principiascientificinternational--2020-09-17--Satellite Data Proves A Downward Trend In Global Wildfires

While wildfires in the Western U.S. continue to rage , satellite observations over the last 20 years have revealed a decreasing trend in global wildfires .
What ’ s going on ?
As strong winds and hot air continue to propel wildfires across the Western U.S. states of California , Oregon , and Washington state , politicians , activists , and researchers quarrel violently about the main causes of these disasters and how to reduce the risk of wildfires in the future .
There can be little doubt that drought conditions and high temperatures are exacerbating these wildfires .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as land management and agriculture , increasing population density and active fire suppression have succeeded in significantly reducing the global areas burned by wildfires , despite the rise in global temperatures .
To understand why some arid and semi-arid regions of the world have managed to reduce wildfires in the face of rising temperatures , such as Mediterranean Europe , while other regions haven ’ t succeeded to do so , will be crucial to risk reduction policies .
Below we have selected recent research papers , based on satellite observations , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the most likely reasons for these encouraging developments .
Global Trends In Wildfire And Its Impacts : Perceptions Versus Realities In A Changing World Abstract : Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth ’ s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence .
Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem , with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence , severity , and resulting losses .
However , important exceptions aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support these perceived overall trends .
Instead , global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades , and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago .
Regarding fire severity , limited data are available .
For the western USA , they indicate little change overall , and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement .
Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning , remain insufficiently quantified to be examined .
Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire .
The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire .
Abstract : Fire is an essential Earth System process that alters ecosystem and atmospheric composition .
Here we assessed long-term fire trends using multiple satellite datasets .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24.3 ± 8.8 % over the past 18 years .
The estimated decrease in burned area remained robust after adjusting for precipitation variability and was largest in savannas .
Agricultural expansion and intensification were primary drivers of declining fire activity .
Fewer and smaller fires reduced aerosol concentrations , modified vegetation structure , and increased the magnitude of the terrestrial carbon sink .
Fire models were unable to reproduce the pattern and magnitude of observed declines , suggesting they may overestimate fire emissions in future projections .
Using economic and demographic variables , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire in human-dominated landscapes .
For more information & research papers see GWPF coverage of wildfires 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 To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Satellite Data Proves A Downward Trend In Global Wildfires
Written by GWPF
While wildfires in the Western U.S. continue to rage, satellite observations over the last 20 years have revealed a decreasing trend in global wildfires. What’s going on?
As strong winds and hot air continue to propel wildfires across the Western U.S. states of California, Oregon, and Washington state, politicians, activists, and researchers quarrel violently about the main causes of these disasters and how to reduce the risk of wildfires in the future.
There can be little doubt that drought conditions and high temperatures are exacerbating these wildfires.
However, over recent decades human activities such as land management and agriculture, increasing population density and active fire suppression have succeeded in significantly reducing the global areas burned by wildfires, despite the rise in global temperatures.
To understand why some arid and semi-arid regions of the world have managed to reduce wildfires in the face of rising temperatures, such as Mediterranean Europe, while other regions haven’t succeeded to do so, will be crucial to risk reduction policies.
Below we have selected recent research papers, based on satellite observations, which reveal the decreasing trend in global wildfires and the most likely reasons for these encouraging developments.
Global Trends In Wildfire And Its Impacts: Perceptions Versus Realities In A Changing World
Abstract: Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity, and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.
Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades.
Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.
Full paper
A Human-Driven Decline In Global Burned Area
Abstract: Fire is an essential Earth System process that alters ecosystem and atmospheric composition. Here we assessed long-term fire trends using multiple satellite datasets. We found that global burned area declined by 24.3 ± 8.8% over the past 18 years.
The estimated decrease in burned area remained robust after adjusting for precipitation variability and was largest in savannas. Agricultural expansion and intensification were primary drivers of declining fire activity. Fewer and smaller fires reduced aerosol concentrations, modified vegetation structure, and increased the magnitude of the terrestrial carbon sink.
Fire models were unable to reproduce the pattern and magnitude of observed declines, suggesting they may overestimate fire emissions in future projections. Using economic and demographic variables, we developed a conceptual model for predicting fire in human-dominated landscapes.
Full paper
For more information & research papers see GWPF coverage of wildfires
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 To 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--2020-09-17--Data Falsifies Alarmist Claims ‘Climate Migrants’ Are Heading North

At the top of Google News searches today for “ climate change , ” an article published by the website Pro Publica claims global warming during the next few decades will force millions of Americans from warm southern states to cooler states .
A look at state population patterns , however , shows exactly the opposite is happening .
Even with our modest recent warming , more Americans prefer to move to warmer southern states than colder northern states .
The Pro Publica article , “ Climate Change Will Force a New American Migration , ” claims : “ [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Southern half of the country will move toward California , the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone .
… It will eat away at prosperity , dealing repeated economic blows to coastal , rural , and Southern regions , which could in turn push entire communities to the brink of collapse .
This process has already begun in rural Louisiana and coastal Georgia… ” So , according to the article , people moving from one part of the country to another to seek a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities on the brink of collapse .
If that is indeed the case , perhaps we should do something about it .
A map published , ironically , by the climate-alarmist website Daily Kos illustrates how Americans are reacting to climate by seeking warmer , not colder , temperatures .
As shown in the Daily Kos map below , U.S. Census Bureau data show Texas will gain the most congressional seats in the 2020 Census update .
Florida will gain the second-most seats .
Texas and Florida are the two southernmost states in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to gain seats are hot-weather Arizona , warm-weather North Carolina , climate-neutral Colorado , climate-neutral Oregon , and cold-weather Montana ( largely due to people fleeing liberal California ) .
By contrast , eight of the 10 states expected to lose seats are cold , northern states .
One of the others is California , where people are fleeing liberal state government .
Alabama is the only warm-weather state expected to lose a congressional seat .
Contrary to the Pro Publica article , Louisiana and Georgia will not lose any seats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if global warming will have any impact on U.S. interstate migration – which climate alarmists claim is inherently harmful – it will be to slow the existing migration flood from cold northern states to warm southern states .
Yet another objective clear benefit of our ongoing modest warming .
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 To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Data Falsifies Alarmist Claims ‘Climate Migrants’ Are Heading North
Written by James Taylor
At the top of Google News searches today for “climate change,” an article published by the website Pro Publica claims global warming during the next few decades will force millions of Americans from warm southern states to cooler states.
A look at state population patterns, however, shows exactly the opposite is happening. Even with our modest recent warming, more Americans prefer to move to warmer southern states than colder northern states.
The Pro Publica article, “Climate Change Will Force a New American Migration,” claims:
“[One] in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone. … It will eat away at prosperity, dealing repeated economic blows to coastal, rural, and Southern regions, which could in turn push entire communities to the brink of collapse. This process has already begun in rural Louisiana and coastal Georgia…”
So, according to the article, people moving from one part of the country to another to seek a better climate is disastrous and puts whole communities on the brink of collapse. If that is indeed the case, perhaps we should do something about it.
A map published, ironically, by the climate-alarmist website Daily Kos illustrates how Americans are reacting to climate by seeking warmer, not colder, temperatures.
As shown in the Daily Kos map below, U.S. Census Bureau data show Texas will gain the most congressional seats in the 2020 Census update. Florida will gain the second-most seats.
Texas and Florida are the two southernmost states in the contiguous 48 states. Other states expected to gain seats are hot-weather Arizona, warm-weather North Carolina, climate-neutral Colorado, climate-neutral Oregon, and cold-weather Montana (largely due to people fleeing liberal California).
By contrast, eight of the 10 states expected to lose seats are cold, northern states. One of the others is California, where people are fleeing liberal state government.
Alabama is the only warm-weather state expected to lose a congressional seat. Contrary to the Pro Publica article, Louisiana and Georgia will not lose any seats.
As the population data clearly show, if global warming will have any impact on U.S. interstate migration – which climate alarmists claim is inherently harmful – it will be to slow the existing migration flood from cold northern states to warm southern states.
Yet another objective clear benefit of our ongoing modest warming.
Read more at Climate Realism
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 To 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--2020-09-16--Exposed: UK Govt’s Fake ‘Public Consultation’ on COVID Vaccine

I have spoken to dozens of friends , colleagues and family members in the past week to ask if ANYONE has been aware of the UK Government ’ s public consultation on the planned ( mandatory , unsafe , untested ) vaccine roll out .
Did you fellow Brits hear of it on the news , the radio , social media ?
I didn ’ t and no one I know did either .
Well , time is desperately running out to save yourself from Boris Johnson ’ s tyrannical plan to poison you .
You have TWO DAYS left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV debates on the ethics , safety , etc over vaccines , no public information broadcasts on the pros and cons , NOTHING !
Why do you think that is ?
If you don ’ t reply to this sham ‘ consultation ’ pronto and post your views on the government website in reply to the fascists in Parliament by midnight September 18 , 2020 that you vehemently oppose their plan , then Boris and Big Brother are going to claim they have been given a free pass to stick a needle in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a cocktail of toxic chemicals .
The UK Govt Consultation Vaccine Document has been available online since August 28 , 2020 ( except no one told Joe Public ) .
The UK Government wants your views !
But unless we voice our concerns immediately our political masters will claim that their plans for the COVID19 vaccine have been ‘ welcome ’ The sick , globalist shills in the Palace of Westminster who run our lives introduce their plan thus : The death rate from the virus is no worse than a bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and most independent medical experts and scientists agree that the lockdown measures were grossly disproportionate to the dangers posed .
For six months now we have witnessed an all out ‘ Government Assault On Our Rights And Freedoms.
’ All the legalese used by HM government is designed to avert your attention from the fact that the proposed vaccine roll out will be an experiment and we are all the guinea pigs .
Anyone who knows one iota about the vaccine industry knows it is the only business in the world made exempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who suffer adverse side effects or death from these life-changing potions .
When you understand that there is still no effective , tried and tested vaccine for the original SARS virus ( SARS-COV1 ) , after 20 years of research , you should appreciate that any supposed vaccine for it ’ s new spawn : SARS-COV2 ( aka COVID19 ) is no less a pipe dream .
These vaccines are NOT safe .
Even the WHO admits that there is currently a real problem with their vaccines , as we reported in UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caused By Vaccine .
Vaccines have long been killing people .
Up until the 1980 ’ s , Big Pharma was going broke from civil lawsuits filed by thousands of adversely affected patients .
But so successfully have our ( corrupt ) politicians been bought off by the trillion-dollar multi-national drug companies that virtually none will speak out on the issue .
It has gotten so farcical that our elected officials in Britain have stooped to the disgusting ploy of this aforesaid ‘ public consultation ’ whereby ordinary members of the public are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consulted.
’ When the deadline expires at midnight on September 18 , 2020 you can expect these criminals to begin mobilizing their crooked friends in the media to browbeat us into submission .
Penalties will be imposed for non-compliance ; the mainstream media and what passes for ‘ journalism ’ thus exposed by their omissions – all complicit in the mass charade .
The mainstream media knows full well the UK public are very worried over vaccine safety .
The evidence was made clear when ‘ Half A Million Sign Petition Against Compulsory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Principia Scientific International we have run many articles on vaccine dangers to inform and generate open discussion ( such as Nearly 400 Adverse Reactions Listed In Vaccine Package Inserts ) .
It is up to us all to spread the word and share such information and trigger a great mass awakening .
Your life – the lives of your loved ones – is on the line .
Don ’ t say we didn ’ t warn you !
About the author : John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder ( with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International ( PSI ) .
John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Exposed: UK Govt’s Fake ‘Public Consultation’ on COVID Vaccine
Written by John O'Sullivan
I have spoken to dozens of friends, colleagues and family members in the past week to ask if ANYONE has been aware of the UK Government’s public consultation on the planned (mandatory, unsafe, untested) vaccine roll out.
Did you fellow Brits hear of it on the news, the radio, social media? I didn’t and no one I know did either. Well, time is desperately running out to save yourself from Boris Johnson’s tyrannical plan to poison you. You have TWO DAYS left!
No media fanfare, no earnest TV debates on the ethics, safety, etc over vaccines, no public information broadcasts on the pros and cons, NOTHING! Why do you think that is?
If you don’t reply to this sham ‘consultation’ pronto and post your views on the government website in reply to the fascists in Parliament by midnight September 18, 2020 that you vehemently oppose their plan, then Boris and Big Brother are going to claim they have been given a free pass to stick a needle in you and yours and pollute your body with a cocktail of toxic chemicals.
The UK Govt Consultation Vaccine Document has been available online since August 28, 2020 (except no one told Joe Public). The UK Government wants your views! But unless we voice our concerns immediately our political masters will claim that their plans for the COVID19 vaccine have been ‘welcome’
The sick, globalist shills in the Palace of Westminster who run our lives introduce their plan thus:
Introduction COVID-19 is the biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history, which is why the UK government is working to a scientifically led, step-by-step action plan for tackling the pandemic – taking the right measures at the right time.
The death rate from the virus is no worse than a bad flu season. The data is in and most independent medical experts and scientists agree that the lockdown measures were grossly disproportionate to the dangers posed.
For six months now we have witnessed an all out ‘Government Assault On Our Rights And Freedoms.’
All the legalese used by HM government is designed to avert your attention from the fact that the proposed vaccine roll out will be an experiment and we are all the guinea pigs. Anyone who knows one iota about the vaccine industry knows it is the only business in the world made exempt by governments from ANY litigation from those who suffer adverse side effects or death from these life-changing potions.
When you understand that there is still no effective, tried and tested vaccine for the original SARS virus (SARS-COV1), after 20 years of research, you should appreciate that any supposed vaccine for it’s new spawn: SARS-COV2 (aka COVID19) is no less a pipe dream.
These vaccines are NOT safe. Even the WHO admits that there is currently a real problem with their vaccines, as we reported in UN Admits New Polio Outbreak In Sudan Is Caused By Vaccine.
Vaccines have long been killing people. Up until the 1980’s, Big Pharma was going broke from civil lawsuits filed by thousands of adversely affected patients.
But so successfully have our (corrupt) politicians been bought off by the trillion-dollar multi-national drug companies that virtually none will speak out on the issue. It has gotten so farcical that our elected officials in Britain have stooped to the disgusting ploy of this aforesaid ‘public consultation’ whereby ordinary members of the public are clueless that they’ve been ‘consulted.’
When the deadline expires at midnight on September 18, 2020 you can expect these criminals to begin mobilizing their crooked friends in the media to browbeat us into submission. Penalties will be imposed for non-compliance; the mainstream media and what passes for ‘journalism’ thus exposed by their omissions – all complicit in the mass charade.
The mainstream media knows full well the UK public are very worried over vaccine safety. The evidence was made clear when ‘Half A Million Sign Petition Against Compulsory COVID-19 Vaccine‘ last May.
On Principia Scientific International we have run many articles on vaccine dangers to inform and generate open discussion (such as Nearly 400 Adverse Reactions Listed In Vaccine Package Inserts).
It is up to us all to spread the word and share such information and trigger a great mass awakening. Your life – the lives of your loved ones – is on the line.
As respected medical doctor and best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman lamented:
“Will we become genetically modified beings through the administering of a new class of experimental vaccines? Even the World Health Organization (WHO) has admitted that no one knows what will happen. Many leading scientists want this mass experiment stopped, but time appears to be running out.”
Don’t say we didn’t warn you!
[H/T Bishop John Taylor]
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
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 To 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--2020-09-16--A government assault on our rights and freedoms

On September 9th , The Telegraph published an article on its website with the title Under cover of Covid , the Government has launched an all-out assault on British civil liberties which criticizes the government ’ s response to the Covid ‘ crisis ’ and its restrictions placed on the British public .
All articles on the Telegraph website are behind a paywall , but I have obtained a copy of the text , and I reproduce it here in its entirety .
Social gatherings of more than six people will be banned from Monday .
Government pronouncements like this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , but they should raise a ruckus .
The need to limit social contacts is arguable – positive test numbers have risen and winter is coming .
But if it is a winning argument , why isn ’ t the case being made democratically ?
Why isn ’ t Parliament voting on this major incursion into our lives ?
Why is there such an absence of democratic debate ?
( Emphasis added ) Britain seems a little too comfortable being ruled by diktat .
It remains the case that a lockdown has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full and explicit parliamentary approval .
The greatest loss of liberty in British history has been imposed largely by ministerial pen .
In fact , there have been more than 350 minister-made laws relating to coronavirus across the UK .
“ Urgency ” is often cited , but rarely evidenced , with policies announced days or weeks in advance of their “ urgent ” imposition .
I fear parliamentary democracy is an overlooked casualty of this crisis .
( Emphasis added ) The public is enduring a shock-and-awe campaign of contradictory ministerial commands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have been told to go back to the office , eat out to help out and send our children to school – but now , this arbitrary limit on gatherings of more than six people looms over our social and private lives .
The absence of logic is characteristic of the Government ’ s rule-making during the pandemic .
A team of 50 people can go to work in an office but if 10 go to the pub together afterwards , they ’ ll be committing an offence .
A class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school classroom and , at break time , hundreds gather in the playground .
But if seven meet for a birthday party , the parents will face financial penalties .
A family of five will not even be able to visit two grandparents at the same time .
( Emphasis added ) Complex and contradictory decrees like these damage the rule of law , not only because they are undemocratic but because they are difficult to comply with .
We have been turned into a nation of lawbreakers without even realising it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit on social gatherings ?
And while the legal change on Monday is supposed to make the rules “ super simple ” , in Matt Hancock ’ s words , it will clearly do anything but .
( Emphasis added ) Mr Hancock has warned his restrictions “ will now be rigorously enforced by the police ” .
But what good is rigour without rationale ?
And what will the police enforce ?
We have been closely monitoring the policing of ever-changing ministerial commands since the onset of the pandemic and have found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We should hardly be surprised – with Government guidance that contradicts laws , and laws that change every week , it would take a legal scholar to keep up with all the restrictions , exemptions and penalties .
The courts have been involved in a stack of unlawful Covid prosecutions too – every one of the charges issued under the Coronavirus Act has been found unlawful on review .
( Emphasis added ) An important opportunity for a course correction will arrive in Parliament in coming weeks , when MPs will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renew the Coronavirus Act .
The Act represents the biggest expansion of executive power in a generation , and contains some of the most extreme powers in modern British history .
Most have been proven unnecessary , but the draconian ability for authorities to detain “ potentially infectious ” people under Schedule 21 has been used – though , astoundingly , the CPS found only unlawfully , to lock up and prosecute healthy people .
( Emphasis added ) The Act was rushed through Parliament breathlessly , as the first lockdown was being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months after it was passed , the vote to renew or repeal the Coronavirus Act is now about more than just these powers – it is about parliamentary democracy versus ministerial rule .
And if MPs reassert themselves and restore the democratic balance in this vote , we ought to see fewer decrees bursting out of No 10 onto the statute books .
( Emphasis added ) Few among us will doubt ministers ’ good intentions – but you know what they say about the road to hell .
If Parliament is serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the time is now .

Written by Andy Rowlands
On September 9th, The Telegraph published an article on its website with the title Under cover of Covid, the Government has launched an all-out assault on British civil liberties which criticizes the government’s response to the Covid ‘crisis’ and its restrictions placed on the British public. All articles on the Telegraph website are behind a paywall, but I have obtained a copy of the text, and I reproduce it here in its entirety.
Social gatherings of more than six people will be banned from Monday. Government pronouncements like this raise little more than an eyebrow these days, but they should raise a ruckus.
The need to limit social contacts is arguable – positive test numbers have risen and winter is coming. But if it is a winning argument, why isn’t the case being made democratically? Why isn’t Parliament voting on this major incursion into our lives? Why is there such an absence of democratic debate? (Emphasis added)
Britain seems a little too comfortable being ruled by diktat. It remains the case that a lockdown has never been in place in England with full and explicit parliamentary approval. The greatest loss of liberty in British history has been imposed largely by ministerial pen. In fact, there have been more than 350 minister-made laws relating to coronavirus across the UK. “Urgency” is often cited, but rarely evidenced, with policies announced days or weeks in advance of their “urgent” imposition. I fear parliamentary democracy is an overlooked casualty of this crisis. (Emphasis added)
The public is enduring a shock-and-awe campaign of contradictory ministerial commands endowed with the weight of legal sanctions. We have been told to go back to the office, eat out to help out and send our children to school – but now, this arbitrary limit on gatherings of more than six people looms over our social and private lives.
The absence of logic is characteristic of the Government’s rule-making during the pandemic. A team of 50 people can go to work in an office but if 10 go to the pub together afterwards, they’ll be committing an offence. A class of 30 children can sit in a school classroom and, at break time, hundreds gather in the playground. But if seven meet for a birthday party, the parents will face financial penalties. A family of five will not even be able to visit two grandparents at the same time. (Emphasis added)
Complex and contradictory decrees like these damage the rule of law, not only because they are undemocratic but because they are difficult to comply with. We have been turned into a nation of lawbreakers without even realising it. How many people knew the previous legal limit on social gatherings? And while the legal change on Monday is supposed to make the rules “super simple”, in Matt Hancock’s words, it will clearly do anything but. (Emphasis added)
Mr Hancock has warned his restrictions “will now be rigorously enforced by the police”. But what good is rigour without rationale? And what will the police enforce? We have been closely monitoring the policing of ever-changing ministerial commands since the onset of the pandemic and have found a chaotic postcode lottery of arbitrary policing. We should hardly be surprised – with Government guidance that contradicts laws, and laws that change every week, it would take a legal scholar to keep up with all the restrictions, exemptions and penalties. The courts have been involved in a stack of unlawful Covid prosecutions too – every one of the charges issued under the Coronavirus Act has been found unlawful on review. (Emphasis added)
An important opportunity for a course correction will arrive in Parliament in coming weeks, when MPs will have the chance to vote to repeal or renew the Coronavirus Act. The Act represents the biggest expansion of executive power in a generation, and contains some of the most extreme powers in modern British history. Most have been proven unnecessary, but the draconian ability for authorities to detain “potentially infectious” people under Schedule 21 has been used – though, astoundingly, the CPS found only unlawfully, to lock up and prosecute healthy people. (Emphasis added)
The Act was rushed through Parliament breathlessly, as the first lockdown was being imposed by a televised statement. Six months after it was passed, the vote to renew or repeal the Coronavirus Act is now about more than just these powers – it is about parliamentary democracy versus ministerial rule. And if MPs reassert themselves and restore the democratic balance in this vote, we ought to see fewer decrees bursting out of No 10 onto the statute books. (Emphasis added)
Few among us will doubt ministers’ good intentions – but you know what they say about the road to hell. If Parliament is serious about taking back control of our laws, the time is now.


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-16--Predictions for The Grand Solar Minimum

Predictions for The Grand Solar Minimum

We are entering a Grand Solar Minimum where the number of solar flares is greatly reduced for an extended period of time .
This provides an opportunity to study the relationship between the weather on Earth and the sun as any changes will become more evident as conditions exceed the normal variations we experience .
I will do a foolish thing and make long term predictions on the coming weather .
IT WILL GET COLD .
This may seem to be a no brainer since history has shown that as the number of solar flares decreases the temperature on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who believe that there is no relationship between the two .
The solar flares are the source of the sun ’ s x-ray and ultraviolet light emissions so the radiation of visible light doesn ’ t change significantly during the sun spot cycle .
There are people who believe that since the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere do not absorb visible light , they do not receive radiated energy from the sun and are heated by the Earth ’ s surface .
This despite the laws of thermodynamics saying that all objects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolute zero will radiate energy .
The wavelengths of radiated energy absorb by the oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere are the shorter ultraviolet wavelengths that are converted into kinetic energy and radiate as infrared radiation .
The atmosphere is being heated by the ultraviolet light emitted by the sun and it in turn is adding heat to the Earth ’ s surface .
This source of heat will be greatly reduced during the solar minimum and I am willing to go out on a limb and predict the Earth will become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OZONE “ HOLE ” WILL GROW IN SIZE AND SEVERITY BUT THE AMOUNT OF ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT REACHING THE EARTH ’ S SURFACE WILL DECREASE .
There are those who believe the depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere is a result of man ’ s activity and the reduction of ozone will have catastrophic consequence for life on Earth as ultraviolet radiation increases .
They ignore the fact that before plants evolved there was no oxygen molecules or ozone in the atmosphere and yet life developed .
When oxygen and nitrogen molecules absorb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vibrate .
When enough energy ( 450,000 joules/mole for O2 ) is absorbed the molecules splits into atoms .
In the upper atmosphere this allows an oxygen atom to combine with a nitrogen molecule to form nitrous oxide molecules .
In the stratosphere where the energy from the sun is diminished and the density of molecules increases the free oxygen atom combines with an oxygen molecule to form ozone .
It is the oxygen molecule that is absorbing the ultraviolet light that produces ozone .
With the decrease in ultraviolet light from fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more oxygen molecules to absorb that light .
This will cause an increase in the ozone “ hole ” and a decrease in ultraviolet light reaching the surface of the Earth .
THE ALTITUDE WHERE CLOUDS FORM WILL INCREASE .
This seems counter intuitive .
If cloud form when water vapor condenses into water droplets a cooling of the atmosphere would lead to the clouds forming at a lower altitude .
This belief ignores the fact that clouds currently form at an altitude of ten kilometers when the temperature at five kilometers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clouds form there .
Water as a gas does not exist below the boiling point of water ( James McGinn ) .
The molecules in water have different kinetic energy and the temperature is said to be the median kinetic energy of the bell curve of the water molecule ’ s energy .
When the water temperature is at boiling ( 373 k ) another 540 calories/gram must be added to convert the liquid water to a gas .
This means the effective temperature where water converts to a gas at the high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ k. The bell curve dictates the corresponding temperature at the low end needs to be -127 k. There is no negative temperature absolute .
The disparity between the temperature and the energy needed to convert the water to a gas is too great to occur with the tightly packed molecules of liquid water .
Water evaporates as micro droplets of liquid water not a gas , which explains its ability to absorb a large amount of infrared energy .
The micron droplets form because water is a liquid crystal that forms when infrared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydrogen ions and the hydroxyl ions combine with other water molecules to form a crystalline shell .
( See Dr. Gerald Pollack ’ s experiments in his book The Fourth Phase of Water . )
Liquid crystals have two melting points with water ’ s first melting point being at 0 C and the second being somewhere between 100 C and the 540 calories/gram needed to convert it to steam .
As the water crystals absorb infrared energy the negative charge increases causing the crystal to rise in the atmosphere .
When the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ melts it releases both the stored kinetic energy and the energy stored as electrical energy converting to a liquid and forming clouds .
As the ultraviolet light heating the atmosphere decreases the altitude at which the second melt point of the water crystals occurs to form clouds will increase .
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 To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Predictions for The Grand Solar Minimum
Written by Herb Rose
We are entering a Grand Solar Minimum where the number of solar flares is greatly reduced for an extended period of time. This provides an opportunity to study the relationship between the weather on Earth and the sun as any changes will become more evident as conditions exceed the normal variations we experience. I will do a foolish thing and make long term predictions on the coming weather.
Prediction 1:
IT WILL GET COLD.
This may seem to be a no brainer since history has shown that as the number of solar flares decreases the temperature on the Earth also decreases but there are those who believe that there is no relationship between the two. The solar flares are the source of the sun’s x-ray and ultraviolet light emissions so the radiation of visible light doesn’t change significantly during the sun spot cycle.
There are people who believe that since the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere do not absorb visible light, they do not receive radiated energy from the sun and are heated by the Earth’s surface. This despite the laws of thermodynamics saying that all objects absorb radiated energy and all objects above absolute zero will radiate energy.
The wavelengths of radiated energy absorb by the oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere are the shorter ultraviolet wavelengths that are converted into kinetic energy and radiate as infrared radiation. The atmosphere is being heated by the ultraviolet light emitted by the sun and it in turn is adding heat to the Earth’s surface. This source of heat will be greatly reduced during the solar minimum and I am willing to go out on a limb and predict the Earth will become colder during the solar minimum.
Prediction 2:
THE OZONE “HOLE” WILL GROW IN SIZE AND SEVERITY BUT THE AMOUNT OF ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT REACHING THE EARTH’S SURFACE WILL DECREASE.
There are those who believe the depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere is a result of man’s activity and the reduction of ozone will have catastrophic consequence for life on Earth as ultraviolet radiation increases. They ignore the fact that before plants evolved there was no oxygen molecules or ozone in the atmosphere and yet life developed.
When oxygen and nitrogen molecules absorb ultraviolet light it causes the atoms to vibrate. When enough energy (450,000 joules/mole for O2) is absorbed the molecules splits into atoms. In the upper atmosphere this allows an oxygen atom to combine with a nitrogen molecule to form nitrous oxide molecules.
In the stratosphere where the energy from the sun is diminished and the density of molecules increases the free oxygen atom combines with an oxygen molecule to form ozone. It is the oxygen molecule that is absorbing the ultraviolet light that produces ozone. With the decrease in ultraviolet light from fewer flares there will be less ozone produced and more oxygen molecules to absorb that light. This will cause an increase in the ozone “hole” and a decrease in ultraviolet light reaching the surface of the Earth.
Prediction 3:
THE ALTITUDE WHERE CLOUDS FORM WILL INCREASE.
This seems counter intuitive. If cloud form when water vapor condenses into water droplets a cooling of the atmosphere would lead to the clouds forming at a lower altitude. This belief ignores the fact that clouds currently form at an altitude of ten kilometers when the temperature at five kilometers is almost as cold and yet no clouds form there.
Water as a gas does not exist below the boiling point of water (James McGinn). The molecules in water have different kinetic energy and the temperature is said to be the median kinetic energy of the bell curve of the water molecule’s energy. When the water temperature is at boiling (373 k) another 540 calories/gram must be added to convert the liquid water to a gas.
This means the effective temperature where water converts to a gas at the high end of the bell curve is 913 k. The bell curve dictates the corresponding temperature at the low end needs to be -127 k. There is no negative temperature absolute. The disparity between the temperature and the energy needed to convert the water to a gas is too great to occur with the tightly packed molecules of liquid water.
Water evaporates as micro droplets of liquid water not a gas, which explains its ability to absorb a large amount of infrared energy. The micron droplets form because water is a liquid crystal that forms when infrared energy splits water molecules into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions and the hydroxyl ions combine with other water molecules to form a crystalline shell. (See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s experiments in his book The Fourth Phase of Water.)
Liquid crystals have two melting points with water’s first melting point being at 0 C and the second being somewhere between 100 C and the 540 calories/gram needed to convert it to steam. As the water crystals absorb infrared energy the negative charge increases causing the crystal to rise in the atmosphere. When the crystal reaches an altitude where the crystal melts it releases both the stored kinetic energy and the energy stored as electrical energy converting to a liquid and forming clouds.
As the ultraviolet light heating the atmosphere decreases the altitude at which the second melt point of the water crystals occurs to form clouds will increase.
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 To 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--2020-09-16--Your Calculated Risk of Dying from COVID-19

Your Calculated Risk of Dying from COVID-19 If you are between the ages of 20 and 40 your risk of dying from COVID-19 is the same as your chance of dying from playing football .
If you ’ re between the ages of 15 and 24 you ’ re more likely to be fatally afflicted by falling down the stairs than by COVID-19 .
Kids under 15 have more chance of getting hit by lightning than of dying from COVID-19 .
Healthy women under 40…your odds of dying from COVID-19…are about the same as dying from a plane crash .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Professor of Medicine of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science at Stanford University School of Medicine , presents the insignificant risk posed by the “ deadly and novel ” virus .
The 6-month manic COVID-19 campaign – driven by Big Pharma ’ s panic for profit , aided and abetted by censorship from Big Tech ’ s Amazon , Apple , Facebook , Google , and a drumbeating mainstream media – has reached the point where if people were told to get into boxcars to be taken to ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rush to get in line .
The turbulence and upheaval engineered by government bureaucrats and potentates will require brisk countermeasures if freedom is to be sustained .
As early as May , this year , retired neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock , M.D.
, issued a warning about wearing face masks : not only do masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick , but they also create serious health risks to the wearer – airlines , are you listening ?
The bottom line , Dr. Blaylock says , is that if you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face mask .
He added , You might be thinking , why have we not each and every winter , worn masks as protection from the flu ?
Regarding the question what might be going on in America , Steven F. Hotze , M.D.
, has this to say : The medical mantra to make masks matter beyond their measure , mindlessly multiplied by the mass media , has mandated a state of muted maskism , or rather masked mutism , where assertions are unquestioned and misgivings remain unanswered .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Your Calculated Risk of Dying from COVID-19
Written by David Lane
If you are between the ages of 20 and 40 your risk of dying from COVID-19 is the same as your chance of dying from playing football. If you’re between the ages of 15 and 24 you’re more likely to be fatally afflicted by falling down the stairs than by COVID-19.
Kids under 15 have more chance of getting hit by lightning than of dying from COVID-19.
Healthy women under 40…your odds of dying from COVID-19…are about the same as dying from a plane crash.
“If you’re under the age of 65 the chance of dying of COVID-19…is the same risk you face driving on your commute to work.”
This is how John Ioannidis, M.D., Professor of Medicine of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science at Stanford University School of Medicine, presents the insignificant risk posed by the “deadly and novel” virus.
The 6-month manic COVID-19 campaign – driven by Big Pharma’s panic for profit, aided and abetted by censorship from Big Tech’s Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and a drumbeating mainstream media – has reached the point where if people were told to get into boxcars to be taken to ‘Virus Protection Camps’, many would rush to get in line.
The turbulence and upheaval engineered by government bureaucrats and potentates will require brisk countermeasures if freedom is to be sustained.
As early as May, this year, retired neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., issued a warning about wearing face masks: not only do masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick, but they also create serious health risks to the wearer – airlines, are you listening?
The bottom line, Dr. Blaylock says, is that if you are not sick you should not wear a face mask. He added,
“[No credible scientific study has] established a conclusive relationship between mask use and protection against influenza infection [read: COVID-19].”
You might be thinking, why have we not each and every winter, worn masks as protection from the flu?
Linda Johnston, M.D., spells out that
“The coronavirus is about 100 nanometers in diameter. Cloth mask ‘holes’ are 1,000 times larger than a virus. An analogy is used that a mask is like a mosquito getting through a chain-link fence. It’s actually much worse, it’s a mosquito getting through a chain-link fence with holes 14 yards in diameter.”
Regarding the question what might be going on in America, Steven F. Hotze, M.D., has this to say:
“The purpose of masks is to break your will, destroy your individuality, and make you submissive to tyrannical government bureaucrats [Fauci]. First you lose your identity and then you lose your freedom.”
The medical mantra to make masks matter beyond their measure, mindlessly multiplied by the mass media, has mandated a state of muted maskism, or rather masked mutism, where assertions are unquestioned and misgivings remain unanswered.
Read more at www.afa.net
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 To 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--2020-09-16--Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccination Is Unethical and Unscientific

“ Make vaccines free , don ’ t allow religious or personal objections , and create disincentives for those who refuse vaccines shown to be safe and effective.
” This is an empty statement , as any vaccine available will neither be 100 percent safe nor 100 percent effective .
Based on the initial study of the Russian vaccine in a very limited number of patients , it is not even clear that the vaccine will be safer than the disease itself .
If a vaccine is 100 percent effective , there is no justification for mandatory vaccination .
Anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take the vaccine .
It would not be possible for someone declining the vaccine to harm someone who voluntarily takes the vaccine .
Any call for a mandatory vaccine is an explicit admission that the vaccine is not 100 percent effective .
If a vaccine were 0 percent effective , there would be no justification for anyone taking the vaccine .
There must be some intermediate percentage of effectiveness that maximizes the utility of mandatory vaccination .
As the vaccine becomes more effective , fewer people can possibly benefit from mandatory vaccination .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lower percentage of people who could possibly benefit from mandatory vaccination will actually benefit .
Utility of mandatory vaccination requires that the vaccine be effective in some of those who would not voluntarily take it ( conscripted helpers ) , that the vaccine be ineffective in some of those who would voluntarily take it ( beneficiaries ) , and the stipulation that conscripted helpers interact with beneficiaries , that these interactions lead to extra infections despite other means of prevention , and that the extra infections result in serious illness or deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is no way to know what this optimal effectiveness would be .
There is no way to know how many coerced vaccinations are necessary to prevent one infection or to prevent one serious illness or death ( number to treat ) .
Given that the number to treat can not possibly be known prior to vaccination , mandatory vaccination can not be ethical even by utilitarian calculation .
An ideal vaccine induces an immune response that neutralizes a pathogen .
The immune response can be antibody or T-cell activity .
Claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not precisely true .
Immune responses are not like antimissile defenses that destroy the missile before it reaches the body .
A better analogy for an ideal vaccine would be the inducement of an immune response that prevents invading pathogens from breaching a wall using siege ladders or battering rams .
The immune defenses can not act until triggered by the presence of the invading pathogen .
An ideal vaccine can neutralize the pathogen before it enters tissue cells , replicates within the tissue cells , enters the blood , invades distant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death .
The process of neutralizing the virus is not instantaneous , so while the battle between immune defense and invading pathogen is taking place , the host is technically infected and theoretically can transmit the pathogen to others .
The best that we can hope for is to prevent clinical disease , and to minimize the duration of time that the host can transmit the pathogen to others .
Studies of the Russian vaccine did not measure efficacy in terms of prevention of clinical disease .
The measure of “ efficacy ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vaccine antigen .
But there is no guarantee that the presence of antibody will prevent infection , prevent clinical disease , or prevent death .
There is no evidence that severe disease or death from covid-19 is due to the absence of antibody .
Studies on immune response in patients with covid-19 show that patients with severe disease have higher antibody levels than patients with mild disease .
There are concerns that cytokine storm , a consequence of too much immune response rather than too little immune response , may be an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cytokine storm is a potential side effect of any vaccine .
As usual , the devil is in the details .
Advocates for mandatory vaccination always stipulate that the vaccine be safe .
What is safe ?
No vaccine can possibly be 100 percent safe .
The elephant in the room is always : How large is the risk ?
The Lancet ‘ s study on the Russian vaccine studied 76 subjects .
There were 38 in the vaccine group and 38 in the control group .
A study of this size would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatality rate of 1/50 .
Fever occurred in 100 percent of one subgroup ( 20 subjects ) and 31/38 subjects receiving the Gam=COVID-Vac agent .
The ages in the study ranged from 18–60 .
The mean age of the subgroups was 25–32 years of age .
Given the low age of the participants and the high percentage of asymptomatic covid-19 cases in young patients , it is not clear that the vaccine was even safer than infection with the virus .
Several decades ago , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The plan was to test everyone with PPD and treat all the positive PPD patients with a drug called INH .
This plan had to be stopped after fifty patients died from liver failure due to INH toxicity .
The liver toxicity was missed by small-scale clinical trials but was discovered by the much-larger-scale public health program .
Neither the CDC nor the Food and Drug Administration can know that a treatment or vaccine is safe .
The more people are vaccinated , the more side effects will be discovered .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccination .
If everyone is required to be vaccinated , there will be no control group for comparison of safety and efficacy .
Advocates of mandatory covid-19 vaccination assure the public that the vaccine will be safe .
Why was it necessary for government to indemnify the vaccine manufacturers against any liability for their vaccine prior to production ?
This is a clear case where one should ignore what government says and watch what government does .
Government clearly knows something that is not being disclosed to the public .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposes vaccination is labeled as stupid , uniformed , or inadequately concerned about their elderly neighbors .
Some risks are not known ahead of time .
Some risks will not be manifest until years later .
Consider a hypothetical situation where a vaccine causes sterility ten years later .
There would be no way to detect this risk ahead of time .
Imagine that all of humanity is vaccinated with this vaccine .
Humanity would be wiped out when the last person dies .
No matter how small the risk for an existential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance over something as ordinary as a bad flu ?
Rather than treating antivaxxers as a threat to civilization , we should be grateful that some people will always volunteer to be controls in our medical experiments by declining treatment .
Markets Offer the Best Solutions to Complex Problems How efficacious will the vaccine be ?
How safe will the vaccine be ?
We don ’ t even have an American vaccine to assess , yet authorities are calling for mandatory American vaccination .
Even when vaccine options are available , we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are no objective answers available about efficacy and safety , so how can objectively correct decisions be made balancing risks and benefits ?
Markets offer the best solutions to these subjective questions .
Just as markets determine value by the process of price discovery , the balance between risk and benefit of a vaccine can only be determined by how many people are voluntarily willing to take the vaccine .
Vaccines are a wonderful hedge against the risks of contagious disease .
We are fortunate to have vaccines as options .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ justified .
If a vaccine were clearly 100 percent efficacious and 100 percent safe , there would be no need for coercion ; people would voluntarily line up to take the vaccine .
Real vaccines are never 100 percent efficacious or 100 percent safe .
Judgments about risk versus benefit can only be made by individuals facing the risk .
People who decline vaccines are not stupid , nor are they misinformed , nor do they have callous disregard for their neighbors .
Advocates of vaccines who are disappointed by the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop blaming those who decline and reevaluate their poor abilities of persuasion .
Vaccine skeptics are necessary as controls in ongoing assessment of efficacy and safety .
Vaccine skeptics are necessary as a hedge against catastrophic errors by experts .

Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccination Is Unethical and Unscientific
Written by Gilbert Berdine, MD
The post-covid-19 world is a surrealistic nightmare. Businesses have been shut down arbitrarily without any evidence that these shutdowns save any lives. Tens of millions of Americans have become unemployed due to these shutdowns. There are already demands for mandatory covid-19 vaccination even before a vaccine is available.
“Make vaccines free, don’t allow religious or personal objections, and create disincentives for those who refuse vaccines shown to be safe and effective.” This is an empty statement, as any vaccine available will neither be 100 percent safe nor 100 percent effective.
Based on the initial study of the Russian vaccine in a very limited number of patients, it is not even clear that the vaccine will be safer than the disease itself.
Justifications for Mandatory Vaccines
If a vaccine is 100 percent effective, there is no justification for mandatory vaccination. Anyone who wishes to be protected can voluntarily take the vaccine. It would not be possible for someone declining the vaccine to harm someone who voluntarily takes the vaccine. Any call for a mandatory vaccine is an explicit admission that the vaccine is not 100 percent effective.
If a vaccine were 0 percent effective, there would be no justification for anyone taking the vaccine. There must be some intermediate percentage of effectiveness that maximizes the utility of mandatory vaccination. As the vaccine becomes more effective, fewer people can possibly benefit from mandatory vaccination. As the vaccine becomes less effective, a lower percentage of people who could possibly benefit from mandatory vaccination will actually benefit.
Utility of mandatory vaccination requires that the vaccine be effective in some of those who would not voluntarily take it (conscripted helpers), that the vaccine be ineffective in some of those who would voluntarily take it (beneficiaries), and the stipulation that conscripted helpers interact with beneficiaries, that these interactions lead to extra infections despite other means of prevention, and that the extra infections result in serious illness or deaths. That is a lot of ifs. There is no way to know what this optimal effectiveness would be. There is no way to know how many coerced vaccinations are necessary to prevent one infection or to prevent one serious illness or death (number to treat). Given that the number to treat cannot possibly be known prior to vaccination, mandatory vaccination cannot be ethical even by utilitarian calculation.
Concerns about Efficacy
An ideal vaccine induces an immune response that neutralizes a pathogen. The immune response can be antibody or T-cell activity. Claims that a covid-19 vaccine will prevent infection are not precisely true. Immune responses are not like antimissile defenses that destroy the missile before it reaches the body. A better analogy for an ideal vaccine would be the inducement of an immune response that prevents invading pathogens from breaching a wall using siege ladders or battering rams.
The immune defenses cannot act until triggered by the presence of the invading pathogen. An ideal vaccine can neutralize the pathogen before it enters tissue cells, replicates within the tissue cells, enters the blood, invades distant organs, and causes clinical disease or death.
The process of neutralizing the virus is not instantaneous, so while the battle between immune defense and invading pathogen is taking place, the host is technically infected and theoretically can transmit the pathogen to others. The best that we can hope for is to prevent clinical disease, and to minimize the duration of time that the host can transmit the pathogen to others.
Studies of the Russian vaccine did not measure efficacy in terms of prevention of clinical disease. The measure of “efficacy” used was detection of antibody response to the vaccine antigen. But there is no guarantee that the presence of antibody will prevent infection, prevent clinical disease, or prevent death.
There is no evidence that severe disease or death from covid-19 is due to the absence of antibody. Studies on immune response in patients with covid-19 show that patients with severe disease have higher antibody levels than patients with mild disease. There are concerns that cytokine storm, a consequence of too much immune response rather than too little immune response, may be an important cause of death in covid-19. Cytokine storm is a potential side effect of any vaccine. As usual, the devil is in the details.
Concerns about Safety
Advocates for mandatory vaccination always stipulate that the vaccine be safe. What is safe? No vaccine can possibly be 100 percent safe. The elephant in the room is always: How large is the risk? The Lancet‘s study on the Russian vaccine studied 76 subjects. There were 38 in the vaccine group and 38 in the control group. A study of this size would not be expected to detect a vaccine fatality rate of 1/50.
Fever occurred in 100 percent of one subgroup (20 subjects) and 31/38 subjects receiving the Gam=COVID-Vac agent. The ages in the study ranged from 18–60. The mean age of the subgroups was 25–32 years of age. Given the low age of the participants and the high percentage of asymptomatic covid-19 cases in young patients, it is not clear that the vaccine was even safer than infection with the virus.
Several decades ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decided to eliminate tuberculosis from the United States. The plan was to test everyone with PPD and treat all the positive PPD patients with a drug called INH. This plan had to be stopped after fifty patients died from liver failure due to INH toxicity.
The liver toxicity was missed by small-scale clinical trials but was discovered by the much-larger-scale public health program. Neither the CDC nor the Food and Drug Administration can know that a treatment or vaccine is safe. The more people are vaccinated, the more side effects will be discovered. This is a huge ethical problem for mandatory vaccination. If everyone is required to be vaccinated, there will be no control group for comparison of safety and efficacy.
Advocates of mandatory covid-19 vaccination assure the public that the vaccine will be safe. Why was it necessary for government to indemnify the vaccine manufacturers against any liability for their vaccine prior to production? This is a clear case where one should ignore what government says and watch what government does. Government clearly knows something that is not being disclosed to the public. This is the opposite of transparency, yet anyone who opposes vaccination is labeled as stupid, uniformed, or inadequately concerned about their elderly neighbors.
Catastrophic Tail Risks
Some risks are not known ahead of time. Some risks will not be manifest until years later. Consider a hypothetical situation where a vaccine causes sterility ten years later. There would be no way to detect this risk ahead of time. Imagine that all of humanity is vaccinated with this vaccine.
Humanity would be wiped out when the last person dies. No matter how small the risk for an existential threat, why would humanity take this chance over something as ordinary as a bad flu? Rather than treating antivaxxers as a threat to civilization, we should be grateful that some people will always volunteer to be controls in our medical experiments by declining treatment.
Markets Offer the Best Solutions to Complex Problems
How efficacious will the vaccine be? How safe will the vaccine be? We don’t even have an American vaccine to assess, yet authorities are calling for mandatory American vaccination. Even when vaccine options are available, we will have limited information about efficacy and safety.
There are no objective answers available about efficacy and safety, so how can objectively correct decisions be made balancing risks and benefits? Markets offer the best solutions to these subjective questions. Just as markets determine value by the process of price discovery, the balance between risk and benefit of a vaccine can only be determined by how many people are voluntarily willing to take the vaccine.
Conclusions
Vaccines are a wonderful hedge against the risks of contagious disease. We are fortunate to have vaccines as options. However, mandatory vaccination can never be justified. If a vaccine were clearly 100 percent efficacious and 100 percent safe, there would be no need for coercion; people would voluntarily line up to take the vaccine. Real vaccines are never 100 percent efficacious or 100 percent safe. Judgments about risk versus benefit can only be made by individuals facing the risk.
People who decline vaccines are not stupid, nor are they misinformed, nor do they have callous disregard for their neighbors. Advocates of vaccines who are disappointed by the number of people willing to accept the vaccine should stop blaming those who decline and reevaluate their poor abilities of persuasion.
Vaccine skeptics are necessary as controls in ongoing assessment of efficacy and safety. Vaccine skeptics are necessary as a hedge against catastrophic errors by experts.
About the Author: Gilbert Berdine is an associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and an affiliate of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University. Gilbert Berdine, MD Gilbert Berdine is an associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and an affiliate of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University. 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 To 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