principiascientificinternational--2020-05-26--CV-19: UK Govt Issues Licence to Vaccinate Brits from SEPTEMBER

Reports indicate that drug giant AstraZeneca has been contracted by the United Kingdom to turn an experimental Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) vaccine developed by scientists at the University of Oxford into 30 million commercial doses of the jab before the fall .
This scheme was hatched by the British government to vaccinate half the population by September .
United Kingdom Business Secretary Alok Sharma recently announced that a global licensing deal worth £130 million ( $ 160 million ) has been signed between Oxford and AstraZeneca .
And the aim is to vaccinated half of the entire U.K. population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this test vaccine can be “ proven ” to provide protection against the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) , the plan is to have AstraZeneca produce another 70 million doses of it for a total of 100 million doses .
And Sharma wants to see this happen “ as soon as possible.
” To help move things along even more quickly , Sharma has allotted another £84 million ( $ 103 million ) in taxpayer monies to supply both Oxford and Imperial College London , which is also working on the project , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up production on their “ groundbreaking potential vaccines.
” £65.5 million ( $ 80 million ) of this has been earmarked for Oxford , while Imperial will receive the remaining £18.5 million ( $ 23 million ) .
This is on top of £47 million ( $ 58 million ) that was handed out to other scientists who are all “ racing for a cure ” for the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) .
Listen below to The Health Ranger Report as Mike Adams , the Health Ranger , talks about how mandatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that the penalty should be felony assault : Great Britain wants to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the Third World “ at the lowest cost possible ” Oxford is just about finished with the first phase of its human trials , while Imperial is on track to begin its trial in June , followed by a second one in October .
Before long , there will eventually be a vaccine available for everyone , though it is unclear if all Brits will be forced to receive it .
“ Our scientists are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sharma is quoted as saying .
“ This deal with AstraZeneca means that if the Oxford University vaccine works , people in the U.K. will get the first access to it , helping to protect thousands of lives.
” He went on to state that 100 million doses of the Oxford Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) vaccine will be delivered “ in total , ensuring that in addition to supporting our own people , we are able to make the vaccines available to developing countries at the lowest cost possible.
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s efforts here in the U.S. to develop a Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) vaccine as part of his “ Operation Warp Speed ” initiative .
Trump recently hired on Moncef Slaoui of Moderna , the company that has been tasked with developing a U.S. vaccine for the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) , to oversee the mass distribution of jabs here in America once they are ready for commercial release .
In other words , it is now a race to see which country can unveil an “ effective ” Wuhan coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Sharma believes that the U.K. will beat out the U.S. in reaching the finish line first .
“ The U.K. continues to lead the global response to find a vaccine , ” Sharma is quoted as saying , adding that the British government “ is backing our scientists to do this as quickly as possible.
” To keep up with the latest news about the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) , be sure to check out Pandemic.news .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

CV-19: UK Govt Issues Licence to Vaccinate Brits from SEPTEMBER
Written by naturalnews.com
Reports indicate that drug giant AstraZeneca has been contracted by the United Kingdom to turn an experimental Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine developed by scientists at the University of Oxford into 30 million commercial doses of the jab before the fall.
This scheme was hatched by the British government to vaccinate half the population by September.
United Kingdom Business Secretary Alok Sharma recently announced that a global licensing deal worth £130 million ($160 million) has been signed between Oxford and AstraZeneca. And the aim is to vaccinated half of the entire U.K. population by the end of summer.
If this test vaccine can be “proven” to provide protection against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), the plan is to have AstraZeneca produce another 70 million doses of it for a total of 100 million doses. And Sharma wants to see this happen “as soon as possible.”
To help move things along even more quickly, Sharma has allotted another £84 million ($103 million) in taxpayer monies to supply both Oxford and Imperial College London, which is also working on the project, with the funds they require to ramp up production on their “groundbreaking potential vaccines.”
£65.5 million ($80 million) of this has been earmarked for Oxford, while Imperial will receive the remaining £18.5 million ($23 million). This is on top of £47 million ($58 million) that was handed out to other scientists who are all “racing for a cure” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).
Listen below to The Health Ranger Report as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, talks about how mandatory vaccination is a form of medical rape, and that the penalty should be felony assault:
Great Britain wants to deliver coronavirus vaccines to the Third World “at the lowest cost possible”
Oxford is just about finished with the first phase of its human trials, while Imperial is on track to begin its trial in June, followed by a second one in October. Before long, there will eventually be a vaccine available for everyone, though it is unclear if all Brits will be forced to receive it.
“Our scientists are at the forefront of vaccine development,” Sharma is quoted as saying. “This deal with AstraZeneca means that if the Oxford University vaccine works, people in the U.K. will get the first access to it, helping to protect thousands of lives.”
He went on to state that 100 million doses of the Oxford Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine will be delivered “in total, ensuring that in addition to supporting our own people, we are able to make the vaccines available to developing countries at the lowest cost possible.”
This all directly coincides with President Trump’s efforts here in the U.S. to develop a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine as part of his “Operation Warp Speed” initiative.
Trump recently hired on Moncef Slaoui of Moderna, the company that has been tasked with developing a U.S. vaccine for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), to oversee the mass distribution of jabs here in America once they are ready for commercial release.
In other words, it is now a race to see which country can unveil an “effective” Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine the fastest, and Sharma believes that the U.K. will beat out the U.S. in reaching the finish line first.
“The U.K. continues to lead the global response to find a vaccine,” Sharma is quoted as saying, adding that the British government “is backing our scientists to do this as quickly as possible.”
To keep up with the latest news about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), be sure to check out Pandemic.news.
Sources for this article include:
TheSun.co.uk
NaturalNews.com
NaturalNews.com
Read more at www.naturalnews.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-26--How History Shows Pandemic Lockdowns Are Not Necessary

How History Shows Pandemic Lockdowns Are Not Necessary Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet .
The claim is that sick and dying workers , fearful consumers , and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos .
Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy , because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth .
Leaving aside the fact there ’ s no evidence lockdowns actually work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – where coercive government interventions were at most sporadic – we should see immense economic damage .
Specifically , we can look to the the pandemic of 1957-58 , which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far .
We can also look to the 1918-19 pandemic .
Yet , we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government mandated lockdowns .
This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real culprit .
Economic Reactions in 1957–58 , and in 1918–19 The CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19 .
Adjusted for population size , that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million .
This is ( so far ) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic .
In that pandemic , it is estimated that as many as 116,000 Americans died .
Yet , the US population was much smaller then , totaling only 175 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortality as a result of the “ Asian flu ” pandemic of 1957–58 was more than 660 per million .
That ’ s the equivalent of 220,000 deaths in the United States today .
Yet , Americans in 1957 did not respond by shutting down commerce , forcing people into “ lockdown , ” or driving unemployment up to Depression-era levels .
In fact , reports show that Americans took little action beyond the usual measures involved in trying to slow the spread of disease : hand washing , staying home when ill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to have been a factor in the 1958 recession , the economic effects were miniscule compared to what the US now faces from the reaction to the COVID-19 virus .
This suggests that most of the economic damage now being experienced by workers and households in the US is more a product of the policy reaction to the virus than to the virus itself .
The pandemic of 1957–58 was a serious and deadly problem for many .
As cases of the Asian flu began to spread , it became clear to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was something different and deadly about this flu .
Indeed , according to D.A .
Henderson , et al in “ Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957–58 Influenza Pandemic , “ Humans under 65 possessed no immunity to this H2N2 strain.
” 1 This meant that the “ highest attack rates were in school-age children through young adults up to 35 or 40 years of age.
” Total deaths due to the flu over this period range from 70,000 to 116,000 .
This is cause for concern , to say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them in prime working age , susceptible to the disease , one could anticipate significant costs in terms of economic growth and health .
What was the policy reaction to this ?
Henderson et al .
continue : In 1957–58 , there was concern over the availability of medical services .
But the emphasis then was on increasing medical services rather than state-enforced quarantines and “ social distancing ” measures .
Nor did a vaccine offer an easy way out : Schools and workplaces were affected by absent students and workers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factor , with some schools even closed for short periods as a result of so many missing students .
Absenteeism did not rise to the level of causing shortages : Overall , the economy declined by approximately 2 percent during both the first and second quarter of 1958 , but this could not all be attributed to the effects of the virus .
Unemployment at the time also surged , peaking at 7.5 percent during July 1958 .
Economic growth was positive again , however , by the fourth quarter of 1958 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1959 .
Unemployment had fallen to 5 percent by June of 1959 .
But the overall economic impact of the virus itself was hardly disastrous .
Henderson , et al conclude : The 1918–19 pandemic , which caused an astounding ten times as many deaths per million as the 1957–58 pandemic , also failed to produce economic disaster .
Although the US entered the 1918–19 pandemic in poor economic shape thanks to the Great War , according to economists Efraim Benmelech and Carola Frydman , Nor can the pandemic be blamed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the decline in output had all to do with a collapse in commodity prices when post-war European production finally recovered.
” Not surprisingly , then , we find relatively mild estimates in a 2009 World Bank report estimating the economic consequences of new pandemics .
The authors concluded that moderate and severe pandemics would lead to GDP declines of 2–5 percent .
Or , as a 2009 Reuters report summarized it : Not even a 1918-sized pandemic was expected to produce the sort of economic carnage we now see from COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to be in far worse shape in the wake of the 2020 pandemic than in the days following the 1957–58 outbreak , or even in 1919 .
As of April 2020 , the unemployment rate has ballooned to 14.4 percent , the highest rate recorded since the Great Depression .
The Atlanta Federal Reserve , meanwhile , forecasts a drop in GDP of more than 40 percent .
More mild estimates suggest drops of 8 to 15 percent .
If the milder predictions prove true , then the current downtown is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Depression .
If the Atlanta Fed is right , then we ’ re in an unprecedented economic disaster .
The World Bank ’ s estimates of even a “ severe ” pandemic , which predicted a GDP drop of around 5 percent , don ’ t even come close to the estimates for the 2020 collapse .
And why should they ?
The World Bank report didn ’ t anticipate the global economic shutdown imposed on billions of human beings by the world ’ s regimes .
Thus , the bank ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited to absenteeism , disrupted trade and travel , and declining demand due directly to disease or fear of disease .
So why the enormous difference in economic effects ?
The answer almost certainly lies in the fact that governments in 2020—unlike in any other period in American history—engaged in widespread business closures , “ stay-at-home ” orders , and other state-mandated and state-enforced actions that led to widespread layoffs and plummeting economic output .
Defenders of government-coerced “ lockdowns ” have insisted that fear of the virus would have destroyed the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no historical precedent for this claim , and no current evidence to support it .
Although some survey data has been proffered to suggest that more than 60 percent of Americans say they plan to comply with stay-at-home orders , this merely tells us how people make plans when threatened with fines , police harassment , and other coercive measures .
In reality , the experience of the 1957–58 pandemic—or even the 1918–19 pandemic—gives us no reason to believe that joblessness should be increasing at unprecedented rates and that GDP would collapse by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , that sort of economic damage is only achievable through government intervention , such as socialist coups , wars , and forced economic shutdowns in the name of combating disease .
The cost in terms of human life will be significant .
One study contends that the current economic downturn could lead to seventy-five thousand “ deaths of despair.
” This is not shocking , however , since the fatal effects of unemployment and economic decline have been known for decades .
Defenders of lockdowns will likely continue to claim that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue lockdowns for long periods of time .
At the very least , many claim that the lockdowns until now have been “ worth it.
” Yet the efficacy of lockdowns remains an open question , and has hardly been proven .
Meanwhile , the world faces the worst economic disaster experienced in centuries .
It didn ’ t have to be this way .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Scientific Method .

How History Shows Pandemic Lockdowns Are Not Necessary
Written by Ryan McMaken
Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet. The claim is that sick and dying workers, fearful consumers, and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos.
Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy, because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth.
Leaving aside the fact there’s no evidence lockdowns actually work, we can nonetheless look to past pandemics – where coercive government interventions were at most sporadic – we should see immense economic damage.
Specifically, we can look to the the pandemic of 1957-58, which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far. We can also look to the 1918-19 pandemic. Yet, we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government mandated lockdowns.
This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction, and that the virus itself is the real culprit.
Economic Reactions in 1957–58, and in 1918–19
The CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19. Adjusted for population size, that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million.
This is (so far) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic. In that pandemic, it is estimated that as many as 116,000 Americans died. Yet, the US population was much smaller then, totaling only 175 million. Adjusted for population size, mortality as a result of the “Asian flu” pandemic of 1957–58 was more than 660 per million.
That’s the equivalent of 220,000 deaths in the United States today.
Yet, Americans in 1957 did not respond by shutting down commerce, forcing people into “lockdown,” or driving unemployment up to Depression-era levels. In fact, reports show that Americans took little action beyond the usual measures involved in trying to slow the spread of disease: hand washing, staying home when ill, etc.
Although the virus does appear to have been a factor in the 1958 recession, the economic effects were miniscule compared to what the US now faces from the reaction to the COVID-19 virus. This suggests that most of the economic damage now being experienced by workers and households in the US is more a product of the policy reaction to the virus than to the virus itself.
The pandemic of 1957–58 was a serious and deadly problem for many. As cases of the Asian flu began to spread, it became clear to many scientists and other observers that there was something different and deadly about this flu. Indeed, according to D.A. Henderson, et al in “Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957–58 Influenza Pandemic, “Humans under 65 possessed no immunity to this H2N2 strain.”1 This meant that the “highest attack rates were in school-age children through young adults up to 35 or 40 years of age.” Total deaths due to the flu over this period range from 70,000 to 116,000. This is cause for concern, to say the least. With younger Americans, many of them in prime working age, susceptible to the disease, one could anticipate significant costs in terms of economic growth and health.
What was the policy reaction to this? Henderson et al. continue:
The 1957–58 pandemic was such a rapidly spreading disease that it became quickly apparent to U.S. health ofﬁcials that efforts to stop or slow its spread were futile. Thus, no efforts were made to quarantine individuals or groups, and a deliberate decision was made not to cancel or postpone large meetings such as conferences, church gatherings, or athletic events for the purpose of reducing transmission. No attempt was made to limit travel or to otherwise screen travelers. Emphasis was placed on providing medical care to those who were afﬂicted and on sustaining the continued functioning of community and health services….there were no reports that major events were canceled or postponed except for high school and college football games, which were often delayed because of the number of players afﬂicted.
In 1957–58, there was concern over the availability of medical services. But the emphasis then was on increasing medical services rather than state-enforced quarantines and “social distancing” measures. Nor did a vaccine offer an easy way out:
Health officers had hopes that significant supplies of vaccine might become available in due time, and special efforts were made to speed the production of vaccine, but the quantities that became available were too late to affect the impact of the epidemic.
Schools and workplaces were affected by absent students and workers, but absenteeism at schools was a larger factor, with some schools even closed for short periods as a result of so many missing students. Absenteeism did not rise to the level of causing shortages:
Available data on industrial absenteeism indicate that the rates were low and that there was no interruption of essential services or production. The overall impact on GDP was negligible and likely within the range of normal economic variation.
Overall, the economy declined by approximately 2 percent during both the first and second quarter of 1958, but this could not all be attributed to the effects of the virus. Unemployment at the time also surged, peaking at 7.5 percent during July 1958. Economic growth was positive again, however, by the fourth quarter of 1958 and had soared to over 9 percent growth in 1959. Unemployment had fallen to 5 percent by June of 1959.
But the overall economic impact of the virus itself was hardly disastrous. Henderson, et al conclude:
Despite the large numbers of cases, the 1957 outbreak did not appear to have a significant impact on the U.S. economy. For example, a Congressional Budget Office estimate found that a pandemic the scale of which occurred in 1957 would reduce real GDP by approximately 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} ‘‘but probably would not cause a recession and might not be distinguishable from the normal variation in economic activity.’’
The 1918–19 pandemic, which caused an astounding ten times as many deaths per million as the 1957–58 pandemic, also failed to produce economic disaster. Although the US entered the 1918–19 pandemic in poor economic shape thanks to the Great War, according to economists Efraim Benmelech and Carola Frydman,
The Spanish flu left almost no discernible mark on the aggregate US economy….According to some estimates, real gross national product actually grew in 1919, albeit by a modest 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (Romer 1988). In new work, Velde (2020) shows that most indicators of aggregate economic activity suffered modestly, and those that did decline more significantly right after the influenza outbreak, like industrial output, recovered within months.
Nor can the pandemic be blamed for the 1921 recession, because “by then the decline in output had all to do with a collapse in commodity prices when post-war European production finally recovered.”
How Do Pandemics Affect Economic Growth?
Not surprisingly, then, we find relatively mild estimates in a 2009 World Bank report estimating the economic consequences of new pandemics. The authors concluded that moderate and severe pandemics would lead to GDP declines of 2–5 percent. Or, as a 2009 Reuters report summarized it:
If we get hit with something like the 1957 Asian flu, say goodbye to 2 percent of GDP. Something as bad as the 1918–19 Spanish flu would cut the world’s economic output by 4.8 percent and cost more than $3 trillion.
Not even a 1918-sized pandemic was expected to produce the sort of economic carnage we now see from COVID-19.
The Reaction in 2020
Needless to say, the economy today appears to be in far worse shape in the wake of the 2020 pandemic than in the days following the 1957–58 outbreak, or even in 1919.
As of April 2020, the unemployment rate has ballooned to 14.4 percent, the highest rate recorded since the Great Depression. The Atlanta Federal Reserve, meanwhile, forecasts a drop in GDP of more than 40 percent. More mild estimates suggest drops of 8 to 15 percent. If the milder predictions prove true, then the current downtown is “only” the worst since the Great Depression. If the Atlanta Fed is right, then we’re in an unprecedented economic disaster.
The World Bank’s estimates of even a “severe” pandemic, which predicted a GDP drop of around 5 percent, don’t even come close to the estimates for the 2020 collapse. And why should they? The World Bank report didn’t anticipate the global economic shutdown imposed on billions of human beings by the world’s regimes. Thus, the bank’s estimates assumed that economic losses would be limited to absenteeism, disrupted trade and travel, and declining demand due directly to disease or fear of disease.
So why the enormous difference in economic effects? The answer almost certainly lies in the fact that governments in 2020—unlike in any other period in American history—engaged in widespread business closures, “stay-at-home” orders, and other state-mandated and state-enforced actions that led to widespread layoffs and plummeting economic output.
Defenders of government-coerced “lockdowns” have insisted that fear of the virus would have destroyed the economy even without lockdowns, but there is no historical precedent for this claim, and no current evidence to support it. Although some survey data has been proffered to suggest that more than 60 percent of Americans say they plan to comply with stay-at-home orders, this merely tells us how people make plans when threatened with fines, police harassment, and other coercive measures.
In reality, the experience of the 1957–58 pandemic—or even the 1918–19 pandemic—gives us no reason to believe that joblessness should be increasing at unprecedented rates and that GDP would collapse by catastrophic levels. In a modern industrialized economy, that sort of economic damage is only achievable through government intervention, such as socialist coups, wars, and forced economic shutdowns in the name of combating disease.
The cost in terms of human life will be significant. One study contends that the current economic downturn could lead to seventy-five thousand “deaths of despair.” This is not shocking, however, since the fatal effects of unemployment and economic decline have been known for decades.
Defenders of lockdowns will likely continue to claim that “we have no choice” but to continue lockdowns for long periods of time. At the very least, many claim that the lockdowns until now have been “worth it.” Yet the efficacy of lockdowns remains an open question, and has hardly been proven. Meanwhile, the world faces the worst economic disaster experienced in centuries. It didn’t have to be this way.
Read more at mises.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-27--Italy: 96% of COVID-19 Fatalities Had Other Chronic Illnesses

Italy : 96 % of COVID-19 Fatalities Had Other Chronic Illnesses ROME — The overwhelming majority of deaths with coronavirus in Italy have occurred in the presence of two or more serious chronic illnesses , according to a report from the country ’ s national health authority ( ISS ) .
Italian health authorities announced in a recent report that only 4.1 percent of fatalities testing positive for Wuhan coronavirus happened in the absence of serious comorbidities , while the average age of the deceased was over 80 years .
The average number of comorbidities among all Italian deaths with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just 15 percent of fatalities occurred with the presence of just one other serious pathology , while 21.4 percent died with two other pathologies , and 59.6 percent with three or more pathologies .
The most common comorbidities were arterial hypertension ( in 68.3 percent of cases ) , type-2 diabetes ( 30.1 percent of cases ) , ischemic heart disease ( in 28.2 percent ) , atrial fibrillation ( 22.5 percent ) , chronic renal failure ( 20.4 percent ) .
The report also revealed an average age of 81 among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Italy .
One of the most astonishing findings of the report was that only 1.1 percent of all coronavirus deaths in the country happened to people below the age of 50 , while more than 57 percent were over 80 .
“ The latest numbers show that new cases and fatalities have a common profile : mostly elderly people with previous illnesses , ” said ISS president Silvio Brusaferro at a news conference Friday .
As of May 26 , the number of active cases of coronavirus in Italy had fallen to 52,942 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease have been 32,955 , while total recorded cases stands at 230,555 .
This week Spain had to revise down its official death count for the coronavirus by nearly 2,000 after discovering a series of reporting errors and duplications .
The Spanish Health Ministry announced Monday that it removed 1,918 spurious deaths from the official death toll , representing a seven percent drop in the total deaths reported .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Italy: 96% of COVID-19 Fatalities Had Other Chronic Illnesses
Written by Thomas D Willams PhD
ROME — The overwhelming majority of deaths with coronavirus in Italy have occurred in the presence of two or more serious chronic illnesses, according to a report from the country’s national health authority (ISS).
Italian health authorities announced in a recent report that only 4.1 percent of fatalities testing positive for Wuhan coronavirus happened in the absence of serious comorbidities, while the average age of the deceased was over 80 years.
The average number of comorbidities among all Italian deaths with the coronavirus was 3.1, ISS revealed. Just 15 percent of fatalities occurred with the presence of just one other serious pathology, while 21.4 percent died with two other pathologies, and 59.6 percent with three or more pathologies.
The most common comorbidities were arterial hypertension (in 68.3 percent of cases), type-2 diabetes (30.1 percent of cases), ischemic heart disease (in 28.2 percent), atrial fibrillation (22.5 percent), chronic renal failure (20.4 percent).
The report also revealed an average age of 81 among those who have died with coronavirus in Italy. One of the most astonishing findings of the report was that only 1.1 percent of all coronavirus deaths in the country happened to people below the age of 50, while more than 57 percent were over 80.
“The latest numbers show that new cases and fatalities have a common profile: mostly elderly people with previous illnesses,” said ISS president Silvio Brusaferro at a news conference Friday.
As of May 26, the number of active cases of coronavirus in Italy had fallen to 52,942. The total number of deaths with the disease have been 32,955, while total recorded cases stands at 230,555.
This week Spain had to revise down its official death count for the coronavirus by nearly 2,000 after discovering a series of reporting errors and duplications.
The Spanish Health Ministry announced Monday that it removed 1,918 spurious deaths from the official death toll, representing a seven percent drop in the total deaths reported.
Read more at www.breitbart.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-27--Australian Study Reveals COVID-19 May Be Human Created

A forthcoming Australian scientific study concludes that the coronavirus causing the global pandemic contains unique properties suggesting it was manipulated in a Chinese laboratory and was not the result of a natural occurrence .
Five scientists who conducted the study discovered an unusual ability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus , as the pathogen behind COVID-19 is called , to easily infect humans .
The scientists said there is no sign so far that the virus can be found in other animals , including bats or the exotic wildlife sold for fresh meat at a market in the Chinese city of Wuhan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and where China maintains a major laboratory studying such viruses .
The preliminary report of the study , which is now being peer-reviewed , is based on computer modeling of the virus ’ ability to infect various animals , including humans .
It was published May 13 on the Cornell University website arXiv.org , which is used for discussion of pre-publication papers .
Nikolai Petrovsky , the lead researcher , said his team suspects human manipulation in Wuhan because of the unmatched ability of the virus ’ protruding spike to infect human cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human cells “ far exceeds ” similar properties for infecting other animals , he said in a statement on the forthcoming report .
“ This , plus the fact that no corresponding virus has been found to exist in nature , leads to the possibility that COVID-19 is a human-created virus , ” said Mr. Petrovsky , a professor at the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Adelaide , Australia .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Australian Study Reveals COVID-19 May Be Human Created
Written by Bill Gertz
A forthcoming Australian scientific study concludes that the coronavirus causing the global pandemic contains unique properties suggesting it was manipulated in a Chinese laboratory and was not the result of a natural occurrence.
Five scientists who conducted the study discovered an unusual ability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as the pathogen behind COVID-19 is called, to easily infect humans.
The scientists said there is no sign so far that the virus can be found in other animals, including bats or the exotic wildlife sold for fresh meat at a market in the Chinese city of Wuhan, where the virus was first identified and where China maintains a major laboratory studying such viruses.
The preliminary report of the study, which is now being peer-reviewed, is based on computer modeling of the virus’ ability to infect various animals, including humans. It was published May 13 on the Cornell University website arXiv.org, which is used for discussion of pre-publication papers.
Nikolai Petrovsky, the lead researcher, said his team suspects human manipulation in Wuhan because of the unmatched ability of the virus’ protruding spike to infect human cells.
The virus’ binding strength for human cells “far exceeds” similar properties for infecting other animals, he said in a statement on the forthcoming report.
“This, plus the fact that no corresponding virus has been found to exist in nature, leads to the possibility that COVID-19 is a human-created virus,” said Mr. Petrovsky, a professor at the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia.
Read more at www.washingtontimes.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-27--Why Government COVID-19 Models Are Not Real Science

Why Government COVID-19 Models Are Not Real Science Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis , Americans have been told countless times that public policy was based on Science ( with a capital S ) and that the public should just obey the scientists .
But the accuracy of their predictions and the consequent appropriateness of policies seems to have been little better than Ask Dr. Science and the 0 percent accuracy rate of its answers .
In fact , the massive errors in measurement that have been part and parcel of the scientific COVID Kops show should bring us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science and measurement : “ If you can not measure it , then it is not science ” and “ your theory is apt to be based more upon imagination than upon knowledge.
” To get an idea of how serious the COVID measurement problems are , one need only look to the two medical experts most commonly appearing on our TV screens .
Dr. Anthony Fauci recently testified his belief that its death toll is “ almost certainly higher ” than reported , because “ there may have been people who died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were not counted as COVID because they never really got to the hospital.
” In contrast , the Washington Post recently reported that Deborah Birx believes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s ( CDC ) accounting system is double counting some cases , boosting case and mortality measurements “ by as much as 25 percent.
” And what could be a clearer statement of the measurement problems than Birx ’ s assertion that “ there is nothing from the CDC that I can trust ” ?
The mangled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning of the COVID crisis .
Mild cases were ( and still are ) frequently undetected .
That means that we have undercounted how many people have ( or have had ) the disease .
It also means that we have overestimated the risk of contagion , which is perhaps the most crucial determinant of COVID ’ s risk to others .
Early on , there were a very limited number of tests and many of the first ones were faulty .
So , as increasing numbers are being tested , especially systematically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are already suspected of having COVID , we must disentangle the portion of the uptick of reported cases , and the implied downward adjustment of the odds of death and the risk of spread , caused by testing more of the population to determine whether there is an increasing incidence of the disease .
When tests for COVID antibodies started to be done , it also suggested that more had already been exposed , changing the critical numbers again .
And then there are questions about herd immunity , including whether sheltering at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the constantly updated numbers of COVID cases in particular areas overstated the risk to others , since those who have gotten better and are not a potential source of contagion are still included in those counts .
This continuing evolution of what Science tells us reveals that what we are being told at any given time is highly likely to be revised , if not reversed , soon , and perhaps repeatedly .
That should make us leery of all claims , including forecasts , premised on the truth of current Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad enough , even the accuracy of the basic data has been compromised .
In some places , reported COVID deaths have included everyone who has it when they die , overstating ( to a degree that we can ’ t know without more detailed information than we now have , and may ever have , for many cases ) COVID risks .
The director of the Illinois Department of Public Health , Dr. Ngozi Ezike , illustrated the problem when she said , Further , the miscounting is often not due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , Colorado counted a man who died of acute alcohol poisoning ( his blood alcohol content ( BAC ) was 0.55 , when 0.30 is considered lethal ) as a COVID death .
And when the state recounted to include only deaths caused by COVID , its total fell from 1,150 to only 878 .
New York has also counted as COVID deaths cases involving flulike symptoms , even when postmortem COVID tests have been negative .
CDC guidance explicitly advises that “ suspected ” cases , even in the absence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID deaths .
That is why the New York Times could report that on April 21 the city death toll was augmented by Then there is also lots of evidence that bears on appropriate COVID policy .
For instance , Charles Murray has demonstrated that Randal O ’ Toole has also cited studies finding that : and that there is : All this evidence reveals that the COVID Science and conclusions Americans were supposed to follow unquestioningly have been incredibly incomplete or wrong , with the stability of quicksand .
Such Science is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in making policies with multitrillion dollar price tags .
What it does support is much more humility , reflecting Kelvin ’ s recognition that :

Why Government COVID-19 Models Are Not Real Science
Written by Gary Galles
Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, Americans have been told countless times that public policy was based on Science (with a capital S) and that the public should just obey the scientists. But the accuracy of their predictions and the consequent appropriateness of policies seems to have been little better than Ask Dr. Science and the 0 percent accuracy rate of its answers.
In fact, the massive errors in measurement that have been part and parcel of the scientific COVID Kops show should bring us back to what Lord Kelvin said about science and measurement: “If you cannot measure it, then it is not science” and “your theory is apt to be based more upon imagination than upon knowledge.”
To get an idea of how serious the COVID measurement problems are, one need only look to the two medical experts most commonly appearing on our TV screens. Dr. Anthony Fauci recently testified his belief that its death toll is “almost certainly higher” than reported, because “there may have been people who died at home who did have COVID, who were not counted as COVID because they never really got to the hospital.”
In contrast, the Washington Post recently reported that Deborah Birx believes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) accounting system is double counting some cases, boosting case and mortality measurements “by as much as 25 percent.” And what could be a clearer statement of the measurement problems than Birx’s assertion that “there is nothing from the CDC that I can trust”?
The mangled measurements have been with us from the beginning of the COVID crisis.
Mild cases were (and still are) frequently undetected. That means that we have undercounted how many people have (or have had) the disease. It also means that we have overestimated the risk of contagion, which is perhaps the most crucial determinant of COVID’s risk to others.
Early on, there were a very limited number of tests and many of the first ones were faulty. So, as increasing numbers are being tested, especially systematically, rather than just targeting those who are already suspected of having COVID, we must disentangle the portion of the uptick of reported cases, and the implied downward adjustment of the odds of death and the risk of spread, caused by testing more of the population to determine whether there is an increasing incidence of the disease.
When tests for COVID antibodies started to be done, it also suggested that more had already been exposed, changing the critical numbers again. And then there are questions about herd immunity, including whether sheltering at home actually undermines its development.
Similarly, the constantly updated numbers of COVID cases in particular areas overstated the risk to others, since those who have gotten better and are not a potential source of contagion are still included in those counts.
This continuing evolution of what Science tells us reveals that what we are being told at any given time is highly likely to be revised, if not reversed, soon, and perhaps repeatedly. That should make us leery of all claims, including forecasts, premised on the truth of current Science. And if that weren’t bad enough, even the accuracy of the basic data has been compromised.
In some places, reported COVID deaths have included everyone who has it when they die, overstating (to a degree that we can’t know without more detailed information than we now have, and may ever have, for many cases) COVID risks.
The director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, illustrated the problem when she said,
“if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death….[E]ven if you died of clear alternative cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death.”
Further, the miscounting is often not due to judgments about shades of gray. For instance, Colorado counted a man who died of acute alcohol poisoning (his blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.55, when 0.30 is considered lethal) as a COVID death. And when the state recounted to include only deaths caused by COVID, its total fell from 1,150 to only 878.
New York has also counted as COVID deaths cases involving flulike symptoms, even when postmortem COVID tests have been negative. CDC guidance explicitly advises that “suspected” cases, even in the absence of test evidence, can be reported as COVID deaths. That is why the New York Times could report that on April 21 the city death toll was augmented by
“3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive.”
Then there is also lots of evidence that bears on appropriate COVID policy. For instance, Charles Murray has demonstrated that
“The relationship of population density to the spread of the coronavirus creates sets of policy options that are radically different in high-density and low-density areas,” so that “too many people in high places, in government and the media, have been acting as if there is a right and moral policy toward the pandemic that applies throughout America. That’s wrong.”
Randal O’Toole has also cited studies finding that:
“mass transportation systems offer an effective way of accelerating the spread of infectious diseases,” that “people who use mass transit were nearly six times more likely to have acute respiratory infections than those who don’t,” that New York City subways were “a major disseminator—if not the principal transmission vehicle—of coronavirus infection,”
and that there is:
“a strong state‐by‐state correlation between transit and coronavirus,” to ask why mass transit systems were not shuttered to stop the harm. Elsewhere, he noted that “The head of New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority was infected by the virus and the head of New Jersey Transit actually died from it.”
All this evidence reveals that the COVID Science and conclusions Americans were supposed to follow unquestioningly have been incredibly incomplete or wrong, with the stability of quicksand. Such Science is too frail a reed to depend on in making policies with multitrillion dollar price tags. What it does support is much more humility, reflecting Kelvin’s recognition that:
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.
Author: Gary Galles Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. He is the author of The Apostle of Peace: The Radical Mind of Leonard Read. Read more at mises.org **** PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Please DONATE TODAY Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-27--France Bans Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 Patients

On Tuesday , the French High Council for Public Health ( HCSP ) and the Agency for the Safety of Health Products ( ANSM ) had suspended the use of hydroxychloroquine as a means to combat COVID-19 for both the treatment of patients and clinical trials .
The French government has cancelled a decree permitting hospital doctors to administer hydroxychloroquine as a treatment to patients suffering severe forms of coronavirus .
Earlier , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) paused an extended trial of the malaria drug due to safety concerns .
At the end of March , France @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in specific situations , and exclusively in hospitals .
The study , published last Friday in The Lancet medical journal , revealed that there was an increased risk of death when the drug was used for patients with COVID-19 .
The publication prompted the World Health Organization ( WHO ) to halt its clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine on Monday as a precautional measure .
The number of people who have died in France from coronavirus-related complications has reached 28,530 , an increase of 315 since the latest previous reported figures last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) said .
The last time the DGS released a situation report on the death toll in France was last Thursday .
The report stated 28,215 deaths linked to COVID-19 .
According to the update , 100,841 people in total have been hospitalized since the beginning of the pandemic , and 16,264 currently remain in hospitals , down from 18,468 last week , including 1,555 patients in intensive care units .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Written by sputniknews.com
On Tuesday, the French High Council for Public Health (HCSP) and the Agency for the Safety of Health Products (ANSM) had suspended the use of hydroxychloroquine as a means to combat COVID-19 for both the treatment of patients and clinical trials.
The French government has cancelled a decree permitting hospital doctors to administer hydroxychloroquine as a treatment to patients suffering severe forms of coronavirus.
Earlier, the World Health Organization (WHO) paused an extended trial of the malaria drug due to safety concerns.
At the end of March, France decided to allow the use of hydroxychloroquine in specific situations, and exclusively in hospitals.
The study, published last Friday in The Lancet medical journal, revealed that there was an increased risk of death when the drug was used for patients with COVID-19. The publication prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) to halt its clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine on Monday as a precautional measure.
The number of people who have died in France from coronavirus-related complications has reached 28,530, an increase of 315 since the latest previous reported figures last week, the French Public Health Agency (DGS) said.
The last time the DGS released a situation report on the death toll in France was last Thursday. The report stated 28,215 deaths linked to COVID-19.
According to the update, 100,841 people in total have been hospitalized since the beginning of the pandemic, and 16,264 currently remain in hospitals, down from 18,468 last week, including 1,555 patients in intensive care units.
Read more at sputniknews.com
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-27--German Research Vessel Gets Stuck In Thick Arctic Drift Ice

Alfred Wegener Institute ( AWI ) climatologists remain involuntarily stuck in thick pack ice while two sister ships wait in a fjord at Spitsbergen .
Let ’ s see how long this is going to take .
German icebreaker and research vessel “ Polarstern ” has been drifting through the central Arctic on a 140 million euro MOSAIC research expedition since the beginning of October 2019 .
But the Arctic – they have inconveniently discovered – is strongly frozen at its highest level in the last five years .
The climatologists had prematurely abandoned their floe on Saturday , May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to Spitsbergen by Monday , May 25 , but had to stop their engines already on Monday , May 18 , because the two-year drift ice was too thick , they reported .
They wish to reach Spitsbergen by Sunday , May 24 , 2020 , in order to meet up with two sister ships to take on supplies and a new crew .
This is to avoid further evacuations like the one on April 22 , when seven participants of expedition leg 3 were flown out by a Twin Otter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ April .
Shortly after Easter the vessel had left the drift corridor and drifted southwards in 2- to 3-meter-thick pack ice toward Spitsbergen .
There , ice masses of 4-meter thickness awaited them and thus the biggest and thickest ice surfaces for many years .
The expedition and crew now aim to meet the German research vessels “ FS Sonne ” and “ FS Maria S. Merian ” ( ice class E3 up to 0.8 meters of ice thickness ) in “ calm waters ” off Spitsbergen and exchange the entire personnel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drift calculator shows the Polarstern will unlikely reach Spitsbergen on schedule .
The Polarstern had been planned to reach the North Pole , but never reached it .
Read more at No Tricks Zone PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

German Research Vessel Gets Stuck In Thick Arctic Drift Ice
Written by Pierre Gosselin
Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) climatologists remain involuntarily stuck in thick pack ice while two sister ships wait in a fjord at Spitsbergen. Let’s see how long this is going to take.
German icebreaker and research vessel “Polarstern” has been drifting through the central Arctic on a 140 million euro MOSAIC research expedition since the beginning of October 2019.
But the Arctic – they have inconveniently discovered – is strongly frozen at its highest level in the last five years.
Stopped by two-year, thick ice
The climatologists had prematurely abandoned their floe on Saturday, May 16, 2020, to make their way to Spitsbergen by Monday, May 25, but had to stop their engines already on Monday, May 18, because the two-year drift ice was too thick, they reported.
They wish to reach Spitsbergen by Sunday, May 24, 2020, in order to meet up with two sister ships to take on supplies and a new crew.
This is to avoid further evacuations like the one on April 22, when seven participants of expedition leg 3 were flown out by a Twin Otter. They should have been replaced in early April.
Shortly after Easter the vessel had left the drift corridor and drifted southwards in 2- to 3-meter-thick pack ice toward Spitsbergen.
There, ice masses of 4-meter thickness awaited them and thus the biggest and thickest ice surfaces for many years.
The expedition and crew now aim to meet the German research vessels “FS Sonne” and “FS Maria S. Merian” (ice class E3 up to 0.8 meters of ice thickness) in “calm waters” off Spitsbergen and exchange the entire personnel and to resupply.
However, the current drift calculator shows the Polarstern will unlikely reach Spitsbergen on schedule.
The Polarstern had been planned to reach the North Pole, but never reached it.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-27--600 Doctors Petition Trump For Swift End to Deadly Lockdown

More than 600 doctors have signed onto a letter imploring President Trump to end the shutdowns , claiming that continued shutdowns will become a “ mass casualty incident.
” More than 600 doctors signed onto a letter sent to President Trump Tuesday pushing him to end the “ national shutdown ” aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus , calling the widespread state orders keeping businesses closed and kids home from school a “ mass casualty incident ” with “ exponentially growing health consequences.
” The letter outlines a variety of consequences that the doctors have observed resulting from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routine checkups that could detect things like heart problems or cancer , increases in substance and alcohol abuse , and increases in financial instability that could lead to “ [ p ] overty and financial uncertainty , ” which “ is closely linked to poor health.
” “ We are alarmed at what appears to be the lack of consideration for the future health of our patients , ” the doctors say in their letter .
“ The downstream health effects … are being massively under-estimated and under-reported .
This is an order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight , but they will be called alcoholism , homelessness , suicide , heart attack , stroke , or kidney failure .
In youths it will be called financial instability , unemployment , despair , drug addiction , unplanned pregnancies , poverty , and abuse .
“ Because the harm is diffuse , there are those who hold that it does not exist .
We , the undersigned , know otherwise.
” This is a really big deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shutdowns more people will end up dying that killed by Covid-19 .
We can not let the cure be worse than the disease .
Lets stop the madness !
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

600 Doctors Petition Trump For Swift End to Deadly Lockdown
Written by Steve Straub
More than 600 doctors have signed onto a letter imploring President Trump to end the shutdowns, claiming that continued shutdowns will become a “mass casualty incident.”
Via Fox News:
More than 600 doctors signed onto a letter sent to President Trump Tuesday pushing him to end the “national shutdown” aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus, calling the widespread state orders keeping businesses closed and kids home from school a “mass casualty incident” with “exponentially growing health consequences.”
The letter outlines a variety of consequences that the doctors have observed resulting from the coronavirus shutdowns, including patients missing routine checkups that could detect things like heart problems or cancer, increases in substance and alcohol abuse, and increases in financial instability that could lead to “[p]overty and financial uncertainty,” which “is closely linked to poor health.”
“We are alarmed at what appears to be the lack of consideration for the future health of our patients,” the doctors say in their letter. “The downstream health effects … are being massively under-estimated and under-reported. This is an order of magnitude error.”
The letter continues: “The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.
“Because the harm is diffuse, there are those who hold that it does not exist. We, the undersigned, know otherwise.”
This is a really big deal.
If the governors continue with their shutdowns more people will end up dying that killed by Covid-19. We cannot let the cure be worse than the disease. Lets stop the madness!
Read more at thefederalistpapers.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-27--Teen Climate Skeptic Faces Jail Time for Her Views

You will probably be aware of Naomi Seibt , the 19 year old from Germany who has been making a name as the anti-Greta lately .
Her common sense messages about global warming have not gone down well with the climate establishment , who prefer the hysterical outpourings of Greta .
But the campaign against her took a disturbing turn last month .
Lord Monckton takes up the story : To all the kind and generous readers who have donated to the appeal for Naomi Seibt , I should like to say how very grateful she for your support .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ account , she now has $ 1600 a month in income , and skeptics everywhere are spreading the word .
Stefan Molyneux , who has interviewed Naomi in the past , has just retweeted it .
Latest news is that Naomi has been threatened with imprisonment .
Naomi , who will be writing a personal thank-you as soon as she has time , will be devoting your donations to continuing her gallant fight not only for freedom of speech about the climate question but also for freedom from jail .
It is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is .
She felt very much alone when she realized that the power , the might and the wealth of the State were – for purely political reasons – being aimed directly at her .
The warmth of your support has been a very great comfort to her at this difficult time .
She was not happy to receive a letter from the State Media Authority in North Rhine Westphalia , where she lives , telling her that three of her YouTube videos on the climate question were against the law because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the Authority ’ s opinion , “ climate-friendly ” , and because she had mentioned the Heartland Institute in those videos .
Such non- “ climate-friendly ” mentions of Heartland , the letter said , constituted unlawful product placement .
At the time when that first letter arrived , Naomi was not well .
A letter went to the Authority on her behalf , asking for more time so that she could respond properly in due course .
The Authority did not give her more time .
It went right ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a quasi-judicial decision against her .
The act gave her just three choices : • Take down two of the three videos the Authority had originally complained of ; or • Pay the Authority 1000 euros plus 200 euros costs for each of the two videos ( total $ 2640 at today ’ s exchange rate ) ; or • Go to prison for up to 14 days in respect of each video : total up to 28 days .
Naomi made the first of the three videos five months before she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unsurprisingly , therefore , that video – video 1 – did not mention Heartland at all .
The Authority has now backed off and accepted that video 1 could not by any stretch of the most insanely malevolent bureaucratic imagination constitute product placement for the Heartland Institute .
That leaves videos 2 and 3 .
In video 2 , just a couple of minutes long , Naomi announced to her 88,000 YouTube followers that she was now a member of the Heartland Institute , and said that she would be working with it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the climate question .
All she was doing was telling the truth .
But in her homeland it seems it is now again unlawful to tell the truth if the State does not like the truth .
That should worry all of us .
In law , that mention of Heartland does not constitute unlawful product placement because Naomi stated her connection with Heartland explicitly , right at the beginning of video 2 .
For that was the whole point of the video : to tell her followers , openly and honestly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute .
In civilized jurisdictions , for good reason , it is only undeclared product placement that is unlawful .
In any event , the Authority says such mentions are only illegal if in the same video one advocates policy prescriptions .
But the 280 words of video 2 contain no policy recommendations at all .
Video 3 did not mention Heartland even once .
It was a video of a speech Naomi had given to a German audience .
The event had been arranged long before I had introduced her to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with it , and it had absolutely nothing to do with Heartland .
It beats me how anyone could imagine for a single instant that video 3 could possibly constitute product placement .
Yet the Authority – inferentially anxious to find fault with more than just one short and harmless video – persists in pursuing Naomi for video 3 as well as for video 2 , even though I have written to it twice directly and once via the German Ambassador in London to warn it to cease and desist ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent and impartial public authority exercising a quasi-judicial function could possibly regard any of videos 1-3 as constituting unlawful product placement .
Remarkably , the Authority manifests its prejudice in this affair by using the words “ climate-friendly ” to describe its own viewpoint on the climate question , not only in its initial letter but also , far more seriously and far more culpably , in its quasi-judicial administrative act…… .
Monckton goes on to demolish the legal aspects of the State ’ s case , before concluding : The Authority is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manifest that neither of the two videos it complains of constitutes unlawful product placement .
And it is wrong in law , for it has acted contrary to natural justice by judging itself , by expressing open prejudice in the judgment and by failing to allow Naomi time to respond substantively before it judged her .
Its crude attempt at silencing the freedom of thought , of conscience , of expression and of association of a 19-year-old YouTuber against whom it has chosen to discriminate on the stated ground that she is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is now justifiably attracting worldwide condemnation .
As a result of the appeal , Naomi not only has enough money to keep body and soul together , but individual donors have come forward so that she can engage a senior administrative lawyer to fight her corner in the Verwaltungsgericht ( the State administrative court ) .
Even the Left-leaning media hacks who had previously given Naomi a hard time for daring to question the climate-Communist Party Line are now increasingly on her side .
They are shocked at the Authority ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperate , has issued an imprudent and mendacious press statement falsely stating that it had given Naomi a fair chance to put her side of the case .
The courts will not like that .
An appeal against the Authority ’ s kangaroo-court misconduct has been lodged .
In due course a proper judge will hear not only the Authority ’ s side of the case but Naomi ’ s as well – the case that the Authority scandalously refused to hear before it issued its quasi-judicial administrative act .
One question the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is whether the Authority must answer Naomi ’ s request to be told which of its “ climate-friendly ” fellow-believers told it about her videos .
On her behalf , a copy of an email from a third party to the Authority about Naomi ’ s videos was requested and provided , but the Authority redacted the name of the sender without having declared the redaction .
That failure to declare that a document furnished in court proceedings had been altered from its original state is a serious breach of process .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of court .
The offense is imprisonable .
The question arises whether the Authority and its “ climate-friendly ” clerks , in demanding money from Naomi with menaces even though it knows perfectly well – for it has been plainly , fairly and repeatedly told – that it has no legitimate grounds whatsoever to make those demands , has committed the serious , imprisonable criminal offences of blackmail , fraud and misfeasance in a public office .
I shall be referring the case papers to the German Ambassador with a formal complaint to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities in Münster , where Naomi lives , and in Berlin .
The international news media are already planning to be present in the Verwaltungsgericht .
This will be a battle royal for freedom of speech against the over-mighty State .
Thanks to your generosity , the State will crash and burn , and freedom of speech will win .
It will not be Naomi that goes to jail .
Thank you all again .
Let freedom ring !
Monckton sent a copy of this draft article to the State Media Authority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refer to previous correspondence in this matter , to which I have had no reply .
I now attach a draft of an article that is to be published globally via multiple outlets .
If by close of business on 26 May 2020 I shall not have received any corrections on questions of fact from or on behalf of the State media “ authority ” , I shall take it that the “ authority ” is content that the facts are as I have represented them in the article , which will thereupon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter and its enclosure goes to His Excellency the German Ambassador in London .
As he notes , no such undertaking has been received .
It is frankly quite astonishing that a young girl can be locked up for politically incorrect views .
After all , this is not China we are talking about .
Forget about the nonsense of “ unlawful product placement ” , which Monckton destroys anyway .
Why would a State media authority even be aware of such a minor video , never mind go to the lengths of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The very words “ climate friendly ” tell us all we need to know .
But it is even more concerning that , apparently , laws exist in Germany to allow this to happen .
Clearly darker forces are at work here , determined to shut down any criticism of the climate establishment .
We live in strange and worrying times .
If you would like to contribute to the cost of Naomi ’ s court case , just click on the link below : PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Teen Climate Skeptic Faces Jail Time for Her Views
Written by Paul Homewood
You will probably be aware of Naomi Seibt, the 19 year old from Germany who has been making a name as the anti-Greta lately. Her common sense messages about global warming have not gone down well with the climate establishment, who prefer the hysterical outpourings of Greta.
But the campaign against her took a disturbing turn last month. Lord Monckton takes up the story:
To all the kind and generous readers who have donated to the appeal for Naomi Seibt, I should like to say how very grateful she for your support. Thanks to your contributions to her Patreon account, she now has $1600 a month in income, and skeptics everywhere are spreading the word. Stefan Molyneux, who has interviewed Naomi in the past, has just retweeted it. Latest news is that Naomi has been threatened with imprisonment.
Naomi, who will be writing a personal thank-you as soon as she has time, will be devoting your donations to continuing her gallant fight not only for freedom of speech about the climate question but also for freedom from jail.
It is not just about the money, life-saving though it is. She felt very much alone when she realized that the power, the might and the wealth of the State were – for purely political reasons – being aimed directly at her. The warmth of your support has been a very great comfort to her at this difficult time.
She was not happy to receive a letter from the State Media Authority in North Rhine Westphalia, where she lives, telling her that three of her YouTube videos on the climate question were against the law because she had expressed views that were not, in the Authority’s opinion, “climate-friendly”, and because she had mentioned the Heartland Institute in those videos.
Such non-“climate-friendly” mentions of Heartland, the letter said, constituted unlawful product placement.
At the time when that first letter arrived, Naomi was not well. A letter went to the Authority on her behalf, asking for more time so that she could respond properly in due course. The Authority did not give her more time. It went right ahead and issued an “administrative act”, a quasi-judicial decision against her. The act gave her just three choices:
Take down two of the three videos the Authority had originally complained of; or Pay the Authority 1000 euros plus 200 euros costs for each of the two videos (total $2640 at today’s exchange rate); or Go to prison for up to 14 days in respect of each video: total up to 28 days.
Naomi made the first of the three videos five months before she even knew the Heartland Institute existed. Unsurprisingly, therefore, that video – video 1 – did not mention Heartland at all. The Authority has now backed off and accepted that video 1 could not by any stretch of the most insanely malevolent bureaucratic imagination constitute product placement for the Heartland Institute. That leaves videos 2 and 3.
In video 2, just a couple of minutes long, Naomi announced to her 88,000 YouTube followers that she was now a member of the Heartland Institute, and said that she would be working with it to take a rational and non-alarmist approach to the climate question. All she was doing was telling the truth. But in her homeland it seems it is now again unlawful to tell the truth if the State does not like the truth. That should worry all of us.
In law, that mention of Heartland does not constitute unlawful product placement because Naomi stated her connection with Heartland explicitly, right at the beginning of video 2. For that was the whole point of the video: to tell her followers, openly and honestly, that she was now with the Institute. In civilized jurisdictions, for good reason, it is only undeclared product placement that is unlawful.
In any event, the Authority says such mentions are only illegal if in the same video one advocates policy prescriptions. But the 280 words of video 2 contain no policy recommendations at all.
Video 3 did not mention Heartland even once. It was a video of a speech Naomi had given to a German audience. The event had been arranged long before I had introduced her to the Heartland Institute. Heartland had absolutely nothing to do with it, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Heartland. It beats me how anyone could imagine for a single instant that video 3 could possibly constitute product placement.
Yet the Authority – inferentially anxious to find fault with more than just one short and harmless video – persists in pursuing Naomi for video 3 as well as for video 2, even though I have written to it twice directly and once via the German Ambassador in London to warn it to cease and desist’
On the facts, no reasonable, independent and impartial public authority exercising a quasi-judicial function could possibly regard any of videos 1-3 as constituting unlawful product placement.
Remarkably, the Authority manifests its prejudice in this affair by using the words “climate-friendly” to describe its own viewpoint on the climate question, not only in its initial letter but also, far more seriously and far more culpably, in its quasi-judicial administrative act…….
Monckton goes on to demolish the legal aspects of the State’s case, before concluding:
The Authority is wrong in fact, for it is manifest that neither of the two videos it complains of constitutes unlawful product placement. And it is wrong in law, for it has acted contrary to natural justice by judging itself, by expressing open prejudice in the judgment and by failing to allow Naomi time to respond substantively before it judged her.
Its crude attempt at silencing the freedom of thought, of conscience, of expression and of association of a 19-year-old YouTuber against whom it has chosen to discriminate on the stated ground that she is not, in its words, “climate-friendly” is now justifiably attracting worldwide condemnation.
As a result of the appeal, Naomi not only has enough money to keep body and soul together, but individual donors have come forward so that she can engage a senior administrative lawyer to fight her corner in the Verwaltungsgericht (the State administrative court).
Even the Left-leaning media hacks who had previously given Naomi a hard time for daring to question the climate-Communist Party Line are now increasingly on her side. They are shocked at the Authority’s heavy-handedness.
The Authority, now visibly desperate, has issued an imprudent and mendacious press statement falsely stating that it had given Naomi a fair chance to put her side of the case. The courts will not like that.
An appeal against the Authority’s kangaroo-court misconduct has been lodged. In due course a proper judge will hear not only the Authority’s side of the case but Naomi’s as well – the case that the Authority scandalously refused to hear before it issued its quasi-judicial administrative act.
One question the judge will be asked to rule upon is whether the Authority must answer Naomi’s request to be told which of its “climate-friendly” fellow-believers told it about her videos.
On her behalf, a copy of an email from a third party to the Authority about Naomi’s videos was requested and provided, but the Authority redacted the name of the sender without having declared the redaction. That failure to declare that a document furnished in court proceedings had been altered from its original state is a serious breach of process. The Authority has thus put itself in contempt of court. The offense is imprisonable.
The question arises whether the Authority and its “climate-friendly” clerks, in demanding money from Naomi with menaces even though it knows perfectly well – for it has been plainly, fairly and repeatedly told – that it has no legitimate grounds whatsoever to make those demands, has committed the serious, imprisonable criminal offences of blackmail, fraud and misfeasance in a public office.
I shall be referring the case papers to the German Ambassador with a formal complaint to be forwarded to the police and investigating authorities in Münster, where Naomi lives, and in Berlin.
The international news media are already planning to be present in the Verwaltungsgericht. This will be a battle royal for freedom of speech against the over-mighty State. Thanks to your generosity, the State will crash and burn, and freedom of speech will win. It will not be Naomi that goes to jail. Thank you all again. Let freedom ring!
Monckton sent a copy of this draft article to the State Media Authority, with the following cover letter:
I refer to previous correspondence in this matter, to which I have had no reply. I now attach a draft of an article that is to be published globally via multiple outlets. If by close of business on 26 May 2020 I shall not have received any corrections on questions of fact from or on behalf of the State media “authority”, I shall take it that the “authority” is content that the facts are as I have represented them in the article, which will thereupon be published.
A copy of this letter and its enclosure goes to His Excellency the German Ambassador in London.
Yours faithfully,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
As he notes, no such undertaking has been received.
It is frankly quite astonishing that a young girl can be locked up for politically incorrect views. After all, this is not China we are talking about.
Forget about the nonsense of “unlawful product placement”, which Monckton destroys anyway. Why would a State media authority even be aware of such a minor video, never mind go to the lengths of legal proceedings over such an inconsequential technicality? The very words “climate friendly” tell us all we need to know.
But it is even more concerning that, apparently, laws exist in Germany to allow this to happen.
Clearly darker forces are at work here, determined to shut down any criticism of the climate establishment.
We live in strange and worrying times.
If you would like to contribute to the cost of Naomi’s court case, just click on the link below:
https://www.paypal.me/naomiseibt2000
Read more at notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-27--India Presses Ahead with ‘Very Effective’ HCQ COVID-19 Treatment

India will continue using hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) as a preventative measure against COVID-19 , after the Indian Council of Medical Research ( ICMR ) declared on Tuesday that the drug was found to be very effective with minimal side effects for prophylaxis .
The ICMR ’ s decision was based on three studies they conducted , which resulted in a Friday advisory to expand the drug ’ s use , according to ThePrint .
Speaking at a Tuesday press conference , ICMR Director General Dr. Balram Bhargava said “ COVID-19 is an evolving field .
We don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not .
There are lots of drugs that have been repurposed for use in COVID whether prophylaxis or as treatment .
HCQ is a very old anti-malarial drug that was being widely used and it continues to be widely used .
It is safer.
” India ’ s decision to increase the use of HCQ comes as the World Health Organization announced the temporary halt of its clinical trials involving the drug over concerns in a Friday Lancet report that it may do more harm than good .
The WHO has 3,500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it calls the Solidarity Trial .
This is an effort overseen by the WHO to find new treatments for COVID-19 .
The patients in the trial have been randomly assigned to be treated with hydroxychloroquine , which is a common malaria drug , or three other experimental drugs for treating COVID-19 in various combinations .
Only the hydroxychloroquine part of the trial is being put on hold .
–NPR Investigations were conducted by the ICMR at three central government hospitals in New Delhi , which concluded that “ amongst healthcare workers involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were less likely to develop SARS-CoV-2 infection , compared to those who were not on it.
” The advisory also states that the National Institute of Virology in Pune has found in laboratory testing that HCQ reduces the viral load .
The ICMR also analysed data collected previously , known as retrospective case-control analysis , and found “ a significant ” relationship between “ the number of doses taken and frequency of occurrence of Covid-19 infection in symptomatic healthcare workers who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection ” .
It further said “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caring for a general patient population ” .
Another observational study was conducted among 334 healthcare workers at the country ’ s largest public hospital , New Delhi ’ s All India Institute of Medical Sciences ( AIIMS ) .
The 248 workers who took HCQ as preventive drug for an average of six weeks had lower incidence of the infection than those not taking the pill .
–ThePrint As a result of the studies , the Indian government will now administer the drug as a ‘ prophylaxis ’ to asymptomatic healcare workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-Covid blocks of hospitals which have been earmarked for future Covid patients .
It will also be prescribed to contract tracers in containment zones , paramilitary , and police personnel involved in Covid-related activities .
Previous to the announcement , only high-risk individuals ( including asymptomatic healthcare workers dealing with coronavirus patients ) , as well as asymptomatic household contacts of confirmed patients , were receiving the drug .
“ With available evidence for its safety and beneficial effect as a prophylactic drug against SARS-CoV-2 during the earlier recommended 8 weeks period , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond 8 weeks on weekly dosage with strict monitoring of clinical and ECG parameters , which would also ensure that the therapy is given under supervision , ” reads the ICMR advisory .
“ In clinical practice , HCQ is commonly prescribed in a daily dose of 200mg to 400mg for treatment of diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus for prolonged treatment periods with good tolerance , ” it continues – though it added a warning that it should be discontinued if “ rare ” side-effects such as nausea , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detected .
That said , the ICMR studies found nausea in 8.9 % of healthcare workers , abdominal pain in 7.3 % , vomiting in 1.5 % , and cardiovascular issues in 1.9 % .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

India Presses Ahead with ‘Very Effective’ HCQ COVID-19 Treatment
Written by Tyler Durden
India will continue using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a preventative measure against COVID-19, after the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) declared on Tuesday that the drug was found to be very effective with minimal side effects for prophylaxis.
The ICMR’s decision was based on three studies they conducted, which resulted in a Friday advisory to expand the drug’s use, according to ThePrint.
Speaking at a Tuesday press conference, ICMR Director General Dr. Balram Bhargava said “COVID-19 is an evolving field. We don’t know which medicines are working and which are not. There are lots of drugs that have been repurposed for use in COVID whether prophylaxis or as treatment. HCQ is a very old anti-malarial drug that was being widely used and it continues to be widely used. It is safer.”
“We did some invitro study in labs and found that it has antiviral properties. This drug became suddenly popular when the American government also started using it and they got-fast track approval or emergency use authorisation. We also thought that it may be a useful drug for prevention of COVID,” he added.
India’s decision to increase the use of HCQ comes as the World Health Organization announced the temporary halt of its clinical trials involving the drug over concerns in a Friday Lancet report that it may do more harm than good.
The WHO has 3,500 patients from 17 countries enrolled in what it calls the Solidarity Trial. This is an effort overseen by the WHO to find new treatments for COVID-19. The patients in the trial have been randomly assigned to be treated with hydroxychloroquine, which is a common malaria drug, or three other experimental drugs for treating COVID-19 in various combinations. Only the hydroxychloroquine part of the trial is being put on hold. –NPR
The India studies
Investigations were conducted by the ICMR at three central government hospitals in New Delhi, which concluded that “amongst healthcare workers involved in Covid-19 care, those on HCQ prophylaxis were less likely to develop SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those who were not on it.”
The advisory also states that the National Institute of Virology in Pune has found in laboratory testing that HCQ reduces the viral load. The ICMR also analysed data collected previously, known as retrospective case-control analysis, and found “a significant” relationship between “the number of doses taken and frequency of occurrence of Covid-19 infection in symptomatic healthcare workers who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection”. It further said “the benefit was less pronounced in healthcare workers caring for a general patient population”. Another observational study was conducted among 334 healthcare workers at the country’s largest public hospital, New Delhi’s All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The 248 workers who took HCQ as preventive drug for an average of six weeks had lower incidence of the infection than those not taking the pill. –ThePrint
As a result of the studies, the Indian government will now administer the drug as a ‘prophylaxis’ to asymptomatic healcare workers in non-Covid hospitals, as well as non-Covid blocks of hospitals which have been earmarked for future Covid patients.
It will also be prescribed to contract tracers in containment zones, paramilitary, and police personnel involved in Covid-related activities.
Previous to the announcement, only high-risk individuals (including asymptomatic healthcare workers dealing with coronavirus patients), as well as asymptomatic household contacts of confirmed patients, were receiving the drug.
“With available evidence for its safety and beneficial effect as a prophylactic drug against SARS-CoV-2 during the earlier recommended 8 weeks period, the experts further recommended for its use beyond 8 weeks on weekly dosage with strict monitoring of clinical and ECG parameters, which would also ensure that the therapy is given under supervision,” reads the ICMR advisory.
“In clinical practice, HCQ is commonly prescribed in a daily dose of 200mg to 400mg for treatment of diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus for prolonged treatment periods with good tolerance,” it continues – though it added a warning that it should be discontinued if “rare” side-effects such as nausea, abdominal pain, or irregular heartbeat are detected.
That said, the ICMR studies found nausea in 8.9{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of healthcare workers, abdominal pain in 7.3{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, vomiting in 1.5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, and cardiovascular issues in 1.9{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
Read more at www.zerohedge.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print