principiascientificinternational--2020-09-03--Is This Murder? UK HCQ Trials Deliberately Overdosed Patients!

Anger is growing as evidence emerges that the UK government ’ s botched attempt to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID19 negligently and criminally exceeded the recommended safe dosage by a factor of TWELVE !
A damning video presentation comes from respected seasoned UK medical professional Dr John Campbell ‘ Hydroxychloriquine Evidence of Efficiency ’ .
In it Dr Campbell reveals that trials of Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) conducted under the auspices of Britain ’ s NHS in May and June 2020 blatantly abandoned mandatory medical safety protocols and with reckless disregard to life , lethally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number killed in this manner has yet to be ascertained as no official investigating has been initiated .
Watch the crucial section of this video from the 2:20 mark where Dr Campbell reveals : [ below is screenshot of the British National Formulary showing the maximum safe dose for HCQ .
Yet the aforementioned studies negligently and criminally exceeded this safety limit and killed patients in the pursuit of discrediting this otherwise WHO-approved safe medicine which has an exemplary safety record spanning over 65 years ] Some critics say the all out media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full overdrive since US President Trump lauded it as a “ game changer.
” POTUS picked up on the success of the drug after he received this letter from Manhattan , New York specialist Dr. Vladimir Zelenko as well as news about Didier Raoult , biologist and professor of microbiology , Marseille , France .
As a result , President Trump had his doctor prescribe him the drug .
He later reported it as “ very encouraging , ” a “ phenomenal drug , ” and “ the biggest game changer in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors to prescribe it proclaiming : “ What do we have to lose ?
I feel very good about it.
” Many nations , including Turkey and India , are protecting medical workers and contacts of infected persons prophylactically .
The UK intended to follow suit , but then the anti-HCQ fake news hit the fan .
That push back of hate manifested itself in this news story from The Daily Mail ( June 05 , 2020 ) : When the UK trials , known as ‘ RECOVERY ’ at Oxford University , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it precipitated other nations to abandon HCQ use .
But independent doctors smelt a rat and suspected the same element of fraud and corruption that inspired the horrific Lancet study also infected the Oxford University trials .
[ See : ‘ Evidence Exposes FRAUDULENT Lancet HCQ COVID-19 Study.
’ ] Strong evidence to support that analysis a correct comes from the American Physicians And Surgeons ( AAPS ) who found that Hydroxychloroquine is 90 % Effective On COVID-19 .
The medical flip flopping has caused untold death .
For example , Switzerland had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their death rates are low .
But after the damning ( fake ) HCQ Lancet publication in May , Switzerland stopped using HCQ and the nation ’ s death rates spiked .
When that bogus study was retracted , Switzerland resumed using HCQ and the death rates fell back to their previous low levels .
But this is no surprise to the many thousands of patients successfully treated on HCQ .
Peer-reviewed studies published from January through April 20 , 2020 , provide clear and convincing evidence that HCQ may be beneficial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , states AAPS .
Many independent doctors are concurring with the findings of Dr Campbell .
For example , Dr .
Marcia Angell , former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine laments : In addition , Dr Campbell compounds the case against incompetent and biased NHS practitioners but citing a Belgian study which gave patients the recommended safe dosage of HCQ and the results of the trial were conclusively in favor of the re-purposed anti-malarial drug as effective against the coronavirus .
The studies that found the ‘ Trump Treatment ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortly after infection .
The studies that only gave it to patients sick enough to be in hospital found it not effective What is being shown is that HCQ acts as an “ ionopher ” to transport zinc across the cell membrane which then joins the RNA strand of virus stopping it from reproducing .
HCQ is also shown to be an immune modulator with associated anti-inflammatory properties .
Another key points is that common to all the trials which ‘ failed ’ HCQ was that they were using the drug in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early on .
Also often overlooked is that COVID19 is said to often cause issues with the heart .
But the HCQ naysayers have erroneously blamed HCQ for these heart arrhythmia anomalies .
Over time it is being shown by doctors who have the best outcomes using the drug that it is optimally effective in the early stages of infection and not to be given to patients on high flow oxygen or on ventilators and is best administered with zinc and an antibiotic .
Anyone who has studied the progress of this scamdemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by ‘ experts ’ and policymakers can be left in no doubt .
This is by design the biggest medical scandal in history .
Key figures in authority , such as the CDC ’ s Dr Fauci gamed the system because they are set to profit from their prior investments in vaccines and do not want a cheap , safe and effective cure like HCQ .
The majority of the UK ’ s SAGE committee and FEMA in the US and the WHO stand to profit very handsomely from the sale of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be launched later this year .
Dr Fauci has gone on record that the only safe way to trial HCQ is by a double-blind test .
But he has remained silent on calling for a similar test of ANY vaccine or the new , similarly unproven drug Remdesivir which he supports , but is an expensive and new therapeutic which eventually be shown to have adverse side effects .
However , so corrupt and self-contradictory is WHO on this issue that it ‘ Bans ‘ COVID CURE ’ But It ’ s On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In May we reported : But WHO is heavily funded by billionaire , Bill Gates , who is all in on bringing his own COVID vaccine to the party .
Is it no wonder then that the WHO-lead “ Solidarity ” trial is similarly tarnished for endangering patients with mega-doses of HCQ , said to be TWENTY-FOUR TIMES HIGHER than the recommended maximum dose .
Criminal prosecutions must ensue from this .
Complicit in the conspiracy are the mainstream media , pharmaceutical companies , the FDA ( who banned HCQ ) , The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , The WHO ( who shut down HCQ studies ) , governments such as the UK and Australian which banned HCQ .
The heroes of this epic tragedy are Dr Zelenko , the American Frontline Doctors campaigning for HCQ + Zinc + Azithromycin .
Speaking on Twitter , Dr Zelenko gave his reaction to the concerted efforts to smear the HCQ treatment : We can not give medical advice but what we can share with readers is that if you wish to seek treatment with HCQ and it is unavailable then an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
It is commonly available over the counter in many health food stores .
Also , we have reported before that HCQ is simply the modern derivative of quinine , an ingredient in ordinary tonic water which you can buy from any supermarket .
The tipple , gin and tonic was originally popularized during Britain ’ s colonization of India during the Empire to ward off malarie .
See : ’ How Gin & Tonic May Save The World From COVID 19.
’ Quinine , as a drug , has been used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malaria for hundreds of years and- in modern form as HCQ – is on the World Health Organization ’ s ( WHO ) list of Essential Medicines .
About the author : John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder ( with Dr Tim Ball ) of Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) .
John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Is This Murder? UK HCQ Trials Deliberately Overdosed Patients!
Written by John O'Sullivan
Anger is growing as evidence emerges that the UK government’s botched attempt to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID19 negligently and criminally exceeded the recommended safe dosage by a factor of TWELVE!
A damning video presentation comes from respected seasoned UK medical professional Dr John Campbell ‘Hydroxychloriquine Evidence of Efficiency’.
In it Dr Campbell reveals that trials of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) conducted under the auspices of Britain’s NHS in May and June 2020 blatantly abandoned mandatory medical safety protocols and with reckless disregard to life, lethally overdosed very sick patients. The exact number killed in this manner has yet to be ascertained as no official investigating has been initiated.
Evidence From British National Formulary Proves UK HCQ Criminally Overdoses Patients
Watch the crucial section of this video from the 2:20 mark where Dr Campbell reveals:
“I’ve just taken this excerpt from the British National Formulary. This is what all British doctors, nurses and pharmacists use – it is absolutely standard – ‘hydroxychloroquine sulphate, indications and dose’, which states ‘200 to 400 mg daily maximum dose.’ This is absolutely standard, public domain information yet the UK NHS study and WHO study didn’t seem to realize this. All very strange.”
[below is screenshot of the British National Formulary showing the maximum safe dose for HCQ. Yet the aforementioned studies negligently and criminally exceeded this safety limit and killed patients in the pursuit of discrediting this otherwise WHO-approved safe medicine which has an exemplary safety record spanning over 65 years]
Some critics say the all out media hate against the drug only went into full overdrive since US President Trump lauded it as a “game changer.” POTUS picked up on the success of the drug after he received this letter from Manhattan, New York specialist Dr. Vladimir Zelenko as well as news about Didier Raoult, biologist and professor of microbiology,Marseille, France.
As a result, President Trump had his doctor prescribe him the drug. He later reported it as “very encouraging,” a “phenomenal drug,” and “the biggest game changer in the history of medicine.” Trump has urged doctors to prescribe it proclaiming: “What do we have to lose? I feel very good about it.”
Many nations, including Turkey and India, are protecting medical workers and contacts of infected persons prophylactically. The UK intended to follow suit, but then the anti-HCQ fake news hit the fan.
That push back of hate manifested itself in this news story from The Daily Mail (June 05, 2020):
“Hydroxychloroquine does not treat coronavirus, according to the world’s biggest trial of the anti-malaria drug backed by US President Donald Trump. Oxford University scientists pulled the controversial drug from the RECOVERY trial today after results showed it had no benefit on patients hospitalised with the virus. A quarter of NHS patients given hydroxychloroquine died from Covid-19, compared to 23.5 per cent who were not prescribed the drug.”
The Mail reported:
“A total of 1,542 patients were randomly given hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3,132 patients randomised to receive standard care in the Oxford trial. After 28 days, 25.7 per cent of patients taking the malaria tablets passed away from the virus compared to 23.5 per cent who were not given the medicine.” See: www.dailymail.co.uk
When the UK trials, known as ‘RECOVERY’ at Oxford University, were widely reported as being a failure it precipitated other nations to abandon HCQ use. But independent doctors smelt a rat and suspected the same element of fraud and corruption that inspired the horrific Lancet study also infected the Oxford University trials.[See: ‘Evidence Exposes FRAUDULENT Lancet HCQ COVID-19 Study.’]
Strong evidence to support that analysis a correct comes from the American Physicians And Surgeons (AAPS) who found that Hydroxychloroquine is 90% Effective On COVID-19.
The medical flip flopping has caused untold death. For example, Switzerland had opted to use HCQ throughout the pandemic and their death rates are low. But after the damning (fake) HCQ Lancet publication in May, Switzerland stopped using HCQ and the nation’s death rates spiked.
When that bogus study was retracted, Switzerland resumed using HCQ and the death rates fell back to their previous low levels. But this is no surprise to the many thousands of patients successfully treated on HCQ.
Peer-reviewed studies published from January through April 20, 2020, provide clear and convincing evidence that HCQ may be beneficial in COVID-19, especially when used early, states AAPS.
Many independent doctors are concurring with the findings of Dr Campbell. For example,Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine laments:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
In addition, Dr Campbell compounds the case against incompetent and biased NHS practitioners but citing a Belgian study which gave patients the recommended safe dosage of HCQ and the results of the trial were conclusively in favor of the re-purposed anti-malarial drug as effective against the coronavirus.
The studies that found the ‘Trump Treatment’ (hydroxychloroquine+zinc+ azithromycin) effective gave it shortly after infection. The studies that only gave it to patients sick enough to be in hospital found it not effective
What is being shown is that HCQ acts as an “ionopher” to transport zinc across the cell membrane which then joins the RNA strand of virus stopping it from reproducing. HCQ is also shown to be an immune modulator with associated anti-inflammatory properties.
Another key points is that common to all the trials which ‘failed’ HCQ was that they were using the drug in the late stages of the disease – not early on. Also often overlooked is that COVID19 is said to often cause issues with the heart. But the HCQ naysayers have erroneously blamed HCQ for these heart arrhythmia anomalies.
Over time it is being shown by doctors who have the best outcomes using the drug that it is optimally effective in the early stages of infection and not to be given to patients on high flow oxygen or on ventilators and is best administered with zinc and an antibiotic.
Anyone who has studied the progress of this scamdemic and the way it has been handled by ‘experts’ and policymakers can be left in no doubt. This is by design the biggest medical scandal in history.
Key figures in authority, such as the CDC’s Dr Fauci gamed the system because they are set to profit from their prior investments in vaccines and do not want a cheap, safe and effective cure like HCQ. The majority of the UK’s SAGE committee and FEMA in the US and the WHO stand to profit very handsomely from the sale of a vaccine some reports that is set to be launched later this year.
Dr Fauci has gone on record that the only safe way to trial HCQ is by a double-blind test. But he has remained silent on calling for a similar test of ANY vaccine or the new, similarly unproven drug Remdesivir which he supports, but is an expensive and new therapeutic which eventually be shown to have adverse side effects.
However, so corrupt and self-contradictory is WHO on this issue that it ‘Bans ‘COVID CURE’ But It’s On Their ‘List Of Essential Medicines.’
In May we reported:
But WHO is heavily funded by billionaire, Bill Gates, who is all in on bringing his own COVID vaccine to the party.
Is it no wonder then that the WHO-lead “Solidarity” trial is similarly tarnished for endangering patients with mega-doses of HCQ, said to be TWENTY-FOUR TIMES HIGHER than the recommended maximum dose.
Criminal prosecutions must ensue from this. Complicit in the conspiracy are the mainstream media, pharmaceutical companies, the FDA (who banned HCQ), The Lancet (which published a fraudulent article), The WHO (who shut down HCQ studies), governments such as the UK and Australian which banned HCQ. The heroes of this epic tragedy are Dr Zelenko, the American Frontline Doctors campaigning for HCQ + Zinc + Azithromycin.
Speaking on Twitter, Dr Zelenko gave his reaction to the concerted efforts to smear the HCQ treatment:
“Day reckoning is coming for everyone who colluded anti-HCQ propaganda. If you’re among the policymakers or physicians participating in this charade, you may want to dissociate yourself while you can credibly plead ignorance for tens of thousands of preventable deaths.”
We cannot give medical advice but what we can share with readers is that if you wish to seek treatment with HCQ and it is unavailable then an alternative, Quercetin is said to work well.
It is commonly available over the counter in many health food stores. Also, we have reported before that HCQ is simply the modern derivative of quinine, an ingredient in ordinary tonic water which you can buy from any supermarket.
The tipple, gin and tonic was originally popularized during Britain’s colonization of India during the Empire to ward off malarie. See:’How Gin & Tonic May Save The World From COVID 19.’ Quinine, as a drug, has been used safely and effectively as a prophylactic against malaria for hundreds of years and- in modern form as HCQ – is on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) list of Essential Medicines.
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-04--New Study: Vitamin D Highly Effective in Removing COVID-19 ICU Risk

The first randomized controlled trial ( RCT ) of vitamin D in COVID-19 has just been published .
The results are astounding : vitamin D nearly abolished the odds of requiring treatment in ICU .
Although the number of deaths was too small to say for sure , vitamin D may actually abolish the risk of death from COVID-19 .
The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and COVID-19 The trial was conducted at the Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba , Spain .
The trial included 76 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia .
Although this is no longer the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and , when needed , a broad-spectrum antibiotic .
Admission to the ICU was determined by a multidisciplinary committee consisting of intensive care specialists , pulmonologists , internal medicine specialists , and members of the ethics committee .
The patients were randomly allocated to receive or not receive vitamin D in a 2:1 ratio .
This resulted in 50 patients in the vitamin D group and 26 patients in the control group .
The vitamin D was provided as oral calcifediol , also known as calcidiol , 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D. This is a metabolite of vitamin D that our livers make .
It is is the principle form of vitamin D that circulates in the blood , and we use it as a measure of vitamin D status .
Traces of 25 ( OH ) D occur in food , and it is five times as potent as vitamin D. As described on page 255 of the 1997 DRI Report , 25 ( OH ) D is given an international unit ( IU ) value that equates it to vitamin D. Whereas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D is 40 IU , 1 mcg of 25 ( OH ) D is 200 IU .
The treatment in this RCT was soft capsules of 532 mcg 25 ( OH ) D on day 1 of admission to the hospital , followed by 266 mcg on days 3 and 7 , and then 266 mcg once a week until discharge , ICU admission , or death .
This is equivalent to 106,400 IU vitamin D on day 1 , 53,200 IU on days 3 and 7 , and 53,200 IU weekly thereafter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doses , it would be the equivalent of 30,400 per day for the first week , followed by a maintenance dose of 7,600 IU per day .
The vitamin D status of the patients was not measured .
However , the average vitamin D status in this region of Spain during the time of year in which the study was conducted is 16 ng/mL .
A single dose of 100,000 IU vitamin D tends to raise a 25 ( OH ) D of 10 ng/mL into the 20-30 ng/mL range .
My suspicion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first week brought the patients ’ vitamin D status into the 30-40 ng/mL range by the end of the week , and that most of the healing took place in the circa 40 ng/mL range .
The Results : Near Abolition of ICU Risk The results are absolutely stunning .
50 % of the control group ( 13 people ) required admission to the ICU .
Only 2 % of those in the vitamin D group ( one person ) required admission to the ICU .
Expressed as relative risk , vitamin D @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Put another way , it eliminated 96 % of the risk of ICU admission .
Expressed as an odds ratio , which is a less intuitive concept but is often used in statistics because it gives an estimate of the effect of the treatment that would be constant across scenarios with different levels of risk , vitamin D reduced the odds of ICU admission by 98 % .
Either way , vitamin D practically abolished the need for ICU admission .
This was statistically significant at p < 0.001 , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This means that the probability of observing differences this large or greater if there is no true effect of vitamin D is less than one in a thousand , and that the probability is 95 % that the true effect lies somewhere between an 83 % and a 99.8 % reduction in the odds of ICU admission .
No matter how you slice it , the effect of vitamin D is extremely compelling .
Because the study is small , the potential confounding variables were not perfectly evenly distributed between the two groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the control group , and there was a borderline greater number of patients with diabetes in the control group .
Though not statistically significant , the vitamin D group had more people over the age of 60 and five times as many people with organ transplants or who were otherwise on immunosuppressive drugs .
To account for all of these differences , they adjusted for them statistically .
In the adjusted model , vitamin D still reduced the odds of ICU admission by 97 % , with the 95 % confidence interval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 99.7 % reduction in the odds .
Did Vitamin D Also Abolish the Risk of Death ?
All of the vitamin D patients were discharged without complications .
Half the control group was discharged without ICU admission .
Among the other half , 11 were eventually discharged from ICU , and 2 died .
Although there were , thankfully , too few deaths to run statistics on , since patients generally would be admitted to the ICU before dying , and since vitamin D nearly abolished the risk of ICU admission , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with more deaths , vitamin D would probably abolish or nearly abolish the risk of death .
These results are consistent with the first observational study on vitamin D , which found that 96 % of severe and critical cases occurred at 25 ( OH ) D under 30 ng/mL , whereas 97.5 % of mild cases had 25 ( OH ) D above 30 ng/mL .
This study couldn ’ t measure the effect on mortality , but all two deaths were in the control group and the near abolition of ICU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly abolished .
This is consistent with the second observational study finding that only 4 % of those with vitamin D status above 30 ng/mL died , while 88 % of those with vitamin D status at 20-30 ng/mL died , and 99 % of those with vitamin D status lower than that died .
It is less consistent with the weaker observational studies that came out later .
For example , the fourth observational study found that prevalence of 25 ( OH ) D below 20 ng/mL differed across three categories of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not females .
It is also less consistent with more recent studies in Iran and England .
In Iran , 25 ( OH ) D below 30 ng/mL only increased risk of severe infection by 21 % , although mortality was roughly cut in half at that level .
In England , ICU patients were half as likely to have 25 ( OH ) D above 20 ng/mL as non-ICU patients , and mortality wasn ’ t associated with vitamin D status .
In other words , the first RCT shows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more extreme estimates of the first observational studies than it is to the more moderate estimates of the more recent studies .
The observational studies on infection risk are weaker than those on severity and mortality ( see here , here , here , and here ) , but this RCT didn ’ t look at infection risk .
The RCT contradicts the findings of the two Mendelian randomization studies .
These found either no evidence for causality in the vitamin D/COVID-19 connection , or only weak evidence .
However , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect of genetics .
Genetics only explain 4.2 % of the variation in 25 ( OH ) D and many of the genes involved have non-specific , indirect relationships to vitamin D status .
This RCT overwhelmingly takes precedence over the findings of the Mendelian randomization studies .
This Study Is the Single Most Important Vitamin D and COVID-19 Study Since the first vitamin D study was released as a preprint* on April 23 , we have been waiting for data that could settle whether the association between vitamin D and COVID-19 incidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causal one .
This study settles the question : yes , it is causal .
It is important for scientists to replicate each other ’ s findings .
Future studies with more diverse populations may reveal differences in the response between different populations .
Future larger studies will more precisely refine the exact effect of vitamin D. Future studies with different dosing protocols , in different contexts ( for example , without the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin , or with the administration of other drugs or nutrients ) will add nuances to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D. However , given the degree to which it is nearly entirely harmless , and almost without exception beneficial , to maintain 25 ( OH ) D above 30 ng/mL , it would be irresponsible not to interpret this study as definitive evidence of causality .
At an absolute minimum , maintaining vitamin D status in this range should be part of the public health message to reduce COVID-19 risk , and 25 ( OH ) D should be universally screened in all hospitals to be treated in anyone with COVID-19 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centers when antibodies and PCR testing is done , so that everyone knows not only their COVID-19 exposure but also their vitamin D status .
If it ’ s low , they should be given advice on how to bring it back up to normal .
On March 17 , when I released Version 1 of The Food and Supplement Guide for the Coronavirus , I expressed concern that vitamin D might increase infection risk or severity by increasing ACE2 , the entryway of SARS-CoV-2 , the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 , into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first observational study of vitamin D released on April 23 , which I covered in this newsletter on April 24 , I released version 3 of the guide on April 28 , in which I revised this stance and took the position that 25 ( OH ) D should be maintained at 30-34 ng/mL .
As observational studies accumulated , they converged on the common point that 30-40 ng/mL is the sweet spot where infection risk , severity , and mortality are all lowest , without any risk of getting too much vitamin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be some risk of a U-shaped curve , where risk increases at vitamin D levels higher than 40 ng/mL .
Evidence for or against this was scant and contradictory .
Data from Switzerland provided hints of an increased infection risk above 40 in those under 70 years old , but not in those older than 70 .
Data from Chicago suggested no difference in infection risk above 40 ng/mL , but it didn ’ t separate the people by age .
Data from Israel suggested that 25 ( OH ) D above 53 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone with levels that high was under the age of 50 .
In the Israeli study , the relevant data were only in the young , and risk seemed abolished .
In the Swiss study , the relevant data existed for all ages , and it suggested risk increased in the young .
All of these studies concern infection risk , not severity or mortality , they all have too little data at high 25 ( OH ) D levels , and they contradict each other .
While I remain agnostic whether there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which infection risk is increased , the new RCT concerns severity and mortality .
Although 25 ( OH ) D levels weren ’ t measured , they must have hit at least 40 ng/mL by the time the patients were released , and they possibly exceeded 50 ng/mL .
That they gave these patients such massive doses of vitamin D without measuring their vitamin D levels , and that this nearly abolished the need for ICU admission , suggests that there should be no concern about a U-shaped curve with severity or mortality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IU per day over several weeks or for temporarily pushing 25 ( OH ) D above 50 ng/mL during the course of treatment .
Given that observational studies around infection risk can consistently show that it is increased at low vitamin D status but can not show any consistent picture at high vitamin D status , I am , for now , relieving myself of concern about this U-shaped curve .
If high vitamin D status can almost eliminate severity and mortality , the off-chance that in some people at some high level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tolerated .
You can see the evolution of my stance on vitamin D through these past posts : • My Response to Rhonda Patrick on Vitamin D and COVID-19 • Update on Vitamin D and COVID-19 Using the First Observational Study Released • The Second Study on Vitamin D and COVID-19 Is Now Out • Vitamin D : The First Study on COVID-19 Infection Risk • The First Vitamin D Study With Pre-Infection Levels Weakens the Association • Vitamin D Does Not Explain the Race/Ethnicity-COVID-19 Relationship • Five New Vitamin D and COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take action on these findings is to maintain 25 ( OH ) D in 30-40 ng/mL .
This is the sweet spot according to the observational literature , and if we assume the patients in the Spanish RCT came in with 16 ng/mL , 30-40 ng/mL probably approximates their average blood level over the course of their recovery .
This is also consistent with other metrics of optimal vitamin D status .
All-cause mortality is lowest at about 28 ng/mL according to one meta-analysis of eight European studies , seven conducted in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under 27,000 people .
Another widely circulated meta-analysis showing a bottoming-out in the 40-60 ng/mL range derived its data in that range entirely from a conference abstract .
If that one outlier is removed , as can clearly be seen in Figure 4 of the paper , the bottoming out of all-cause mortality is below 40 ng/mL and probably close to 30 ng/mL .
This is consistent with the amount needed to maximally suppress parathyroid hormone ( PTH ) in most people , which is the body ’ s own sign of inadequacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is reflected in the widespread use of 30 ng/mL as the boundary of adequacy .
If one is maintaining 25 ( OH ) D this high , one could mimic the maintenance dose of vitamin D used in this study by taking 7,600 IU per day upon the onset of symptoms through recovery .
If one goes into an illness with 25 ( OH ) D below 20 ng/mL , one could quickly bring this level up using a bolus dosing approach like in the RCT .
Their approach would equate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , followed by 18,000 IU per day for the next six days , then switching to the maintenance dose ; or by using 30,000 IU each day for the first seven days , then switching to the maintenance dose ; or by using 100,000 IU on the first day , 50,000 IU on the third day , 50,000 IU on the seventh day , and then switching to the maintenance dose .
Version 6 of the Food and Supplement Guide for the Coronavirus I have now released Version 6 of The Food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflect the new study on vitamin D. Purchases of the guide are greatly appreciated , as they help sustain my work on this newsletter and will help me start finishing my Vitamins and Minerals 101 book .
The data are now in .
The effect of vitamin D on COVID-19 severity , and likely mortality , is causal .
Maintaining 25 ( OH ) D 30-40 ng/mL is likely to be strongly protective against having a severe or fatal case .
Use of bolus dosing as described in the “ taking action ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if one has levels much lower than this , and otherwise supplementing with a maintenance dose of 7-8,000 IU per day during illness , is likely to be strongly protective against severe and fatal cases .
About the author : Chris Masterjohn holds a PhD in Nutritional Sciences from the University of Connecticut .
He has served as Assistant Professor of Health and Nutrition Sciences at Brooklyn College , part of the City University of New York and currently works as an independent researcher .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

New Study: Vitamin D Highly Effective in Removing COVID-19 ICU Risk
Written by Chris Masterjohn PhD
The first randomized controlled trial (RCT) of vitamin D in COVID-19 has just been published. The results are astounding: vitamin D nearly abolished the odds of requiring treatment in ICU. Although the number of deaths was too small to say for sure, vitamin D may actually abolish the risk of death from COVID-19.
The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and COVID-19
The trial was conducted at the Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain. The trial included 76 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Although this is no longer the standard of care, all patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and, when needed, a broad-spectrum antibiotic. Admission to the ICU was determined by a multidisciplinary committee consisting of intensive care specialists, pulmonologists, internal medicine specialists, and members of the ethics committee.
The patients were randomly allocated to receive or not receive vitamin D in a 2:1 ratio. This resulted in 50 patients in the vitamin D group and 26 patients in the control group.
The Vitamin D Treatment Protocol
The vitamin D was provided as oral calcifediol, also known as calcidiol, 25(OH)D, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D. This is a metabolite of vitamin D that our livers make. It is is the principle form of vitamin D that circulates in the blood, and we use it as a measure of vitamin D status.
Traces of 25(OH)D occur in food, and it is five times as potent as vitamin D. As described on page 255 of the 1997 DRI Report, 25(OH)D is given an international unit (IU) value that equates it to vitamin D. Whereas one microgram (mcg) of vitamin D is 40 IU, 1 mcg of 25(OH)D is 200 IU.
The treatment in this RCT was soft capsules of 532 mcg 25(OH)D on day 1 of admission to the hospital, followed by 266 mcg on days 3 and 7, and then 266 mcg once a week until discharge, ICU admission, or death.
This is equivalent to 106,400 IU vitamin D on day 1, 53,200 IU on days 3 and 7, and 53,200 IU weekly thereafter. If this were given as daily doses, it would be the equivalent of 30,400 per day for the first week, followed by a maintenance dose of 7,600 IU per day.
The vitamin D status of the patients was not measured. However, the average vitamin D status in this region of Spain during the time of year in which the study was conducted is 16 ng/mL. A single dose of 100,000 IU vitamin D tends to raise a 25(OH)D of 10 ng/mL into the 20-30 ng/mL range. My suspicion is that the bolus dosing in the first week brought the patients’ vitamin D status into the 30-40 ng/mL range by the end of the week, and that most of the healing took place in the circa 40 ng/mL range.
The Results: Near Abolition of ICU Risk
The results are absolutely stunning. 50% of the control group (13 people) required admission to the ICU. Only 2% of those in the vitamin D group (one person) required admission to the ICU.
Expressed as relative risk, vitamin D reduced the risk of ICU admission 25-fold. Put another way, it eliminated 96% of the risk of ICU admission. Expressed as an odds ratio, which is a less intuitive concept but is often used in statistics because it gives an estimate of the effect of the treatment that would be constant across scenarios with different levels of risk, vitamin D reduced the odds of ICU admission by 98%. Either way, vitamin D practically abolished the need for ICU admission.
This was statistically significant at p<0.001, and the 95% confidence interval was 0.002-0.17. This means that the probability of observing differences this large or greater if there is no true effect of vitamin D is less than one in a thousand, and that the probability is 95% that the true effect lies somewhere between an 83% and a 99.8% reduction in the odds of ICU admission.
No matter how you slice it, the effect of vitamin D is extremely compelling.
Because the study is small, the potential confounding variables were not perfectly evenly distributed between the two groups. There was more high blood pressure in the control group, and there was a borderline greater number of patients with diabetes in the control group. Though not statistically significant, the vitamin D group had more people over the age of 60 and five times as many people with organ transplants or who were otherwise on immunosuppressive drugs. To account for all of these differences, they adjusted for them statistically. In the adjusted model, vitamin D still reduced the odds of ICU admission by 97%, with the 95% confidence interval ranging from a 75% to a 99.7% reduction in the odds.
Did Vitamin D Also Abolish the Risk of Death?
All of the vitamin D patients were discharged without complications. Half the control group was discharged without ICU admission. Among the other half, 11 were eventually discharged from ICU, and 2 died.
Although there were, thankfully, too few deaths to run statistics on, since patients generally would be admitted to the ICU before dying, and since vitamin D nearly abolished the risk of ICU admission, we can infer that in a larger study with more deaths, vitamin D would probably abolish or nearly abolish the risk of death.
Comparison With Observational Studies
These results are consistent with the first observational study on vitamin D, which found that 96% of severe and critical cases occurred at 25(OH)D under 30 ng/mL, whereas 97.5% of mild cases had 25(OH)D above 30 ng/mL.
This study couldn’t measure the effect on mortality, but all two deaths were in the control group and the near abolition of ICU risk suggests that death would also be nearly abolished. This is consistent with the second observational study finding that only 4% of those with vitamin D status above 30 ng/mL died, while 88% of those with vitamin D status at 20-30 ng/mL died, and 99% of those with vitamin D status lower than that died.
It is less consistent with the weaker observational studies that came out later. For example, the fourth observational study found that prevalence of 25(OH)D below 20 ng/mL differed across three categories of severity judged by CT scan in males but not females. It is also less consistent with more recent studies in Iran and England. In Iran, 25(OH)D below 30 ng/mL only increased risk of severe infection by 21%, although mortality was roughly cut in half at that level. In England, ICU patients were half as likely to have 25(OH)D above 20 ng/mL as non-ICU patients, and mortality wasn’t associated with vitamin D status.
In other words, the first RCT shows the effect of vitamin D is closer to the more extreme estimates of the first observational studies than it is to the more moderate estimates of the more recent studies.
The observational studies on infection risk are weaker than those on severity and mortality (see here, here, here, and here), but this RCT didn’t look at infection risk.
The RCT contradicts the findings of the two Mendelian randomization studies. These found either no evidence for causality in the vitamin D/COVID-19 connection, or only weak evidence. However, these studies infer causality by looking at the effect of genetics. Genetics only explain 4.2% of the variation in 25(OH)D and many of the genes involved have non-specific, indirect relationships to vitamin D status. This RCT overwhelmingly takes precedence over the findings of the Mendelian randomization studies.
This Study Is the Single Most Important Vitamin D and COVID-19 Study
Since the first vitamin D study was released as a preprint* on April 23, we have been waiting for data that could settle whether the association between vitamin D and COVID-19 incidence, severity, and mortality is a causal one.
This study settles the question: yes, it is causal.
It is important for scientists to replicate each other’s findings. Future studies with more diverse populations may reveal differences in the response between different populations. Future larger studies will more precisely refine the exact effect of vitamin D. Future studies with different dosing protocols, in different contexts (for example, without the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, or with the administration of other drugs or nutrients) will add nuances to our understanding of the effect of vitamin D.
However, given the degree to which it is nearly entirely harmless, and almost without exception beneficial, to maintain 25(OH)D above 30 ng/mL, it would be irresponsible not to interpret this study as definitive evidence of causality. At an absolute minimum, maintaining vitamin D status in this range should be part of the public health message to reduce COVID-19 risk, and 25(OH)D should be universally screened in all hospitals to be treated in anyone with COVID-19, and should be universally screened in all testing centers when antibodies and PCR testing is done, so that everyone knows not only their COVID-19 exposure but also their vitamin D status. If it’s low, they should be given advice on how to bring it back up to normal.
How I’ve Changed My Position
On March 17, when I released Version 1 of The Food and Supplement Guide for the Coronavirus, I expressed concern that vitamin D might increase infection risk or severity by increasing ACE2, the entryway of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, into our cells. In response to the first observational study of vitamin D released on April 23, which I covered in this newsletter on April 24, I released version 3 of the guide on April 28, in which I revised this stance and took the position that 25(OH)D should be maintained at 30-34 ng/mL.
As observational studies accumulated, they converged on the common point that 30-40 ng/mL is the sweet spot where infection risk, severity, and mortality are all lowest, without any risk of getting too much vitamin D.
I remained concerned that there might be some risk of a U-shaped curve, where risk increases at vitamin D levels higher than 40 ng/mL. Evidence for or against this was scant and contradictory. Data from Switzerland provided hints of an increased infection risk above 40 in those under 70 years old, but not in those older than 70. Data from Chicago suggested no difference in infection risk above 40 ng/mL, but it didn’t separate the people by age. Data from Israel suggested that 25(OH)D above 53 ng/mL completely abolishes infection risk, but everyone with levels that high was under the age of 50. In the Israeli study, the relevant data were only in the young, and risk seemed abolished. In the Swiss study, the relevant data existed for all ages, and it suggested risk increased in the young. All of these studies concern infection risk, not severity or mortality, they all have too little data at high 25(OH)D levels, and they contradict each other.
While I remain agnostic whether there is some level of vitamin D above which infection risk is increased, the new RCT concerns severity and mortality. Although 25(OH)D levels weren’t measured, they must have hit at least 40 ng/mL by the time the patients were released, and they possibly exceeded 50 ng/mL. That they gave these patients such massive doses of vitamin D without measuring their vitamin D levels, and that this nearly abolished the need for ICU admission, suggests that there should be no concern about a U-shaped curve with severity or mortality for short-term dosing of up to 8,000 IU per day over several weeks or for temporarily pushing 25(OH)D above 50 ng/mL during the course of treatment.
Given that observational studies around infection risk can consistently show that it is increased at low vitamin D status but cannot show any consistent picture at high vitamin D status, I am, for now, relieving myself of concern about this U-shaped curve. If high vitamin D status can almost eliminate severity and mortality, the off-chance that in some people at some high level it could increase infection risk should be tolerated.
You can see the evolution of my stance on vitamin D through these past posts:
Taking Action on These Findings
I think the best way to take action on these findings is to maintain 25(OH)D in 30-40 ng/mL. This is the sweet spot according to the observational literature, and if we assume the patients in the Spanish RCT came in with 16 ng/mL, 30-40 ng/mL probably approximates their average blood level over the course of their recovery.
This is also consistent with other metrics of optimal vitamin D status. All-cause mortality is lowest at about 28 ng/mL according to one meta-analysis of eight European studies, seven conducted in the general population, pooling data from just under 27,000 people. Another widely circulated meta-analysis showing a bottoming-out in the 40-60 ng/mL range derived its data in that range entirely from a conference abstract. If that one outlier is removed, as can clearly be seen in Figure 4 of the paper, the bottoming out of all-cause mortality is below 40 ng/mL and probably close to 30 ng/mL. This is consistent with the amount needed to maximally suppress parathyroid hormone (PTH) in most people, which is the body’s own sign of inadequacy in the vitamin D and calcium economy. This is reflected in the widespread use of 30 ng/mL as the boundary of adequacy.
If one is maintaining 25(OH)D this high, one could mimic the maintenance dose of vitamin D used in this study by taking 7,600 IU per day upon the onset of symptoms through recovery.
If one goes into an illness with 25(OH)D below 20 ng/mL, one could quickly bring this level up using a bolus dosing approach like in the RCT. Their approach would equate to using 100,000 IU on the first day, followed by 18,000 IU per day for the next six days, then switching to the maintenance dose; or by using 30,000 IU each day for the first seven days, then switching to the maintenance dose; or by using 100,000 IU on the first day, 50,000 IU on the third day, 50,000 IU on the seventh day, and then switching to the maintenance dose.
Version 6 of the Food and Supplement Guide for the Coronavirus
I have now released Version 6 of The Food and Supplement Guide for the Coronavirus to reflect the new study on vitamin D. Purchases of the guide are greatly appreciated, as they help sustain my work on this newsletter and will help me start finishing my Vitamins and Minerals 101 book.
The Bottom Line
The data are now in. The effect of vitamin D on COVID-19 severity, and likely mortality, is causal. Maintaining 25(OH)D 30-40 ng/mL is likely to be strongly protective against having a severe or fatal case. Use of bolus dosing as described in the “taking action” section upon the first sign of symptoms, if one has levels much lower than this, and otherwise supplementing with a maintenance dose of 7-8,000 IU per day during illness, is likely to be strongly protective against severe and fatal cases.
About the author: Chris Masterjohn holds a PhD in Nutritional Sciences from the University of Connecticut. He has served as Assistant Professor of Health and Nutrition Sciences at Brooklyn College, part of the City University of New York and currently works as an independent researcher.
Read more at chrismasterjohnphd.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-04--A Dozen US Academics Arrested Acting as Chinese Secret Agents

More than a dozen students , researchers , and professors at American universities have been arrested in the last year on charges related to lying about their ties with the Chinese government , often while accepting US-taxpayer-funded grants .
The Justice Department has focused much effort on investigating individuals with ties to the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) who use their positions on American campuses to benefit Beijing , often by recruiting talent or stealing intellectual property .
Between 2019 and 2020 , at least 14 people were arrested on related charges .
While some suspects were investigated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China in 2020 appeared to ramp up efforts to hold these individuals accountable .
In August , a Chinese official accused the U.S. of monitoring and harassing Chinese students and researchers at American campuses .
Sanctions placed on Chinese entities —such as the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps , a paramilitary group which operates much of the economy in Xinjiang and allegedly orchestrated the persecution of minorities — also inflamed tension .
“ For some time , the U.S. , with ideological prejudice , keeps monitoring , harassing and willfully detaining Chinese students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilt against Chinese researchers , ” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said in early August .
These are the individuals who work or study at colleges across the U.S. who ’ ve had ties to the Chinese government and have been charged with crimes related to their concealed affiliation .
Haizhou Hu : A researcher at the University of Virginia who was arrested while trying to board a plane to China with allegedly stolen research was charged with federal crimes , including theft of trade secrets , in late August 2020 .
Hu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspicions of authorities after a routine screening at Chicago ’ s O ’ Hare Airport Aug. 25 as he was trying to board a flight to China .
Guan Lei : A Chinese national who was a researcher at the University of California , Los Angeles was charged with destroying evidence to obstruct an FBI investigation .
Lei was in the U.S. on a J-1 non-immigrant visa .
Lei allegedly threw a hard drive into a dumpster near his resident on July 25 .
The FBI recovered the hard drive after Leiwas not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and didn ’ t allow the FBI to examine his computer .
Song Guo Zheng : A professor and researcher with ties to multiple American universities was arrested for hiding ties with the Chinese government and using federal funding to carry out research and recruit talent for China .
Zheng was arrested in Anchorage May 22 while trying to board a flight to China .
Zheng allegedly lied about his ties with China to his employers at the National Institutes of Health , and accepted taxpayer-funded grants , according to the statement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or researcher in the medical schools of multiple universities , including Penn State University and the Ohio State University .
The Ohio State University confirmed to the Daily Caller that Zheng was an employee of the university at the time of his arrest and was put on unpaid leave as the university proceeds toward termination .
Dr. Xiao-Jiang Li : A former Emory University professor who pleaded guilty in May to charges of filing false tax returns after accepting at least $ 500,000 in Chinese government funding that he never reported on federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , Li did not report at least $ 500,000 in foreign income while he worked at the Chinese university .
Li participated in the Thousand Talents Program , a Chinese-government talent recruitment program that in some cases has resulted in violations of U.S law , including espionage , theft of trade secrets and grant fraud .
Charles Lieber : The chair of Harvard ’ s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology was charged with aiding the Chinese government and hiding his ties while accepting millions in funding in Jan. 2020 .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of making false statements to federal authorities regarding his participation in China ’ s Thousand Talents Program .
Lieber became a “ Strategic Scientist ” at Wuhan University of Technology ( WUT ) in China , which Harvard did not know about .
He later became a contractual participant in China ’ s Thousand Talents Plan from at least 2012 through 2015 , the Justice Department said in a statement .
Feng “ Franklin ” Tao : Tao had a contract to work full-time with a Chinese university while also conducting federally-funded research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an indictment in June charging Tao with seven counts of wire fraud and three counts of making false statements .
Tao was allegedly also involved in the Thousand Talents Plan .
Zaozong Zheng : A Chinese national who was indicted on charges of stealing biological research and attempting to smuggle it to China , Zheng admitted he would use the stolen materials to conduct research and publish the results under his own name .
This activity was all while being sponsored by Harvard and working at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and charged in May with false claims and wire fraud after knowingly omitting affiliations with a Chinese university and accepting $ 3 million in research funding from China while also accepting $ 3.6 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health .
Wang is a former employee of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation , a nonprofit academic medical center , and held the position of the Dean of the College of Life Sciences and Technology at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan , China .
. @ DOJPH announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a joint operation conducted by the FBI and the Dep .
of Health and Human Service for wire fraud related to more than $ 3.6 million in grant funding from the Cleveland Medical https : //t.co/dureQddlUX James Patrick Lewis : A former West Virginia University professor who admitted to convincing the university to grant him paid leave so he could travel to China and work for a competing institution , the Chinese Academy of Sciences .
Lewis received lavish benefits including a research subsidy of $ 573,000 ( 4 million Yuan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 143,000 ( 1 million Yuan ) and a salary of $ 86,000 ( 600,000 Yuan ) , according to the Justice Department in March .
Simon Saw-Teong Ang : A professor who was arrested in May and then indicted in July after failing to disclose his ties to Chinese universities and companies while accepting NASA research funding .
Ang was an electrician engineering professor and researcher at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville since 1988 , according to the Justice Department .
Juan Tang : Tang was arrested in San Francisco and charged with visa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into hiding at the Chinese consulate in San Francisco .
According to court documents , Tang had lied on her non-immigrant visa application dated Oct. 28 , 2019 , where she claimed to be a researcher at University of California Davis ( UC Davis ) and reported having no ties to the military or Chinese Communist Party .
FBI internet searches found photos of her in military uniform and evidence she worked for the Air Force Military Medical University , as well as an affidavit , saying she is “ considered an active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Former UC Davis Researcher And Chinese Scientist Juan Tang https : //t.co/3HrHlIwciD pic.twitter.com/W6cABTsnBs Anming Hu : An associate professor in the Department of Mechanical , Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Tennessee , Knoxville who was charged with wire fraud and lying about his relationship with a Chinese university while accepting funding from NASA .
Hu faced a federal indictment and was charged with three counts of wire fraud and three counts of making false statements .
( RELATED : Confucius Institutes Have Been Rapidly Dissolving — Here Are The Dozens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ye : A student at Boston University who was indicted on charges of visa fraud , making false statements , acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy in January .
Ye is allegedly a Lieutenant of the People ’ s Liberation Army , China ’ s armed forces , and a member of the CCP .
Ye hid her involvement with the PLA and CCP while at Boston University , accessing U.S. military websites and sending U.S. documents and information to China .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

A Dozen US Academics Arrested Acting as Chinese Secret Agents
Written by Marlo Safi
More than a dozen students, researchers, and professors at American universities have been arrested in the last year on charges related to lying about their ties with the Chinese government, often while accepting US-taxpayer-funded grants.
The Justice Department has focused much effort on investigating individuals with ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) who use their positions on American campuses to benefit Beijing, often by recruiting talent or stealing intellectual property. Between 2019 and 2020, at least 14 people were arrested on related charges.
While some suspects were investigated and charged in 2019, escalating tensions with China in 2020 appeared to ramp up efforts to hold these individuals accountable.
In August, a Chinese official accused the U.S. of monitoring and harassing Chinese students and researchers at American campuses. Sanctions placed on Chinese entities —such as the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a paramilitary group which operates much of the economy in Xinjiang and allegedly orchestrated the persecution of minorities — also inflamed tension.
“For some time, the U.S., with ideological prejudice, keeps monitoring, harassing and willfully detaining Chinese students and researchers, and making presumptions of guilt against Chinese researchers,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said in early August.
These are the individuals who work or study at colleges across the U.S. who’ve had ties to the Chinese government and have been charged with crimes related to their concealed affiliation.
Haizhou Hu: A researcher at the University of Virginia who was arrested while trying to board a plane to China with allegedly stolen research was charged with federal crimes, including theft of trade secrets, in late August 2020. Hu, a Chinese national, roused the suspicions of authorities after a routine screening at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport Aug. 25 as he was trying to board a flight to China.
Guan Lei: A Chinese national who was a researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles was charged with destroying evidence to obstruct an FBI investigation. Lei was in the U.S. on a J-1 non-immigrant visa. Lei allegedly threw a hard drive into a dumpster near his resident on July 25. The FBI recovered the hard drive after Leiwas not allowed to board a flight to China and didn’t allow the FBI to examine his computer.
Song Guo Zheng: A professor and researcher with ties to multiple American universities was arrested for hiding ties with the Chinese government and using federal funding to carry out research and recruit talent for China. Zheng was arrested in Anchorage May 22 while trying to board a flight to China. Zheng allegedly lied about his ties with China to his employers at the National Institutes of Health, and accepted taxpayer-funded grants, according to the statement. Zheng is listed as a former professor or researcher in the medical schools of multiple universities, including Penn State University and the Ohio State University. The Ohio State University confirmed to the Daily Caller that Zheng was an employee of the university at the time of his arrest and was put on unpaid leave as the university proceeds toward termination.
Dr. Xiao-Jiang Li: A former Emory University professor who pleaded guilty in May to charges of filing false tax returns after accepting at least $500,000 in Chinese government funding that he never reported on federal income tax returns. From 2012 to 2018, Li did not report at least $500,000 in foreign income while he worked at the Chinese university. Li participated in the Thousand Talents Program, a Chinese-government talent recruitment program that in some cases has resulted in violations of U.S law, including espionage, theft of trade secrets and grant fraud.
Charles Lieber: The chair of Harvard’s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology was charged with aiding the Chinese government and hiding his ties while accepting millions in funding in Jan. 2020. He was indicted in June on charges of of making false statements to federal authorities regarding his participation in China’s Thousand Talents Program. Lieber became a “Strategic Scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China, which Harvard did not know about. He later became a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from at least 2012 through 2015, the Justice Department said in a statement.
Feng “Franklin” Tao: Tao had a contract to work full-time with a Chinese university while also conducting federally-funded research at University of Kansas, which led to an indictment in June charging Tao with seven counts of wire fraud and three counts of making false statements. Tao was allegedly also involved in the Thousand Talents Plan.
Zaozong Zheng: A Chinese national who was indicted on charges of stealing biological research and attempting to smuggle it to China, Zheng admitted he would use the stolen materials to conduct research and publish the results under his own name. This activity was all while being sponsored by Harvard and working at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Dr. Qing Wang: Wang was arrested and charged in May with false claims and wire fraud after knowingly omitting affiliations with a Chinese university and accepting $3 million in research funding from China while also accepting $3.6 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Wang is a former employee of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, a nonprofit academic medical center, and held the position of the Dean of the College of Life Sciences and Technology at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China.
.@DOJPH announced that Chinese Ohio professor Qing Wang arrested as part of a joint operation conducted by the FBI and the Dep. of Health and Human Service for wire fraud related to more than $3.6 million in grant funding from the Cleveland Medical https://t.co/dureQddlUX
— Adam Milstein (@AdamMilstein) May 20, 2020
James Patrick Lewis: A former West Virginia University professor who admitted to convincing the university to grant him paid leave so he could travel to China and work for a competing institution, the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Lewis received lavish benefits including a research subsidy of $573,000 (4 million Yuan), living subsidy of approximately $143,000 (1 million Yuan) and a salary of $86,000 (600,000 Yuan), according to the Justice Department in March.
Simon Saw-Teong Ang: A professor who was arrested in May and then indicted in July after failing to disclose his ties to Chinese universities and companies while accepting NASA research funding. Ang was an electrician engineering professor and researcher at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville since 1988, according to the Justice Department.
Juan Tang: Tang was arrested in San Francisco and charged with visa fraud on June 26 before reportedly going into hiding at the Chinese consulate in San Francisco. According to court documents, Tang had lied on her non-immigrant visa application dated Oct. 28, 2019, where she claimed to be a researcher at University of California Davis (UC Davis) and reported having no ties to the military or Chinese Communist Party. FBI internet searches found photos of her in military uniform and evidence she worked for the Air Force Military Medical University, as well as an affidavit, saying she is “considered an active military personnel.”
Judge Grants Bail For Former UC Davis Researcher And Chinese Scientist Juan Tang https://t.co/3HrHlIwciD pic.twitter.com/W6cABTsnBs
— CBS Sacramento CBS13 (@CBSSacramento) August 29, 2020
Anming Hu: An associate professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville who was charged with wire fraud and lying about his relationship with a Chinese university while accepting funding from NASA. Hu faced a federal indictment and was charged with three counts of wire fraud and three counts of making false statements. (RELATED: Confucius Institutes Have Been Rapidly Dissolving — Here Are The Dozens Still Left On American Campuses)
Yanqing Ye: A student at Boston University who was indicted on charges of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy in January. Ye is allegedly a Lieutenant of the People’s Liberation Army, China’s armed forces, and a member of the CCP. Ye hid her involvement with the PLA and CCP while at Boston University, accessing U.S. military websites and sending U.S. documents and information to China.
Read more at dailycaller.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-04--Anti-lockdown Swede Lands Top Advisory Role for WHO!

Swedish epidemiologist Johan Giesecke ’ s interview with UnHerd made waves around the world when , at the height of the Covid-19 crisis in April , he made the case for why lockdowns were not the answer .
He has now been promoted to a more senior advisory role within the World Health Organisation , as Vice-Chair of the Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on Infectious Hazards , which advises the Director-General on the response to pandemics .
“ It ’ s a group of thirteen scientists from all around the world .
Usually we meet twice a year in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been meeting once a week by telephone , ” he tells me down the line from Stockholm .
The London-based Chair , David Heymann , who Dr Giesecke describes as “ one of the world ’ s best known infectious disease fighters ” , has other commitments across the WHO and Dr Giesecke will lead the group in his absence .
He was voted in as the new Vice-Chair by the other members .
I asked him if he regards his election as a sign that epidemiologists around the world were looking more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a model .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s a political statement , no , ” he said .
“ I think they like my experience.
” He repeats his customary advice that it is too early to make those kinds of comparisons anyway .
“ You should wait one year or maybe five years before comparing strategies .
We still have a long way to go in this pandemic.
” He agreed that the tone of media coverage about Sweden had has become noticeably more positive since we spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought we were crazy , ” he said .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Anti-lockdown Swede Lands Top Advisory Role for WHO!
Written by Freddie Sayers
Swedish epidemiologist Johan Giesecke’s interview with UnHerd made waves around the world when, at the height of the Covid-19 crisis in April, he made the case for why lockdowns were not the answer.
He has now been promoted to a more senior advisory role within the World Health Organisation, as Vice-Chair of the Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on Infectious Hazards, which advises the Director-General on the response to pandemics.
“It’s a group of thirteen scientists from all around the world. Usually we meet twice a year in Geneva but since Covid-19 we’ve been meeting once a week by telephone,” he tells me down the line from Stockholm.
The London-based Chair, David Heymann, who Dr Giesecke describes as “one of the world’s best known infectious disease fighters”, has other commitments across the WHO and Dr Giesecke will lead the group in his absence.
He was voted in as the new Vice-Chair by the other members.
I asked him if he regards his election as a sign that epidemiologists around the world were looking more towards the Swedish response to Covid-19 as a model.
“I don’t think it’s a political statement, no,” he said. “I think they like my experience.”
He repeats his customary advice that it is too early to make those kinds of comparisons anyway. “You should wait one year or maybe five years before comparing strategies. We still have a long way to go in this pandemic.”
He agreed that the tone of media coverage about Sweden had has become noticeably more positive since we spoke in April.
“Back then they thought we were crazy,” he said.
Read more at unherd.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related