May 20, 2020

USA: Oxford Contradicts Imperial Study That Informed British and American Policy While Bahrain Reports Chloroquine Success. In Jan FBI Arrested Harvard Professor Working For China Wuhan Lab
written by Staff
Thursday March 26, 2020 👈

Researchers from Oxford University have found that 36% to 68% of the UK population has already caught corona.

Their model operates on extrapolations from death statistics, with the lower number being under the assumption of a 1% fatality rate, while close to 70% would have already been infected if the fatality rate is 0.1%.
In other words the model says what is, rather than what might be, based on p, that being the fatality rate.

That is extremely important because the British and American government is working based on the prediction of Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis at Imperial College London.

That report made the astonishing prediction of “approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed.”

This basically terrorized both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson while markets were in panic mode following the curfewing of Milan.

So they followed Ferguson’s orders, with the streets of London now fully empty, but Ferguson now has tempered fully his prediction, saying only 20,000 deaths are to be expected in UK.

Why the United Kingdom should have 10x more deaths than China even though China’s population is 50x more, is not at all clear.

What is clear however is that around 7,000 scientists mainly from the west have signed a secret contract with the Chinese government to participate in the so called One Thousand Talents Program.

Knowingly or unknowingly that basically makes them spies, with plenty of other potential conflicts of interest from Big Pharma that relies on people staying ill and needing treatment.

That might explain why the idea of a cure seems to have disappeared from the health profession where there appears to have been no invention since the penicilin.

This apparent corruption at the top, those that write the guidelines rather than frontline doctors or nurses, seems evident in regards to the very bizarre episode on Chloroquine.

A doctor is carrying a trial in US on it, but he is struggling to attract volunteers, presumably because the trial setup plays Russian roulette with people’s lives:

“Researchers will send some participants Hydroxychloroquine (and others a placebo) in the mail and monitor their progress remotely through daily questionnaires.”

They will basically lie to our mothers and fathers and tell them they are getting treatment, while in fact giving them just a placebo. Half of them will actually get treatment.

In this morbid setup of bureaucratic ‘ethics,’ everyone else gets not treatment and is just left to die until these potentially corrupted ‘experts,’ or worse actual spies, determine whether the treatment works or not and make such determination based on yet another trial rather than based on the evidence that is already out there.

“The drug is reported to have had a profound impact when used to treat the symptoms exhibited by active COVID-19 cases,” so says Bahrain in yet more concrete evidence.

To Fauci however this too is probably just anecdotal because apparently he talks to the Chinese all the time and god knows what they’re telling him.

You’d think they would explain why their guidelines recommend this treatment, but the bureaucrat probably knows why.

The United States has ratcheted up a crackdown on “interference in research by foreign governments, especially China.”

So hopefully some of these experts will get to explain why China had so few deaths even though only 10% of its population was quarantined, with Beijing and Shanghai for example continuing to operate as normal.

Were the people of Shanghai immune, or why did this not spread there when it managed to spread as far as Europe and America?

Considering in UK especially, the government has been persuaded to enforce the strictest of curfews with laws that tear up Magna Carta, why should deaths be here far more than in China?

In Italy, all have been locked up for weeks and have complied. Why are their deaths so much more?

The obvious answer is that they are not being given treatment, while in China they began giving treatment in early February, so bringing it all under control.

In addition this new study by Oxford is basically implying the lockdown has no effect, something that makes rational sense because this has been spreading since early January.

It’s highly infectious. One cough in the tube and everyone gets it. That’s for the past three months. So basically we’re at the peak, hence why death numbers are rising in addition to no treatment.

Ferguson however says this Oxford study won’t change government policy. He has dismissed it completely with buts and ifs, many, many of which apply to his own study.

However politicians now can no longer say they are following “science” because there are contradictory opinions.

The French top expert for example, Didie Raoult, is not being followed. This Oxford model is not being followed. So politicians are choosing what ‘science’ to follow and what ‘experts’ to listen to.

As evidence keeps building that our elected may have been mislead, hopefully they now will expand the list of experts they listen to, and so take advice from more than just one doctor, as any rational patient would do in some circumstances.

Because these ‘experts’ are contradicting each other, with seemingly the ‘bureaucrat’ experts being of the view of martial law, while people like Raoult who are on the front line or academics like Gupta from this Oxford study seem to take a more logical approach based on actual evidence rather than extraordinary predictions that are obviously false because we know there are asymptomatic cases and we know no where near all have been tested, so you can’t base 1% from just those that have been confirmed.

As such we obviously need a proper enquiry to see why it appears there is such contradiction, in addition to trials that may follow because some may well sue these bureaucrats that write the guidelines for gross negligence in failing to give people treatment, or for giving people a placebo in the midst of a pandemic instead of giving them treatment.
I took this screenshot from Scientific American 2003.
The Washington Examiner
written by Jerry Dunleavy
Wednesday April 1, 2020

An intelligence bulletin from the FBI late last year warned of a growing "biosecurity" threat within the United States after Chinese nationals were caught attempting to sneak potentially dangerous viruses into the country by plane.

The “tactical intelligence report” from the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate assessed in November that “foreign scientific researchers who transport undeclared and undocumented biological materials into the U.S. in personal carry-on and/or checked luggage almost certainly present U.S. biosecurity and biosafety risks,” according to the unclassified document obtained by Yahoo News.

Even when these samples were declared, investigators warned, "It is impossible to determine, without testing, the validity of the contents of the samples and if they pose a risk to U.S. human, animal, or plant populations.”

The bureau’s Chemical and Biological Intelligence Unit pointed to at least three separate instances in 2018 and 2019 where Chinese nationals tried to bring undeclared samples of bacteria and viruses, some of them potentially highly dangerous, into the U.S. All of the failed attempts were stopped by Customs and Border Protection at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

One of the incidents took place a couple months before the coronavirus outbreak first appeared in Wuhan, China. The U.S. intelligence community believes the Chinese lied about the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak for months and to this day is covering up the real number of cases and deaths in China.

Last year’s FBI report said in September that a Chinese national was stopped after he “initially made no positive declarations, but was later found to have eight vials of clear liquid in their checked luggage.” The bureau noted that “the vials had no supporting documentation.” The Chinese national claimed that it was “DNA … derived from a low-pathogenicity strain of H9N2,” which was a flu-type virus that killed a small number in Asia. But some vials had “WSN” handwritten on top, an acronym for the H1N1 influenza virus commonly known as swine flu, which killed over 12,000 in the U.S. and more globally. The bureau said that “the materials were confiscated" and that the unnamed person was allowed to travel to Texas "to work with a researcher associated with” an unnamed “U.S. research institution.”

The bureau advisory also recounted how, in November 2018, another Chinese national was found with three vials labeled “antibodies” in his luggage. The person identified himself as a “biologist” but “had not declared the materials” and “did not have appropriate documentation for the items.” The Chinese national said that “the items came from a researcher in China who asked him to deliver them to another colleague," again at an unnamed “U.S. research institution.” The writing on the vials combined with their destination led U.S. officials to believe the vials might contain “viable” specimens of Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome viruses. MERS has killed just under one thousand people worldwide since 2012, and SARS killed just under 800 globally between 2002 and 2004.

FBI investigators further noted that, in May 2018, a Chinese national was stopped. This person claimed to be “a breast cancer researcher in Texas” who “was not traveling with any biological products.” But, upon further inspection, the person admitted to be “possibly traveling with plasmids,” a type of extrachromosomal DNA. He was found to have one “centrifuge tube” in his checked bag, saying it was “non-infectious E. Coli bacteria-derived plasmids.” The bureau said the Chinese national was “unable to provide any accompanying documentation or permits,” so the U.S. officials put the centrifuge on an “agricultural hold” and let him go.

The U.S. government's concerns about Chinese research in the U.S. have grown recently.

In January, the Justice Department announced Charles Lieber, the chairman of Harvard’s chemistry department, was charged with one count of “making a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” about his connections to China’s Thousand Talents Program, which the FBI has deemed a Chinese form of “nontraditional espionage.”

Lieber, a specialist in nanoscience, received more than $15 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Pentagon, requiring him to disclose foreign financial conflicts of interest. But Lieber became a “strategic scientist” at China’s Wuhan University of Technology in 2011 and was a participant in the Thousand Talents Plan from roughly 2012 to 2017. The foreign university paid Lieber $50,000 per month and living expenses of approximately $158,000 and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at the Chinese school. Lieber was obligated to work for the foreign school “not less than nine months a year” by “declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents, and publishing articles in the name of” the Wuhan University of Technology.

Lieber allegedly falsely told investigators in April 2018 that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program and “wasn’t sure” how China categorized him. The Justice Department said Lieber also caused Harvard to tell the NIH that Lieber “had no formal association with” the Chinese university after 2012 and that Lieber “is not and has never been a participant in” China’s Thousand Talents Plan.

The Justice Department simultaneously announced charges against two Chinese nationals.

Zaosong Zheng was a Chinese researcher arrested in December and accused of trying to smuggle vials of cancer cells out of the U.S. The FBI claimed that Zheng stole the vials from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He was charged with making false statements to investigators.

Yanqing Ye studied at Boston University and was accused of lying to authorities about her status as a lieutenant in the People’s Liberation Army. Ye, who was charged with visa fraud, making false statements, and acting as an agent of a foreign government, wasn’t arrested because she was in China.

The Education Department announced in February that it would be scrutinizing both Harvard University and Yale University over their funding, including money from China and any ties to Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei and the Thousand Talents Program.
Dept of Justice
Tuesday, January 28, 2020 👈

The Department of Justice announced today that the Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and two Chinese nationals have been charged in connection with aiding the People’s Republic of China.

Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts.

Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China.

Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019.

Dr. Charles Lieber

According to court documents, since 2008, Dr. Lieber who has served as the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group at Harvard University, which specialized in the area of nanoscience, has received more than $15,000,000 in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD). These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities. Unbeknownst to Harvard University beginning in 2011, Lieber became a “Strategic Scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China and was a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from in or about 2012 to 2017. China’s Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber’s three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT “not less than nine months a year” by “declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of” WUT.

The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he “wasn’t sure” how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China’s Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber “had no formal association with WUT” after 2012, that “WUT continued to falsely exaggerate” his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber “is not and has never been a participant in” China’s Thousand Talents Plan.

Yanqing Ye

According to the indictment, Ye is a Lieutenant of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People’s Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). On her J-1 visa application, Ye falsely identified herself as a “student” and lied about her ongoing military service at the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), a top military academy directed by the CCP. It is further alleged that while studying at Boston University’s (BU) Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering from October 2017 to April 2019, Ye continued to work as a PLA Lieutenant completing numerous assignments from PLA officers such as conducting research, assessing U.S. military websites and sending U.S. documents and information to China.

According to court documents, on April 20, 2019, federal officers interviewed Ye at Boston’s Logan International Airport. During the interview, it is alleged that Ye falsely claimed that she had minimal contact with two NUDT professors who were high-ranking PLA officers. However, a search of Ye’s electronic devices demonstrated that at the direction of one NUDT professor, who was a PLA Colonel, Ye had accessed U.S. military websites, researched U.S. military projects and compiled information for the PLA on two U.S. scientists with expertise in robotics and computer science. Furthermore, a review of a WeChat conversation revealed that Ye and the other PLA official from NUDT were collaborating on a research paper about a risk assessment model designed to decipher data for military applications. During the interview, Ye admitted that she held the rank of Lieutenant in the PLA and admitted she was a member of the CCP.

Zaosong Zheng

In August 2018, Zheng entered the United States on a J-1 visa and conducted cancer-cell research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston from Sept. 4, 2018, to Dec. 9, 2019. It is alleged that on Dec. 9, 2019, Zheng stole 21 vials of biological research and attempted to smuggle them out of the United States aboard a flight destined for China. Federal officers at Logan Airport discovered the vials hidden in a sock inside one of Zheng’s bags, and not properly packaged. It is alleged that initially, Zheng lied to officers about the contents of his luggage, but later admitted he had stolen the vials from a lab at Beth Israel. Zheng stated that he intended to bring the vials to China to use them to conduct research in his own laboratory and publish the results under his own name.

The charge of making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of visa fraud provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of acting as an agent of a foreign government provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of conspiracy provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of smuggling goods from the United States provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Field Division Joseph R. Bonavolonta; Michael Denning, Director of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Boston Field Office; Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Special Agent in Charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Northeast Field Office; Philip Coyne, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General; and William Higgins, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Export Enforcement, Boston Field Office made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorneys B. Stephanie Siegmann, Jason Casey and Benjamin Tolkoff of Lelling’s National Security Unit are prosecuting these cases with the assistance of trial attorneys William Mackie and David Aaron at the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.

The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

These case are part of the Department of Justice’s China Initiative, which reflects the strategic priority of countering Chinese national security threats and reinforces the President’s overall national security strategy. In addition to identifying and prosecuting those engaged in trade secret theft, hacking and economic espionage, the initiative will increase efforts to protect our critical infrastructure against external threats including foreign direct investment, supply chain threats and the foreign agents seeking to influence the American public and policymakers without proper registration.
👇 I had a feeling Dr. Charles Lieber was tied to Dr. Fauci head of NIH and Bill Gates. 👇

The Scientist Magazine
Rewards of Risk
written by Megan Scudellari
January 31, 2011 👈

Charles Lieber was ready to do something new. A renowned nanoscientist at Harvard, he had developed a number of nanoscale materials for electronic and computing applications, but had long wanted to try his hand at biological problems. He imagined building nanoscale sensors to detect biomarkers and nanowires to probe individual cells, but he had no funding to pursue these ideas.

Then in August 2008, Lieber learned that a short grant application he had filed was going to pay off in a big way: he was to be awarded a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director’s Pioneer Award, a $2.5 million, five-year grant designed for high-risk research projects. According to NIH, these awards fund high-impact ideas that are dubbed too novel, that span too diverse a range of disciplines, or are at a stage too early to fare well in the traditional peer-review process.

The award marked a shift in Lieber’s research career, he says. Two years later his team published a breakthrough invention—a virus-size probe that can enter a cell and monitor action potentials without affecting the cell’s structure (Science, 329:830-34, 2010). “I had a lot of these ideas for years,” says Lieber, “but this would have been really, really difficult without the Pioneer.” Today, more than half his team works on cell-nanoelectric interfaces.

NIH will invest at least $108 million in visionary research this year through its four high-risk grant programs: the Pioneer Award, the New Innovator Award, the Transformative R01 Program, and the EUREKA Awards. Numerous other organizations also offer awards for innovative projects (See sidebar on opposite page: “Beyond Federal Funding”). Such awards “try to allow people the opportunity to pursue an out-of-the box idea,” says Ravi Basavappa, manager of the Transformative R01 program in the Office of the Director at NIH. But because of their popularity, “the competition is quite keen,” he adds.

To give you a leg up on the competition, here are some tips for securing your own high-risk grant, including advice from researchers who took one home, and the inside scoop from NIH itself.

Straight from NIH: Tips from the top

Make them call you crazy

At a 2008 retreat, engineer Andrea Armani of the University of Southern California (USC) overheard researchers complain about the difficulty of trying to measure DNA methylation using PCR. “I should come up with a better way of detecting [DNA methylation] so you don’t need PCR,” Armani told them. “That’s impossible,” they replied, staring at her as if she were crazy. But NIH didn’t think so: last fall, Armani was awarded a New Innovator Award—$1.5 million over five years to develop a nanolaser capable of detecting methylation of a single strand of DNA.

Nothing in your application is more important than the big idea, says Judith Greenberg, principal leader of NIH Director’s Pioneer and New Innovator Awards. “There’s no substitute for presenting a truly, highly innovative idea,” she says. Without that, “nothing else that you do is going to matter.”

Dig up your best science-fair projects

A great idea is the first step, but the second is to convince a reviewer that you’ll be able to deliver. Reviewers for the Pioneer and New Innovator Awards want applicants to demonstrate evidence of past innovativeness. Since preliminary data is not required, the reviewers will want examples of your past creative, groundbreaking research to vouch for you. The NIH recognizes that many applicants, especially for the New Innovator Award, are young investigators without long track records, so don’t be afraid to strut your stuff from postdoc or even graduate school days, says Greenberg. “We just want some indication of how they think and whether they are really creative, innovative people,” she says.


The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: Grand Challenges in Global Health
Up to $1 million for “innovative, early-stage research” on the world’s most pressing health problems. The application is two pages in length with no preliminary data required and anyone can apply. What are you waiting for?

No comments: