We’ve all heard of existing cancer cures, whether you believe in them or not, you can’t rationally hope they will be made available to plebs for as long a Pharmafia exists.
Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’
Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering “gene therapy” treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run.
“Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled “The Genome Revolution.”
“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies,” analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. “While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”
Richter cited Gilead Sciences’ treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.
“Gilead is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients,” the analyst wrote. “In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”
The analyst didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The report suggested three potential solutions for biotech firms:
“Solution 1: Address large markets: Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually.”
“Solution 2: Address disorders with high incidence: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects the cells (neurons) in the spinal cord, impacting the ability to walk, eat, or breathe.”
“Solution 3: Constant innovation and portfolio expansion: There are hundreds of inherited retinal diseases (genetics forms of blindness) … Pace of innovation will also play a role as future programs can offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets.”
So you don’t see anyone pushing for any cures.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Biden’s moonshot examined: Researchers say cancer cure is a long ways off
The White House is pressing ahead, saying a combination of research on cures and prevention efforts will end the scourge.
Congress has appropriated $1.8 billion for the “cancer moonshot” President Joe Biden began in 2016, and the positive reaction to Biden’s request for more suggests it’s eager to maintain the momentum. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo
President Joe Biden’s pledge to “end cancer as we know it” is a rare sliver of common ground between Democrats and Republicans.
Congress has appropriated $1.8 billion for the “cancer moonshot” Biden began in 2016, and the positive reaction to Biden’s request for more during Tuesday’s State of the Union suggests it’s eager to maintain the momentum.
But cancer researchers are less unified about the moonshot than Washington policymakers. A contrarian cadre question whether the money appropriated is being well spent. Cancer research is funded well enough, they said, and investing more in high-tech individualized treatments is more likely to help the wealthy live longer than it is to save those most likely to die of the disease: the poor and people of color.
“It’s a lot harder than getting a man to the moon,” Gilbert Welch, an internist and senior investigator at the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said of curing cancer. “It’s a very complex set of diseases. You need to think of it as a family of diseases. The moon is just one thing. Just gotta get there. This is hundreds of different things.”
Biden wants to press ahead on a bipartisan initiative. He has called on Congress to maintain funding for the 2016 law that launched the moonshot, the 21st Century Cures Act. He pledged to cut cancer death rates by 50 percent in the next 25 years and to turn fatal cancers into treatable diseases.
Biden also has asked Congress to reauthorize the National Cancer Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Reauthorization would help the National Cancer Institute support researchers around the country by building clinical trial networks and more robust data systems, according to Danielle Carnival, the White House’s moonshot coordinator.
But some experts, such as Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former White House adviser, said there’s plenty of money devoted to cancer research. The National Cancer Institute had a nearly $6.4 billion budget for cancer research in 2021 and its annual spend has been growing since 2015. Cancer non-profits like the American Cancer Institute also raise hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
President Joe Biden has asked Congress to reauthorize the National Cancer Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1971. | AP Photo
Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry is incentivized to put money behind increasingly lucrative cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. Research shows that from 2010 to 2019 revenue generated from cancer medicines increased 70 percent among the top 10 pharmaceutical companies to reach $95 billion.
And not everyone thinks more funding is a good thing. “There’s so much money sloshing around,” Welch said of the cancer industry, adding, “Both academic and biotech or industry are excessively enthusiastic and just trying to put out as many products as they can.”
We’ve overinvested in cancer, according to Welch, especially in expensive cancer drugs with modest or unproven benefit for patients and in screenings — Welch’s research area. He’s particularly opposed to the Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), which would require Medicare to cover cancer blood tests if they’re approved by the FDA. From Welch’s vantage point, benefits from screenings have been exaggerated, while its harms have been minimized.
Other critics, such as Keith Humphreys, a public health professor at Stanford University who has published academic articles on the link between alcohol use and cancer, see cancer prevention as a more immediate way to save lives.
Managing disease and curing it
The president’s agenda goes beyond money, Carnival told POLITICO, emphasizing prevention efforts, such as improving nutrition for kids, discouraging smoking, and decreasing environmental risks.
“We’re going to have to reach more people with the tools we already have and those we develop along the way,” Carnival said. “The purview is much broader than research. I don’t think anyone would say we have all of the research advancements and knowledge and treatments that we need today to end cancer as we know it.”
Those closely involved in developing cutting-edge cancer therapeutics said the field has shifted dramatically in recent years. It’s gone from treating cancer as a chronic disease, to trying to cure patients.
During his medical fellowship in the early 2000s, improving patient survival by months or years was the goal, explained Marco Davila, a physician-scientist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who helped pioneer some of the first CAR-T cell therapies for patients with blood cancer.
Since then, treatment breakthroughs for some previously incurable cancer have upended the cancer-as-chronic-disease philosophy. Now, doctors and researchers believe cancer-curing therapies are within reach. “It’s changed the nature of how we manage patients. There’s that option there. It’s on the table,” Davila said.
For Davila, moonshot funds earmarked for cancer research and therapies created a new pool of money for his work. It doesn’t fix the problem of underfunded science as a whole, he said, but it makes his work as a cancer researcher a priority.
“It’s great for us, because that’s our field. It’s also great for patients, because cancer is still going to be one of the most common causes of people’s death in the United States,” Davila said. (In the U.S., it’s second behind heart disease, taking more than 600,000 lives in 2020, the most recent year for which there are statistics.)
Indeed, since the late 1980s, scientists have developed effective treatments for lung cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. There are caveats, of course. They don’t work for all patients.
“It’s maybe 20 percent, 30 percent,” Davila said. The goal now is to keep improving those cure rates over time — to 50 percent or 60 percent, for example.
“Will it get to 100 percent in your lifetime? I don’t know,” he said.
What Davila does know is that each 10 percent cure-rate increase means saving tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives.
‘Prevention takes action’
But some cancer experts said there’s a downside to the shift toward precision medicine and individualized treatments. Attempting to test everyone or characterize every tumor more precisely is a bit of magical thinking, according to Welch.
“The more you subset people, the more difficult it is to know whether your treatments help. It’s too small of a group,” Welch said. “It used to be just lung cancer. Now we’ve got eight genetic variants we’re testing in adenocarcinomas of the lung,” he added.
“Ironically, the more precise we get, the more types of cancer there are, as we genetically signature each cancer, all of a sudden we don’t really know what to do with any one of them.”
Others think there needs to be a fundamental shift away from screening and treatment and toward preventing cancer in the first place.
“It’s terrific when we develop new treatments for cancer, but it certainly is always better to prevent something than to treat it,” said Humphreys, who served as a drug policy adviser under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
“Very high-end, complicated treatments are never going to be accessible to the whole population,” he added. “Congress could definitely do more.”
“We have very good evidence that when we raise the federal alcohol tax that fewer people die.”
Keith Humphreys, public health professor at Stanford University
Tobacco taxation is widely considered one of the most effective practices in preventing people from starting to smoke in the first place, leading existing smokers to quit, and reducing deaths from tobacco-related cancers. Humphreys said Congress could take the same taxation approach to the alcohol industry. “We have very good evidence that when we raise the federal alcohol tax that fewer people die,” he said.
While broad blood-based cancer screening may not be a cost-effective strategy for stopping cancer early, targeted cancer screening for colorectal, breast, cervical, prostate, and lung cancers could be. Rules could stoke participation or ensure that patients on Medicaid, who are more likely to be at risk of cancer, are getting regular screenings.
“It’s important to acknowledge that our biggest success in cancer really reflects prevention,” Welch said. “It’s nothing fancy. It’s discouraging cigarette smoking.”
There’s a lot of money already in the moonshot cancer system. It just needs to be redirected and allocated differently, said Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and former White House adviser.
The White House touts prevention in its moonshot agenda. In 2022, the first year of the reignited moonshot, the FDA proposed rules to prohibit menthol cigarettes. Among other agenda items, the moonshot program plans to increase cancer screenings in at-risk communities and facilitate donations of sunscreen to schools and youth organizations.
But prevention is a trickier cancer-prevention mechanism than treatment. It could mean cleaning up Superfund sites or removing lead pipes to reduce environmental cancer risk. It often requires people to change their behavior — to drink less alcohol and exercise more or stop smoking — a more challenging mission at the population level than directing patients to take a pill or offering them a diagnostic test.
“It’s not necessarily clear how one spends money on prevention,” Welch acknowledged. “It’s much easier to sell a test or a drug. It’s a concrete thing. Prevention takes action on the part of individuals,” he said. “You gotta say, that’s harder.”
More funding wouldn’t necessarily solve the problem, according to Emanuel.
There’s a lot of money already in the system. It just needs to be redirected and allocated differently, Emanuel explained.
Who is spending that money also matters. The government sponsors roughly one-third of clinical cancer research, according to Emanuel. Industry accounts for the remaining two-thirds of funding. “It’s good that they’ve got a lot of drugs that they’re testing. What’s bad is having industry shape the clinical research agenda, because industry has a bias.”
Emanuel’s solution: stronger government leadership and more non-industry sponsors.
“The NCI [National Cancer Institute] is the biggest NIH institute,” Emanuel said. “It’s not exactly like they’re starving.”
You also have to be a monster to sell halving the cases long after your death as a “cure”
Biden keeps rambling about curing cancer because he and Obama set up and funded the delusional mRNA industry, which was initially aimed at cancer. The Moderna guys promised him this and he ran with it. He still does, poor dumb fv<k…
And if you have a MAGA hat, don’t flash it before reading this:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The only thing worse than genocide is irreversibly compromising the human genetics with incalculable consequences for all current and future generations. And, once again, we bring proof they are knowingly doing this, and where there’s awareness, there’s also intention. So this video below should open the Nuremberg 2 trials.
The WEF published this video in 2016, one year prior to Moderna’s Tal Zaks video for TED that we’ve already manage to make quite viral. This crucial issue is hugely underrated and most people still are not so sure what to believe simply because The Military Biotech Complex is burning the books through its Big Tech arm. Hopefully the video before clarifies the issue for good.
Before we further discuss this, please see this “prequel” for very important context:
Actually, one of our first videos deleted by YouTube was just scientists describing their work in the field of epigenetics and epitratrascriptomics, a whole science dedicated to editing DNA using RNA as a screwdriver. See:
Now that we are on the same page, in terms of information, I’d like to go back to our new video, there’s a few key points that I’d like to stress:
They’ve been in the know since Day 1, this is not a surprising side effect, it’s the effect they pursued.
The above implies intention
Obviously they have no clue what this will lead to, other than genetic chaos. In the words of Bill Gates “If you want to see the effects after two years, you need to wait two years”. How about 20 or 200 years?
Cherry on the cake – the newest revelations: 50% truncated mRNA that no one has any clue what it does
All of the above is potentially irreversible, definitive and transmissible to the future generations. We have no clue what’s going to happen, but your grand-grand-grand kids may all suffer from it. Even if you’re a pure blood, you can get contaminated a million ways. AND THAT’S WHAT’S WORSE THEN GENOCIDING A GENERATION IN ONE COUNTRY OR ANOTHER.
Which brings me to another crucial question I launched in the public square long ago, without any satisfactory response:
You all know DNA is described as made of two protein spirals. If you take one and you break it to pieces, the result is hardly different from RNA or their description of a virus. In which case I would love an expert to explain:
What happens to the DNA debris resulted from cell death, where does it go and can it be mistaken for viruses? Are infections and diseases actually auto-immune attacks?
Here’s a possible starting point:
Mechanisms and physiology of the clearance of dead cells by efferocytosis
“Unlike PAMPs, which are derived from microbes, damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) are of cellular origin and can be liberated upon cell death. DAMPs trigger inflammatory responses, and may also serve as chemoattractants for macrophages. DAMPs are metabolically diverse entities, including genomic and mitochondrial DNA, nuclear proteins (HMGB, histones)25, cytoplasmic proteins (S100), cytokines (IL-1α, IL-33, IL-36), and other small molecules (ATP, UTP, uric acid crystals) (Table 1)26. In addition, inflammasome [G] -mediated caspase-1 activation generates inflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-18 during pyroptosis (see Box 1) that lead to inflammatory immune activation after cellular demise.27 Below, we review the relevance of DAMPs during efferocytosis, the ability of DAMPs to modulate inflammation, and specific DAMPs and their effects.
DNA as a DAMP.
Several mechanisms ensure low DNA burden following apoptotic death and contribute to its immune-silent phenotype. In healthy cells, caspase-activated DNase (CAD) exists in complex with its inhibitory chaperone ICAD and remains constitutively inactive in the cytosol28,29. Active caspase-3 cleaves ICAD28,30, promoting CAD homodimerization, nuclear translocation, and DNA hydrolysis between nucleosomes. Nuclear pieces are then neatly packaged with cytoplasm into apoptotic bodies that are eventually digested during efferocytosis31. In contrast, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), as well as pathogen-derived DNA molecules in those cells dying due to an infection, can be released to the extracellular environment from non-apoptotic dying cells. Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) is activated by unmethylated CpG sequences such as those found in mtDNA or bacterial DNA (Table 1), and activation of TLR9 triggers downstream inflammatory responses. circulating DNA DAMPs can accumulate in the body in cases where non-apoptotic cell death is widespread; for example, mtDNA was found to be elevated in the plasma of trauma patients32, likely as a result of injury-induced cell death.
DNA in the extracellular environment is processed by DNase-I33, while DNase-III (also known as TREX1) clears cytoplasmic DNA34, and DNase-II processes DNA from dying cells in the phagocyte’s lysosomes to help maintain negligible levels of DNA following efferocytosis. Should DNA escape to the cytosol, it can be recognized by cytosolic DNA sensors35, including cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS) and the inflammasome component AIM2. cGAS is activated upon cytosolic DNA binding and subsequently catalyzes a reaction between GTP and ATP to form cyclic GMP-AMP (cGAMP)36. The newly synthesized cGAMP binds to and activates the stimulator of interferon genes protein (STING), leading to TANK binding kinase 1 (TBK1)-dependent phosphorylation of the interferon regulatory factor IRF337. These events trigger the IRF3-mediated activation of a Type I interferon response.
DNase-II-deficient or DNase III-deficient mice die during embryogenesis and this embryonic lethality can be prevented if the response to misplaced DNA is abrogated through deletion of cGAS, STING, or the Type-I interferon receptor (IFNAR)38–41. It is possible that these DNases function to limit cytosolic DNA following efferocytosis during development, thereby preventing this lethal interferonopathy, although how the DNA of engulfed corpses might be released from the phagosome or lysosome to become cytosolic, triggering such responses, remains unknown.
Similarly, recognition of cytosolic DNA by AIM2 causes AIM2 to recruit and activate caspase-1, resulting in IL-1β processing and release, contributing to inflammation42,43. Again, when and how defects in the clearance of DNA during efferocytosis may engage AIM2 remains unclear.
Protein DAMPs.
High mobility group protein B1 (HMGB1) is a nuclear protein that binds to DNA and assists replication, repair and transcription44,45,46. Although some HMGB1 can be released to the extracellular milieu under steady state conditions47 or during apoptosis48, it is predominantly released during forms of immunogenic cell death25. Efficient efferocytosis can thus limit the release of HMGB1. Based on its redox status, HMGB1 can function as a chemotactic agent (reduced) or as an inflammatory agent (oxidized)49. In its reduced form, HMGB1 can prevent the induction of immune tolerance [G] to antigens associated with the dying cell48. Reduced HMGB1 may bind to TLRs or the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) (Table 1)50, leading to immune cell activation and cytokine production. Recently, binding of reduced HMGB1 to the chemokine receptor CXCR4 was observed during tissue regeneration following injury51, highlighting the possible importance of this molecule in the response to dying cells. S100 proteins can also be released from dying cells52, and efferocytosis can limit the release of these proteins from dying cells. Again, TLRs and RAGE appear to be the primary receptors on macrophages that promote inflammatory activation in response to S100 proteins.”
Efferocytosis is critical for tissue homeostasis.Efferocytosis can be carried out by professional phagocytes (red boxes), such as macrophages and dendritic cells, or to a lesser extent by non-professional phagocytes (blue boxes) such as epithelial cells. Disruption of normal efferocytosis can contribute to the development of a wide range of pathologies (light grey boxes) across a variety of tissues. (dark grey boxes). COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IPD, idiopathic pulmonary disease; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.
I keep my expectations low, but please surprise me!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is still spreading worldwide, and there is an urgent need to effectively prevent and control this pandemic. This study evaluated the potential efficacy of Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgY) as a neutralizing agent against the SARS-CoV-2. We investigated the neutralizing effect of anti-spike-S1 IgYs on the SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, as well as its inhibitory effect on the binding of the coronavirus spike protein mutants to human ACE2. Our results show that the anti-Spike-S1 IgYs showed significant neutralizing potency against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, various spike protein mutants, and even SARS-CoV in vitro. It might be a feasible tool for the prevention and control of ongoing COVID-19.
Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become a global pandemic disease that has social and economic chaos. An alternative mitigation strategy may involve the use of specific immunoglobulin (Ig)-Y derived from chicken eggs. Our study aimed to evaluate the neutralizing potential of specific IgY targeting S1, receptor-binding-domain (RBD) of spike glycoprotein and nucleocapsid (N) of SARS-CoV-2 to inhibit RBD and angiotensin-converting-enzyme-2 (ACE2) binding interaction. Hy-Line Brown laying hens were immunized with recombinant S1, RBD spike glycoprotein, and nucleocapsid (N) of SARS-CoV-2. The presence of specific S1,RBD,N-IgY in serum and egg yolk was verified by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Specific S1,RBD,N-IgY was purified and characterized from egg yolk using sodium-dodecyl-sulfate-polyacrylamide-gel-electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), and was subsequently evaluated for inhibition of the RBD-ACE2 binding interaction in vitro. Specific IgY was present in serum at 1 week post-initial immunization (p.i.i), whereas its present in egg yolk was confirmed at 4 weeks p.i.i. Specific S1,RBD,N-IgY in serum was able to inhibit RBD-ACE2 binding interaction between 4 and 15 weeks p.i.i. The results of the SDS-PAGE revealed the presence of bands with molecular weights of 180 kDa, indicating the presence of whole IgY. Our results demonstrated that S1,RBD,N-IgY was able to inhibit RBD-ACE2 binding interaction in vitro, suggesting its potential use in blocking virus entry. Our study also demonstrated proof-of-concept that laying hens were able to produce this specific IgY, which could block the viral binding and large production of this specific IgY is feasible.
Aims: COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has become a public health crisis worldwide. In this study, we aimed at demonstrating the neutralizing potential of the IgY produced after immunizing chicken with a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit.
Methods and results: E. coli BL21 carrying plasmid pET28a-S1 was induced with IPTG for the expression of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein. The recombinant His-tagged S1 was purified and verified by SDS-PAGE, Western blot and biolayer interferometry (BLI) assay. Then S1 protein emulsified with Freund’s adjuvant was used to immunize layer chickens. Specific IgY against S1 (S1-IgY) produced from egg yolks of these chickens exhibited a high titer (1:25,600) and a strong binding affinity to S1 (KD = 318 nmol L-1 ). The neutralizing ability of S1-IgY was quantified by a SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped virus-based neutralization assay with an IC50 value of 0.99 mg ml-1 . In addition, S1-IgY exhibited a strong ability in blocking the binding of SARS-CoV-2 S1 to hACE2, and it could partially compete with hACE2 for the binding sites on S1 by BLI assays.
Conclusions: We demonstrated here that after immunization of chickens with our recombinant S1 protein, IgY neutralizing antibodies were generated against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit; therefore, showing the potential use of IgY to block the entry of this virus.
Significance and impact of the study: IgY targeting S1 subunit of SARS-CoV-2 could be a promising candidate for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19. Administration of IgY-based oral preparation, oral or nasal spray may have profound implications for blocking SARS-CoV-2.
Egg-Derived Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoglobulin Y (IgY) With Broad Variant Activity as Intranasal Prophylaxis Against COVID-19
COVID-19 emergency use authorizations and approvals for vaccines were achieved in record time. However, there remains a need to develop additional safe, effective, easy-to-produce, and inexpensive prevention to reduce the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. This need is due to difficulties in vaccine manufacturing and distribution, vaccine hesitancy, and, critically, the increased prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with greater contagiousness or reduced sensitivity to immunity. Antibodies from eggs of hens (immunoglobulin Y; IgY) that were administered the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were developed for use as nasal drops to capture the virus on the nasal mucosa. Although initially raised against the 2019 novel coronavirus index strain (2019-nCoV), these anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgY surprisingly had indistinguishable enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay binding against variants of concern that have emerged, including Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron (B.1.1.529). This is different from sera of immunized or convalescent patients. Culture neutralization titers against available Alpha, Beta, and Delta were also indistinguishable from the index SARS-CoV-2 strain. Efforts to develop these IgY for clinical use demonstrated that the intranasal anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgY preparation showed no binding (cross-reactivity) to a variety of human tissues and had an excellent safety profile in rats following 28-day intranasal delivery of the formulated IgY. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1 study evaluating single-ascending and multiple doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgY administered intranasally for 14 days in 48 healthy adults also demonstrated an excellent safety and tolerability profile, and no evidence of systemic absorption. As these antiviral IgY have broad selectivity against many variants of concern, are fast to produce, and are a low-cost product, their use as prophylaxis to reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral transmission warrants further evaluation.
I found more science backing this, but sufficiency is underrated in our society, I’d like to set a good example.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Joe Biden should be in a diaper in a nursing home and not spreading fear.
Vladimir Zev Zelenko MD
journals.plos.org
Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses…
Author Summary Positive-stranded RNA (+RNA) viruses include many important pathogens. They have evolved a variety of replication strategies, but are unified in the fact that an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) functions as the core enzyme of their RNA…
On DECEMBER 12, 2019 an agreement was signed (pg 105) that Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina would receive "mRNA corona virus vaccine candidates developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna"@Rossana38510044@ydeigin@BillyBosticksonhttps://t.co/taAbB9FIvp
Full text: Coronavirus Research Conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric’s Team at University of North Carolina2021-11-09 10:45
The full text of the non-paper entitled “Coronavirus Research Conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric’s Team at University of North Carolina.”
Dr. Ralph Baric and his team from the UNC have been systematically working on coronavirus-related researches for a long time, including Gain-of-Function (GOF) research. They possess synthetic biology techniques used for manipulation and modification of coronavirus genome and have applied for multiple patents related to coronavirus research.
In the aftermath of the SARS outbreak in 2003, the Baric team collaborated with the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID) and developed a novel reverse genetic system for synthesis of a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV, which was published in a paper in 2003. The paper claimed that within two months after obtaining the RNA of the SARS virus, the full-length cDNA of the virus was successfully synthesized, which shows that as early as 2003, these institutes already had advanced capabilities to synthesize and modify SARS-related coronavirus.
In December 2008, Dr. Baric co-authored another paper on the successful reconstitution of a chimeric virus with the genome backbone from a bat SARS-like coronavirus and the receptor binding domain (RBD) from SARS-CoV using similar synthetic biology techniques, arguing that the design and synthesis of various SARS-related coronaviruses are important steps to prevent similar outbreaks in the future.
It is worth noting that the Baric team has close collaboration with the USAMRIID, and they co-own the patent related to manipulation of coronavirus genome and have published multiple papers together. The scope of this cooperative relationship was further expanded after Lisa Hensley, one of Dr. Baric’s students, joined the USAMRIID.
In November 2015, the Baric team published a paper titled “A SARS-like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential for Human Emergence”. According to the paper, a chimeric coronavirus was made with the genome backbone from a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV virus provided by the U.S. team and the RBD from a bat SARS-related CoV SHC014 discovered by Zhengli Shi’s team from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Dr. Baric’s lab tested the pathogenesis of the chimeric virus in mice and even reconstituted the full length SHC014 virus. In this study, both the virus modification and the experiment on mouse infection were conducted at the UNC and the chimeric virus was not provided to Shi’s team.
Some people in the United States claim that GOF researches by the Wuhan Institute of Virology have caused bat coronaviruses to mutate into SARS-CoV-2 and a lab leak led to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a matter of fact, the United States have sponsored and carried out more such researches than any other country. In particular, the Baric team leads the world in researches in this field. A thorough investigation into Dr. Baric’s lab will help clarify whether such researches have led to or can lead to SARS-CoV-2.
Remember when ferritin in Covid bioweapons was a conspiracy theory and we were getting our YouTube channels and socials wiped out for exposing it? That was fun!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Except in the process of “doing it”, very interesting undisclosed trades have occurred.
An amazing researcher / whistleblower, former pharma and medical device R&D executive Sasha Latypova has recently confirmed and furthered our research on several topics. Here’s a fragment from a recent Substack post:
I know what is in the redacted part of the above paragraph and it was not hard to figure out. The first redaction under 1.1.1 BACKGROUND is “Fosun Pharmaceuticals”, so the sentence reads “Fosun Pharmaceuticals”, Pfizer and BioNTech entered into an agreement for the co-development…”
Note: the only journalist I am aware of in either “mainstream” or “resistance” who mentioned Fosun was Naomi Wolf, kudos to her. I was in touch with The Epoch Times to try to publish this information, and even they decided to bury the story (but they published my other materials). I did discuss this on Dr. Jane Ruby’s show, and kudos to her as well for not being afraid to cover the truth.
Below is the timeline of some of the key investments and R&D deals I was able to identify from public SEC shareholder disclosures, immediately preceding and following the “pandemic”:
Just to make sure, we are talking about the exact technology in the mRNA shots. Here is the definition from March 17, 2020 agreement between Pfizer and BioNTech (p. 4):
The same document describes a data sharing agreement, “pharmacovigilance” globally among the 3 parties. They will count the bodies and share the data with each other:
On the “pharmacovigilance” aspect, there is a 4th participant in this arrangement – the Israeli Ministry of Health, which entered into a data sharing agreement with Pfizer on January 6, 2021 and gave Pfizer (and by extension, US DoD and anyone who controls it, BioNTech and anyone who controls it, Fosun and anyone who controls it, i.e. CCP) access to all their citizens’ centralized electronic health records. But don’t worry, Benjamin Netanyahu promised to keep the data de-identified. Right.
Side note – Israeli government recently “misplaced” the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement with Pfizer mentioned in the data sharing agreement above (so we know for sure it exists). The government sadly cannot find it for some reason…
This gets even larger and more interesting when looking at the sources of “R&D” financing. Turns out, there were numerous financial backers and co-investors in the BioNTech “venture” in the years preceding the global fraud and mass murder exercise. According to Crunchbase, BioNTech, a tiny company with just a handful of employees and NO PRODUCTS or scale manufacturing, raised $1.7B in 9 rounds of investments since around 2008. Large portion of the money, $1B+ was raised before 2020. What was it for, since no big clinical trials or scale manufacturing was happening then? That’s a good question, worth examining at some point. Cursory review of some of the investment rounds indicates wide and very international involvement of a variety investors from US, Europe, UK, Australia, South Africa, mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore among others. These likely included many government actors: “sovereign” funds, pension funds and the like who often do these investments by allocating money to “private venture funds” (limited partners in a private venture funds are confidential). Maybe I will do a separate article on this at a later date.
Note, many people ask me “what about China and Russia?” when I talk about our own government and DoD engaged in mass genocide of Americans. I answered about China – they are allied with the US DoD on this. The CCP is profiting from the financial windfall of the US government printing dollars and throwing them into the mRNA furnaces where they are driving masses of the brainwashed citizens to suicide themselves. China claims to use “traditional vaccines” – if you believe what the Chinese say, I have a bridge to sell you.
I have not seen evidence of any similar alliance with Russia. This makes sense, because ultimately this boils down to the war of US vs Russia using proxies and alliances (as it always does). This does not mean that Russia are “the good guys”. Simply that the owners of Russia (whoever they are, not necessarily based in Russia) disagree with the owners of the US (whoever they are, not necessarily based in the US). Russia is running the same “covid script”, using knock off RNA/DNA injections, probably buying materials from the same suppliers, and also using war to kill off their own younger population. It’s just that they are doing it for THEIR OWN interests, not that of the US and their allies. – Sasha Latypova
For more context and a larger horizon on the topic, you also need to see this essential piece:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Why do we even need science and media investigations, or even a Justice system and police investigators, since YouTube can easily arbiter debates as complex and specific as mRNA technology vs. your genetic code?!
First, please watch the short bombshell video that got scrubbed, as it was uploaded in YouTube too, an unmissable “gem” in itself, even without the censorship scandal :
Here’s a Moderna-produced video for the Moderna website, confirming Moderna’s chief scientist three years later:
Can we cure genetic diseases by rewriting DNA? | David R. Liu – TED 2019
Bonus: TheirTube penalized not only Zaks, but mostly users who followed and spread TheirScience, TheirScientists, TheirAuthoritativeSources
How do I know this? Because I am the one that unearthed this video about two years ago and has worked hard to viralize it. Quite successfully I’d say, it was the most viewed from our channel, I think it was approaching 200,000 views last time I checked, which was a long time ago anyway. But it’s up on other platforms too and other users mirrored it from us, it made several rounds of the Internet and was just blowing up again on Facebook. I’ve seen it deleted multiple times from multiple platforms. So I guess it became too unbearable for the Borg.
NOTICE THAT THE VIDEO THUMBNAIL IS A SCREEN-SHOT OF THE ORIGINAL YOUTUBE UPLOAD, AND THAT’S INTENTIONAL! IT WAS THE SAME HOW I DID IT ON YOUTUBE, SO THEY KNEW WHAT THEY DELETE WHEN THEY DELETED IT. I used another title to bring the video into the 2021 actuality, but kept the original. My title only highlighted another relevant quote from Zaks. This was my one and only intervention in that content.
By the way, I have no control over what’s going on on that channel, because these nitwits deleted my YouTube account completely, for similar crimes, but kept up the orphaned channel.
Btw, this exact scenario happened before, more than once, this is how we lost a few channels and YouTube accounts:
so i can’t even begin to tell you how important it is to spread this info right now, so we can take advantage of the censorship debates and INSERT IN THE PUBLIC AGENDA THE TOPIC of genetic modification by covid jabs!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
In a sane functional society, this would totally dominate the news cycle, even ahead FTX or Arizona! Election fraud is common, so is money laundering, but the level of fraud here, the ramifications and the genocidal consequences are beyond anything I know of. Except maybe the Plandemic itself.
These are just some highlights of a larger feature which I don’t want to “pirate”, but to push. So Head to EpochTV and help it gain traction and enter the main public debate agenda!
“Why is that important beyond Israel?…Because Israel was essentially the first country to launch [a] national vaccination campaign, and it did that under a very unique agreement with Pfizer that essentially made Israel a worldwide lab for the rest of the world. And indeed, if you follow all the approval stages of the FDA of the vaccine, in each one of them, Pfizer is quoting and relying on data from Israel.”
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The people saving us today from Covid and economic collapse also “saved” millions from being born or dying of natural causes.
Remember when Kissinger called Luke Rudkowski “a sick person”? Here’s what that was all about:
The origins of the Commission are traced to a concern with the consequences of U.S. population growth on the part of such key individuals as John D. Rockefeller 3rd and Paul Ehrlich. Because the Commission was a statutory creation of Congress, its membership included 4 Congressmen in addition to 20 distinguished citizens representing a spectrum of groups and views. The evaluation of the consequences of growth, as opposed to the means of reducing fertility, became the major concern of the research effort. Several issues led to differences within the Commission: 1) A narrow versus a broad definition of the scope of the report; 2) differing perceptions of the population problem as manifested by the ecological view, the “unwanted fertility” school, and the social justice view. The social science work contracted by the Commission had a significant impact on the final report’s substance: 1) the demographic work on population projections was crucial to the analysis of the consequences of growth; 2) evaluating the demographic capability of national “growth center strategy” had an influence; and 3) the need to eliminate unwanted fertility was confirmed as a necessary priority. The basic thrust of the Commission’s report was to recomment slowing growth in order to maximize the quality of life.
In some ways, the history of NSSM-200 is just a restatement of the history of the world over the course of 250 years or so. With so much information having a bearing on the subject, we can do no more than plant some sign posts for the reader to use in doing their own research. It should be noted that this ‘history’ often reflects points of interest that the advocates for population control themselves indicate. In fact, in order to generate some of the most pertinent details of this timeline, we merely started with the writings of the population control advocates themselves, noted the individuals and events that they stated were formative, and worked backwards through time. Darwin quoted Malthus, the eugenicists cited Darwin, the population control advocates invoked the eugenicists, and so on…
———–
Malthus
Darwin — quoting Malthus
Eugenicists — quoting Darwin
World War 1 — Germany in particular saw the conflict as the fitness of one culture prevailing against another. (Until they lost!)
Period between WW1 and WW2 — a full on push for eugenics starts winding down. Eugenicists begin switching their emphasis to ‘population’ studies
Margaret Sanger … The Pivot of Civilization
Guy Irving Burch … A staunch eugenicist, Burch founded the Population Reference Bureau in 1929 and was widely consulted on ‘population matters.’ His book, Human Breeding and Survival (also published as Population Roads to Peace or War – 1945) cites Malthus approvingly and was well regarded by other ‘founders’ of the population control movement, namely William Vogt. His eugenic perspective and belief that birth control, population control, and evolutionary principles go hand in hand are on display in the following passage from PRPoW, pages 73-4:
There is one tremendous value of birth control knowledge which deserves special emphasis when it is widespread instead of a class privilege. Where contraceptive knowledge has been democratized and has reached all economic and social levels of the population the most responsible and intelligent parents have the largest families. […]
Drs. Huntington, Whitney, and Phillips have found the same trend in their studies of Harvard and Yale graduates; and Dr. Thompson found similar evidence in his studies of the fertility of Negroes in our Northern cities. The most successful parents had the largest families. Here we find an intelligent and peaceful substitute for the bloody and destructive laws of the jungle which can make possible the continued evolution of human life. This is, indeed, a Vital Revolution. References for most of these studies may be found in Dr. Warren S. Thompson’s book, Population Problems, 1935, pp. 386-387.
World War 2 — Nazis enthusiastically apply eugenics principles, albeit filtered through a nationalistic prism.
Immediately after World War 2 — overt eugenics falls completely out of favor. They turn to ‘crypto-eugenics’, explicitly turning the direction of their efforts to the most ‘politically acceptable’ alternatives that were consistent with eugenics principles: family planning and population control.
Fairfield Osborn
Fairfield Osborn had already spent decades in the eugenics movement before pivoting to population control advocacy, presiding, for example, over the 1921 International Eugenics Congress. His book Our Plundered Planet is frequently mentioned by population control advocates in the decades following its publication in 1948. Fairfield Osborn was the uncle of Frederick Osborn, a president of the American Eugenics Society and the Population Council. In Our Plundered Planet, on page 204, Osborn thanks William Vogt for “his philosophical approach to the problem”, which is to say, he acknowledges that there is an ideological underpinning to the whole population control mindset (which he shares), and on pgs 205-206, he thanks Guy Irving Burch for providing “information regarding human populations”. One should begin to get the impression that eugenicists, birth control advocates, and population control agitators are all peas in the same pod.
William Vogt
Vogt was the National Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1951 to 1962. His 1948 book, Road to Survival, was extremely influential. Given his prominent station at Planned Parenthood for such a long period of time, and in particular dovetailing into the 1960s, when the ‘population crisis’ was a veritable froth, it is absurd to believe that he did not imprint his population control mentality on that organization. On page 146 of his book, he uses the sub-heading “Too Many Americans.” This may have been the inspiration for Lincoln and Alice Day’s title of their book by that very name (see below). Vogt is a good illustration of the historical fact that there was direct continuity and perfect compatibility between ‘birth control’ advocates and population control activists and the eugenics movement itself.
His book lists Guy Irving Burch first in his entire list of references, saying that he was “indebted” to him, saying: “Foremost among these are […] Guy Irving Burch, who not only granted permission to quote from Human Breeding and Survival (originally published as Population Roads to Peace or War), of which he is co-author, but who has also been extraordinarily helpful with advice, bibliographic suggestions, and critical discussion.”
Not coincidentally–and again, illustrating a continuity within the ideology, Vogt mentions Malthus approvingly.
Vogt’s book is introduced by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy and influential progressive, involved in making the Federal Reserve a reality, and supporting the United Daughters of the Confederacy (which may be of particular interest to modern readers who intone a one to one correspondence between racism and the Confederate flag).
Population Control imposed on the Japanese people by the United States
1950s — Eugenicists-now-turned-population-control-advocates consolidate their change of emphasis, eschewing ‘eugenics’ per se, and focusing on genetic counseling (hereditary clinics) and calling attention to ‘over-population.’
Charles Francis Darwin
Harrison Brown
“Among the more important books designed to be read by the general public are: Our Plundered Planet by Fairfield Osborn, The Road to Survival by William Vogt,”
Grounds his arguments extensively on Evolution. Explicit eugenicist.
Cites Charles Galton Darwin at length, approvingly.
Frederick Osborn was a propaganda officer during World War 2. After the war, he first focused on advocating for eugenics, serving as the president of the American Eugenics Society. The AES found their work to be difficult in a post-Holocaust era. He advocated for ‘crypto-eugenics,‘ for example calling for the establishment of heredity clinics and the ‘genetic counseling’ profession to persuade people to make eugenic decisions without knowing they were doing so. He called this ‘voluntary unconscious selection.’ Later, he served as the president of the Population Council, succeeded by Bernard Berelson (who is more directly implicated in NSSM-200). He never stopped thinking in eugenic terms, but, like the expert propagandist that he was, was always ready to bend and twist as circumstances warranted it. Guy Irving Burch cited him approvingly in his PRPoW in reference to linking birth control to population control: “one of the latest and most authoritative books on the subject of population [… Preface to Eugenics … by Frederick Osborn, says] the control of births can–if we will–be used to further all efforts to improve the conditions of human life.”
It may be wondered why abortion was not more frequently listed as a eugenic or population control measure, but this is not strictly true. It was a political hot potato and contemplating its use in these ways was only useful in theory to them, because it was not yet legal throughout the United States. A telling quote by Frederick Osborn testifies to the ‘crypto-eugenic’ path that the eugenicists took after WW2 as well as the recognition that abortion (and birth control, of course) had ‘eugenic effects’:
“The name [of their eugenics journal] was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”
H.J. Muller
Julian Huxley
1960s — Population Control advocates are firmly entrenched in public positions, but lack the political support to enact their proposals. Wealthy adherents launch numerous advertising campaigns to win over the public.
Hugh Moore — (see: Lawrence Lader — Breeding Ourselves to Death)
Lincoln and Alice Day — Too Many Americans
Paul Ehrlich — The Population Bomb
Bernard Berelson — President of the Population Council (replacing Frederick Osborn)
Frank Jaffe — Vice-President of Population for Planned Parenthood
Richard Nixon — in 1969 calls for a national population policy and directs money to be spent for that purpose (eg, Title X, in 1970)
Nixon orders Kissinger to study how ‘over-population’ in “developing countries” threatens the U.S. Kissinger’s highly classified report is turned in December of 1974
Nixon is impeached.
Gerald Ford signs an executive order implementing NSSM-200.
The Global 2000 Report under Jimmy Carter is released in 1979. The report accepts every premise of the population control advocates. Noteworthy participants include John Holdren (at present, the chief ‘science’ officer in the Obama Administration.
1980s
Ronald Reagan, in the so-called “Mexico City” policy, forbids the use of taxpayer dollars to fund any international program that promotes or finances abortions… population control advocates have a royal conniption that lasts to this very day. Evidently, without abortion on demand, they feel they can do very little to achieve their goals.
1990s
George H. Bush re-implements the Mexico City policy.
Bill Clinton reverses the Mexico City policy.
NSSM-200 is declassified as the result of a Freedom of Information Request, which itself was spawned by suspicions overseas that certain programs were in fact population control programs.
2000s
George W. Bush reinstates the Mexico City policy.
Barack Obama revokes the Mexico City policy.
Population and the American Future
The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future
March 27, 1972
To the President and Congress of the United States:
I have the honor to transmit for your consideration the Final Report, containing the findings and recommendations, of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, pursuant to Sec. 8, PL 91-213.
After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.
The recommendations offered by this Commission are directed towards increasing public knowledge of the causes and consequences of population change, facilitating and guiding the processes of population movement, maximizing information about human reproduction and its consequences for the family, and enabling individuals to avoid unwanted fertility.
To these ends we offer this report in the hope that our findings and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration of an issue that is of great consequence to present and future generations.
Respectfully submitted for the Commission,
John D. Rockefeller 3rd
Chairman
The President
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Commission
Chairman
John D. Rockefeller 3rd
Vice Chairman
Grace Olivarez
Executive Director
Food for All, Inc.
Vice Chairman
Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., M.D.
President
The Institute for the Study of Health and Society
Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.
The Edward Wisner Professor of Public Health
Tulane University Medical Center
David E. Bell
Executive Vice President
The Ford Foundation
Bernard Berelson
President
The Population Council
Arnita Young Boswell
Associate Field Work Professor
School of Social Service Administration
University of Chicago
Margaret Bright
Professor
Dept. of Behavioral Sciences and Dept. of Epidemiology
School of Hygiene and Public Health
The Johns Hopkins University
Marilyn Brant Chandler
Housewife, Volunteer, Student
Paul B. Cornely, M.D.
Professor
Dept. of Community Health Practice, College of Medicine
Howard University
Assistant to the Executive Medical Officer
Welfare and Retirement Fund United Mine Workers of America
Alan Cranston
United States Senator
California
Lawrence A. Davis
President
Arkansas Agricultural, Mechanical & Normal College
Otis Dudley Duncan
Professor of Sociology
University of Michigan
John N. Erlenbom
United States Representative
14th C. District of Illinois
Joan F. Flint
Housewife, Volunteer
R. V. Hansberger
Chairman and President
Boise Cascade Corporation
D. Gale Johnson
Chairman
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
John R. Meyer
President
National Bureau of Economic Research
Professor of Economics Yale University
Bob Packwood
United States Senator
Oregon
James S. Rummonds
Student
Stanford School of Law
Stephen L. Salyer
Student
Davidson College
Howard D. Samuel
Vice President
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
James H. Scheuer
United States Representative
22nd C. District of New York
George D. Woods
Director and Consultant
The First Boston Corporation
This report represents the official views of the Commission, particularly as to the listed recommendations. Clearly, in the case of a Commission with such diverse membership, not every Commissioner subscribes in detail to every suggestion or statement of policy.
[…]
Because he deepened our conviction that each individual has a unique contribution to make to the dignity and worth of all mankind, the Commission and staff dedicate this report to the memory of our colleague, staff member, and friend. Ritchie H. Reed
1941-1971
Preface
For the first time in the history of our country, the President and the Congress have established a Commission to examine the growth of our population and the impact it will have upon the American future. In proposing this Commission in July 1969, President Nixon said: “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.” The Commission was asked to examine the probable extent of population growth and internal migration in the United States between now and the end of this century, to assess the impact that population change will have upon government services, our economy, and our resources and environment, and to make recommendations on how the nation can best cope with that impact.
In our Interim Report a year ago, the Commission defined the scope of our mandate: “. . . to formulate policy for the future”— policy designed to deal with “the pervasive impact of population growth on every facet of American life.” We said that population growth of the magnitude we have experienced since World War II has multiplied and intensified many of our domestic problems and made their solution more difficult. We called upon the American people to begin considering the meaning and consequences of population growth and internal migration and the desirability of formulating a national policy on the question.
Since then, the Commission and staff have conducted an extensive inquiry. We have enlisted many of the nation’s leading scientists in more than 100 research projects. We have heard from more than 100 witnesses in public hearings across the country and have met with experts in many days of executive meetings. And we are aware that population has become an active subject of consideration in a number of states in our country concerned about their future. We have come to recognize that the racial and ethnic diversity of this Commission gives us confidence that our recommendations—the consensus of our members—do indeed point the way in which this nation should move in solving its problems. Because of the importance of this matter, the Commission recommends that future federal commissions include a substantial representation of minorities, youth, poor citizens, and women among their members, including congressional representatives, and the commission staffs and consultants include significant numbers of minorities, youth, and women.
We offer this report in the hope that our viewpoints and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration and response by the citizens of this nation and of nations throughout the world to an issue of great consequence to present and future generations.
In the brief history of this nation, we have always assumed that progress and “the good life” are connected with population growth. In fact, population growth has frequently been regarded as a measure of our progress. If that were ever the case, it is not now. There is hardly any social problem confronting this nation whose solution would be easier if our population were larger. Even now, the dreams of too many Americans are not being realized; others are being fulfilled at too high a cost. Accordingly, this Commission has concluded that our country can no longer afford the uncritical acceptance of the population growth ethic that “more is better.” And beyond that, after two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that no substantial benefits would result from continued growth of the nation’s population.
The “population problem” is long run and requires long-run responses. It is not a simple problem. It cannot be encompassed by the slogans of either of the prevalent extremes: the “more” or the “bigger the better” attitude on the one hand, or the emergency-crisis response on the other. Neither extreme is accurate nor even helpful.
It is a problem which can be interpreted in many ways. It is the pressure of population reaching out to occupy open spaces and bringing with it a deterioration of the environment. It can be viewed as the effect on natural resources of increased numbers of people in search of a higher standard of living. It is the impact of population fluctuations in both growth and distribution upon the orderly provision of public services. It can be seen as the concentration of people in metropolitan areas and depopulation elsewhere, with all that implies for the quality of life in both places. It is the instability over time of proportions of the young, the elderly, and the productive. For the family and the individual, it is the control over one’s life with respect to the reproduction of new life—the formal and informal pronatalist pressures of an outmoded tradition, and the disadvantages of and to the children involved.
Unlike other great public issues in the United States, population lacks the dramatic event—the war, the riot, the calamity—that galvanizes attention and action. It is easily overlooked and neglected. Yet the number of children born now will seriously affect our lives in future decades. This produces a powerful effect in a double sense: Its fluctuations can be strong and not easily changed; and its consequences are important for the welfare of future generations.
There is scarcely a facet of American life that is not involved with the rise and fall of our birth and death rates: the economy, environment, education, health, family life and sexual practices, urban and rural life, governmental effectiveness and political freedoms, religious norms, and secular life styles. If this country is in a crisis of spirit—environmental deterioration, racial antagonisms, the plight of the cities, the international situation—then population is part of that crisis.
Although population change touches all of these areas of our national life and intensifies our problems, such problems will not be solved by demographic means alone. Population policy is no substitute for social, economic, and environmental policy. Successfully addressing population requires that we also address our problems of poverty, of minority and sex discrimination, of careless exploitation of resources, of environmental deterioration, and of spreading suburbs, decaying cities, and wasted countrysides. By the same token, because population is so tightly interwoven with all of these concerns, whatever success we have in resolving these problems will contribute to easing the complex system of pressures that impel population growth.
Consideration of the population issue raises profound questions of what people want, what they need—indeed, what they are for. What does this nation stand for and where is it going? At some point in the future, the finite earth will not satisfactorily accommodate more human beings—nor will the United States. How is a judgment to be made about when that point will be reached? Our answer is that now is the time to confront the question: “Why more people?” The answer must be given, we believe, in qualitative not quantitative terms.
The United States today is characterized by low population density, considerable open space, a declining birthrate, movement out of the central cities—but that does not eliminate the concern about population. This country, or any country, always has a “population problem,” in the sense of achieving a proper balance between size, growth, and distribution on the one hand, and, on the other, the quality of life to which every person in this country aspires.
Nor is this country alone in the world, demographically or in any other way. Many other nations are beginning to recognize the importance of population questions. We need to act prudently, understanding that today’s decisions on population have effects for generations ahead. Similarly, we need to act responsibly toward other people in the world: This country’s needs and wants, given its wealth, may impinge upon the patrimony of other, less fortunate peoples in the decades ahead. The “population problem” of the developing countries may be more pressing at this time, but in the longer perspective, it is both proper and in our best interest to participate fully in the worldwide search for the good life, which must include the eventual stabilization of our numbers.
A Diversity of Views
Ultimately, then, we are concerned not with demographic trends alone, but with the effect of these trends on the realization of the values and goals cherished as part of the American tradition and sought after by minorities who also “want in.”
One of the basic themes underlying our analysis and policy recommendations is the substitution of quality for quantity; that is, we should concern ourselves with improving the quality of life for all Americans rather than merely adding more Americans. And unfortunately, for many of our citizens that quality of life is still defined only as enough food, clothing, and shelter. All human beings need a sense of their own dignity and worth, a sense of belonging and sharing, and the opportunity to develop their individual potentialities.
But it is far easier to achieve agreement on abstract values than on their meaning or on the strategy to achieve them. Like the American people generally, this Commission has not been able to reach full agreement on the relative importance of different values or on the analysis of how the “population problem” reflects other conditions and directions of American society.
Three distinct though overlapping approaches have been distinguished. These views differ in their analysis of the nature of the problem and the general priorities of tasks to be accomplished. But, despite the different perspectives from which population is viewed, all of the population policies we shall recommend are consistent with all three positions.
The first perspective acknowledges the benefits to be gained by slowing growth, but regards our population problem today primarily as a result of large numbers of people being unable to control an important part of their lives—the number of children they have. The persistence of this problem reflects an effective denial of freedom of choice and equality of access to the means of fertility control. In this view, the population problem is regarded more as the sum of such individual problems than as a societal problem transcending the interests of individuals; the welfare of individuals and that of the general society are seen as congruent, at least at this point in history. The potential conflict between these two levels is mitigated by the knowledge that freedom from unwanted childbearing would contribute significantly to the stabilization of population.
Reproductive decisions should be freely made in a social context without pronatalist pressures—the heritage of a past when the survival of societies with high mortality required high fertility. The proper mission for government in this matter is to ensure the fullest opportunity for people to decide their own future in this regard, based on the best available knowledge; then the demographic outcome becomes the democratic solution.
Beyond these goals, this approach depends on the processes of education, research, and national debate to illuminate the existence of any serious population “problem” that transcends individual welfare. The aim would be to achieve the best collective decisiOn about population issues based on knowledge of the tradeoffs between demographic choices and the “quality of life,” however defined. This position ultimately seeks optimize the individual and the collective decisions and then accepts the aggregate outcome—with the understanding that the situation will be reconsidered from time to time.
The second view does not deny the need for education and knowledge, but stresses the crucial gaps between what we claim as national values and the reality experienced by certain groups in our society. Many of the traditional American values, such as freedom and justice, are not yet experienced by some minorities. Racial discrimination continues to mean that equal access to opportunities afforded those in the mainstream of American society is denied to millions of people. Overt and subtle discrimination against women has meant undue pressure toward childbearing and child-rearing. Equality is denied when inadequate income, education, or racial and sexual stereotypes persist, and shape available options. Freedom is denied when governmental steps are not taken to assure the fullest possible access to methods of controlling reproduction or to educational, job, and residential opportunities. In addition, the freedom of future generations may be compromised by a denial of freedom to the present generation. Finally, extending freedom and equality—which is nothing more than making the American system live up to its stated values—would go far beyond affecting the growth rate. Full equality both for women and ‘for racial minorities is a value in its own right. In this view, the “population problem” is seen as only one facet, and not even a major one, of the restriction of full opportunity in American life.
The third position deals with the population problem in an ecological framework, one whose primary axiom asserts the functional interdependence of man and his environment. It calls for a far more fundamental shift in the operative values of modern society. The need for more education and knowledge and the need to eliminate poverty and racism are important, but not enough. For the population problem, and the growth ethic with which it is intimately connected, reflect deeper external conditions and more fundamental political, economic, and philosophical values. Consequently, to improve the quality of our existence while slowing growth, will require nothing less than a basic recasting of American values.
The numbers of people and the material conditions of human existence are limited by the external environment. Human life, like all forms of life on earth, is supported by intricate ecological systems that are limited in their ability to adapt to and tolerate changing conditions. Human culture, particularly science and technology, has given man an extraordinary power to alter and manipulate his environment. At the same time, he has also achieved the capacity virtually to destroy life on earth. Sadly, in the rush to produce, consume, and discard, he has too often chosen to plunder and destroy rather than to conserve and create. Not only have the land, air, and water, the flora and fauna suffered, but also the individual, the family, and the human community.
This position holds that the present pattern of urban industrial organization, far from promoting the realization of the individual as a uniquely valuable experience, serves primarily to perpetuate its own values. Mass urban industrialism is based on science and technology, efficiency, acquisition, and domination through rationality. The exercise of these same values now contains the potential for the destruction of our humanity. Man is losing that balance with nature which is an essential condition of human existence. With that loss has come a loss of harmony with other human beings. The population problem is a concrete symptom of this change, and a fundamental cause of present human conditions.
It is comfortable to believe that changes in values or in the political system are unnecessary, and that measures such as population education and better fertility control information and services will solve our population problem. They will not, however, for such solutions do not go to the heart of man’s relationship with nature, himself, and society. According to this view, nothing less than a different set of values toward nature, the transcendence of a laissez-faire market system, a redefinition of human identity in terms other than consumerism, and a radical change if not abandonment of the growth ethic, will suffice. A new vision is needed—a vision that recognizes man’s unity with nature, that transcends a simple economic definition of man’s identity, and that seeks to promote the realization of the highest potential of our individual humanity.
The Immediate Goal
These three views reflect different evaluations of the nature of the population problem, different assessments of the viability of the American political process, and different perceptions of the critical values at stake.
Given the diversity of goals to be addressed and the manifold ramifications of population change throughout society, how are specific population policies to be selected?
As a Commission and as a people, we need not agree on all the priorities if we can identify acceptable policies that speak in greater or lesser degree to all of them. By and large, in our judgment, the policy findings and recommendations of this Report meet that requirement. Whatever the primary needs of our society, the policies recommended here all lead in right directions for this nation, and generally at low costs.*
Our immediate goal is to modernize demographic behavior in this country: to encourage the American people to make population choices, both in the individual family and society at large, on the basis of greater rationality rather than tradition or custom, ignorance or chance. This country has already moved some distance down this road; it should now complete the journey. The time has come to challenge the tradition that population growth is desirable: What was unintended may turn out to be unwanted, in the society as in the family.
In any case, more rational attitudes are now forced upon us by the revolutionary increase in average length of life within the past century, which has placed modern man in a completely different, historically unique, demographic situation. The social institutions and customs that have shaped reproductive behavior in the past are no longer appropriate in the modern world, and need reshaping to suit the new situation. Moreover, the instruments of population policy are now more readily available—fuller knowledge of demographic impacts, better information on demographic trends, improved means by which individuals may control their own fertility.
As a Commission, we have come to appreciate the delicate complexities of the subject and the difficulty, even the impossibility, of solving the problem, however defined, in its entirety and all at once. But this is certainly the time to begin: The 1970’s may not be simply another decade in the demographic transition but a critical one, involving changes in family life and the role of women, dynamics of the metropolitan process, the depopulation of rural areas, the movement and the needs of disadvantaged minorities, the era of the young adults produced by the baby boom, and the attendant question of what their own fertility will be—baby boom or baby bust.
Finally, we agree that population policy goals must be sought in full consonance with the fundamental values of American life: respect for human freedom, human dignity, and individual fulfillment; and concern for social justice and social welfare. To “solve” population problems at the cost of such values would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed. The issues are ethical in character, and their proper solution requires a deep sense of moral responsibility on the part of both the individual family and the national community: the former in considering another birth, the latter in considering appropriate policies to guide population growth into the American future.
A separate statement by Commissioner James S. Rummonds appears on page 164.
For our part, it is enough to make population, and all that it means, explicit on the national agenda, to signal its impact on our national life, to sort out the issues, and to propose how to start toward a better state of affairs. By its very nature, population is a continuing concern and should receive continuing attention. Later generations, and later commissions, will be able to see the right path further into the future. In any case, no generation needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction in which they will be found.
Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future
THE Commission on Population Growth and the American Future has formally presented its report to me today, thus completing its 2 years of work.
The men and women on this panel have performed a valuable public service in identifying and examining a wide range of problems related to population, and have contributed to an emerging debate of great significance to the future of our Nation.
I wish to thank the able and energetic Chairman of the Commission, Mr. John D. Rockefeller 3d, for his tireless efforts, not only on this Commission but in other capacities, to focus the Nation’s attention on these important issues.
The extensive public discussion already generated by this report clearly indicates the need to continue research in areas touching on population growth and distribution.
While I do not plan to comment extensively on the contents and recommendations of the report, I do feel that it is important that the public know my views on some of the issues raised.
In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortion policies in military hospitals, I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.
I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals–and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.
While disagreeing with the general thrust of some of the Commission’s recommendations, I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the Commission for their work and for having assembled much valuable information.
The findings and conclusions of the Commission should be of great value in assisting governments at all levels to formulate policy. At the Federal level, through our recent reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, we have the means through the Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget to follow up on the Commission’s report. The recommendations of the Commission will be taken into account as we formulate our national growth and population research policies, and our agency budgets through these processes for the years ahead.
Many of the questions raised by the report cannot be answered purely on the basis of fact, but rather involve moral judgments about which reasonable men will disagree. I hope that the discussions ahead will be informed ones, so that we all will be better able to face these questions relating to population in full knowledge of the consequences of our decisions.
Note: The report is entitled “Population and the American Future” (Government Printing Office, 186 pp.).
Commission Chairman John D. Rockefeller 3d and members Graciela Gil Olivares and Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., met with the President at the White House to present the report.
Richard Nixon, Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/254752
Gerald Ford Directive to Implement NSSM-200, Memo NSDM 314
Brian Clowes of Human Life International on NSSM 200
There are surprisingly few people who have tried to research the extent to which NSSM 200 is official US Government policy to this date. One example is Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International.
This paper was published in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical ‘Evangelicum Vitae’, which condemns abortion and contraception. The author describes how, in the mid-1970’s, the Vatican blocked the implementation of President Nixon’s ‘National Security Study Memorandum 200’, which was intended to combat global overpopulation. The author explains that excessive population growth is considered threatening to U.S. security interests, and concludes that “papal security-survival along with the influence of fundamentalist Protestant opposition to birth control is now pitted against the U.S. and world security-survival.”
THE LIFE AND DEATH OF NSSM 200 How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy by Stephen D. Mumford (1996)
Chapter 2 – The “Rockefeller Commission” on Population Growth President Nixon’s remarks upon signing the bill creating the Commission in 1970, and the Commission’s recommendations submitted in 1972 on nearly 50 areas of policy and action, including sex education, equal rights for women, contraception and minors, voluntary sterilization, abortion, and population stabilization.
Chapter 3 – The NSSM 200 Directive and the Study Requested The 1974 Directive signed by Henry Kissinger on behalf of President Nixon, and the text of the study report, “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.”
Chapter 6 – Why Did Our Political Will Fade Away? Describes the increasing involvement of the Roman Catholic Church in scuttling any positive action toward implementation of the NSSM 200 recommendations.
Chapter 7 – What Was the Role of the Vatican? How the Reagan Administration altered its foreign aid program to comply with Vatican insistence on an outright ban on use of foreign aid funds for the performance or promotion of abortions.
Chapter 8 – The Bishops’ “Pastoral Plan” The master blueprint for the infiltration and manipulation of the American democratic process at all levels of government. Includes the complete “unsanitized” text of the U.S. Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities.
Chapter 9 – Implications of the Pastoral Plan Analysis of the Plan and its implementation, including the roles of the Catholic Press Association, Catholic physicians guilds, Catholic lawyers associations, hospital associations, lay organizations — and the paralyzing influence of “ecumenical activity.”
Chapter 10 – The Human Life Amendment — and Beyond Evidence of the bishops’ great success in killing American political will through implementation of the Pastoral Plan but without yet achieving passage of the Human Life Amendment.
Chapter 11 – The Cross of Papal Infallibility The history and dynamics of the dogma of papal infallibility. Because of it, the Vatican has been forced to undermine the political will of governments that are striving to deal with overpopulation.
Chapter 13 – Defection of the Faithful Why American Catholics are not conforming to papal teachings — with many leaving the Church and becoming Protestants.
Chapter 14 – Vatican Rejection of Freedom of the Press Examines 150 years of uninterrupted papal hostility toward freedom of the press. Discusses techniques used to “bridle” the press and the conclusion of George Seldes, acknowledged dean of investigative reporters, that on “Catholic issues” there is no free press.
Chapter 16 – “Things Are Seldom What They Seem” The “dis-uniting” of America. Explores the broad consequences of the Pastoral Plan, including the erosion of public confidence in our political system.
Chapter 17 – Conclusions How the Vatican has no qualms about destroying American democratic institutions in its battle to save the Papacy.
And probably 90% of everything we’ve ever published.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 