One Brief, Brilliant Moment

One Brief, Brilliant Moment

Unless you are dictator of the world, communication does not create reality. It either matches reality, or it does not.


Since we have no universal dictator who can change reality at a whim, we’re stuck with reality.

No person’s individual perception is reality, yet your own personal experience with reality is literally synthesized in your brain.

Our collective perception does not determine reality. It, too, either matches it, or it does not.

What you believe does not determine reality. It reflects its possibilities.
Science does not determine reality. It discovers it.

Laws do to determine reality. They restrict it.

Reality existed for an unfathomably long time before humanity evolved on this planet, and it will exist for a even longer time after we are gone.

Every paradigm, belief system, dogma, doctrine, and credo will, one day, seem flawed and imperfect. I am not left. I am not right. I am a realist. I attempt to render understanding the approximates the truth.

The limits of our personal and collective knowledge are real. Real for now. Then they expand. New limits are found.

Across the animal kingdom, biology dictates much of what we find as the “nature” of organisms and species.

Until humanity comes to terms with the fact that our biology places limits on our understanding, and that we erect constructs to replace unlimited knowledge as coping mechanisms, we will always believe that we we currently believe is the truth.

It’s scary in the universe of un-knowing, but it’s also thrilling to imagine what we could learn if we let go of our constructs, and allow reality to wash over us for one brief, brilliant moment.

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA

6/12/2020

Advertisements

Studies Show Effective Treatment – So Why Are Nursing Home Patients Being Left To Die with COVID-19 Untreated?

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

5/17/2020

“Our loved ones need not die so Fauci and Gates can have his moment in the sun with a vaccine next year.”

THE STUDIES OUT OF CHINA were clear: hydroxychloroquine improved health outcomes of patients with COVID-19. French study? The same.

In the hands of US scientists? Maybe, but they are not studying it on the full population like the Chinese scientists did, they moved the goalpost (changed the health outcome during the trial), and they used smaller (less powerful) studies.

Remdesivir? Gilead announced early promising results, and so what does NIAID do? They shut down that trial.

How about plasma convalescent therapy, where survivors donate their antibodies for other people to recover more quickly, have lower rates of serious and critical illness, lower hospitalization rates, and lower deaths? Did you know FDA recommends it for people who cannot have access to it in a clinical trial?

You won’t hear about other efficacy studies from China, and you won’t hear about the efficacy studies of hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

You won’t hear about the multicenter guidance consensus statement published recommending use of antivirals in serious pediatric cases of COVID-19.

And of course you won’t hear about the <2% hospitalization rate achieved by the preeminent Dr. David Btownstein with his high-dose vitamin regimen either, since FTC shut down his website in which he published direct interviews of patients under his care. No deaths, and the FTC shut it down.

So, we’re launching a case series study of his treatment regimen that will lead to a study submitted to a clinical journal for peer review. [Go to ipaknowledge.org now to support – see How to Donate).

In smaller, less powered US government-related studies, hydroxychloroquine seems to lose its efficacy, and the US touts the results as more definitive than the larger, more powered studies that previously did report efficacy.

Now why would the US medico-government shut down studies and reports of treatment options that reduce the rate of serious and critical illness and death? Could it be that they want a sufficiently high mortality rate to warrant continued lock-down as a justification for their vaccine?

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it. The US medico-government is willing to allow people nursing homes to die with zero – ZERO intervention – not even a glass of orange juice for the Vitamin C – no compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine + Zpak, no attempts at remdesivir, no attempts at plasma convalescent therapy, no universal open-label retrospective study like are applied to vaccines all the time, well, they are simply allowing nursing home staff members to join them in an outright passive, but nonetheless willfull, massacre.

Most of the practicing and licensed physicians I know would never sit by idly and watch a patient deteriorate and do nothing, and follow up with ventilator that blows out their patients’ lung tissues after the virus has weaked the alveoli to the periphery. They would join me the condemnation of the ongoing willful massacre of our elderly in nursing homes around the country.

Wake up, America. Here is the list of studies and web resources the medico-fascists hell bent on a COVID-19 vaccine don’t want you to know about.

On March 28, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization allowing healthcare providers to make available chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate to “patients for whom a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible,” adding “FDA encourages the conduct and participation in randomized controlled clinical trials that may produce evidence concerning the effectiveness of these products in treating COVID-19.”

So where are the treatments for the elderly?

My advice to people? Keep mom and dad, grandma and grandpa the hell away from nursing homes. If they are already there, get a lawyer and demand they be tested, and if negative for active infection, get them out. If they are already infected, send the lawyer this article and have them issue a letter of a threat of a lawsuit for wrongful death and malpractice for the attending physician.

And start clamoring for criminal negligence against the Board of Directors of the nursing home. Our loved ones need not die so Fauci and Gates can have his moment in the sun with a vaccine next year.

Do you have other studies that support the use of these or other treatments to add? Drop them in the comments, with a link.

References

Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy

[1] Thibodeax, K et al. 2020. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in preventing mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective case series. J Wound Care 2020 May 1;29(Sup5a):S4-S8. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.Sup5a.S4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32412891

Highlight: “All the patients recovered without the need for mechanical ventilation. Following HBOT, oxygen saturation increased, tachypnoea resolved and inflammatory markers fell.”

Remdesivir

[2] Gilead Announces Results From Phase 3 Trial of Investigational Antiviral Remdesivir in Patients With Severe COVID-19 — Study Demonstrates Similar Efficacy with 5- and 10-Day Dosing Durations of Remdesivir — https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/press-room/press-releases/2020/4/gilead-announces-results-from-phase-3-trial-of-investigational-antiviral-remdesivir-in-patients-with-severe-covid-19

Highlight: “The study demonstrated that patients receiving a 10-day treatment course of remdesivir achieved similar improvement in clinical status compared with those taking a 5-day treatment course (Odds Ratio: 0.75 [95% CI 0.51 – 1.12] on Day 14). No new safety signals were identified with remdesivir across either treatment group.”

Patients: Severe manifestations of COVID-19 disease. Inclusion criteria was pneumonia and reduced oxygen levels that did not require mechanical ventilation at the time of study. Overall mortality rate 7%.

[3] NIH Clinical Trial Shows Remdesivir Accelerates Recovery from Advanced COVID-19 | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/nih-clinical-trial-shows-remdesivir-accelerates-recovery-advanced-covid-19

Highlight: “Hospitalized patients with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement who received remdesivir recovered faster than similar patients who received placebo.”

[4] Inside the NIH’s controversial decision to stop its big remdesivir study https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/11/inside-the-nihs-controversial-decision-to-stop-its-big-remdesivir-study/

[5] Compassionate Use Example, Colorado, USA (Remdesivir)
Firstenberg, 2020. Successful COVID-19 rescue therapy by extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for respiratory failure: a case report Patient Saf Surg 2020 May 8 14:20 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32395179

Combined Treatment Effective

Triple-drug combo of anti-malaria pill hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and ZINC improved coronavirus patients’ chances of being discharged and cut death risk by almost 50%, study finds

Highlight: “Results showed that patients receiving the triple-drug combination had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of recovering enough to be discharged.”

Highlight: “…an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.09) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice (was) significant (OR 0.449, 95% CI 0.271-0.744)”

Study link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8309337/Zinc-hydroxychloroquine-effective-COVID-19-patients-study.html

Hydroxychloroquine Phosphate

[6] Gautret et al., linical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: A pilot observational study.Travel Med Infect Disease 2020 Mar-Apr 24: 101663: doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101663. Epub 2020 Apr 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32289548

Highlight: “All patients improved clinically except one 86 year-old patient who died, and one 74 year-old patient still in intensive care. A rapid fall of nasopharyngeal viral load was noted, with 83% negative at Day7, and 93% at Day8. Virus cultures from patient respiratory samples were negative in 97.5% of patients at Day5. Consequently patients were able to be rapidly discharged from IDU with a mean length of stay of five days.”

[7] Chen et al., 2020. Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial MedRxiv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3

[8] Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.. Intl J Antimicrobial Agents Online March 20, 2020, 105949 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996

Plasma Convalascent Therapy

[9] Joyner et al., 2020. Early Safety Indicators of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in 5,000 Patients MedRxiv Preprint https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.12.20099879v1.full.pdf

[10] US FDA, May 1, 2020. Recommendations for Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/investigational-new-drug-ind-or-device-exemption-ide-process-cber/recommendations-investigational-covid-19-convalescent-plasma

Consensus Statements

[11] Chiotos et al., 2020. Multicenter initial guidance on use of antivirals for children with COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2020 Apr 22 : piaa045. Published online 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa045 PMCID: PMC7188128 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7188128/

Highlight: “Supportive care may be appropriate for children who are severely ill with coronavirus disease 2019. Use of potentially active antivirals should be considered, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available”

Boosting Immunity, Interferon

[12] Shen, K. 2020. Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in children: experts’ consensus statement. World J. Pediatric Feb 7 doi: 10.1007/s12519-020-00343-7. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12519-020-00343-7.pdf

Clinical Trials Reporting

[13] Where’s the data? In a pandemic, now is no time to sit on Covid-19 trial results https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/13/wheres-the-data-in-a-pandemic-now-is-no-time-to-sit-on-covid-19-trial-results/

IPAK CEO Challenges Keele University to Uphold Academic Freedom

IPAK CEO Challenges Keele University to Uphold Academic Freedom

5/5/2020

Pro Vice Chancellor and Professor David Amigoni

University of Keele

Dear Professor David Amigoni,

It is with great displeasure that I find that I must address this letter to you regarding the University of Keele’s blatant disregard and disdain for academic freedom. I am referencing your decision to decline a $15,000 donation by Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in support of the research program of Dr. Chris Exley, a fully tenured professor on the faculty at the University of Keele.

Are you aware that the contradictions in you text and verbiage in your declination letter is stunning example of what George Orwell called “Doublespeak”? First, let’s review how Orwell defined “Doublespeak”:

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible … Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness … the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms…”

Now, let’s look at your communication to Mr. Kennedy in which you refused the $15,000 donation:

“Whilst the University is keen to support all its academics and wholly embraces freedom in the area of research, there are certain undeniably controversial research fields of which the University is tolerant: but for which accepting any large donations from prominent public figures or foundations could place the institution in an ethical and reputational predicament. To do so could generate potentially negative media coverage and may also jeopardise the strong relationships it holds with its existing major funders and partners.” (emphasis mine)

The University cannot “wholly embrace freedom in the area of research” and simultaneously be “tolerant” of certain research fields.

Further, by revealing that your decision was based on your expected loss of donation from “existing major funders and partners”, you have revealed that the University of Keele has a policy of biasing “allowed science” due to a serious conflict of interest, and thus it is abundantly clear that you have created a breach of ethics by your refusal of the donation.

It is neither Dr. Exley’s responsibility nor fault that the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are “undeniably controversial“. Controversy exists as part of the dynamic ecosystem of any thriving scientific line of inquiry. Where would we be on the heliocentric model of the University were it not for controversy? Where would we be without controversy on evolution by natural descent with modification, co-authored by Sir Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace? Or on Plate Tectonics Theory by Alfred Wegener? Perhaps we should have never seen the development of quantum physics by causing Einstein’s inquiries into to go unfunded out of fear of a little scuffle with those who supported Newtonian physics as a sufficient model for understanding how the universe itself works? Do you yet see what you have done?

Dr. Exley consistent and cautious approach to the question of aluminum toxicity is worthy of consideration as a model for how to safely navigate the torrents of political malestrom while nevertheless persisting in the face of unbeatable odds of bias. As you should well know of Dr. Exley’s contributions, especially in the role of aluminum in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases – have been fundamental, careful and thorough in their demonstrations that, counter to prior assumptions, aluminum enters the brain; that aluminum is increased in the brains of individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease, autism, and Parkinson’s disease.

Dr. Exley is far from alone in his inquiry. My research, quite independent of Dr. Exley’s, has found that official positions and policies on the safety of aluminum in vaccines is based on stratified unfounded and baseless assumptions, including the use of measurements of toxicity of aluminum from dietary forms in adult mice to assess the safety of injected forms of aluminum in infant humans. The requisite studies of injected doses of aluminum into mice to test hypotheses of autoimmunity, a role in developmental disorders and neurodegenerative disorders have never been conducted. This lack of information, however, only plays the role of sustained ignorance, which plays into the agenda of those aligned with the “other funding sources” your University might stand to lose should the University truly abide by Dr. Exley’s well-earned academic freedom. You should decline any source of funding that comes with such obvious marrionette strings attached.

Dr. Amigoni, what are we as a society to do when an industry that profits to the tune of over US$27 Billion from vaccines does so at the requirement of sustained ignorance and at the cost of the generation of knowledge of causal factors of chronic illness which, by my estimation, drive hundreds of millions into autoimmunity, hundreds of millions into neurodevelopmental disorders, billions into neurodegenerative disease and untold numbers of ordinary people into an early grave? Does not your refusal of the funds presume a specific outcome of future research? Your refusal therefore includes a tacit accusation of bias in Dr. Exley’s research conduct. You must therefore reconsider. Considering that aluminum is not a necessary component of vaccines, but is, instead, merely an additive that allows the use of less antigen – and the continuation of contracts to certain Pharmaceutical companies for specific vaccines with aluminum-based formulations – the question arises: is the continued use of aluminum in vaccines merely to the benefit of the few, at the great cost and loss of the many? University of Keele’s reputation should suffer as bastion of sustained and enforced ignorance and as one that has abject disdain for Science.

My own research shows that the US CDC’s pediatric vaccine schedule causes infants to suffer chronic whole-body toxicity due to aluminum injections 70% of their days during their first seven months of life, and one out of four days up to the age of 24 months. We achieved this by calculating the world’s first and to date only Pediatric Dose Limit for aluminum in vaccines. Yes, you read that correctly – a small, independent, publicly funded Institute is the only source of a Pediatric Dose Limit for aluminum injections. Not the US FDA, not the UK’s NHS. Why is that?

Science is for asking questions in a manner that allows us to come to know about the world and the Universe around us in an unbiased manner. Universities such as yours are supposed to be centers of academic freedom – free from political influences, free from influences from large monied entities whose income streams are 100% dependent on sustained ignorance.

I urge you to read the realities of the state of knowledge of aluminum toxicity in the reference materials I have provided below – some peer reviewed, some not – so that you might be better positioned to measure the impact of risk of your University’s loss of funding from sources that would, by your own admission, coerce you into adopting a non-scientific position on aluminum toxicity- against the risk of impact of aluminum in vaccines to public health. In keeping with long-standing traditions in Science, please be advised that none of us, not you, Dr. Exley, Mr. Kennedy, or anyone has a crytsal ball by which we can know the full translational impact of objective, unbiased research on aluminum. A ban on aluminum adjuvants? Perhaps. Use of existing tests for aluminum allergy prior to vaccination? Perhaps. Better understanding of our immune system and the development of safer vaccines? I hope so. Who are we to place limits on the boundary of knowledge? To do so requires massive hubris and a disdain for actual knowledge and new discoveries.

After you read the listed materials, please consider an invitation to be my guest the video Podcast, “Unbreaking Science” so you might describe Dr. Exley’s research program to a knowledge-hungry international audience eager to end the pandemic of autoimmunity, neurodevelopmental disorders, and neurodegenrative disorders caused, in part, by the toxic effects of aluminum on human tissues, organs and human beings. My invitiation is conditional on you reviewing the listed resources below in detail in preparation for an in-depth discussion on the issues these studies and reviews have raised.

I am free and independent of donor influence – and by my invitation, I am throwing University of Keele a lifeline. I am certain that together, you and I could help Chris raise significant funds to continue and expand his research program.

Sincerely,

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

CEO/Director/President

The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge

References

McFarland, G, E La Joie, P Thomas and J Lyons-Weiler. 2020. Acute Exposure and Chronic Retention of Aluminum in Three Vaccine Schedules and Effects of Genetic and Environmental Variation. J Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 58:126444.

Lyons-Weiler, J and R. Ricketson. 2018. Reconsideration of the Immunotherapeutic Pediatric Safe Dose Levels of Aluminum. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 48:67-73.

A. Mirza, A. King, C. Troakes, C. Exley, Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer’s disease, J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 40 (2017) 30–36.
[35]

D. Malakoff, Public health. Aluminum is put on trial as a vaccine booster, Science 288 (2000) 1323–1334.


J.G. Dórea, Exposure to mercury and aluminum in early life: developmental vulnerability as a modifying factor in neurologic and immunologic effects, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12 (2015) 1295–1313, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120201295

R.A. Yokel. Aluminum in food – The nature and contribution of food additives. In: Yehia El-Samragy (ed.), Food Additive, Intech (2012) pp 203–228, ISBN 978-953-51-0067-6.

M.D. Mold, A. Umar, A. King, C. Exley, Aluminium in brain tissue in autism, J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 46 (2018) 76–82.

L. Tomljenovic, C.A. Shaw, Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations, Lupus 21 (2012) 223–230.

L. Tomljenovic, C.A. Shaw, Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism, J. Inorg. Biochem. 105 (2011) 1449–1489.

Dórea JG, Marques RC. 2010. Infants’ exposure to aluminum from vaccines and breast milk during the first 6 months. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 20(7):598-601. doi: 10.1038/jes.2009.64.

Fanni, D et al. 2014. Aluminum exposure and toxicity in neonates: A practical guide to halt aluminum overload in the prenatal and perinatal periods. World Journal of Pediatrics 10:101-7.

Flarend RE et al. 1997. In vivo absorption of aluminium-containing vaccine adjuvants using 26Al. 15(12-13):1314-8. [clearance rate 4.6%/28 days]

M.S. Petrik, M.C. Wong, R.C. Tabata, R.F. Garry, C.A. Shaw
Aluminum adjuvant linked to Gulf War Illness induces motor neuron death in mice Neuromolecular Med., 9 (no.1) (2007), pp. 83-100

G. Crépeaux, R.K. Gherardi, F.J. Authier
Asia, Chronic fatigue syndrome, and selective low dose neurotoxicity of aluminum adjuvants J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract., 6 (no.2) (2018), p. 707, 10.1016/j.Jaip.2017.10.039

R.K. Gherardi, G. Crépeaux, F.J. Authier
Myalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome following immunization : macrophagic myofasciitis and animal studies support linkage to aluminum adjuvant persistency and diffusion in the immune system
Autoimmun. Rev., 18 (no.7) (2019), pp. 691-705.

J.D. Masson, G. Crépeaux, F.J. Authier, C. Exley, R.K. Gherardi
Critical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants. J. Inorg. Biochem., 181 (04) (2018), pp. 87-95.

G. Crépeaux, H. Eidi, M.O. David, Y. Baba-Amer, E. Tzavara, B. Giros, F.J. Authier, et al. Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: selective low dose neurotoxicity. Toxicology, 375 (2017), pp. 48-57.

R. Kandimalla, J. Vallamkondu, E.B. Corgiat, K.D. Gill
Understanding aspects of aluminum exposure in alzheimer’s disease development. Brain Pathol., 26 (no.2) (2016), pp. 139-154.

S. Davenward, P. Bentham, J. Wright, P. Crome, D. Job, A. Polwart, C. ExleySilicon-rich mineral water as a non-invasive test of the’ Aluminum hypothesis’ in alzheimer’s diseaseJ. Alzheimers Dis., 33 (no.2) (2013), pp. 423-430.

K.P. Sharma, N. Upreti, S. Sharma. Protective effect of Spirulina and tamarind fruit pulp diet supplement in fish (Gambusia affinis baird & girard exposed to sublethal concentration of fluoride, aluminum and aluminum fluoride Indian J. Exp. Biol., 50 (no.12) (2012), pp. 897-903.

G. Bjorklund, V. Stejskal, M.A. Urbina, M. Dadar, S. Chirumbolo, J. MutterMetals and parkinson’s disease: mechanisms and biochemical processes. Curr. Med. Chem., 25 (no.19) (2018), pp. 2198-2214.

M. Yasui, T. Kihira, K. Ota, M. Mukoyama, L. Adachi
Aluminum deposition in the central nervous system tissues of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Rinsho Shinkeigaku, 31 (10) (1991), pp. 1095-1098.

A.A. Kinawy. Synergistic oxidative impact of aluminum chloride and sodium fluoride exposure during early stages of brain development in the rat Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., 26 (no.11) (2019), pp. 10951-10960.

P.N. Alexandrov, A.I. Pogue, W.J. Lukiw Synergism in aluminum and mercury neurotoxicityIntegr. Food Nutr. Metab., 5 (no.3) (2018).

G.L. Klein
Aluminum toxicity to bone: a multisystem effect?
Osteoporos. Sarcopenia, 5 (no.1) (2019), pp. 2-5.

R. Yokel, S.R. Rhineheimer, P. Sharma, et al.
Entry, half-life, and desferrioxamine-accelerated clearance of brain aluminum after a single 26Al exposure
Science, 64 (1) (2001), pp. 77-82.

S.K.S. Sheth, Y. Li, C.A. Shaw
Is exposure to aluminium adjuvants associated with social impairments in mice? A pilot study J. Inorg. Biochem., 181 (2018), pp. 96-103.

D.R. Fanni, R. Ambu, C. Gerosa, S. Nemolato, N. Iacovidou, P. Van Eyken, V. Fanos, M. Zaffanello, G. Faa Aluminum exposure and toxicity in neonates: a practical guide to halt aluminum overload in the prenatal and perinatal periods. World J. Pediatr., 10 (no.2) (2014), pp. 101-107.

G. Morris, B.K. Puri, R.E. Frye. The putative role of environmental aluminium in the development of chronic neuropathology in adults and children. How strong is the evidence and what could Be the mechanisms involved?Metab. Brain Dis., 32 (no.5) (2017), pp. 1335-1355.

A. Strunecka, R.L. Blaylock, J. Patocka, O. Strunecky. Immunoexcitotoxicity as the central mechanism of etiopathology and treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A possible role of fluoride and aluminum. Surg. Neurol. Int., 9 (2018), p. 74.

R.K. Gherardi, G. Crépeaux, F.J. Authier, L. Lujan.
Animal studies are mandatory to investigate the poorly understood fate and effects of aluminum adjuvants administered to billions of humans and animals worldwide
Autoimmun. Rev., 17 (no.7) (2018), pp. 735-737.

A. Parker
Testing new hypotheses of neurological and immunological outcomes with aluminum-containing vaccines is warranted
J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol., 51 (2019), pp. 28-30.

Igbokwe IO, Igwenagu E, Igbokwe NA. 2019. Aluminium toxicosis: a review of toxic actions and effects. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2019 Oct;12(2):45-70. doi: 10.2478/intox-2019-0007.

Röllin HB, Channa K, Olutola B, Nogueira C, Odland JØ. In Utero Exposure to Aluminium and Other Neurotoxic Elements in Urban Coastal South African Women at Delivery: An Emerging Concern. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 6;17(5). pii: E1724. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051724.

CDC Public Health Data Fudging 1: COVID-19 Rates Explained

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

5/4/2020

THIS IS A COMPANION ARTICLE TO AN UPCOMING EPISODE OF THE PODCAST “UNBREAKING SCIENCE” IN WHICH DR. JACK EXPLAINS 1. WHICH RATES YOU NEED TO UNDERSTANDING TO DISCUSS THE COVID-19 PANDMIC, 2. WHY ESTIMATING DEATH RATES DURING AN OUTBREAK IS HAZARDOUS, 3. HOW TO NOT CONFUSE CASE FATALITY RATES AND POPULATION MORTALITY RATES, AND 4. HOW YOU CAN THINK ABOUT HOW YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT COVID-19 AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION.

On 5/2/2020, CDC published the number of deaths from COVID as under 34,000. Surprised? You should be. By all accounts, the US has reported over 67,000 deaths – depending on who you read, confirmed deaths (e.g., The Weekly).

The point being, of course that when the public – and public health officials see “Number of Deaths” – they believe they are seeing confirmed deaths.

Johns Hopkins reports – without caveat = that the “Number of Deaths” in the US are currently over 67,000:

These are the statistics we have all been following.

Now here are the recently publicized statistics from CDC:

The first thing that pops out to me is the number of flu deaths is about double that of past seasons – if you follow my protocol for undoing CDC’s inflation protocol that adds pneumonia to flu deaths so influenza qualifies as an epidemic. Remember we are at the end of the flu season. With the few months’ reporting, the number of flu cases being this high is shocking because it is double that from past years for the entire season.

The second thing that sticks out to me is that a huge proportion of people – in fact most – w/COVID-19 at death must not involve pneumonia.

Of a total of 37,308 people who died with COVID-19, the table reports only 16,564 deaths “with Pneumonia + COVID19”

That’s only 44% of people who died with COVID-19 also had a diagnosis of pneumonia.

The third thing that sticks out of course is the difference between 37K and 67K deaths that we have all been tracking. This massive discrepancy between CDC’s 37K and the everywhere-else-reported 67K is due to the use of that set of statistics being based on confirmed COVID-19 cases and “suspected” COVID-19 cases. I’ve seen explanations attributing the discrepancy in the lower number – 37K – as being due to a “lag” in confirmation – in fact the 33K CDC source says precisely that. But that is no explanation for the difference. Why, and how, for example, does an estimate of 67K even exist? And how can other CDC sources such the

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases. Cases in the US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020

and places like Johns Hopkins, whom we can presume gets their data from CDC, have results two weeks ahead of… the CDC? Why are we being misled in our perception of risk by inflated death rates – at all?

A probable case or death is defined by CDC by fulfillment of one of the following: “Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19.”

That’s of little assurance given that policies have been founded on the 67K estimate – not the 33K confirmed cases. CDC’s paradigm – some would call it their M.O. – is to overestimate death rates from infectious disease – explicitly, as if that’s appropriate or even useful for a reason-based response.

We have been waiting to see how CDC would reconcile their shady practices on “Influenza” death reporting – outed in Scientific American as “wild overestimates” following my report of the discrepancy on LinkedIn given the impact of COVID-19 on influenza death rates – since the default for “flu-like symptoms” has become “suspected COVID-19” instead of “suspected influenza”.

When it comes to flu deaths reporting and COVID-19 ‘suspected’ cases taking an unfair share away from the annual faux “Influenza” aka “Influenza Disease” aka “Pneumonia & Influenza”, something had to – and still has to – give, if “Influenza” – however CDC will define it in June – is to qualify as an “epidemic”. Their efforts at correcting their oversight appears to have led to as many as four times more influenza cases than they need. Oops.

Data fudgery, statistical shamwizardy, some shift was expected – I predicted it a month ago, but expected a gradual drip leaning toward bias in the updates in June – because, put plainly, CDC does not track influenza cases with integrity. To learn exactly what I mean by that, and why you need to know how to think about rates, read on…

CDC Uses Scientism, but That Pits Belief in Sciency Things vs. Science

So much discussion these days online involve taking a “position on” or “believing” in something, and this is actually not very helpful when one is trying to understand an outbreak. While the public has every reason, the right and the responsibility to remain vigilently skeptical of anything coming from the CDC, it’s important that we are able to discuss and focus on numbers and rates without giving up in frustration and saying “I don’t know what to believe”. Situations change in outbreaks and pandemics, thus the actual values change (they are dynamic) from day to day and week to week in response to complex variables that impact growth. It’s best to think about values we discuss like the Stock Market.

While that makes these issues are complex, with a careful read of this article, and a follow-up viewing of the companion Unbreaking Science episode (link forthcoming), you’ll be able to quickly understand what you are looking at and be able to communicate your ideas and thoughts quickly and efficiently.

What Determines How Bad An Outbreak Will Be?

[Warning: Deep Dive into the Geek Arena Here, But You Will Learn]

During an outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic of a deadly disease from virus, people want to know the answer the following question: “How bad will this be?” This is determined in part by characteristics of the virus (transmissibility and virulence, see my article on these two), and the characteristics of the host species. This means it is largely determined by our ability to respond to the virus. The characteristics of the virus and how we respond to it determines the following outcome measures, all of which can change depending on how we respond:

(1) R0 (R-Naught). This is the number of people a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 (or any pathogen) may be expected to infect. People often think that R0 is a fixed characteristic of a virus. It is not. It is best to think of R0 as an outcome of all of the characteristics of a virus and a populations’ respond to the virus up to a given point in time, but it’s even better in my view to consider R0 on a daily basis during an outbreak.

I have a measure of an effective R0 that is easy to calculate Effective R0 (EffR0) for COVID-19, as the ratio of the number of COVID-19 cases today to the number of cases five days ago (given a 4-5 day asymptomatic period preceding diagnosis). This can be done for any town, county, state, country, or for the entire world.

Here is chart of EffR0 for the US from Day 1 of the first recognized case until 5/3/2020:

US Effective R0 as of 5/3/2020

Note we are not yet below 1.0. See how responsive this number is to changes in our behavior? The peak value represents the day POTUS declared COVID-19 a national emergency, and the variation following represents bringing testing online following CDC’s Testing Fiasco. The value of EffR0 peaked at about 5.8, when POTUS declared it to be a national emergency.

These are not number of cases; the total (cumulative) number of cases in the US looks quite different:

One thing is clear – the virus is not in full retreat by any means – but at least the curve is no longer nonlinear. It’s worth pointing out that R0 > 1 means a constant increase in the number of cases – and therefore the number of deaths. Weeks ago, before the lock-down, the issue was an ongoing increase in the increase of the number of infections. The extent that this is due to social distancing or seasonality remains to be seen – it will take time to know the true and full nature of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

For a long-view comparison of R0s among pathogens, one can compare overall R0 values of different pathogens over a season or a year (over a fixed time period). It is important to state specifically the time period a given value of R0 is referencing, because it can change from year to year or season to season. It can change due to a mutation, seasonality, or due to a policy change.

(2) Attack Rate

The Attack Rate is the proportion of people who become ill from a disease in a population that was initially free of the disease. Obviously, to be able to answer the question “How Bad Will This Be?”, we have to try to understand how many people can be expected to become infected in total over the course of an epidemic, and over what period of time. If only certain individuals are susceptible to infection, due to behavior or lifestyle choices, the general immediate concern over risk of infection and therefore risk of serious illness or death will be lower. However, if all of the risk is in certain demographics, such as a diseases that only effects newborns, the general concern may be heightened.

Like R0, the Attack Tate is determined by characteristics of a virus and of the host. Initially the attack rate may appear to be high, before a population responds. If the population response is effective, or if they are forewarned, the attack rate can be decreased.

In epidemiology, there are two closely related measures that have significant differences: Incidence and Prevalence.

Prevalence tells us how widespread a disease is in a population. Prevalence is the ratio of the total number of patients diagnosed at a given time to the total population. (#Infected persons at one time / Size of Population at that time)

Incidence refers to new cases of the disease in the population in a given time period (such as a year). Incidence is the ratio of total new cases in a population divided by total population size (#Of New Cases During a Period of Time / Median Size of the Population Over that Time Period).

We know the prevalence and the incidence of influenza (or we think we do, see below). While we can know on any given day the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (estimated, of course), we cannot yet know the incidence for COVID-19 in a manner comparable to influenza annual case rates yet precisely because COVID-19 is new.

For a given timeframe, the total numbers of people diagnosed depends on whether the pathogen has had time – and opportunity – to spread to throughout the population under whatever protocol of public health intervention has been in play. All estimates related to the infection rate (attack rate, incidence, prevalence) of COVID-19 must therefore be interpreted as reflecting the lock-down, social distancing, etc. Since our past annual rates of influenza are from non-lock-down years, we cannot compare COVID-19 population mortality rates and numbers to Influenza in any meaningful way.

(3) Case Fatality Rate (CFR)

The Case Fatality Rate is a measure of the proportion of infected individuals who have died from a disease. It is calculated as

#Deaths Due to Illness From A Pathogen / Number of People Infected

Importantly, CFRs are NOT rate measures, as classically defined, because CFRs do not include a temporal component (time between infection and death due to the pathogen). Imagine a virus that is 100% deadly, but infects people under the age of 5 but only kills them after the age of 60; other causes of mortality such as automobile accidents will reduce the apparent risk of death due to the virus. Case Fatality Rates are, however, considered measures of risk for a specified time period.

People sometimes use the term “Case Fatality Ratio” interchangeable with “Case Fatality Rate“, but this should be avoided but Case Fatality Ratios are actually a measure that compares the Case Fatality Rate between two diseases.

Comparing CFR during an outbreak, epidemic or pandemic for one pathogen to an established, all-season CFR is hazardous. Why?

The problem is that CFR cannot be known in a day-to-day in a manner that is quite as meaningful for understanding the full relative risk of mortality of a disease as we might think. The use of CFR to compare different pathogens has to wait until the end of a outbreak/epidemic/pandemic, or the end of a season. This is true due to the same reason we cannot compare R0 under those conditions – we cannot know the full attack rate until enough time has transpired for the full attack rate to be measured – and in the attempts to compare to other epidemics – until the full effects of a society’s response have materialize.

One could measure “# of deaths per day” and thereby make an attempt to understand a death rate, but since the full Attack Rate is not known the actual full death rate still would not be known until the end of an outbreak, epidemic or pandemic.

And this point is super-relevant for people who want to be able to compare death rates from COVID-19 to influenza: it cannot and should not be done for a few important reasons:

a. We don’t yet know the final Attack Rate of COVID-19

b. We don’t know the long-term (say, annual) CFR of COVID-19

c. There is a vaccine program against influenza, so such a comparison is apples-to-oranges “COVID-19 w/no vaccine vs. Influenza w/a vaccine”.

d. We have more experience treating influenza than COVID-19. The high incidence of mortality from ventilators, for example, in COVID-19 is currently high; those deaths will become unlikely as we change our use of ventilators as standard of care.

It should be understood that the CFR reflects a “risk of dying” IF one is infected. Thus, the CFR is not relevant for the entire population at all unless the Attack Rate is 100%.

(4) Population Mortality Risk

The Population Mortality Risk, or Population Death Rate from a pathogen is ratio of number of deaths from illness from the infection by that pathogen to the total number of people in the population over a specified period of time. The PMR will typically be far lower than the Case Fatality Ratio unless the Attack Rate is 100%.

Modeling

To understand population-wide risk, we have to compare, if we can, the effect of real-life efforts at containment, mitigation, and suppression, ot a null “do nothing model”. Each of any number of plausible scenarios have their own outcome variables, and this goes to a key point of modeling. All models, by definition, are incorrect. They are not reproductions of reality – they are not even attempted reproductions of reality. Therefore even the most granular and correctly arranged model will be incorrect to some degree in detail. In an oubreak, early models will almost always be more incorrect than later models, as more information becomes available. But later models will also have more parameters, as the host species (us), use our innate characteristics (intelligence, behavior, technology, communication, treatments) to change our susceptibility to infection, serious illness and mortality.

Any reasonable response will include factors that influence overall health (nutrition, supplements), access to fresh air and sunshine, understanding who is at most risk, mitigating specific risk, and, most importantly, personal responsibility. Individual actions such as informed self-isolation based on their COVID-19 status from private testing is a variable not yet explored. Instead, testing is considered to be the responsibility of the medical community. In clinical testing, however, the laboratory reports the results of the test to the physician who ordered the test, and to the CDC.

The patient is the last ot know the results, and for meaningful utility leading to rapid change in individual behavior, the patient (or just a person) should be the first to know.

So What Does All of This Mean?

What this means is that CDC has, at the present time, at least 30K deaths it can attribute according to “complex algorithsm” either to COVID-19 or the Infleunza, or both, whatever fits their agenda in June. What people really care about, though is risk to themselves… general population mortality risk due to COVID-19.

If I were to take my best current shot at estimating a population mortality rate, I could do it in one of two ways: using data available before the US societal response, or data available after. Any analysis using total present “today” data on cumulative numbers of cases, or numbers of deaths, in the US would be based on hybrid – not well-defined – set of response parameters. Before the societal lock-down, our response was minimal and impotent. After the lock-down, it’s still very messy because different states have developed different legal paradigms and overarching philosophies on how to respond, and the effectiveness of each paradigm is unknown.

The fact remains: CDC has been combining probable and confirmed cases of COVID-19, and all of our public health policies, and the public’s reactions to those policies, have been a result of using inflated death numbers. Knowledge that the denominator – the total number of cases – is much, much higher than the number of clinical cases means the PMR is VASTLY inflated if one looks only at the Case Fatality Rate. If the real rate of COVID-19 deaths are polluted with deaths from influenza, RSV and other non-COVID-19 pneumonia cases, it impacts population-rate estimates in the moment that makes it impossible to define a rational public health response that everyone can support.

Just as CDC inflated Influenza counts, they are inflating COVID-19 counts. Still, let’s take a look at the overall US “non-lagged” data from Day 80 of the outbreak in the US. The rate of increase in the number of cases and deaths is now constant – approximately linear – so let’s cut to the chase and go right to the number of expected deaths after 365 days if nothing changes.

The number I come up with is 617,902 deaths, giving us a population-wide mortality risk of 0.00185. That’s 185 deaths per 100,000 individuals (population mortality rate).

That’s with Probable Case data – and, very importantly – with the lock-down in place.

Now, with no lock-down, in three months’ time, a power law model tells that we would have 3.3 million deaths; ten days following that, we’d have 8.2 million deaths.

All based on wildly biased estimates published by CDC.

The unbiased data – wherever it is – will now have to be analyzed to produce a lower-bound estimates of these two conditions, but let’s assume for now they will be approximately 1/2 of the size of the biased estimates.

So, lower bound annual population mortality risk, 90 deaths per 100,000, or about 10 in 1,000,000. But no economy.

Neither estimate is realistic. We need to dial into reality.

Of couse the input data from that period of time reflect the effects of CDC’s testing fiasco, reflect no new testing infrastructure, no real general knowledge of the value of self-isolation and sanitation of public spaces, and no widespread use of antivirals to keep viral titres down during infection to prevent serious illness, death and transmission. Yesterday, for the first time, I saw our local grocery chain employees wiping down common surfaces, something I’ve been calling for since early February. These individual factors will matter.

But this is not as simple as “lock-down” vs. “no lock-down”. The two modeled scenarios actually represent extremes on a continuum. A new factor that could be and I think should be added is private, in-home testing. Hundreds of millions of Americans could be tested with a 15-min antibody test in the privacy of their home.

This would be far more effective and less costly than widespread testing w/contact tracing. Further, those who seek medical care would receive a follow-up clinical test – and their data would be available to CDC (standard reporting of age, zip code, gender and COVID-19 status). In-home private testing is the solution to so many problems. It’s rapid, efficient and will prove very effective if the public can be taught how to interpret the test results and be provided simple guidance. (See the IPAKBack2Work Plan). No reporting. No contact tracing. Your employer does not know. Individuals testing and then deciding to do the right thing – including whether they can yet rejoin society. Simple. And this could be done on a regular basis, until allopathy catches up to highly effective curative protocols that do exist.

Our plan preserves HIPAA protections and relies on personal responsibility.

The bulk of the two projections above are, unfortunately, 100% dependent on the CDC’s data reported to WHO. It’s a shame we have to rely on thoroughly corrupted institutions for our data for such an important public health event. WHO by the way, has the US at >67,000 deaths whereas their domestic confirmed data reflects a mere 37,000. Did WHO not get the memo? CDC will gyrate a few times before the settle on one cooked estimate, until June we are told.

Right now, it seems that CDC has a new tactic – to boldly estimate Influenza deaths at two to ten times the rate of past years no longer by combining pneumonia + influenza, but instead perhaps just borrowing from COVID-19 deaths. Perhaps testing is up because of COVID. We’ll see.

Summary

It’s tempting to make comparisons of COVID-19 rates to influenza, but they are fraught with the hazard of being misleading – for methodological reasons and for GIGO (garbage-in-garbage-out) reasons. Elsewhere I have outlined how that comparison is made impossible anyway because CDC has been cooking the books on “Influenza” since 2015 by combining “Pneumonia” deaths with laboratory-confirmed “Influenza” (sometimes referenced by CDC to as “Influenza”, “Influenza Disease” or “P&I” (“Pneumonia & Influenza”), meaning CDC has been misleading the public into perceiving that influenza virus infection is six to ten times more than it truly is (See “Is CDC Borrowing Pneumonia Deaths “From Flu” for “From COVID-19?” April 3, 2020). Some of the pneumonia cases intermixed with Influenza into “Influenza Disease” annually are caused by coronaviruses.

In the 2020 “confirmed cases” report on COVID deaths, CDC notes that for THAT report, “Pneumonia death counts exclude pneumonia deaths involving influenza

So there is absolutely no justification for the prior years’ combination of Influenza + Pneumonia deaths.

Looking back at data from 2014, only 8.1% of influenza disease deaths were bona fide influenza. When Influenza alone is considered, there are typically less than 5,000 deaths from influenza virus pear year. Of course there is a range of error around that estimate. However, at the most likely rate, nearer to 5,000, influenza causes less than 7.3% of deaths from all causes, and this leads to the stunning reality that influenza should no long be considered an epidemic in the US.

Without integrity and accuracy in assessing rates and risk of serious illness and death due to pathogens, we cannot have evidence-based public health policies founded on science. With practices such as those adopted by CDC, we merely have public health policies founded on dogma, which will always have to eventually be reconciled with reality. COVID-19 has challenged the status quo misleading accounting practices used by the CDC, which, absolutely, must now change.

That’s part of why I am calling for a radically new public health system – one in which the CDC culture is absent, and integrity and accuracy reigns – one with no connection to profit oppotunities. I am calling for a Public Health Integrity Network of 18 performance sites, located within private and public research institutions, each node of which acts completely independent of each other on the same public health problems simultaneously. All results from these activities are sent to an independent body that compiles the range of information presented and best solutions are brought into the public eye. We need pure academic research without perverse financial entanglements and incentives. This network process will replace the CDC. CDC should not be involved in public health matters. Period.

Things will look different when we finally have public health integrity with transparency, accountability and independence from profit motive providing core tenets of professionalism in public health research, and the public will know their privacy and right to autonomy are respected. Which means, of course, no immunity cards, no mandatory testing, and, with respect, no mandatory vaccines.

COVID-19 Testing – An Urgent Open Letter to Governors of The United States

No one wants to be the bad guy who strips the dignity of rugged American individualism away from American citizens via mandated and reported testing for COVID-19. In fact, under current laws, we don’t know if we can even do that. President Trump, however, has indicated that it is up to each governor to decide how each state will start a trip back to a new normal. No one knows how to do this rationally, and with compassion, but it’s your job.

I offer you this bit of humble advice. Just as citizens of your State or Commonwealth can test themselves in the privacy of their own homes for HIV infection, for pregnancy, and for paternity, and their kids for drug use, those same citizens can and should have the ability to test themselves privately in their homes for COVID-19. Let me explain why this counterintuitive idea not only makes sense- but that it is the only rational piece of the puzzle on the table.

First, not everyone needs clinical testing. The idea of constant clinical testing, with every major medical facilty overrun by people – even at remote drive-though testing facilities – is not only ludicrous – it is unnecessary, wasteful and risky to bring people together who might spread SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Medical staff burn through personal protective gear more quickly when people who do not need to be tested show up to be tested.

Second, those who privately test in the safety of their homes who test positive will likely seek medical care – and there, they will be tested– just as a woman who have a positive result of a pregnancy test in her home who seeks clinical care for her pregnancy will receive clinical confirmation of the in-home test, hundreds of millions of negative test results do not tie up clinical facilities

Third, American citizens should be treated as adults. Some of the tests on the market for clinical use – such as Vibrant America’s 7-biomarker test – are extremely accurate and reliable, and are being re-made into tests for in-home use. In-home use, however, is not enough. American citizens should not have to report their results unless they seek clinical care. Why? Because more people will test more frequently if they do not have to report.

Finally, imagine a future in which workplaces offer two 2-week sick periods per year for every full-time employee. That’s a new normal because employees do not – and should not – be required to report their health status to anyone, including their employers. If someone becomes infected with SARS-CoV-2, they should be able to test themselves with a quick finger prick – and get the results in 15 minutes. They can – and will – then decide what the optimal choice for their next two weeks’ activity based on their status. Individuals who are IgM positive should choose to self-isolate. Individuals who are IgG positive should not hesitate to rejoin society – and they might want to volunteer for blood donations for convalescent plasma therapy.

Public health officials are calling for more testing, but they mean clinical testing to assess the situation. Real-time IgG and IgM status can inform individuals on their next rational steps – in as little as ten or fifteen minutes.

If we want to get America back to work, and re-open the economy, citizens should have the right to real-time information on their status – information they can use. Mass consumption will drive the price of such test down to as low as $10 per test.

I have outlined some guidances for those steps that States can consider adopting and encouraging their citizens to follow. Please find them here, at the IPAK webpage

http://ipaknowledge.org/ipak-statement-on-cdc-diagnostics.php

This program is a rights-preserving alternative to mandatory testing and reporting. Many people will resent mandatory testing with reporting and the loss of individuality and sense of autonomy – and for what? There is no need to infringe on the health privacy rights, and in-home private testing is the fastest way to get the largest number of people tested in the shortest period of time. Factories will be needed to construct the hundreds of millions of test kits needed.

A 100% VOLUNTARY reporting program can be established to which people report their results anonymously, online. While incentives are fine (coupons for more tests, for example), there must be no penalty for non-reporting.

Let’s work together with the lines of the laws that exist to protect our individual freedoms and liberties and do something that makes sense.

Because nothing else we’ve heard is based on science, logic or reason. The FDA EUAs of these tests only allow clinical testing. That may or may not change. But the Chief Executive of the US, President Trump, who oversees the HHS and the FDA, has given the nod to states to do as they please. Please include private testing as a welcome tool in our arsenal against COVID-19.

And please let me know if I may be service to you as a group in this endeavor.

Sincerely,

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

CEO, Director & President

The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge.

The BIGGEST Next Battle on COVID-19 That You Don’t Know Your Position On Yet

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

4/20/2020

BY ANY ESTIMATION, I have been reliably and consistently 30 to 45 days ahead of the curve on issues related to COVID-19. That’s the benefit of having done indepedent reseach leading to a book on Ebola. I called for social distancing before anyone knew why I was proposing that we not place our hands above our shoulders in public, stop shaking hands, and stop attending large gatherings. I nailed it in my revised hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was likely a laboratory escape, but not man-made. I’ve recast “Immune Enhancement” more properly as “Pathogenic Priming” – a term all will get used to hearing when Phase I trials become Phase II trials and people start getting infected w/SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination and start dying at even higher rates due to disease enhancement caused by Pathogenic Priming from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination – something the vaccine developers SHOULD have tested for in animal studies, but skipped.

Call it a crystal ball, call it the product of insight of thirty-five years of non-stop learning in all areas of Science that I find merit my attention…

Today, 4/19/2020, I’m publishing that a major battle is brewing that neither side is yet aware of. It’s probably the most controversial aspect of COVID-19 public health policy, personal choice and the urge to “return to normalcy”. People who pick one side will see clearly why they are on one side; people who choose the other side will either be (a) bent on securing a massive revenue stream for allopathy and continuation of the centralization of faux authority on public health at CDC, or (b) so deeply conditioned and already convinced that even while they call for their personal, human, and constitional rights to be secured and defending, that they have already given up to their oppressors as all-mighty, all-powerful, and they will fight against their own best interest thinking they are defending their freedoms.

I’m talking about Private vs. Mandatory testing.

Private. As in SECRET. As in EYES ONLY. YOUR EYES ONLY.

Oh, you may think you have an opinion about this already. If you are against private COVID-19 testing, and you’re new to the topic, trust me, you won’t agree with yourself in a week. It will be a weird week for you. Your mind wil feel closed, under attack. It will hurt, a little. That’s cognitive disequilibrium, and it is state of mind in which you are about to learn something.

For me, it’s been a weird two weeks, since I first brought up Private, Non-Compulsory In-Home Antibody Testing in the #IPAKBacktoWork Plan. Why interesting? Because everywhere I discuss it, I get kicked in the ass. For wanting the choice for all. It is me? Is this thing one? CHOICE. FOR ALL. BETTER YET – PRIVATE CHOICE. Not Bill Gate’s option. The IPAK option.

Evidently, post-COVID, major portions of freedom-loving America have already conceded, in their subconcious, the right of the government to test them for COVID-19, at any time, and to report those results to CDC. This portion – who in other settings spend 18 hours a day fighting an increasingly unwinnable fight to preserve the right to determine what we inject into our bodies – are evidently so deeply conditioned on the fallacy that “Testing Means Reporting” that they cannot read the word “Private” without reading “Mandatory”.

I have set up interviews to educate people on Private vs. Compulsory testing. That helped a little.

I’ve spent hours and hours answering questions online with hundreds of people. To little effect.

I’ve written articles explaining in great detail the differences between Private and Clinical testing.

And here I am, again, 12 something AM in the morning, writing another article, fighting the urge to explain yet again.

I won’t win that fight. I’ll give in. Let me try not to, because I’ve already explained it so many other times, so many other articles.

So let me try to unprogram you.

Read this sentence:

“Private (Non-Compulsory) Immunity vs. Mandatory Clinical, Reported Vaccination”

Now read it again, out loud:

“Private (Non-Compulsory) Immunity vs. Mandatory Clinical, Reported Vaccination”

And, take breath, and close your eyes and think of that sentence, and what it means to you for 10 seconds.

Now read this one:

“Private (Non-Compulsory) Testing vs. Mandatory Clinical, Reported Testing”

I hope that help you liberate yourself.

You of course can, and should choose which side of the Private vs. Bill Gates testing you are on. Those who want “NO TESTING!” are covered by the #IPAKBack2Work plan because no one will know if you are testing, or not testing. You’re good. It’s included. For real.

To all, good luck when the battle comes. Because those who want to perputuate massive profits in allopathy and centralized authority in the CDC are hell-bent and already working to

(1) Force you to test in your home and report.

(2) Force you to carry some proof of immunity.

(3) Restrict your rights to participate in society w/out presenting such proof of immunity (Vaccine Cards, Quantum Dot Tatoos, RFID Nose Rings, whatever).

(4) Transfer all of their new authority – which you gave them because you did not win the decisive battle that will win the war – to all other vaccine.

(5) Outlaw vaccine skepticsm speech. Goodbye CHD. Goodbye ICAN. Goodbye IPAK. Hello, Australian Rules Police State.

DEMAND YOUR RIGHT TO SELF-TESTING W/ZERO REPORTING. WHERE THIS GOES DEPENDS 100% ON YOUR ACTIONS. TELL YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPS NOW – EMAIL, PHONE AND TELEPHONE CALLS – THAT YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND ABOUT WHEN YOU GO BACK TO WORK BASED ON YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION FROM YOUR PRIVATE TEST.

To those still skeptical if it’s even POSSIBLE to know your own COVID-19 status w/out reporting: That’s Clinical Testing, not Private Testing.

Ever take your own temperature? In the privacy of your own home? Did you report it? Were you compelled to report it? Did you take your temperature “voluntarily”? Or did you just take your temperature.

Non-Compulsory is Not “Voluntary” Voluntary implies participation in a program.

The #IPAKBacktoWork Program defends your personal liberties and rights to #KnowYourStatus without ever having to report it – to anyone.

Do you think Big Pharma and Big Medicine and CDC want you to have that level of autonomy? That level of freedom?

Do you want to know your status? Can you go to CVS or RiteAid and buy a COVID-19 in-home antibody test assay, like you can an EPT?

No.

That’s an option that you cannot exercise.

Because FDA won’t allow it.

I have ZERO financial stake in the game of COVID-19 testing.

No Quid Pro Quo. NADA.

If you do nothing, mandatory testing and all the rest will surely come.

Because FDA does allow that.

Simple. #IPAKBacktoWork.

For those wondering “will we even succeed it we try”?

The answer, of course, is you. Will you do your civic duty to participate in your own self-goverance, or will your fear prevent you from claiming that which is already yours?

It’s 100% up to you. I ask you to do all you can do every day. If you have already done so, thank you. Please share with others. Again and again.

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.

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.