Archive for the ‘vaccines’ Category

CDC Playbook: Learning From Lyme

April 25, 2020

By Alicia Cashman MS, Lyme patient and advocate

While most of the world is staggering with newly imposed social distancing measures, worrying about viruses and how to bolster the immune system, chronic Lyme patients simply carry on doing these things daily. They’ve been isolated for some time – either to avoid illness due to being immunocompromised or because they were forced into exile by authorities who tell them the illness they are struggling with simply doesn’t exist. In time, family and friends become more and more distant because they tend to believe the authorities. Authorities, after all, are honest and are looking after public health – aren’t they?

They say history repeats itself, which appears to be the case regarding COVID-19 when you study the sordid history of how Lyme disease has been and continues to be handled.
The CDC Insists Upon Using Its Own Tests

Due to decisions made at a conference in Michigan, serology testing criteria for Lyme Disease were purposely manipulated for vaccine development. To this day the CDC insists upon its own two-tiered testing which research has proven is abysmal and misses a vast majority of cases. It can’t distinguish between active, past, or reinfection.  It has now been removed, but the CDC website used to call specialized CLIA certified labs testing for tick-borne illness, “home-brewed.” I personally heard a pediatrician use those exact words at the Wisconsin State Capital in his effort of delegitimatizing patients who are forced to go to specially trained doctors using these labs to get diagnosed and proper treatment. This history is disturbing in and of itself but should particularly concern us in light of current events.

The CDC also insisted upon their own COVID-19 tests.  It was just discovered that CDC COVID-19 tests were initially contaminated with COVID-19 – making ALL numbers based upon those tests absolutely worthless. COVID-19 laced tests were also found in the UK.  Due to contamination, which they state on their website is a “problem with a reagent,” the entire United States is in lockdown. Had accurate testing been accepted by the CDC from the WHO from the start, authorities would have had accurate data to base decisions upon. This article states there are only 12 labs outside the CDC with the capability to test for the virus; however, as of the beginning of March, they hadn’t received FDA authorization to do their own testing. The CDC website states the following:

“This message is to remind clinical laboratories that this is currently the only EUA assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. Any laboratory that is not designated by CDC as a qualified laboratory and is implementing a COVID-19 diagnostic test other than the CDC EUA assay must contact the FDA to obtain an EUA before any COVID-19 diagnostic testing may be performed in their facilities.”

Compare that statement with the following:

“The conference proceedings recommended a two-test methodology using a sensitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or immunofluorescence assay as a first test, followed by a western immunoblot assay for specimens yielding positive or equivocal results (1,2).

On July 29, 2019, FDA cleared several Lyme disease serologic assays with new indications for use based on a modified two-test methodology (4). The modified methodology uses a second EIA in place of a western immunoblot assay. Clearance by FDA of the new Lyme disease assays indicates that test performance has been evaluated and is ‘substantially equivalent to or better than’ a legally marketed predicate test.“

In other words, you better use our tests. If you think that FDA cleared tests are effective, think again. The CDC has monopolized Lyme testing since the beginning of time, dooming patients to a life-time of suffering.

This article states that only two government agencies are required by law to be “patient-centered,” the FDA and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), yet Lyme patients continue to experience false negative results on CDC 2-tiered testing. Negative results means no diagnosis and no treatment. Patients and advocates have complained profusely with no change in testing.

The reason for insisting upon their own tests become clear when you go down rabbit-holes to discover they own patents on nearly everything surrounding the diseases they have tests for.  Please also see ConflictReport.  Dr. Fauci, director of NIAID, and a leader in the Corona Task Force has numerous patents, and a long list of conflicts of interest.

  • Journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer summarizes CDC testing incompetence.
  • James Lyons Weiler, Phd also reveals the CDC’s testing fiasco. He knows that of which he speaks as he attempted to have the CDC test his own test for Ebola. Let’s just say he was promptly rebuffed.
  • Currently, a pathologist is suing the CDC for their willful suppression of direct detecting methods.
  • Professor Lane hit the same brick wall regarding testing.
  • Regarding COVID testing, the president of Tanzania (PhD Chemistry) punked the WHO by sending in goat, fruit, and motor-oil samples to be tested for COVID-19.  Half came back positive! 
  • The creator of the PCR states it was never created to diagnose patients but for research and manufacturing purposes.
  • Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics states,“I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true.” When asked his advice for people wanting to be tested for COVID-19, he said:
“DON’T DO IT…NO HEALTHY PERSON SHOULD BE TESTED. IT MEANS NOTHING BUT IT CAN DESTROY YOUR LIFE, MAKE YOU ABSOLUTELY MISERABLE.”
  • According to David Crowe, Canadian researcher with degrees in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS:

“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”

Further, and more importantly, COVID testing does not detect SARS-COV-2 due to the fact the virus has not been isolated/purified from all else. You can’t test for something specific if you don’t have that information.  COVID testing is not specific to a particular virus people have tested positive, then negative, then positive within hours or days.  The test simply picks up viral fragments – some of which are completely dead and benign – not causing illness at all, and some are from other strains of coronaviruses such as the common cold, but it’s all being falsely labeled COVID-19 – further inflating case numbers and fear.

Lastly, there’s the very important issue of PCR cycle threshold, which was set at 40 (although this varied from lab to lab.  Experts have weighed in stating a PCR cycle of 40 is far too sensitive and that it should be set much lower – around 30.  Cases plummeted when the cycle threshold was lowered proving this fact.  What is frightening about this is health ‘authorities’ can manipulate this cycle threshold for their own nefarious reasons.

This exact same fact is true with Lyme/MSIDS testing as well and is why research shows a majority do not test positive.

The CDC wants their own tests & patents so they can create their own vaccines and drugs they will profit from.

A vaccine called Lymerix caused Lyme-like symptoms in many. In fact, it can be directly linked to 222 deaths and hundreds of adverse reactions, and these are only the ones that were recorded.

The CDC to-date hasn’t even attempted to address the immune issues caused by Lymerix. They just deny it ever happened. In fact, another Lyme vaccine is in the works which still uses the same OspA component which is attributed with problems in the first human vaccine.

Fool me once, shame on you – fool me twice, shame on me.

COVID-19 vaccines have been fast-tracked thereby bypassing important safety studies. Dr. Hotez, a vaccine researcher, is on record stating previous respiratory vaccines caused “paradoxical immune enhancement“:

James Lyons Weiler, PhD also gives the following chilling prediction:

When Phase I trials become Phase II trials people will start getting infected w/SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination and start dying at even higher rates due to disease enhancement caused by Pathogenic Priming from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination – something the vaccine developers SHOULD have tested for in animal studies, but skipped.

Even the FDA is worried about potential risks of the PER C6 Ad5 technology (aborted fetal cells) within many COVID-19 vaccines, which not only has moral implications but oncogenicity and infectivity concerns. The vaccine also uses electricity to drive DNA into your cells.  

A group of doctors recently wrote a paper about the emergency use authorized, fast-tracked COVID “vaccines” and state they are needless, ineffective and dangerous. 

  • needless because there are effective treatments  (Scroll to comment section)
  • ineffective because they don’t stop transmission or keep you from becoming ill
  • dangerous due to causing: viral immune escape, an inevitable steep incline in future severe COVID cases, antibody-immune enhancement, a condition where the “vaccinated” suffer with more severe illness when exposed to the wild virus, but also any infection.  There are also  unsafe epitopes within the injections, and mounting reports of adverse reactions and deaths after these injections, which aren’t “vaccines.”

Faulty testing issues and the subsequent push for vaccines are uncannily similar between Lyme and COVID-19 and should strongly remind us that the CDC is a vaccine manufacturing company first and foremost – to the detriment of severely ill and desperate patients.

Why Should We Trust the CDC?

The question begging to be asked is why should anyone trust the CDC? Their track record speaks for itself. Even CDC scientists have formed a group exposing the corruption from within. They’ve also lied about flu figures for decades. The ACIP, a group within the CDC, votes “Yes” for new vaccines despite having no safety data. And let us never forget the CDC whistleblower who exposed that scientists were ordered to purposely destroy data showing that African-American males who got the MMR vaccine before 36 months had a 250% increase in autism diagnoses.

Recently, microbiologist Judy Mikovitz spoke out on the unethical behavior of Dr. Fauci, Director of the NIAID since 1984 and one of the lead members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force (NIAID and CDC are both under the HHS umbrella). Excerpt:

Dr Fauci ordered Mikovits to keep her mouth shut. When she refused, he illegally confiscated her work books and hard drives, drove her from government work + blackballed her from receiving NIH grants ending her science career.

For those of you who are unaware, Mikovits discovered that a mouse virus (XMRV) has contaminated vaccines all the way back to the 30’s. She believes the virus can be linked to diseases like chronic fatigue (CFS/ME), autism, Alzheimer’s, cancer, autoimmune, neuroimmune, central nervous system diseases, and even chronic Lyme disease. While retroviruses do not directly cause diseases by themselves they help to create acquired immune system deficiency (non-HIV AIDS) which in turn causes unrelenting inflammatory processes.  Call it a trigger, in a perfect storm of events within the body allowing disease to occur.

You may ask why you’ve never heard of XMRV before. That’s because the CDC, NIH, FDA, and other government agencies covered it up. They didn’t want to worry you, and they certainly don’t want you to question their lucrative vaccines.

XMRV remains in American vaccines.

There is much evidence showing both COVID-19 and Lyme/MSIDS have been manipulated in a lab.

Ian Lipkin, aka The Virus Hunter, has been involved with both issues due to the urging of Dr. Fauci. He denies XMRV involvement in human disease, despite Mikovitz’s group being able to transmit it from patients’ T-cells to uninfected T-cells in the laboratory. He also denies COVID-19 is a lab-made, manipulated virus.

Despite his denial, the origin of COVID-19, after boomeranging around the globe, has returned to show strong evidence that it is most likely a manipulated virus for biowarfare purposes after all.

Excerpt:

After creating the synthetic virus, which they call SHC014, Zhengli and her coauthors write that they “next synthesized a full-length SHC014-CoV infectious clone based on the approach used for SARS-CoV.”24 Other papers Zhengli co-wrote focus on the transmission of coronaviruses from one species to another, according to the documentary.

Zhengli and her fellow researchers admit they used a “reverse genetics system” to generate “a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus,” raising legitimate fears that COVID-19 is also reverse-engineered, according to “Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Virus.”

And the real clincher:

According to Mikovits, the S proteins seen on COVID-19 that make it so transmittable to humans come from “cutting and pasting of two different viruses” and the apparent insertion of four new genes could not have been generated from a natural “zoonotic transmission.”

They had to come from a medical, bioweapons or lab setting, says Mikovits. Other scientists in the film agree that COVID-19 is a re-engineered, laboratory-driven virus.

But we were warned about this months ago, and then again recently with even more damning details.

Lyme patients are also familiar with bioweaponization. Recently, Congressman Smith announced a DOD investigation on the bioweaponization of ticks. Tick researchers have gone on record admitting to experimenting on ticks and dropping them out of airplanes.  And Kris Newby in her book “Bitten”, describes how a CIA operative dumped boxes full of crawling ticks over Cuba, returned home, and unwittingly infected his own newborn baby.  Dr. William Burgdorfer, the discoverer of the causative agent of Lyme disease worked as a bioweapons researcher for the US military and worked in programs tasked with breeding ticks and infecting them with pathogens that cause human diseases.

Besides faulty testing, a thrust to create a vaccine at all costs, a tightly controlled narrative, and bioweaponization, there is also a similar smear campaign on successful clinical treatments in both Lyme disease and COVID-19.

The CDC Slanders Competing Treatments

Authorities have purposely thwarted IV therapy for Lyme patients in a recent MMWR paper. The short recap is that the CDC cherry-picked 5 cases that had poor outcomes using IV therapy and then wrote a paper scaring the bejesus out of doctors. 

What’s interesting about the MMWR paper is that one of the authors, a CDC epidemiologist, allegedly solicited IDSA doctors for evidence of harm from IV antibiotic treatments, essentially bribing them by offering co-authorship of the report if anecdotes were used. No such solicitation was made for IV treatment success stories.  The dangling carrot has been blatantly observed with COVID treatment. There has been hot debate on Lyme treatments for decades. The MMWR paper is only one example of bias which is embedded within the CDC. There are many success stories using IV therapy by a Wisconsin Doctor and IDSA founder who disagreed with his colleagues on how to treat Lyme disease.

Meanwhile, doctors are reporting in on the success of treatments for COVID-19, but the CDC, true to form, bad-mouths any treatment or tests, other than ones they orchestrate. Based upon the CDC’s casting a dark shadow upon treatments that even patients attribute to saving their lives, numerous states (MI, NV, NY) as well as France have banned their usage for COVID-19.  It’s gotten so bad that judges are ordering hospitals to administer life-saving COVID treatment to dying patients because medical doctors kowtow to corrupt health ‘authorities’.

This tactic of politicizing clinically successful treatments is what the CDC/IDSA/NIH does. This article clearly shows the bantering common in mainstream media regarding COVID-19 treatment. The bi-partisan squabbling is tangible, and similar hit-pieces have been written about Lyme treatment for years. Lyme patients have had to straddle this polarized fence for over 40 years and this polarization continues unabated.

I was told by a front-line European doctor treating severely ill COVID-19 patients that hydroxychloroquine, commonly known as plaquenil, was used for over 70 years over the counter and was frequently given to travelers. Then, all of a sudden it became a prescription drug overnight, and now it’s being banned for use for COVID-19. This means doctors using it for COVID-19 will have their licenses revoked.

Scaring doctors and revoking their licenses is a common refrain for doctors treating Lyme disease.  My own doctor had to pay over $50,000 in legal fees fighting this battle and it’s happening not only in the U.S. but around the world due to the Iron Curtain of the CDC.

There is no question that IV therapies as well as extended antibiotics for Lyme and hydroxychlorquine for COVID-19 have side effects. No one is denying this. What’s unconscionable is that ‘authorities’ zoom in on particular treatments and microscopically nit-pick due to ulterior motives. It becomes crystal clear that the motivation is to control the narrative, and protect special interests – not to safe-guard patients.

Everyone wants double blind, placebo, randomized controlled trials (RCT); however, in the case of Lyme disease, those studies are controlled by a cabal who continue to study only the acute phase of the disease with faulty parameters for entrance into their studies. Again, testing is rigged for a predetermined outcome and they exclude a large subset of patients who don’t meet their stringent criteria.  Due to the complexity of Lyme/MSIDS, RTCs will never be done.

In the case of COVID-19, severe patients can quickly die, making those studies of little use in the present. Treatments are needed now, not in six months. Doctors and pharmacists go to school to learn about drugs and their interactions. How about authorities just let doctors do their jobs? I don’t see these authorities condemning cancer treatments which kill as many good cells as bad cells and cause horrific side-effects.  Why the focus on HCQ, ivermectin, and benign treatments like vitamin D, C, zinc, and quercetin?   This recent article explains why.  In essence, the CDC is in bed with Gilead Science as nine of the experts on the NIH COVID-19 Panel recommending treatment options have disclosed financial support from Gilead.  More dangling carrots.

Gilead Science created the anti-viral remdesivir which was unsuccessful for Ebola.  They are now digging it out of the drug graveyard and pushing it for COVID-19 to make up for lost profits. They did this exact same thing with AZT, a chemotherapy drug which failed for leukemia, and repurposed it for HIV patients who didn’t even have symptoms! HCQ, even though it’s clinically showing great success, stands in the way of their chosen profitable, albeit dangerous treatment. Remdesivir is not without side-effects and only showed modest benefits against COVID-19 but this is the CDC’s “golden” treatment, therefore, everything said about it is positive while they bad-mouth HCQ a direct competitor.

It’s also important to understand that the NIH owns half of the Moderna COVID vaccine. Many other conflicts of interest exist regarding this unique injection technology.

Where the handling of the two diseases drastically departs; however, is in how seriously the CDC is handling COVID-19 by enacting what most declare to be draconian measures, while continuing to downplay Lyme disease.  The learning curve for COVID-19 has been lightening fast in comparison to Lyme disease in that the conflicts of interest, the reliance upon faulty testing, and the polarization in the medical community on pretty much every aspect of the disease hasn’t budged in over 40 years.

What’s happening in the world today regarding COVID-19 is probably easier for Lyme patients to understand than the average person, but that doesn’t give them solace for the future. They will continue to wash their hands, do an entire laundry list of things to strengthen their immune systems, and will continue to be isolated. While the rest of the world returns to “normal” at some point, Lyme patients will continue living in a paradigm where the majority of doctors don’t even believe, test, or treat them, because the CDC has filled their heads with 40 year old unscientific, fraudulent dogma.

Category:

Activism, Lyme, research, Treatment, vaccines, Viruses

The Truth About Fauci – Featuring Dr. Judy Mikovits

  Approx. 8 Min.

The Truth About Fauci—Featuring Dr. Judy Mikovits

“Judy Mikovits is Among Her Generation’s Most Accomplished Scientists.” —Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Dr Fauci ordered Mikovits to keep her mouth shut. When she refused, he illegally confiscated her work books and hard drives, drove her from government work + blackballed her from receiving NIH grants ending her science career.

XMRV remains in American vaccines.

For the full transcript of the information in the video:  https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/dr-faucis-attempt-to-silence-whistleblower-dr-judy-mikovits-which-destroyed-her-career/

Another article which alleges: stealing research, covering up tainted vaccines, fraud and much more. Fauci’s parent agency, the NIH is not the only governmental agency involved in decades of corruption gone awry:  https://principia-scientific.org/aids-research-pioneer-blows-whistle-on-dr-fauci/

__________________

**Comment**

I’ve posted about Mikovitz’s work and unbelievable experience before:

Besides pointing out Fauci’s unethical behavior with Mikovitz regarding the potential of XMRV involvement with CFS, there’s more – much more.

Remember that it was none other than Fauci, NIH’s AIDS czar, who asked his friend Ian Lipkin to settle the claim by Mikovitz on whether XMRV is behind chronic fatigue syndrome.  Lipkin blamed a man-made contaminant, despite Lo and Alter’s paper showing 6.8 percent of healthy controls were positive for MLV-related infection:  https://www.pnas.org/content/107/36/15874.short.

So who again is Ian Lipkin?

Well, he’s known as “The Virus Hunter,” but is also an author in the Nature article which completely denies COVID-19 is a “laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Notice how we are seeing the same names over and over?

Lipkin has also been involved in a sex discrimination lawsuit alleging concerning issues that should cause us to question his credibility:  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/lawsuit-columbia-university-roils-prominent-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-research-lab (takes credit for others’ work, diverts and misuses funds which delays publication of others’ work, undermines relationships with a colleague’s collaborators and donors, wrongly adds himself as principle investigator to grants, and sex discrimination).

Lipkin, is a staunch critic of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and wrote this paper titled, “Anti-Vaccination Lunacy Won’t Stop”:  https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/wsj-040416.pdf

ANY RESEARCHER BIASED ENOUGH TO CALL THOSE WHO DARE TO QUESTION VACCINE SAFETY LUNATICS HAS TIPPED HIS HAND THAT HE IS NOT AT ALL OPEN TO NEW SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS

Similarly to how research for Alzheimer’s was hijacked for decades by the amyloid beta issue, ME/CHS research studying viruses was hijacked by Ian Lipkin, despite this 2019 article stating that although XMRV has not been proven yet to cause CFS, it has not been ruled out, and that results of research shows that XMRV is a candidate for causing human disease:  https://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/2009/11/top_scientists_to_meet_at_clev.html 

LIPKIN IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH RESEARCH INVOLVING CANCER, AUTISM, VIRUSES AND VACCINES – HOT TOPICS TIGHTLY CONTROLLED BY POWERS THAT HAVE VESTED INTERESTS.
Dr. Fauci holds this power that he uses to promote cronyism- not public health.
Hopefully it is clear from the numerous posts on this website that those who depart from the controlled narrative are skewered alive.

But, Lipkin never departs from the accepted narrative – Fauci’s narrative. And, there’s always high stakes involved –

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/29/dr-fauci-pushes-for-covid-19-vaccine-despite-research-showing-vaccinated-may-get-sicker-and-even-die-lab-animals-got-sicker-too/ Fauci quietly sits on the Leadership Council of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Vaccine Action Plan, which is currently reaching the finality of its so-called “Decade of Vaccines” initiative that began in 2010.

Yes, it’s all a part of a larger plan and none of it bodes well for civilization

320d998ab0c9a529df81223db5885468

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Inovio COVID-19 Vaccine Uses Electricity to Drive DNA Into Body Cells

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/04/inovio-covid-19-vaccine-uses-electricity-to-drive-dna-into-body-cells/

Inovio COVID-19 Vaccine Uses Electricity to Drive DNA Into Body Cells

by Barbara Loe Fisher and Kate Raines
Published April 18, 2020

Inovio COVID-19 Vaccine Uses Electricity to Drive DNA Into Body Cells

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Inovio Pharmaceuticals has started Phase 1 testing of its experimental COVID-19 DNA vaccine in healthy volunteers.
  • The U.S. biotech firm has already produced enough of the vaccine to support Phase 1 (immune system reactivity and safety) and Phase 2 (efficacy) testing and plans to have one million doses ready for distribution by the end of 2020.
  • The experimental vaccinerequires a special device that uses electricity to drive DNA into cells of the body.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals headquartered in Pennsylvania, has just begun Phase 1 human clinical trials of its new DNA vaccine for COVID-19 (INO-4800).1Inovio’s experimental DNA vaccine uses an electrical device to deliver DNA directly into the cells of a person being vaccinated.2

The company’s Apr. 6, 2020 announcement of Phase 1 clinical trials stated:

“Preclinical data, which have been shared with global regulatory authorities and submitted as part of the IND, have shown promising immune response results across multiple animal models. Additional preclinical trials, including challenge studies, will continue in parallel with the Phase 1 clinical trial.”3

In the U.S., the development, testing and licensing process for an experimental vaccine generally takes 15-20 years to complete,45but there are calls to speed up the licensing process for COVID-19 vaccines.6Drug companies in the U.S. and other countries are racing to fast track their experimental COVID-19 vaccines to market within 12 to 18 months or even sooner.7If companies get an “emergency use” authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),8Inovio’s DNA vaccine could be among those vaccines ready by the fall of 2020 to be distributed to health care workers and other groups considered to be at “high risk” for COVID-19 infections or complications.

Funded by Gates, CEPI, DOD with Wistar & Other Partnerships

Inovio’s COVID-19 vaccine research has been funded by a $5M grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and a $9M grant from the Norway-based Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).9Inovio also has a partnership with Philadelphia’s Wistar Institute and Beijing Advaccine Biotechnology Co. in Chinato develop the vaccine.1011

In addition, Inovio has a partnership with Ology Bioservices, Inc., headquartered in Florida. Ology and Inovio secured a $11.9M contract with the U.S. Department of Defenseto provide the experimental DNA coronavirus vaccine for upcoming clinical trials and potential manufacturing of the vaccine for military personnel in the future. In a Mar. 24 press release issued by Ology and Inovio, Douglas Bryce, Joint Program Executive Officer for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense, said:12

Given the current global health crisis, prophylaxis/vaccine developmentis critical to defend against the coronavirus disease 2019. We need several approaches to ensure we have a quick solution, and the medical countermeasures Advanced Development and Manufacturing Facility is poised to contribute to the race for a vaccine in coordination with our interagency partners like Health and Human Services, along with our partners in industry and academia.

Healthy Volunteers Get Two Doses in Trials

Acceptance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of their Investigational New Drug (IND) program allowed Inovio to move forward with enrolling 40 healthy volunteers from Philadelphia’s Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and the Center for Pharmaceutical Research in Kansas City, Missouri.13The first volunteers were injected with the experimental vaccine on April 5 and clinical trial participants each will be given two doses, four weeks apart.

The Phase 1 study is designed to evaluate immune system response and safety of Inovio’s DNA COVID-19 vaccine for use in humans. Preliminary data are expected by late summer and Inovio plans to immediately move on to Phase 2 studies to evaluate efficacy of the vaccine.

Inovio started working on its COVID-19 vaccine when the genetic sequence of the virus became available in early January 2020. The company has already produced thousands of doses of INO-4800, enough to supply both Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies. They plan to have one million doses of the vaccine available by the end of 2020, “for trials as well as emergency use, subject to regulatory guidance and funding.”14

In July 2019, Inovio announced positive results from a Phase 1 clinical trial testing of its experimental DNA vaccine for the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS),15a new coronavirus infection that emerged in 2012. MERS is associated with a high mortality rate of 12 to 86 percent.16

The DNA Vaccine Difference

According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),

“Traditional vaccines consist of entire pathogens that have been killed or weakened so that they cannot cause disease.” 17

Other vaccines developed in the late 20thcentury contain only microbe components, or antigens, that are thought to best stimulate an immune response and antibody production.

Licensed viral and bacterial vaccines that are in widespread use today are categorized as either killed inactivated, live attenuated, toxoid, or subunit vaccines.They contain antigens from lab altered viruses and bacteria, as well as adjuvants, such as aluminumor oil-in-water emulsion, to provoke stronger inflammatory responses for stimulating artificial immunity; preservatives, such as Thimerosal; stabilizers, such as MSGand gelatin; and residual substances from the manufacturing process, such as chemicals, antibiotics, human diploid cells, animal and insect cell proteins and other excipients.18

However, for the past several decades, scientists have been experimenting with creation of nucleic acid vaccineswhich, according to NIAID, “involves introducing genetic material encoding the antigen or antigensagainst which an immune response is sought. The body’s own cells then use this genetic material to produce the antigens.”19DNA vaccines like Inovio’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine (INO-4800) inject a small piece of circular DNA called a plasmid that carries genes encoding proteins from the pathogen (in this case, COVID-19) to provoke the cells into producing antibodies.

Writing in Biotech Primer, Emily Burke, PhD explained that, “the ‘visiting’ DNA prompts the host to produce the target viral protein and consequent immune response within their own cells, but without [causing] an infection. DNA vaccines try to stimulate the body’s cells to continue to reproduce the antigen. Burke commented on the difficulty of getting the body’s cells to accept injected DNA without further intervention and stated:20

“The key challenge for DNA/RNA vaccines is getting patients’ cells to accept the introduced genetic material. So far, the most effective technique seems to be electroporation–delivering short pulses of electrical current to the patient with the vaccine.The electricity creates temporary pores in a patient’s cell membranes, enabling the DNA/RNA to enter.”

DNA Vaccines: Gaps in Knowledge

DNA (and RNA) vaccines have been available and approved for veterinary medicine, but none have yet been approved for human use. Compared to traditional vaccines, nucleic acid (genetic) vaccines are less inexpensive and easier to manufacture because they consist only of DNA or RNA, which is taken up and translated into protein by host cells.21

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges there are gaps in scientific knowledge about DNA vaccines and states:22

Many aspects of the immune response generated by DNA vaccines are not understood.However, this has not impeded significant progress towards the use of this type of vaccine in humans, and clinical trials have begun.

Some of the outstanding questions about DNA vaccine safety include:23

  • chronic inflammationbecause the vaccine continually stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies;
  • possible integration of plasmid DNA into the body’s host genome resulting in mutations;
  • problems with DNA replication;
  • triggering of autoimmune responses, and
  • activation of cancer-causing genes.

Inovio’s Electric Device Delivery System Drives DNA Into Body Cells

On Mar. 12, 2020 Inovio announced it had received a $5M grant from the Gates Foundation to accelerate the testing and scale up of CELLECTRA®3PSP proprietary hand held “smart device” running on batteries for the intradermal delivery of its DNA COVID-19 vaccine (INO-4800).The press release explained that electricity will be used to give people Inovio’s DNA vaccine in order to “open small pores in the cell reversibly to allow the plasmids to enter” so the “cell’s own machinery” can “generate coded antigens, which then stimulate an antibody response:”24

The next generation CELLECTRA 3PSP device is designed specifically for a COVID-19 type pandemic scenario. It is a small, portable, hand-held, user-friendly device that runs on readily available “AA” batteries… INOVIO’s DNA medicines deliver optimized plasmids directly into cells intramuscularly or intradermally using INOVIO’s proprietary hand-held smart device called CELLECTRA®.

CELLECTRA® uses a brief electrical pulse to open small pores in the cell reversibly to allow the plasmids to enter, overcoming a key limitation of other DNA and mRNA approaches. Once inside the cell, the plasmids are used by the cell’s own machinery to generate coded antigens, which then stimulate an immune response, thereby strengthening the body’s own natural defense mechanisms. Administration with the CELLECTRA device ensures that the DNA medicine is delivered directly into the body’s cells,where it can go to work immediately mounting an immune response.

The company added that, “INOVIO’s DNA medicines do not interfere with or change in any way an individual’s own DNA.”

Electroporation Not So Painless

Electroporation is defined as “a process of applying a high-voltage electrical pulse to a living cell, causing temporary permeability of the cell membrane, through which a foreign material such as DNA may pass.”25Over the past two centuries, electric fields have been used to kill microbes for food and water sterilization and, since the 1990s, biomedical researchers have investigated using reversible electroporation to temporarily destabilize cell membranes for the purpose of (1) fusing cells together through membrane destabilization (electrofusion); (2) introducing DNA material into cells through transient pores in the membrane (electrogenethearpy); and (3) delivering chemotherapeutic drugs directly into cells (electrochemotherapy). Irreversible electroporation uses a much higher electrical energy regime that induces cell death and is employed in certain types of therapies to treat cancer.2627

In 2013, researchers at Inovio and University of Pennsylvania division of Infectious Disease speculated about how electroporation and Inovio’s CELLECTRA® adaptive constant current device helps enhance vaccine DNA uptake by cells and generates a “more robust immune response:”28

Electroporation (EP) immune response enhancement may mechanistically be due to local inflammatory processes caused by the procedure itself.Electrical stimulation induces the secretion of inflammatory chemokines and cytokines and recruitment of monocytes, lymphocytes and antigen-presenting cells to the site of EP…As a result of these processes, both humoral and cell-mediated immunity is augmented compared with DNA injection alone, thus potentially enhancing vaccine efficacy.

The Inovio and University of Pennsylvania researchers noted that “A primary drawback of electroporation (EP) is pain and discomfort at the application sitecompared with convention injections.” In a small clinical trial, they evaluated the pain “tolerability” of the CELLECTRA® device by testing it on 10 healthy male adults given a sterile saline solution injection without any DNA, which was followed by application of electroporation using the Inovio device.

Nine out of ten subjects experienced mild to moderate injection site reactions of pain, tenderness, redness and swelling. There were also reaction reports of involuntary muscle contraction and mild to severe asymptomatic increases in CPK (creatine phosphokinase) levels in the blood of 6 participants.

According to Lab Tests Online, “creatine kinase (CK) is an enzymefound in the heart, brain, skeletal muscle, and other tissues. Increased amounts of CK are released into the blood when there is muscle damage.”29The researchers acknowledged that“The EP procedure has been shown to carry some potential of transient muscle damage in animal models, evident as increased numbers of fibers with central nucleoli and damaged myofibrillar bundles.”

At the end of the article, researchers discussed how EP could stimulate greater and longer lasting immune responses for experimental DNA vaccines being designed to prevent HIV and HPV. Although the 10 healthy male adults in the Inovio and University of Pennsylvania study did not get injected with DNA, the researchers explained that:30

EP must be applied immediately after DNA injection to exert its effect on gene expression…Inflammatory cell infiltration associated with the EP process may partially account for the increase in uptake. It is possible that antigen presentation is more efficient under stressful conditions in electrically stimulated cells and may create an adjuvant effect. Along these lines, EP has been shown to induce considerable lymphocytic infiltration, in addition to CPK elevationand skeletal muscle damage evident as lesions in mice.Because muscle tissue does not generally harbor many resident antigen-presenting cells, it is likely that recruitment to the injection site contributes to the efficacy of EP.

References:

1Dhaliwal S. Inovio Pharmaceuticals Begins Phase 1 Human Testing Of Its COVID-19 Vaccine.BenzingaApr. 7, 2020.
2Carlson R. INO-4800 DNA Vaccine Description. Precision VaccinationsMar. 28, 2020.
3Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Inovio Initiates Phase 1 Clinical Trials of Its COVID-19 Vaccine and Plans First Dose Today. NasdaqApr. 6, 2020.
4FDA. Vaccine Product Approval Process. Jan. 30, 2018.
5College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Vaccine Development, Testing and Regulation. The History of VaccinesJan. 17, 2018.
6Polumbo B. FDA should fast-track coronavirus vaccine.Washington ExaminerMar. 13, 2020.
7Kelly E. The Race for a COVID-19 Vaccine. Science BusinessMar 23, 2020.
8U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Feb. 7, 2020.
9Kilgore T. Inovio’s stock soars after receiving grant to develop coronoavirus vaccine. Market WatchJan. 24, 2020.
10Avril T. Inside a Philadelphia lab, scientists race to design a coronavirus vaccine. The Philadelphia InquirerFeb. 11, 2020.
11RTT News. Inovio, Bejing Advaccine to Advance Development of Vaccine Against Coronavirus. NasdaqJan. 30, 2020.
12Ology Bioservices and Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Ology Bioservices, Inovio Partner to Manufacture COVID-19 DNA Vaccine with $11.9 Million Department of Defense Grant.Press Release Mar. 24 2020.
13Etherington D. CDC. Vaccine Excipient Summary: Excipients Included in U.S. Vaccines, by Vaccine. February 2020.A Second Potential COVID-19 Vaccine, Backed By Bill And Melinda Gates, Is Entering Human Testing. Tech CrunchApr. 6, 2020.
14Dhaliwal S. NIAID. Vaccine Types. July 2019.Inovio Pharmaceuticals Begins Phase 1 Human Testing Of Its COVID-19 Vaccine.BenzingaApr. 7, 2020.
15Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Inovio’s Positive First-in-Humans MERS Vaccine Results Published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Press Release July 25, 2019.
16Dawson P, Malik MR et al. What Have We Learned about Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Emergence in Humans? A Systematic Literature Review. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis2019; 19(3): 174-192.
17NIAID. Vaccine Types. July 2019.
18CDC. Vaccine Excipient Summary: Excipients Included in U.S. Vaccines, by Vaccine. February 2020.
19NIAID. Vaccine Types. July 2019.
20Burke E. DNA Vaccines Explained. Biotech Primer. March 31, 2020.
21DNA and RNA Vaccine Design.Creative BioLabs.
22World Health Organization (WHO). Biologicals: DNA Vaccines.
23Zhang A. DNA Vaccines: Scientific and Ethical Barriers to the Vaccines of the Future. Harvard College Global Health ReviewNov. 15, 2011.
24Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. INOVIO Receives New $5 Million Grant to Accelerate Scale Up of Smart Delivery Device for Its COVID-19 Vaccine. Press Release Mar. 12, 2020.
25The Free Dictionary by Farlex. Definition of Electroporation.
26Rolong A, Davalos RV et al. History of Electroporation. In: Meijerink M., Scheffer H., Narayanan G. (eds) Irreversible Electroporation in Clinical Practice2018.
27Venbever R, Preat VV. In vivo efficacy and safety of skin electroporation. Adv Drug Deliv Rev.1999; 35(1): 77-78.
28Diehl MC, Lee JC et al. Tolerability of intramuscular and intradermal delivery by CELLECTRA® adaptive constant current electroporation device in healthy volunteers. Hum Vaccin Immunother2013; 9(10): 2246-2252.
29LabTests Online. Creatine Kinase (CK).Mar. 5, 2020.
30Diehl MC, Lee JC et al. Tolerability of intramuscular and intradermal delivery by CELLECTRA® adaptive constant current electroporation device in healthy volunteers. Hum Vaccin Immunother2013; 9(10): 2246-2252.

__________________

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/29/dr-fauci-pushes-for-covid-19-vaccine-despite-research-showing-vaccinated-may-get-sicker-and-even-die-lab-animals-got-sicker-too/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/09/gates-funded-coronavirus-vaccine-starts-testing-in-people/Excerpt:

Various groups have uncovered that numerous COVID-19 vaccines have aborted fetal cell lines (PER C6 Ad5 technology) which not only has moral implications for many but safety concerns according to the FDA:

“Residual DNA in vaccines derived from tumorigenic cells, including those transformed by Ad5, can pose potential risks to the vaccine recipient in two respects: oncogenicity and infectivity. Each of these biological properties must be considered and evaluated for each cell substrate.”  https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/covid19-vaccine-makers-using-aborted-fetal-cells/ and http://Moderna mRNA-1273 Covid-19 Vaccine Uses Aborted Fetal Cells – Sanofi Pasteur’s Version Does Not

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/02/us-govt-johnson-johnson-prep-for-1-billion-coronavirus-vaccine-doses-implantable-tattoos-google-app-to-monitor-people/

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Tobacco Company Enters Race to Develop COVID-19 Vaccine

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/04/14/tobacco-company-making-covid-19-vaccine.

Tobacco Company Is Making COVID-19 Vaccine

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

April 14, 2020

covid 19 vaccine

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • British American Tobacco (BAT) has joined the race to develop a vaccine for COVID-19, with plans to potentially manufacture 1 million to 3 million doses of vaccine per week
  • The proprietary technology involves temporarily encoding tobacco plants with genetic instructions to produce specific target proteins
  • To create the experimental vaccine, the company cloned a portion of COVID-19’s genetic sequence to develop an antigen, which is a substance that induces an immune response in the body, particularly the production of antibodies
  • BAT stated that if testing goes well, they could potentially begin manufacturing the experimental vaccine in June 2020
  • When vaccines are fast-tracked to market, safety and efficacy tests are often bypassed and serious adverse effects can occur(See link for article)

______________________

For more: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/29/dr-fauci-pushes-for-covid-19-vaccine-despite-research-showing-vaccinated-may-get-sicker-and-even-die-lab-animals-got-sicker-too/Please watch the short video in the link.  Researchers are quite worried about respiratory vaccines due to past work which shows “paradoxical immune enhancement.” Children receiving the vaccine worsened and there were also deaths. It’s been fast-tracked thereby passing important safety studies in animals. 

Further, a Mouse study:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209347/A Double-Inactivated Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Vaccine Provides Incomplete Protection in Mice and Induces Increased Eosinophilic Proinflammatory Pulmonary Response upon Challenge.

Lastly, many of the COVID-19 vaccines utilize aborted fetal cell lines (PER C6 Ad5 technology), which is concerning ethically for some as well as the fact the FDA is concerned about safety:

 “Residual DNA in vaccines derived from tumorigenic cells, including those transformed by Ad5, can pose potential risks to the vaccine recipient in two respects: oncogenicity and infectivity. Each of these biological properties must be considered and evaluated for each cell substrate.”  https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/covid19-vaccine-makers-using-aborted-fetal-cells/ and http://Moderna mRNA-1273 Covid-19 Vaccine Uses Aborted Fetal Cells – Sanofi Pasteur’s Version Does Not

Category:

Activism, vaccines

Pulling Back the Curtain on the WHO

Today, 4/15/20, Trump announced the U.S. will halt WHO funding: https://www.axios.com/trump-world-health-organization-funding-

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/04/14/world-health-organization-pandemic-planning.aspx?

Approx. 8 Min

April 14, 2020, By Dr. Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The WHO’s influenza pandemic plan, devised in 1999, was heavily influenced by the drug industry
  • The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) questioned the WHO’s handling of the 2009 swine flu pandemic, saying its recommendation to stockpile antivirals and vaccines wasted public funds
  • PACE concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making
  • There’s other evidence suggesting the WHO is acting as little more than a Big Pharma front group. For example, a 2019 congressional report concluded Purdue Pharma had influenced WHO’s opioid guidelines
  • Only 25% of WHO’s funding comes from member states. The remaining 75% comes from voluntary contributions. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — the investments of which include junk food manufacturers, alcohol and drug retailers — is the biggest funder

The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations established in 1948 to further international cooperation for improved public health conditions. It was given a broad mandate under its constitution to promote the attainment of “the highest possible level of health” by all peoples.

You might recall that WHO released a statement in September 2019 that they had worked with Facebook to curb vaccine “misinformation” and usurp free speech and accountable democracy in America.1

In this article, I will show you that the WHO is beyond conflicted, and because of its existing funding fails to complete its initial mandate. Worse, WHO serves its corporate masters and essentially is destroying, not improving, the health of world.

The 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic — A WHO Vaccine Fiasco

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that from April 12, 2009, to April 10, 2010, there were 60.8 million cases, 274,000 hospitalizations, and 12,469 deaths (0.02% infection fatality rate/mortality rate) in the United States due to the H1N1 (swine flu) virus.

June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic of novel influenza A (H1N1).2 A vaccine was rapidly unveiled, and within months, cases of disability and death from the H1N1 vaccine were reported in various parts of the world.

In the aftermath, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) questioned the WHO’s handling of the pandemic. In June 2010, PACE concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU health agencies and national governments led to a ‘waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.’”3

WHO Acted Like a Pharma Front Group

Specifically, PACE concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making. As noted in a PACE press release:4

“The Assembly … set out a series of urgent recommendations for greater transparency and better governance in public health, as well as safeguards against what it called ‘undue influence by vested interests.’

It called for a public fund to support independent research, trials and expert advice, possibly financed by an obligatory contribution of the pharmaceutical industry. It also called the media to avoid ‘sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain.’”

Apparently, we learned nothing from that fiasco. Disturbingly, while the WHO was found to have had serious conflicts of interest with the drug industry, nothing has actually changed since then, which makes one wonder whether the WHO’s COVID-19 pandemic response can actually be trusted. As reported by the Natural Society in 2014:5

“… a joint investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) has uncovered some serious conflicts of interest between the World Health Organization (WHO), who proposed … heavy vaccinations, and the pharmaceutical companies which created them.

The joint-investigation’s report explains that the WHO profited immensely6 from the scare tactics they utilized to promote the use of a swine flu vaccine. Creating mass hysteria was the WHO’s emergency advisory committee’s goal … The WHO told the world that up to 7 million people could die without the vaccines they were pushing …

The advisory panel was choked with individuals highly connected to the pharmaceutical companies with vested interests in both antiviral and influenza vaccines.

An over $4 billion stake was invested in developing these vaccines, and without a pandemic there would be no use for them. Utilizing propaganda and fear, the drugs were pushed on unsuspecting people, and the money was made.”

Why the Secrecy Around WHO’s Advisers?

The joint investigation, led by BMJ features editor Deborah Cohen and journalist Philip Carter, was published in January 2010 in the BMJ Clinical Research journal. In it, Cohen and Carter pointed out that:7,8

“Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO …

Evidence … raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning, and about the transparency of the science underlying its advice to governments.

Was it appropriate for WHO to take advice from experts who had declarable financial and research ties with pharmaceutical companies producing antivirals and influenza vaccines?

Why was key WHO guidance authored by an influenza expert who had received payment for other work from Roche, manufacturers of oseltamivir, and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of zanamivir?

And why does the composition of the emergency committee from which Chan sought guidance remain a secret known only to those within WHO? We are left wondering whether major public health organizations are able to effectively manage the conflicts of interest that are inherent in medical science.”

WHO’s Pandemic Plan Was the Product of the Drug Industry

As explained by Cohen and Carter,9 wrongdoing at WHO began 10 years before the swine flu pandemic, in 1999 — the year WHO drew up its influenza pandemic plan. The authors detail the conflicts of interest inherent in that document, so for a more complete picture, I suggest reading through their full analysis.10

In summary, the pandemic plan was prepared by WHO employees in collaboration with the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), a working group consisting of “key opinion leaders in influenza” that is “funded entirely by Roche and other influenza drug manufacturers.” One of ESWI’s stated roles is to lobby politicians, Cohen and Carter notes.

Two of the six WHO employees had also participated in Roche sponsored events the year before. Two of the ESWI scientists had also worked on Roche marketing materials, and both were “engaged in a randomized controlled trial on oseltamivir supported by Roche” at the time the pandemic plan was written. None of these conflicts of interest were disclosed in the pandemic plan document.

Even more suspicious, that oseltamivir trial “remains one of the main studies supporting oseltamivir’s effectiveness — and one that was subsequently shown to have employed undeclared industry funded ghostwriters,” Cohen and Carter write,11 adding the ESWI’s policy plan for 2006 through 2010:

“… specifically stated that government representatives needed to ‘take measures to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to plan its vaccine/antivirals production capacity in advance’ and also to ‘encourage and support research and development of pandemic vaccine’ and to ‘develop a policy for antiviral stockpiling.’

It also added that government representatives needed to know that ‘influenza vaccination and use of antivirals is beneficial and safe’ … In the meantime, in Roche’s own marketing plan, one goal was to ‘align Roche with credible third party advocates.’ They ‘leveraged these relationships by enlisting our third-party partners to serve as spokespeople and increase awareness of Tamiflu and its benefits.’”

In December 2009, WikiLeaks also released a cache of documents12,13,14,15 leaked from a pharma trade group that revealed how the WHO Expert Working Group on R&D Financing had been very open to industry lobbying, thus allowing the drug industry to influence WHO’s policy decisions on drug research.

WHO Parrots Purdue Pharma’s False Opioid Marketing

There’s other evidence suggesting the WHO is acting as little more than a Big Pharma front group. For example, just last year, in 2019, the report,16 “Corrupting Influence: Purdue & the WHO,” produced by U.S. Reps. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), concluded Purdue Pharma had influenced WHO’s opioid guidelines.17,18 The executive summary of “Corrupting Influence” reads, in part:19

“In 2017, several members of Congress sent a letter to the WHO warning that Purdue Pharma L.P. (Purdue) was attempting to expand their drug sales to international markets using the same fraudulent marketing tactics that instigated the opioid crisis in the United States.

We expressed our concern that Purdue’s expansion could trigger an opioid crisis on a global scale. When the WHO failed to respond to the letter, we began to question why they would remain silent about such a significant and devastating public health epidemic. The answers we found are deeply disturbing.”

The report details how WHO, both in its 2011 adult guidance and its 2012 pediatric guidance, parroted Purdue’s false claims that opioid dependence “occurs in less than 1% of patients,” and that “if prescribed in accordance with established dosage regimens, are known to be safe and there is no need to fear accidental death or dependence.”

Remarkably, in its 2012 opioid guidance for children with cancer pain, WHO claims “there is no maximum dosage of strong opioids like OxyContin for children,” Clark and Rogers note. “The WHO published this claim despite the fact that U.S. public health agencies have found that fatal overdoses skyrocket in adult patients who are prescribed above 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day,” Clark and Rogers write, adding:

“The web of influence we uncovered, combined with the WHO’s recommendations, paints a picture of a public health organization that has been manipulated by the opioid industry … If the recommendations in these WHO guidelines are followed, there is significant risk of sparking a worldwide public health crisis.”

Calls for Reformation of WHO After Ebola Crisis

The WHO was also heavily criticized for its lack of leadership during the 2013 through 2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. It took five months before WHO declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, which “undoubtedly contributed to the unprecedented scale of the outbreak,” according to an academic assessment published in 2017.20

Two separate reports published in 2015 highlighted the WHO’s failures, one issued by a panel of independent experts commissioned by WHO itself,21 and one by an independent group of 19 international experts convened by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and the Harvard Global Health Institute.22

While the WHO is recognized as being uniquely suited to carry out key functions necessary in a global pandemic, the LSHTM and Harvard Global Health Institute experts point out that the WHO has by now lost so much trust that radical reforms will be required before it will be able to assume an authoritative role.

“WHO’s failings on … core functions during the Ebola outbreak have now produced an existential crisis of confidence … Donors have earmarked voluntary contributions, effectively controlling nearly 80% of WHO’s budget by 2015. The result is an organization that seems to have lost its way.

Although the budget has more than doubled from US$1.6 billion in 1998–99 to US$4 billion in 2012–13, the organization itself controlled an ever-shrinking share. One casualty of recent decisions was WHO’s reduced ability to control cross-border disease outbreaks, a core task for which it was created in 1948 …

Confidence in the organization’s capacity to lead is at an all-time low. Calling for additional staff or a larger budget will not address this. WHO must find a way to prioritize what it does, and regain its credibility, independence, and legitimacy to perform its core functions.

Breaking out of this 20-year impasse will demand clear commitment and a different kind of leadership by WHO to implement fundamental reforms under a tight timeline …”

Who Funds the WHO?

As reported in the January 2016 issue of Pharmaceutical Technology,23 only one-quarter of WHO’s funding comes from member states. The remaining 75% comes from voluntary contributions, and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the biggest funder. Its donations even exceed those of any individual member state.

The Gates Foundations involvement with WHO is of particular interest at this time. In a Washington Times opinion piece,24 published March 31, 2020, Gates calls for the complete shutdown of all U.S. states and quarantining of all Americans “until the case numbers start to go down … which could take 10 weeks or more.”

While Gates can undoubtedly afford it, few working-class Americans would be able to survive without income for months on end. And, considering the mortality rate of COVID-19 is now believed to be similar to the flu, which is around 0.1%,25 shutting down society for several months really doesn’t seem warranted, unless there’s something else going on that we don’t know about.

Strange Investments and Conflicts of Interest

In March on Friday the 13th, 2020, Gates resigned from the Microsoft board to focus on philanthropic ventures, including global health.26 Most likely, much of his attention will be funneled toward The Gates Foundation.

In 2017, a long list of public interest, health and citizens’ groups sent an open letter27 to the executive board of the WHO, criticizing the organization’s proposal to admit The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as an external actor into “official relations” with the WHO and its governing body, the World Health Assembly.28 According to the letter:

“According to the United States Government’s Securities and Exchange Commission, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust endowment — the source of revenue for the Foundation — is heavily invested in many of the food, alcohol, and physical inactivity-related consumer products that cause or treat the current crisis of preventable heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes. Gates Foundation Trust direct investments include:

  • Coca-Cola regional company that operates in the Americas south of the U.S. ($466 million),
  • Walmart ($837 million), the largest food retailer in the U.S. and a leading retailer of pharmaceutical drugs and alcoholic beverages,
  • Walgreen-Boots Alliance ($280 million), a large multinational pharmaceutical drug retailer, and
  • Two of the world’s largest TV companies (screen-time): Group Televisa ($433 million) and Liberty Global PLC ($221 million).

In addition, approximately one-quarter of the Gates Foundation Trust assets are invested in Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a holding company that owns a US$17 billion share in the U.S.-based Coca-Cola company and US$29 billion interest in Kraft Heinz Inc., another of the world’s ten largest food companies.

These investments make the Gates Foundation a beneficiary of sales of several categories of products that are the subject of WHO standards and advice to governments related to nutrition and physical activity.”

The signatories also urge member states to fund WHO adequately so as to prevent the organization from having to rely on donations from actors that have a heavy stake in food, drug and alcohol companies.

While the Gates Foundation has been a “two-entity structure” since 2006,29 where the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation distributes money and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust manages assets and investments, conflicts of interest are still clearly visible, making the claim that the two are completely separate a hard sell.

In 2017, India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) severed its ties with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. According to India Times,30 “There were questions about the Gates Foundation’s ties with pharmaceutical companies and the possible influence this may have on the country’s vaccination strategy.” The Indian Health Ministry confirmed that the NTAGI would from there on be fully funded by the central government instead.

If nothing else, Gates himself is likely to have some clue as to where the money is being invested, and therefore can steer the Foundation’s activities in a direction that will ultimately benefit and make money for the Gates Foundation Trust.

WHO’s Relationship With China Under Scrutiny

WHO’s handling of the current COVID-19 pandemic has also come under increasing scrutiny. A February 16, 2020, CNN article31 highlights WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ “effusive” praise over China’s response to the outbreak in Wuhan City, despite evidence suggesting Chinese officials had “sought to downplay and control news about the virus, even threatening medical whistleblowers with arrest.”

“The WHO’s praise of China’s response have led critics to question the relationship between the two entities. The UN agency relied on funding and the cooperation of members to function, giving wealthy member states like China considerable influence.

Perhaps one of the most overt examples of China’s sway over the WHO is its success in blocking Taiwan’s access to the body, a position that could have very real consequences for the Taiwanese people if the virus takes hold there. 

The WHO’s position regarding China has also renewed a longstanding debate about whether the WHO, founded 72 years ago, is sufficiently independent to allow it to fulfill its purpose,” CNN reports.32

In the final analysis, it seems doubtful that WHO is sufficiently independent to safeguard public health around the world. The drug industry has no lesser influence over WHO today than it did in 2009 when PACE outed the organization as being unduly influenced by vested interests.

Back then, WHO pushed countries around the world to invest in antivirals and swine flu vaccineswith poor efficacy and safety. Today, we have Gates, a key funder of WHO, calling for a 10-week or longer shutdown of the U.S. and the rapid building of brand new vaccine manufacturing facilities to handle the manufacturing of billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccine. Who benefits and who loses by the implementation of those two recommendations? Think about it.

Tell Dr. Bershteyn to Start Testing Zinc to Prevent COVID-19

Dr. Anna Bershteyn, an assistant professor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine is overseeing a trial of hydroxychloroquine, a popular anti-malarial drug, to determine if it can prevent COVID-19.

Many doctors are reporting significant success by adding zinc to the protocol but Dr. Bershteyn’s trial does not include it. Even worse, she is using Vitamin C as a placebo, this virtually guarantees that the drug will fail in trials and ensure that there is more demand for a vaccine.

Please email Dr. Bershteyn TODAY and let her know to start incorporating Zinc into her hydroxychloroquine trials immediately as it is a zinc ionophore and if successful could save many lives.

_________________

**Comment**

A very important read.

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/19/revealed-basic-math-error-likely-cause-of-global-coronavirus-panic/

The controversial Ethiopian politician and Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, claimed in a press conference in early March that the fatality rate for the coronavirus was many multiples that of the fatality rate of the common flu….

If asymtomatic cases are included in Ghebreyesus’s calculation the actual mortality rate of the coronavirus is somewhere between 0.2% to 0.8% or lower.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s calculations of a 3.4% mortality rate is off by nearly 3.0%! 

 

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/01/11/who-is-lying-to-you/Top World Health Officials’ Shocking Admissions About Vaccine Safety.

 

 

 

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses