Alex_Krycek

I agree. My view is that all probable causes need to be investigated fully, and all risks need to be assessed fully, even if it it turns out it didn't come from one of the suspected sources. For example, wet markets are still a huge risk factor even if Covid-19 did not originate there. GOF research also carries extremely high risk, even if Covid-19 turns out not to be a result of GOF. What I find unacceptable is ignoring / downplaying the lab hypothesis for whatever reason, which thankfully doesn't seem to be the case anymore as far as the WHO is concerned. This latest audit request demonstrates they are doing their due diligence and putting the onus on China to be transparent.

Of course - you can label me a Trump loving conspiracy theorist all you want to. I find such aspersions ridiculous, as I am very much against Trump and what he stands for overall. And I do ignore such statements, as your biases are not relevant to the debate. Yes, agree. We should do both. But ignoring the fact that this pandemic may have come from a lab will do little to build public confidence in institutions such as the WHO, NIH, etc. You can say "Who cares what the rabble think?", but such an attitude will only exacerbate the issue of waning public confidence in science. All of the above. There's a simple solution: full transparency / objectivity regarding these issues. Leave politics out of it. If there's a problem with a vaccine in terms of safety, communicate the risks. If there's an effective treatment that isn't a vaccine, allow physicians to use it if they're seeing positive results. If there is a possibility that the virus escaped from the lab, have an open dialogue about corrective action. The problem comes when these issues get politicized. That Lancet letter back in 2020 dismissing the lab leak as a racist conspiracy theory is an example. That's an attempt to shut down the discussion and ostracize those who may be offering valid criticism. The authoritarian censorship and control is the real problem, in my view. That's what ultimately feeds the anti-vaxxers and disinformation - this notion that facts are being distorted for whatever reason. And as far as what should be done specifically: it seems that in 2004 the WHO, China, and other countries studying SARS had a chance to get it right before something like this happened. For whatever reason, here we are 17 years later with an unprecedented catastrophe that probably could have be avoided.

You seem to like to do this a lot. It's not relevant to the debate so I'd prefer if you keep your biases to yourself. Regarding the matter at hand, I do not in fact believe the Chinese released this intentionally. Why? It would be completely illogical. An unintentional lab leak, however, is entirely plausible. Lab leaks of dangerous pathogens, including from Sars, have happened before. In 2004 a lab leak involving Sars-1 was linked to the deaths of several scientists in Beijing. April 23, 2004 -- Chinese health officials have confirmed four suspected cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), including one death, which appear to have been caused by a safety breach at a laboratory studying the SARS virus. If confirmed by an independent international reference lab, this would be the third outbreak of SARS to be traced back to inadequate laboratory safety procedures. Two cases of SARS have been reported in laboratory workers in Singapore and Taiwan since the first outbreak ended. Source: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20040423/china-sars-death ------ A report from the NIH / National Center for Biotechnology Information: SARS escaped Beijing lab twice (2004) The latest outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in China, with eight confirmed or suspected cases so far and hundreds quarantined, involves two researchers who were working with the virus in a Beijing research lab, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Monday (April 26). At a news conference in Manila this morning, Associated Press reported, WHO Western Pacific Regional Director Shigeru Omi criticized the laboratory's safeguards and said the authorities did not know yet whether any foreigners had been carrying out medical research in the facility and had since left the country. Laboratory safety "is a serious issue that has to be addressed," he said. "We have to remain very vigilant." "The lab might have all the right rules, but the people may not comply! For example, notebooks are not supposed to be taken out, a lot of things like that. A virus doesn't jump on people!" Danchin said.However WHO Beijing is relatively sanguine about the current threat, despite the fact that the 26-year-old infected had taken a long journey on the country's rail network. The index cases are known, and contacts had been traced, Dietz said. "We see no significant public health threat at this point." Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ ------------- The fact is, both scenarios - zoonotic spillover and a lab leak have precedent and should be taken seriously.

Actually, at this point there is no evidence that the virus arose naturally. Has a species been found that carried Covid-19 that would suggest zoonotic spillover? No. Did any of the animals at the Huanan seafood market test positive for corona virus? No. You don't have any concrete evidence to support your case at this point. It's interesting you choose to dismiss the WIV Lab leak hypothesis as a "conspiracy theory", despite this being a plausible scenario based on the facts. Based on everything we know about the WIV: the fact that bat coronaviruses were being studied there, the reported safety lapses, the fact that initial cases of Covid were detected in the city away from the Huanan market. You're not thinking objectively.

Determining corrective action in response to a pandemic that has thus far killed over 4 million people, and seriously disrupted the lives of billions, requires that we know as accurately as possible what the cause was. Dismissing the pandemic as inevitable, or as a matter of course, is a grossly negligent attitude. The mission of science should always be to seek the truth with the goal of reducing the risk that such an event will occur again. All too often these days we hear the pontificating "experts" on television musing how another pandemic will surely happen (it's just a matter of time, don't you know) and society should just accept it. Fine, society must increase its readiness potential exponentially, that's a no brainer - but what is being done to understand how this pandemic arose in the first place? At the very least there should be a serious dialogue about one of the most likely causes - an accident at the WIV - a dialogue which so far has been stifled and ignored. Those select few with a conflict interest can forget and move on - the world will not. If there was gain of function research happening in Wuhan, what are the implications for future global policy? What global policies (such as funding GOF) should be changed? In May 25, 2021 the Senate passed an amendment to ban all funding of GOF research in China. Should more steps be taken? Were Chinese virologists following the proper safety protocols, or were there lapses in safety as have been reported? If they in fact were following proper protocol, what lessons could be learned for other laboratories researching dangerous pathogens around the world? These and a litany of other questions demand real answers. Unfortunately it's not enough just to shrug one's shoulders and say "So what?".

"China Refuses Further Inquiry Into Covid-19 Origins in Wuhan Lab" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/22/china-refuses-further-inquiry-into-covid-19-origins-in-wuhan-lab Nobody's surprised by this, I'm sure. China has stonewalled from the beginning regarding any meaningful investigation into a possible lab accident. The inevitable reality is that the world will never know for sure what caused the pandemic, nor will there be any possible chance to learn from this situation if there was in fact a lab leak. "Arrogance towards science" indeed. That phrase sets a new precedent for disingenuous double-speak.

It's certainly interesting how the Overton Window is shifting, such that renowned scientists such as Dr. Kaku feel comfortable stating on record that this phenomena should be taken seriously. This is something being called for across the board: serious investigation from scientists, not mere dismissal. Thus far, there are only a few scientists taking this matter seriously (on record, that is), Dr. Travis Taylor, an astrophysicist from Alabama, being one of them.

Interesting commentary from physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, weighing in on UAPs / aliens; stating that they should be taken seriously.

It's interesting to compare this document with a couple of slides from Special Report #14:, as released under Project Bluebook in 1955. (https://archive.org/details/ProjectBlueBookSpecialReport14/page/n1/mode/2up) Clearly significantly more time and attention was given to this issue in 1955 when the Special Report was released, judging by the sheer volume of data included in the report, as well as the depth of analysis directed at the subject. A couple of slides from Special Report #14 distinguishing between the different categories of identification.

Perhaps they don't think we're ready, or they're still trying to figure out an interface through which they can communicate with us. How do you communicate effectively with a species that reacts to you with violence and fear? (fight or flight) How do you communicate with an intelligent species that has never encountered extraterrestrials before? One possible answer is the ETs are simply making themselves known. Dr. Jacques Valleé, a leading researcher of the ufo phenomenon, has suggested that the current revelation of ufos with greater and greater frequency could be an intentional form of mass collective conditioning. In short: we are in a preparation stage. The ETs come into our atmosphere, elude our fighter pilots with aplomb, and disappear. Message: We're more technologically advanced than you but are not choosing to hurt you. You don't have to be afraid, and should not attempt to attack is. Such attempts are futile. They continue to show up, seemingly at random, and allow themselves to be periodically witnessed. Slowly but surely the idea of their presence is less and less frightening or taboo in human consciousness. The problems of societal panic and collapse are circumvented. No sudden moves. As a side note, Arthur C. Clarke explored this idea in his classic novel: Childhood's End. @Moontanman You will recall from the film "The Phenomenon" that the schoolchildren who claimed to have interacted with physical alien beings in Zimbabwe in 1994 said they received telepathic messages. This would indicate that the ETs do not communicate verbally as we do. Obviously this poses a major problem for establishing an interface of direct communication, especially since human beings like to "shoot first, and ask questions later".

Ha. Very funny. I already did google that exact information and got a string of irrelevant results. If you're not going to post the direct URL to your information, I can't debate you.

The "ABS" link isn't clickable. I assume that is the Australian Bureau of Statistics? It would be helpful if you could provide the direct URL so I can read the entire page. Looks like Australia is phasing out AZ later this year, according to this article: Australia plans to shelve AstraZeneca Covid vaccine by October Controversial vaccine to be given only by request later this year when Moderna and Pfizer will dominate https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/23/australia-plans-to-shelve-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-by-october

What is your source? I've been reading that the AZ blood clot risk is 1 in 100,000. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/astrazeneca-blood-clot-risk-still-100000-to-one-but-fatality-rate-has-fallen-says-eu-watchdog-40481248.html

Interesting article: Scientists identify 29 planets where aliens could observe Earth "Astronomers estimate 29 habitable planets are positioned to see Earth transit and intercept human broadcasts" The scientists identified 1,715 star systems where alien observers could have discovered Earth in the past 5,000 years by watching it ‘transit’ across the face of the sun. Full article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/23/scientists-identify-29-planets-where-aliens-could-observe-earth I find this an interesting argument. This concept was explored in the movie "Arrival". Because human beings are still essentially territorial apes, and our nation states function as such, the intrusion of a superior extraterrestrial entity into our social system could wreak havoc. There's also the issue of the human social order in terms of the ruling authority. Right now, every human society is governed by other human beings - no real surprise. Why? Because we have established social structures to confer power on those we deem acceptable (or in some cases other human beings just take power). But overall human beings govern other human beings. What happens when a significantly more advanced species (or A.I) makes itself known? If that happened, all governments and ruling systems would be simultaneously usurped. Human laws wouldn't matter anymore; only the laws set down by this objectively superior species would be heeded, potentially causing chaos.

Interesting article in Scientific American. It relies on a somewhat conventional explanation of "alien probes", but is a provocative piece nonetheless. Maybe the Aliens Really Are Here, By John Gertz on June 21, 2021 "But if so, it’s probably in the form of robotic probes—something both UFO enthusiasts and SETI scientists should be able to agree on" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/maybe-the-aliens-really-are-here/ The interstellar travel problem could be solved by manipulating wormholes, which are theoretically consistent with the general theory of relativity. https://physics.aps.org/story/v2/st7 I don't know if this was your point, but there is a similar argument stating that aliens would never want to visit Earth because we're so inferior to them, so why would they bother? I don't think this argument has any merit whatsoever. Any moderately intelligent species, let alone one that might be significantly more advanced than we are, is likely to be curious and want to explore its surroundings. Curiosity and an interest in exploration are innate attributes of intelligence. In addition to innate curiosity, there are concrete material benefits of exploration. Humans are spending significant resources to go to Mars, and there's barely a shrub of vegetation or unicellular organism to be found. What energy would human society expend if we could efficiently and safely travel to thousands of exoplanets every year? The scientific benefits would be enormous. Here are only a few reasons why an alien species might be interested in Earth: it harbors incredible biodiversity and a vast array of organisms to study its atmosphere & ecosystems it's dominated by an often violent species that possesses nuclear weapons, and is beginning to venture further out into space it's natural habitat is on the brink of collapse, thanks to the aforementioned violent species it is resource rich, harboring an abundance of heavy metals and other valuable materials And these are just assuming the ETs are benign and passive. Perhaps their own planet has become inhabitable for whatever reason, and now they're looking for a new place to hang out. If humanity discovered an exoplanet as valuable as Earth that we could feasibly visit - we would be there regularly. But suppose, like Earth, such an exoplanet was inhabited by an irrational and violent species that attempted to kill us whenever we entered the atmosphere. In such a situation, (assuming we had no interest in annihilating this unpredictable indigenous species) covert incursions / remote observations would be the next logical alternative. In other words: wait until they grow up.

@swansont My intent is to investigate the serious side effects related to the covid vaccines and the emerging research which attempts to identify and explain them. Perhaps the title of the thread should be amended to reflect this. @CharonY I discovered a very interesting hypothesis which claims to explain the clotting issue. Is this essentially what you were indicating above? Rolf Marschalek, a professor at Goethe university in Frankfurt who has been leading studies into the rare condition since March, said his research showed the problem sat with the adenovirus vectors that both vaccines use to deliver the genetic instructions for the spike protein of the Sars-Cov-2 virus into the body. The delivery mechanism means the vaccines send the DNA gene sequences of the spike protein into the cell nucleus rather than the cytosol fluid found inside the cell where the virus normally produces proteins, Prof Marschalek and other scientists said in a preprint paper released on Wednesday. He says the problem can be fixed: But Prof Marschalek believes there is a straight forward “way out” if the vaccine developers can modify the gene sequence that codes for the spike protein to prevent it splitting apart. J&J had already contacted Prof Marschalek’s lab to ask for guidance and was looking at ways to adapt its vaccine to prevent splicing, he said. Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/german-scientists-claim-to-have-solved-covid-vaccine-blood-clot-puzzle-1.4576752 Here is his preliminary research (which has not yet been peer reviewed) PDF attached below. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-558954/v1 ABSTRACT: During the last months many countries have started the immunization of millions of people by using vector-based vaccines. Unfortunately, severe side effects became overt during these vaccination campaigns: cerebral venous sinus thromboses (CVST), absolutely rare under normal life conditions, were found as a severe side effect that occured 4-14 days after first vaccinations. Besides CVST, Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis (SVT) was also observed. This type of adverse event has not been observed in the clinical studies of AstraZeneca, and therefore led immediately to a halt in vaccinations in several european countries. These events were mostly associated with thrombocytopenia, and thus, similar to the well-known Heparin-induced thrombo­cytopenia (HIT). Meanwhile, scientists have proposed a mechanism to explain this vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia. However, they do not provide a satisfactory explanation for the late thromboembolic events. Here, we present data that may explain these severe side effects which have been attributed to adenoviral vaccines. According to our results, transcription of wildtype and codon-optimized Spike open reading frames enables alternative splice events that lead to C-terminal truncated, soluble Spike protein variants. These soluble Spike variants may initiate severe side effects when binding to ACE2-expressing endothelial cells in blood vessels. In analogy to the thromboembolic events caused by Spike protein encoded by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we termed the underlying disease mechanism the “Vaccine-Induced Covid-19 Mimicry” syndrome (VIC19M syndrome). PDF version.pdf

According to this article the first FDA approved RNA drug utilizing lipid nanoparticles was Onpattro in 2018. "In 2018, the biotech Alnylam turned Nobel Prize-winning RNA interference research into the first siRNA drug — Onpattro, for patients with an inherited neurological disorder — by packaging the small interfering RNA in lipid nanoparticles. Now, similar formulations are paving the way for messenger RNA vaccines. STAT Reports: Nanotechnology in Medicine “In my mind, one of the heroes in this story is the RNA nanoparticle,” said Daniel Anderson, professor of chemical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, because “siRNA led to mRNA vaccines.” The FDA’s approval of the first RNAi-based drug was “proof these nanoparticles were not just tools we use in the lab to manipulate genes,” Anderson said in a new STAT Report on nanomedicine, “but proof they can be translated into approved medicines.” https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/01/how-nanotechnology-helps-mrna-covid19-vaccines-work/ https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/210922s000lbl.pdf Here are the links to the updated health advisories as issued by the UK and Australian governments. https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-statement-on-revised-recommendations-on-the-use-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-17-june-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-issues-new-advice-concluding-a-possible-link-between-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-and-extremely-rare-unlikely-to-occur-blood-clots https://extra.ie/2021/04/07/news/world-news/ema-reaches-conclusion-astrazeneca https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/oxford-astrazeneca-under-30s-uk-covid-vaccine_uk_606c21cfc5b66c4ab6b6ae80

Actually, we are debating the cause of a novel situation relating to lipid nanoparticles, mRNA, and immune thrombocytopenia about which there isn't much literature. Pretty important, if you ask me, if we're to ensure the utmost safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccine moving forward. Perhaps you might offer some meaningful information pertaining to this issue at some point. Correction: Lipid nano particles were only approved in 2018. Interesting, thanks. So as to this point: Blood clots do not seem to be different between unvaccinated and Pfizer/Moderna vaccinated folks, but seem elevated in certain population subsets in AstraZeneca vaccines, which is likely to related to the adenovirus used (there have been reports in the past for issues with certain adenovirus-based vaccines, but I am not sure what they were in detail and in any case, they are not related to mRNA-based vaccines such as Pfizer/BioNTech. In your view, what about this adenovirus might be causing the blood clot issue in the AZ vaccine? Also, I noted that Australia and now the UK have advised young people against getting the AZ vaccine. (I believe under 30s in the UK and under 50s in Australia have been advised against AZ, according to the latest news. Is that cautionary measure justified, in your opinion?

Studying, perhaps, but mRNA vaccines were only approved by the FDA in 2018, and the long term effects have yet to be documented. However, I am interested to know if you can confirm the veracity of what I posted above with respect to immune thrombocytopenia. This seems to be the most plausible explanation for the rare and often fatal blood clot events that have stricken a small minority of vaccine recipients. But if you have a better explanation I'm all ears.

That's incredibly vague. Can you cite a precedent, any research, or specific argument why the dispersion of mRNA or lipid nanoparticles into the human body would not be problematic? This appears to be a novel situation with little precedent to determine either safety or risk.

I'd choose another plane of existence as my first option. If multiverse theory is correct, and there are an infinite amount of parallel universes, it might be possible for some species to eventually cross over into different dimensions at will. Second, I'd choose "from another planetary system". Conservative estimates state that there is at least one planet for every solar system in the galaxy. With billions of solar systems in the galaxy, there are billions of potentially habitable planets. I highly doubt that human beings are the most intelligent organisms in the universe. There is probably a spectrum of intelligent life out there - organisms that are less intelligent than human beings and those that are significantly more intelligent. Depending on how long they have been evolving, and the nature of their evolution, a species could already have developed technology capable of efficiently traversing vast regions of space and time. That leaves the question: why would they want to come here? Well, why not? A key attribute of intelligence is curiosity and an interest in exploration. I don't think these attributes would be confined to the species on Earth, but would extend to all life in the universe.

This particular study was on mice, rats, monkeys, and human cells. There were different studies with different delivery methods (In vivo, in vitro, and intramuscular injection.) The graph above came from a study on Rats (Wistar Han) and the method of administration was intramuscular injection. ----- There has been some concern over this bio distribution recently, potentially as the cause for the fatal blood clots that have, in rare instances, caused the death of recent vaccine recipients. Scientists are still investigating why these blood clots are happening, but one theory is that the mRNA crosses the blood brain barrier. "The surgeon then mentioned cases of immune thrombocytopenia — a life-threatening blood clot or platelet disorder — occurring shortly after mRNA vaccination. While no causative link has been confirmed, he considered that maybe the LNPs had carried the mRNA vaccine into the megakaryocytes (platelet-producing cells) in the bone marrow. The megakaryocytes then express the spike protein, only to be marked for destruction by cytotoxic T-cells. Platelets then become deficient, causing thrombocytopenia. Of course, he emphasized that these are just speculations." Source: https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/concerns-of-lipid-nanoparticle-carrying-mrna-vaccine-into-the-brain-what-to-make-of-it-42b1a98dae27 The issue was also raised in the British Medical Journal: "In a rapid response posted on bmj.com, JW Ulm, a gene therapy specialist who has published on tissue targeting of therapeutic vectors,13 raised concerns about the biodistribution of LNPs: “At present, relatively little has been reported on the tissue localisation of the LNPs used to encase the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-encoding messenger RNA, and it is vital to have more specific information on precisely where the liposomal nanoparticles are going after injection.”14 It is an unknown that Ulm worries could have implications for vaccine safety. Ulm told The BMJ: “Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna did a remarkable job of rapidly scaling up manufacturing of such a novel system in swift fashion, which is genuinely a landmark technological achievement. However, pharmacokinetic studies, with independent laboratory confirmation, are essential to ascertain potential cytotoxicity and macroscopic toxicity, especially given the likelihood of booster injections over months or years, since the tissue trafficking patterns of the mRNA vaccine payload will determine which cells and tissues are killed by cytotoxic T-cells in each round.” Given the variation in LNP formulations, it is unclear how relevant previous animal experiments are to answering this question. Regulators and manufacturers contacted by The BMJ for this article did not wish to address any of the questions raised by Ulm’s rapid response." Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n627 ----- This seems to be an area that requires further inquiry to ensure the safety and efficacy of MRNA vaccines moving forward.

What do you base that on?

Recently there was a freedom of information request for the Japanese government to release data on the Pfizer vaccine. That request yielded bio-distribution data on the lipid nanoparticles that carry the mRNA in the body. I will post a chart which summarizes the data from the FOIA request and also the report itself (Japanese and English). My question is, looking at this bio-distribution data which shows large concentrations of the lipid nanoparticles collecting in the bone marrow and ovaries post vaccination, what long term potential side effects might be anticipated in individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine? Summary of bio-distribution of lipid nanoparticles from Pfizer vaccine: Ovaries-get-the-mRNA-from-Pfizer-Shot-Graph-2048x1424.webp Pfizer-report_Japanese-government.pdf

Well, there we go. If Wikipedia says it's pseudo-science, case closed.