Connect with us

International

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Addresses COVID-19 Vaccine Safety and Efficacy

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla On Covid-19 Vaccine Efficacy

Published

on

This article was originally published by ValueWalk.

Pfizer Covid Vaccine Albert Bourla
First on CNBC: CNBC Transcript: Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla speaks with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” today, discussing the manufacturing, distributing and efficacy Covid-19 vaccine.

Get The Full Seth Klarman Series in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Seth Klarman in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues.

Q3 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC interview with Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” (M-F, 6AM-9AM ET) today, Monday, November 9th. Following are links to video on CNBC.com:

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Covid vaccine efficacy: 'It is a great day for humanity'

On formulating Covid-19 vaccine for younger and older populations

Pfizer CEO on manufacturing and distributing Covid-19 vaccine

Bourla wants to be among the first to take coronavirus vaccine to allay concerns

BECKY QUICK: Meg Tirrell has a very special guest this morning, Meg This is the news of the morning the news of the week, and much more than that, go ahead and take this away we are all ears. MEG TIRRELL: Becky, thank you. That guest is Albert Bourla CEO of Pfizer Albert. Thanks for being here. What a morning, I can only imagine what you all at Pfizer are feeling today. What was it like when you saw the results 90% advocacy for your vaccine for COVID. ALBERT BOURLA: It was exactly what you can imagine. It is a great day for science. It is a great day for humanity. When you realize that your vaccine has a 90% effectiveness. That’s overwhelming. You understand that the hopes of billions of people and millions and businesses and hundreds of governments that were felt on our shoulders. Now, we can credibly tell them. I think we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. TIRRELL: You said no serious safety concerns that you've observed in the trial so far. Tell us what you've seen there what's it going to be like for people. If and when this vaccine gets on the market to take these shots I mean, after the second one you do feel some side effects sometimes right. ALBERT BOURLA: Yes, we have published as you remember, in our r&d day at Pfizer unblinded safety data from the first I think 6000 patients now we have 36,000, almost 40,000 patients with second dose already been given. And it's exactly the same situation hasn’t changed at all so the vulnerability profile. It is among the best. TIRRELL: So, this is of course just the top line data you took a look in at on an interim basis, you had 94 infections in the trial so we don't have the spelled out data, but what can you tell us about you know did you prevent severe infection in the trial, you know, just tell us what you can essentially at this point about what you know. ALBERT BOURLA: I am telling you what I can because I don't have this information as you know all this information is blinded then there is a committee of independent experts, that are reviewing the data, according to the protocol, the only information that they had to give us was, if the product is effective and the effectiveness of this product in the first primary endpoint but was people without prior infections. And also they had a look on their safety database, and they told us that they have no safety concerns. We are not even aware of the secondary endpoints, and one of them it is the severe covid, and we are just waiting for the study to be completed but given how quickly the events are occurring because unfortunately this great news are coming at the time that the world needs it. The most where we have hundred thousand cases every day. We will have completed the study I think before the end of the month. ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: Albert. Congratulations. I think a lot of people are are. This sigh of relief. Hopefully, and praying that this can get out quickly. One of the issues we've been talking about is the supply constraints and how quickly that's going to change and move I know there's 50 million, doses available before the end of the year 1.2 million doses in calendar year 2021, can you speak to how you see that rolling out is that in fits and starts. How quickly does that come is that by the first half of the year second half of the year, what does that look like. ALBERT BOURLA: Yeah, thank you very much and first of all let me tell you that there is no one more relieved than me. Seeing this result. And we are already started manufacturing some time back. And as I said, we believe we should be able to have up to 50 million this year, 1.3 billion next year. These two were becoming gradually in the beginning, a little bit less than the first quarter more of a second quarter more. And then we have a significant ramp up in the second half of the year, deliver the 1.3 billion, but given how effective this Covid vaccine is. And we are aware about the demand will be much higher than anything we can produce. We are also looking right now to see if there are other ways thinking out of the box that increased even further. The manufacturing capacity now we're speaking about 1000 people dying in the US, every day right so there's no time to be lost here. SORKIN: And just to follow up on that the 1.3 doses, a billion doses, I should say, because there are two doses required for each person we're talking really about 650 million people that can be treated is that is that the way to think about it ALBERT BOURLA: This is exactly the way you think about. SORKIN: And then the last question I had related to all of this is obviously there are rivals and competitors working on Covid vaccines, and I know you can't speak necessarily to their vaccine efforts, but given what you think you've learned here. Do you think you could extrapolate out those kinds of results in any of this similarly situated. Situated vaccines that are using similar technologies. ALBERT BOURLA: Well let me tell you when it comes to pandemic. The only competitor is the virus and time. And right now, the first of all of us was able to beat, and I hope that others will also be able to beat this virus, as effectively as we do because we need to, And let me take also the time right now to thank, not only the hundreds, thousands of scientists that work, investigators in this site but more importantly, the 44,000 volunteers that raise their hand to participate in a trial, but they didn't know if the Covid vaccine works, or even if the vaccine is safe. I think the world owes them, big time. QUICK: Yeah. Hey, Albert I said at the beginning that this is the news of the morning the news of the week but you know forget the election, this is the news of the year this is the most important thing that we've heard the most exciting thing that we've heard. And I just want to thank you, your team. Everybody that you just thanked for this. I mean, this gives us hope that we didn't think was possible just an hour ago. Let me ask you, sign me up for this thing how quickly can you reformulate it and find out what you need to do for older cohorts where, you know, they're most at risk for this or for kids I know, Meg had mentioned earlier that you're doing this for kids as young as 12 right now how quickly can we sign up all of our kids for this how quickly can you get that testing taken care of. ALBERT BOURLA: The study we're doing all the way from 12 years old to 85, years old so we are collecting data and information for all the age cohorts. We are also doing for people that have chronic diseases, HIV, hepatitis C Hepatitis B. So we will have a lot of data to provide a person of course they will decide which ages, they're going to recommend it, but the study is very robust right now. QUICK: Yeah, I hate to keep pushing this but I've got a four year old a nine year old and a 94 year old grandmother How quickly can you move beyond that you think are we talking six months we talking nine months. ALBERT BOURLA: I think about the older people more than 85 I think the likely regulators in cases that they're doing studies to 85 they are giving in physicians, they are trading, very easily for the older people but that's up to physicians simply FDA, of course. And right now we are focusing on the 12 years on but we will do also pediatric, I think the most vulnerable are the older people. JOE KERNEN: Hey Albert, I got three or four questions. I want to start just, you know you're, it's hard for you to, to be just, you know, very serious and state about this. I can see how happy and excited you are but can I ask you when you heard 90%, was there ever a period in the development where you were questioning whether there would be efficacy? And when you heard that it was 90%, or were you surprised that it was that that high? Were there, do you think that looking at the science, it seems like a really high number that even, it may have surprised you. ALBERT BOURLA: For some of it you’re right, I'm very happy but at the same time sometimes I have tears in my eyes when I realized that this is the end of the nine months, day and night work of so many people and how many as I said people, billions invested hopes on this. You know, I was going up and down and while I was trying to maintain my mind not to speculate if the Covid vaccine works and then the other day I was thinking maybe it would not because I have seen many times, although the data, your phase one and phase two are very positive, sometimes you fail on phase three. But I was cautiously optimistic. I never thought it would be 90%. That surprised me. KERNEN: My next question has to do with, it's 90% that's like measles, what we said it's like, that's like a Covid vaccine that we think of that you get when you're a kid and you're done for life. And I'm wondering when will we know whether that's the case? What type of additional studies need to be performed for us to know that there won't be a yearly comeback of a different variation of COVID that would require a flu type shot every year? When will we know how long the immunity lasts in terms of, of antibodies being present or the right type of cells and what kind of tests are you planning are your scientists planning now that you need to do to determine the answer to those things? ALBERT BOURLA: Yes, we have already in our protocol provisions that this study will continue and we will follow the patients for two years. And the reason is we want to maintain but for two years that will be, we will exhaust every single possibility but we will pick up any safe event, but also we will see how long the immunogenicity lasts, and how long the cell immunity lasts. And so with this study as time progresses, we will find out about the, the durability of the protection. QUICK: I said before, sign me up and I'm sure there are lots and lots of people who are thinking the same thing but the ethics of how you distribute this are going to be pretty closely watched. How do you do it, how do you determine who gets it, and who has wait? ALBERT BOURLA: You're absolutely right and I truly believe that it is not for Pfizer to decide who would get the Covid vaccine. I think it is for the health authorities of every country and in many cases within the same country of every region or of every state in the US, for example, because the situation differs from state to state or from country to country, and you need to tailor it to the needs of the specific geographical region. We will of course work with all these health authorities to provide them the insight that they need to understand how our product works in groups of other people, in groups of younger people. We will provide all this information and then eventually they have to make the decision, who gets it. Obviously, I believe that all these authorities will make the decisions in the more scientific and equitable ways. TIRRELL: Hey Albert, it's Meg Tirrell, just to follow up on that question. Of course, you know, governments will be making the decisions about allocation for their citizens but how did the decisions get made about how to allocate the vaccines to different governments? You've made supply agreements around the world. How will Pfizer decide who gets how much the Covid vaccine first versus the US, Europe, Asia, you know, all of these different questions? ALBERT BOURLA: Yeah, first of all, we have two separate manufacturing lines, one it is in the US, and that has three manufacturing sites in Massachusetts, in Missouri, and in Kalamazoo, Michigan. And we have a separate line in Europe with manufacturing sites in Germany and Belgium. So, we'll be producing in parallel. We have offered this Covid vaccine, and we have signed already contracts to multiple governments in the world and in most cases we define how these quantities will come month after month, all the way to 2021. And we do that proportionally to all of them. QUICK: Can you break that down at all, Albert, just to give us an example of it is most of the Covid vaccine that's being produced in each of those nations staying in those nations or does it go out dependent on who signed up like what's the breakdown for each of the governments you've already agreed to in terms of who gets what? ALBERT BOURLA: I think is very, very important but will not stay where they're manufactured, but we will send them to the entire world because you are as protected in a pandemic as your neighbor is protected. We need to understand that. Nevertheless, we have to manufacture in life and facilitate in fairness so I hope that we will be able to see the entire world from these manufacturing sites, and without problems. KERNEN: So Albert, when was it clear to you? When did, when did you get the actual news, was it just yesterday or was it over the weekend, what was the actual time? ALBERT BOURLA: It was yesterday afternoon. It was around two o'clock. KERNEN: Amazing the timing of everything. I just, guys, I just, Albert, I was going to say it has nothing to do with you and I just said I wonder how Zoom Communications is doing. It closed at 500, it's bidding 440 right now so it's going to be, Albert, it changes a lot of different things I think, just the way that we think about, you know, travel, and we've talked about all these things and I don't want to, I don't want everything to get ahead of itself and I'm wondering, what are we missing in terms of, of something that could pop our bubble down the road? is there anything you can think of that, that could come out, anything that the other than supply issues which we've heard about again and again and again? ALBERT BOURLA: I think that, that this was very important but only the first step. And now we feel very, very, very confident about the efficacy because it's overwhelming. We feel very good about safety but we need to wait until next week when the safety data will mature completely based on the guidelines of FDA. And of course, we need to make sure that we can constantly manufacture in both, in both continents in Europe and in the US, in the quantities that we are saying, we feel good about all of that. But of course, as you said before, this is something that has done first time in the world I believe this is likely the most significant medical advance in the last hundred years, right, if you count the impact that this will have in health of the public health, global economy, etc. etc. So I'm happy that we have the whole Pfizer machine and of course biotechs are partners machines behind this and we will be able to support it, I hope. TIRRELL: Albert, it's Meg Tirrell again. You know we've talked so many times about the timing of this data, and it was so tied to election day. You had expected you would see by the end of October, whether the Covid vaccine worked, you're getting this news now a week after the election. What do you say if President Trump accuses you of waiting until after the election to release this information? ALBERT BOURLA: For us, the Election Day was always an artificial date. We were not working with the election as a timeline. We were working, i.e. released a letter, if you remember, Meg, to our employees some time ago, saying that the only pressure we feel it is the pressure of the billions of people that are hoping on our Covid vaccine. And we are going to follow the speed of science so science spoke, and I was predicting that this will happen at the end of October, it happened a week later. I think the most important thing right now for everyone it is to feel the joy that it happened and it happened so well. 90%. QUICK: Hey Albert, 90% effective is amazing. Oh. ALBERT BOURLA: I know. QUICK: 90% is just amazing. I know that again for people who haven't been listening through this entire thing for the flu vaccine it's generally 40 to 60% effective, but I just wonder for the 10% that it's ineffective with, is there a pattern? Can you determine if there's some commonality for the people that doesn't work in? ALBERT BOURLA: It is too early because as I said I don't have visibility to all the data, it is a group of independent experts, but they can see those data, unblinded. And once we have started completely unblinded but I think will happen at the end, before the end of November. And also keep in mind, I said that it is more than 90%, I didn't say it is 90%. SORKIN: Oh okay, that's even better. QUICK: More than 90. KERNEN: Albert, it is dependent. It is… ALBERT BOURLA: We will not give a specific number because you know the numbers from 90 to 164 may change one, two points, up or down right so, but right now I feel comfortable it is more than 90%. KERNEN: But it is dependent on a patient's immune system, own immune system, so I'm wondering, it can you be so immune compromised for whatever reason that it, that it's not effective and is it more effective in, in people with vibrant immune system younger people, people that don't have comorbidities with you, or does it seem across the board, in terms of effectiveness? ALBERT BOURLA: I believe, yes, in biology, you'll never have hundred percent. And in general, speaking about more than 90% is one of the highest results that you can hope and expect for vaccines, right now, and there will be also, some people, but will be a small percentage. So when you see it from public health perspective, this is more than what you could ever hope to have. This is a game changer. KERNEN: I wonder, and I wonder what else we can, why can't we, I guess the coronavirus that causes the common cold mutates so quickly that it's impossible to have something that lasts year to year. I'm just trying to understand the difference between maybe some other chronic recurring seasonal diseases that we have and why this new technology couldn't be applied to that or whether it can be applied to some of those things do you know at this point, Albert? ALBERT BOURLA: Look, I mean, speaking about mutations of coronavirus, I think that this is a likelihood scenario. We start seeing some of them – right now looks like our vaccine is, as I said, very effective for all the mutations that exist out there right now. But in case that a new mutation that requires – let's say new vaccine emerges in one or two years – the good thing with this technology is that you can adapt to technology extremely quickly. Because as you were saying before, you're sending a message to yourselves to produce DNA. It’s an RNA message that you're sending. So, we can just change the code in our Covid vaccine without changing manufacturing process, without changing virtually anything and then being able to be effective against the new mutation. So that's why we selected this technology. When we started back in March, we had access as Pfizer to multiple platforms of technology. And our scientists proposed me and they selected to use this one for these reasons. You can boost as much as you want. For example, if you need to boost next year, you can do it because this technology allows you to do it and you can do it the year after. So you can have every year a revaccination. And also, if there is a mutation, you can produce in weeks, rather than months a new vaccine. TIRRELL: Hey, Albert it's Meg Tirrell again. I just want to follow up on the international allocation of this vaccine, because it does seem like it could be a tricky situation. So to make sure we understand, Pfizer is going to be making the decisions about where the Covid vaccine goes country by country. And what about low income nations? Does Pfizer have an agreement with COVAX the facility through the World Health Organization? I mean, do we need some kind of international overseer of distribution or will companies be making these decisions? ALBERT BOURLA: Right now, Pfizer has agreements with multiple governments, but also has discussions with even more. And we are, of course, in discussions with COVAX facility and offer to the COVAX facility to provide our Covid vaccine to the low income countries – these are the poorest countries of the world – at the non-for-profit base for these countries. So, we are discussing as we speak, and I hope that we will be able to provide equitable protection to the entire world. SORKIN: Albert, as you've been speaking, the current president, President Trump tweeting out “Stock market up big, vaccine coming soon. Report 90% effective. Such great news!” My question to you is, given the polling around Americans willingness to take the vaccine, you're seeing some polls suggest somewhere between one-third and two-thirds of Americans say that they won't take the Covid vaccine. What do you think has to happen, what do you think the industry and government needs to do to create the kind of confidence that you'd want to see so that much of the country – if not all of the country – ultimately takes it? ALBERT BOURLA: Yeah, I think the number one and most important thing is that we keep discussing about the vaccines from scientific and nonpolitical terms. I think this is what confuses people and makes them doubt. They don't know whom and what to believe. The second is what we are already doing and we should continue doing it until the end, which is transparency. I believe that we were very transparent with our protocols, we were very transparent with our safety data, we are extremely fast to announce their efficacy data once we have them. We believe that it's good that those data will be publicly exposed. I think FDA already plans to have a committee of external advisors to FDA, but they will review the data publicly. And of course I think it is up to the greatest scientists that we have right now in the world – and in the U.S. – to express their opinion about this Covid vaccine. I understand those that they were confused and skeptical about the vaccine, but I need to repeat the decision to vaccinate is not affecting only yourself it is affecting the health of others. And likely the most vulnerable others. So because if you decide not to vaccinate, you will become the weak link that will allow this virus to replicate and produce the detrimental effects. Which means so many people unemployed, 1,000 deaths every day in the U.S. only and even more in the world – much more in the world. So it's an important decision, but I want everyone to be open minded. From our perspective, we'll do everything we can to convince them that 170 years of legacy is something that we count as Pfizer and plan to respect. TIRRELL: Albert, some questions for you just about some of the nitty gritty details you put there in the release and we, of course don't have the full data, but one of the details you included is that this 90% efficacy threshold was met in people who did not have evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2. Now you are continuing to evaluate both people who do have prior infection and who don't, to see you know, does it work for everybody. But what scientifically does that potentially mean? You know, would people need get an antibody test before they get this Covid vaccine? Just tell us about that detail and its significance. ALBERT BOURLA: No, I don't think – of course it's up to FDA and their thoughts, but I don't think really. The first primary endpoint is the only point that external experts were allowed by protocol to talk to us. But of course, they have data about also people that have been previously infected than more by people without taking into consideration if they were previously infected. That we will only know when the study is complete. But typically it's a lesser hurdle. So if you are able to protect people that were not previously infected, likely you will have better chances to protect people that were. Also we are going to see information that we are going to have for 14 days after vaccination because, keep in mind, right now we use the most extreme test for this Covid vaccine. We tested people seven days after the second injection. This means that we tested if people can be protected, four weeks after they start their vaccination schedule. First dose day one, 28 days we start looking for effects. It's very, very quick and this is a very, very big test. We are testing also, what happens in 14 days after the second dose, which we expect would be an easier hurdle, but of course we need to see. SORKIN: Hey, Albert. Back to the confidence point about getting Americans and those around the world to take this. Under what circumstances would you take the vaccine? How quickly would you imagine that you would do it? And if it wasn't the Pfizer Covid vaccine, if it was another company's vaccine, what would you need to see personally for your family to decide to take that vaccine? ALBERT BOURLA: FDA approves it in the U.S. as we live. And if I was living in Europe, that the European authorities approve it. I truly believe in the integrity and scientific capabilities, first of all, of FDA – that is a renowned agency for this capabilities, but also the European agencies. Once they approve it, I know that it is safe for my family. Myself, I would like very much to get it among the first, so that we can demonstrate to the world that I am the first one. But I will try it with my family. We need to see some ethical considerations. If, for example, we have a limited number of doses, I don't know if the government would recommend people of my age and my – I mean CDC – people of my age or work capacity to be among the first to get to the vaccine, so I want to respect that. But I will try to convince them to allow me to participate. TIRRELL: Well, Albert Bourla. This has been a historic morning. We appreciate you being here with us. I can only imagine the pride that your scientists and your entire team feel there at Pfizer. And we are, you know, we see light at the end of the tunnel. So thank you very much for being here with us this morning. ALBERT BOURLA: Thank you very much for having me.
 
The post Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla On Covid-19 Vaccine Efficacy appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former…

Published

on

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former Project Veritas & O’Keefe Media Group operative and Pfizer formulation analyst scientist Justin Leslie revealed previously unpublished recordings showing Pfizer’s top vaccine researchers discussing major concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. Leslie delivered these recordings to Veritas in late 2021, but they were never published:

Featured in Leslie’s footage is Kanwal Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. Gill was weary of MRNA technology given its long research history yet lack of approved commercial products. She called the vaccines “sneaky,” suggesting latent side effects could emerge in time.

Gill goes on to illustrate how the vaccine formulation process was dramatically rushed under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization and adds that profit incentives likely played a role:

"It’s going to affect my heart, and I’m going to die. And nobody’s talking about that."

Leslie recorded another colleague, Pfizer’s pharmaceutical formulation scientist Ramin Darvari, who raised the since-validated concern that repeat booster intake could damage the cardiovascular system:

None of these claims will be shocking to hear in 2024, but it is telling that high-level Pfizer researchers were discussing these topics in private while the company assured the public of “no serious safety concerns” upon the jab’s release:

Vaccine for Children is a Different Formulation

Leslie sent me a little-known FDA-Pfizer conference — a 7-hour Zoom meeting published in tandem with the approval of the vaccine for 5 – 11 year-olds — during which Pfizer’s vice presidents of vaccine research and development, Nicholas Warne and William Gruber, discussed a last-minute change to the vaccine’s “buffer” — from “PBS” to “Tris” — to improve its shelf life. For about 30 seconds of these 7 hours, Gruber acknowledged that the new formula was NOT the one used in clinical trials (emphasis mine):


“The studies were done using the same volume… but contained the PBS buffer. We obviously had extensive consultations with the FDA and it was determined that the clinical studies were not required because, again, the LNP and the MRNA are the same and the behavior — in terms of reactogenicity and efficacy — are expected to be the same.

According to Leslie, the tweaked “buffer” dramatically changed the temperature needed for storage: “Before they changed this last step of the formulation, the formula was to be kept at -80 degrees Celsius. After they changed the last step, we kept them at 2 to 8 degrees celsius,” Leslie told me.

The claims are backed up in the referenced video presentation:

I’m no vaccinologist but an 80-degree temperature delta — and a 5x shelf-life in a warmer climate — seems like a significant change that might warrant clinical trials before commercial release.

Despite this information technically being public, there has been virtually no media scrutiny or even coverage — and in fact, most were told the vaccine for children was the same formula but just a smaller dose — which is perhaps due to a combination of the information being buried within a 7-hour jargon-filled presentation and our media being totally dysfunctional.

Bohemian Grove?

Leslie’s 2-hour long documentary on his experience at both Pfizer and O’Keefe’s companies concludes on an interesting note: James O’Keefe attended an outing at the Bohemian Grove.

Leslie offers this photo of James’ Bohemian Grove “GATE” slip as evidence, left on his work desk atop a copy of his book, “American Muckraker”:

My thoughts on the Bohemian Grove: my good friend’s dad was its general manager for several decades. From what I have gathered through that connection, the Bohemian Grove is not some version of the Illuminati, at least not in the institutional sense.

Do powerful elites hangout there? Absolutely. Do they discuss their plans for the world while hanging out there? I’m sure it has happened. Do they have a weird ritual with a giant owl? Yep, Alex Jones showed that to the world.

My perspective is based on conversations with my friend and my belief that his father is not lying to him. I could be wrong and am open to evidence — like if boxer Ryan Garcia decides to produce evidence regarding his rape claims — and I do find it a bit strange the club would invite O’Keefe who is notorious for covertly filming, but Occam’s razor would lead me to believe the club is — as it was under my friend’s dad — run by boomer conservatives the extent of whose politics include disliking wokeness, immigration, and Biden (common subjects of O’Keefe’s work).

Therefore, I don’t find O’Keefe’s visit to the club indicative that he is some sort of Operation Mockingbird asset as Leslie tries to depict (however Mockingbird is a 100% legitimate conspiracy). I have also met James several times and even came close to joining OMG. While I disagreed with James on the significance of many of his stories — finding some to be overhyped and showy — I never doubted his conviction in them.

As for why Leslie’s story was squashed… all my sources told me it was to avoid jail time for Veritas executives.

Feel free to watch Leslie’s full documentary here and decide for yourself.

Fun fact — Justin Leslie was also the operative behind this mega-viral Project Veritas story where Pfizer’s director of R&D claimed the company was privately mutating COVID-19 behind closed doors:

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/12/2024 - 13:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Association of prenatal vitamins and metals with epigenetic aging at birth and in childhood

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging…

Published

on

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

Credit: 2024 Bozack et al.

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

BUFFALO, NY- March 12, 2024 – A new research paper was published in Aging (listed by MEDLINE/PubMed as “Aging (Albany NY)” and “Aging-US” by Web of Science) Volume 16, Issue 4, entitled, “Associations of prenatal one-carbon metabolism nutrients and metals with epigenetic aging biomarkers at birth and in childhood in a US cohort.”

Epigenetic gestational age acceleration (EGAA) at birth and epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) in childhood may be biomarkers of the intrauterine environment. In this new study, researchers Anne K. Bozack, Sheryl L. Rifas-Shiman, Andrea A. Baccarelli, Robert O. Wright, Diane R. Gold, Emily Oken, Marie-France Hivert, and Andres Cardenas from Stanford University School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Columbia University, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai investigated the extent to which first-trimester folate, B12, 5 essential and 7 non-essential metals in maternal circulation are associated with EGAA and EAA in early life. 

“[…] we hypothesized that OCM [one-carbon metabolism] nutrients and essential metals would be positively associated with EGAA and non-essential metals would be negatively associated with EGAA. We also investigated nonlinear associations and associations with mixtures of micronutrients and metals.”

Bohlin EGAA and Horvath pan-tissue and skin and blood EAA were calculated using DNA methylation measured in cord blood (N=351) and mid-childhood blood (N=326; median age = 7.7 years) in the Project Viva pre-birth cohort. A one standard deviation increase in individual essential metals (copper, manganese, and zinc) was associated with 0.94-1.2 weeks lower Horvath EAA at birth, and patterns of exposures identified by exploratory factor analysis suggested that a common source of essential metals was associated with Horvath EAA. The researchers also observed evidence of nonlinear associations of zinc with Bohlin EGAA, magnesium and lead with Horvath EAA, and cesium with skin and blood EAA at birth. Overall, associations at birth did not persist in mid-childhood; however, arsenic was associated with greater EAA at birth and in childhood. 

“Prenatal metals, including essential metals and arsenic, are associated with epigenetic aging in early life, which might be associated with future health.”

 

Read the full paper: DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.205602 

Corresponding Author: Andres Cardenas

Corresponding Email: andres.cardenas@stanford.edu 

Keywords: epigenetic age acceleration, metals, folate, B12, prenatal exposures

Click here to sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article.

 

About Aging:

Launched in 2009, Aging publishes papers of general interest and biological significance in all fields of aging research and age-related diseases, including cancer—and now, with a special focus on COVID-19 vulnerability as an age-dependent syndrome. Topics in Aging go beyond traditional gerontology, including, but not limited to, cellular and molecular biology, human age-related diseases, pathology in model organisms, signal transduction pathways (e.g., p53, sirtuins, and PI-3K/AKT/mTOR, among others), and approaches to modulating these signaling pathways.

Please visit our website at www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us:

  • Facebook
  • X, formerly Twitter
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Spotify, and available wherever you listen to podcasts

 

Click here to subscribe to Aging publication updates.

For media inquiries, please contact media@impactjournals.com.

 

Aging (Aging-US) Journal Office

6666 E. Quaker Str., Suite 1B

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Phone: 1-800-922-0957, option 1

###


Read More

Continue Reading

International

A beginner’s guide to the taxes you’ll hear about this election season

Everything you need to know about income tax, national insurance and more.

Cast Of Thousands/Shutterstock

National insurance, income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax… it’s easy to get confused about the many different ways we contribute to the cost of running the country. The budget announcement is the key time each year when the government shares its financial plans with us all, and announces changes that may make a tangible difference to what you pay.

But you’ll likely be hearing a lot more about taxes in the coming months – promises to cut or raise them are an easy win (or lose) for politicians in an election year. We may even get at least one “mini-budget”.

If you’ve recently entered the workforce or the housing market, you may still be wrapping your mind around all of these terms. Here is what you need to know about the different types of taxes and how they affect you.

The UK broadly uses three ways to collect tax:

1. When you earn money

If you are an employee or own a business, taxes are deducted from your salary or profits you make. For most people, this happens in two ways: income tax, and national insurance contributions (or NICs).

If you are self-employed, you will have to pay your taxes via an annual tax return assessment. You might also have to pay taxes this way for interest you earn on savings, dividends (distribution of profits from a company or shares you own) received and most other forms of income not taxed before you get it.

Around two-thirds of taxes collected come from people’s or business’ incomes in the UK.

2. When you spend money

VAT and excise duties are taxes on most goods and services you buy, with some exceptions like books and children’s clothing. About 20% of the total tax collected is VAT.

3. Taxes on wealth and assets

These are mainly taxes on the money you earn if you sell assets (like property or stocks) for more than you bought them for, or when you pass on assets in an inheritance. In the latter case in the UK, the recipient doesn’t pay this, it is the estate paying it out that must cover this if due. These taxes contribute only about 3% to the total tax collected.

You also likely have to pay council tax, which is set by the council you live in based on the value of your house or flat. It is paid by the user of the property, no matter if you own or rent. If you are a full-time student or on some apprenticeship schemes, you may get a deduction or not have to pay council tax at all.


Quarter life, a series by The Conversation

This article is part of Quarter Life, a series about issues affecting those of us in our 20s and 30s. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.

You may be interested in:

If you get your financial advice on social media, watch out for misinformation

Future graduates will pay more in student loan repayments – and the poorest will be worst affected

Selling on Vinted, Etsy or eBay? Here’s what you need to know about paying tax


Put together, these totalled almost £790 billion in 2022-23, which the government spends on public services such as the NHS, schools and social care. The government collects taxes from all sources and sets its spending plans accordingly, borrowing to make up any difference between the two.

Income tax

The amount of income tax you pay is determined by where your income sits in a series of “bands” set by the government. Almost everyone is entitled to a “personal allowance”, currently £12,570, which you can earn without needing to pay any income tax.

You then pay 20% in tax on each pound of income you earn (across all sources) from £12,570-£50,270. You pay 40% on each extra pound up to £125,140 and 45% over this. If you earn more than £100,000, the personal allowance (amount of untaxed income) starts to decrease.

If you are self-employed, the same rates apply to you. You just don’t have an employer to take this off your salary each month. Instead, you have to make sure you have enough money at the end of the year to pay this directly to the government.


Read more: Taxes aren't just about money – they shape how we think about each other


The government can increase the threshold limits to adjust for inflation. This tries to ensure any wage rise you get in response to higher prices doesn’t lead to you having to pay a higher tax rate. However, the government announced in 2021 that they would freeze these thresholds until 2026 (extended now to 2028), arguing that it would help repay the costs of the pandemic.

Given wages are now rising for many to help with the cost of living crisis, this means many people will pay more income tax this coming year than they did before. This is sometimes referred to as “fiscal drag” – where lower earners are “dragged” into paying higher tax rates, or being taxed on more of their income.

National insurance

National insurance contributions (NICs) are a second “tax” you pay on your income – or to be precise, on your earned income (your salary). You don’t pay this on some forms of income, including savings or dividends, and you also don’t pay it once you reach state retirement age (currently 66).

While Jeremy Hunt, the current chancellor of the exchequer, didn’t adjust income tax meaningfully in this year’s budget, he did announce a cut to NICs. This was a surprise to many, as we had already seen rates fall from 12% to 10% on incomes higher than £242/week in January. It will now fall again to 8% from April.


Read more: Budget 2024: experts explain what it means for taxpayers, businesses, borrowers and the NHS


While this is charged separately to income tax, in reality it all just goes into one pot with other taxes. Some, including the chancellor, say it is time to merge these two deductions and make this simpler for everyone. In his budget speech this year, Hunt said he’d like to see this tax go entirely. He thinks this isn’t fair on those who have to pay it, as it is only charged on some forms of income and on some workers.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for this to happen however, and even if it did, there are huge sums linked to NICs (nearly £180bn last year) so it would almost certainly have to be collected from elsewhere (such as via an increase in income taxes, or a lot more borrowing) to make sure the government could still balance its books.

A young black man sits at a home office desk with his feet up, looking at a mobile phone
Do you know how much tax you pay? Alex from the Rock/Shutterstock

Other taxes

There are likely to be further tweaks to the UK’s tax system soon, perhaps by the current government before the election – and almost certainly if there is a change of government.

Wealth taxes may be in line for a change. In the budget, the chancellor reduced capital gains taxes on sales of assets such as second properties (from 28% to 24%). These types of taxes provide only a limited amount of money to the government, as quite high thresholds apply for inheritance tax (up to £1 million if you are passing on a family home).

There are calls from many quarters though to look again at these types of taxes. Wealth inequality (the differences between total wealth held by the richest compared to the poorest) in the UK is very high (much higher than income inequality) and rising.

But how to do this effectively is a matter of much debate. A recent study suggested a one-off tax on total wealth held over a certain threshold might work. But wealth taxes are challenging to make work in practice, and both main political parties have already said this isn’t an option they are considering currently.

Andy Lymer and his colleagues at the Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing at Aston University currently or have recently received funding for their research work from a variety of funding bodies including the UK's Money and Pension Service, the Aviva Foundation, Fair4All Finance, NEST Insight, the Gambling Commission, Vivid Housing and the ESRC, amongst others.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending