Everyone, it seems, is excited.
"mRNA-1273", a COVID-19 vaccine produced by Moderna Therapeutics of Cambridge, MA, has cleared its first hurdle in testing. As hoped, all 45 participants in the initial trial produced antibodies to the virus after receiving the drug. Phase 2 testing is estimated to be complete by July.
The market loved the news. The Dow rocketed up over 900 points yesterday. Finally, a nonpartisan reason to celebrate. Or is it?
We had a pretty good reason to believe things would play out this way. Back in March, CDMedia reported the following:
Who will sell that vaccine? Very likely Moderna, a biotech funded by, you guessed it, the Gates Foundation. They have been studying coronaviruses for some time now. You could say they have a head start. They also work on HIV drugs like the kinds that have been found to be effective in treating COVID-19. One of the four drugs being fast-tracked by the WHO just happens to be made by…Moderna.
It looks an awful lot like the same folks who may have infected the world are now seeking to profit from the cure.
Moderna is funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci's NIAID, and Bill Gates, via one of his acronym vehicles, CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations). Gates and Fauci officially began to fund coronavirus vaccines in January, but Gates has been funding Moderna since 2016, when he granted them nearly $20 million for virus research, but that time it was through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).
When it comes to Fauci and the NIAID he has headed for nearly 40 years, the funding is a little trickier. As a federal employee, Fauci isn't going to waltz into a private lab with a game show-sized check. Part of Fauci's job is to maintain a veneer of professionalism in the transfer of funds from the public to private sector.
Solution? More acronyms. Acronyms are shields from scrutiny. The groups behind them are bureaucracies steered by interested parties, collaborating to achieve grand, if often vague, goals.
After 9/11, a great many such institutes, departments, and associations were formed. It was, if not the birth of the "deep state," the radical deepening thereof. One large piece of the puzzle was Project BioShield. Congress passed the Project BioShield Act in 2004. Its mandate: to study and prepare for biological warfare. The U.S. has spent over $50 billion on the issue since the passage of the act.
One of the many provisions of the act is to align the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) with the National Institutes of Health (NIH). One arm of the NIH is the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease (NIAID), headed by Dr. Fauci.
When it comes to grantmaking, that's done by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which is a division of HHS. The NIAID (Fauci) and HHS then petition BARDA for funding for private sector labs such as Moderna.
These government employees, hidden beneath a pile of acronyms, are kingmakers. When they grant funds to a lab for research, fortunes are made and lost in the stock market.
Guess who used to run the clearing house for all the Project BioShield money? Rick Bright, the latest "whistleblower" who made a splash last week after testifying to congress that he was squeezed out of his post due to his lack of support for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the inexpensive, widely available, time-tested drug that threw a wrench into the profit machine of Big Pharma.
Bright claims he was forced out for not promoting HCQ. I trust the other side of this argument will be that Bright was insubordinate in order to promote the Moderna vaccine (and Gilead Sciences' drug Remdesivir).
Bill Gates was funding Moderna since 2016. Then, in January, Fauci and Bright selected Moderna to be one of a handful of labs to pursue a vaccine, and voila, Moderna wins the race. A stock that traded below $20 as recently as February briefly broke $80 per share yesterday.
Fauci likes to keep a close eye on his investment, and the results. So the second part of the deal with Moderna is that the NIAID "partnered" with them to develop the vaccine. Fauci's scientists are collaborating with Moderna's to make sure the testing is done in-house, the same process used with Gilead Sciences and Remdesivir.
Then Fauci steps to the microphone and gives his seal of approval in a press conference, despite a lack of a large, independent, double-blind trial. And no one questions this inequity, this because-I-said-so science.
And what's this? It turns out that Moderna withheld some key evidence in its first trial, as reported by Bloomberg News. The stock market crashed into the close, erasing a day of solid gains. Moderna is back down to $71.67 and investors are scratching their heads. The missing data will be released "at a later date," according to a spokesperson.
It appears that working in secret conditions with federal scientists with a political agenda can produce bad data. Perhaps an independent group of scientists should look at the Moderna study, and the Gilead Sciences/Remdesivir one as well. After Fauci is fired.
It all boils down to this, dear CDMedia reader: based on what you know about Gates and Fauci, will you take the vaccine they plan to have ready by year-end? A vaccine for a disease they funded? A disease created through controversial gain-of-function research in China?
Lastly, will you have a choice?
Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!
Count me out wanting that vaccine courtesy of Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci.
Imagine if some evil but inventive person or people wanted to commit genocide against a technologically advanced people. One way to do it would be to play to the target populations faith in their advanced technology. For example, incite fear with an overblown pandemic and offer them a flu vaccine adulterated with a slow acting prion that would never show up in tests and take years to act on the unsuspecting population. By the time it's discovered, it would be too late. Of course, this is the stuff of fiction and we all know that all those pushing vaccinations are actually people of impeccable character and good will whom we should trust completely. That's our story and we are sticking with it,
Sign me up. I don't care who funds it, so long as it works. Those finding are not overseeing the design and if the design is flawed, then it won't work. It's simple, really.
Just gonna leave this here from the lancet.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
Patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation found that the use of a regimen containing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (with or without a macrolide) was associated with no evidence of benefit, but instead was associated with an increase in the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and a greater hazard for in-hospital death with COVID-19.
"Patients who received treatment with these regimens starting more than 48 h after COVID-19 diagnosis were excluded."
"to exclude individuals for whom the drug regimen might have been used during a critical phase of illness, which could skew the interpretation of the results."
That sounds a bit circular. They're omitting drug information because that drug information might influence the results? Isn't that what all information does - influence results? Sounds like they're trying to data-fit.
Most curiously, the study mentions that it includes diabetics:
"13 260 (13·8%) had diabetes"
But why would diabetics be included? Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine both have contraindictions - clearly stated, I might add - not to be given to diabetics, as it affects glucose and insulin. If they were given such a drug, this would be a massive failure on the part of the doctors in question, not on the drug itself. What's worse is the study appears to be oblivious to this fact, showing the ignorance of the researchers also in regards to the drug and resulting in what can only be described as a flawed study. You included 13,000+ diabetics who aren't even eligible for the drug anyway?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025914/
Also, just as questionable, when comparing groups:
"For each treatment group, a separate matched control was identified using exact and propensity-score matched criteria with a calliper of 0·001."
Which included:
"age, BMI, gender, race or ethnicity, comorbidities, use of ACE inhibitors, use of statins, use of angiotensin receptor blockers, treatment with other antivirals, qSOFA score of less than 1, and SPO2 of less than 94% on room air"
This raises serious questions because it means more than just *quine drug is at play, and the study doesn't even explain if there are any contraindictions for the given combination of such drugs (or whether or not they looked for any), and fails to mention the impact of such drugs in relation to ventricular arrhythmias ("abnormal heartbeats").
ACE inhibitors, statins and angiotensin receptor blockers all drop blood pressure. ACE inhibitors have a direct interaction with SARS-CoV-2 because of the interplay between ACE-I and ACE-2 receptors (the latter of which are attacked by said virus). And the idea that "other antivirals" have been included is plain wrong, because that is definitely going to skewer outcomes.
As much as the study tries to use obsfucating jargon in it's opening summary to hide flaws, a closer scrunity reveals glaring flaws. Why did they omit post-48 hour patients being treated? Why have they included ineligible diabetics or not highlighted the contraindictions for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for diabetics? Why haven't they addressed drug interactions?
As much as the media likes to tout studies like hitpieces, the lack of in-depth examination, as always, proves to be their undoing.