THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF OUR FAKE WORLD?
Part 1 This post is in two parts because it's a product of several months I spent trying to work out what's going on in the world. My perception is a fundamental battle is going on, the most fundamental of all. Things are what they are but they're also what people think they are. A powerful force is driving a counter narrative that's pushing for the exact opposite of what's going on. With MSB I've long felt it's all about contrast.
In this post I discuss:Why I think Remestemcel-L may not have worked so well on its own, not because of the cells' lack of potencyWhy I think the NIH running of the ARDS trial should be investigatedWhy there may not be a synergy with DexWhether it's possible to weaponize Remestemcel-L against any virusWhether there is a Covid treatment protocol
Corruption is a Fact, Not a Conspiracy Theory
What's come to the forefront in the last couple of years has been there for a long time. I've been writing about it here and on other forums. Corruption is understandable when pharma set the curriculum, own journals and research jobs depend on pharma funding or diminishing grants. The sugar industry paid 3 Harvard professors (link below) to demonise saturated fat, which has left the population deficient in fat soluble vitamins A (the great protector) and D (the house keeper), which are partners and should be high normal.
While most people are fundamentally good, cognitive dissonance is natural if you can't do anything about the situation. I wrote about examples I've experienced and my family suffered from in this post:
42965434. Then we have the current climate of the silencing of scientific dissent. You can hear at the FDA ADCOM on boosters, available on YT, senior editor of the BMJ Peter Doshi talk about the "chilling effect" that doctors risk having their medical licence revoked for "misinformation". (You'll have noticed "fact checkers" have been in full swing during the pandemic. A couple of years ago, I referred here to Snopes and their connection to the Washington Post that put out a piece "debunking" MSCs for the heart).
Recently the FDA approved a drug for Alzheimer's with no evidence of efficacy. It's a worse matter with safety. John Ioannidis, who wrote an article about why most published research findings are false, reviewed Pitrou et al's study of 133 RCTs that found distortion and the minimising of adverse effects, even in trials published in high impact journals. He said distortion is further amplified in editorials and opinion pieces. Reach2 in Ruxolitinib is the perfect example of that. This drug was trialled against the most ineffective and toxic cr@p but still failed to show mortality benefit (In a certain context, no mortality benefit can be worse than just that the drug didn't work). The NEJM editorial declared Reach2 finally a "successful" randomized trial in acute GvHD. At a popular level, there has been distrust of medical authorities for many years, particularly in the US. Goldacre's book has been a bestseller and Dr Marcia Angell's words widely reported:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine".
I don't see our CHF results can be anything by association. If anything, it's about contrast. Vericiguat results were published in the NEJM. What does this drug even do? I already provided evidence here that physicians are underwhelmed by drugs available for CHF and don't mince their words. They'll be able to see the clear mortality benefit and there's an honesty about the results because MSB didn't cherry pick and exclude severe cases.
ARDS
Our ARDS EAP results were stunning. This was run by Mount Sinai who are doing cutting edge work in predictive and response biomarkers, trying to get an industry standard for GvHD. I have the highest opinion of their ethics and research in inflammatory conditions.
Our ARDS RCT was run by the NIH
The trial IMO could have been stopped for overwhelming efficacy if the condition of the patients hadn't changed in the second half. I take the point of patients being older but I don't see how 8 years can be the only reason, how it can translate to a nothing effect. I recall last year SI mentioned patients in the latter half had been pre-treated with re-purposed agents, which does fit with the reports I've read on how S0C changed.
Remestemcel-L appeared to work not so well on its own but the number of patients was too small to know for sure. I'm inclined to think it actually didn't work so well. We know that the cells respond to peak inflammation. There were biomarkers for inclusion in the RCT but if I recall right, at the last webcast MSB didn't have those back yet. We know that at the start of the pandemic advice was to put patients on ventilators early. I wonder if it's possible that those patients (prior to Dex) weren't in AS severe cytokine storm. When Dex became standard of care that meant consequentially a greater effort to control inflammation. There may not be a synergy; it's just that Dex didn't work and the dose wasn't high enough to abrogate the effect of the cells (I was concerned about abrogation in this post:
50656746 but I did come across one study that found Dex was the steroid that didn't affect MSCs.
Perhaps we should also consider Dex effect in the SoC + placebo arm. I've gone over RCTs, studies and two meta analyses that show a lack of mortality benefit for steroids in ARDS. Also, based on guarded commentary on the Recovery Trial, I'm inclined to suspect actual harm. In the webcast, JK asked if Dex blunted the ability of the body to clear the virus. I'm glad he brought that up because I wondered about that too.
The vaccines couldn't have got an EUA if a viable therapy had existed and NIH potential conflict of interest re. Moderna patents (as reported in Nature) should be investigated. I emailed MSB about this. I had less hope of an EUA after the apparent synergy with Dex. This is MSB, the company that does science properly and works out what's happening and needs to get dosing right for the over 65s. Also, there's a need for a therapy ahead of ventilators where mortality benefit is greatest and Dex's apparent efficacy was less.
One positive is how potent the cells must be to counter the effects of the above treatment. Another positive is that in the light of the current vaccines turning out to be less effective, T cell response, rather than antibodies, provide greater protection and I wonder if that's what we have here. JK seemed determined to get his point out about the potential for a broad antiviral, so my question for the experts is this:
Is it possible to prime the cells with antibodies from recovered patients and turn Remestemcel-L into a super weapon against any virus or variant?
Is There a Covid Treatment Protocol?
I watched an interview with a nurse and have been talking recently online to two people who say they work in hospitals in the US and refer to a Covid treatment protocol. One said their Covid unit is an example of doing the same thing over and over with the same negative result. The other said nurses are calling out doctors on the floor, saying the treatment isn't working but doctors say it's the treatment they have to follow. I asked if the protocol was Remdesivir, Dex and ventilators and the answer from both was 'yes'. You can see the NIH guidelines for this treatment and CMS document for add-on payment (links below) but I don't know how many hospitals follow this? Remdesivir was mentioned in the webcast but I'm not sure how widely it's still being given?
I asked the above question of an anonymous source on NY Times journalist Alex Berenson's site Unreported Truths, who provided information that could be verified. They said they didn't know how widely it was used but that the two large hospital systems near them use it, one of them Cleveland. According to this clinician it's standard and given to every Covid patient unless renal labs are egregious. The clinician says they see a pattern of respiratory failure after it's administered and advises patients not to take it but respects the wishes of those who want it.
Remdesivir is a three-time failure that failed to show mortality benefit in its Covid RCT. It can damage the kidneys (and has been linked to cardiac damage.) Davis drug guide says it can cause respiratory failure. I'm wondering about the mechanism for that. My question to the medical experts: If Remdesivir causes kidney damage, could that cause a build up of fluid in the lungs and then when a patient is put on a ventilator there's damage to the lungs because of less volume of air to compress?
Dex became SoC after the Recovery Trial which was open label and had missing information about oxygen levels and viral loadings, and mortality was only reported up to 28 days. I've also read criticism from doctors that methylprednisolone was a better steroid to use for lung inflammation.
The sh$t fight over Ivermectin isn't going away. Berenson was obliterated on his own site for plugging Merck's Molnupiravir. I hate to give this placebo spiking scumbag (recently re-branded by Berenson as the "least bad" pharma) any credit, that should be finished after Vioxx, but Ivermectin is a Nobel Prize winning drug with an excellent safety profile if given in the right dose. One thing this pandemic has confirmed for me is that if you want to discredit anyone or anything you can always find a way. Merck was dumping on IVM earlier this year and
Trialsitenews has a different perspective on the fraud (I put a link below if anyone's interested. Note the pfizer conflict of interest). I did initially dismiss IVM but the over-the-top "horse de-wormer" got my attention. I also came across a meta analysis by Dr Tess Lawrie, who's highly respected and produces reports for the WHO and MHRA, that found significant efficacy. I don't know if IVM is going anywhere, but recently it's been added to the list of NIH approved Covid therapies and Nebraska's AG ruled that patients who asked for it could get it.
I've read encouraging things about monoclonal antibodies (mentioned in the webcast.) In the interview with Alex Berenson on Spotify, Joe Rogan says Biden restricted their use and whoever did the research for the interview seems to know their science because JR pointedly said that monoclonal antibodies can be effective in the "unvaccinated" and I recalled SI's conversation with JK about this same issue.
I don't know much about Joe Rogan except that he has a massive platform. In this climate of censorship I'd have thought it wouldn't be hard to de-platform the 'pandemic's wrongest man' before he got so powerful but Berenson has over 150k subscribers on his site on substack. Substack is an independent platform that has a network of high profile professionals who are driving a counter narrative: civil rights lawyer Aaron Siri, Prof Vinay Prasad and popular writers such as bad cattitude and the terrifying Eugyppius (Terrifying to me because Berenson's money is on the dead monk.) Berenson's books are Amazon bestsellers and he makes regular radio appearances with Clay and Buck. HIV was mentioned in the MSB webcast. That same week, Berenson did a hit piece on Fauci and his handling of the AIDS crisis. The most powerful comment IMO comes from a physician who was a young intern at the time and has a special "hatred" for Fauci who he says suppressed the safer and cheaper Bactrim and championed a "hideous" more expensive drug called Pentamidine. I don't know anything about these drugs but there are obvious parallels being made. In the interview on Spotify, Rogan assists Berenson with his demolition job on Fauci. It doesn't help the mainstream narrative that 'America's doctor' recently played into their hands by declaring himself the living embodiment of science.
This is the crux IMO of the fundamental battle, what's been going on during the pandemic that our company is the exact opposite of, whose CEO knows science is always a questioning and learning process.
This counter narrative is also in our favour because of the drive away from the strategy of vaccines alone, away from ineffective and toxic therapies (Actemra failed its trial in Covid pneumonia and has been linked to greater risk of heart attacks) and towards safer ones. I don't see how an antiviral could negate the need for our product (There's long been a need for effective therapies for cytokine storms even before covid; I've written at length about MAS and HLH). Also, Covid patients could already be in the inflammatory phase by the time they get to hospital (which is more likely in breakthrough cases if you think it through.)
MSB an understated company. Dr Grossman states a very significant urgency. Looking at the cases in highly vaccinated countries, I think he's right. The UK, despite having one of the highest vaccination rates, is considering further measures this coming winter. Remestemcel-L needs to be deployed without further delay.
ALL IMO. GLTAH.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19858432/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.htmlhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/724330https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/management/clinical-management/hospitalized-adults--therapeutic-management/https://www.cms.gov/medicare/covid-19/new-covid-19-treatments-add-payment-nctaphttps://trialsitenews.com/how-ivermectin-became-a-target-for-the-fraud-detectives/
(20min delay)
