principiascientificinternational--2020-06-04--Fear: How Our ‘Ruling Class’ Controls Us

Fear : How Our ‘ Ruling Class ’ Controls Us Social and political responses to the fears of the Coronavirus pandemic are news headlines , but do they deserve headlines ?
Of course , they are news , but they are not really new news .
We have been repeatedly warned about the destructive power of fear .
Making themselves virtually unassailable , at least initially , politicians embraced the pandemic and associated public health fears it has engendered and assumed near-dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the public health .
Unmasked and unhindered , some politicians ’ actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ruling class.
” The 1972 cult film by the same name gave one view of the dysfunctional life-style of a fictional British nobleman whose aspirations were quite noble and infused with a sense of god-like powers , not unlike some of our governors and mayors .
A less fanciful , but more philosophically grounded observation of the 1930s was made by H.L .
Menken : No question that the Coronavirus is real , not imaginary , but Menken astutely recognizes the basic urge in politicians to use fear to control the populous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inaugural address , on March 4 , 1933 , he said : “ The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
” The more recent 2010 book by A. Codevilla bears the name “ The Ruling Class , ” and describes the outsized influence on American society by a clique of intellectuals scattered throughout the upper echelons of business , the media , political parties , and educational institutions .
Constitutional rights are denigrated , as is the traditional role of religion in American daily life .
These folks know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Combining a stretch of environmental-saving enthusiasm and fuzzy thinking , activists have wasted no effort in trying to link the imagined effects of climate change to its imagined impact on the Coronavirus pandemic .
Economic hardships and social deprivations imposed by the ruling class are said to be good for the globe , and that the necessary price to save it is a cultural and scientific retrenchment .
One author whose fictional narrative seems prescient in this current setting is Michael Crichton .
His 2004 “ State of Fear ” is a fictional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well documented by him , and whose validity has largely stood the test of time .
Al Gore ’ s perpetual predictions of global environmental disasters secondary to man-made carbon dioxide and fossil fuel use have not materialized in the intervening decade .
In a Socratic method exposition , Crichton develops the concept of fear as a tool to control the public .
As one of his characters explains : He identifies the role of experts and universities in the enshrinement of fear as a political tool : Fears of climate change fit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued failure of computer modeling of global climate to accurately predict future changes .
With the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic , pandemonium erupted worldwide as fear of the unknown initially governed both social and scientific responses .
Leaders abhor the prospect of telling a frightened public that they do not know how to respond to a new pathogen .
An informed response would require a learning curve time-span to fully understand the clinical impact on the public , but no one wants to be the unfortunate guinea pig awaiting nature ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and infectious diseases were tapped for advice , and they turned to computer models for answers .
Years of failed computer-based climate predictions would be no reason to doubt the ability of virus modeling to predict its worldwide impact .
By mid-March , the computer had spoken and British scientist Neil Ferguson reported that many millions would die .
“ Flatten the curve ” entered the lexicon of the media , though few noted that the area under the flattened curve likely contained the same area as the initial peaked curve .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same then the number of deaths represented would remain the same ; they would just take place over a longer time interval .
Subsequently , the computer derived predictions of millions of deaths proved to be grossly exaggerated .
Virologists and epidemiologists inhabit a different mental world than that of economists , sociologists , and physicians , and their recommended remedies might well kill the virus at some point , but the patient might also have been killed by the cure .
This latter scenario has painfully played out over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a highly integrated , interdependent , and complex modern society from the epidemiological cure of isolation , implemented by the ruling class , has become evident .
“ Stay-at-home ” and avoid social contact is a simplistic fallback to stop an epidemic in the 21st century .
It may have been the only answer in the form of walled cities in the middle ages ; it may work if you isolate that first infected person and prevent him/her from transmitting the pathogen .
However , in the present pandemic , the pathogen was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was recognized to be a new pathological entity .
This virus has shape changer variants in its clinical manifestations and makes accurate and timely tracking difficult .
The pandemic may or may not be beginning to burn itself out , only time will tell .
However , there is no difficulty seeing the global destruction of human lives secondary to near economic collapse .
What also has been revealed is the latent enthusiasm with which the political/ruling class has claimed the moral high ground in issuing edicts in the name of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range from weeks to months with no solid scientific justification for a particular time span , but with political/legal imperative .
Wearing of masks by the general public has become a schizophrenic policy issue .
Numerous studies claim that they are not protective against the Coronavirus , especially the homemade cloth varieties .
At 120 nm diameter , these virus particles are not filtered out by surgical or fabric face masks .
Wearing of such masks may aggravate other existing medical conditions .
Official agencies differ in their recommendations .
The WHO says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public ; our CDC says yes .
Wearing a mask becomes a measure of virtue signaling , albeit much cheaper than driving a “ pious.
” Some governors are true believers and issue orders to wear a mask , any sort of mask , else risk criminal charges and fines .
Without hesitation , such politicians disregard basic constitutional rights based on personal whim and selective use of diverse scientific data .
Fear is a valuable , basic human emotion that functions as a self-preservation instinct .
However , the current Coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class are adroitly curtailing our constitutional basic rights in the name of saving us from ourselves .
Charles Battig is a retired physician graduate engineer , policy advisor at the Heartland Institute , and a member of the CO2 coalition .
His website is http : //www.climateis.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 To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Fear: How Our ‘Ruling Class’ Controls Us
Written by Charles Battig
Social and political responses to the fears of the Coronavirus pandemic are news headlines, but do they deserve headlines? Of course, they are news, but they are not really new news. We have been repeatedly warned about the destructive power of fear.
Making themselves virtually unassailable, at least initially, politicians embraced the pandemic and associated public health fears it has engendered and assumed near-dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the public health.
Unmasked and unhindered, some politicians’ actions have validated the descriptive term of “the ruling class.”
The 1972 cult film by the same name gave one view of the dysfunctional life-style of a fictional British nobleman whose aspirations were quite noble and infused with a sense of god-like powers, not unlike some of our governors and mayors.
A less fanciful, but more philosophically grounded observation of the 1930s was made by H.L. Menken:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
No question that the Coronavirus is real, not imaginary, but Menken astutely recognizes the basic urge in politicians to use fear to control the populous.
During President Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, on March 4, 1933, he said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
The more recent 2010 book by A. Codevilla bears the name “The Ruling Class,” and describes the outsized influence on American society by a clique of intellectuals scattered throughout the upper echelons of business, the media, political parties, and educational institutions.
Constitutional rights are denigrated, as is the traditional role of religion in American daily life. These folks know that they know better than you do.
Combining a stretch of environmental-saving enthusiasm and fuzzy thinking, activists have wasted no effort in trying to link the imagined effects of climate change to its imagined impact on the Coronavirus pandemic.
Economic hardships and social deprivations imposed by the ruling class are said to be good for the globe, and that the necessary price to save it is a cultural and scientific retrenchment.
One author whose fictional narrative seems prescient in this current setting is Michael Crichton.
His 2004 “State of Fear” is a fictional thriller whose environmental and philosophical underpinnings are well documented by him, and whose validity has largely stood the test of time.
Al Gore’s perpetual predictions of global environmental disasters secondary to man-made carbon dioxide and fossil fuel use have not materialized in the intervening decade.
In a Socratic method exposition, Crichton develops the concept of fear as a tool to control the public. As one of his characters explains:
“I am leading to the notion of social control… To the requirement of every sovereign state to exert control over the behavior of its citizens, to keep them orderly and reasonably docile… To keep them paying taxes… and, of course, we know that social control is best managed through fear.”
He continues:
“…in reality, in the last fifteen years, we have been under the control of an entirely new complex, far more powerful and far more pervasive. I call it the politico-legal-media complex. The PLM. And it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population, under the guise of promoting safety.”
He identifies the role of experts and universities in the enshrinement of fear as a political tool:
“Because they had a new role to play. They became the creators of new fears for the PLM. Universities today are factories of fear. They invent all the new terrors and new social anxieties…they produce a steady stream of new anxieties, dangers, and social terrors to be used by politicians, lawyers, and reporters.”
Fears of climate change fit that narrative, in spite of the continued failure of computer modeling of global climate to accurately predict future changes.
With the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic, pandemonium erupted worldwide as fear of the unknown initially governed both social and scientific responses. Leaders abhor the prospect of telling a frightened public that they do not know how to respond to a new pathogen.
An informed response would require a learning curve time-span to fully understand the clinical impact on the public, but no one wants to be the unfortunate guinea pig awaiting nature’s random death sentence.
Experts in epidemiology and infectious diseases were tapped for advice, and they turned to computer models for answers. Years of failed computer-based climate predictions would be no reason to doubt the ability of virus modeling to predict its worldwide impact.
By mid-March, the computer had spoken and British scientist Neil Ferguson reported that many millions would die. “Flatten the curve” entered the lexicon of the media, though few noted that the area under the flattened curve likely contained the same area as the initial peaked curve.
No small matter because if the areas are the same then the number of deaths represented would remain the same; they would just take place over a longer time interval.
Subsequently, the computer derived predictions of millions of deaths proved to be grossly exaggerated.
Virologists and epidemiologists inhabit a different mental world than that of economists, sociologists, and physicians, and their recommended remedies might well kill the virus at some point, but the patient might also have been killed by the cure.
This latter scenario has painfully played out over the past few months as the collateral damage to a highly integrated, interdependent, and complex modern society from the epidemiological cure of isolation, implemented by the ruling class, has become evident.
“Stay-at-home” and avoid social contact is a simplistic fallback to stop an epidemic in the 21st century.
It may have been the only answer in the form of walled cities in the middle ages; it may work if you isolate that first infected person and prevent him/her from transmitting the pathogen. However, in the present pandemic, the pathogen was well out of the bottle long before it was recognized to be a new pathological entity.
This virus has shape changer variants in its clinical manifestations and makes accurate and timely tracking difficult. The pandemic may or may not be beginning to burn itself out, only time will tell. However, there is no difficulty seeing the global destruction of human lives secondary to near economic collapse.
What also has been revealed is the latent enthusiasm with which the political/ruling class has claimed the moral high ground in issuing edicts in the name of the public good.
“Stay-at-home” orders range from weeks to months with no solid scientific justification for a particular time span, but with political/legal imperative.
Wearing of masks by the general public has become a schizophrenic policy issue. Numerous studies claim that they are not protective against the Coronavirus, especially the homemade cloth varieties.
At 120 nm diameter, these virus particles are not filtered out by surgical or fabric face masks. Wearing of such masks may aggravate other existing medical conditions. Official agencies differ in their recommendations. The WHO says no to wearing them by the general public; our CDC says yes.
Wearing a mask becomes a measure of virtue signaling, albeit much cheaper than driving a “pious.”
Some governors are true believers and issue orders to wear a mask, any sort of mask, else risk criminal charges and fines. Without hesitation, such politicians disregard basic constitutional rights based on personal whim and selective use of diverse scientific data.
Fear is a valuable, basic human emotion that functions as a self-preservation instinct.
However, the current Coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated that members of the ruling class are adroitly curtailing our constitutional basic rights in the name of saving us from ourselves.
Charles Battig is a retired physician graduate engineer, policy advisor at the Heartland Institute, and a member of the CO2 coalition. His website is http://www.climateis.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 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--2020-06-04--Evidence Exposes FRAUDULENT Lancet HCQ COVID-19 Study

New article in the UK Guardian newspaper exposes the company behind a Lancet-published study from late May that claimed people with COVID-19 had a higher risk of death from taking hydroxychloroquine .
Here ’ s what the Guardian found about the company and it ’ s CEO Sapan Desai : Lancet , the journal who published the study , and another has now issued an “ expression of concern ” about the study : Two of the world ’ s leading medical journals – the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine – published studies based on Surgisphere data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm ’ s chief executive , Sapan Desai .
Late on Tuesday , after being approached by the Guardian , the Lancet released an “ expression of concern ” about its published study .
The New England Journal of Medicine has also issued a similar notice .
One of the biggest issues with the study is there have been errors found in the data , and hospitals the study claimed were participants say they ’ ve never even heard of Surgisphere : The Lancet study , which listed Desai as one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data collected from nearly 15,000 patients with Covid-19 , admitted to 1,200 hospitals around the world , who received hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with antibiotics .
The negative findings made global news and prompted the WHO to halt the hydroxychloroquine arm of its global trials .
But only days later Guardian Australia revealed glaring errors in the Australian data included in the study .
The study said researchers gained access to data through Surgisphere from five hospitals , recording 600 Australian Covid-19 patients and 73 Australian deaths as of 21 April .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 67 deaths from Covid-19 had been recorded in Australia by 21 April .
The number did not rise to 73 until 23 April .
Desai said one Asian hospital had accidentally been included in the Australian data , leading to an overestimate of cases there .
The Lancet published a small retraction related to the Australian findings after the Guardian ’ s story , its only amendment to the study so far .
The Guardian has since contacted five hospitals in Melbourne and two in Sydney , whose cooperation would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the database to be reached .
All denied any role in such a database , and said they had never heard of Surgisphere .
Desai did not respond to requests to comment on their statements .
Also with such a large collection of data that needed to be anonymized , it would normally take a huge company to take on such an effort : One of the questions that has most baffled the scientific community is how Surgisphere , established by Desai in 2008 as a medical education company that published textbooks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ database .
That database , despite only being announced by Surgisphere recently , boasts access to data from 96,000 patients in 1,200 hospitals around the world .
When contacted by the Guardian , Desai said his company employed just 11 people .
The employees listed on LinkedIn were recorded on the site as having joined Surgisphere only two months ago .
Several did not appear to have a scientific or statistical background , but mention expertise in strategy , copywriting , leadership and acquisition .
Dr James Todaro , who runs MedicineUncensored , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydroxychloroquine studies , said : “ Surgisphere came out of nowhere to conduct perhaps the most influential global study in this pandemic in the matter of a few weeks .
“ It doesn ’ t make sense , ” he said .
“ It would require many more researchers than it claims to have for this expedient and [ size ] of multinational study to be possible.
” Desai told the Guardian : “ Surgisphere has been in business since 2008 .
Our healthcare data analytics services started about the same time and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We use a great deal of artificial intelligence and machine learning to automate this process as much as possible , which is the only way a task like this is even possible.
” It is not clear from the methodology in the studies that used Surgisphere data , or from the Surgisphere website itself , how the company was able to put in place data-sharing agreements from so many hospitals worldwide , including those with limited technology , and to reconcile different languages and coding systems , all while staying within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each country .
Peter Ellis , the chief data scientist of Nous Group , an international management consultancy that does data integration projects for government departments , expressed concern that Surgisphere database was “ almost certainly a scam ” .
“ It is not something that any hospital could realistically do , ” he said .
“ De-identifying is not just a matter of knocking off the patients ’ names , it is a big and difficult process .
I doubt hospitals even have capability to do it appropriately .
It is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole teams working on , for years.
” “ There ’ s no evidence online of [ Surgisphere ] having any analytical software earlier than a year ago .
It takes months to get people to even look into joining these databases , it involves network review boards , security people , and management .
It just doesn ’ t happen with a sign-up form and a conversation.
” It sounds like this company essentially ‘ punked ’ the medical world with a bogus study and now these medical journals like Lancet are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the data .
It ’ s sad because this has certainly had major consequences in how people view HCQ .
You know the old saying , “ A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still puttin on its shoes ” .
And our garbage media is perfect for such a lie .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Evidence Exposes FRAUDULENT Lancet HCQ COVID-19 Study
Written by J.C McCallum
New article in the UK Guardian newspaper exposes the company behind a Lancet-published study from late May that claimed people with COVID-19 had a higher risk of death from taking hydroxychloroquine.
Here’s what the Guardian found about the company and it’s CEO Sapan Desai:
A search of publicly available material suggests several of Surgisphere’s employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist. Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess.
The company’s LinkedIn page has fewer than 100 followers and last week listed just six employees. This was changed to three employees as of Wednesday.
While Surgisphere claims to run one of the largest and fastest hospital databases in the world, it has almost no online presence. Its Twitter handle has fewer than 170 followers, with no posts between October 2017 and March 2020.
Until Monday, the “get in touch” link on Surgisphere’s homepage redirected to a WordPress template for a cryptocurrency website, raising questions about how hospitals could easily contact the company to join its database.
Desai has been named in three medical malpractice suits, unrelated to the Surgisphere database. In an interview with the Scientist, Desai previously described the allegations as “unfounded”.
In 2008, Desai launched a crowdfunding campaign on the website Indiegogo promoting a wearable “next generation human augmentation device that can help you achieve what you never thought was possible”. The device never came to fruition.
Desai’s Wikipedia page has been deleted following questions about Surgisphere and his history.
Lancet, the journal who published the study, and another has now issued an “expression of concern” about the study:
Two of the world’s leading medical journals – the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine – published studies based on Surgisphere data. The studies were co-authored by the firm’s chief executive, Sapan Desai. Late on Tuesday, after being approached by the Guardian, the Lancet released an “expression of concern” about its published study. The New England Journal of Medicine has also issued a similar notice.
One of the biggest issues with the study is there have been errors found in the data, and hospitals the study claimed were participants say they’ve never even heard of Surgisphere:
The Lancet study, which listed Desai as one of the co-authors, claimed to have analysed Surgisphere data collected from nearly 15,000 patients with Covid-19, admitted to 1,200 hospitals around the world, who received hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with antibiotics. The negative findings made global news and prompted the WHO to halt the hydroxychloroquine arm of its global trials. But only days later Guardian Australia revealed glaring errors in the Australian data included in the study. The study said researchers gained access to data through Surgisphere from five hospitals, recording 600 Australian Covid-19 patients and 73 Australian deaths as of 21 April. But data from Johns Hopkins University shows only 67 deaths from Covid-19 had been recorded in Australia by 21 April. The number did not rise to 73 until 23 April. Desai said one Asian hospital had accidentally been included in the Australian data, leading to an overestimate of cases there. The Lancet published a small retraction related to the Australian findings after the Guardian’s story, its only amendment to the study so far. The Guardian has since contacted five hospitals in Melbourne and two in Sydney, whose cooperation would have been essential for the Australian patient numbers in the database to be reached. All denied any role in such a database, and said they had never heard of Surgisphere. Desai did not respond to requests to comment on their statements.
Also with such a large collection of data that needed to be anonymized, it would normally take a huge company to take on such an effort:
One of the questions that has most baffled the scientific community is how Surgisphere, established by Desai in 2008 as a medical education company that published textbooks, became the owner of a powerful international database. That database, despite only being announced by Surgisphere recently, boasts access to data from 96,000 patients in 1,200 hospitals around the world. When contacted by the Guardian, Desai said his company employed just 11 people. The employees listed on LinkedIn were recorded on the site as having joined Surgisphere only two months ago. Several did not appear to have a scientific or statistical background, but mention expertise in strategy, copywriting, leadership and acquisition. Dr James Todaro, who runs MedicineUncensored, a website that publishes the results of hydroxychloroquine studies, said: “Surgisphere came out of nowhere to conduct perhaps the most influential global study in this pandemic in the matter of a few weeks. “It doesn’t make sense,” he said. “It would require many more researchers than it claims to have for this expedient and [size] of multinational study to be possible.” Desai told the Guardian: “Surgisphere has been in business since 2008. Our healthcare data analytics services started about the same time and have continued to grow since that time. We use a great deal of artificial intelligence and machine learning to automate this process as much as possible, which is the only way a task like this is even possible.” It is not clear from the methodology in the studies that used Surgisphere data, or from the Surgisphere website itself, how the company was able to put in place data-sharing agreements from so many hospitals worldwide, including those with limited technology, and to reconcile different languages and coding systems, all while staying within the regulatory, data-protection and ethical rules of each country.
Peter Ellis, the chief data scientist of Nous Group, an international management consultancy that does data integration projects for government departments, expressed concern that Surgisphere database was “almost certainly a scam”. “It is not something that any hospital could realistically do,” he said. “De-identifying is not just a matter of knocking off the patients’ names, it is a big and difficult process. I doubt hospitals even have capability to do it appropriately. It is the sort of thing national statistics agencies have whole teams working on, for years.” “There’s no evidence online of [Surgisphere] having any analytical software earlier than a year ago. It takes months to get people to even look into joining these databases, it involves network review boards, security people, and management. It just doesn’t happen with a sign-up form and a conversation.”
It sounds like this company essentially ‘punked’ the medical world with a bogus study and now these medical journals like Lancet are having to conduct their own investigation into the data. It’s sad because this has certainly had major consequences in how people view HCQ.
You know the old saying, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still puttin on its shoes”. And our garbage media is perfect for such a lie.
Read more at newsthud.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 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--2020-06-04--CV-19: ‘Follow The Science’ Means ‘Do What I Say’

Many politicians insist that they will “ follow the science ” in regard to reopening the economy .
But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed us in uncharted territory with few relevant precedents to guide policymaking .
Therefore , “ Follow the science , ” is indistinguishable from , “ Do what I say.
” This doesn ’ t prevent activist websites like Undark from smearing reputable scientists who speak out in disagreement .
Like democracy , everybody wants to be on the side of science .
Have you ever wondered why dictators like Vladimir Putin hold elections ?
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give a nod to democracy in order to claim legitimacy .
Similarly , anti-vaxxers and anti-GMOrons pretend to have science on their side .
To be taken seriously in the public square , politicians especially must pay lip service to science , even if whatever they say next doesn ’ t make any sense .
This phenomenon is also happening in our ongoing debate over the COVID-19 lockdown .
Those who favor an extended or even an indefinite lockdown claim to have science on their side .
For instance , here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : This is pure political posturing .
We are solidly in uncharted territory with few guideposts or relevant precedents to aid in policymaking .
Complicating matters is the fact that public health policy requires a delicate balancing act between scientific , legal , ethical , and financial factors .
The science on marijuana , for example , is clear .
It ’ s bad for you .
But a ban doesn ’ t make legal or financial sense , which is why “ the science ” was overruled in favor of legalization in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are very few , if any , issues in which science is the only relevant factor .
Therefore , when a politician says , “ Follow the science , ” that ’ s often indistinguishable from , “ Do what I say.
” No example illustrates this as clearly as the demonization of dissent .
Anyone who questions the utility or morality of a massive lockdown is immediately labeled by some as a “ COVID denier.
” What we will never get used to seeing is a highly respected scientist being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a complicit media .
Dr. John Ioannidis , a brilliant epidemiologist and biostatistician , made a name for himself by demonstrating that most published research is wrong .
He subsequently has examined research in various fields , such as nutrition , and concluded that low-quality , untrustworthy research is pervasive .
Now , Dr. Ioannidis finds himself in trouble .
Why ?
Because he dared to criticize the public health response to COVID-19 .
Writing for Stat News , Dr. Ioannidis argued that we are making sweeping , society-altering decisions based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him !
Undark , an activist website that masquerades as science journalism , features innuendo and mudslinging ( as well as anti-GMO propaganda ) and decided to take several cheap shots at Dr. Ioannidis .
The site ’ s publisher is Deborah Blum , a once reputable journalist who now engages in casual character assassination .
In 2015 , she played a major role in the complete fabrication of a story meant to damage the reputation of Nobel Prize-winning scientist Tim Hunt .
So , it ’ s no surprise that Undark would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s how Blum makes her money these days .
Instead of simply criticizing Dr. Ioannidis ’ methodology and/or conclusions — which would be a completely legitimate exercise in science journalism — Undark decided to go after him personally .
Because obviously , only a partisan hack with some sort of devious political agenda could question the COVID-19 lockdown .
Here ’ s an excerpt ( emphasis added ) : What does this have to do with anything ?
Nothing .
It ’ s guilt by association .
Fox News bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad .
How ludicrous .
In a subsequent piece , Stat News criticized Undark for “ wrongly ascribing legitimate disagreements about Covid-19 to ignorance or to questionable political or other motivations.
” The piece went on to argue in favor of robust debate and against demonization and the “ chilling attitude ” that stifles discussion .
It ’ s too bad that lesson will fall on deaf ears .
The smear merchants at Undark have bills to pay .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

CV-19: ‘Follow The Science’ Means ‘Do What I Say’
Written by Alex Berezow, PhD
Many politicians insist that they will “follow the science” in regard to reopening the economy. But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed us in uncharted territory with few relevant precedents to guide policymaking.
Therefore, “Follow the science,” is indistinguishable from, “Do what I say.” This doesn’t prevent activist websites like Undark from smearing reputable scientists who speak out in disagreement.
Like democracy, everybody wants to be on the side of science.
Have you ever wondered why dictators like Vladimir Putin hold elections? It’s because they know they have to give a nod to democracy in order to claim legitimacy. Similarly, anti-vaxxers and anti-GMOrons pretend to have science on their side. To be taken seriously in the public square, politicians especially must pay lip service to science, even if whatever they say next doesn’t make any sense.
This phenomenon is also happening in our ongoing debate over the COVID-19 lockdown. Those who favor an extended or even an indefinite lockdown claim to have science on their side. For instance, here’s a tweet from California Governor Gavin Newsom:
This is pure political posturing. We are solidly in uncharted territory with few guideposts or relevant precedents to aid in policymaking.
Complicating matters is the fact that public health policy requires a delicate balancing act between scientific, legal, ethical, and financial factors. The science on marijuana, for example, is clear. It’s bad for you. But a ban doesn’t make legal or financial sense, which is why “the science” was overruled in favor of legalization in many states. The bottom line is that there are very few, if any, issues in which science is the only relevant factor.
Therefore, when a politician says, “Follow the science,” that’s often indistinguishable from, “Do what I say.”
The Demonization of Dissent
No example illustrates this as clearly as the demonization of dissent. Anyone who questions the utility or morality of a massive lockdown is immediately labeled by some as a “COVID denier.”
What we will never get used to seeing is a highly respected scientist being smeared by fellow scientists with the help of a complicit media. Dr. John Ioannidis, a brilliant epidemiologist and biostatistician, made a name for himself by demonstrating that most published research is wrong. He subsequently has examined research in various fields, such as nutrition, and concluded that low-quality, untrustworthy research is pervasive.
Now, Dr. Ioannidis finds himself in trouble. Why? Because he dared to criticize the public health response to COVID-19. Writing for Stat News, Dr. Ioannidis argued that we are making sweeping, society-altering decisions based on very flimsy data.
Undark: An Activist Website Masquerading as Science Journalism
Woe be unto him! Undark, an activist website that masquerades as science journalism, features innuendo and mudslinging (as well as anti-GMO propaganda) and decided to take several cheap shots at Dr. Ioannidis. The site’s publisher is Deborah Blum, a once reputable journalist who now engages in casual character assassination. In 2015, she played a major role in the complete fabrication of a story meant to damage the reputation of Nobel Prize-winning scientist Tim Hunt. So, it’s no surprise that Undark would attempt to tar and feather Dr. Ioannidis. It’s how Blum makes her money these days.
Instead of simply criticizing Dr. Ioannidis’ methodology and/or conclusions — which would be a completely legitimate exercise in science journalism — Undark decided to go after him personally. Because obviously, only a partisan hack with some sort of devious political agenda could question the COVID-19 lockdown. Here’s an excerpt (emphasis added):
IN THE WEEK after the study’s release, Ioannidis has made the rounds on Fox News, appearing on Tucker Carlson’s show and on “The Ingraham Angle,” hosted by Laura Ingraham. (Bhattacharya, a former research fellow at the politically conservative Hoover Institution, has also appeared on Carlson’s show talking about Covid-19 death rates).
What does this have to do with anything? Nothing. It’s guilt by association. Fox News bad. Hoover bad. Therefore, Ioannidis bad. How ludicrous.
In a subsequent piece, Stat News criticized Undark for “wrongly ascribing legitimate disagreements about Covid-19 to ignorance or to questionable political or other motivations.” The piece went on to argue in favor of robust debate and against demonization and the “chilling attitude” that stifles discussion.
It’s too bad that lesson will fall on deaf ears. The smear merchants at Undark have bills to pay.
Read more at www.acsh.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


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-04--Secret Science Link Between COVID19 Fakery & Global Warming

COVID-19 ‘ secret science ’ dirty tricks are exposed over the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine ( + zinc , Z-pac ) as a reliable prophylaxis/treatment .
During this pandemic we are seeing in play the same tried and tested dirty tactics relied on for three decades by governments to fool us over the ‘ climate crisis.
’ Methodology : co-opt , bribe , threaten and coerce select scientists to concoct evidence to fit a government globalist UN narrative ; rely heavily on computer models and ensure key data/coding is kept secret .
Assure the public that the consensus view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government narrative .
Deploy a compliant media to act as gatekeepers so only the approved narrative is broadcast .
Defame and de-platform critics ( realists ) and defy FOIA requests .
Resort to the courts to chill dissent .
Professor ‘ Lockdown ’ Ferguson never released his ‘ secret science ’ computer code for independent analysis .
Just like Professor ‘ Hockey stick ’ Mann , he runs away from public accountability over gross incompetence/intentional fraud .
Ever since President Trump revealed hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) as the key ingredient of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the globalists , corporations and ‘ prestige ’ journals have been disparaging .
But as growing empirical evidence from doctors ‘ in the frontline ’ emerged backing Trump ’ s claims all assets were deployed .
‘ Leading ’ academies , experts and journals quickly activated to appear in the media to decry clear cut positive evidence from grassroots doctors and scientists about HCQ .
In recent weeks the world has witnessed the mainstream media – in cahoots with Big Pharma and globalist co-conspirators – rush out warning us all against using HCQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ ineffective “ , if not downright “ dangerous “ !
Instead , only certain ( expensive , money-spinning ) drugs are being recommended even when studies reveal such treatments are “ no better than a placebo.
” [ 2 ] Yet HCQ appears on the World Health Organization list of approved medicines and regarded as one of the safest and cost-effective medicines known .
But even the WHO last month contradicted itself by suspending HCQ clinical trials on ‘ safety grounds ’ and just look at how the FDA issued “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and poisonings reported.
” [ 1 ] The immediate life or death risks from a pandemic play on public minds more urgently than a distant danger from human emissions of carbon dioxide .
So it is no surprise that this medical fiasco is reaching a climax sooner .
On June 03 , 2020 Breitbart reports : “ The World Health Organization has resumed its medical trials on hydroxychloroquine Wednesday , the same day a new study says the drug doesn ’ t prevent coronavirus .
WHO paused the tests May 25 so they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monitoring Board .
“ On the basis of the available mortality data , the members of the committee recommended that there are no reasons to modify the trial protocol , ” WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a briefing Wednesday .
Media briefing on # COVID19 with @ DrTedros https : //t.co/aWTcs3Tpp4— World Health Organization ( WHO ) ( @ WHO ) June 3 , 2020 More than 3,500 patients in 17 countries were enrolled in clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment .
But a study of 15,000 patients published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drug doubled the risks of dangerous cardiac side effects that could lead to death.
” Thanks to that junk science Lancet paper , The WHO , globalists and their friends in Big Pharma were able to bad mouth the HCQ treatment that President Trump and medical doctors using it had called ‘ a gamechanger.
’ The Lancet this week performed a U-turn on the problematic study .
As we reported ( June 03 , 2020 ) with ‘ Lancet Issues Major Disclaimer On Anti-HCQ Study ‘ : “ Until the data has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following “ expression of concern ” regarding the study .
“ Important scientific questions have been raised about data reported in the paper by Mandeep Mehra et al , ” reads the “ expression of concern ” from The Lancet .
“ Although an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing , with results expected very shortly , we are issuing an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ update this notice as soon as we have further information.
” But yesterday ( June 03 , 2020 ) another apparent junk study , this time from the University of Minnesota which claims it found that hydroxychloroquine doesn ’ t help patients prevent COVID-19 infections .
It is no wonder that medical professionals are expressing anger and dismay at how the media and authorities are presenting to the public a false perception of this entirely safe drug , relied on worldwide for 75 years , as the most dangerous tool of quackery .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the New England Journal of Medicine again demonstrate all too clearly how so-called top international journals can not be trusted to provide quality peer-reviewed science .
Of important note is that such ‘ studies ’ are not clinical studies but rather a data dredging exercise of electronic garbage-in-garbage-out permutations of medical records – data tortured till it conforms to fit a pre-selected narrative .
GIGO deployed by way of computer modeling malfeasance .
The big giveaway is that the data relied on is ‘ proprietary ’ and thus ‘ not available ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , all such ‘ studies ’ are premised on secret science .
Hide the evidence and hide the fraud .
As it has been with global warming for the past three decades , politicians yet again claim they are being ‘ led by the [ secret ] science ’ about the novel coronavirus pandemic .
Another ‘ global crisis ’ whereby when the ‘ science ’ is government-funded and not open to public scrutiny .
Ask yourselves : who funds Lancet ?
Who funds these studies ?
Follow the money !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a key player in bringing down the world economy over a flu virus .
One scientist at Penn .
State University was the cornerstone of claims humans are “ dangerously ” altering our climate .
You will find that it is the same modus operandi – Professor Neil ‘ Lockdown ’ Ferguson ( photo , above ) is the pandemic equivalent of global warming ’ s Professor Michael ‘ Hockeystick ’ Mann ( photo , above ) .
I believe both men have let their political activism guide their decisions strongly tied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Mann , Prof Neil Ferguson ’ s computer model is shredded by experts .
Mann refused to show his r2 regression numbers to the court in the Mann-v-Ball court case , which would prove whether he acted incompetently or intended fraudulent malice .
I believe no one has yet examined the Ferguson r2 data .
Dr Tim Ball famously said that Michael Mann “ belongs in the state penn , not Penn .
State.
” I ’ d suggest a new mantra for Neil Ferguson : “ Lock up Professor Lockdown !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to bet that Professor Ferguson will decline to comply with any freedom of information ( FOIA ) request to release his secret science to independent analysis .
Both men relied on dubious computer modeling that confounds reality and points to either gross incompetence or a criminal intent to commit mass deception and fraud at great human cost .
The wider public needs to wake up .
Do some research .
Maybe read up on the Mann-v-Ball 8-year , multi-million-dollar ‘ science trial of the century ‘ if you want to understand how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the science ” are , in fact , invariably the paymasters and controllers of the science they claim to follow .
Dr Mann chose to lose his lawsuit ( plus one million dollars he still hasn ’ t paid ) to my friend and colleague , Tim Ball rather than show his secret science in court .
All is kept secret because if shown to the public the evidence would likely trigger riots in the streets over such wanton corruption and fraud .
About the author : John O ’ Sullivan John is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Secret Science Link Between COVID19 Fakery & Global Warming
Written by John O'Sullivan
COVID-19 ‘secret science’ dirty tricks are exposed over the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (+ zinc, Z-pac) as a reliable prophylaxis/treatment.
During this pandemic we are seeing in play the same tried and tested dirty tactics relied on for three decades by governments to fool us over the ‘climate crisis.’
Methodology: co-opt, bribe, threaten and coerce select scientists to concoct evidence to fit a government globalist UN narrative; rely heavily on computer models and ensure key data/coding is kept secret. Assure the public that the consensus view of the ‘leading experts’ supports the government narrative. Deploy a compliant media to act as gatekeepers so only the approved narrative is broadcast. Defame and de-platform critics (realists) and defy FOIA requests. Resort to the courts to chill dissent.
Professor ‘Lockdown’ Ferguson never released his ‘secret science’ computer code for independent analysis. Just like Professor ‘Hockey stick’ Mann, he runs away from public accountability over gross incompetence/intentional fraud.
Ever since President Trump revealed hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as the key ingredient of a ‘game-changer’ treatment for the pandemic the globalists, corporations and ‘prestige’ journals have been disparaging.
But as growing empirical evidence from doctors ‘in the frontline’ emerged backing Trump’s claims all assets were deployed. ‘Leading’ academies, experts and journals quickly activated to appear in the media to decry clear cut positive evidence from grassroots doctors and scientists about HCQ.
In recent weeks the world has witnessed the mainstream media – in cahoots with Big Pharma and globalist co-conspirators – rush out warning us all against using HCQ. We have been told this medication is “ineffective“, if not downright “dangerous“!
Instead, only certain (expensive, money-spinning) drugs are being recommended even when studies reveal such treatments are “no better than a placebo.” [2]
Yet HCQ appears on the World Health Organization list of approved medicines and regarded as one of the safest and cost-effective medicines known.
But even the WHO last month contradicted itself by suspending HCQ clinical trials on ‘safety grounds’ and just look at how the FDA issued “warnings on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine after deaths and poisonings reported.” [1]
The immediate life or death risks from a pandemic play on public minds more urgently than a distant danger from human emissions of carbon dioxide. So it is no surprise that this medical fiasco is reaching a climax sooner. On June 03, 2020 Breitbart reports:
“The World Health Organization has resumed its medical trials on hydroxychloroquine Wednesday, the same day a new study says the drug doesn’t prevent coronavirus. WHO paused the tests May 25 so they could undergo review by the Data Safety Monitoring Board. “On the basis of the available mortality data, the members of the committee recommended that there are no reasons to modify the trial protocol,” WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a briefing Wednesday. Media briefing on #COVID19 with @DrTedros https://t.co/aWTcs3Tpp4— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) June 3, 2020 More than 3,500 patients in 17 countries were enrolled in clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment. But a study of 15,000 patients published in the Lancet last month said taking the drug doubled the risks of dangerous cardiac side effects that could lead to death.”
Thanks to that junk science Lancet paper, The WHO, globalists and their friends in Big Pharma were able to bad mouth the HCQ treatment that President Trump and medical doctors using it had called ‘a gamechanger.’
The Lancet this week performed a U-turn on the problematic study. As we reported (June 03, 2020) with ‘Lancet Issues Major Disclaimer On Anti-HCQ Study‘:
“Until the data has been audited, The Lancet issued the following “expression of concern” regarding the study.
“Important scientific questions have been raised about data reported in the paper by Mandeep Mehra et al,” reads the “expression of concern” from The Lancet. “Although an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing, with results expected very shortly, we are issuing an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.” -The Lancet”
A Second Junk Science Study Now Trashes HCQ Treatment
But yesterday (June 03, 2020) another apparent junk study, this time from the University of Minnesota which claims it found that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help patients prevent COVID-19 infections.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:
“The randomized trial — results of which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday, found that 11.8 percent of people taking the drug became infected with COVID-19. Of those not taking the drug, 14.3 percent became sick, which researchers consider statistically insignificant. “While we are disappointed that this did not prevent COVID-19, we are pleased that we were able to provide a conclusive answer,” Dr. David Boulware, lead author of the study, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.”
It is no wonder that medical professionals are expressing anger and dismay at how the media and authorities are presenting to the public a false perception of this entirely safe drug, relied on worldwide for 75 years, as the most dangerous tool of quackery.
The Lancet study and the latest offering from the New England Journal of Medicine again demonstrate all too clearly how so-called top international journals cannot be trusted to provide quality peer-reviewed science.
Of important note is that such ‘studies’ are not clinical studies but rather a data dredging exercise of electronic garbage-in-garbage-out permutations of medical records – data tortured till it conforms to fit a pre-selected narrative. GIGO deployed by way of computer modeling malfeasance.
The big giveaway is that the data relied on is ‘proprietary’ and thus ‘not available’ for independent scientists to examine. In other words, all such ‘studies’ are premised on secret science. Hide the evidence and hide the fraud.
As it has been with global warming for the past three decades, politicians yet again claim they are being ‘led by the [secret] science’ about the novel coronavirus pandemic. Another ‘global crisis’ whereby when the ‘science’ is government-funded and not open to public scrutiny.
Ask yourselves: who funds Lancet? Who funds these studies? Follow the money!
One scientist at Imperial College, London was a key player in bringing down the world economy over a flu virus. One scientist at Penn. State University was the cornerstone of claims humans are “dangerously” altering our climate.
You will find that it is the same modus operandi – Professor Neil ‘Lockdown’ Ferguson (photo, above) is the pandemic equivalent of global warming’s Professor Michael ‘Hockeystick’ Mann (photo, above). I believe both men have let their political activism guide their decisions strongly tied to the UN.
Just as with Michael Mann, Prof Neil Ferguson’s computer model is shredded by experts. Mann refused to show his r2 regression numbers to the court in the Mann-v-Ball court case, which would prove whether he acted incompetently or intended fraudulent malice. I believe no one has yet examined the Ferguson r2 data.
Dr Tim Ball famously said that Michael Mann “belongs in the state penn, not Penn. State.” I’d suggest a new mantra for Neil Ferguson: “Lock up Professor Lockdown!”
Watch this space because I am willing to bet that Professor Ferguson will decline to comply with any freedom of information (FOIA) request to release his secret science to independent analysis.
Both men relied on dubious computer modeling that confounds reality and points to either gross incompetence or a criminal intent to commit mass deception and fraud at great human cost.
The wider public needs to wake up. Do some research. Maybe read up on the Mann-v-Ball 8-year, multi-million-dollar ‘science trial of the century‘ if you want to understand how politicians who say they simply “follow the science” are, in fact, invariably the paymasters and controllers of the science they claim to follow.
Dr Mann chose to lose his lawsuit (plus one million dollars he still hasn’t paid) to my friend and colleague, Tim Ball rather than show his secret science in court.
All is kept secret because if shown to the public the evidence would likely trigger riots in the streets over such wanton corruption and fraud.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/fda-issues-warnings-on-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-after-serious-poisoning-and-death-reported.html
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/29/coronavirus-wonder-drug-remdesivir-may-not-work-first-trial/
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--2020-06-05--Study: Dangerous nano-particles contaminate most vaccines

“ The Lung , ” Second Edition , 2014 : “ Nanoparticles [ are ] comparable in size to subcellular structures…enabling their ready incorporation into biological systems.
” A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines , manufactured by leading global companies , has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact : The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles .
Many of the particles are metals .
We ’ re talking about traditional vaccines , such as HPV , flu , Swine Flu , Hepatitis B , MMR , DPT , tetanus , etc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines , here is the groundbreaking 2017 study : International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination Volume 4 Issue 1 January 23 2017 New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines : Micro- and Nanocontamination Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional ?
“ The quantity of foreign bodies detected and , in some cases , their unusual chemical compositions baffled us .
The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable , that means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration .
It is important to remember that particles ( crystals and not molecules ) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such .
More in particular , their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them , adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.
” “ After being injected , those microparticles , nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the blood circulation , escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies , particularly that small , they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles can not be degraded .
Furthermore , the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA… ” “ In some cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Iron alloys , they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues… ” “ Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines , adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness , since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation .
It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children .
Their presence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ We come across particles with chemical compositions , similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed , when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources .
In most circumstances , the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use , can not be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring , for example , when waste is burnt .
In any case , whatever their origin , they should not be present in any injectable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more in particular those meant for infants.
” This 2017 study opens up a whole new field : the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected .
Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word .
Many legal and scientific “ experts ” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population .
But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines .
Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them .
Here is another section from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines , and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated .
Take a deep breath and buckle up : “ …further presence of micro- , sub-micro- and nanosized , inorganic , foreign bodies ( ranging from 100nm to about ten microns ) was identified in all cases [ all 44 vaccines ] , whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product… ” “ …single particles , cluster of micro- and nanoparticles ( less than 100nm ) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum , Silicon , Magnesium and Titanium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster , and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.
” “ …the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate .
In all the samples analyzed , we identified particles containing : Lead ( Typhym , Cervarix , Agrippal S1 , Meningitec , Gardasil ) or stainless steel ( Mencevax , Infarix Hexa , Cervarix .
Anatetall , Focetria , Agrippal S1 , Menveo , Prevenar 13 , Meningitec , Vaxigrip , Stamaril Pasteur , Repevax and MMRvaxPro ) .
” “ …particles of Tungsten identified in drops of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Calcium chloride ) .
” “ Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified .
Other particles containing Zirconium , Hafnium , Strontium and Aluminum ( Vivotif , Meningetec ) ; Tungsten , Nickel , Iron ( Priorix , Meningetec ) ; Antimony ( Menjugate kit ) ; Chromium ( Meningetec ) ; Gold or Gold , Zinc ( Infarix Hexa , Repevax ) , or Platinum , Silver , Bismuth , Iron , Chromium ( MMRvaxPro ) or Lead , Bismuth ( Gardasil ) or Cerium ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines , while Chromium ( alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel ) in 25/44 .
The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate , probably proteins , endo-toxins and residues of bacteria .
As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids , a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘ protein corona ’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects , since it is not recognized as self by the body.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be seen ( stable composite entities ) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel ( Iron , Chromium and Nickel… ) and of Copper , Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates , though in different situations ( patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia ) , have already been described in literature.
” I ’ m sure you ’ ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “ rare.
” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies .
Several vital questions demanding answers spring from the findings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these nanoparticles intentionally placed in vaccines ?
Does the standard manufacturing process for traditional vaccines INEVITABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination ?
New nano-technology is already being employed to create several vaccines—supposedly “ improving effectiveness.
” In fact , the coming COVID-19 vaccine may be a nano-type .
Does this manufacturing process carry with it the unavoidable effect of unleashing a hurricane of nanoparticle contaminants ?
How many cases of childhood brain damage and autism can be laid at the door of nanoparticle contamination ?
And finally , where are these contaminated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not attempt to discover this .
It was outside the scope of the research .
It ’ s common knowledge that , for example , in the case of the US , vaccines or their components , are , in many instances , not produced domestically .
Where does this put control of safety ?
In , say , China , where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals connected to contamination of products ?
The vaccine establishment does not show the slightest interest in answering any of these questions .
They are busy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trusting the establishment would be suicidal .
About the author : Jon Rappoport is the author of three collections , THE MATRIX REVEALED , EXIT FROM THE MATRIX , and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California .
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients , the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power .
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize , he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years , writing articles on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBS Healthwatch , LA Weekly , Spin Magazine , Stern , and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe .
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 .

Study: Dangerous nano-particles contaminate most vaccines
Written by Jon Rappoport
“The Lung,” Second Edition, 2014: “Nanoparticles [are] comparable in size to subcellular structures…enabling their ready incorporation into biological systems.”
A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines, manufactured by leading global companies, has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact: The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles.
Many of the particles are metals.
We’re talking about traditional vaccines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepatitis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.
To begin to understand some of the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines, here is the groundbreaking 2017 study:
International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination
Volume 4 Issue 1
January 23 2017
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines:
Micro- and Nanocontamination
Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari
https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/new-quality-control-investigations-on-vaccines-micro–and-nanocontamination.html
“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines…”
Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional?
“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.” “After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas…But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA…” “In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues…” “Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles…could heavily impair the muscle functionality…” “We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”
This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected.
Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word.
Many legal and scientific “experts” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population. But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.
Here is another section from the 2017 study. Trade names of vaccines, and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated. Take a deep breath and buckle up:
“…further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases [all 44 vaccines], whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product…” “…single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (less than 100nm) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.” “…the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).” “…particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).” “…singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).” “Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘protein corona’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.” “…examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.”
I’m sure you’ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “rare.” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies.
“I’d like the heavy metal sandwich on rye, please. And instead of serving it on a plate, can you inject it?”
Several vital questions demanding answers spring from the findings of this 2017 study:
Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally placed in vaccines?
Does the standard manufacturing process for traditional vaccines INEVITABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?
New nano-technology is already being employed to create several vaccines—supposedly “improving effectiveness.” In fact, the coming COVID-19 vaccine may be a nano-type. Does this manufacturing process carry with it the unavoidable effect of unleashing a hurricane of nanoparticle contaminants?
How many cases of childhood brain damage and autism can be laid at the door of nanoparticle contamination?
And finally, where are these contaminated vaccines manufactured? The above study did not attempt to discover this. It was outside the scope of the research. It’s common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the US, vaccines or their components, are, in many instances, not produced domestically. Where does this put control of safety? In, say, China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals connected to contamination of products?
The vaccine establishment does not show the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending the questions don’t exist.
Trusting the establishment would be suicidal.
About the author: Jon Rappoport is the author of three collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.
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--2020-06-05--COVID19: Time to Flatten the Fear Curve

COVID19: Time to Flatten the Fear Curve

Public officials should pivot from “ flattening the curve ” to “ flattening the fear.
” The data demonstrate that younger and otherwise healthy Americans face little risk of dying from this disease .
Most people should immediately get back to living their daily lives without fear , boosting our beleaguered economy .
One percent of counties in the country account for more than half of all Covid deaths .
Ten percent of counties account for more than 90 percent of all deaths .
Nearly half of the counties in the country haven ’ t experienced a single coronavirus death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to state reopening timelines based on conditions in major cities where Covid is often far more prevalent .
Keeping these areas that have been relatively untouched by the coronavirus closed for business is a violation of residents ’ basic civil liberties and is unnecessarily contributing to our dire economic situation .
According to a recent analysis by Avik Roy at Forbes , 42 percent of all coronavirus deaths have come in nursing homes .
In many states , nursing homes and assisted living facilities account for far more than half of all deaths—81 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio .
If governments pursued a tailored Covid response moving forward , protecting nursing homes , assisted living facilities , and the most vulnerable , we could dramatically reduce the Covid death rate while letting the vast majority of Americans resume something akin to a normal life .
We can isolate the few to protect the many instead of isolating the many to protect the few .
Like location , age is also a strong risk indicator .
According to the most recent CDC data , more than 80 percent of all Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old .
Those aged under 55 account for just seven percent of all Covid deaths .
And the overwhelming majority of deaths are among those with at least one other underlying medical condition .
It ’ s irrational for young and healthy people to live in fear of this disease .
The original intent of flattening the curve was to not overwhelm our healthcare system .
By working together , we have accomplished this goal .
With this accomplished , government officials , business leaders , and the media must now flatten the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dire as the disease .
Our nation is paralyzed because people are paralyzed by fear .
Over the last ten weeks , more than 40 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits , and one-third of small businesses won ’ t reopen .
These numbers represent real people with lost paychecks and shattered dreams .
Economic consequences breed societal problems .
Alcohol and drug abuse have skyrocketed , with hard liquor sales up by about 75 percent .
Prescriptions for anti-anxiety medication are up by about one-third .
Community experts worry about associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The national Disaster Distress Helpline saw a 338 percent increase in call volume in March compared with February .
Suicide rates generally rise by about one percent for every one percentage point increase in unemployment .
Patients are avoiding necessary care due to unnecessary hospital restrictions against seeing non-emergency patients .
Oncologists , who treat cancer patients , have recently seen their patient counts fall by nearly half .
Sadly , we will have more victims of Covid who never had the virus .
Extending stay-at-home orders could cause “ irreparable damage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead member of the White House coronavirus task force , on May 22nd .
“ I don ’ t want people to think that any of us feel that staying locked down for a prolonged period of time is the way to go.
” The facts are in .
Covid poses a low risk to ordinary Americans , yet Covid fear poses an enormous risk to our society .
Flattening the fear will not only save lives and livelihoods but help prevent the unraveling of the fabric of American life .
Alfredo Ortiz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Job Creators Network .
C.L .
Gray is the president and founder of Physicians for Reform and a physician in western North Carolina .
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 .

COVID19: Time to Flatten the Fear Curve
Written by Alfredo Ortiz & C L Gray
“When the facts change,” said 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes, “I change my mind.” State governors and public health officials should follow this example in light of recent CDC data showing that Covid-19 is much less deadly than originally thought. The CDC recently revised its death rate estimate down to just 0.4 percent. And for many demographics, it is far less than that.
Public officials should pivot from “flattening the curve” to “flattening the fear.” The data demonstrate that younger and otherwise healthy Americans face little risk of dying from this disease. Most people should immediately get back to living their daily lives without fear, boosting our beleaguered economy.
One percent of counties in the country account for more than half of all Covid deaths. Ten percent of counties account for more than 90 percent of all deaths. Nearly half of the counties in the country haven’t experienced a single coronavirus death.
Yet safe counties are often beholden to state reopening timelines based on conditions in major cities where Covid is often far more prevalent. Keeping these areas that have been relatively untouched by the coronavirus closed for business is a violation of residents’ basic civil liberties and is unnecessarily contributing to our dire economic situation.
According to a recent analysis by Avik Roy at Forbes, 42 percent of all coronavirus deaths have come in nursing homes. In many states, nursing homes and assisted living facilities account for far more than half of all deaths—81 percent in Minnesota and 70 percent in Ohio. If governments pursued a tailored Covid response moving forward, protecting nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and the most vulnerable, we could dramatically reduce the Covid death rate while letting the vast majority of Americans resume something akin to a normal life.
We can isolate the few to protect the many instead of isolating the many to protect the few.
Like location, age is also a strong risk indicator. According to the most recent CDC data, more than 80 percent of all Covid deaths are among those over 65 years old. Those aged under 55 account for just seven percent of all Covid deaths. And the overwhelming majority of deaths are among those with at least one other underlying medical condition. It’s irrational for young and healthy people to live in fear of this disease.
The original intent of flattening the curve was to not overwhelm our healthcare system. By working together, we have accomplished this goal. With this accomplished, government officials, business leaders, and the media must now flatten the fear—the consequences of which are just as dire as the disease. Our nation is paralyzed because people are paralyzed by fear.
Over the last ten weeks, more than 40 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits, and one-third of small businesses won’t reopen. These numbers represent real people with lost paychecks and shattered dreams.
Economic consequences breed societal problems. Alcohol and drug abuse have skyrocketed, with hard liquor sales up by about 75 percent. Prescriptions for anti-anxiety medication are up by about one-third. Community experts worry about associated spikes in domestic violence and suicides.
The national Disaster Distress Helpline saw a 338 percent increase in call volume in March compared with February. Suicide rates generally rise by about one percent for every one percentage point increase in unemployment.
Patients are avoiding necessary care due to unnecessary hospital restrictions against seeing non-emergency patients. Oncologists, who treat cancer patients, have recently seen their patient counts fall by nearly half. Sadly, we will have more victims of Covid who never had the virus.
Extending stay-at-home orders could cause “irreparable damage,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the lead member of the White House coronavirus task force, on May 22nd. “I don’t want people to think that any of us feel that staying locked down for a prolonged period of time is the way to go.”
The facts are in. Covid poses a low risk to ordinary Americans, yet Covid fear poses an enormous risk to our society. Flattening the fear will not only save lives and livelihoods but help prevent the unraveling of the fabric of American life.
Alfredo Ortiz is the president and CEO of the Job Creators Network. C.L. Gray is the president and founder of Physicians for Reform and a physician in western North Carolina.
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 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--2020-06-05--Sun unleashes biggest flare since 2017. Is our star waking up?

Sun unleashes biggest flare since 2017 .
Is our star waking up ?
may be coming out of its slumber at long last .
On Friday May 29th 2020 , our star fired off its strongest flare since October 2017 , an eruption spotted by NASA ’ s sun-watching ( SDO ) .
are bursts of radiation that originate from sunspots , temporary dark and relatively cool patches on the solar surface that boast very strong magnetic fields .
Scientists classify strong flares into three categories : C , M and X .
Each class is 10 times more powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flares are 10 times stronger than C flares , but 10 times weaker than X-class events .
The flare was an M-class eruption , so it was no monster .
( And it wasn ’ t aimed at Earth , so there ’ s no chance of supercharged auroras from a potential associated of solar plasma . )
But the outburst could still be a sign that the sun is ramping up to a more active phase of its 11-year activity cycle , NASA officials said .
If that ’ s the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as Solar Cycle 24 , may already have come to an end .
Scientists peg the start of new cycles at “ solar minimum , ” the time when the sun sports the fewest and the least activity .
“ However , it takes at least six months of solar observations and sunspot-counting after a minimum to know when it ’ s occurred , ” NASA officials wrote today in an .
“ Because that minimum is defined by the lowest number of sunspots in a cycle , scientists need to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine when exactly they were at the bottom , ” the officials added .
“ That means solar minimum is an instance only recognizable in hindsight : It could take six to 12 months after the fact to confirm when minimum has actually passed.
” So , stay tuned !
More observations should tell us if we ’ re already in .
Mike Wall is the author of “ ” ( Grand Central Publishing , 2018 ; illustrated by ) , a book about the search for alien life .
Follow him on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 .

Sun unleashes biggest flare since 2017. Is our star waking up?
Written by Mike Wall
The sun may be coming out of its slumber at long last. On Friday May 29th 2020, our star fired off its strongest flare since October 2017, an eruption spotted by NASA’s sun-watching Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
Solar flares are bursts of radiation that originate from sunspots, temporary dark and relatively cool patches on the solar surface that boast very strong magnetic fields. Scientists classify strong flares into three categories: C, M and X. Each class is 10 times more powerful than the one beneath it; M flares are 10 times stronger than C flares, but 10 times weaker than X-class events.
The flare was an M-class eruption, so it was no monster. (And it wasn’t aimed at Earth, so there’s no chance of supercharged auroras from a potential associated coronal mass ejection of solar plasma.) But the outburst could still be a sign that the sun is ramping up to a more active phase of its 11-year activity cycle, NASA officials said. If that’s the case, the most recent such cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, may already have come to an end.
Scientists peg the start of new cycles at “solar minimum,” the time when the sun sports the fewest sunspots and the least activity.
“However, it takes at least six months of solar observations and sunspot-counting after a minimum to know when it’s occurred,” NASA officials wrote today in an update announcing SDO’s flare detection .
“Because that minimum is defined by the lowest number of sunspots in a cycle, scientists need to see the numbers consistently rising before they can determine when exactly they were at the bottom,” the officials added. “That means solar minimum is an instance only recognizable in hindsight: It could take six to 12 months after the fact to confirm when minimum has actually passed.”
So, stay tuned! More observations should tell us if we’re already in Solar Cycle 25 .
Mike Wall is the author of “ Out There ” (Grand Central Publishing, 2018; illustrated by Karl Tate ), a book about the search for alien life. Follow him on Twitter @michaeldwall . Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom or Facebook .
Read more at www.livescience.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 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--2020-06-05--Study: Extreme Weather Not Getting Worse

A new review of the scientific literature on extreme weather events published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation ( GWPF ) confirms what IPCC assessment reports have concluded : There is little evidence of any significant changes in most indices .
The paper , by physicist Dr. Ralph Alexander , looks at trends in hot and cold weather extremes , floods and droughts , hurricanes , and wildfires and finds only a minor increase in cold weather extremes .
According to Dr. Alexander , weather extremes are one area where the IPCC has been reasonably empirical and scientific in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , among those who believe that global warming is primarily due to human activity , as a voice of restraint on the issue of extreme weather .
My review is in broad agreement with their position : there is little sign things are getting worse.
” In particular , Dr. Alexander points to the underreported global reductions in floods , wildfires , and hurricanes , but he cautions that many of the changes are likely to be cyclical .
“ The key driver for many weather extremes is natural ocean cycles like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Eventually , these cycles will turn , and we should be ready .
But we shouldn ’ t be under any illusion that we can prevent extreme weather by changing our lifestyles ” .
Weather Extremes : Are They Caused By Global Warming ?
( pdf ) 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 .

Study: Extreme Weather Not Getting Worse
Written by Dr Benny Peiser
A new review of the scientific literature on extreme weather events published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) confirms what IPCC assessment reports have concluded: There is little evidence of any significant changes in most indices.
The paper, by physicist Dr. Ralph Alexander, looks at trends in hot and cold weather extremes, floods and droughts, hurricanes, and wildfires and finds only a minor increase in cold weather extremes.
According to Dr. Alexander, weather extremes are one area where the IPCC has been reasonably empirical and scientific in recent years.
As he explains:
“The IPCC stands out, among those who believe that global warming is primarily due to human activity, as a voice of restraint on the issue of extreme weather. My review is in broad agreement with their position: there is little sign things are getting worse.”
In particular, Dr. Alexander points to the underreported global reductions in floods, wildfires, and hurricanes, but he cautions that many of the changes are likely to be cyclical.
“The key driver for many weather extremes is natural ocean cycles like El Nino and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Eventually, these cycles will turn, and we should be ready. But we shouldn’t be under any illusion that we can prevent extreme weather by changing our lifestyles”.
Weather Extremes: Are They Caused By Global Warming? (pdf)
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