Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

The EMA COVID-19 Data Leak, and What it Tells Us About mRNA Instability

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n627

The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability

BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n627 (Published 10 March 2021)Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n627
 
 
  1. Serena Tinari, journalist
Author affiliations
  1. serena.tinari@re-check.ch
Leaked documents show that some early commercial batches of Pfizer-BioNTech’s covid-19 vaccine had lower than expected levels of intact mRNA, prompting wider questions about how to assess this novel vaccine platform, writes Serena Tinari

As it conducted its analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine in December, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the victim of a cyberattack.1 More than 40 megabytes of classified information from the agency’s review were published on the dark web, and several journalists—including from The BMJ—and academics worldwide were sent copies of the leaks. They came from anonymous email accounts and most efforts to interact with the senders were unsuccessful. None of the senders revealed their identity, and the EMA says it is pursuing a criminal investigation.

The BMJ has reviewed the documents, which show that regulators had major concerns over unexpectedly low quantities of intact mRNA in batches of the vaccine developed for commercial production.

EMA scientists tasked with ensuring manufacturing quality—the chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA—worried about “truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.” Among the many files leaked to The BMJ, an email dated 23 November by a high ranking EMA official outlined a raft of issues. In short, commercial manufacturing was not producing vaccines to the specifications expected, and regulators were unsure of the implications. EMA responded by filing two “major objections” with Pfizer, along with a host of other questions it wanted addressed.

The email identified “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species” between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches—from around 78% to 55%. The root cause was unknown and the impact of this loss of RNA integrity on safety and efficacy of the vaccine was “yet to be defined,” the email said.

Ultimately, on 21 December, EMA authorised Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine. The agency’s public assessment report, a technical document published on its website, noted, “the quality of this medicinal product, submitted in the emergency context of the current (covid-19) pandemic, is considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable.”2

It’s unclear how the agency’s concerns were satisfied. According to one of the leaked emails dated 25 November, positive news had come from an undisclosed source in the US: “The latest lots indicate that % intact RNA are back at around 70-75%, which leaves us cautiously optimistic that additional data could address the issue,” the email said.

A near miss?

It’s also unclear whether the events in November constitute a near miss in the commercial manufacturing of mRNA vaccines.

EMA says the leaked information was partially doctored, explaining in a statement that “whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created, and additional titles were added by the perpetrators.”3

But the documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA vaccines, which include everything from the quantification and integrity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the distribution of particle sizes and encapsulation efficiency. Of particular concern is RNA instability, one of the most important variables relevant to all mRNA vaccines that has thus far received scant attention in the clinical community. It is an issue relevant not just to Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine but also to those produced by Moderna, CureVac, and others,4 as well as a “second generation” mRNA vaccine being pursued by Imperial College London.5

RNA instability is one of the biggest hurdles for researchers developing nucleic acid based vaccines. It is the primary reason for the technology’s stringent cold chain requirements and has been addressed by encapsulating the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles (box).

“The complete, intact mRNA molecule is essential to its potency as a vaccine,” professor of biopharmaceutics Daan J.A. Crommelin and colleagues wrote in a review article in The Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences late last year. “Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.”6

Crommelin and colleagues note that specific regulatory guidance for mRNA based vaccines has yet to be developed, and The BMJ’s attempts to clarify current standards were unsuccessful.
Transparency and confidentiality

The BMJ asked Pfizer, Moderna, and CureVac, as well as several regulators, what percentage mRNA integrity they consider acceptable for vaccines against covid-19. None offered any specifics.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the UK’s medicines regulator, acknowledged the lack of a specified percentage RNA integrity, but declined to provide further detail. “The specification limit acceptance criteria are commercially confidential,” the agency said in an email.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directed The BMJ to read its guidance documents78 and its review of Pfizer’s vaccine,9 but none of these specify the percentage RNA the agency is requiring. Asked to comment, the regulator pointed to Pfizer:

“information that you seek that is not addressed in the FDA Review Memorandum should be directed to Pfizer.”

In subsequent correspondence, FDA, EMA, and Canadian government department Health Canada all stated that specific information related to the acceptability criteria is confidential.

EMA did acknowledge, however, that vaccine efficacy depends on the presence of suitable amounts of intact mRNA. In the case of the commercial batches that first raised alarm bells, the agency told The BMJ that the levels of truncated mRNA “and the amounts of a potential protein produced by the truncated mRNA would be too low to constitute a safety risk.” EMA did not comment on how truncated mRNA might affect efficacy. The issue was satisfactorily addressed, the agency underlined, when further information was supplied by the manufacturer.

Health Canada told The BMJ that Pfizer had conducted investigations into the root cause of reduced integrity in the commercial vaccine batches, and “changes were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches.” Health Canada said the three agencies subsequently determined that “there was no concern with the RNA integrity or any other product specifications.”

Correspondence in the leaked documents suggests that FDA, Health Canada, and EMA were aligned on clinically qualified specifications of percentage mRNA integrity. Health Canada has confirmed to The BMJ that regulators “have worked together to align those requirements,” but all agencies declined to share with The BMJ any specifics on grounds that such information was commercially sensitive.

Pfizer also declined to comment on what percentage mRNA integrity it is aiming for, nor would it address questions about the cause of the unexpectedly low percentage mRNA integrity in certain batches, leaving open the question of whether it could happen again. Pfizer stressed: “Each batch of vaccines is tested by the official medicinal control laboratory—the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany—before final product release. As a result, the quality of all vaccine doses that are placed on the market in Europe has been double tested to ensure compliance with the specifications agreed upon with the regulatory authorities.”

Moderna’s chief corporate affairs officer Ray Jordan declined to respond to any of The BMJ’s questions, stating: “At this point, Moderna will not be offering additional commentary on these topics.”

CureVac, whose mRNA vaccine was submitted for EMA’s “rolling review” in February,10 told The BMJ that “it is too soon to give details.”

The shortage of information may reflect the lack of certainty, even among regulators, about how to assess the evidence fully for this novel technology. Professor Crommelin told The BMJ that, “For small, low molecular weight products, the active pharmaceutical ingredient integrity is typically close to 100%.”

But for mRNA vaccines? “Experience with mRNA integrity is limited.”

Lipid nanoparticles—where do they go and what do they do?

Conceived three decades ago, RNA based therapeutics11 have long inspired imaginations for their theoretical potential to transform cells of the body into “an on-demand drug factory.”12 But despite heavy investment by the biotech industry, bench-to-bedside translation was constantly hindered by the fragility of mRNA.

Over the years, researchers attempted to resolve intrinsic instability by encapsulating mRNA in nanocarriers made of polymers, lipids, or inorganic materials. Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) were chosen by Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, CureVac, and Imperial College London for their covid-19 vaccines. This has attracted the attention of specialists in the field of pharmaceutical biotechnology, some of whom have raised concerns about further unknowns.

In a rapid response posted on bmj.com, JW Ulm, a gene therapy specialist who has published on tissue targeting of therapeutic vectors,13 raised concerns about the biodistribution of LNPs:

“At present, relatively little has been reported on the tissue localisation of the LNPs used to encase the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-encoding messenger RNA, and it is vital to have more specific information on precisely where the liposomal nanoparticles are going after injection.”14

It is an unknown that Ulm worries could have implications for vaccine safety.

Ulm told The BMJ:

“Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna did a remarkable job of rapidly scaling up manufacturing of such a novel system in swift fashion, which is genuinely a landmark technological achievement. However, pharmacokinetic studies, with independent laboratory confirmation, are essential to ascertain potential cytotoxicity and macroscopic toxicity, especially given the likelihood of booster injections over months or years, since the tissue trafficking patterns of the mRNA vaccine payload will determine which cells and tissues are killed by cytotoxic T-cells in each round.”

Given the variation in LNP formulations, it is unclear how relevant previous animal experiments are to answering this question.

Regulators and manufacturers contacted by The BMJ for this article did not wish to address any of the questions raised by Ulm’s rapid response.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

  • Provenance and peer review: commissioned; externally peer reviewed

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

References

  1. ↵
  2. ↵
  3. ↵
  4. ↵
  5. ↵
  6. ↵
  7. ↵
  8. ↵
  9. ↵
  10. ↵
  11. ↵
  12. ↵
  13. ↵
  14. ↵

__________________________

**Comment**

For more:  

Category:

Activism, research, vaccines, Viruses

COVID-19 Patients With Gum Disease 9 Times More Likely to Die

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-02-gum-disease-linked-covid-complications.html

Study Shows COVID-19 Patients With Gum Disease 9 Times More Likely to Die

Feb. 3, 2021

by European Federation of Periodontology (EFP)

gum

COVID-19 patients are at least three times more likely to experience complications if they also have gum disease, according to research published today in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology,1 the official publication of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP).

The study of more than 500 patients with COVID-19 found that those with gum were 3.5 times more likely to be admitted to , 4.5 times more likely to need a ventilator, and almost nine times more likely to die compared to those without gum disease.

Blood markers indicating inflammation in the body were significantly higher in COVID-19 patients who had gum disease compared to those who did not, suggesting that inflammation may explain the raised complication rates. (See link for article)

__________________

**Comment**

Interestingly, masks can cause gum disease.

Excerpt:

“Gum disease — or periodontal disease — will eventually lead to strokes and an increased risk of heart attacks,” Marc Sclafani, a dentist and co-founder of One Manhattan Dental, told the New York Post about “mask mouth,” which is increasingly causing inflammation and gum disease among patients.

Another dentist and co-founder at One Manhattan Dental, Rob Ramondi, said 50% of his patients are suffering from negative health issues due to mask-wearing.

Masks have also been linked to chronic diseases like lung disease and cancer.

For yet another review of the science.

For more:  

Category:

Activism, Dentistry, Viruses

How We Know SARS-CoV-2 Absolutely Leaked From a Chinese Lab

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/04/is-coronavirus-zoonotic.aspx?

How We Know SARS-CoV-2 Absolutely Leaked From a Chinese Lab

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

March 04, 2021

is coronavirus zoonotic
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
  • The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630, based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world
  • Taking into account that there are 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronavirus species with members that affect humans, the chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is 17,640 to 1
  • No credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented, to date
  • Meanwhile, there are at least four distinct lab origin theories, including the serial passage theory (which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture). There’s also a variety of evidence for genetic manipulation
  • A third theory is that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of vaccine development, and the fourth is the Mojiang miners passage theory, which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 sickened the miners, and once inside these patients, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, many scientists suspected SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a biosafety laboratory, most likely in Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began in December 2019. Among them, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and a virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a molecular biologist were experts who discussed the idea of a lab origin.

I interviewed Latham about some of their theories in July 2020. His interview is featured in “Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Origin?” Latham and Wilson argue that while the virus most likely has a bat origin, the mechanism by which it jumped from bat to human was not a natural one and they have previously presented three different theories by which the virus may have been created in and escaped from a lab.

In a February 16, 2021, article1 in Independent Science News, the pair again reviewed the evidence for a laboratory origin, and the reasons why a zoonotic origin will never be found.

Why Zoonotic Origin Is Most Unlikely

Aside from not being known for exotic culinary dishes involving animals such as bats, Wuhan, located in central China, is an unlikely location for zoonotic virus spillover as it has “no cultural, geographic or climatic predisposing factors,” Latham and Wilson note. Wuhan is also not a known hotspot for exotic animal smuggling.

The well-recognized absence of bats in Wuhan is why researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) traveled several hundred miles to collect bat coronavirus samples.

What’s more, Latham and Wilson cite research showing that “when WIV researchers needed to study a Chinese population that was not routinely exposed to bat coronaviruses (as a control group), they chose Wuhan residents.” Zheng-li Shi, head of coronavirus research at the WIV, even admitted that she “had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China.”

According to Latham and Wilson, “The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630,” based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world.

“It truly is very, very, unlikely that a natural zoonotic pandemic would start in Wuhan. Yet no commentator on the outbreak seems to have properly acknowledged the true scale of this improbability,” Latham and Wilson write.2

Another coincidence that strongly points to a lab origin is the fact that the WIV not only has the world’s largest collection of bat coronaviruses, but WIV researchers had also singled out one specific coronavirus out of 28 relevant species for more in-depth work, “and it is a member of this species that broke out in Wuhan,” Latham and Wilson note, adding:

“This, then, is a further curious coincidence: for a pandemic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) to emerge in Wuhan and be a member of the species most studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Zoonotic Spillover of SARS-CoV-2 Is Not Random

Latham and Wilson go on to review the research done at the WIV in more detail, comparing and contrasting it to the natural evolution of coronaviruses. There are four basic types of coronaviruses: Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses. (For an illustration of the evolutionary tree of these viruses, please see the original article.3)

Of these four, only two are of interest when we’re searching for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — the Alpha and Beta versions, of which there are 28 species, and “apparently random” coronavirus spillovers from Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to have occurred in the past. (There are very few Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses, and none is known to affect humans.)

Six of the 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to affect humans: HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, MERS, SARS, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 (SARS-CoV-2 makes No. 7). When you locate these six viruses on the coronavirus evolutionary tree, you find that they are widely distributed, which is an indication that previous zoonotic spillovers have been random.

Not so with SARS-CoV-2, though. When you place SARS-CoV-2 on this evolutionary tree, its location is not random like the others. Rather, it emerged from original SARS (as evidenced by its name). Latham and Wilson explain:4

“From a zoonotic perspective, nothing appears to be special about these SARS-related coronaviruses. Consequently, the emergence of a second pandemic virus from the same coronavirus species constitutes a second surprising coincidence.

We can again calculate its probability. If each Alpha and Beta coronavirus species is equally likely to spill over to humans, which is consistent with our understanding, then the probability of a virus from the SARS-related coronavirus species starting a zoonotic pandemic is 1 in 28.

(And if there are undiscovered coronavirus species — pretty much a certainty — the number will be greater still). It is a coincidence that, just like the emergence in Wuhan, heavily favors a lab escape if we take into account the specifics of the coronavirus research program at the WIV …”

Zheng-li’s Research Revolved Around the Pandemic Virus

Latham and Wilson then go on to review 18 publications by Zheng-li, starting in 2005, describing her research into SARS-like coronaviruses. They point out that while Zheng-li collected a wide array of bat viruses, her specific research focus was the zoonotic spillover potential of a single species, namely SARS-related coronaviruses (one of the six Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses known to infect humans).

“So while most discussions of a potential lab escape have mentioned that SARS-CoV-2 emerged within commuting distance of the WIV and that researchers at the WIV worked on bat coronaviruses, none have mentioned that the coincidence is much greater than that.

Zheng-li Shi concentrated, especially with her potentially highly risky molecular research, on the particular species of coronavirus that is responsible for the pandemic,” Latham and Wilson write, adding that:

“If one accepts as reasonable the assumptions made above, the probability of Wuhan being the site of a natural SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is obtained by multiplying 1 in 630 by 1 in 28. The chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is thus 17,640 to 1.”

They also dismiss the argument that these are little more than circumstantial evidences that could be due to sheer chance. Circumstantial evidence is not a “special category of evidence,” they point out; rather, “all evidence of causation is composed of coincidences.”

“All an observer can do is to add up the coincidences until they surmise that the threshold of reasonable doubt has been surpassed. Conclusions are always provisional, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyone open to persuasion ought at this point to conclude that a probability of 17,640 to 1 far exceeds that threshold. A lab escape should at this point be the default hypothesis.”

WIV Held Closest Known Relative to SARS-CoV-2

Since the beginning of the outbreak, we’ve also discovered that the WIV held a virus sample known as RaTG13 which, so far, is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. While Zheng-li has denied extensive study on RaTG13, scientific publications reveal this virus has been studied since at least 2017.

In addition to all of this, no substantive zoonotic theory has ever been presented, which makes it far less plausible than any of the lab-origin theories. While several potential intermediate species have been proposed, none has actually been found to carry SARS-CoV-2 or a precursor to it.

What’s more, as detailed in “Top Medical Journal Caught in Massive Cover-Up” and “Lawsuits Begin Over SARS-CoV-2 Lab Leak,” the scientific cornerstone for the zoonotic origin theory hinges on two seriously flawed papers published in PLOS Pathogens and Nature.

Both journals apparently allowed data sets to be secretly changed without publishing notices of correction. Authors appear to have renamed samples, failed to attribute samples properly, and produced a genomic profile that doesn’t match the samples in the paper.

Some data are also missing. An investigation into the discrepancies found RaTG13, which is 96% identical to SARS-CoV-2, is actually btCoV-4991, a virus found in samples collected in 2013 and studies on them published in 2016. Meanwhile, there are at least “four distinct lab origin theories,” Wilson and Latham note, including:5

1. The serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture.6

2. Evidence of genetic manipulation, including the chimeric structure of the virus and the presence of a furin cleavage site.7 While a majority of the viral genetic sequence is close to that of RaTG13, its receptor binding domain is nearly identical to that of a pangolin coronavirus, while the furin cleavage site has not been seen in any other SARS-like coronaviruses.

Others have pointed out that the virus, which is highly adapted to human lung cells, appears to have evolved in the absence of immune system antibodies, which suggests mutation within cell culture.8

In “China Deletes Key SARS-CoV-2 Related Science,” I also review evidence9 suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was created by serial passaging an ancestor virus through transgenic mice equipped with human ACE2 receptors. (Research10 has confirmed transgenic mice with human ACE2 receptors are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, whereas normal mice are not.)

3. The failed vaccine development theory.11

4. The Mojiang miners passage theory,12,13 which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 — possibly RaTG13, as this virus was collected from that very same mine — sickened six miners in 2012, and once inside these patients, some of whom were ill for several weeks, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2. Samples from four of the hospitalized miners were sent to the WIV.

“To-date, there are conflicting claims about the results of those tests and nothing has been formally published. The Mojiang Miners Passage theory proposes, however, that, by the time they arrived at the WIV, these patient-derived samples contained a highly adapted human virus, which subsequently escaped,” Wilson and Latham write, adding:

“Our prediction … simply based on assessing the probabilities, is that no convincing natural zoonotic origin for the pandemic will ever be found by China or the WHO or anyone else — for the simple reason that one does not exist.”

WHO Investigation Into COVID-19 Origin Is Blatantly Corrupt

Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, the World Health Organization’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, has now officially cleared the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.14,15,16

They’ve also stated that the lab-escape theory will no longer be part of the team’s investigation going forward.

The WHO team and its Chinese counterparts now insist the most likely scenario is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or another country, possibly in Europe. As a result, the WHO team is considering expanding its scope to look into other countries as the potential source of the virus.

As noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed17 by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, “By lending credence to this improbable theory, WHO is damaging trust in the important project of figuring out where the virus originated.”

There are obvious problems with the WHO’s conclusions. For starters, no serious investigation was actually done. The WHO team was not equipped or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices;18 rather, they relied on information obtained directly from the Chinese team.

Secondly, China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the WIV and has gone on record dismissing the lab-origin theory as “pure baloney.”19,20

He was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”21,22 This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.

No Credible Evidence Food Is a Route of Transmission

The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory from the very start, and based on the lame justifications given by the team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, it seems clear they had no intention of looking at evidence that might implicate the WIV or any other Wuhan lab.

For example, Embarek claims that officials at the WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. But suspects in an investigation are hardly the most reliable sources of evidence to dismiss suspicions against them.

Embarek further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”23 This too is a wholly unconvincing argument that flies in the face of available data.

According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,24,25 and virology labs accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.26,27Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.28 The 1977 H1N1 influenza outbreaks in the Soviet Union and China were also the result of a lab escape.29

Thirdly, a number of scientific bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods have resolutely dismissed the frozen food origination story, as no credible evidence has surfaced suggesting food, food packaging or food handling might be a significant route of transmission.30

Why the Lab-Origin Theory Must Be Quashed

You may be wondering, if there’s so much evidence pointing toward a lab origin, why are leading health authorities and scientists dismissing it all and insisting SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, mysterious as it might be? The answer undoubtedly comes down to money.

Should the COVID-19 pandemic be officially recognized as the result of a lab accident, the world might be forced to take a cold hard look at gain-of-function research that allows for the creation of these new pathogens. The end result would ideally be the banning of such research worldwide, which means tens of thousands of researchers would lose their jobs. Prestigious careers would be spoiled.

On top of that, the culprits might face criminal charges under the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, and nations might be held financially responsible for the economic destruction caused by the pandemic around the globe. These are no minor issues. They offer plenty of incentive to cover up the truth.

As Rutgers microbiologist and founding member of the Cambridge Working Group, Richard Ebright, told Boston Magazine:31

“For the substantial subset of virologists who perform gain-of-function research, avoiding restrictions on research funding, avoiding implementation of appropriate biosafety standards, and avoiding implementation of appropriate research oversight are powerful motivators.”

Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, was even more blunt, stating that if SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a lab creation, “it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”32 There’s little doubt that this is the reason why the lab origin theory has been roundly labeled as pure conspiracy theory spread by science deniers and Trump flag-wielding kooks.

Such a stance is extremely unhealthy, however, as it seeks to strangle not only free speech but also scientific inquiry, and “criminalizes” logic in general. In a February 15, 2021, AP News article,33 the three authors identify several professors and organizations as “superspreaders” of disinformation about SARS-CoV-2’s origin.

Among them are Francis Boyle, a bioweapons expert who drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act; Luc Montagnier, a world-renowned virologist who won the Nobel prize for his discovery of HIV; and the Center for Research on Globalization. The remainder are individuals and organizations that I, having written many hundreds of articles about COVID-19 over the past year, have never even heard of.

According to AP, the parties on this list have no training in virology (apparently, Nobel prize-winning virologists aren’t good enough) and therefore do not have the expertise to speak on the issue of viral origins. However, they don’t mention the many who have presented evidence for a lab origin who do have all the “right” credentials.

It’s also worth noting that the AP article was produced in collaboration with the Atlantic Council, which is part of the technocratic hub that is using the pandemic to further its Great Reset agenda. That alone qualifies the article as pure globalist propaganda.

If SARS-CoV-2 really was the result of zoonotic spillover, the easiest and most effective way to quash “conspiracy theories” about a lab origin would be to present compelling evidence for a plausible theory. So far, that hasn’t happened, and as noted by Latham and Wilson, the most likely reason for that is because the virus does not have a natural zoonotic origin, and you cannot find that which does not exist.

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Testimony Before Wisconsin Legislative Hearing On Barring Mandated COVID Injections

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/my-testimony-before-a-wisconsin-legislative-hearing-seeking-to-bar-mandated-covid-vaccines

My testimony before a Wisconsin legislative hearing seeking to bar mandated COVID vaccines

‘Besides mandatory vaccination being severely damaging, and stupid … (it) would also happen to be a grave abuse against the rights of persons, and thus a serious violation of the moral law as well.’
Fri Mar 5, 2021 

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 

MADISON, Wisconsin, March 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — On Wednesday, the Wisconsin State Assembly’s Committee on Constitution and Ethics hosted a hearing on bills aimed at countering the growing trend of de facto-mandated COVID-19 vaccinations (story here).

The 8 1/2-hour hearing hosted a steady overwhelming stream of representatives from organizations, and many citizens, who all expressed their support for bills that would affirm that neither local health officials nor employers can require these injections of residents or employees, respectively.

With the Wisconsin state Senate having already passed the bills, passage in the Assembly would send them to the desk of Democrat Gov. Tony Evers, whose position on the bills is not yet clear. Both legislative chambers have a Republican majority.

As a citizen of Wisconsin, I was privileged to present my thoughts as well. The testimony I provided is below.

Testimony in favor of Assembly Bills 23, 24, and 25
Patrick Delaney

Thank you, Chairman Wichgers, and members of the committee.

I’m Patrick Delaney, a local resident from Madison. I grew up here and have worked as an activist, a teacher, an administrator, and now as a journalist for LifeSiteNews.

I’m speaking in favor of Assembly bills 23, 24, and 25, though I will limit my remarks to the vaccine mandate bills, AB 23 and 25.

I would also echo what other commenters have said in supporting amendments that would apply these bills generally to all vaccines and all epidemics, not just those associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus.  (See link for article)

_____________________

click

**Comment**

Excellent points.

  • AB23 prohibits state and local health officers from “requiring individuals to receive a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which causes COVID-19.”
  • AB25 prohibits “an employer from requiring an individual to receive a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus or show evidence of having received such a vaccine.”

I agree that this protection should also include ANY ‘vaccines’ in ANY ‘epidemic’ as this attempt to usurp your rights will not end with the COVID saga.

This issue is not hypothetical as Wisconsinites have already been fired for not getting the jab.

Almost half of all states are introducing legislation that protects the right to refuse and RightToRefuse.org will act as a central location to list any state group actively working at their state legislature that is putting forward bills to protect the fundamental right to make choices about health care without fear of coercion.

The website will provide:

  1. Clickable State Map – Find groups in your state working to pass Right to Refuse legislation
  2. State Page for Each State including:  state Groups working to introduce and pass legislation, active Bills protecting the right to make one’s own medical decisions, state Action Alerts being initiated by state groups
  3. Resources, Tools, Education & Trainings – Training on how to lobby legislators, fact sheets, model legislation. No need to reinvent the wheel in every state. 

For more:  

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Emails Show Fauci, NIH, WHO Accommodated China on COVID Confidentiality ‘Terms’

https://www.worldtribune.com/emails-show-fauci-nih-who-accommodated-china-on-covid-confidentiality-terms/

Emails show Fauci, NIH, WHO accommodated China on covid confidentiality ‘terms’

By on

FPI / March 1, 2021

By Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch announced that it and the Daily Caller News Foundation received 301 pages of emails of Dr. Anthony Fauci from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showing that National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” Covid-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.

“These new emails show the WHO and Fauci’s NIH special accommodations to Chinese communist efforts to control information about Covid-19,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The emails, obtained by Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, “set the tone early on in the coronavirus outbreak. It’s clear that the WHO allowed China to control the information flow from the start. True transparency is crucial,” said Ethan Barton, editor-in chief for the Daily Caller News Foundation.  (See link for article)

___________________

**Comment**

Important excerpt:

A WHO briefing package sent on February 13, 2020, to NIH officials traveling to China as part of the coronavirus response ask that the officials wait to share information until they have an agreement with China: “IMPORTANT: Please treat this as sensitive and not for public communications until we have agreed communications with China.”

For more:

Lastly, if you haven’t seen these two videos yet, you need to:

 

Category:

Activism, Viruses