Just a quick Google search, and the author of that paper is a long-time anti-vaxxer. Several of his previous "studies" have been debunked by much more reputable sources.

He has also somehow managed to make himself a one-man patent troll who sues pharma companies for infringement of his really abstract patents.

Maybe go to the root of that website and decide if this is worth reading.

This is a pretty good science-based rebuttal of Dr. Claussen's claims.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/can-mrna-based-covid-19-vaccines-cause-prion-disease/

Bart Classen is a notorious anti-vaxxer and patent troll. He also made similar claims about the HiB vaccine decades ago that have been thoroughly debunked. That doesn't in and of itself invalidate his claims here, but any claims he makes should be read in the context of the above.

That being said, the concerns raised in this paper are entirely theoretical in vivo and lack much mechanistic validity.

Quote:

---

Many have raised the warning that the current epidemic of COVID-19 is actually the result of an bioweapons attack released in part by individuals in the United States government [10,11]. Such a theory is not far fetched given that the 2001 anthrax attack in the US originated at Fort Detrick, a US army bioweapon facility. Because the FBI's anthrax investigation was closed against the advice of the lead FBI agent in the case, there are likely conspirators still working in the US government. In such a scenario the primary focus of stopping a bioweapons attack must be to apprehend the conspirators or the attacks will never cease.

---

Definitely not a paranoid lunatic writing this white paper/memo.

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Good read, they even dropped the gates foundation in there. I found this piece interesting...

" There are many other potential adverse events that can be induced by the novel RNA based vaccines against COVID-19. The vaccine places a novel molecule, spike protein, in/on the surface of host cells. This spike protein is a potential receptor for another possibly novel infectious agent. If those who argue that the COVID-19 is actually a bioweapon are correct, then a second potentially more dangerous virus may be released that binds spike protein found on the host cells of vaccine recipients."

" Genetic diversity protects species from mass casualties caused by infectious agents. One individual may be killed by a virus while another may have no ill effects from the same virus. By placing the identical receptor, the spike protein, on cells of everyone in a population, the genetic diversity for at least one potential receptor disappears. Everyone in the population now becomes potentially susceptible to binding with the same infectious agent."

---

That's kinda funny. The immune system would destroy any cell displaying the spike protein. Kinda the point of the whole vaccine. So if the vaccine works as intended, you end up with no cells with spike protein to be infected by the hypothetical second virus. Not a very efficient bio weapon.

A "Dr." that doesn't practice medicine and makes his living as a hedge fund manager and suing people. Glad this **** is on Texags' "public service" forum.

Another Doug said:

---

A "Dr." that doesn't practice medicine and makes his living as a hedge fund manager and suing people. Glad this **** is on Texags' "public service" forum.

---

Yes and quickly debunked by well respected and decidedly more knowledgeable posters! Exactly what this forum should be about

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Serious question:

If the scientist have been working on mRNA vaccines for a long time now, why now were they able to supply the vaccine? Why not do this on influenza years ago?

---

Th issue with making the mRNA vaccine for Covid-19 was partially tied to the sequence of the virus itself. There is a really good episode of This American Life that has an segment talking about all this. Without the genomic sequence, developing an effective vaccine is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Lots of failed experiments. Once they had the sequence, that led them to the spike protein, and they had a vaccine within a few weeks. At least that was my understanding from the episode.

Why we don't have mRNA vaccines for other viruses/illnesses (like flu) basically comes down to money. It's expensive to develop new technologies and do the clinical trials, particularly when you already have a vaccine.

Covid-19 was sort of that crisis situation that allowed money (particularly government funds) to be dumped into the research effort, and those resources and accompanying effort will spill over to other vaccines in addition to the one for Covid-19.

Also, there was the issue of storing the vaccine, which wasn't thought to be practical for flu vaccine (especially when there are already alternatives available).

All signs point to more mRNA vaccines being developed in the near future, though.

joerobert_pete06 said:

---

Serious question:

If the scientist have been working on mRNA vaccines for a long time now, why now were they able to supply the vaccine? Why not do this on influenza years ago?

---

A couple of issues.

COVID is a single virus so easy to target (one genetic sequence with some variation). Influenza is an entire family of viruses, we target a few each year as they guess which one might be a problem.

mRNA vaccines are a new technology. Not in the sense that we didn't have it before 2020, but that it has only been in clinical development for 10-20 years. (It takes ~15 years to get a new drug approved) COVID compressed the testing time frame for a variety of reasons. 1) FDA review of clinical trial data at each stage was fast tracked. COVID stuff moved to the front of the line, rather than waiting in a queue behind a bunch of other stuff 2) Money. Normally, you would complete phase 1 and get approval by FDA before you started investing in phase 2. With all the government money that was thrown around, companies were planning and preparing for phase 2 and 3 as soon as phase 1 looked like it might be successful.

Finally, let's try the new vaccine technology on a virus we have a vaccine for is a recipe for failure. If you take on a new virus where we don't have a vaccine, the bar for approval is lower. Does it work? Benefits outweigh the side effects? If you want to get approval when there is something already available it becomes does it work better than what is there.

The reality is Moderna had several mRNA vaccines in clinical trials before COVID for diseases we don't have vaccines for. Furthest along was their cytomegalovirus vaccine. It causes birth defects. We don't have a vaccine or any other prevention, so it is an easy target to go after. However, there isn't a huge pile of money to fund preparing for phase 3 while waiting for phase 1 results. So the process is phase 1, review results, wait on the FDA, design phase 2, wait for FDA approval, prepare vaccine & enroll subjects, phase 2.... plus if you are looking at pregnancy outcomes, you kinda have to wait 9 months or so rather than the 3 months for COVID trials. Plus a lot easier to find test subjects for COVID trial compared to limiting it to only women who are pregnant or looking to become pregnant.

You've made some great points that most people completely overlook (or ignore) when saying that this vaccine was "fast-tracked" or "rushed".

A lot of vaccines (and new drugs and treatments) get held up in the approval process because there simply aren't that many people who NEED it (the cytomegalovirus is a great example). Trials take longer when you have a small pool of test subjects.

To date, 232 million doses of Covid vaccine have been given in the US ALONE. This approval isn't an issue of time, really, it's an issue of being able to collect enough data points. When literally every adult in the world is eligible to be a test subject for a vaccine (and you're not trying to find people who meet certain criteria), you get that data much faster.

And as far as "waiting for more data" - time isn't necessarily going to bring that. And how many more data points do you need when you have hundreds of millions?

I realize there is still the argument of "long-term" effects, but this isn't something that really holds up the approval of any new vaccine or drug. The FDA doesn't have a definition for it, and they say themselves that new drugs/treatments/vaccines can be approved in as little as 6-10 months.

Not to mention, we have TONS of data on other vaccines saying that negative effects typically show up in the first two weeks after vaccination (as has been pointed out in these threads numerous times). There is/was no reason to believe this one would be any different. And if we subjected everything to extended studies for "long term" effects, we'd never get anything approved.

harge57 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Just a quick Google search, and the author of that paper is a long-time anti-vaxxer. Several of his previous "studies" have been debunked by much more reputable sources.

He has also somehow managed to make himself a one-man patent troll who sues pharma companies for infringement of his really abstract patents.

---

I have no idea what the science actually means on this, but having professionals that have a dissenting view constantly challenging things is not necessarily a bad thing. We should not just immediately dismiss claims like his. I appreciate that someone out there is at least hypothesizing potential consequences of these things vs. the people putting out things where their sole goal is to get things through all the red tape and onto the market.

---

There is a difference between someone having a dissenting view and a quack continuously putting out false information about something like vaccines.

This guy has been peddling this "vaccines cause Alzheimer's and diabetes" garbage for the better part of 20 years. He has been debunked by TRUE experts many times over the years. He's created a career out of suing pharma companies over his patent that "disclosed" a method for "alternative vaccination" (which was actually found to be invalid at one point).

It doesn't take more than a few minutes investigation to find all of this information. I stand by my original post and will go further to say we should not be perpetuating this kind of junk science by sharing it, and we certainly shouldn't be characterizing it as "healthy skepticism". It's junk science, pure and simple. Just because this guy has a medical degree does NOT make him a professional or an expert.

harge57 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Just a quick Google search, and the author of that paper is a long-time anti-vaxxer. Several of his previous "studies" have been debunked by much more reputable sources.

He has also somehow managed to make himself a one-man patent troll who sues pharma companies for infringement of his really abstract patents.

---

I have no idea what the science actually means on this, but having professionals that have a dissenting view constantly challenging things is not necessarily a bad thing. We should not just immediately dismiss claims like his. I appreciate that someone out there is at least hypothesizing potential consequences of these things vs. the people putting out things where their sole goal is to get things through all the red tape and onto the market.

---

This is exactly why this garbage shouldn't be part of Texags' "public service". There are people who have a desperate appetite for horse**** and can't wait to gobble it up and spread it around.