Connect with us

Government

Ivermectin ‘Works Throughout All Phases’ Of COVID According To Leaked Military Documents

Ivermectin ‘Works Throughout All Phases’ Of COVID According To Leaked Military Documents

Update (1505ET): As more and more information pours out of the Project Veritas leaked military documents, there appears to be a damning section in suppor

Published

on

Ivermectin 'Works Throughout All Phases' Of COVID According To Leaked Military Documents

Update (1505ET): As more and more information pours out of the Project Veritas leaked military documents, there appears to be a damning section in support of Ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment.

"Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response."

And this:

Will DARPA confirm or deny?

See the documents below:

*  *  *

Authored by Sundance via The Last Refuge,

Project Veritas has obtained military documents hidden on a classified system [HERE – and HERE – and HERE] showing how EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses.

The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violated the gain of function research moratorium.  However, according to the documents, NIAID, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, went ahead with the research in Wuhan, China and at several sites across the U.S.

[ZH - and just today, Twitter banned Project Veritas' Eric Spracklen...]

[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Jan. 10, 2022] Project Veritas has obtained startling never-before-seen documents regarding the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, potential treatments which have been suppressed, and the government’s effort to conceal all of this.

The documents in question stem from a report at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, which were hidden in a top-secret shared drive.

DARPA is an agency under the U.S. Department of Defense in charge of facilitating research in technology with potential military applications.

Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.

The report states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the basis gain of function research moratorium.

According to the documents, NIAID, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, went ahead with the research in Wuhan, China and at several sites across the U.S. (read more)

Here’s my answer to the question posed by James O’Keefe.

In the original pdf guidance for the 2014 research pause of into weaponization of SARS viruses there was an important footnote [LINK]:

[FN¹  SOURCE – U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses – pdf, page 2 – October 17, 2014]

Timeline:

October 17, 2014 – U.S. funding of SARS to create a biological weapon was paused due to the extreme risk of a pandemic.  However, the pause allowed agencies within the U.S. government to continue funding if they determined “the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.” [LINK]

♦ 2014 through 2020 the Pentagon continued funding research in Wuhan, China. Fear of discovery would explain why many top officials in the U.S. Defense Department were against the Trump administration [with increased severity after the COVID pandemic began]. [LINK]

May 2016 – [An Election Year] – “after thorough deliberation and extensive input from domestic and international stakeholders, the NSABB [National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity] issued its recommendations. NSABB’s central finding was that studies that are expected to enhance Potential Pandemic Pathogen (PPP) have potential benefits to public health but also entail significant risks. NSABB recommended that such studies warranted additional scrutiny prior to being funded.”  Anthony Fauci is on the NSABB.

♦ January 9, 2017 – [Four Days after the Susan Rice Oval Office meeting with Obama, Biden, Comey, et al] – The Obama Administration re-authorizes funding for the creation of SARS biological weapons.  “Adoption of these recommendations will satisfy the requirements for lifting the current moratorium on certain life sciences research that could enhance a pathogen’s virulence and/or transmissibility to produce a potential pandemic pathogen (an enhanced PPP).“ [LINK]

Given the workarounds, exceptions and plausible deniability for the consequences, built into the original moratorium guidance in 2014, the defense department was operationally permitted to keep funding the biological weapons research in Wuhan, China.  The 2014 ban was a funding moratorium in name only; however, it appears the funding for U.S. research in North Carolina was stopped.

What was reauthorized in 2017, just before President Trump took office, was the need to use “national security” as an excuse to continue the research.  It also appears funding of SARS as a biological weapon inside the U.S. (North Carolina) was now permitted again.

REFERENCES SO FAR:  – 2017 – Policy Guidelines from Obama Administration2014 – pdf link of Research Funding PauseNational Science Advisory Board (Wiki) – Pentagon Funding for SARS research 2013 through 2020.

If you accept that the Pentagon would never spend to develop a biological weapon in China (Wuhan Lab) unless they already had developed that weapon on their own (North Carolina Lab), then the question about the release of that weapon starts to take shape.

Remember, the State Department was looking into the origin until Joe Biden shut them down and redirected the goal to the Intelligence Community.  In essence, Biden handed the mission to the Fourth Branch of Government.   Not surprisingly, after a few months the IC said their results were “inconclusive.”

♦ [Excerpt] – […] In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it.

In an internal memo obtained by Vanity Fair, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that staff from two bureaus, his own and the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, “warned” leaders within his bureau “not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19” because it would “‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.”

[…] In late March, former Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield received death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had originated in a lab. “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield told Vanity Fair. “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.” (read more)

♦ Washington (CNN) – “President Joe Biden’s team shut down a closely-held State Department effort launched late in the Trump administration to prove the coronavirus originated in a Chinese lab over concerns about the quality of its work, according to three sources familiar with the decision.

The existence of the State Department inquiry and its termination this spring by the Biden administration — neither of which has been previously reported — comes to light amid renewed interest in whether the virus could have leaked out of a Wuhan lab with links to the Chinese military. The Biden administration is also facing scrutiny of its own efforts to determine if the Chinese government was responsible for the virus.

“On Wednesday, Biden issued a statement that he has directed the US intelligence community to redouble its efforts in investigating the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and report back to him in 90 days.” (LINK)

♦ [WASHINGTON DC] – The intelligence community failed to conclusively identify the origin of the coronavirus following a 90-day investigation ordered by President Biden, but experts are divided on why. 

A report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) found that officials were unable to rule whether the virus escaped from a lab or spread to humans through an infected animal.  But the ultimate conclusion reached by the $85 billion-a-year community was that it would be unable to pinpoint the origin of the virus if China didn’t fully cooperate.  (LINK)

Read the rest of the report here.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/11/2022 - 15:03

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Moderna’s HIV vaccine prepped for trials in Africa

Moderna has joined forces with non-profit organisation IAVI on a third phase 1 trial of its candidate HIV
The post Moderna’s HIV vaccine prepped for…

Published

on

Moderna has joined forces with non-profit organisation IAVI on a third phase 1 trial of its candidate HIV vaccine in Africa, where the burden of the virus is still being keenly felt.

IAVI (the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative) has started screening subjects to be included in the study, called IAVI G003, at centres in Rwanda and South Africa, said the biotech.

Moderna’s vaccines deliver HIV-specific antigens discovered by researchers at IAVI and Scripps Research that have already been tested in a proof-of-concept study carried out last year using an adjuvant protein vaccine approach.

There are hopes that its mRNA approach, which proved so effective against COVID-19, could succeed where traditional vaccine technologies have failed in HIV.

One candidate – mRNA-1644 – has already shown its potential in an earlier phase 1 trial (IAVI G001) run in the US. It codes for an antigen called eOD-GT8 60mer and, in the study, stimulated a targeted B-cell immune response in 97% of vaccine recipients.

Moderna says that B-cell activation should lead to the induction of broadly neutralising antibodies (bnAbs), widely considered to be a goal of an efficacious HIV vaccine, but that immunising with eOD-GT8 60mer alone will almost certainly not be sufficient.

The biotech is looking at a combination regimen of vaccines targeting different HIV immunogens such as Core-g28v2 60mer to try to boost the immune response further against HIV and improve the protective efficacy.

Earlier this year, the first healthy volunteers were dosed with mRNA-1644 in a second phase 1 trial (IAVI G002), which is being funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and is being carried out in US populations.

IAVI G003 will enrol 18 healthy HIV-negative adult volunteers who will receive two doses of the eOD-GT8 60mer mRNA shot. They will be followed for six months to gauge the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine.

Moderna said the trial is a “first-in-Africa” study, evaluating an mRNA-delivered HIV immunogen in Africa with African researchers leading the project.

Despite more than 30 years of research, the tendency of the virus to mutate means that classical approaches to vaccine design have been ineffective, and at least four prior vaccine candidates have failed in clinical trials.

In February, one of the front-runner candidates in the decades-long quest to find an HIV vaccine – Johnson & Johnson – reported that its candidate failed a phase 2b trial.

The Ad26.Mos4.HIV vaccine – which uses the same adenoviral technology as J&J’s COVID-19 vaccine and targets four HIV antigens – showed that the shot was safe but unable to meet its target of reducing transmission of HIV by 50%.

And last year, the HVTN 702 study of two co-administered HIV candidate vaccines from Sanofi Pasteur and GlaxoSmithKline, combined with GSK’s adjuvant MF59, was also discontinued due to a lack of efficacy.

The post Moderna’s HIV vaccine prepped for trials in Africa appeared first on .

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Report: Pfizer, NIH Discussing Study of Longer Paxlovid Dosing Regimen

With increasing concerns about COVID-19 reinfection, Pfizer and the National Institutes of Health are discussing potential studies regarding a longer treatment…

Published

on

Report: Pfizer, NIH Discussing Study of Longer Paxlovid Dosing Regimen

With increasing concerns about COVID-19 reinfection, Pfizer and the National Institutes of Health are discussing potential studies regarding a longer treatment period with the antiviral medication, Paxlovid.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and scientific adviser to the White House, said the plan for the new studies could come over the next few days, Reuters reported this afternoon. During a White House briefing on COVID-19, Fauci pointed out that the rising cases of COVID-19 driven by an Omicron sub-variant are increasing the use of Pfizer’s Paxlovid. So far, more than 660,000 courses of Paxlovid have been administered across the U.S., Reuters said.

However, there is a growing concern that some patients are not shaking the virus as quickly as expected following a treatment regimen of the antiviral. Some continue to experience symptoms, or see a recurrence of their COVID-19 symptoms, following treatment with Paxlovid, Reuters said. Currently, there is no clear indication on the number of patients who are experiencing such a recurrence, or whether or not it is due to the variant type of COVID-19. But, the numbers appear to be enough to warrant such a conversation between America’s top infectious disease expert and Pfizer.

Paxlovid was granted Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December. It was granted EUA for the treatment of high-risk adults and pediatric patients 12 years and older who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and are at serious risk of hospitalization. A combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir tablets, during clinical trials, Paxlovid significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 89% compared to placebo in non-hospitalized, high-risk adults with COVID-19 within three days of symptom-onset. However, even then, there were cases of a recurrence of symptoms in some clinical trial patients.

Pfizer Chief Executive Officer Albert Bourla has suggested that those patients who experience a recurrence of symptoms should undergo a second round of treatment with Paxlovid. As BioSpace previously reported, Bourla said if symptoms reoccur, “then you give a second course, like you do with antibiotics, and that’s it.”

However, the FDA has balked at that suggestion. Dr. John Farley, director of the FDA’s Office of Infectious Diseases, argued that there is no evidence of benefit for a longer course of treatment, such as 10 days instead of the current five days of administration, or a second five-day round of treatment.

Mark Van Scyoc/Shutterstock

While Pfizer may undertake these additional studies, as BioSpace reported earlier Wednesday, the pharma giant has so far reportedly resisted requests to use Paxlovid in combination studies. The nonprofit Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative said that Pfizer rejected a January request to offer doses of Paxlovid to be used in a study alongside an inhaled steroid in Africa.

Also Wednesday, Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly said studies have confirmed that bebtelovimab, the company’s monoclonal antibody against COVID-19, is effective against all variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including BA.2, which is currently the dominant strain in the U.S., Seeking Alpha reported.

 

BioSpace source:

https://www.biospace.com/article/pfizer-nih-in-talks-to-begin-study-of-longer-paxlovid-dosing-regimen

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Missouri Bill Prevents Doctors Being Disciplined If They Prescribe Ivermectin Or Hydroxychloroquine

Missouri Bill Prevents Doctors Being Disciplined If They Prescribe Ivermectin Or Hydroxychloroquine

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The…

Published

on

Missouri Bill Prevents Doctors Being Disciplined If They Prescribe Ivermectin Or Hydroxychloroquine

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Missouri lawmakers passed legislation that prevents state licensing boards from disciplining doctors who prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signs a bill in Jefferson City, Mo., on May 24, 2019. (Summer Balentine/AP Photo)

Sponsored by Rep. Brenda Kay Shields (R-Mo.), HB 2149 also bars pharmacists from questioning doctors or disputing patients regarding the usage of such drugs and their efficacy.

With a convincing 130–4 vote in the House, HB 2149 passed both chambers on May 12 and currently heads to the office of Gov. Mike Parson to be potentially signed into law.

The board shall not deny, revoke, or suspend, or otherwise take any disciplinary action against, a certificate of registration or authority, permit, or license required by this chapter for any person due to the lawful dispensing, distributing, or selling of ivermectin tablets or hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets for human use in accordance with prescriber directions,” reads the draft of the bill (pdf).

It adds, “A pharmacist shall not contact the prescribing physician or the patient to dispute the efficacy of ivermectin tablets or hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets for human use unless the physician or patient inquires of the pharmacist about the efficacy of ivermectin tablets or hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets.”

Critics of the bill have noted that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not given approval for usage of the drugs. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been divisive drugs and politically polarized throughout the pandemic.

“But, nevertheless, the Missouri legislature has chosen to ‘own the libs’ by issuing a gag order against every pharmacist in this state from offering their medical opinion on taking either one of those medications—even if it could kill their patient,” wrote former Democratic nominee Lindsey Simmons in a May 12 Twitter post.

Although 22 countries across the world have approved the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19, the FDA maintains that the current data show the drug to be ineffective. Large doses can be dangerous, it says.

A recent study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases analyzed a national federated database of adults that compared ivermectin with the FDA-approved COVID-19 medication, remdesivir.

After using propensity score matching and adjusting for potential confounders, ivermectin was associated with reduced mortality vs remdesivir,” researchers wrote. “To our knowledge, this is the largest association study of patients with COVID-19, mortality, and ivermectin.”

According to The Associated Press, Missouri state Rep. Patty Lewis, a Democrat, agreed to the bill to satisfy a group of conservatives in the Senate. She added that the bill will not change anything significantly as medical boards do not engage in punishing doctors who prescribe drugs legally.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/18/2022 - 23:25

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending