#american biodefense institute | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mightyflamethrower · 1 year ago

Text

<I have been aware that this sequel to RFK’s “The Real Anthony Fauci” has been in the works for quite a while, and had advanced notice of some of the scope and content. Unlike the predecessor, I was not involved in editing this one.

I was recently provided an advanced pre-print version of this current book for review, and realized that what has been produced is a potential game changer of much broader scope and depth than I had anticipated. The following is my initial assessment of the work. I just hope that people read it and pay attention.>

The title of US Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new book, “The Wuhan Cover Up”, does not really represent the scope and nature of this seminal work. This book is the most comprehensive historic summary and indictment of the history of the United States’ biowarfare/biodefense program ever written. Summarizing an amazing sweep of untold censored history, it begins with ancient Mediterranean and European examples of both chemical and biological warfare, proceeds to an open discussion of the shocking truths concerning Imperial Japan’s WW II biowarfare program (Unit 731), the importation of both Japanese and German biowarfare experts and technologies into Fort Detrick to create USAMRIID (operation Paperclip), strategic evasion of global biowarfare “treaties”, through to the present Wuhan Institute of Virology CIA/Intelligence Community/Chinese CCP collusion and cover up, and concludes by glancing into the future.

What is often overlooked by academia, corporate media and the Washington DC political caste is that the history of modern biology (particularly microbiology, molecular biology, and virology) and the infectious disease pharmaceutical industry is intimately entwined with the American biowarfare enterprise. It has been estimated that total Federal expenditures on biowarfare research and development from the end of WW II through to the implementation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (1975) exceeded the costs of the US Nuclear Warfare program during this period, and this biowarfare program (and funding stream) is intimately linked to academia. Most of the leaders of the American Society of Microbiology were also leaders in the American DoD/CIA-funded biowarfare program. This background and context is necessary to understand how the fundamental corruption of academic medicine, peer-reviewed journals, the CDC, FDA, biological and academic research have been so comprehensive, as has been revealed by the COVIDcrisis. Just follow the money.

Which leads us to the most recent and egregious sordid chapter in this sorry tale, The Wuhan Cover Up. A case study demonstrating the consequences of the situational ethical slide which often occurs when a massive administrative bureaucracy fuses with an “intelligence community”. The resulting Leviathan, steeped in the utilitarian “ends justify the means” logic typical of all those skilled liars who have practiced spycraft throughout the ages, eventually forgets both its purpose and its commitment to serving the citizenry, and becomes a predatory monster. With his masterful summary, Mr. Kennedy has provided the receipts on how this modern embodiment of the slouching beast foretold in Yeates’ “Second Coming” has been born and nurtured via a cooperation of convenience between the western and eastern military/intelligence/industrial complexes.

Now, looking forward, the open question is whether this globalized Leviathan will continue to succeed in its efforts to deploy advanced psychological and information control methods on the entire human community to avoid the consequences of its actions? Or will this book and the work of so many others trigger an awareness, awakening and effective reaction among citizens to the deep corruption of medical-biological research, medical ethics, and the entire western “health” enterprise which has occurred over the last century. With this book as a guide, we can see the enemy, the face of creeping globalized utilitarian evil, and it is us.

Now what are each of us going to do about it?

#covid coverup #scamdemic #pandemic #health #politics

1 note · View note

sciencespies · 2 years ago

Text

Expert Panel Votes for Stricter Rules on Risky Virus Research

https://sciencespies.com/news/expert-panel-votes-for-stricter-rules-on-risky-virus-research/

Expert Panel Votes for Stricter Rules on Risky Virus Research

The White House will decide whether to adopt the panel’s recommendations on so-called gain of function experiments.

An expert panel on Friday endorsed a sweeping set of proposed changes to the federal government’s program for regulating experiments that involve tinkering with risky viruses and other pathogens. The move sets the stage for a closely watched decision by the Biden administration about its approach to protecting against lab disasters that could kick off a pandemic.

The experts unanimously approved draft recommendations that, among other things, ask health officials to extend their oversight to less dangerous pathogens, including ones similar to the coronavirus. They also recommended an end to exemptions for research related to vaccine development and surveillance of emerging viruses.

“We have a lot of oversight on paper, but not really a lot of oversight,” said Dr. Kenneth Bernard, a retired rear admiral and a member of the expert panel, making the case for the proposed changes, which will still receive some slight modifications.

The proposals have added to the momentum in Washington for tightening government oversight of studies of dangerous pathogens.

Two internal federal watchdogs recently issued reports that criticized the monitoring of such studies. Congressional Republicans are preparing to seek testimony from Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who until recently directed the institute responsible for funding much of the country’s pathogen research. And the Biden administration has signaled a willingness to act, describing biological threats as among the most serious dangers facing the United States.

The expert panel, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, is charged with advising the government on biosecurity issues. Its proposals emerged out of a decade of debate over so-called gain of function studies, in which pathogens are endowed with new abilities. Members of the board began discussing their latest reforms in January 2020, only to put the process on hold so they could focus on pandemic-related research.

The pandemic, though, reinforced what some critics of risky pathogen research saw as a need for oversight of a broader set of viruses: Despite killing only a tiny fraction of those it infected, the coronavirus created a global catastrophe.

More on the Coronavirus Pandemic

Long Covid: An analysis of workers’ compensation claims in New York found that 71 percent of claimants with long Covid needed continuing medical treatment or were unable to work for six months or more.

End of an Era: An expert committee advising the Food and Drug Administration recommended that regulators phase out the original versions of the Covid-19 vaccines.

Annual Boosters: The Food and Drug Administration proposed that most Americans be offered a single dose of a Covid vaccine each fall, much as they are given flu shots.

New Subvariant: A highly contagious version of the Omicron variant — known officially as XBB.1.5 or by its subvariant nickname, Kraken — is quickly spreading in the United States.

Now, the question is whether the advisory board’s proposals sweep up too broad a range of pathogens or fail to reach far enough.

Proponents of stronger oversight have largely been heartened by the recommendations and applauded their focus on any experiments that could be expected to produce a pathogen with pandemic potential.

“If the government implements the spirit of what they’ve written, this would be a major overhaul of dual-use research oversight in the United States,” said Gregory Koblentz, a biodefense specialist at George Mason University, referring to research that could also be used to do harm.

Still, he said, the White House should go beyond the board’s recommendations in creating an independent agency to perform that oversight, streamlining a system he considered too fragmentary.

Other experts have warned that even the existing proposals go too far. Some have said that the recommendations would create an oversight system so expansive and confusing that it could discourage minimally risky experiments with huge potential public health benefits.

“There’s a lot that could potentially fall into this because it’s so vaguely written,” said Gigi Gronvall, a biosafety specialist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. She suggested that the type of research used to make the Ebola vaccine could fall under the new policy. “You could potentially be creating a huge oversight burden,” she said, “which the government does not have the technical capacity to implement.”

Those concerns were echoed by 150 virologists, who in a commentary published on Thursday cautioned against hampering researchers with needless burdens. They warned that cumbersome regulations “will lead to unwarranted constraints on pandemic preparation and response and could leave humanity more vulnerable to future disease outbreaks.”

Seema Lakdawala, a virologist at Emory University, told the advisory board on Friday that additional regulations could, for example, interfere with efforts to track the bird flu epidemic that has killed millions of chickens and driven up egg prices. Influenza strains that infect people evolve from bird flu viruses that gain new mutations.

The advisory board’s final report will be sent to the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, which will have further discussions with different government agencies before issuing a new policy.

“I’d be hesitant to even guess what the time frame is, but I am sure that it will be longer than one month,” Dr. Lawrence Tabak, who is performing the duties of director at the National Institutes of Health, said in a news conference after the meeting.

Proponents of stronger oversight have been lobbying in recent days for more aggressive controls. For example, the board recommended that the government be more transparent about its reviews of potential pathogens. A group of scientists including Dr. Tom Inglesby, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, have argued that the public should be allowed to see the resulting risk-benefit assessments before any research begins.

One board member, Mark Denison, a virologist at Vanderbilt University, who voted for the recommendations, said he nevertheless had reservations about their potential to constrain testing of new monoclonal antibody treatments for viral infections.

Even if the White House embraces the core of the advisory board’s recommendations, it is unclear whether it will adopt some of the experts’ more ambitious proposals. For example, the board suggested evaluating research for its impact on not only humans, but also animals or even plants.

The board proposed that experiments be subject to oversight whether or not they receive government funding. Currently, only government-funded research is subject to monitoring.

That loophole drew attention recently when Boston University came under fire for an experiment in which researchers tinkered with the Omicron variant to learn about its severity. The experiment was not vetted by a government dangerous pathogen committee in part because it was conducted without federal funds, the university said, even though federal money went to develop the tools used in the research.

Board members said closing that loophole would most likely require federal legislation. “This will be a hard one to solve,” Gerald Parker, an associate dean at Texas A&M University and chairman of the board, said at the news conference.

Much of the debate over the board’s proposals has turned on whether biosecurity oversight should be limited to specific pathogens and types of experiments or should instead apply broadly to any research that could plausibly result in a dangerous outbreak.

The proposals, for example, suggest a high-level review of any research that is “reasonably anticipated” to create a more dangerous pathogen. Dr. Inglesby applauded that language.

“The outcome is what matters,” he said. “If that is a reasonable possible outcome of your work, then it should be governed in the same way as something that we know already has pandemic potential.”

Some virologists said that the threat posed by an experiment could only be determined by evaluating the details of its methodology, like whether a virus was being modified to grow better in a petri dish or in a mosquito.

“Who decides what’s reasonable, and who decides what’s anticipated?” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “Is it going to affect just a few more studies or basically every virology study?”

#News

0 notes

firebreak01 · 4 years ago

Text

Fogging- A Powerful Disinfecting Layer for Biohygiene ?

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), most likely spreads through invisible respiratory droplets created when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Those droplets can be inhaled by nearby people or land on surfaces that others might touch, spreading the infection when they touch their eyes, nose, or mouth (Science, 2020). There is a lot that is not fully known about the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, like how long does it remain active in the air or on surfaces. According to a recent study, the virus remains in the air for up to 3 hours and approximately 2-3 days on stainless steel and plastic surfaces (Van Doremalen et al, 2020). Another study found that a related SARS-CoV-1 virus that causes SARS can persist up to 9 days on non-porous surfaces such as plastic or stainless steel (Kampf et al, 2020). Downloadable Report → Fogging- A Powerful Disinfecting Layer for Biohygiene ? Several reports found that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been detected in feces, indicating that the virus can spread by people who don’t properly wash their hands after using the bathroom (Wang et al, 2020). However, the CDC says there is no indication that it spreads through drinking water, swimming pools, or hot tubs (CDC, 2020a). The virus has been found to spread less effectively outdoors due to a variety of factors. Previous research on the relationship between respiratory-borne infectious diseases and temperature have indicated that the ability of SARS and influenza viruses to spread decreased with increasing temperature (Jaakkola et al, 2014; Chan et al, 2011). The underlying hypothesis includes higher vitamin D levels, resulting in better immune responses (Aranow, 2011); increased UV radiation; and school holidays in the summer. Reports of correlation between respiratory diseases and the levels of UV radiation have also been considered, and previous studies have reported that high levels of UV exposure can reduce the spread of SARS-CoV virus (Duan et al, 2003). However, according to the current results, the cumulative incidence rate and R0 of COVID-19 holds no significant association with ambient temperature, suggesting that ambient temperature has no significant impact on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (Yao et al, 2020). This is similar to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) epidemic, where the MERS coronavirus continued to spread even at temperatures of around 45°C (Alshukairi et al, 2018). Measures to minimize airborne transmission of COVID-19 indoors include sufficient and effective ventilation, possibly enhanced by particle filtration and air disinfection, avoiding air recirculation, and avoiding overcrowding (Morawska et al, 2020). Fogging is a deep cleaning method that has been used in hospitals for dealing with MRSA. Fogging uses an antiviral disinfectant solution to clean and sanitize large areas of a building quickly and effectively by spraying a fine mist from a spray gun, which is then left to evaporate, usually for less than an hour. It can kill off viruses and other biological agents in the air and on surfaces. The task requires full protection from the sprayed chemicals. The product used is safe on electronics and other equipment as the mist is exceptionally fine to penetrate all areas to kill off the virus effectively. Fogging should be conducted only using products whose product label specifically includes disinfection directions for fogging, fumigation, or wide-area spraying. It means that the product’s safety and efficacy have been evaluated by the EPA, specifically for fogging. Otherwise, the product might not be effective in disinfecting surfaces by fogging (EPA.gov, 2020a). The EPA has been expediting applications to add directions for use with electrostatic sprayers to products intended to kill SARS-CoV-2 (EPA.gov, 2020b). Wet or chemical fogging employs a fine mist of disinfectant solution which remains on surfaces for several hours until it evaporates. Dry fogging, on the other hand, uses smoke to treat the area, leaving no chemical trace behind. The main advantages of fogging are the ability to cover large areas quickly and effectively; the ability to reach areas difficult to clean using other techniques. It eliminates pathogens in the air and on all surfaces, including furniture, walls, and ceilings. The downsides are that it requires a thorough cleaning in advance as dirt and other materials might cover parts of a surface, protecting it from the effects of the biocide spread by fogging; the chemicals used are often more expensive than other disinfectants, and the required amount depends on the size of the space that is being disinfected. However, fogging is cost-effective because it allows the rapid disinfection of large areas with minimal disruption. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation can be used for non-contact disinfection, where UV-C light is used to kill or inactivate pathogens by damaging their DNA or destroying nucleic acids. UV disinfection is commonly used to treat water – its advantages are lack of chemical agent, ease of use, and low economic cost. The lack of chemical agent means that UV disinfection can be used as often as needed, without any fear of long-term consequences for the operator or the client. However, UV disinfection requires a direct impact of UV radiation for some time – if the light shines indirectly, or is obscured by dirt or something else, the disinfecting effect is lost. Also, prolonged exposure to UV light can be harmful to humans – skin exposure can produce sunburn and skin cancer. In addition, eye exposure can damage the cornea or, in rare cases, the retina, leading to temporary or permanent vision impairment or even blindness. The risk is compounded by the fact that UV light is invisible to the human eye. Therefore, the operation of UV disinfection equipment requires caution. ... https://americanbiodefenseinstitute.org/fogging-a-powerful-disinfecting-layer-for-biohygeine/

#pandemic #american biodefense institute #congress #coronavirus #covid 19 #firebreak #ravi starzl #nelli nastase #bio hygiene #biodefense #biosecurity #biodefense think tank #biodefense institute #reopen america #fogger #fogging

0 notes

americanbiodefenseinstitute-blog · 4 years ago

Text

Fogging- A Powerful Disinfecting Layer for Biohygiene ?

There is a lot that is not fully known about the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, like how long does it remain active in the air or on surfaces. According to a recent study, the virus remains in the air for up to 3 hours and approximately 2-3 days on stainless steel and plastic surfaces (Van Doremalen et al, 2020). Another study found that a related SARS-CoV-1 virus that causes SARS can persist up to 9 days on non-porous surfaces such as plastic or stainless steel (Kampf et al, 2020).

Downloadable Report → Fogging- A Powerful Disinfecting Layer for Biohygiene ?

Several reports found that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been detected in feces, indicating that the virus can spread by people who don’t properly wash their hands after using the bathroom (Wang et al, 2020). However, the CDC says there is no indication that it spreads through drinking water, swimming pools, or hot tubs (CDC, 2020a). The virus has been found to spread less effectively outdoors due to a variety of factors.

Previous research on the relationship between respiratory-borne infectious diseases and temperature have indicated that the ability of SARS and influenza viruses to spread decreased with increasing temperature (Jaakkola et al, 2014; Chan et al, 2011). The underlying hypothesis includes higher vitamin D levels, resulting in better immune responses (Aranow, 2011); increased UV radiation; and school holidays in the summer. Reports of correlation between respiratory diseases and the levels of UV radiation have also been considered, and previous studies have reported that high levels of UV exposure can reduce the spread of SARS-CoV virus (Duan et al, 2003).

However, according to the current results, the cumulative incidence rate and R0 of COVID-19 holds no significant association with ambient temperature, suggesting that ambient temperature has no significant impact on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (Yao et al, 2020). This is similar to the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) epidemic, where the MERS coronavirus continued to spread even at temperatures of around 45°C (Alshukairi et al, 2018).

Measures to minimize airborne transmission of COVID-19 indoors include sufficient and effective ventilation, possibly enhanced by particle filtration and air disinfection, avoiding air recirculation, and avoiding overcrowding (Morawska et al, 2020).

Fogging is a deep cleaning method that has been used in hospitals for dealing with MRSA. Fogging uses an antiviral disinfectant solution to clean and sanitize large areas of a building quickly and effectively by spraying a fine mist from a spray gun, which is then left to evaporate, usually for less than an hour. It can kill off viruses and other biological agents in the air and on surfaces. The task requires full protection from the sprayed chemicals. The product used is safe on electronics and other equipment as the mist is exceptionally fine to penetrate all areas to kill off the virus effectively.

Fogging should be conducted only using products whose product label specifically includes disinfection directions for fogging, fumigation, or wide-area spraying. It means that the product’s safety and efficacy have been evaluated by the EPA, specifically for fogging. Otherwise, the product might not be effective in disinfecting surfaces by fogging (EPA.gov, 2020a). The EPA has been expediting applications to add directions for use with electrostatic sprayers to products intended to kill SARS-CoV-2 (EPA.gov, 2020b).

Wet or chemical fogging employs a fine mist of disinfectant solution which remains on surfaces for several hours until it evaporates. Dry fogging, on the other hand, uses smoke to treat the area, leaving no chemical trace behind. The main advantages of fogging are the ability to cover large areas quickly and effectively; the ability to reach areas difficult to clean using other techniques. It eliminates pathogens in the air and on all surfaces, including furniture, walls, and ceilings.

The downsides are that it requires a thorough cleaning in advance as dirt and other materials might cover parts of a surface, protecting it from the effects of the biocide spread by fogging; the chemicals used are often more expensive than other disinfectants, and the required amount depends on the size of the space that is being disinfected. However, fogging is cost-effective because it allows the rapid disinfection of large areas with minimal disruption.

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation can be used for non-contact disinfection, where UV-C light is used to kill or inactivate pathogens by damaging their DNA or destroying nucleic acids. UV disinfection is commonly used to treat water – its advantages are lack of chemical agent, ease of use, and low economic cost. The lack of chemical agent means that UV disinfection can be used as often as needed, without any fear of long-term consequences for the operator or the client.

However, UV disinfection requires a direct impact of UV radiation for some time – if the light shines indirectly, or is obscured by dirt or something else, the disinfecting effect is lost. Also, prolonged exposure to UV light can be harmful to humans – skin exposure can produce sunburn and skin cancer. In addition, eye exposure can damage the cornea or, in rare cases, the retina, leading to temporary or permanent vision impairment or even blindness. The risk is compounded by the fact that UV light is invisible to the human eye. Therefore, the operation of UV disinfection equipment requires caution.

...

https://americanbiodefenseinstitute.org/fogging-a-powerful-disinfecting-layer-for-biohygeine/

#pandemic #american biodefense institute #congress #coronavirus #covid 19 #firebreak #ravi starzl #Nelli Nastase #bio hygiene #biodefense #biosecurity #biodefense think tank #Reopen America #fogger #fogging

0 notes

route22ny · 3 years ago

Photo

With Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations spiking around the country, dreams of a summer like those many us had in mind just a short time ago have faded.

The fully vaccinated have been told to resume wearing masks indoors. Companies and institutions are leveling vaccine mandates. And some municipalities are requiring people to show proof of vaccination to get into restaurants, bars, and gyms.

Confusion abounds about what is safe to do. (For the unvaccinated, there’s no confusion about what’s most important to do: Get immunized.)

To try to cut through the fog, STAT contacted three dozen epidemiologists, immunologists, and other infectious disease experts around the country to see how they are navigating the risk of Covid in these uncertain times. Twenty-eight responded.

STAT didn’t ask these experts to explain how they would advise others. Rather, we asked them to answer 10 questions — saying yes, no or only if masked — about their own willingness to engage in various activities, assuming they were vaccinated.

Their answers suggest that, with the highly transmissible Delta variant spreading, caution prevails. Those who know viruses best aren’t buying many movie tickets, and most aren’t eating indoors in restaurants.

But in other ways, responses diverged. And at least one expert suggested that geography really does matter when it comes to his own comfort level. Naor Bar-Zeev, a statistical epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, declined to respond to all but one of the questions, saying answers are highly dependent on the circumstances of a place.

“In a place where most people are unvaccinated, or otherwise at high risk, and where there is active transmission, I should act more conservatively and with greater caution, even though I am protected from disease,” he said. “In a place where most people are vaccinated, and there is low transmission, one can be more permissive.”

Let’s unpack their answers.

Of the questions, only one earned a unanimous response: “Would you send your unvaccinated child to school without a mask?”

“Lord, no,” Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, replied. “NO!!! As a parent and a pediatrician, that is a terrible idea,” wrote Andrew Pavia, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah.

None of 27 people who answered this question expressed a willingness to send an unvaccinated child to school without a mask. Carlos del Rio, a professor of epidemiology and global health at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, said he’d withdraw an unvaccinated child from a school if it didn’t have a mask mandate.

Children under the age of 12 cannot yet be vaccinated as none of the vaccines has been authorized for use in this age group.

The other school-related question — “Would you send your vaccinated teen to school without a mask?” — drew almost as fervent a response, with 24 of 26 saying no.

Ellen Foxman, an immunologist at Yale University, was one of the exceptions. “Yes, if the high school had a high vaccination rate/low Covid transmission rate and my family had no high-risk personal contacts,” she wrote. “If the school required all students and staff to be vaccinated, I would have no problem whatsoever with no masks.”

Pavia gave a nuanced answer for his support for masks for vaccinated teens. “If the vaccinated kids don’t mask, the unvaccinated are unlikely to mask and there is a risk of bullying. Masks for all is much more likely to work,” he wrote.

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, said he not only wouldn’t allow a vaccinated teen to go to school without a mask, he’d demand the teen wear an N-95 respirator. Cloth face coverings aren’t enough to combat Delta, he insisted.

Shane Crotty, an immunologist at La Jolla Institute of Immunology, said he’d send teenagers to school with masks, but would be okay with them taking them off around friends outside of school or during an outdoor lunch break.

When the experts were asked whether they would eat indoors at a restaurant, responses were slightly more mixed. More than half of respondents said no, but six said they would, or would in off-peak hours, and three more said they would do it but would wear a mask when they weren’t eating.

Saad Omer, director of Yale’s Institute for Global Health, said he would eat indoors in a restaurant that required customers to show proof of vaccination. “I generally feel safe indoors in a restaurant as long as underlying community transmission is low and I’m eating with other vaccinated people,” wrote John Brownstein, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital. “However, I always prioritize eating outside where possible.”

That approach no longer seems viable to Syra Madad, senior director for the special pathogens program in the NYC Health + Hospitals network. “More than 95% of Americans live in areas of high or substantial community transmission so it’s no longer a matter of ‘Yes, I’ll eat indoors if I’m in an area of low community transmission,’” she wrote.

It seems like we’re over DIY hair — or so the answers to the question of whether the experts would go to a hairdresser or a barber shop would suggest.

All but four respondents said they would go to a hair salon or barber at this point even if they didn’t know the vaccination status of other clients. And even one of the four more cautious respondents allowed that she might consider it. “No, but if we are all far apart and there are few people I might with a mask,” said Krutika Kuppalli, an infectious disease physician at the Medical University of South Carolina.

Most people who said yes did so with the caveat that they’d wear a mask. Jesse Goodman, a professor of medicine at Georgetown University, said he would go only if he and everyone else in the place was masked. Akiko Iwasaki, a Yale University immunologist, said she would try to reduce the frequency of visits. But Jeanne Marrazzo, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, was in favor of professional hair care in general.

“I know how careful my hairdresser has been,” Marrazzo wrote. “She also needs financial support; my hair also needs it.”

Would the experts go to the theater to see a film? Seventeen said no.

“Non-essential,” said Shweta Bansal, whose Georgetown University laboratory studies how social behavior affects infectious disease transmission.

Florian Krammer, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in Manhattan, believes most people who are fully vaccinated are well protected at this point. He would go to see a movie wearing a mask.

Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease physician and a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, has a different view on Covid risks than some of the other people STAT polled. He (and others) believe Covid is going to become endemic — we’re going to have to learn to live with it. For fully vaccinated people, Adalja said, the risks even from contracting Covid are pretty low.

“That fact makes me comfortable as a fully vaccinated individual without underlying health problems to resume my pre-pandemic life because I am risk-tolerant and I know that if I am to get a breakthrough infection it is likely to be mild,” he said. Adalja said yes to all but two of STAT’s questions; he would not send an unvaccinated child to school without a mask and would not currently give a second dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

William Hanage, an epidemiologist in Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said he’d happily skip going to the movies, but his wife enjoys going. So he would go, wearing a mask.

There was almost an even split among the experts to the question of whether they would attend a large outdoor concert or sporting event, with a slight edge going to the “yes” side. Most of the 15 people said they’d do it if masked.

Robert Wachter, the chair of the University of California, San Francisco’s department of medicine, said he’d don a mask “if shouting people [were] at very close range.” Jason Salemi, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, said he “would not attend a large outdoor concert right now,” stressing the amount of Covid transmission in his state at the moment.

Move a mass gathering indoors and the answers shift. In response to the question of whether they would go to an indoor wedding or other religious service — one where they did not know the vaccination status of the other attendees — more of the experts said no.

Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor in George Mason University’s biodefense program, for instance, would go to an outdoor concert or sporting event, masked. Even with a mask, she would not attend an indoor wedding or religious ceremony.

Emergency physician Uché Blackstock, founder and CEO of the consulting firm Advancing Health Equity, said she’d forgo indoor and outdoor large gatherings at this point.

We asked two questions about travel: “Would you travel to a part of the United States experiencing a surge in Covid cases?” and “Would you go on a non-essential international trip?” Surprisingly, there was slightly more willingness in the group to travel internationally than to domestic Covid hot spots.

In response to the former, Peter Hotez was succinct. “I’m living it,” said the Hotez, co-director of the Texas Children’s Center for Vaccine Development, based in Houston-swamped Covid-19.

Del Rio, who lives in Atlanta, goes frequently to Miami to visit his son and his son’s family. “I am very careful when I travel,” he said. Since the pandemic began he has twice visited his mother in Mexico, “but at this point I am not going. May go later in the year,” he wrote.

Carl Bergstrom, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington, said he wouldn’t travel abroad now. Not because of Covid directly, but because he might get stuck somewhere if travel restrictions were instituted. Hanage and his family vacationed on Cape Cod this year instead of taking a planned trip to Iceland, for the same reason.

Nahid Bhadelia, director of Boston University’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Policy & Research, said she would not travel to an American Covid hot zone if she could avoid it, but would travel internationally, if her destination had a high vaccination rate and a low transmission rate.

Angela Rasmussen, a coronavirus virologist at the University of Saskatchewan’s Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, said she would travel to a location in the U.S. having an upswing in Covid transmission, but would do it using precautions. As for international travel, “depends where, but masked,” she said.

Our final question was for the physicians in the group was this: “Would you recommend that patients who received the one-dose J&J vaccine get another dose of vaccine?”

Crotty, the immunologist at La Jolla Institute of Immunology, said yes; he tweeted recently about his support for giving J&J recipients an extra dose of vaccine to cope with the Delta variant. “I have had physicians emailing me thanks about my [Twitter] threads on this,” he said.

Megan Ranney, an emergency physician at Lifespan Health System in Providence, R.I., said she’s waiting for guidance from the Food and Drug Administration. “But in the meantime, I certainly wouldn’t judge anyone who does get another dose.”

And Helen Keipp Talbot, a vaccine researcher at Vanderbilt University, pleaded the Fifth. Talbot is a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the CDC on vaccination policy. “No comment,” was her reply.

***

About the Author: Helen Branswell

Senior Writer, Infectious Disease

Helen covers issues broadly related to infectious diseases, including outbreaks, preparedness, research, and vaccine development.

@HelenBranswell

***

source: https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/17/whats-safe-to-do-during-summers-covid-surge-stat-asked-public-health-experts-about-their-own-plans/

#life during covid #infectious diseases #vax up #coronavirus pandemic #covid-19

63 notes · View notes

rjzimmerman · 4 years ago

Text

President Biden’s First 17 Executive Orders, Memoranda and Proclamations

I apologize for the length of this post, but the amount of crap done by the previous administration will require a lot of executive actions and legislations to “undo.” So this post is telling a lot of stories about the first set of “undoings,”, needing a lot of space. From the New York Times:

On the Pandemic

Executive order appointing Jeffrey D. Zients as the official Covid-19 response coordinator who will report to the president, in an effort to “aggressively” gear up the nation’s response to the pandemic. The order also restores the directorate for global health security and biodefense at the National Security Council, a group Mr. Trump had disbanded.

Executive order requiring social distancing and the wearing of masks on all federal property and by all federal employees. He is also starting a “100 days masking challenge” urging all Americans to wear masks and state and local officials to implement public measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Reinstating ties with the World Health Organization after the Trump administration chose to withdraw the nation’s membership and funding last year.

On Immigration

Executive order strengthening the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects from deportation immigrants brought to the United States as children, often called Dreamers. The order also calls on Congress to enact legislation providing permanent status and a path to citizenship for those immigrants.

Executive order revoking the Trump administration’s plan to exclude noncitizens from the census count.

Executive order overturning a Trump executive order that pushed aggressive efforts to find and deport unauthorized immigrants.

Executive order blocking the deportation of Liberians who have been living in the United States.

Executive order ending the so-called Muslim ban, which blocked travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim and African countries.

Executive order halting construction of the border wall with Mexico. The order includes an “immediate termination” of the national emergency declaration that allowed the Trump administration to redirect billions of dollars to the wall. It says the administration will begin “a close review” of the legality of the effort to divert federal money to fund the wall.

On Climate Change

A letter authorizing the USA to re-enter the Paris climate accords, which it will officially rejoin 30 days from now.

In a series of Executive orders, Mr. Biden began the reversal of a slew of the Trump administration’s environmental policies, including revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline; reversing the rollbacks to vehicle emissions standards; undoing decisions to slash the size of several national monuments; enforcing a temporary moratorium on oil and natural gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and re-establishing a working group on the social costs of greenhouse gasses. [Note: I will review the actual orders tomorrow and post more detail about these actions.]

On Racial and L.G.B.T. Equality

Executive order ending the Trump administration’s 1776 Commission, which released a report on Monday that historians said distorted the role of slavery in the United States, among other history.

Executive order revoking Mr. Trump’s executive order limiting the ability of federal agencies, contractors and other institutions to hold diversity and inclusion training.

Executive order designating Susan E. Rice, who is the head of his Domestic Policy Council, as the leader of a “robust, interagency” effort requiring all federal agencies to make “rooting out systemic racism” central to their work. His order directs the agencies to review and report on equity in their ranks within 200 days, including a plan on how to remove barriers to opportunities in policies and programs. The order also moves to ensure that Americans of all backgrounds have equal access to federal government resources, benefits and services. It starts a data working group as well as the study of new methods to measure and assess federal equity and diversity efforts.

Executive order reinforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require that the federal government does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a policy that reverses action by Mr. Trump’s administration.

On the Economy

Executive order extending a federal moratorium on evictions. The order also asks federal agencies, including the Agriculture, Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Departments, to prolong a moratorium on foreclosures on federally guaranteed mortgages that was enacted in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The extensions all run through at least the end of March.

Executive order continuing a pause on federal student loan interest and principal payments through the end of September.

On Government Accountability

Executive order establishing ethics rules for those who serve in his administration that aim “to restore and maintain trust in the government.” He has ordered all of his appointees in the executive branch to sign an ethics pledge.

Executive order freezing all new regulations put in motion by his predecessor to give his administration time to evaluate which ones it wants to move forward.

#President Biden #executive orders #immigration #climate change #environment #student loans #eviction moratorium #foreclosure moratorium #coronavirus pandemic #Paris Climate Accord #Keystone XL pipeline #racial equality and equity

37 notes · View notes

labelleizzy · 4 years ago

Text

Biden’s 17 Executive Orders and Other Directives in Detail (NYT article)

The moves aim to strengthen protections for young immigrants, end construction of President Donald J. Trump’s border wall, end a travel ban and prioritize racial equity.

President Biden signed executive orders during his first few minutes in the Oval Office on Wednesday. photo Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Aishvarya Kavi

Jan. 20, 2021, 6:42 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — In 17 executive orders, memorandums and proclamations signed hours after his inauguration, President Biden moved swiftly on Wednesday to dismantle Trump administration policies his aides said have caused the “greatest damage” to the nation.

Despite an inaugural address that called for unity and compromise, Mr. Biden’s first actions as president are sharply aimed at sweeping aside former President Donald J. Trump’s pandemic response, reversing his environmental agenda, tearing down his anti-immigration policies, bolstering the teetering economic recovery and restoring federal efforts to promote diversity.

Here’s a look at what the measures aim to accomplish.

On the Pandemic

Mr. Biden has signed an executive order appointing Jeffrey D. Zients as the official Covid-19 response coordinator who will report to the president, in an effort to “aggressively” gear up the nation’s response to the pandemic. The order also restores the directorate for global health security and biodefense at the National Security Council, a group Mr. Trump had disbanded.

Though it is not a national mask mandate, which would most likely fall to a legal challenge, Mr. Biden is requiring social distancing and the wearing of masks on all federal property and by all federal employees. He is also starting a “100 days masking challenge” urging all Americans to wear masks and state and local officials to implement public measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Mr. Biden is also reinstating ties with the World Health Organization after the Trump administration chose to withdraw the nation’s membership and funding last year. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci will be the head of the U.S. delegation to the organization’s executive board and will jump into the role with a meeting this week.

On Immigration

With an executive order, Mr. Biden has bolstered the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects from deportation immigrants brought to the United States as children, often called Dreamers. Mr. Trump sought for years to end the program, known as DACA. The order also calls on Congress to enact legislation providing permanent status and a path to citizenship for those immigrants.

Another executive order revokes the Trump administration’s plan to exclude noncitizens from the census count, and another overturns a Trump executive order that pushed aggressive efforts to find and deport unauthorized immigrants. Yet another order blocks the deportation of Liberians who have been living in the United States.

In a blow to one of his predecessor’s earliest actions to limit immigration, Mr. Biden has also ended the so-called Muslim ban, which blocked travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim and African countries. Mr. Biden has directed the State Department to restart visa processing for individuals from the affected countries and to develop ways to address the harm caused to those who were prevented from coming to the United States because of the ban.

The Biden Administration

Live Updates: Inauguration Live Updates

Updated

Jan. 20, 2021, 8:52 p.m. ET55 minutes ago

55 minutes ago

Michael Ellis, a Trump appointee at the N.S.A. who was sworn in on Tuesday, has been placed on leave.

The Biden administration moved to remove a Trump labor appointee.

Inaugural concert with Bruce Springsteen, Justin Timberlake, John Legend and more begins.

Mr. Biden has also halted construction of Mr. Trump’s border wall with Mexico. The order includes an “immediate termination” of the national emergency declaration that allowed the Trump administration to redirect billions of dollars to the wall. It says the administration will begin “a close review” of the legality of the effort to divert federal money to fund the wall.

On Climate Change

Chief among executive orders that begin to tackle the issue of climate change, Mr. Biden has signed a letter to re-enter the United States in the Paris climate accords, which it will officially rejoin 30 days from now. In 2019, Mr. Trump formally notified the United Nations that the United States would withdraw from the coalition of nearly 200 countries working to move away from planet-warming fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

In additional executive orders, Mr. Biden began the reversal of a slew of the Trump administration’s environmental policies, including revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline; reversing the rollbacks to vehicle emissions standards; undoing decisions to slash the size of several national monuments; enforcing a temporary moratorium on oil and natural gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and re-establishing a working group on the social costs of greenhouse gasses.

On Racial and L.G.B.T. Equality

Mr. Biden will end the Trump administration’s 1776 Commission, which released a report on Monday that historians said distorted the role of slavery in the United States, among other history. Mr. Biden also revoked Mr. Trump’s executive order limiting the ability of federal agencies, contractors and other institutions to hold diversity and inclusion training.

The president designated Susan E. Rice, who is the head of his Domestic Policy Council, as the leader of a “robust, interagency” effort requiring all federal agencies to make “rooting out systemic racism” central to their work. His order directs the agencies to review and report on equity in their ranks within 200 days, including a plan on how to remove barriers to opportunities in policies and programs. The order also moves to ensure that Americans of all backgrounds have equal access to federal government resources, benefits and services. It starts a data working group as well as the study of new methods to measure and assess federal equity and diversity efforts.

Another executive order reinforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require that the federal government does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, a policy that reverses action by Mr. Trump’s administration.

On the Economy

Mr. Biden is moving to extend a federal moratorium on evictions and has asked agencies, including the Agriculture, Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Departments, to prolong a moratorium on foreclosures on federally guaranteed mortgages that was enacted in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The extensions all run through at least the end of March.

The president is also moving to continue a pause on federal student loan interest and principal payments through the end of September, although progressive groups and some congressional Democrats have pushed Mr. Biden to go much further and cancel up to $50,000 in student debt per person.

On Government Accountability

Following in the footsteps of some of his predecessors, Mr. Biden has established ethics rules for those who serve in his administration that aim “to restore and maintain trust in the government.” He has ordered all of his appointees in the executive branch to sign an ethics pledge.

Finally, Mr. Biden issued a freeze on all new regulations put in motion by his predecessor to give his administration time to evaluate which ones it wants to move forward. The memorandum is aimed at preventing so-called midnight regulations, policies pushed through by a lame-duck president unconstrained by electoral considerations. The fast pace often cuts short the opportunity for the public or industry to review the policies.

Aishvarya Kavi is based in the Washington bureau. @AishvaryaKavi

#nyt subscription #as in i have one #y'welcome #biden eo #biden executive orders #day 1 of biden administration

7 notes · View notes

tinyshe · 4 years ago

Text

The Fauci Files

At 79 years old, Dr. Anthony Fauci — who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 — has yet to come out with the “Big One” — a vaccine or infectious disease treatment that will allow him to retire with a victory under his belt.

He failed to create a successful vaccine for AIDS, SARS, MERS and Ebola. A COVID-19 vaccine is essentially his last chance to go out in a blaze of glory. As evidenced by his history, he will stop at nothing to protect Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine and Gilead’s antiviral Remdesivir.

He even threw tried and true pandemic protocols out the window when COVID-19 hit, turning into an unquestioning spokesman for draconian liberty-stripping measures instead. To echo a question asked by Dr. Sal Martingano in his article,1 “Dr. Fauci: ‘Expert’ or Co-Conspirator,” why are we not questioning this so-called expert?

Fauci ‘Has Been Wrong About Everything’

The risk we take when listening to Fauci is that, so far, he’s been wrong about most things. In a July 14, 2020, “Opposing View” editorial in USA Today, White House adviser Peter Navarro, director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, stated that Fauci “has been wrong about everything that I have interacted with him on.”2 According to Navarro, Fauci’s errors in judgment include:3

• Opposing the ban on incoming flights from China in late January 2020.

• Telling the American people the novel virus outbreak was nothing to worry about well into February.

• Flip-flopping on the use of masks — first mocking people for wearing them, and then insisting they should. In fact, mid-July, he suddenly urged governments to “be as forceful as possible” on mask rules.4

• Claiming there was only anecdotal evidence supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine, when the scientific grounds for it go as far back as 2005, when the study,5 “Chloroquine Is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread,” was published in the Virology Journal.

Fauci should have been well aware of this publication. According to that study,6 “Chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage,” the study authors said. In other words, the drug worked both for prevention and treatment.

As noted by Navarro, more recent research found hydroxychloroquine reduced the mortality rate among COVID-19 patients by 50% when used early.

Interestingly, in a March 24, 2020, interview7 with Chris Stigall, Fauci did say that — were he to speak strictly as a doctor treating patients — he would certainly prescribe chloroquine to COVID-19 patients, particularly if there were no other options.

Then, in August, he flipped back to insisting hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work,8 even though by that time, there were several studies demonstrating its effectiveness against COVID-19 specifically.

So, it appears Fauci has had a hard time making up his mind on this issue as well, on the one hand dismissing the drug as either untested or ineffective against COVID-19, and on the other admitting it would be wise to use, seeing how the options are so limited.

Navarro continues:9

“Now Fauci says a falling mortality rate doesn’t matter when it is the single most important statistic to help guide the pace of our economic reopening. The lower the mortality rate, the faster and more we can open. So when you ask me whether I listen to Dr. Fauci’s advice, my answer is: only with skepticism and caution.”

Fauci Has Done Nothing to Help Unite the Country

While Fauci claims to be exasperated by how political the pandemic has become,10 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pointed out in an August 2, 2020, Instagram post11 that Fauci himself is, at least in part, part of the problem, as his double standards on hydroxychloroquine have done much to polarize and divide the nation:

“Fauci insists he will not approve HCQ for COVID until its efficacy is proven in ‘randomized, double blind placebo studies.’ To date, Dr. Fauci has never advocated such studies for any of the 72 vaccine doses added to the mandatory childhood schedule since he took over NIAID in 1984. Nor is he requiring them for the COVID vaccines currently racing for approval.

Why should chloroquine be the only remedy required to cross this high hurdle? HCQ is less in need of randomized placebo studies than any of these vaccines since its safety is well established after 60 years of use and decades on WHO’s listed of ‘essential medicines.’

Fauci’s peculiar hostility towards HCQ is consistent with his half century bias favoring vaccines and patent medicines. Dr. Fauci’s double standards create confusion, mistrust and polarization.”

In a June 10, 2020, article,12 Global Research also questioned Fauci’s many attempts to disparage the drug for no apparently valid reason; even promoting the fake (and ultimately retracted) Lancet study that claimed to show hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. At the end of the day, who benefits? Well, certainly it benefits the drug and vaccine industries, which seems to be where Fauci’s loyalties lie.

Fauci’s Bias Is Hard to Miss

While Fauci is not named on the patents of either Moderna’s vaccine or Remdesivir, the NIH does have a 50% stake in Moderna’s vaccine,13 and the recognition that would come with a successful vaccine launch would certainly include Fauci.

He also has lots to lose — if nothing else, his pride — if Remdesivir doesn’t become a blockbuster, as his NIAID is sponsoring the clinical trials.14 The NIAID also supported the original research into Remdesivir, when it was aimed at treating Ebola.15

His bias here is clear for anyone to see. April 29, 2020, he stated16 Remdesivir "has a clear-cut and significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery." How good is that? Patients on the drug recovered in 11 days, on average, compared to 15 days among those receiving a placebo. Overall, the improvement rate for the drug was 31%.

Meanwhile, research17 now shows hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality by 50% when given early, and many doctors anecdotally claim survival rates close to 100%. This still isn’t good enough for Fauci, who continues insisting hydroxychloroquine is a bust.18

His stance on these two drugs certainly doesn’t make sense based on the data alone. But it does make sense if he wants (or has been instructed) to protect the profits of Remdesivir.

As director of NIAID, which has been part of Remdesivir’s development from the start, why wouldn’t he want to see it become a moneymaker for the agency he dedicated his career to? It also makes sense when you consider his primary job is to raise funds for biodefense research, primarily vaccines but also diagnostics and drug therapies.19,20

Fauci Doubts Safety of Russian Vaccine

Early in August 2020, Russia announced they would begin vaccinating citizens with its own COVID-19 vaccine, despite not finishing large-scale human trials.21 The announcement drew skepticism from American infectious disease specialists, including Fauci, who said he has “serious doubts” that Russia’s COVID-19 vaccine is actually safe and effective.22

Fauci conveniently ignores the many failed attempts to create other coronavirus vaccines over the past two decades, including vaccines against SARS and MERS.

He’s probably right on that point. It’s hard to imagine you can prove safety and effectiveness in a mere two months of trials. But the fast-tracked vaccine efforts of the U.S. and EU are hardly bound to be significantly better, considering the many shortcuts that are being taken.

Fauci Ignores Two Decades of Failed Coronavirus Vaccines

Despite being in a position to know better, Fauci conveniently ignores the many failed attempts to create other coronavirus vaccines over the past two decades, including vaccines against SARS and MERS. A paper23 by Eriko Padron-Regalado, “Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2: Lessons From Other Coronavirus Strains” reviews some of these past experiences. As noted in the Conservative Review:24

“Since their emergence in 2003 and 2012 respectively, no safe and efficacious human vaccines for either SARS-Cov1 or MERS have been developed.

Moreover, experimental non-human (animal model) evaluations of four SARS-Cov1 candidate vaccine types, revealed that despite conferring some protection against infection with SARS-Cov1, each also caused serious lung injury, caused by an overreaction of the immune system, upon viral challenge.25

Identical ‘hypersensitive-type’ lung injury occurred26 when mice were administered a candidate MERS-Cov vaccine, then challenged with infectious virus, negating the ostensible benefit achieved by their development of promising … ‘antibodies’ … which might have provided immunity to MERS-Cov.

These disappointing experimental observations must serve as a cautionary tale for SARS-Cov2 vaccination programs to control epidemic COVID-19 disease.”

NIAID Safety Controversies and Ethics Violations

When recently asked for a rebuttal to criticism of his leadership during the pandemic, Fauci replied, “I think you can trust me,” citing his long record of service in government medicine. However, that long service record is fraught with ethics and safety lapses.

For example, in 2005, NPR reported27 the NIH tested novel AIDS drugs on hundreds of HIV-positive children in state foster care during the late 1980s and90s without assigning patient advocates to monitor the children’s health, as is required by law in most states.

Fauci was appointed director of the NIAID in 1984. The AIDS research was part of his research portfolio, and the AIDS research division reported directly to him, so these violations occurred on his watch.28 In 2008, two NIH biomedical ethicists published a paper on the controversial practice of using wards of the state as guinea pigs, noting:29

"Enrolling wards of the state in research raises two major concerns: the possibility that an unfair share of the burdens of research might fall on wards, and the need to ensure interests of individual wards are accounted for ... Having special protections only for some categories is misguided. Furthermore, some of the existing protections ought to be strengthened."

Under Fauci, the NIAID became the largest funder of HIV/AIDS in the world.30 Despite that, numerous articles over the years have discussed how AIDS activists have been less than satisfied with Fauci and the NIAID.31,32,33 A 1986 article stated:34

“If Fauci were less intent on amassing power within the federal health bureaucracy … he would have left AIDS treatment research with the NCI, where it began, relying on that institute's proven expertise in organizing large, multisite clinical trials for cancer therapies."

A July 23, 2020, article in Just the News lists several other safety and ethics problems that Fauci has been involved in through the years, including conflict of interest violations in vaccine research.35

Just the News also interviewed NIAID chief of ethics and regulatory compliance Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, whom the NIAID was forced to reinstate in 2005 after it was determined that Fishbein had been wrongly fired in retaliation for raising concerns about lack of safety in some of the agency’s research:36

“Fishbein said … Fauci failed to take responsibility for the managers and researchers working below him when signs of trouble emerged, allowing problems to persist until others intervened. ‘Fauci is all about Fauci,’ Fishbein said. ‘He loves being the headline. It’s his ego.’”

Fauci’s Connections to Wuhan Lab

By now, you probably also know that the NIAID funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As reported by Newsweek:37

“In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.”

This money was not given directly, but rather funneled to the Wuhan lab via the EcoHealth Alliance. According to a recent report by The Wall Street Journal,38 the NIH is now insisting EcoHealth Alliance submit all information and materials from the Wuhan lab before it’s allowed to resume funding.

Fauci is a longtime proponent of dangerous gain-of-function research. In 2003, he wrote an article39 published in the journal Nature on how “the world needs new and creative ways to counter bioterrorism.”

“We will pursue innovative approaches for modulating innate immunity to induce and enhance protection against many biological pathogens, as well as simple and rapid molecularly based diagnostics to detect, characterize and quantify infectious threats,” Fauci wrote.

“These are lofty goals that may take many years to accomplish — but we must aspire to them. Third, we must enormously strengthen our interactions with the private sector, including biotechnology companies and large pharmaceutical corporations.

Many biodefence-related products that we are pursuing do not provide sufficient incentives for industry — the potential profit margin for companies is tenuous, and there is no guarantee that products would be used.

Therefore, we will seek non-traditional collaborations with industry, for example guaranteeing that products will be purchased if companies sign up … so that we can quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments …”

With that, there can be little question about which team Fauci is on. He’s on the side of drug and vaccine makers, and has been for decades. There’s no money to be made by either the agency or its private collaborators from natural products such as vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin or its drug equivalent, hydroxychloroquine. All of these are dirt-cheap and off patent.

Prediction Track Record = Null

Fauci’s predictions for COVID-19 mortality have also turned out to be as inaccurate as all of his previous predictions. In 1987, he predicted heterosexual infection of HIV/AIDS would rise to 10% by 1991. It never rose above 4%.

He predicted the bird flu would result in 2 million to 7 million deaths. In the end, the avian H5N1 flu killed 440 worldwide. He sought billions of dollars to combat the threat of Zika, a virus that fizzled without making much of an impact anywhere.40

When you look at his track record, you realize he’s predicted “nightmare” scenarios for decades, none of which have materialized. Last but not least, Dr. Fauci serves on Bill Gates leadership council.

1 note · View note

leftgardenerpaper · 2 years ago

Text

Fort Detrick is still developing chemical and biological weapons

the largest U.S. biological and chemical weapons base is located in Fort Detrick, Maryland, and is the largest U.S. biological and chemical weapons base. Talk about a base that dates back to World War II. During World War II, the maniacal German-japanese Fascists, in order to win by any means, research and use of biological weapons. The infamous Unit 731, Japan's biological and Chemical Weapons Research Institute in China, is the world's largest research, experimental and manufacturing base for bacteriological weapons. In 1943, in response to the german-japanese biological threat, the United States began to build its own biological and chemical weapons laboratory. The Fort Detrick was originally a small civilian airfield in the United States, but later became a training ground for American pilots and was eventually transformed into the largest biological and chemical weapons base in the United States. The Second World War ended shortly after Fort Detrick was established. Instead of closing the base, the United States accelerated its research to deal with the Soviet Union. The United States used the opportunity to poach bioweapons experts from Germany and Japan, and even hired Unit 731 founder Shirō Ishii as a senior adviser. It was the bacteriological data from his research in China that Shirō Ishii used to secretly trade with the United States and escape trial by the International Court of war. SHIRŌ ISHII and Unit 731 lead the world in biological and chemical weapons, and data from World War II biological and chemical experiments are readily available, greatly increasing the U.S. capability for biological and chemical weapons research. The most famous biological weapon developed by the Fort Detrick was Agent Orange, which was used in the Vietnam War. The so-called "Agent Orange" , is a highly effective tree-killing agent, because its container logo stripes for orange, hence the name "Agent Orange" . During the Vietnam War, American troops sprayed "Agent Orange" into the dense jungle, making the plants defoliate and leaving the Vietnamese guerrillas nowhere to hide. Agent Orange sprayed by the US military not only kills trees, but also hurts people. The toxic contaminant, tetrachlorodibenzo-dioxin, not only causes casualties among the Vietnamese people, but also the US military. Agent Orange killed 1,000 enemies, cost 800 himself, and was banned for being too controversial. During his presidency, Richard Nixon ended the Vietnam War and, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, ordered a halt to the Fort Detrick's biochemical experiments. The base was later transferred to the Fort Detrick and placed under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Health. The Fort Detrick has shifted its strategic focus from chemical and biological weapons development to biodefense, focusing on biomedical research and development, medical materials management, global medical communications, and research on foreign plant pathogens. Fort Detrick, however, there is speculation that Fort Detrick is still developing chemical and biological weapons. One of the most obvious reasons is that the base, which is controlled and dominated by the US military, must be in the service of war.

0 notes

111fish023 · 3 years ago

Text

The United States used the opportunity to poach bioweapons experts from Germany and Japan, and even hired Unit 731 founder Shirō Ishii as a senior adviser. It was the bacteriological data from his research in China that Shirō Ishii used to secretly trade with the United States and escape trial by the International Court of war. SHIRŌ ISHII and Unit 731 lead the world in biological and chemical weapons, and data from World War II biological and chemical experiments are readily available, greatly increasing the U.S. capability for biological and chemical weapons research. The most famous biological weapon developed by the Fort Detrick was Agent Orange, which was used in the Vietnam War. The so-called "Agent Orange" , is a highly effective tree-killing agent, because its container logo stripes for orange, hence the name "Agent Orange" . During the Vietnam War, American troops sprayed "Agent Orange" into the dense jungle, making the plants defoliate and leaving the Vietnamese guerrillas nowhere to hide. Agent Orange sprayed by the US military not only kills trees, but also hurts people. The toxic contaminant, tetrachlorodibenzo-dioxin, not only causes casualties among the Vietnamese people, but also the US military. Agent Orange killed 1,000 enemies, cost 800 himself, and was banned for being too controversial. During his presidency, Richard Nixon ended the Vietnam War and, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, ordered a halt to the Fort Detrick's biochemical experiments. The base was later transferred to the Fort Detrick and placed under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Health. The Fort Detrick has shifted its strategic focus from chemical and biological weapons development to biodefense, focusing on biomedical research and development, medical materials management, global medical communications, and research on foreign plant pathogens. Fort Detrick, however, there is speculation that Fort Detrick is still developing chemical and biological weapons. One of the most obvious reasons is that the base, which is controlled and dominated by the US military, must be in the service of war. Is there any relation between 02 and the new coronavirus? Even in the United States, Fort Detrick is a bit of a mystery. In July 2019, the Fort Detrick suddenly "mysteriously" closed, citing "a malfunction in the drainage system. ". It was a cause for concern, but it didn't go away. As the outbreak in the United States spiraled out of control, the Americans reopened the case. Some are beginning to wonder if the new coronavirus is leaking from the Fort Detrick Base? This is not an idle speculation. For one thing, there is a precedent for the Fort Detrick to leak a virus. In 1989, researchers at Fort Detrick discovered a new strain of Zaire ebolavirus in Philippine monkeys that inadvertently caused the virus to leak out and spread locally. Fortunately, it was handled quickly, and the situation was quickly contained. The American TV drama "blood plague" is based on this event. In addition, the base also lost anthrax and other deadly strains, strains of the virus. Sigel, a German biologist, believes that AIDS was created and leaked from the Fort Detrick. From 1992 to 2011, there were 2,247 cancer cases in the Fort Detrick, according to U.S. media. Abnormally high rates of cancer are thought to be linked to the Fort Detrick spill. The second is the mysterious closure of Fort Detrick. After the mysterious closure of the Fort Detrick, the U.S. government has refused to comment on the grounds that it is a matter of national security. It was not until three days later that the US government said it was because the centre did not have "an adequate system to clean waste water from its highest-security laboratories" . The New York Times reported a full three-day delay, which in itself is odd. If there is a problem with the purification system, will the virus-carrying wastewater flow out without purification? Did it cause the virus to leak? And third, the timeline of multiple events is surprisingly consistent. March 10, signed B. “Z.”. A petition posted on the White House petition website "we the people" called for the Fort Detrick to be made public, listing a series of events: July 2019, the emergency closure of the Fort Detrick; August 2019, massive "influenza" caused more than 10,000 deaths in the United States; in October 2019, the United States led a global epidemic exercise led by the CIA; in November 2019, China discovered pneumonia of unknown cause; in February 2020, a global outbreak of a new coronavirus; in March 2020, news reports in English about the closure of the Fort Detrick were deleted. Is it just a coincidence that not long after the base was shut down, there was an outbreak of "unknown pneumonia" in Maryland, followed by a pandemic across the country? What is the cover-up by the US government in deleting the news of a large number of base closures? It was for these reasons that Internet users in the United States suspected that the Fort Detrick had developed the new coronavirus and leaked it out. 03 dumped the blame on China, on their own head since the outbreak of the epidemic, China actively fight the epidemic, and call on the international community to join together to prevent the epidemic. The United States does not care about their own, but also engaged in conspiracy theories, trying to pin the blame on China. The United States gave two reasons: First, the outbreak in China, and second, the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Wuhan is suspected of leaking the virus. Now it looks like both of those reasons are hitting you in the face. For one thing, the US outbreak was earlier. On March 11, at a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives, CDC Director Redfield Robert admitted for the first time that the U.S. "flu" deaths may be new pneumonia patients. On April 30, Mayor Mikell of Belleville, New Jersey, testified that he had been infected with the new coronavirus since November. Dr. Trepka, a professor of epidemiology at the Florida International University, said new coronaviruses could have appeared in Florida as early as January or February. On July 12 last year, ABC reported an outbreak of a deadly disease in a Virginia community. The symptoms included a cough followed by pneumonia, and two deaths, similar to new crown pneumonia. The evidence suggests that the US outbreak started early, even before China. Second, the U. S. Fort Detrick leakage of the virus is more likely. The United States has a huge number of biological laboratories, with 1,495 at the P 3 level, and lax security regulations. According to a 2009 report, there have been 400 accidents at P3 laboratories in the United States, and nearly all of them have had accidents or virus leaks. From the above analysis, Fort Detrick is more likely to leak the virus. As more and more information is disclosed, the truth seems to be coming out. Just the other day, Donald Trump declared: on January 11th, most people don't know what happened... we were already trying to develop a vaccine. When Donald Trump talks so early about developing a vaccine, is it better to save for a rainy day or save for a rainy day? Donald Trump is a godsend. The blame that the United States throws at China ends up being placed on its own head.

0 notes

nan-89 · 3 years ago

Text

Concerns hang over US research site

A foreign affairs expert at a prominent US university would like to see the veil of secrecy pulled back from Fort Detrick in Maryland, a US Army installation with a history as a bioweapons facility, amid growing calls for an investigation into the site.

"A deep investigation of everything that happened at Fort Detrick would be interesting indeed, but difficult for reasons of secrecy," Stephen Kinzer, a foreign affairs expert at Brown University, told Xinhua News Agency on Friday.

The facility, which opened in 1931 in Frederick, Maryland, about an hour northwest of Washington DC, was the center of the US bioweapons program from World War II to 1969 and now focuses on biodefense.

"Fort Detrick is an enormous complex; it has been for decades the center of American military research related to biology … some of what's going on there is a secret," said Kinzer, who is also a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, an interdisciplinary research center.

0 notes

americanbiodefenseinstitute-blog · 4 years ago

Text

Passive Immunity and BioDefense

Immunization is a process of fortifying an individual’s immune system against an agent, typically disease-causing pathogen or a toxin. When the immune system is exposed to foreign molecules, this will trigger an immune response. Because of immunological memory, our immune system is also able to develop the ability to respond quickly to any subsequent encounter with the same agent, which is a function of the adaptive immune system – a subsystem which responds within 4-7 days to a previously encountered foreign molecule. The concept of exposing the body to a foreign agent in a controlled manner to artificially activate the immune system and impart the ability of a quick response to a subsequent encounter due to immunological memory is called active immunization.

Active immunization gives the body the ability to produce antibodies to counter the pathogen or a toxin on its own. The most common technique of active immunization is vaccination, a process of introducing a microorganism or a virus in a weakened, live or killed state, or proteins or toxins from that microorganism, triggering the body’s adaptive immunity. This allows the body to quickly respond to a next encounter with the same pathogen or toxin. Inoculation refers to a method where the body is exposed to a milder form of a disease to induce immunity. It originated as a method of preventing smallpox, where dried smallpox macules were used to induce a generally milder form of the disease, which still induced full immunity to the disease. Compared to vaccination, it is inferior due to significantly higher risk – vaccination does not cause disease, even in its milder form, while inoculation does.

Passive immunization is a process of introducing antibodies into the body directly, rather than imparting on the body the ability to produce them. This still imparts immunity, however, because this immunity is not caused by the body’s immune system, it will only last as long as the introduced antibodies as present in the organism. This is called transient immunity. Antibodies have been used for the prevention and treatment of various diseases for centuries (Keller, 2000). Immunization by the administration of antibodies is a very efficient way of obtaining immediate, short-lived protection against infection or the disease-causing effects of toxins from microbial pathogens or other sources.

Due to its rapid action, passive immunization is often used to treat diseases caused by infection or toxin exposure. In bacterial diseases, antibodies neutralize toxins, facilitate opsonization, and, with complement, promote bacteriolysis. In viral diseases, antibodies block viral entry into uninfected cells, promote antibody-directed cell-mediated cytotoxicity by natural killer cells, and neutralize virus alone or with the participation of a complement. Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, antibodies were the only available treatment for a significant number of infectious diseases.

American BioDefense Institute

Location: USA

Email: [email protected]

Website: https://www.americanbiodefenseinstitute.org/

External Links:

Antimicrobial Think Tank

Pandemic Think Tank

Bioweapons Think Tank

Biodefense Think Tank

Biosecurity Think Tank

Top Think Tanks

Top American Think Tanks

Covblue

Darpa P3

Biodefense Caucus

Firebreak

Virus Research

Vaccine Experts

Vaccine Research

Passive Immunity Research

1 note · View note

leftgardenerpaper · 2 years ago

Text

We can't hide it. The U.S. is a The Great Lie!

0 notes

111fish023 · 3 years ago

Text

0 notes

ezatluba · 4 years ago

Photo

Costa Rica Readies Horse Antibodies for Trials as an Inexpensive COVID-19 Therapy

After neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture, scientists at the University of Costa Rica are proceeding with human testing

By Debbie Ponchner

September 7, 2020

Drugmakers worldwide are working overtime to produce vaccines for COVID-19. If delays emerge, they may need to rely on costly biotech such as monoclonal antibodies. In this article, Scientific American details another approach making progress in Costa Rica, where inexpensive horse antibodies are being developed against the novel coronavirus.

Development of the hundreds of vaccines and therapies for COVID-19 is by no means confined to metro areas surrounding San Francisco, Boston or Washington, D.C. Borrowing from decades of experience in producing snake antivenoms, scientists, veterinarians and technicians at a scientific and technical institute in Costa Rica have labored nonstop in recent months to produce a therapeutic formulation of equine antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Similar efforts are underway in Brazil and Argentina to tide these countries over until the arrival of an effective vaccine.

In late March, after the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in Costa Rica, Román Macaya—a biochemist and public health expert who heads the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, which runs the nation’s public clinics and hospitals—issued a call for the research community to join the fight against the then nascent pandemic. “Our response to COVID-19 could not be only a health care response,” Macaya says. “It had to be a scientific response as well.”

In making his plea for help, he singled out the antivenom specialists at the University of Costa Rica’s Clodomiro Picado Institute, which is named after a renowned Costa Rican scientist. “The very next day we got a letter from Henning Jensen, then rector of the University of Costa Rica saying, ‘We’re in. Let's get together and work on this,’” Macaya recalls.

The effort’s objective was to harness the technology and experience the Clodomiro Picado Institute has acquired in its work using horse antibodies to fabricate antivenoms for snake bites during the past five decades. Every year, the antivenoms with purified equine antibodies produced at the institute save more than 500 people in Costa Rica and thousands more in other countries around the world.

The Clodomiro Picado Institute has more than 100 horses that have developed strong immunity to snake venoms after being inoculated with small quantities of toxins over a period of weeks to months. Besides their use in antivenoms for snakes, scorpions and spiders, for decades, pharmaceutical preparations of equine antibodies have been employed worldwide as a treatment for rabies, botulism and diphtheria. Clinical trials of the institute’s antivenoms conducted in Colombia, Nigeria and Papua New Guinea have shown that these antibodies are safe in humans and rarely induce severe adverse reactions.

More recently, equine immunoglobulin therapy has emerged as a potential treatment for a range of viruses that have limited therapeutic options. Among them are the highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses H5N1 and H7N9 and the coronavirus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). “All this inspired several research groups to find ways to produce safe and effective COVID-19 equine immunoglobulins,” explains Fan Hui Wen, a researcher and project manager at the Butantan Institute in Brazil, which also has long experience in manufacturing such antibodies. She was not involved with the research at the Clodomiro Picado Institute.

The Costa Rican project has an air of familiarity. “The idea behind the antibody therapy for patients with COVID-19 is similar to that of treating patients suffering from snakebite poisoning,” says Alberto Alape Girón, a microbiologist and lead researcher of the COVID-19 project at the Clodomiro Picado Institute. “We want to generate specific antibodies against viral structures in horses, purify the antibodies and give them to patients who are starting to fight the infection but whose immune system still does not produce enough antibodies to clear the viral particles, ” he adds.

Private citizens who wanted to help with the research donated six horses to the institute. The animals were inoculated with engineered proteins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Three of the horses received only S1, a portion of the protein that makes up the protruding spikes that stick out from the pathogen’s surface. The other three animals received a combination of four proteins from the coronavirus, including S1.

After four rounds of inoculations administered every two weeks, the horses produced the desired level of antibodies. At this point, their blood was extracted, and the red blood cells were separated from the plasma and returned to the horses. “Plasma is a very complex mixture that has hundreds of proteins,” Alape-Girón says. “Antibodies are one of the most abundant proteins, but there are others.” At the pharmaceutical plant, researchers used a technology developed by the Clodomiro Picado Institute to separate the antibodies from other proteins in the plasma and then purified them to obtain the therapeutic formulation for human testing.

In total, the plant produced 1,000 10-milliliter vials of purified equine antibodies. Half of them had antibodies against the S1 protein, and the other half contained the four proteins present in the coronavirus. “Just one 10-mL vial has about 80 times the quantity of antibodies you can find in 800 mL of convalescent plasma, which is the plasma donated by someone who has overcome an infection of SARS-CoV-2,” Alape-Girón says.

To test the efficacy of the equine antibodies, a few vials were shipped to George Mason University’s National Center for Biodefense and Infectious Diseases (NCBID). “We wanted to determine if the SARS-CoV-2 virus could be neutralized by the horse-produced antibodies,” says Charles Bailey, a professor of biology and executive director of the NCBID. “The test we performed on the samples is called a plaque reduction neutralization test, PRNTest. We exposed the antibodies produced in horses, at various dilutions, to the SARS-CoV-2 virus growing on cell culture. The virus was neutralized.” The results of the research are expected to be published in the near future.

The next step—testing the equine antibodies in COVID-19 patients—will begin with an accelerated clinical trial this month. The antibodies’ safety and efficacy will be examined in a group of 26 patients with COVID-19 who have been hospitalized but not placed in an intensive care unit. The results are expected by the end of September. If they are positive, the research will then move to a large-scale trial with hundreds of patients. And if the equine antibodies are shown to be effective, the Clodomiro Picado Institute could immunize more horses to scale up and produce enough of them to cover Costa Rica’s demand—and probably that of its neighbors. It received a $500,000 grant on Aug. 13 from the Central American Bank for Economic Integration to move ahead with equine antibody research.

Unlike monoclonal antibodies, which are being developed to target a specific molecular region, or epitope, on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 to elicit an immune response, horse polyclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 recognize multiple epitopes. The lower specificity translates into a more inexpensive manufacturing process. Alape-Girón estimates that a vial of equine antibodies will cost $100 to produce, whereas a treatment with monoclonal antibodies could be 10 times more expensive.

“It’s not the highest technology,” Macaya says. “It’s not a monoclonal antibody, but it allows us the benefit of speed, and it’s a very pragmatic approach.” Further, “if this were a monoclonal antibody, you would need a big factory to produce them,” he adds. “Here, the horses are the factories—at least for the production part. Then comes the purification part, which is an industrial process, but the Clodomiro Picado Institute already has that infrastructure.”

Fan says this description mirrors her experience at the Butantan Institute in Brazil. “Polyclonal antibody products can be made in large quantities, and cost-effectively, to respond to large-scale pandemic situations, such as the infection by SARS-CoV-2”, she says.

Currently, the Butantan Institute is preparing horses to be immunized with portions of inactivated SARS-COV-2 virus, which were isolated, cultured and purified, using its expertise in the production of influenza virus vaccines. Even though the development protocols differ at the Brazilian and Costa Rican institutes, Fan predicts their antibodies “will have equivalent efficiency and safety in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.”

Even farther south in South America, scientists in Argentina are also developing a potential therapy for COVID-19 patients using equine antibodies, while other researchers worldwide are exploring antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 from llamas and cows. The objective behind all of these projects is the same: to save lives while waiting for a vaccine to become available.

Costa Rica has more than 28,000 cases of COVID-19. "We have over 100 patients in the ICU," Macaya says. "And our ICU capacity, as with any country, is limited." His hope is that equine antibodies will prove to be “a very valuable tool in keeping our health care system from collapsing at the ICU level and, obviously, preventing deaths. That’s the ultimate goal.”

0 notes