0 Comments
Pfizer said Thursday it will sell 10 million Covid-19 treatment courses to the United States government for US$5.3 billion, pending approval from regulators. The pharmaceutical giant asked the US Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday for emergency use authorisation for its Paxlovid antiviral pill which has been shown to cut hospitalisation or death by nearly 90 per cent among newly-infected high risk patients treated within three days of the onset of symptoms.
"We were thrilled with the recent results of our Phase 2/3 interim analysis, which showed overwhelming efficacy of Paxlovid... and are pleased the US government recognises this potential," Pfizer chairman and chief executive Albert Bourla said in a statement. "It is encouraging to see a growing understanding of the valuable role that oral investigational therapies may play in combatting Covid-19, and we look forward to continuing discussions with governments around the world to help ensure broad access for people everywhere." Pfizer will start delivering the treatments to the US government later this year through the end of 2022, the statement said. The company has also entered into advance purchase agreements with several other countries and has initiated bilateral outreach to approximately 100 countries around the world, and is committed to working on "equitable access" for the treatment at an affordable price. On Tuesday it announced a deal with the UN-backed Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) to sub-license production for supply in 95 low- and middle-income nations covering around 53 per cent of the world's population. The move comes a few weeks after Merck also approached the FDA seeking a green light for its antiviral capsule against the coronavirus. There is a very worrying trend that has been accelerated under the veil of fear and confusion, and that trend has been drastically intensified…
The corona crisis has already taken a very high toll and caused deep damage in our societies and our economies, the extent of which is yet to become apparent. We have seen its impact on productivity, on unemployment, on social cohesion and on political division. However, there is another very worrying trend that has been accelerated under the veil of fear and confusion that the pandemic has spread. The war on cash, that was already underway for almost a decade, has been drastically intensified over the last few months. The “problem” Over the last years, and as the war on cash escalated, we’ve gotten used to hear certain arguments or “reasons” on why we should all abandon paper money and move en masse to an exclusively digital economy. These talking points have been repeated over and over, in most western economies and by countless institutional figures. “Cash is used by terrorists, money launderers and criminals” is arguably the most oft-repeated one, as it’s been widely employed in most debates about the digital transition. Just a couple of years ago, it was also used by Mario Draghi, to support the decision to scrap the 500 euro note. We didn’t get any specific information or data about how many terrorists were actually using this high-denomination note, but we do know a lot of law-abiding citizens were using it to save, as did small business owners for their operational liquidity needs. Now, however, the corona crisis has introduced a whole new direction of anti-cash rhetoric and fresh arguments in favor of a digital economy. Even in the early stages of the pandemic, when essentially nothing was concretely known about the virus itself or its transmission, the seeds of new fears were already planted by sensational media reports and fear-mongering political and institutional figures. The insidious idea that “you can catch Covid through cash” might have been prematurely spread, but it did stick in most people’s minds. This is, of course, understandable, given the extremely high levels of uncertainty and anxiety in the general public. Wanting to eliminate potential threats was a natural instinct and so was the urge to take back at least some control over our lives, after they’d been suddenly thrown into utter chaos in the wake of the global economic freeze. Another factor that concretely helped the shift away from physical cash was an entirely practical one. Given the lockdown measures and the new “social distancing” directives that were enforced all over the world, it became difficult to use cash, even if you really wanted to, or had no other means of transaction, as is the case for billions of people. With physical stores being forced to shut down and with more and more online shops offering contactless delivery (either as a choice or as a service requirement), the need for cash very quickly gave way to digital payments. For most of us, who have access to online banking, cards or other digital payment services, this introduced no real inconvenience and we probably didn’t even give it a second thought. However, for many of our fellow citizens it was a serious impediment, which in some cases blocked their access to basic goods and essential supplies. Contrary to the glowing promises of the digital economy, of financial inclusion and convenience, the fact remains that there are still millions of people who simply do not have access to this brave new world. According to figures by the World Bank, globally there are 2.5 billion people with no bank account, with a high concentration in the developing world. In the West too, however, there is a very large part of the population that is unbanked and/or has no access to digital solutions, while the elderly are also to a very large extent “locked out” of the digital economy. For all these millions of people, cash is the only way to save, to transact and to cover their basic needs. The “solution” With cash being presented not just as a danger to society and to national security, but also as a direct health hazard due to the coronavirus, the push towards digital alternatives has been massively reinforced over the last few months. Both international organizations and individual governments have actively participated and encouraged this push, some through public guidance statements and others through the blunt enforcement of direct rules and measures that leave no real room for their citizens to make their own choices. The CDC in its official guidance to retail workers recommenced that they “encourage customers to use touchless payment options”, while a report by the Word Bank highlighted the need to adopt cashless payments for the sake of “social protection”. The UAE Central Bank encouraged the use of online banking and digital payments “as a measure to protect the health and safety of UAE residents”, and the Bank of England has acknowledged that banknotes can hold “bacteria and viruses” and recommended that people wash their hands after handling money. In March, a report from Reuters revealed that the U.S. Federal Reserve was quarantining dollars that it repatriated from Asia and so did South Korea’s central bank, while banks in China were forced by the government to disinfect bills and keep them in a safe for up to 14 days, before putting them in circulation. A highlight, however, came in May, when the World Economic Forum published an article in its “Global Agenda” strongly supporting the mass adoption of digital payments, for the sake of public health. In it, the authors argue that “contactless digital payments at the point of sale, such as facial recognition, Quick Response (QR) codes or near-field communications (NFC), can make it less likely for the virus to spread to others through cash exchanges.” They also applauded the efforts of China in digitalizing payments and appeared to hold the country and its measures as a model to be emulated: “China’s path to enabling digital payments should provide some lessons to other countries eager to follow suit.” Since a number of Western governments may indeed be “eager to follow suit”, let us take a closer look at this bright example and examine what it really entails. Fiat money 2.0 The digitalization drive in all aspects of the Chinese state, society and economy is nothing new and it certainly predated the emergence of Covid-19. The country’s infamous “social rating system” has made headlines years ago and the government’s eagerness to use technology, the internet and all sorts of digital systems to track its citizens’ behaviors and affiliations has long attracted International criticism and widespread condemnation by human rights organizations, privacy advocates and free speech supporters. Now, however, the state has been given a reason to accelerate its efforts in the mass adoption of digital payments and the abandonment of cash. To a large extent, this digitalization of payments task was much easier in China, as digital payments there are already very widespread in the population. More than 80% of consumers already used mobile payments in 2019, according to management consultancy Bain, a sharp contrast with the US that had adoption rates of less than 10%. So, as the population has already accepted a new way of payment, the new initiative sought to dominate the means of payment too. Thus, a new “digital yuan” was introduced. This new fiat currency, that has been in development for over 5 years, was rolled out in April in four Chinese cities with a plan for national adoption soon, so that it eventually replaces the physical legal tender. This so-called Digital Currency Electronic Payment (DCEP) will be put into circulation through China’s big four state banks and citizens will be able to receive and use it by downloading an electronic wallet application authorized by the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), which will be linked to their bank account. On the surface, it appears to work just like the old currency. It is issued and backed by the PBOC, it’s valued the same as the physical banknotes and, thanks to partnerships with Alipay and WeChat Pay, that control 80% of the country’s payment market, it will be used to get paid by anyone and to pay for anything. In fact, some public servant salaries and state subsidies are already being paid out in this new digital yuan, arriving in their intended recipients’ digital wallets. According to China’s state media People’s Daily, the new currency is meant to simplify domestic transactions and trade, but it will also facilitate and ease cross border transactions. The implication there is clear: It is yet another attempt to challenge the global dominance of the USD, after the Belt and Road initiative failed to really move the needle as the Chinese state had hoped. The strategy of spending of huge amounts of Chinese money abroad did provide some leverage over developing countries, but it didn’t come anywhere near “dethroning” the Dollar and internationalizing the Renminbi. Perhaps, this initiative will fare better, especially as it now has the “first-mover” advantage. Entering this “digital fiat” arena first is hugely important and the timing of the currency’s launch was no coincidence. The development and the rollout plan were significantly accelerated following Facebook’s announcement of the Libra, as the Chinese state wouldn’t have the private tech giant beat them to the punch. In fact, the digital yuan resembles the Libra in many ways. Most importantly, neither of them is a cryptocurrency, which is decentralized by design and allows for peer to peer transactions without the need of an intermediary or third party. In this case, the issuer is the third party and all transactions go through a very centralized system that controls and has access to all the data. In another non-coincidence just a few years back, China’s government banned initial coin offerings and placed great burdens on cryptocurrencies and crypto-investors making it very hard to operate in the country, thereby dismantling the threat of potential competition from the private sector and clearing the way for its own digital coin. (Bijna) elke dag voltrekt zich een beangstigend fenomeen op YouTube. Mensen uit alle geledingen van de maatschappij verzamelen zich. Er staat iets te gebeuren. Iets, op een specifieke tijd. Een tijd die ruim van te voren is aangekondigd. Want je wil het toch niet missen! Het verzamelen gebeurt op een daartoe speciaal gemaakt kanaal op YouTube. De mensen zijn al ruim voor de aangekondigde tijd aanwezig. Zij maken al gebruik van de chat-functie en roeptoeteren er lustig op los. Een mengeling van fake en echte namen komt voorbij: Gitareur en Wiebe de Vries en The Dutchman. Masterkey14 doet ook een duit in het zakje: “Goedemorgen, mede wappies het wachten is op.. “ Ja, op wie wordt er eigenlijk gewacht? De afgesproken tijd nadert. De mensen worden onrustig en sommige zelfs bezorgd. “Ze zal toch niet weer zo chagrijnig zijn als gisteren?” “Nee, joh” en als ze zo is dan wordt het nog meer op prijs gesteld. Het wachten valt zwaar, maar het is de moeite waard.
En ineens is daar een stem. Zo uit het niets. Want als de tijd daar is, dan is zij er ook. Even de keel schrapen en daar komen de eerste woorden: “Goedemorgen allemaal. Het is gelukt.” Wat er precies gelukt is weet ik niet, maar de discipelen van Sietske zijn door het dolle heen. De camara werkt weer en het geluid ook. Het is niet waar! Sietske heet ze, Sietske Bergsma. Een Nederlands publicist. Zij is bekend van opiniërende columns in ThePostOnline. Ook produceert zij videocolumns en -interviews. Aldus Wikipedia. Nou nou, als je daar op voorkomt dan heb je het toch zeker gemaakt. Maar er is ook kritiek op haar op het zelfde platform: “Politicoloog en publicist Joshua Livestro verwijt Bergsma dat zij met haar werk over gaslighting lezers aanzet om te geloven in complottheorieën. De Nederlandse historicus Ewout Klei verwijt Bergsma dat zij islamofobie verspreidt en dat zij een cultuurmarxististisch complot ziet achter een folder over transseksualiteit voor 4-jarigen.” Aldus Wikipedia. Nou, misschien moeten we haar discipelen in die hoek zoeken. Sinds een aantal afleveringen maakt Sietske gebruik van een white-board achtige flip-over, waar de onderwerpen van de dag op staan. Dan weten de mensen tenminste wat ze te wachten staat. Je bent gewaarschuwd, zal ik maar zeggen. Dan gaat de show van start. De discipelen worden bij naam verwelkomt. Waar gebeurt dat nog? Ze heeft geen idee wie het zijn, maar het maakt haar tenminste blij. 264 aanwezig, te veel om allemaal bij naam te noemen. “Best veel”, vindt ze. “Raar tijdstip, kwart voor 10, maar…” Dan komt de uitleg, het had ook half 10 kunnen zijn. Dan worden de onderwerpen genoemd. Je weet wel, die op het white-board achtige flip-over ding. Zo kabbelt de show een beetje door. In het begin zit er nog wel lijn in, maar gaande weg gaat de drive in een lagere versnelling en wordt de afleiding te groot. De discipelen roeren zich, dus moet je daar op reageren. Een paar kreten in de chat worden herhaalt of beaamt. Daarmee is voor mij de lol er al weer af. Vol goede moed probeer ik het elke dag weer, maar een Bakkie met Bergsma wordt al heel snel bitter. Lecture by Marc Van Ranst, Belgian Flu Commissioner, at the ESWI/Chatham House Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Stakeholders Conference on 22 January 2019.
What is the Relationship Between a Positive PCR and Infectivity?
If you are advocating for lockdowns, you are complicit in tearing families apart. You are complicit in inflicting untold suffering on millions of people around the world. You are complicit in casting the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies into even further grinding poverty. You are complicit in murder.
The coronavirus that has become a world-wide pandemic may have been created in a “cell-culture experiment” in a laboratory, according to prominent scientists who have conducted ground-breaking research into the origins of the virus.
Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky has completed a scientific study, currently undergoing peer review, in conjunction with La Trobe University in Victoria, which found COVID-19 was uniquely adapted for transmission to humans, far more than any other animal, including bats. Professor Petrovsky, from the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University who has spent the past 20 years developing vaccines against pandemic influenza, Ebola and animal SARS, said this highly unusual finding left open the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory. “The two possibilities which I think are both still open is that it was a chance transmission of a virus from an as yet unidentified animal to human. The other possibility is that it was an accidental release of the virus from a laboratory,” he said. “Certainly we can’t exclude the possibility that this came from a laboratory experiment rather than from an animal. They are both open possibilities.” Professor Petrovsky, who is the Chairman and Research Director of Vaxine Pty Ltd, said COVID-19 has genetic elements similar to bat coronaviruses as well as other coronaviruses. The way coronavirus enters human cells is by binding to a protein on the surface of lung-cells called ACE2. The study showed the virus bound more tightly to human-ACE2 than to any of the other animals they tested. “It was like it was designed to infect humans,” he said. “One of the possibilities is that an animal host was infected by two coronaviruses at the same time and COVID-19 is the progeny of that interaction between the two viruses. “The same process can happen in a petri-dish. If you have cells in culture and you have human cells in that culture which the viruses are infecting, then if there are two viruses in that dish, they can swap genetic information and you can accidentally or deliberately create a whole third new virus out of that system. “In other words COVID-19 could have been created from that recombination event in an animal host or it could have occurred in a cell-culture experiment.” Professor Petrovsky was originally modelling the virus in January to prepare a vaccine candidate. He then turned his attention to “explore what animal species might have been involved in the transmission to humans” to understand the origins of the virus - and had a “surprising” result when none were well-adapted. “We found that the COVID-19 virus was particularly well-adapted to bind to human cells and that was far superior to its ability to bind to the cells of any other animal species which is quite unusual because typically when a virus is well-adapted to an animal and then it by chance crosses to a human, typically, you would expect it to have lower-binding to human cells than to the original host animal. We found the opposite so that was a big surprise,” he said. Scientists worldwide have, to date, overwhelmingly said the virus was more likely originated in a wet-market and was not created in a laboratory. Even the United States Office of National Intelligence ruled out COVID-19 being created in a laboratory. Asked why scientists have had this view, Professor Petrovsky said scientists “try not to be political” and do not want their research impacted adversely by tighter laboratory controls. “We just try to base our findings on facts rather than taking particular political positions but sometimes obviously the alternatives may have unintended consequences,” he said. “For instance, if it was to turn out that this virus may have come about because of an accidental lab release that would have implications for how we do viral research in laboratories all around the world which could make doing research much harder. “So I think the inclination of virus researchers would be to presume that it came from an animal until proven otherwise because that would have less ramifications for how we are able to do research in the future. The alternative obviously has quite major implications for science and science on viruses, not just obviously political ramifications which we’re all well aware of.” Professor Petrovsky said an inquiry needs to start straight away, not when the pandemic is finished. “The idea of putting it off to the pandemic is over, it would be a mistake,” he said. “I’m certainly very much in favour of a scientific investigation. It’s only objective should be to get to the bottom of how did this pandemic happen and how do we prevent a future pandemic…. not to have a witch-hunt.” |
Thank you for choosing to make a difference through your donation. We appreciate your support.
This website uses marketing and tracking technologies. Opting out of this will opt you out of all cookies, except for those needed to run the website. Note that some products may not work as well without tracking cookies. Opt Out of CookiesCategories
All
Archives
April 2024
|