Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

SOT For Lyme: Experimental, Expensive, but Full of Potential

https://www.lymedisease.org/sot-lyme-treatment/

SOT therapy for Lyme is experimental, expensive—and full of potential.

Oct. 3, 2025

Part One of a two-part series.

By Maria Marian, ND, MSE

For many people facing chronic infections such as Lyme disease, Epstein–Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus (HSV-1 and HSV-2), or cytomegalovirus (CMV), the journey can be long and frustrating.

Antibiotics, antivirals, herbal therapies, and IV treatments may help initially, yet symptoms often persist or recur. This has led both patients and clinicians to explore innovative therapies that move beyond conventional antimicrobial approaches.

One such emerging option is Supportive Oligonucleotide Therapy (SOT), also referred to as antisense oligonucleotide therapy. Although still considered experimental in the context of Lyme and chronic viral infections, SOT builds upon decades of genetic medicine research and has even reached FDA approval in select infectious and cancer-related applications.

What is SOT?

At its core, SOT is a gene-silencing technique. Scientists design a short synthetic strand of nucleic acid (called an oligonucleotide) that binds to a very specific piece of genetic code inside the pathogen—such as Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacterium that causes Lyme disease) or EBV.

When this oligonucleotide binds, it blocks the pathogen’s ability to produce a protein essential for replication or metabolism. In simple terms, it’s like removing a crucial page from the pathogen’s instruction manual. Without that instruction, the organism can’t replicate efficiently, and its numbers gradually decline.

This strategy falls under the larger field of “antisense therapy.” The term comes from the fact that these therapeutic molecules bind to the “sense” strand of RNA or DNA, neutralizing its ability to produce proteins.

Reference: Crooke ST. Antisense Drug Technology: Principles, Strategies, and Applications. CRC Press; 2008.

How the therapy works

The process of SOT treatment involves several carefully orchestrated steps:

  1. Blood Draw & Testing – A blood sample is taken and analyzed using molecular techniques such as PCR to identify which pathogens are active.
  2. Custom Design – A laboratory designs a patient-specific oligonucleotide tailored to silence a genetic target in that pathogen. Newer approaches like QRE-strain technology (Quasispecies Resistant Engineered strain) aim to account for genetic variations in pathogens, ensuring the oligonucleotide is effective across slightly different strains.
  3. Infusion – Once prepared, the oligonucleotide solution is returned to the clinic and administered as a single intravenous infusion.
  4. Ongoing Action – Unlike antibiotics or antivirals that are metabolized quickly, SOT molecules remain active for months (often up to six months), continuously working “day and night” to suppress pathogen replication.

The Science Behind It

Antisense oligonucleotides are not a new idea. In fact, the first FDA-approved antisense therapy, fomivirsen (Vitravene), was approved in 1998 to treat CMV retinitis in immunocompromised patients【PMID: 9815174】. Since then, several antisense and RNA-based drugs have reached the market for conditions ranging from high cholesterol (mipomersen) to spinal muscular atrophy (nusinersen)【PMID: 29191460】.

In infectious disease specifically:

  • CMV: Fomivirsen demonstrated that gene-silencing therapy can effectively reduce viral activity in humans.
  • Herpesviruses: Preclinical studies have shown that antisense molecules can block HSV and EBV replication in vitro【PMID: 19920191】.
  • Lyme disease: Pilot clinical data suggest that one or two SOT infusions can lead to statistically significant reductions in Borrelia burgdorferi DNA levels detected by PCR. For viral infections, two or three treatments may be needed to achieve measurable decreases.

While more research is essential, these early findings provide a rationale for SOT as a potential adjunctive therapy in chronic infections where other approaches fall short.

Why patients are interested

For individuals struggling with persistent infections, SOT offers several appealing features:

  • Precision targeting: Instead of broadly killing microbes (as antibiotics do), SOT goes after one critical genetic sequence, leaving other microbes untouched.
  • Durability: A single infusion provides months of activity, reducing the need for daily medication.
  • Immune-independent mechanism: Because SOT directly silences genes, it doesn’t rely on the immune system’s strength—a key advantage for patients with immune dysfunction.
  • Potential synergy: Many clinicians use SOT alongside integrative therapies (nutrition, detoxification, antimicrobials) for a more comprehensive approach.

Current limitations

Despite the excitement, it’s important to emphasize what SOT is not at this stage:

  • It is not FDA-approved for Lyme disease, EBV, or HSV. Its only infectious disease approval was for CMV retinitis, and that drug is no longer commercially available.
  • Clinical research in Lyme and chronic viral infections is preliminary, mostly limited to small pilot studies and case reports.
  • Costs can be significant, and insurance rarely covers it.
  • The decline in pathogen burden is gradual, and multiple treatments may be required.

In short: SOT is promising, but it remains an emerging therapy.

Looking ahead with both hope and caution

The field of RNA medicine is growing rapidly, with antisense oligonucleotides, small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), and messenger RNA (mRNA) therapies transforming the landscape of medicine. With continued research, we may see gene-silencing strategies like SOT become mainstream tools in the fight against chronic infections.

For now, patients and clinicians should approach SOT with both hope and caution—hope that it represents a real step forward in treating persistent pathogens, and caution because large, peer-reviewed trials are still needed to fully establish safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes.

Part two will be published next week.

Maria Marian, ND, MSE, is a naturopathic physician at Jyzen Wellness in Mill Valley, California. In addition to her Doctorate of Naturopathic Medicine, she holds both a Bachelor and Master of Science in Chemical Engineering. She specializes in complex chronic illness, Lyme disease, and integrative approaches to immune dysfunction. Follow her on Instagram: @dr.marian.nd

For more:

According to both Dr. Ross and Dr. Cameron, it’s still too early to confidently recommend SOT for Lyme/MSIDS.

Category:

Lyme, Treatment, Viruses

FDA Belatedly Admits Ivermectin Works for COVID But Red Cross Suppresses Malaria Cure Since 2012

https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/breaking-fda-finally-admits-ivermectin?

BREAKING: FDA Finally Admits Ivermectin Works — After Years of Calling It ‘Horse Paste’ 🚨

2nd Smartest Guy in the World
Sep 11, 2025

Readers of this Substack appreciate just how murderously corrupt the FDA is, and how Ivermectin is a miracle compound…

PetMectin: Pharmaceutical Grade Pure Ivermectin

2nd Smartest Guy in the World
November 8, 2024
PetMectin: Pharmaceutical Grade Pure Ivermectin

Ivermectin is perhaps the single best treatment not just for PSYOP-19, but for the spike protein damage that is induced by the slow kill bioweapon injections.  Read full story

…but now, under MAHA leadership, it appears that the FDA is finally backing down on its war against Ivermectin, with journalist Maria Bartiromo stating matter of factly:

The FDA is now saying that it’s okay to take ivermectin if you have COVID.

The following clip is currently trending on X:

🚨 BREAKING: FDA Finally Admits Ivermectin Works — After Years of Calling It ‘Horse Paste’

🚨 For YEARS, Americans were mocked, censored, and silenced for even mentioning Ivermectin — branded as nothing but “horse paste.” Doctors risked their licenses, patients were denied care, and the media ran cover for Big Pharma.

Now the FDA quietly admits: Ivermectin is fine to treat COVID.

👉 A cheap, Nobel Prize-winning medicine smeared to protect profits.

👉 Hundreds of thousands may have died needlessly while “experts” pushed endless boosters.

👉 Families were left in the dark — while the truth was ridiculed and suppressed.

The FDA has blood on its hands. Lives were lost. Trust was shattered. All for politics and profit. America deserves answers. America deserves accountability.

Source

Imagine if you will during the PSYOP-19 scamdemic that Ivermectin administration was widely adopted, and that all of a sudden cases of cancer, Alzheimer’s, mood disorders, even Parkinson’s started plummeting (alongside BigPharma profits)?  (See link for article and video)

_______________

https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/the-red-cross-suppressed-a-cure-for?

The Red Cross Suppressed A Cure For Malaria in 2012, Causing Over Half A Million People To Die Every Year Since

More evidence that international health care organizations (and all governmental health care and regulatory agencies) are fully captured by Big Pharma.

Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
Aug 18, 2025

I am going to start this post out with my standard declaration that: 1) I am not suicidal, 2) I am in good health, and 3) I am living my best life. For what that is worth.

The Red Cross Malaria Trial

“The Water Reference Center (WRC)” is a research center within the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). In 2012, their CEO at the time, Klaas Proesmans, conducted a study testing the efficacy of a common water purification agent called chlorine dioxide to treat malaria. The treatment consisted of increasing the concentration in cups of drinking water to levels above those typically used solely for water purification. Note that this effective treatment was first accidentally discovered by an applied scientist working in Nigeria in 1982, as I reported in this prior post.

In that study, the WRC and the Ugandan Red Cross identified 154 patients from the community around Iganga, Uganda, using skin pricks to gather drops of blood from patients suspected of being ill with malaria. They then placed the blood on slides and examined them under a microscope to look for the malaria parasite. Then they treated the patients who were positive for malaria by giving them cups of water to drink that had been treated with chlorine dioxide in the form of what Jim Humble called “Master Mineral Solution” (a mixture of sodium chlorite and hydrochloric acid). They then had the patients return to the testing/study center daily for re-testing and clinical follow-up.

They rapidly cured 154 malaria patients within two days. Sounds historic, right? A cure for malaria had been found! But no, it was not to be. Not even close.

As word of the trial and its success began to circulate, the “authorities” sprang into action, culminating in the Ugandan Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) issuing statements denying any official involvement in the study. They then went even further, stating that no formal clinical trial or endorsement of MMS took place under their auspices. The IFRC also added that “chlorine dioxide is not approved for the treatment of malaria and that any suggestion of Red Cross involvement was misleading.” They even got the CEO of the Water Reference Center who had planned and conducted the trial… to deny it ever happened.

Interestingly, none of the statements above were published in an official Press Release or statement; they were instead communicated solely via quotes in an interview with an investigative journalist in a blatantly obvious “debunking article” published by Business Insider.

First, I will review the extensive evidence verifying both the conduct and results of that trial. Then I will cover the above “Disinformation Response” from the media and the Red Cross in more detail. However, to understand the importance of the documented evidence that I will provide below, you need to know that the Business Insider article tried to “debunk” the claim that the trial was done by: 1) claiming it never took place, and 2) that Red Cross officials were “duped” into taking part. Yes, I know, the argument contradicts itself – either the trial never took place or Red Cross officials were “duped” into taking part, you can’t have both. Later, you will see how they later reconciled those two statements.  (See link for article and documentation and results of the trial)

____________

**Comment**

For those of you who are late to the party, know this: government ‘health agencies’ are not about health at all and have covered up and lied and continue to lie about effective, safe, cheap treatments for decades.  Further, they are riddled with conflicts of interest and are in bed with Big Pharma.

Both ivermectin and chlorine dioxide have cured people of innumerable diseases.

For more:

Ivermectin:

Chlorine Dioxide (MMS, MMS1, CDS)

Category:

Activism, Cancer, Lyme, Malaria, Treatment, Viruses

ACTION: Send Letter to Trump on COVID Shot Harms

UPDATE:

Go here for Independent Medical Alliance’s (IMA) letter to President Trump on how Frontline Doctors are calling for Truth, Transparency, and Reform.  Important excerpt:

Estimates of mRNA injuries are in the millions, with countless lives negatively impacted or even lost. Yet, when these concerns are presented to Big Pharma, as well as prior HHS Administrations, they’re not met with scientific research or applied medicine, but with quick dismissals or stiff public relations campaigns seeking to tamp down any discussion.

That’s why we fought so hard to support the confirmation of RFK Jr. to HHS Secretary. There is no other agency of government more in need of reform than HHS, and within HHS, the CDC should be first on the top-to-bottom reform list.

Mr. President, we stand ready to engage—respectfully, scientifically, and constructively—with pharmaceutical leaders, regulators, and fellow clinicians to gain access to full disclosure of data sets and other research in pursuit of data clarity and patient safety. To that end, we request that the White House convene a series of meetings with independent physicians and drug industry executives where all data can be exchanged, analyzed, and discussed.

https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/a-letter-to-president-donald-j-trump  Go here for entire article, videos, pictures, and scientific references  (WARNING: Pictures are graphic)

Earlier today (Labor Day), Donald Trump posted this on Truth Social:

 

A Letter to President Donald J. Trump

We the People need to speak truth to power. Please help spread the word about this article, the music video and the PDF document that includes a letter to President Donald J. Trump and much more.

 
James Roguski
Mar 01, 2025
SHARE THIS LINK:

https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/a-letter-to-president-donald-j-trump

Please watch the video below:

https://rumble.com/v6pycls-mrna-music-video-for-president-donald-trump.html

Please watch the music video above.
It’s important.
 

A Letter to President Donald J.Trump:

 

Dear President Donald J. Trump,

I hope that this document reaches your hands, and I hope that you allow this information to touch your heart.

I believe that you are working to achieve peace on a global scale, but I hope that you can come to understand the enormous scale of biological warfare going on inside the bodies of every man, woman and child who has received the COVID-19 mRNA injections. At this point in time, no one knows how to end the warfare that is going on within the bodies, minds and spirits of those who received the COVID-19 mRNA injections. The collateral damage from Operation Warp Speed is that millions of people are stuck in a living hell, and their government and our society have largely denied their plight, attempted to shame them, and have continually ignored their pleas for help. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HARMED.

Autopsies of those who have received these COVID-19 mRNA injections have clearly shown cellular destruction­ on a massive scale that makes the devastation in Gaza seem mild.

As a father and a grandfather, I believe that you want your immediate family to enjoy the best of health, and I trust that you want the same for everyone else. I believe that you truly do want to Make America Healthy Again.

However, I must inform you that neither you nor RFK Jr. will ever be able to Make America Healthy Again if our nation keeps on injecting innocent, healthy children with mRNA biological products.

I believe that a massive amount of evidence has been withheld from you.

Included in this document are numerous case studies of people who were harmed by the COVID-19 mRNA injections. These are not anecdotal stories. These have all been published in well known journals and are available on PubMed. There are also literally thousands of published papers available online that document the mechanisms of action by which the COVID-19 mRNA injections have caused enormous harm to millions of people. When you truly see the reality of the suffering that people around the world have endured because of the mRNA injections, you will be absolutely horrified.

However, there are also horrors that I cannot share, not even with you, because they are from thousands of unborn fetuses that were spontaneously aborted when their pregnant mothers received the COVID-19 mRNA injections and suffered through the pain and heartbreak of losing their unborn child.

We all make different decisions when we gain access to information that had previously been hidden from our view. I believe that when you are properly briefed on the information that has been kept from you, then you will realize what you must do and change your policies regarding the mRNA platform.

America needs you to stand in opposition to the mRNA platform.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knows what needs to be done. He just needs for you to let him do it.

God bless you. God bless your family. God bless America.

God bless everyone on earth, especially the children.

Sincerely,

James Roguski

310-619-3055

https://NotSafeAndNotEffective.com

The following pages are from case studies that have been published in PubMed. (Go to link for pics and sources)

Let President Donald J. Trump know how you feel about this issue.

https://TruthSocial.com/@realDonaldTrump

@realDonaldTrump

https://x.com/RealDonaldTrump

@RealDonaldTrump

SHARE THIS LINK:

https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/a-letter-to-president-donald-j-trump

White House Contact Form: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

For more:

 

Category:

Activism, Cancer, vaccines, Viruses

Italian Study: COVID Shots Increase Risk of Multiple Cancers

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-first-population-wide-study?

BREAKING: First Population-Wide Study Finds COVID-19 “Vaccines” Increase Risk of Multiple Cancers

Official government data from nearly 300,000 people tracked for 30 months show mRNA shots significantly increase the risk of overall cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, and colorectal cancer.

 
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Aug 30, 2025

A groundbreaking new peer-reviewed study has just been published in EXCLI Journal. For the first time, researchers formally analyzed the long-term relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer hospitalizations in a population-wide cohort of nearly 300,000 residents of Pescara province, Italy.

The study followed every resident aged ≥11 years for 30 months (June 2021 through December 2023) using official National Health Service data. The main vaccines administered were Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) and Moderna (Spikevax) mRNA shots, with smaller proportions receiving AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria) and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) viral vector vaccines.

Importantly, the statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, COPD, kidney disease), prior cancer, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection — ensuring that infection status was explicitly taken into account. This makes it the longest and most comprehensive follow-up to date on cancer outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination.

The results are deeply concerning: while the study shows the expected biases that make vaccines look like they reduce overall death rates, it also uncovers the first statistically significant evidence of increased cancer risk following COVID-19 vaccination.  (See link for article)

______________

Important Excerpt:

  • The strongest, statistically significant increases were found for breast, bladder, colorectal, and overall cancer risk.

  • Nearly all other cancer sites also showed an upward trend, though not statistically significant due to wide confidence intervals.

  • Only lung and prostate cancers showed no evidence of increased risk.

It’s also important to note that this study, as all others stating the clot shots somehow reduced death, utilize a ‘healthy vaccinee bias,’ which simply means that since the ‘vaccinated’ are more likely to engage in health prevention, their cancer hospitalization rates should have been reduced; however, increases were still found and true cancer risk due to the shot may actually be greater than what was detected.  The other studies being used to tout the ‘safe and effective’ narrative used all sorts of shamwizardry to obtain that pre-determined outcome.  A few tactics used:

  • Trusts other studies (remember the adage: Trust but verify?)
  • Doesn’t reference any record level data to verify conclusions
  • Using modeling, not real world patient data
  • Not taking into account ‘vaccine’ harms
  • Using incorrect assumptions about fatality rates and ‘vaccine’ efficacy
  • And more…..
One thing is clear: mass COVID-19 “vaccination” campaigns unleashed a turbo cancer epidemic & severe harm

For more:

 

Category:

Activism, Cancer, Treatment, vaccines, Viruses

Debunking ‘Virology is Fraud’ Arguments &

As you know, this website has posted on both sides of the viral debate.  Do they exist or don’t they?  Deniers say it has to do with ‘purification’ and that they have not managed to truly isolate a singular entity, among other issues.  Below is an article that is pro-virus.

One thing is for certain: our own government is tweaking bacteria and ‘viruses’ in labs to make them more virulent and transmissible to humans.  Our own government has been involved in utilizing ‘viruses’ to take away our freedoms and mandating untested and experimental products which have caused untold harm – all for profit.  Their profit, not ours.

But, per usual, illness is often far more complicated than one thing.

There are so many toxic variables now, it’s nearly impossible to sleuth out what is causing or exacerbating what.  Between pesticides, herbicides, poor food quality, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), bioweapons, geoengineering (weather modification), ‘vaccines,’ EMF in 5G, smart meters, WiFi, unhealthy LED lighting, and blue light, fluoride in the drinking water, bottled/canned drinks, and most toothpaste, good luck figuring out what’s making you sick.  

It’s truly a marvel we are still sucking air!

https://hillmd.substack.com/p/top-80-ways-to-know-viruses-are-real?

Top 80 ways to know viruses are real

Debunking “virology is fraud” arguments
James Hill, MD
Aug 16, 2025

Many today on social media claim viruses don’t exist.

Surprisingly, a few physicians and PhD scientists have joined this chorus.

Some are now even saying DNA is fake.

Are these people correct?

It makes sense to be skeptical of virus claims, especially since the public was lied to extensively about Covid origins, treatments, vaccines, lockdowns, social distancing, masks, and numbers of Covid infections, cases, and deaths, based on misuse of PCR tests among other things.

But a vast amount of data indicates viruses do exist.

Undeniable evidence

Viruses are a fundamental part of our planet’s biology, yet their nature is strange.

A virus is an infectious agent composed of genetic material — either DNA or RNA — enclosed within a protective protein coat called a capsid.

Some viruses are further enveloped in a lipid membrane stolen from the host cell.

They are considered noncellular and are obligate intracellular parasites, meaning they cannot replicate on their own.

Instead, they must hijack the energy and molecular machinery of a living cell to create more copies of themselves.

This unique mode of existence, on the border between living and nonliving, has been demonstrated through more than a century of scientific investigation across numerous fields.

Viruses infect all domains of life — bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes — and display diverse shapes, sizes, and genome types.

Virus-encoded proteins follow a limited set of genome expression “routes” (the Baltimore classes) and are formally classified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). (PMC)

Operational definition
ICTV defines viruses operationally as mobile genetic elements (MGEs) that encode at least one major virion protein forming the particle that packages the genome, or clear descendants of such entities. (ICTV)

Virions and genome types
Virions are nanoscale particles composed of virus-encoded proteins that package genomes made of RNA or DNA, single- or double-stranded. ICTV hosts the official taxonomy browser and Master Species List (MSL) that catalogue this diversity. (ICTV)

Virus taxonomy is hierarchical and genome informed
ICTV now uses a 15-rank hierarchy (from realm to species), aligning with comparative genomics across the virosphere. (Nature)

Key properties of viruses:

  • Submicroscopic size (typically 20–300 nm)
  • Simplified structure (genome + capsid, sometimes an envelope)
  • Obligate dependence on host cells
  • Genetic variation and evolution
  • Production of progeny virions that can infect new cells.
  • Transmission between hosts with high specificity and through various routes (respiratory, fecal-oral, vector borne, etc.).

Below are 80 key lines of evidence, gathered from microscopy, molecular and evolutionary biology, genetics, immunology, and clinical medicine, that build an ironclad case for the existence and nature of viruses.

If just about any one of the 80 peer-reviewed studies or review papers below is true, spanning from Rivers’ 1937 modification of Koch’s postulates to today, it debunks the claim “there are no viruses.”  (See link for article and video)

______________

https://hillmd.substack.com/p/yes-viruses-transmit-between-mammals?

Yes, viruses transmit between mammals including humans: ten studies

And yes, people become infected when inoculated with the Covid virus, find two challenge studies (Updated 9/2/25)

Dr. James Hill

Sept. 1, 2023

10 peer-reviewed studies showing viruses can spread among mammals, including humans:

1) Human rhinovirus — volunteer-to-volunteer spread (1966)

Summary: At the Salisbury Common Cold Unit, volunteers inoculated with rhinovirus were housed with susceptible subjects. Transmission occurred via both direct contact and aerosols, demonstrating natural spread in a controlled setting.

Citation: Gwaltney JM Jr, Hendley JO, Simon G, Jordan WS Jr. Rhinovirus infections in an industrial population. IV. Natural transmission of infection. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1966;64(1):28-34.

PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4285761/ • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-64-1-28

2) Human rhinovirus — hand-to-hand transmission (1978)

Summary: Experimentally infected “donors” transmitted rhinovirus to susceptible “recipients” via hand contact under controlled conditions.
Citation: Gwaltney JM Jr, Moskalski PB, Hendley JO. Hand-to-hand transmission of rhinovirus colds. Ann Intern Med.1978;88(4):463-467.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/205151/ • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-88-4-463

3) Human rhinovirus — contaminated surfaces (1982)

Summary: Healthy adults touched objects seeded by infected donors, then their own mucosa; 50–56% became infected. Disinfectant markedly reduced recoverable virus.

Citation: Gwaltney JM Jr, Hendley JO. Transmission of experimental rhinovirus infection by contaminated surfaces. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;116(5):828-833.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6293304/ • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113473 (PubMed)

4) Coxsackievirus A21 — human volunteer spread (1965)

Summary: At the Common Cold Unit, inoculated volunteers transmitted coxsackievirus A21 to susceptible volunteers under controlled housing conditions.

Citation: Buckland FE, Bynoe ML, Tyrrell DAJ. Experiments on the spread of colds. II. Studies in volunteers with coxsackievirus A21. J Hyg (Lond). 1965;63(3):327-343.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5318065/ • PDF (Cambridge): https://resolve.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/D670B9E2A0978FDA6150365761B27D1B/S0022172400045228a.pdf/experiments_on_the_spread_of_colds_ii_studies_in_volunteers_with_coxsackievirus_a21.pdf

5) Influenza A — human aerosol challenge (1966)

Summary: Healthy volunteers inhaled small-particle aerosols with quantified influenza A; typical illness ensued at very low doses — clear airborne transmission in humans.

Citation: Alford RH, Kasel JA, Gerone PJ, Knight V. Human influenza resulting from aerosol inhalation. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1966;122(3):800-804.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5918954/ • DOI page: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3181/00379727-122-31255 (Open PDF: https://www.ebm-journal.org/journals/experimental-biology-and-medicine/articles/10.3181/00379727-122-31255/pdf)

6) Influenza A — human transmission (2012)

Summary: In a quarantine facility, inoculated “donors” mingled with susceptible “recipients”; after adjusting for baseline immunity, the secondary attack rate was ~25%.

Citation: Killingley B, Enstone JE, Greatorex J, et al. Use of a human influenza challenge model to assess person-to-person transmission: proof-of-concept study. J Infect Dis. 2012;205(1):35-43.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22131338/ • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jir701

7) Influenza A — guinea pig model (2006)

Summary: Unadapted human influenza A transmitted between guinea pigs housed together, in adjacent cages, and nearly 1 m apart — establishing a robust mammalian model.

Citation: Lowen AC, Mubareka S, Tumpey TM, García-Sastre A, Palese P. The guinea pig as a transmission model for human influenza viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103(26):9988-9992.
PNAS (DOI): https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0604157103 (PDF: https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0604157103) (PNAS)

8) SARS-CoV-2 — ferrets (2020)

Summary: Infected ferrets transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to naïve ferrets both by direct contact and through the air (adjacent cages).

Citation: Kim YI, Kim SG, Kim SM, et al. Infection and rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in ferrets. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;27(5):704-709.e2.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32259477/ (Open PDF: https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/pdf/S1931-3128%2820%2930187-6.pdf) (PubMed, Cell)

9) SARS-CoV-2 — ferrets, independent group (2020)

Summary: Independent replication showing efficient contact and airborne transmission between ferrets.

Citation: Richard M, Kok A, de Meulder D, et al. SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted via contact and via the air between ferrets.Nat Commun. 2020;11:3496.
Article (open access): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17367-2 • PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32641684/

10) SARS-CoV-2 — golden Syrian hamsters (2020)

Summary: Infected hamsters efficiently transmitted virus to naïve cage mates; recipients lost weight and seroconverted — establishing a strong small-mammal model.

Citation: Sia SF, Yan LM, Chin AWH, et al. Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters. Nature.2020;583:834-838.
Article (open access): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2342-5 • PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32408338/ (PMC: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7394720/)

Covid virus challenges

Researchers also performed two human SARS-CoV-2 virus challenge studies, where volunteers snorted the virus up their nose (self-inoculation) to see if they became infected.

It turns out they did get infected:

1. Safety, tolerability, and viral kinetics (2022)

Summary: This was the first SARS-CoV-2 human challenge study. Healthy, young, seronegative adults were intranasally inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 under controlled quarantine. The study established viral kinetics, safety, and infectivity. It did not include exposing uninfected volunteers to inoculated ones.

Citation: Killingley B, Mann AJ, Kalinova M, et al. Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults. Nature Medicine. 2022;28:1031-1041.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01780-9
Publisher link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01780-9

2. Local and systemic immune responses (2024)

Summary: This follow-up study profiled immune and epithelial cell responses after controlled intranasal inoculation of healthy, seronegative young adults. It provided detailed cellular and molecular insights, again without person-to-person exposure.

Citation: Lindeboom RGH, Worlock KB, Dratva LM, et al. Human SARS-CoV-2 challenge uncovers local and systemic response dynamics. Nature. 2024;630:86-94.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07575-x
Publisher link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07575-x

Why are there no volunteer-to-volunteer Covid transmission studies?

It’s mainly an ethics issue:

  1. Ethical barriers: Unlike influenza or rhinovirus studies at the Common Cold Unit, SARS-CoV-2 presents risks of severe or long-term illness, making intentional volunteer-to-volunteer transmission unethical.
  2. Controlled approach: All SARS-CoV-2 human challenge studies to date use direct intranasal inoculation under quarantine to control risks.
  3. Evidence base: To study transmission, researchers rely instead on animal models (ferrets, hamsters, guinea pigs) and observational human data (household studies, outbreak clusters) rather than deliberate person-to-person exposure in healthy volunteers.

Note: Just because viruses exist and can transmit between hosts does not mean government and media are telling you the truth about everything or that Covid is not a bioweapon operation.

For more:

Category:

Activism, research, Viruses