Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?

[Smokerman]

Confirmed for tomorrow @ 4:00

 

[BudToaster]

okay, this article from the BMJ addresses one of my four concerns - the quality and yield of the mRNA vaccine manufacturing process:

The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability
BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n627 (Published 10 March 2021)
Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n627

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

Leaked documents show that some early commercial batches of Pfizer-BioNTech’s covid-19 vaccine had lower than expected levels of intact mRNA, prompting wider questions about how to assess this novel vaccine platform, writes Serena Tinari

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

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

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

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

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

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

A near miss?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparency and confidentiality

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

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directed The BMJ to read its guidance documents78 and its review of Pfizer’s vaccine,9 but none of these specify the percentage RNA the agency is requiring. Asked to comment, the regulator pointed to Pfizer: “information that you seek that is not addressed in the FDA Review Memorandum should be directed to Pfizer.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a rapid response posted on bmj.com, JW Ulm, a gene therapy specialist who has published on tissue targeting of therapeutic vectors,13 raised concerns about the biodistribution of LNPs: “At present, relatively little has been reported on the tissue localisation of the LNPs used to encase the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-encoding messenger RNA, and it is vital to have more specific information on precisely where the liposomal nanoparticles are going after injection.”14

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

Ulm told The BMJ: “Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna did a remarkable job of rapidly scaling up manufacturing of such a novel system in swift fashion, which is genuinely a landmark technological achievement. However, pharmacokinetic studies, with independent laboratory confirmation, are essential to ascertain potential cytotoxicity and macroscopic toxicity, especially given the likelihood of booster injections over months or years, since the tissue trafficking patterns of the mRNA vaccine payload will determine which cells and tissues are killed by cytotoxic T-cells in each round.” Given the variation in LNP formulations, it is unclear how relevant previous animal experiments are to answering this question.

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

or as they say in the MSM ... it is probably safe and is likely to be effective.

 

[trichrider]

03/11/21
•Big Pharma › Views

Before COVID, Gates Planned Social Media Censorship of Vaccine Safety Advocates With Pharma, CDC, Media, China and CIA

In October 2019, shortly before the COVID outbreak, Gates and other powerful individuals began planning how to censor vaccine safety advocates from social media during a table-top simulation of a worldwide pandemic, known as Event 201.
ByRobert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Over the last two weeks, Facebook and other social media sites have deplatformed me and many other critics of regulatory corruption and authoritarian public health policies. So, here is some fodder for those of you who have the eerie sense that the government/industry pandemic response feels like it was planned — even before there was a pandemic.
The attached document shows that a cabal of powerful individuals did indeed begin planning the mass eviction of vaccine skeptics from social media in October 2019, a week or two before COVID began circulating. That month, Microsoft founder Bill Gates organized an exercise of four “table-top” simulations of a worldwide coronavirus pandemic with other high-ranking “Deep State” panjandrums. The exercise was referred to as Event 201.
Gates’ co-conspirators included representatives from the World Bank, the World Economic Forum (Great Reset), Bloomberg/Johns Hopkins University Populations Center, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, various media powerhouses, the Chinese government, a former Central Intelligence Agency/National Security Agency director (there is no such thing as a former CIA officer), vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson, the finance and biosecurity industries and Edelman, the world’s leading corporate PR firm.
At Gates’ direction, these eminences role-played members of a Pandemic Control Council, wargaming government strategies for controlling the pandemic, the narrative and the population. Needless to say, there was little talk of building immune systems, off-the-shelf remedies or off-patent therapeutic drugs and vitamins, but lots of chatter about promoting uptake of new patentable antiviral drugs and vaccines.
But the participants primarily focused on planning industry-centric, fear-mongering, police-state strategies for managing an imaginary global coronavirus contagion culminating in mass censorship of social media.
Oddly, Gates now claims that the simulation didn’t occur. On April 12, 2020, Gates told BBC, “Now here we are. We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”
Unfortunately for that whopper, the videos of the event are still available across the internet. They show that Gates and team did indeed simulate health and economic policies. It’s hard to swallow that Gates has forgotten.
Gates’s Event 201 simulated COVID epidemic caused 65 million deaths at the 18-month endpoint and global economic collapse lasting up to a decade. Compared to the Gates simulation, therefore, the actual COVID-19 crisis is a bit of a dud, having imposed a mere 2.5 million deaths “attributed to COVID” over the past 13 months.
The deaths “attributed to COVID” in the real-life situation are highly questionable, and must be seen in the context of a global population of 7.8 billion, with about 59 million deaths expected annually. The predictions of decade-long economic collapse will probably prove more accurate — but only because of the draconian lockdown promoted by Gates.
Gates’ Event 201 script imagines vast anti-vaccine riots triggered by internet posts. The universal and single-minded presumption among its participants was that such a crisis would prove an opportunity of convenience to promote new vaccines, and tighten controls by a surveillance and censorship state.
Segment four of the script — on manipulation and control of public opinion — is most revealing. It uncannily predicted democracy’s current crisis:

• The participants discussed mechanisms for controlling “disinformation” and “misinformation,” by “flooding” the media with propaganda (“good information”), imposing penalties for spreading falsehoods and discrediting the anti-vaccination movement.
• Jane Halton, of Australia’s ANZ Bank, one of the authors of Australia’s oppressive “no jab, no pay” policy, assured the participants that Gates Foundation is creating algorithms “to sift through information on these social media platforms” to protect the public from dangerous thoughts and information.
• George Gao, the prescient director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control, worries about how to suppress “rumors” that the virus is laboratory generated: “People believe, ‘This is a manmade’… [and that] some pharmaceutical company made the virus.”
• Chen Huang, an Apple research scientist, Google scholar and the world’s leading expert on tracking and tracing and facial recognition technology, role-plays the newscaster reporting on government countermeasures. He blames riots on anti-vaccine activists and predicts that Twitter and Facebook will cooperate in “identify[ing] and delete[ing] a disturbing number of accounts dedicated to spreading misinformation about the outbreak” and to implement “internet shutdowns … to quell panic.”
• Dr. Tara Kirk Sell, a senior scholar at Bloomberg School of Health’s Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, worries that pharmaceutical companies are being accused of introducing the virus so they can make money on drugs and vaccines: “[We] have seen public faith in their products plummet.” She notes with alarm that “Unrest, due to false rumors and divisive messaging, is rising and is exacerbating spread of the disease as levels of trust fall and people stop cooperating with response efforts. This is a massive problem, one that threatens governments and trusted institutions.”

Sell reminds her fellow collaborators that “We know that social media is now the primary way that many people get their news, so interruptions to these platforms could curb the spread of misinformation.” There are many ways, Sell advises, for government and industry allies to accomplish this objective: “Some governments have taken control of national access to the Internet. Others are censoring websites and social media content and a small number have shut down Internet access completely to prevent the spread of misinformation. Penalties have been put in place for spreading harmful falsehoods, including arrests.”

• Matthew Harrington, CEO of Edelman Public Relations agrees that social media must fall in line to promote government policy: “I also think we’re at a moment where the social media platforms have to step forward and recognize the moment to assert that they’re a technology platform and not a broadcaster is over. They in fact have to be a participant in broadcasting accurate information and partnering with the scientific and health communities to counterweight, if not flood the zone, of accurate information. Because to try to put the genie back in the bottle of misinformation and disinformation is not possible.”
• Stephen Redd, the Admiral of the Public Health Service, has the sinister notion that government should mine social media data to identify people with negative beliefs: “I think with the social media platforms, there’s an opportunity to understand who it is that’s susceptible … to misinformation, so I think there’s an opportunity to collect data from that communication mechanism.”
• Adrian Thomas of Johnson & Johnson announces “some important news to share from some of “our member companies [Pharma]”: We are doing clinical trials in new antiretrovirals, and in fact, in vaccines!” He recommends a strategy to address the problems to these companies when “rumors were actually spreading” that their shoddily tested products “are causing deaths and so patients are not taking them anymore.” He suggests, “Maybe we’re making the mistake of reporting and counting all the fatalities and infections.”
• Former CIA deputy director, Avril Haines unveiled a strategy to “flood the zone” with propaganda from “trusted sources,” including “influential community leaders, as well as health workers.” He warns about “false information that is starting to actually hamper our ability to address the pandemic, then we need to be able to respond quickly to it.”
• Matthew Harrington (Edelman CEO) observes that the Internet — which once promised the decentralization and democratization of information — now needs to be centralized: “I think just to build a little bit on what Avril said, I think as in previous conversations where we’ve talked about centralization around management of information or public health needs, there needs to be a centralized response around the communications approach that then is cascaded to informed advocates, represented in the NGO communities, the medical professionals, et cetera.”
• Tom Inglesby (John Hopkins biosecurity expert advisor to the National Institutes of Health, the Pentagon and Homeland Security) agrees that centralized control is needed: “You mean centralized international?”
• Matthew Harrington (Edelman) replies that information access should be: “Centralized on an international basis, because I think there needs to be a central repository of data facts and key messages.”
• Hasti Taghi (Media Advisor) sums up: “The anti-vaccine movement was very strong and this is something specifically through social media that has spread. So as we do the research to come up with the right vaccines to help prevent the continuation of this, how do we get the right information out there? How do we communicate the right information to ensure that the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”
• Kevin McAleese, communications officer for Gates-funded agricultural projects, observes that: “To me, it is clear countries need to make strong efforts to manage both mis- and disinformation. We know social media companies are working around the clock to combat these disinformation campaigns. The task of identifying every bad actor is immense. This is a huge problem that’s going to keep us from ending the pandemic and might even lead to the fall of governments, as we saw in the Arab Spring. If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it’s the right choice.”
• Tom Inglesby, director of Bloomberg’s Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security concurs, asking if “In this case, do you think governments are at the point where they need to require social media companies to operate in a certain way?”
• Lavan Thiru, Singapore’s Finance Minister suggests that the government might make examples of dissidents with “government or enforcement actions against fake news. Some of us, this new regulations are come in place about how we deal with fake news. Maybe this is a time for us to showcase some cases where we are able to bring forward some bad actors and leave it before the courts to decide whether they have actually spread some fake news.”

Read the attached transcript to see how Gates and his government, pharma and intelligence apparatus telegraphed their plans to censor and control the media during the pandemic. In yet another uncanny coincidence, COVID-19 began circulating among global populations within days of Gates’ meeting.

link to article and event 201 transcription.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...?itm_term=home

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...-Discussion-and-Epilogue-Video-bill-gates.pdf

 

[mexcurandero420]

J&J new vaccine is approved by the EMA, but many people forget that this company was also responsible together with Teva Pharmaceuticals & the now bankrupt Purdue Pharma for in the US Oxycodon crisis.J&J still has lawsuits for the with asbestos contaminated baby powder and the pelvic floor mats disaster, so i'm curious what we can expect from their vaccines with their chimpanzee adenovirus in it.

 

[Gry]

Medicare advantage is a scam that will leave you high and dry should you ever have to deal with a serious illness.
Never had any problems with RFK, and generally found his position to be admirable.
We live a highly stratified society, as a Kennedy, and as an attorney, he has access to information that the average joe is not going to see.
I find it absolutely tragic that he has basically been attacked publicly by members of his own family, for urging prudence and caution.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Medicare advantage is a scam that will leave you high and dry should you ever have to deal with a serious illness.
Never had any problems with RFK, and generally found his position to be admirable.
We live a highly stratified society, as a Kennedy, and as an attorney, he has access to information that the average joe is not going to see.
I find it absolutely tragic that he has basically been attacked publicly by members of his own family, for urging prudence and caution.

the really sad part is that he argues from a point of main stream knowledge, he will quote you page and verse of the published studies, he has every single fact he mentions from. he never goes into the realm of conspiracy, its always this or that main stream study or data set. people are demonising him because they don't care about whats factual or not, only about what fits their ideological perspective. when it comes to covid we are in a information war. certain powers are hell bent on maintaining a certain narrative. just today the propaganda rag of choice brought a story where they claim a new local youth org against lockdowns is connected to the far right. they will do anything to hurt you, if you don't follow the script. now they are doxing these kids and calling them far right conspiracy theorists. its sick as fuck.

the youth is having their lives fucked for something they are hardly effected by, but thats not enough, we are now stealing their money of tomorrow to pay for our blunders of today. we are fucking the youth up the ass 2x. destroying their educational prospects and mental health, while we spend any money they will make in future to help us just survive day to day. no great new project being built for future generations, no, we are just paying everyone to stay home and we are paying it with our own childrens money. what great stewards we are.

 

[Absolem]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlie...ost-from-rfk-jr-marla-maples/?sh=1a6d603c8bb2


Two people with familial ties to the White House spread a bizarre, baseless conspiracy theory on social media this week that linked billionaire Bill Gates and his work to aid in developing a coronavirus vaccine to an ulterior motive to control the masses via microchip, despite having been debunked by experts.


Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of Attorney General and Senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, has a documented history of promoting debunked theories about vaccines, specifically a discredited link with autism, and has even been called out for it by other members of the Kennedy clan.

This week he posted to his Instagram account a photo of Gates with the wild words “The digitalized economy? We get rid of cash and coins. We give you a chip. We put all your money in your chip. If you refuse a vaccine, we turn off the chip and you starve!”



Also uploaded with the photo were separate videos of Gates speaking about making vaccinations a high priority with other clips that reference identity control that appear to link a coronavirus vaccine with controlling or tracking people with microchips.

The conspiracy theory that Gates plans to install tracking devices into humans with the coronavirus vaccine his foundation is aiding has been debunked by experts but has still continued to gain traction in some circles since the onset of the pandemic.

Marla Maples, President Donald Trump’s ex-wife and mother to their daughter Tiffany, for the most part stays out of the D.C. spotlight, but made a rare statement when she shared Kennedy’s post, adding the words “Education is key. Ask questions. Dig deeper,” when she shared it on Instagram’s temporary Stories—though it is no longer available to view on her profile, it was screenshotted and posted by CNN reporter Betsy Klein on Twitter.

Gates has denied the accusations, saying in an interview with CBS in July that “I hope it’ll die down as people get the facts,” and according to The Daily Beast, Maples did not respond to a comment request by the outlet.


KEY BACKGROUND


Gates is estimated by Forbes to be worth $113.7 billion. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to help fund speedy developments of treatments and vaccines for coronavirus. Maples and Kennedy aren’t the first celebrities to share coronavirus vaccine conspiracy content—Kanye West expressed his belief in the Gates conspiracy in a Forbes interview in July, and Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton faced backlash last month when he shared a video of Gates talking about a vaccine for coronavirus with words on the screen that read “I remember when I told my first lie.” In January 2017, before his inauguration, Trump met with Kennedy to talk about “issues pertaining to vaccines and immunizations,” said Sean Spicer, the incoming press secretary at the time. Kennedy later claimed Trump had tapped him to chair a vaccine commission, a statement Trump spokespeople denied. Trump himself has said he believes vaccines and autism are connected, having expressed his views during a 2015 Republican presidential debate and on Twitter. However, he has been supportive of developing a coronavirus vaccine to help end the pandemic.

 

[mowood3479]

I guess absolem would have us believe that the autism rate doubling since 2000 is just a coincidence.
nothing to see folks. Pack it up. It couldn’t be one of the 83 shots ur child is inundated with.

 

[Absolem]

It's real simple. I'd like to see peer reviewed studies that back up the claims people are making. That's it. Until then keep the conspiracies flying. Believing something that cannot be replicated in a scientific study makes zero sense.

 

[Absolem]

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...ny-fauci-viral

In a video that has exploded on social media in the past few days, virologist Judy Mikovits claims the new coronavirus is being wrongly blamed for many deaths. She makes head-scratching assertions about the virus—for instance, that it is “activated” by face masks.


Mikovits also accuses Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a prominent member of the White House’s Coronavirus Task Force, of being responsible for the deaths of millions during the early years of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The video claims Mikovits was part of the team that discovered HIV, revolutionized HIV treatment, and was jailed without charges for her scientific positions.

Science fact-checked the video. None of these claims are true. The video is an excerpt from a forthcoming movie Plandemic, which promises to “expose the scientific and political elite who run the scam that is our global health system.” YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms have taken down the video because of inaccuracies. It keeps resurfacing, including on the Plandemic website, which, in “an effort to bypass the gatekeepers of free speech,” invites people to download the video and repost it.

But first, who is Judy Mikovits?

Mikovits started her career as a lab technician at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1988. She became a scientist and obtained a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology from George Washington University in 1991. By 2009, she was research director at the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), a private research center in Reno, Nevada, but she remained largely unknown to the scientific community. That year, however, she co-authored a paper in Science that suggested an obscure agent named xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) caused chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

The cause of CFS, also called myalgic encephalomyelitis, had long remained elusive, and the disease had been neglected by science. The study created hope that CFS might become treatable with antivirals. Some patients even began to take antiretroviral drugs used by HIV-infected people. But the paper also created worries that XMRV might spread via the blood supply.

Other researchers soon questioned the findings, and over the next 2 years, the paper’s claims fell apart. Researchers showed that XMRV was created accidentally in the lab during mouse experiments; it may never have infected any humans. The authors first retracted two figures and a table from the paper in October 2011. Around the same time, a study by several labs, including WPI itself, showed the findings couldn’t be replicated.

Two months later, the entire Science paper was retracted. Mikovits refused to sign the retraction notice, but she took part in another major replication effort. That $2.3 million study, led by Ian Lipkin of Columbia University and funded by the National Institutes of Health, was “the definitive answer,” Mikovits said at a September 2012 press conference where the results were announced. The rigorous study looked for XMRV in blinded blood samples from nearly 300 people, half of whom had the disease, and none had the virus. “There is no evidence that XMRV is a human pathogen,” Mikovits conceded.

Science’s news department, which works independently from its editorial side, followed the saga closely and published a detailed reconstruction of the fiasco in September 2011. (The story won a Communications Award from the American Society for Microbiology.)

Around the same time, Mikovits had an explosive breakup with WPI. The institute filed suit against her in November 2011 for allegedly removing laboratory notebooks and keeping other proprietary information on her laptop, on flash drives, and in a personal email account. She was arrested in California on felony charges that she was a fugitive from justice and jailed for several days. Prosecutors in Washoe county, Nevada, eventually dropped criminal charges against her in June 2012.

Mikovits has not published anything in the scientific literature since 2012. But she soon began to promote the XMRV hypothesis again, and attack the Lipkin study that she agreed had put the issue to rest. She has weighed in on the autism debate with controversial theories about causes and treatments. Her discredited work and her legal travails have made her a martyr in the eyes of some.

Now comes a new book she co-authored, Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science—billed as “a behind the scenes look at the issues and egos which will determine the future health of humanity”—and the viral video, which is an extended interview with Mikovits.

Science asked Mikovits for an interview for this article. She responded by sending an empty email with, as attachments, a copy of her new book and a PowerPoint of a 2019 presentation titled “Persecution and Coverup.”

 

[mexcurandero420]

It's nice to come up with peer viewed studies, but still there is the question why people suddenly die after they received a jab like that young mother in Utah, people over here in the Netherlands.To me is that the prove that not everything is investigated during the tests.

Besides sudden death you have serious side effects like that Mexican female doctor, who got after their jab encephalitis and had oversudden be brought to the ICU to rescue her life

 

[trichrider]

the really sad part is that he argues from a point of main stream knowledge, he will quote you page and verse of the published studies, he has every single fact he mentions from. he never goes into the realm of conspiracy, its always this or that main stream study or data set. people are demonising him because they don't care about whats factual or not, only about what fits their ideological perspective. when it comes to covid we are in a information war. certain powers are hell bent on maintaining a certain narrative. just today the propaganda rag of choice brought a story where they claim a new local youth org against lockdowns is connected to the far right. they will do anything to hurt you, if you don't follow the script. now they are doxing these kids and calling them far right conspiracy theorists. its sick as fuck.

the youth is having their lives fucked for something they are hardly effected by, but thats not enough, we are now stealing their money of tomorrow to pay for our blunders of today. we are fucking the youth up the ass 2x. destroying their educational prospects and mental health, while we spend any money they will make in future to help us just survive day to day. no great new project being built for future generations, no, we are just paying everyone to stay home and we are paying it with our own childrens money. what great stewards we are.

YouTube Blacklists 30,000 Videos It Claims Are Coronavirus Vaccine ‘Misinformation’

Kimberly White /Getty
Lucas Nolan
12 Mar 2021

Google-owned video platform YouTube has reportedly removed more than 30,000 videos that the Masters of the Universe claim made misleading or false claims about coronavirus vaccines over the last six months.
AXIOS reports that YouTube spokesperson Elena Hernandez has revealed that YouTube has removed more than 30,000 videos that it claims made misleading or false claims about coronavirus vaccines in the last six months, providing the first release of numbers on the topic.
YouTube began including vaccination misinformation in its COVID-19 medical misinformation policy in October 2020.
Since February 2020, YouTube has removed more than 800,000 videos containing coronavirus misinformation, the videos are first flagged by the company’s AI or a human reviewer. The videos are then sent for another level of review before a decision is made on whether or not to remove them.
Videos that violate YouTube’s policy relating to misinformation about vaccines include those that contradict expert consensus on the vaccines from health authorities or the World Health Organization.
Accounts that violate YouTube’s policy rules are subject to its “strike” system which can result in accounts being permanently banned from the platform.
Facebook and Twitter have adopted similar policies to YouTube and have worked to remove misleading information about the coronavirus and vaccines from their various platforms.

there's a worman in these pages trying to do some cancelling too.



U.S. & Other Wealthy Nations Block Effort to Waive Vaccine Patent Rights in Blow to Global South
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V40m8wizb_w

 

[trichrider]

COVID-19 is an emerging, rapidly evolving situation.
Public health information (CDC)
Research information (NIH)
SARS-CoV-2 data (NCBI)
Prevention and treatment information (HHS)

• Journal List
• Viruses
• v.12(4); 2020 Apr
• PMC7232198

Viruses. 2020 Apr; 12(4): 372.
Published online 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.3390/v12040372


PMCID: PMC7232198
PMID: 32230900


Virology, Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Control of COVID-19

Yuefei Jin,[SUP]1[/SUP]Haiyan Yang,[SUP]1[/SUP]Wangquan Ji,[SUP]1[/SUP]Weidong Wu,[SUP]2[/SUP]Shuaiyin Chen,[SUP]1[/SUP]Weiguo Zhang,[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]3[/SUP] and Guangcai Duan[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]*[/SUP]

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.




Go to:
Abstract

The outbreak of emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) in China has been brought to global attention and declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. Scientific advancements since the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002~2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2012 have accelerated our understanding of the epidemiology and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 and the development of therapeutics to treat viral infection. As no specific therapeutics and vaccines are available for disease control, the epidemic of COVID-19 is posing a great threat for global public health. To provide a comprehensive summary to public health authorities and potential readers worldwide, we detail the present understanding of COVID-19 and introduce the current state of development of measures in this review.

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, epidemiology, pathogenesis, therapeutics

Go to:
1. Introduction

At the end of 2019, a cluster of pneumonia patients with an unidentified cause emerged in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China [1]. Since then, outbreaks and sporadic human infections have resulted in more than 80,000 laboratory confirmed cases (update on March 23, 2020) across mainland China. Through the analysis of sequence, this unidentified pneumonia was considered to be caused by a novel coronavirus (CoV) named 2019-nCoV [2]. Subsequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a standard format of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19), according to its nomenclature, for this novel coronavirus pneumonia on February 11, 2020 [3]. On the same day, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) named this novel coronavirus as SARS-CoV-2 [4]. So far, the SARS-CoV-2 infection is still spreading, and this virus poses a serious threat to public health, though joint prevention and quarantine mechanisms in almost all provinces of mainland China have been confirmed to be enacted. Due to a lack of specific antiviral treatments and pressure of clinical treatment, thousands of severe cases have died every day worldwide. In this review, we discuss the virology, clinical and molecular epidemiology, diagnosis, pathogenesis, and potential therapeutics for treatment of this infection.

Go to:
2. Virology

2.1. Origin, Classification, and Genome

At the end of 2019, COVID-19 emerged in several local hospitals of Wuhan, Hubei Province, China (Figure 1). Based on clinical manifestations, blood tests, and chest radiographs, this disease was diagnosed as virus-induced pneumonia by clinicians. Initial epidemiological investigation suggested that a majority of suspected cases were associated with their presence (exposure) in a local Huanan seafood market. Notably, not just seafood, but many kinds of live wild animals were available for sale in this market all year round before it was forced to close on January 1, 2020. As expected, SARS-CoV-2 was isolated in environmental samples of the Huanan Seafood Market by China Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), implying the origin of the outbreak. However, such a decisive conclusion was disputed because the earliest case had had no reported link connection to the mentioned market [5]. In addition, it was found that at least two different strains of SARS-CoV-2 had occurred a few months earlier before COVID-19 was officially reported [6]. A recently phyloepidemiologic analysis suggests that SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market could have been imported from other places [7]. To date, it remains inconsistent with regard to the origin of SARS-CoV-2, and epidemiologic and etiologic investigations are being conducted by Chinese health authorities.


Figure 1
Geographic location of Wuhan, Hubei Province in China. Hubei Province is located in the central area of China, and the provincial capital is Wuhan.



SARS-CoV-2 was first isolated in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) of three COVID-19 patients from Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital on December 30, 2019 [2]. After sequence and evolutionary tree analysis, SARS-CoV-2 was considered as a member of β-CoVs [2,8]. The CoVs family is a class of enveloped, positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses having an extensive range of natural roots. These viruses can cause respiratory, enteric, hepatic, and neurologic diseases [9,10]. The CoVs are genotypically and serologically divided into four subfamilies: α, β, γ, and δ-CoVs. Human CoV infections are caused by α- and β-CoVs [9,10]. SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are members of β-CoVs [9]. Genome-wide phylogenetic analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 shares 79.5% and 50% sequence identity to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, respectively [2,8,11]. However, there is 94.6% sequence identity between the seven conserved replicase domains in ORF1ab of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV [8], and less than 90% sequence identity between those of SARS-CoV-2 and other β-CoVs [2], implying that SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the lineage B (Sarbecovirus) of β-CoVs [12].
As shown in Figure 2A, similar to other β-CoVs, the SARS-CoV-2 virion with a genome size of 29.9 kb [13] possesses a nucleocapsid composed of genomic RNA and phosphorylated nucleocapsid (N) protein. The nucleocapsid is buried inside phospholipid bilayers and covered by two different types of spike proteins: the spike glycoprotein trimmer (S) that exists in all CoVs, and the hemagglutinin-esterase (HE) only shared among some CoVs. The membrane (M) protein and the envelope (E) protein are located among the S proteins in the viral envelope [12]. The SARS-CoV-2 genome has 5′ and 3′ terminal sequences (265 nt at the 5′ terminal and 229 nt at the 3′ terminal region), which is typical of β-CoVs, with a gene order 5′-replicase open reading frame (ORF) 1ab-S-envelope(E)-membrane(M)-N-3′ (Figure 2B). The predicted S, ORF3a, E, M, and N genes of SARS-CoV-2 are 3822, 828, 228, 669, and 1260 nt in length, respectively. Similar to SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 carries a predicted ORF8 gene (366 nt in length) located between the M and N ORF genes [12].


Figure 2
β-coronavirus particle and genome [9] (A) The β-coronavirus particle. β-coronavirus is an enveloped, nonsegmented, positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus genome in a size ranging from 29.9 kb. The virion has a nucleocapsid composed of genomic RNA and phosphorylated nucleocapsid (N) protein, which is buried inside phospholipid bilayers and covered by the spike glycoprotein trimmer (S). The membrane (M) protein hemagglutinin-esterase (HE) and the envelope (E) protein are located among the S proteins in the virus envelope. (B) 5′ and 3′ terminal sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 genome. The gene order is 5′-replicase ORF1ab-S-envelope(E)-membrane(M)-N-3′. ORF3ab, ORF6, ORF7ab, ORF8, ORF9ab, and ORF10 are located at the predicted positions shown in the picture. 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8, 9a, 9b, 10 in the picture represent different ORF genes.




2.2. Physicochemical Properties

The virus particle has a diameter of 60~100 nm and appears round or oval [14]. Most of the knowledge about the physicochemical properties of CoVs comes from SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. SARS-CoV-2 can be inactivated by UV or heated at 56 °C 30 min, and also sensitive to most disinfectants such as diethyl ether, 75% ethanol, chlorine, peracetic acid, and chloroform [14]. It has been reported that SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 h after application to these surfaces. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV and the longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic [15].

2.3. Receptor Interactions and Cell Entry

Human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a functional receptor hijacked by SARS-CoV-2 for cell entry, similar to SARS-CoV [8,16]. ACE2 is a type I membrane protein expressed in lung, heart, kidney, and intestine mainly associated with cardiovascular diseases [17]. The full-length ACE2 consists of an N-terminal peptidase domain (PD) and a C terminal Collectrin-like domain (CLD) that ends with a single transmembrane helix and an~40-residue intracellular segment [17]. In addition to cleavage of angiotensin (Ang) I to produce Ang-(1-9), ACE2 also provides a direct binding site for the S proteins of CoVs [17]. The S protein of CoVs exists in a metastable pre-fusion conformation that undergoes a dramatic structural rearrangement to fuse the viral membrane with the host cell membrane [10]. This process is triggered by the S1 subunit and a host–cell receptor binding, which destabilizes the pre-fusion trimer, resulting in the S1 subunit shedding and the S2 subunit transition to a highly stable post-fusion conformation [10]. To engage a host–cell receptor, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of S1 undergoes hinge-like conformational movements that transiently hide or expose the determinants of receptor binding [18]. In order to figure out the potential of SARS-CoV-2 to infect humans, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of its S protein, which is in contact with ACE2, was analyzed. The biophysical and structural evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 S protein likely binds to human ACE2 with 10–20 fold higher affinity than SARS-CoV [19]. Another structural evidence suggests that the ACE2-B0AT1 complex can bind two S proteins simultaneously [20].

2.4. Evolutionary Insights into the Ecology of SARS-CoV-2

All human CoVs may be of zoonotic origin, and bats are most likely the natural hosts for all presently known CoVs [21]. During the SARS pandemic in 2002 and 2003, the first hints pointed to a zoonotic origin of the SARS-CoV, with civets as the suspected natural source of human infection [22]. Genetically diversified SARS-like CoVs were then found in Chinese Rhinolophid bats, and two novel bat CoVs from Chinese horseshoe bats (family: Rhinolophidae) in Yunnan Province, China are reported to be very closely related to SARS-CoV, implying that Chinese horseshoe bats are natural host of SARS-CoV [23,24]. Regarding SARS-CoV-2, it showed a high sequence identity to some bat CoVs such as BatCoV RaTG13 (96% nt identity to SARS-CoV-2) previously detected in Rhinolophusaffinis from Yunnan Province, indicating a bat origin of SARS-CoV-2 [12,23].
Generally, bat habitats are far from human activity areas, and the virus was probably transmitted to humans by another animal host. Bat SARS like-CoVs cannot directly infect humans unless they undergo mutation or recombination in animal hosts [22]. For example, animal hosts of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are the civet and camel (Figure 3) before transmission to humans. Regarding the intermediate animal host of SARS-CoV-2, it has been reported that the sequence identity between pangolin origin CoVs and SARS-CoV-2 is 99%, indicating that SARS-CoV-2 may be of pangolin origin [25]. Many studies in China are tracking other potential animal hosts of SARS-CoV-2, which is of great significance for the prevention and control of COVID-19.


Figure 3
Ecology of emerging coronaviruses SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 are all bat origin coronaviruses, which cause human infections after circulation in animal hosts of civet, camel, and pangolin.




2.5. Genomic Variation

The initial 10 genomic sequences of SARS-CoV-2 obtained from the nine COVID-19 patients were extremely similar, exhibiting more than 99.98% sequence identity, implying that not much variation has taken place [8,11]. A recent study indicates that 120 substitution sites were evenly distributed in eight coding regions, without evident recombination events [7]. However, Tang et al. found that SARS-CoV-2 had evolved into two major types of L and S, based on analyses of 103 genomes. Due to severe selective pressure on the L type, the L type might be more aggressive and spread more quickly, while the S type might remain milder due to relatively weaker selective pressure [26]. Due to the unstable nature of RNA viruses, the continuous surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 from humans or animals is extremely important for disease control.


Go to:
3. Epidemiology

3.1. Source of Infection

Currently, COVID-19 patients are the main source of infection, and severe patients are considered to be more contagious than mild ones. Asymptomatically infected persons or patients in incubation who show no signs or symptoms of respiratory infection proven to shed infectious virus, may also be potential sources of infection [27]. Additionally, samples taken from patients recovered from COVID-19 continuously show a positive RT-PCR test [28], which has never been seen in the history of human infectious diseases. In other words, asymptomatically infected persons and patients in incubation or recovered from COVID-19 may pose serious challenges for disease prevention and control.

3.2. Spectrum of Infection

COVID-19 has been considered as a type of self-limiting infectious disease, and most cases with mild symptoms can recover in 1–2 weeks. SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause five different outcomes: asymptomatically infected persons (1.2%); mild to medium cases (80.9%); severe cases (13.8%); critical case (4.7%); and death (2.3% in all reported cases) [29]. The latest study indicates that the proportion of asymptomatic infection in children under 10-years old is as high as 15.8% [30]. Therefore, the proportion of asymptomatic infection should be further uncovered in the future.

3.3. Clinical Features

In the initial 41 patients [5], fever (98%), cough (76%), and myalgia or fatigue (44%) were the most common symptoms. Less common symptoms were sputum production (28%), headache (8%), hemoptysis (5%), and diarrhea (3%). More than half of patients developed dyspnea. The average incubation period and basic reproduction number (R0) were estimated to be 5.2 d (95% CI: 4.1–7.0) and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4–3.9), respectively [1,29]. Blood test showed normal or reduced (25%) white blood cell count and lymphopenia (65%) [5]. A total of 98% of patients had bilateral involvement under chest CT. Typical findings of chest CT images of ICU patients on admission were bilateral multiple lobular and subsegmental areas of consolidation. The representative chest CT findings of non-ICU patients showed bilateral ground-glass opacity and subsegmental areas of consolidation [2,5]. Analysis of 1324 laboratory confirmed cases showed that fever (87.9%) and cough (67.7%) were still the most common symptoms, while diarrhea is uncommon. Lymphopenia was observed in 82.1% of patients admitted to ICU [31].

3.4. Epidemiological Characteristics in Mainland China

Spatiotemporal distribution. The initial outbreak (8 December 2020) only occurred in Wuhan and its surroundings inHubei Province before an imported case was first reported in Guangdong Province on January 19, 2020 [1,29]. As of January 30, 2020, when the first imported case in Tibet Province was reported, COVID-19 had spread to all 31 provinces in mainland China (Figure 4A). Until 11 February2020, 44,672 cases were reported in all 31 provinces of mainland China (74.7% in Hubei). Among them, 0.2% (100% in Hubei), 1.7% (88.5% in Hubei), 13.8% (77.6% in Hubei), and 73.1% (74.7% in Hubei) of cases were onset before 31 December 2019, 10 January 2020, 20 January 2020, and 31 January 2020, respectively (Figure 4B). The number of reported cases rose rapidly after 10 January 2020, and reached a peak on 12 February 2020 [32]. Through the analysis of 1688 healthcare confirmed cases with severe symptoms, there were 1080 cases in Wuhan, accounting for 64.0% of the total incidence, 394 cases (23.3%) in Hubei except Wuhan, and 214 cases (12.7%) nationwide, except for Hubei [29]. Tibet and Qinghai Provinces have had no confirmed cases since 21 February 2020 and 24 February 2020, respectively (Figure 4A) [33]. On 18 March 2020, “0” new confirmed cases was first reported in Hubei Province, and a total of 24 provinces in mainland China had consecutively reported “0” new confirmed cases. Until 23 March 2020, 81,773 cases (427 imported cases from abroad) were cumulative reported in 31 provinces of mainland China, and the number of new confirmed cases have mainly come from abroad and eight provinces have had no confirmed cases (Figure 4A) [34].


Open in a separate window
Figure 4
Spatiotemporal distribution of COVID-19. (A) The spread and decline of COVID-19 in mainland China over time. The time point (red words) of “0” new confirmed case first reported in Hubei Province was 18 March, 2020. (B) Distribution of cases with different onset times before 11 February 2020.



Population distribution. China CDC data [29] showed that patients were mainly concentrated at the age of 30–79, accounting for 89.8%, 88.6%, and 86.6% of confirmed cases in Wuhan, Hubei, and mainland China, respectively. The gender ratio (male/female) of confirmed cases in Wuhan, Hubei, and mainland China was 0.99:1, 1.04:1, and 1.06:1, respectively. The proportion of infected healthcare workers and farmers was 2.09% and 22%, respectively [29].
Case-fatality rate. The total case-fatality rate was 2.3% of 44,672 confirmed cases, while the total case-fatality rate in Hubei and its surroundings was 2.9% and 0.4%, respectively [29]. In contrast, the total case-fatality rate of SARS and MERS was 9.6% [35] and 34%, respectively [36]. In all COVID-19 patients over 80-years old, the case-fatality rate wasas high as 14.8%. The case-fatality rate of males and femaleswas2.8% and 1.7%, respectively [29]. Patients with underlying basic disorders showed poor prognosis. The case-fatality rate of cases without basic disorders was as low as 0.9%, while the case-fatality rate of cases with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, hypertension, and cancer was10.5%, 7.3%, 6.3%, 6.0%, and 5.6%, respectively [29]. Notably, critical cases had the highest case-fatality rate of 49% [29]. As for healthcare workers, the case-fatality rate was approximately 0.17% of 3019 cases [29].

3.5. Other Regions

According to the WHO data updated on March 23, 2020 [37], 190countriesor areas have reported 332,218 laboratory confirmed cases including 14,510 deaths. The total case-fatality rate of global cases outside China is 4.5%. More attention should be paid to Italy, Spain, the USA, Germany, France, and Iran with more severe outbreaks [37]. The top five countries with the highest cumulative confirmed cases in the world are China (24.6%), Italy (17.8%), USA (9.5%), Spain (8.6%), and Germany (7.5%). Higher case-fatality rates were found in Italy (9.3%), Iran (7.8%), and Spain (6.0%) [37].

3.6. Routes of Transmission

Currently, respiratory droplets and contact transmission are considered to be the main transmission routes. Recent reports indicate that SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the urine and stool of laboratory confirmed patients, implying a risk of fecal–oral transmission [14]. However, it is not yet certain that the consumption of virus-contaminated foods will cause infection and transmission. There is still no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through aerosols or from mother to baby during pregnancy or childbirth.

3.7. Herd Susceptibility

As an emerging infectious disease, the population of all races and ages is generally susceptible. In mainland China, 30~65-year-old persons account for 71.45% and children under 10-years-old account for 0.35% [31]. Elderly people and persons with underlying basic disorders such as asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer may be more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 [38,39]. Smoking and obesity are also susceptible factors [40,41].

3.8. High-Risk Population

Persons who are in close contact with patients or subclinically symptomatic infected persons are part of the high-risk population. High infection risk is also considered in healthcare workers and the family members of patients [42].


Go to:
4. Diagnosis

4.1. Nucleic Acid Test

Viral diagnostics is one important part of our armamentarium against COVID-19. After initial outbreak, diagnostic tests based on the detection of the viral sequence by RT-PCR or next generation sequencing platforms soon became available. Subsequently, many biotechnology companies have successfully developed nucleic acid detection kits, and the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) has urgently approved a batch of fluorescent quantitative kits and sequencing systems [43]. The main concern related to the nucleic acid test is false negatives. To solve the problem of low detection efficiency, some improved rapid viral nucleic acid diagnostic tests have been invented. Particularly, a nucleic acid test paper, which can be used for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the naked eye observation within three minutes, has been successfully developed [44].

4.2. Serologic Diagnosis

It has been shown that patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection possess acute serological responses [8]. Combined with immunochromatography, colloidal gold, and other technologies, relevant detection reagents have been developed rapidly [45,46].

4.3. CRISPR/Cas13 System

The Cas13-based SHERLOCK (specific high-sensitivity enzymatic reporter unlocking) platform has been widely used to detect Zika virus (ZIKV) and dengue virus (DENV) in patient samples at concentrations as low as 1 copy per microliter [47]. Recently, Zhang et al. released a CRISPR/Cas13-based SHERLOCK technology to detect SARS-CoV-2. However, this CRISPR/Cas13 system remains to be verified because it has not been tested on clinical samples from COVID-19 patients.

4.4. Imaging Technology

Chest radiograph or CT is an important tool for COVID-19 diagnosis in clinical practice. The majority of COVID-19 cases have similar features on CT images including bilateral distribution of patchy shadows and ground glass opacity [48]. The great value of using the deep learning machine to extract radiological graphical features for COVID-19 diagnosis has been introduced [49]. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can accurately interpret the CT images of the suspected cases of the new crown within 20 s, and the accuracy rate of the analysis results reached 96%, greatly improving the diagnostic efficiency. This technique is already being used in clinical practice.


Go to:
5. Pathogenesis

5.1. Virus Entry and Spread

SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted predominantly via respiratory droplet, contact, and potential in fecal-oral [14]. Primary viral replication is presumed to occur in mucosal epithelium of upper respiratory tract (nasal cavity and pharynx), with further multiplication in lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal mucosa [50], giving rise to a mild viremia. Few infections are controlled at this point and remain asymptomatic. Some patients have also exhibited non-respiratory symptoms such as acute liver and heart injury, kidney failure, diarrhea [5,51,52,53], implying multiple organ involvement. ACE2 is broadly expressed in nasal mucosa, bronchus, lung, heart, esophagus, kidney, stomach, bladder, and ileum, and these human organs are all vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 [40]. Recently, potential pathogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 to testicular tissues hasalso been proposed by clinicians, implying fertility concerns in young patients [54]. The postulated pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is graphed in Figure 5.


Figure 5
Postulated pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE); ACE2: angiotensin-converting enzyme 2; RAS: renin-angiotensin system; ARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome. Red words represent the important turning points in SARS-CoV-2 infection.




5.2. Pathological Findings

The first report [55] of pathological findings from a severe COVID-19 showed pulmonary bilateral diffuse alveolar damage with cellular fibromyxoid exudates. The right lung showed evident desquamation of pneumocytes and hyaline membrane formation, indicating acute respiratory distress syndrome. The left lung tissue displayed pulmonary edema with hyaline membrane formation, suggestive of early-phase acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Interstitial mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates, dominated by lymphocytes, could be observed in both lungs. Multinucleated syncytial cells with atypical enlarged pneumocytes characterized by large nuclei, amphophilic granular cytoplasm, and prominent nucleoli were identified in the intra-alveolar spaces, indicating viral cytopathic-like changes. These pulmonary pathological findings extremely resemble those seen in SARS [56] and MERS [57]. Moderate microvascular steatosis and mild lobular and portal activity were observed in liver biopsy specimens, which might be caused by either SARS-CoV-2 infection or drug use. In addition, only a few interstitial mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates were found in the heart tissue, which means that SARS-CoV-2 might not directly impair the heart [55]. Massive mucus secretion in both lungs was found in death cases with COVID-19, which was different from SARS and MERS [58].

5.3. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)

ARDS is a life-threatening lung condition that prevents enough oxygen from getting to the lungs and into the circulation, accounting for mortality of most respiratory disorders and acute lung injury [59]. In fatal cases of human SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 infections, individuals exhibit severe respiratory distress requiring mechanical ventilation, and the histopathology findings also support ARDS [55,56,57]. Previous studies have found that genetic susceptibility, and inflammatory cytokines were closely related to the occurrence of ARDS. More than 40 candidate genes including ACE2, interleukin 10 (IL-10), tumor necrosis factor (TNF), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) among others have been considered to be associated with the development or outcome of ARDS [60]. Increased levels of plasma IL-6 and IL-8 were also demonstrated to be related to adverse outcomes of ARDS [59]. The above biomarkers suggest both a molecular explanation for the severe ARDS and a possible treatment for ARDS followingSARS-CoV-2 infection.

5.4. Cytokine Storm

Clinical findings showed exuberant inflammatory responses during SARS-CoV-2 infection, further resulting in uncontrolled pulmonary inflammation, likely a leading cause of case fatality. Rapid viral replication and cellular damage, virus-induced ACE2 downregulation and shedding, and antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) are responsible for aggressive inflammation caused by SARS-CoV-2, as concluded in a recently published review article [61]. SARS-CoV-2 hijacks the same entry receptor, ACE2, as SARS-CoV for infection, suggesting the likelihood of the same population of cells being targeted and infected [62]. The initial onset of rapid viral replication may cause massive epithelial and endothelial cell death and vascular leakage, triggering the production of exuberant pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines [63]. Loss of pulmonary ACE2 function has been proposed to be related to acute lung injury [64] because ACE2 downregulation and shedding can lead to dysfunction of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), and further enhance inflammation and cause vascular permeability. For SARS-CoV, one confusing issueis that only a few patients, particularly those who produce neutralizing antibodies early, experience persistent inflammation, ARDS, and even sudden death, while most patients survive the inflammatory responses and clear the virus [61]. The above phenomenon also exists in SARS-CoV-2 infection. A possible underlying mechanism of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) has been proposed recently [61]. ADE, a well-known virology phenomenon, has been confirmed in multiple viral infections [65]. ADE can promote viral cellular uptake of infectious virus–antibody complexes following their interaction with Fc receptors (FcR), FcγR, or other receptors, resulting in enhanced infection of target cells [65]. The interaction of FcγR with the virus-anti-S protein-neutralizing antibodies (anti-S-IgG) complex may facilitate both inflammatory responses and persistent viral replication in the lungs of patients [61].

5.5. Immune Dysfunction

Peripheral CD4 and CD8 T cells showed reduction and hyperactivation in a severe patient. High concentrations of proinflammatory CD4 T cells and cytotoxic granules CD8 T cells were also determined, suggesting antiviral immune responses and overactivation of T cells [55]. Additionally, several studies have reported that lymphopenia is a common feature of COVID-19 [2,5], suggestive of a critical factor accounting for severity and mortality.


Go to:
6. Potential Therapeutics

Currently, there are no specificantiviral drugs or vaccines for the control of SARS-CoV-2. Symptomatic treatment strategies are recommended for clinical practice [14]. Here, we summarize potential therapeutics available for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2.
6.1. Type I IFNs

Type I IFNs are antiviral cytokines that induce a large range of proteins that can impair viral replication in targeted cells. Previous studies have reported that IFN-β was superior against SARS-CoV compared to IFN-α [66]. Synergistic effects of leukocytic IFN-α with ribavirin [67] and IFN-β with ribavirin [68] against SARS-CoV were demonstrated in vitro.

6.2. Potential Antiviral Compounds

Ribavirin. During the outbreak of SARS in Hong Kong, ribavirin was broadly used for patients with or without concomitant use of steroids [69]. Ribavirin and IFN-β could synergistically inhibit SARS-associated CoV replication in vitro [68]. Due to adverse reactions, the proper dose of ribavirin in clinical application should be given carefully.
Lopinavir/ritonavir. The combination of lopinavir/ritonavir is widely used in the treatment of HIV infection. It has been reported that the use of lopinavir/ritonavir with ribavirin has a good therapeutic effect in SARS [70] and MERS [71]. Lopinavir/ritonavir has been recommended for clinical treatment for COVID-19.
Remdesivir. Remdesivir (RDV) was previously reported to restrain SARS-CoV in vivo [72], and the antiviral protection of RDV and IFN-β was found to be superior to that of lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β against MERS-CoV in vitro and in vivo. In addition, remdesivir was used in the treatment of the first COVID-19 patient in the United States [27] and was shown to have antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro [73]. However, its effectiveness and safety have not been verified in clinical trials yet.
Nelfinavir. Nelfinavir is a selective inhibitor of HIV protease, which has been shown to have a strong inhibition of SARS-CoV [74] implying a possible therapeutic for COVID-19.
Arbidol. Arbidol, a broad-spectrum antiviral compound, is able to block viral fusion against influenza viruses. In addition, arbidol and its derivative, arbidolmesylate, have been reported to have antiviral activity against SARS-CoV in vitro [75]. The antiviral activity of arbidol against SARS-CoV-2 has been confirmed in vitro and recommended for clinical treatment [14].
Chloroquine. Chloroquine has many interesting biochemical properties including antiviral effect [76]. It has been found to be a potent inhibitor of SARS-CoV through interfering with ACE2 [74]. Chloroquine can effectively inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro [73], and is recommended for the clinical control of viral replication [14].

6.3. Convalescent Plasma

Recently, convalescent plasma has been widely recommended to be used for COVID-19 [77], but the effect of convalescent plasma cannot be discerned from the effects of patient comorbidities, stage of illness, or effect of other treatments.

6.4. Protective Monoclonal Antibody

It has been reported that the monoclonal antibody (mAb) can efficiently neutralize SARS-CoV and inhibit syncytia formation between cells expressing the S protein and those expressing the SARS-CoV receptor ACE2 [78]. However, mAbs can only recognize a single epitope, and the anti-infective effect may be limited. In addition, the development of mAbs requires a certain period of time, which is difficult to achieve in clinical application in a short time.

6.5. Others

Based on the virology of SARS-CoV-2, blocking the binding of S protein to ACE2 is important for the treatment of virus infection. ACE2 is an important component of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). RAS inhibitors, ACEI and AT1R, may be potential therapeutic tools for COVID-19. Additionally, intravenous transplantation of ACE2-mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), blocking of FcR with immunoglobulin (IVIG), and systemic anti-inflammatory drugs to reduce cytokine storm are also potential therapeutic strategies for severe COVID-19 [61,79]. Traditional Chinese medicines have also been found to have potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity [80].


Go to:
7. Vaccine Development

Vaccination probably offers the best option for COVID-19 control. Epitopes, mRNA, and S protein-RBD structure-based vaccines have been widely proposed and started [81,82]. Rapid reconstruction of SARS-CoV-2 using a synthetic genomics platform has been reported, and this technical advance is helpful for vaccine development [83]. Human ACE2 transgenic mouse and rhesus monkey models of COVID-19 have been well established for vaccine development [84], and someSARS-CoV-2 vaccines are already under clinical trial [85,86].

Go to:
8. Conclusions and Perspective

In summary, SARS-CoV-2 is an emerging human CoV, and appears similar to previous SARS and MERS outbreaks. Bats are likely an important reservoir for SARS-CoV-2, and the current knowledge does not support the Huanan Seafood Market as the only source of infection. The main mode of transmission of SARS-CoV is through inhalation of respiratory droplets and indirect or direct contact, and infection has been estimated to have mean incubation period of 5.2 days and a R0 of 2.2. The most common factors behind COVID-19 mortality are older age and concomitant disease. The limited understanding about the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection indicates that COVID-19 and SARS have similar pathogenesis, and also have differences such as massive mucus secretion in both lungs of critical patient. There are still no specific antiviral treatments or vaccines available. The most urgent task at the moment is to develop more interventions that will eventually allow the effective control of this arising severe viral infection.
The pandemic potential of human CoVs remains a great threat for global public health. However, human beings have not gained enough experience in previous battles with SARS and MERS. After the outbreak of COVID-19 in China, SARS-CoV-2 has received worldwide attention as an important pathogen in respiratory tract infection. Worldwide, over 330,000 people have fallen ill within four months. To lock down the spread of COVID-19, the Chinese government adopted an unprecedented containment strategy in Wuhan, the source of infection, and all other provinces or areas also declared an emergency response. However, in light of the current data, the ability of the virus to spread is beyond the current estimates. To provide a comprehensive summary to public health authorities and potential readers worldwide, we detailed the present understanding of COVID-19 and introduced the current state of development of measures in this review. The results of the present study are also valuable for informing further studies and health policies in preparation for COVID-19 outbreaks worldwide.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7232198/

 

[trichrider]

oops dblpost

 

[GMT]

Small but greater chance of allergic reactions from the astrazeneca vac. Also some concerns about it affecting blood clotting. So maybe the RNA is the way to go after all. I'm going to wait and see where the Johnson and Johnson goes first.

 

[Gry]

Looks like they are starting in on the second tier in the LA area.
Was contacted yesterday over "a slot".

 

[Smokerman]

Well I got the first shot yesterday (AstraZeneca) and aside from a bit of a sore arm, I feel good.

 

[St. Phatty]

The neighbor that had it for a month, said he could smoke Cannabis a little bit every day, and that it helped A LOT.

 

[mexcurandero420]

Haley Link Brinkmeyer is believed to have received either the Pfizer or Moderna jab, both of which use mRNA technology, which has never been authorised for use in human beings until it’s emergency approval at the back end of 2020 and start of 2021.

Haley’s mother, Shauna O’Neill Link, said the death has shocked the family. It is alleged that Shauna is also of the of the opinion that the vaccine has been made for “depopulation,” due to a facebook comment made recently which said –

‘My 28-year-old daughter took the vaccine on a Tuesday and she was dead by Thursday. Autopsy shows no other red flags. Corner (sic) has assured us he will get to the bottom of this vaccine crap. Anything with Bill Gates or Quack Fauci’s name attached should be a red flag. Depopulation my folks, depopulation. That’s their objective.’

Haley was born on August 4, 1992, and is the youngest daughter to Shauna and Steve Link. The 28-year-old had attended Cynthia Heights Grade School, Helfrich Park Middle School before graduating in 2011 from Reitz High as per her obituary.

In 2018, Haley, who also played soccer, softball, and basketball, graduated from the University of Evansville with a doctorate in physical therapy. She was also part of the AOII Sorority and worked at North River Health Campus, a senior living facility in Indiana.

The physical therapist met her husband, Evan R. Brinkmeyer, when they were both attending Reitz High – they were homecoming king and queen. The high school sweethearts had been married for two years. The obituary also revealed that a celebration of Haley’s life was held on January 29, 2021.

 

[gaiusmarius]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlie...ost-from-rfk-jr-marla-maples/?sh=1a6d603c8bb2


Two people with familial ties to the White House spread a bizarre, baseless conspiracy theory on social media this week that linked billionaire Bill Gates and his work to aid in developing a coronavirus vaccine to an ulterior motive to control the masses via microchip, despite having been debunked by experts.


Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of Attorney General and Senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, has a documented history of promoting debunked theories about vaccines, specifically a discredited link with autism, and has even been called out for it by other members of the Kennedy clan.

This week he posted to his Instagram account a photo of Gates with the wild words “The digitalized economy? We get rid of cash and coins. We give you a chip. We put all your money in your chip. If you refuse a vaccine, we turn off the chip and you starve!”



Also uploaded with the photo were separate videos of Gates speaking about making vaccinations a high priority with other clips that reference identity control that appear to link a coronavirus vaccine with controlling or tracking people with microchips.

The conspiracy theory that Gates plans to install tracking devices into humans with the coronavirus vaccine his foundation is aiding has been debunked by experts but has still continued to gain traction in some circles since the onset of the pandemic.

Marla Maples, President Donald Trump’s ex-wife and mother to their daughter Tiffany, for the most part stays out of the D.C. spotlight, but made a rare statement when she shared Kennedy’s post, adding the words “Education is key. Ask questions. Dig deeper,” when she shared it on Instagram’s temporary Stories—though it is no longer available to view on her profile, it was screenshotted and posted by CNN reporter Betsy Klein on Twitter.

Gates has denied the accusations, saying in an interview with CBS in July that “I hope it’ll die down as people get the facts,” and according to The Daily Beast, Maples did not respond to a comment request by the outlet.


KEY BACKGROUND


Gates is estimated by Forbes to be worth $113.7 billion. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to help fund speedy developments of treatments and vaccines for coronavirus. Maples and Kennedy aren’t the first celebrities to share coronavirus vaccine conspiracy content—Kanye West expressed his belief in the Gates conspiracy in a Forbes interview in July, and Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton faced backlash last month when he shared a video of Gates talking about a vaccine for coronavirus with words on the screen that read “I remember when I told my first lie.” In January 2017, before his inauguration, Trump met with Kennedy to talk about “issues pertaining to vaccines and immunizations,” said Sean Spicer, the incoming press secretary at the time. Kennedy later claimed Trump had tapped him to chair a vaccine commission, a statement Trump spokespeople denied. Trump himself has said he believes vaccines and autism are connected, having expressed his views during a 2015 Republican presidential debate and on Twitter. However, he has been supportive of developing a coronavirus vaccine to help end the pandemic.

pls show me the speech or article by RFK where he claims the vaccine has a microchip. you people just take some pundits word for what he said, when his stuff is out there. you don't need to believe what someone says he said, you can check what he actually said. people too dumb to understand what hes talking about dumbing down what they understood for their readers and then being used to smear as if thats what he actually said, laughable if not so damn tragic.