Posts by THHuxleynew

RE: The Playground.

Whether they realized it or not, their model implies a granularity or variation in the electric fields around the proton. How else can you have discrete charges of opposite sign. A similar effect can be seen in the model for the deuteron that appears on this site, and so on up the periodic table. That granularity could allow alpha particles to stick together long enough for lenr to take place, and forms the basis for consideration of Papp's engine.

I won't comment on Papp's engine. Others have, and the evidence for anything unusual is not strong.

However - variation in electric fields around nuclei that affects fusion cross-section:

This is well known, and that makes for example d+d fusion easier than p+p fusion. In fact the influence of neutrons in nuclei on cross-sections is complex (not just due to anisotropic electric fields) and the topic of a lot of diverse research:

I don't claim much expertise with this stuff, but from a cursory google you would needs to review several 100 papers 9or else find a well-focussed review) to know what work has been done.

Now - you are going further than filed anisotropy due to discrete neutrons and protons, and asking what is the additional anisotropy due to the fact that the fundamental constituents on nuclei are quarks.

Here is a good lay-person's intro to the interior parton model of the proton, and the deep inelastic scattering data that provides experimental evidence for this:

Also relevant is measurements of the diameter of the proton - where an old apparent discrepancy between muonic and regular hydrogen proton diameters has been shown not correct by better measurements: a good Quanta Magazine (a good level for me to find out initially about stuff I don't know) artice is here

Physicists Finally Nail the Proton’s Size, and Hope Dies | Quanta Magazine

A new measurement appears to have eliminated an anomaly that had captivated physicists for nearly a decade.

www.quantamagazine.org

The review of possible stimulation mechanisms of LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) is represented. We have concluded that transmutation of nuclei at low energies and excess heat are possible in the framework of the modern physical theory - the universal resonance synchronization principle [1] and based on its different enhancement mechanisms of reaction rates are responsible for these processes [2]. The excitation and ionization of atoms may play role as a trigger for LENR. Superlow energy of external fields may stimulate LENR [3]. Investigation of this phenomenon requires knowledge of different branches of science: nuclear and atomic physics, chemistry and electrochemistry, condensed matter and solid state physics,... The results of this research field can provide a new source of energy, substances and technologies. The puzzle of poor reproducibility of experimental data is due to the fact that LENR occurs in open systems and it is extremely sensitive to parameters of external fields and systems. Classical reproducibility principle should be reconsidered for LENR experiments. Poor reproducibility and unexplained results do not means that the experiment is wrong.

• Poor reproducibility and unexplained results means further work is needed to understand what is going on - true.
• It does not point the finger in any specific direction (e.g. transformation of nuclei).

What I object to in this is the idea that for LENR uniquely we should abandon ideas about the importance of reproducibility, and the fact that unexplained and irreproducible results mean things not understood - they do not mean "new physics is here" nor do they mean "highly speculative effects in old physics are here". The whole point about highly speculative things is you have lots of them, and mostly they do not pan out.

Theories which are descriptive with no predictive power have no place in physics. Literally. They do not help us understand the world.

At best such a descriptive theory can motivate efforts to find some real predictive theory underlying the phenomena. Which has been the case for LENR. But as yet no predictive theory exists.

For example, if NAEs cause LENR then there should be certain clear switches - across all experiments - that can be used to eliminate observed effects. My view is that the whole corpus of results so far (without very large pruning) is too subject to error for that effect to be seen, because of many experiments showing false positives. But if I'm wrong, then the absence of reliable "off switches" shows that whatever is going on is not even slightly understood. If I'm right, that unreliability means we have first to consider false positives as a most likely explanation for any apparently strange result.

these are old arguments that can never be resolved.

That is my point - the above paragraph is saying - don't worry about finding something definite - abandon normal standards for what is a physical theory.

I see no reason for such a step - and anyway it is a policy for never understanding LENR, if indeed there is some new effect.

So - to be positive - what would help?

I see stuff about NAEs, electron shielding, quasiparticles that allow greatly increased reaction rates, all as proper real mechanisms that can be quantified and investigated.

Quite a lot of work has been done on electron shielding. Specific quantitative analysis of both QM coherence effects and (related) quasiparticle effects could move things on, if there is some real effect here. The magnitude of effects could be bounded, or related to other parameters that are measurable.

For nuclear reaction rates as claimed in the best experiments we have filters to do with lack of ionising reaction products, and rate of reaction.

All of that work is real LENR investigation. And it is what those interested in LENR should be looking to, not excusing the lack of.

THH

Quote from Shane D.

From the study:

"An increase of over 25% was detected in both call types during January–May 2021, compared with the years 2019–2020"

If I read you right, you are saying that COVID induced heart attacks, and myocarditis (often confused with ACS according to the study) happen later after initial infection, than those caused by the vaccine, and the study did not take that into account?

But if so, I would say that the study used the pre-vaccine years 2019-2020 as a baseline to compare with the vaccine year 2021. Any such lag in onset of heart troubles would therefore have been accounted for.

  

Display More

Shane, I am (as is often the case) saying something more nuanced than what you read.

• If you look at the raw data these guys analyse, you can see large changes in the emergency heart problem admission rate over time (looking random) due perhaps to weather or other things.
• Any comparison year-on-year is difficult because lockdowns and changed working patterns can affect many thing - including heart problems - in unexpected ways.
• In addition, the way the smoothed data seems ad hoc and is therefore suspect, and the COVID part of the comparison is not done well (no investigation of time lag). In fact the comparison (inasfar as it is done) is of no value.
• However, I was not saying this data should be ignored, I was saying it was interesting and deserves further investigation
• I was saying that it told us nothing new. We know that heart problems are an (uncommon) side effect of vaccination.
• I was also saying that it was misleading (to a lay reader) in one respect. Casual reading might make you think it indicates that the risks of ER admission due to heart problems from vaccination are greater than the same from COVID. It does not indicate that. In fact no comparison can be drawn from this data as it is presented here.

Luckily - heart problems are a very well know side effect of the mRNA vaccines (at least) as well as of COVID, so there will be lots of people analysing the data and determining risks in different ways for various subgroups. This analysis does not contribute to that, however it does deserve further investigation.

Quote from Shane D.

Increased emergency cardiovascular events among under-40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID-19 wave | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Using a unique dataset from Israel National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) from 2019 to 2021, the study aims to evaluate the association between the volume of cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome EMS calls in the 16–39-year-old population with potential factors including COVID-19 infection and vaccination rates. An increase of over 25% was detected in both call types during January–May 2021, compared with the years 2019–2020. Using Negative Binomial regression models, the weekly emergency call counts were significantly associated with the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group but were not with COVID-19 infection rates. While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.

Looking at this paper, which shows something worth further study especially since the results are in line with other things we know, there is one caveat that weakens the conclusions, which they do not explicitly mention.

Cardiac emergencies are time correlated very closely (within a few days) to COVID vaccine injections (we know this).

They are correlated much less closely with case counts, because the time between COVID infection and a heart problem can be much longer, instead of a potential allergen peak over 48 hours or so, we have virus invading the body for a prolonged period.

These time series correlations are sensitive to time shifts - they have (I believe) not done an autoregression analysis to see how a time shifted version of the COVID incidence would fit heart admissions. So the comparison between COVID risk and vaccination risk cannot be established - and in any case could not be established in general, since it scales with the COVID incidence rate over this period. Israel was vaccinating the entire population, but only some fraction of that actually caught COVID.

Therefore I find the implicit comparison here misleading, if read as that. They do not (quite rightly) make any such comparison.

Quote from Fm1

Chalking it up to coincidence, “Sometimes these things happen fortuitously, sometimes it’s the result of convergent evolution (when organisms evolve independently to have similar traits to adapt to their environment).” He went on a “quirky observation, but I wouldn’t call it a smoking gun because it’s too small.”

Moreover, a microbiologist at Reading University, Dr. Simon Clarke, suggested the finding wasn’t as rare as the study authors claim, telling the UK media, “…it’s an interesting coincidence but this surely entirely coincidental.” He makes this claim, declaring, “There can only be a certain number of [genetic combinations within] furin cleavage sites. They function like a lock and key in the cell, and the two only fit together in a limited number of combinations.”

Yet can these critics be 100% confident the study author’s conclusions are incorrect? What about the math behind the 1 in 3 million probability of a match argument

The math is that it is not 1 in 3,000,000 because not all DNA sequences are equally likely in a genome (by a very long way).

It is really difficult to know what is the real probability, because you need to look at how likely are subsequences etc, and also, for a cleavage site, you filter all that by sequences that actually work (a strong filter!).

You might better ask, what is that match behind the 1 in 3,000,000 figure?

The answer is, nothing correct!

Nobody can be 100% sure of anything in science. The question is whether particular data points you uniquely in one direction. Clarke here is saying that the data surely is not strong enough to point you in any direction. He is being sure about the lack of evidence from this analysis. That is not the same as saying there is guaranteed no connection.

Quote from Fm1

Adam Schiff chairman of the Senate oversite committee on intelligence. Something he lacks. You talk of US politics but know little about it. Yes hux it's a joke just as Adam, I have evidence of trump being a Russian asset, Schiff is a joke and so is Russian misinformation. Calm down cowboy and have a nice cup of tea.

Maybe I should cry to the mods about you calling me an anti vaxer . Dish it out hux but you can't take it. From now on I'll just reply Russian asset to your posts

Trump is too narcissistic to be an asset to anyone. You could never know what he would do.

Sure, look at the context where I called you an antivaxxer you will find there were specific reasons. You keep on posting this one-sided proven false stuff from TSN. You know they are journalists with an agenda and no ability to scrutinise science from what has previously been posted here about their stuff.

As for Russian asset - glad you think I'm an asset - I do too. But I've no idea what Russian disinformation has to do with antivaxxers - except Putin spread a rumour Western vaccines were not reliable and then it bit him when no-one in Russia was prepared to take the Russian vaccine!

Putin is not my favourite person at the moment - for reasons any European would be very much aware of.

Quote from Fm1

Huxley is a Russian asset filling this thread with misinformation. Adam Schiff has the evidence

Is this a joke, if not I'll ask the moderators to step in? (Perhaps they are Russian assets too?)

Who is Adam Schiff?

Quote from Calliban

In much the same way, if you fail to take on faith the official lines on immigration, you are 'a fascist or racist'. If you don't want drag Queens playing women's football or sharing toilets with your daughters, then you are a 'homophobe'. These labels are intended to slur and intimidate anyone that refuses to bow before officialdom.

I realise the US has specific problems with politicisation of all discourse.

I think you are now guilty of generalisation - as (with some merit) you accused me above.

Sure, homophobe, fascist, racist are terms that have all been used as political catch-alls.

I'm not sure about fascist - but racism and homophobia are very well understood and natural human traits. Homophobia mostly from the fears of males (male fears related to sexuality are very common and well documented). Racism because skin color is a very strong and visible differentiator and humans (again this is well documented) very easily form in-groups, out-groups and react with hostility to the out-group members.

How much these two traits affect society now - well that is like how long is a bit of string and I'd only make teh (non-contentious in the UK) point that the US seems still very hung up on racism - perhaps understandably given the relatively recent history of race-linked slavery there.

Of course the modern slavery (related to sexual trafficking) we have now is not strongly black-white race linked and every bit as horrible - though in its horrible forms not quite as socially embedded as slavery was historically in the US.

THH

Quote from Calliban

'Anti-Vaxxer' is the name given to anyone that isn't prepared to take on faith the medical propaganda handed down by their 'betters' in the political establishment. Given that this designation is handed out to anyone that refuses to prolate themselves, I think we can assume it is a coverall term for people who, in reality, have a lot of different opinions, outlooks and backgrounds, whose only common uniting factor is that they don't swallow official BS hook line and sinker. In much the same way, if you fail to take on faith the official lines on immigration, you are 'a fascist or racist'. If you don't want drag Queens playing women's football or sharing toilets with your daughters, then you are a 'homophobe'. These labels are intended to slur and intimidate anyone that refuses to bow before officialdom.

I don't known who it is that objects to animal vaccinations or what their reasons are. For all I know, this article is propaganda and what they are talking about never happened. But the arrogance of sluring people and grouping them because they don't tow the party line, is a good example of why many people hate the political left.

I have become jaded on this thread.

You are right in theory: every view can be accorded the same respect and considered on merits. Somone with views that vaccines are specially dangerous, based on poor and often fraudulent science (Andrew Wakefield the classic example) does not have to be grouped with all others having similar views.

Why the commonality? 99% of such opinion circulates on the internet, which as you know is an echo chamber for those with like-minded views based on shared experience (typically politics of one sort or another). The memes - and believe me on this thread I have spent 12 months of so dissecting them, are repetitive, and the signature of poorly referenced arguments, or arguments with bad maths (which I'm competent personally to detect) is notable.

Interestingly; associating those specific scientific view with political left or right is a new thing - and an interesting sociological study no doubt.

THH

Quote from Calliban

As for what their opinions happen to be, I don't think you are in a position to be able to speak for all of them, or even tell me what percentage think one way or another. My GP told me quite bluntly at the height of this so called corona virus crisis, that mortality rates in our town were about the same as they had been for years. He was critical of the lock downs, because he believed that the isolation and forced changes would create an unprecedented mental health crisis. He was certainly right about that. I strongly suspect that lock downs had negative public health benefits overall. Many people put on weight, many developed mental health problems and the disruption to social life was extreme. Yet anyone questioning the lock downs at the time was considered to be an anarchist, a fascist, a scaremongering terrorist, etc.

You are I think forgetting that in matters of health we do not count all deaths equally. There is a proper argument about whether to lock down or not is best. You have not put the factors here into any balance - so until you attempt this I won't comment much. My (not very strong) view is that the type of disruption seen in Italy - where health services collapse - is overall worse than lockdown, but I agree it is arguable, and probably unknowable given that the future course of epidemics has that nasty exponential characteristic.

Governments have more immediate pressures. politically, arguments about what might be pale to nothing compared with the outcry for action when inaction leads to a health service being overwhelmed. That was, at the time likely given best available evidence, without lockdown,

Long-term harm? Yes - but we allow many things in society that have proven large long-term harm. For example, massive marketing of unhealthy foods, and a food production system that means those needing to eat cheaply must eat poorly. That kills many more people, and has bad effects on children. There are many other examples where we prioritise prevention of directly caused deaths over things that in a whole population are statistically certain to lead to poorer health outcomes.

I am not saying that I like this - I accept it is not easy to change the politics in a democratic country.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

And at the extreme opposite of triumphant 21st century technology, we have the latest news from the Antivaxxer Death Cult Lunatics, which would be hilarious if it were not so disgusting:

Anti-vaxxers are furious that the Toronto Zoo is protecting hits animals with vaccines

https://www.blogto.com/city/20…ous-toronto-zoo-vaccines/

I kid you not. That's what it says.

Display More

You might think the antivaxxers would like this as reducing availability of vaccine for use in humans?

I guess that supposes rational thought, rather than what Freud called primary process thinking.

Quote from Calliban

I am not prepared to draw any hard conclusions, precisely because I have not carried out a balanced and thorough investigation.

Just a point of logic.

In these matters with complex data and may possible mechanisms, even having done the most thorough possible balanced investigation, it may still be impossible to draw hard conclusions.

in fact that is sort of the case for most hot science topics.

Quote from zorud

There are new worrying reports on quite strongly increasing numbers of hepatitis in young children around the globe, majority reported from UK, but more and more from other countries as well. None of the kids had been exposed to the wellknown hepatitis viruses A,B,C,D,E it seems, but analysis did show presence of adenoviruses. All cases had one thing in common: all kids had Covid-19, and none got a vaccination... so some deeper investigation required on the accurate biological mechanism.

https://healthpolicy-watch.news/mysterious-hepatitis/

You can never be sure, but in the UK we think the most likely culprit is an adenovirus - either greater problems as a result of the lack of exposure during the lockdown - or possibly a variant.

Not sure about the significance of all having had covid-19 (if it is true) - since it went through schools and pretty well all had it. The antivaxxers muts be annoyed this mystery related to young children, they would otherwise no doubt blame it on covid vaccines...

Childhood hepatitis: What's the latest theory?

It looks likely that a common virus which usually causes colds, vomiting and diarrhoea has a role to play.

www.bbc.co.uk

There are lots of different types of adenovirus. One particular adenovirus called F41 was detected in around three-quarters of the children with confirmed hepatitis who were tested.

Health officials believe it's likely to be making a comeback after virtually disappearing during the first year of the pandemic due to reduced social mixing.

Its impact on young children, who did not come into contact with any of the normal viruses during lockdown when they were infants, could be behind the current surge.

Lab data from the NHS shows that common viruses are now circulating in children, particularly the under-fives, at a higher level than in previous years.

and

UKHSA says it is looking at previous Covid infections in the children affected as well as the possible emergence of a new variant of adenovirus.

It says it is continuing to investigate a wide range of other infections and causes.

Studies suggest small numbers of babies and children infected with Covid have needed treatment for hepatitis in other countries such as the US as well as Brazil and also India. In most of those cases, the patients recovered quickly and were discharged in days.

Quote from Calliban

Gentlemen, mRNA vaccines are specifically designed to trigger an immune response that develops antibodies. That immune response is essentially an inflammatory response that will cause tissue damage. It is an inevitable side effect of how these things work and shouldn't surprise anyone. Some people will die as a direct result of taking the vaccine. It is inevitable.

Taking a vaccine is about trying to reduce total risk. You are reducing the risk of dying from a disease, but accept a certain risk of being damaged by the vaccine. What matters is that you reduce aggregate risk. Even though the vaccine has risks of its own, it is still worth taking if it reduces risk overall. In much the same way, seat belts reduce your risks of dying in a crash, but may impede your escape.

The reasons the coronavirus vaccines are controversial:

(1) Risk from COVID and risk from the vaccines will always be different for different people. For some people, the vaccine will carry a greater risk than the disease itself. To coerce people into taking it is immoral;

(2) The vaccine was developed in a hurry and there isn't good understanding of its long term health impacts. What if we discover in five years time that it has caused cardiovascular damage?

(3) The politics behind the whole corona virus issue is completely toxic. There is now a political divide between those of the right that are naturally sceptical of coerced medicine and those of the left, who tend to favour centralised control over personal freedom and want to force the vaccine on the people out of spite for daring to question their authority. Neither side is objective or rational.

(4) Yyou have corporate interests that have invested a fortune in developing the vaccine and want the biggest return possible. They will use financial leverage on politicians to sell as much vaccine as they can. They will suppress any reports of health consequences. They will attempt to demonise any opposing voice. They will use their influence to coerce compulsory vaccination, against the wishes and best interests of many people.

Display More

Good list Caliban,

I'd just make three minor qualifications:

(2) Cuts both ways. the long-term risks from covid are equally not well understood, so you can balance these against possible not understood long term risks from vaccines - the short-term risks after 12 months + of whole population rollout are now well understood.

(1) Not entirely immoral, for example childhood vaccines are worth some coercion because they reduce risk for all, even though when they work there is no risk for the unvaccinated...

(4) We have these corporate interests but governments and regulators have had a uniquely strong incentive to do whatever is most effective in stopping COVID as well as paying the minimum. So, for example, that argument can't simply be used to claim that wonderful repurposed antivirals are being suppressed, or having not enough large-scale trials. The level of regulatory captures is undoubtedly different in different countries, so you can get some idea of what is real from the variation in what countries do.

Governments now seem to me to be making slightly weird decisions - for example not investing much in newer vaccines and continuing with 4th (5th?) boosters) from vaccines designed for original COVID, a long way away from current COVID strains. Surely we should be pushing harder now for newer vaccines, against the possibility that a new and more serious COVID strain develops.

Factors to consider:

I agree with Jed that offshore wind is an enormous resource we are starting to tap.

• What astonished me is how better mundane technology - with very large turbines - is driving down costs.
• PV of course is technology which has improved, and is still improving, enormously in terms of both efficiency and cost. The engineering constraints on PV cost are minimal - all it needs is cleverer technologies, which we know can be developed. That is because the active part of PV is a very thin (low in resources) film with known ways to make it cheaply.
• The problems with both PV and wind are outages, However reliable, there are weather conditions with low wind for days on end, and PV of course has limitations. So you need to factor in the cost of enough large-scale storage on top of the direct power costs. Or, you need to have alternative forms of power available to fill the gaps. That might be conventional nuclear.

This filing in the gaps problem is why the value of a kWh is not a fixed thing. Also why resources like offshore wind and PV become less useful as you scale them up - because the high output times generate more power than you need.

Which motivates the other (better IMHO) way to deal with these outage problems. Weather-related outages do not correlate across the world, so intercontinental power transmission is a way to get more constant supply from the same renewable resources and the expense only of the transmission lines.

• HVDC technologies have developed enormously with new better semiconductors, and are now competitive for this

I think the main blocks to this method are political - it requires a lot of international cooperation, and the power lines are vulnerable to attack.

THH

I don't have a clue about the complex claims here - not being a molecular biologist.

Oh... but...

Neither is Seneff. And unlike Seneff I do not have a long record of loud public completely erroneous claims about medicine.

Her claim to antivaxxer fame started with an idee fixee that glyphosphate was to blame for every ailment under the sun. When COVID came along she said it was to blame for COVID. She is pals with Wakefield (remember the MMR autism farud?).

Glyphosate and COVID-19: Dr. Stephanie Seneff Strikes (Out) Again

An MIT computer scientist with no expertise in agriculture, chemistry, toxicology, or the biological sciences. And yet for some reason, Stephanie Seneff has…

www.mcgill.ca

What we have here is a series of laughable arguments that represent an illness sometimes seen among scientists who are wedded to a theory they have formulated and will try to fit square pegs into round holes to prove they were correct. In this case, in a sense, that illness is caused by glyphosate.

She is a Computer Scientists from MIT who has in recent years published numerous articles about nutrition.

She is also a died in the wool antivaxxer (all vaccines - not juts mRNA ones)

THH

Quote from Fm1

Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, Exosomes, and MicroRNAs

https://www.trialsitenews.com/…es-and-micrornas-0626cb33

Stephanie Seneff

Opinion Article

The SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccines are based on a revolutionary new technology that involves injecting into the arm muscle many molecules of the mRNA sequence that codes for the spike glycoprotein, a major protein in the envelope of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This protein is arguably the most toxic part of the virus. It is what allows the virus to bind to ACE2 receptors in cells, disabling them. The spike protein has a novel furin cleavage site that allows it to be snipped in half, releasing a segment called S1, which can then travel all around the vascular system and the lymph system. S1 carries the ACE2-binding site, and, when S1 by itself binds to an ACE2 receptor, the receptor becomes disabled. This has a profound impact, leading to excessive levels of angiotensin II and an acute inflammatory response, causing a wide range of symptoms and damage in both the heart and the brain. While the vaccines can only produce the spike protein and not the complete virus, this protein has profound toxic effects, systemically.

Importantly, the mRNA that is in the vaccine is very different from the original viral mRNA sequence. Whereas the virus enters via the nose and lungs, the vaccine is injected past both the mucosal barrier and the vascular barrier. Researchers developing this technology were concerned about the RNA being attacked and broken down by the immune system before it had a chance to produce protein. A major breakthrough was when they discovered they could replace all of the uridines in the sequence with methylpseudouridine, a modification that makes the RNA very sturdy and difficult to break down. Also, a change in the genetic code introduced a pair of prolines causing the S1 subunit to stay stuck on the ACE2 receptors, disabling them. They also “humanized” the mRNA such that its viral origins are disguised, and they performed “codon optimization,” greatly altering the mRNA sequence from the original codons used by the virus, swapping in codons that are known to be more efficient at rapidly producing a steady stream of spike proteins.

The muscle cells that take up the lipid particles encasing the mRNA immediately start synthesizing spike protein at a rapid and sustained pace. These cells display the newly synthesized spike proteins on their surface, and this draws in immune cells, especially dendritic cells, which also take up the vaccine lipid nanoparticles. Dendritic cells do not express ACE2 receptors, so they are resistant to viral infection, but not to the vaccine. They too start synthesizing spike protein, which is neurotoxic and which has prion-like features. They quickly enter the lymph system, carrying their toxic load into the lymph nodes and beyond, ultimately congregating in the spleen and liver.

Germinal centers in the spleen become the playing field where the dendritic cells release the spike protein they are continually producing into the external milieu, packaged up within exosomes, small lipid particles that serve as a communication network for the organism. These activities draw B-cells and T-cells to the scene, and they get to work perfecting antibodies that exactly match portions of the spike protein. The primary goal of the vaccine is to get the immune system to produce abundant antibodies to the spike protein, and indeed they perform very well in this goal.

The immune cells are compelled to release exosomes in order to rid themselves of the toxic spike protein rapidly accumulating in their cytoplasm. Unfortunately, the exosomes travel very well along nerve fibers. They travel from the germinal centers in the spleen up the splanchnic nerve to the celiac ganglia and beyond along the vagus nerve to eventually reach major organs of the body: the liver, the lungs, the heart, and the brain. At these destinations, the spike-containing exosomes are taken up by resident immune cells, which then activate an inflammatory cascade causing localized tissue damage.

A seminal paper showed experimentally that vaccine transfected human cells take up the lipid nanoparticles and release exosomes containing not only spike protein but also certain specific microRNAs that have a profound negative effect on innate immunity. MicroRNAs are small non-coding RNA sequences that have powerful abilities to suppress expression of specific proteins. The two miRNAs that these researchers found in the exosomes suppress two proteins that play a critical role in executing the type I interferon response. Type I interferons activate an early alarm system that defends the organism against any kind of infection as well as cancer. Suppression of type I interferon can cause latent viruses like herpes and varicella to become activated and can cause cancer to come out of remission.

Perhaps most alarming is the potential for the vaccine to cause neurodegenerative disease. There is a motif that is characteristic of prion proteins called the GxxxG motif (two glycine residues separated by three wildcards). The human prion protein has 14 GxxxGs, and amyloid-beta, the protein linked to Alzheimer’s disease, has 4. Most proteins have none. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein includes 7 GxxxGs. There is a fascinating structural motif in DNA and RNA called a “guanine quadruplex” (G4) which has been found to play multiple profound roles in regulating transcription and protein expression. Significantly, studies have shown that the prion protein binds to G4s in its own RNA, and this can trigger it to misfold into its toxic shape. What is very disturbing is that the RNA in the vaccine has been engineered via codon optimization to have many more guanines than the original virus version of the RNA. This means that there is a greater potential for the spike proteins to misfold after binding to G4s that are enriched in the vaccine mRNA.

Our paper provides several tables showing the percentage of various reactions associated with COVID-19 vaccines compared to all vaccines in 2021, according to the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS). First of all, we calculated that overall there were 27 times as many reports for COVID-19 vaccines as would have been expected if their adverse effect profile had been comparable to that of the flu vaccine. There were over 200,000 events in 2021 linking COVID vaccines to diverse symptoms that are commonly associated with inflammation in major nerves such as the vagus nerve, the cochlea, the facial nerve, and the trigeminal nerve. These accounted for more than 97% of all events linking any vaccine in 2021 with these symptoms. Over 8,000 reactions indicated heart damage linked to COVID-19 vaccines, including myocarditis, heart failure, arrhythmias, and heart attack. These represented nearly 98% of all the reports for heart problems linked to any vaccine. There were over 10,000 cases of thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, accounting for nearly 99% of the total reports for these symptoms. The total counts for symptoms related to liver disease, neurodegenerative diseases, and cancer were much lower, but COVID-19 vaccines accounted for over 97% of the liver-related symptoms, nearly 98% of the cases of memory impairment, 99.5% of cases of anosmia (loss of smell), and over 97% of reports of cancer of specific organs. It is widely acknowledged that VAERS events are vastly under-reported

Display More

Quote from Shane D.

I did check out Jeffery Morris' article you linked to for FM1: UK death data artifacts: "Stragglers" who delay vaccine doses a select group with higher death risk (covid-datascience.com)

All it appears he does is take the same data the UK put out (which on the face of it makes the vaccines look bad), makes up a new group he calls "stragglers", then makes up some new graphs that makes the vaccine look good. Here is his definition of stragglers:

"For this blog post, I will highlight one specific artifact that is persistent in these data in which the small set of "stragglers" who delay receiving either 1st, 2nd or 3rd dose have higher death rates than those receiving their doses on schedule. I focus on all-cause deaths here."

Even he admits this needs further explanation by the UK, and more research to tease out the true conclusion the numbers are telling us:

"Given this undeniable pattern in the data, it is important for the UK ONS to investigate and understand it. The death dates should be carefully checked to ensure there is no misclassification, and the relative demographic and clinical characteristics of the "stragglers" delaying 1st, 2nd or 3rd dose relative to their counterparts receiving the recommended doses on schedule."

And admits:

"It is always tricky to interpret observational data, but this is especially true in a dynamic setting like the vaccine rollout in which the vaccination prioritization and individual vaccination decisions impact the cross-section in each vaccination subgroup, with some of these subgroups becoming small, select subgroups with higher death risks. Follow up studies to characterize these subgroups is necessary to understand the patterns in these data."

This just proves to me that you are right that the anti-vaxxers can always find a friendly author to interpret the data to support their belief, but EQUALLY, that the vaxxers like yourself can, and do, do the same. At least in this particular case, the anti-vaxxers are looking at the data straight up without any fudge factors, while Jeffery the vaxxer adds in his own.... "stragglers".

Display More

Shane,

All this does is show either (1) you do not read stuff properly or (2) you are as political as the antivaxxwer - arguing to promote a position rather than genuinely curious.

You are quoting selectively and leaving out the reasons why these "stragglers" are likely an artifact:

I guess I have to do it myself?

First - what is the straggle issue in the date:

The bottom panel shows the vaccination of the 90+ age group, demonstrating percent of age group in each vaccination status.

• By late January, the vast majority of the age group had received 1st dose of vaccine, and the small proportion left unvaccinated, the "stragglers" who had not vaccinated on schedule had ~3x the death risk of those who received 1st dose. This is evident in the unvaccinated group (green line, top plot).
• By mid-April, the vast majority of those in the age group who had received a 1st dose had received their second dose, and the "stragglers" who did not receive their 2nd dose on schedule had >3x the death risk of those who received 2nd dose on schedule. This is evident in the group >21d after 1st dose (red line, top plot)
• By early November, the vast majority of those in the age group who had received a 2nd dose had received their 3rd booster dose, and the "stragglers" who did not receive a 3rd booster dose on schedule had 2.5-3x the death risk of those who received 3rd booster dose on schedule. This is evident in the group >21d after 2nd dose (red line, second plot).

While the death rates are very high for these vaccination subgroups at these specific time points, the corresponding death counts are not so high since these spikes of death rates occur when the corresponding vaccination subgroup gets very small, select group comprising a small percentage of the age group.

We see this pattern for all the older and middle age groups.

I hope we are all agreed this is a fair summary.

It is BTW very difficult to see how this can be some nefarious adverse effect of the vaccines! And it shows only because the numbers in these groups are so small.

And what could be the reason?

What could be causing this phenomenon?

1. Missclassification: Neil et al. suggest that it could be the result of misclassification -- that deaths soon after 1st dose rollout were misattributed to unvaccinated, deaths soon after 2nd dose rollout are attributed to 1st dose, and deaths soon after 3rd dose booster rollout are attributed to 2nd dose. It is difficult to envision how that could be the case given the ONS specifically defined categories <21d after 1st, 2nd or 3rd dose. It is clear from these definitions that they did not routinely assign events the first week or two after inoculation to the unvaccinated group, as some claim without evidence. I have yet to seen a reasonable explanation for how one proposes the misclassification error occurred, or how it would explain this artifact, but given the timing it is possible there is some sort of misclassification or misrecording of some of the death times.
2. Selection bias: We consistently see this increased death risk at the point when the vast majority have received their next dose, leaving a small and shrinking select group not receiving their dose on schedule. This small group of "stragglers" includes those too sick to receive vaccine, who would clearly be a select group at higher risk of death. It would also include those who experienced medical complications after the previous dose, and so delayed or refused subsequent doses, another group one would expect to have a higher risk of death. We need more information on the demographic characteristics of these "stragglers" to see if there are any evident factors explaining the higher death risk.

Given this undeniable pattern in the data, it is important for the UK ONS to investigate and understand it. The death dates should be carefully checked to ensure there is no misclassification, and the relative demographic and clinical characteristics of the "stragglers" delaying 1st, 2nd or 3rd dose relative to their counterparts receiving the recommended doses on schedule.

Now whereas the antivaxxers (looking at this same data) leap to a "nefarious misclassification" conclusion - without reviewing the alternates

(why? Hope you are rmebering this Shane - because they are not behaving scientifically)

My guy has done his research, and offers all poss solutions. You really do have to be an antivaxxer to see this group as misclassifications. How would it work?

However selection bias is the bane of all such data, and in this case because we are dealing with such a small group it is very clear this is a likely solution.

This small group of "stragglers" includes those too sick to receive vaccine, who would clearly be a select group at higher risk of death. It would also include those who experienced medical complications after the previous dose, and so delayed or refused subsequent doses, another group one would expect to have a higher risk of death.

And, again because he is a scientist, with NO AGENDA, my guy says we need further research to try furthr and identify what is going on here.

You are of course welcome to view my guy as biassed one way and the poorly written leaving stuff out antivaxxers accounts as of equal merit.

This example exactly makes my point that you can tell who is biassed (or just a bad scientist) and who not from what gets left out.

THH

Quote from Fm1

Results were not released to the public for 18 months. That's a real problem, not the fact that he died.

It is only a problem if their being released would have changed anything. I can't see what?

And the, as for why not released sooner, it needs investigation. However my guess is that this is typical hospital managers covering their backs which regrettably we sometimes get in the NHS.

Quote from Fm1

You have a real problem taking this route. Delay of second dose was based on recommendation by British health authorities.

And? How about a fully connected argument?

To address the fully connected arguments I linked.

Quote from Dr Richard*

So let's resolve our little row with Zeus46 - which anti-retroviral would you take given a cheap tried and tested (Avigan) or the new little - tested Paxlovid?

Paxlovid:

(1) definitely works

(2) is not as good as the stunningly good initial trial results indicate.

(3) is still good

(4) does not have mutagenicity question marks that molnupiravir has

Avigan:

No evidence it works

12 Things To Know About Paxlovid, the Latest COVID-19 Pill

Paxlovid is an oral antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 that can be taken soon after symptoms surface to help keep high-risk patients from getting so sick that…

www.yalemedicine.org

THH