Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Bill Gates Is Not America's Covid God.

 One could say that Bill Gates is the god of covid/coronavirus since he's certainly advanced it's cause in many ways. As God  is said to have created the earth and heavens. Bill Gates certainly created and advanced the pandemic meme. Through creative marketing.  With an eye to making profit, of course. God didn't look to make profit from the earth.

Bill Gates is not being discussed in the aforementioned manner in the linked oped:

Bill Gates, Microsoft founder-turned-vaccine-developer, just came out and predicted that the world, weary as it is from the coronavirus, will see a return to complete normalcy by 2022.

The proper response to that prediction, at least for Americans, is: Who the blank is Bill Gates to say? But sadly, in these fear-driven, emotionally-charged, chaotic times of COVID-19, when the government has successfully seized control of the Constitution, the likelier response, even from Americans, will probably be: Cheers all around, because Gates has seen the finish line. 

As if Bill Gates predicts, so Bill Gates must be believed.

 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14

 Take a memo, America. This guy is not a god. We should stop treating him as if he’s anything except a dude with an opinion.

The media deception with Gates is even worse, though. Not only did Gates not predict the present-day coronavirus — at least, not in the way his water carriers would have believed, by practically naming the time and date of its emergence. But also — and hold onto the hats, drumroll please — Gates specifically said nobody could predict when the next pandemic would strike.

So why is Gates trumpeted as some sort of god-like prognosticator of truth on the coronavirus? He’s a software guy, for goodness’ sake. And his software isn’t exactly glitch free itself. Why does his opinion matter more than, say, Citizen Jane’s or Citizen Joe’s? 

In a word? Money.

Bill Gates Wants Profit and Power
Gates has set himself up as an expert in disease control, he’s dedicated millions of his foundation money toward developing vaccines — on which he will then, especially during delivery, profit handsomely — and the media, the leftists, the fear-filled, the globalists who want his money and the elitists who crave his power have gone along with his messaging. He plays a philanthropist well.

But as much as he has a right to live his life as he chooses, so, too, American citizens.

Really, the better response here is for all Americans to get on with the business of living lives of pre-COVID-19 normalcy now, with or without Gates‘s blessing. 

 

 Get on with the business of living. We've forgotten to live haven't we? We avoid human contact. Stay indoors. Fear appears on far too many faces. All in all very anti human and harmful.- Just, something to think about.

Lastly: Bill Gates reminds me of Al Gore (same role)- Two Agenda pushers pushing profitable for business ideas and a dehumanizing agenda for the rest of us

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Multi Millions of Toxic Masks Recalled- Pulmonary Toxicity, Masking is in and of itself, Toxic

Before reading the latest let us recall the report from January/21

Covid-19 Face Masks Could Cause Lung Problems- Plastic Fibers Embedded in Your Lungs- Inflammation and Cancer
The scientists from Wuhan’s Institute of Hydrobiology counted the plastic fibers shed by masks over a month, using a laboratory device that simulated human breathing. They found that masks containing activated carbon produced the highest number of fibers, at nearly 4,000.
Brief rant:

All masks will deliver fibers into your lung. Because you are breathing with your nose and mouth covered by something that is deteriorating as it is used. And you are inhaling the product of that degradation.

We were never, ever, ever meant to have our respiratory system impeded/blocked/impinged for long periods of time. Seriously, only a moron would believe that to be acceptable. And sadly there are lots of moronic people around.

After this latest "breaking news", that isn't surprising in the least, additional links to other reports on the subject will be provided.

 After Quebec issued a mass recall for the masks on Friday, following a safety warning from Health Canada, a growing pool of workers has been identified as the exposed group.

The Société de Transport de Montreal told CTV News on Monday that the masks were handed out to STM employees for months.
                   
 The grey and blue masks are labelled as SNN200642 and are from the supplier Metallifer, which said it imported them from China and that they conformed to all regulations at the time.

In a notice Thursday, a Health Canada director wrote of "a potential emerging risk" with face masks coated with nanoform graphene materials, the layer of miniscule carbon particles that coats the masks.

Reread the SCIENCE included in the January post

Breathing in this substance presents an "unacceptable" risk of toxicity to the lungs, Health Canada said.

The next day, Quebec recalled the Metallifer masks.

Teachers and daycare workers were the first groups to learn they'd been wearing the masks, with instant recalls at schools.

The province identified these groups, as well as health-care workers, as the recipients of the problematic masks, but didn't say who in the health-care system had been wearing them.


 "Thousands” of employees had access to the masks, he said, and those were mostly maintenance workers and mechanics -- drivers and ticket booth operators work behind plexiglass and are not required to wear masks at all.
Overall, "hundreds of thousands” of the masks have been used by STM employees over the last few months, Dery confirmed. The STM took them out of circulation on Friday, after the Health Canada notice, he said.
Dery also said that while the STM has been giving free masks out in the metro to the public, these masks weren't distributed to the public at any point.

If the STM was giving free masks out in the metro to the public then these masks were distributed to the public. What an out and out lie from this Dery person! Undoubtedly these employees shared these masks with family and friends too. 

Teachers and Parents Respond After Toxic Masks Pulled: Feel betrayed

    The Quebec government is asking school boards, daycares and health networks to stop using a type of mask that Health Canada warned can be toxic to the lungs.

People have even been asked to "immediately store the boxes of masks in a secure and isolated location" after the alarming warning.

The grey and blue masks are identified by the code SNN200642 and are from the supplier Metallifer, the province said.

 According to a statement provided to CTV News, the province distributed 30.6 million SNN200642 masks to networks under the ministry of family, education and higher education.

Since January, the province has distributed 116 million masks to the school network, 4.6 million of which were of the SNN200642 line.
 In a notice Thursday, a Health Canada director wrote of "a potential emerging risk" with face masks coated with nanoform graphene materials.

The agency "identified a potential for early pulmonary toxicity associated with the inhalation of nanoform graphene," it wrote. It considers the risk the masks pose to be "unacceptable."
Early pulmonary toxicity as opposed to that which might come from other masks a little later?

Previous studies about the risk of plastics discovered microplastics in the lung tissue of some patients who died of lung cancer in the 1990s. Since then, other studies have examined the potential lung damage caused by plastic materials.

According to research, plastic degrades slowly, so once in the lungs, it tends to stay there and build up in volume.


Some studies have found that the immune system can attack these foreign objects, causing prolonged inflammation that can lead to diseases such as cancer.

 Masking is toxic. And it has not stopped the spread of Covid.  This was covered as far back as 8 months ago and here it is again.

 Oh and the masks tossed everywhere are a disgrace!  They are plastic pollution and if you believe in the 'pandemic' as presented your certainly assisting in the spread of the virus. 

Personally, I find the quantities of discarded masks laying about heinous. Disgraceful. Disgusting.

 

Sunday, March 28, 2021

Vaccination Dogma

DW published a piece that can and should only be considered as the promotion of DOGMA.  Clearly suggesting you must be convinced of the salvation offered by an experimental jab. Despite the obvious  and abundant failings cited in their own article!  To be clear I’m using the word DOGMA in this manner:

“ a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds”   

 

DW: Coronavirus infection despite vaccination? Maybe, but jabs still save lives     

Keeping in mind the reality that this virus already had such a high rate of survival- one wonders how it could be credibly claimed the jabs  save lives?  As you can see we’re off to a contradictory start from the headline. But, we shall continue.

“Reports of vaccinated people getting COVID-19 have been appearing in the news over and over in recent weeks, but that's neither a reason to get angry, nor an argument to reject vaccines.
It isn’t an argument to reject? Clearly, it is.  If your furnace doesn't heat your house do you keep it? If your car doesn't drive do you still plate and insure it? Where's the logic in the DW stance?
“Even if someone experiences mild symptoms after a vaccination or tests positive for the coronavirus, the vaccine is still effectively doing what it's supposed to do: prevent severe disease progression and death.”
But it does not block transmission.The prevention claim is suspect as well. The virus has a very high survivability rate. And most people who test positive are asymptomatic. So the claim of preventing severe disease progression and or death. How can that be quantified, demonstrated or known?
“Why have COVID deaths occured after vaccination?

In Germany, however, there have been some cases in which seniors in nursing homes still had severe COVID-19 courses even after vaccination. Some even died.
So, the vaccine did not stop transmission and it did not reduce severity. That's clear.
What do sterilizing immunity and functional immunity mean?

In this respect, it's safe to say the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine offers a fairly high sterilizing immunity against the most common coronavirus variants. Though conclusive figures are not yet available for other vaccines, efficacy is likely comparable.

 The first evaluations of BioNTech-Pfizer vaccines administered in Israel  showed that people who had been vaccinated twice had a 92% lower risk of infecting other people.
"The first evaluations"? They use Israel to prove their point?  A nation where many tens of thousand of Israelis became infected with Covid after vaccination. How would that prove sterilizing immunity?

Here comes the admission the vaccine is a fail...

“Nevertheless, only when there is clear evidence that vaccinated individuals cannot infect others, or when a sufficiently high "herd immunity" has been reached, can authorities exempt vaccinated people from obligations such as wearing face masks or observing physical distancing rules.

Still, though we have not yet reached that point, all of the vaccines currently available have been shown to provide functional immunity, i.e., prevent or reduce the risk of severe symptoms. And even in rare cases of disease occurring, vaccines have significantly shortened the course of illness.”
 

No clear evidence that vaccinated individuals cannot infect others.. This has been written about endlessly here. In fact even the claim of functional immunity is also a fail.
How about we set the Dogma aside and allow the facts, the reality, to inform us?

Related:

 Also:

Saturday, March 27, 2021

US and their PKK allies Control Around 90 Percent of Syria's Oil Fields- Birth Pangs

 Oddly enough the focus continues to be on Turkey's alleged control of Syria's oil fields.  While America's  very major role flies under the radar. Such an Israeli/Empire friendly point of view.

US controls major Syrian oil field, report says

Syrian Oil Minister Bassam Toma’a has revealed that around 90 per cent of Syrian oil is under the control of US forces, Aram News Network reported on Friday.

“The Americans and their followers are acting like pirates as they are targeting the Syrian oil wealth and oil supplies,” the Syrian regime minister asserted.

Could someone please enlighten the so called alternative media?  MoA. Saker. And the like. Admittedly I've not read either site for a while, but,  when I had some time ago.. these uncomfortable truths were never mentioned. Southfront is another place I've long ago given up on.

The minister added: “There is a promising future for the oil industry in the [Syrian] waters. We need tranquillity and stable logistic circumstances.”

He stated that the total direct and indirect losses of the Syrian oil sector had exceeded $92 billion, noting that what happened in Syria has never previously occurred regarding the exploitation of wealth and supplies.

It is worth noting that the oil ministry of the Bashar Al-Assad regime has signed contracts with the Russian oil firm Capital to explore oil off Tartus governorate’s coasts with an area of 2,250 km2.

 Syria is looking to it's Eastern Mediterranean natural gas resources

Long term readers may recall a number of older reports on that very subject.

 Including as far back as 2011

  • Assad's "Four Seas Strategy" Damascus converges with China

    Since 2009, Bashar al-Assad has been promoting a "Four Seas Strategy" to turn Damascus into a trade hub among the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea.

    Aligning Syria with countries that lie on these shores—Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan (The Weekly Middle East Reporter, August 1, 2009)—Assad peddled this idea in May 2009 with Turkey, stating that “Once the economic space between Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran become integrated, we would link the Mediterranean, Caspian, Black Sea, and the [Persian] Gulf … we aren’t just important in the Middle East…Once we link these four seas, we become the compulsory intersection of the whole world in investment, transport and more.”

  Do you get why the Armenian situation was fraught with disinfo at the level it was? By the same alt media sites already mentioned. This is why the US allied PKK Kurds are the perfect foil  for the re ordering/reshaping of the region. Destroy 4 nations and participate in targeting Azerbaijan. 

Birth Pangs, people. Birth Pangs

 Two previous posts:

Incredible Hulk Variants and Other COVID Sci-fi Fantasies- Thoughtful oped

 Hattip MuchAdoAboutCorona



In a recent episode of the High Wire, host Del Bigtree says:

We are putting immense pressure on [the coronavirus] with an underperforming vaccine that is going to turn it into a hulk. And [Dr. Bossche’s] concern is that it will become so viral and so deadly that there is nothing we can do to stop it.

I can’t help but feel Bigtree and Bossche may be big fans of I Am Legend. Both the novel and the movie are set in a post-apocalyptic America, where a mutant measles virus has wiped out most of mankind. Outside of such dystopian thrillers, however, it’s hard to find examples of such genocidal pandemics (natural or manmade).

Del Bigtree was, as many know, commenting on Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s open letter and interview where the vaccine scientist denounces the COVID-19 vaccine.

Well, he sort of denounces it.

Actually, not really. 

Instead, he praises the COVID-19 vaccine — merely claiming that it is the “wrong weapon” at the “wrong time.” Ignoring any of its innate dangers and risks, he says that its belated use in the midst of this (invisible) pandemic will trigger more lethal variants.

Super deadly variants: Where have we heard that line before?

His solution to stop these mutant ninja viruses (resulting from an experimental mRNA vaccine)? More vaccines! Yes, he advises mass vaccinating with an even more experimental vaccine.

The idea is this new type of vaccine will stimulate our innate immune system to produce more natural killer (NK) white blood cells.

The natural killer vaccine. Boy, that should sell well.

How many red flags can we plant around this doctor (whose resumé includes helping out the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI and GSK)?

First off, let me be clear, I think the vaccine is innately dangerous. In animal studies, after being re-exposed to the virus, vaccine trials left a pet cemetery of dead ferrets (according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy).

But the idea that an “under-performing” vaccine is going to make the virus even more deadly makes no sense to me. If anything, would not an under-performing vaccine make the virus even weaker?

Also, the proposition that inoculating people (while the virus is already in circulation) would finally lead to this monstrous killer coronavirus (that the WHO has been praying for) makes even less sense. As science writer Rosemary Frei’s explains in her excellent article, The Curious Case of Geert Vanden Bossche:

[Viral resistance] it’s not the major threat Vanden Bossche attempts to scare us about by saying the virus is likely to mutate so much and so quickly because of the current mass vaccination campaigns that soon it could escape all current attempts to stop its spread. Remember, for example, that yearly flu mass vaccination hasn’t caused influenza to spiral out of control and decimate the global population.

In truth, science still has not even proven that viruses are contagious, no less that they can become super-contagious. As Thomas Cowan writes in his book, The Contagion Myth:

It was Louis Pasteur who convinced a skeptical medical community that contagious germs caused disease. However, he eventually admitted that the whole effort to prove contagion was a failure, leading to his famous deathbed confession that “the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything.”

Viruses may be at the scene of the “crime.” But so are police and paramedics. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are to blame. Indeed, a virus may be part of some type of healing or detoxification process. Maybe they even help devour cancer cells? ScienceDaily says that in addition to rejecting virally infected cells, NK cells also reject tumours. Could there be a connection?

 Read the rest at the opening link

from earlier today:

Canada’s Weekly Harm And Injury Covid Vaccine Report- 24 Dead With Vaccine

Canada’s Weekly Harm And Injury Covid Vaccine Report- 24 Dead With Vaccine

As ALWAYS the Weekly Report, not the summary, stats are used here at PFYT’s.

Before getting to the latest, let’s review the information from the week ending March 12/21 to understand the number of injections administered this past week.  Knowing the number of weekly injections helps us better understand the rates of adverse events on a weekly basis.

You can find the week prior update here:

The deaths with vaccine cumulative total stood at 76 last week. Adding another 24 deaths with vaccine reported this week brings the cumulative reported death total rises to 98 deaths w vaccine in Canada. 

“Up to and including March 19, 2021, a total of 24 reports identified deaths that occurred after the administration of a vaccine. Following medical case review, it has been determined that 13 of these deaths are not linked to a COVID-19 vaccine and the other 11 are still under investigation. When the investigation is complete, the number will be updated accordingly”

Is a discernible pattern emerging?  The more vaccines administered- the more deaths occurring? Though it is possible some of the deaths correlate with jabs given previously. The data always lags.

* As of March 12th/21 the total of doses administered stands at :  2,830,164
* As of March 19/21 the total doses administered stands at : 3,729,312


*Making the weekly total of doses administered: 899,148

Up to and including March 19, 2021

"No safety signals (potential safety issues) have been identified"
That’s intentionally misleading. It cannot be claimed no safety signal or potential safety issues have been identified,  when the occurrences of blood clots and low levels of blood platelets is specifically cited in this report!

Quoting from the injury and harm information:

"There have been reports in Europe of blood clots associated with low levels of blood platelets (thrombocytopenia) following vaccination with the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Health Canada is aware of the situation and will continue to monitor these developments closely.
If a safety issue is found to be related to immunization, Health Canada will take appropriate action. This could include updating the product information, communicating new risks to Canadians and healthcare providers or changing the recommended use of the product."
Considering this information is dated week ending March 19/21, we should all be aware that as of March 24/21 Health Canada has issued a label change and guidance on the Astra Zeneca/CoviShield Vaccine . If you check the information provided by the Canadian gov you will notice that the CoviShield/Astra Zeneca vaccine came into use during the time frame of this latest report, ending March 19/21. Don’t be fooled by the different names, they are the same vaccine.

Health Canada issues label change and guidance on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine   
“Today, Health Canada updated the product monograph—or label—for the AstraZeneca and COVISHIELD COVID-19 vaccines to provide information on very rare reports of blood clots associated with low levels of blood platelets (i.e., thrombocytopenia) following immunization with the AstraZeneca vaccine

Health Canada reassures Canadians that the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine continues to be safe and effective at protecting them against COVID-19 and encourages people to get immunized with any of the COVID-19 vaccines that are authorized in Canada.”
Health Canada cannot assure Canadians the vaccines are safe- That’s why they’ve issued the warning. It’s an acknowledgment of the very real dangers which have resulted in an unknown number of deaths, globally. While many of them have been documented here I’m certain a greater number have occurred then I have the capacity to track.

*212 New adverse event following immunization reports since last update

(193 new non-serious and 19 new serious)

*2,530 Total adverse event following immunization reports

(0.068% of all doses administered)

*2,210 Total adverse event following immunization reports that were non-serious

(0.059% of all doses administered)

*320 Total adverse event following immunization reports that were serious

(0.009% of all doses administered)

*3,729,312 Total doses administered

 The most common adverse reaction documented is still anaphylaxis. There were 59 cases of anaphylaxis this week. Still exponentially  higher then the usual 1 per million. In this case 59 were documented for under 900,000 shots. 

*Not to be missed is this news coming from India. This came to me via The Significance of R

Unfortunately the article is largely behind a paywall, still, you'll get the idea.

Heart Attack and Brain Stroke Main Causes of Death After Covid Shot 

 And Finally all previous Harm and Injury Reports pertaining to Canada:

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Interview with Richard Ebright PHD: How Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins “systematically thwarted” the US Gain-of-Function Research Pause

Extremely interesting interview

By Jorge Casesmeiro Roger/Independent Science News

Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright, PhD is one of the twenty six world scientists who signed the Open Letter: “Call for a Full and Unrestricted International Forensic Investigation into the Origins of COVID-19”. A document released last March 4 by the Wall Street Journal and Le Monde that reignited the debate over the pandemic’s origin after the WHO-convened mission to Wuhan.

Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University, Dr. Richard H. Ebright, PhD, is also Laboratory Director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology and serves as project leader on two National Institutes of Health research grants.

Dr. Richard Ebright received his BA in Biology and his PhD in Microbiology and Molecular Genetics from Harvard University. He has more than one hundred sixty publications and more than forty issued and pending patents. He is member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a Fellow of the American Association for Advancement of Science, the American Academy of Microbiology, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Dr. Ebright is a member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee of Rutgers University and the Antimicrobial Resistance Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He is also been a member of the Working Group on Pathogen Security of the state of New Jersey, and the Controlling Dangerous Pathogens Project of the Center for International Security Studies. He was a founding member of the Cambridge Working Group, which advocated for biosafety, biosecurity, and risk-benefit reviews for gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens.
Richard Ebright Phd


Q & A with this  knowledgeable individual below

Dr. Ebright, you are one of the 26 scientific signers of the Open Letter that stopped the release of the WHO-convened mission Interim Report and has reopened the CoV-2 origin debate. Do you think the final report of this WHO/China joint team is going to shut down COVID origin controversy?

No.

The Open Letter explains in detail the structural and functional limitations of the WHO-China Wuhan collaborative team: exclusive Chinese field work, lack of complete access to lab installations or databases, consensus process in report making…

A credible investigation would have had Terms of Reference that: 1) Acknowledged the possibility of laboratory origin, 2) Ensured access of investigators to records, samples, personnel, and facilities at the Wuhan laboratories that handle bat SARS-related coronaviruses, 3) Enabled collection of evidence, not mere meet-and-greet photo-ops, 4) Authorized an investigation of months, not mere days. And 5) A credible investigation also would have had conflict-of-interest-free investigators, not persons who were subjects of the research and/or closely associated with subjects of the investigation.

You have said several times that this WHO mission was literally “a charade”.

Yes, its members were willing –and, in at least one case, enthusiastic– participants in disinformation.

The pre-negotiated “Terms of Reference” for the WHO study did not even acknowledge the possibility of a laboratory origin of the virus and did not even mention the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the Wuhan Center for Disease Control (CDC) or the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products.

Regarding the inspection personnel, at least one member of the WHO mission team, Ecohealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak, seems to have conflicts of interest that should have disqualified him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yes. Daszak was the contractor who funded the laboratory at WIV that potentially was the source of the virus (with subcontracts from $200 million from the US Department of State and $7 million from the US National Institutes of Health), and he was a collaborator and co-author on research projects at the laboratory.

The Open Letter also lists the elements of “What a full investigation should look like”. So again, Dr. Ebright, if you where in charge of a forensic team to investigate in Wuhan the origins of the pandemic: what would you like to see first? What kind of questions would you ask and to who?

A credible forensic investigation would require access to records, samples, personnel, and facilities at WIV, the Wuhan CDC and the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products. It would entail inspection of electronic and paper records, inspection of freezer and refrigerator samples, environmental sampling of facilities, and confidential interviews with personnel–including previous and current construction, maintenance, janitorial, disposal, security, animal-facility, laboratory, and administrative personnel.

Whenever asked if this virus could have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, your answer has been: “Yes (…) This cannot and should not be dismissed”. A study on COVID origin of Dr. Steven Quay, another signer of the Open Letter, calculates the lab hypotheses to be a 99.8% probability.

At this point in time, there is no secure basis to assign relative probabilities to the natural-accident hypothesis and the laboratory-accident hypothesis.

But given the fact that lab leak is a possibility, what chance do you give for a natural zoonotic origin of this pandemic? 

At this point in time, all scientific data related to the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and the epidemiology of COVID-19 are equally consistent with a natural-accident origin or a laboratory-accident origin.

What would you say to the scientist who declined to comment on the Open Letter because it does not come from virologists?

The claim is unsound.

There were virologists among the signers of the Open Letter. There even were coronavirologists among the signers of the Open Letter.

More important, COVID-19 affects every person on the planet. Not just virologists.

Dr. Ebright, you are a microbiologist and molecular biologist, what light can you shed on this matter from your fields of expertise?

Microbiologists and molecular biologists are as qualified as virologists to assess the relevant science and science policies. Virology is a subset, not a superset, of microbiology and molecular biology. The sequencing, sequence analysis, cell culture, animal-infection studies, and other laboratory procedures used by virologists are not materially different from the procedures used by other microbiologists and molecular biologists.

I guess that is why the second point of the Open Letter research proposal is precisely to create a multidisciplinary team.

It is crucial that any team reviewing the issues include not only research scientists, but also biosafety, biosecurity, and science policy specialists.

What biological evidence regarding the structure and behaviour of SARS-CoV-2 points to a pure zoonosis? And what to the lab theory?

The genome sequence of the outbreak virus indicates that its progenitor was either the horseshoe-bat coronavirus RaTG13, or a closely related bat coronavirus.

RaTG13 was collected by Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2013 from a horseshoe-bat colony in a mine in Yunnan province, where miners had died from a SARS-like pneumonia in 2012, was partly sequenced by WIV in 2013-2016, was fully sequenced by WIV in 2018-2019, and was published by WIV in 2020.

Bat coronaviruses are present in nature in multiple parts of China.

Therefore, the first human infection could have occurred as a natural accident, with a virus passing from a bat to a human, possibly through another animal. There is clear precedent for this. The first entry of the SARS virus into the human population occurred as a natural accident in a rural part of Guangdong province in 2002.

But bat coronaviruses are also collected and studied by laboratories in multiple parts of China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Therefore, the first human infection also could have occurred as a laboratory accident, with a virus accidentally infecting a field collection staffer, a field survey staffer, or a laboratory staffer, followed by transmission from the staffer to the public. There also is clear precedent for this. The second, third, fourth and fifth entries of the SARS virus into human populations occurred as a laboratory accident in Singapore in 2003, a laboratory accident in Taipei in 2003, and two separate laboratory accidents in Beijing in 2004.

So for you there is still a fifty-fifty chance?

At this point in time, there is no secure basis to assign relative probabilities to the natural-accident hypothesis and the laboratory-accident hypothesis.

Nevertheless, there are three lines of circumstantial evidence that are worth noting.

Proceed, Doctor.

First, the outbreak occurred in Wuhan, a city of 11 million persons that does not contain horseshoe-bat colonies, that is tens of kilometers
from, and that is outside the flight range of, the nearest known horseshoe-bat colonies.  Furthermore, the outbreak occurred at a time of year when horseshoe bats are in hibernation and do not leave colonies

 Another one.

Second, the outbreak occurred in Wuhan, on the doorstep of the laboratory that conducts the world’s largest research project on horseshoe bat viruses, that has the world’s largest collection of horseshoe-bat viruses, and that possessed and worked with the world’s closest sequenced relative of the outbreak virus. The laboratory actively searched for new horseshoe-bat viruses in horseshoe-bat colonies in caves in remote rural areas in Yunnan province, brought those new horseshoe-bat viruses to Wuhan, and then mass-produced, genetically manipulated, and studied those new horseshoe-bat viruses, year-round, inside Wuhan.

 A remarkable coincidence. The last one?

Third, the bat-SARS-related-coronavirus projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology used personal protective equipment (usually just gloves; sometimes not even gloves) and biosafety standards (usually just biosafety level 2) that would pose very high risk of infection of field-collection, field-survey, or laboratory staff upon contact with a virus having the transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2.

The lab leak hypotheses, as raised in the Open Letter, should address four possible scenarios that do not imply genetic manipulation in a Gain-of-Function (GoF) experiment. But this chance cannot be excluded. Dr. Ebright, when the pandemic started you declared: “There’s absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered”. Would you reassert this today?

The genome sequence of this virus shows no signatures of human manipulation.

But Dr. Ralph Baric, who is considered the US leading expert in coronavirus, so he probably is the world one, says that is possible to engineer a virus in a lab without leaving a trace of the manipulation.

The fact that the genome sequence of this virus shows no signatures of human manipulation rules out the kinds of gain-of-function (GoF) research that leave signatures. But this does not rule out kinds of GoF research that do not leave signatures.

The chance that CoV-2 is a GoF virus does not imply that the leak could have occurred during a bioweapons program. Open Letter signatories do not address this scenario, that you firmly exclude. Be that as it may, Dr. Ebright, as a longstanding opponent of biological weapons proliferation (Nature: Jan. 24/02 & Jan. 15/12) and Founding Member of the Harvard “Cambridge Working Group Consensus Statement on the Creation of Potential Pandemic Pathogens (PPPs)”, does the current crisis demand a new debate and moratorium on these highly risky experiments, and this these time with a more international engagement?

Yes.

What went wrong for the Cambridge Working Group thesis during the 2014-2016 USA official moratorium and deliberative process on Gain-of-Function Research of Concern (GoFRoC)?

The Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have systematically thwarted efforts by the White House, the Congress, scientists, and science policy specialists to regulate GoF research of concern and even to require risk-benefit review for projects involving GoF research of concern.

In 2014, the Obama White House implemented a “Pause” in federal funding for GoF research of concern.  However, the document announcing the Pause stated in a footnote that: “An exception from pause may be obtained if head of funding agency determines research is urgently necessary to protect public health or national security”. Unfortunately, the NIAID Director and the NIH Director exploited this loophole to issue exemptions to projects subject to the Pause –preposterously asserting the exempted research was “urgently necessary to protect public health or national security”– thereby nullifying the Pause.

In 2017, the Trump Administration announced a Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework that implemented a requirement for risk-benefit review of GoF research of concern. However, the P3CO Framework relies on the funding agency to flag and forward proposals for risk-benefit review.  Unfortunately, the NIAID Director and the NIH Director have declined to flag and forward proposals for risk-benefit review, thereby nullifying the P3CO Framework.

Proponents of GoF experiments with PPPs have won all the debates of the last decade. But I wonder why some of its most prestigious critics are keeping now such a low profile, when not a thunderous silence. And I am thinking of one of the leading organizers of the Cambridge Working Group: the Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Marc Lipsitch, who in 2018 was still warning that influenza GoF studies could provoke a pandemic on a scale never seen before.

The silence of some former leaders of the Cambridge Working Group has been disappointing.

It was, by the way, reading the cited Dr. Lipsitch paper that I came to know that perhaps the first experimental effort to create a PPP in a lab was the 2005 study titled: “Characterization of the reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus”. Dr. Lipsitch wondered about it: “Whether it was wise to construct a virus that was historically associated with the worst pandemic in modern history”. Do you remember this concrete GoF study? Are you aware, fifteen years after, of any positive outcome of it? In conclusion, Dr. Ebright: was it wise to do it?

I consistently have stated that: “This was research that should not have been performed” (NYT: Oct. 05/05 & Jan. 29/06).

And no, the work has not yielded information useful for preventing pandemics or responding to pandemics.

Drs. Imperiale and Casadevall, both Cambridge Work Group Board Members, echoed last summer: “Most experts who have been studying and discussing preparedness agree that the source of the pathogen does not significantly change the nature of the response. Is that right, Dr. Ebright, or maybe the outcome of knowing CoV-2 origin could have saved lives?

Understanding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not crucial for responding to the present pandemic. But it is crucial –absolutely crucial– for preventing future pandemics.

Regarding prevention, it was precisely Dr. Peter Daszak, with a renewed granted from the NIH, now to target deadly viruses in South Asia, who stated in August 2020: “We’re going to work in remote parts of Malaysia and Thailand to get to the front line of where the next pandemic is going to start”. Now, though Dr. Daszak is not openly cited in the March 4 Open Letter, he is clearly the WHO team member with a more biased vision and unresolved conflict of interest when it comes to inspecting a possible leak in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. So going back: if the origin of Covid-19 was a lab accident, GoF, or in between, this would change the narrative of the whole pandemic, and so the measures that should be taken to prevent another one: like, for instance, keeping crackpot scientists far away from deadly viruses. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong.

Thank you for your attention, Dr. Ebright.

 

" if the origin of Covid-19 was a lab accident, GoF, or in between, this would change the narrative of the whole pandemic, and so the measures that should be taken to prevent another one: like, for instance, keeping crackpot scientists far away from deadly viruses. Am I wrong?"

Dr Ebright:  You are not wrong.

What is being reported today? "By catching bats, these 'virus hunters' hope to stop the next pandemic"

Wouldn't assume they are catching bats to stop the next pandemic. Possibly they are catching them to precipitate another highly profitable pandemic

Monday, March 22, 2021

Vaccine Capitalism: A run-down of the huge profits being made from COVID-19 vaccines and Bernay's Style Mass Marketing

Before we get to the  main feature- Let's review and keep this previous report in mind:

We Had the Vaccine the Whole Time- A So Called Vaccine Awaiting a So Called Pandemic?

 You may be surprised to learn that of the trio of long-awaited coronavirus vaccines,  had been designed by January 13 /2020. This was just two days after the genetic sequence had been made public in an act of scientific and humanitarian generosity that resulted in China’s Yong-Zhen Zhang’s being temporarily forced out of his lab.  

In Massachusetts, the Moderna vaccine design took all of one weekend. It was completed before China had even acknowledged that the disease could be transmitted from human to human

Vaccines awaiting a so called pandemic to generate massive profits.Very massive profits as you will read below- It reads like a perfect business plan. Create a massive demand though manipulating the masses- Then fill the demand. That's marketing 101, folks!  Ala Edward Bernays

Bernays attained clients among major corporations and became known for boosting their business by causing changes in public opinion. ... Instead, when hired by a company, Bernays would set out to change the opinions of the general public, creating demand which would indirectly boost the fortunes of a particular product

 An ideal model to quickly generate generous revenues for global racketeers, ooops, I mean profiteers. Exploiters of a terrorized global human population. One can hear the evil laughter emanating from these deceivers. Check out the expose from Corporate Watch below:

 The entire piece below is from Corporate Watch- Credit to them for providing so much in depth information

Pharmaceutical companies and their bosses and shareholders stand to make billions from COVID vaccines, in one of the most spectacular examples yet of COVID profiteering. This is largely thanks to a double handout from their friends in governments: first heavily subsidising drug development; then letting them charge prices often way above costs. Meanwhile, the poorest are left behind once again – as the governments uphold the companies’ intellectual property rights, preventing poorer countries from producing vaccines faster and cheaper (read our explainer on how the pharma business model works here).

Here we look at the three leading vaccines now approved in the UK and Europe: those made by BioNTech and Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Oxford University, and Moderna. Just how much money are the companies behind them going to make? How have they been supported by the public sector? And whose pockets will the money end up in?

How much profit will they make from the vaccines this year?

BioNTech/Pfizer: estimated $4 billion profit, after sales of $15 billion. Pfizer says it already has orders for at least $15 billion worth of vaccines, at around $19 a shot. According to the Financial Times, the profit margin could be close to 30% this year. Unashamedly working to maximise profit, Pfizer is reportedly driving a hard bargain when negotiating sales with both richer and poorer countries.

Moderna: estimated $8 billion profit  after sales of $18.4 billion. Moderna says it is on track to produce at least 700 million pre-ordered vaccines in 2021. Moderna’s jabs are the most expensive, between $25 to $37 a shot and the company says the cost of producing its jabs will be as low as 20% of sales.

 

Oxford/AstraZeneca: unknown profit, after sales of $6.4 billion in 2021. It is selling at the cheapest price (for now) and they have promised to produce at cost without making a profit “during the pandemic”. But what does that really mean? One leaked contract seen by the Financial Times suggests they could declare the pandemic over and hike prices at any time from July. And AstraZeneca’s contract with Oxford University reportedly allows the company to make as much as 20% on top of the cost of manufacturing the jabs. In another sign of the limits of the “at cost” pledge, poorer countries including Bangladesh, South Africa and Uganda all appear set to pay more for the vaccine than the EU.

NB: The vaccines are being bought by governments around the world in advance bulk orders. Those profit figures, therefore, come overwhelmingly from sales to public authorities. As we see below, governments also massively subsidised the vaccines’ development. So the public sector is paying twice over: first to fund research, next to buy the results at inflated prices.

Public sector paying twice. Win/win for big pharma

What about future years?
This is anyone’s guess. Given the amount of vaccines in development, competition may keep costs down. But if some prove more effective than others, and COVID-19 jabs become a regular event with annual boosters as for flu vaccines, the profits could keep rolling in for years to come. And once the pandemic’s intensity dwindles, all companies may feel free to hike prices further. For example, Pfizer’s chief financial officer told analysts the current price is “not a normal price, like we typically get for a vaccine — $150, $175 per dose. Let’s go beyond a pandemic pricing environment, the environment we’re currently in: obviously, we’re going to get more on price”.
How much did the vaccines cost to develop?
Exact figures are corporate secrets, but it seems likely they each cost around $1 billion to develop. Initial research for a new epidemic vaccine may cost an average of $68 million – though the COVID-19 jabs were developed much quicker. But the main cost is running large scale “Phase 3” trials – for the COVID-19 vaccines these have been bigger than usual, with tens of thousands of volunteers.
How else will the companies benefit?
The vaccines are a massive PR coup. The companies have become household names, and in a good way. That’s quite a turnaround for an industry that was reviled like few others after decades of profiteering. Whether the vaccines could have been produced in a more accessible, fairer way is only now starting to enter public debate, at least in the UK.

These companies are still profiteering.

The science that underpins the company’s COVID-19 vaccines may also be put to use to treat – and profit from – other diseases. Moderna hopes its mRNA technology can be used to treat cancer, the most lucrative pharma ‘market’. Vaccitech, mentioned above, is raising huge amounts from investors on the hope its COVID-19 tech can be used to treat hepatitis and MERS. Development of the science has likely been helped by ‘road-testing’ through the vaccine roll-out.

Who invented the vaccines?

BionNTech/Pfizer: Research was done by BioNTech, a German pharma research company. Pfizer came in as partner once the vaccine was ready for trials.

Moderna: The vaccine was “co-developed” by Moderna and US government scientists working for the National Institute of Health (NIH). There is some mystery over the exact roles of the NIH and Moderna, just who owns the intellectual property – and why the US government has apparently allowed Moderna to keep all the profits.

Oxford/AstraZeneca: Oxford University scientists at its Jenner Institute and Oxford Vaccines Group, led by Professors Sarah Gilbert and Adrian Hill.

The companies’ spin presents the COVID-19 vaccines as a triumph for corporate science. In fact only one of the three leading vaccines, the BionNTech/Pfizer one, was developed by the private sector (making money from the inventions of others is a classic big pharma playread our explainer here). Also: all the teams benefited from initial research by the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, which published the first genomic sequencing of the COVID-19 virus freely on the open source site virological.org.

Were there any plans to produce vaccines without Big Pharma profits?

Oxford first considered allowing a range of manufacturers to produce its vaccine without selling exclusive rights to any corporation. But, according to the Wall Street Journal, senior executives at the university, along with major funder the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, argued they couldn’t manage a “global roll-out” without the help of big pharma. The university initially entered talks with US pharma giant Merck, before eventually signing with AstraZeneca in April 2020. The deal involves a full license to produce and sell the vaccine in return for $90 million and a 6% share of future royalties, which the university says will be reinvested into medical research. Vaccitech Ltd, a private “spinout” company whose directors include Professors Gilbert and Hill, will get 24% of the university’s cut.

How much public subsidy did they get?

BioNTech/Pfizer: €465 million (around $550 million). Research was funded privately. But they received a 100 million development loan from the European Investment Bank, and a 365 million grant from the German government, to help with manufacturing.

Oxford/AstraZeneca: around $1.3 billion. The vaccine came out of long-term research at Oxford University funded by the UK government and others. The government contributed over £87 million more to develop the new vaccine in early 2020.ii The US added up to $1.2 billion more as part of its “Operation Warp Speed”.

Moderna: over $955 million. US government funding included: an undisclosed amount for phase 1 trials in March 2020; $483 million in April for phase 2 and the start of phase 3 trials; another $472 million to expand phase 3 trials in July. Moderna also got a $1 million donation from Dolly Parton.

As well as these research subsidies, the companies received huge pre-orders from governments even before their vaccines had been approved for use. The US government for example made massive $1.95 and $1.53 billion pre-orders of the BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna jabs through its Operation Warp Speed.

"As well as these research subsidies, the companies received huge pre-orders from governments even before their vaccines had been approved for use."

Could anyone have doubted for a moment, never mind a moment, a split second,  that these vaccines were not going to be approved?  No matter how many they harm and kill?

Who will get the money?

Pfizer/BioNTech: Profits are split 50/50 between the two companies.

Shareholders will receive ‘dividends’ – cash paid out from company profits. Pfizer’s main shareholders are global investment funds: especially Vanguard Group (7.6%), State Street Global Advisors (5%), and BlackRock (4.9%). Run by some of the world’s richest, most powerful people, such as Blackrock CEO Larry Fink, between them this “giant three” control approximately $20 trillion of the world’s assets. Meanwhile, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla made headlines selling £4.2 million of Pfizer shares the day it announced its vaccine worked.

BioNTech is generally presented as a rags-to-riches success story for two immigrant doctors, the husband and wife team of Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türeci. The vaccine has made them billionaires. But the company’s main owners, who owned around 50% last year, are the biotech investor twins Thomas and Andreas Struengmann. They made their first billions from generic medicine company Hexal they set up in the 1980s, then sold to Novartis in 2005.

Moderna: Shareholders include chairman Noubar Afeyan (14% share at start of pandemic), CEO Stéphane Bancel (9%), and professors Timothy Springer (Harvard) and Robert Langer (MIT). They have suddenly gone from directors of a loss-making company to multi-millionaires. Moderna shares have increased by around 50% since it announced its vaccine success and Bancel in particular has sold off chunks of his holdings in recent months, taking out millions in cash. Moderna listed on the stock exchange in 2018 and its biggest institutional investor is Scottish investment fund Baillie Gifford, which has been buying up more shares recently and now has over 11%. The US giants Vanguard and BlackRock are next, with 5.7% and 4.1% each. One mystery over the Moderna vaccine is if any money will go back to the US government who “co-developed” and funded it.

Oxford/AstraZeneca: AstraZeneca, headquartered in London, is a global megacorp owned by the same big investment funds as Pfizer and others. At the end of 2020 its three biggest owners were BlackRock (7.5%), Wellington Management (5.2%) and Capital Group (4.3%).

According to the Wall Street Journal, Oxford University stands to get 6% of future royalty payments. 24% of those will be passed on to Vaccitech Ltd, a “spinout” private company whose directors include vaccine researchers Professors Gilbert and Hill. They each own around 5% of Vaccitech’s shares. The main shareholder (46%) is an investment company called Oxford Sciences Innovation (OSI), set up by the university to channel capital into its spinout businesses. OSI has numerous shareholders besides the university itself – including Google Ventures, Huawei, Chinese pharma company Fosum (which also owns shares in Moderna), the sultanate of Oman, as well as banks and private equity funds.

 

 

Could it have been different?

The initial research that sequenced the COVID-19 genome and kick-started the vaccine race was published open source, free for all to use. Imagine if vaccine research was also published openly and without patents, so that all manufacturers, including in the global south, could produce what they need at cost price. How many lives could that save? But that would threaten the profits and property rights of some of the world’s most powerful companies and investors.

iBased on current consensus (i.e., average) analyst forecasts of Moderna earnings (profit) for full year 2021, with the COVID-19 vaccine their main product. These are external predictions – but the other points discussed here make them seem reasonable, in comparison with Pfizer’s stated internal prediction.

iiThe vaccine was based on work on MERS carried out by the Jenner Institute, which had been funded by the UK Government’s UK Vaccines Network from 2016. After the COVID-19 genome was released open source, this technology was then “rapidly repurposed”, backed by £2.6 million of government funding in March 2020 for preclinical trials and manufacturing research. The UK provided a further £20 million in April for clinical trials, and another £65 million more in May.

BlackRock is really everywhere these days. "climate change" and "pandemic" profiteering

Go back nearly a year ago. April 6/ 2020

Related: