Search Results for: Corona

Warning: The Next Coronavirus Might Be SERIOUS…

This Coronavirus, at least, has an extremely low fatality rate. But not to worry!

State-funded research into 50% fatality gain-of-function viruses is, well, ongoing. Let’s pray they never leak from a tax-funded lab somewhere in, say, China… Hypothetically speaking.

Put this down as reason #483926 we need the State: Who else would threaten mankind with extinction?!

When even Vox thinks wiping out the world should perhaps be rethought…

The Newsweek report revealed an alarming tidbit: The Wuhan lab at the center of the controversy had for years been engaged in gain-of-function research. What exactly is it? It’s a line of research where scientists take viruses and study how they might be modified to become deadlier or more transmissible. Why would they do this? Scientists who engage in such research say it helps them figure out which viruses threaten people so they can design countermeasures.

…

The increased attention to gain-of-function research is a good thing. This kind of highly controversial research — banned under the Obama administration after safety incidents demonstrated that lab containment is rarely airtight — began again under the Trump administration, and many scientists and public health researchers think it’s a really bad idea. Our brush with the horrors of a pandemic might force us to reconsider the warnings those experts have been sounding for years…

See the rest on Vox here… (if you must)

Trying To Survive Corona? You’re on Your Own – Government Busy Studying Why Minorities Hardest Hit…

Dr. Marty Makary: NIH Funded 257 Grants on Social Disparities with COVID, Only 4 on How It Spreads

Dr. Marty Makary, a medical doctor and researcher at Johns Hopkins, said the NIH funded “257 grants on social disparities” related to COVID-19 “but only four” on the coronavirus’s spread.

Makary joined Drs. Peter Attia and Zubin Damania on the former’s podcast, The Drive, published on Monday, in which he said:

We just did this study of NIH research funding last year. Less than five percent went to COVID research. Three months into the pandemic, 0.05 percent of the NIH’s budget went to COVID research. The average time for them to give a grant was five months to fund a research team to then start the research.

He added, “Two-fifty-seven grants on social disparities with COVID — an important topic — but only four on how it spreads, and one on masks which hasn’t even read out yet. So the most basic questions doctors needed evidence for, that was not being conducted.”

[YouTube:]

The Biden administration regularly frame “equity” between demographic groups along ethnic and racial lines as a political priority.

Makary said the NIH failed to promptly investigate basic questions about COVID-19. He said:

We were all getting the questions — How does it spread? Do masks work? How long are you contagious for? Can you spread it pre-symptomatic? – All the basic questions of COVID, we did not have answers, because our gigantic $4.2 trillion dollar healthcare system could not do the basic bedside clinical research. I remember Peter [Attia] was even doing a quick video about, ‘Somebody please do this study.’ We were all saying the same thing. Labs were mostly closed because there was no PPE.

The NIH was unable to pivot their $42 billion dollars to answer these questions quickly. … We had a vacuum of scientific research, and all the doctors were on the front lines without any data to really answer these questions, and that’s when the groupthink began, and guess what ended up filling that vacuum? Political opinions.

The NIH is not investigating natural immunity to COVID-19 as part of its broader strategy, Makary held:

Why has the NIH not done a study on natural immunity? It keeps saying, ‘We don’t know.’ They’re ignoring the 141 studies that have been documented by the Brownstone Institute. It’s not that hard. Go to New York, where people had the infection, interview them, test their blood. Why is my research team doing this without NIH funding? Because the NIH is not only not funding it, they’re not doing it, and they’re relying on two really flawed studies that the CDC put out. This is the distortion of science itself, shutting down scientific discussion and that should be our greatest lesson.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to the president, said in September of 2020 that he had no “firm answer” when asked by CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta about advocacy for vaccination among those who recovered from COVID-19.

Makary stated, “The data on natural immunity being 27 times more protective [than vaccination is] not mentioned once – ever — by public health officials.” He urged:

Martin Kuldorff — who has the Harvard professor, now he’s at Brownstone Institute — has summarized the 141 studies on natural immunity, and so, when Fauci gets on the TV and says, ‘We just don’t know about natural immunity,’ well, do the study. How hard is it? This is not the riddle of the sphinx. You can figure out how many people have been reinfected from the original days of New York and had severe illness.

The “greatest lesson” of the COVID-19 spread, he concluded, is how a  “corruption of science” and “distortion of science” leads to “shutting down scientific discussion.”

From Breitbart, here.

World’s Greatest Corona Shot Guinea Pig (or Other Mutant)!

Excerpt from Complex:

The New York Times reports Brahmadeo Mandal, an 85-year-old resident of the eastern Bihar state, has received 12 COVID-19 vaccines since getting his first dose on Feb. 13 of last year.

“I felt that it was helping my general health,” Mandal told the NYT. “My backache has improved, my general weakness improved, and my appetite improved.”

Even after getting the jab a dozen times, Mandal claims he has no plans of stopping after his 12th dose. “I still want more,” he said.

As for how he was able to trick health officials, Mandal says he used his national identity card and his mobile number for nine of the 12 shots. From there, he duped the system by going to different locations and using the identities and phone numbers of relatives.

Read the rest here…

Wow.

Corona Vaccine Trials: ‘Open and Transparent’?

Wait what? FDA wants 55 years to process FOIA request over vaccine data

By 

That’s how long the Food & Drug Administration in court papers this week proposes it should be given to review and release the trove of vaccine-related documents responsive to the request. If a federal judge in Texas agrees, plaintiffs Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency can expect to see the full record in 2076.

The 1967 FOIA law requires federal agencies to respond to information requests within 20 business days. However, the time it takes to actually get the documents “will vary depending on the complexity of the request and any backlog of requests already pending at the agency,” according to the government’s central FOIA website.

Justice Department lawyers representing the FDA note in court papers that the plaintiffs are seeking a huge amount of vaccine-related material – about 329,000 pages.

The plaintiffs, a group of more than 30 professors and scientists from universities including Yale, Harvard, UCLA and Brown, filed suit in September in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking expedited access to the records. They say that releasing the information could help reassure vaccine skeptics that the shot is indeed “safe and effective and, thus, increase confidence in the Pfizer vaccine.”

But the FDA can’t simply turn the documents over wholesale. The records must be reviewed to redact “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials,” wrote DOJ lawyers in a joint status report filed Monday.

The FDA proposes releasing 500 pages per month on a rolling basis, noting that the branch that would handle the review has only 10 employees and is currently processing about 400 other FOIA requests.

“By processing and making interim responses based on 500-page increments, FDA will be able to provide more pages to more requesters, thus avoiding a system where a few large requests monopolize finite processing resources and where fewer requesters’ requests are being fulfilled,” DOJ lawyers wrote, pointing to other court decisions where the 500-page-per-month schedule was upheld.

Civil division trial lawyer Courtney Enlow referred my request for further comment to the DOJ public affairs office, which did not respond.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that their request should be top priority, and that the FDA should release all the material no later than March 3, 2022.

“This 108-day period is the same amount of time it took the FDA to review the responsive documents for the far more intricate task of licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote Aaron Siri of Siri & Glimstad in New York and John Howie of Howie Law in Dallas in court papers.

“The entire purpose of the FOIA is to assure government transparency,” they continued. “It is difficult to imagine a greater need for transparency than immediate disclosure of the documents relied upon by the FDA to license a product that is now being mandated to over 100 million Americans under penalty of losing their careers, their income, their military service status, and far worse.”

They also argue that Title 21, subchapter F of the FDA’s own regulations stipulates that the agency “is to make ‘immediately available’ all documents underlying licensure of a vaccine.”

Given the intense public interest in the vaccine, the plaintiffs’ lawyers say that the FDA “should have been preparing to release (the data) simultaneously with the licensure. Instead, it has done the opposite.”

Continue reading…

From Reuters, here.