schematic of anti-viral coating using nano-actives for inactivation of any adhered virus on the surfaces
Figure 12: Graphair membrane coating
Figure 13: Antimicrobial activity of Graphene oxide (GO)
Figure 14. Nano-coated self-cleaning touchscreen
Figure 15: Hydrophobic easy-to-clean coating
Figure 16 Anti-bacterial mechanism of silver nanoparticle coating.
Figure 17: Mechanism of photocatalysis on a surface treated with TiO2 nanoparticles
Figure 18: Schematic showing the self-cleaning phenomena on superhydrophilic surface.
Figure 19: Titanium dioxide-coated glass (left) and ordinary glass (right).
Figure 20: Self-Cleaning mechanism utilizing photooxidation.
Figure 21: Schematic of photocatalytic air purifying pavement.
Figure 22: Schematic of photocatalytic water purification
Figure 23. Schematic of antibacterial activity of ZnO NPs
Figure 24: Types of nanocellulose
Figure 25. Mechanism of antimicrobial activity of carbon nanotubes
Figure 26: Fullerene schematic
Figure 27. TEM images of Burkholderia seminalis treated with (a, c) buffer (control) and (b, d) 2.0 mg/mL chitosan; (A: additional layer; B: membrane damage)
Figure 28. Global revenues for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 29. Global revenues for anti-fouling and easy-to-clean nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 30. Global revenues for self-cleaning (bionic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 31. Global revenues for self-cleaning (photocatalytic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 32. Lab tests on DSP coatings
Figure 33. GrapheneCA anti-bacterial and anti-viral coating
Figure 34. Microlyte® Matrix bandage for surgical wounds
Figure 35. Self-cleaning nanocoating applied to face masks.
Figure 36. NanoSeptic surfaces.
Figure 37. NascNanoTechnology personnel shown applying MEDICOAT to airport luggage carts
Figure 38. Basic principle of photocatalyst TiO2
Figure 39. Schematic of photocatalytic indoor air purification filter.
Figure 40. Global revenues for nanotech-based air-borne virus filtration, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Figure 41. Multi-layered cross section of CNF-nw
Figure 42: Properties of Asahi Kasei cellulose nanofiber nonwoven fabric
Figure 43: CNF nonwoven fabric
Figure 44: CNF gel..
Figure 45. CNF clear sheets
Figure 46. Graphene anti-smog mask
Figure 47. Global revenues for nanotech-based facemasks and PPE, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 48. FNM’s nanofiber-based respiratory face mask..
Figure 49. ReSpimask® mask
Figure 50. Schematic of different nanoparticles used for intranasal vaccination
Figure 51. Global revenues for nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics, 2019-2030, billion US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.

So are you ready for your first “printed graphene bio-sensors”? Just picked a random item from the list above.

So what I’m going to do in the upcoming updates to this article is to follow every lead I got above, and I’m going to investigate every company they report on, as per their list below. You should do it too, independently, and compare your results with mine. It’s both science and investigative journalism, the juiciest combo.

  • Abbott Laboratories
  • Advanced Materials-JTJ s.r.o.
  • Arbutus Biopharma
  • Arcturus Therapeutics
  • Bio-Fence
  • Bio-Gate AG
  • BlueWillow Biologics
  • Cardea
  • Covalon Technologies Ltd.
  • Daicel FineChem Ltd.
  • E25Bio
  • Elastrin Therapeutics Inc.
  • EnGeneIC Ltd.
  • EnvisionSQ
  • Ferrotec (USA) Corporation
  • G6 Materials
  • GrapheneCA
  • Grolltex, Inc.
  • Integricote
  • Luminex Corporation
  • Nano Came Co. Ltd.
  • NanoTouch Materials, LLC
  • NANOVIA s.r.o.
  • NitroPep
  • RESPILON Group s. r. o.
  • SITA
  • Sonovia Ltd.
  • TECH LLC
  • Toray Industries
  • Tortech Nano Fibers

A taste of the future: Luminex, on of the companies listed above, makes PCR tests and stuff like magnetic micro-beads. They’ve just been bought for almost $2B by some Italians who can afford $1000+ books.

BESIDES THE DANGERS OF NANOBOTS, THIS INDUSTRY IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER AND A TOP CO2 PRODUCER

from Straight Magazine July 20th, 2011 :

Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Canada spokesman Stéphane Shank did not return calls.

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

NO MEANS NO, YES MEANS NO TOO

So yeah, that’s it for now, and if you think this is not enough to prove much, you can’t be more wrong, you’re probably bathing in dangerous or lethal nanotech as you read this, but feel free to return to this link in the coming days and weeks, I will be adding more evidence as I dig it out. I have about 100 leads there, it’s going to be a long process, friends!

Until then please read this:

YES, THEY CAN VACCINATE US THROUGH NASAL TEST SWABS AND TARGET THE BRAIN (BIOHACKING P.1)

and this:

Application of Nanotechnology in the COVID-19 Pandemic

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

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

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

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

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

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNPRECEDENTED

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

Some of these includes the following.

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

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

3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market

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

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

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

7. First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans

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

Vaccine Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•Will Vaccines Stimulate the Immune Response?

•Will Vaccines Provide Sustainable Immune Endurance?

•How Will SARS-CoV-2 Mutate?

•Are We Prepared for Vaccine Backfires?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ / DOWNLOAD THE FULL PAPER IN PDF

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

The authors have no competing interests or conflicts to declare.

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

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

ORDER

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

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

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

POSTED BY INDIAN BAR ASSOCIATION ON  WITH 0 COMMENT

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

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

DOWNLOAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The maximum punishment in above cases is death penalty.

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

The relevant part of the notice reads this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IBA

Demand from India to #ArrestDrTedros grows louder on social media

Goa Chronicle 11/04/20200 

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

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

#ArrestDrTedros is currently trending in India.

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

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

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

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

He took to social media platform Twitter stating:

Here are some of the Twitter messages demanding #ArrestDrTedros

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on  by Naked Capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

WHO’s Happy

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

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

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

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

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

Crushing the Curve

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

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

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

Imagen

Out of the Darkness, But For How Long?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Cautionary Tale

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

Image

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


To be updated

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

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

Graphene is the new asbestos. Plus injectable and mandatory.
The rest Of the graphene oxide story is here, if you need more background, this post is a result of that investigation

NOTE: A needed clarification solicited by some readers:
Yes, we knew of GRAPHENE COATING on masks in May, as seen below, which is horrible enough, even more so since not many followed Canada’s example in banning it.
What this article brings new is a confirmation for GRAPHENE OXYDE, which is not very different in properties and health impact, but seems to be specific to these mRNA jabs, and so we complete the new revelations on graphene oxide and vaccines from La Quinta Columna.

OOPS!

The World’s First Anti-Coronavirus Surgical Mask by Wakamono

By Dr. Priyom Bose, Ph.D. Sep 30 2020

Image Credit: Dragana Gordic/Shutterstock.com

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first detected in Wuhan, in China’s Hubei province. On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged and characterized the condition as a pandemic owing to the rapid spread of the virus across the globe infecting millions of individuals. Scientists are fighting tirelessly to find out ways to curb the spread of the virus and eradicate it.

SARS-CoV-2 is regarded as highly contagious and spreads rapidly through person-to-person contact. When an infected person sneezes or coughs, their respiratory droplets can easily infect a healthy individual. Besides enforcing social distancing, common citizens are encouraged to wear face masks to prevent droplets from getting through the air and infecting others.

Despite the efficiency of N95, a respiratory protective device, to filter out 95% of particles (≥0.3 μm), surgical facemasks are single-use, expensive, and often ill-fitting, which significantly reduces their effectiveness. Nanoscience researchers have envisioned a new respirator facemask that would be highly efficient, recyclable, customizable, reusable, and have antimicrobial and antiviral properties.

Nanotechnology in the Production of Surgical Masks

Nanoparticles are extensively used for their novel properties in various fields of science and technology.

In the current pandemic situation, scientists have adopted this technology to produce the most efficient masks. Researchers have used a novel electrospinning technology in the production of nanofiber membranes. These nanofiber membranes are designed to have various regulating properties such as fiber diameter, porosity ratio, and many other microstructural factors that could be utilized to produce high-quality face masks. Researchers in Egypt have developed face masks using nanotechnology with the help of the following components:

Polylactic acid

This transparent polymeric material is derived from starch and carbohydrate. It has high elasticity and is biodegradable. Researchers found that electrospun polylactic acid membranes possess high prospects for the production of filters efficient in the isolation of environmental pollutants, such as atmospheric aerosol and submicron particulates dispersed in the air.

Despite its various biomedical applications (implant prostheses, catheters, tissue scaffolds, etc.), these polylactic membranes are brittle. Therefore, applying frequent pressure during their usage could produce cracks that would make them permeable to viral particles. However, this mechanical drawback can be fixed using other supportive nanoparticles that could impart mechanical strength, antimicrobial and antiviral properties, which are important in making face masks effective in the current pandemic situation.

Copper oxide nanoparticles

These nanoparticles have many biomedical applications, for example, infection control, as they can inhibit the growth of microorganisms (fungi, bacteria) and viruses. It has also been reported that SARS-CoV-2 has lower stability on the metallic copper surface than other materials, such as plastic or stainless steel. Therefore, the integration of copper oxide nanoparticles in a nanofibrous polymeric filtration system would significantly prevent microbial adherence onto the membrane.  

Graphene oxide nanoparticles

These nanoparticles possess exceptional properties, such as high toughness, superior electrical conductivity, biocompatibility, and antiviral and antibacterial activity. Such nanoparticles could be utilized in the production of masks.

Cellulose acetate

This is a semi-synthetic polymer derived from cellulose. It is used in ultrafiltration because of its biocompatibility, high selectivity, and low cost. It is also used in protective clothing, tissue engineering, and nanocomposite applications.

With the help of the aforesaid components, researchers in Egypt have designed a novel respirator filter mask against SARS-CoV-2. This mask is based on a disposable filter piece composed of the unwoven nanofibers comprising multilayers of a) copper oxide nanoparticles, graphene oxide nanoparticles, and polylactic acid, or b) copper oxide nanoparticles, graphene oxide nanoparticles, and cellulose acetate, with the help of electrospun technology and high-power ultrasonication. These facemasks are reusable, i.e., washable in water and could be sterilized using an ultraviolet lamp (λ = 250 nm).

SOURCE
WORKING TO GET CONFIRMATION FROM THESE GUYS TOO
SOURCE

Graphene-coated face masks: COVID-19 miracle or another health risk?

by C. Michael White, The Conversation

mask
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

As a COVID-19 and medical device researcher, I understand the importance of face masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. So I am intrigued that some mask manufacturers have begun adding graphene coatings to their face masks to inactivate the virus. Many viruses, fungi and bacteria are incapacitated by graphene in laboratory studies, including feline coronavirus.

Because SARS CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, can survive on the outer surface of a face mask for days, people who touch the mask and then rub their eyes, nose, or mouth may risk getting COVID-19. So these manufacturers seem to be reasoning that graphene coatings on their reusable and disposable face masks will add some anti-virus protection. But in March, the Quebec provincial government removed these masks from schools and daycare centers after Health Canada, Canada’s national public health agency, warned that inhaling the graphene could lead to asbestos-like lung damage.

Is this move warranted by the facts, or an over-reaction? To answer that question, it can help to know more about what graphene is, how it kills microbes, including the SARS-COV-2 virus, and what scientists know so far about the potential health impacts of breathing in graphene.

How does graphene damage viruses, bacteria and human cells?

Graphene is a thin but strong and conductive two-dimensional sheet of carbon atoms. There are three ways that it can help prevent the spread of microbes:

  • Microscopic graphene particles have sharp edges that mechanically damage viruses and cells as they pass by them.
  • Graphene is negatively charged with highly mobile electrons that electrostaticly trap and inactivate some viruses and cells.
  • Graphene causes cells to generate oxygen free radicals that can damage them and impairs their cellular metabolism.
Dr Joe Schwarcz explains why Canada banned graphene masks. Doesn’t say why other countries didn’t. When two governments have opposing views on a poison, one is criminally wrong and someone has to pay.

Why graphene may be linked to lung injury

Researchers have been studying the potential negative impacts of inhaling microscopic graphene on mammals. In one 2016 experiment, mice with graphene placed in their lungs experienced localized lung tissue damage, inflammation, formation of granulomas (where the body tries to wall off the graphene), and persistent lung injury, similar to what occurs when humans inhale asbestos. A different study from 2013 found that when human cells were bound to graphene, the cells were damaged.

In order to mimic human lungs, scientists have developed biological models designed to simulate the impact of high concentration aerosolized graphene—graphene in the form of a fine spray or suspension in air—on industrial workers. One such study published in March 2020 found that a lifetime of industrial exposure to graphene induced inflammation and weakened the simulated lungs’ protective barrier.

It’s important to note that these models are not perfect options for studying the dramatically lower levels of graphene inhaled from a face mask, but researchers have used them in the past to learn more about these sorts of exposures. A study from 2016 found that a small portion of aerosolized graphene nanoparticles could move down a simulated mouth and nose passages and penetrate into the lungs. A 2018 study found that brief exposure to a lower amount of aerosolized graphene did not notably damage lung cells in a model.

From my perspective as a researcher, this trio of findings suggest that a little bit of graphene in the lungs is likely OK, but a lot is dangerous.

Although it might seem obvious to compare inhaling graphene to the well-known harms of breathing in asbestos, the two substances behave differently in one key way. The body’s natural system for disposing of foreign particles cannot remove asbestos, which is why long-term exposure to asbestos can lead to the cancer mesothelioma. But in studies using mouse models to measure the impact of high dose lung exposure to graphene, the body’s natural disposal system does remove the graphene, although it occurs very slowly over 30 to 90 days.

The findings of these studies shed light on the possible health impacts of breathing in microscopic graphene in either small or large doses. However, these models don’t reflect the full complexity of human experiences. So the strength of the evidence about either the benefit of wearing a graphene mask, or the harm of inhaling microscopic graphene as a result of wearing it, is very weak.

No obvious benefit but theoretical risk

Graphene is an intriguing scientific advance that may speed up the demise of COVID-19 virus particles on a face mask. In exchange for this unknown level of added protection, there is a theoretical risk that breathing through a graphene-coated mask will liberate graphene particles that make it through the other filter layers on the mask and penetrate into the lung. If inhaled, the body may not remove these particles rapidly enough to prevent lung damage.

The health department in Quebec is erring on the side of caution. Children are at very low risk of COVID-19 mortality or hospitalization, although they may infect others, so the theoretical risk from graphene exposure is too great. However, adults at high immediate risk of harm from contracting COVID-19 may choose to accept a small theoretical risk of long-term lung damage from graphene in exchange for these potential benefits.

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

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

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

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

SOURCE

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

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

British oncologist Dr. Carmen Wheatley

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

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


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

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

UPDATE:

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

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


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

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

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

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

An editorial that stands by itself and speaks volumes for many of the incredible facts I’ve revealed in my own editorials. I don’t endorse all this, I just chew the meat on the bones.
Published in a journal called Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery

Manipulative magnetic nanomedicine: the future of COVID-19 pandemic/endemic therapy

By Ajeet Kaushik, Pages 531-534 | Received 06 Nov 2020, Accepted 03 Dec 2020, Published online: 14 Dec 2020

1. Introduction: COVID-19 pandemic or endemic as health emergency

Since the Spanish flu outbreak (1918), many pandemics and/or endemics related to a viral infection such as H1N1, H5N1, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Ebola, Zika, and coronavirus have surprised mankind time-to-time due to their sudden appearance, severe adverse health effect, loss of lives, socio-economic burden, and a damaged economy. Such deadly infectious viruses originated from natural reservoirs and then infect humans via spillover mechanism. During infection progression, viruses affect the human biological system and become a part of the host genome and then make structural changes in its structure to survive or infect longer. These infections can cause permanent disorders, may be death, if a patient is immunocompromised and could not fight against virus life-cycle associated pathways and viral infection progression.

One such pandemic and/or endemic is the recent COVID-19 infection associated with new server acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), investigated by Chinese clinicians in Dec 2019. Chinese health agencies noticed a rapid increment in seasonal flu cases, and this emerged as a very serious health issue due to the ineffectiveness of prescribed therapies [1,2]. Systematic investigations conducted on this infectious disease by experts confirmed and claimed that SARS-CoV-2 virus infection is dramatically affecting the respiratory system of every age patient via affecting their lung function. Although SARS-CoV-2 virus protein exhibited 70% to 80% genomic profile like SARS-CoV-1 (2002 outbreak) and middle east respiratory syndrome (2012 outbreak), but its viral infection mechanism, pathogenesis, mortality per cent, and other risks are different, unknown, and serious than SARS and MERS [2]. Considering the severity of COVID-19 infection and variation in SARS-CoV-2 virus strains, this outbreak was first declared as an international health emergency; then, a pandemic due to global spread [2], and now experts are projecting this as an endemic due to post-infection effects and possibilities of reoccurrence like HIV [3]. This infection is emerging very challenging due to 1) human-to-human transmission via aerosolization, 2) ability to affect lung rapidly because of easy binding between Spike (S1) protein of SARS-COV-2 virus and host cell membrane receptors like angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) and TMPRSS-2 protein, this makes virus replication easy [4].

A successful COVID-19 infection management is not the only issue to deal with the respiratory system as it affects lung function. But the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection also severely affects other important body organs including the heart, liver, eye, gut, and brain as well. This is the reason that recovery of a COVID-19 infected patient is slow and sometimes the patient exhibits permanent disorder in biological function due to weak organs and organ function [2]. Such scenarios have been investigated in asymptomatic patients as well. Keeping complete COVID-19 outbreak into consideration, health agencies were focused on 1) preparation and execution of safety guidelines, 2) exploring virus structure, genomic profiles, variability, and generate bioinformatics to understand pathogenesis, 3) developing rapid diagnostic kits, 4) optimizing available therapies, alone or in combination, 5) exploring methodologies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, 6) exploring novel therapeutics, 7) exploring aspects of therapeutic delivery at disease location, and 8) exploring combinational aspects of nanobiotechnology to support rapid testing, trapping of SARS-CoV-2, and delivery of therapeutics for not only to eradicate SARS-CoV-2 but provide long-term immunity for COVID-19 infected patient [4–6].

Based on the outcomes of big data analytics based on artificial intelligence (AI), it is suggested that recognition and eradication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus may be a time-taking procedure. Thus, all the focus is toward rapid infection diagnostics and viral infection management using state-of-the-art technologies, for example, 1) promoting physical distance and using of a mask to avoid virus transmission, 2) developing AI and internet-of-medical-things (IoMT) based strategies for rapid testing, tracking of patients, big data analytics, bioinformatics generation, developing a novel sensor for early-stage SARS-CoV-2 detection [2,5,7], and novel therapeutics and successful delivery using nanobiotechnology approach [8], the main focus of this editorial.

2. Manipulative magnetic nanomedicine: the future of COVID-19 therapy

Nanobiotechnology is emerging very promising to investigate novel methodologies for managing COVID-19 pandemic/endemic successfully [2,5]. In this direction, experts have explored the opto-electro-magnetic nanosystem to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus using a biosensing approach. Such optical, electrical, or magnetic biosensors function based on geno-sensing and immune-sensing has detected the SARS-CoV-2 virus selectively at a very low level [7,8]. These efficient-miniaturized biosensors can be operated using a smartphone and promoted for clinical application for early-stage diagnostics of COVID-19 infection. The successful integration of these SARS-CoV-2 virus sensors with AI and IoMT enables virus detection at point-of-location and sharing of bioinformatics with the medical center at the same time for timely therapeutics decision. This approach is also useful for tracking tasks and managing COVID-19 infection according to patient infection profiling. To avoid human-to-human SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission, experts have developed stimuli-responsive nanotechnology enable which can not only trap aerosol of virus size but can eradicate viruses on applying external stimulation for example nanoenable photo-sensitive virus degradation. Various types of clothes containing nanoparticles have demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 virus trapping and eradication successfully [2,9]. However, significant attention is required to increase the production and distribution of these masks for public use.

Besides, the contribution of biotech-pharma companies is also of high significance in terms of investigating novel therapeutic agents of higher efficacy with least/acceptable adverse effects. Though the SARS-CoV-2 virus is new and has exhibited strain variation which is making treatment optimization challenging. But biotechnology experts are analyzing every aspect of bioinformatics to design and develop an effective therapy based on novel anti-viral agents, CRISPR-Cas, antibodies, and vaccines5. Another approach to manage COVID-19 infection is to introduce or boost immunity through nutrition, for example, nutraceuticals have acted as inhibitors to prevent binding between SARS-CoV-2 virus and ACE-2 enzyme [2,8].

Investigating a therapeutic agent against the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection seems possible now but the delivery of these agents is still a remaining challenge because this virus may have numerous reservoirs over the time. It is also demonstrated that COVID-19 infection patients may temporarily or permanently have immunocompromised biological systems. Such-related adverse effects include risk of cardiac arrest, vision issues, weak respiratory system, neurological disorders (one of the serious issues because SARS-CoV-2 virus crosses the blood-brain barrier), etc. Therefore, a single therapeutic agent designed against the SARS-CoV-2 virus may not be enough to treat COVID-19 infected patients completely [1,8].

Thus, a manipulative therapy, a combination of optimized therapeutic agents, consisting of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 virus agent and immune-supportive agents will require to be optimized based on the patient infection profiling. Experts have thought about it and raised/dealing the following concerns 1) drug-to-drug interaction, 2) delivery of drug/drugs at the targeted site, 3) control over the release of drug/drugs from a therapeutic formulation, and 4) immune-supporting long-acting therapies. These tasks are challenging but needed to be managed; therefore, exploring aspects of nanomedicine could be a promising approach to develop novel therapies to manage COVID-19 infection and support the immune system along with SARS-CoV-2 virus affected organs [8].

Nanomedicine (10 to 200 nm) is a therapeutic cargo designed using an appropriate drug nanocarrier and a therapeutic agent [9–15]. Nowadays magnetic nanomedicine has performed to manage viral infection at various reservoirs even in the brain because nanomedicine is capable to cross any barriers in the body via adopting the following approaches 1) functionalization of nanomedicine with barriers specific receptors, 2) applying external stimulation like ultrasound, and 3) noninvasive guided approach like magnetically guided drug delivery system [10–12].

Besides drug delivery, magnetic nanomedicine could be formulated to deliver multiple drugs at a targeted site to achieve desired therapeutic performance due to 1) control over the release by applying external stimulation like an ac-magnetic field, 2) formulating a magnetic cargo to load multiple drugs without drug-to-drug interaction, for example, layer-by-layer (LBL) approach, and 3) the sequence of drug release can be tuned and planned according to a stage/requirement of disease condition [13–15]. The performance of such nanomedicine mainly depends on the selection of a multi-functional stimuli-response drug nanocarrier such as magneto-electric nanoparticles (MENPs) [12], opto-magnetic, opto-electromagnetic, magneto-LBL, magneto-liposome, and magneto-plasmonics nanosystem. These advanced nanomedicines not only deliver the drug/drug but also help in the recognition of drug distribution and disease progression.

Combining above mentioned salient features, manipulative magnetic nanomedicine (MMN) as one of the potential future therapy wherein control over delivery and performance if required. Such MMN has the capabilities to recognize and eradicate the SARS-CoV-2 virus to manage COVID-19 infection and symptoms. Besides, due to the flexibility of using the therapeutic agent of choice, these manipulative nanomedicines can be designed and developed as long-acting therapy for COVID-19 infection where anti-virus and immune-supportive agents can stay longer in the body without causing any side-effects. Such personalized MMN (Figure 1) is an urgently required therapy and its development should be the focus of future research with the following aims

Figure 1. Systematic illustration of manipulative nanomedicine projected as future COVID-19 pandemic/endemic therapyDisplay full size

  1. Exploring stimuli-responsive magnetic nanosystems for on-demand-controlled delivery and release.
  2. Image-guided therapy to recognize the delivery site and confirm drug release.
  3. A magnetically guided approach to delivering drugs across the barriers like the gut, BBB, etc.
  4. Magneto-LBL/liposomal approach to delivering multiple drugs to avoid drug-to-drug interaction and control over the drug release sequence. For example, an anti-virus drug should be released first then an immune-protective agent.
  5. The MMN can be customized according to patient disease profile and medical history, for example, selection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 virus agent (antibody, ARV, CRISPR-Cas, etc.,) based on patient genomic profiling.
  6. The MMN can also be customized as long-acting therapeutics that allows drug-releasing for a longer time (2–3 months), as must require therapy to manage post-COVID-19 infection effects.
  7. The MMN can be explored as personalized precision therapy.

3. Expert opinion

Based on the experiences of developing MMN to eradicate neuroHIV/AIDS, under a project of getting into the brain, using MENPs as a drug nanocarrier, magnetically guided drug delivery, and ac-magnetic field stimulation dependent controlled drug release, my team and me believes that MMN can be a future therapy against COVID-19 infection pandemic/or endemic. As it is also known that the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection is a combination of several diseases and symptoms. During the infection treatment, even after the hospital discharge, the patient may have several diseases at the same time for a longer time. Such-complicated medical conditions are not easy to deal with using conventional antiviral drugs. Thus, experts feel the demand for a new therapy that can handle multiple tasks at the same time. Keeping advancements and potentials into consideration, manipulative nanomedicine can be one of the potential COVID-19 infection therapies.

Some of the advancements in this field has been reported, for example, micro-needle-based vaccine delivery to manage COVID-19 infection. Early outcomes are exciting, but a lot must be done in terms of animal model-based trials, and followed up with FDA approval, needed prior to suggest clinical implication. To promote MNM against COVID-19 successfully, a public-private involvement-based significant research needed to be conducted in this field to create a path from a lab (in-vitro) to in-vivo (appropriate animal model) to risk assessments to clinical trials to risk assessment to human trial to risk assessment to FDA approval for public utilization. In the process of developing an anti-COVID-19 infection therapy, careful and critical safety-related risk assessments will be a crucial factor to decide progression step-by-step. This introducing AI will be a good choice to gather bioinformatics, perform big data analysis, avoid unnecessary hit-&-trial approaches, establish a relation with a biological and pathological parameter, and projection of a potential approach. Besides AI, it is also suggested to design several projects focused on every aspect of pre/post-SARS-CoV-2 virus infection, and based on assessments and analytics a potential drug nanocarrier and therapeutics agents should be selected. Developing such an approach is a multidisciplinary research approach and experts of various expertise are needed to work on the same platform to investigate MMN to combat against SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. Projecting the above mention as a necessity, this editorial is a call to experts to join hands for investigating and promoting MMN as a potential future COVID-19 pandemic/endemic therapy. I believe that the MMN approach will be in more demand as new therapeutic agents, such BNT162b2, and mRNA1273 [16], vaccine as will be investigated over the time.

References

From author’s references, I want to highlight this study which shows that magnetism is also used to cross the Brain Blood Barrier -Silview

Magnetically guided non-invasive CRISPR-Cas9/gRNA delivery across blood-brain barrier to eradicate latent HIV-1 infection

Ajeet Kaushik 1Adriana Yndart 1Venkata Atluri 1Sneham Tiwari 1Asahi Tomitaka 1Purnima Gupta 1Rahul Dev Jayant 1David Alvarez-Carbonell 2Kamel Khalili 3Madhavan Nair 4Affiliations expand

Free PMC article

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas9/gRNA exhibits therapeutic efficacy against latent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genome but the delivery of this therapeutic cargo to the brain remains as a challenge. In this research, for the first time, we demonstrated magnetically guided non-invasive delivery of a nano-formulation (NF), composed of Cas9/gRNA bound with magneto-electric nanoparticles (MENPs), across the blood-brain barrier (BBB) to inhibit latent HIV-1 infection in microglial (hμglia)/HIV (HC69) cells. An optimized ac-magnetic field of 60 Oe was applied on NF to release Cas9/gRNA from MENPs surface and to facilitate NF cell uptake resulting in intracellular release and inhibition of HIV. The outcomes suggested that developed NF reduced HIV-LTR expression significantly in comparison to unbound Cas9/gRNA in HIV latent hμglia/HIV (HC69) cells. These findings were also validated qualitatively using fluorescence microscopy to assess NF efficacy against latent HIV in the microglia cells. We believe that CNS delivery of NF (CRISPR/Cas9-gRNA-MENPs) across the BBB certainly will have clinical utility as future personalized nanomedicine to manage neuroHIV/AIDS.

  • Yamamoto V, Bolanos JF, Fiallos J, et al. COVID-19: review of a 21st century pandemic from etiology to neuro-psychiatric implications. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(2):459–504. . [Crossref][PubMed][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article explains COVID-19 outbreak, SARS-CoV-2 virus, and state-of-art approach for diagnostics, treatment, and post-infection management.
  • Kaushik AK, Dhau JS, Gohel H, et al. Electrochemical SARS-CoV-2 sensing at point-of-care and artificial intelligence for intelligent COVID-19 management. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2020;3:7306–7325 [Crossref][Google Scholar]•• Article explores role of AI, electrochemical sensing, and IoMT for intelligent COVID-19 management. Besides role of nanotechnology to recognizing, trapping, and eradication of SARS-CoV-2 virus
  • Shaman J, Galanti M. Will SARS-CoV-2 become endemic? Science. 2020;370(6516):527–529 [Crossref][PubMed][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article explores the possibilities whether COVID-19 can be claimed as endemic or not
  • Chauhan G, Madou MJ, Kalra S, et al. Nanotechnology for COVID-19: therapeutics and vaccine research. ACS Nano. 2020;14(7):7760–7782 [Crossref][PubMed][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article summarizes role of nanotechnology to investigate novel therapies for COVID-19 outbreak
  • Mujawar M, Gohel H, Bhardwaj SK, et al. Nano-enabled biosensing systems for intelligent healthcare: towards COVID-19 management. Mater Today Chem. 2020;17:100306 [Crossref][Google Scholar]•• Article explored role of smart biosensor to early-stage COVID-19 infection diagnotics
  • Weiss C, Carriere M, Fusco L, et al. Toward nanotechnology-enabled approaches against the COVID-19 pandemic. ACS Nano. 2020;14(6):6383–6406 [Crossref][PubMed][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article explores nanotechnology for manage COVID-19 infection outbreak
  • Ahmadivand A, Gerislioglu B, Ramezani Z, et al. Femtomolar-level detection of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins using toroidal plasmonic metasensors. 2020. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08536. [Google Scholar]•• magneto-plasmonic based immunosensor to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus protein at fM level.
  • Paliwal P, Sargolzaei S, Bhardwaj SK, et al. Grand challenges in bio-nanotechnology to manage COVID-19 pandemic. Front Nanotechnol. 2020;2:3 [Crossref][Google Scholar]•• Article explores the role of nano-bio-technology to handle the challenges associated to COVID-19 outbreak and
  • Jayant RD, Sosa D, Kaushik A, et al. Current status of non-viral gene therapy for CNS disorders. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(10):1433–1445 [Taylor & Francis Online][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article explore the role of drug-nano-carrier to deliver gene for therapeutics
  • Nair M, Jayant RD, Kaushik A, et al. Getting into the brain: potential of nanotechnology in the management of NeuroAIDS. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;103:202–217 [Crossref][PubMed][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article explores aspects on nano-medicine to handle neuroHIV
  • Kaushik A, Jayant RD, Sagar V, et al. The potential of magneto-electric nanocarriers for drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2014;11(10):1635–1646 [Taylor & Francis Online][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article explores MENPs based manipulative nanomedicine
  • Kaushik A, Jayant RD, Bhardwaj V, et al. Personalized nanomedicine for CNS diseases. Drug Discov Today. 2018;23(5):1007–1015 [Crossref][PubMed][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article explores manipulative magnetic nanomedicine to handle CNS diseases
  • Kaushik A, Yndart A, Atluri V, et al. Magnetically guided non-invasive CRISPR-Cas9/gRNA delivery across blood-brain barrier to eradicate latent HIV-1 infection. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):3928 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]•• Article explores MENPs-based nanomedicine to deliver CRISPR-Cas across the BBB
  • Tomitaka A, Kaushik A, Kevadiya BD, et al. Surface-engineered multimodal magnetic nanoparticles to manage CNS diseases. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(3):873–882 [Crossref][PubMed][Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article explore manipulative magnetic nano-medicine for multi-model therapeutic approaches
  • Jayant RD, Tiwari S, Atluri V, et al. Multifunctional nanotherapeutics for the treatment of neuroAIDS in drug abusers. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):12991 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]•• Article explores magneto-LBL approach for nanomedicine
  • Nanomedicine and the COVID-19 vaccines. Nat Nanotechnol. 2020. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]•• Article explores need of nanomedicine approach for mRNA vaccine

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

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