reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I recently experienced a situation where a paper was reviewed by a high-profile journal, and a reviewer requested a BSL-three experiment without the author's knowledge. This highlights the pressure to publish at all costs, even if it means conducting risky experiments. I raised concerns with the journal editor, but it seemed they were unaware of the potential dangers. This incident serves as a warning about the dangers of prioritizing publication over safety. Be cautious of this trend.

Research on potential pandemic pathogens, known as gain of function studies, has led to valuable public health insights. Previous NSABB reports support this. While I won't argue for the necessity of this research, there are many freely available studies showing how mutations identified through these studies have helped us prepare for epidemics and pandemics.

During a discussion, the speaker expresses surprise that there is a lack of information on vaccinated hospitalizations, ICU visits, and deaths at a national level. The other speaker agrees, acknowledging the challenges in data collection and the importance of providing complete information to the public. The first speaker then mentions the extensive paperwork they have to fill out for patients but notes that data on vaccinated patients and the effectiveness of hospitalizations, ICUs, and deaths was not collected. The second speaker clarifies that while they were looking at that information for vaccine effectiveness studies, they did not receive aggregated data on vaccination and hospitalizations. They emphasize the need for accurate data reporting.

I've lost faith in the journals. When we first identified the virus with six insertions, we thought it was crucial information for vaccine development. We submitted our findings, but they were ignored by various journals, including Nature and The Lancet, which claimed it wasn't in the public interest to publish our paper. Despite the scientific validity, they didn't engage with us for evidence. Molecular biologists suggested it could be random mutation, but that wasn't the case. Eventually, a biophysics journal published our work, recognizing that the alterations in charge and infectivity wouldn't occur through normal evolution. We presented our findings, but there was no willingness for further discussion.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

There is evidence suggesting that the Chinese Communist Party leaked the virus from a laboratory in Wuhan. They hid the truth about person-to-person transmission, which hindered our response. The Chinese Communist Party continues to conduct risky research, even using American funds. We recently discovered they are working on a COVID virus that affects the brain. We need a moratorium on this type of research. Witnesses who could provide information have mysteriously died, and the Chinese Communist Party has removed DNA sequences that could prove our theory. We must prevent future situations by stopping gain of function research and not aiding our enemies. The scientific community in China collaborates with the military and the CCP, posing a serious threat to us.

Scientists are working with dangerous pathogens to find cures, but accidents are common. Incidents like holes in protective gear, escaped infected animals, and missing pathogens have occurred. Even top labs are not immune to safety breaches. Lab accidents can lead to outbreaks, like SARS and foot and mouth disease. Despite safety measures, accidents happen regularly, mostly affecting lab workers. While rare, lab accidents can have public health consequences. Outbreaks linked to labs, like a reemerging flu strain, highlight the importance of lab safety.

A US health official working for Dr. Fauci expressed safety concerns about a lab in Wuhan, China, six years ago. The lab was planning to reverse engineer the Ebola virus, but the official was ordered to delete any mention of Ebola in her report. The lab, which is believed by some to be the source of COVID-19, was visited by the official just before it opened. During the tour, a technician at the lab mentioned the illegal importation of Ebola for study. The official expressed shock and worry about the potential consequences if this information became public. Two days later, she was instructed to delete her comment.

BioNTech's studies lacked clear guidance and evaluation of results from contract laboratories. The reproductive toxicology studies on pregnant animals showed side effects were dismissed as unimportant or already seen in control populations. This lack of seriousness in safety strategy was concerning.

You need to know the risk profile for products like the COVID vaccine. Many discuss adverse effects, but we lack sufficient data, which is unacceptable. Our surveillance system doesn't work. In 2010, the CDC had the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, meant to detect injuries. However, a CDC study revealed it captures less than 1% of vaccine injuries. This is inexcusable. Congress, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences have repeatedly directed the CDC to develop a better vaccine surveillance system. We will require it and address it immediately.

The U.S. intelligence community has officially opened an investigation into more than 120 U.S. taxpayer-funded biological laboratories operating overseas, including 40 in Ukraine. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says the probe aims to identify where the labs are located, what pathogens they contain, and what research is being conducted. Gabbard has previously accused officials of misleading the public about the existence and scope of U.S.-backed bio labs overseas, including claims tying the issue to the Biden administration and figures such as Anthony Fauci. The discussion references claims made during the Biden administration by Victoria Nuland, who admitted bio labs are in Ukraine and funded by the United States but said they were only for defensive research, while dismissing accusations as Russian disinformation. Questions are raised about claims of Russian findings, including reported COVID vaccine samples in labs during Russia’s takeover of territory, and claims of AIDS research on Ukrainian military personnel. Senator asks Ukraine-specific questions about chemical or biological weapons and whether there is doubt that any biological or chemical incident in Ukraine would be carried out by Russians. Ukraine is described as having biological research facilities, with concern that Russian troops may seek control of research materials, and statements that efforts are underway with Ukrainians to prevent research materials from falling into Russian hands. The exchange asserts that Russian propaganda blames Ukrainians for plots involving biological weapons and coordination with NATO, and that it is “classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they’re planning to do themselves.” Doctor Merrill Nass, a biological warfare epidemiologist and author, says it is notable that the government acknowledges such facilities, including about 40 in Ukraine and over 100 elsewhere, and adds that many countries have studied biological weapons agents, treatments, and vaccines since at least World War II. Nass argues that the law prohibits developing biological weapons and references the Biological Weapons Convention, noting that the treaty has no enforcement mechanism, and that there is no way to send teams to investigate other countries’ labs. He suggests there have been roadblocks to obtaining details, and that labs outside the United States reduce oversight. The conversation also discusses the idea of incentives and loopholes: Nass states that the U.S. has no legal control over private labs and that, in the U.S., it is possible to build high-containment laboratories and have scientists create whatever they like without a prohibition. Nass describes historical U.S. development and stockpiling of biological weapons agents, mentions evasion of antibiotics and vaccines, and argues that international restrictions do not prevent potential development efforts elsewhere. Nass says that specific biological weapon use is not known to have occurred within the United States except that “the potential exception of COVID,” asserting the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine should never have been developed “the way it was developed for COVID” because it included “the most toxic, problematic parts” of the virus. He also recalls work as a consultant to the Cuban Ministry of Health in 1993 regarding illness attributed to cyanide poisoning, describes reports that the CIA sent African swine fever virus to Cuba through Panama to dissidents, and notes that Cuba reportedly had to kill half a million pigs due to that outbreak. When asked whether researchers can be controlled and whether answers will emerge about roughly 120 labs, Nass says accountability and oversight are limited, citing a senate hearing where senators said the intelligence community is not under anyone’s control and is not accountable. He adds that if answers cannot be obtained in the U.S., they would not likely be obtained in other countries. Nass argues that lab-produced viruses could be distinguished from naturally occurring ones by analyzing genomes, describing prior work on reconstructing an epidemic and claiming that attention to whether viral genomes are natural or unnatural will enable future differentiation. He notes that he believes the risk of severe consequences reduces the likelihood of use. The segment ends with plans to bring Nass back as the investigation unfolds.

Many journal policies were created during a time of biosecurity focus, neglecting population-level biosafety concerns. Transparency in the approval process is important, with the public having a right to know. If openness leads to disapproval, it raises questions about why approval was granted in secret.

In 2014, a gain of function moratorium was implemented in the US due to lab accidents. Despite this, gain of function research continued in China with funding from Dr. Fauci. The NIH lifted the moratorium in 2017 without proper consultation. There are concerns that US-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Ebright believes that lapses in oversight of this research could have caused the pandemic and may lead to future ones.

I don't think there's been transparency. Routine announcements are being made about findings, and questions are being invited daily. But providing data for the evidence that is being presented isn't happening. The White House has provided information, but these claims seem to be dismissed. Information is being provided; it just isn't believed.

The data hasn't been shared because the virus wasn't isolated. Live animal samples testing positive don't provide useful information. It seems the source of the virus is not what we initially believed.

The data hasn't been shared because the virus wasn't isolated. Testing live animal samples doesn't provide useful information if they only show positive results. I don't believe the virus originated from what we initially thought.

Speaker 0 asks about a report and how concerning it is, suggesting that if the reported figure is 10, there is a “real number” that could be higher. Speaker 1 says the main concern is that the analysis “dramatically understates the problem.” They describe the difficulty of getting autopsies during the pandemic and say medical professors didn’t want to perform them, resulting in very few autopsies. They state that NIH/CDC/FDA reviewed 96 pediatric autopsies and concluded about 10 were possible or probable. Speaker 1 then argues that safety signals were “screaming,” and points to VAERS. They claim there are almost 1.7 million total adverse events and 39,000 deaths worldwide. They say 24% of the 39,000 deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days. Speaker 1 also references the point that VAERS doesn’t prove causation, while stating that if a person who was “perfectly healthy” died that day or within one or two days, they would “be blaming” the jab. They add that in some cases people may have been in bad health already, with death tipped over by another cause. Speaker 1 says the “bigger revelation,” which they claim was unveiled three weeks ago and is “still not being covered by the mainstream media,” involves FDA’s VAERS algorithm. They state that on 03/01/2021, Peter Marks (head of CBER/FDA’s division approving vaccines and surveilling post-approval safety) was briefed that their algorithm analyzing VAERS would “hide and mask safety signals.” They say that 26 days later, a new algorithm unmasked safety signals, producing 49 cases of extreme masking revealed and 25 safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, Bell’s palsy, and different types of strokes. They claim that similar data runs over the next three months showed more safety signals and more sudden death. Speaker 1 further claims that FDA did not “pin a badge” on Anna Scharzman, referred to as the father of their expert, and instead “shunned her off to the side,” ordered her to cease and desist, and decided to use the algorithm they had been warned would hide safety signals, which they say is still being used. Speaker 1 states that Peter Marks left for Eli Lilly and claims “the entire world” is in denial. They say they have been unable to broadcast the story or get interviews on CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, or CNN, and that they challenged Jake Tapper, who they say agreed to read the report but has not invited them back yet.

When the virus emerged, scientists were alarmed and held secret calls questioning its origin. Despite privately suspecting a lab origin, they published a paper claiming it was natural. This cover-up at Nature Medicine has not been retracted. The government has not been transparent, with information coming from whistleblowers and Freedom of Information Act requests.

A key insight from the report is the failure to transition from an initial precautionary approach during the pandemic to a more evidence-based strategy that considered risks, benefits, and non-health impacts. This lack of shift has significant implications for public trust. The report highlights insufficient transparency regarding the rationale and evidence behind government decisions that affected Australians' lives and freedoms. Consequently, trust has declined significantly compared to pre-pandemic levels. The panel indicates that many measures implemented during COVID-19 are unlikely to be accepted by the public in the future due to these issues.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for its ability to stop the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. The speaker acknowledges that they had to work quickly to understand the situation and move at the speed of science.

A key insight from the report is the failure to transition from an initial precautionary approach during the pandemic to a more evidence-based strategy that balanced risks and benefits, including non-health impacts. This lack of shift has significant implications for public trust. The report highlights insufficient transparency regarding the rationale and evidence behind government decisions, which deeply affected Australians' lives and freedoms. As a result, trust has declined compared to pre-pandemic levels. The panel warns that many measures implemented during COVID-19 are unlikely to be accepted by the public in the future due to this erosion of trust.

We had a study on highway threats that was classified but got denied last minute because it wouldn't pass the New York Times test. Public affairs thought it could be misinterpreted as offensive bioweapons work. Despite its potential to help biosecurity, it was shelved. Most government work, even classified, is transparent.

There was a lack of transparency about vaccine side effects, leading to underreporting. Mandating vaccines was a mistake; personal choice should have been allowed since they don't prevent infection and have side effects. Translation: Lack of transparency and underreporting of side effects, along with mandating vaccines, were mistakes. Personal choice should have been allowed due to the vaccines not preventing infection and having side effects.

There are leaks almost every week in BSL 3 and BSL 4 labs, and no lab is immune. The executive order aims to prevent inadvertent leaks and protect humanity. The COVID outbreak cost twenty million lives and at least $25 trillion. The COVID nightmare was likely preventable, and the leading theory is that it came from the Wuhan Lab, which was five miles from the initial outbreak. The speaker believes the outbreak was the result of scientists manipulating nature in a lab using technology exported from the United States, specifically inserting a furin cleavage site. The speaker hopes the executive order will do some good.

My understanding of the PC30 framework is that it focuses on a small number of viruses with both pathogenicity and transmissibility. However, there are discrepancies in the criteria used, leading to unintended studies being included. More refinement may be needed to ensure accurate submissions. The definition on paper may not always align with real-world practices.