ROBERTSON WHO IS HE,WOOD WHO IS HE

SWINE FLU TALK
http://video.neighborhood21.com/video/332/Mexican-Flu-Outbreak-2009-SPECIAL-REPORT-by-Dr-Leonard-Horo
SWINE FLU VIDEOS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGLtVelSNgI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WveRe3YZ2M&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VxnCBD9W4&feature=player_embedded
NOVAVAX
http://www.novavax.com/
VIROLOGY JOURNAL
http://www.virology.net/
CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/
RICK BRIGHT
http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/new-data-support-novavax-s-pandemic-flu-vaccines-110.html
RUBEN DONIS
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/04/exclusive-cdc-h.html
MARTIAL LAW
http://video.neighborhood21.com/video/331/Martial-Law
DR JOHN WOOD
http://ec.europa.eu/research/profiles/index_en.cfm?p=1_wood
BAXTER
http://www.baxterhealthcare.co.uk/about_baxter/index.html
http://www.baxterhealthcare.co.uk/about_baxter/press_room/media_kit/pr_smallpox.html
MICROBIOLOGY
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v2/n10/abs/nrmicro979.html

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:31 pm,Post subject: Harvard doc: Swine Flu created in lab

So it was created in a laboratory!

H1N1-H5N1 Flu Outbreak Implicates Anglo-American
Vaccine Pipeline

Los Angeles, CA— Skyrocketing stock values of Novavax, Inc.,1 precipitated by dozens of flu deaths in Mex­ico, implicates a leading Anglo-American network of genetic engineers in a conspiracy to commit genocide.

Dr. James S. Robertson, England’s leading bioengineer of flu viruses for the vaccine industry, and avid promoter of U.S. Government funding for lucrative biodefense contracts, along with collaborators at the US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), helped Novavax, Inc., in Bethesda, Maryland, produce genetically-modi­fied recombinants of the avian, swine, and Spanish flu viruses, H5N1 and H1N1, nearly identical to the unprec­edented Mexican virus that has now spread to the United States. The outbreak was precisely timed to promote the company’s new research and huge vaccine stockpiling contracts, according to Dr. Horowitz. 2

Scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are implicated through collaborations and publica­tions involving private contracts with Novavax, a company that obtains its biosimilars through CDC Influ­enza Branch director, Ruben O. Donis, and Dr. Rick Bright, previously working with Donis at the CDC, now Novavax’s Vice President of Global Influenza Programs. Evidence for the conspiracy to commit deadly duplicity in the vaccine industry includes the genetic markers on the novel flu virus now spreading from Mexico to America. The virus is genetically different from the fully human H1N1 seasonal influenza virus that has been circulating globally for the past few years,according to Reuters and government officials.The new flu virus contains DNA typical to avian, swine and human viruses, including elements from European and Asian swine viruses.3 That is a description that is pathognomonic, or diagnostic, of a virus that came from Robertson’s circle of friends. No other group in the world takes H5N1 Asian flu infected chickens, brings them to Europe, extracts their DNA, combines their proteins with H1N1 viruses from the 1918 Spanish flu iso­late, additionally mixes in swine flu genes from pigs, then reverse engineers them to infect humans. The end product that Reuters describes could only end up in Mexico via the United States from Britain in care of the CDC. Ruben Donis at the CDC had to have sent them to Novavax, where Rick Bright’s team is now implicated in a conspiracy to commit genocide—the mass killing of people for profit.

Novavax’s preliminary report in the Journal of Virology, with co-authors from the CDC in Atlanta, was posted online at the precise time Mexican officials began reporting deaths from this new strain of flu that is clearly an unprecedented recombinant of at least three H5N1 and H1N1 strains. Novavax’s Johnny-on-the-spot vaccine was prepared under the CDC’s fast track approval process speciously using these three strains never known to infect any human in Mexico. Therefore, the statistical probability this virus came from this company of experts is extremely high. Alter­natively, anticipated arguments the virus arrived in Mexico by serendipity, at this precise time in Novavax’s history, is ridiculously remote. These doctor’s conflicting corporate, scientific, and financial interests evidence criminal malfeasance,said Dr. Leonard Horowitz, an internationally known humanitarian, award winning consumer health activist, and author of sixteen books including, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? His book, and associated scientific publications, have been cited by numerous authorities as providing compelling evidence the AIDS virus came from a lab. The most chilling evidence against the Robertson-Novavax (RN) vaccine pipeline, besides Robertson being the gatekeeper for multi-billion dollar vaccine stockpiling deals, is Robertson’s influence over the European Medicines Agency (EMEA)—a quasi-corporate quasi-scientific think tank serving the European [Economic] Union and drug industry’s special interests,Dr. Horowitz said.

Dr. Robertson is the Principal Scientist in the Division of Virology at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), akin to the USFDA in the UK. During a meeting in April, 2006, discussing the standardization of influenza vaccines on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), it was disclosed, the NIBSC is involved in the serological testing of vaccine trials; the preparation and distribution of influenza viruses to vaccine manufacturers; and the coordination of EU strain selection[s].Participants disclosed the EMEA persuades vaccine makers to bank on pandemics, and invest in pandemic vaccines with the introduction of mock up files,which is their unassuming way of describing new laboratory engineered influenza viruses also referred to as biosimilars.4 The EMEA waives regulatory fees as an additional incentive to attract more business for allegedly biodefense.4

Dr. Robertson, the holder of intellectual property (IP) rights to the genetic technology used to produce the H5N1 and H1N1 mock up files used to develop Novavax’s vaccine, waived his ownership of the technology dur­ing the company’s research phase with a guaranteed payoff when the vaccine is commercialized.Robertson’s Material Trade Agreement (MTA), covering the transfer of these biosimilars to Novavax, is expected to return millions of dollars when the vaccine is sold to governments worldwide. 4 Novavax’s commercialization and promotions of their vaccine is largely based on media hype fanning fears and markets for their avian flu, Spanish flu, and swine flu concoctions. Never before this outbreak has such a virus, combining the three most feared flu strains, been identified.

Mexico’s killer, therefore, evidences a laboratory creation sourcing from either Novavax’s lab directly, or their partners at the CDC and NIBSC who maintain multimillion-dollar incentives. The company’s synchronously timed professional publications, mass media releases, product representations and commercialization, evidence financial motives to commit duplicity and mass murder. Days ago, officials at the CDC expressed serious concerns about this novel flu strain causing a deadly pandem­ic, not disclosing their obvious knowledge that the outbreak must have sourced from the materials used in their cooperative studies with Novavax. 52 These doctor’s conflicting corporate, scientific, and financial interests evidence criminal malfeasance. Killing dozens of people for publicity and duplicity in public health; to increase marketability of their new vaccine, is best described as serial homicide to advance genocide—the mass killing of people for profit.

The most chilling evidence against Dr. Robertson’s EU research team, besides him being the gatekeeper and chief promoter for multi-billion dollar flu vaccine stockpiling deals, and besides his collaborators being caught red handed here by hard science and common sense, is his stated position that he believes it is wise to prime populations worldwide by releasing viruses he and his colleagues are creating. This warning comes from a April 27, 2006, scientific discourse in which Dr. Robertson, and members of his WHO working group, recommended his biosimilars be used to prime the population in advance of the pandemic reaching the UK.In other words, the doctors that hold infectious disease responsibility for the world have already decided to loose their viruses on unwitting populations in advance of threatened outbreaks.

Note to Journalists: For interviews with Dr. James Robertson, the NIBSC lists his contact as: NIBSC, Blanche Lane, South Mimms Potters Bar, Herts EN6 3QG; Tel: +44 1707641304; Fax: +44 1707 641050. Dr. Horowitz can be reached for interviews in southern California, at 949-715-2337. Ruben O. Donis;s contact information at the Influenza Branch, DVRD, NCID, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is: Mailstop G16, 1600 Clif­ton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA; fax: 404-639-2334; email: rdonis@ cdc.gov. Dr. Rick Bright can be reached through Novavax.

REFERENCES:
(1) http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2445216420090424
(2) http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=1242433
(3) Reuters news release. FACTBOX-New flu strain is a genetic mix. April, 24, 2009. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23371192.htm
(4) (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:SPJ1B5-EK3sJ:royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp%3Fid%3D3521+Summary+of+Oral+Evidence+Dr.+John+Wood&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
(5) CDC Press Briefing Transcripts April 24, 2009. Cdc.gov. 2009-04-24. http://www.cdc.gov/media/tran­scripts/2009/t090424.htm. Retrieved on 2009-04-25.
(6) Note: The long term risks of governments purchasing, and people accepting, vaccines for the flu are un­studied. Yet, the industry and corporate-controlled governments declare war on biology and discourage green alternatives to vaccinations, such as the most advanced silver hydrosols (e.g., Oxysilver) in which nano-size anti-microbial silver is bonded to the oxygen in Water. There would be no need for polluting people’s bodies, and the environment, with heavy metals such as mercury and aluminum, or suffering side effects from antibiotics, if public health officials promoted the new powerfully protective and curative silver hydrosols.

April 30, 2009 Health Promoted to Headline (H3) on 4/30/09:
The Great Swine Flu or the Great Flu Swindle? By Rady Ananda http://www.opednews.com
http://www.opednews.com/populum/page_poll.php?show=votes&pid=377

The Great Swine Flu or the Great Flu Swindle?

How serious should we take mainstream media's hysteria about 0.00000189 of Mexico's total population contracting swine flu? Is this a pandemic? By definition, it has to be geographically widespread (see Pandemic Nonsense: Flying Pig Flu).In The last great swine flu epidemic, Patrick Di Justo shows that the 1976 epidemic that the government-media-CDC warned us about never occurred.

Excuse for Martial Law?

Some fear this latest flu outbreak will be used to impose martial law. In fact, the Massachusetts Senate just passed such a bill, 36-0. It goes to the House next. Martial law? Home invasions? Two siblings in Massachusetts did recently travel to Mexico and contract the swine flu. Neither are hospitalized and both are at home recovering.The bill also protects from liability those who assist the government. So, if the vaccine is deadlier than the virus, Big Pharma can't be sued, it seems. Hattip to amicus curiae.

Mass Media Misinformation

A Mexican baby who did have swine flu was transferred to the states where he died. But mass media reported it as US baby dies as new Spanish case raises swine flu alarm. If you read the article, you learn it was not a US baby. Reuters reported in WHO warns flu pandemic imminent that the swine flu virus "killed the first person outside of Mexico, a toddler in Texas.It never clarifies that the baby was from Mexico. The Reuters report makes other misstatements. According to Mexican authorities, as reported by the Washington Post Bureau Chief in Mexico Wednesday morning, April 29:The government has announced this morning here that they have confirmed only 49 cases of swine flu, of which 7 patients have died. There are listing another 159 as probable,but I'm unclear what that means.(emphasis added)Yet, Reuters reported 159 swine flu deaths in Mexico. Only seven have died as of Wednesday morning – in a nation of 109,995,400. That's 0.0000000636 of the entire population. Even if we use the higher figure of 208 possible cases of swine flu (of which only 49 are confirmed) in Mexico, that amounts to 0.00000189 of the population. Hardly a blip on the map of terrible diseases.Yesterday, the UK Guardian reported that the World Health Organization's assistant director general said:[E]ight swine flu deaths had been reported to the WHO: seven in Mexico and one in the US. To date, 114 confirmed cases of infection have been reported to the WHO. They are: Canada 13, US 64, Mexico 26, Israel two, Spain four, UK two and New Zealand three.

Misanthropic Genetic Engineers or CAFOs to Blame?

Dr. Leonard Horowitz, a Harvard graduate and internationally known authority in public health, accuses biotech firm, Novavax, saying, This unprecedented H1N1-H5N1 flu outbreak implicates the Anglo-American Vaccine Pipeline.The New Scientist magazine does not believe this is a genetically engineered strain unleashed on humanity by misanthropes.Instead, it posits that factory farms, legally known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), are likely the culprit:The conditions in which animals are kept can favour the evolution of new and deadlier strains. For instance, in the wild nasty flu strains that make animals too ill to walk or fly are unlikely to spread far. On crowded factory farms, they can spread like wildfire, helped by the global trade in animals and animal products.But small holdings, it says, can also be a source for pig-to-human transmission:The interaction of farm workers with animals, especially on small-holdings where pigs, ducks, chickens and children all happily intermingle, also provides plenty of opportunities for viruses to jump species.The New Scientist cautions that animal vaccines might make things worse by causing super-viruses to evolve. Dr. Horowitz agrees, but on different grounds. He asserts that nano-sized, anti-microbial, silver-based medicines are safer and far less expensive than mercury and aluminum based vaccines using genetically modified organisms.

The New Scientist concludes:

The fact is that we still know so little about flu, and what makes it capable of spreading from human to human, means that deliberately engineering a virus of this kind would be a huge challenge. Yes, it's possible that this virus was created by a mistake at a research laboratory or a vaccine factory. But by far the most plausible explanation is that this monster is the long-predicted product of our farming system.
Activists have long condemned CAFOs. Grist Magazine named a Smithfield Foods subsidiary as a possible culprit in Mexico – a huge factory farm. (Even Grist and Global Research get the number of dead wrong, probably by relying on mainstream media.)

Poll:

This is an attempt at genocide by Big Pharma and/or Big Bro.
7% from 6 votes
This is a total swindle by Big Pharma and Big Brother. Very few will die.
23% from 20 votes
This will become the pandemic that factory farms wrought.
1% from 1 votes
Swine flu will sweep the globe wiping out tens if not hundreds of millions.
0% from 0 votes
MSM is distracting us from rip-off bailouts and torture prosecutions.
29% from 25 votes
I don’t care who or how it started; where’s my OxySilver?
2% from 2 votes
Some combination of the above; I’ll explain in my comment.
24% from 21 votes
None of the above; I’ll explain in my comment.
14% from 12 votes.

Summary of oral evidence: Dr John Wood and Dr JamesRobertson, National Institute for Biological Standards andControl (NIBSC)27 April 2006Dr John Wood and Dr James Robertson are Principal Scientists in the Division of Virology at NIBSC.

Dr Woodand Dr Robertson lead the NIBSC’s influenza group and their responsibilities include the control andstandardisation of influenza vaccines. On behalf of the World Health Organisation (WHO) the NIBSC isinvolved in the serological testing of vaccine trials; the preparation and distribution of influenza viruses tovaccine manufacturers; and the coordination of EU strain selection process.Members of the working group present were: Sir John Skehel, Professor Glynis Breakwell, Professor NeilFerguson, Professor Barry Furr, Dr John McCauley, Professor Andrew McMichael, Professor Karl Nicholson, DrGeoffrey Schild and Richard Stubbins.

Key points
NIBSC is a government funded agency which acts as an interface between public health and the vaccineindustry to control and standardise biological products. Reverse genetics technology is used to modify virulentstrains before they are given to vaccine manufacturers. The NIBSC also supplies industry with standards andreagents to measure vaccine potency and is responsible for the official testing of new vaccines. In summary,the NIBSC is involved in many stages of the life cycle of seasonal vaccine production and is constantly lookingat new methods to speed up pandemic vaccine production.

Obtaining sera
Drs Robertson and Wood told the group they face no restrictions in obtaining supplies of sera after vaccinemanufactures have completed their trials of seasonal influenza vaccines. However, H5N1 sera have beenmore closely guarded. They have just begun a project with Professor Maria Zambon (Health ProtectionAgency, HPA) to examine vaccine cross reactivity in H5N1 but this has just started as it has been hard toobtain the necessary permission. Vaccine manufactures are reluctant to release their sera in case regulatorsrequire more experiments in the future.

Pandemic vaccines
Drs Robertson and Wood consider that pandemic vaccine development in the EU has been slow due tolimited public funding. This is in contrast to the situation in the USA. Dr Wood told the group that the NIBSCcollaborate with the vaccine industry, for example on an H9N2 vaccine. The EMEA have helped to persuadeindustry to invest in pandemic vaccines with the introduction of the mock up files and by waiving the regulatory fees and several pandemic vaccines are now in clinical trials. However, this is a slow process andthey believe that public funding (from Department of Health (DH) or the EU) should have been used to kickstart the process as industry would not initially release funds to develop a product which may not bemarketable.

Intellectual property
(IP)Drs Robertson and Wood were asked about the effect of IP on the production of novel vaccines. They agreedthat patents for technology, such as gene rescue for (H5N1) virus production have slowed down the process,particularly obtaining material transfer agreements. The IP holders have waived ownership of the reversegenetics technology used in vaccines in the research phase, but want an agreement when the vaccine iscommercialised. It was considered that a generic MTA for the technology would be useful, rather than aseparate one for each virus. This may be an area where WHO should provide guidance and be involved in thenegotiations.

Virus production and strain variance
H5N1 vaccines are proving difficult to generate, achieving acceptable immunogenicity is a challenge and theimmunological correlates of protection are not well understood. The way ahead appeared to be use offunctional serological tests such as virus neutralisation, but the protective levels of neutralising antibody arecurrently not known. The group discussed the plasmid-based system used in reverse genetic techniques toproduce a safe pandemic virus strain for the manufactures.Drs Wood and Robertson told the group that antigenic drift of H5N1 has been seen in 2005/6 and twodistinct genetic groups now exist, clades 1 and 2. Clade 2 viruses are genetically heterogeneous andappeared 6 months ago. NIBSC obtained samples of a clade 2 virus from Turkey and the US Center forDisease Control and Protection has obtained an Indonesian virus. Vaccine viruses are now being generated byreverse genetics.NIBSC have looked at cross protection of vaccines produced from 1997, 2003 and 2004 H5N1 viruses in miceand have found that despite antigen differences, they protect mice against infection with a 2004 H5N1 virus.

Communication with the Department of Health
Drs Wood and Robertson were asked how their knowledge feeds into DH and if they think it is donesufficiently. Together with Dr Stephen Inglis (Director, NIBSC), they are members of several governmentcommittees and also hold more casual meetings with DH to talk through issues. These meetings are eitherarranged by NIBSC or DH and included a brainstorming meeting held about 6 months ago to look at howprocesses can be made quicker, especially for H5N1 vaccine development. It was highlighted that they oftenprovide information to DH but often are uncertain about what DH does with it.

Research and funding sources
Drs Wood and Robertson considered that there is a lack of vaccine research in the UK compared with the US.They told the group that NIBSC has made submissions to DH and to the EU for pandemic vaccine, but theyhave not been funded. They were asked by the group if they are given the freedom and resources to look atnew approaches. They told the group that they have the freedom at NIBSC to initiate their own research programmes, but not the resources. They were unaware if the situation is likely to improve with theforthcoming amalgamation with the HPA.Dr Robertson’s research work for the last three years has been predominately directed at improving thereverse genetics technology. His group is also looking at ways to improve the low viral yield of H5N1 invaccine manufacturing. The NIBSC has had some funding from the EU for pandemic vaccine research, butthey both agreed that funding resources are a big issue.

Facilities for experimental animals
Facilities in the UK are not considered as good as those in the US. Experiments with mice at highbiocontainment can be done at NIBSC and HPA facilities at Porton Down are being upgraded for ferrets, but are currently not up and running. Dr McCauley told the group that the Institute of Animal Health has 16-18rooms available for experiments using ferrets.

Use of live vaccines
Drs Wood and Robertson were asked their opinion on priming the population for a pandemic using livevaccines and if they consider it to be a good idea. However the timing is critical; if live H5N1 vaccines areused now it would be considered too dangerous, but if a pandemic is imminent the risk may be justified. Astockpile of live vaccine, with the cleavage site removed, could be used to prime the population in advance ofthe pandemic reaching the UK. Even without an exact match in virus strain, it is predicted that this wouldprovide a broad immunity to the population.Surge capacityA process evaluation is currently being conducted at NIBSC to identify areas to improve

surge capacity
in apandemic. It is anticipated that the Institute’s essential functions will be preserved but some functions will beminimised.The NIBSC is not involved with diagnostics for influenza, or any other infectious disease.

April 29, 2009
Exclusive Interview: CDC Head Virus Sleuth

Virologist Ruben Donis, chief of the molecular virology and vaccines branch at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, spoke with ScienceInsider at length last night about the swine flu virus causing the current outbreak. CDC’s early analyses raise several provocative possibilities. The stage appears to have been set for this human outbreak by an outbreak over the past decade of flu viruses in swine that combine strains from several species. The first infected human may not even have been in North America, let alone Mexico. Patient samples from Mexico taken over the past several months reveal that this swine flu clearly exploded in late March, suggesting that it was not rapidly spreading in that country, undetected, for very long.Donis discussed the genetics of the virus—the clues in this mystery—in detail. These include several of its eight genes, which code for surface proteins hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N), the matrix that surrounds the nucleus, the nucleoprotein itself, and three polymerase enzymes called PA, PB1, and PB2.—Jon Cohen

Q: What do you know about this swine flu virus?

R.D.: We know it’s quite similar to viruses that were circulating in the United States and are still circulating in the United States and that are self-limiting, and they usually only are found in Midwestern states where there is swine farming. There’s only one well-documented case where the infection spread from one human to another. What we know is that it is not common that there is sustained transmission in people.

Q: Christopher Olsen published a paper that looked at the literature back to 1958 and only found 50 cases of humans infected with a swine influenza.

R.D.: If we have two documented cases a year, maybe that’s just the tip of iceberg. Maybe there are 10 times more or 50 times more. But still, it’s only swine to human, and it stops there.

Q: Have you completely sequenced this virus?

R.D.: Yes, 2 weeks ago. Very soon after we received specimens from California and Texas. Hemagglutinin, neuraminidase, and matrix, the three genes that have the most public health interest, were sequenced, and then the whole genome was completed.

Q: How large is the genome?

R.D.: It’s 14 kilobases.

Q: It’s only a little larger than HIV. You could sequence it in hours.

R.D.: Yes. It’s tiny.

Q: How close is it to the closest strain you know of?

R.D.: Depends which genes. You have similarities of about 94% in the hemaggluttinin [H] to the nearest strain we know.

Q: Is it of swine origin?

R.D.: Definitely. It’s almost equidistant to swine viruses from the United States and Eurasia. And it’s a lonely branch there. It doesn’t have any close relatives.

Q: How about the neuraminidase gene?

R.D.: It has close relatives in Asia. It’s also swine.

Q: The matrix gene?

R.D.: The same as neuraminidase.

Q: So where are avian and human sequences?

R.D.: We have to step back [to] 10 years ago. In 1998, actually, Chris Olsen is one of the first that saw it, and we saw the same in a virus from Nebraska and Richard Webby and Robert Webster in Memphis saw it, too. There were unprecedented outbreaks of influenza in the swine population. It was an H3.

Q: They were dying from it?

R.D.: No. It was not very severe in healthy pigs. Everyone was very curious about these H3 viruses. Since 1918, normally it’s only H1N1 in swine. Then all of a sudden there’s H3N2 in swine in the Midwestern U.S. When people analyzed what was inside those viruses, they realized there were three different things.The PB1 gene, that was human. H3 and N2 also were human. The PA and PB2, the two polymerase genes, were of avian flu. The rest were typical North American swine viruses. Those strains were the so-called triple reassortants.

Q: We always hear of the pig as a mixing vessel combining human, avian, and pig influenzas. Why didn’t you regularly see reassortants?

R.D.: Good questions. These questions have no answer. There is an explanation somewhere.

The reality is good molecular surveillance in the pigs started in the 1970s. So if there were strains that were not very dominant between the 1930s and the ’70s, we wouldn’t have detected them. This triple reassortant was very successful and took over and dominated the picture—to the point where the classical H1N1 was almost extinct.

Q: Why were the first triple reassortants more fit?

R.D.: They were H3s, and H3 is a different subtype, so there was no immunity in the pigs. It was probably that they had new polymerase genes, too.

Q: How does it tie to the current outbreak?

R.D.: Where does all this talk about avian and human genes come from? I was describing a fully swine virus. For [the] last 10 years, this has been a fully swine virus. Can you tell I have an accent? I’m a U.S. citizen but I have the roots in Argentina. It’s like me. I’ve been in the U.S. since 1980. I’m a U.S. citizen but I have an accent.

Q: It’s not as though human and avian just got there in this strain.

R.D.: It’s part of the swine virus.

Q: What’s the newest part of this strain?

R.D.: Neuraminidase and the matrix are the newest to be seen in North America. They were not part of the team—I talk about flu virus as teams of genes. There are eight players. They have these two new players from Asia.

Q: It suggests a mixing of pigs from North America and Asia.

R.D.: One little detail we haven’t discussed is [that] these Midwestern viruses were exported to Asia. Korea and many countries import from the U.S. Swine flu is economically not such a big deal that many countries don’t check for it.

Q: How do you get Europe in there?

R.D.: There are some parts of the puzzle I don’t have the answer to. The genetic lineages of Asia and Europe mix quite a bit.

Q: How does the pig get back here?

R.D.: Who said it was a pig that came from Asia? Did I say that? It could be a person.

Q: So the origin might trace back to Europe or Asia.

R.D.: I didn’t say that. I don’t want to point the finger at anyone.

Q: It does suggest that mixing didn’t happen in Mexico.

R.D.: Probably not. The amazing thing is the hemagglutinins we are seeing in this strain are a lonely branch that have been evolving somewhere and we didn’t know about it.

Q. Can you look at sequence to see what makes it transmit human-to-human?

R.D.: If I could, I would be the chief of the CDC or NIH [National Institutes of Health].

Q: You don’t want either of those jobs.

R.D.: [Laughter.] I don’t think we can do it in silico.

Q: Do you know the percent difference of the entire sequence to the older triple reassortant that dominated?

R.D.: We have [a] 6% or higher percentage difference in neuraminidases. You have multiple amino acids that differ. And single amino acid changes can change receptor specificity. When you have so many changes, you don’t know which ones are responsible.

Q: How about pathogenesis? Can you tease that out in vitro?

R.D.: One traditional approach is to take advantage of viral modules that allow you to assemble different teams, to make reassortants that take a virus say from North America that doesn’t transmit, and you swap one gene from the virus that does transmit. If the hypothesis is that hemagglutinin is responsible, you put in the background of the genes from the old virus. You need an animal model, usually the ferret.

Q: Have you been able to compare isolates from Mexico and the United States?

R.D.: Yes, they are very, very similar. Many genes are identical. In the eight or nine viruses we’ve sequenced, there is nothing different.

Q: Have you compared someone who died with someone who had a mild case?

R.D.: Those data are still slippery. We don’t have good case data. You get age and sex—very limited information. That’s a problem. In the set of samples we know one case was fatal, but we don’t know which one it is.

Q: Have you been to Mexico yet to study this outbreak?

R.D.: No. CDC sent a group of scientist and epidemiologists, laboratory folks that went over there to set up diagnostic labs. One is in Yucatán; one in is in D.F. [Distrito Federal, which includes Mexico City].

Q: What do you think about the pig farm in Veracruz?

R.D.: I don’t know the details. They said they had a huge operation and the workers were not getting sick; that’s what the company claims. The only suspicious thing in that story is this is the largest farm in Mexico. The fact that the index case also is from the area makes it interesting.

Q: Do large farms have more swine flu?

R.D.: Not really. Even folks who have 50 pigs have to buy feed and supply from vendors that go from farm to farm, and they don’t wash their boots or whatever. Usually the virus is transmitted very effectively.

Q: Is there anything I didn’t ask you that I should have?

R.D.: We all pray this remains sensitive to antivirals. We all hope that vaccines will be developed. The virus doesn’t grow very well in eggs. We hope the virus will improve [the] ability to grow in eggs so we can produce [a] vaccine very quickly so these secondary and tertiary cases can be controlled. In some countries there’s good surveillance, but in others, who knows.

Q: What do you think of this outbreak?

R.D.: This is the first one I’ve seen firsthand as a virologist. The avian influenza outbreak is not comparable because this is unfolding so quickly. This reminds me of SARS. With avian there’s very little transmission. And even with SARS, transmission was far less.

Q: Does this one scare you?

R.D.: I saw figures that do scare you. We’ve received 300 samples from Mexico, and these cover the span of February, March, and April. And you look at flu A, traditionally it’s A/H1 or A/H3 or it's B up until the end of March. There are two or three cases up to [the] last days of March that are swine. Then in April they skyrocket. So all the cases in the D.F. areas, where most samples came from, it really transmits very efficiently.

Q: What is the date of first sample?

R.D.: I think it’s the end of March, the first positive specimen.

Q: Did Mexico react quickly enough?

R.D.: They didn’t know. They probably thought it was regular flu.

Q: Flu is a seasonal disease that peaks in winter. Maybe this will end in the United States with the end of the flu season.

R.D.: We’re in a good position. The folks in Buenos Aires are in trouble. They’re entering winter now.

Novavax Appoints New Vice President of Vaccine Research

MALVERN, Pa., Feb. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Novavax, Inc. (Nasdaq: NVAX) today announced the appointment of Rick A. Bright, Ph. D. to the newly created position of Vice President, Vaccine Research. Dr. Bright will report directly to Dr. Rahul Singhvi, President and CEO of Novavax.We are delighted to welcome Dr. Rick Bright to lead our Company's very active vaccine research division,said Rahul Singhvi, President and CEO of Novavax. As a world-class immunologist, he complements our existing vaccine leadership team consisting of Drs. Gale Smith, Steve Bandak and Craig Wright. Rick's arrival at Novavax bolsters our efforts to develop a vaccine to fight against a pandemic influenza and his decision is a further endorsement of our virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine and Novasome(R) adjuvant technologies for developing such a vaccine.

Dr. Bright, age 40, joins Novavax following more than 15 years' experience as a researcher and expert on influenza vaccine and antiviral research, one of a handful of such experts in the world. Most recently he has served at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. Dr. Bright worked in the Influenza Branch, Strain Surveillance Section, as Immunologist and Virologist, Team Leader of the Antiviral Drug Program where he published landmark papers on influenza antiviral drug resistance that led the CDC to recommend against the use of two drugs for treatment of influenza infection. Some of his recent work was rated in the top 10 infectious disease papers of 2005. Previously, Dr. Bright held the position of Senior Research Scientist and Project Manager, Vaccine and Immunology Programs at Altea Therapeutics, a biotech startup company in Atlanta, GA, directing the development of a new generation of vaccines and improved delivery methods for vaccines.From 1990 to 2002, Dr. Bright held various immunology and research positions at the CDC and other research centers. Dr. Bright is on the cutting edge of modern scientific research on influenza. His areas of expertise have primarily included studies on pathogenicity and vaccine development for avian H5N1 influenza viruses since the first human outbreak in 1997.

Dr. Bright received a Ph.D. in Immunology and Molecular and Viral Pathogenesis, from the Division of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, from Emory University and B.Sc.'s in both Biology and Physical Science from Auburn University-Montgomery. He is the author or co-author of 12 research articles, eight manuscripts in preparation and one patent. Dr. Bright is affiliated with the American Biological Safety Association, American Immunological Association, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society of Virology, and the American Society of Microbiology. He is also certified in Biosafety Level (BSL) 3+ high containment laboratories and animal facilities, and has active federal security clearance for select agent pathogens, including highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses.Dr. Bright added, At the CDC, I was fortunate to be part of an excellent and dedicated team of scientists working to combat the scourge of a potential pandemic resulting from avian influenza. During this effort, I had the opportunity to assess multiple vaccine and anti-viral approaches to control and treat influenza. Novavax's recombinant VLP vaccine approach has the potential to rapidly create effective vaccines against emerging human and avian strains of influenza. In addition, this approach provides the flexibility to incorporate the latest discoveries in immunology to truly create best in class vaccines against a multitude of diseases. By joining Novavax and its strong scientific team, I hope to realize my vision of creating an effective and practicable vaccine against pandemic and seasonal influenza.

About Novavax, Inc.

Novavax, Inc. is a product development company focused on the research, development and commercialization of products utilizing its proprietary drug delivery and biological technologies for large and growing markets. Novavax's drug delivery technologies include the micellar nanoparticle (MNP) technology which is the basis for the development of its first FDA-approved product, ESTRASORB. In addition to MNP, Novavax drug delivery technologies include Novasomes(R) (paucillamellar non-phospholipid liposomes) and Sterisomes(R) (subcutaneous depot injection). Novavax's vaccine technologies include its virus-like particle (VLP) manufacturing technology utilizing the baculovirus expression system in insect cells, as well as novel vaccine adjuvants based on Novasomes and dendrimer technologies.

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements made in this press release that state Novavax's or its management's intentions, hopes, beliefs, expectations, or predictions are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include but are not limited to statements regarding usage of cash, product sales, future product development and related clinical trials and future research and development, including FDA approval. Novavax's actual results could differ materially from those expressed in such forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company, or industry results, to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among other things, the following: general economic and business conditions; ability to enter into future collaborations with industry partners; competition; unexpected changes in technologies and technological advances; ability to obtain rights to technology; ability to obtain and enforce patents; ability to commercialize and manufacture products; ability to maintain commercial-scale manufacturing capabilities; results of clinical studies; progress of research and development activities; business abilities and judgment of personnel; availability of qualified personnel; changes in, or failure to comply with, governmental regulations; the ability to obtain adequate financing in the future through product licensing, co-promotional arrangements, public or private equity financing or otherwise; and other factors referenced herein. Additional information is contained in Novavax's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005, incorporated herein by reference. Statements made herein should be read in conjunction with Novavax's annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC. Copies of these filings may be obtained by contacting Novavax at 508 Lapp Road, Malvern, PA 19355, Tel 484-913-1200 or the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.
SOURCE Novavax, Inc.CONTACT: Kathy Hamilton, Investor Relations, Novavax, Inc., +1-484-913-1213,KHamilton@novavax.com

NOVAVAX Announces Publication of a Preclinical Study Demonstrating that a Virus-like Particle Vaccine Provided Protection Against Highly Pathogenic H1N1 and H5N1 Influenza Strains On Tuesday April 14, 2009, 8:00 am EDT

H1N1 Virus-like Particle (VLP) Vaccine Candidate Based on the 1918 Spanish Influenza Strain Protected Mice and Ferrets Against the Spanish Flu and Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Bird Flu

ROCKVILLE, Md., April 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Novavax, Inc. (Nasdaq: NVAX - News) today reported preclinical study results showing that an investigational H1N1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine based on the 1918 Spanish influenza strain protected against both the Spanish flu and a highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza strain. The study, published in the March 25, 2009 online issue of the Journal of Virology, was conducted by scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, GA and Novavax under a Collaborative Research and Development Agreement.Novavax scientists designed and produced a recombinant VLP vaccine candidate against the 1918 H1N1 influenza strain. This 1918 influenza strain was responsible for more than 50 million deaths worldwide during the great Spanish flu pandemic. Mice and ferrets were vaccinated with VLPs by one of two routes: either by standard intramuscular injection or by administering a small drop of the VLP vaccine in the nose (intranasal immunization). All of the 1918 VLP-immunized animals were protected when exposed to a lethal dose of the 1918 influenza virus, regardless of the route by which the vaccine was administered. Remarkably, animals immunized by the intranasal route were also protected against a lethal dose of a contemporary, highly pathogenic avian influenza subtype H5N1 virus strain, isolated from a fatal human case in 2004 (A/Vietnam/1203/2004 strain).

The H1N1 VLP vaccine candidate was made up of the hemagglutinin (HA), neuraminidase (NA), and matrix 1 (M1) proteins from 1918 Spanish influenza virus strains. These proteins, which were produced in insect cells, formed three-dimensional structures that mimic the 1918 pandemic influenza virus but without the genetic material needed for replication. The mechanism of action by which this H1N1 VLP vaccine candidate provided broad cross-protection is under further study, but the scientists described preliminary evidence that antibody cross-reactivity between the HA and possibly NA proteins of the H1N1 and H5N1 influenza were important.Unlike other non-live influenza vaccines, the VLPs are uniquely positioned to stimulate immunity through multiple mechanisms, said Dr. Penny Heaton, Chief Medical Officer at Novavax.First, they contain HA protein that is the same structure as the live virus, which may stimulate HA antibodies of several types that not only prevent the virus from attaching to cells but also prevent the virus from fusing with cells. Second, the VLPs contain NA which may stimulate production of antibody that prevents spread of the virus down the respiratory tract. Finally, the structure of the HA and NA proteins and the way in which they are embedded in lipids on the surface of the VLP may activate the innate immune system providing protection against both the H1N1 and H5N1 strains,said Dr. Heaton.Although cross protection against influenza strains of the same hemagglutinin or HA type has been achieved through the use of vaccines with adjuvants (e.g., cross-protection against H5N1 A/Vietnam and A/Indonesia strains), protection against strains with different HA types, as shown in this study, has not been reported. Cross-protection against different HA types is highly desirable for pandemic influenza vaccine candidates because it is not possible to predict the strain that may be responsible for the next pandemic with today's technology. A broadly cross-protective vaccine would be ideal for stockpiling in that it could be administered during the first wave of the pandemic while waiting for manufacture of vaccine specific to the pandemic strain.Dr. Gale Smith, Vice President of Vaccine Development at Novavax, said,The discovery that a VLP-based influenza vaccine candidate created through cell-based recombinant technology has the potential to protect against diverse strains of influenza has significant implications for both pre-pandemic and pandemic preparedness. A broadly protective vaccine administered prior to and during the first wave of a pandemic could prevent widespread morbidity and mortality from a newly emerged pandemic influenza strain and allow time for the development of strain-specific vaccines.

About Novavax

Novavax, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company creating novel vaccines to address a broad range of infectious diseases worldwide using advanced proprietary VLP technology. The company produces these VLP based, potent, recombinant vaccines utilizing new, and efficient manufacturing approaches. The Company has VLP vaccine candidates against seasonal influenza and potential pandemic influenza strains in phase II clinical development.This report describes the second of two preclinical studies of Novavax's investigational H5N1 pandemic influenza vaccine announced this year that have shown different approaches to achieving broad protection against diverse influenza strains. As announced in February, a VLP vaccine with an HA based on several H5 strains showed broad cross-protection against different H5 strains. In the current study, an alternative route of administration resulted in cross-protection against different HA types. Novavax has shown in clinical trials that an H5N1 VLP candidate vaccine given by intramuscular injection is well tolerated and immunogenic in humans. Preclinical research on alternative pandemic influenza VLP vaccine approaches is expected to continue.Additional information about Novavax is available at www.novavax.com and in the company's various filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Forward Looking Statement

Statements herein relating to future financial or business performance, conditions or strategies and other financial and business matters, including expectations regarding clinical developments, safety, efficacy and potency of our vaccines, and supply availability are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Novavax cautions that these forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties, which change over time. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements or historical experience include risks and uncertainties, including the failure by Novavax to secure and maintain relationships with collaborators; risks relating to the early stage of Novavax's product candidates under development; uncertainties relating to commencing clinical trials and their outcome; risks relating to the supply and commercialization, if any, of Novavax's proposed product candidates; dependence on the efforts of third parties; dependence on intellectual property; competition for clinical resources and patient enrolment from drug candidates in development by other companies with greater resources and visibility, and risks that we may lack the financial resources and access to capital to fund our operations. Further information on the factors and risks that could affect Novavax's business, financial conditions and results of operations, is contained in Novavax's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which are available at http://www.sec.gov. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release, and Novavax assumes no duty to update forward-looking statements.

Baxter: Product contained live bird flu virus By Helen Branswell, THE CANADIAN PRESS Last Updated: 27th February 2009, 3:26pm

Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Newsvine Reddit Technorati Feed Me Yahoo Ma.gnolia Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blogmarks Netvouz Scuttle Co.mments Sitejot + What are these? The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses. And an official of the World Health Organization’s European operation said the body is closely monitoring the investigation into the events that took place at Baxter International’s research facility in Orth-Donau, Austria. At this juncture we are confident in saying that public health and occupational risk is minimal at present, medical officer Roberta Andraghetti said from Copenhagen, Denmark. But what remains unanswered are the circumstances surrounding the incident in the Baxter facility in Orth-Donau.The contaminated product, a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company. The Austrian firm, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, then sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany. The contamination incident, which is being investigated by the four European countries, came to light when the subcontractor in the Czech Republic inoculated ferrets with the product and they died. Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses.

Public health authorities concerned about what has been described as a serious error on Baxter’s part have assumed the death of the ferrets meant the H5N1 virus in the product was live. But the company, Baxter International Inc., has been parsimonious about the amount of information it has released about the event. On Friday, the company’s director of global bioscience communications confirmed what scientists have suspected. It was live,Christopher Bona said in an email. The contaminated product, which Baxter calls experimental virus material,was made at the Orth-Donau research facility. Baxter makes its flu vaccine — including a human H5N1 vaccine for which a licence is expected shortly — at a facility in the Czech Republic. People familiar with biosecurity rules are dismayed by evidence that human H3N2 and avian H5N1 viruses somehow co-mingled in the Orth-Donau facility. That is a dangerous practice that should not be allowed to happen, a number of experts insisted. Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences. While H5N1 doesn’t easily infect people, H3N2 viruses do. If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people. That mixing process, called reassortment, is one of two ways pandemic viruses are created.There is no suggestion that happened because of this accident, however.We have no evidence of any reassortment, that any reassortment may have occurred,said Andraghetti. And we have no evidence of any increased transmissibility of the viruses that were involved in the experiment with the ferrets in the Czech Republic.Baxter hasn’t shed much light — at least not publicly — on how the accident happened. Earlier this week Bona called the mistake the result of a combination of just the process itself, (and) technical and human error in this procedure.

He said he couldn’t reveal more information because it would give away proprietary information about Baxter’s production process. Andraghetti said Friday the four investigating governments are co-operating closely with the WHO and the European Centre for Disease Control in Stockholm, Sweden. We are in very close contact with Austrian authorities to understand what the circumstances of the incident in their laboratory were,she said. And the reason for us wishing to know what has happened is to prevent similar events in the future and to share lessons that can be learned from this event with others to prevent similar events. ... This is very important.

Fort Detrick disease samples may be missing Originally published April 22, 2009 By Justin M. Palk News-Post Staff

Army criminal investigators are looking into the possibility that disease samples are missing from biolabs at Fort Detrick.As first reported in today's edition of The Frederick News-Post by columnist Katherine Heerbrandt, the investigators are from the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division unit at Fort Meade.Chad Jones, spokesman for Fort Meade, said CID is investigating the possibility of missing virus samples from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.He said the only other detail he could provide is that the investigation is ongoing.Fort Detrick does not have its own CID office, Jones said, which is why Fort Meade's CID was brought in.

Jones said he could not comment on when the investigation started.

CID is responsible for investigating crimes where the Army is, or may be, a party of interest, according to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command website.USAMRIID is the Army's top biodefense lab, where researchers study pathogens including Ebola, anthrax and plague.In February, USAMRIID halted all its research into these and other diseases, known as select agents following the discovery of virus samples that weren't listed in its inventory.The institute's commander, Col. John Skvorak, ordered research halted while workers conducted a complete inventory of the institute's select agents.That inventory is nearly completed, though the exact end date isn't known yet, said Caree Vander Linden, USAMRIID spokeswoman.Vander Linden said she didn't know about the CID investigation and referred questions to the CID's head public affairs office.There is no indication whether the CID investigation is connected to USAMRIID's re-inventorying of its select agent stocks.