Connect with us

Government

Acting NIH Director Admits Appearance Of Conflict Of Interest In Secret Royalty Payments To Fauci, Scientists

Acting NIH Director Admits Appearance Of Conflict Of Interest In Secret Royalty Payments To Fauci, Scientists

Authored by Mark Tapscott via…

Published

on

Acting NIH Director Admits Appearance Of Conflict Of Interest In Secret Royalty Payments To Fauci, Scientists

Authored by Mark Tapscott via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Undisclosed royalty payments estimated at $350 million from pharmaceutical and other firms to Dr. Anthony Fauci and hundreds of National Institutes for Health (NIH) scientists do present “an appearance of a conflict of interest,” according to the agency’s acting director.

Acting Director of National Institutes of Health Lawrence Tabak testifies during a hearing before the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies of House Appropriations Committee at Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill May 11, 2022. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Dr. Lawrence Tabak, who took over as NIH Director following the December 2021 resignation of the agency’s long-time leader, Dr. Francis Collins, told a House Appropriations Committee subcommittee that federal law allows the royalty payments but he conceded they don’t look ethical.

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) told Tabak that “right now, I think the NIH has a credibility problem and this only feeds into this, and I’m only just learning about this. People in my district say ‘well, so-and-so has a financial interest, or they don’t like Ivermectin because they aren’t benefitting from that royalty …

“You may have very sound scientific reasons for recommending a medicine or not, but the idea that people get a financial benefit from certain research that’s been done and grants that were awarded, that is to me the height of the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

In response, Tabak said NIH does not endorse particular medicines, but rather “we support the science that validates whether an invention is or is not efficacious, we don’t say this is good or this is bad … I certainly can understand that it might seem as a conflict of interest.”

Moolenaar seemed taken aback by Tabak’s response and, while pointing to Fauci, who was also testifying, said “truthfully, I would say you’ve had leaders of NIH saying certain medicines are not good.

Tabak said such statements by NIH are based on clinical trials that are supported by the agency.

Puzzled, Moolenaar then asked Tabak, “but if the agency is awarding who is the beneficiary of the grant, who is doing the trial, and there is somehow finances involved, that there is a financial benefit that could be accrued if someone’s patent or invention is considered validated, do you not see that as a conflict or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest?

After conceding that there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, Tabak suggested to Moolenaar that “maybe this is the sort of thing that we can work together on so that we can explain to you the firewalls that we do have, because they are substantial and significant.”

Moolenaar’s reference to Fauci was in regard to his telling the Associated Press in a 2005 article that first brought the NIH royalties issues into the headlines that he had donated his royalties to charity.

But the issue faded from the headlines after 2005, and is only now getting renewed attention as a result of revelations first reported on May 9 by The Epoch Times that documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by a nonprofit government watchdog show an estimated $350 million in undisclosed royalty payments from pharmaceutical and other private firms to top NIH executives, as well as to hundreds of the agency’s health scientists and researchers.

The $350 million in royalty payments were made between 2010 and 2020, according to Open the Books, the nonprofit that took the NIH to court when it refused to acknowledge the group’s FOIA request for documents.

Collins received 14 payments, Fauci received 23 payments and his deputy, Clifford Lane, received eight payments, according to Open the Books.

Adam Andrzejewski, the founder and president of Open the Books, told The Epoch Times Wednesday that NIH continues to withhold important information about the royalty payments, including the names of particular payers and the specific amounts to individuals at NIH.

“With tens of billions of dollars in grant-making at NIH and tens of millions of royalty dollars from third-party payors flowing back into the agency each year, NIH needs to come clean with the American people and open the books. We need to be able to follow the money,” Andrzejewski said.

“We believe transparency will revolutionize U.S. public policy. There is no better example of this than the third-party (think pharmaceutical companies) payments to NIH scientists. Every single outside payment to a government scientist could be a conflict of interest,” he added.

The Moolenaar-Tabak exchange took place during a hearing on the Biden administration’s 2023 budget request.

Rep. Neal Dunn (R-Fla.), who is also a surgeon, told The Epoch Times that “it’s no secret that the agency needs reform. Their many issues were exacerbated and highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Providing the public with transparent access to how the NIH is spending taxpayer dollars and reaching their decisions is a basic responsibility, and they must be held accountable. Now more than ever, we must commit to reforming our federal health agencies and restoring America’s trust in public health.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/11/2022 - 21:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

The Battle For Control Of Your Mind

The Battle For Control Of Your Mind

Authored by Aaron Kheriaty via The Brownstone Institute

In his classic dystopian novel 1984, George…

Published

on

The Battle For Control Of Your Mind

Authored by Aaron Kheriaty via The Brownstone Institute

In his classic dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell famously wrote, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.” This striking image served as a potent symbol for totalitarianism in the 20th Century. But as Caylan Ford recently observed, with the advent of digital health passports in the emerging biomedical security state, the new symbol of totalitarian repression is “not a boot, but an algorithm in the cloud: emotionless, impervious to appeal, silently shaping the biomass.”

These new digital surveillance and control mechanisms will be no less oppressive for being virtual rather than physical. Contact tracing apps, for example, have proliferated with at least 120 different apps in used in 71 different states, and 60 other digital contact-tracing measures have been used across 38 countries. There is currently no evidence that contact tracing apps or other methods of digital surveillance have helped to slow the spread of covid; but as with so many of our pandemic policies, this does not seem to have deterred their use.

Other advanced technologies were deployed in what one writer has called, with a nod to Orwell, “the stomp reflex,” to describe governments’ propensity to abuse emergency powers. Twenty-two countries used surveillance drones to monitor their populations for covid rule-breakers, others deployed facial recognition technologies, twenty-eight countries used internet censorship and thirteen countries resorted to internet shutdowns to manage populations during covid. A total of thirty-two countries have used militaries or military ordnances to enforce rules, which has included casualties. In Angola, for example, police shot and killed several citizens while imposing a lockdown.

Orwell explored the power of language to shape our thinking, including the power of sloppy or degraded language to distort thought. He articulated these concerns not only in his novels Animal Farm and 1984 but in his classic essay, “Politics and the English Language,” where he argues that “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

The totalitarian regime depicted in 1984 requires citizens to communicate in Newspeak, a carefully controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual’s ability to think or articulate subversive concepts such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will. With this bastardization of language, complete thoughts are reduced to simple terms conveying only simplistic meaning.  

Newspeak eliminates the possibility of nuance, rendering impossible consideration and communication of shades of meaning. The Party also intends with Newspeak’s short words to make speech physically automatic and thereby make speech largely unconscious, which further diminishes the possibility of genuinely critical thought.

In the novel, character Syme discusses his editorial work on the latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary:

By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak [standard English] will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of The Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like Freedom is Slavery when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

Several terms of disparagement were repeatedly deployed during the pandemic, phrases whose only function was to halt the possibility of critical thought. These included, among others, ‘covid denier,’ ‘anti-vax,’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’. Some commentators will doubtless mischaracterize this book, and particularly this chapter, using these and similar terms—ready-made shortcuts that save critics the trouble of reading the book or critically engaging my evidence or arguments.

A brief comment on each of these may be helpful in illustrating how they function.

The first term, ‘covid denier,’ requires little attention. Those who sling this charge at any critic of our pandemic response recklessly equate covid with the Holocaust, which suggests that antisemitism continues to infect discourse on both the right and the left. We need not detain ourselves with more commentary on this phrase.

The epithet ‘anti-vax,’ deployed to characterize anyone who raises questions about the mass vaccination campaign or the safety and efficacy of covid vaccines, functions similarly as a conversation stopper rather than an accurately descriptive label. When people ask me whether I am anti-vax for challenging vaccine mandates I can only respond that the question makes about as much sense to me as the question, “Dr. Kheriaty, are you ‘pro-medication’ or ‘anti-medication’?” The answer is obviously contingent and nuanced: which medication, for which patient or patient population, under what circumstances, and for what indications? There is clearly no such thing as a medication, or a vaccine for that matter, that’s always good for everyone in every circumstance and all the time.

Regarding the term “conspiracy theorist,” Agamben notes that its indiscriminate deployment “demonstrates a surprising historical ignorance.” For anyone familiar with history knows that the stories historians recount retrace and reconstruct the actions of individuals, groups, and factions working in common purpose to achieve their goals using all available means. He mentions three examples from among thousands in the historical record.

In 415 B.C. Alcibiades deployed his influence and money to convince the Athenians to embark on an expedition to Sicily, a venture that turned out disastrously and marked the end of Athenian supremacy. In retaliation, Alcibiades enemies hired false witnesses and conspired against him to condemn him to death. In 1799 Napoleon Bonaparte violated his oath of fidelity to the Republic’s Constitution, overthrowing the directory in a coup, assumed full powers, and ending the Revolution. Days prior, he had met with co-conspirators to fine-tune their strategy against the anticipated opposition of the Council of Five Hundred.

Closer to our own day, he mentions the March on Rome by 25,000 Italian fascists in October 1922. Leading up to this even, Mussolini prepared the march with three collaborators, initiated contacts with the Prime Minister and powerful figures from the business world (some even maintain that Mussolini secretly met with the King to explore possible allegiances). The fascists rehearsed their occupation of Rome by a military occupation of Ancona two months prior.

Countless other examples, from the murder of Julius Caesar to the Bolshevik revolution, will occur to any student of history. In all these cases, individuals gathering in groups or parties to strategize goals and tactics, anticipate obstacles, then act resolutely to achieve their aims. Agamben acknowledges that this does not mean it is always necessary to aver to ‘conspiracies’ to explain historical events. “But anyone who labelled a historical who tried to reconstruct in detail the plots that triggered such events as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ would most definitely be demonstrating their own ignorance, if not idiocy.”

Anyone who mentioned “The Great Reset” in 2019 was accused of buying into a conspiracy theory—that is, until World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab published a book in 2020 laying out the WEF agenda with the helpful title,Covid-19: The Great Reset. Following new revelations about the lab leak hypothesis, U.S. funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, vaccine safety issues willfully suppressed, and coordinated media censorship and government smear campaigns against dissident voices, it seems the only difference between a conspiracy theory and credible news was about six months.

*  *  *

Originally posted at 'Human Flourishing' Substack.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/16/2022 - 23:45

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Vaccinia virus MacGyvers a makeshift tool to repair its DNA, exposing a vulnerability that could be targeted

Instead of relying on the cell’s repair mechanisms, the vaccinia virus MacGyvers a tool for DNA repair from one that it already uses to copy DNA, reports…

Published

on

Instead of relying on the cell’s repair mechanisms, the vaccinia virus MacGyvers a tool for DNA repair from one that it already uses to copy DNA, reports a team of researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in the Journal of Virology. Blocking that tool – an enzyme known as polymerase – at once disrupts the virus’s ability to copy and to repair DNA, exposing an Achilles’ heel that could be targeted with a therapeutic. 

Credit: Medical University of South Carolina. Photo by Sarah Pack.

Instead of relying on the cell’s repair mechanisms, the vaccinia virus MacGyvers a tool for DNA repair from one that it already uses to copy DNA, reports a team of researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in the Journal of Virology. Blocking that tool – an enzyme known as polymerase – at once disrupts the virus’s ability to copy and to repair DNA, exposing an Achilles’ heel that could be targeted with a therapeutic. 

“For vaccinia virus, polymerase is a Sawzall – a tool that you can use for everything” said Paula Traktman, Ph.D., senior author of the article and dean of the College of Graduate Studies at MUSC, who has studied the virus for decades. “Viruses have smaller chromosomes, and so they’ve evolved to be able to use their tools for different things.”

“It’s like the virus’s Swiss Army knife,” said Conor Templeton, Ph.D.  lead author of the article, who was a predoctoral candidate in the Traktman laboratory during the study and has since completed his doctorate. “It’s a protein that’s involved in replicating or copying DNA, but it also seems to be involved in repair.”

Such detailed basic science findings about the way viruses copy and repair their DNA have paved the way for breakthrough antiviral therapies in the past 20 years, said Traktman.

“HIV antiretroviral drugs were made by really painstaking analysis of which proteins in the virus are essential, leading to drugs that now have made it a chronic disease,” she said. “A curative treatment for hepatitis C was made possible by painstaking analysis of which proteins are essential for the virus. The more we know about the enemies, the better the weapons we can develop against them.”

Better therapies for pox viruses are certainly needed. The vaccinia virus is a close relative of the virus causing smallpox and was used in the vaccine that successfully eradicated it in the late 20th century. Although smallpox no longer naturally occurs, the threat that it might be used as a bioweapon remains, and currently, there is only one approved antiviral agent against it. Other pox viruses, most notably monkeypox, continue to afflict humans and can be lethal.

Vaccinia is a large DNA virus made up of about 200 genes, and its approach to survival differs markedly from that of smaller, nimbler RNA viruses, such as that which causes COVID-19. The RNA viruses mutate quickly to outrun the body’s immune system. However, they do so at the cost of corrupting their genome. Vaccinia virus prefers a slower, steadier approach and is less likely to make mistakes, helping to ensure genomic stability.

“Vaccinia has gone for ‘I may not be a Ferrari, but I’m a jeep, and I’m going to come out undamaged, and I’m going to be stable, and I’m going to stick around,’” said Traktman.

Unlike other DNA viruses, vaccinia virus does not set up shop in the cell’s nucleus but instead stays in the cytoplasm, where it begins reproducing itself using only the tools it brought with it.

“The nucleus is like the kitchen of the cell,” said Traktman. “If you came into somebody’s house to cook dinner, you would go to their kitchen because that’s where all the necessary equipment is. You wouldn’t decide to go downstairs to their basement because then you’d have to start from scratch. But that’s what vaccinia does. It says ‘I’m not going into the kitchen where you cook. I’m going to just set up shop in the basement, where there’s lots of space. I’ll build everything I need.’”

The MUSC team wanted to see how vaccinia virus would react to damage to its DNA caused by ultraviolet (UV) radiation. They chose UV radiation because it is already known to affect viral replication negatively. They also wanted to know whether exposing the cell to UV radiation one hour before infection with vaccinia would affect the virus’s ability to copy and repair DNA.

The MUSC team found that exposing cells to UV radiation either one hour before or four hours after infection with vaccinia virus reduced the number of mature viral units, or virions, vaccinia was able to produce.

The enzyme polymerase is known to be necessary for successful viral replication, and UV radiation can prevent it from doing its job.

“Polymerase is like a car running down the road,” said Templeton. “It runs smoothly when the road is nice and flat. But UV radiation acts like a speed bump, stopping it in its tracks.”

The UV radiation can cause damage that makes it impossible for DNA replication to continue.

The team found UV-caused damage in the viral DNA of cells irradiated four hours after infection but not in those irradiated an hour before infection. The cells irradiated at four hours after infection also produced 30 times fewer new viruses. This UV-caused damage could account for the reduced infectivity of these cells. Although viral DNA levels were able to recover slightly by 10 to 18 hours, suggesting some viral DNA repair, blocking polymerase resulted in a further tenfold to twentyfold reduction.

“Polymerase is a well-known character in DNA replication,” said Traktman. “It’s a well-known character in actually synthesizing the genome, but this is its debut in repair.”

In essence, the virus’s polymerase “multitasks,” but in so doing makes the virus vulnerable. Because vaccinia relies on polymerase both for DNA copying and repair, blocking it could be a particularly devastating weapon against the virus. The current blocking agent, however, is too broad, and a much more tailored one would be needed for the clinic.

Next, the MUSC team wants to understand better why blocking polymerase makes the DNA more vulnerable to damage and less able to repair itself.

“We want to establish the ensemble of culprits in that process and then try to understand why it is that when you inhibit polymerase function, you see this sensitivity,” said Templeton.

About MUSC

Founded in 1824 in Charleston, MUSC is home to the oldest medical school in the South as well as the state’s only integrated academic health sciences center, with a unique charge to serve the state through education, research and patient care. Each year, MUSC educates and trains more than 3,000 students and nearly 800 residents in six colleges: Dental Medicine, Graduate Studies, Health Professions, Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy. MUSC brought in more than $327.6 million in biomedical research funds in fiscal year 2021, continuing to lead the state in obtaining federal and National Institutes of Health funding, with more than $220 million. For information on academic programs, visit musc.edu.

As the clinical health system of the Medical University of South Carolina, MUSC Health is dedicated to delivering the highest-quality and safest patient care available while training generations of compassionate, competent health care providers to serve the people of South Carolina and beyond. Patient care is provided at 14 hospitals with approximately 2,500 beds and five additional hospital locations in development, more than 300 telehealth sites and nearly 750 care locations situated in the Lowcountry, Midlands, Pee Dee and Upstate regions of South Carolina. In 2021, for the seventh consecutive year, U.S. News & World Report named MUSC Health the No. 1 hospital in South Carolina. To learn more about clinical patient services, visit muschealth.org.

MUSC and its affiliates have collective annual budgets of $4.4 billion. The more than 24,000 MUSC team members include world-class faculty, physicians, specialty providers, scientists and care team members who deliver groundbreaking education, research, technology and patient care.


Read More

Continue Reading

Government

The New Rift Between WHO And China

The New Rift Between WHO And China

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

From the beginning of the pandemic, the World…

Published

on

The New Rift Between WHO And China

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

From the beginning of the pandemic, the World Health Organization and China’s CCP have worked and spoken hand-in-glove, culminating in the Potemkin Village junket of mid-February 2020. The WHO-sponsored travel report—how wonderfully China had performed!—was written and signed by American public health officials who recommended Wuhan-style lockdowns, a disastrous policy that further inspired most governments in the world to do the same.

Twenty-six months later, it turns out that China in fact had not “eliminated the virus fully within its borders,” contrary to the over-the-top claims of TV pundit Devi Sridhar in her new book “Preventable.” They only pushed cases into the future, as the CCP discovered when positive tests appeared all over Shanghai, leading to 7 weeks of brutal lockdowns.

This move on China’s part has been a disaster for the country and the world economy, and presently endangers the financial and technological future of the entire country.

For Xi Jinping, lockdowns and zero-covid were his greatest achievement, one which was celebrated the world over, causing his political pride to swell beyond all bounds. Now, he cannot back off lest he face possible losses in upcoming party elections.

Just this past weekend, he made it clear to the entire government that there would be no backing off the zero-covid policy: the CCP will “unswervingly adhere to the general policy of ‘dynamic zero-Covid,’ and resolutely fight against any words and deeds that distort, doubt or deny our country’s epidemic prevention policies.”

The problem is acute: vast numbers in China likely need to acquire natural immunity via exposure. The lockdown policy likely puts a damper on the achievement of endemicity. That means long-term damage to China’s future.

Sensing this problem, the head of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, offered a mild criticism:

“Considering the behavior of the virus, I think a shift will be very important,” adding that he had discussed this point with Chinese scientists.

What happened next is truly fascinating: Tedros’s comments were censored all over China and searches for the name Tedros were immediately blocked within the country.

Implausibly, merely by stating the incredibly obvious point, Tedros has made himself an enemy of the state.

Meanwhile, another WHO/China partisan, Bill Gates, has been sheepishly saying something very similar in interviews, namely that the virus cannot be eradicated.

It’s not just Tedros and Gates who are trying to flee their advocacy of lockdowns. Anthony Fauci himself denied that the United States ever had “complete lockdowns”—which is technically correct but not because he didn’t demand them.

On March 16, 2020, Fauci faced the national press and read from a CDC directive: “In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.”

In fact, one gets the strong sense that governments around the world are pretending as if the whole pathetic and terrible affair never happened, even as they are attempting to reserve the power to do it all over again should the need arise.

On May 12, 2022, many governments around the world gathered for a video call and agreed to pour many billions more into covid work, and reaffirm their dedication to an “all-of-society” and “whole-of-government” approach to infectious disease. The U.S. government under the administration readily agreed to this idea.

Leaders reinforced the value of whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches to bring the acute phase of COVID-19 to an end, and the importance of being prepared for future pandemic threats. The Summit was focused on preventing complacency, recognizing the pandemic is not over; protecting the most vulnerable, including the elderly, immunocompromised people, and frontline and health workers; and preventing future health crises, recognizing now is the time to secure political and financial commitment for pandemic preparedness.

The Summit catalyzed bold commitments. Financially, leaders committed to provide nearly $2 billion in new funding—additional to pledges made earlier in 2022. These funds will accelerate access to vaccinations, testing, and treatments, and they will contribute to a new pandemic preparedness and global health security fund housed at the World Bank.

Is it progress to see these people throwing around language from the much-criticized but now wholly vindicated Great Barrington Declaration? Doubtful. You can’t make a bad policy better by tossing around words. There is every indication from this statement that there will be no apologies, no regrets, and no changes in the default position that governments must always and everywhere have maximum power to control any pathogen of their choosing.

Despite Tedros’s censored words, it’s no wonder that Xi Jinping continues to feel vindicated and affirmed, and sees no real political danger in choosing his own power over the health and well-being of his people. Governments around the world still cannot muster the courage to make a full-throated and solid attack on zero-covid, for fear of the implications of such a concession. Nudges and hints, even from the WHO, will not do it.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/16/2022 - 19:45

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending