Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🔬🤖Excited to share permittivity tensor imaging (PTI), a label-free computational imaging module for high-resolution 3D imaging of dry mass and 3D orientation of organelles, cells, and tissues! 🧬🧫 Just published in Nature Methods Shout out to Li-Hao Yeh , Talon Chandler, Ivan Ivanov, Janie Byrum, Bryant , Syuan-Ming Guo,...

mattersOfLight's profile picture

Shalin Mehta

1,309 subscribers

16,619 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieBildungGesundheit & Wellness
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

14 Kommentare

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

Permittivity tensor is a physical property of soft matter that reports the distribution and alignment of biomolecules. For most biological materials, it is a square of the refractive index tensor. Here is a neat illustration, in collaboration with @DrLachie, that shows how a cylindrical lipid bilayer maps to the 3D distribution of the permittivity tensor when it scatters light. If you're curious about why the refractive index is a tensor, check out Feynman's lecture on the origin of the refractive index: 2/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

PTI acquires all of these label-free channels using a modular imaging path. 🔧 Here is a build video illustrating all the components involved in integrating PTI into an existing research microscope. 3/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

PTI encodes the invisible permittivity tensor into visible images using oblique illumination and a polarization-resolved camera. The permittivity tensor is decoded from the volumes with a physics-based image formation model and an inverse algorithm. The combined design of the optical path and algorithms lets us shift the design complexity from the atoms to the bits. 💡🙌 4/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

We share the image formation models and reconstruction algorithms through our vector diffraction library, waveOrder, implemented using PyTorch. Check it out here: Kudos to @talonchandler for his work in making this a performant and readable library that we use every day. 5/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

We are thrilled about the biological data we can obtain with PTI: it enabled high-resolution mapping of the cytopathic effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes in collaboration with the @BruceConklin lab. We see the 3D distribution of sarcomeres more accurately with PTI than with antibody labeling. 6/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

PTI enabled label-free imaging of changes in the nucleus, nucleoli, cytoskeleton, and cell membrane of epithelial cells (A549) caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in collaboration with our colleagues @czbiohub. 7/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

The state-of-the-art optical sectioning of PTI allowed 3D imaging of axons in mouse brain tissue sections, capturing architectural details from single axons to whole slices. 8/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

The 3D resolution of PTI is high enough to visualize the complex 3D distribution of axons. Some axons oriented along the z-axis are not visible with many other label-free imaging technologies. Here is an XY, XZ, and YZ fly-through of a volume. 9/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

PTI is easy to multiplex with fluorescence and H&E imaging, allowing label-agnostic mapping of cell and tissue architecture. In this movie, we image a standard H&E stained cardiac tissue slice. 10/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

As I mentioned before, the design complexity lies in the algorithms and calibration. @LiHao_Yeh validated the wave optical model of the microscope and the reconstruction algorithm with methodical simulations of isotropic beads and an anisotropic patterns. 🌊💡 11/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

We needed a calibration target to evaluate the measurements of 3D dry mass and 3D orientation made with PTI. In addition to biological structures of known architecture and isotropic beads, we used anisotropic glass targets built by the Peter Kazansky lab @orctweets. Intriguing side note: anisotropic glass is emerging as a solution for high-density storage. Learn more here: 12/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

@LiHao_Yeh @orctweets This is one of those projects that has taken several iterations and years to finish - look at the timestamps! Special thanks to @rita_strack for being an amazing editor throughout this process. 13/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

Successful execution required the integration of ideas across optics, algorithms, automation, high-performance computing, cell biology, and neuropathology. I am thankful to my colleagues for their expertise and for placing this bet with me. 14/n

Profilbild von Shalin Mehta
Shalin Mehtavor 2 Jahren

Finally, thanks to Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg for their support, and to the leadership at @czbiohub for creating an environment where partnerships between technologists and biologists are the norm. /end

Ähnliche Videos

🔬🤖Excited to share our new preprint on robust virtual staining of key organelles! ✨ Virtual staining and segmentation of nuclei and cell membranes in phase images can significantly accelerate image-based screens and developmental studies. 🔍 Current virtual staining models often struggle with nuisance variations in label-free input and don't generalize well to new cell types. We’re releasing our training protocols that lead to robust models and enable few-shot generalization. 🔧 Stay tuned for our revamped codebase with weights and example data, coming soon! 👏🧫🐟 Huge shoutout to Ziwen Liu, Eduardo Hirata-Miyasaki, my team Chan Zuckerberg Biohub Network (Soorya, Johanna, Christian, Talon Chandler, Ivan Ivanov), and the teams of Manuel Leonetti, Carolina Arias, and Adrian Jacobo for this fun collaboration! #VirtualStaining #DL #CellBiology #Zebrafish
0:08

🔬🤖Excited to share our new preprint on robust virtual staining of key organelles! ✨ Virtual staining and segmentation of nuclei and cell membranes in phase images can significantly accelerate image-based screens and developmental studies. 🔍 Current virtual staining models often struggle with nuisance variations in label-free input and don't generalize well to new cell types. We’re releasing our training protocols that lead to robust models and enable few-shot generalization. 🔧 Stay tuned for our revamped codebase with weights and example data, coming soon! 👏🧫🐟 Huge shoutout to Ziwen Liu, Eduardo Hirata-Miyasaki, my team Chan Zuckerberg Biohub Network (Soorya, Johanna, Christian, Talon Chandler, Ivan Ivanov), and the teams of Manuel Leonetti, Carolina Arias, and Adrian Jacobo for this fun collaboration! #VirtualStaining #DL #CellBiology #Zebrafish

Shalin Mehta

20,190 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

We’re thrilled to share that our MERFISH+ preprint is now live on bioRxiv!👉 In this work, the Bintu and Zhu labs (UCSD) developed MERFISH+, a next-generation spatial genomics platform that combines genome-wide RNA and epigenetic imaging over a large field of view. By introducing acrydite-modified probes covalently anchored to hydrogels, MERFISH+ achieves remarkable imaging stability and enables >1,800-gene, multi-modal, and multi-month experiments. With this platform, they, together with the Chi lab at UCSD, profiled a whole developing human heart at 12 post-conception week with merely two slides, resulting in a total of 53 slides, 3.1 million single cells and more than 30 cell types. Building upon our previous 3D reconstruction and modeling framework, Spateo ( we reconstruct the 3D human heart that nicely captures the anatomical structure of the heart, including the intricate vasculature network. Sophisticated analyses provide a holistic view of an entire organ and enable systematic characterization of 3D cellular neighborhoods and transcriptional gradients of substructures such as the descending arteries. Furthermore, using a generative integration framework for spatial multimodal data (Spateo-VI), we harmonized these MERFISH+ transcriptomic and chromatin data to reconstruct a 3D spatially-resolved multi-omics atlas of the developing human heart, shared at and MERFISH+ thus sets a new standard for large-format, multi-omic spatial profiling, enabling holistic, 3D characterization of organs at subcellular resolution. Huge congratulations to first authors Colin Kern, qingquan Zhang, @YifanLu2024 , and Jacqueline Eschbach, and to all collaborators from the Bintu, Zhu, Chi, and Qiu labs for this amazing team effort. Thanks for your diligence, creativity, and hard work on this project. We’re grateful for support from Arc Institute and our generous donors. Our lab is expanding—if you’re excited about building the next generation of single-cell and spatial genomics techniques and predictive single cell and spatial foundation models, we’re hiring! If you are interested, please reach out to me via direct message or email at xiaojie@stanford.edu. We are excited for any potential collaborations along this line of research in Stanford, UCSF and Berkeley and other labs as well.
0:42

We’re thrilled to share that our MERFISH+ preprint is now live on bioRxiv!👉 In this work, the Bintu and Zhu labs (UCSD) developed MERFISH+, a next-generation spatial genomics platform that combines genome-wide RNA and epigenetic imaging over a large field of view. By introducing acrydite-modified probes covalently anchored to hydrogels, MERFISH+ achieves remarkable imaging stability and enables >1,800-gene, multi-modal, and multi-month experiments. With this platform, they, together with the Chi lab at UCSD, profiled a whole developing human heart at 12 post-conception week with merely two slides, resulting in a total of 53 slides, 3.1 million single cells and more than 30 cell types. Building upon our previous 3D reconstruction and modeling framework, Spateo ( we reconstruct the 3D human heart that nicely captures the anatomical structure of the heart, including the intricate vasculature network. Sophisticated analyses provide a holistic view of an entire organ and enable systematic characterization of 3D cellular neighborhoods and transcriptional gradients of substructures such as the descending arteries. Furthermore, using a generative integration framework for spatial multimodal data (Spateo-VI), we harmonized these MERFISH+ transcriptomic and chromatin data to reconstruct a 3D spatially-resolved multi-omics atlas of the developing human heart, shared at and MERFISH+ thus sets a new standard for large-format, multi-omic spatial profiling, enabling holistic, 3D characterization of organs at subcellular resolution. Huge congratulations to first authors Colin Kern, qingquan Zhang, @YifanLu2024 , and Jacqueline Eschbach, and to all collaborators from the Bintu, Zhu, Chi, and Qiu labs for this amazing team effort. Thanks for your diligence, creativity, and hard work on this project. We’re grateful for support from Arc Institute and our generous donors. Our lab is expanding—if you’re excited about building the next generation of single-cell and spatial genomics techniques and predictive single cell and spatial foundation models, we’re hiring! If you are interested, please reach out to me via direct message or email at [email protected]. We are excited for any potential collaborations along this line of research in Stanford, UCSF and Berkeley and other labs as well.

evo-devo

42,268 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

🚀 We’re hiring! Staff Scientist / Postdoc – Tissue Clearing & 3D Image Analysis (m/f/d) (LMU Munich) Are you a great fit, or do you know someone outstanding, please reach out 🔁 If you want to at the frontier of whole-organ / whole-body 3D imaging, and help generate truly beautiful datasets that drive major biological discoveries and therapeutic development, see below ✨ We’re building the next-generation pipeline for tissue clearing + light-sheet microscopy + quantitative 3D analysis in the SyNergy Excellence Cluster (Mesoscale Hub) and we’re looking for someone excited to push this forward with us. 🧠🔬📈 🎥 I’m also attaching a short video showing the kind of high-quality imaging and datasets you’d be working with. What you’ll do 🛠️ 🔹 Lead and evolve tissue clearing + light-sheet workflows across collaborative SyNergy projects 🔹 Turn complex 3D datasets into robust quantitative insights (visualization, atlas registration, readouts) 🔹 Develop new methods and analysis pipelines together with our AI team 🤖 🔹 Maintain and optimize cutting-edge light-sheet systems (optional: support animal license writing) What we’re looking for 🎯 ✅ Strong hands-on experience in tissue clearing and/or fluorescence microscopy ✅ Solid experience with light-sheet microscopy and 3D imaging workflows ✅ Familiarity with 3D tools like Imaris / arivis Vision4D, stitching (e.g., BigStitcher), and quantitative analysis in cleared tissues ✅ Service mindset, great organization, and strong scientific English How to apply 📩 Apply via the LMU Klinikum online application form Please also send your application to: farida.hellal@med.uni-muenchen.de CC: ali.ertuerk@med.uni-muenchen.de 📎 Include one PDF: short cover letter, CV, 2–3 referees, and earliest start date. 📍 Campus Großhadern (Munich) and Helmholtz Munich | 🕒 Full-time | 📅 Start: 01 January 2026 If you love high-quality imaging, cutting-edge biology, and building something that will matter, we’d love to hear from you. 🌍✨ #hiring #StaffScientist #Postdoc #TissueClearing #LightSheetMicroscopy #ImageAnalysis #SpatialBiology #Neuroscience #SyNergy #LMU #Munich
0:45

🚀 We’re hiring! Staff Scientist / Postdoc – Tissue Clearing & 3D Image Analysis (m/f/d) (LMU Munich) Are you a great fit, or do you know someone outstanding, please reach out 🔁 If you want to at the frontier of whole-organ / whole-body 3D imaging, and help generate truly beautiful datasets that drive major biological discoveries and therapeutic development, see below ✨ We’re building the next-generation pipeline for tissue clearing + light-sheet microscopy + quantitative 3D analysis in the SyNergy Excellence Cluster (Mesoscale Hub) and we’re looking for someone excited to push this forward with us. 🧠🔬📈 🎥 I’m also attaching a short video showing the kind of high-quality imaging and datasets you’d be working with. What you’ll do 🛠️ 🔹 Lead and evolve tissue clearing + light-sheet workflows across collaborative SyNergy projects 🔹 Turn complex 3D datasets into robust quantitative insights (visualization, atlas registration, readouts) 🔹 Develop new methods and analysis pipelines together with our AI team 🤖 🔹 Maintain and optimize cutting-edge light-sheet systems (optional: support animal license writing) What we’re looking for 🎯 ✅ Strong hands-on experience in tissue clearing and/or fluorescence microscopy ✅ Solid experience with light-sheet microscopy and 3D imaging workflows ✅ Familiarity with 3D tools like Imaris / arivis Vision4D, stitching (e.g., BigStitcher), and quantitative analysis in cleared tissues ✅ Service mindset, great organization, and strong scientific English How to apply 📩 Apply via the LMU Klinikum online application form Please also send your application to: [email protected] CC: [email protected] 📎 Include one PDF: short cover letter, CV, 2–3 referees, and earliest start date. 📍 Campus Großhadern (Munich) and Helmholtz Munich | 🕒 Full-time | 📅 Start: 01 January 2026 If you love high-quality imaging, cutting-edge biology, and building something that will matter, we’d love to hear from you. 🌍✨ #hiring #StaffScientist #Postdoc #TissueClearing #LightSheetMicroscopy #ImageAnalysis #SpatialBiology #Neuroscience #SyNergy #LMU #Munich

Ali Max Erturk

14,781 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Welcome to the Lab of the Future! 🧬🤖 Excited to share LUMI-lab, out today in Cell — a self-driving platform that pairs an AI foundation model with a robotic lab to autonomously discover ionizable lipids (LNPs) for mRNA delivery. The core problem: Designing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) is hard. The chemical space of ionizable lipids is vast, experimental cycles are slow, and — critically — historical LNP datasets are far too small to train a predictive model from scratch. Most AI approaches in this space hit a wall immediately: not enough data to learn from. Our solution: lab-in-the-loop foundation model learning. Instead of training on LNP data alone, LUMI starts as a transformer-based foundation model pretrained across broad chemical space, building rich molecular representations before it ever sees a single LNP experiment. Then it enters a closed loop with a robotic synthesis platform: predict → synthesize → assay → update. Each round of real wet-lab experiments fine-tunes the model, which then proposes smarter candidates for the next round. The lab isn't just validating AI predictions — it's actively teaching the model, continuously. What happened when we let it run: LUMI-lab autonomously synthesized and screened 1,700+ ionizable lipids in human bronchial epithelial cells. The top candidate — LUMI-6 — features a brominated lipid tail, a structural motif that had been largely overlooked in LNP design. LUMI found it without being told where to look. When formulated into LNPs and delivered intratracheally to mice, LUMI-6 achieved 20.3% gene editing efficiency in lung epithelial cells — a compelling result for one of the hardest-to-reach therapeutic targets, directly relevant to diseases like cystic fibrosis and alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Why this matters beyond LNPs: This is a proof of concept for a broader thesis — that foundation model pretraining + active learning + robotic experimentation can overcome the data scarcity bottleneck that plagues AI-driven discovery in biology. You don't need a massive domain-specific dataset to start. You need a model that can generalize, a lab that can generate the right data, and a loop that connects them. Huge congratulations to first authors Yue Xu, Haotian Cui, and Kuan Pang, and to the entire Bowen LI team. Grateful to our collaborators at University Health Network and Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, and to Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Research Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Research. 📄 Paper:
1:05

Welcome to the Lab of the Future! 🧬🤖 Excited to share LUMI-lab, out today in Cell — a self-driving platform that pairs an AI foundation model with a robotic lab to autonomously discover ionizable lipids (LNPs) for mRNA delivery. The core problem: Designing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) is hard. The chemical space of ionizable lipids is vast, experimental cycles are slow, and — critically — historical LNP datasets are far too small to train a predictive model from scratch. Most AI approaches in this space hit a wall immediately: not enough data to learn from. Our solution: lab-in-the-loop foundation model learning. Instead of training on LNP data alone, LUMI starts as a transformer-based foundation model pretrained across broad chemical space, building rich molecular representations before it ever sees a single LNP experiment. Then it enters a closed loop with a robotic synthesis platform: predict → synthesize → assay → update. Each round of real wet-lab experiments fine-tunes the model, which then proposes smarter candidates for the next round. The lab isn't just validating AI predictions — it's actively teaching the model, continuously. What happened when we let it run: LUMI-lab autonomously synthesized and screened 1,700+ ionizable lipids in human bronchial epithelial cells. The top candidate — LUMI-6 — features a brominated lipid tail, a structural motif that had been largely overlooked in LNP design. LUMI found it without being told where to look. When formulated into LNPs and delivered intratracheally to mice, LUMI-6 achieved 20.3% gene editing efficiency in lung epithelial cells — a compelling result for one of the hardest-to-reach therapeutic targets, directly relevant to diseases like cystic fibrosis and alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Why this matters beyond LNPs: This is a proof of concept for a broader thesis — that foundation model pretraining + active learning + robotic experimentation can overcome the data scarcity bottleneck that plagues AI-driven discovery in biology. You don't need a massive domain-specific dataset to start. You need a model that can generalize, a lab that can generate the right data, and a loop that connects them. Huge congratulations to first authors Yue Xu, Haotian Cui, and Kuan Pang, and to the entire Bowen LI team. Grateful to our collaborators at University Health Network and Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, and to Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Research Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Research. 📄 Paper:

Bo Wang

57,510 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

How does an embryo reliably "compute" its form - "cell by cell" - using only local interactions and mechanics, yet produce a precise global body plan? I’m excited to share our Nature Methods paper "MultiCell: geometric learning in multicellular development", presenting #AIxBiology research led by Haiqian Yang and the result of a great collaboration with Ming Guo, George Roy, Tomer Stern, Anh Nguyen and Dapeng Bi. A long-standing challenge in developmental biology is to predict how thousands of cells collectively self-organize as tissues fold, divide, and rearrange. In MultiCell, we represent a developing embryo as a dual graph that unifies two complementary views of tissue mechanics with single-cell resolution: cells as moving points (granular) and cells as a connected foam (junction network). This lets the model learn dynamics from both geometry and cell–cell connectivity. On whole-embryo 4D light-sheet movies of Drosophila gastrulation (~5,000 cells), our model predicts key cell behaviors and the timing of events, including junction loss, rearrangements, and divisions with high accuracy, at single-cell resolution. Beyond prediction, the same representation supports robust time alignment across embryos and offers interpretable activation maps that highlight the morphogenetic "drivers" of development. The broader goal is a foundation for cell-by-cell forecasting in more complex tissues, and eventually for detecting subtle dynamical signatures of disease. Kudos to the team for this inspiring collaboration with brilliant researchers to push the boundary of AI for biology! Citation: Yang, H., Roy, G., Nguyen, A.Q., Buehler, M.J., et al. MultiCell: geometric learning in multicellular development. Nature Methods (2025), DOI: 10.1038/s41592-025-02983-x Code/data links are in the manuscript.
0:46

How does an embryo reliably "compute" its form - "cell by cell" - using only local interactions and mechanics, yet produce a precise global body plan? I’m excited to share our Nature Methods paper "MultiCell: geometric learning in multicellular development", presenting #AIxBiology research led by Haiqian Yang and the result of a great collaboration with Ming Guo, George Roy, Tomer Stern, Anh Nguyen and Dapeng Bi. A long-standing challenge in developmental biology is to predict how thousands of cells collectively self-organize as tissues fold, divide, and rearrange. In MultiCell, we represent a developing embryo as a dual graph that unifies two complementary views of tissue mechanics with single-cell resolution: cells as moving points (granular) and cells as a connected foam (junction network). This lets the model learn dynamics from both geometry and cell–cell connectivity. On whole-embryo 4D light-sheet movies of Drosophila gastrulation (~5,000 cells), our model predicts key cell behaviors and the timing of events, including junction loss, rearrangements, and divisions with high accuracy, at single-cell resolution. Beyond prediction, the same representation supports robust time alignment across embryos and offers interpretable activation maps that highlight the morphogenetic "drivers" of development. The broader goal is a foundation for cell-by-cell forecasting in more complex tissues, and eventually for detecting subtle dynamical signatures of disease. Kudos to the team for this inspiring collaboration with brilliant researchers to push the boundary of AI for biology! Citation: Yang, H., Roy, G., Nguyen, A.Q., Buehler, M.J., et al. MultiCell: geometric learning in multicellular development. Nature Methods (2025), DOI: 10.1038/s41592-025-02983-x Code/data links are in the manuscript.

Markus J. Buehler

388,138 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

This is WILD! Nvidia just launched something that could compress the most expensive process in medicine from 12 years to 12 months. BioNeMo Agent Toolkit is an open, agent-ready platform that turns AI agents into autonomous scientific workers, giving them the ability to run real drug discovery workflows instead of just generating ideas. And more than 50 companies are already using it, including Anthropic, OpenAI, Eli Lilly, Databricks, Snowflake, Dassault Systèmes and Schrödinger. Here is what it actually does. Traditional drug discovery costs an average of $2.6 billion per drug and takes over a decade. Most of that time and money goes into screening millions of compounds, designing proteins that bind to disease targets and running countless lab experiments to validate whether something works. BioNeMo agents now do all of that computationally before a single lab experiment begins. The demo Nvidia shared makes the speed impossible to ignore. An agent was asked to design 10 protein binders for PD-L1, a critical cancer immunotherapy target and it completed the full design, co-folding, scoring, and 3D structural analysis on GPU in under 90 seconds. What used to require weeks of wet lab work and PhD-level expertise now runs as a callable tool inside an AI workflow. The four core capabilities are virtual drug screening, protein binder design, genomic analysis, and medical imaging each one compressing tasks that previously took weeks into minutes. The institutional validation behind this is unusually strong. Nvidia and Eli Lilly announced a joint investment of up to $1 billion over five years to build a co-innovation lab running entirely on BioNeMo. The University of Washington's Institute for Protein Design is already running RosettaFold3 at 2x faster performance than the prior generation. And the market this unlocks is enormous, and Nvidia is sitting right at the center of it. The AI drug discovery market is projected to grow from $2.9 billion in 2026 to $13.8 billion by 2033 and McKinsey estimates generative AI could deliver $60 to $110 billion in annual economic value to pharma. Bullish on drug discovery!
0:36

This is WILD! Nvidia just launched something that could compress the most expensive process in medicine from 12 years to 12 months. BioNeMo Agent Toolkit is an open, agent-ready platform that turns AI agents into autonomous scientific workers, giving them the ability to run real drug discovery workflows instead of just generating ideas. And more than 50 companies are already using it, including Anthropic, OpenAI, Eli Lilly, Databricks, Snowflake, Dassault Systèmes and Schrödinger. Here is what it actually does. Traditional drug discovery costs an average of $2.6 billion per drug and takes over a decade. Most of that time and money goes into screening millions of compounds, designing proteins that bind to disease targets and running countless lab experiments to validate whether something works. BioNeMo agents now do all of that computationally before a single lab experiment begins. The demo Nvidia shared makes the speed impossible to ignore. An agent was asked to design 10 protein binders for PD-L1, a critical cancer immunotherapy target and it completed the full design, co-folding, scoring, and 3D structural analysis on GPU in under 90 seconds. What used to require weeks of wet lab work and PhD-level expertise now runs as a callable tool inside an AI workflow. The four core capabilities are virtual drug screening, protein binder design, genomic analysis, and medical imaging each one compressing tasks that previously took weeks into minutes. The institutional validation behind this is unusually strong. Nvidia and Eli Lilly announced a joint investment of up to $1 billion over five years to build a co-innovation lab running entirely on BioNeMo. The University of Washington's Institute for Protein Design is already running RosettaFold3 at 2x faster performance than the prior generation. And the market this unlocks is enormous, and Nvidia is sitting right at the center of it. The AI drug discovery market is projected to grow from $2.9 billion in 2026 to $13.8 billion by 2033 and McKinsey estimates generative AI could deliver $60 to $110 billion in annual economic value to pharma. Bullish on drug discovery!

Milk Road AI

23,155 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Excited to share our new work on building a multimodal atlas of human skin in health and inflammatory disease — a project I’m especially proud of, bringing together AI, high-throughput genomics, and clinical science to accelerate discovery. Over the past decade, single-cell genomics has transformed how we map cells in human tissues. But a major challenge remains: can we systematically decode how cells organize into functional niches in situ — including those invisible to standard histopathology? To address this, we integrated large-scale scRNA-seq, spatial transcriptomics, histopathology, and AI-driven modeling frameworks to build an in situ atlas of human skin across health and disease. Led by Lloyd Steele, an MD/PhD student working between Haniffa Lab and my lab at Wellcome Sanger Institute and Cambridge University . Another amazing collaboration with Muzz Haniffa, the mastermind behind the work as part of Human Cell Atlas. A key part of this study is that we didn’t build everything from scratch — we leveraged and combined AI methods that actually work! and showed how they can be used together to extract biological insight at scale. We used: • scArches to build and map into a reference scRNA-seq atlas of human skin: • NicheCompass to identify and characterize spatial niches: • MINT-Flow to extract microenvironment-induced cell states and gene programs: Together, these enabled an end-to-end workflow from atlas construction to spatial mapping, niche discovery, and cell state decoding. At scale, we integrated ~5 million cells and 100+ spatial sections, enabling a systematic view of tissue organization. Using this framework, we identified 26 niches in skin, including known histopathologic structures as well as hidden disease-associated niches not visible on H&E. Among the most striking findings were a resident memory T cell-rich sebaceous gland niche and a plasma cell-rich sweat gland niche, suggesting that appendageal structures act as active immunological microenvironments and may contribute to inflammatory memory and disease persistence. Importantly, this atlas is not just descriptive — it is usable. It can support mapping of new datasets, resolve finer cell types and niches, extract microenvironment-driven programs, and enable predictive analyses at scale. More broadly, this work shows what becomes possible when AI, spatial genomics, and atlas-scale data are integrated end-to-end: not just mapping tissues, but systematically decoding them. This was a massive collaboration, and I’m very grateful to the amazing scientists April Foster, Kenny Roberts, and Chloe Admane. Lloyd is an amazing scientist, and I’m especially excited for the community to see more of his work soon — stay tuned. The data and pre-trained models will be released soon. Preprint:
1:09

Excited to share our new work on building a multimodal atlas of human skin in health and inflammatory disease — a project I’m especially proud of, bringing together AI, high-throughput genomics, and clinical science to accelerate discovery. Over the past decade, single-cell genomics has transformed how we map cells in human tissues. But a major challenge remains: can we systematically decode how cells organize into functional niches in situ — including those invisible to standard histopathology? To address this, we integrated large-scale scRNA-seq, spatial transcriptomics, histopathology, and AI-driven modeling frameworks to build an in situ atlas of human skin across health and disease. Led by Lloyd Steele, an MD/PhD student working between Haniffa Lab and my lab at Wellcome Sanger Institute and Cambridge University . Another amazing collaboration with Muzz Haniffa, the mastermind behind the work as part of Human Cell Atlas. A key part of this study is that we didn’t build everything from scratch — we leveraged and combined AI methods that actually work! and showed how they can be used together to extract biological insight at scale. We used: • scArches to build and map into a reference scRNA-seq atlas of human skin: • NicheCompass to identify and characterize spatial niches: • MINT-Flow to extract microenvironment-induced cell states and gene programs: Together, these enabled an end-to-end workflow from atlas construction to spatial mapping, niche discovery, and cell state decoding. At scale, we integrated ~5 million cells and 100+ spatial sections, enabling a systematic view of tissue organization. Using this framework, we identified 26 niches in skin, including known histopathologic structures as well as hidden disease-associated niches not visible on H&E. Among the most striking findings were a resident memory T cell-rich sebaceous gland niche and a plasma cell-rich sweat gland niche, suggesting that appendageal structures act as active immunological microenvironments and may contribute to inflammatory memory and disease persistence. Importantly, this atlas is not just descriptive — it is usable. It can support mapping of new datasets, resolve finer cell types and niches, extract microenvironment-driven programs, and enable predictive analyses at scale. More broadly, this work shows what becomes possible when AI, spatial genomics, and atlas-scale data are integrated end-to-end: not just mapping tissues, but systematically decoding them. This was a massive collaboration, and I’m very grateful to the amazing scientists April Foster, Kenny Roberts, and Chloe Admane. Lloyd is an amazing scientist, and I’m especially excited for the community to see more of his work soon — stay tuned. The data and pre-trained models will be released soon. Preprint:

Mo Lotfollahi

11,802 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🎉 The best way to start the week is to find out that our MedSAM is finally published today in Nature Communications! **Segment anything in medical images** Paper: arXiv: Data & Code: MedSAM is the first promotable foundation model for medical image segmentation. **Highlights**: ⭐ Before its formal publication, we have received 220 citations and 1400+ GitHub stars 🙏🙏❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥 📊 We curated a large-scale medical image dataset with 1,570,263 image-mask pairs, covering 10 imaging modalities and over 30 cancer types. 🚀 Built on top of SAM (AI at Meta ) with transfer learning, we have significantly enhanced its segmentation performance of medical images. 📈 Comprehensive evaluations of 86 internal validation tasks and 60 external validation tasks demonstrate its better accuracy and robustness than modality-wise specialist models. **What is Next? --- Clinical Translation!!** 🍕Our next goal is to make the model deployable on laptops (CPUs) or other edge devices without reliance on GPUs. We have distilled a lightweight model, LiteMedSAM, offering a speed boost of 10x while maintaining accuracy. Plus, we have integrated it into the 3D Slicer plugin, providing an efficient tool for medical image segmentation. 🌐 To further promote developments in this field, we organize a competition on #CVPR2026: Segment Anything in Medical Images on Laptop! An out-of-the-box baseline has been released to reduce the entry barriers. Welcome to join us to push the boundary further: 🙏 Massive thanks to MetaAI AI at Meta for their open-source project SAM and many reviewers/users for their invaluable feedback. A huge shoutout to my postdoc Jun Ma (JunMa) for his leadership on this project!! UHN AI Hub Vector Institute Peter Munk Cardiac Centre AI Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology U of T Department of Computer Science University of Toronto University Health Network Brad Wouters 🇨🇦 Barry Rubin MD, PhD, FRCSC Shaf Keshavjee
0:59

🎉 The best way to start the week is to find out that our MedSAM is finally published today in Nature Communications! **Segment anything in medical images** Paper: arXiv: Data & Code: MedSAM is the first promotable foundation model for medical image segmentation. **Highlights**: ⭐ Before its formal publication, we have received 220 citations and 1400+ GitHub stars 🙏🙏❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥 📊 We curated a large-scale medical image dataset with 1,570,263 image-mask pairs, covering 10 imaging modalities and over 30 cancer types. 🚀 Built on top of SAM (AI at Meta ) with transfer learning, we have significantly enhanced its segmentation performance of medical images. 📈 Comprehensive evaluations of 86 internal validation tasks and 60 external validation tasks demonstrate its better accuracy and robustness than modality-wise specialist models. **What is Next? --- Clinical Translation!!** 🍕Our next goal is to make the model deployable on laptops (CPUs) or other edge devices without reliance on GPUs. We have distilled a lightweight model, LiteMedSAM, offering a speed boost of 10x while maintaining accuracy. Plus, we have integrated it into the 3D Slicer plugin, providing an efficient tool for medical image segmentation. 🌐 To further promote developments in this field, we organize a competition on #CVPR2026: Segment Anything in Medical Images on Laptop! An out-of-the-box baseline has been released to reduce the entry barriers. Welcome to join us to push the boundary further: 🙏 Massive thanks to MetaAI AI at Meta for their open-source project SAM and many reviewers/users for their invaluable feedback. A huge shoutout to my postdoc Jun Ma (JunMa) for his leadership on this project!! UHN AI Hub Vector Institute Peter Munk Cardiac Centre AI Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology U of T Department of Computer Science University of Toronto University Health Network Brad Wouters 🇨🇦 Barry Rubin MD, PhD, FRCSC Shaf Keshavjee

Bo Wang

140,229 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨They CANNOT SCAN kilometers into SOLID ROCK! That is what skeptics of the Khafre Project’s findings say, and they are correct to point out that Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) can't do this. They are also TOTALLY MISTAKEN, here is why: The Khafre team are not using conventional SAR imaging in the way critics assume. They are using a patented form of SAR Doppler Tomography, pioneered by Prof. Filippo Biondi. This is not simple surface imaging. It is a phase-coherent interferometric method that detects subtle Doppler frequency shifts caused by internal micro-vibrations within dense structures. Instead of trying to penetrate rock, it “listens” to tiny seismic vibrations in the stone. Biondi’s trick is to capture micro-motions. Tiny seismic or structural tremors slightly shift the radar’s frequency (Doppler effect). By analyzing these Doppler shifts across multiple SAR images, they can reconstruct a 3D tomographic image of what’s inside, like a CT-scan from space. Prof. Filippop Biondi's patent (PCT/EP2023/064345) explicitly describes processing “coherent vibrational Doppler information” in SAR to allow penetrating 3D imaging "over a depth of several kilometers". In other words, it effectively turns the radar into a spaceborne sonar, using Earth’s natural vibrations to “sound” the subsurface, something ordinary SAR can’t do. A peer-reviewed Remote Sensing paper describes using COSMO-SkyMed SAR data to map new shafts and chambers inside Khufu . This case study in a scientific journal shows the technique in action (with high-res 3D results!). Beyond pyramids, the technique has practical uses. For bridges and infrastructure, Biondi’s SAR Doppler method can extract a structure’s “vibration profile” from orbit. That profile highlights cracks or damage. In one study the team applied it to Italy’s Morandi Bridge before it collapsed, SAR-based vibration maps showed unusual energy spikes right at the failing pylon. They even imaged deep tunnels. The HarmonicSAR site reports they “detected for the first time the Gran-Sasso Physics Laboratory at 1.4 km below the Earth using SAR”. In other words, their tomography saw a known underground lab 1400 m under Italy! They’ve also done scans of mountain tunnels (San Gottardo). Biondi was co-author on a 2016 Scientific Reports paper tracking Iraq’s Mosul Dam instability via SAR. That study used spaceborne radar to measure tiny ground motions around the dam over time. It shows that SAR micro-motion techniques can monitor slow structural shifts on a large engineering project. In short, SAR Doppler Tomography isn’t ordinary radar, it’s like using satellites and the Earth’s own background hum to “see” underground. Think of it as applying a CT-scan or ultrasound-like method from orbit. It’s unconventional, but it’s patent-backed and has some peer-reviewed results. RECIEPTS: Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography Reveals Details of Undiscovered High-Resolution Internal Structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza Filippo Biondi's SAR/Doppler Patent Perspectives on the Structural Health Monitoring of Bridges by Synthetic Aperture Radar HarmonicSAR (Filippos Website) Mosul Dam SAR/Doppler Project
4:02

🚨They CANNOT SCAN kilometers into SOLID ROCK! That is what skeptics of the Khafre Project’s findings say, and they are correct to point out that Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) can't do this. They are also TOTALLY MISTAKEN, here is why: The Khafre team are not using conventional SAR imaging in the way critics assume. They are using a patented form of SAR Doppler Tomography, pioneered by Prof. Filippo Biondi. This is not simple surface imaging. It is a phase-coherent interferometric method that detects subtle Doppler frequency shifts caused by internal micro-vibrations within dense structures. Instead of trying to penetrate rock, it “listens” to tiny seismic vibrations in the stone. Biondi’s trick is to capture micro-motions. Tiny seismic or structural tremors slightly shift the radar’s frequency (Doppler effect). By analyzing these Doppler shifts across multiple SAR images, they can reconstruct a 3D tomographic image of what’s inside, like a CT-scan from space. Prof. Filippop Biondi's patent (PCT/EP2023/064345) explicitly describes processing “coherent vibrational Doppler information” in SAR to allow penetrating 3D imaging "over a depth of several kilometers". In other words, it effectively turns the radar into a spaceborne sonar, using Earth’s natural vibrations to “sound” the subsurface, something ordinary SAR can’t do. A peer-reviewed Remote Sensing paper describes using COSMO-SkyMed SAR data to map new shafts and chambers inside Khufu . This case study in a scientific journal shows the technique in action (with high-res 3D results!). Beyond pyramids, the technique has practical uses. For bridges and infrastructure, Biondi’s SAR Doppler method can extract a structure’s “vibration profile” from orbit. That profile highlights cracks or damage. In one study the team applied it to Italy’s Morandi Bridge before it collapsed, SAR-based vibration maps showed unusual energy spikes right at the failing pylon. They even imaged deep tunnels. The HarmonicSAR site reports they “detected for the first time the Gran-Sasso Physics Laboratory at 1.4 km below the Earth using SAR”. In other words, their tomography saw a known underground lab 1400 m under Italy! They’ve also done scans of mountain tunnels (San Gottardo). Biondi was co-author on a 2016 Scientific Reports paper tracking Iraq’s Mosul Dam instability via SAR. That study used spaceborne radar to measure tiny ground motions around the dam over time. It shows that SAR micro-motion techniques can monitor slow structural shifts on a large engineering project. In short, SAR Doppler Tomography isn’t ordinary radar, it’s like using satellites and the Earth’s own background hum to “see” underground. Think of it as applying a CT-scan or ultrasound-like method from orbit. It’s unconventional, but it’s patent-backed and has some peer-reviewed results. RECIEPTS: Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography Reveals Details of Undiscovered High-Resolution Internal Structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza Filippo Biondi's SAR/Doppler Patent Perspectives on the Structural Health Monitoring of Bridges by Synthetic Aperture Radar HarmonicSAR (Filippos Website) Mosul Dam SAR/Doppler Project

Jay Anderson

169,956 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

1/2 🧵 🔥 TULSI GABBARD JUST DROPPED THE HAMMER — AND KARY MULLIS WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG The Man Who Saw It Coming Was my friend Kary Mullis — Nobel laureate, inventor of PCR, and certified pain in Anthony Fauci's ass — spent his final years pointing his genius-level intellect at something most were too cowardly to touch. He called Fauci "Josef Mengele" to his face. He warned about gain-of-function research at NIH's Rocky Mountain Laboratories. He connected the dots between Montana, Wuhan, and a network of academic collaborators playing God with coronaviruses thanks to GPS. They called him crazy. They always do. Now the receipts are public. 🦇 The Montana-Wuhan Pipeline: Follow the Bats In 2018, under Fauci's NIAID watch, researchers at Rocky Mountain Laboratories infected 12 Egyptian fruit bats with WIV1 — a coronavirus sourced directly from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Let that sink in. A Wuhan coronavirus. Inside a U.S. government lab. Years before COVID-19. The bats? Sourced from Catoctin Wildlife Preserve in Maryland. The zoo's director of animal health at the time? A former NIH employee. The revolving door spins so fast it's a damn centrifuge. Ralph Baric of UNC — Wuhan's longtime research partner — was on the project. The same Ralph Baric whose lab has been at the center of gain-of-function controversy for years. They published in 2018 claiming the bats didn't develop a "robust infection." Convenient. But the question isn't whether those particular bats got sick. The question is: Why the hell were U.S. tax dollars shipping Wuhan coronaviruses into American labs and injecting them into live animals years before a pandemic that shut down the planet? 🎯 Tulsi's Swan Song: The Declassified Report Tulsi Gabbard just released a declassified intelligence document mapping out an extensive, secret U.S. network behind Ukrainian biolabs conducting gain-of-function research on the world's most dangerous pathogens. The document lays out multiple TAPs (research projects) targeting: —. 🦠 Highly pathogenic avian influenza (bird flu — the one with 50%+ human mortality) — 🐷 African swine fever —. 🧬 Pathogen genome sequencing inside U.S.-funded biocontainment labs And here's where it gets really interesting. 🔗 THE SAME NAMES KEEP SHOWING UP The American universities tied to the Ukrainian biolab network are the exact same institutions embedded in the domestic gain-of-function ecosystem: View the table below. That's not a coincidence. That's a network. 🏛️ The Full Cast of Characters U.S. Government Agencies & Contractors: •Black & Veatch (major contractor — name appears repeatedly) •CDC •USDA •Metabiota (the same outfit that partnered with EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak) Additional Partners: •Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (Germany) •Orion •SATOSO •OIC Ukrainian Entities: A sprawling web of research institutes, veterinary labs, and universities — all handling pathogens that could end civilization if they escaped. The document explicitly notes this is a small sampling. The full network is larger. 💀 The Scientific-Industrial Complex Exposed This isn't a conspiracy. It's institutional architecture. The pattern is unmistakable: 1. U.S. tax dollars fund the construction of biocontainment labs in foreign countries 2. U.S. universities and contractors staff and operate the research 3. Dangerous pathogens are collected, sequenced, and manipulated 4. Oversight is fragmented across multiple agencies with no single point of accountability 5. When something goes wrong, everyone points fingers at everyone else It's the same playbook every time. Wuhan. Ukraine. Montana. The names change. The structure doesn't.
6:59

1/2 🧵 🔥 TULSI GABBARD JUST DROPPED THE HAMMER — AND KARY MULLIS WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG The Man Who Saw It Coming Was my friend Kary Mullis — Nobel laureate, inventor of PCR, and certified pain in Anthony Fauci's ass — spent his final years pointing his genius-level intellect at something most were too cowardly to touch. He called Fauci "Josef Mengele" to his face. He warned about gain-of-function research at NIH's Rocky Mountain Laboratories. He connected the dots between Montana, Wuhan, and a network of academic collaborators playing God with coronaviruses thanks to GPS. They called him crazy. They always do. Now the receipts are public. 🦇 The Montana-Wuhan Pipeline: Follow the Bats In 2018, under Fauci's NIAID watch, researchers at Rocky Mountain Laboratories infected 12 Egyptian fruit bats with WIV1 — a coronavirus sourced directly from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Let that sink in. A Wuhan coronavirus. Inside a U.S. government lab. Years before COVID-19. The bats? Sourced from Catoctin Wildlife Preserve in Maryland. The zoo's director of animal health at the time? A former NIH employee. The revolving door spins so fast it's a damn centrifuge. Ralph Baric of UNC — Wuhan's longtime research partner — was on the project. The same Ralph Baric whose lab has been at the center of gain-of-function controversy for years. They published in 2018 claiming the bats didn't develop a "robust infection." Convenient. But the question isn't whether those particular bats got sick. The question is: Why the hell were U.S. tax dollars shipping Wuhan coronaviruses into American labs and injecting them into live animals years before a pandemic that shut down the planet? 🎯 Tulsi's Swan Song: The Declassified Report Tulsi Gabbard just released a declassified intelligence document mapping out an extensive, secret U.S. network behind Ukrainian biolabs conducting gain-of-function research on the world's most dangerous pathogens. The document lays out multiple TAPs (research projects) targeting: —. 🦠 Highly pathogenic avian influenza (bird flu — the one with 50%+ human mortality) — 🐷 African swine fever —. 🧬 Pathogen genome sequencing inside U.S.-funded biocontainment labs And here's where it gets really interesting. 🔗 THE SAME NAMES KEEP SHOWING UP The American universities tied to the Ukrainian biolab network are the exact same institutions embedded in the domestic gain-of-function ecosystem: View the table below. That's not a coincidence. That's a network. 🏛️ The Full Cast of Characters U.S. Government Agencies & Contractors: •Black & Veatch (major contractor — name appears repeatedly) •CDC •USDA •Metabiota (the same outfit that partnered with EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak) Additional Partners: •Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (Germany) •Orion •SATOSO •OIC Ukrainian Entities: A sprawling web of research institutes, veterinary labs, and universities — all handling pathogens that could end civilization if they escaped. The document explicitly notes this is a small sampling. The full network is larger. 💀 The Scientific-Industrial Complex Exposed This isn't a conspiracy. It's institutional architecture. The pattern is unmistakable: 1. U.S. tax dollars fund the construction of biocontainment labs in foreign countries 2. U.S. universities and contractors staff and operate the research 3. Dangerous pathogens are collected, sequenced, and manipulated 4. Oversight is fragmented across multiple agencies with no single point of accountability 5. When something goes wrong, everyone points fingers at everyone else It's the same playbook every time. Wuhan. Ukraine. Montana. The names change. The structure doesn't.

Tony Seruga

28,675 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🧬 BREAKING: Our CRISPR-GPT paper is out TODAY in Nature Biomedical Engineering Nature Biomedical Engineering ! 🤯 We built an AI agent that turns ANYONE into a gene-editing expert in 1 DAY instead of months. An undergrad with ZERO experience achieved 90%+ editing efficiency on their FIRST attempt. 🧵 Here's how we're building expert AI agents for cutting-edge biotechnology: 🎯 The Problem: CRISPR is revolutionary but requires PhD-level expertise, it can take weeks to learn, adopt, and design, analyze a CRISPR experiment for R&D or making life-saving medicine. Even Pro scientists can make small mistakes (e.g. typos in guideRNA or cloning design) that cost months to find out, slowing us down. 💡 Our Solution: CRISPR-GPT - an AI co-pilot from Stanford University Princeton University Google DeepMind that guides you through EVERY step via simple conversation 🔬 Real Results: -Novice researcher: ~90% editing on 1st go -Training time: Months → 1 day -100% success rate in our trials -Even experts save days/weeks on data analysis & troubleshooting 🤖 How it works: Our multi-agent system handles: CRISPR system and delivery method selection, guideRNA design, Protocol generation, Real-time troubleshooting, Data analysis, and beyond. All through natural language! No coding, no complex software. 📊 We benchmarked it extensively: -288 evaluation scenarios/cases -Outperformed GPT-4o on ALL gene editing tasks -Trained on 11 years of expert discussions -Covers knockout, base-editing, prime-editing & epigenetic editing 🌍 Why this matters: -Every lab can now use CRISPR with an AI system distilling expert knowledge and skills. -Every student can learn faster. -Every researcher can tackle bigger challenges without worrying about small mistakes. -Customized CRISPR design can be automated based on your need and the context of R&D workflow. -Agentic AI ensure safety, privacy, and responsibility -We're not just automating gene editing - we're using AI to power scientists to cure diseases. 🚀 Try it yourself! Beta access available at: Paper: Code: Benchmark (companion work, Genome-bench): Co-first and key authors: Yuanhao Qu Kaixuan Huang Ming Yin PIs: Le Cong@Stanford, AI+Bio+Gene-Editing Mengdi Wang Key collaborators: Russ Altman Denny Zhou The future of biology and science is conversational. The future is now. Nature Biomedical Engineering Nature Portfolio #CRISPR #AI #GeneEditing #Biotech #Science #AISafety
1:43

🧬 BREAKING: Our CRISPR-GPT paper is out TODAY in Nature Biomedical Engineering Nature Biomedical Engineering ! 🤯 We built an AI agent that turns ANYONE into a gene-editing expert in 1 DAY instead of months. An undergrad with ZERO experience achieved 90%+ editing efficiency on their FIRST attempt. 🧵 Here's how we're building expert AI agents for cutting-edge biotechnology: 🎯 The Problem: CRISPR is revolutionary but requires PhD-level expertise, it can take weeks to learn, adopt, and design, analyze a CRISPR experiment for R&D or making life-saving medicine. Even Pro scientists can make small mistakes (e.g. typos in guideRNA or cloning design) that cost months to find out, slowing us down. 💡 Our Solution: CRISPR-GPT - an AI co-pilot from Stanford University Princeton University Google DeepMind that guides you through EVERY step via simple conversation 🔬 Real Results: -Novice researcher: ~90% editing on 1st go -Training time: Months → 1 day -100% success rate in our trials -Even experts save days/weeks on data analysis & troubleshooting 🤖 How it works: Our multi-agent system handles: CRISPR system and delivery method selection, guideRNA design, Protocol generation, Real-time troubleshooting, Data analysis, and beyond. All through natural language! No coding, no complex software. 📊 We benchmarked it extensively: -288 evaluation scenarios/cases -Outperformed GPT-4o on ALL gene editing tasks -Trained on 11 years of expert discussions -Covers knockout, base-editing, prime-editing & epigenetic editing 🌍 Why this matters: -Every lab can now use CRISPR with an AI system distilling expert knowledge and skills. -Every student can learn faster. -Every researcher can tackle bigger challenges without worrying about small mistakes. -Customized CRISPR design can be automated based on your need and the context of R&D workflow. -Agentic AI ensure safety, privacy, and responsibility -We're not just automating gene editing - we're using AI to power scientists to cure diseases. 🚀 Try it yourself! Beta access available at: Paper: Code: Benchmark (companion work, Genome-bench): Co-first and key authors: Yuanhao Qu Kaixuan Huang Ming Yin PIs: Le Cong@Stanford, AI+Bio+Gene-Editing Mengdi Wang Key collaborators: Russ Altman Denny Zhou The future of biology and science is conversational. The future is now. Nature Biomedical Engineering Nature Portfolio #CRISPR #AI #GeneEditing #Biotech #Science #AISafety

Le Cong@Stanford, AI+Bio+Gene-Editing

111,843 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and as Chief Medical Advisor to President Biden during Covid-19, today testified to Congress about Covid vaccines and Covid’s origin. "The first iteration of vaccines did have an effect — not 100%, not a high effect — they did prevent infection, and subsequently, obviously, transmission,” Fauci said. “However, it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by: the durability of protection against infection, and hence, the transmission was relatively limited." But there was never definitive evidence that the vaccines would prevent transmission. In December 2020, the FDA determined that “data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.” The CDC in 2020 and 2021 stated that protection would wear off, that the evidence was unclear, and that the data were limited, noted data analyst Kelley K during the hearing. When Fauci said in May 2021 that a vaccinated person would become a “dead end to the virus,” he was repeating a political talking point and not accurately representing the science. Claiming vaccination would prevent spread was a strategy to increase vaccine uptake among young, healthy people who were not vulnerable to severe COVID outcomes. In other words, the science had not been “settled,” but Fauci and other public health leaders chose to espouse a noble lie to encourage vaccination. To his credit, Fauci testified before Congress today and sat for many hours of a transcribed interview. But Fauci also implied that investigating his role put him at risk. “Every time someone gets up and says I'm responsible for the death of people throughout the world,” he emphasized, “the death threats go up.” We unreservedly condemn any threats Fauci and his family may have received. It is illegal to threaten people with death or physical violence, as it should be. At the same time, we must be free to discuss Fauci’s role in funding the laboratory research to make coronaviruses more infectious, known as “gain-of-function research,” without fear of being accused of inciting violence against Fauci or his family members. It would be an abuse of power to suggest that any effort to hold Fauci accountable is equivalent to threatening him or his family. The responsibility for making threats lies with the person making them and not with those whose statements have ostensibly influenced them. And yet many Democrats repeatedly suggested that there was something sinister and dangerous about criticisms of Fauci for his role in shaping the US response to the pandemic as well as his role advocating for and funding the kinds of biomedical research that may have caused it. And Democrats repeatedly referred to the idea that US taxpayer dollars funded the research that resulted in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 a “conspiracy theory.” Said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-CA), "The investigation of Dr Fauci shows he is an honorable public servant who has devoted his entire career to the public health and the public interest. And he is not a comic book supervillain. He did not fund research to create the Cove in 19 pandemic. He did not lie to Congress about gain of function research in Wuhan, and he did not organize a lab leak suppression campaign today." Said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), "The evidence to date points to COVID 19 having originated from an animal market in China... this committee should be doing more to fight for those answers, but instead has wasted significant time and taxpayer money fueling conspiracy theories." Said Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), "Conspiracy theory after another get debunked...." But the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy theory. A few hours before Fauci testified, The New York Times, the most important newspaper for Democrats, published a complete and graphics-heavy case for the lab leak theory of Covid-19’s origin. A “growing volume of evidence — gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analyzing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the U.S. government — suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China,” wrote Alina Chan who coauthored the 2021 book, Viral, with Matt Ridley, in the Times. In today’s hearing, Fauci insisted that he did not fund risky gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. The research his agency funded, he claimed, was not technically gain-of-function under the regulatory definition set by something called “The Guidelines on Potential Pandemic Pathogens Care and Oversight (P3CO).” Asked Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA), "Dr. Fauci, according to the regulatory definitions, for example, in P3CO, that NIH applied to proposed research, did NIH ever fund gain of function research in Wuhan, China?" Responded Fauci, "As you said, Congressman Ruiz, according to the regulatory and operative definition of P3CO, the NIH did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology." But Fauci and Francis Collins, the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent years seeking to weaken oversight of such research. In 2011, after the NIH biosecurity board unanimously recommended that certain dangerous gain-of-function bird flu research not be published, Fauci and Collins published an opinion piece called “A flu virus risk worth taking” in the Washington Post, arguing that the benefits of this research outweighed the potential for a pandemic. The following year, 2012, NIH’s biosecurity board signed non-disclosure agreements and met with Fauci and Collins. The board, apparently under pressure from Fauci and Collins, then revised its previous recommendation to publish the risky bird flu research. According to Fauci and Democrats in Congress, NIH’s grant to EcoHealth Alliance did not fall under P3CO guidelines because it was not anticipated to increase a pathogen’s danger to humans, specifically. But in emails, NIH staff expressed their concerns about EcoHealth Alliance’s work creating hybrid “chimera” MERS and SARS viruses, in order to increase their infectiousness, in 2016. NIH staff pointed out that there was a moratorium placed on that research in 2014. Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, persuaded NIH staff to concede to a research threshold, saying EcoHealth would halt its research if the chimeras had enhanced viral growth 10 times that of the original viruses. After reaching an agreement with NIH, Daszak specifically referred to this work as gain-of-function, writing, “This is terrific! We are very happy to hear that our Gain of Function research funding pause has been lifted. Cheers, Peter.” Then, in 2018, EcoHealth went on to seemingly violate its agreement by producing a chimeric virus with a viral load 10,000 times greater than the original virus. As such, Fauci, his colleagues, and the Democrats were playing word games, redefining what they mean by gain-of-function research in ways that allowed them to deny responsibility. And that’s not all. After the Obama administration had established a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) committee to review proposed gain-of-function projects before the NIH could approve them, Fauci and Collins knowingly sought to make changes to NIH policy in order to allow funding for riskier gain-of-function experiments. These changes included removing the committee’s ability to block projects and limiting the type of projects the committee could review. In his testimony, Fauci misrepresented the scientific possibility that NIH funding is associated with the Covid-19 outbreak, as well as his role in the “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper, which infamously and misleadingly, claimed that, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” But consider how, in 2018, EcoHealth Alliance applied for a grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for a project called “DEFUSE” that would involve Shi Zhengli’s lab group at WIV and Ralph Baric’s lab at the University of North Carolina (UNC). Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the features of SARS-CoV-2 closely resemble the work described in EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal. On February 1, 2020, Fauci and Collins held a meeting called “Coronavirus sequence comparison” with other scientists to compare the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, its closest genetic relative which the NIH-funded Wuhan lab discovered. This meeting would lead to the “Proximal Origin” paper. In the hearing, Fauci downplayed his role. After Majority Counsel Mitch Benzine asked, "Did Dr. Anderson send you drafts to review?" Fauci responded, "He sent drafts, but I'm going to jump ahead of you if I might dribble around. I did not edit it. That was mentioned by a few of the Congressmen. I did not edit the paper." While it may be true that Fauci did not “edit” the “Proximal Origin” paper, lead author Kristian Andersen said he “prompted” it, and the authors sent him a final draft for approval. In their private exchanges, the authors repeatedly refer to Collins and Fauci as the “Bethesda boys.” Their offices were located in Bethesda, Maryland. The “Bethesda boys” appear to have directed some of the paper’s content. After Andersen suggested that a first draft should be sent “up the chain,” Fauci and Collins voiced concern that culturing or serial passaging (a process through which a virus can be made more infectious to humans) was still included as a possible origin. Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust, then pressured the authors to remove it. Shortly after publishing the preprint, Holmes told Andersen, “Sorry the last bit had to be done without you… pressure from on high.” Fauci would go on to cite this paper as objective evidence from independent scientists. All of this, and yet, throughout the Oversight Committee’s hearing, Democrats refused to provide oversight and criticized their colleagues who attempted to provide it. “I'm sorry for the personal attacks you have received and may have to deal with today,” said one. “Thank you, sir, and your entire team for saving lives in this country, and I'm sorry you have to continue going on with these attacks,” said another. “The Republicans failed to find, uh, a shred of evidence of their far-fetched conspiracy linking Dr. Fauci to a cover-up of the origins of the pandemic,” said one. “Sir, do you think the American public should listen to America's brightest and best doctors and scientists? Or instead, listen to podcasters, conspiracy theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes,” asked another. Since World War II, Democrats, liberals, and progressives have criticized their political enemies as overly deferent to authority. Today, at the hearing with Fauci and other hearings where mainstream science is questioned, they criticize their enemies for not being sufficiently deferent. What changed?...
9:54

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and as Chief Medical Advisor to President Biden during Covid-19, today testified to Congress about Covid vaccines and Covid’s origin. "The first iteration of vaccines did have an effect — not 100%, not a high effect — they did prevent infection, and subsequently, obviously, transmission,” Fauci said. “However, it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by: the durability of protection against infection, and hence, the transmission was relatively limited." But there was never definitive evidence that the vaccines would prevent transmission. In December 2020, the FDA determined that “data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.” The CDC in 2020 and 2021 stated that protection would wear off, that the evidence was unclear, and that the data were limited, noted data analyst Kelley K during the hearing. When Fauci said in May 2021 that a vaccinated person would become a “dead end to the virus,” he was repeating a political talking point and not accurately representing the science. Claiming vaccination would prevent spread was a strategy to increase vaccine uptake among young, healthy people who were not vulnerable to severe COVID outcomes. In other words, the science had not been “settled,” but Fauci and other public health leaders chose to espouse a noble lie to encourage vaccination. To his credit, Fauci testified before Congress today and sat for many hours of a transcribed interview. But Fauci also implied that investigating his role put him at risk. “Every time someone gets up and says I'm responsible for the death of people throughout the world,” he emphasized, “the death threats go up.” We unreservedly condemn any threats Fauci and his family may have received. It is illegal to threaten people with death or physical violence, as it should be. At the same time, we must be free to discuss Fauci’s role in funding the laboratory research to make coronaviruses more infectious, known as “gain-of-function research,” without fear of being accused of inciting violence against Fauci or his family members. It would be an abuse of power to suggest that any effort to hold Fauci accountable is equivalent to threatening him or his family. The responsibility for making threats lies with the person making them and not with those whose statements have ostensibly influenced them. And yet many Democrats repeatedly suggested that there was something sinister and dangerous about criticisms of Fauci for his role in shaping the US response to the pandemic as well as his role advocating for and funding the kinds of biomedical research that may have caused it. And Democrats repeatedly referred to the idea that US taxpayer dollars funded the research that resulted in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 a “conspiracy theory.” Said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-CA), "The investigation of Dr Fauci shows he is an honorable public servant who has devoted his entire career to the public health and the public interest. And he is not a comic book supervillain. He did not fund research to create the Cove in 19 pandemic. He did not lie to Congress about gain of function research in Wuhan, and he did not organize a lab leak suppression campaign today." Said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), "The evidence to date points to COVID 19 having originated from an animal market in China... this committee should be doing more to fight for those answers, but instead has wasted significant time and taxpayer money fueling conspiracy theories." Said Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), "Conspiracy theory after another get debunked...." But the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy theory. A few hours before Fauci testified, The New York Times, the most important newspaper for Democrats, published a complete and graphics-heavy case for the lab leak theory of Covid-19’s origin. A “growing volume of evidence — gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analyzing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the U.S. government — suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China,” wrote Alina Chan who coauthored the 2021 book, Viral, with Matt Ridley, in the Times. In today’s hearing, Fauci insisted that he did not fund risky gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. The research his agency funded, he claimed, was not technically gain-of-function under the regulatory definition set by something called “The Guidelines on Potential Pandemic Pathogens Care and Oversight (P3CO).” Asked Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA), "Dr. Fauci, according to the regulatory definitions, for example, in P3CO, that NIH applied to proposed research, did NIH ever fund gain of function research in Wuhan, China?" Responded Fauci, "As you said, Congressman Ruiz, according to the regulatory and operative definition of P3CO, the NIH did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology." But Fauci and Francis Collins, the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent years seeking to weaken oversight of such research. In 2011, after the NIH biosecurity board unanimously recommended that certain dangerous gain-of-function bird flu research not be published, Fauci and Collins published an opinion piece called “A flu virus risk worth taking” in the Washington Post, arguing that the benefits of this research outweighed the potential for a pandemic. The following year, 2012, NIH’s biosecurity board signed non-disclosure agreements and met with Fauci and Collins. The board, apparently under pressure from Fauci and Collins, then revised its previous recommendation to publish the risky bird flu research. According to Fauci and Democrats in Congress, NIH’s grant to EcoHealth Alliance did not fall under P3CO guidelines because it was not anticipated to increase a pathogen’s danger to humans, specifically. But in emails, NIH staff expressed their concerns about EcoHealth Alliance’s work creating hybrid “chimera” MERS and SARS viruses, in order to increase their infectiousness, in 2016. NIH staff pointed out that there was a moratorium placed on that research in 2014. Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, persuaded NIH staff to concede to a research threshold, saying EcoHealth would halt its research if the chimeras had enhanced viral growth 10 times that of the original viruses. After reaching an agreement with NIH, Daszak specifically referred to this work as gain-of-function, writing, “This is terrific! We are very happy to hear that our Gain of Function research funding pause has been lifted. Cheers, Peter.” Then, in 2018, EcoHealth went on to seemingly violate its agreement by producing a chimeric virus with a viral load 10,000 times greater than the original virus. As such, Fauci, his colleagues, and the Democrats were playing word games, redefining what they mean by gain-of-function research in ways that allowed them to deny responsibility. And that’s not all. After the Obama administration had established a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) committee to review proposed gain-of-function projects before the NIH could approve them, Fauci and Collins knowingly sought to make changes to NIH policy in order to allow funding for riskier gain-of-function experiments. These changes included removing the committee’s ability to block projects and limiting the type of projects the committee could review. In his testimony, Fauci misrepresented the scientific possibility that NIH funding is associated with the Covid-19 outbreak, as well as his role in the “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” paper, which infamously and misleadingly, claimed that, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” But consider how, in 2018, EcoHealth Alliance applied for a grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for a project called “DEFUSE” that would involve Shi Zhengli’s lab group at WIV and Ralph Baric’s lab at the University of North Carolina (UNC). Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the features of SARS-CoV-2 closely resemble the work described in EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal. On February 1, 2020, Fauci and Collins held a meeting called “Coronavirus sequence comparison” with other scientists to compare the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, its closest genetic relative which the NIH-funded Wuhan lab discovered. This meeting would lead to the “Proximal Origin” paper. In the hearing, Fauci downplayed his role. After Majority Counsel Mitch Benzine asked, "Did Dr. Anderson send you drafts to review?" Fauci responded, "He sent drafts, but I'm going to jump ahead of you if I might dribble around. I did not edit it. That was mentioned by a few of the Congressmen. I did not edit the paper." While it may be true that Fauci did not “edit” the “Proximal Origin” paper, lead author Kristian Andersen said he “prompted” it, and the authors sent him a final draft for approval. In their private exchanges, the authors repeatedly refer to Collins and Fauci as the “Bethesda boys.” Their offices were located in Bethesda, Maryland. The “Bethesda boys” appear to have directed some of the paper’s content. After Andersen suggested that a first draft should be sent “up the chain,” Fauci and Collins voiced concern that culturing or serial passaging (a process through which a virus can be made more infectious to humans) was still included as a possible origin. Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust, then pressured the authors to remove it. Shortly after publishing the preprint, Holmes told Andersen, “Sorry the last bit had to be done without you… pressure from on high.” Fauci would go on to cite this paper as objective evidence from independent scientists. All of this, and yet, throughout the Oversight Committee’s hearing, Democrats refused to provide oversight and criticized their colleagues who attempted to provide it. “I'm sorry for the personal attacks you have received and may have to deal with today,” said one. “Thank you, sir, and your entire team for saving lives in this country, and I'm sorry you have to continue going on with these attacks,” said another. “The Republicans failed to find, uh, a shred of evidence of their far-fetched conspiracy linking Dr. Fauci to a cover-up of the origins of the pandemic,” said one. “Sir, do you think the American public should listen to America's brightest and best doctors and scientists? Or instead, listen to podcasters, conspiracy theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes,” asked another. Since World War II, Democrats, liberals, and progressives have criticized their political enemies as overly deferent to authority. Today, at the hearing with Fauci and other hearings where mainstream science is questioned, they criticize their enemies for not being sufficiently deferent. What changed?...

Michael Shellenberger

582,268 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Reliance's Game-Changer in Bharat's Healthcare? Sounds good on the face of it, BUT may prove to be dangerous also, especially considering it's 'Ambani'! Let's take deep dive in 3 parts. 1. What's in offering 2. Benefits 3. Dangers 1. What's in Offering? Reliance Industries, under Mukesh Ambani, is set to launch affordable genomic diagnostic tests in Bharat through its subsidiary Strand Life Sciences (acquired in 2021). These advanced tests—used for detecting cancer risks, rare diseases, and personalized medicine—will cost under ₹1,000, a massive drop from the current ₹10,000+ market price. It's being called a "Jio moment" for healthcare, aiming to make high-tech diagnostics accessible to the masses. 2. How It Will Benefit? This could revolutionize preventive healthcare in Bharat, where genomic testing is currently out of reach for most. By slashing costs, millions could access early screenings for genetic conditions, leading to better outcomes in diseases like cancer or hereditary disorders. Just like Jio democratized internet access and boosted digital inclusion, this might spur a healthcare boom—empowering rural and low-income populations, reducing long-term medical costs, and shifting focus from treatment to prevention. Overall, it's a step toward equitable health tech which is great. 3. How It Can Be Dangerous? While it sounds exciting, there are real risks of monopoly and future crises. ■Reliance's aggressive pricing could undercut competitors (e.g., MedGenome or smaller labs), leading to market dominance like Jio's telecom disruption, where rivals folded, creating an oligopoly and potentially higher prices later. ■Privacy is a big concern: Genomic data is ultra-sensitive—imagine one company holding genetic info on millions, risking breaches or misuse (e.g., for insurance discrimination). ■Plus, over-reliance on a single player could cause systemic failures, similar to IndiGo's recent December 2025 blunder. With ~60% market share in aviation, their rostering glitch caused nationwide flight chaos, stranding passengers. ■In healthcare, a lab error, supply issue, or cyberattack at Reliance could lead to mass misdiagnoses or delays, amplifying a crisis on a national scale. I can conclude saying- Regulation (via CCI and data laws) is key to balance this. Without Regulatory Legal Framework in place, this may be more dangerous than what meets an eye.
0:32

Reliance's Game-Changer in Bharat's Healthcare? Sounds good on the face of it, BUT may prove to be dangerous also, especially considering it's 'Ambani'! Let's take deep dive in 3 parts. 1. What's in offering 2. Benefits 3. Dangers 1. What's in Offering? Reliance Industries, under Mukesh Ambani, is set to launch affordable genomic diagnostic tests in Bharat through its subsidiary Strand Life Sciences (acquired in 2021). These advanced tests—used for detecting cancer risks, rare diseases, and personalized medicine—will cost under ₹1,000, a massive drop from the current ₹10,000+ market price. It's being called a "Jio moment" for healthcare, aiming to make high-tech diagnostics accessible to the masses. 2. How It Will Benefit? This could revolutionize preventive healthcare in Bharat, where genomic testing is currently out of reach for most. By slashing costs, millions could access early screenings for genetic conditions, leading to better outcomes in diseases like cancer or hereditary disorders. Just like Jio democratized internet access and boosted digital inclusion, this might spur a healthcare boom—empowering rural and low-income populations, reducing long-term medical costs, and shifting focus from treatment to prevention. Overall, it's a step toward equitable health tech which is great. 3. How It Can Be Dangerous? While it sounds exciting, there are real risks of monopoly and future crises. ■Reliance's aggressive pricing could undercut competitors (e.g., MedGenome or smaller labs), leading to market dominance like Jio's telecom disruption, where rivals folded, creating an oligopoly and potentially higher prices later. ■Privacy is a big concern: Genomic data is ultra-sensitive—imagine one company holding genetic info on millions, risking breaches or misuse (e.g., for insurance discrimination). ■Plus, over-reliance on a single player could cause systemic failures, similar to IndiGo's recent December 2025 blunder. With ~60% market share in aviation, their rostering glitch caused nationwide flight chaos, stranding passengers. ■In healthcare, a lab error, supply issue, or cyberattack at Reliance could lead to mass misdiagnoses or delays, amplifying a crisis on a national scale. I can conclude saying- Regulation (via CCI and data laws) is key to balance this. Without Regulatory Legal Framework in place, this may be more dangerous than what meets an eye.

BhikuMhatre

40,186 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Here's a devlog made by an anonymous Chinese fan replicating the surprisingly brand new technique that I developed for detecting asteroids which wound up being so powerful that it can easily track Stealth Fighters from over 100km away even when it’s only using three $30 webcams as sensors meaning it easily outperforms all modern stealth tracking techniques in precision, range and cost. And while this demo is using optical light, this same technique which I call pixel motion to voxel projection, can be used interchangeably with thermal infrared cameras to work at night and also majorly boosts the effectiveness of radar allowing you to track fighters much more effectively through clouds and over the horizon. This technique will also always eventually give the exact location of the target even if the image is blurry as those blurs will always average out from the different perspectives into revealing the precise location of the target in the voxel grid. There is definitely a Mandela effect with this technique as it feels as though it should already exist, especially because at first as it sounds like it is performing triangulation (which has existed for years and is what we do for mocap and tennis ball tracking). But triangulation is entirely separate to this as triangulations only works if you have already identified where the ball is in a 2D image because you’re able to rely on being able to use at least 2 separate high quality cameras which are much closer to the ball making the ball’s apparent size much much bigger and therefore gives you hundreds of pixels to work with which makes it much easier to use object recognition techniques to recognize where it is in the image aka in 2D and then you’re just using the other cameras view to project out lines which intersect in 3D to find out where the ball is in 3D. The major difference is that pixel motion to voxel projection allows you to find where the object is in 3D without having already found it in 2D which is an unbelievable difference as it allows you to use much lower quality cameras together to accumulate data together into 3D space. If this seem like it doesn’t mean much then what it actually means is that you don’t understand what I’m saying as what I’m saying means a LOT in practical terms as it means you go from having to use an imaging system that has to be able to image the object to the point that it is over a hundred total pixels in surface area to have enough data to recognize it to instead be able to use something that is only images the object to be 1 pixel in surface area and only changes the brightness value by 1 value every now and then. I’d recommend an amazing video by DST studios called “Lowlight cameras can’t defeat stealth” if you want a great video which goes over the difficulty of even using telescopes to recognize stealth fighters and why this is so impressive compared to other techniques and ironically it is what inspired me to realize the asteroid tracker I was working on actually could do this. Which brings me to the point that if this wasn’t a new technique then not only would there be at least one example of an asteroid survey that points distant telescopes at the same place at the same time in order to be able to add the light together to detect asteroids which as I was shocked to learn isn’t a thing despite the fact that it would make detecting asteroids trivial by comparison to modern 2D imaging while also having no impact on the normal scientific operations of those surveys other than small changes to scheduling. But there would also be an example of a drone tracker that uses this instead of using the aforementioned high quality zoomable telescope which has to be able to zoom in close enough to be able to recognize a drone. If you want to tell me that this is something that already exists give me an exact example of a product that uses it, not the general outline of a concept that you think it is, the actual product and then also tell me the asteroid survey that uses distant telescopes that point at the exact same place at the exact same time because I can guarantee that if you google what you think uses this you won’t even find the steps of subtracting the images from each other to get motion and will definitely not get the added step of projecting that motion into a voxel grid (It would blow your mind if you found out how Xbox kinect cameras work.) Also I want to make it clear, I’m not saying you should just use web cams to do this, I’m just using them as an example to show you the power of this in reality you would probably want to use 5 high quality zoomable thermal cameras which pan across the sky in sync with each other which due to using lower frequency are much less prone to the Rayleigh scattering that scatters visible light at 150 or so km away and again, you can also use this to majorly upgrade radar. Pretty much all of the problems you could think of for this are incredibly easy to overcome if you apply even a small amount of brainpower into fixing the problem. And yes, this gives you the exact location down to the meter of whatever you are tracking even if the image is blurry as those blurs will always average out to the exact location down to the meter in the voxel grid. Which is what makes this technique so powerful since the cost of adding each camera to The network grows linearly while the rate at which each camera gives more information grows exponentially due to the increasing unlikeliness of all of them having more movement in the same place. And given the size of the cameras it really wouldn’t be that hard to hide and network these cameras together in other countries and on sea buoys to know where planes are everywhere in the world. Which brings me to the point that I personally really don’t care about the military uses of this technology, if all it could do is precisely track stealth fighters then I wouldn’t have cared enough to work on it, I could have used any of the many other life saving techniques as the subject of the video, stealth fighters just sounds the most clickable and the scale of the problem is more intuitive to most people and if I did use any of those as subjects for the demo it would inevitably result in the stealth fighter technique being figured out anyway and all of the other uses are so useful that I don't think anyone would reasonably complain about the upside. The real purpose of this video is that since this is a new technique that hasn’t been used to detect stealth fighters despite the billions we have spent on that, then what else can you apply this to that could go on to improve billions of people’s lives that you or others are working on. For example this also allows you to majorly improve the effectiveness of cryo electron microscopy and CT scanners. This part also is kind of hard to explain as it also sounds like it exists but again, when you look through all of the places where you think it is being used you will find that it wasn’t. What I’m saying here isn’t that this is a Radon transform or gaussian splat or whatever, I’m saying that this is able to get new information that wasn’t being accessed before due to the added information about depth you get from the correlation of movement between each perspective which adds to the information that you already have. This allows you to directly subtract foreground and background objects as well as noise faster than you would be able to before and works better than super resolution for your images since super resolution won’t remove foreground and background objects like this does and instead just scales up target, foreground and background objects indiscriminately. And while with enough data Radon transforms or other scanning techniques would eventually get you a correct answer this will get you there a lot faster since those are mostly averaging techniques which average out noise whereas this gets you the ability to directly subtract noise. I’m not expecting you to think that this would do anything but if you try it for yourself you will find that it does majorly improve your ability to perform 3d scans. Again, cryo EM is a field where you would expect this technique to exist but when you look through all the papers on the topic there is no mention of tilting the grid slightly in order to be able to change your perspective slightly on the order of the feature size (if you tilt the grid then you only need precision on the order of an arc minute to do this) and doing multiple exposures from multiple different known tilts and then using those difference images to correlate depth from motion. In fact, in cryo EM you would normally want to do the opposite of this and have your exposures all taken from the same grid angle and just use the variations in how many of the same proteins are oriented in order to be able to scan them for a 3D model but this will generate you far more data faster. There is so much information that I can’t really explain in text so if you have any questions such as why this hasn’t been made before then they will most likely be answered in the video I originally posted which I have added to the end of the first Devlog for your convenience. And again, pretty much all of the problems with the technique can be fixed with a little bit of brainpower, in reality you would probably want to use 5 high quality zoomable thermal cameras which pan across the sky in sync with each other which due to using lower frequency are much less prone to the Rayleigh scattering that scatters visible light at 150 or so km away and again, you can also use this to majorly upgrade radar.
18:48

Here's a devlog made by an anonymous Chinese fan replicating the surprisingly brand new technique that I developed for detecting asteroids which wound up being so powerful that it can easily track Stealth Fighters from over 100km away even when it’s only using three $30 webcams as sensors meaning it easily outperforms all modern stealth tracking techniques in precision, range and cost. And while this demo is using optical light, this same technique which I call pixel motion to voxel projection, can be used interchangeably with thermal infrared cameras to work at night and also majorly boosts the effectiveness of radar allowing you to track fighters much more effectively through clouds and over the horizon. This technique will also always eventually give the exact location of the target even if the image is blurry as those blurs will always average out from the different perspectives into revealing the precise location of the target in the voxel grid. There is definitely a Mandela effect with this technique as it feels as though it should already exist, especially because at first as it sounds like it is performing triangulation (which has existed for years and is what we do for mocap and tennis ball tracking). But triangulation is entirely separate to this as triangulations only works if you have already identified where the ball is in a 2D image because you’re able to rely on being able to use at least 2 separate high quality cameras which are much closer to the ball making the ball’s apparent size much much bigger and therefore gives you hundreds of pixels to work with which makes it much easier to use object recognition techniques to recognize where it is in the image aka in 2D and then you’re just using the other cameras view to project out lines which intersect in 3D to find out where the ball is in 3D. The major difference is that pixel motion to voxel projection allows you to find where the object is in 3D without having already found it in 2D which is an unbelievable difference as it allows you to use much lower quality cameras together to accumulate data together into 3D space. If this seem like it doesn’t mean much then what it actually means is that you don’t understand what I’m saying as what I’m saying means a LOT in practical terms as it means you go from having to use an imaging system that has to be able to image the object to the point that it is over a hundred total pixels in surface area to have enough data to recognize it to instead be able to use something that is only images the object to be 1 pixel in surface area and only changes the brightness value by 1 value every now and then. I’d recommend an amazing video by DST studios called “Lowlight cameras can’t defeat stealth” if you want a great video which goes over the difficulty of even using telescopes to recognize stealth fighters and why this is so impressive compared to other techniques and ironically it is what inspired me to realize the asteroid tracker I was working on actually could do this. Which brings me to the point that if this wasn’t a new technique then not only would there be at least one example of an asteroid survey that points distant telescopes at the same place at the same time in order to be able to add the light together to detect asteroids which as I was shocked to learn isn’t a thing despite the fact that it would make detecting asteroids trivial by comparison to modern 2D imaging while also having no impact on the normal scientific operations of those surveys other than small changes to scheduling. But there would also be an example of a drone tracker that uses this instead of using the aforementioned high quality zoomable telescope which has to be able to zoom in close enough to be able to recognize a drone. If you want to tell me that this is something that already exists give me an exact example of a product that uses it, not the general outline of a concept that you think it is, the actual product and then also tell me the asteroid survey that uses distant telescopes that point at the exact same place at the exact same time because I can guarantee that if you google what you think uses this you won’t even find the steps of subtracting the images from each other to get motion and will definitely not get the added step of projecting that motion into a voxel grid (It would blow your mind if you found out how Xbox kinect cameras work.) Also I want to make it clear, I’m not saying you should just use web cams to do this, I’m just using them as an example to show you the power of this in reality you would probably want to use 5 high quality zoomable thermal cameras which pan across the sky in sync with each other which due to using lower frequency are much less prone to the Rayleigh scattering that scatters visible light at 150 or so km away and again, you can also use this to majorly upgrade radar. Pretty much all of the problems you could think of for this are incredibly easy to overcome if you apply even a small amount of brainpower into fixing the problem. And yes, this gives you the exact location down to the meter of whatever you are tracking even if the image is blurry as those blurs will always average out to the exact location down to the meter in the voxel grid. Which is what makes this technique so powerful since the cost of adding each camera to The network grows linearly while the rate at which each camera gives more information grows exponentially due to the increasing unlikeliness of all of them having more movement in the same place. And given the size of the cameras it really wouldn’t be that hard to hide and network these cameras together in other countries and on sea buoys to know where planes are everywhere in the world. Which brings me to the point that I personally really don’t care about the military uses of this technology, if all it could do is precisely track stealth fighters then I wouldn’t have cared enough to work on it, I could have used any of the many other life saving techniques as the subject of the video, stealth fighters just sounds the most clickable and the scale of the problem is more intuitive to most people and if I did use any of those as subjects for the demo it would inevitably result in the stealth fighter technique being figured out anyway and all of the other uses are so useful that I don't think anyone would reasonably complain about the upside. The real purpose of this video is that since this is a new technique that hasn’t been used to detect stealth fighters despite the billions we have spent on that, then what else can you apply this to that could go on to improve billions of people’s lives that you or others are working on. For example this also allows you to majorly improve the effectiveness of cryo electron microscopy and CT scanners. This part also is kind of hard to explain as it also sounds like it exists but again, when you look through all of the places where you think it is being used you will find that it wasn’t. What I’m saying here isn’t that this is a Radon transform or gaussian splat or whatever, I’m saying that this is able to get new information that wasn’t being accessed before due to the added information about depth you get from the correlation of movement between each perspective which adds to the information that you already have. This allows you to directly subtract foreground and background objects as well as noise faster than you would be able to before and works better than super resolution for your images since super resolution won’t remove foreground and background objects like this does and instead just scales up target, foreground and background objects indiscriminately. And while with enough data Radon transforms or other scanning techniques would eventually get you a correct answer this will get you there a lot faster since those are mostly averaging techniques which average out noise whereas this gets you the ability to directly subtract noise. I’m not expecting you to think that this would do anything but if you try it for yourself you will find that it does majorly improve your ability to perform 3d scans. Again, cryo EM is a field where you would expect this technique to exist but when you look through all the papers on the topic there is no mention of tilting the grid slightly in order to be able to change your perspective slightly on the order of the feature size (if you tilt the grid then you only need precision on the order of an arc minute to do this) and doing multiple exposures from multiple different known tilts and then using those difference images to correlate depth from motion. In fact, in cryo EM you would normally want to do the opposite of this and have your exposures all taken from the same grid angle and just use the variations in how many of the same proteins are oriented in order to be able to scan them for a 3D model but this will generate you far more data faster. There is so much information that I can’t really explain in text so if you have any questions such as why this hasn’t been made before then they will most likely be answered in the video I originally posted which I have added to the end of the first Devlog for your convenience. And again, pretty much all of the problems with the technique can be fixed with a little bit of brainpower, in reality you would probably want to use 5 high quality zoomable thermal cameras which pan across the sky in sync with each other which due to using lower frequency are much less prone to the Rayleigh scattering that scatters visible light at 150 or so km away and again, you can also use this to majorly upgrade radar.

ConsistentlyInconsistent

50,687 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

$ASTI Ascent Solar Technologies Space and Drone Solar Panels The "Going to Zero" or Mispriced Space/Drone Solar Play Intro and comparison to $RKLB and $RDW panels Let’s get the ugly stuff out of the way first. $ASTI is a distressed penny stock with a ~$5M-$10M market cap. • They burn millions in cash. • 2024 Revenue: ~$40k. 2025 Revenue (YTD): ~$60k. • They generate less revenue than a single Tesla Model Y. • They have diluted shareholders relentlessly. $ASTI just raised $2M in December with the potential of $3.5M more via warrants while being a ~$5M mcap "company". Yikes. To most, this is "uninvestable trash." Stay away. Full stop. So why did I buy ~5% of the float? IF the technology works and IF they execute then I believe this is a massive market pricing dislocation about to inflect. They have been grinding for years and may finally be hitting an inflection point. $RKLB Rocketlab is the king of space solar and they are my second largest position overall, but here is why $ASTI might be a very high risk but asymmetric bet in Space & Defense right now. 1. The Tech Pivot: Flexible CIGS vs. The World Ascent started in 2005 but pivoted 2 years ago from consumer to pure-play Space & Defense. They have sunk ~$250M and 20 years of R&D into proprietary CIGS (Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide) thin-film technology while building out fully domestic and vertically integrated manufacturing capabilities. The Physics: • Thickness: 0.03 mm (Thinner than paper). • Flexibility: Wraps around drones/satellites; rolls up like a poster. • Durability: "Self-Healing" capabilities against space radiation. Can take a bullet or micrometeoroid and keep working. Can handle shocks/vibration. Does not shatter. The Metric that Matters: Specific Power (W/kg) (aka energy to weight ratio) In space, mass means cost and difficult decision decisions. • Rocket Lab ($RKLB) / Spectrolab: ~150 W/kg (System level). • Ascent Solar ($ASTI): ~1,960 W/kg (Module level). $ASTI is roughly 10x lighter for the same power output potential (mass-wise). This frees up design limitations and cost. 2. The Competition: $RKLB & $RDW Rocket Lab (SolAero) & Redwire (iROSA): • Tech: Rigid Crystal Cells (Multi-junction) embedded in a fabric mesh. • Pros: Extreme Efficiency (~30%+). Perfect for limited surface area. • Cons: Heavy, Brittle, Expensive ($3k-$10k per Watt). Manufacturing multi-junction cells (SolAero) involves slowly growing crystals in a vacuum chamber. With radiation the panels degrade and loose efficiency over time which will limit the satellite lifespan. • Use Case: James Webb Telescope, Flagship missions. Ascent Solar (ASTI): • Tech: Flexible Thin-Film on Plastic. • Pros: Ultra-light, Durable, Cheap ($500-$1k per Watt). Manufacturing CIGS is roughly similar to printing newspapers (roll-to-roll). The panels are radiation degradation resistant and will outlive the satellite • Cons: Lower Efficiency (~17.5%). Requires 2x surface area. • Use Case: Mega-Constellations (Starlink/Amazon Leo), Small/Low cost satellites, Drones, Deformable surfaces. The lower efficiency is not an ASTI failing. It is the inherent physics trade-off of not using glass/rigid silicone. The downside however is increased atmospheric drag with very larger/massive panel sheets. Because ASTI modules are ~50% less efficient than rigid panels, they require ~2x the physical surface area to generate the same amount of power. In GEO (High Orbit): Drag doesn't matter. Weight savings are king. A massive solar array allows for more sensors and longer project lifespan. ASTI is highly competitive here. In LEO (Low Orbit): Atmospheric drag is real. A massive solar array acts like a large parachute, causing the satellite to de-orbit faster unless it burns more fuel to stay up. At LEO, smaller satellites are a better fit for ASTI. 3. Durability & Radiation "Self-Healing" Radiation Hardness This is ASTI's "Ace in the Hole" for physics. The Problem: In space, high-energy protons (radiation) smash into solar cells, creating atomic "defects" that trap electrons. Over time, this kills the panel's power output (degradation). The CIGS Advantage: CIGS (Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide) material has a unique property where heat (annealing) allows the atomic structure to relax and "heal" these defects. Self-Healing: Because CIGS heals at relatively low temperatures (often achieved just by the sun heating the panel), it suffers significantly less degradation than traditional Silicon or even some GaAs panels over long missions in high-radiation belts (like MEO or GEO). Lifespan: While a rigid GaAs panel might lose 15-20% of its power over 15 years (enough to kill a satellite), CIGS panels heal and can maintain a flatter power curve, potentially outlasting the satellite itself in high-radiation orbits. 4. Brittleness & Flexibility ASTI (CIGS on Polyimide): Flexible. You can roll it like a poster. It can take a bullet or micrometeoroid and the hole will just be a dead spot; the rest of the panel keeps working. It does not shatter. Redwire (ROSA) & Rocket Lab (SolAero): Brittle Cells on a Flex Blanket. $RDW's ROSA (Roll-Out Solar Array) typically uses rigid multi-junction cells (made by SolAero/Rocket Lab or Spectrolab) mounted on a flexible mesh fabric. The Risk: If you bend the cells too far, they crack. They rely on the mesh backing for flexibility, but the active generating material is still a brittle crystal wafer. Much heavier, more expensive, and less durable than $ASTI's option 5. The Inflection Point (Why Now?) After years of silent struggle, late 2025 has seen an explosion of activity. Recent Agreements (Nov/Dec 2025): NovaSpark: Hydrogen-powered military drones. $ASTI panels generate power in the field → NovaSpark creates hydrogen fuel. CisLunar Industries: Integrating ASTI solar with power conversion hardware for deep space longevity. Defiant Space: A strategic alliance to act as the "door opener" for classified DoD/NATO programs. More headlines: Ascent Solar Technologies Provides Leading Space Company with Thin-Film PV modules for Spacecraft Power Generation Testing in Cislunar Space December 03, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Delivers Thin-Film PV for Saltwater Environment Durability and Space-Based Power Beaming Testing October 14, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Enters Teaming Agreement with Emtel Energy USA to Advance Thin-Film PV Energy Storage Capabilities September 16, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Signs MOU with Star Catcher Industries to Improve Power Capabilities for Thin-Film Solar Technology in Space August 28, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Establishes Rapid Thin-Film PV Delivery Process to Provide Customized Space Solar Products Ahead of Schedule on Mission Enabling Timelines August 07, 2025 08:00 ET The Pipeline (From Aug Corporate Presentation) 18 new NDA's signed in 2025. They are field testing with 3 major players: • Company A: Mega-constellation (+2,500 satellites). • Company B: Space Defense (Explicitly mentioned "Golden Dome"). • Company C: Satellite Manufacturer (30-200 unit scale). Management: New board members include a former founding member of SpaceX and a retired Air Force General and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Contracting (acquisitions expert). The company started in 2005 based out of Colorado, but two years ago pivoted to Space & Defense and away from consumer applications. Made in USA: Defense contracts heavily favor domestic supply chains. ASTI manufactures in Colorado. This is a huge moat against cheap Chinese solar. In their Q3 report they note that their market has seen sudden recent acceleration. The space solar industry is currently only capable of 8 to 12 MW per year of production meanwhile the demand is growing to over 100 MW per year. 6. The Risk (The Sword of Damocles) ⚠️ This is critical. $ASTI just raised ~$2M in December. Attached to that raise are ~2 Million Warrants with a strike price of $1.70. These are exercisable immediately. If the stock rips to $3.00, warrant holders exercise at $1.70 and dump on the market for a risk-free 76% profit. This creates a massive "sell wall" and potential 40% dilution of the float. Summary: This is a binary bet. • Bear Case: They run out of cash in 6 months, dilution spirals, stock goes to $0. • Bull Case: They land one of the "Company A/B/C" contracts. Revenue jumps from $60k to projected $20M+ in 2026. The stock reprices from a "bankrupt penny stock" to a "critical defense/space supplier." I have gradually accumulated ~5% of the float. I am ready for it to go to zero. But if the space economy demands "Cheap, Light, and Durable," $ASTI is the only public pure-play. Disclaimer: This is a very high-risk microcap. Do your own due diligence. Not financial advice.
3:04

$ASTI Ascent Solar Technologies Space and Drone Solar Panels The "Going to Zero" or Mispriced Space/Drone Solar Play Intro and comparison to $RKLB and $RDW panels Let’s get the ugly stuff out of the way first. $ASTI is a distressed penny stock with a ~$5M-$10M market cap. • They burn millions in cash. • 2024 Revenue: ~$40k. 2025 Revenue (YTD): ~$60k. • They generate less revenue than a single Tesla Model Y. • They have diluted shareholders relentlessly. $ASTI just raised $2M in December with the potential of $3.5M more via warrants while being a ~$5M mcap "company". Yikes. To most, this is "uninvestable trash." Stay away. Full stop. So why did I buy ~5% of the float? IF the technology works and IF they execute then I believe this is a massive market pricing dislocation about to inflect. They have been grinding for years and may finally be hitting an inflection point. $RKLB Rocketlab is the king of space solar and they are my second largest position overall, but here is why $ASTI might be a very high risk but asymmetric bet in Space & Defense right now. 1. The Tech Pivot: Flexible CIGS vs. The World Ascent started in 2005 but pivoted 2 years ago from consumer to pure-play Space & Defense. They have sunk ~$250M and 20 years of R&D into proprietary CIGS (Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide) thin-film technology while building out fully domestic and vertically integrated manufacturing capabilities. The Physics: • Thickness: 0.03 mm (Thinner than paper). • Flexibility: Wraps around drones/satellites; rolls up like a poster. • Durability: "Self-Healing" capabilities against space radiation. Can take a bullet or micrometeoroid and keep working. Can handle shocks/vibration. Does not shatter. The Metric that Matters: Specific Power (W/kg) (aka energy to weight ratio) In space, mass means cost and difficult decision decisions. • Rocket Lab ($RKLB) / Spectrolab: ~150 W/kg (System level). • Ascent Solar ($ASTI): ~1,960 W/kg (Module level). $ASTI is roughly 10x lighter for the same power output potential (mass-wise). This frees up design limitations and cost. 2. The Competition: $RKLB & $RDW Rocket Lab (SolAero) & Redwire (iROSA): • Tech: Rigid Crystal Cells (Multi-junction) embedded in a fabric mesh. • Pros: Extreme Efficiency (~30%+). Perfect for limited surface area. • Cons: Heavy, Brittle, Expensive ($3k-$10k per Watt). Manufacturing multi-junction cells (SolAero) involves slowly growing crystals in a vacuum chamber. With radiation the panels degrade and loose efficiency over time which will limit the satellite lifespan. • Use Case: James Webb Telescope, Flagship missions. Ascent Solar (ASTI): • Tech: Flexible Thin-Film on Plastic. • Pros: Ultra-light, Durable, Cheap ($500-$1k per Watt). Manufacturing CIGS is roughly similar to printing newspapers (roll-to-roll). The panels are radiation degradation resistant and will outlive the satellite • Cons: Lower Efficiency (~17.5%). Requires 2x surface area. • Use Case: Mega-Constellations (Starlink/Amazon Leo), Small/Low cost satellites, Drones, Deformable surfaces. The lower efficiency is not an ASTI failing. It is the inherent physics trade-off of not using glass/rigid silicone. The downside however is increased atmospheric drag with very larger/massive panel sheets. Because ASTI modules are ~50% less efficient than rigid panels, they require ~2x the physical surface area to generate the same amount of power. In GEO (High Orbit): Drag doesn't matter. Weight savings are king. A massive solar array allows for more sensors and longer project lifespan. ASTI is highly competitive here. In LEO (Low Orbit): Atmospheric drag is real. A massive solar array acts like a large parachute, causing the satellite to de-orbit faster unless it burns more fuel to stay up. At LEO, smaller satellites are a better fit for ASTI. 3. Durability & Radiation "Self-Healing" Radiation Hardness This is ASTI's "Ace in the Hole" for physics. The Problem: In space, high-energy protons (radiation) smash into solar cells, creating atomic "defects" that trap electrons. Over time, this kills the panel's power output (degradation). The CIGS Advantage: CIGS (Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide) material has a unique property where heat (annealing) allows the atomic structure to relax and "heal" these defects. Self-Healing: Because CIGS heals at relatively low temperatures (often achieved just by the sun heating the panel), it suffers significantly less degradation than traditional Silicon or even some GaAs panels over long missions in high-radiation belts (like MEO or GEO). Lifespan: While a rigid GaAs panel might lose 15-20% of its power over 15 years (enough to kill a satellite), CIGS panels heal and can maintain a flatter power curve, potentially outlasting the satellite itself in high-radiation orbits. 4. Brittleness & Flexibility ASTI (CIGS on Polyimide): Flexible. You can roll it like a poster. It can take a bullet or micrometeoroid and the hole will just be a dead spot; the rest of the panel keeps working. It does not shatter. Redwire (ROSA) & Rocket Lab (SolAero): Brittle Cells on a Flex Blanket. $RDW's ROSA (Roll-Out Solar Array) typically uses rigid multi-junction cells (made by SolAero/Rocket Lab or Spectrolab) mounted on a flexible mesh fabric. The Risk: If you bend the cells too far, they crack. They rely on the mesh backing for flexibility, but the active generating material is still a brittle crystal wafer. Much heavier, more expensive, and less durable than $ASTI's option 5. The Inflection Point (Why Now?) After years of silent struggle, late 2025 has seen an explosion of activity. Recent Agreements (Nov/Dec 2025): NovaSpark: Hydrogen-powered military drones. $ASTI panels generate power in the field → NovaSpark creates hydrogen fuel. CisLunar Industries: Integrating ASTI solar with power conversion hardware for deep space longevity. Defiant Space: A strategic alliance to act as the "door opener" for classified DoD/NATO programs. More headlines: Ascent Solar Technologies Provides Leading Space Company with Thin-Film PV modules for Spacecraft Power Generation Testing in Cislunar Space December 03, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Delivers Thin-Film PV for Saltwater Environment Durability and Space-Based Power Beaming Testing October 14, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Enters Teaming Agreement with Emtel Energy USA to Advance Thin-Film PV Energy Storage Capabilities September 16, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Signs MOU with Star Catcher Industries to Improve Power Capabilities for Thin-Film Solar Technology in Space August 28, 2025 08:00 ET Ascent Solar Technologies Establishes Rapid Thin-Film PV Delivery Process to Provide Customized Space Solar Products Ahead of Schedule on Mission Enabling Timelines August 07, 2025 08:00 ET The Pipeline (From Aug Corporate Presentation) 18 new NDA's signed in 2025. They are field testing with 3 major players: • Company A: Mega-constellation (+2,500 satellites). • Company B: Space Defense (Explicitly mentioned "Golden Dome"). • Company C: Satellite Manufacturer (30-200 unit scale). Management: New board members include a former founding member of SpaceX and a retired Air Force General and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Contracting (acquisitions expert). The company started in 2005 based out of Colorado, but two years ago pivoted to Space & Defense and away from consumer applications. Made in USA: Defense contracts heavily favor domestic supply chains. ASTI manufactures in Colorado. This is a huge moat against cheap Chinese solar. In their Q3 report they note that their market has seen sudden recent acceleration. The space solar industry is currently only capable of 8 to 12 MW per year of production meanwhile the demand is growing to over 100 MW per year. 6. The Risk (The Sword of Damocles) ⚠️ This is critical. $ASTI just raised ~$2M in December. Attached to that raise are ~2 Million Warrants with a strike price of $1.70. These are exercisable immediately. If the stock rips to $3.00, warrant holders exercise at $1.70 and dump on the market for a risk-free 76% profit. This creates a massive "sell wall" and potential 40% dilution of the float. Summary: This is a binary bet. • Bear Case: They run out of cash in 6 months, dilution spirals, stock goes to $0. • Bull Case: They land one of the "Company A/B/C" contracts. Revenue jumps from $60k to projected $20M+ in 2026. The stock reprices from a "bankrupt penny stock" to a "critical defense/space supplier." I have gradually accumulated ~5% of the float. I am ready for it to go to zero. But if the space economy demands "Cheap, Light, and Durable," $ASTI is the only public pure-play. Disclaimer: This is a very high-risk microcap. Do your own due diligence. Not financial advice.

YeahDave

208,349 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!
30:00

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!

Michael Shellenberger

174,749 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮
29:17

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

aussie17

797,301 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨🚨10-Year Longitudinal Data On Ketogenic Diet Adverse Events, Bone Mineral Density, Thyroid Function, and Kidney Function: PART 2🚨🚨 NEW DATA OUT TODAY: We (Joseph C. Watso, PhD/ Austin Robinson/ Samuel Klein) just published our PART 2 paper looking at long-term safety and clinical efficacy of ketogenic diet on: ☠️Adverse Events 🦴Bone Mineral Density 🔥Thyroid Function 🫘Kidney Function ...in part 1 we measured advanced cardiovascular health profile in an adult with elevated cardiovascular risk (type 1 diabetes) who followed a ketogenic diet for 10 years and sustained euglycemia (10-Year HbA1c 5.5%). See paper here: PART 2: What did we find? 👉PLEASE WATCH 📷 VIDEO ABSTRACT here ( 180mg/dL). Patient also presented with intact hypoglycemic awareness. 🦴2) Bone Mineral Density: Prior data suggests that short term ketogenic diet may impair markers of bone modeling/remodeling. However, most of these report are short in nature. People with type 1 diabetes are at HIGH risk for lower bone mineral density and fracture (hyperglycemia is risk factor). Here, we observed no negative impact on bone mineral density (using GOLD STANDARD DXA) on a ketogenic diet, despite 10 years of aging with type 1 diabetes. 🔥3) Thyroid Function: Concerns have been raised on how reducing carbohydrates may shift thyroid hormone status and metabolism. However, most of these studies are </=7 days in length. Following a ketogenic diet over a 10-year period, here we observe no negative impact on thyroid function with a 10-year ketogenic diet. 🫘4) Kidney Function: Microvascular disease is a very common complication of type 1 diabetes as hyperglycemia damages the small blood vessel in the kidneys. Adverse structural kidney changes are observed in children with type 1 diabetes as early as 1.5-5 years post diagnosis with eGFR declining over time. We did not observe any deterioration of kidney function in patient with type 1 diabetes over a 10-year period while achieving 10-Year 5.5% HbA1c following a ketogenic diet. 🚨⚠️9) LIMITATIONS: Reminder on limitations. This is an individual case. The importance of this data is in the sheer absence of short or long-term data, hypothesized risk of a KD, and popularity and use of KD which we hope help generate future research questions. 🗒️CONCLUSIONS: In the longest known longitudinal report of a ketogenic diet in a patient with type 1 diabetes, we observed no severe adverse events or negative impacts on bone, kidney, or thyroid health. We in our PART 1 paper, we observed above average cardiovascular disease health. These initial findings should provoke further research into interventions like ketogenic diets to reduce the long-term health risks faced by those living with T1D while closely monitoring both traditional and advanced cardiovascular risk markers. Especially considering that currently available therapies do no reliably allow patients to achieve <7% HbA1c, let alone <5.7% HbA1c. Joseph C. Watso, PhD Cardiovascular & Applied Physiology Lab Studying how health behaviors (e.g., diet, exercise, etc.) affect cardiovascular health and physiology Sansum Diabetes Research Institute Studying how lifestyle, tools, and medicine affect people with diabetes. @fsucehhs FSU Research FSU ISSM AJP-Cell Physiology The diaTribe Foundation Beyond Type 1 Michael Riddell, PhD Nick Norwitz MD PhD Metabolic Mind Dominic D'Agostino Benjamin Bikman
2:53

🚨🚨10-Year Longitudinal Data On Ketogenic Diet Adverse Events, Bone Mineral Density, Thyroid Function, and Kidney Function: PART 2🚨🚨 NEW DATA OUT TODAY: We (Joseph C. Watso, PhD/ Austin Robinson/ Samuel Klein) just published our PART 2 paper looking at long-term safety and clinical efficacy of ketogenic diet on: ☠️Adverse Events 🦴Bone Mineral Density 🔥Thyroid Function 🫘Kidney Function ...in part 1 we measured advanced cardiovascular health profile in an adult with elevated cardiovascular risk (type 1 diabetes) who followed a ketogenic diet for 10 years and sustained euglycemia (10-Year HbA1c 5.5%). See paper here: PART 2: What did we find? 👉PLEASE WATCH 📷 VIDEO ABSTRACT here ( 180mg/dL). Patient also presented with intact hypoglycemic awareness. 🦴2) Bone Mineral Density: Prior data suggests that short term ketogenic diet may impair markers of bone modeling/remodeling. However, most of these report are short in nature. People with type 1 diabetes are at HIGH risk for lower bone mineral density and fracture (hyperglycemia is risk factor). Here, we observed no negative impact on bone mineral density (using GOLD STANDARD DXA) on a ketogenic diet, despite 10 years of aging with type 1 diabetes. 🔥3) Thyroid Function: Concerns have been raised on how reducing carbohydrates may shift thyroid hormone status and metabolism. However, most of these studies are </=7 days in length. Following a ketogenic diet over a 10-year period, here we observe no negative impact on thyroid function with a 10-year ketogenic diet. 🫘4) Kidney Function: Microvascular disease is a very common complication of type 1 diabetes as hyperglycemia damages the small blood vessel in the kidneys. Adverse structural kidney changes are observed in children with type 1 diabetes as early as 1.5-5 years post diagnosis with eGFR declining over time. We did not observe any deterioration of kidney function in patient with type 1 diabetes over a 10-year period while achieving 10-Year 5.5% HbA1c following a ketogenic diet. 🚨⚠️9) LIMITATIONS: Reminder on limitations. This is an individual case. The importance of this data is in the sheer absence of short or long-term data, hypothesized risk of a KD, and popularity and use of KD which we hope help generate future research questions. 🗒️CONCLUSIONS: In the longest known longitudinal report of a ketogenic diet in a patient with type 1 diabetes, we observed no severe adverse events or negative impacts on bone, kidney, or thyroid health. We in our PART 1 paper, we observed above average cardiovascular disease health. These initial findings should provoke further research into interventions like ketogenic diets to reduce the long-term health risks faced by those living with T1D while closely monitoring both traditional and advanced cardiovascular risk markers. Especially considering that currently available therapies do no reliably allow patients to achieve <7% HbA1c, let alone <5.7% HbA1c. Joseph C. Watso, PhD Cardiovascular & Applied Physiology Lab Studying how health behaviors (e.g., diet, exercise, etc.) affect cardiovascular health and physiology Sansum Diabetes Research Institute Studying how lifestyle, tools, and medicine affect people with diabetes. @fsucehhs FSU Research FSU ISSM AJP-Cell Physiology The diaTribe Foundation Beyond Type 1 Michael Riddell, PhD Nick Norwitz MD PhD Metabolic Mind Dominic D'Agostino Benjamin Bikman

Andrew Koutnik, Ph.D.

62,167 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren