SPECIAL REPORT: Measure Shows Social Distancing is Working in the United States

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

Today is 4/2/2020 and I have excellent news. In an earlier article, I described and explained how IPAK is using an estimate of Effective R0 – the basic reproductive ratio – to track progress in shutting down the spread of COVID 19. The measure is a simple ratio of the number of cases on Day X / the number of cases on Day X-5. Why X-5? It’s the asymptomatic period so the general form of Effective R0 is X/(X-A) where A is the asymptomatic period.

The goal is to push EffR0 below 1.0 – and keep it there.

Today, for the fourth day in a row, we see EffR0 for COVID-19 <1. This is best news in some time. If we keep it up, we may have zero new cases within the next week.

We still need to push for

-Prophylactic use of antivirals, supplements, naturotherapeutics to reduce viremia (viral load) in the infected.

-Massive effort to change FDA policy to allow private, in-home testing with antibody tests so Americans can know their immunity status.

For more details, check out the IPAK Back to Work Plan at the IPAK Website

http://ipaknowledge.org

You can support IPAK, a NFP Corporation in Pennsylvania, via a small monthly donation at this website. Your donation is not yet tax-deductible, but we are working on that.

Advertisements

Unbreaking Science ENDING THE PANDEMIC EPISODE 1: CDC’s Deadly Testing Fiasco: Fascism, Profiteering, Both?

This is a companian article to augment the first of six Unbreaking Science episodes dedicated to insuring that those who are responsible for the failures of a rapid and effective response to the COVID-19 outbreak are held responsible. The article and the episode are complimentary – that is they overlap in content, but each has some unique information not found in the other. I recommend the video first, followed by a read of the article.

By the end of this first article and episode, the public will understand that

A. WHO Offered the US a Perfectly Good, Validated Test

B. CDC Refused, Wanting “Their Own”

E This is Not the First Time CDC Wanted to Corner the Testing Market

F. HHS Whistleblower Chris Meekin Says CDC Lied to President Trump About the CDC’s Testing Abilities

D. Due to Capacity Alone, CDC is Incapable of Mounting an Effective Response to Outbreaks (Obvious National Security Issue)

G. Delay in Accurate Testing Could Help CDC – But It May Have Cost Us Everything

WHEN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION offered the CDC a test – made by Germany – that had already been tested, one has to wonder who held the conversation within CDC leading to the disastrous conclusion that CDC should make “their own” test. One also has to wonder what factors went into play and which were considered. Most importantly, one has to wonder how much more time the US and its medical infrastructure would have had if patients were not released from the Princess Cruise ship and unknown numbers of other places if they had not tested negative due to CDC’s faulty test. Whoever made those fateful decisions made them according to the status quo of the CDC – they prefer that which leads to massive amounts of positive revenue, regardless of the effect of that decision on safety.

The prevention paradigm at CDC displaced the rest of allopathy completely in the 1980s. David Lewis recalls this switch from controlling disease via contact tracing and use of treatments that prevent new infection (prevent tranmission) to the vaccination model – in which the vaccines were represented as preventing “new cases” via the prevention of symptoms following transmission. Most people think that vaccines prevent infection. They only do so if they reduce viremia – the growth of viruses – or bacterial growth – in someone who already has an infection. Vaccines can pass as “effective” if they suppress symptoms but fail to prevent infection.

Drugs that treat virus infections prevent the next infection by reducing viremia to the those where new infections are prevented. “Effective” when evaluating drugs is determined by testing for the presence of the virus – an assessment of the person who has been treated. “Effective” for a vaccine is defined as the presence of antibodies – and thus the assumption is that the next person will also be vaccinated, so if transmission still occurs, as is known in mumps, rubella, pertussis and most likely measles – the next person will not develop symptoms, even though the virus or bacterium might reach them from another vaccinated individual.

World Health Organization Offered CDC An Accurate Test: CDC Refused

Germany is not suffering from a raging infection outbreak because they have been conducting accurate testing since the onset of their first infection. The World Health Organization (WHO) offered the US CDC the test from Germany – and yet CDC made the deadly decision to develop their own test.

The German test was ready and available on January 17th 2020 – including published details of the protocol.

For those who know how, it is trivially easy to design primer probe sets that are both sensitive enough to amplify tiny amounts of nucleotide material in biological samples. It is also also trivially simple to make sure the primers selected are specific for the target sequences, and will not amplify off-target sequences, such as other viruses and human sequences.

The test had also already been validated for specificity to SARS-2-CoV – using human samples – meaning it would not accidentally give false positives for other respiratory viruses – and also meaning that it would not give a false positive from human genes in the human samples.

The CDC’s penchant for having “their own test” has been their MO in my experience for some time. During the 2014 Ebola Outbreak, as Director of the Ebola Rapid Assay Development Conortium (ERADC), I called CDC to inquire if they would test a protoype of a novel test technology that would wick saliva into a glass bottle – and the wick would change color in the presence of Ebola virus particles.

Sadly, I was turned down cold. Upon asking why, the reply was “We have our own.” (All of this is chronicled in detail in “Ebola:An Evolving Story”. I then had to suffer witness to lies from CDC on the genetics of the strain circulating in three countries in west Africa – lies from CDC’s then director Thomas Frieden, who testified to Congress that there were no mutations in “this virus” (meaning Ebola isolated from patients in Africa). In fact there were at least 396 mutations (difference) between Ebola 2014 and Ebola from Zaire in 2005. I also had suffer witness to lies from Dr. Stuart Nichol who, when I asked about Frieden’s stunningly incorrect claim. told a rather large group of scientists on a secret (Obama-era) White House phone call that my question was unfounded because Ebola 2015 was “99.9999%” identical to the Zaire 1995 Ebola strain. That lie is also chronicled in “Ebola: An Evolving Story”. The mutations – all 396 of them – amount to a significant difference between Ebola 2014 and Ebola 2005.

Why would he refuse? Surely, he knew about the published variants. Why would they lie? Because they had a PCR test they wanted to bring to market for airport screening. “Their” test, I was told by Nichols – who was the individual who refused to test our prototype – was designed to be used on blood drawn from patients. I pointed out to him how unsafe drawing blood in an airport during an Ebola outbreak might be.

This time, with SARS-CoV-2, there was no need for a new test. The Germans had one. CDC cost us precious time by insisting that they develop “their own”.

How many clinical tests does CDC hold patents on? (UBS Info request)

The value of accurate tests at the beginning of an outbreak cannot be underestimated. It aids in identifying cases- then clusters. After the “boom”, however, the utility of testing is severely diminished to triage for quarantine, and when that becomes pointless, triage for interventions – access to increasingly rare medical care, including access to hospital beds.

The data from China tell us that about 80% of cases are mild – meaning 20% are serious. 14% of patients will have serious ilness, and 6% will require intensive care. In the US, we have about 920,000 hospital beds check, of which we have only 740,000 community beds, and around 68,000 intensive care beds (American Hospital Association). A Johns Hopkins report has projected that we could need as many at least 1,000,000 general hospital beds, perhaps as many as 9.6 million if the outbreak is severe – and at least 200,000 intensive care beds, as many as 2.9 million if the outbreak is severe. They projected that the US may need at least 740,000 ventilators.

With the caveat that projections are dependent on what we do now, we clearly also don’t have enough ventilators. As SARS-CoV-2 infections spread across the US, predictions of a severe shortfall of ventilators for intensive care units throughout the country have caught every state off guard. According to the Johns Hopkins University, U.S. hospitals have a total of 160,000 ventilators — 62,000 full-featured ventilators, and 98,000 more basic ones that can be used in an emergency. The national stockpile is estimated to be an additional 20,000. Projections of the number of needed ventilators range up to 740,000. At $5,000 per ventilator, the estimated cost of 740,000 ventilators is $3.7 Billion.

PCR test kits like CDC’s use “primer probe sets” – segment of nucleotide sequences that match the pathogen’s sequence in carefully selected regions that make the probes specific to the pathogen. They are used in a reaction to make millions of copies of one or more target sequences.

I analyzed CDC’s primer probe sets to see if I could help identify the problem – or problems with their test. On 2/27/2020, I sent CDC the details of my analysis. Of the twelve pairs of primer probe sets, 1/4 of them had matches to human protein-coding genes. This means they could fail to amplify the viral target sequences. I also sent this information to the FDA. The problem is that reagents could be used up amplifying human genes – causing FALSE NEGATIVES.

My review took an afternoon. The FDA gave the CDC an Emergency Use Authorization to start distributing the test. The problem was that someone told the world that ONLY the CDC’s test would be considered valid- and that any competing tests would also have to receive an EUA. On Feb 29, FDA relented and allowed local labs to develop their own tests.

CDC had let it out that they wanted their test to also test for SARS and MERS – a far more complex test than the WHO test from Germany. This reveals a move to get a corner on the market and beat out competitors and making the test unnecessarily complex. Those considerations do not amount to much until we remember that if CDC has used Germany’s more accurate and readily available test, we would have stretched the time to the beginning of the curve – allowing all parts of society to figure out how to help bring an end to the pandemic. Instead, we are in the exponential part of the curve with cases rising steeply – an experience that was utterly unnecessary.

The CDC wanted to re-invent the wheel. We will see in this series that there is a common theme – US scientists pretending that we “need to better understand this virus” before we know how to react. In what could otherwise be a shining moment, US public health infastructure and the US medical enterprise is providing example after example of being unable – or unwilling – to perform lateral learning. We know everything we need to know to understand how we should react from China – now verified by the experience by Italy – and by comparison the outstanding successes in Singapore and Hong Kong, and to a lesser degree South Korea, who have experienced linear increases in the number of cases due to extensive testing and quarantine of people who have been in contact with those who test positive.

Anthony Fauci Admits Testing is “Not Working”

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID told a Congressional Committee: “Let’s admit it: the test is not working”.

Fauci told CBS News on Face the Nation: “What we can say is that now that we have the private sector involved, we’re going to see an entirely different scene than we’ve seen the weeks previously, for sure.”

The US turning to the private sector sends a major signal: no trust in the CDC regarding testing accuracy and capacity.

On 3/17/2020, he told Hugh Hewitt that, in his opinion, it’s no one’s fault – it just “happened”. Just happened? That’s what a kid says when he knocks over and breaks the cookie jar trying to steal a cookie.

Here’s the exchange from the Hugh Hewitt interview:

•HH: Now my last technical question has to do with the CDC and the testing breakdown. Was that because of regulatory capture? Was that because the CDC always prefers its own work? Was that simply because we were not, we’ve never, I think what the President was saying yesterday is while we’ve confronted Ebola and H1N1, we’ve never confronted as fast a moving virus as this one before that is so elusive to diagnose. What happened on the testing development?

•AF: You know, it was a complicated series of multiple things that conflated that just, you know, went the wrong way. One of them was a technical glitch that slowed things down in the beginning. Nobody’s fault. There wasn’t any bad guys there. It just happened. And then when we realized, when the CDC realized, and the FDA said both the system itself as it was set up, which serves certain circumstances very well, was not well-suited to the kind of broad testing that we needed the private sector to get involved in. The regulatory constraints, which under certain circumstances are helpful and protective of the American people were not suited to the emergence of this particular outbreak. So there was a confluence of a bunch of things. I believe now that the CDC and the FDA and the Department, that we’ve got it right now, because we’re handing much of it over to the private sector to heavy hitter companies that do this for a living. And I think what you’re going to be seeing looking forward is a major, major improvement in the availability of testing.

• HH: Was the glitch or anything about the production of the test President Trump’s fault? Or actually, let me put it more broadly, would every president have run into the same problem?

•AF: Oh, absolutely. This has nothing to do with anybody’s fault, certainly not the President’s fault.

In testimony to a Congressional Committee, Fauci told the US that the system was never designed to handle something like this – to which one Congressional representative replied “Well, that’s disturbing”.

On 3/19/2020, Fauci told Mark Zuckerberg in a rare interview on Facebook that the CDC had failed. He also said we should involve the private sector – the ones who can mass-produce the tests for clinical use. Showing an unbelievable lack of remorse or regret, Fauci told Zuckerberg that it (involving the private sector) was a “good lesson to learn for ‘next time'”

Some time a go, I called for locally developed testing ahead of this fiasco. It is my considered opinion that CDC should not be involved “next time” – or at least those involved in the initial consideration of the offer from WHO for an accurate test should not be involved the “next time”.

The fact that the large medical facilities are making their own tests means the CDC’s test will be largely if not completely irrelevant THIS TIME – and if they are allowed to enforce their “all testing is to be validated by CDC”, well, we’re just a nation of dupes. The medical community has now developed nearly zero faith in CDC’s clinical testing abilities, and this is a reputation that is truly well-earned.

CDC’s deadly mistake is directly responsible for the death and permnent lung damage to come across the US. It is also a major factor in the economic downturn in which the stock market lost 20% of its value – a whollop that make be one of many to come.

Rosen Interview of HHS Whistleblower Chris Meekin

CDC not only completely botched the testing, which is absolutely essential in anyone’s opinion for resource allocation, contact tracing, and dispensing medicines: CDC also lied to the President.

From an interview with James Rosen (Sinclair Investigative Reporting):

“[A] former senior federal health official nominated to his post by President Trump, alleges that the delays in testing occurred because leaders at the Centers for Disease Control “lied” to the president, and to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, about the center’s ability to produce the kits.”

From my conversations with members of the task force, both inside and outside the administration,” Meekins told Sinclair in an exclusive interview, “The U.S. government, from Secretary Azar to the president relied on the Centers for Disease Control to produce a test; they failed….CDC said they would handle it….What we have found out is that these leaders at the CDC lied to both the HHS secretary and, by extension, the president. And as a result the nation got weeks behind.”

The CDC originally attributed the failed test to specimen labeling.

[CDC Telebriefing: CDC Update on Novel Coronavirus, 2/12/2020]

Dr. Nancy Messonnier: Thank you for joining us.   Today, I would like to provide a few updates on important developments over the last few days. First, I want to extend my condolences to the family of the American who died in China over the weekend. As far as we know, this is the first American to die from this new coronavirus.  Though more than a thousand people in China have died. My sympathy and my thanks go to the people of China, for those who have lost loved ones and those who are on the front lines battling this virus. In China, they are taking aggressive measures just as we are in the United States. Since we briefed you last, there has been one new confirmed novel coronavirus infection detected in the United States. The new confirmed infection is an individual who returned from Wuhan and was quarantined at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.  This individual was on one of the last Department of State flights out of Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak in China.  Given the spread of the virus in Wuhan, it is not surprising to see a positive case among people who recently returned from there.  That is in fact the reason they are being quarantined.  Currently the person has mild illness but is hospitalized.  This brings the total number of confirmed positives in the United States to 13.  I want to clarify some of the reports that have been circulating about this case.  Last Thursday when one of the planes from Wuhan landed at Miramar, a few people were sick and transported to local hospitals for further evaluation.  These people were placed in isolation and samples were taken for testing.  When running laboratory diagnostics for any disease, anywhere in the world, the ability to match the individual to the specimen is key, and is part of the normal procedures put in place to ensure that that matching is done correctly.  But in this situation with this patient, it didn’t work correctly, and the patient was misidentified initially as negative.  The issue was identified within 24 hours.  The CDC tested the sample, the positive result was conveyed quickly to the local public health and CDC teams.  The mishap was unfortunate, but we have corrected this from happening again in the future by adding additional quality control.  And it’s really important to emphasize that during this time appropriate infection control precautions were taken around everyone, including around this patient who, again, is doing well.  Now I’d also like to update you on our diagnostic test kits.  As you know, this is a dynamic, rapidly evolving situation, and our response continues to be based on the latest science.  We continue to be flexible to meet the public health challenges that the virus presents, and clearly a success is the CDC rapid development of a diagnostic and rapid deployments to the states, which was clearly important to try to bring the testing closer to patients to avoid delays that have been inherent in sending samples to CDC.  When the state receives these test kits, their procedure is to do quality control themselves in their own laboratories.  Again, that is part of the normal procedures, but in doing it, some of the states identified some inconclusive laboratory results.  We are working closely with them to correct the issues and as we’ve said all along, speed is important, but equally or more important in this situation is making sure that the laboratory results are correct.  During a response like this, we know things may not always go as smoothly as we would like.  We have multiple levels of quality control to detect issues just like this one.  We’re looking into all of these issues to understand what went wrong, and to prevent these same things from happening in the future.  Before I take questions, I want to give you a couple more updates.  Since the airport screening began in mid-January, CDC and its partners have screened more than 30,000 passengers from China.  With the temporary restrictions on travel, we are seeing fewer and fewer travelers from China, especially from Hubei province.  Passengers are being funneled through 11 airports, most of these people are coming from parts of mainland China outside of Hubei, show no symptoms and have not been assessed as high risk.  Those who passed the screening continue on to their final destination where they self-monitor their health for 14 days in cooperation with their state and local health departments.  We’re asking these people to limit their activities and stay home during that 14-day period.  Our goal is to be as least restrictive as possible while ensuring the safety and health of all Americans.  Since starting our travel restrictions and funneling through airports, we have not detected any cases among returning travelers from China.  Most of the U.S. cases were found before the travel restrictions were put in place among travelers who returned from Wuhan and later sought medical care for their illnesses.  These cases were picked up by astute clinicians and reported to CDC.  We are continually reassessing our recommendations around quarantine and self-monitoring and will continue to work with state and local public health departments to refine and improve this process. Most of the diseases in China, however, we can and should be prepared for this new virus to gain a foothold in the U.S.  The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.  Or other countries and this will trigger a change in our response strategy.  This will require the effort of all levels of Government, the public health system and our communities as we face these challenges together.  We are focusing now on preparing in other areas, including development of guidance for our health care practitioners, and planning for increased demand on our health care system.  One important aspect of this is taking steps to make sure there are enough supplies and appropriate guidance to prevent the spread of the disease, especially among health care personnel caring for patients.  

Only later did CDC attribute failure of the test to a flaw in “one of its components”. We still don’t know what component, or the nature of the flaw, or, for that matter, that it is correct. As of today, 3/23/2020, the CDC website reports that it is still testing its kit.

The forward-looking statements by Messonier on the importance of CDC in fighting outbreaks is overblown and not substantiated by evidence of their performance. The CDC’s webpage on the SARS outbreak boasts that they were essential during the outbreak and provided extensive testing. They did the same in the H1N1 outbreak. They insisted that they be the only source of a test for Ebola- and tried also to corner the market on testing for Lyme disease.

Due to CDC’s self-centeredness and its gross incompetence, the US lags far – FAR behind other countries in testing.

There is even a test that can be conducted on-site for a COVID-19 diagnosis in 15 minutes by Biomedomics; it is thoroughly described in the Unbreaking Science companion video. HHS should issue a list of available tests, with their relative capabilities and get out of the diagnostics business altogether. (Not a Paid Endorsement)

In spite of how trivially easy it is to create an accurate PCR test, it appears that CDC has forgotten how to do so. There can be no other plausible explanation. Or can there? Is there another reason? Would an errant test benefit CDC? Did someone put another flaw into the test intentionally? What possible reason – or reasons- could exist that CDC would want SARS-CoV-2 to take a foothold in the US?

All of the discussion on the flaws in CDC’s test – which dominates the coverage by the press – eclipses the real flaw: that CDC had, in it hands, the information on primers and protocols for a test that was validated. The culture of CDC primacy – making itself appear more relevant than it really is – and placing itself at the center of society for all issues on Public Health – have already cost us far too much. These delays were utterly unnecessary and preventable. Those at the CDC who decided, for the rest of us, that the validated test from Germany was useless should be held accountable and forced to resign. There simply is no excuse for – and now clearly no need for centralization of public health “authority”. CDC does not know everything; it does not represent cutting edge understanding of key public health information. They have put the US population’s health at risk, at great cost (Read: IPAK Statement on CDC Diagnostics). The CDC does not even produce reliable and useful information on influenza infection and death rates – an infection we have been diagnosing and tracking for over 100 years – by overestimating death by two orders of magnitude to to convince the public to accept the basically useless influenza vaccines.

Which brings us to another topic worth exploring in the near future: What possible reasons could lead allopathy to so suddenly become anti-antiviral? During the H1N1 outbreak, CDC repositioned 25% of the nation’s antivirals to fight the virus.

CDC is a regulatory agency, part of HHS, which is part of the Executive Branch of the US Government. The US Government should not – but does – have technology that it licenses (see technology available from CDC here) – including many in diagnostics for pathogens. That arrangement places it in competition with the private sector – and agency scientists should not be allowed use US taxpayer’s funds to develop “their own” test. CDC, and HHS, in fact, should not own anything: regardless, they do obviously own and license diagnostic kits, competing (unfairly) wih the private sector.

So what reason could there be for CDC to intentionally fail at testing? Fail at swift adoption of antivirals and therapeutics that are working for other nations? Who benefits from an unchecked outbreak? There is one reason that causes many I know to reevaluate the entire CDC testing fiasco: the COVID-19 vaccine – and, more importantly, its mandate. We’ll review that issue in a future episode of Unbreaking Science.

Sources and Links

EXCLUSIVE: Former HHS official claims CDC leaders “lied” to Trump over coronavirus testing

https://wwmt.com/news/coronavirus/exclusive-former-hhs-official-claims-cdc-leaders-lied-to-trump-over-coronavirus-testing

Politico
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/06/coronavirus-testing-failure-123166

Meekin
https://wwmt.com/news/coronavirus/exclusive-former-hhs-official-claims-cdc-leaders-lied-to-trump-over-coronavirus-testing

Medication Junction
https://www.medicationjunction.com/are-coronavirus-tests-accurate/

CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/testing.html

https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/laboratory-personnel/specimens.html

https://www.upmc.com/media/news/031420-covid19-testing

https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/laboratory-personnel/specimens.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/06/coronavirus-testing-failure-123166
read this

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6315a4.htm?s_cid=mm6315a4_w

https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals

https://www.hughhewitt.com/dr-anthony-fauci-and-senator-tom-cotton-on-coronavirus-and-day-two-of-the-great-american-shutdown

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/03/02/how-the-cdc-botched-its-initial-coronavirus-response-with-faulty-tests/#1f052590670e

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html

https://act.nationalnursesunited.org/page/-/files/graphics/NU-Quarantine-RN-press-conf-statement.pdfs

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/did-the-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-quarantine-just-infect-more-people-with-covid-19-and-spread-it-further/

Biomedomics’ Test

Another View on Influenza vs. COVID-19 Death Rates

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD – 3/22/2020

IN MY LAST ARTICLE, I compared the number of symptomatic cases of influenza in the first 49 days of the 2019/2020 season to the number of symptomatic and estimated cases of COVID-19. While the number of current cases of COVID-19 – those presenting clinically and diagnosed based on symptoms – may be similar, the increase in estimated number of mild cases – including subclinical asymptomatic cases vastly outstrips what people have been referring to as “the number of flu cases”.

Readers have correctly pointed out that I’m comparing apples and oranges – because the number of flu cases is also not fully known. Many people w/influenza ALSO do not go to the doctor, and thus would be “mild” or asymptomatic.

My response is “100% correct” and that proves my point. Individuals comparing “flu cases” to COVID-19 to flu don’t know the asymptomatic rate for influenza. It is very difficult to estimate a case fatality rate during an outbreak – and it may vary from country to country depending on, obviously, the medical facilities’ ability to save lives during the critical phase of a disease, which for COVID-19 involves, I believe, an autoimmune attack leading to unresolvable pneumonia (symptomatic) but massive tissue damage to the lungs (lung immunopathology).

So let’s get into that. There’s a lot at stake in understanding the rate of spread of COVID-19 compared to influenza – as well as the case fatality rate.

The WHO publishes data on influenza cases in the US

I can literally hear the vaccine risk aware person pulling their hair out. “There are NOT 22,000 deaths from influenza every year!” Extremely valid point, we’ll get back to that in a minute. It’s key.

Here death rate confirmed cases” is

#deaths in symptomatic cases / total symptomatic cases x 100

Here “death rate per est. cases” is

#deaths in estimated cases / total estimated cases x 100

WHO provided total estimated cases for influenza

IPAK provided total estimated cases for COVID using the correction factor

#symptomatic cases / (1-0.86)

Why 1-0.86?

Because China provided an estimate of the number of undetected cases.

The ratio of estimated CFR – COVID CFR / Influenza is 2.9

Apples to apples.

Yes, we can debate the accuracy of 0.86, whether it applies to the US.

In fact, we can debate every number in the table.

WHO’s numbers of influenza cases and deaths come from the CDC.

The fact that they actually represent “flu-syndrome” cases is failure of public health administration – a failure of EPIC… no, COSMIC proportions.

No one can estimate a solid death rate between COVID-19 and Influenza.

So now, when it really does matter, we are – all of us- left with impressions of data, not data; death rate estimates that flip-flop.

Head spinning?

Mine, too.

I’d suggest we focus on the rates – in symptomatic cases – of hospitalization and the rates of critical cases.

And I’d sugges that we stay focused on the abuse of data for politics – including COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Focus on ending lock-downs. Focus on preserving constitutional rights. That means ending the pandemic. Plain and simple. Therapeutics, therapeutics, therapeutics. Yes, there are risks. Years ago, when I was traveling from Ohio State University to Ecuador, I was given the choice of taking chloroquine phosphate. The CHOICE. The risk? Mild permanent hearing loss. I accepted the risk, and did not get malaria. I’m fine.

This study – using the world’ fastest supercomputer – identified 77 small molecular compounds that are most likely to show efficacy against COVID-19. They include quercetin. Luteolin. Vitamin C. And other FDA-approved drugs.

There are two lists, available at the link to the study. I am sharing the two lists here to expedite access to those seeking them. Here’s the full download link as well.

List FDA-approved compounds and herbal medicine which target the S-protein.

List of FDA-approved compounds and herbal medicine which the ACE-2 docking receptors.

Accurately Comparing COVID-19 to Influenza

AS THE US AWAKENS FROM the period of time in this disaster when those who hold power have done what they can do to identify their most profitable position – including the CDC, who want “their own” test – and politicians, who waste precious, irreplaceable time slamming each other for what they believe might be political gain over COVID-19 – the US has emerged to the point where we realize we are a frog in the pot, and it is filling at an exponential rate with boiling water.

Still, there have been a number of comparisons of COVID-19 to influenza, and I wanted to publish an analysis of rates comparing the rate of spread of COVID-19 in the US to the rate of spread of influenza. “Can’t do that” people think, because we don’t know the number of undetected cases.

Actually, we kind of do, and we therefore can provide reasonable estimates for the comparison.

A study published this week estimated the percentage of undetected cases in China over the course of their outbreak at 86%.

The data for the influenza outbreak includes Influenza A and B, and are from this site. They reflect the first 49 days from the onset of the outbreak. Testing for influenza is extensive, but not thorough, and many cases of flu of course do not make it to a clinic. So the comparison is “COVID-19 spread corrected for not testing” to “Influenza spread with testing”. It is, I think the best we can do right now.

The corrected count for COVID-19 is Cases by Day X / (1-0.86). I plot both the uncorrected COVID-19 and the corrected.

This is just the first 49 days, but we can see where this is going. When testing comes, there will be a second major shock. To ease the shock, here is the full curve to date for the estimated total number of cases. From this analysis, we can estimate the number of cases in the US on 3/21/2020 to be between 120,000 and 140,000. The last five days may be an overestimate because local testing (testing using kits developed locally) started in medical facilities about five days ago.

I’ve also published a measure that tells of us how we are doing in controlling this beast. My measure of Effective R0 will adjust every five days to whatever the net influences on reporting of the number of cases – and while testing will also cause it to seem to increase until testing rates level out, it does not require testing because testing mathematically cancels out if the rate of testing between Day X and Day X-5 is roughly similar.

Here is the updated EffectiveR0. We know local testing began about five days ago, as the medical community’s faith in the CDC’s test wanes to zero.

We need to continue working on getting R0 below 1 and keep it there. That means continued or increasing social distancing. The more we do sooner, the sooner we can get back to normalcy. I hope the message that therapeutics are absolutely essential kicks into practice. People are debating which types of therapeutics, ok, fine. My position is that people should be given the option to select any therapeutic that has a rational basis for helping to reduce, but does not increase the spread, and does not sensitize people to SARS-CoV-20 or 21 in the future.

Of course as in any medicine, informed consent is a must, and patients must be afforded a list of possible and likely known side effects – and a list of certain outcomes for which we don’t yet have data. Those who can participate in social distancing, keep it up. Those who must not socially distance due to their essential roles should be given choices of CPT, antivirals, or both.

A new era of medicine may be born from the ashes of the COVID-19 outbreak in which we can unleash the full power of advanced technologies, computer modeling, including quantum computing to identify therapeutics for patients to be able to be treated safely with effective means of shutting down viral replication. Or we just might discover some simple remedies in use by some doctors across the US to treat viral illnesses.

There will be no vaccine for this virus due to Pathogenic Priming (aka ‘Immune Enhancement’) (see: Moderna and US NIAID Poised to Endanger the World Population?). Citizens deserve to know they may be at worse outcome from an infection of potentially deadly coronaviruses following exposure to a spike protein-based vaccines.

We need a therapy/outcomes tracking database so we have large amounts of data by which we can assess effective interventions.

Reference

Li et al., Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). Science March 2020. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/science.abb3221

Estimating Effective R0: COVID-19 Data Resources Should Report This For All Countries

Estimating Effective R0: COVID-19 Data Resources Should Report This For All Countries

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD – 3/18/2020

WE KNOW that at any given time during the growth phase of COVID-19 pandemic the number of cases reported represent perhaps only as many as 20% of cases present. We also know that the number of cases we see today are the product of exposure from infected individuals 4-5 days prior.

Therefore, if we use the ratio of the number of cases on a given day, Nx, to the number of cases five days prior (N_(x-5)), we can track the effects of interactions.

Notably, this rough estimator will only be relevant during the growth phase; during retraction, the Effective R0 will become <1 but that could be misleading as it would imply that infected people are preventing infection.

That neat trick is possible via plasma convalescent therapy, but that’s a different but equally important point.

For the outbreak in in the US, the increase since Day 1 looks like this

Now here is the rough Effective R0 estimator for the US over the same time period.

The very simple estimator of the Effective R0 shows that the rate of increase has fluctuated greatly. During times when no testing was being conducted, no new cases were being reported, and thus R0 might also be overestimated later on. Still, it seems useful as an approach to evaluate ongoing interventions such as social distancing and therapeutics.

How to Interpret Effective R0

Effective R0 can be used to get an idea – a very rough idea – on the dynamics of the rate of increase during the growth phase of an epidemic. The goal is to push Effective R0 below 1, and keep it there.

How NOT to Interpret Effective R0

Effective R0 is not R0. It is a product of the outcome of infection, testing, reporting and interventions and other factors.

Don’t Be Complacent. When the R0 start to decline, it is time to continue effective interventions and to add new ones that will push it down even further. Like pulling someone out of the water, you’re not in the clear until they are on dry land. Dry land is Effective R0 = 0/0 — no new cases for a sustained period of time.

Now, let’s push for therapeutics – plasma convalescent therapy and antivirals – because it does not appear that we will defeat SARS-CoV-2 worldwide by Social Distancing alone.

SARS-CoV-2 Origins: IPAK Research Exonerates Dr. Shi

It has been alleged that the genetic modifications of a specific SARS-like virus by Dr. Shi makes her complicit for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

I have mentioned at least two dozen times that my in-depth analysis of SARS-CoV-2 sequences and all available Beta-Coronavirus sequences shows no evidence of genetic manipulation of SARS-CoV-2.

Here I share a side-by-side comparison of the Spike protein motif signature of the spike protein from the very viral sequence Dr. Shi was involved in developing so the public can see the evidence I see.

The analysis involves a comparison of protein motifs found in the SARS-CoV-2 sequence to the sequence Dr. Shi had worked on. Importantly, this is not a full showing of all analyses of this kind to date: that analysis is under peer review and I will report that while some sequences published by WIV and by the Military lab in Nanjiang DO have the characteristic motif pattern, those sequences are natural sequences from bats. The spike protein from the Pangolin also has the characteristic signature motif pattern. NO CHIMERIC VIRUS OR LABORATORY-MODIFIED VIRUS THAT I HAVE ANALYZED TO DATE HAS THE SAR-COV-2 CHARACTERISTIC PROTEIN MOTIF SIGNATURE.

So let’s begin.

A. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein motif signature

Data: NCBI”s Protein Database Entry [surface glycoprotein [Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/YP_009724390.1?report=fasta

This pattern is unusual – it has a short N-terminal domain spike protein, and is missing a She3 and KxDL motif. It also has a GP41-like motif. The matches are not strong, but evolution – and protein function – works on and because of protein shape, not merely sequence.

B. Dr. Shi’s recombinant SARS-like coronavirus spike protein motif signature

Data: NCBI’s Protein Database Entry spike protein [Bat SARS-like coronavirus RsSHC014] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/AGZ48806.1?report=fasta

This protein motif pattern is identical to nearly all other SARS coronaviruses including other chimeria viruses derived from SARS. They do not have a truncated N-Terminal Domain motif, and they have the She3 and KxDLmotifs, and has no Gp40 motif.

These results are reproducible using the Motif Search function here.

I realize that to the public, nearly 100% of this is gibberish. However, these differences (and other, more in-depth phylogenetic analyses under review) exonerates RsSHC014 as being involved in the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

In my analysis I also discovered that one sequence published by a Chinese laboratory in 2005 DID have the characteristic motif – and it was from a bat sequence from Hong Kong.

I strongly recommend that all B-CoV spike protein motif patterns should be studied so we know if any studies of treatments exist that might be relevant for clinical investigations.

Note, hoever, that this result does not rule out accidental laboratory release of a natural virus under study.

I sincerely hope this helps people move on to more pressing matters, such as the lack of animal safety studies in the ongoing COVID-19 clinical trials. You can read more about that here (How the COVID-19 Pandemic Will End), and watch a full interview on why that’s a very serious problem indeed.

To support IPAK and Dr. Lyons-Weiler’s cutting edge research, visit

http://ipaknowledge.org

How the COVID-19 Pandemic Will End

How the COVID-19 Pandemic Will End

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD – 3/15/2020

How this pandemic will end depends on how soon the medical community realizes that therapeutics are 100% essential this time.

NOW THAT SOCIAL DISTANCING is occurring in the US and other countries, and some countries are under general quarantine, what next? How long will social distancing and quarantine be in effect?

The promise of a vaccine against Coronavirus is too far off to play a role in ending the deadly and economy- smashing effects of our response to COVID-19. The move to start human trials of SAR-CoV-2 vaccines without proper animal safety studies has prompted outcries (See Moderna and US NIAID Poised to Endanger the World Population?) given the reality that SARS-CoV studies had unacceptable safety issues of pathogenic priming : animals vaccinated using Spike protein based vaccines against SARS and MERS – close cousin of SARS-CoV-2 – had worse outcomes when challenged with the virus that the vaccine was supposed to protect them against. Even the most vocal vaccine proponents such as Paul Offit and Peter Hotez now say skipping the animal studies could result in unacceptable risks. I should point out that this week, they have joined the ranks of people using freedom of speech to “spread” vaccine skepticism.

Given the catastrophic outcomes in animal safety testing for the SARS coronavirus vaccine, we must understand that the current vaccine trials will likely fail. We must realize also that social distancing alone will be insufficient to bring a reasonably quick end to the need for social distancing and quarantine.

Here are some simulation result of the outcome of using either just social distancing to manage the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or combining social distancing with therapeutics:

Clearly therapeutics will be necessary to play a role in bringing about an end to this pandemic. Resources on this are listed at the end of this article.

Here I list feasible steps that are absolutely essential for the countries to end the pandemic as quickly as possible.

1. Testing. Develop local testing capacity. Avoid CDC’s flawed test until they produce data showing high sensitivity and specificity of their primer probe sets. Testing will be relevant towards effective resource use, but people should not wait until they have symptoms to take steps to reduce the severity of virus-related illnesses.

The utility of accurate testing should be a lesson for all respiratory virus-related illnesses and perhaps we will see a massive paradigm shift towards accurate testing and reporting of which respiratory virus individuals actually have and perhaps medicine will now abandon so-called “flu syndrome”.

2. Plasma convalescent therapy. Each test-positive patient who has recovered should be asked to donate a liter of blood from which antibodies can be harvested. The resulting product should be screened for other viruses and then administered to those on the front lines first – nurses, MDs, medical staff – EMTS, the military, all essential personel in the “infrastructure” industries and in the food industries. See this reference in The Lancet for details.

3. Therapeutics (Prophylatic Treatments). Mass production and distribution of other therapeutics including antivirals that have shown to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 for prophylactic use in families and workplaces who have a members or co-workers who test positive for COVID-19. Herbal remedies that also show efficacy should not be discouraged – anything that might help but will not hurt should be used. A registry of treatment experiences and outcomes should be created to help identify the most efficacious treatment options.

4. True Immune Enhancement. Increase the use of supplements that enhance and strengthen the immune system. These include vitamins such as vitamin D vitamin A and large doses of vitamin C. Encourage the uptake of micronutrients including zinc and selenium which have specifically been shown to inhibit the entry of SARS and SARS-CoV-2 into human cells. An extract of licorice root appears to have some effect. (The phrase “immune enhancement” is being misused to refer to a dangerous outcome due to exposure to the virus following vaccination, which should be referred to as “Pathogenic Priming”.

5. Wellness. Increase life affirming and healthy lifestyle choices including exercise, exposure to sunlight, daily air exchange of the home and healthy avocational activities. People should be encouraged to take the time for early spring cleaning, take up a new exercise regime such as thai chi, to learn a new language or to learn a new musical instrument.

Use this time to exercise to reduce metabolic syndrome and diabetes is essential to reduce your risk of mortality. Diabetics have a 6% fatality risk. People with cardiovascular illness including hypertension have a 10% case fatality risk. Talk to your doctor about moving from ACE inhibitor blood pressure management to other options. Also talk to your doctor about adding exercise to your lifestyle to help control your diabetes.

I applaud the move taken by the banking and and finance industries to help stabilize hardships visited upon families by loss of work including interest forgiveness on loans, tolerance of delayed, late or skipped payments. Mental wellness is essential for making optimal life choices.

It is time for a re-discovery the best part of ourselves. Engage in charitable acts to aid the elderly and those at most risk of serious illness.

Resources on Therapeutics“ANY AND ALL THAT WILL HELP, NOT EITHER/OR”

Plasma Convalescent Therapy

https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6141138603001/#sp=show-clips

https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-plasma-therapy-showing-excellent-results-against-coronavirus

The Lancet – Convalescent plasma as a potential therapy for COVID-19

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2820%2930141-9/fulltext

Antivirals

Treatments under study include nutriceuticals and supplements; ” and antiviral drugs such as Disulfiram and Chloroquine Phosphate.

Potential Inhibitor of COVID-19 Main Protease from Several Medicinal Plant Compounds by Molecular Docking Study. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202003.0226/v1/download

See: “Disulfiram can inhibit MERS and SARS coronavirus papain-like proteases via different modes“.

See “Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro“.

See “Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia“.

The race to find a coronavirus treatment: One strategy might be just weeks away, scientists say https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/15/coronavirus-treatment-could-coming-doctors-say-still-no-vaccine/5052788002/

Chloroquine Confirmed Effective as Coronavirus Cure https://www.hngn.com/articles/228138/20200223/coronavirus-cure-chloroquine-confirmed-effective.htm

Vitamins and Minerals

See: How doctors say you can boost your immune system to protect against flu, coronavirus https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/coronavirus/how-doctors-say-you-can-boost-your-immune-system-to-protect-against-flu-coronavirus

Herbals and Supplements

Selenium and other micronutrient deficiency is considered to play a role in severity of a coronavirus infection (See: “Micronutrient Selenium Deficiency Influences Evolution of Some Viral Infectious Diseases“). Glycyrrhizin, an active component of liquorice roots, has been found to have few toxic effects and to be clinically effective against SARS-associated coronavirus. (See: See “Glycyrrhizin, an active component of liquorice roots, and replication of SARS-associated coronavirus“)

Supplements that might have a positive effect include N- acetyl cysteine, selenium, spirulina and high dose glucosamine (See “Nutraceuticals have potential for boosting the type 1 interferon response to RNA viruses including influenza and coronavirus

Colloidal Silver Nebulizer

See drpaulapproved.com for info on colloidal silver nebulizer.

VaccineS Do Not Cause Autism? ICAN Scores Legal Proof that CDC has Zero Evidence that HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV Vaccines Do Not Contribute to Autism

Step 1. FOIA CDC asking for studies showing that VaccineS Do Not Cause Autism, per their website.
Step 2. CDC refers ICAN to http://www.cdc.gov.

Step 3. ICAN goes to court!

Step 4. Judge compels release of study lists

The result? CDC Has Zero Provide Evidence that HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV Do Not Contribute to Autism. NOT. ONE. STUDY.

FROM THE I CAN DECIDE NETWORK:

Complaint Against the Centers for Disease Control – Vaccines and Autism

MAR 05, 2020, 17:38 ET

“The CDC claims on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.” Despite this claim, studies have found between 40% and 70% of parents with an autistic child continue to blame vaccines for their child’s autism, typically pointing to vaccines given during the first six months of life. Vaccines given during the first six months of life, according to the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule, include three doses each of DTaP, HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV, for a total of fifteen doses during these six months. In summer 2019, ICAN submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CDC requesting “All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that the DTaP vaccine does not cause autism.” ICAN also submitted this same request for HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV, as well as requesting the CDC provide studies to support the cumulative exposure to these vaccines during the first six months of life do not cause autism.”

Watch Del lay it out on this week’s The Highwire:

Of course, we knew this already because I had read the entire literature a while back… and concluded that CDC must be using Magic to conclude the VaccineS Do Not Cause Autism.

When We Survive COVID-19, We Just Might Save Our Doctor’s Lives

#UnbreakingScience going live today (3/4/2020) w/Dr. Stephanie Seneff re; Micronutrient deficiencies and COVID-19.

By the way – Nearly everyone who gets SARS-CoV-2 has a mild illness and recovers. This makes COVID-19 an IDEAL candidate for Convalscent Plasma Therapy and PROPHYLAXIS! Roll up your sleeves, survivors!

https://journosdiary.com/2020/02/15/convalescent-plasma-therapy-covid-19/#SARSCoV2

Dr. Jonas Salk Wanted Liability, Not NVICP Special Masters, to Decide the Fate of Unsafe Vaccines

Dr. Jonas Salk Wanted Liability, Not NVICP Special Masters, to Decide the Fate of Unsafe Vaccines

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD 3/1/2020

SUMMARY

  • The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, pits individual citizens against the US Executive Branch of Government – arguably the most powerful institution in the entire world – by forcing them to sue the Department of Health and Human Services for compensation.
  • The program utilizes a tiered system in which Special Masters decide cases with power equal to full rulings; classically, Special Masters make recommendations on individual cases and a Federal judge would issue a ruling.
  • In 2020, we in the US live in a nation in which we have inherited a program by which victims of vaccine injury can attempt to seek financial remedy for the harm to themselves and their families.
  • Dr. Salk’s words echo in time as a warning unheeded.
  • Dr. Salk’s message from the May 1984 hearing is reproduced below for current considerations.
  • Sadly, the HHS (Executive Branch) adminisers the NVICP (Judiciary Branch), as clear a violation of the separation of powers doctrine as imaginable.

In 2020, we in the US live in a nation in which we have inherited a program by which victims of vaccine injury can attempt to seek financial remedy for the harm to themselves and their families. This program, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, pits individual citizens against the US Executive Branch of Government – arguably the most powerful institution in the entire world – by forcing them to sue the Department of Health and Human Services for compensation. The program utilizes a tiered system in which Special Masters decide cases with power equal to full rulings; classically, Special Masters make recommendations on individual cases and a Federal judge would issue a ruling. In the NVICP, the SMs are very powerful and many act in a manner that socializes lawyers to behave in specific, proscribed fashions that game the system in favor of the defendant, the US HHS. Sadly, the HHS (Executive Branch) adminisers the NVICP (Judiciary Branch), as clear a violation of the separation of powers doctrine as imaginable.


As a sometimes expert in cases in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, I have been, occasionally, compensated for my time. However, the HHS also and always compensates doctors (MDs) to argue that a vaccine did not cause each and every reported injury – and these MDs fight down to the molecule on mechanism and arguments that go to plausibility. It is scientifically implausible that all reported vaccine injuries are not caused by a vaccine, and yet HHS always manages to find MDs willing to claim just that. Some of these HHS-employed witness physicians also fight dirty, misrepresenting the facts of the literature they cite; for example, in one case, an MD cited a particular study and reported that the study showed that one type of cell infiltrates the heart when cardiopathy of certain kind is not caused by vaccines, and that the type of cell is a good biomarker to rule out vaccines; upon reading the study and further literature, I found that the very study the HHS witness cited was among the type of cellular infiltrates of the heart during cardiomyopathy involving vaccines.

In another case, a different MD employed by HHS argued that asthma did not have an autoimmune component, so I fired up Pubmed and found a very large literature by evidently much better informed and more ethical physicians who have been arguing that asthma and related illness should be called “autoimmune conditions of the airways” – all based on very strong immunological evidence of an autoimmune component to such conditions.

Similarly, demyelinating disorders appear to share a common root cause, but the HHS MDs prefer to slice and dice their diagnoses by radiology, and arguing instances of vaccine-induced autoimmunity against the myelin sheath should be disallowed because in this patient, it occurs in these cells of the central nervous system instead of these other cells, where we will allow it. These diagnostic semantics are, in my judgement, an extremely callous and cruel abuse of the ignorance of the vaccinating public.

In other cases, the Special Masters have manipulated the case by citing precedent – evidently a privileged tactic available only to the Special Master, because lawyers representing US citizens injured by vaccines are not allowed to cite precedent in their casework for the NVICP. This particular Special Master insisted that the since prior cases have ruled that aluminum is not an issue in vaccine injury, my testimony, which cited massive amounts of evidence – including new evidence since those rulings – that aluminum does induce autoimmunity of many types when injected, especially if there is a genetic risk of autoimmunity – would be compensated but was not likely to help the case. The Special Master then went on to state that if the client wanted to continue to have me as an expert witness for his son’s case, that would be fine but the SM made it clear that it was unlikely that I would be compensated unless I provided testimony that the SM “liked”. In my reply, I recalled my invoice for any compensation, and informed the SM in my next expert witness statement that their recording was among the materials I examined, and that I took their offer of bribery for testimony more to their “liking” as an affront to liberty and justice. The SM quickly wrapped up the case by dismissal.

I have in other articles outlined the specific biological mechanisms of vaccine injury involving aluminum; it is absolutely true that we induce autoimmunity of many types in mice and rats routinely and reliably using doses that overlap the exposures per body weight to infants and children currently on the CDC’s recommended schedule. That Special Master is clearly part and parcel to a system in which there is no accountability for such manipulative behavior, and the entire NVICP is, in my opinion, a grave injustice to the vaccinating public.


As a result, I am not longer providing expert testimony for compensation in the NVICP on any further cases. I cannot participate in such a program based on my strong foundation of principles and ethics, anymore than I can attend and appeal via a three-minute statement to the Advisory Board on Immunization Practices for them to miraculously set aside their shared and nearly universal serious conflicts of interest. I could not appeal to them because, in my view, they, like any NVICP Special Master who games the system in favor of the HHS, have abdicated their authority and the individuals in those seats are not worthy of our respect. ACIP member are appointed, not elected; they act as agents of Big Pharma, not for the people, and I therefore refuse to recognize ACIP as an institution worthy of my appeal in this democratic republic. By defending HHS, who is the proxy defendant for Big Pharma in the NVICP, the NVICP also fails to represent the vaccinating public, the people who need and deserve compensation.

Today, the testimony from Dr. Jonas Salk from 1984 came to my attention. In his testimony, he argued that the live polio vaccine should be excluded from the NVICP to allow the market – choice by patients and physicians – and lawsuits on liability to allow the success or failure of the live polio vaccine, because given the lack of protection, the lawsuits against the manufacturers would incentivize them to stop producing he vaccine altogether or to make their own alternative, safe vaccine. Dr. Salk’s position was with regards to a single vaccine, although he also discussed the DPT vaccine was likely doomed due to a worse safety profile compared to acellular options that were being developed at the time.

After reading Dr. Salk’s statement, it becomes abundantly clear that it was understood at the time that liability is an absolutely necessary force to incentivize vaccine manufacturers to compete on a platform a safety instead of profitability. The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was a colossal mistake, and it must be repealed. Look at what is happening with Monsanto (Bayer) and glyphosate.


Dr. Salk’s message from the May 1984 hearing is reproduced below for current considerations. Read it and keep in mind that acute flaccid myelitis paralyzes children every year – with peak incidences occurring in the fall, right after the annual rash of vaccines to attend school. Dr. Salk’s words echo in time as a warning unheeded. The source is here.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED255480.pdf

STATEMENT OF JONAS SALK, M.D., THE SALK INSTITUTE FOR
BIOLOGICAL STUDIES. SAN DIEGO, CA


Dr. SALK. Madam Chairman, I have been listening very carefully to testimony that has been given thus far, and I wish to offer for the record what I have prepared in writing. I would like to emphasize the point that one of the available poliomyelitis vaccines [oral live virus vaccine] causes paralysis in a small number of instances and that an alternative vaccine exists [injected killed virus vaccine] that does not cause such injury. Another vaccine that is the cause of injury is the pertussis component of DTP (Diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine).


To make my point I would like to put the following question to the committee: If two pertussis vaccines existed, one of which causes injury and the other does not, would the latter not be the one that would be used to avoid such injury? I want, therefore, to bring to your attention the fact that the live poliovirus vaccine now in general use, causes more than the two cases per year of vaccine-associated paralysis, as has just been stated by Dr. Smith. Such cases occur to the extent of about 6 to 10 cases per year and not only in children who are vaccinated but in adults who are contacts of vaccinated children and also in community contacts. Accumulated over the period of time since the live poliovirus vaccine has been in use, more than 200 cases have accumulated over the period of the last 20 years. In view of the fact that a killed poliovirus vaccine exists which does not cause vaccine-associated paralysis, I would suggest that the way to deal with polio-vaccine-associated injuries would be to exclude indemnification for polio-vaccine-associated injuries from the legislation so as to create an incentive to avoid such injury since the killed virus vaccine is equally effective in protecting the vaccinated individual and the community from the development of outbreaks of poliomyelitis. This issue has been a subject of considerable discussion for quite some time. These facts were brought prominently to attention more than a decade ago. The conditions that have prevailed in the past as far as questions of equivalence of effectiveness of the killed virus vaccine which is safe as compared with the live virus vaccine that does cause injury, have now, in 1984, been resolved because of advances in the science and the technology of killed virus vaccine manufacture. If the science and the technology of pertussis vaccine manufacture was similarly advanced then the use of an improved vaccine would he introduced rather than indemnification. My simple plea is that indemnification is not necessary for solving the problem of polio-vaccine-associated injuries.

Prepared statement by Dr. Salk follows:


I am here to offer my views on legislation now being considered to provide compensation by the United States to victims of vaccine-related injuries.


I believe that such victims should receive fair and adequate compensation without the necessity to engage in uncertain lawsuits with producers of biologics, and their insurers, who understandably will use their power to defend their interests which differ from that of the victim.


I have two serious concerns with regard to such legislation:

  • One is the removal of the incentive for manufacturers and the scientific community to improve existing vaccines— for example, the pertussis component of the DPT vaccine.
  • The other is the removal of the incentive to change policy when equally effective but safer vaccines already exist– for example, poliomyelitis vaccine.
  • Therefore, such legislation should provide for:
  • -Encouragement of research and development of vaccines free of the untoward side effects for which indemnification is to be provided.
  • With regard to pertussis, further research and development is underway. However, in the case of poliomyelitis two vaccines exist, one of which has the property of causing a small but definite number of cases of paralytic poliomyelitis each year and the other of which is free of this property. Figure 1 shows the effect of vaccination on the incidence of poliomyelitis in the United States, and Figure 2 shows that since 1973 more cases have been caused by the live virus vaccine as compared to the number caused by the naturally occurring wild virus. The issue surrounding these observations has been discussed many times and will, in due course, be resolved by appropriate changes in policy or by legislation.
  • In summary:
  • I am of the opinion that such legislation as is being proposed in necessary but should be written in such as (a) way as to provide the kinds of safeguards that would avoid the need for indemnification as a remedy for vaccine-associated injuries.”

  • -Jonas Salk, testimony to The Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 1 May 1984

Dr. Lyons-Weiler is the CEO and Director of The Insitute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, a NFP orgranization in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Things You Don’t Yet Know But Need to Know About The Novel Coronavirus Including Treatment Information and How to Prepare Your Home

Things You Don’t Yet Know But Need to Know About The Novel Coronavirus Including Treatment Information and How to Prepare Your Home

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD – Updated 2/28/2020

Here is a list of a few important things you may not yet know about the novel Coronavirus. There are some technical points up front; details on issues related to government action on quarantine and treatments follow.

I thank Dr. Theron Hutton, MD for leads on treatment.

  1. The virus is called SARS-COV-2. It is a close relative of SARS. It has a very different Spike protein from SARS, and is a different virus with a distinct disease progression. The disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 is called COVID-19 (IPAK hypothesis of original antigenic sin).
  2. Because SARS-CoV-2 has a distinct spike protein it is thought to engage a slightly different mechanism for cellular entry (for those up to speed, it binds less strongly to the protein ACE2 on the surface of human cells than SARS). I have found a motif pattern in the Spike protein that might be useful in determining which data from studies from various studies of SARS might be most relevant for SARS-CoV-2.
  3. Our best available data at this time indicates that this virus was not made in a laboratory. It most likely is an older virus related to SARS and is rare in nature and was transferred to humans either in a laboratory studying the virus or from a spillover event from someone handling an infected animal or its meat. The most likely candidate for the reservoir species is a bat.
  4. Infected people without symptoms can spread the virus. Infected people without symptoms can spread the virus before they start showing symptoms. The period of asymptomatic transmission is anywhere from one to two weeks – or longer.
  5. This virus has a basic reproduction number of about 2.6. That means typically people spread the virus to between 2 and 3 people. Superspreaders do exist. However, the lengthy asymptomatic period and multiple modes of transmission means those 2.6 people are easy for the virus to find.
  6. The virus is thought to spread via body fluids – and, unfortunately aerosolization – and can be found in body fluids and in feces. Masks are best saved for the infected to prevent spread, but knowing who is infected is difficult due to the prolonged asymptomatic prodromal period. It is important to know that greetings in public should no longer involve shaking hands or high-fives, hugging or kissing – even in areas of the world where SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been found. Elbow bumps are ok.
  7. There is no vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 , and it is extremely unlikely that a vaccine will be will play a role in ending this pandemic. This makes isolation and even mildly effective treatments incredibly important. It is best not to rush to a vaccine with the spiked protein either, because animal studies have shown that animals vaccinated and SARS with a spike protein vaccine have had a high mortality rate. Individuals who have had a past SARS or MERS infection may reasonably be expected to be at increased risk of a serious severe case of COVID-19.
  8. Treatments under study include nutriceuticals and supplements; Supplements that might have a positive effect, noted by colleague Dr. Theron Hutton, MD, include N- acetyl cystein, selenium, spirulina and high dose glucosamine (See “Nutraceuticals have potential for boosting the type 1 interferon response to RNA viruses including influenza and coronavirus” and antiviral drugs such as Disulfiram and Chloroquine Phosphate (See: “Disulfiram can inhibit MERS and SARS coronavirus papain-like proteases via different modes“. See “Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro“. See “Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia“. Selenium and other micronutrient deficiency is considered to play a role in severity of a coronavirus infection (See: “Micronutrient Selenium Deficiency Influences Evolution of Some Viral Infectious Diseases“). Glycyrrhizin, an active component of liquorice roots, has been found to have few toxic effects and to be clinically effective against SARS-associated coronavirus. (See: See “Glycyrrhizin, an active component of liquorice roots, and replication of SARS-associated coronavirus“)
  9. The disease from SARS-CoV-2 infection has reasonably high case-fatality rate to take this outbreak seriously. If you contracted coronavirus you currently have about a 2 to 3% chance of dying. However those who die usually have some cardiovascular disease or other problems leading to lung issues. Children seem to not be at as high risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. If everyone with a potential infection shows up at the hospital, it will overwhelm the healthcare system. Better to call ahead to ask if and where you should go. People at risk (with cardiovacular disease, for example) might want to think about purchasing an oxygen generator in case they develop pneumonia (under the advisement of your physician, of course).
  10. The best way to protect yourself and everyone else to stay away from people. While that is not feasible especially for people in the medical community it is imperative that everyone understand that they can pick up and spread the virus without having any symptoms for a long time. Don’t share food or utensils for cell phones.
  11. If you have coronavirus in your city or town, you may expect widespread quarantine even for those who do not have symptoms. That means sheltering-in-place in place at home. That means a bit of prepping this and next week.
  12. Quarantine and even partially effective treatments are really the only tools we have to shut down the spread of this Coronavirus. There are at least two potential treatment that the medical community is aware of that are at least partially effective.
  13. If you are quarantined you can be expected to be quarantine for 3 to 4 weeks. This means that before the coronavirus is widespread you may want to stock up on non-perishable food items and some extra water. Be sure to buy some energy drinks that can replenish your electrolytes in case you get diarrhea which can be a symptom of coronavirus infection. Food distribution systems will very likely be in place but do not count on that alone.
  14. While the virus has a 3% case fatality rate most people have a mild illness. However some people with a mild illness can rapidly deteriorate. The best medical support for the coronavirus infection at that time is oxygen support.
  15. It is possible that this virus can infect domesticated animals and pets. They are for the usual routine quotes affection with your Animal Companions and puss is probably going to be discouraged. For their own protection you may want to designate a room in your house for your pet for animal companion to minimize exposure and to prevent your pet from infecting other family members. When you stock up on food for your household don’t forget to stock up on pet food.
  16. There is still time to reduce the rate of spread of this virus substantially by adhering to proactive social isolation practices and self-quarantine whenever possible. Employers should encourage employees to work from home if possible.
  17. If you are caught in a situation where you’re in a hotel or other buildings that is quarantined because someone in the building has come down with a diagnosis of coronavirus do not break the quarantine. Each person quarantined in any building should be isolated – and remain isolated – as much as possible. If feasible, each person in the building should have their own toilet.
  18. All public spaces should be sanitized by staff members once or twice an hour with lease space disinfectant or with disinfectant that are known to kill coronavirus. The virus likely can last nine days on surfaces without disinfectant. Check the label of your cleaning products label to see if it lists Coronavirus (see #20 for specifical details on disinfectants).
  19. In end-stage COVID-19, oxygen support is essential. Pairing non-medical sources of oxygen (industrial, e.g, welding) with medical oxygen masks in the homes of those at highest risk of death may help prolong the life of those at risk. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy will certainly aid those with low oxygen levels. Individuals around the world should stop smoking cigarettes and using inhaled products known to cause lung damage such as vaping.
  20. Some of the best disinfectants are likly Oxivir TB and Lysol Disinfecting, both of which are claimed to kill the virus on a surface after two minutes. See: “Emerging Viral Pathogen Guidance for Antimicrobial Pesticides” See: Read: CORONAVIRUS – WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (Arrow Chemical Products). Check the label of the wipes you purchase to be sure its reads “Kills Coronavirus”.
  21. In-home testing kits are needed.

Additional treatments suggested by readers with example references:

Vitamin C

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2099400/

Diethyl ether

https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m627/rr

Against ARBs
https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m406/rapid-responses

PDE- 5 inhibitor
https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m810/rr

Where Do We Go From Here?

The governments and people of the world have a stark choice to make – short-term (3-4 week) harsh quarantine and experimental treatments now with antivirals to whatever percentage of the population we can get them to, or prolonged outbreak and cycles of disruption that will last ito an interdeterminantly long future throughout the world.

If it’s not apparent why this is so, watch this video in which I model the outbreak, the effects of what I call Social Isolation, and even moderately effective treatment. Below the video are three files with some information on preparing your home for extended self-quarantine.

Click Link Below for Video: Predicting Coronavirus – How Bad Can it Get?

CBC Responds to Dr. Lyons-Weiler, Dr. Lyons-Weiler Responds Back

CBC launched an all-out attack on the vaccine risk aware in February with an aired program that attacked by character and my integrity under the auspices of a “journalism”. I present the latest in three parts – my reply to their reply, and then a response from CBC forwarded by a concerned citizen with no ties are affiliation with me or IPAK. CBC has now double-down on their defamatory attack on me, and I would encourage everyone to write to CBC specifically bringing the matter to the attention of their President. Catherine Tait (email catherine.tait [at] cbc.ca).

Part I. Dr. Jack Brings CBC To School on Objective Journalistic Integrity – Again

Paul,
I am utterly confused by your response. First, I think you should know there is no need for you to “regret” my positions on my behalf, which is done twice in this non-apology.  I will speak for myself, thank you.  If you meant to say that you regret that your organizations’ behavior led me to those positions, then I could understand, and I would then reply “I’m sure you do”.

You should certainly regret that CBC was so callous toward parents of vaccine injured children that they have failed to perform due diligence on the reality of risks associated with vaccines. The actual risk/benefit ratio of anyvaccine schedule is unknown until a randomized, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial is conducted comparingthe long-term health outcomes of that schedule to a completely unvaccinated group- and only then if the placeboused is truly inert – such as saline.  When confronted with this fact, the proponents of current vaccines and thecurrent vaccine schedule claim that it would be unethical to conduct a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated randomizedtrial – presuming the net benefit ratio – and that is not Science.

Second, you statement on the risks of vaccines relative to the risk of the infections they are supposed to prevent is mystifying, given all of the material that I sent, and that I know others have sent to you.

I want to thank you for admitting in part the wrong doing in the misrepresentation of events around who said what.  It is important that I clarify, however:

0. I’m not an “anti-vaxxer”.  I’m for safer vaccines, Your inclusion of me whatsoever in your piece or your report is defamatory.

1. To whit, you say that your reporter never meant to malign my character.  How then, in the report, does she introduce the segment with “Others have more creative ways of fundraising?” She assaults my integrity.  She claims that I (he) “says he’s not an activist”.  Really?  That’s odd.  I actually do consider myself an activist – for objectivity in Science.  If she had bothered to ask me, I would have been happy to tell her just that. She goes on to insinuate that because I report my Scientific position that I think that vaccines do cause autism in some people, that I’m an activist, which is non-sequitur. Then she goes to say “how does he raise his money?” – as if donations to IPAK are “my” money.  “He wants to be seen as a Scientist” – well, we’ve dealt with that, but he insinuation is still there. The entire segment intro is sleazy.  I’m sorry, there is no other word for it. In no way is IPAK ever running a science day for which public donations are requested as a “quid pro quo” for anything else.  Therefore, as I stated, I would never say “That’s right” re: a statement like “So now we have quid pro quo”.  Your clarification now posits that your reported said “that way there is no quid pro quo” and the full video, without the cutaway, shows that by my reaction the idea is abhorrent to me.  The implications of that statement are of course the exact opposite of the implications of the first representation. You owe the public an apology of the form “We regret our error, and apologize if our representation led anyone to believe that IPAK or Dr. Lyons-Weiler implied a deal or work-around.  We now understand that Dr. Lyons-Weiler was offering to educate the public on the balance of science conducted on vaccine safety”.


Even with the correction you made, the video still implies I’m doing something wrong or unethical.  Does your definition of “journalistic integrity” include the narrating reporter stating that it is  “creative” of me to request donations w/registration to a Science Day?  Why? I see research organizations charging fees for conferences all of the time. What exactly was I “working around”?  Why would the undercover reporter even mention “quid pro quo” – there was no discussion of me talking to legislators; he mentioned no bill; he mentioned no meeting with legislators; what was the exact potential but non-extant quid pro quo?  Insinuations of this form are covert accusations. During the entire interaction, your reporter presumed that he was speaking with me in manner in which what I do – research on vaccine safety and the link between genetics, environment and neurodevelopmental and immunological disorders – is wrong.  Your reporter came up with a purely fictitious 400 people – lying to my assistant, and to me, about a purely fictitious event – and his math is also therefore a fiction.  Why 400?  Why not 4,000? This is not a proud day for CBC.

Even if there was real event, sometimes when I travel I also educate legislators, and sometimes I do not.  Big deal – a research institute running a conference is hardly material for an undercover reporter. When I do testify, there is never any understanding in any way that my testimonies to committees or to legislative bodies are in return for any donations related to another event as compensation to me; the funds go to IPAK via online registration, and are used to conduct scientific research.  No one influences my words, or my terms in any manner.  I choose my own position and topic, which points I make, which scientific studies I reference and which events I attend.  I recently testified in CT and there was no financial or material transfer, none expected, and no IPAK Science Day.  The public understands that I stand for objectivity in Science; your reporter and the resulting report, and your reply still leads to insinuations that in some way my participating in society’s attempts to formulate public health policy as a Scientist is wrong.  The “report” and the video your team published is a pack of lies and harmful to society deriving evidence-based public health practices based on the full balance of the available science.

2. There remains the issue of the purpose of the timing of the cut-away to the production studio, the existence of two edits of the words on the screen with the same video, all pointing to this particular segment being highly edited.  The “public” cannot “decide for themselves” because, as your reporter boasted to me, you broadcast from coast to coast.  Posting a video online is insufficient and will not reach the public you misinformed. Media professionals with years of studio production experience have informed me that it’s clear and obvious what’s happened to the video; what your team did was highly unethical. Your review of the matter is still misleading.  You should retract the story and the video and issue an apology to the public.

3. Your review of the matter not only also leaves open the impression that in some way I needed a work-around – it also implies that I need to distinguish myself from activists at the event.  That concept is, similarly, a construct in the mind of your reporter and it appears to be the product of speculation on your part.  I would expect an organization like yours to offer substantive reactions, not idle speculation of my motive as defense of your organizations’ bad behavior. I am free to travel and to conduct IPAK Science Days, seminars, participate in  workshops, etc. without any restrictions either as an IPAK event – or as an invited speaker.  Sometimes at conferences, etc. I AM personally compensated as a speaker via an honorarium, a standard practice in academic research, regardless of whether my lecture topic involves vaccines or not.  Your reporters and the report slandered me – and still defames me – by insinuating that in some way I am trying to “get around” something.  That construct is theirs; the reality is quite different.  Your reply commits the same offense.

4. If your reporters had wanted an honest piece, they would have identified themselves as reporters and asked those of us in attendance, including parents, of why they were there in first place.  They would have collected vaccine injury stories, but mainstream press has left that job to Polly Tommey and the entire VAXXED and VAXXED II team.  Your reporters participated in the current unethical practice of bullying, demeaning, and mischaracterizing people who put their children in harm’s way and paid the price for our fight against infectious disease. CHILDREN, Paul.  Parents of dead children should be treated with respect and, frankly awe, for fighting back in such a civilized manner against oppressive government agencies run by for-profit corporations.  These parents would have welcomed you with open arms.  Your pieces characterize the parents of vaccine injured children as weak-minded, and they find that treatment inhumane, as do I.

Let me ask you – did CBC or Marketplace receive funds from vaccine manufacturers to run this hit piece?  See, Paul, that’s how it’s done.  I am coming to your organization directly and asking you point blank, in the open.  Your company can deny it in your own terms.  You of course have no obligation to respond, but please let me know if my question is ambiguous or hard to understanding. True objective reporting would allow those being interviewed to speak for themselves. Instead, your team set up straw man after straw man and the only thing they exposed was their own ability to conduct yellow journalism.


I am grateful that you at least edited the online versions of the “report” and the video, but, Paul et al. at CBC Marketplace, and at CBC – the damage you have done is not to me.  It’s to the hundreds of thousands or millions who will now have to overcome their limited view of me as a scientist.  I have recently submitted a research study for peer review that shows that Chinese Scientists and American Scientists had viruses – from the wild – from SARS-CoV-2 in 2005 and 2008.   I will let you know when and if that study is accepted by peer reviewers for publication.  Do you think your hit piece will help this information come forward?  Or will the reviewers be more likely to reject my work because you and others slander me as “anti-vaccine” – when in reality, I have held, from the start, that I am pro-vaccine, and I am for safer vaccines. I am vaccine risk aware. As you should be. And as the President of your company should be.  Quite possibly, your piece will ultimately have served only to contribute to the retardation of progress in science in manners that adversely effect a safer and more civil future. I imagine you might regret that I feel that way, but in reality, your organization should regret its own behavior.

I willl give you a simple exercise in logic to consider. Since the piece also “outs me” for stating I think the Scientific evidence supports that vaccines may cause autism in some people, and since you represent Dr. Wakefield and Del Bigtree, and others (including me) as misleading the public with misinformation it is fair question to ask: Do your reporters, and you, stand by the statement that vaccines do NOT cause autism in some people?  If so, please produce the studies that show that a genetic risk to ASD from vaccines has been tested and has been ruled out – for each and every vaccine on the US or Canadian pediatric schedule.  The only studies capable of potentially ruling out your position are studies that measure both genetic information and environmental exposures, including vaccines.  I assure you, having read >2,000 studies on autism, including all of the studies on autism genetics, that no such study exists in humans.  As far as the overwhelming evidence you reference, your reporters failed to discover or disclose that not all vaccines on the US CDC’s recommended schedule have been tested for a causal relationship with autism. The MMR has been studied extensively, but not using study designs capable of discerning causality. All of this has been spelled out to you previously, by not retracting the video and the report, you leave the implication that vaccines are safe and effective for everyone.  They are not.  Your reporters, and you, misrepresent the Science by implying that the evidence is overwhelming that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism, vaccines and seizures, etc.  Your entire piece is, ironically, an exercise in confirmation bias. So let me ask you this: since you know that not all vaccines have been tested for a causal relationship with autism, how then does your team represent the so-called “anti-vaccine” movement leaders as a misleading the public when there is no scientific basic for the claim, made by CDC on their website, that VaccineS Do Not Cause Autism?

I am attaching my own assessment of the studies sent to POTUS by AAP that allegedly indicate that thimerosal is safe and that vaccines do not cause autism for your perusal.  There are at least 157 studiesthat support the idea that vaccines may cause autism in some people.  I would advise you to please stop repeating misinformation so we can get to the business of ending vaccine injury by reformulating vaccines.


Your reporters missed the story of their career. Please let me know if I can be of service to CBC News in any way in helping you clarify your organization’s obvious position that vaccines do not cause autism, and that vaccines are perfectly safe and effective for everyone. I would suggest that your CBC news team interview me, Del, Dr. Wakefield, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and parents of vaccine injured and killed children like Doug and Rishanne Golden (cc’d) whose daughter, Haleigh, died of seizures brought on by a meningococcal vaccine.  


https://www.dispatch.com/news/20200218/haleighs-heart-anti-vaccine-billboard-catches-eyes-on-worthington-road

And Emily Tarsell (cc’d), whose daughter  Christine died following receipt of the Gardasil vaccine, covered by CBS news, according to the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program:

https://www.capitalgazette.com/opinion/columns/ac-ce-column-tarsell-20180907-story.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xc4yBNV-U0http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/MORAN.TARSELL033012.pdf

Or perhaps the Barrett family, who son, Colton, took his own life so as to not burden his family after becoming severelydisabled following receipt of the Gardasil vaccine.

https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2018/01/08/what-and-who-killed-colton-berret/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHYmb9Hwj4A

Or, since he is Canadian, perhaps Mr. Ted Kuntz, whose son Joshua suffered a severe injury from the DPT vaccine, leading to a lifelong seizure disorder that ultimately took his life in 2017

http://www.lifenews.ca/announcement/7150281-kuntz-joshua-anthony

I’d also suggest that your team interview Mary Holland, Esq. re: Dr.

Wakefield, whom your reply so callously referenced as
“disgraced”.  Again, no due diligence from your organization; you are merely parroting tropes that have been repeated so oftenthat people think they are fair game. They are not.  Your reply now contributes to the defamation of Dr. Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield’s findings of autoimmunological gasteroenteritis associated with autism – and postulated by parents in his study to be related to the MMR vaccination – are now being validated by many new studies.

https://www.bebee.com/producer/@joyce-bowen/the-real-story-of-dr-andrew-wakefield-and-mmr-by-mary-holland-jd

https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=gasteroenteritis+autism&addon=opensearch

You could interview Dr. Neil Miller on his study that shows that by far most morbidity and mortality associated with vaccines occursfollowing receipt of >1 vaccine in one day.

https://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/miller.pdf

That would be a public service and a good use of an objective news media organization.

I know parents whose children are able, for the first time, at the age of 17, able to get through a day without wearing a diaper.  This after detoxifying their children – against the “consensus” of allopathic medicine – that vaccine metals are perfectly safe and unrelatedto autism or chronic illness in any way.  I can put you in contact with these parents if your team would care to report objectively.

Mainstream medical will of course dispute all of these as “anecdotes”.  I cannot.  I’m a scientist.  They are “initial observations”.


Your team now has, from me and others, more than enough information to begin reporting objectively on current vaccines and vaccine schedules.

I feel that I must assure you in my offer to assist CBC News, there is absolutely no quid pro quo.  I have an obligation to return now to conducting research on our vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study, and also on the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which threatens millions, and for which there is no vaccine, but for which we know from animal studies on SARS vaccines might pose a special threat to anyone vaccinated against the SARS spike protein. From that I have surmised the hypothesis that perhaps there is special risk or that may be been exposed to the SARS spike protein during the last outbreak.  That ideanow has been picked up by other scientists reacting to the observational data available so far that individuals re-infected with SARS-CoV-2 fare far worse.

Please have someone at CBC look into the risk to people w/past exposure to SARS.  I am concerned especially for people who were in Toronto during the 2003 SARS outbreak. 

Below are the recommended readings for your Canadian scientist colleagues.  I’m cc’ing Dr. Christopher Shaw who can step you through them.

Sincerely,

James Lyons-Weiler, PhDCEO/Director

The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge

Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus. “Lung mononuclear infiltrates occurred in all groups after virus challenge but with increased infiltrates that contained eosinophils and increases in the eosinophil promoting IL-5 and IL-13 cytokines only in the vaccine groups. Inactivated MERS-CoV vaccine appears to carry a hypersensitive-type lung pathology risk from MERS-CoV infection that is similar to that found with inactivated SARS-CoV vaccines from SARS-CoV infection.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27269431

Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.“VRP-N vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice. VRP-N-induced pathology presented at day 4, peaked around day 7, and persisted through day 14, and was likely mediated by cellular immune responses.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194199

Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets “Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue.”

https://jvi.asm.org/content/78/22/12672.abstract

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/303/5660/944.full

Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate  “…a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice…”

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502

Part II. Paul Hambleton’s Defamatory and Reckless Response

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD 
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 7:53 AM PAUL HAMBLETON <xxxxxxxxx@cbc.ca> wrote:

Dear James Lyons-Weiler:

I am writing in reply to your email of January 27 addressed to CBC News Marketplace and journalists Asha Tomlinson and Katie Pedersen concerning the “misrepresentation” you find in a video story about the anti-vaccination movement broadcast on the January 17 edition of Marketplace and in a companion CBCNews.ca story posted online the same day under the headline, “Hidden cameras capture misinformation, fundraising tactics used by anti-vaxx movement.”

As the Director of Journalistic Standards, Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, asked me to reply to you directly.

Let me say immediately that I sincerely regret you feel your words were misrepresented in both stories. They were not, but upon review we discovered that we did make an error transcribing the words our own journalist used in one section. I’ll explain what I mean. But before I do, I want to be clear about the Marketplace story.

It focusses on how the anti-vaccination movement has convinced consumers – often the parents of young children – that vaccines are dangerous. Vaccination is widely accepted by medical science and government health authorities as a safe and beneficial way to protect children from the potentially serious consequences of a range of sometimes deadly childhood diseases. Yet, in the face of what is commonly described as overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, the anti-vaccination movement argues the risk is not in the disease, but in the vaccine given to prevent it. It would appear to be an unsustainable position, yet the influence of those worried about vaccination is growing along with their numbers. 

Both stories looked at how the anti-vaccination messaging is effective at encouraging doubt because of the way it manipulates emotions and biases. The online story also sets out some of the common concerns Canadians have expressed about the dangers of vaccines and explains why experts say they have no reason to be worried. 

One segment, the focus of your concern, looks briefly at how the movement raises money. Del Bigtree, a former television producer, controversial filmmaker and a prominent activist, and disgraced researcher Andrew Wakefield charge thousands to speak at events and have raised millions to fund their cause.

Other figures associated with the movement, the online story said, find “workarounds,” such as you have. You said you are “just educating” and said you didn’t charge because it would make you an “international lobbyist.” The online story continued this way:

“So, what I would rather do is, I do a science day the day before,” he said. “I’d run an event where you … charge admission as per my website.”

“Sounds like a promo thing for you, a marketing thing for you,” said our journalist. “Now we’ve got a quid pro quo.” 

“That’s right,” he said, later detailing through an assistant that for a group of 400 people, he would want about $20 US per person, netting around $10,000 Cdn.

You wrote that this online story “misattributed a phrase about ‘quid pro quo’ to your reporter, and then put words in my mouth: ’” The story is “incorrect,” you wrote, “I am always careful” to say “’it’s NOT a quid pro quo.’” “And I categorically deny saying ‘Right.’”

After reviewing the original tape, I can tell you that we did not accurately reflect what our journalist said in that exchange. This is what our journalist said:

“Sounds like a promo thing for you, a marketing thing for you,” said our journalist. “That way it’s not a quid pro quo.” 

To which you responded, “That’s right, exactly”

For the record, in the conversation at the time, our journalist then said: “That’s a dirty word, nowadays.” 

You responded: “I don’t….Listen, if the worst thing I’m doing is talking with people about aluminum accumulation trends in children from vaccines…”

With respect to the video story, to be clear, you did not use the phrase, “No quid pro quo.” Again the subtitles for what our journalist said were not correct in that section. They should have read: “That way it’s not a…  quid pro quo, I guess” 

We have corrected the subtitles on the broadcast piece, and we have also corrected the wording in the online story.  As well, we added the video of the full exchange to our Youtube story for transparency so you can watch it yourself.

Here is the link to the program episode on Youtube

You can see the updated online story here 

Let me emphasize that we accurately reported what you said. The business arrangements you outlined speak for themselves. I appreciate that they are of importance to you, but whether they do or do not amount to a quid pro quo is not germane to the story. Readers and viewers can reach their own conclusions about that. Nevertheless, we did mis-transcribe the words of our own journalist and we should not have.

NOW HERE I MUST OBJECT – THE SO-CALLED ‘BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS WERE A FANCIFUL MADE-UP SCENARIO OF 400 PEOPLE – A NUMBER THE MALE REPORTER, ERIC, PULLED OUT OF HIS OWN MIND. HE WAS INFORMED IF WE HAD MANY ATTENDING WE COULD SUGGEST SMALLER DONATIONS – JLW

Finally, you also drew our attention to the reporter “hurtfully and irresponsibly” saying in the video story that you “want to be seen as a scientist.” You attached your curriculum vitae, saying “I am now, and will die, a Scientist, regardless of your reporter’s insensitive and uninformed implication that I am not.”

I regret you took offence, but I can assure you no offence was intended, nor do I believe offense exists in the reporter’s words. It is simply a description intended to distinguish you, a scientist, from the other prominent speakers at the event who are described as activists. 

The segment explains that two of the prominent figures at the event raise money from speaking fees, but that you take a different approach. It says that you have “set up a science-based non-profit” and explain that you “are not an activist.” You “want to be seen as a scientist”, the reporter says, so you propose a “workaround,” presumably as a way of re-enforcing that distinction. That’s when you say you would rather do a “science day.”

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention, and for giving me an opportunity to respond.

Sincerely,

Paul 

Paul Hambleton

Director of Journalistic Standards

CBC News


Cc. Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsman

      Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief, CBC News

Part III – The Cut-And-Paste Repsonse they are Sending to CBC Viewers who have Written to the Ombudsman to Complain.

Dear Bob Martin:

I am writing in reply to your email of January 27 addressed to CBC Ombudsman, Jack Nagler, expressing your concern over a video story about the anti-vaccination movement broadcast on the January 17 edition of CBC Marketplace. “I’m deeply concerned,” you wrote, above a link to Dr. James Lyons-Weiler’s January 19 blog post that chiefly alleged the story had misrepresented what he said. 

As the Director of Journalistic Standards, Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, asked me to reply to you directly.

While I regret you are disappointed in CBC, your assertion that our journalists acted unethically is without foundation. Dr. Lyons-Weiler has written to CBC and, as you know, posted at length on his web page his allegation that he was misrepresented in the story. He was not. But I do agree with you that there is a point in the video story could have been edited in a fashion that made that clearer. I’ll explain what I mean. But before I do, I want to be clear about the Marketplace story.

It focusses on how the anti-vaccination movement has convinced consumers – often the parents of young children – that vaccines are dangerous. Vaccination is widely accepted by medical science and government health authorities as a safe and beneficial way to protect children from the potentially serious consequences of a range of sometimes deadly childhood diseases. Yet, in the face of what is commonly described as overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, the anti-vaccination movement argues the risk is not in the disease, but in the vaccine given to prevent it. It would appear to be an unsustainable position, yet the influence of those worried about vaccination is growing along with their numbers. 

Both the video story and an accompanying CBCNews.ca online story posted on January 17 under the headline, “Hidden cameras capture misinformation, fundraising tactics used by anti-vaxx movement” looked at how the anti-vaccination messaging is effective at encouraging doubt because of the way it manipulates emotions and biases. The online story also sets out some of the common concerns Canadians have expressed about the dangers of vaccines and explains why experts say they have no reason to be worried. 

One segment, the focus of your concern, looks briefly at how the movement raises money. Del Bigtree, a former television producer, controversial filmmaker and a prominent activist, and discredited researcher Andrew Wakefield charge thousands to speak at events and have raised millions to fund their cause.

Other figures associated with the movement, the online story said, find “workarounds,” such as Dr. Lyons-Weiler has. He said he is “just educating” and that he didn’t charge because it would make him an “international lobbyist.” The online story continued this way:

The original online story continued this way:

“So, what I would rather do is, I do a science day the day before,” he said. “I’d run an event where you … charge admission as per my website.”

“Sounds like a promo thing for you, a marketing thing for you,” said our journalist. “Now we’ve got a quid pro quo.” 

“That’s right,” he said, later detailing through an assistant that for a group of 400 people, he would want about $20 US per person, netting around $10,000 Cdn.

After reviewing the original tape, I can tell you that we made a transcription error in what our journalist said in that exchange. This is what our journalist said:

“Sounds like a promo thing for you, a marketing thing for you. That way it’s not a…. quid pro quo, I guess.” 

To which he responded, “That’s right…. exactly”

For the record, in the conversation at the time, our journalist then said: “That’s a dirty word, nowadays.” 

Mr. Lyons-Weiler responded: “I don’t….Listen, if the worst thing I’m doing is talking with people about aluminum accumulation trends in children from vaccines…”

With respect to the video story, to be clear, Mr. Lyons-Weiler did not use the phrase, “No quid pro quo.” Again the subtitles for what our journalist said were not correct in that section. They should have read: “That way it’s not a…  quid pro quo, I guess” 

We have corrected the subtitles on the broadcast piece, and we have also corrected the wording in the online story.  As well, we added the video of the full exchange to our Youtube story for transparency so you can watch it yourself.

Here is the link to the program episode on Youtube

You can see the updated online story here 

Let me emphasize that we accurately reported what he said. The business arrangements he outlined speak for themselves. Whether they do or do not amount to a quid pro quo is not germane to the story. Readers and viewers can reach their own conclusions about that. Nevertheless, we did mis-transcribe the words of our own journalist and we should not have. We regret that error.  

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention, and for giving me an opportunity to respond. I hope my reply has assured you of the continuing integrity of Marketplace and CBC News.

If you do not find this answer satisfactory, you may wish to ask CBC Ombudsman, Jack Nagler, to review the matter. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC’s journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by telephone at 416-205-2978, or by mail at Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at  (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombud@cbc.ca

Sincerely, 

Paul

Paul Hambleton

Director of Journalistic Standards

CBC News


Cc. Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsman

      Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief, CBC News

Open Letter to CBC: Your Reply to Dr. Jackson’s Concerns Over Incorrect Information on Aluminum by Marketplace Contains More Incorrect Information on Aluminum

Open Letter to CBC: Your Reply to Dr. Jackson’s Concerns Over Incorrect Information on Aluminum by Marketplace Contains More Incorrect Information on Aluminum

For those paying attention, CBC’s Marketplace recently aired an unethical and ineffectual hidden camera ‘hit piece’ on the vaccine-risk-aware community assembled in an after-party in Washington, DC. We suspect many of CBC’s viewers were dismayed by the treatment of the professionals they targeted and the misinformation propagated by their reporters and the show’s guest.

One such viewer, Dr. Anaheed Jackson, wrote to CBC, and when their response deepened her concerns, she forwarded the communication to Dr. Lyons-Weiler. After consideration, we decided to co-author this blog article.

The CBC’s reply to Dr. Jackson contains gravely misleading and potentially dangerous misinformation on aluminum toxicity. We are taking the opportunity to share their misleading and misinformed response and to enumerate the errors they have made, in interpretation of the scientific literature on aluminum, important misinterpretations of published research, and a clear misunderstanding of the dynamics of aluminum clearance from the human body.

Here is the CBC’s response:

From: PAUL HAMBLETON xxxxxxxxxx@cbc.ca

Date: Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 5:53 AM

Subject: CBC Response

To: info@healthyrootsclinic.com

Cc: Jennifer McGuire xxxxxxxxxx@cbc.ca, CBC Ombudsman xxxxxxx@cbc.ca

Dear Dr. Ana Jackson:

CBC: I am writing in reply to your email of January 17 addressed to CBC Ombudsman, Jack Nagler, about what you see as inaccurate information in a CBCNews.ca story posted earlier that day under the headline, “Nearly half of Canadians are concerned about vaccine safety. Here’s why.” Specifically, you wrote, the story says aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines “’completely flush out of the body.’” You cited two studies suggesting that they do not.

As the Director of Journalistic Standards, Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, asked me to reply to you directly.

I appreciate hearing your views and I sincerely regret that you are disappointed in CBC in this instance. However, and I say this with respect, your view of the story is not one I share. I’ll explain why, but first I want to be clear about the story.

It focuses on how the anti-vaccination movement has convinced consumers – often the parents of young children – that vaccines are dangerous. Vaccination is widely accepted by medical science and government health authorities as a safe and beneficial way to protect children from the potentially serious consequences of a range of sometimes deadly childhood diseases. Yet, in the face of what is commonly described as overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, the anti-vaccination movement argues the risk is not in the disease, but in the vaccine given to prevent it. It would appear to be an unsustainable position, yet the influence of those worried about vaccination is growing along with their numbers.

Here, CBC misrepresents the position of the vaccine risk aware community, which hold that, contra the US CDC’s claims, vaccines are not “safe and effective” for everyone; i.e., they are not safe for some; i.e., they are, in fact, dangerous for some. 

What they cite as “overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary” is actually observational science, i.e., retrospective correlational/ecological studies which fall far short of the gold standard of long-term, randomized, inert-placebo controlled studies. In such studies,  individuals are randomly assigned to a group to either receive the vaccine in question, or to receive an inert (biologically inactive) injection of saline. Neither CBC nor anyone can produce any such studies for long-term safety; the CDC and Pharma (vaccine manufacturers) rely exclusively on “post-market surveillance” studies that are incapable of testing the hypothesis of causality. When placebos have been used, they are not true placebos; they are either another vaccine, or, as is the case for the HPV vaccine, the aluminum adjuvant, neither of which are biologically inert. Thus, not a single vaccine on the childhood vaccination schedule has ever gone through proper double-blind, placebo controlled testing that is a requirement for all other drugs on the market. 

CBC: This online story, along with the accompanying broadcast story on CBC Marketplace (January 17), looked at how the anti-vaccination messaging is effective at encouraging doubt because of the way it manipulates emotions and biases. The story also sets out some of the common concerns Canadians have expressed about the dangers of vaccines and explains why experts say they should not be worried.

The primary message of the vaccine risk aware community is that given that the safety science falls short of testing causality, using only short periods of time in the initial safety trials, and relying only upon correlation studies, the medical community is misinformed on the true risk profiles of many vaccines. When parents or adults try to report a vaccine injury or even death to their doctors, they are met with denialism. Some doctors have told parents with infants who are experiencing seizures that it could not be the vaccine. If this sounds as if it is a message designed to evoke emotions, then perhaps doubters of mothers and fathers should ask themselves how they would feel if their own child was injured or killed by a vaccine and the doctors and the government denied it to their face.

The facts are that awards have been given for deaths and injury; in the US, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, in which Dr. Lyons-Weiler is an expert on some cases, has awarded >US$4.5 Billion for vaccine injury and deaths. Journalistic standards demand that these facts be brought forward to provide balanced reporting.

One of those concerns is that vaccines contain chemicals that can be toxic at high levels, among them aluminum. It’s the most abundant metal in the earth’s crust and occurs naturally in soil, water and air. In fact it’s so prevalent in food that the CDC estimates that the average adult in the United States eats 7-9 mg of aluminum every day. Antacids contain 104-208 mg of aluminum, buffered aspirin 10-20 mg per tablet.

These statements betray another lack of effort for journalistic curiosity. Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth’s crust – where it is bound to silica to form bauxite – and is thereby not available to organisms in the biosphere, including humans. Humans only began being exposed to aluminum after the 1850, when the processes to extract aluminum from bauxite was invented. The history is readily available in Wikipedia:

Aluminium was difficult to refine and thus uncommon in actual usage. Soon after its discovery, the price of aluminium exceeded that of gold. It was only reduced after the initiation of the first industrial production by French chemist Henri Étienne Sainte-Claire Deville in 1856. Aluminium became much more available to the public with the Hall–Héroult process developed independently by French engineer Paul Héroult and American engineer Charles Martin Hall in 1886, and the Bayer process developed by Austrian chemist Carl Joseph Bayer in 1889. These processes have been used for aluminium production up to the present.

Regarding exposure from food and water, clearly CBC did not even bother to read the studies that were sent; according to Dr. Yokel of the University of Kentucky, we absorb only 0.3% of the aluminum we eat. So,

9000 mcg * 0.003 = 27 mcg of aluminum in an adult per day.

This is in comparison to the 850 to 1150 mcg found in vaccines that a child is directly exposed to through injection where a 100% absorption rate exists, and higher amounts if a doctor tries to inject the same child with more than one vaccine per day. CBC should have referred to the Appendix to the study sent to them by Dr. Jackson by Dr. Lyons-Weiler and colleagues. This peer-reviewed study by Dr. Lyons-Weiler and co-authors (McFarland et al, 2020) shows that when absorption in considered, as is appropriate for concerns of whole-body exposure and toxicity, for the first six months of life, infants receive far more aluminum from vaccines than from food, water, breastmilk, or formula.

It is also added in very small quantities to a few vaccines – chiefly those aimed at human papillomavirus (HPV), influenza, hepatitis and anthrax – but generally not to those given to children, including the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. For those few that do contain aluminum, they contain no more than 0.85 mg per dose – an amount 100 times smaller than in an antacid tablet – and in most cases they contain far less. 0.85 mg is about the same amount found in a litre of infant formula.

The CBC claims that “few” vaccines contain aluminum. Our understanding is that about 60% of vaccines on the US CDC schedule contain aluminum. Regarding 850 mcg per dose, CBC should have known, if they actually read the peer-reviewed and published reference material sent, that the expression

The expression “850 mcg per dose” itself is problematic: safe dosage limits would be expressed as “xx mcg/kg/day”, which was the reason why McFarland et al. bothered to use an estimated pediatric dose limit scaled to body weight.

Regarding an antacid tablet, 2000 mcg of aluminum with 0.3% absorbed would lead to 6 mcg of aluminum absorbed via the intestine, so an injected vaccine is about 140 times more aluminum than an antacid dose. Drinking 850 mcg of aluminum in a liter of water would result in absorption of only 2.55 mcg of aluminum. Thus, an 850 mcg vaccination will result in a dose that is 333 times that received from drinking a liter of water. Further, the aluminum in drinking water is not there naturally; it is added as a buffer to prevent the corrosion of water lines.

Since aluminum is, in fact, toxic, exposures from all sources is a cause for concern.

CBC: The segment went on to explain that adjuvants, such as aluminum, are added to some vaccines to enhance their effectiveness by “prompting the body to learn how to fight the disease instead of immediately flushing [the dead virus] out.” And it added that “all traces” of aluminum and everything else in the vaccine are “are flushed completely out of the body within a day or two.”

As evidence to the contrary, you included a link to a French study by R.K. Gherardi, and others, on the biopersistence of aluminum adjuvants, and a recent article by James Lyons-Weiler, and others, about the comparative retention of aluminum in three vaccination schedules. As you may know, Dr. Lyons-Weiler, a popular speaker at anti-vaccination movement meetings, was featured in the Marketplace television story.

If CBC were interested, they would have learned that Dr. Lyons-Weiler routinely leads the crowds that assemble to hear him speak in chants such as “What do you want?” Crowd: “Science!” “When do you want it?” “NOW!” Dr. Lyons-Weiler defends the public trust in objective science. Your video “exposé” claimed that he would “like” to be “seen” as a scientist; you evidently now recognize the error of your insinuation; Dr. Lyons-Weiler has requested an apology, but expects none.

I realize that there are some studies, often cited by those opposed to vaccination, that link aluminum adjuvants and their “biopersistence” to a wide range of afflictions sometimes described as the autoimmune/ inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA), which is said to include macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), the Gulf War syndrome (GWS), and “chronic toxicity” in infants, among other things.

The authors of the studies you cited raise many more questions than they offer answers. Both suggest multiple further avenues of study. Acknowledging the tentative nature of their work, Gherardi, for example, notes that the “imbalance between the huge number of vaccinated individuals and the relatively low number of MMF cases” suggests the involvement of other factors.

These “other factors” include genetics and as we have clarified, the concern for many in the vaccine risk aware community is not that vaccines are universally dangerous, as you have misstated the position, but that a subset of individuals appears to be at highest risk. Dr. Lyons-Weiler and others have provided you with links to videos in which the late Dr. Bernadine Healy, former director of the US National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (now a well-paid executive of Merck’s Vaccine Division Program) both told CNN News that a genetically susceptible subgroup likely exists that is higher risk of injury from vaccines. Dr. Andrew Zimmermann, a leading pro-vaccine pediatric neurologist and medical expert, claimed that “regressive encephalopathy” (brain swelling and damage) can occur after vaccination in certain children who have underlying mitochondrial disorders. He gave this testimony back in 2007 during a Federal Vaccine Court proceeding.

In the absence of convincing science of the dangers of “biopersistence,” there is overwhelming scientific and medical consensus on the safety and efficacy of vaccination. The story linked the section of aluminum adjuvants to a 2015 “Public Health Statement for Aluminum” issued by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, a division of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that says “most” of the aluminum in food and “much of the small amount” that enters the bloodstream is “quickly” excreted.

It is odd that CBC would prefer a 2015 source to more updated, peer-reviewed sources. While directed by Dr. Gerberding, the ATSDR cherry-picked one mouse study out of dozens to justify a generous and extraordinary 1,000 mcg tolerable limit per day from oral exposures, when past limits had been either 1,000 or 2,000 mcg provisional tolerable limit per week. CBC has no scientific basis upon which to dismiss the studies showing chronic toxicity is expected, including studies by Dr. Lyons-Weiler and team and studies such as those by Dr. Gheradhi and Dr. Exeley in which aluminum content in humans was measured. 

Further, the ATSDR is, you quote, references ingested, not injected, aluminum. Being a different form of aluminum with a different route of exposure, the toxicity profiles are completely different. CBC is clearly not in a position to evaluate the “convincingness” of the studies they have been sent, given their lack of understanding of the basics of the relative exposure from ingested (0.3%) vs. injected (100%) forms of aluminum.

That seems to reflect the findings of most studies of the subject reviewed by our journalists. Among many others, we asked epidemiologist Dr. Natasha Crowcroft about aluminum. Dr. Crowcroft, who has authored over 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, is the co-chair of the Canadian Association for Immunization Research, Evaluation and Education (CAIRE) and a member of the Canadian Immunization Research Network. She assured us that “kids who are vaccinated don’t have any increase in the aluminum levels in their plasma following immunization.”

There has only been one study that showed that plasma levels of aluminum in newborns did not change before and after vaccination with aluminum-containing Hepatitis B vaccine. That fact is not at all reassuring; we are concerned not only with acute toxicity but with long-term (chronic) whole-body toxicity. The presence of aluminum released over long periods of time following vaccine in studies cited by Dr. Lyons-Weiler and colleagues and by the US FDA show that only about 5% of aluminum is excreted from the body form a rational basis of concern. In one study, rabbits cleared only 5.6% of the injected aluminum hydroxide in urine after 28 days. Adults require multiple thousands of days to excrete a single injected dose. Infants’ kidneys are only 20% efficient compared to toddlers. These facts were all provided to CBC in the studies provided. Their journalistic integrity would compel them to understand these facts.

She also notes that that (sic) although high levels of aluminum in the blood can pose health risks, vaccines generally bypass the bloodstream altogether. “You’re giving it into (sic) a muscle,” she said. “You’re not injecting a vaccine into a vein; you’re giving it into usually a muscle, sometimes subcutaneously.” She notes that because of this, “it doesn’t go straight into the bloodstream, it doesn’t accumulate in tissues, it stays in the site where the immune system can package it up and get rid of it and then if it gets into any other compartment it gets cleared through the kidneys. And it gets cleared quite quickly; it’s gone very quickly.”

This doctor clearly does not understand how aluminum from vaccines is transported throughout the body. It mains mechanism of action is both apoptotic and necrotic cell death. Macrophages, which move in and out of the circulatory system, pick up the cellular debris (to which aluminum is adhered) and thus move it about the body. Aluminum also binds to transferrin, which is supposed to be available to relocate dietary iron to bone for the production of red blood cells.  A reasonable estimate of a ½ life of injected aluminum from is numerous studies, already sent to you, have found that aluminum is found in the brains of people with autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and other conditions. Why you have chosen to ignore the materials and links sent to you by Dr. Lyons-Weiler, Del Bigtree, and others betray a lack of journalistic objectivity and an utter contempt of the integrity that real journalism requires.

She adds that the studies supporting “biopersistence” work off “an assumption that aluminum just stays there and builds up with each dose and all of that is just wrong. It doesn’t enter the bloodstream, so it doesn’t ‘go up’ in levels the way that drugs do.”

Here their expert is at odds with herself. If aluminum does not enter the circulatory system (which it does, adhered to cells and in macrophages), then why would we be reassured that there is no difference in plasma levels of aluminum in infants following vaccination with aluminum hydroxide? No study – none – shows that the reason is that it clears from the body immediately. Instead, it goes into various compartments of the body, including the brain, where the chronic toxicity sets in. Since the science conducted by Dr. Lyons-Weiler focuses on whole body clearance, their experts’ position is a misrepresentation of our concerns. Getting the basics of reporting right is imperative for “reporting”.

Thank you again for bringing your views to our attention, and for giving me an opportunity to respond. I hope my reply has assured you of the continuing integrity of Marketplace and CBC News.

If you do not find this answer satisfactory, you may wish to ask CBC Ombudsman, Jack Nagler, to review the matter. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC’s journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by telephone at 416-205-2978, or by mail at Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombud@cbc.ca

Sincerely,

Paul

Paul Hambleton

Director of Journalistic Standards

CBC News

Cc. Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsman

 Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief, CBC News

In spite of these reassurances, the facts remain: You reported incorrectly that aluminum is flushed completely from the body, and we, and others, have provided ample evidence that this is an incorrect statement, and as a reporting agency, you should issue a correction and a retraction. Dr. Lyons-Weiler does not expect an apology that is due under the present circumstances.

It would behoove you to actually read the studies sent and the citations in those studies. Your organization shows a contempt for journalistic integrity and for objectivity in science. Millions of children and adults are suffering from conditions that may be related to vaccines; unknown numbers have died. The world needs a new form of objective journalism; for that, we refer readers to Del Bigtree (The Highwire ) and to Sharyl Attkisson (Full Measure) and Ben Swann (Truth in Media). Just as Dr. Lyons-Weiler represents objectivity in Science, these outlets represent refreshing objectivity in Journalism.

We wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

Sincerely,

Dr. Anaheed Jackson, ND

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

More on the ACE2-Related Asian COVID-19 Susceptibility Hypothesis

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD – 2/16/2020

SCIENCE IS FOR ASKING QUESTIONS. When people started posting online the idea that “Asians”, especially male “Asians”, and perhaps people with the “Han genome” are generally more susceptible to morbidity (serious illness) and mortality (death) from SARS 2 infection leading to COVID-2019, the natural question then becomes “where is this coming from” and “what data are there to support this”? The alleged implications are that the risk of serious illness and death from SARS 2 infection might imply a that the SARS 2 virus is a bioweapon, made by the US, that targets “Asians” or people with the “Han genome”.

When scientists want to understand who is at risk, sometimes they look at genetic risk. While the ACE2 is gene is related to that for ACE, and variation in both genes sometimes co-contribute to risk of certain health outcomes (e.g., thyroid cancer, hypertension, kidney disease), ACE and ACE2 encode distinctly different proteins. So my earlier post that variation shared among ethnic groups in ACE would tend to rule out the logic of a genetically targeted bioweapon, the genetic variation I described was for ACE, not ACE2. The general lesson, however, still applies: any high-frequency genetic variation (inherited variation) in ACE2 would be shared across many ethnic groups, so it, too, would make a terrible bioweapon.

The confusion stems from a simple human error made in a Reddit forum where those poster shared a link to a study from 2007 on geographical variation in the “ACE II” genotype. As I explained in my article, ACE II is not ACE2 but instead refers to the ACE I/I genotype, where individual receive one allele at the ACE locus (not the ACE 2 locus) from mom, and one from dad. The other known allele is the D allele, and so there are three possible genotypes – I/I, I/D and D/D – that a person can have. Since the original Reddit post confused ACE2 and “ACE II”, I hope the post, which provides a basic lesson on inheritance patterns of genetic variation, clarifies.

But Still, Why the Focus on ACE2?

ACE2 is known to be a point of cellular entry for B-coronaviruses, notably SARS. There is this study (“The novel coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV) uses the SARS-coronavirus receptor ACE2 and the cellular protease TMPRSS2 for entry into target cells”) that shows, using data from a handful of people from China, that one of the males had a much larger amount of ACE2 gene expression in his lung tissue. Gene expression is a function of genetic variation, environment, and developmental programming in any tissue. In the studies I have been involved in that focus on gene expression studies (using either RNASeq or whole genome gene expression arrays), studies this small are called “pilot projects” and whole-population generalizations away much larger studies with data from many, many more patients. Even then such generalizations are only warranted if the studies can be replicated.

But let’s say that (hypothetically) that ACE2 is more highly expressed in Asian males (again, hypothetically) and reason out whether it makes sense as a marker for a targeted bioweapon. Some facts about ACE2 might aid in quelling the idea that any country could target another using genes that are more highly expressed in tissues in people from one ethnic group than others:

(1) ACE2 is also expressed in every other human being on the planet;

(2) ACE2 is expressed in many different tissues, the variation among different ethnic groups is largely unknown.

So, ACE2 variation in the study is not an indication in any way that SARS 2 is expected to more deadly to Asians, or to Asian males.

Further, another study showed that compared to SARS, SARS-2 more weakly binds to ACE2, likely due to conformational differences in the protein that may be reflected in the putative pathogenicity motif signal IPAK has discovered. Our analysis indicates that SARS 2, or at least its spike protein, is an OLDER version of the SARS virus. And while we have not yet ruled out recombination in the wild entirely (although others were quick to rule it out), we have evidence that falsifies the idea that laboratory recombined Spike proteins are in any way involved in the origins of SARS 2.

So, in sum, the very small paper and the underlying knowledge base on the fundamentals of genetics and gene expression patterns cannot be used to support the hypothesis that SARS 2 is engineered to target Asians.

Why Is the Mortality Rate So Low Outside of China?

The current mortality rate outside of China is very low, I estimate around 0.005%, compared to the 2.3% rate in China. Most if not all of the deaths outside of China have involved Chinese citizens who have traveled abroad.

Current hypotheses include that a covert SARS vaccination program was included in the national mandatory vaccination program started on Dec 1, 2019 that happened to involve a secondary true outbreak of Coronavirus with secondary exposure. Under such conditions, the animal models clearly show that vaccination against SARS spike proteins lead to high rates of morbidity and mortality, especially in older mice. No children seem to be dying in China, consistent with them being excluded from a large-scale initial Phase II or Phase III trial. Mortality appears highest in Hubei and Wuhan as well. We know a Phase I trial against SARS was conducted with 120 people by Sinovac around 2007.

Another possibility is that a vaccine used by the Chinese has weakened their response to an otherwise mild coronavirus infection. SARS 2 binding to ACE2 is weaker. Thimerosal inhibits ERAP1. Vaccination with aluminum hydroxide containing vaccines might induce autoimmunity in the lungs. All of these factors could play a role in making vaccinated individuals more susceptible.

A third possibility is that people in that geographic region who had prior SARS infections might be less able to fight off SARS 2 simply due to original antigenic sin from infection. Toronto, Canada, take note.

Either way, as SARS 2 spreads around the world, the medical community should begin to collect past medical exposure information while they collect information on contact w/people who recently traveled to China:

  1. Were you recently vaccinated using aluminum-containing vaccines?
  2. Have you ever received a diagnosis of a SARS infection in the past?
  3. Are you of Asian or Chinese descent?

With these three questions, we could learn a lot about the risk of mortality in a few weeks’ time and plan an informed public health response accordingly.

Also, CDC and WHO should begin to inform owners of public businesses to have their staff wipe down commonly touched spots – door handles, light fixtures, bathroom fixtures, payment keypads, menus – and tell the public to use the Ebola “fist-bump” greeting. People should use their keys or a knuckle to push elevator doors.

These simple, low-cost cultural shifts will reduce the rate of spread of all virus-based disease, including influenza.

Coronavirus Origins: Anatomy of a Scientific Inference

Coronavirus Origins: Anatomy of a Scientific Inference

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD – 2/15/2020

Objective science is not about being right or wrong. It’s about positioning yourself toward maximizing your chances of learning something. Here I provide a lesson in the philosophy of Science – outlining an approach that, once abandoned, all of Science should strive to return.

THE PAST TWO WEEKS have been a fascinating exercise in Science – with many factors and forces influencing comprehension and expectation. I think it’s a fantastic opportunity for the public to have witnessed objective Science in action, and to see the definition of rigor in Science defined as operating in vacuum separated from profit motive and independent of ego.

The scientific philosopher Karl Popper urged scientists to move beyond the collection of pieces of information that confirm their favorite ideas. This type of inference-making is called positivism – and it leads to a bunch of collected facts and figures from an otherwise jumbled mess which, while appearing to be internally consistent and mutually supportive, can nevertheless be positively misleading to an incorrect inference. If we base our generalization from individual instances to the general case, a process called induction.

Since we base what we know about our world on observations, what could save us from merely agreeing with our Royal Selves with all of the confirming instances we can manage, or choose, to collect? And what do we do about the annoying contradicting observations that do not fit our induced generalized claims, since we have based our world view on all of the past confirming instances?

In other words, where does the demarcation exist between making stuff up and Science?

Enter: The Hypothesis

Popper offered a highly formalized calculus of the nature of objective scientific inference in which our goal should not be generalization via induction, but, instead, inferences more securely based on a form of deduction, specifically hypothetico-deductivism. In hypothetico-deductive science, we pose an hypothesis, or a conjecture, based on our Background Knowledge of a topic. At this time, we do not create a knowledge claim, upon which we stake our fame and glory (ego). Instead, we state the hypothesis clearly, and then imagine the most significant critical test of said hypothesis. For Popper, a Test is only truly critical if it can, in fact, potentially refute, or falsify, the stated hypothesis. If a Test does not truly place a hypothesis at the risk of being falsified, it’s not truly a critical test.

Enter: The Evidence

Once the Critical Test has been defined, and the scientific experiment or study has been executed, the information on the outcome of the Critical Test is called Evidence. We are to use, Popper says, the Evidence we have collected to re-assess the original Hypothesis, which you will recall was based on background knowledge.

If the critical test provides evidence that refutes the hypothesis, the hypothesis is considered falsified.

If the critical test provides evidence that fails to refute the hypothesis, and, importantly, the critical test was constructed and executed in such a manner that the hypothesis could actually be refuted if it were false, the hypothesis is said to be corroborated.

In either outcome, we update our background knowledge based on the evidence from the critical test, and move along secure in the hope that we have learned something.

Via H-D science, there is no role for ego; for Popper, the source of the hypothesis plays no necessary or useful role in whether the hypothesis will be falsified or not; i.e., the critical test is to be defined and constructed in a manner by which its design and execution is truly independent of whether the subjective scientist individually favors, or the current consensus favors, or dislikes, the hypothesis being tested. The only thing that matters is that the critical test is actually capable of potentially falsifying the hypothesis. That’s it.

If there was one word that should be dropped from discussions in science, it’s “prove”. Scientists don’t prove anything; as I say in discussions, proofs are for maths, logic, publications, and whiskey. Another term that I find to be extremely unscientific is “debunk”. The origin of the term has it roots in the term “bunkum”, of which the first recorded use was in 1828, when it was used to describe a “speech for Buncombe County, North Carolina” given by North Carolina representative Felix Walker during the 16th United States Congress (1819–1821). To “debunk” then means” to call someone out for bad, incorrect, or ineffectual speech, and if Science is being conducted objectively, it’s about the process, not about the speech, nor the speaker.

These terms are convenient clubs used by those who would gladly destroy the career of objective scientists whose results threaten their promise to their investors, and they play no role in the logic of Science.

Instead of these pop-culture representations of sciency-sounding things, it is importantly, that it is understood and expected that the available background knowledge, or assumptions, may not be perfect for any such enterprise in Science. In fact, the entire purpose of Evidence from a Critical Test is to determine whether the available background knowledge is to be updated, or left alone intact, unfettered by new knowledge. This is a far cry from “proving” an hypothesis. We simple either refute or fail to refute – and we only can do so if the test we use is, in fact, a critical test.

Bold vs. Weak Hypotheses

Popper did distinguish between weak hypotheses that do not go too far beyond the Background Knowledge and bold hypotheses that do go far beyond the background. These differences were important, because the further away from the background knowledge a stated hypothesis lays, the greater the degree of Corroboration – not confirmation, Corroboration – the Evidence from the Test results provide the hypothesis.

In fact, the more unexpected it is that the hypothesis survive a truly critical test, the more scientist should be impressed. Popper offered a term for this: Surprise. The higher the degree of surprise, the more improbable the outcome if the hypothesis was incorrect, and thus the higher the degree of corroboration – and the more we realize we need to update our background knowledge. Elegant.

Imagine if I come to you with a coin. I ask you: what do you think the chances are, if I flip this coin, you’d see it land on “Heads”. Most would say “50%” – a few would say “50%, if it’s ‘fair’ coin”. You watch me flip a coin, and it lands on its edge. This is so utterly improbable that you would not only be surprised: you’d be amazed. Now imagine if I give you the same coin, and you flip it – and it lands on its edge AGAIN. Clearly, you’d have found that the probability model in your head: 49.99999% chance heads, 49.99999% tails, 0.00002% edge, was wrong. You might flip it again, and again to determine how far off your 50:50:0 model was, and, for that coin, you’d say “Ok, this coin is not fair, it’s different” – if the data supported that.

Would you then generalize to all coins, and say “all coins are 10:10:80?”. No. That induction is not warranted from your observations with a single coin. That’s why independent replication is so important to Science- it determines whether an inference generalizes, and if so, how well it generalizes.

Entities that make overgeneralized claims often can get away with doing so because they carry the mantle of authority. But authority will not make a study replicate, or make a model able to predict well on new data. Biases from fraud, to hide evidence of harm from pharmaceutical and agricultural practices, are everywhere. In academia, to say so is death to one’s career. Which is why we need independent Scientists doing Objective Science in full view of the public. If it looks different, it’s because there is no agenda. I’m quite happy to be “wrong” over and over and over, as long as I am learning something about the world and the universe around us.

In the case of Coronavirus, the New Media and even some MSM picked up the idea that my statement that “at the present time, the most likely hypothesis is that novel coronavirus is lab-based” ignored the explicit caveat that Del Bigtree of The Highwire provide numerous times: it’s a ‘theory’ he said (he meant hypothesis). My infamous article actually listed multiple hypotheses, and presented the available evidenced structured as it was presented to me. I stated these hypotheses with every intent to attempt to define critical tests, old-school, in the Popperian fashion, to attempt to refute and thereby either falsify or corroborate each one. The last man standing wins.

This is only possible in a free and open society in which free and open discussions are possible. Numerous scientists from around the world have contacted me throughout the process to weigh in

It is no coincidence that Popper co-authored one of my favorite books: “The Open Society and Its Enemies” – highly recommended reading and something all who want open social media – freedom of expression – freedom of the press – freedom of Science from profit motive bias should read and give to their loved ones and friends.

Popper worked all of this out in formal calculus that, unfortunately, has all been but forgotten due to a non-sequitur “next phase” of the philosophy of science – Thomas Kuhn’s “Scientific Revolutions”, which focused on paradigm shifts, placing the power to create knowledge in the firm grasp of consensus – which of course we now know lends itself well to group think, to manipulations of perception, to propaganda, such as to claims of observational studies – weak science not capable of testing a core feature of important hypothesis of causality – as “rigorous” and sometimes even “more rigorous” than randomized prospective clinical trials with inert placebos. Under Popperian Science, the truth is reality, independent of us. It impacts us, it is something we approach asymptotically, using Science is a way of discovering knowledge. Under Kuhnian science, the loudest person in the room can define the truth; that often can mean the buyer with the largest purse.

Since entering into the domain of Coronavirus research, asking questions, posing hypotheses, defining critical tests, examining the evidence, and updating background knowledge based on the outcome of those tests, dozens of scientists from around the world have written to me in support of my efforts to address the questions we all have head-on. Some have been supportive, offering agreement; some have been supportive by challenging me. In reality, they were not challenging me, they were challenging the hypothesis. So I’m honestly grateful!

The manuscript showing the results of our study of spike protein motifs is under review, and I have asked the journal Editor to permit pre-review publication for the sake of humanity. If the publisher agrees, the results will be available to all very soon. Fingers crossed.

The conduct of independent science for the sake of knowing, in hopes it might reduce human pain and suffering, is gratifying because those who understand that it’s not about me – it’s about the 67,000 human beings with COVID-19 who may be suffering needlessly for want of a full understanding of the mechanisms of pathophysiology that SARS 2 has in it attack on humanity. It’s different from SARS – and understanding those difference draws on ecology, evolution, genetics, biochemistry, and an ability to divorce one’s ego or agenda from the outcomes of a study.

Posing incorrect hypotheses is a good, healthy and essential part of Science. Being willing to pose risky hypotheses is key to being able to make advances in knowledge.

Today, I received a card in the mail from a concerned US citizen who understands why IPAK exists, why independent Science must be made to thrive and grow in the face of a massive paradigm of science-for-the-stakeholders.

His card read:

“JLW,

If another planet offers you another position with bette(r) working conditions – free from politicized science, don’t take it!

We need you here.

MR.”

This person’s enclosed donation to IPAK will keep objective, unbiased, but imperfect hypothetico-deductive Science alive in the US.

I feel that I have a responsibility at this time in history to reverse course on the tyranny of pseudoscience and Science-like activities conducted by individuals with an agenda other than using Science as a way of knowing.

CORONAVIRUS ORIGINS HYPOTHESIS TESTING

THE HYPOTHESIS.

Step 1: Background knowledge. No one could ID the novel segment. There had been 5 coronavirus outbreaks in China in seven years; 4 from the lab, 1 from a civet (cat-like animal) as an intermediate host. Vaccines made using recombined SARS spike proteins have been made and have undergone testing since the mid-2000’s.

Step 2: Initial observations. I found it to match p-ShuttleSN, which was clearly related (somehow) to the Coronavirus Spike protein. Found a patent for a SARS vaccine that used pShuttle-SN to move a SARS spike protein into an adenovirus.

Step 3: I made the bold conjecture, given the background knowledge of a 4:1 risk of accidental vs. laboratory release of SARS coronavirus, that this was (a) likely an accidental laboratory release, and (b) most likely of laboratory origin

THE TEST: PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AND A SPECIAL MOTIF PATTERN.

I used phylogenetics to determine the relationship of all of the Spike protein sequences I could access, including pShuttle-SN. I sought new evidence: If pShuttle-SN turned out to be most closely related to SARS CoV 2, it may well be related causally.

It wasn’t. It clustered with SARS CoV-1, specifically, in what I call the “Cancer Center cluster”, with sequences from a Genome Center. While it was possible to replicate the alignment issue with other coronaviruses, it seemed to be related to a shorted N-terminal Domain of the S1 section of the Spike protein. Noted.

Further test: Other artificially modified spike proteins might be most closely related to SARS CoV 2.

They aren’t.

A final critical test: Since SARS CoV Spike protein is different, and different because it was from nature, but, were there any reliable sequences from a natural source from long ago that had the same type of Spike protein? If so, then we have to rule out laboratory ORIGIN – as in design, because such as finding would be highly improbable.

Result: Using motifs, I searched known B-Coronavirus Spike proteins to see if there were any older sequences from nature that also include the motif pattern that appears to be indicate (may be) indicative of a the special pathogenicity in SARS CoV 2. I found one that matched all of the known closest relatives and examples of SARS CoV 2. It was from 2005 and from a natural source: a bat. (Details to appear soon following peer-review or agreement to pre-publish).

The net result? We have updated our background knowledge, and learned something new. We have a potentially useful pathogenicity signal (shorted NTD, two missing motifs and a Gp40 motif in the C-terminal region) that anyone with a high school degree could learn to recognize with about 20 minutes training, a laptop and access to the internet. The new hypothesis – that a pathogenicity signal exists – itself is a conjecture, and needs to be tested. It falls into the realm of “Applied Science”, drawn from “Pure Science” – the act of daring to ask questions and pose hypotheses merely for the sake of knowing.

So there we have it – the Anatomy of a Scientific Inference. In my view, all of Science should return to Popperian Hypothetico-Deductivism and cast off the control of the funding masters who limit what we can study, and what we can publish. Remember that to do Objective Science means divorcing your ego from your hypothesis.

Some will complain in the comments that the Philosophy of Science has ‘moved’ on, but in reality, I’m not accepting that. Kuhn’s permission slip for induction – and that’s what it has been used for – has led biological sciences and medical sciences down a path that is making people sick. Philosophers of Science who used to enjoin Popper have abandoned all hope in the face of the juggernaut and have become Stoics – a metaphysical rising above the issues as irreconcilable. Two decades ago, I proved (using logic), using Popper’s calculus that having more scientists looking at the same problem and discussing it is more likely to yield progress in science – simple because each had their own background knowledge, meaning that the chances that someone in the room has the missing component of background knowledge to accurately and correctly interpret the evidence of a critical test of a hypothesis. The journal editor returned the manuscript with the apology that no one uses Popper’s calculus anymore. That needs to change.

Nevertheless, Vestiges of Objective Science still exist: We still use experiments with controls to test the hypothesis of interest – and the degree to which we can reject the null hypothesis is measured by a p-value. That p-value is the degree of surprise that we should express if we saw the null hypothesis rejected by chance alone. Like flipping a coin and seeing it land on its edge. We know there is a small probability, and if it were to happen again and again, we would have to surmise that our background knowledge, or expectation, needed to be updated.

But if we cannot discuss hypotheses for fear of being ‘wrong’, or cannot publish results because it may upset our funding source, or it may go against any particular political agenda, we’re going down the wrong path. We still don’t know if there is something different in China with respect to the mortality rate of the novel coronavirus. The two hypotheses that I posed

(A) the Chinese government proceeded with a large-scale coronavirus vaccination trial, or

(B) the new vaccine law (Dec 1, 2019) may be related somehow

will both soon be partly tested by the amount of of serious illness and death outside of China associated with infection. So far, there have been only four deaths outside of China, in 688 known cases, a rate of 0.005% (about what I predicted). In China, the per-case fatality rate estimate ranges from 2.1% to 2.3%, depending on whether suspected cases are included in the denominator of the total number of cases. Hopefully for the world, this hypothesis bears out.

Science is a social enterprise by which we compare our interpretations of outcomes of studies with other scientists, who can share theirs back. The age of “retraction” due to differences in interpretation, and “debunking” by shady characters with ties to Pharmaceutical companies, are over. I’ve led chants of “What do you want?” to which the crowd replies “SCIENCE!” and I have to tell you, I think we’ve reached a turning point where profitability is being given the boot out of the logical calculus of Science, and the public is learning the difference between Science, and Science-Like Activities.

I encourage every Scientist to state their bold hypotheses loudly, and clearly, and outline their reasoning. Because, as my Master’s degree mentor Paul Colinvaux shared with me, his academic advisor Dan Livingstone thought that being found to have posed an incorrect hypothesis would be “wonderful, because then we would have learned something”.

SARS CoV-2 CASES TO DATE (2/14/2020)– Update here.

Mainland China: 63,862
Thailand: 33
Japan: 29 (plus more than 200 on cruise ship off coast)
Singapore: 67
Hong Kong: 56
South Korea: 28
Taiwan: 18
Australia: 15
Malaysia: 19
Germany: 16
Vietnam: 16
Macau: 10
U.S.: 15
France: 11
United Arab Emirates: 8
Canada: 7
Italy: 3
Russia: 2
UK: 9
Philippines: 3
Cambodia: 1
India: 3
Belgium: 1
Finland: 1
Nepal: 1
Spain: 2
Sri Lanka: 1
Sweden: 1

CLEAR EVIDENCE it is NOT a Bioweapon. So What’s All This About ACE2 and nCoV-2019 (COVID-2019)?

CLEAR EVIDENCE it is NOT a Bioweapon. So What’s All This About ACE2 and nCoV-2019 (COVID-2019)?

LIVING IN THE LAND OF ABJECT OBJECTIVITY, as a truly independent scientist, I see streams of information from a wide and diverse number of sources. It’s also a cozy little spot where arrows of bias from “both sides” of every issue are flung with remarkable ease – and with little consideration for liability over unwarranted attempts at defamation.

Of course, some would say I’ve “defamed” myself merely by admitting that vaccines can harm, and vaccines can kill – as if that’s (a) not true, and (b) a reality that is so taboo that anyone who dares breathe a word of it is fair game for the slightest expression of hate (such as name-calling) and outright accusations of being a fraud.

Peanut gallery managers who do little to actually effect change in a positive manner, enjoy the chance to bully someone with, apparently, society’s blessings. “Hit ’em harder!” “Well done!” Except everything I publish is backed by experiment, if not that, by observational studies, if not that, by summary statistics, if not that, by initial observersations leading to Science. Their habit of following objective scientists around is a mere annoyance.

COVID-2019?

World Health Organization (WHO) has renamed the virus SARS-CoV-2, and the disease it causes COVID-2019. The classification of viruses should ideally reflect their phylogenetic relationships and especially inherited genetic capacity for pathogenicity [thx reader for the update on the name]. But that would require a deep understanding of the evolutionary history of the functional elements contributing to the virulence and transmissibility of viruses – something that public health officials and run-of-the-mill MDs are too distant from to understand.

For the last week, I’ve been analyzing the motif patterns in B-CoV’s, and as a result of that, having settled the issue that pShuttle-SN is not likely to have been involved in the origin of COVID-19, and furthermore that no recombinant B-coronavirus for which we have data is likely to be ultimately found to be the ancestor of COVID-19 (in review), it’s time to look at another claim about the virus now raging: ACE2.

ACE2

A paper, “The novel coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV) uses the SARS-coronavirus receptor ACE2 and the cellular protease TMPRSS2 for entry into target cells”, published on bioRxiv, examined SARS 2 (new name for 2019-nCoV) cell entry using pseudoviruses made (using recombinant technology) that express the SARS 2 spike protein, which is used by SARS 2 to gain entry into cells. The pseudoviruses were made using vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) particles. The authors of the study evaluated the abilty of these pseudoviruses to enter a variety of human and animal cell lines under different experimental conditions.

Their experiments and analysis found that SARS 2 Spike protein binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), and that it uses a cellular protease called TMPRSS2 to activate, or “prime” viral fusion and entry into cells.

This means that TMPRSS2 might be potentially useful therapeutic target for the treatment and prevention of SARS 2 entry into cells. One such candidate is camostat mesylate, a known TMPRSS2 inhibitor. Camostat mesylate is approved for human use in Japan.

The authors also noted that serum from a convalescent SARS-CoV patient neutralized S-protein mediated entry into cells. This means that survivors of the infection may be a useful source of biologics to help others who are infected survive or avoid critical illness. The rate of critical illess of COVID-19 in China is staggering.

It’s important to note that the SARS 2 Spike protein uses a different cellular entry receptor from MERS-CoV, which uses human DPP4. Also, the seasonal coronavirus uses 229E (human APN), and that other coronaviruses, including SARS and HCoV-NL63, use ACE2 to enter cells. The finding that COVID-2 has especially strong binding capacity to ACE2 is consistent either with recent adaptation for living in humans, or for older adaptation in the wild to a mammal that has ACE2 structures that resemble humans.

ACE2 has other roles in the body has well; gene expression data tell us that it plays a role in the regulation of cardiovascular and renal function, as well as fertility (Refseq).

IS COVID-2019 DESIGNED TO SPECIFICALLY ENTER VIA ACE-2 TO “TARGET” ASIANS?

So, clearly there are important positions that people can take in the area of international intrigue. In the area of bioweapons rumors, Western countries like the US and Canada have touted the idea that COVID-19 might be a bioweapon that escaped. In China, far-right groups are touting that the virus was made by the US and is an attack on the Han people.

Polymorpisms certainly exist in the ACE locus, and earlier studies found differences among Asians, Caucasian, and people of African descent with respect to the frequencies of two alleles – the D and I alleles. Alleles combine in pairs to make genotypes (one from mom, one from dad), and the meta-analysis reported that the II, ID and DD genotypes were found at 22.5% II, 47% ID, and 30.5% DD. (As an aside, here’s a handy Hardy-Weinberg calculator to test for HW-Equilibrium to see if there’s anything ususual about this distribution that might lead to a hypothesis of ongoing selection. For those who like to do such things).

The specific D allele frequency found across ethnic groups were 39.1% in Asians, 56.2% in Caucasians, and 60.3% people of African descent. (For those who may not know, the corresponding I allele frequency) would be 100%-D for each ethnic group).

This distribution of genotype and alleles of the ACE gene would be a TERRIBLE target for a bioweapon that is alleged to target Asians for obvious reasons: it would end up targeting a huge proportion of the rest of the world, and the “home” population, whichever side targeted people based on their ACE genotype.

So, without bothering to condescend to those who thought that somehow ACE was so different in Asians that a bioweapon has been masterminded and has been recently, I am very happy to say that the likelihood of this from a purely strategic standpoint is nil. (NB: ACE is a different gene from ACE2, see article addressing this here).

Since recombination in nature is not a likely explanation of the massive morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 from SARS 2, and recombination technology was not used to create this, and it is not a US Bioweapon that backfired, nor a Chinese bioweapon that backfired, we still need to wonder: why is the mortality and critical illness from COVID-2019 in the Wuhan district so high in comparison to that seen in the rest of the world so far?

Another possibility is high ambient exposure to bat coronaviruses. People in the region, however, have been eating wild-caught animals for thousands of years. Since China has such an exceptional written history going deep into their past, it would behoove humanity to study the ancient scrolls from China for evidence of plagues traced to eating bats, pangolins and other animals we now know understand can harbor coronaviruses. It is likey that B-coronaviruses have been infecting humans for tens if not hundreds of thousands of millenia.

So what’s different in 2019? On Dec 1, a new national vaccine law went into effect. “China is to implement a state immunization program, and residents living within the territory of China are legally obligated to be vaccinated with immunization program vaccines, which are provided by the government free of charge. Local governments and parents or other guardians of children must ensure that children be vaccinated with the immunization program vaccines (art. 6).”

The first reported case of COVID19?

December 1, 2019.

In my first article on the origins of the virus, I mentioned that one way to get hundreds of thousands super sick from a coronavirus is to have sensitized the population with a vaccine containing a spike protein. Why? Because prior animal studies showed high mortality following re-challenge in vaccinated animals. See studies, below.

References

Staessen, J., Ginocchio, G., Wang, J. G., Saavedra, A. P., Soubrier, F., Vlietinck, R. & Fagard, R. (1997). Genetic variability in the renin-angiotensin system: prevalence of alleles and genotypes. Journal of Cardiovascular Risk 4, 401–422.

Te et al., 2012. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7(4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22536382

Tseng et al., 2012. Double-Inactivated Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Vaccine Provides Incomplete Protection in Mice and Induces Increased Eosinophilic Proinflammatory Pulmonary Response Upon Challenge https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209347/

Yasui et al., Prior immunization with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) nucleocapsid protein causes severe pneumonia in mice infected with SARS-CoV. J Immunol. 181:6337-48 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18941225 https://www.jimmunol.org/content/181/9/6337.long

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Recommended Readings

Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus.Lung mononuclear infiltrates occurred in all groups after virus challenge but with increased infiltrates that contained eosinophils and increases in the eosinophil promoting IL-5 and IL-13 cytokines only in the vaccine groups. Inactivated MERS-CoV vaccine appears to carry a hypersensitive-type lung pathology risk from MERS-CoV infection that is similar to that found with inactivated SARS-CoV vaccines from SARS-CoV infection.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27269431

Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.“VRP-N vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice. VRP-N-induced pathology presented at day 4, peaked around day 7, and persisted through day 14, and was likely mediated by cellular immune responses.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194199

Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets “Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue.”

https://jvi.asm.org/content/78/22/12672.abstract

Animal Models for SARS and MERS coronaviruses. “The concern that is extrapolated from the FIPV vaccine experience to human SARS-CoV vaccines is whether vaccine recipients will develop more severe disease if they are exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV after neutralizing antibody titers decline. The second concern is whether recipients of a SARSCoV vaccine would be at risk of developing pulmonary immunopathology following infection with an unrelated human coronavirus e.g. 229E, OC43, HKU1 or NL63 that usually causes mild, self limited disease. Although findings from preclinical evaluation have revealed these concerns, studies in animal models may not be able to provide data to confirm or allay these concerns.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550498

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/303/5660/944.full

Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate  “…a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice…”

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502

Certainly additional advances have been made in attempts to make Spike-protein related vaccines safer.Feel free to post additional recommended reading.

RECOMMDED RELATED:

CLEAR EVIDENCE it is NOT a Bioweapon. So What’s All This About ACE2 and nCoV-2019 (COVID-2019)?

2019-nCov Vaccine Recommended Readings

Why over the next two weeks the world will learn how bad the 2019 nCoV Coronavirus Pandemic will be

Why over the next two weeks the world will learn how bad the 2019 nCoV Coronavirus Pandemic will be

I’ve made my pleas for a humanitarian response to the outbreak in China but have not underscored the reasons for serious concern. Here I outline the realities we are facing, what we know, what we don’t yet know, and why we will know much more in two weeks.

  • This virus cannot be modeled on past outbreaks of SARS. We know that compared to SARS this virus has vastly outstripped the increase in the number of cases by at least an order of magnitude if not more.
  • The symptoms of infections of this virus are atypical of other SARS-like coronaviruses.
  • There could be a 5-7 (or even up to 14, per CDC) day asymptomatic period, during which the thousands of individuals who traveled out of China would have had time to interact with and infect tens of other people, meaning tens of thousands of people would have been infected before the end of January.
  • These people are now beginning to experience
    1. Dry Cough
    2. Fever
    3. Shortness of breath
    4. Nasal congestion
  • After a few days they will experience
    1. Fatigue
  1. After a day or so more they may experience
    1. Nausea
    2. Vomiting
    3. Abdominal pain
    4. Loose stools
  1. You can hear Dr. John Campbell review some individual cases in detail in this useful video:
  1. In the critical phase, some patients begin to recover and feel better, only then to crash and become critically ill with low oxygen levels, eosinohilic and upper and lower lung pneumonia due to cellular death in the alveoli (grape-like clusters of air sacs in the lungs).
  1. Today on 2/6/2020, clearly those people would have had a chance to interact with tens of people each, potentially infected hundreds of thousand of people, who will in five more days’ time.
  2. Around the time that these individuals begin to present symptoms, some of the first cohort will be entering the critical phase of the disease. At this time, no one can predict who will progress and who will not. Originally reports from China were that the elderly and the immunocompromised were the only persons dying. Now, it’s clear that there is not any clear age-associated risk.
  3. Take, for example, the case of Dr. Wenlian Li.

Dr. Li’s report in December led the nation of China to take the SARS-like coronavirus theory seriously. He was harassed by local police and made to sign a retraction. But national government agencies took his warning serious and Li returned to work to help care for patients, and became infected. Dr. Li died today; he was 33.

Details from late January in this article reviewing clinical presentation:

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5.pdf

“Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis* (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea* developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0–13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα.”

*(Dyspnoea means shortness of breath, haemoptysis means coughing up blood)

We Do Not Yet Know the Full Death Rate in China

The article above cites 15% mortality rate – but those cases are going to have been the worst cases presenting leading to suspicion of infection. The death rate outside China appears to be much lower than within China, which is at least 2% but according to some reports is in the double digits. The per-case death rate is hard to know because we do not know the accurate full number of people infected, and we also have to rely on death rate estimates from China via the WHO.

This website is going to be key to determining whether the death rate outside of China will catch up to the 2+% rate seen in China.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Right now the website reports 31,481 cases with 638 deaths, with 4,824 in critical condition, and 1,563 recovered. Unofficial reports of mass fatalities across Wuhei have many people convinced that the official death toll is unreliable.

Watch the Per-Case Fatality Rate Outside of China

Outside of China the apparent per-case fatality rate is still zero, with all deaths outside of China being two cases that originated in Wuhan and traveled outside of the country to Hong Kong and Phillipines. A reported death of a 22-year male in Malaysia reported to be infected with coronavirus has not been confirmed.

How will we know?

Watch the death rates in the people who have left China who are currently in quarantine.

The next two weeks will inform the world of the immediate threat of serious, deadly pandemic, or if, as I speculated, the Chinese or Asian population is somehow sensitized to 2019-nCoV or at higher risk of fatality.

Fatality rates in countries with large SARS and MERS outbreaks will tell us if the past outbreaks sensitized specific populations.

Molecular Epidemiology of Spike Protein Sequences in 2019-nCoV: Origin Still Uncertain and Transparency Needed

Here are the stats for readership of this blog for the last two weeks. Nearly 200,000 hits.

OUR INITIAL ASSESSMENT that the available 2019-nCoV sequences contained an inserted stretch of nucleotide sequences upstream from the canonical position of the Spike (or Crown) Protein Sequence in the human samples that was similar to pShuttle-SN has been under useful and productive scutiny since we first published that we, unlike other labs, were in fact able to find a match between the “middle fragment” and sequences in non-viridae databases. The match to a pShuttle-SN vector technology, which led to the assessment that perhaps the sequence was the product of an attempt to modifiy a bat coronavirus in the lab has raised controvery but please note that was not the only evidence of interest. We know of viruses within which the SARS protein gene sequence has in fact been added to study the transmission of SARS virus; it has also been added to adenovirus to create hopeful vaccine, so it is not beyond reason to consider whether the virus currently estimated to be infecting >200,000 people in China might be a product of laboratory manipulation, and the reporting of the odd out-of-place sequence in the study that proposed recombination was also important. The divergence of the nCoV Spike protein compared to the rest of nCoV and the bat coronaviruses was also compelling.

The specific mechanism by which those factors could come out is unclear. They could also been due to unwitting recombination in between a SARS virus being studied in a lab that was also studying or housing animals with bat coronaviruses. Or recombination in a human infected with both The scientific community ruled out the possibility of natural recombination in the wild, whereas I preferred to leave a 5% chance that it might have been caused by a recombination event in the wild. Importantly, I still have not ruled that out.

The official Chinese position in an article published by by Dr. Shi a “Chinese Academy of Sciences researcher in the field of bioinformatics” is that the viruses are too different in comparison to other bat coronaviruses across the genome, with random, non-patterned changes, and that there are no endonuclease sites in bat coronaviruses and thus pShuttle-SN or other endonuclease technologies could not have been used, supporting recombination in the wild. The latter statement is demonstrably incorrect, there are many endonuclease sites in bat coronavirus sequences, determined using a bat coronavirus most similar to the sequence clade in question (trees below).

Dr. Shi is correct that there are scattered differences, but evolution need not pattern anything in an orderly manner in RNA viruses, which fast evolving, and we do not yet know that a recombination event might have occurred or have been used where the recombination occurred outside the Spike protein coding sequence, within the Spike protein coding sequence, or perhaps a combination of both. Evolution does not care to “pattern” things for human consumption; evolution brings forth viruses that work to create more viruses. When recombination is suspected, artificial or real, we study evolution at the sequence level best by inheritance patterns of motifs; overall rates are, as we have seen, and will see below, frustratingly limiting.

Before we look at the evolutionary trees, I want to stress that I have published and will repeat that given the mass casualities in China and the prospect of such events around the world, keeping the possibility of one or more recombination events on the table, or even a laboratory origin of nCoV2019 is important specifically and exclusively for scientific and humanitarian purposes. As human societies often do, people will want to rush to point fingers of blame and my position is that if it’s a vaccine type gone wrong, or even a bioweapon that backfired. Let’s not by hypocritical; the US and many other countries of course have been studying the SARS spike protein for vaccines and have of course been conducting research on bioweapon. That’s no longer the point. The point is – and the only point that matters – is that we have a massive humanitarian crisis in China and therefore (1) any available data on the pathophysiology of this virus, man-made in part or in toto or not, must be brought forward, (2) China needs aid to bring R0 down below 1,0, (3) the rest of world needs to act now to stop the spread of the virus by behavioral changes including routine mass effort for santization of common surfaces and self-social isolation (don’t touch other people or your face in public). The world cares, and should care, most about putting the fire out, not who or what started it.

However, Science might help provide clues for treatments and perhaps for rapid diagnosis. As promised to many who have contacted me, we have completed a more thorough (but unfortunately not exhaustive) analysis of Spike protein seqeunces with sequences that are at hand. A note of caution: some of the sequences may be different that then ones we analyzed due to what we were informed to be “database update errors”, whatever those include. We were contacted by a person who evidently knew about a “natural” bat coronavirus isolated in July 2013 at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China who pointed us to a sequence available NCBI’s Nucleotide database but that had been uploaded only in January, 2020. We do not know when when the sequencing was done, whether it was a frozen sample just recently sequenced, or whether it was isolated from laboratory propagated viral lines in human cell lines. Oddly, the original gap that we found, and that was reported in the peer-reviewed study that pointed to potential recombination in snakes, and that a second, independent peer-review study also found and could not match (and called a “middle fragment” can no longer be found using the same accession numbers. I am not certain of who curates NCBI’s databases at this time, but NCBI should have a record of any evidence of un-annotated updates and I leave it to them to sort this issue out.

To help elucidate possible relationships among the available Spike proteins, based on current sequences, including the ins1378 segment, I present two phylogenetic trees, derived at https://mafft.cbrc.jp/ and rendered using phylo.io. The tree-generating algorithm was Neighbor Joining (NJ), invented by my postdoctoral mentor Dr. Masatoshi Nei, and Dr. Naruya Saitou in 1987. The tree was estimated using all variable positions, and raw differences. The Jukes-Cantor model was not used because it overweights nucleotide substitutions that might be more frequent and underweights nucleotide substitutions that might be less frequent during RNA virus evolution. N=1,000 bootstrap iterations were used to assess the confidence of the placement. Caveat: any within-sequence recombination is masked by the assumption that the process is tree-like; gappy areas were retained and not force-aligned. The full alignment is available here.

Size = 23 sequences × 1087 sites
Method = Neighbor-Joining
Distance = Raw difference
Bootstrap resampling = 1000
Alignment id = .200206212318090CHjzDGoNBMcL1glmdiZ7Plsfnormal

Tree 1 Bootstrap values.

Tree 2. Same estimated tree with branch lengths.

Clearly we see that the Spike protein from the 2019-nCoV human sequence is most similar to the sequence isolated from bat feces in the Wuhan Institute for Virology in 2013, deposited in January 2020. The next closest sequence is from the Institute of Military Medicine, Nanjing Command.

Looking a the raw distances, compared to those for the overall genome, the spike protein appears to more evolutionary labile – that is, there are more variable sites and the evolutionary distance is greater in the Spike protein-encoding sequences. The great distance between the Wuhan sequences and the other bat-like coronaviruses is distinct for the Spike protein, and contrasts with other published results. There are plenty of variable sites to have moderate confidence in this result (BSV = 82), however, compared to most bootstrap values published in coronavirus sequences and most of those in this tree, the value of 82 points to some signal other than inherited variation that covaries well with the rest of the inherited variation, just as in the original analysis with the low bootstrap value. (The higher bootstrap value here compared to the full genomic analysis placing 2019-nCoV more within the bat coronaviruses albeit with lower bootstrap values is likely due to a number of factors, include the use of a Jukes-Cantor constraint on the model of evolution in the original analysis).

The data do not support a 1:1 relationship with pShuttle-SN (as published in 2005) and the SARS-like spike protein in 2019-nCoV, and I never posited that relationship. I merely pointed out it was similar to it, when no one else could match the middle fragment to anything But the pShuttle-SN has ALSO been evolving in the lab, no doubt, and I would like to see a newly deposited sequence in NCBI’s Nucleotide database. Other vector tech has no doubt been used by other labs putting the SARS spike protein.

Parsimony (Occam’s Razor) would, with the existing sequences, tend to lead to the conclusion that the Spike protein is there simply because bat coronaviruses have Spike proteins. Does that mere fact lead to the assumption that a bat coronavirus never underwent recombination in nature or the lab (experimentally) or accidentally? No, it does not. The oddities in the behavior of the sequence data “updates” deserve further scutiny. Why would two peer-reviewed publications, one from China, mention a middle fragment that could not be aligned? These questions require transparency.

Nevertheless, the Spike protein relationships still seem to tell a different story of relationship of 2019-nCoV and related coronaviruses in Wuhan compared to published full genomic analyses that might be very important. They stand out as different, distinct. Some important limitations here are (1) all trees are estimates, not observations, and should not be used as “proof” of anything (science does not deal with “proof”;’ (2) the method assumes a tree-like relationship and cannot rule out recombination origins; (3) the method is based on limited data in terms of samples (taxon sampling). So, as always, more data may clarify.

Calls to Action for Scientists

I strongly encourage those who can to post their own analyses of the fasta file, or their own alignments, etc to the comments, especially if they are more relevant to the questions of recombination. Please understand if we cannot comment on each and every post given the flurry of activities ongoing at IPAK about this and other pressing issues.

  1. Detailed sequence-level analyses are needed to determine if there has been recombination or other editing of these sequences both inside and outside of the Spike protein region. Are there the expected number of synonymous and non-synounmous substitutions as would be expected under natural inheritance model? Is there any test that could be done to detect very important changes that might be adaptive to 2019-nCoV?
  2. Analyses capable of detecting recombination – or ruling it out – should be applied and published ASAP. Feel free to post links to any such analyses in the comment.
  3. Also, please post your own interpretation and comments, and reference other information as may be relevant.

All deposited sequences will continued to analyzed as we monitor the situation.

References

As Goes China, So Goes the World

As Goes China, So Goes the World

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD 2/5/2020

OVER THE PAST FIVE DAYS OR SO, over 150,000 people have read articles here at jameslyonsweiler.com on the 2019-nCoV.

In times of crises, the human mind want to feel that someone is in control. So it’s easier to believe that a rogue virus that may prove to have double-digit mortality in China was in fact the construct of a human being bent on world domination, or a human being bent on maximum profit from the a vaccine for the cold virus.

I’m sure both of those types of people exist. Wanting some sense of control does not influence facts.

And I’m also sure that pShuttle-SN has been used to make vaccines, including a recombined adenovirus. And I’m sure that the SARS Spike protein has been put into recombined viruses in Korea, Japan, US/Australia, Germany and likely in many other countries. I’m sure there are endonuclease sites in some bat coronaviruses close to 2019-nCoV that could be used to insert a variant Spike protein.

I’m sure that the sequences I analyzed had a large gap, I’m certain the study that published the original Wuhan sequence reported an odd sequence they could not match to any other, speculating a recombination event with snakes; I’m certain that another study also found a “middle fragment” that they also could not place. Given that I matched the INS1378 at pShuttle-SN, created in China, used in an adenovirus, the further evidence of the match between the disease progression in mice in pre-clinical trials and that which we see in the Chinese population thus far seems to me to point to prior exposure by millions to SARS spike protein somehow. A vaccine? Sure, why not, there were Phase I trials of just such a vaccine. Phase II/III? Surreptious? Maybe not, maybe so.

How about a human population sensitized to the Spike due to prior exposure, from diet, from subclinical infection, or chronic exposure to the Spike protein via infected meat, while also receiving aluminum-adjvanted vaccines?

If the areas of world that have had past outbreaks of SARS, MERS or other coronaviruses also have double-digit mortality, but areas w/out past exposure to coronaviruses have much lower mortality, I’ll be attributing that disparity to hyperimmunity.

Important message below, but NB: we forget what happened in animal safety trials at our own peril.

Must read (.pdf) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/pdf/pone.0035421.pdf

There are other vaccines being studied that do not use the recombinant RSV or adenovirus with SARS spike protein added, such as mRNA vaccines that may silence the viruses’ ability to make proteins in our cells, but again their safety has not yet been fully established. They work like viruses, hijacking our cellular machinery to make more of themselves.

If these artificial viruses encode the Spike protein, they still may set us up for future high mortality due to sensitization.

My message at this time, 2/5/2020, is that no one should hedge any bets on my hypothesis that something is different in China. Give the delay in the progression of the disease, we won’t know mortality statistics for countries other than China for two weeks. We don’t really know the denominator (number of cases), nor do we know the numerators (number deaths, number of critcally ill). But we have some idea that it’s much, much worse than the official statistics.

So, my position today is: As China goes, so goes the rest of the world. Which means, as I argued for with Ebola, we all have a humanitarian calling right now to HELP CHINA, but we also have a selfish reason to want to help China, if anyone needs one.

Sure, we may “need” our supplies. But 200,000 cases is nothing compared 1.1 billion cases. China needs them more.

We all need to assume each and every person we touch, and ourselves, are contagious. Practice say “hello” by bumping elbows. Public places should designate and hourly “sanitary custodian” to wipe down all common shared surfaces with bleach-containing wipes. As in Ebola, don’t raise your hands above your shoulders – keep your hands away from your face. Don’t shake hands, hug or kiss. If you’re sick, wear a mask in public (they won’t help if you’re not infected). Work from home if you can. Every moment spent alone, or with one other with who you are intimate, is less opportunity for 2019-nCoV. Start NOW.

CDC has some recommendations but they are as of this date not aggressive enough on isolation.

We need too send a message of hope to the people of China that they are not alone.

We need to send aid – human helping hands – to help China bring R0 down to zero.

Volunteers to sanitize shared, common surfaces.

People to help comfort, feed and wash the ill and to bury the dead.

Regardless of the source of this virus, we need to help China see the world as a loving place.

And scientists around the world studying Coronaviruses with any unpublished data need to bring those data forward – including any knowledge on the disease progression of this virus.

This virus’ Spike protein appears to be most similar to that from an isolate from the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. Its next closes cousin appears to be from an isolate from the Institute of Military Medicine, Nanjing Command, China.

What does that tell us? Not much except these two labs have viruses that are the most similar to 2019-nCoV with respect to their Spike proteins. The Institute of Virology published a sequence in January 2020 from a fecal sample isolated from bat feces in July 2013. Are they propagating the virus in human cell lines? Mice? Rats? We cannot settle “common lab origin” vs. “common ancestor in the wild”. Both samples would have an common ancestor in the wild, would they not?

There is a lot of diversity in the Spike protein across all coronaviruses, much more than is seen in the other genes in the genome.

What does that tell us? Nothing for or against the hypothesis of genetically modified coronavirus. These areas would evolve most quickly in a setting where interpspecies transfers are common: they evolve to be able to enter cells in a new species, and evolve the ability to infect different types of tissues based on the receptors on the surfaces of those cells.

These facts do, however, point to the two most important laboratories on the face of the earth right now: Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Institute of Military Medicine Nanjing Command, China. If they have ANY animal studies on the disease progression of their specific isolates most similar to 2019-nCoV, they should bring those data forward. Any information an antiviral drugs, interference RNA treatments, or the relative efficacy of any treatment at all, they should bring them forward.

As should any laboratory in the world has experimented with recombined viruse with S-proteins related to 2019-nCoV.

If the Chinese believe their population is highly sensitized, they should say so, because the rest of the world will be more likely to send much-needed supplies. As I said, this could be due to chronic exposure to bat coronaviruses in a population with long-term peristant adjuvants in their bodies, such as aluminum. Or it could be due to past vaccine experiments. It really does not matter at this point except we need to know what we can expect as 2019-nCoV in the rest of the world.

Yes, China, there are endonuclease sites in some bat coronaviruses that could be used to insert a variant of SARS spike protein, I checked.

But here’s the rub – while everyone’s focused on “recombination in the wild” or “recombination in the lab” – what about “recombination is humans”?

A human origin scenario for 2019-nCoV would go like this:

A laboratory worker working with propagated isolated culture of a bat coronavirus accidentally becomes infected while also have, or a loved one has a SARS infection. Or two laboratory worker cross-infect each other accidentally.

The callous will say I’m accusing Chinese research of sloppy protocol. There’s not time right now for that.

Because we had better act as if as goes China, so goes the world.

And we had better remember the outcome of animal studies that used recombined viruses with SARS spike proteins – immunity, but at the cost of high mortality upon secondard infection.

Listen to my plea for action to help the Chinese and to Gary Null and I discuss how to avoid the Coronavirus on the Gary Null Show. I make the case for a recombined origin, perhap using pShuttle-SN. I don’t want to overstate that case – listen til the end.

https://www.podbean.com/eu/pb-3zzz5-d27d68