randm_sequence
https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-tv-app/
You cannot stop them from collecting what you watch.
You cannot delete this data.
They will share it with 3rd parties for advertising.
It would seem that there is a giant market opportunity for someone to release a device that does not spy on you.
Why would anyone spend $300 on this?
In about 5 years it will become common knowledge that longCOVID is simply the persistance of the SARS-CoV2 virus within the human body and that there are both symptomatic versions of this disease (aka "longhaulers") and asymptomatic versions of this disease (aka, many of the so called "fully recovered"). Note that we have zero direct evidence that the virus ever leaves the body; it is just assumed because nasal swabs test negative and, for some, symptoms go away. It is a good time to invest in pharmaceutical companies that have already developed antivirals.
"Synthesis of Chimeric NovelSARS-CoVQS: We will commercially synthesize SARSr- Cov glycoprotein genes, designed for insertion into SHCO14 or WIV16 molecular clone backbones (88% and 97% S-protein identity to epidemic SARS-Urbani. These are BSL-3, not select agents or subject to P3CO (they use bat SARS-CoV backbones which are exempt) and are pathogenic to hACE2 transgenic mice. Different backbone strains increase recovery of viable:viruses identification of barriers for RNA recombination-mediated gene transfer between strains™. Recombinant viruses will be recovered in Vero cels, or in mouse cells over-expressing human, bat or civet ACE2 receptors to support cultivation ofviruses with a weaker RBD-human ACE2 interface. "
In vitro testing of chimeric viruses: All chimeric viruses will be sequence verified and evaluated for. i) ACE2 receptor usage across species in vitro, ii) growth in primary HAE, iii) sensitivity to broadly cross neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies that recognize unique epitopes in the RBD. Should some isolates prove highly resistant to our mAB panel we will evaluate cross neutalzation against a cited number of human SARS-CoV serum samples from the Toronto outbreak. Chimeric viruses that encode novel genes with slower potential will be used to identify SARSr-CoV strains for recovery as full genome length viable viruses.
In vivo pathogenesis: Groups of 10 animals will be infected intranasally with 1.0 x 106 PFU of each vSARSr-CoV, clinical signs (weight loss, respiratory function, mortality, et) followed for 6 days..."
S2 Proteolytic Cleavage and Glycosylation Sites: ... We will analyze all SARS-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites".... Where clear mismatches occur, WE WILL INTRODUCE APPROPRIATE HUMAN SPECIF CLEAVAGE SITES AND EVALUATE GROWTH POTENTIAL IN VERO CELL AND HAE CULTURES."
I apologize as the copy and paste from a PDF is not ideal. If anyone ever wanted a smoking gun, this is it. The WIV proposed to build SARS-COV2 in 2018/2019. The key point is that when someone proposes this type of research, they often have already done the work and the funding will be used to generate the next result needed for future funding.
Also, one item that the world conveniently forgot was that half of the specialists in this field believed passionately that the only way to prevent the next Pandemic was to create super viruses in the lab (this is in the public record). Given the extensive history of lab leaks and suspected lab leaks, this path is absolute and complete hubris and folly. The same folks who were pushing this agenda (and the DEFUSE proposal is filled with little notes as to how certain rules could be skirted) were the folks who immediately claimed that it was absolutely impossible for this to be a lab leak.
This proposal was shopped to a number of different US agencies in 2019. This means that there were likely dozens of individuals in multiple agencies who reviewed this proposal and said absolutely nothing when the pandemic broke.
"Synthesis of Chimeric NovelSARS-CoVQS: We will commercially synthesize SARSr- Cov glycoprotein genes, designed for insertion into SHCO14 or WIV16 molecular clone backbones (88% and 97% S-protein identity to epidemic SARS-Urbani. These are BSL-3, not select agents or subject to P3CO (they use bat SARS-CoV backbones which are exempt) and are pathogenic to hACE2 transgenic mice. Different backbone strains increase recovery of viable:viruses identification of barriers for RNA recombination-mediated gene transfer between strains™. Recombinant viruses will be recovered in Vero cels, or in mouse cells over-expressing human, bat or civet ACE2 receptors to support cultivation ofviruses with a weaker RBD-human ACE2 interface. "
In vitro testing of chimeric viruses: All chimeric viruses will be sequence verified and evaluated for. i) ACE2 receptor usage across species in vitro, ii) growth in primary HAE, iii) sensitivity to broadly cross neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies that recognize unique epitopes in the RBD. Should some isolates prove highly resistant to our mAB panel we will evaluate cross neutalzation against a cited number of human SARS-CoV serum samples from the Toronto outbreak. Chimeric viruses that encode novel genes with slower potential will be used to identify SARSr-CoV strains for recovery as full genome length viable viruses.
In vivo pathogenesis: Groups of 10 animals will be infected intranasally with 1.0 x 106 PFU of each vSARSr-CoV, clinical signs (weight loss, respiratory function, mortality, et) followed for 6 days..."
S2 Proteolytic Cleavage and Glycosylation Sites: ... We will analyze all SARS-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites".... Where clear mismatches occur, WE WILL INTRODUCE APPROPRIATE HUMAN SPECIF CLEAVAGE SITES AND EVALUATE GROWTH POTENTIAL IN VERO CELL AND HAE CULTURES."
I apologize as the copy and paste from a PDF is not ideal. If anyone ever wanted a smoking gun, this is it. The WIV proposed to build SARS-COV2 in 2018/2019. The key point is that when someone proposes this type of research, they often have already done the work and the funding will be used to generate the next result needed for future funding.
Also, one item that the world conveniently forgot was that half of the specialists in this field believed passionately that the only way to prevent the next Pandemic was to create super viruses in the lab (this is in the public record). Given the extensive history of lab leaks and suspected lab leaks, this path is absolute and complete hubris and folly. The same folks who were pushing this agenda (and the DEFUSE proposal is filled with little notes as to how certain rules could be skirted) were the folks who immediately claimed that it was absolutely impossible for this to be a lab leak.
This proposal was shopped to a number of different US agencies in 2019. This means that there were likely dozens of individuals in multiple agencies who reviewed this proposal and said absolutely nothing when the pandemic broke.
Thus there is a small effect seen that is indeed suggestive that ivermectin helped. However there are a number of things to call into question including why didn't they just take the medicine for longer than 6 days and most antivirals will not show that significant of an impact in this type of study.
Another study showed that ivermectin synergized with remdesivir making each drug approximately 4 to 6 times more effective. As with most viruses I would expect a cocktail or combo antiviral to be much more effective than monotherapy. Is therefore not that surprising that many of these ivermectin trials do not seem to discover much of an effect against COVID
Regardless of your point of view on this topic, this piece fails to highlight the implicit bias that has been hiding in plain sight since the pandemic started. A lab leak would likely result in decreased funding for researchers in this field and definitely produce far more rules and regulations governing allowable research (or simply stronger enforcement of existing rules). Thus, "experts" who do not want increased regulation and/or decreased potential funding categorically deny the possibility that SARS-CoV2 was any type of lab leak.
It would seem that the Centers for Disease Control literally and very publicly failed to perform its core mission (control disease) at the very moment it was needed to perform. Sadly it has been feeling to do its mission for the last 4 years under administrations from both sides of the aisle. Thus, questioning why we spend $9B a year seems reasonable.
SARS and MERs survivors Longhauled as well. If you need more convincing, Feline infectious peritonitis is a coronavirus extremely similar to SARS-Cov2 and is persistent and can be cured with the same set of antivirals that help with COVID.
There are additional antiparasitics that also appear quite effective against COVID, some of which are being reformulated and brought to market.
There are also a host of treatments that were demonstrated to be quite effective against COVID via placebo controlled double blind trials that were ignored. If something is off patent, it will almost never be repurposed for another indication by a US pharmaceutical company.
Two comments:
1. When you construct a multi-million dollar proposal for one of these agencies, one tends not to pitch a pie-in-the-sky idea. Instead, teams pitch things that they know will work, often because they have already at least built the foundation if not outright developed a working example. If WIV pitched this idea of inserting furin cleavages into SARS viral backbones, it is almost 100% guaranteed that they had *already* done these experiments.
2. What many also don't understand is that there were two groups within virology. One group was adamant that the only way you could save humanity and prevent the next pandemic was to engineer terrifying viruses capable of destroying humanity in the lab. With example world-ending viruses, you could then create countermeasures - drugs and vaccines - and save the world. The rest of us, myself included, thought this group was (forgive the pun) "batshit" crazy because nothing in the lab stays in the lab forever. Lab leaks are large in number, even the ones that are public.
I personally ignored much of the hype at the beginning because all previous SARS/MERS outbreaks were relatively easily contained (because the virus was not that well adapted to spreading in humans).
HIV initially causes a flu like illness in over half of individuals who contract the virus. These symptoms clear. The virus is still in the body and, untreated, results in AIDS and ultimately death.
Biologically -
(1) The earliest available copies of SARS-CoV2 from 2019/2020 are incredibly stable genetically. When a virus makes the jump from one species to the next it tends to undergo rapid evolution as it adapts to a new host. We have zero evidence that this happened as if it sprung forth already adapted to the supposed new host, humans.
(2) This "novel" virus infects an unbelievably large number of different cell types in the human body across *all* major organ systems.
Thus, this "novel" virus jumped to humans perfectly adapted to infect dozens of different cell types across every main organ systems via multiple receptor paths via random chance? Sure.
Couple those two facts with the following ...
(3) WIV has been studying coronaviruses for 20 years in case of a pandemic. When one such pandemic arises, do they rise to the occasion? Do they jump in with their research? Do they help develop new therapeutics? Nope, they go completely dark and destroy evidence. If China were trying to vie as a superpower on the world stage, this was the exact wrong step to take.
(4) The WIV lab in question had been part of a team that submitted a DARPA proposal in 2018. WIV's role in the proposal was to generate new chimeric Coronavirus backbones, insert different types of spikes, and trial furin cleavages in those spikes. They would then passage them through humanized mice, collect the ones that successfully reproduced, and sequence them. My jaw hit the floor when I read the proposal, which is floating around the Internet to be read by all. One might object and say that you can't trust everything on the Internet, which is very true. I came from this world. My friend is at DARPA and was on the team who reviewed (and rejected) the proposal. Please note that typically one proposes research that is not only possible but has already been successfully completed.
Note that there are dozens of other facts that also support this position that I won't regurgitate here.
Why does this matter? Beyond crimes against humanity and preventing this from happening again, you really need to consider how events unfolded to understand the impact this grand lie had. SARS and MERS were scary but not very good at spreading; therefore, past outbreaks were quickly extinguished. If the public had been told that this virus was likely engineered to infect people, one could imagine that the entire response to the pandemic would have been quite different.
ps longCOVID is simply a persistent coronavirus infection and most of the infections appear to be persistent (some are asymptomatic until they aren't).
It is horrifying that the person who has lead the response to this virus for the US is a coauthor of this factually incorrect statement 3 years into the pandemic.
Here is but one such paper - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11695-022-06338-9
> Gastric specimens from 26 (32.5%) patients and 4 (100%) cholecystectomy [gallbladder removal] specimens showed positive cytoplasmic staining for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in surface mucosal epithelial cells.
> The median time between initial COVID-19 infection and surgery was 274 and 380 days in the positive and negative staining groups, respectively (p = 0.371). It's not clear whether these had any long lasting symptoms since infection.
> The inclusion criteria were a history of COVID-19 with one or more gastrointestinal symptoms [during the acute phase] and a negative PCR test result at the time of bariatric surgery.
There are literally dozens of these.
The problem is that most people don't get tissues resected from inside their body when their alive and most such tissues are not tested for the virus.
With regards to the general question of persistent corona viruses, just look at FIP in cats for another such example.
Put simply, not every single patient in the study was appropriately tested for myocarditis and/or pericarditis. The statistics provided by this retrospective cohort study depend on the outcome of patients traversing the healthcare system of the population in question. These statistics are really telling you the outcome of multiple probabilistic events (listed below). Once you think through each of these events, it quickly becomes apparent that all of the biases lead these conditions to be dramatically undercounted.
1. Patient sought healthcare 2. Patient reported symptoms doctor could identify as potential myocarditis and or pericarditis 3. Doctor recognized symptoms 4. Doctor ordered appropriate diagnostic testing 5. Radiologist recognized the condition.
Let's look at each of these.
1. Given this was a retrospective study, we know that (1) happened 100% of the time. No problem here.
2 and 3. A patient with myocarditis may have one or more of the symptoms below. Some of these symptoms, such as swelling in the lower extremities, are likely a dead give away. However, most are extremely common in COVID.
- Signs of a viral infection, such as body aches, joint pain, fever, headaches, vomiting, diarrhea or a sore throat. - Rapid or abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias). - Chest pain. - Shortness of breath, both at rest and during physical activity. - Swelling of your lower extremities (legs, ankles and feet). - Fatigue.
I would wager that most patients who demonstrated one or more of these symptoms indicative for potential myocarditis/pericarditis were not actually tested for the disease. To get tested, a patient lacking extreme myocarditis would likely have to push and push hard to get the doctor to test. This *heavily* biases the results toward under counting.
4. Diagnosing COVID-caused myocarditis and pericarditis is hard. The typical standard of care, at least in the US, is an echocardiogram. This diagnostic ultrasound can indeed pick up some forms of the disease but multiple papers have shown that COVID-caused myocarditis and pericarditis can be invisible on an echocardiogram. The definitive scan is a specialized MRI machine capable of a particular scan sequence. This machine is hard to find even in major health centers (there are three of them total in the Washington DC area). The cost of an MRI is at least an order of magnitude more than an echocardiogram. The echo takes about 15 minutes whereas the cardiac MRI is about 90 minutes. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the doctors in question ordered the appropriate test that can actually detect the disease in question. This further biases the findings in the same direction.
Finally, the study looks at patients from March 2020 and January 2021. The fact that COVID myocarditis and pericarditis can typically only be resolved on a specialized cardiac MRI was not common knowledge for most of the study period.
Thus, the conclusions from this study are DRAMATICALLY underestimated.
You can also look at China's Zero Covid policy from the lens that they know something about this virus that we do not. Regardless of said virus' origins, Chinese scientists have been studying corona viruses intently for the last 20 years. My belief, backed up by a good volume of research, is that SARS-CoV2 is an airborne, persistent virus. LongCOVID is simply a persistent viral infection (think HIV or Hepatitis). Given the diversity and large number of cell types impacted, symptoms manifest in a multitude of ways, helping to confuse a Western medical community that assumes the virus clears quickly. The only real question is whether the virus is persistent even in individuals who appear to fully recover. As of now, we are not willing to do the research to detect a slow burn persistent virus of this type. If you need convincing that this is possible, just read up on Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP), another corona virus that persists and ultimately kills a percentage of cats. Interestingly enough, FIP can be treated with the exact same anti-virals effective against COVID. From this perspective, the Zero Covid Policy looks quite rational.
Of course, both perspectives above could apply.