My father collapsed at home, his face slack, his words gone.

In Shakespeare’s Henry VI, they called it a sudden outrage:
“What sudden outrage hath struck thee down?”

But for us, it was something simpler.

A stroke.

And life was never the same.

My uncle survived his stroke, but lost half his body to paralysis.

But now, with all my training, stroke feels like an enemy we still haven’t defeated.

Until maybe now.

Every Minute Counts — And Millions of Brain Cells Die Waiting

Doctors have a saying:

“Time is brain.”

For every minute your brain goes without blood flow, you lose almost 2 million neurons — and about a week of independent life.

Most strokes are ischemic — caused by a clot that blocks blood flow to the brain.

The clot may form in place (thrombotic stroke) or travel from elsewhere (embolic stroke).

Today, we treat them with two main tools:

• With clot-busting drugs like tPA.
• Or by physically removing the clot with a device snaked into the brain.

But here’s the harsh truth:

Even today’s best devices fail on the first try about half the time.

And the longer it takes, the worse the outcome.

A Spinning Breakthrough: The Milli-Spinner

Now, something new.

At Stanford, engineers built a tiny device called the milli-spinner.

It’s smaller than a pencil tip but spins like a turbine.

Placed next to a clot, it crushes and shrinks the blockage by up to 95% — in seconds.

No more multiple passes — and far fewer complications.

No more dangerous fragments breaking free.

Just restored blood flow — fast.

In early animal tests, it worked almost every time.

Dr. Jeremy Heit called it “a sea change.”

Others called it something simpler: magic.

If it works in people as well as in animals, it could save tens of thousands of lives a year — and prevent countless families from facing what mine did.

Other Stroke Breakthroughs You Should Know

The milli-spinner isn’t the only new advance reshaping stroke care:

AI That Spots Strokes in Seconds

New artificial intelligence tools can scan CT images instantly — alerting hospitals before a doctor even sees the scan.

Ambulances With Brain Scanners

Mobile stroke units bring the ER to your driveway — starting treatment minutes earlier than ever before.

Safer, Longer-Lasting Clot-Busters

Researchers are developing clot-busting drugs that last longer and work for more patients — even those who arrive late.

Microrobots That Swim Through Blood

In the future, magnetic millirobots may be able to swim through your blood vessels, crushing clots before they cause damage.

It sounds like science fiction.

But it’s happening.

If This Had Existed, My Father Might Be Alive

When my father had his stroke, we didn’t have these options.

We utilized the best tools available at the time.

But even the best tools weren’t enough.

That’s why this work matters.

That’s why I tell my patients — and you — about it.

What You Can Do Right Now

Stroke breakthroughs are coming.

But your best defense is prevention — and fast action when a stroke strikes.

Know the Warning Signs: FAST

• Face: Drooping on one side?
• Arms: Weak or numb?
• Speech: Slurred or strange?
• Time: Call 911 immediately.

Lower Your Risk

• Control high blood pressure.
• Stop smoking.
• Exercise daily.
• Manage cholesterol and diabetes.
• Treat atrial fibrillation, an irregular heartbeat that causes many strokes.

Prepare Your Family

• Know where your nearest stroke center is.
• Make sure your family knows what to do if you collapse.
• Keep a list of your medications and medical history handy.

The Future of Stroke Care: Almost Here — But Not Yet

In medicine, there are no miracles.

But sometimes, there are tiny machines with spinning fins — small enough to dance inside your blood vessels — saving your brain before it’s too late.

I wish my father had lived to see this.

But maybe another family won’t have to say goodbye so soon.

↓ Want to protect your brain? Follow me for future guides on stroke prevention and brain health.

Michael Hunter, MD, is a cancer doctor, health writer, and stroke prevention advocate who helps readers take charge of their well-being through science-backed habits.

The post The Stroke That Stole My Father And the Tiny Device That Could Stop the Next One appeared first on Medika Life.

Understanding Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia

ALL is a type of cancer that predominantly affects the white blood cells and progresses rapidly, making early diagnosis and immediate treatment crucial. According to the American Cancer Society, about 6,550 cases are diagnosed annually in the United States alone, with higher incidence rates reported in children. Symptoms are often nonspecific and include fever, fatigue, and bruising, necessitating specialised diagnostic techniques for confirmation.

Diagnostic Approaches

In HICs, ALL diagnosis is typically confirmed through blood tests, bone marrow biopsies, and sophisticated imaging technologies. Genetic testing is critical in diagnosing and determining the specific subtype of ALL, which can guide targeted treatment approaches. Dr Jane Hollingsworth, a haematologist at Johns Hopkins University, states, “Genetic profiling has revolutionised our understanding of ALL, enabling personalised treatment plans that significantly improve outcomes.”

Conversely, in many LMICs, such basic diagnostic facilities are not readily available. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that access to essential diagnostic services, such as complete blood count tests, in some African countries is limited, leading to delayed or inaccurate diagnoses. Dr Abasi Ene-Obong, a clinician in Nigeria, comments, “In regions like ours, the lack of infrastructure means that many leukaemia patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, where treatment options are limited and less effective.”

“The survival gap between HIC[s] and LMIC[s] (>80% compared to ❤0%) is one of the most profound health inequities across different communicable diseases and NCDs,” according to the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer (GICC), CureAll Framework

Treatment Protocols and Access to Care

Treatment for ALL typically includes chemotherapy, which can be tailored to the genetic features of the leukaemia cells in HICs. More advanced options, such as immunotherapy and stem cell transplants, are also available, leading to improved survival rates. In the United States, the five-year survival rate for children with ALL has increased to 88.5%.

However, the scenario in LMICs is starkly different. “The availability of chemotherapy drugs can be sporadic, and advanced treatments like bone marrow transplants are often not feasible due to cost constraints,” explains Dr. Ene-Obong. The lack of healthcare infrastructure and trained medical professionals complicates the treatment landscape.

Outcome Disparities

These diagnostic and treatment disparities directly impact patient outcomes. Data from the GICC CureAll Framework indicate that the survival rates for ALL in many LMICs are below 30%, a stark contrast to those in HICs. The socio-economic factors, including poverty and lack of health insurance, exacerbate these outcomes, limiting access to care and continuity of treatment.

Innovative Solutions and Global Initiatives

Addressing these disparities requires innovative solutions and robust global initiatives. Research into more affordable, generic chemotherapy drugs and more straightforward diagnostic tests could make a significant difference.

Pharmaceutical interventions by the companies

By prioritising the development of cost-effective treatments and facilitating more affordable pricing models, pharmaceutical companies can enhance access to essential medicines in underserved regions. Investing in local healthcare infrastructure and training, collaborating with global health organisations, and participating in patent pools or licensing agreements to allow generic manufacturing could dramatically improve treatment accessibility. Engaging in these initiatives aligns with ethical business practices and expands market reach, potentially leading to sustained corporate growth and a stronger global presence in the fight against leukaemia.

Strategies that include task shifting, improving the quality of medicines, and innovative healthcare service delivery routes could make a significant difference. For example, the Observer Research Foundation recently discovered innovation; in South Africa, the Central Chronic Medication Dispensing and Distribution (CCMDD/Dablapmeds) program has significantly improved access to chronic medication for stable patients by allowing them to collect their medication from external contracted pick-up points or fast lanes at public facilities using an SMS code, patients can save time and transport costs.

International efforts and skills sharing

A twinning programme is an innovative approach to enhancing child cancer care by fostering collaboration between hospitals in high-income countries (HICs) and those in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These “Twin Centers” are designed to share expertise, resources, and medical practices to improve childhood cancer diagnosis, treatment, and overall management. The programme includes setting up registries, employing data managers to monitor and optimise care, and developing educational tools for nurses to enhance local capacities. This strategic partnership not only aims to transfer knowledge and medical practices but also addresses critical gaps in resources and expertise that often exist in LMIC settings, thereby improving patient outcomes and building sustainable healthcare infrastructures.

A collaborative initiative between St. Jude Global and the World Health Organization (WHO) aims to enhance global access to essential, life-saving cancer treatments for children. This effort responds to widespread challenges in securing safe and effective medications, as underscored by the fact that 71% of low-income countries experience significant shortages in cancer medicines. These shortages stem from inconsistent availability due to supply and demand fluctuations and complex regulatory environments. Additionally, the pursuit of the lowest-cost medications can compromise quality, further endangering patient safety. Financially, the exclusion of pediatric cancer medications from national healthcare budgets frequently imposes severe economic strains on families in low- and middle-income countries. This initiative was bolstered by a resolution for improved access to essential medicines, adopted at the 70th World Health Assembly, highlighting a global commitment to overcoming these barriers in cancer care.

Conclusion

The striking difference in ALL outcomes between HICs and LMICs emphasises the critical importance of developing and implementing a global strategy to promote healthcare equity. Dr. Hollingsworth aptly states, “We need a collective commitment to not only develop medical technologies but also ensure they are accessible where they are most needed.” By working together to bridge this gap, we can save countless lives and make significant progress towards achieving the broader sustainable development goals of health and well-being for all. Addressing the disparities in ALL diagnoses and treatments is a moral imperative and a crucial step in building a more equitable and sustainable future for all.

References

• World Health Organization (2021). Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer (GICC).
• American Cancer Society (2024). Key Statistics for Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL).
• Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. (2023). Facts and Statistics.
• Observer Research Foundation (2024). Health Equity and Inclusion in Action.
• St. Jude Global (2024): Global Platform for Access to Childhood Cancer Medicines.

The post Addressing Global Income Disparities in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia Care appeared first on Medika Life.

The vaccines mostly showed safe results, but the study confirmed some rare side effects. For example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine showed a slightly higher risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome and a type of blood clot in the brain known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. However, these risks were not seen with mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna.

The study also found that heart inflammation (myocarditis and pericarditis) was more likely after Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but this was extremely rare. Interestingly, there was a higher-than-expected occurrence of a brain condition called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, but this was based on a very small number of cases.

This large-scale study is crucial in identifying rare side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Although there were some variations in the data due to different healthcare systems and study methods across countries, the overall findings are reassuring. They confirm that the known risks of COVID-19 vaccines are very rare and that the benefits outweigh the potential risks. Continuous monitoring and analysis of real-world data are important as vaccination programs continue worldwide.

The post Understanding the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines: Insights from a Major International Study appeared first on Medika Life.

Yes, I, too, am surprised. There is a side note, however: Reducing or quitting alcohol does lower oral cancer risk.

In this essay, I will offer the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group.

Edgar Allan Poe had this to say:

“Fill with mingled cream and amber,
I will drain that glass again.
Such hilarious visions clamber
Through the chamber of my brain —
Quaintest thoughts — queerest fancies
Come to life and fade away;
What care I how time advances?
I am drinking ale today.”

Does eliminating alcohol have positive effects?

Cutting back on alcohol has several positive effects, according to a comprehensive review of 63 studies. When people reduce or quit drinking, it has several positive benefits, including the following:

• lowers the chances of ending up in the hospital
• injury risk reduction
• lower blood pressure
• weight loss
• recovery of ventricular heart function in alcoholic cardiomyopathy
• improvement of anxiety and depression symptoms
• improvement in mild liver disease
• lower psychosocial stress levels
• early mortality risk reduction

This lifestyle change can bring about improvements in both physical and mental health, leading to an overall better quality of life.

I wanted to include this section lest I come across as believing that alcohol is a benign drug.

Cutting back on alcohol

After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded this:

For most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lower cancer risk.

More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer, as well as “inadequate” evidence for pharyngeal (throat) and liver cancer.

The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer.

The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.

My thoughts

I know of the perils of alcohol.

When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Apart from the latest IARC report, some separate studies have hinted that giving up or drinking less alcohol might lower the risk of certain types of cancer.

These studies independently suggest that making changes in alcohol consumption habits could have a positive impact on reducing the chances of developing specific cancers.

Even though there’s not a ton of evidence firmly connecting cutting down or quitting drinking to a lower risk of cancer, it’s well-established that the more you drink, the higher your chances of getting cancer become.

So, while the link between less alcohol and lower cancer risk isn’t super clear, there’s a solid connection between drinking more and increasing the cancer risk.

Actionables

A previous IARC analysis figured out that about four percent of newly diagnosed cancers around the world are linked to drinking alcohol.

The types of cancer most commonly associated with alcohol are esophagus, liver, and breast cancer.

The IARC goes so far as to classify alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, which means there’s strong evidence proving that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.

According to guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the US Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health and Human Services, women should have one drink or less per day, and men should stick to two drinks or less on any given day.

The post Quitting Alcohol Drops Your Cancer Risk, Right? Not So Fast. appeared first on Medika Life.

Last year, Medika Life published a piece titled The Top 20 AI Voices to Watch, and most of the thought leaders, influencers, and theorists featured continue to demonstrate why they lead the AI conversation. Among those key voices – Tom Lawry and John Nosta – have focused on why conversation must center around “not will be” rather than what is!  What is happening with this technology right now to improve the system and human health?  Nosta points to how AI is an extension of the health professionals’ cognitive abilities, and Lawry reinforces that health systems that adapt and implement remain ahead of the care curve.

Too much of the side conversation distracts from the reality that AI isn’t a future shock; it’s happening – it’s been happening – now and for decades and is impacting health professionals’ abilities to rise to higher levels of performance and contribution within their communities. 

We had a chance to sit down with one of those market leaders whose ideas and organization are demonstrating the efficient value of AI to make medical diagnoses more timely, efficient, and effective.  Joseph Mossel, Co-founder and CEO of Ibex Medical Analytics is an engineer, entrepreneur, and supply chain workflow expert and has been partnering with pathologists, health systems, and pharmaceutical companies to add speed and reduce the human stressors around accurate diagnosis.

Medika Life sat down with Mossel to explore how he and his team at Ibex bring real-time practical value to the pathologist’s workflow and world and, in doing so, bring an authoritative voice and application to their output.

Conversation with Joseph Mossel – Ibex Medical Analytics

Gil Bashe, Editor-in-Chief, Media Life: People often discuss augmented intelligence – AI – as “futuristic” or theoretical technology. Then, there is abundant conversation about AI’s pros and cons. Can it replace skilled medical professionals?  But, as you and Ibex AI demonstrate, it accelerates critical analysis – sustains human life, and enhances research decisions. Your company’s customers embrace this “thinking” technology to improve workflow and reduce throughput stress. Perhaps most important is its ability to amplify critical thinking skills to provide deeper understanding. 

People want to understand how leaders take this technology, manage vast amounts of information, and operationalize it. You turn a wealth of information into practical business and clinical solutions that sustain and save lives. Do you agree with that basic premise?

Joseph Mossel, CEO, Ibex: Yes, I do. When we looked at this field, we saw a huge opportunity to do something that had not been done before by applying AI to pathology. While it’s been done successfully in radiology, digitization in pathology is far more recent, presents unique challenges, and offers significant opportunities for the research and clinical care communities. For us, it was crucial to feel that we were doing something meaningful and helping improve people’s health globally.

What’s interesting about Ibex is that our founders come from a computer science background. We set out to harness the technology within a clinical environment. But we were true to the goal of helping patients and physicians. This singular focus guided us throughout our journey to do something meaningful and, as you note, practical.

Bashe: Pathology, traditionally involved in examining wet slides under a microscope, now embraces digitization. You were applying computer science and thinking through an idea that would transform an insight-driven medical profession that navigates within a larger physician community.

When you and your co-founder began this journey, did you study the entire process, from sample collection to the pathology lab’s inner workings to how patient-centered professionals use these data? What was your approach to understanding and improving this sector?

AI Isn’t Only About Data – It’s Also Work Flow Change

Mossel: More than that. We come from a background that requires understanding how to build products that improve throughput and output. It’s in our DNA. This isn’t just about analyzing data; it’s about having products running in the market, accomplishing an engineering feat and a successful user experience. A lot of sector knowledge is core to the company’s DNA.

As we looked at pathology, three questions drove what we were doing:  

1. The pathology lab resembles a sophisticated factory with advanced machinery and highly trained technicians.  We wondered how to improve this (life-sustaining) factory—even considering how the experts’ experience improved.
2. How do we capture mistakes early to reduce professional anxiety?
3. How do we ensure the right cases get the right priority? We explored the steps, bottlenecks, challenges, and the IT status and infrastructure of the pathology lab.

The next set of questions is clinical. We needed to understand what happened after this sophisticated “factory” had completed its initial work. How is the information used in patient care or research?  How can it be prepared and offered so that it continues to advance within the decision-making process?

The slides are already there, and a pathologist is looking through, historically, the microscope, now on a computer screen, and conducting the analysis. The key is understanding the clinical questions pathologists must answer and having confidence in their observation beyond a black-and-white diagnosis. That is much more complex than just saying whether cancer cells are present or not.  It adds value to this professional’s presence in the care or research process.

Our goal is to identify tasks where AI excels, like counting cells, and tasks where human expertise shines, such as spotting very small, suspected regions. AI can ensure that everything is scanned and nothing is missed, highlighting interesting areas and ensuring the pathologist can confidently examine.  Augmented Intelligence, in this case, is not replacing the pathologist; it’s helping them do their job – the function that makes them essential in clinical care – even better.

If the Benefits Are Clear Change Is Possible

Bashe: No matter how valuable the idea or technology is, sometimes the culture of a community can create roadblocks to change. As an engineer with computer science and product development expertise, you understand the pathologist’s role as an ally to allied health professionals and as your customer. You have the keen ability as an engineer who understands computer science and building products, which means you understand customer expectations.

There is often a feeling that physicians feel threatened by AI; what was your experience sitting down with your advisors? What comments or feedback were you getting from those people?

Mossel: My view might be biased as I primarily meet with people already inclined toward using AI. The main reason I hear from early adopters is that pathologists are struggling to cope with their field’s increasing complexity, and they are genuinely open to help.

One of the things that we hear from many of our users is that it reduces stress levels. It also just helps them get through the cases faster. There’s less buildup of what they physically have on their desk – slides waiting to be made, for example – which adds stress.

But there’s an even deeper element: they don’t need to go home with this feeling at the end of the day. ‘What did I miss today? Was there something I didn’t see?”

So there’s always these remaining questions, and I think we’re helping them sleep better at night. In general, we make the experience of being a pathologist meaningful – even crucial to the next part of the patient’s journey. We’re not at all considering replacing pathologists. We’re focused on making their experience and clinical voices more authoritative.

Bashe: Technology augments the skills of health professionals; it doesn’t replace them. The human deploys or calls upon the technology to provide a greater value to the system, the patient, and the referring physician, and it becomes a much more authoritative voice because they’re championing it. They’re channeling their wisdom through technology.

Ibex chose to focus specifically on cancer diagnosis. Was that a personal, strategic, or market-driven choice? Because of the ability of the technology? Can we say, ‘Wow, it’s not that they have this type of cancer, from the molecular structure in the staging, it’s this type of cancer, and therefore, we’re best to go with this type of clinical approach’?

Paving the Pathway for Precision Medicine

Mossel: Yes, we are paving the way for precision medicine. I think that’s the third driving question for what we’re doing. One revolves around efficiency and the other concerns clinical quality. We primarily do that with our partnerships; we partner with pharmaceutical companies to use this information. 

Data coming out from pathology drives new insights that pathologists can’t do alone. We are finding these important clinical questions that guide treatment. The key here is getting your hands on the correct data sets that allow you to build what we like to call AI markers, like biomarkers, by analyzing these slides quantitatively, which is different from how a human pathologist does it, and putting this into a machine learning framework, generating novel predictions, creating novel tests.

Why cancer? First of all, you’re right. It doesn’t have to be about the technology. Pathology is not just about cancer; technology lends itself to anything. I think that the answer to your question is all of the above; some of it has to do with firsthand experiences with family members who had cancer. Cancer isn’t everything pathologists do, but it’s undoubtedly the most critical, meaningful, and at the heart of the profession.

If you tie it back to therapeutics, determining the right therapy is where the most significant need and opportunity resides. I see us expanding to other disease areas. Clinical diseases also vary. The diagnosis is a determinant of pathology, and we can certainly go into those domains. We are not limited just to cancer, but still, we think of ourselves as a cancer diagnostic.

Bashe: Cancer is the third major cause of death in the world. 72% of disease deaths relate to what they call noncommunicable diseases. Cancer has a substantial economic impact. If we could get to a correct diagnosis earlier, we could deploy treatments earlier; the fastest or quickest institutions to deploy technologies that make their people smarter, faster, more effective, and more efficient are often major academic medical centers.

Does this type of technology make academic medical centers more important to the biopharmaceutical industry because the quality of the data the department shares is more specific?  Will it make the data more valuable to pharmaceutical companies when submitting new medications?

Mossel: The way to think of it is that AI is, in a way, creating a new modality of data: the ability to extract quantitative objective features from vast information. When you work with human pathologists in a clinical trial, they’re much more limited in the amount and objectivity of the data they can get on the site. So yes, you create this new, much richer, more objective information set. You can do more sophisticated machine learning AI on this data and introduce new insights.

Interestingly, the most significant successes are from academic centers. We work with many, though much of our work is with community commercial pathology labs. These are the backbone centers that oversee high volumes. People in the community commercial pathology labs feel the most pain and stress.  Most of our success is in this domain.

AI Can Advance Health Equity

One of the biggest motivators for our actions is how we help promote health equity. If you’re a pathologist at one of these academic centers, you are well-trained with particularly good colleagues surrounding you. You have a fellow doing all your cases in advance of your searches. There’s a strong support network around you. If you’re a pathologist in a commercial lab, you work alone and don’t have the same level of support. We bring this lab our technology, which was trained by some of the world’s best pathologists and help drive up the quality. Most pathology cases go through these labs, and we are helping them—most people who don’t get their pathology sent out to Brigham and Women’s here in Boston.

Bashe: This is a two-pronged health equity front. Ibex enables the community-based or private lab pathologist to share equality with the state-of-the-art academic medical center’s pathology department. So, David equals Goliath when it comes to clinical output or throughput.

There is also the potential that people who often receive sub-optimal care, the Black, Indigenous Americans diagnostic, can get the same quality oversight as someone who has the private resources to go to Mass General or New England Deaconess or Dana Farber Cancer Center; they’re going to get the same quality review of their pathology data. This type of technology, deployed widely, can be a great equalizer in terms of both the ability of the pathologist to perform and feel comfortable about that, but also the ability of people who may have significant health risks to think that their data had the same oversight as someone from a different zip code. Is that accurate?

Mossel: Yes. This works within a specific country where you have a huge demand. This is not theoretical; we have actual numbers backing it up. But you see it within a specific country, the difference between the top academic centers and the periphery. It’s a dichotomy that exists both on a domestic and international level. If you go to the developing world, there is a massive shortage of pathologists, and there is opportunity there. That’s another part of our vision.

Our mission is to ensure that every patient gets the correct diagnosis. Everyone takes it as a given that cancer diagnosis is often wrong, and we do the best we can do. But we are now in a position where technology allows us to go beyond that, overcome these barriers, and make diagnostic errors exceedingly rare. But it’s not just a technological question, right? It’s a question for the healthcare system. For the technology companies, the providers, the payers, and the regulators – everyone needs to get together and solve this problem.

Bashe: You are a CEO, a founder. You’re an operational leader. You’re listening to the customer’s needs; you’re listening to the response. You talked about how you and your colleagues have created products before, and you understand that it has to be packaged, deployed, and used to assess market success. Could you share two or three measures of success from where you sit? What do you think the success measure should be?

Accuracy Decreases Workplace Stress

Mossel: We have one straightforward measure of success for Ibex that can be extended for the entire industry: the number of biopsies that go through our system. We have hard data showing that Ibex knows what we are doing and has proven that the more cases that go through our system, the fewer the diagnostic errors and the greater the efficiency for pathologists. And for us as a company, that’s what we rally around: driving up the usage. Everything will cascade from both the clinical and economic impacts and the success of Ibex as a company.

Bashe:  Joseph, thank you for your insights – practical guidance on how AI accelerates decisions that save lives. You and your colleagues are drilling down into an area that is one of the most expensive areas of health: managing people with cancer. It’s one of the most terrifying diseases, where people want to know that they have an authoritative diagnosis and where pathologists and oncologists don’t want to screw it up. You are enabling people to be much more confident that the information they’re sharing with their patients and their clinical decisions is on point, not because of their own life experience or clinical experience. But the data is there to back them up. It doesn’t get much more practical than that.

Futurists have the advantage of rarely being wrong.  Long after they’ve shared their predictions, the world moves along. People forget, and the edgy on-stage comment is forgotten.  Pathologists can never be wrong. When they are, it’s considered an error – sometimes with dire consequences.  The possibility of combining knowledge – trained and honed – with the aggregated intelligence of pattern recognition offers pathologists and their health professional community an added advantage.  Ibex AI demonstrates not what is possible – what is happening now. 

The concept of the future is always inviting and exciting.  The difference between invention and innovation is scaled application.  AI, ChatGPT and GenAI applied play to the strength of the curious and bold. Using these technologies can democratize information for humanity’s benefit.

The post Don’t Crystal Ball Patients’ Futures – AI Delivers Accuracy Right Now appeared first on Medika Life.

In October of 1983, I was in my fourth month as the first communications director of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) in New York. If we weren’t then, we would soon be the largest AIDS service organization in the United States. I had been in New York for less than a year, working on morning drive at a news and talk radio station. Fresh from years in Alabama and Georgia, my naÏvety knew no bounds.

For us, then, AIDS was an emergency. We thought we were fundraising and counselling and managing politicians to get past a crisis. It soon became clear that the numbers were vast and the crisis would become a fact of life and death for affected communities across the world. More chilling still, AIDS had been present in humans since the early part of the twentieth century but, because only Africans were dying, no-one had even noticed.  

By October of 2023, the twin miracles of pharmaceutical discovery and global political will had turned HIV into a manageable chronic condition, but I had become much more world weary about the crisis ever concluding.  I moderated a panel that month at the World Health Summit in Berlin and left it thinking that the world really could achieve the UNAIDS goal of ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030. 

The triumph of hope

“Sixteen years ago, I landed in Lilongwe and, on the way from the airport, there were roads full of coffin makers… I’ve been back and I’ve seen what happens when there is a commitment of resources and the will to fight AIDS,” Dr Mamadi Yilla, the Deputy Global AIDS Coordinator for Multisector Relations at the U.S. Department of State, told the panel. My moment of hopelessness came standing on the Thai – Burmese border sometime around the turn of the century and wondering how people caught up in fighting, without reliable access to primary care could ever be treated with the new highly active antiretroviral therapies.

Despite the coffins and the insurrections, we are within grasp of the current 90-90-90 global targets: ninety percent of those infected knowing their status, 90 percent of them on treatment and 90 percent of them with undetectable viral load. “Being hopeful is what has carried us through the last 30 years,” said another panel member, Christine Stegling, the Deputy Executive Director for Policy at UNAIDS. It was naïve and almost foolish hope but it changed the world

To understand how vast the accomplishment is, appreciate that minimal success in HIV is defined as 90 percent being on treatment effective enough to remove any trace of the virus; in Europeans being treated for hypertension, at least 40% do not control their high blood pressure. Those Europeans have no stigma, no supply chain interruptions, no systemic lack of primary care and very few side effects, yet they are four times as likely as a typical African with HIV to be incapable of controlling their life-threatening illness

We will need more resources and more political will to reach the remaining ten percent. The technological innovations coming will be especially important in the areas where the challenges are toughest. “The places that we’re getting to late are the ones with the most need,” said panellist Janet Dorling, Senior Vice President, Intercontinental Region and Global Patient Solutions at Gilead.  “They’re often the ones with the most people at the most risk…But with partnerships we can do things differently,” she added. 

About 4,900 women a week are still contracting HIV and 4,000 of those are in Africa, Dorling said. Reaching them is complicated by the baked-in inequity around women’s access to healthcare in Africa, panellist Florence Riako Anam said. She is the co-Executive Director of the Global Network of People Living with HIV – GNP+. 

Five countries are on track to remove AIDS as a public health threat by 2030, while 16 more are almost there, Stegling reported. The disproportionate share of national and donor resources required to achieve 100-100-100 goals should, I think, be seen as justified. “Everything about the HIV response is a model. This HIV response has taught us about how we serve vulnerable people whatever the threat impacting them” Yilla said

The incredible world waiting for us

The key role in reaching the end of AIDS as a threat will come from people living with it. “The ultimate goal for us is to be undetectable [have an undetectable amount of the virus in the bloodstream] because we will live long healthy lives… but also because the science tells us that if we’re undetectable, there’s zero risk of transmission… We must now use the confidence of the science to shift how we talk about HIV,” Riako Anam said. 

Science and innovation will be vital too. One innovation, Stegling said, tends to become transiently fashionable – the focus of all attention – while others are neglected, often those for women. Then the pack moves on.  “They take one thing and bold it, while forgetting everything else,” Riako Anam agreed. 

Innovation can not only prevent infections and improve quality of life; “innovation can help combat barriers and inequity,” Dorling said, but cautioned that it had to be innovation centred on those living with or vulnerable to HIV. Without transformative, multi-sector partnerships, the panellists concluded, new technologies and approaches would still come to Africa a decade late.

Scientific progress means that there is “an incredible world waiting for us”, Yilla said. Digital practitioners in Lusaka are already using telemedicine to deliver expert care through remote clinics. Digital technologies and AI could transform many aspects of care, she thought. But, she added, that progress in discovery had to be accompanied by progress in policy. Several panellists discussed a wave of bad policies on issues such as criminalising same-sex partnerships and any sexual relationships at all for people living with HIV and AIDS. “Bad policy will undermine the gains we have made in HIV,” Stegling warned. 

There is “a growing global numbness to pain,”  Riako Anam said. It is made worse by those too young or too forgetful to remember how things were twenty years ago in the boom time for coffin makers. “There is a whole generation who don’t know what 2003 was like and some of these people are making decisions,” she added. “They don’t remember what people with HIV looked like then.”

I remember clearly the skeletal, lesion-covered bodies of the early years of the epidemic. I also remember the hopelessness that set in as the scale of the epidemic became clear. This panel reminded me that I have, throughout the forty years since, underestimated the power of hopeful people to change the world. The threat is now almost over. 

The post Can We Dare to Think about an End to AIDS? appeared first on Medika Life.

CAR T therapy, a “living drug,” traditionally involves isolation and purification of T cells outside the body. The cells are then modified with a synthetic receptor and then re-infused into the body for treatment of cancers. Researchers have now successfully demonstrated that T cells can be modified in vivo by mRNA technology, bypassing the need for extraction, chemotherapy and re-infusion. Although this method proves effective in treating mice with scarred hearts, considering fibrosis contributes to over 800,000 deaths worldwide, the study contains great potential for human treatment.

A Damaged Heart 

The heart, flexible yet strong, circulates blood through the body by pumping blood through its chambers. Aging and injury tamper with this function, creating scarred and thickened tissue called fibrosis. Although fibrosis occurs normally when healing, a highly fibrotic heart loses its elasticity; the stiffened tissues and interrupted electrical signaling prevent proper contractions of the heart (see Figure 1). Cardiac fibrosis is highly associated with heart disease and heart failure.

Cardiac fibrosis has no “cure-all” treatment. Early detection improves prognosis, but options dwindle as damage progresses irreversibly. People with advanced cardiac fibrosis may take drugs which antagonize overstimulation of the heart or might even require heart valve replacement.

How CAR T Cells Work

In their study, Rurik et al. explore a new method to directly counter cardiac fibrosis. This method builds upon the basics of CAR T: the use of T cells with a synthetically engineered receptor to target and kill specific cells.

CAR T is approved to treat people with certain lymphomas, leukemias, and multiple myeloma. Figure 2 illustrates this process. In these cases, the desired T cells are extracted from the patient’s body. Synthetic mRNA is inserted into the cell with a retrovirus, a virus commonly used in gene therapy to permanently change other cells’ genomes. The altered and expanded cells are then infused back into the body after preparatory chemotherapy. These T cells target either CD19 or BCMA, two antigens found on malignant B cells.

The benefit of inserting genetic information with a retrovirus lies in its permanence. The CAR T cells can expand and persist in the body for a long time after infusion, continually fighting the cancerous cells they encounter. However, this is of no benefit to researchers hoping to fight cardiac fibrosis. If T cells continuously target fibrotic cells, they would impair normal healing processes and potentially induce autoimmunity. Rurik et al. employ an elegant solution which shortens the CAR T cells’ active duty, thereby circumventing the extraction process altogether.

 New CAR T Cell Design 

The team adapted mRNA delivery technology seen in current COVID-19 vaccines and applied it to basic Chimeric Antigen Receptor design. The mRNA does not integrate into the T cell genome, allowing for temporary transcription of the mRNA and transient expression of the new receptor.

CD5 Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP) 

The authors adopted a strategy to introduce the chimeric receptor to T cells in the body rather than extracting and purifying them outside the body. To accomplish this aim, they first synthesized mRNA that encodes a receptor against fibroblast activation protein (FAP), a protein expressed on activated fibroblasts responsible for fibrosis. They purified the mRNA and packaged the engineered mRNA into standard lipid nanoparticles (LNP).

The team then decorated the lipid nanoparticle surface with CD5 targeting antibodies to direct lipid uptake. The integration of CD5 antibodies allowed the lipid nanoparticles to target antigen CD5 naturally expressed by T cells once injected into the body; the CAR T cells are made after a single shot.

Chimeric Antigen Receptor 

The chimeric antigen receptor contains a single chain variable fragment (scFv) derived from fibroblast activation protein monoclonal antibodies; this recognition domain enables the CAR T cell to target cells which express fibroblast activation protein. The CAR design also includes CD28 and CD3z signaling domains in the cytoplasm. All three components are mouse-specific. Not illustrated in Figure 3 is an added small peptide which prevents immune suppression.

Genetic Integration In Vivo

The team found that lipid nanoparticles could successfully deliver the mRNA package to T cells, as seen in Figure 4. The killer T cell absorbs the lipid nanoparticle by endocytosis. The lipid particle then degrades and the synthetic mRNA releases into the cell. Finally, the cellular machinery reads the genetic instruction and briefly produces the receptor against fibroblast activation protein. This is possible with both animal and human T cell cultures.

Transitory CAR Expression 

Unlike traditional CAR T cells that carry a chimeric receptor encoded by DNA inserted into the genome, these CD5+ T cells carry mRNA only transiently. The mRNA is not integrated into the cell’s genome and remains stuck in the T cell cytoplasm before degrading. This is ideal; fibroblast activation protein receptors must be expressed briefly as longer expression may harm other tissues.

 Results 

The research team assessed the efficacy of the CAR T cells in different conditions. When they treated the cells in tissue culture, more than 80% of T cells expressed the chimeric antigen receptor and could effectively kill target cells with fibroblast activation protein.

The team then tested this model on mice with cardiac fibrosis. The mice received medication to injure the heart and induce scarring. After one week, the team administered the lipid-mRNA injection. Consistent CAR expression was noted 48 hours after injection, and disappeared after one week.

The results were impressive. The function of the heart’s largest chamber improved, in some cases returning to uninjured levels. Similarly, the amount of blood filling the heart normalized to safe volumes. The therapy notably reduced the thickness of the heart. Finally, although the mass of the largest chamber did not normalize, it trended towards improvement.

One caveat in lipid-CAR T cell delivery is that some cells, perivascular fibroblasts, do not express fibroblast activation protein. In consequence, these cells were not impacted by CAR T cells and some fibrosis persisted. No overly toxic side effects were noted.

Trogocytosis

A key observation of effective CAR T therapy is the ability of the modified T cells to take small bites of the target cell—a phenomenon known as trogocytosis. Deriving “trogo” from the Greek word “to bite,” trogocytosis entails one cell nibbling another and, in the process, transferring the surface molecules from one to the other. The researchers found evidence of CAR T cells “nibbling” the activated fibroblasts and retaining the stolen antigens (illustrated in Figure 5), suggesting that the T cells successfully adopted the chimeric antigen receptors in vivo.

Future Implications

CAR T therapy revolutionized cancer treatment with its efficacy and innovation. Combining mRNA technology to this therapy creates a temporary version of this “living drug” that does not sacrifice on quality. The therapy is well tailored to heal mice with damaged and scarred hearts, and widens the possibilities to treat other non-cancerous human ailments. If translated to clinical settings, transient CAR T therapy may be less expensive and more readily available than its traditional counterpart

The post CAR T-mRNA Therapy For Cardiac Fibrosis: A New Way Forward appeared first on Medika Life.

So why are we dropping like flies and why are so many young and otherwise perfectly healthy people suffering conditions that usually affect the aged or overstressed, overweight over 40, business sector? It can only be one of two things. Either it’s the after-effects of Covid, or perhaps it’s the Covid vaccine we’ve been force-fed, or perhaps a two-for-one deal. Covid’s side effects amplified by the vaccine? All good questions that science will provide (hopefully) answers for going forward.

Public opinion is firmly on the side of the vaccines as the root cause. Are they right? That’s what we are going to explore in this article, and if you’ll forgive the tone, it’s a lighter one, albeit mostly serious..

The numbers game

I love the meme below, from Twitter, which pretty accurately reflects the current mood of the masses and who doesn’t need a smile to break the gloom, unless of course you’re one of the unfortunates who were forced into the vaccine through unofficial mandates. Yes, our governments didn’t actually have the balls to come right out and mandate the vaccines, they used pressure from third parties. Want to travel, eat, get medical attention, go to school, find housing, etc. etc. then you’ll need that vaccine. Sorry.

There is little doubt that the vaccines are related to serious adverse events and death and the numbers far exceed any previously acceptable safety levels for a vaccine, by a country mile. Globally, we are probably seeing thousands of vaccine related deaths a day. Before you roll your eyes and reject this hypothesis, remember we’ve vaccinated more than 13,156,047,747 people and that tally climbs daily, according to the WHO Covid dashboard.

That’s more than 13 billion people. Assume 10 thousand deaths a day (a hugely conservative estimate, in my opinion), many of which will fly under the radar and may not be associated with the vaccines – over the course of a year, and you arrive at 3.65 million people. A drop in the ocean in terms of 13 billion. to put it in percentage terms, 1% would represent 131 million people so it is less than 0.03% of that 1%.

In terms of risk for you personally, those numbers amount to 300 adverse reactions for every million shots based on my figures above. For every 3200 shots, someone, somewhere, will die. The current crude birth rate of the world is 16.9 per 1000 population and death rate is 8.8 per 1000 population, so for every 27 people who die per 3200, add on 1 more for the vaccine, or so the figures would suggest.

That sounds absolutely dire and when we look at the reality of these numbers, we wonder why anyone in their right mind would have lined up for the vaccine. [But, remember, in the earlier days of Covid – when we faced the original variant – things look terrifying.] I think what you have just read above, however, requires context. It isn’t as simple as assuming that all deaths post-vaccine are a direct consequence of the vaccine; it is far more nuanced. To form a clear picture of what’s going on we need to understand a few fundamental basics.

Grasping the basics brings the image into focus

Acceptable casualties

There is an important paradox that applies to vaccination (and drug development) that needs to be explained and it’s an unpleasant and harsh reality that applies to medicine. Create a new drug or treatment, and odds are, someone, somewhere will die from it. In many instances, more than one person will die and over the course of a vaccine’s lifetime, many people will be left with severe and permanent side effects, directly ascribed to the vaccine.

This is the cost of doing business with viruses and vaccines are the only currency we currently understand. The risk of the virus versus the risk of the solution. It’s a complex equation to balance, and one that easily tips in favor of the vaccine when we face a really nasty little pathogen, as we assumed in the case of Covid.

There is nothing malicious in this; instead, the complexity of our physiology and our individual medical “uniqueness” is to blame. Medicines cannot be developed to accommodate everyone, and for decades we have accepted these medical casualties as the cost of our attempts to control viruses. Where vaccines prevent disease, reduce transmission, and protect the general population, the cost is considered warranted. In effect, we sanction the loss of life for the group’s safety.

It is these side effects (referred to as SAE’s or adverse events) that have plagued the Covid vaccines remorselessly from day 1.

Separating fact from supposition

Welcome to the world of impossible tasks. To actually prove, beyond any doubt, why a person has suddenly dropped dead from a heart attack or stroke, we need to perform a forensic autopsy to establish the real cause of death. Yes, we know it’s the heart or brain, but why did these organs suddenly, and in the cases of healthy young adults and children, inexplicably, stop working.

There can be two explanations for this: Covid itself or the vaccine. Of course, people tend to look at the vaccines, given their abysmal track records, recorded instances of confirmed injury and death, a list of official SAEs as long as your arm, and the fact that in most instances, those dying have been vaccinated.

Proving this however requires the scientific will and desire to get to the bottom of the huge numbers of excess deaths recorded across the globe. That, and a lot of money, which in theory should be forthcoming from the vaccine manufacturers themselves, but oh, wait. We indemnified them when we defined these products as vaccines, didn’t we?

Where, then, should we turn? Public health-led science cannot help. It is unfortunately as compromised on the vaccine front as the manufacturers, having sold us out early in the pandemic, and asking science to help us validate the consequences of their betrayal, probably isn’t a great selling point. Our only hope rests with politicians. Now before you shake your head in despair and head off to look for a rope, I hope you’ll hear me out.

There is motivation here, political motivation, perhaps of an unprecedented scale. Proving parties guilty of this web of deception and profiteering would end any hopes of reelection for the incumbent politicians who were ensconced in positions of power during the pandemic. In the U.S., the blame rests evenly between Republicans and Democrats. Expose the Covid narrative and you expose the puppeteer. But, U.S. has grown tribal – each party – pointing fingers at the other, rather than rolling up their sleeves to come to an answer.

There is of course another potential explanation for the deaths we are seeing. They could be related to the actual virus. If that is indeed the case, or the main line of thought supported by science, then both industry and the scientific community would be invested up to the hilt in the problem, leaving no stone unturned to prove their science and medicines are not at fault.

Sometimes, not doing anything, is all the evidence one requires to decide where blame lies.

Establishing Covid’s Real Risk

It turns out the SARS-COV2 virus was a bit of a weak link when it comes to “end of world” pathogens. So were we. Unprepared, the planet plunged into chaos in the first few months of the outbreak, fed by a media frenzy warning us of almost certain death and the end of days. The media were, of course, spectacularly wrong and not acting of their own accord, as we’ll discover in the following article. The effects were, however, of the desired nature.

We all cowered in fear, locked away in our homes, waiting for the promised miracle of a vaccine, produced in months and forever immortalized in the Guinness Book of World records. The luxury of time has given us a much clearer picture of the dangers of the virus. The original strain did pose real risks to specific segments of our population. Like viruses do, it rapidly mutated, and Omicron, far more infectious and much less deadly, did in a few months what vaccines had failed to. It eradicated the original strain and rapidly spread a form of immunity and reduced risk throughout communities across the globe.

Omicron was nature’s way of ensuring the virus retained a population to circulate in, trading off its lethalness for infectiousness, and along the way, rendering the vaccines (which we now know were almost hopelessly inadequate) obsolete to all but a handful of people for whom the risk of the vaccine was justified.

The risk/benefit and risk/risk calculation for the mRNA vaccines and the virus’ variant evolution was never considered at any stage of the vaccination campaign. Had it been honestly evaluated, the vaccines would now be ancient history, stockpiled in small quantities for those who needed them. Had more doctors taken the time to research and evaluate the treatments they were offering their patients, far fewer patients would have been encouraged to participate, but doctors did what we did. They trusted the narrative, unlike the purebloods.

Now, lets get the Purebloods!

Not everyone fell for the panic or the panacea of the vaccines. Egged on by conspiracy nuts (some of whom history has vindicated), large groups formed their pandemic narratives, most of which shared one common thread. The vaccines weren’t vaccines (technically accurate) but instead genetic treatments to create a new lizard species, track you while you mow your lawn or sterilize your butt to prevent you from cooking up any more conspiracists. Far-fetched, but intriguing.

Interestingly, recent rumors have emerged from a Pfizer employee suggesting the mRNA vaccines may actually be impacting your ability to procreate. But that’s an as yet unproven allegation and Pfizer, for obvious reasons, is keeping mum and not commenting. The video below, showing an employee that Pfizer has confirmed was working for them, was trending under the hashtag #Pfertility. Gotta love the internet, unless, of course, you’re Albert Bourla.

So, in the closing months of the pandemic, the global goal of vaccinating everyone had failed, despite the best attempts to inject every person on the planet, often multiple times. Recently, in an effort to further use and deplete the vast stockpiles of vaccines the government finds itself stuck with (no refund policy sadly) children have now become the latest focal point, in a campaign supported with yet more scare press from the media and manufactured and mismanaged medical data.

Purebloods had won, or so they thought.

There is actually no escaping the impacts of the mRNA vaccine. Critical mass has been achieved. In other words, we’ve injected a sufficient number of arms to ensure that, in two generations time, everyone will carry traces of the original Covid vaccines in their system. Your pureblood children, or even you, if you’re so disposed, will comingle with the vaccinated and in the heat of the moment, vaccine status will be the last thing on your mind. Trust me.

Need blood? Well then, you’re in luck, as donors happen to donate on a regular basis. Are they screened for the vaccine? Absolutely not, that would be intrusive and an invasion of their privacy, asking for their vaccine status. What kind of world do you think we live in? Seriously. There is a huge and lucrative opportunity here for an “untainted” blood supplier to step into the market, but you didn’t hear it from me.

What many fail to realize is that the spike protein produced by the mRNA injection is a carbon copy of the virus’s spike protein. Assuming, and we are still waiting for science to step in on this, that this is the root cause for all the issues people have with Covid, then those that weren’t vaccinated but contracted Covid, are in exactly the same boat.

And then, lastly, you need to eat, don’t you. Keep a careful eye on that steak you wolf down every week. The label on your slab of beef will very soon display, in really fine print, advice about your dead cow’s treatment with, can you guess? mRNA will be introduced into your food supply and in many instances, you just wont know. Conspiracy? Perhaps, but we know now how those turn out and lets face it, cows are far less resistant to being jabbed than you are.

The point here is that by hook or crook, purebloods will be eradicated and in our technologically advanced society, we won’t have to resort to anything as crude as garlic, stakes (not the cow), or wizardly spells. The mudbloods are coming.

The post Sudden Death, “Purebloods,” Myocarditis and more appeared first on Medika Life.

This article contains claims that many will consider incendiary and anti-science. It therefore requires context and if you indulge me for a minute or two, I’d like, at length, to provide background before we address the large mammal. Words have power and we use them to record our history, describe the world around us, create narratives and chart the future. We use words to communicate our deepest thoughts, describe our fears and share our joys. And then, in some instances we use words to lie, both to others and ourselves.

I understand fully the responsibility that comes with the gift of being able to convey complex ideas to others, more importantly however, I also grasp the moral obligation attached to the gift. It should only ever be used for truth, or in the pursuit thereof. Science isn’t that different. It relies on words to describe complex concepts, often utilizing its own specific language, one that for most laypeople, places much of what is discussed beyond reach.

I am, for the record, a disciple of science. I believe. I always have. The logical purity of numbers and the wonders of the natural world are intertwined in an almost mystical fashion and our salvation, as a species will undoubtedly depend on science. Much like the Spiderman character however, the ability to wield an understanding and control over the natural world grants the scientist almost unlimited power. Power that, you guessed it, requires responsibility. Responsibility, morals and a strong sense of ethics.

That it what this article is about. It is not about science per se, but rather about the consequences we now face from the abuse and corruption of the discipline, morphing it into a tool whose primary focus is profit and control, rather than the betterment of our species. That, unfortunately, makes the brand of science currently being practiced, a danger to you and I. A fact the pandemic has highlighted with stunning clarity.

mRNA is the Pandora’s box of science, one of many advancing technology has uncovered. Make no mistake, mRNA holds huge promise for medicine, potentially even rivalling the discovery of penicillin. You can read an article I wrote on that exact topic in 2021, exploring the promise the technology holds.

So no, I am clearly not anti-science, at least not when the science being practiced is honest, ethical and cautious science, science that is aware of the potential impact of its actions on society and our wellbeing. That is not the science we have endured for the last three years, and we need to speak up. We have been systematically and intentionally lied to, misled and chemically abused for the last two years of the pandemic, potentially even right from the outset. Misled with words, scientific phrases couched in ambiguity and force-fed fear by the mass media, at the behest of politicians and scientists.

Now, when the dust settles, we need to face uncomfortable truths and a world that has changed, in ways we have yet to fully grasp. So, to the article, and if you should find yourself at odds with it, please, at least consider the questions it raises.

The Viral Elephant

If, and the “if” is looking more and more likely, the entire human race was just exposed to the first genetically engineered virus, we need to be urgently addressing the elephant in the room. The effects of the SARS-COV2 virus on our physiology are widespread and complex and it is critical more time is spent reverse engineering exactly how the virus was altered to increase its transmissibility.

I came across an incredibly interesting article while writing this piece from one of Medika’s contributors, William Haseltine, that describes in detail one of the unique tools this novel virus utilizes to evade and suppress our immune system. The article may prove heavy going for some, but it is an excellent read and provides insight on just how well adapted the virus is at exploiting our defenses.

Far more than being a one trick pony, SARS-COV2 is the Swiss army knife of viruses and we, unfortunately, are the can of baked beans.

You may notice how I refer to the above tool as unique. Its a term used all the time when discussing this virus. It is unique and the more we discover about it, the more likely it becomes that it was intentionally weaponized (for whatever purpose) to exploit our physiology. Simply put, the virus that has killed millions across the globe was likely released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is a product of science, American science, it is worth adding, practiced at a safe distance, on foreign soil and funded by American taxpayers.

For the first time in the history of humanity, over the course of the next two generations, this genetically manipulated virus will have infected the entire global population. For those who escaped the virus itself, there is no escaping the engineered bits (or spike protein) that have been artificially stimulated in your system by the mRNA vaccines. So the extent of the damage caused by the SARS-COV2 virus and its ability to access our entire physiology is not surprising, given it was designed for exactly that purpose.

We now face a new kind of threat, unknown medical risk by intentional design, a threat for which we are physiologically unprepared. This new world is filled with unknowns. Future mutations, revisited on us by livestock as we infect a host of animals that live in close proximity to us, or a reversion to the original SARS strain, far more deadly than SARS-COV2. How the virus and the vaccines impact our immune system’s response to future viral attacks is also up in the air. These are the issue’s we should be addressing now, with a sense of immediacy.

It is not melodramatic to suggest our species survival may depend on it, and if you think this is being melodramatic, then you still haven’t grasped the gravity of what has just unfolded.

The first step in this process requires accountability from the players involved, most notably EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, Anthony Fauci, Kristian G. Andersen, Dr. Ralph S. Baric, Dr. Shi Zhengli, et al. must be made to cooperate with a view to establishing the exact nature of their Gain of Function research on coronaviruses. Exactly what did they cook up in the lab in Wuhan and what else resides there on ice, patiently waiting for the next breach in safety protocols.?

It is also worth pausing a moment to consider the irony of the last three years, of looking to those who created the SARS-COV2 virus for our salvation.

The pandemic is rapidly transitioning from a global viral infection to chronic, long-term complications, with a range of symptoms so broad, doctors are at a loss as to how to define and treat them. Covid vaccines may play a significant, but as yet, unquantified role in many of these chronic and often fatal conditions, further muddying the waters. To truly understand which actor, the vaccine or the virus, both manufactured, may be to blame for the afflictions faced by millions, we need reliable, unbiased research and securing that is proving increasingly difficult.

Sifting Quicksand

Every corner of science and the politics that governs it has skin in the Covid game. The pharma industry, perhaps best positioned to carry out large-scale clinical research, can no longer be trusted. Any data released by pharma relating to anything pandemic related – especially in the absence of critical, independent third party review, cannot and must not be taken at face value.

The original Covid mRNA vaccine trials are evidence of this. The trials (170 people, in case you were not aware) were subjected to the most appalling “management” of candidates and data to validate the vaccine’s safety. Rapid development of a vaccine or treatment was of the essence to alleviate a collapsing medical infrastructure that was buckling under the pressure of the pandemic. Moderna took 28 days to solve the problem. 28 days. I’d say it again, but you can draw your own conclusions.

After nearly two decades, we hadn’t managed to develop a vaccine for the original SARS virus and yet, 28 days later, we had a working SARS-COV2 vaccine ready for clinical trials. The absurdity of this and the euphoric acceptance of this break with scientific reality go a long way to illustrating the desperation felt by many in the early days of the pandemic. Logic would rather suggest the virus was familiar to both Moderna and Pfizer prior to 2019.

Government agencies within the U.S. have been deeply complicit, providing funding via the NIH and the NIAID for developing and effectively weaponizing coronaviruses, ostensibly for the purposes of “further research.” Their ability to provide unbiased opinion on what poses a danger to the public they serve has been compromised. It is essential, moving forward, that both the FDA and CDC are overhauled, effectively preventing their pursuit of policies that place the public directly in harms way. Take their latest unanimous advice on vaccinating children as young as six months with mRNA vaccines.

Possibly the greatest indictment of the CDC is their mismanagement of VAERS. The CDC took 15 months before it finally evaluated data from the VAERS system in June of 2022. VAERS is a dedicated tool for collecting reports on vaccine side effects. So why wait 15 months? No sense in checking data for safety signals to simply verify what you already know, is there? Once you’ve checked that data, you can also no longer ignore it.

Every academic medical institution capable of performing the required research we so desperately need is at the same time beholden to outside funding. Research grants and future employment are dependent on not rocking the boat. To produce data that conflicts with, compromises or exposes funding sources (for the most part, pharma) is the equivalent of professional suicide and banishment to the land of the unfunded.

That leaves us with the politicians, whose agendas are rarely fueled by the best interests of the public. Although elected by us, they are all cling to the purse strings that enable them to reach their lofty heights. We will probably never know who orchestrated the official pandemic narrative, but it was the politicians who enforced it. In 2023, despite irrefutable evidence that disputes this narrative, most still repeat it ad nauseam.

To understand just how interwoven this has all become, take Peter Daszak, appointed by the WHO to head up a team to investigate the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan, effectively policing his own research. In record time he appeared on camera, stating that his investigation had turned up no evidence of a breach in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Lie upon lie, layer upon layer of deceit and deception. Little wonder then that trust is science is at an all time low.

Given the above, where do we then turn for reliable, agenda free research that is motivated only by the pursuit of the truth? We need to overcome this seemingly insurmountable obstacle before we can even consider unpacking the plethora of virus related questions that require answers. Some would suggest, the World Health Organization is best placed to oversee an investigation, but they too, possibly more than any other health body, are riddled with conflicts of interest on every level.

One thing is glaringly apparent though. There is large and growing body of evidence supporting the fact Covid vaccines are harming some, in many instances, fatally, which begs the following question.

WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO USE THEM? Why have we extended vaccination to healthy children and why does the CDC support this and promote it? How, in good conscience and with the safety of the public in mind, can governments and regulatory bodies allow the current narrative to continue? The study I have linked to above, references post vaccine induced myocarditis. Myocarditis post the Pfizer-Moderna combo was 28 times more common than post-Covid in 16-24 year old males in this massive Nordic study.

Impunity and the Point of No Return

No one is coming to save us and any hands that reach out from the medical and scientific community must, in light of the last three years, be considered tainted by default, until proven otherwise. This is the sad reality of where we currently find ourselves. Everyone in a position to put an end to the current pandemic narrative is compromised. They have passed the point of no return and although many may be racked by feelings or remorse, there is no world in which anyone admits fault, in particular to the virus’s origin and the efficacy of the vaccines.

That wonderful phrase “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is absolutely applicable. Everyone sold the narrative and no one institutes an investigation in which they are also likely to be held accountable. Add to this, a growing number of individuals, intimately involved in the pandemic, who act with absolute impunity and concern only for shareholder and personal profit – or glory – and we seem to find ourselves in a spot of bother.

Realistically, no one in a position of power or acting from within the industry is going to the sound the alarm. Our only hope of getting to the truth lies in picking at the edges of the tapestry until it frays and pulls apart. It is left to fringe reporters to harass individuals like Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, who was accosted recently in Davos by two reporters from Rebel News. He was peppered with questions about their vaccine, its efficacy and more. Understandably, he diplomatically kept silent .

An eminent British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra has also taken a stance against the vaccines and their manufacturers after the death of his father from a vaccine related illness. He is among a rising number of influential voices now starting to speak out publicly to call for an end to the mRNA vaccination campaign.

It is by no means a simple task or one for the feint of heart. Censorship is still frequently applied to any information that questions the ongoing Covid narrative, and on many social media platforms, content and users are still frequently de-platformed and often professionally sanctioned. Many have turned to Twitter, which, in recent months, since it’s acquisition by Elon Musk, has stopped censoring information that conflicts with the official narrative on the pandemic.

I’ve shared many articles during the last three years, relying mostly on common sense to question the incredibly dubious public health decisions as they’ve unfolded on a very public platform. At this point in the pandemic, we are now confronted with a very new and real threat, in the face of which, who did what, where, when and why, become almost irrelevant.

Mankind 2.0

What legacy will SARS-COV2 leave in its wake and how does that impact us and future generations? What long term impacts will the continued boosting of a novel drug with an abysmal safety record have on our physiology? What has it done to us over the last three years?

The truth is, we really don’t know the answers, which, in some instances, will require time and separating the vaccine’s effects from those of the virus have now become a research nightmare, thanks to the billions already vaccinated. In 2021, a group of academics valiantly tried to sound warning bells, this incredibly detailed article highlighting the potential dangers of mRNA vaccines.

We are headed into troubled waters, from a public health perspective. We may yet be plagued for generations to come by the ill effects of both the virus and the vaccines, no matter their delivery methods. More so, there is swirl and mistrust in voices of influence.

Long Covid, vaccine Serious Adverse Events (SAE’s – to many to list here) and strokes and heart related damage, in many instances fatal, already blight the medical landscape. Worryingly, the younger members of society appear to be as prone, if not more so, to developing adverse reactions, perhaps because their immune responses to the vaccine are more pronounced.

Humanity may have undone humanity, only time will tell. Time is needed to sort-out fact from fiction – probability from certainty. The responsibility now rests with us (you and I) to ensure we attempt to repair the damage and prevent any further rushed science being put to trial in the public space.

What can you do, you ask? Research all sides of the conversation. Ask questions and demand answers from those you have placed into positions of accountability. The truth will out – over time. Make your own, informed decisions – balancing your personal care and risk/risk – the risk of the current virus variant alongside your health status.

I’d ask one more thing of you. Trust your instincts and try to approach public facing pandemic information with a critical mind. There is almost always an agenda, from both sides of the fence and a little digging will normally uncover it. It’s time to leave the safety of the flock. In case you hadn’t noticed they’ve appointed the wolf as shepherd.

As a parting thought, please don’t vilify science. It is as much a victim of the avarice and greed of humanity, as we are. Perhaps, while we attempt to save ourselves, we can, in the same moment, rescue science. We are going to need it.

Missed Part 5 of the Covid Files on The Origins of Covid? Catch up here.

[EDITORS NOTE: The author is pro public health, pro science and pro vaccination. In this situation, he raises important questions and concerns for readers around the Covid SARS2 virus and Covid treatment approaches. His goal is to get people thinking in the best interest of future health innovation.]

The post Covid’s Elephant in the Room. We Must Address it appeared first on Medika Life.

What is Lupus?

Lupus (systemic lupus erythematosus) is an autoimmune disease that affects women approximately ten more than men, and is characterized by the overproduction of antibodies that attack the body’s own tissues. Lupus symptoms—ranging from mild to life-threatening—often come and go, making the condition hard to diagnose. Characteristic signs such as fatigue, muscle pains, joint pains and fever also coincide with symptoms of other diseases.

Current Lupus Treatments  

Although lupus has no cure, modern day symptomatic treatments ensure a normal life expectancy for 80-90% of people with lupus. One of our successes at Human Genome Sciences, a company I founded and served as Chair and CEO, was the use of genomics to discover and bring to market the first drug to treat lupus: Benlysta. Although the medicine proved to be effective, for some with lupus even the strongest drugs offer no relief.

CAR T Therapy for Lupus 

In their study, Mackensen et al. test the effectiveness of CAR T therapy for treatment-resistant forms of lupus. The theory derives itself from CAR T cells’ ability to kill cells. In lupus, B cells produce antibodies that attack the body and trigger inflammation (Figure 2). Using CAR T therapy, the researchers aimed to purge the B cell lineage, allowing the body to restore B cells de novo.

To do this, the researchers first collected patients’ white blood cells. The patients then underwent lymphodepletion, the use of chemotherapy drugs (i.e. fludarabine and cyclophosphamide) to preferentially kill B cells. As seen in Figure 3, this drug regimen leaves room for the later infusion of engineered T cells, but can be very dangerous if the immune system is too thoroughly depleted.

The team altered the patient T cells with new genetic information. The new, chimeric T cell products contained a new receptor—a single-chain variable (scFv) fragment poised to detect CD19-expressing cells—a 4-1BB costimulatory domain and a CD3 intracellular domain. Figure 4 illustrates these cellular components. The antibody-derived receptor and additional costimulatory structure do not naturally occur on T cells, lending the chimeric nature the therapy is coined after (Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells).

Results 

Five patients with severe, treatment-resistant lupus (four women and one man) participated in the study. Lupus impacted several of their organs, including the kidney, heart, lungs, and joints. In addition, these patients did not respond to steroids, antimalarial drugs and other immunosuppressive medicines.

Each of the patients received a transfusion of modified T cells after chemoablation treatment. The chemoablation successfully depleted patient B cells while T cell numbers remained within normal range. Moreover, the team could no longer detect malignant autoantibodies (ie. anti-double stranded DNA antibodies). The participants’ responses to vaccines also remained largely unchanged, suggesting that the CAR T therapy correctly targeted detreminal B cells without damaging the entirety of the immune system.

Three months later, prior symptoms including kidney inflammation, arthritis, fatigue, and heart fibrosis disappeared, and all other immunosuppressive drugs could be discontinued. The symptoms did not return even when B cells began to reconstitute months later. Remission was defined by DORIS, a standardized criteria used to measure lupus symptom severity.

Future Possibilities for CAR T 

This study demonstrates how CAR T can send treatment-refractory lupus to remission. This is a first hopeful step. The search is now on for ways to improve CAR T induced remission for prior B cell ablation using a cocktail of cytotoxic drugs. The study also opens the door to the possibility of applying CAR T to other difficult to treat autoimmune diseases.

The post CAR T Therapy: From Cancer To Autoimmune Disease, The Lupus Example appeared first on Medika Life.