NIH and EcoHealth Colluded to Evade Research Restrictions

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Source: https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2021/November/PDF/nih-ecohealth-alliance-evade-research-restrictions-pdf.pdf

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Emails reveal the National Institutes of Health colluded with EcoHealth Alliance to circumvent federal restrictions on gain-of-function (GOF) research and avoid oversight
  • NIH officials allowed EcoHealth Alliance to craft oversight language governing its own GOF experiments
  • At least two NIH officials expressed concern that the experiment might fall under the designation of GOF banned under federal moratorium. They later accepted EcoHealth’s illogical justification for why the research should not be restricted
  • The NIH is now trying to evade responsibility by shifting blame for the unlawful research onto EcoHealth Alliance, saying they violated the grant rules
  • According to EcoHealth president Peter Daszak, the parent virus for his proposed chimeric SARS-like viruses, WIV1, had “never been demonstrated to infect humans.” Yet three months earlier, his collaborator, Ralph Baric, Ph.D., had published a paper showing WIV1 did indeed have the ability to infect humans and posed a threat to the human population

Steve Kirsch – The case for adding fluvoxamine to the NIH COVID Guidelines

Source: https://www.skirsch.io/the-case-for-adding-fluvoxamine-to-the-nih-guidelines/

Here is a summary of why fluvoxamine should be considered by the committee for shared decision making.

We knew from November 12, 2020 with the publication of the Lenze study in JAMA it was a potential game changer because the effect size on reducing hospitalization was 100% and the the supporting data (multiple observational studies) was all consistent. Just two weeks later, on December 1, 2020, we knew that the study was confirmed in a real-world evidence trial by Dr. David Seftel at the massive COVID outbreak at Golden Gate Fields.

Efficacy
As of today (Feb 3, 2021), all of the data I’m aware of is all positive: we learned from the Seftel study that everyone who takes the drug has their symptoms resolve in a few days if we catch them early enough. But we have anecdotal evidence that fluvoxamine works in other stages of the disease…. I’ve  never heard of a case where any person failed to respond and get back to normal no matter how sick they are… high flow oxygen, intubated patients, etc. It just takes longer and may require a larger dose.

An average effect size of 100% prevention of both hospitalization and  long term COVID symptoms after two weeks vs. 12.5% (hospitalization rate) and 60% (long-term COVID  symptoms rate) respectively for no treatment in the Seftel study. The combined p-value of just the Lenze and Seftel studies is <.0001. While you can argue that you can’t combine the numbers because the Seftel study was only pseudo randomized and open label, if you look at the Seftel study, the treatment cohort was worse than random based on comorbidities (add in the fact that it included 8 crossovers from the treatment group (who were not counted twice). Therefore the p-values and effect sizes are thus conservative estimates rather than optimistic estimates. The Fisher Exact test shows an effect size of 75% or more with 95% confidence.

All of the observational studies (two French, one German, and one US) showed significant protection with strong p-values.

Safety
As far as I know, there is no data anywhere showing fluvoxamine would cause a single additional death (it will not make COVID outcomes worse). It is safe drug with no reported deaths of overdose in the literature, making it far safer than over the counter drugs such as Tylenol which kills hundreds of people per year. We know the short and long-term safety outcomes when used with COVID: there are no issues. Mild nausea was reported by one patient on the 50mg BID dose.

Top NIH Unvaxxed Scientist Willing to Lose Job and License, Will Argue Against Vaccine Mandates in Livestreamed Ethics Review

A senior bioethicist and director of the Laboratory of Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health — who said he’s willing to risk his medical license — will argue against vaccine mandates during a Dec. 1 livestreamed roundtable.

By Megan Redshaw

Source: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/nih-matthew-memoli-vaccine-mandates-ethics/

A senior bioethicist who heads a research team at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is taking the lead at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the debate over the ethics of COVID vaccine mandates.

Dr. Matthew Memoli, director of the Laboratory of Infectious Diseases at NIH, will argue against vaccine mandates during a Dec. 1 livestreamed roundtable session, which will be open to the public.

“There’s a lot of debate within the NIH about whether [a vaccine mandate] is appropriate,” David Wendler, a senior NIH bioethicist in charge of planning the session, told the WSJ. “It’s an important, hot topic.”

Memoli opposes mandates for the COVID vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S., and has chosen not to be vaccinated.

Vaccine pioneer admits adding cancer-causing virus to Vaccine

Vaccine pioneer admits adding cancer-causing virus to Vaccine
In this interview Dr. Maurice Hilleman reveals some astounding revelations. He admits that Merck drug company vaccines (Polio) had been deliberately contaminated with SV40, a cancer-causing monkey virus from 1953 – 63.
For years, researchers suggested that millions of vials of polio vaccine, contaminated with SV40, infected individuals which caused human tumors, and by 1999, molecular evidence of SV40 infections were showing up in children born after 1982. Some experts now suggest the virus may have remained in the polio vaccine until as late as 1999.
In 2002, the journal Lancet published compelling evidence that contaminated polio vaccine was responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases that were occurring each year. And there is the likelihood that there was an importing and spreading of the AIDS virus in the same manner, as revealed in the video.
At first no one could fathom how the virus had been transmitted into the human population, but this shocking video proves that it was deliberately added to the vaccine by Dr. Maurice Hilleman, which was “good science” at that time.
Just Who is Dr. Maurice Hilleman?
Now, for those of you who may think Dr. Hilleman was just another crackpot (he passed away in 2005), think again. He was, and still is, the leading vaccine pioneer in the history of vaccines. He developed more than three dozen vaccines—more than any other scientist in history—and was the developer of Merck’s vaccine program.
He was a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science, the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, and received a special lifetime achievement award from the World Health Organization.
When he was chief of the Department of Respiratory Diseases with what’s now the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, he discovered the genetic changes that occur when the influenza virus mutates, known as shift and drift. He was also one of the early vaccine pioneers to warn about the possibility that simian viruses might contaminate vaccines.So Dr. Hilleman knew what he was talking about. And in his own words, “vaccines have to be considered the bargain basement technology for the 20th Century.”

CDC admits 98 million Americans were given cancer virus via the polio shot
The CDC has admitted that between 1955–1963 over 98 million Americans received one or more doses of a polio shot which was contaminated with a cancer-causing virus called Simian vacuolating virus 40 (SV40).  The CDC quickly took down the page, along with Google, but the site was luckily cached and saved to symbolize this grand admission.

Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns
Simian Virus 40(SV40) – 1955-1963
Some of the polio vaccine administered from 1955 to 1963 was contaminated with a virus called simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cells used to produce the vaccines.  Once the contamination was discovered in the Salk inactivated polio vaccine in use at that time, the U.S. government established requirements for vaccine testing to verify that all new batches of the polio vaccine were free of SV40. Because of research done with SV40 in animal models, there was some concern that the virus could cause cancer. However, evidence suggests that SV40 has not caused cancer in humans.

Volume 3, Number 2—June 1997
Simian Virus 40 (SV40), a Possible Human Polyomavirus (Workshop Held at NIH)
During the past 4 years, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays have detected DNA sequences related to SV40 (an oncogenic simian polyomavirus) in a variety of human tissues, especially choroid plexus tumors, ependymomas, mesotheliomas, and osteosarcomas (1-7). These findings were supported by the isolation of infectious SV40 from a choroid plexus tumor (8).
Although another paper reported the failure to detect SV40 DNA in mesotheliomas (9), these studies have reawakened interest in inadvertent human exposure to SV40 in the late 1950s and early 1960s when polio and adenovirus vaccines prepared in rhesus monkey cells containing SV40 were used (10,11). In response to the implications of detecting SV40 DNA in human tumors, the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, National Vaccine Program Office, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sponsored a workshop on SV40 on January 27-28, 1997 at the National Institutes of Health to examine the possibility that SV40 is an infectious agent in humans.

The following statement is an introduction for a more detailed packet on SV-40 and animal viruses in the production of vaccines.

Statement by Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-Founder & President
National Vaccine Information Center
Workshop on Simian Virus-40 (SV-40): A Possible Human Polyomavirus
January 27-28, 1997
Bethesda, Maryland
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which was founded in 1982 and represents health care consumers and health care professionals concerned about vaccine safety, became actively involved in 1994 in researching reports of contamination of childhood vaccines with animal viruses and the possibility that inter-species transfer of animal viruses into humans via vaccines has had a negative impact on public health. Our concern was that government health agencies and industry had not adequately addressed many of the most important questions that remained unanswered about the contamination of polio vaccines with simian (monkey) viruses.

NIH Scientists Identify Potent Antibody that Neutralizes Nearly All HIV Strains

NIH Scientists Identify Potent Antibody that Neutralizes Nearly All HIV Strains
Scientists from the National Institutes of Health have identified an antibody from an HIV-infected person that potently neutralized 98 percent of HIV isolates tested, including 16 of 20 strains resistant to other antibodies of the same class. The remarkable breadth and potency of this antibody, named N6, make it an attractive candidate for further development to potentially treat or prevent HIV infection, say the researchers.
The scientists, led by Mark Connors, M.D., of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), also tracked the evolution of N6 over time to understand how it developed the ability to potently neutralize nearly all HIV strains. This information will help inform the design of vaccines to elicit such broadly neutralizing antibodies.
Identifying broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV has been difficult because the virus rapidly changes its surface proteins to evade recognition by the immune system. In 2010, scientists at NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center (VRC) discovered an antibody called VRC01 that can stop up to 90 percent of HIV strains from infecting human cells. Like VRC01, N6 blocks infection by binding to a part of the HIV envelope called the CD4 binding site, preventing the virus from attaching itself to immune cells.
Findings from the current study showed that N6 evolved a unique mode of binding that depends less on a variable area of the HIV envelope known as the V5 region and focuses more on conserved regions, which change relatively little among HIV strains. This allows N6 to tolerate changes in the HIV envelope, including the attachment of sugars in the V5 region, a major mechanism by which HIV develops resistance to other VRC01-class antibodies.
The new findings suggest that N6 could pose advantages over VRC01, which currently is being assessed as intravenous infusions in clinical trials to see if it can safely prevent HIV infection in humans. Due to its potency, N6 may offer stronger and more durable prevention and treatment benefits, and researchers may be able to administer it subcutaneously (into the fat under the skin) rather than intravenously. In addition, its ability to neutralize nearly all HIV strains would be advantageous for both prevention and treatment strategies.