Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents
HomeMembers LoginLatest NewsRefer A LawyerMessage BoardOnline StoreAffiliatesAbout UsContact Us
Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents Worldwide!
Site Navigation
Visit Our Store
Refer A Lawyer
Link To Us
Latest News
Top Secret Documents
Make A Donation
Important Case Law
Members Login
Message Board
Legal Information
Advertise your AD, Book or Movie

Informants and Agents?Who's a Rat Message Board

Sign up Calendar

  Author   Comment  

Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #1 
Important information to stay safe

Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #2 



#DrGreer #CE5 #COVID19

Dr. Steven Greer Explains The Corona Virus & Current Events



Very Important.   Video


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #3 





Sunday, March 22, 2020

Here is the Chinese guidebook for clinical care of COVID-19


Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment--a 68 page guide

Zhejiang University School of Medicine


Thanks to Jack Ma/ Alibaba for the web creation and English translation of the Chinese guidelines found to be most useful in clinical care of COVID-19! 


Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 1:06 PM 0 comments 



Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #4 





Sunday, March 22, 2020

Early report: ARB and ACE inhibitor blood pressure drugs, which target receptor used by Coronavirus, may increase virus' mortality rate


This is a preliminary report from a Scottish doctor, and may turn out to be wrong later.  He has analyzed data from Italy on deaths, and concluded that those patients on ACE inhibitors or ARBs (which target ACE receptors, which are also used by coronavirus) had significantly higher death rates.


Because coronavirus disease is currently causing mortality rates upwards of 10% in Italy, I personally would switch to another BP medication if I were taking an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril, enalopril, captopril) or an ARB (losartan, valsartan, olmesartan, etc.)


Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 10:03 PM 0 comments 






They could work’: Coronavirus drug trials to begin in N.Y. state, Cuomo says/ NY Daily News


Newest on a chloroquine drug trial, to start 3/24: 

New York State is about to begin testing drugs for treatment of coronavirus, Gov. Cuomo said Sunday. 

The feds have given the state 70,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine, 10,000 doses of zithromax and 750,000 doses of chloroquine. Testing will kick off Tuesday, Cuomo said. 

“The president is optimistic about these drugs and we are all optimistic that it could work,” the governor said at a press conference. “I’ve spoken with a number of health officials and there is a good basis to believe that they could work.”


Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 8:55 PM 0 comments 




WHO launches global megatrial of the four most promising coronavirus treatments/ Science mag


Here's the story.


Oddly, the WHO was initially going to omit studying the cheapest drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, despite support for them by Chinese doctors here and here and French doctors.  But now both have been added to WHO's mega COVID-19 trial.


Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 7:42 PM 0 comments 





Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #5 


9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference


Renee Parsons joins McKinney to discuss coronavirus on tomorrow’s teleconference

March 24, 2020

Greetings all,
We have an update about the agenda for tomorrow night’s teleconference (March 25). In addition to our first speaker, Cynthia McKinney, we will have Renee Parsons, a frequent contributor to Global Research. Her most recent article is titled “More than just a virus.” In the article, she addresses, among other things, how odd it is that Iran and Italy would be so badly hit after the virus got its start in Wuhan, China. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-just-virus/5706476j)
Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter.  She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth, and staff member in the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, DC. Renee is also a student of the Quantum Field. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
So join us to hear these two excellent speakers give us their impressions of coronavirus situation.
Cheryl Curtiss
Craig McKee

Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #6 




Gov. Abbott seeks to block Harris County effort to release inmates to slow coronavirus spread


Gabrielle Banks March 29, 2020 Updated: March 29, 2020 8:58 








School officials and law enforcement were aware of sexual harassment by a principal, lawsuit claims







Caribou Maine musher delivers groceries and medication to people vulnerable to coronavirus






Wife-killer cop will leave jail with £375k payout in the bank

Retired inspector Keith Farquharson has an index-linked pension of £25,000 a year and will pocket the cash after he serves his time for








Campus Cops Need Closer Scrutiny: Paper says







Howard Wooldridge: Cops Say Legalize Heroin







9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference


Correction to time of special teleconference, April 1, 2020


CORRECTION: In the notice sent out earlier today, the Pacific time was incorrectly listed as 4 p.m. Since Pacific time remains three hours earlier, that should have been 10 a.m. PST and 1 p.m. EST.


1 p.m. (ET) / 10 a.m. (PT) teleconference dial-in # 

(605) 313-4118    Access code: 464958#


[Note: Some telephone service providers block access to this teleconference service, or require additional charges. If you encounter any of these difficulties, please try calling this alternative number: (425) 535-9195. You will then be required to key in the original phone number above before entering the access code. Please inform of us of any technical difficulties you encounter in accessing the teleconference.]


Join us for special teleconference about the coronavirus Wednesday afternoon with John Whitehead 


Greetings all,


To follow up on our excellent discussion of the coronavirus last Wednesday, we have a special call this week with author John Whitehead. To accommodate Mr. Whitehead’s schedule, this special call will take place this Wednesday at 1 p.m. EST and 10 a.m. PST at the usual teleconference number. If you can’t make this call, the recording will be posted on Truth and Shadows on the same page where all our recordings and minutes are posted.


Whitehead will be talking about his book Battle Field America: The War on the American People. And in particular, he will discuss his thoughts on how the U.S. Constitution is faring in light of lockdowns and other measures taken to combat the spread of the coronavirus.


Whitehead is a Constitutional attorney and founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People is available at http://www.amazon.com.Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.


We hope you can join us for this important call. If not, the recording will be posted the same day at http://www.truthandshadows.com/about.


Cheryl Curtiss

Craig McKe






Straight Talk MD











Monday, March 30, 2020

Battelle has had an (unused) method to decontaminate N95 masks aka respirators for years!

Unbelievable.  4 years ago, the FDA gave contractor Battelle half a million dollars to study the use of commercial decontamination equipment, using hydrogen peroxide gas, on N95 masks.  Battelle said the method worked in 2016.  But we are only just hearing about it, as thousands of healthcare workers get infected due, in part, to lack of these masks. WTF??!!

From FiercePharma:

Battelle received an emergency go-ahead from the FDA over the weekend to deploy its decontamination system for personal protective equipment (PPE), allowing healthcare workers to clean and reuse scarce N95 respirator masks.

The system is currently operating at Battelle’s Ohio facility—capable of processing up to 80,000 masks per machine, per day, within what looks like a large metal shipping container—and has been working to help stretch supplies for the OhioHealth system based in Columbus.


Using concentrated hydrogen peroxide vapor, the filters are gassed for two and a half hours to destroy bacteria, viruses and other contaminants, including the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. According to the company, the system can clean the same N95 mask up to 20 times without degrading its performance. 

The FDA had first OK’d the use of the system on Saturday but initially limited its use to 10,000 masks per day, according to Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, who called on the agency to unlock the system’s full decontamination capacity. DeWine also said this would have limited Battelle’s plans to deploy machines to the hard-hit New York metro area as well as Washington state and Washington, D.C.

Within hours, and after President Donald Trump also urged the FDA to approve the equipment on Twitter, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn tweeted late Sunday evening that the agency had issued an amended authorization. 






Why is the World's Richest County Short of Medical Masks?/ NYT

From  the NY Times:


Few in the protective equipment industry are surprised by the shortages, because they’ve been predicted for years. In 2005, the George W. Bush administration called for the coordination of domestic production and stockpiling of protective gear in preparation for pandemic influenza. In 2006, Congress approved funds to add protective gear to a national strategic stockpile — among other things, the stockpile collected 52 million surgical face masks and 104 million N95 respirator masks.

But about 100 million masks in the stockpile were deployed in 2009 in the fight against the H1N1 flu pandemic, and the government never bothered to replace them. This month, Alex Azar, secretary of health and human services, testified that there are only about 40 million masks in the stockpile — around 1 percent of the projected national need.

As the coronavirus began to spread in China early this year, a global shortage of protective equipment began to look inevitable. But by then it was too late for the American government to do much about the problem. Two decades ago, most hospital protective gear was made domestically. But like much of the rest of the apparel and consumer products business, face mask manufacturing has since shifted nearly entirely overseas. “China is a producer of 80 percent of masks worldwide,” Laverdure said.

Hospitals began to run out of masks for the same reason that supermarkets ran out of toilet paper — because their “just-in-time” supply chains, which call for holding as little inventory as possible to meet demand, are built to optimize efficiency, not resiliency.

“You’re talking about a commodity item,” said Michael J. Alkire, president of Premier, a company that purchases medical supplies for hospitals and health systems. In the supply chain, he said, “by definition, there’s not going to be a lot of redundancy, because everyone wants the low cost.”

In January, the brittle supply chain began to crack under pressure. To deal with its own outbreak, China began to restrict exports of protective equipment. Then other countries did as well — Taiwan, Germany, France and India took steps to stop exports of medical equipment. That left American hospitals to seek more and more masks from fewer and fewer producers...

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 8:30 PM 











MARCH 30, 2020

Washington Uses the Pandemic to Create a $2 Trillion Slush Fund for Its Cronies







When historians look back on our current government’s response to a public health emergency







Beware of Trump Using the Coronavirus as a Cover for War With Iran

Mehdi Hasan

March 30 2020, 1:13 p.m.


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #7 






Thursday, April 2, 2020

Why are some of the US' top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2?


1.  I know about biological warfare/biodefense.  I am the first person in the world (according to publicly available literature) to have analyzed an epidemic and demonstrated that the epidemic was due to biological warfare. (1992 study of the 1978-81 Rhodesian anthrax outbreak).  



2.  Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed.  Such methods were used by the Japanese beginning in the 1930s, by the US beginning in the 1940s, and by a number of other countries. They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used. Such methods were also used subsequent to the 1970s.


3.  These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.  In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:


a)  exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics

b)  passaging virus though a number of lab animals or tissue cultures

c)  mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors


4.  Top scientists circled their wagons to protest against “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” in a statement published in the Lancet March 7. (It was published earlier online.) Their reported aim was to "stand with" public health professionals and scientists in China. Many have worked in biodefense. Signers include Rita Colwell, former director of the National Science Foundation, and James Hughes, former director of CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases and former assistant Surgeon General.



Five additional scientists soon provided the "science" to back up the natural origin claim. These scientists have been affiliated with signers of the statement above, they too have worked in biodefense, and their article was published in Nature Medicine (in the print version) on March 17, 2020



These scientists  set up a straw man to knock down:  had CoV-2 been created in a lab, “if genetic manipulation had been performed” then a known coronavirus backbone would have been used.  But because no known backbone forms part of CoV-2, “the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus.”


As USA Today summarized this:


“If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness,” the report said. “But the scientists found that the SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and pangolins.”


Their work was then discussed by Francis Collins, the current director of the NIH.  



Collins says,


“Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick. A new study debunks such claims by providing scientific evidence that this novel coronavirus arose naturally...

this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19... 

Finally, next time you come across something about COVID-19 online that disturbs or puzzles you, I suggest going to FEMA’s new Coronavirus Rumor Control web site..."


I know that the groups of scientists who wrote these pieces in the Lancet and Nature Medicine, as well as NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins, know that you don't need genetic engineering methods to create a bioweapon.  Like me, they are old, they recall a world before genetic engineering, they know the history of biowarfare, and they know the score.  Why then are they participating in this charade?


Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 11:32 AM 0 comments 











To Whom It May Concern:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I hereby request the following records:

Records relating to William H. Schaap, a radical lawyer, author and publisher who fought against investigative abuses by government agencies at home and abroad, died on February 25 2016 in Manhattan. His death has been widely reported. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/nyregion/william-h-schaap-radical-lawyer-author-and-publisher-dies-at-75.html

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.














Magazine Published by William Schapp









Covert Action Quarterly















Lee Fang

April 1 2020, 3:10 p.m.









Ryan Grim

March 31 2020, 11:54 a.m.






Trump Lies About Cutting White House Pandemic Team to Dodge (Checks Notes) Fox News

Robert Mackey

April 1 2020, 11:28 p.m.






28 Spring Breakers Flew to Cabo in a Coronavirus Pandemic. You’ll Never Guess What Wildly Infectious Disease They Came Back With.

The company that reportedly organized the trip told students that Mexico had very few cases.





Trump Thinks It's ‘Very Nice’ of Putin to Send That Giant Planeload of Coronavirus Aid

“Russia sent us a very, very large planeload of things, medical equipment, which was very nice,” he said. 





APRIL 1, 2020

No Pandemic-Related Pause? VA Privatization Leaves Veterans Waist Deep in Another Big Muddy 



Photograph Source: Brianmcmillen – CC BY-SA 4.0

“Every time I read the papers

That old feeling comes on;

We’re waist deep in the Big Muddy

And the Big Fool says to push on.”

– Pete Seeger, 1967





Game changer? Antarctic ice melt related to tropical weather shifts: Study










APRIL 1, 2020

Trump’s Mass Negligent Homicide Doesn’t Let Democratic Leaders Off the Hook


In the last few days, New York and Pennsylvania postponed voting in presidential primaries from April until June. A dozen other states have also rescheduled. Those wise decisions are in sharp contrast to a failure of leadership from Joe Biden and the 





How Donald Trump Plans on Spinning 200,000 Coronavirus Deaths as a Win

Like a virus, the president knows how to adapt.






A president unfit for a pandemic

Much of the suffering and death coming was preventable. The president has blood on his hands.










William Francis Pepper is a barrister in the United Kingdom and admitted to the bar in numerous jurisdictions in the United States of America. His primary work is international commercial law. He has represented governments in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Asia. Today, Pepper represents Sirhan Sirhan, the gunman convicted in the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968. 


Bill Pepper was a friend of Martin Luther King in the last year of his life. Some years after King's death, Bill Pepper went on to represent James Earl Ray in his guilty plea, and subsequent conviction. Pepper believes that Ray was framed by the federal government and that King was killed by a conspiracy that involved the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Memphis police and organized crime figures from New Orleans and Memphis. He later represented James Earl Ray in a televised mock trial in an attempt to get Ray the trial that he never had. 


He then represented the King family in a wrongful death civil trial, King family vs. Loyd Jowers and "other unknown co-conspirators." During a trial that lasted four weeks Bill produced over seventy witnesses. Jowers, testifying by deposition, stated that James Earl Ray was a scapegoat, and not involved in the assassination. Jowers testified that Memphis police officer Earl Clark fired the fatal shots. On December 8, 1999, the Memphis jury found Jowers responsible and found that the assassination plot included also "governmental agencies." The jury took less than an hour to find in favor of the King family for the requested sum of $1.00 


William Pepper is heavily involved in Human Rights Law, for a time convening the International Human Rights Seminar at Oxford University, during which time individuals such as Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, accepted invitations to address the seminar. He lives in the US currently -not primarily- but travels frequently to England.








Who Killed Martin Luther King?










Transcripts, Proceedings and Documents on the 1999 Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination Trial

The Confession, Trial and Civil Conviction in the MLK Assassination

In December 1993, Lloyd Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and related the details of an alleged conspiracy involving the Mafia and the U.S. government to kill King. According to Jowers, James Earl Ray was a scapegoat, and was not responsible for the assassination. Jowers said that he hired Memphis police Lieutenant Earl Clark to fire the fatal shot. The existence of such a conspiracy, and Jowers' involvement, was supported in the verdict of a 1999 court case which was brought against Jowers by the King family. The allegations and the finding of the Memphis jury were later rejected by the United States Department of Justice in 2000.

In 1998, the King family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Jowers and "other unknown co-conspirators" for the murder of King. The King family was represented by attorney William Pepper, who had previously served as the attorney of James Earl Ray, King's formerly accused assassin. In late 1999, the case came to trial. After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy which also involved "others, including governmental agencies."

Mrs. Coretta Scott King commented on the verdict, saying, “There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America."








Lloyd Jowers, the owner of Jim's Grill located on the ground floor of the building which contained the roominghouse, confessed to involvement in the King assassination on ABC Prime Time Live in 1993. Jowers said that a Mafia-associated Memphis produce dealer named Frank Liberto gave him $100,000 to hire a hitman to kill King. Jowers said he stored the actual assassination rifle in his restaurant, retrieving it from the real killer.


Dexter King at the 1999 civil trial against

Loyd Jowers.

Ray's attorney William Pepper pursued this allegation, and the King family sued Jowers in a wrongful death lawsuit. This resulted in a civil trial in 1999. At the end of that trial, the Judge read the jury's verdict: "In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?" The jury replied: "Yes."

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the King civil trial, coming on the heels of America's obsession with the O.J. Simpson trial, is that this event received almost no coverage in the US media.

In 2000, the Department of Justice investigated the Jowers allegation. Noting inconsistencies in his story, and calling it "the product of a carefully orchestrated promotional effort," the DOJ found the story to be "unsubstantiated."


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #8 


A simple yes or no will suffice for me...

1. Where FBI agents committing electronic computer voter fraud
In Cincinnati during the 1980’s ?


There is no "voting security" in the U.S. Over 80% of elections are counted by ES&S, whose owner(s) and/or technical staff could easily rig voting machines wirelessly (either touchscreens or ballot readers); but ES&S or subcontractors could also rig elections while inputting the candidates names for each new election.

“If you did it right, no one would ever know,” said Craig C. Donsanto, head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Election Crimes Branch, Public Integrity Section (from 1970-2010) in a July 4,1989 Los Angeles Times article about electronic voting machines and vote fraud. See DOJ & FBI complicity

At the highest levels, both political parties, the U.S. Government, and major news media are well aware of this situation because they are complicit in it. See Exit Polls

At the very least, election counting should be local and consist of only paper ballots and hand counts at the local polling precincts on election day - no machines, no computers, no absentee, and no emails. See Paper Ballots



2. Did FBI Director Comey ensure Trumps’ win
In the 2016 election?

3. Does the FBI act as a firewall between the Deep
State and American taxpayers?

My friend Meryl Nass MD has a couple of new posts
for you.....


Friday, April 3, 2020
Hundreds of bioterror lab mishaps cloaked in secrecy/ USA Today, 2014

From USA Today, August 17, 2014:
More than 1,100 laboratory incidents involving bacteria, viruses and toxins that pose significant or bioterror risks to people and agriculture were reported to federal regulators during 2008 through 2012, government reports obtained by USA TODAY show.
More than half these incidents were serious enough that lab workers received medical evaluations or treatment, according to the reports. In five incidents, investigations confirmed that laboratory workers had been infected or sickened; all recovered...
But the names of the labs that had mishaps or made mistakes, as well as most information about all of the incidents, must be kept secret because of federal bioterrorism laws, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates the labs and co-authored the annual lab incident reports with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...
The new lab incident data indicate mishaps occur regularly at the more than 1,000 labs operated by 324 government, university and private organizations across the country that are registered with the Federal Select Agent Program. The program is jointly run by the USDA and the CDC, which are required by law to annually submit short reports with incident data to Congress...
"More than 200 incidents of loss or release of bioweapons agents from U.S. laboratories are reported each year. This works out to more than four per week," said Richard Ebright, a biosafety expert at Rutgers university in New Jersey, who testified before Congress last month at a hearing about CDC's lab mistakes.
The only thing unusual about the CDC's recent anthrax and bird flu lab incidents, Ebright said, is that the public found out about them. "The 2014 CDC anthrax event became known to the public only because the number of persons requiring medical evaluation was too high to conceal," he said.
Gigi Gronvall (of the UPMC-JHU biodefense center) notes that even with redundant systems in high-security labs, there have been lab incidents resulting in the spread of disease to people and animals outside the labs.
She said a lab accident is considered by many scientists to be the most likely source of the re-emergence in 1977 of an H1N1 flu strain that had disappeared in 1957 because the genetic makeup of the strain hadn't changed as it should have over those decades. A 2009 article in the New England Journal of Medicine noted the 1977 strain was so similar to the one that disappeared that it suggests it had been "preserved" and that the re-emergence was "probably an accidental release from a laboratory source." ...
Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 10:26 PM


Thursday, April 2, 2020
Why are some of the US' top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2?
1. I know about biological warfare/biodefense. I am the first person in the world (according to publicly available literature) to have analyzed an epidemic and demonstrated that the epidemic was due to biological warfare. (1992 study of the 1978-81 Rhodesian anthrax outbreak).

2. Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed. Such methods were used by the Japanese beginning in the 1930s, by the US beginning in the 1940s, and by a number of other countries. They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used. Such methods were also used subsequent to the 1970s.

3. These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences



Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #9 









Tuesday, April 7, 2020

Preparing a Medical Response to Bioterrorism/ Nass, Nov 2001


(I was asked to post this--Meryl) 


Invited submission to the Committee on Government Reform for its November 14, 2001 Hearing: Comprehensive Medical Care for Bioterrorism Exposure



Preparing a Medical Response to Bioterrorism 


-- A broad view of the problem

-- Seeking affordable protection

-- Identifying research needs

-- How much protection is obtainable?



Preparing a Medical Response to Bioterrorism

Written Testimony of Meryl Nass, MD

House Committee on Government Reform

November 21, 2001


Overview of biowarfare agents

When planning responses to bioterrorism, there are a wide range of existing pathogens and toxins to consider, and untold genetically engineered organisms that might be encountered.  Anthrax and smallpox have long been considered the most likely microorganisms that will be used, based on their innate ability to be easily disseminated, their high mortality rates and relative ease of preparation.  Many nations, and potentially some terrorist groups, have the scientific and technical ability to weaponize these two diseases. It is thought that a smaller number of nations or groups can produce more technically demanding, or genetically engineered organisms. 

It makes sense, certainly in the short term, to be prepared for anthrax and smallpox; but in the longer term, we should anticipate a much greater range of possible pathogens.  For example, NOVA (1) and three NY Times reporters (2) have shown that the Soviet Union developed horrifying, genetically engineered germs for which there is currently no adequate response.  A modified Legionella bacterium that produces multiple sclerosis after an episode of pneumonia is one such microorganism. Scientists with the know-how to create such germs have left the Soviet Union, and could be anywhere on earth.  Therefore, although important, simply preparing for anthrax and smallpox is insufficient for the challenges faced now.

There are 3 levels of complexity for biological weapons 

  • a) Low technology organisms: smallpox, anthrax, plague, brucella, tularemia, cholera, typhoid, shigella These were weaponized circa 1940 by various nations and require no advanced technology to produce in quantity.  They may be disseminated using widely available means.  

Countermeasures (antibiotics, antivirals and vaccines) are generally known and effective.

  • b) Higher tech weapons developed in the US, USSR, Iraq and other nations more recently These organisms require sophistication to produce and disseminate, but the know-how to produce them (or the weapons themselves) may have been transferred to any nation or group.  Examples are the Legionnaire’s Disease-Multiple Sclerosis bacterium, or vaccine-resistant viruses or bacteria.                                                    

Countermeasures are not generally known, but may have been created by the weapons’ developers.

  • c) Ever more complex and difficult-to-respond-to microorganisms, which could be developed now or in the foreseeable future These might, for example, apply advances in knowledge of the human genome, and genetic variability among different populations, to create organisms specifically tailored to certain groups or military needs.  Examples might be a bacterium that secretes cytokines causing autoimmune diseases, but would only affect those of Scandinavian descent, or a gastrointestinal infection that produces sterility.  In each case, autoimmune destruction of tissue would be irreversible.  

There are unlikely to be effective countermeasures available for these pathogens. 

What do the recent attacks signify?

  •  No attempt was made to use anthrax for mass casualties, such as dissemination in a subway tunnel or ventilation system
  •  The letters were taped shut, in an apparent attempt to prevent spores from escaping en route  
  •  Although the letters contained weaponized anthrax, they informed recipients of their contents, so that effective antibiotics could be started.  The perpetrator desired to frighten, not to kill  
  •  The media targets were probably chosen to ensure the attacks were publicized 
  •  Members of Congress might have been targeted because Congress controls programs for bioterrorism.  
  •  Anthrax-tainted letters may have preceded the September 11 attacks. CDC has advised those who spent more than an hour in the American Media News building since August 1, 2001 to take prophylactic antibiotics (3).  

Our responses to these anthrax attacks have been relatively successful.  But congratulations are not in order: the anthrax attacks we experienced, terrible as they were, were actually a “best case” scenario.  The attacks can almost be viewed as a drill, designed to assess our readiness for a truly malicious biowarfare attack.  Possibly this is what the perpetrator was after: to test us, and send a wake-up call.

Had an enemy put undetectable but deadly quantities of anthrax into envelopes without a warning letter, many more casualties could have ensued.  Antibiotics would only be started after people became ill.  How would we know which facilities to test for spores?  If an antibiotic-resistant anthrax had been used, most of those inhaling an infectious dose would die.  If anthrax were released in a subway tunnel, instead of an envelope, thousands of deaths could be anticipated.

Although the attacks appear to have been done for effect, the ramifications have been significant.  Mail remains in storage, undelivered for weeks.  Millions of dollars are being spent for electron beam machines to sterilize the mail.  Congressional offices remain closed, until removal of anthrax spores can be assured. 

Could we respond effectively to a truly serious anthrax attack Or an attack using more sophisticated pathogens?  Anthrax may be the least frightening of the bioterrorism scenarios we could face in the future.  

Yes, we can respond.  How effectively we can respond is a challenge I will come back to later.

Proposed Defensive Measures


The following list is a general overview of what could identify and treat illnesses resulting from bioterrorism.  Both generic (useful for a range of pathogens) and pathogen-specific measures should be developed, with an emphasis on developing responses that could be used for a variety of pathogens.  Measures to boost immunity after an exposure should be studied; although this is a relatively new area of medical research, it could yield substantial dividends in addition to those for bioterrorism. 

  1. 1) Strengthening our public health infrastructure is essential: sharing of knowledge regarding bioterrorism threats and appropriate responses, ability to provide appropriate laboratory assays and medical care at the local level, and improved communications between public health facilities are needed (4).
  2. 2) Stockpiling antibiotics is appropriate There should be a range of antibiotics, including those for which adding resistance is more difficult. Researching storage methods to maximize effective shelf life would be useful.  Possibly one or more novel antibiotics should not be licensed for mass use, but held in reserve for a bioterrorism response.  It would be difficult for a perpetrator to engineer resistance to novel (unknown) antibiotics.  Researching methods that encourage early anthrax spore germination in the exposed patient, and establishing an optimal duration of antibiotic use would be helpful, since we do not know whether 60 days of antibiotics will be sufficient for all those exposed to anthrax.
  3. 3) Vaccinations are useful, but the infinite variety of potential pathogens, the time needed to develop new vaccines, and the time lag for developing immunity following vaccination, conspire to make it unlikely they will be a robust form of defense Vaccines are often ineffective against selected strains of microorganisms, and it is known that vaccine-resistant pathogens were sought out for biological weapons (5).  Issues requiring urgent investigation include whether and how vaccines may lead to chronic illness.  How would a genetically diverse population tolerate 50 or 500 vaccinations?  Dr. Ken Alibek blames his severe allergies on multiple vaccinations (5), but there is no reliable research that addresses the issue.  
  4. 4) Identifying the virulence factors present in all known pathogenic microorganisms, and their molecular targets, will allow us to develop generic responses to them This will probably lead to use of fewer, more specific vaccine antigens.  Decoding the genome of pathogens will yield the molecular composition of spores and toxins, permit analysis of their tertiary structures, and allow targeted countermeasures to be developed more easily.  (The federal government is supporting this initiative.)  Computer modeling of these structures might permit rapid drug design outside the laboratory, and creation of new drugs with novel mechanisms of action (6-7).  We can anticipate that most genetically engineered pathogens make use of known virulence factors, so this approach can conceivably yield treatments for pathogens we have never seen before, in advance of an attack.
  5. 5) Many pathogenic microorganisms exert at least some of their effects though toxins.  It is relatively simple (and inexpensive) to create libraries of antitoxins, or monoclonal antibodies that could inactivate toxins.  This would almost certainly yield treatments that are more effective than antibiotics alone, and might work in the late stages of disease.  These treatments would be harder to thwart than vaccines.
  6. 6) Such products can also be employed in early diagnostic tests; for example, monoclonal antibodies could help distinguish anthrax from influenza while the patient is still in the emergency room.  Additional rapid diagnostic tests must be developed for smallpox, anthrax, and other expected pathogens (8).  The federal government should provide specialized training, diagnostic kits and equipment, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) machines, to state and local laboratories, so that a) important results are made available to treating physicians in a timely manner, b) local communities are better able to respond to an attack, c) hoaxes can be quickly distinguished from real attacks, and d) the federal system will not be overwhelmed by the volume of samples to be tested.  Cultures may yield useful information more rapidly than expected; anthrax colonies grow in 12-18 hours.  Working with cultures on a compressed schedule, for instance, subculturing every 12 instead of 24 hours, may be useful and should be considered for unknown organisms.  Identifying antibiotic resistance could be expedited by detecting known molecules that confer resistance, such as penicillinases, or their genes using PCR techniques.
  7. 7) Antivirals may be effective against some viral pathogens, including smallpox(9) Efficacy testing of libraries of licensed and unlicensed antiviral drugs needs to be performed for serious viral pathogens.
  8. 8) Certain areas are particularly vulnerable to attack.  These include municipal water supplies, ventilation systems of buildings, and tunnels.  Ships and planes could be used, wittingly or unwittingly, as delivery systems for microorganisms or toxins.  Biosensors or other detection methods should be available to monitor such areas.  Although none yet have perfect sensitivity and accuracy, a variety of systems do exist to perform such tasks (8, 10-13). Simple HEPA filters installed in ventilation systems could trap anthrax spores, though they would not keep out all viruses and toxins. The material trapped by filters could be routinely tested for microbes.  For those places most at risk (for example, the New York City subways), sensors should be made available now, and replaced when better devices become available.  Development of these devices has been under military control for more than a decade; in order to rapidly encourage the best approaches, and speed production, a streamlined system for evaluation and procurement should be considered.
  9. 9) Vaccine, drug and device development needs to be expedited, but safety testing cannot become a casualty of a streamlined review.  Safety testing in animals can be made more rigorous; for example, more extensive toxicity testing and drug interaction studies can be performed for all new drugs and vaccines in animal models, and extensive testing in the pregnant animal model can be done.  Human safety testing can be done in parallel with animal efficacy testing, for those drugs and vaccines that appear most promising.  Additional effort could go into finding or developing animal models for human diseases that lack such models.  It should be emphasized, however, that animal safety testing of new products is never sufficient to identify and rule out all problems that may occur in humans; human safety testing, using adequate numbers of subjects who are followed for adequate periods of time, is the only way to identify all but the rarest adverse reactions, prior to mass use.  
  10. 10) The FDA should release its final rule on licensing of new biowarfare drugs and vaccines, so that its expectations for industry are clear (14).
  11. 11) Testing of new drugs and vaccines may require Biosafety Level 3 or 4 facilities, and access has been a bottleneck for development and licensure of new products for use against bioterrorism, although a large number of these facilities exist. These labs must be made available for testing the most promising drugs and vaccines, possibly through new procedures involving the Office of Homeland Defense, or the Secretary of HHS.
  12. 12) The Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program (JVAP) has been called “a terrible operation” by Dr. DA Henderson, the head of the new Office of Public Health Preparedness, and “a disaster” by Major General (Dr.) Phillip Russell, a former head of both Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and USAMRIID, who has recently been asked to supervise development of an improved anthrax vaccine (15).  As bioterrorism expert Stephen Block  pointed out, “We don’t have a general way of making a general vaccine that gets an artbitrary pathogen that lasts for any length of time… The fact of the matter is that making a vaccine is still very much a black art (16).” Vaccine development is difficult and time-consuming, and success cannot be predicted.  The JVAP should be replaced.  Top civilian vaccinologists who understand both the art and science of vaccine creation should be recruited to develop safe and effective vaccines, designed to work for a range of pathogens .
  13. 13) Research on spore decontamination is urgently needed In general, either the DNA or the spore coat must be disrupted.  Oxidizing agents and radiation are effective, but safer methods are needed.  Improving mechanical removal of spores should be explored.  If one could get all the air moving in buildings, using vacuum cleaners or fans, and filter the air as it moved, most spores could be collected.   

Anthrax and Smallpox:  Treatments and Vaccines

For anthrax, the number one priority is early detection of a) spores in the environment, and b) disease in the individual Early detection allows pre-emptive antibiotic treatment after an exposure, and as soon as patients present to a medical facility, for maximal survival rates provided the bacteria are sensitive to antibiotics.  

Antitoxins, either in the form of antisera or human monoclonal antibodies, would probably be an effective treatment for cases diagnosed late, or unresponsive to antibiotics.  Novel treatments, such as the mutant PA developed by John Collier at Harvard, are very promising but require additional animal and human trials before use (7).  

A safe and effective, rapidly immunizing vaccine that would cover all anthrax strains and instill long-lasting immunity is highly desirable.  It is not clear which high risk groups should receive the vaccine.  According to the current vaccine’s package insert, “If a person has not previously been immunized against anthrax, injection of this product following exposure to anthrax bacilli will not protect against infection (17).”  Although the suggestion was made that persons exposed to anthrax who are allergic to antibiotics should instead be vaccinated, this is not an approved use of the vaccine.  Because vaccine-induced immunity requires more than one vaccine dose, and anthrax kills quickly, post-exposure vaccination without antibiotics is ineffective at preventing or treating disease. 

This is not the case for smallpox.  There is a long incubation period for smallpox, and vaccination after exposure is known to prevent the disease or lessen its severity (18).  Although smallpox is contagious from person to person, unlike anthrax, the disease only spreads after a rash develops.  Thus, it is obvious that one is infectious, so measures such as quarantining cases, and vaccinating those who are exposed can be taken.

Detailed discussions regarding the adverse effect profile of the US’ stored smallpox vaccine, and possible mandatory smallpox vaccinations, have taken place in a variety of public forums and in the media (19-22).  Surprisingly, no discussion regarding the risks of anthrax vaccine has taken place, although the US population was attacked with anthrax, not smallpox During the past four years, 520,000 military personnel were vaccinated for anthrax.  This large cohort ought to provide comprehensive data on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy.  

The federal government is negotiating to purchase enough new smallpox vaccine to immunize every American, at an estimated cost of 2 billion dollars.  The efficacy and adverse event profile for this novel smallpox vaccine have not been publicly discussed, and may not be known (15).  

The cost to develop a commercial vaccine and bring it to market is estimated at $400 to $500 million.  With streamlined trials and FDA review, the cost might decrease substantially.  Parallel development of many vaccines using shared technologies might drop costs further.  Using yeasts or other microorganisms for vaccine production, instead of eggs and calves’ bellies, will result in lower costs. 

The discussion of smallpox vaccine risks provides a framework with which to evaluate the risks and benefits of all vaccines.  Smallpox vaccine is a particularly impure product, and historically has been made by harvesting the pustules of calves infected with cowpox. The vaccine is scratched on the skin, rather than injected, but still killed or severely injured between one and four people per million recipients.  If it were given to all Americans, there would be an increased rate of serious reactions, because so many people are immunocompromised by disease or medical treatments.  Careful risk/benefit analysis is therefore critical to making the best decision regarding who should be vaccinated, and when.

Science magazine reported last month that officials “are considering…mak[ing smallpox vaccine] available within a few months as an unlicensed ‘investigational new drug (8).’  How streamlined would the review process would be for such a product?   Although the earliest vaccine recipients might receive vaccine under an experimental protocol, they should be enrolled in safety and efficacy trials, so that adequate data is collected and analyzed prior to vaccinating millions of Americans, who deserve a fully tested vaccine.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers have asked for indemnification from the federal government for potential liability related to production of bioterrorism vaccines.  This could invite manufacturers to de-emphasize safety issues, and eventually increase the government’s cost for these vaccines considerably.  Would receiving vaccine under an IND prevent recipients from seeking compensation if they had a severe reaction?

The US stockpiled 15 million doses of freeze-dried smallpox vaccine about thirty years ago, “but because the rubber seals are deteriorating, about a quarter are suspect (23).”  Recent, small scale tests of vaccine in humans suggest that a 1:5 dilution will still induce immunity in 70% of recipients.  How much residual immunity exists for those who were vaccinated decades ago is controversial (18).  It is possible they may still be protected.

Smallpox is a virus, not a bacterium, and therefore will not respond to antibiotics.  But it will probably respond to antivirals (9).  And anthrax selected for bioterrorism might not respond to antibiotics.  Their differences do not explain why the immediate procurement of 300 million doses of smallpox vaccine has assumed such importance, while obtaining anthrax vaccine for civilians has been entirely ignored.  Nor do they explain why anthrax vaccine manufacture remains in the hands of a small start-up company, when the Secretary of HHS insisted smallpox vaccine be obtained only from large, reputable manufacturers (24).  Since purchasing the anthrax vaccine facility over three years ago, the manufacturer has collected over $100 million from the federal government, but not a single lot of new vaccine has been approved for use.  The public should be informed how these apparently contradictory decisions with respect to anthrax and smallpox vaccines have been made.

Responding to Future Biological Weapons

At least forty known human pathogens could be used for biological warfare.  (Many more could be used against crops or livestock.)  Effective vaccines have been created for only a few.  None have been stockpiled for use by the American people.  What would it cost to develop vaccines for these pathogens and stockpile them for all Americans?  Based on estimates for producing the new smallpox vaccine, whose development costs have already been paid, the total could easily exceed 100 billion dollars.  And we might still be attacked with microorganisms or toxins for which we had no vaccine.  Furthermore, the human cost (in adverse reactions) of administering that many vaccines is unknown.

Rather than choosing to develop individual vaccines, the use of attenuated strains or vectors carrying multiple virulence factors could produce immunity to many pathogens with one vaccination.  Methods for developing animal models, and expediting safety testing, could be applied to development of many vaccines.  

One suggestion is to avoid stockpiling most vaccines en masse (25); long-term storage invites deterioration and a host of uncertainties.  Instead, vaccines should be developed and tested in animals and humans, but manufactured in small quantities at regular intervals.  A federal surge capacity for vaccine manufacture should be created, and maintained.  Then, depending on what vaccine was needed, it could be produced over a period of weeks in the desired quantity.  Although testing would be needed to assure quality, test methods and release protocols are being designed to facilitate rapid manufacture and use.  Traditionally, spore-forming organisms have required dedicated manufacturing facilities, because of persistent spore contamination.  New research into decontamination methods will likely result in effective cleanup methods, possibly eliminating the need for individual vaccine production facilities for spore formers.

Many new vaccine technologies are in development: DNA plasmid vaccines and novel adjuvants are just two of these.  It’s time for FDA to look very closely at these technologies and decide whether or not they are safe.  If not, discard them and stop wasting the industry’s time.  If they can be used, move them forward.  This evaluation should be very deliberate and scientific.  Critical regulatory decisions must be uninfluenced by political considerations, and Congressional oversight is needed to assure this.


Protection is Expensive, But Still Limited

A number of suggestions have been made for optimizing US preparation and responses for biological attack.  I believe these approaches to be comprehensive and prudent. Methods were chosen with affordability in mind. 

However, the cost of what was outlined may be more than our nation can afford.  On this, Maj Gen John Parker, commanding general of Fort Detrick, and I agree (26). Furthermore, even if all the above measures were taken, there would continue to be weaknesses in our defenses that our enemies could exploit.  Regrettably, our defenses can never catch up to the speed at which new pathogens and toxins can be created.  It is doubtful that effective treatments will be available for many high-tech biological weapons developed with current, not to mention future, techniques.  Our technologies have already outstripped our ability to control them.

It has been said that the arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union.  One can conceive of biological terrorism preparations and responses bankrupting the United States. 


Rethinking the nature of the threat


The White House has suggested that recent anthrax attacks used an anthrax strain and an additive developed by the US biowarfare program.  If true, this is a bitter pill: not only must we fear the former Soviet Union and Iraq’s bioweapons, but the fruits of our own government’s biological warfare program.  

Questions could profitably be asked about the origin of the anthrax recently used: 

  •  Who had access to the American bioweapons stockpile?  Who had the knowledge to prepare weaponized anthrax?
  •  What other microorganisms and toxins did the US program develop and produce, which could potentially also be used against us?  
  •  The US biological weapons stockpile was supposedly destroyed before the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention came into force.  Who handled the destruction?   Was destruction of all materials verified? 
  •  A 1977 Senate hearing (the “Church Committee”) found that not all the weapons had been destroyed, but that some, including a supply of 100 grams of anthrax, were stored for the CIA by a contractor, Becton-Dickinson (27).  Were the materials destroyed following these revelations?  
  •  Was the anthrax stored at Becton-Dickinson identical to that found in Senator Daschle’s letter?
  •  Do foreign letters allegedly containing anthrax contain the same preparation as the US anthrax letters?  Were they postmarked from the US?

Developing Solutions

Our allies may understandably fear that they, too, could face a biological attack with weapons developed by the US program, as well as what the Soviets, Iraqis and others may have created.  Here is one approach to the problem. 

Two weeks ago, the US met with a number of our allies in Ottawa to develop networking approaches to bioterrorism.  We should be networking to develop vaccines together, to order drugs together and to improve communications regarding epidemics, as well as creating mutual assistance plans, rapid response teams, and sharing of biotechnology.

But more than this, in the environment we now find ourselves, it could be in our best interest to “come clean” with our allies (and possibly, in the right circumstances, our enemies) about what was created in our laboratories, and share all available countermeasures, as long as they share full knowledge with us of the bioweapons and countermeasures developed in their programs.  This would make the diaspora of former biological warfare scientists much less threatening.  Their knowledge would no longer be so valuable, once it had been shared with all biological defense establishments.  This would reassure other nations that if US-made weapons were used on them, our best countermeasures would be available to respond.  Similarly, we could be reassured that the best Soviet countermeasures were available to us.  It would mean that scientists from many nations could be jointly engaged in finding solutions and countermeasures to some of the most horrific threats we face, and it would reduce the cost to any one nation of defensive measures.

Our species could be obliterated from the face of the earth using technologies widely available today. Our friends as well as our enemies know this; and they share this predicament with us.  Thus it behooves us to create new forms and ideas if we are to effectively contain this threat.

When all is said and done, the words of Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg sum up the situation. “There is no technical solution to the problem of biological weapons.  It needs an ethical, human and moral solution if it’s going to happen at all.  There is no other solution.”





1.  Bioterror. Nova Documentary. Shown on PBS, November 14, 2001.  Additional information can be found at:  http://www.pbs.org/cgi-bin/wgbh/printable.pl

2. Miller J et al. Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War. Simon and Schuster 2001, New York, NY.

3. Associated Press. U.S. advises anthrax drug for visitors to a publisher. New York Times, November 16, 2001.

4. Smithson A. To bioterror, a local response (Op-Ed). New York Times, October 20, 2001.

5. Alibek K. Biohazard. Random House 1999, New York, NY.

6. Sellman BR et al. Dominant-Negative mutants of a toxin subunit: an approach to therapy of anthrax. Science 2001; 292:695-7.

7. Enserink M. This time it was real: knowledge of anthrax put to the test. Science 2001; 294: 490.

8. Enserink M. Biodefense hampered by inadequate tests. Science 2001; 294: 1266-7.

9. Cohen J. Blocking Smallpox: A second defense. Science 2001; 294:500. 

10. Aston C. Biological warfare canaries. IEEE Spectrum; October 2001: 35-40. 

11. Talbot D. Detecting bioterrorism. Technology Review. December 2001: 35-37.

12. Lee MA et al. Fluorescent detection techniques for real-time multiplex strand specific detection of Bacillus anthracis using rapid PCR. J App Microbiology1999; 87: 218-223.

13. Beyer W et al. Polymerase chain reaction-ELISA to detect Bacillus anthracis from soil samples-limitations of present published primers. J App Microbiology 1999: 87: 229-236.

14. Kolata G. Bioterror drugs stall over rules and logistics. New York Times, November 13, 2001.

15. Cohen J and Marshall E. Vaccines for biodefense: A system in distress. Science 2001: 294: 498-501.

16. Wilson JF. Biological Terrorism. The Scientist 2001; 15 (22): 1, 18-19.

17. Bioport Corporation. Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed Package Insert. March 1999.

18. Cohen J. Smallpox vaccinations: How much protection remains? Science 2001; 294: 985.

19. Zwillich T. Expert: Federal law needed on smallpox vaccination. Reuters Health (Washington), November 5, 2001.

20. Bioterror: Coping with a new reality. Shown on PBS, November 14, 2001.

21.Rosenthal SR et al. Developing new smallpox vaccines. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2001:7 (6).

22. Bradsher K. Three smaller companies say their vaccines are cheaper. New York Times. November 8, 2001. 

23. Marshall E. Bioterror defense initiative injects shot of cash. Science 1999: 283: 1234-5

24. Gillis J. US limits bids on vaccines. Washington Post. November 11, 2001; A14.

25. Agres T. Biosecurity gets needed attention. The Scientist 2001:15 (22): 1, 16-17.

26. Burlas J. No easy fix to combat bio-terrorism, expert says. Army News Service (Washington). November 16, 2001.  Can be found at:  http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Nov2001/a20011116fletchparker.html

27. Karamessines TH. Memorandum for Director of Central Intelligence: Contingency plan for stockpile of biological warfare agents. Undated. Declassified September 15, 1975. 









Stanford’s new ‘smart toilet’ will check out your anus





APR 06, 2020 | 7:35 PM








Chainsaw artist’s sculpture outside Stephen King’s home nears completion












Trump ignored top White House aide’s dire early coronavirus warnings of 2 million potential deaths





APR 07, 2020 | 9








ACLU sues for release of high-risk federal inmates after five die of coronavirus at Louisiana prison





APR 07, 2020 | 12:29 PM









Brazilian researchers say HIV drug Atazanavir inhibited replication of coronavirus ‘better than chloroquine’





APR 07, 2020 | 1:27 PM


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #10 







Thursday, April 16, 2020
Shining some light on the natural origin theory of SARS-CoV-2
I am going out on a limb here, since genetics has evolved quite a bit in the decades since I studied it. I would appreciate readers to comment on arguments pro and con the natural evolution theory of SARS-CoV-2.

While SARS-Cov-2 might have evolved naturally, from bats, pangolins and civets, I have trouble seeing that as very likely.

First, the SARS-CoV family of beta coronaviruses apparently do not cause illness in the bats with whom they coexist. There might even be a symbiotic relationship. There is no evolutionary advantage for these viruses, which are not normally exposed to humans, to accrue features that provide additional virulence in humans.

Second, the vast majority of random mutations, in any species, lead to reduced, not enhanced virulence. There is no survival benefit gained by features that are of no use in a bat milieu. Additional virulence factors probably means more RNA is needed during reproduction, which would also put the mutated virus at a competitive disadvantage.

Third, the reason I feel strongly about this is that the SARS-Cov-2 virus has, compared to the original (2003) SARS-CoV virus, acquired multiple features that have enhanced its virulence for humans.

These are:

1. The prolonged ability to infect others, even when the infected person is asymptomatic or presymptomatic, extending to the period after they have apparently recovered. The 2003 SARS (which I will refer to as SARS-1) patient became contagious only when they had symptoms, it is said.

2. The 3 orders of magnitude greater viral titres in the nasopharynx of affected individuals, compared to titers reported from SARS-1

3. Increased virulence in terms of the increased number of organs the virus is able to infect (a.k.a. enhanced tissue tropism) of SARS-2 compared to SARS-1

4. Not certain about this one, but there is limited evidence that SARS-2 persists a bit longer on environmental surfaces than SARS-1.

It seems that none of these features would help a bat virus outcompete its viral competitors. Together, the presence of multiple, additional virulence factors would presumably require even more RNA, putting the mutated bat virus at a considerable disadvantage to its peers.

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 10:12 PM 5 comments
The Avuncular Dr. Fauci, Fluent yet Facile. Is he also a Fraud?
It is all too easy to find mistakes, misstatements and omissions made by public health officials around the Coronavirus pandemic. Consider the fluent but facile Dr. Fauci. Have you ever heard him say that the institute he directs has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on coronavirus research? Has he tried to help Americans understand any details regarding the nature of SARS-Cov-2? What was he buying with those hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars?

On February 17, Dr. Fauci told USA Today:
...that he doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave." "We have more kids dying of flu this year at this time than in the last decade or more," he said. "At the same time people are worrying about going to a Chinese restaurant. The threat is (we have) a pretty bad influenza season, particularly dangerous for our children."
Except it wasn't true. There had been more pediatric deaths from flu two years earlier, and this year's toll was just above average, according to the CDC:

Click on image to launch interactive tool
Dr. Fauci ought to know a lot about coronaviruses. The NIH Institute he directed, NIAID, has spent up to $51 million dollars a year researching them. One third of the thousands of papers published on coronaviruses, since SARS-1 first appeared, came from US research institutes. One quarter came from China. And yet as recently as Feb.28, in the online NEJM, Fauci continued to make light of the pandemic, along with CDC Director Redfield and Deputy NIAID director Lane, who wrote:
"This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively."
So Fauci, who leads an institute whose mission is to respond to emerging pandemic threats, and has spent big on precisely the kind of threat now facing us, instead played down the pandemic's severity, while falsely exaggerating the dangers of influenza.

Fauci has repeatedly emphasized the 'lack of evidence' to support use of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19. But there has accumulated a good deal of evidence. Nature published a paper by Chinese scientists on the specific mechanisms in tissue culture by which the drugs stop viral reproduction. Chinese scientists published a preprint of a 62 patient placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine, with improved time to recovery and less progression to severe disease in the treated group. A Chinese expert consensus group recommended chloroquine routinely for mild, moderate and severe cases of Covid-19 pneumonia on February 20. Dr. Didier Raoult, an infectious disease professor in France, who is renowned for identifying over 100 microorganisms, including finding the cause of Whipple's disease, and publishing over 2,700 papers, has championed the use of hydroxychloroquine.

Raoult has provided information on 2600 Covid-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin by a variety of doctors at his institution in Marseille. There were only ten deaths, or under a 0.4% mortality rate, compared to mortality rates at least 10 times higher in the US, based on total deaths divided by total diagnosed cases.

Fauci, who has spent decades researching and funding HIV vaccines that never came to fruition, who is well connected with the WHO, UNICEF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a leader in the Decade of Vaccines Collaboration, is holding out (along with Bill and Melinda) for the promise of a future vaccine. With 2,000 Americans dying daily from SARS-CoV-2, what we need are treatments! Observational studies of treatments can and should be done. In fact, the 21st Century Cures Act, passed by Congress in 2016, directs the FDA to accept precisely that type of evidence, in lieu of controlled clinical trials, for licensing new products. You don't hold back a licensed drug with an established safety profile until randomized controlled clinical trials can be done.

It is entirely unethical to withhold promising treatments from patients who have a potentially lethal disease, and equally unethical to enroll them in studies in which they may receive a placebo. Fauci needs to learn the difference between treatment (what doctors do) and research (what scientists do). He needs to be reminded that you can obtain very useful information when treating patients and observing the results, outside a formal trial setting. Such as the mortality rate.

Have you heard how UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson was treated when he was hospitalized with Covid-19? Wouldn't that have been worthwhile news for the mainstream media to publish? Dr. Fauci, won't you tell us how Boris made such a quick recovery?


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #11 






The administration official overseeing coronavirus testing efforts was pushed out of his vaccine development role at Texas A&M University over performance issues, according to a report from the Washington Post.

The Post reports:


[A]fter eight years of work on several vaccine projects, [Brett] Giroir was told in 2015 he had 30 minutes to resign or he would be fired. His annual performance evaluation at Texas A&M, the local newspaper reported, said he was ‘more interested in promoting yourself’ than the health science center where he worked. He got low marks on being a ‘team player.’

Now President Trump has given Giroir the crucial task of ending the massive shortfall of tests for the novel coronavirus. Some governors have blasted the lack of federal help on testing, which they say is necessary to enact Trump’s plan for reopening the economy.

That criticism has focused attention on Giroir and whether he can deliver results under pressure. His years as director of the Texas vaccine project illustrate his operating style, which includes sweeping statements about the impact of his work, not all of which turned out as some had hoped.

During two recent interviews with The Washington Post, Giroir blamed his ouster on internal politics at the university, not on any problems with the project.

Many public health experts have said that the economy cannot fully reopen until coronavirus testing becomes widely available; otherwise the country will risk seeing a surge in cases once stay-at-home orders are relaxed


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #12 










A Maine girl sold her toys and used the money to support health care workers and others








Rules for Radicals


The Rules

  1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
  2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
  3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
  4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
  5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
  6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
  7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
  8. "Keep the pressure on."
  9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
  10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
  11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside."
  12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
  13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."









Hospital Workers Like Me Are Waging a War Against Coronavirus. Where Is Our GI Bill?

Elizabeth May

April 23 2020, 7:00 a.m.









Quack-in-Chief Donald Trump Asks If Bleach Injections or Tanning Could Cure Covid-19

Robert Mackey

April 24 2020, 6:33 a.m.







WATCH: Cops Continue to Shoot Man in Walmart after he Drops Bat he was Wielding









Police Chief Solicits 14-year-old for Sex who turns out to be Adult Activist


Stow Police Chief Ralph "Rusty" Marino was thrilled to learn the 14-year-old boy he was chatting with online had a six-inch penis, the same size as his.











Security Guard Attacks Men for Recording from Sidewalk, Smashing their Cameras









Drugmaker asked FDA authorization to use HIV drug to treat coronavirus patients, then tripled its price





APR 23, 2020 | 5:53 PM











Where did COVID-19 come from? Part 2


Posted on April 21, 2020


Last week, I outlined genetic evidence that the present pandemic had its origin in a laboratory. In the segment below, I tell two stories of how this might have occurred, one as leak from an American lab and one from a Chinese lab. I was surprised to find that there is a history of collaborative work between American and Chinese bioweapons labs on exactly the kind of Coronavirus responsible for the current epidemic, in which a protein that binds with ACE2 was artificially spliced onto the genome of the bat virus ancestor.


Here’s a puzzle worthy of Sherlock Holmes’s story of the dog who didn’t bark. The Chinese are eagerly promoting narratives about the SARS-CoV2 virus originating in America, while the Americans assume that, of course, the virus evolved where the first cases were identified, in Wuhan, China. But both sides agree, SARS-CoV2 had a natural origin, and had nothing to do with genetic engineering or breeding in a laboratory.  As we shall see below there are credible links to both the Wuhan Institute of Virology and to the US bioweapons HQ at Fort Detrick, MD and a university lab at Chapel Hill.

Why wouldn’t these two propaganda machines be eager to demonize one another by promoting stories about leaks from the other’s weapons lab? If one but not the other of these spin-control states were too eagerly dismissing the bioweapons







Thursday, April 23, 2020

Coronavirus: mortality rates, questionable data, treatment. Part 3



Mortality rates and spread


We have had over 6 weeks of quarantine.  I earlier pointed out that there is an average 4 week lag between exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and death (or recovery) for those with a significant Covid-19 illness.  So, if the quarantine was going to work as planned, we should now be able to see whether the number of cases and deaths have dropped significantly as a result.  Have they?


Let's look at some (mostly) official figures. For the US, daily mortality rose to about a peak of 2,000 per day on April 6.  Since then, mortality has held steady.  While it stopped rising, it has not fallen.  Based on mortality alone, the number of people to whom each infected person passes the infection on, has dropped considerably (from estimates that varied between 2.3 and 5.7).  It may even be as low as 1.  But that is still not good enough to allow normal life to restart.  To get back to normal, we need new infections to get down so low that we can do case finding and tracking for every single one.


There were over 32,000 new infections in the US diagnosed in the past 24 hours, the highest number yet.  While expanded testing accounts for some of the rise, we are nowhere near putting a lid on covid's spread.




NY state was hit hardest, so let's focus there. NY has had a total of 15,740 deaths. The number of people currently hospitalized is 15,021, down from a peak over 18,000, of whom 5,016 are in ICUs.  Recorded deaths have dropped from about 800 to about 500 per day in NY.  


But there are questions about the numbers.  CDC has instructed doctors who complete death certificates to stop using Covid-19 as the immediate cause of death, and to instead list it as the underlying cause of death.  According to Bob Hennelly at Salon,


...on April 15 New Jersey's Office of Vital Statistics and Registry, in accordance with the CDC's National Vital Statistics System, had ordered that deaths of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients should no longer be reported with that disease as the immediate cause of death... "Last week, because of changes on the national level, the primary cause of death can no longer be COVID-19. It can be a secondary cause or a consequence of the primary cause of death. But the primary cause of death must be something other than the virus itself."


Furthermore, Hennelly noted in an article written 2 weeks earlier, that NYC's Emergency Medical Services were being called for up to ten times more cardiac arrests per shift than in the same period a year ago.  These were likely not being counted as Covid deaths. His reporting suggested these deaths were disproportionately occurring in racial and ethnic minorities.


Gov. Cuomo reported a preliminary study of 3,000 New Yorkers, of whom 13.9% had antibodies to coronavirus.  But NY is the hardest-hit state, and that still leaves 86% of New Yorkers without antibodies and presumably vulnerable.


Vo, Italy 


preprint study from a small town in northern Italy was just released. In February, over 70% of its eligible population, over 2,000 people, received nasal swab tests 2 weeks apart.  About 43% of those who had a positive swab had no symptoms. Seventeen percent of those positive (but about 30% with symptoms) required hospitalization.


These data support earlier studies, which showed that most of those who become infected do develop disease. Less than half were asymptomatic. 


Plan B


While a general hope was that SARS-CoV-2 might slowly spread through the population and confer immunity without significant cost, that seems unlikely, based on these and other data. The vast majority of Americans remain uninfected and without immunity.


The bottom line is that the current level of quarantine will not solve the Covid problem. It did end the exponential rise in the number of infections, and prevented (or at least postponed) a collapse of the medical system.  But it does not appear that the elapse of time will yield immunity without predictably high morbidity and mortality. 


We desperately need effective treatments and preventives.  Patients need cures.  The 88% mortality rate of those who were placed on ventilators in NY's largest hospital system is unacceptable.


In China, patients received a multitude of different treatments, simultaneously.  While that may create datasets that are hard for researchers, who seek to determine the efficacy of single treatments, to untangle, it might improve dismal mortality rates.


The duty of a treating physician is exclusively to the patient, not to the fidelity of a pharma or grant-supported dataset or clinical trial.  It is time to throw the kitchen sink at our patients, and especially try vitamin and nutraceutical combinations that are unlikely to cause harm.  These are being used in some hospitals and by some physicians already.


Furthermore, treatment needs to be started early.  The common medications used for viral diseases: influenza, herpes simplex and varicella zoster infections (acyclovir, famciclovir, valacyclovir, oseltamvir) are all recommended to be started within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms.  Guidelines that recommend withholding safe medications, or waiting until patients are severely ill and hospitalized before using them, provide no valid scientific or ethical justification for doing so. They should be consigned to the scrap heap.


Changes made by CDC to reporting guidelines for Covid-19 death certificates may corrupt mortality data. Out-of-hospital deaths may also do so.  Cities and states need their epidemiologists to scrutinize all deaths to make sure Covid deaths are correctly assigned. The data used by the federal government to make critical decisions about managing the pandemic must be accurate. It is not clear they are.



Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 9:57 PM 0 comments 







Once concentrated in cities, coronavirus begins spread into Trump Country





APR 23, 2020 | 6:04 PM








Georgia reopens hair salons, gyms and bowling alleys despite rise in coronavirus deaths 










Native Americans being left out of US coronavirus data and labelled as 'other'










‘Death by meteorite’: Turkish researchers claim to have proof of world’s first space-rock fatality








A spoonful of sugar? Scientists develop coated ‘nanohybrid’ vehicle for precise drug delivery INSIDE the brain









Akela Lacy

April 23 2020, 2:22 p.m.








Sharon Lerner

April 22 2020, 2:00 p.m.









Fort Kent family famous for making snowshoes craft brown ash baskets








TV Network News gave less than 4 hours to climate change in

Major news networks devoted less than 4 hours to climate change in 2019. Total.


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #13 



Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Another expert challenges assertions that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered/ GM Watch

Prof Stuart Newman believes genetic engineering may have been involved at some point in the virus’s history
Another expert on biotechnology has attacked the evidence being used to quash suggestions that SARS-CoV-2, the virus strain that causes COVID-19, might have been genetically engineered. Professor Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College, says that a key argument used to deny that it could be a genetically engineered strain that escaped from a laboratory actually points to the exact opposite. In other words, it indicates that SARS-CoV-2 could well be genetically engineered and that it could have escaped from a lab.
The evidence that is being cited as proving that SARS-CoV-2 is “not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus” is a paper published by the immunologist Kristian Andersen and colleagues in Nature Medicine. As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted, Andersen’s paper argues that, "the SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses – the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory 'escape’.”
But Professor Newman says that this is totally unconvincing because “The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the US and China) for two decades.”
So not only does Newman think that the virus could have escaped from a lab, he also thinks that it could have originated in a virus stock that had undergone genetic engineering at some point.

In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman, who is editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory and co-author (with Tina Stevens) of the book Biotech Juggernaut, amplified this speculation by noting, “The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild. However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science.”
Moreover, Newman added, “The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity.”
Newman said that he does not believe that these changes were deliberately introduced to increase the pathogenicity of any single strain, but that SARS-CoV-2 may have had genetically engineered components in its history before being inadvertently introduced into the human population.

Newman is not the only scientist that has spoken out about the possibility of a genetically engineered element to the virus. We recently published an article in which the molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou also cast doubt on these assertions. Dr Antoniou set out a method by which the virus could have been genetically manipulated and selected for increased infectivity in the laboratory.

Neither Dr Antoniou, nor Prof Newman, nor we ourselves make any suggestion that, in the event that genetic engineering was involved, the intention was to create a bioweapon. Such “enhanced infectivity” research is carried out on viruses all over the world (and not just in China) to investigate their behaviour and to develop vaccines and other therapies, as well as for “biodefence” purposes.

But the question of whether genetic engineering did play a part in the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 must continue to be investigated so that humanity can place appropriate limits and safeguards on such research.

NIH funded coronavirus research in Wuhan to make more virulent viruses/Newsweek

Great detailed pieces from Newsweek, which has been delving into the US government's financial support for "gain of function" (which means increasing the virulence of a pathogen) research in Wuhan, China, which might have contributed to the formation of SARS-CoV-2. They were posted April 27, and 29.  From the latest story:
The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses, and had a budget of $3.7 million. The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab, and other researchers to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This part of the project was completed in 2019.
second phase of the project, beginning that year, included additional surveillance work but also gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit research group, under the direction of President Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology. NIH canceled the project just this past Friday, April 24th, Politico reported. Daszak did not immediately respond to Newsweek requests for comment.
The project proposal states: "We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential."
In layman's terms, "spillover potential" refers to the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans, which requires that the virus be able to receptors in the cells of humans. SARS-CoV-2, for instance, is adept at binding to the ACE2 receptor in human lungs and other organs...
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.
Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.
Ads by scrollerads.com
SARS-CoV-2 , the virus now causing a global pandemic, is believed to have originated in bats. U.S. intelligence, after originally asserting that the coronavirus had occurred naturally, conceded last month that the pandemic may have originated in a leak from the Wuhan lab. (At this point most scientists say it's possible—but not likely—that the pandemic virus was engineered or manipulated.)
Dr. Fauci did not respond to Newsweek's requests for comment. NIH responded with a statement that said in part: "Most emerging human viruses come from wildlife, and these represent a significant threat to public health and biosecurity in the US and globally, as demonstrated by the SARS epidemic of 2002-03, and the current COVID-19 pandemic.... scientific research indicates that there is no evidence that suggests the virus was created in a laboratory..."
In other words, until you can find the evidence proving we funded this virus, NIH (and Fauci in particular) is admitting nothing.  How likely do you think it is that the evidence still exists?

Theory of how SARS-CoC-2 was created in a lab/ Prof Nikolai Petrovsky

Dr. Petrovsky, of Flinders University, Australia, was asked his opinion on the origin of SAR-2 and wrote the following
"An extremely important but still unanswered question is what was the source of COVID-19 virus. While COVID-19 has close similarities to SARS and other bat viruses no natural virus matching to COVID-19 has been found in nature despite an intensive search to find its origins. This raises the very legitimate question of whether the COVID-19 virus might be the result of human intervention. 

Certainly, our and other analyses of the genomic sequence of the virus do not reveal any artificial gene inserts that would be the hallmark of a gene jockey, genetic engineers who manipulate or even create viruses by splicing in artificial inserts into their genome. These are generally easily recognisable and hence clear signatures of human intervention in the creation of a virus. The fact that these artificial inserts are not present has been interpreted by some to mean this virus is not the result of human manipulation.

However, this logic is incorrect as there are other ways in which humans can manipulate viruses and that is caused by natural selection. What do I mean? All viruses and bacteria mutate and adapt to their environment over time, with selection of the fittest individuals for survival in that particular environment.

Take a bat coronavirus that is not infectious to humans, and force its selection by culturing it with cells that express human ACE2 receptor, such cells having been created many years ago to culture SARS coronaviruses and you can force the bat virus to adapt to infect human cells via mutations in its spike protein, which would have the effect of increasing the strength of its binding to human ACE2, and inevitably reducing the strength of its binding to bat ACE2.

Viruses in prolonged culture will also develop other random mutations that do not affect its function. The result of these experiments is a virus that is highly virulent in humans but is sufficiently different that it no longer resembles the original bat virus. Because the mutations are acquired randomly by selection there is no signature of a human gene jockey, but this is clearly a virus still created by human intervention.

My group in collaboration with other Australian researchers have been using a modelling approach to study the possible evolutionary origins of COVID-19 by modelling interactions between its spike protein and a broad variety of ACE2 receptors from many animals and humans.

This work which we will publish on a prepress server next week shows that the strength of binding of COVID-19 to human ACE2 far exceeds the predicted strength of its binding to the ACE2 of any of the other species. This points to the virus having been selected for its high binding to human ACE2.  In the absence of evidence of historic human infections with this virus, which could result in such selection, this either is a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention.

This, plus the fact that no corresponding virus has been found to exist in nature, leads to the possibility that COVID-19 is a  human-created virus. It is therefore entirely plausible that the virus was created in the biosecurity facility in Wuhan by selection on cells expressing human ACE2, a laboratory that was known to be cultivating exotic bat coronaviruses at the time. Is so the cultured virus could have escaped the facility either through accidental infection of a staff member who then visited the fish market several blocks away and there infected others, or by inappropriate disposal of waste from the facility that either infected humans outside the facility directly or via a susceptible vector such as a stray cat that then frequented the market and resulted in transmission there to humans. 

Whilst the facts cannot be known at this time, the nature of this event and its proximity to a high-risk biosecurity facility at the epicentre of the outbreak demands a full and independent international enquiry to ascertain whether a virus of this kind of COVID-19 was being cultured in the facility and might have been accidentally released."

Viral Shedding Continues Up to 6 Weeks After Coronavirus Symptom Onset

(Reuters Health) - Patients may continue to shed the SARS-CoV-2 virus for up to six weeks after symptoms emerge, a small study of recovered COVID-19 patients suggests.  One third tested positive 4 weeks after start of symptoms... so when can you go back to work after getting COVID?
Dr. Zhang and colleagues summarized their experience with 56 COVID-19 patients (median age 55; 61% men) admitted to Tongi Hospital in Wuhan in January and February. Throat or deep nasal cavity swab samples were collected on different dates after symptom onset. SARS-CoV-2 was diagnosed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays All patients had mild-moderate infection.
As reported in Clinical Infectious Diseases, 299 RT-PCR assays were performed (about five tests per patient). The longest duration between symptom onset and an RT-PCR test was 42 days, whereas the median duration was 24 days.
In the first three weeks after symptom onset, the majority of RT-PCR results were positive for SARS-CoV-2. From week three onward, negative results increased. All tests were negative at week six after symptom onset. 
The rate of positive results was highest at week one (100%), followed by 89.3%, 66.1%, 32.1%, 5.4% and 0% at weeks two, three, four, five and six, respectively.

Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #14 
Originally Posted by joeb


My go to person for COVID 19 is Meryl Nass MD who
lives in Maine 
I have personally known her for over 5 years.

She was the first Doctor , to my best knowledge,
to publish a research paper dealing with a country
using a biological weapon against it’s own people.

This is her post for today May 1 2020.


Friday, May 1, 2020
Spooky history: 3 scientists who tried to silence debate on the possible lab origin of COVID-19, previously tried to kill debate on the origin of AIDS

Ed Hooper took a very deep dive into the origin of AIDS in his highly lauded book, The River. How did HIV jump species from monkey to man? While blamed by some on the consumption of bush meat, Hooper suggested that the use of monkey kidneys to manufacture live polio vaccines, in the Belgian Congo, was a much more likely explanation. Today, the consumption of bat meat has been offered as the route by which SARS-CoV-2 leapt to humans.

Nature Medicine ran a highly cited (including by the Director of the NIH, Francis Collins) article on March 17 which insisted that it was the final word on the subject of COVID'S origin, and should "end any speculation about deliberate genetic engineering."

While there are many curious things about that article, which I and others have noted, Ed Hooper discovered an astonishing coincidence. Three of the five authors of the Nature Medicine paper had tried to influence him regarding the origin of AIDS, separately, many years earlier. Two of them had debated him and published papers insisting they had disproved the oral polio vaccine theory of AIDS origin. The third author, a virologist who frequently strays from virology, claimed AIDS had been around for hundreds of years.

I believe this coauthor, Robert Garry, attempted to misdirect the discourse on the cause of anthrax vaccine's toxicity. He reported it was exclusively due to squalene. Had his claim been accepted, anthrax vaccines that omitted squalene would have been wrongly deemed safe.

You have to scratch your head. Are these scientists longstanding members of a "clean-up" crew, whose role is to misdirect us from a potential laboratory contribution to the two most deadly epidemics of modern times? And to misdirect us about potential safety issues in vaccines?

The Bible says, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Here are Ed Hooper's thoughts on the debate regarding the origins of COVID-19 and AIDS.
Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 10:53 PM 0 comments



Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #15 




Saturday, May 2, 2020
The feds have failed us; but we can solve some of the basic questions about COVID-19 at the state and local level
My state has had 1156 positive COVID cases, 0.1% of the population, and 30 new cases in the last day. Twenty-two percent of cases have been in healthcare workers. New cases peaked in early April. My county has had only 10 diagnosed cases, though we don't know how many people who have second homes here, and are sheltering in them, are affected. They are not counted in our totals.

In any event, the case numbers are small enough for Department of Health employees to do case finding, trace contacts, and maybe identify some asymptomatic spreaders. Is this happening? This is the basic way public health professionals respond to many infectious diseases, for example tuberculosis, syphilis and hepatitis.

Mapping out the spread of the disease at the individual level would be extremely useful. There are so many basic questions that need to be answered, and this would help provide some answers. What were the risk factors in each case? How many people were infected through close contact? How many by touching infected surfaces? How many by simply breathing the same indoor air as someone else? Would opening windows help? What are our highest risk behaviors? Does wearing a homemade mask, never tried before, reduce cases? Are surgical masks acceptable for healthcare workers' safety?

What treatment did each case receive, or administer to themself? Were vitamins, supplements, medications used? How long did the illness last? Did early treatment prevent hospitalizations? Shorten the course? Did any recovered cases spread the disease to others? Is there actual evidence of reinfection?

These data could be collected by employees with minimal training. They would be useful in my state, even with just 1156 cases. But think how valuable they would be if collected, as much as possible, throughout the country. Throughout the world?

Our federal experts are clearly failing us. They present us with no safe off ramps, except for that faraway and elusive vaccine. (See final paragraph for info on what happened the last time the federal government rushed into a vaccine program for all.)*

Perhaps generating our own data, at the state or local level, is something we can do, now, to help us find our way out of the maze.

The lockdown should have bought precious time, during which we could figure out how to resupply needed medical and protective equipment, identify drugs that were useful and plan how to obtain them in sufficient supply. We could have learned what countries with low death rates did right, and try to emulate them. We could have figured out which tests were accurate, approved them, stopped the rest from being used, and expanded the production of the good ones.

But these past weeks seem to have been squandered. There is still not enough PPE, so how will there be enough if we have a second large wave of cases? Testing is an unregulated jungle.

And instead of identifying and resolving the issue of effective drugs, our top COVID doctor (Fauci) greenlighted a scheme to alter the endpoints of NIAID's clinical trial of remdesivir, not just once but twice, to make the drug appear to have a little efficacy. Meanwhile, he railed against hydroxychloroquine. Subsequently, over thirty states have limited hydroxychloroquine prescribing, most commonly restricting the drug to severe, hospitalized cases. Yet 3 of 4 hospital systems in San Diego, for example, are using it. Is Fauci playing us, claiming we need better data before it can be recommended, but then refusing to fund any trials to obtain that data, when the stakes could not be higher? And offering a nothingburger instead.

Since hydroxychloroquine reduces viral load, it should be given as early as possible. Didier Raoult, France's most famous infectious disease doctor, says it does not work when its use is delayed. With over 1 million diagnosed cases, why are the American people still in the dark about almost every aspect of this pandemic, and especially about how the treatments that have been used, have done?

It's past time to start gathering our own detailed data, at the state and local level. Encourage your governor to participate and be a hero. Time to light a candle in the dark, and dig our own way out.

*The WaPo tells us today about the disaster that occurred the last time the federal government decided to produce a vaccine at warp speed. But for a much better understanding of that fiasco, read Maurice Hilleman's JAMA article, or take a detailed peek behind the curtain of the federal health bureaucracy in this study of the 1976 swine flu program, produced by the National Academy of Sciences.

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 9:36 PM 0 comments
Faking results: Fauci's NIAID-paid Remdesivir Study changed its Outcome Measures Twice, in order to show even a whiff of benefit
Screen-Shot-2020-04-30-at-2.06.47-PM.png (1137×637)

Below you can go to the ClinicalTrials.gov site for the NAIAD Remdesivir trial (ACTT) that Fauci claimed created a new "standard of care" for COVID-19. The same Fauci who claimed to be a purist about hydroxychloroquine, demanding well designed randomized clinical trials before using it, has done the unthinkable in medicine: changed the goalposts, twice, on his remdesivir study in order to provide the appearance of benefit.
Even then, benefit was quite small.

A month ago, I wondered if Fauci was a fraud and a hypocrite. He has now proven he is both. When will Trump hire a competent doctor to lead an effective response to COVID-19? Preferably one who was not, like Fauci, responsible for funding the creation of novel, virulent coronaviruses.
History of Changes for Study: NCT04280705
Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT)
Latest version (submitted April 23, 2020) on ClinicalTrials.gov
Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 3:32 PM 0 comments
UK has world's highest COVID mortality, but has not revealed what treatments led to its Prime Minister's rapid recovery
The UK has had a surge in diagnosed cases and deaths over the past few weeks. Its lockdown started late compared to the rest of western Europe. The initial strategy was to protect the most vulnerable and allow the rest of the country to develop herd immunity. Some say that is still part of the strategy.

Then Boris Johnson wound up in the ICU. There has still been no reporting on what treatment he received, despite reports he was "responding to treatment," even on a website for doctors which provided a day by day account of his progress. Boris Johnson needed a "significant level of specialist treatment" at the worst points of his battle against coronavirus, according to his spokesman, and he himself said there was no question but that the NHS had saved his life. He certainly made a rapid recovery, and left the ICU having avoided ventilation.

His fiancee was also ill, but but did not require hospitalization, and 3 days ago gave birth to a healthy baby boy.

The UK is just behind Italy in the number of deaths (over 28,000) and 15% of those with a positive diagnosis in the UK have died. This makes the UK the country with the highest rate of deaths to positive COVID-19 diagnoses in the world. By comparison, the US mortality rate has remained stable over the past week, with a 5.8% mortality rate (66,383 deaths) of the total who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 (1,138,834 Americans).

You might think the people of the UK would be interested in learning exactly what the prime minister's "significant level of specialist care" entailed, and whether applying it in the rest of the UK might reduce its abysmal COVID-19 mortality rate.
Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 1:55 PM 0 comments


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #16 







Sunday, May 3, 2020

The N95 Debacle. Hospitals refuse to allow staff to wear their own personal N95 masks, presumably to cover their incompetent stocking practices, despite high rates of healthcare worker infections/ Scientific American




With medical supplies in high demand, federal authorities

 say health workers can wear surgical masks for protection while treating COVID-19 patients—but growing evidence suggests the practice is putting workers in jeopardy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently said lower-grade surgical masks are “an acceptable alternative” to N95 masks unless workers are performing an intubation or another procedure on a COVID patient that could unleash a high volume of virus particles.

But scholars, nonprofit leaders and former regulators in the specialized field of occupational safety say relying on surgical masks—which are considerably less protective than N95 respirators—is almost certainly fueling illness among front-line health workers, who likely make up about 11% of all known COVID-19 cases.


“There’s no doubt in my mind that that’s one of the reasons that so many health care workers are getting sick and many are dying,” said Jonathan Rosen, a health and safety expert who advises unions, states and the federal government.

As of April 23, more than 21,800 health care workers had gotten the coronavirus and 71 had died, according to a House Education and Labor Committee staffer briefed by the CDC.

The CDC’s advice contrasts with another CDC webpage that says a surgical mask does “NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection.”

Put simply, in worker safety, “a surgical mask is not PPE,” or personal protective equipment, said Amber Mitchell, president and executive director of the International Safety Center and immediate past chair of the occupational health and safety section of the American Public Health Association.

The allowance for surgical masks made more sense when scientists initially thought the virus was spread by large droplets. But a growing body of research shows it’s spread by minuscule viral particles that can linger in the air as long as 16 hours...


Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 8:08 PM 0 comments 




Murder Most Foul: the Perps behind COVID-19/ Ronnie Cummings




... But here we are. As our new reality sinks in, as we adjust to lockdowns and home schooling and long lines at grocery stores, as we look for ways to protect ourselves and our families—and as some grieve for lost loved ones—most of us are also seeking answers.

Why does this virus cause so many mysterious symptoms? Why are some cases mild, others deadly? How can we protect ourselves? Whose advice should we follow?

But the biggest questions of all are these: Where did COVID-19 come from? And how can we prevent this from ever happening again?

The answers to these questions may be too disturbing to ponder, especially while we’re still grappling with the impact of the virus on nearly every aspect of our lives.

But our failure to investigate, and directly address, the origins of COVID-19 almost certainly guarantees our failure to protect ourselves from future, possibly even more deadly, pandemics...




Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 7:45 PM 0 comments 






International Lawyer Dr. Boyle's Testimony Must be Used to Back Away from Bio Warfare by 193 Heads of State

By Stephen Fox       (Page 1 of 4 pages) (View How Many People Read This)   8 comments



Become a Fan

  (32 fans)


A recent interview with bioweapons expert Dr. Francis Boyle, published by GreatGameIndia and conducted by Geopolitics & Empire, has been exploding across the world the past few days as the truth is emerging on the origins of the coronavirus bioweapon












SEE IT: NYPD cop making arrest for social distancing violation punches and takes down bystander





MAY 03, 2020 | 1:53 PM







Maine prisons pressured to release more inmates, and information, during pandemic

At least a dozen governors and the U.S. attorney general have taken explicit steps in recent weeks to reduce the number of people in prison, such as issuing commutations or expanding the criteria for early release.









North Carolina Supreme Court: Flipping Off Cop Did Not Justify Traffic Stop

A state trooper believed a man driving by and flipping the bird at the cops constituted disorderly conduct. (It didn't.)

ZURI DAVIS | 5.1.2020 5:15 PM







Councilman Wants Cop Hiring Freeze To Limit Cuts in Education Funding Burden









Public defender’s office to represent ex-UI cop







Gowdy on FBI notes from Michael Flynn investigation: 'We need an FBI that we can trust'











Inside FBI director Chris Wray's fate








FBI-informant husband of ‘Cult Mom’ Lori Vallow’s niece wore a wire, spied on his new bride: Report











Biden Delegate Candidate Wants FBI To Investigate Journalists Who Broke Tara Reade Story









Watch This AI Algorithm Change Humans into Animorphs

AI researcher Xander Steenbrugge used machine learning generative models to turn people into animals and back again.


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #17 






The Coronavirus and Why We Have Government




Submitted by editor on 04 April 2020 - 11:34am

The U.S. government’s dismal lack of preparation for the coronavirus pandemic encourages us to ask why people have governments. 

The answers are twofold: one basic, the other particular to now and to the United States.

The basic answer to the why of government is similar to what Robert Frost said about poetry;  it’s a hedge against chaos. Ideally governments are instituted in large multi-faceted societies to maintain order and justice and to provide a fair framework for settling disputes, conducting business, and protecting rights equally for all people - creating the conditions where life can flourish now and in the future. Governments are also responsible for the security of the state, protecting it from both internal and external threats. The point is that we want our government to act for the common good and to be, in general, as unobtrusive as possible so that people are free to live their lives as good citizens, enjoying their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. Ralph Nader said, “...the pursuit of justice is the condition of the pursuit of happiness.” That statement encapsulates and justifies good governance. If a state can provide as much justice as possible, the people will be free to pursue as much happiness as possible. Martin Luther King, Jr.,  put it slightly differently but meant the same when he defined the American Dream as: “The riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

To succeed democratic governments must take on a further responsibility: education of the people. Not indoctrination, but the education of citizens as critical thinkers with strong knowledge of the country's history free of myth and propaganda, while also teaching what is expected of good citizens. How else can we have a government of, by and for the people? People need to know about those times when the government failed to live up to or protect its own ideals and why that happened.These failures must be taught honestly because they are the lessons people need in order to confront current failures. Many Americans would like to believe that the United States is the world’s greatest democracy and that the words of the Pledge of Allegiance “...with liberty and justice for all,” are, in fact, true. But, if your education has taught you that those things are true, then I’d like to give you a good deal on the Brooklyn Bridge. Citizenship begins with knowledge, responsibility and vigilance.

So much for a simplistic, but basic, explanation of why we have a government. Note: I have said nothing about our government’s need to project intimidating force as the world’s sole superpower, nor using that power for securing natural resources, markets or labor. Those are what we might call ‘add-ons,’ not the fundamental role - having more to do with profit-driven economics than with a definition of good democratic government. However, the bulk of our financial resources are allocated to sustain that power of Empire.

What I’m interested in right now is how the coronavirus lays bare a terrible failure of our government. We should all know by now that multiple agencies and experts warned for many years that such a pandemic was not only possible but likely and that we were not prepared in terms of medical equipment and facilities. An essential responsibility of government is to prepare for such likely contingencies. If it doesn’t, what good is it? Lack of preparation exponentially increases the scope of the crisis, the harm done and the degree of suffering. Lack of preparation also ensures that those leaders who have failed in their responsibility will blame others and make the failure political. Crises like  COVID-19 should not be political. When leaders say. “We could never have seen this coming,” they are lying. 

As bad as this situation is, we all need to understand that our government has failed us in many other ways, some potentially worse. Because the corona situation is so all-consuming, it has eclipsed the political struggle over preparation for the Climate Emergency, which is proceeding unabated and unmitigated as we hyperventilate (quite reasonably) about the paucity of ventilators. The catastrophic climate crisis underway will quite likely impact many more people than the coronavirus, and unlike the virus, will not, at some point, run its course. The failure  of the U.S. government to act comprehensively and proactively in response to the climate situation should make each of us ask why we allow such disastrous negligence to continue.

But it’s worse. Our government habitually prepares for military emergencies that it invents. Twenty years ago in the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration, in the name of imminent attack, lied to the American people about the necessity for preemptively attacking the country of Iraq.  This lie was not a mistake; it was a premeditated crime, a crime against humanity. Millions of people killed, trillions of dollars wasted, environments destroyed and poisoned, and time - time that our government had to prepare for real crises - squandered. Of course, the weapons dealers, the war profiteers, the banks, the fossil fuel companies have made astounding profits. That means the peoples’ money (our taxes) has been gifted by the government to the very people who are destroying the climate and not preparing for real crises, so that they can continue to profit. We call that corruption.

When governments fail like ours has failed, exactly what kind of allegiance do we owe? The people owe no allegiance to a corrupt government. But we owe total allegiance to our fellow humans, to the ideals that bind us morally and politically, to our children and to the future. Which means we can’t walk away from this crisis and can’t walk away from what the pandemic has taught us about the failure of our government. Like the health care workers who have toiled so courageously and tirelessly to save victims of the virus, we, as citizens, need to show the same dedication to reinstituting an honest government whose primary interest is health, welfare and justice for the people and the planet. Who else can fix this problem? We are called to act. 


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #18 



Friday, May 8, 2020

The Testing Mess

I have not written much about testing since the early days of this crisis, because there is almost no reliable information.  The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued recommendations about testing two days ago, and the authors admit that their advice is almost evidence-free.

So, this is all I can say reliably at this time.

1.  A fabulous review article describing everything about SARS-1, written by scientists from Hong Kong discusses the significant difficulties in developing various tests for coronaviruses.  I highly recommend reading it, because it is extremely relevant to SARS-2, and no compilation like this exists yet for the new coronavirus.

2.  CDC decided in January it would develop a nasal swab PCR COVID test and that no one else could market COVID tests in the US.  It failed to create a usable test, so on Feb 29 FDA said others could apply to FDA for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for their tests.  But their EUA process was very cumbersome, so few applied.  Until March 16, only 4 EUAs had been issued, including the EUA for CDC's failed test.  

Still lacking testing, FDA on March 16 said that anyone could offer COVID tests in the US, and apply later for FDA approval. Between then and now, over 100 companies poured into the testing market, and FDA issued 65 emergency use approvals for both PCR and antibody tests.  These were approved on an emergency basis, and do not reflect a guarantee by FDA of test validity.  

Beginning March 31, FDA also approved tests that had been developed by 24 university and commercial labs, but only if they were performed on-site at the lab that developed them. 

On May 4, FDA issued new guidelines which will attempt to bring some order into this chaos.

3.  Antibody tests measure antibodies but do not necessarily identify immunity.  As in Lyme disease:  you may have antibodies but are still susceptible to another infection.  Or, you may have Lyme disease but are not making enough antibody to detect with existing tests, even after weeks or months.  

It is a lot more important to determine if you are immune, than to determine if you just have antibodies.  I will wait to spend my money on tests of immunity, if and when they become available.

4.  PCR (aka "molecular") tests look for a small portion of the virus, generally in your nasopharynx.  This is not a culture test for the virus, and does not absolutely guarantee that you have active infection and are contagious--but it is the closest we can come to diagnosing active infection in the lab.  We don't know how sensitive nor specific each of the many available tests are, but in China the rule was to perform multiple tests before releasing people from quarantine.  We should expect false negatives, which can also result from sampling errors.  Here is what the FDA says about negative results, indicating they are quite concerned about false negatives:

What does it mean if the specimen tests negative for the virus that causes COVID-19? 

A negative test result for this test means that SARS CoV-2 RNA was not present in the specimen above the limit of detection. However, a negative result does not rule out COVID-19 and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions. A negative result does not exclude the possibility of COVID-19. When diagnostic testing is negative, the possibility of a false negative result should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19. The possibility of a false negative result should especially be considered if the patient’s recent exposures or clinical presentation indicate that COVID19 is likely, and diagnostic tests for other causes of illness (e.g., other respiratory illness) are negative. If COVID-19 is still suspected based on exposure history together with other clinical findings, re-testing should be considered by healthcare providers in consultation with public health authorities. 

Risks to a patient of a false negative include: delayed or lack of supportive treatment, lack of monitoring of infected individuals and their household or other close contacts for symptoms resulting in increased risk of spread of COVID-19 within the community, or other unintended adverse events.

5.  What concerns me as much as unreliable tests, however, is an unreliable supply of testing machines and supplies.  I want to know that FDA is identifying the best tests, and that the government is adequately stockpiling the materials needed to perform them, in the event of a massive "second wave" of illness.  Since we still lack sufficient supplies to test everyone suspected of COVID now, what plans are being put in place for a potentially much worse situation ahead?  The media should report on this.

Americans in need of N95 masks go without so money could be spent on $2.8 billion sweetheart deal for anthrax vaccine manufacturer/ WaPo

A spectacular Washington Post article of May 4 connected the lack of protective respirators (aka N95 masks) with Emergent BioSolutions (the anthrax vaccine manufacturer). Emergent received incredible insider contracts from the current Assistant DHHS Secretary of Preparedness and Response (ASPR), Robert Kadlec, who early in life attended the Air Force Academy and DOD medical school, but has forgotten his air force and physician oaths.  He is better described as a voracious Beltway Bandit with little concern for the health of those in his trust. 
He is also a former partner and contractor for the majority owner of Emergent BioSolutions, Fuad El-hibri, which he omitted disclosing to Congress, as required, when approved for the job of Assistant Secretary.
Until 2018 the Strategic National Stockpile of drugs, vaccines, devices and personal protective equipment (PPE) was controlled by CDC.  CDC failed to resupply needed PPE after the 2009 swine flu and 2014 Ebola epidemics. But at least, under the Obama administration, a contract had been initiated to design and build a machine that would produce 1.5 million N95 masks per day.  These are the only masks that protect well against the inhalation of pathogens, including SARS-2.  They cost about $1.00 apiece, retail, before this pandemic. They are lifesaving.  And they used to be discarded after each use.
The design for the N95 machine was completed, but the current Assistant Secretary, Robert Kadlec, cancelled the $35 million contract to build it.  He instead spent that money on contracts for more smallpox vaccine, even though there was enough in the stockpile for all Americans, giving Emergent BioSolutions a deal worth $2.8 billion, 8 times as much as the previous contract, immediately after they purchased the smallpox vaccine maker.
In September 2018, the Trump administration received detailed plans for a new machine designed to churn out millions of protective respirator masks at high speed during a pandemic.

The plans, submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by medical manufacturer O&M Halyard, were the culmination of a venture unveiled almost three years earlier by the Obama administration.

But HHS did not proceed with making the machine.
The project was one of two N95 mask ventures — totaling $9.8 million — that the federal government embarked on over the past five years to better prepare for pandemics.

The other involves the development of reusable masks to replace the single-use variety currently so scarce that medical professionals are using theirs over and over. Expert panels have advised the government for at least 14 years that reusable masks were vital.
That effort, like the quick mask machine, has not led to a single new mask for the government’s response...
And in the May 4 Washington Post
In the two years before the coronavirus pandemic, Kadlec aggressively pursued efforts to fulfill his vision for national preparedness, the Post examination found. He assumed greater control over acquisitions for the Strategic National Stockpile, which in 2018 was moved from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and placed under his authority, the examination found.
Executives at Emergent BioSolutions specifically identified transferring the stockpile from the CDC to ASPR as part of its annual corporate strategy for 2017, according to people familiar with it. Like many large contractors, the company has long cultivated relationships in Washington, and it has spent almost $45 million on lobbying since 2005, records show.
Kadlec scaled back a long-standing interagency process for spending billions of dollars on stockpile purchases, diminishing the role of government experts and restricting decision-making to himself and a small circle of advisers...
Kadlec committed additional spending to biodefense countermeasures such as smallpox and anthrax vaccines while cutting planned spending on emerging infectious diseases, despite warnings from scientists that a natural contagion could also be devastating. Citing limited resources, his office halted an Obama-era initiative to spend $35 million to build a machine that could produce 1.5 million N95 masks per day, as The Post previously reported...
By the time Kadlec’s office finalized the deal, records and interviews show, it had been extended from five years to 10 and the number of doses per year had doubled, to 18 million. An Emergent executive said the price per dose is $9.44 in the first year, more than twice what the government paid its previous supplier.
Kadlec has largely replaced the old system for making final buying decisions with more-exclusive gatherings in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF. Invitees often include his deputy and his counterpart for chemical and biological defense at the Pentagon, the official said.
Last year, a simulation organized by Kadlec’s office dubbed “Crimson Contagion” revealed how unprepared the government was for a pandemic. An internal report on the exercise found officials would face “cascading” funding and supply-chain shortages, including “scarce medical countermeasures such as personal protective equipment, diagnostics, and antivirals.
Facing intense criticism for the stockpile’s inadequate supplies of protective gear and other medical equipment, Kadlec’s office has recently announced new contracts worth billions of dollars for respirator masks, ventilators and other medical supplies...
Chris Meekins, a former congressional staffer who was then an applicant for a senior position in ASPR... and later became Kadlec’s chief of staff at ASPR, wrote that he had told HHS secretary Price in 2017 that putting the stockpile under the control of the assistant secretary would improve the nation’s response in a crisis.
In February 2018, the administration signaled in its proposed budget for the following year that it intended to transfer the stockpile, with contents worth $7 billion, to Kadlec’s office.

Update: Recent emergency relief efforts are also failing Americans who need the N95 masks.  Project Airbridge, Trump's project to pay for flights bringing in medical equipment from overseas, has distributed just 768,000 N95 masks, — far fewer than the 85 million N95 masks procured through conventional federal relief efforts, according to the latest FEMA records.  In 122 flights so far.

Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #19 




Friday, May 15, 2020

Perspectives on the Pandemic. Episode 7, Sam Husseini



I have worked with investigative reporter Sam Husseini to help with background information on biodefense, biological warfare, lab escapes. Sam was featured in this 





1 hour documentary about gain of function research, biolabs, and the origin of SARS-CoV-2.  He provides a profound and detailed discussion of these subjects in this extremely worthwhile film, made by John Kirby.




Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 7:09 PM 



Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #20 





Saturday, May 23, 2020
A Lancet study with over-the-top data tries to sound a death knell for chloroquine, fails
A big news story came out today regarding the results of a Lancet study of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in hospitalized Covid-19 patients. The first author is, naturally, from Harvard.

What the authors found were considerably higher rates of arrhythmia and death in the patients who received a chloroquine drug, with even worse outcomes if patients received azithromycin (Z-pak) too.

Important, smart doctors were interviewed, and they said things like, "Now we know these drugs kill." "Stop using them, except possibly in a clinical trial setting."

Maybe the Lancet study is giving us the last word on the chloroquine drugs and Covid-19.

But let me tell you a few things about this study that give me pause.

The retrospective study included 96,000 people, of whom nearly 15,000 received chloroquine drug. Now those are really large numbers, so this should be a well powered study. How did the authors get so much data? The second author, Sapan S Desai (SSD), founder of Surgisphere Corporation, appears to have provided it. Which makes me wonder how the 671 hospitals or the 96,000 patients felt about their medical and financial data being used, with no ethical review...
"Acquisition of data and statistical analysis of the data were supervised and performed by SSD...
SSD is the founder of Surgisphere Corporation.
The Surgical Outcomes Collaborative (Surgisphere Corporation, Chicago, IL, USA) consists of de-identified data obtained by automated data extraction from inpatient and outpatient electronic health records, supply chain databases, and financial records. The registry uses a cloud-based health-care data analytics platform that includes specific modules for data acquisition, data warehousing, data analytics, and data reporting."
The data came from 671 hospitals on 6 continents. Wow. And here is just a bit of what the authors tell us about data collection:
"The standardised Health Level Seven-compliant data dictionary used by the Collaborative serves as the focal point for all data acquisition and warehousing. Once this data dictionary is harmonised with electronic health record data, data acquisition is completed using automated interfaces to expedite data transfer and improve data integrity. Collection of a 100% sample from each health- care entity is validated against financial records and external databases to minimise selection bias. To reduce the risk of inadvertent protected health information disclosures, all such information is stripped before storage in the cloud-based data warehouse...The data collection and analyses are deemed exempt from ethics review."
You harmonise the data, then you improve its integrity. Wait, what? The only way to improve the integrity of electronic data is to compare it to hard copies of the data. I am guessing that what the authors mean is that data points that an algorithm determined were incorrect got changed or dropped. And financial records were available, too. How the heck did that happen? Then Surgisphere stored all of this in the cloud, after de-identifying it.

Besides the privacy issues (having a private US company get hold of blended medical and financial records from 671 hospitals on 6 continents) is the issue of the accuracy of this data and analysis. Could the data have been manipulated? I doubt data accuracy was checked with 671 individual hospitals...who might not have been happy their data were being used... How do you verify the validity of data from so many different sites?

In the UK, 33% of 17,000 hospitalized patients died from Covid-19. A Chinese study found 28% of those hospitalized died. A US study revealed a 21% mortality rate in those hospitalized for Covid-19. Another US study had a 20.3% mortality in hospitalized patients, but found that those who received chloroquine drugs were sicker than those who did not.

Yet in the Surgisphere Corporation dataset of 96,000 hospitalized patients, only 11.1% of hospitalized patients died. And in the control group, who did not get any chloroquine drugs, in-hospital mortality was only 9.3%. Mortality in the chloroquine groups ranged from 18% to 23.8%.

I find the data presented in this Lancet article hard to believe. The mortality rates in the non-chloroquine patients are simply too good to be true. It is also possible that the chloroquine patients were a sicker cohort. In any event, their mortality rates are in keeping with overall rates in the US, and are better than published rates in the UK and China.

How did this group of hospitals do twice as well as the US, and 3 times as well as the UK in preventing Covid deaths???

I don't think the debate on use of these drugs is over.

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 12:11 AM 0 comments


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #21 







Saturday, May 30, 2020

Turkey's premier hospital mortality for Covid under 1%; NYC's hospital mortality 20%/ BBC


Turkey started testing early, with rapid results.  They did case-finding and quarantines, and they used hydroxychloroquine as soon as someone got sick. Mortality in a premier hospital in Turkey for Covid-19 is under 1%.  Mortality in New York hospitals for Covid-19 cases has been reported here and hereas 20%.  


The BBC goes into depth on how Turkey handled the pandemic.  Definitely worth a read.


Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 8:21 PM 













SEE IT: Commanding officer of Queens NYPD precinct takes knee at protest





MAY 31, 2020 | 6:34 PM








Up Beat

Up Beat: Californian repays an Allagash woman’s small-town hospitality










Alleen Brown

May 31 2020, 9:00 a.m.








Louisville cop involved in David McAtee shooting mocked protesters in Facebook post





JUN 02, 2020 | 10:25 AM







‘We’re horrified’: Intl media rights group cites 125 VIOLATIONS of press freedom by US police during George Floyd protests

2 Jun, 2020 12:13 / Updated 3 hours ago









White supremacist group posing as Antifa called for violence online: Twitter





JUN 02, 2020 | 1:03 PM








Judge wants Maine, attorneys for 2 prisoners to agree on reviewing inmates for release



Tuesday, June 2

Defending Rights & Dissent Condemns Nationwide Violence Against Anti-Police Brutality Protests

Defending Rights & Dissent

Killology, BulletProof, and Warrior Policing

Suraj K Sazawal, Defending Rights & Dissent

Maybe We Should Stop Giving the Minneapolis Police Military Equipment | The American Conservative

Matt Purple, The American Conservative

Protesters Dispersed With Tear Gas So Trump Could Pose at Church

Katie Rogers, New York Times

Curfew lifts: Dozens of DC protesters who took refuge in residents' homes to avoid police arrests near Logan Circle safely leave

Nick Boykin, Ariane Datil & Saliqa Khan, WUSA9

Monday, June 1

As Police Attack Protesters In Minneapolis, Speculations About “Outsiders” Draw On Fraught History

Mara Hvistendahl, The Intercept

Protests, confrontations continue near White House

David Cohen, POLITICO

Customs and Border Protection Is Flying a Predator Drone Over Minneapolis

Jason Koebler, Joseph Cox, & Jordan Pearson, Vice News

NYC Transit Union Backs Bus Drivers Who Refuse To Transport Protesters For NYPD

Hilary Hanson, Huffpost

Amid Minneapolis Uprising, Anti-War Veterans Call On National Guard to Stand Down

Sarah Lazare, In These Time


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #22 






Bangor Maine leaves body cameras out of next year’s budget









W. Tracy Parnell

Debunking JFK Conspiracy Theories


The Last Laugh

June 20, 2020 by W Tracy Parnell










NYPD investigating cop’s use of Taser on 14-year-old Bronx boy





JUN 23, 2020 AT 4:00 AM








Anti-racism protest that got violent caught Portland Maine Police unprepared, City Council told

The city releases a 4-page report on its response to the demonstration of June 1, which police now say drew about 2,500 protesters and put the department ‘in a crisis mode.’








Maine Acts of Kindness: Read about charitable efforts during the pandemic








Paul Keenan Named Special Agent in Charge of Indianapolis Field Office








What happened to the ‘outside agitators'?: Former FBI Agent details intelligence failures








Tijuana officer to stand trial for alleged plot to steal money from Chula Vista home









Home » Cybersecurity » Social Engineering » The Human Hacking Conference 2021: Plan to be Amazed!


The Human Hacking Conference 2021: Plan to be Amazed!


by SEORG on June 22, 2020










Government Case Collapses Against Man Jailed Indefinitely Under Patriot Act








Trump Is First to Use PATRIOT Act to Detain a Man Forever








Stories in Weather Extremes 










DEA agent lied and covered up crimes to help Mafia friends, indictment says








Who caused the violence at protests? It wasn’t antifa.








A tough-on-crime Justice Department is being forced to adapt on policing


By David Shortell, CNN


Updated 7:44 AM ET, Mon June 22, 2020







Droning the Protestors







State-sanctioned violence’: US police fail to meet basic human rights standards

Report finds not one police department in the 20 largest American cities are compliant with international rights laws 








← COVID-19: Red States, Blue States


Message to Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott: Do Not Remove the Control Rods from a Nuclear Reactor


Posts: 8,863
Reply with quote  #23 





Wednesday, July 29, 2020

The Politics of Hydroxychloroquine. The FDA has suspended a permit for its use. Let doctors decide/ WSJ


Below is a Wall Street Journal article I am reposting in full--Nass


The Politics of Hydroxychloroquine 
Trump touted it, so Biden denounces it. The FDA has suspended a permit for its use. Let doctors decide. 

By Allysia Finley
July 15, 2020 12:43 pm ET 

Hubert Humphrey began his career as a pharmacist before going into politics. Today’s politicians sometimes seem to have the opposite aspiration. President Trump “pushes dangerous, disproven drugs,” Joe Biden declares in his “Plan to Beat Covid-19.” “Our country is now stuck with a massive stockpile of hydroxychloroquine, a drug Trump repeatedly hailed.” 

Saturday, July 25, 2020

Deaths in the entire United States "involving Covid" equal the number of deaths in NYC at its peak/ CDC


The CDC provides updated US death data on 7/24/20 "involving Covid" (2nd column) @ https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Deaths in the US have been FLAT or DECREASING over the last five weeks. Why aren't you hearing this? Because the media want to instill panic so they talk about rising cases (many asymptomatic, based on often inaccurate lab tests).  We are not having "3 New Yorks" as Dr. Birx claimed.  The fact is that the entire US is now having as many deaths per week as New York City had during its peak in early April.  
Got that?  The entire US equals ONE New York.  See CDC data below.

Friday, July 24, 2020

"The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It"/ Newsweek/ Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, Yale professor of epidemiology

The following is the text of Professor Harvey Risch's opinion piece in yesterday's issue of Newsweek.
As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.
I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.
On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and sig
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

? ?
Copyright ? 2001-2004 Who?s A Rat. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.