principiascientificinternational--2020-10-13--Book Review: ‘The Sphinxing Rabbit: Her Sovereign Majesty’

Appearances can be deceptive .
As in life , as in literature .
Pauline Chakmakjian ’ s fascinating new book cleverly employs the uncomplicated literary idiom of the fable to reveal how science and technology is cunningly deployed against us by the state .
The Sphinxing Rabbit : Her Sovereign Majesty is no less a sobering premonition than George ’ s Orwell ’ s Animal Farm when you understand just how relatable the story is to our current trials and tribulations , including the coronavirus pandemic .
This is despite the beautiful illustrations by Nilesh Mistry , which on every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise soothing on the eye but can not disguise how much the book stokes nightmarish themes not sweet dreams .
This is literature to inform and educate with a stark warning of a cold , dark future for the masses that sleep while devilish dogs steal our freedoms .
This modern take on Aesop ’ s fables is a wakeup call and we all know of the sphinx from mythology : creature with the head of a person and the body of an animal ( more commonly a lion ) the embodiment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intentions secret .
The ingenuity of The Sphinxing Rabbit : Her Sovereign Majesty is already fittingly described as : Like any good fable this is a succinct fictional story where you may encounter all kinds of animals , legendary creatures , plants , inanimate objects .
Such forces of nature are anthropomorphized in a world of masters and servants , thinkers versus non-thinkers and all emanating from the symbolism of the sphinx ( sphinxing : present participle of sphinx ) .
Inferences and questions abound : Should society be premised on carrots or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big issues evoke the rational self-interest notion that forms the basis for Ayn Rand ’ s literature and philosophy ( see : Atlas Shrugged ) .
While the unwary will admire the cute bunnies , The Sphinxing Rabbit : Her Sovereign Majesty writer will slip in unnerving casual references of ubiquitous spying ladybots in place of ladybugs and the ‘ Drone pass by during the day as part of surveillance.
’ The less vigilant among us ( the happy covid mask wearers ? )
may not recognise the portents from our own realm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innocence beguiles naivete .
Will the gullible who welcome into their homes such otherwise benign cloud-based surveillance devices ( think Alexa and Echo ) but which are actually snooping on us , accept the ulterior motive ?
The beautiful illustrations highlight aspects of Japanese culture such as a map of Japan , inspiration taken from the construction of Osaka Castle and a samurai sword .
The nature of the main character is such as to evoke the elements of Zen in both interactions with the various other characters as well as the essence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general quiet , serene nature in the midst of nature and dealing with adversaries .
This opening volume sets the scene nicely for drama yet to come .
If it as turns out less apocryphal than you might imagine , do not be surprised .
The author , Pauline Chakmakjian , is a multi-talented and skilled public speaker , an international foreign policy and foreign relations entrepreneur .
We are living through very dark days and this fable may yet prove to be far-sighted .
The book is suitable for children as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be understood on different levels by different age groups , so it makes it versatile , especially if you are looking for a unique Christmas present this year .
is now available to buy on Amazon Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Book Review: ‘The Sphinxing Rabbit: Her Sovereign Majesty’
Written by John O'Sullivan
Appearances can be deceptive. As in life, as in literature. Pauline Chakmakjian’s fascinating new book cleverly employs the uncomplicated literary idiom of the fable to reveal how science and technology is cunningly deployed against us by the state.
The Sphinxing Rabbit: Her Sovereign Majesty is no less a sobering premonition than George’s Orwell’s Animal Farm when you understand just how relatable the story is to our current trials and tribulations, including the coronavirus pandemic.
This is despite the beautiful illustrations by Nilesh Mistry, which on every page deliver a cornucopia of vibrant color otherwise soothing on the eye but cannot disguise how much the book stokes nightmarish themes not sweet dreams.
This is literature to inform and educate with a stark warning of a cold, dark future for the masses that sleep while devilish dogs steal our freedoms.
This modern take on Aesop’s fables is a wakeup call and we all know of the sphinx from mythology: creature with the head of a person and the body of an animal (more commonly a lion) the embodiment of a person who keeps his/her thoughts and intentions secret.
The ingenuity of The Sphinxing Rabbit: Her Sovereign Majesty is already fittingly described as:
“Deceptively simple in appearance yet heavy in content, the Sphinxing Rabbit series of books starting with Her Sovereign Majesty aims to communicate tenets of freedom in an entertaining manner as opposed to complex, intellectual discourse, which has already been attempted many times in history, but to little avail. Moreover, each book alludes to a few famous works of art.”
Like any good fable this is a succinct fictional story where you may encounter all kinds of animals, legendary creatures, plants, inanimate objects. Such forces of nature are anthropomorphized in a world of masters and servants, thinkers versus non-thinkers and all emanating from the symbolism of the sphinx (sphinxing: present participle of sphinx).
Inferences and questions abound: Should society be premised on carrots or sticks? Libertarianism versus socialism/communism? Such big issues evoke the rational self-interest notion that forms the basis for Ayn Rand’s literature and philosophy (see: Atlas Shrugged).
While the unwary will admire the cute bunnies, The Sphinxing Rabbit: Her Sovereign Majesty writer will slip in unnerving casual references of ubiquitous spying ladybots in place of ladybugs and the ‘Drone pass by during the day as part of surveillance.’
The less vigilant among us (the happy covid mask wearers?) may not recognise the portents from our own realm in a world where the veneer of innocence beguiles naivete. Will the gullible who welcome into their homes such otherwise benign cloud-based surveillance devices (think Alexa and Echo) but which are actually snooping on us, accept the ulterior motive?
As one Amazon reviewer noted:
“There is nothing more fundamental, or important than individual sovereignty and the principle of self-ownership. The Sphinxing Rabbit, understands this principle and very cleverly communicates the current state of political slavery around the globe.”
The beautiful illustrations highlight aspects of Japanese culture such as a map of Japan, inspiration taken from the construction of Osaka Castle and a samurai sword. The nature of the main character is such as to evoke the elements of Zen in both interactions with the various other characters as well as the essence of enlightenment, cautious movements and a general quiet, serene nature in the midst of nature and dealing with adversaries.
This opening volume sets the scene nicely for drama yet to come. If it as turns out less apocryphal than you might imagine, do not be surprised. The author, Pauline Chakmakjian, is a multi-talented and skilled public speaker, an international foreign policy and foreign relations entrepreneur. We are living through very dark days and this fable may yet prove to be far-sighted.
The book is suitable for children as well as adults as it has been designed to be understood on different levels by different age groups, so it makes it versatile, especially if you are looking for a unique Christmas present this year.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
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


principiascientificinternational--2020-10-13--Operation Moonshot: The UK Government’s COVID Calamity

On September 11th , the British Medical Journal ran an article about the government ’ s Operation Moonshot ; their plan to test millions of people daily by 2021 .
The documents show a proposed three stage rollout .
They state that the UK will carry out between 200 000 to 800 000 tests a day between September and December 2020 .
This might break down to : • 100 000 a day on people without symptoms in local areas to suppress outbreaks , • 250 000 a day on people without symptoms in the NHS and care homes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily capacity to between two and four million .
This would involve mass testing of all homes in local areas or whole cities when prevalence rises ( 430 000 tests a day ) , testing high contact professions such as teachers every week ( 100 000 a day ) , and testing people to allow them to enter high risk settings , such as visitors to hospital and care homes .
The plan then states that there would be “ full rollout ” in early 2021 to 10 million tests a day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and maintain normal life.
” [ Author ’ s note : having to be tested every day for potentially years is to be considered ‘ normal ’ ? ]
At this stage , weekly testing would be made available progressively to the whole population to allow people to go to high risk events by using a “ digital passport ” to show they have tested negative for the virus .
Alongside mainly commercial partnerships , the documents also state that a number of new tests and technologies would need to be used , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The documents show that there have been discussions over how to incentivise people to be tested .
They point to enforcing testing “ via a sanction-based model ” or through “ offering individuals opportunities/access from being tested , ” such as being able to attend events .
I have mentioned in previous articles what this ‘ sanction-based ’ approach would mean .
As it stands at the moment , if you refuse a Covid vaccine , you could be barred from using public transport , barred from going into most shops , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , museums , exhibitions , concerts , and barred from being able to work .
The plans say that testing could be used to “ give people assurance that , at least for a limited time , they are unlikely to have the virus and are at low risk of transmitting it to others.
” They say , “ A negative test result ( or potentially a positive antibody result ) may inform not just whether you could attend an in-patient appointment , but if you go to work that day , access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or visit an elderly relative.
” In reference to the non-PCR tests , it is repeatedly noted that “ new types of test are likely to be less accurate [ than PCR ] , introducing some level of risk.
” In terms of how testing would affect behaviour , the documents say that regular testing “ might make people behave in safer ways , by building covid-safe routines into their daily lives , or less safely by giving false a degree of comfort.
” The article notes Operation Moonshot is costed at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying : The documents state that the objective of the mass testing programme is to “ utilise the full range of testing approaches and technologies to help reduce the R rate , keep the economy open and enable a return to normal life.
” They say that Moonshot has been described by the prime minister as the “ only hope for avoiding a second national lockdown before a vaccine , something that the country can not afford.
” ( Emphasis added in all paragraphs ) It can be seen here www.bmj.com On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that article with another , with the title Operation Moonshot proposals are scientifically unsound .
This second article is highly critical of the Moonshot programme , and states : The polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) swab test is useful ( but not perfect ) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA in symptomatic patients .
However , problems arise using the test for purposes that disregard symptoms or time of infection—namely , case finding , mass screening , and disease surveillance .
This is because PCR is not a test of infectiousness .
Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral genome sequence , which may be either live transmissible virus or irrelevant RNA fragments from previous infection .
When people with symptoms or who have been recently exposed receive a positive PCR result they will probably be infectious .
But a positive result in someone without symptoms or known recent exposure may be from live or dead virus , and so does not determine whether the person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to others .
If PCR is used to identify cases through mass testing of healthy people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with previous resolved infections , new infections , and potential re-infections , as well as false positives in people genuinely not harbouring the virus ( around 0.8 % of all tests performed ) .
Identifying the truly infectious—who must isolate—is not straightforward , even with a clinical history .
For example , between 4 % and 41 % of cases are asymptomatic , with a risk of transmission roughly half that of symptomatic cases , but a positive test in those with no history of symptoms could indicate either current infection or previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many people who are not infectious ( and not likely to become infectious ) will receive positive test results , and together with their contacts , will be forced to isolate unnecessarily .
In the context of mass surveillance , this could be a majority of those who test positive .
Using PCR for population screening—even with a lower maximum Ct value cut off—is not epidemiologically sound .
The balance of costs and harms against the potential benefits has not been evaluated .
Now , Operation Moonshot has proposed that mass screening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ reduce the ‘ R ’ rate , keep the economy open and enable a return to normal life.
” Could this work ?
The Moonshot proposals are based exclusively on computer modelling , not empirical evidence .
Critically , the model considers repeated use of tests that are positive only in infected people with high viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 .
The crux of the assumptions in the Moonshot modelling is that the test must have a high chance of being positive when a person is infectious and a low chance when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary as the proposed test will only identify people with new infections when their viral load becomes high .
Since Moonshot proposes use of point-of-care tests , delays in receiving results would be eliminated and isolation can be immediate .
But no point-of-care tests approved for home use are currently available .
One fundamental challenge is that proper evaluation of any point-of-care test destined for mass screening requires a robust and reliable way to identify true infectiousness : we need a reference standard against which the new test ’ s performance can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but culture based tests are hard to run and have high failure rates .
The Moonshot proposals have been condemned for not considering the potential harms from repeated frequent testing of whole populations .
All tests generate some false positives and false negatives .
The consequences of high false negative rates are most serious in symptomatic people who can transmit disease .
Up to 30 % of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are missed by swab based PCR testing , for example .
False positives become a problem when individuals and their contacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a specificity of 99 % , proposals to do 10 million tests a day will generate many thousands of false positive results , causing unnecessary but legally enforced isolation of both cases and contacts with potentially damaging consequences for the UK economy and for civil liberties .
( Emphasis added in all paragraphs ) It can be seen here : www.bmj.com We can conclude from this the PCR test will generate more false positives the more tests that are done , and more people will be told to self-isolate when they do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases ’ will increase ever further , and result in more damaging restrictions , which will hurt the economy and individual livelihoods even more than they already have been .
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19 About the author : Andy Rowlands is a British Principia Scientific International researcher , writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book , ‘ The Sky Dragon Slayers : Victory Lap ‘ PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Operation Moonshot: The UK Government’s COVID Calamity
Written by Andy Rowlands
On September 11th, the British Medical Journal ran an article about the government’s Operation Moonshot; their plan to test millions of people daily by 2021.
The article states, in part:
The documents show a proposed three stage rollout. They state that the UK will carry out between 200 000 to 800 000 tests a day between September and December 2020. This might break down to:
200 000 tests a day on people with symptoms,
100 000 a day on people without symptoms in local areas to suppress outbreaks,
250 000 a day on people without symptoms in the NHS and care homes, and
100 000 a day through national prevalence studies.
From December the plans propose increasing daily capacity to between two and four million. This would involve mass testing of all homes in local areas or whole cities when prevalence rises (430 000 tests a day), testing high contact professions such as teachers every week (100 000 a day), and testing people to allow them to enter high risk settings, such as visitors to hospital and care homes.
The plan then states that there would be “full rollout” in early 2021 to 10 million tests a day, to “enable people to return to and maintain normal life.” [Author’s note: having to be tested every day for potentially years is to be considered ‘normal’?] At this stage, weekly testing would be made available progressively to the whole population to allow people to go to high risk events by using a “digital passport” to show they have tested negative for the virus.
Alongside mainly commercial partnerships, the documents also state that a number of new tests and technologies would need to be used, including some that do not yet exist.
The documents show that there have been discussions over how to incentivise people to be tested. They point to enforcing testing “via a sanction-based model” or through “offering individuals opportunities/access from being tested,” such as being able to attend events.
I have mentioned in previous articles what this ‘sanction-based’ approach would mean. As it stands at the moment, if you refuse a Covid vaccine, you could be barred from using public transport, barred from going into most shops, barred from going to pubs, restaurants, museums, exhibitions, concerts, and barred from being able to work.
The BMJ article continues:
The plans say that testing could be used to “give people assurance that, at least for a limited time, they are unlikely to have the virus and are at low risk of transmitting it to others.”
They say, “A negative test result (or potentially a positive antibody result) may inform not just whether you could attend an in-patient appointment, but if you go to work that day, access a venue, get on a flight or visit an elderly relative.”
In reference to the non-PCR tests, it is repeatedly noted that “new types of test are likely to be less accurate [than PCR], introducing some level of risk.” In terms of how testing would affect behaviour, the documents say that regular testing “might make people behave in safer ways, by building covid-safe routines into their daily lives, or less safely by giving false a degree of comfort.”
The article notes Operation Moonshot is costed at a hundred billion pounds. It finishes by saying:
The documents state that the objective of the mass testing programme is to “utilise the full range of testing approaches and technologies to help reduce the R rate, keep the economy open and enable a return to normal life.” They say that Moonshot has been described by the prime minister as the “only hope for avoiding a second national lockdown before a vaccine, something that the country cannot afford.” (Emphasis added in all paragraphs)
It can be seen here www.bmj.com
On the 22nd September, the BMJ followed up that article with another, with the title Operation Moonshot proposals are scientifically unsound.
This second article is highly critical of the Moonshot programme, and states:
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swab test is useful (but not perfect) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA in symptomatic patients. However, problems arise using the test for purposes that disregard symptoms or time of infection—namely, case finding, mass screening, and disease surveillance.
This is because PCR is not a test of infectiousness. Rather, the test detects trace amounts of viral genome sequence, which may be either live transmissible virus or irrelevant RNA fragments from previous infection. When people with symptoms or who have been recently exposed receive a positive PCR result they will probably be infectious. But a positive result in someone without symptoms or known recent exposure may be from live or dead virus, and so does not determine whether the person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to others.
If PCR is used to identify cases through mass testing of healthy people, it will deliver positive results in individuals with previous resolved infections, new infections, and potential re-infections, as well as false positives in people genuinely not harbouring the virus (around 0.8% of all tests performed). Identifying the truly infectious—who must isolate—is not straightforward, even with a clinical history. For example, between 4% and 41% of cases are asymptomatic, with a risk of transmission roughly half that of symptomatic cases, but a positive test in those with no history of symptoms could indicate either current infection or previously resolved asymptomatic infection.
Real concern exists that many people who are not infectious (and not likely to become infectious) will receive positive test results, and together with their contacts, will be forced to isolate unnecessarily. In the context of mass surveillance, this could be a majority of those who test positive. Using PCR for population screening—even with a lower maximum Ct value cut off—is not epidemiologically sound. The balance of costs and harms against the potential benefits has not been evaluated.
Now, Operation Moonshot has proposed that mass screening with less accurate point-of-care tests will help “reduce the ‘R’ rate, keep the economy open and enable a return to normal life.” Could this work?
The Moonshot proposals are based exclusively on computer modelling, not empirical evidence. Critically, the model considers repeated use of tests that are positive only in infected people with high viral loads of SARS-CoV-2. The crux of the assumptions in the Moonshot modelling is that the test must have a high chance of being positive when a person is infectious and a low chance when they are not.
Frequent repeat testing is necessary as the proposed test will only identify people with new infections when their viral load becomes high. Since Moonshot proposes use of point-of-care tests, delays in receiving results would be eliminated and isolation can be immediate. But no point-of-care tests approved for home use are currently available.
One fundamental challenge is that proper evaluation of any point-of-care test destined for mass screening requires a robust and reliable way to identify true infectiousness: we need a reference standard against which the new test’s performance can be compared. Viral culture is one option, but culture based tests are hard to run and have high failure rates.
The Moonshot proposals have been condemned for not considering the potential harms from repeated frequent testing of whole populations. All tests generate some false positives and false negatives. The consequences of high false negative rates are most serious in symptomatic people who can transmit disease. Up to 30% of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are missed by swab based PCR testing, for example.
False positives become a problem when individuals and their contacts have to self-isolate unnecessarily. Even with a specificity of 99%, proposals to do 10 million tests a day will generate many thousands of false positive results, causing unnecessary but legally enforced isolation of both cases and contacts with potentially damaging consequences for the UK economy and for civil liberties. (Emphasis added in all paragraphs)
It can be seen here: www.bmj.com
We can conclude from this the PCR test will generate more false positives the more tests that are done, and more people will be told to self-isolate when they do not need to. The number of ‘cases’ will increase ever further, and result in more damaging restrictions, which will hurt the economy and individual livelihoods even more than they already have been.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a British Principia Scientific International researcher, writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book, ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap‘
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--2020-10-13--Time to Abandon Fake News About a ‘Climate Catastrophe’

Not so long ago , we were all getting ready to freeze .
In 1971 , the Global Ecology network forecast the “ continued rapid cooling of the Earth ; in 1975 The New York Times brooded that the Earth “ may be headed for another ice age , ” as did Newsweek ; in the March 1 , 1975 issue of Science News .
We were informed that “ the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age [ was ] a real possibility , ” and in the July 1975 issue of National Wildlife , C.C .
Wallen of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.
” A few years later , we are all in danger of frying to a crisp .
Over the past decades , as we know to our cost , a consensus has developed that the world is warming as a result of AGW ( Anthropogenic Global Warming ) .
There is , apparently , no room for doubt .
The trouble is that the “ science ” involved has been commandeered by an army of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect .
Some of the movement ’ s advocates , to put it bluntly , are more concerned with saving their careers than saving the planet ; others are building new careers at the expense of public credulity , the perks and salaries being just too good to give up .
I imagine that a great number of them are dealing from the bottom of the deck .
Thus William Gray , professor emeritus of the Atmosphere Department of Colorado State University , laments that “ fellow scientists are not speaking out against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they also know that they ’ d never get any grants if they spoke out.
” Consequently , they must insist that “ the science is settled ” —an unscientific statement if ever there was one .
Gray received unlikely support from culture-hero James Lovelock who , in his various books on the apotheosis of Gaia , had been an ardent proponent of the Global Warming conjecture .
In a late interview , Lovelock more or less reversed course , claiming that the science is far from settled and that “ our university @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a mistake would lead to a loss of funding.
” In adding his réclame to the debunking of climate conformity , Lovelock — who ’ s now 100 years old — showed both honesty and courage , rare attributes for climate commentators .
If so-called climate skeptics need nerves of steel to oppose the reigning ideology , it takes even more courage for a “ Warmist ” to buck the trend .
Lovelock , who in The Revenge of Gaia prophesied the charring of the planet , now confides he had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hedging his bets and deferring catastrophe into the indefinite future , he avers that “ we don ’ t know what the climate is doing ” and disparages his previous work , as well as Al Gore ’ s An Inconvenient Truth and Tim Flannery ’ s The Weather Makers , as “ alarmist.
” Financial Post journalist Peter Foster believes that progress toward a more sensible accord on climate may be occurring : “ alarmist science , grand schemes of UN-coordinated global governance , carbon taxes , and government promoted ‘ technologies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But is that really the case ?
Our professional elites seem not to be aware—or interested—as they continue to promote a failed ideology .
National governments and ambitious politicians are still beating the climate drum , whether Justin Trudeau in Canada or Gavin Newsom in California , leading their people down the road to economic perdition .
Thankfully , authentic scientists , men of courage and integrity , have no intention of surrendering to the climate commissars of the day .
Their persistence in disseminating truth may eventually pay off .
Perhaps people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greening of the Earth is actually leading to the blackening of the Earth .
The toxic waste flowing from Green renewables , unreported in the mainstream media , is off the charts .
Writing in Forbes , Michael Shellenberger , author of Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All , cites reputable figures showing that by 2016 there were 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste to deal with , producing carcinogens washed into the soil by rainwater .
The International Renewable Energy Agency ( IRENA ) , he continues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.
” In addition , the costs are unsustainable .
Today , “ recycling costs more than the economic value of the materials recovered , which is why most solar panels end up in landfills.
” Additionally , burning e-waste materials , which include plastic components , produces fumes that are teratogenic .
Wind farms create their own waste issues regarding the disposal of uncrushable , 100-to-300 feet long , used wind turbine blades , “ a waste problem , ” writes Christina Stella at NPR , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is held up to be.
” Perhaps people are also beginning to twig to the fact that , as P.F .
Whalen writes in American Thinker , “ the climate change cult ’ s agenda , is less about climate change and more about Socialism ; maneuvering for the redistribution of wealth and increased government control over our lives , while disguised as well-intentioned activists striving for cleaner air.
” There ’ s nothing like the threat of an imminent apocalypse to advance a suspect agenda .
The scientific consensus today , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from the catastrophism of the climate gurus , despite official and partisan resistance .
True , the shift has been tentative .
Carbon-driven global warming was an easy sell , but it will be a hard buyback—too many professional reputations are on the line .
Nonetheless , the evidence is growing to suggest , variously , that the human contribution to global warming is far less than originally assumed , that there may be no global warming , and that in any event , a meteorological calamity is highly unlikely .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scientists attending the 33rd International Geological Congress were “ hostile to , even dismissive of , the U.N. ’ s IPCC report ” on catastrophic climate .
In addition , a coalition of 49 former NASA scientists and seven Apollo astronauts , including the deputy director of the space shuttle program , has accused the bureaucracy of both NASA and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies ( GISS ) , with which NASA is affiliated , of diddling with the facts .
If Lovelock is right and we don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is surely time for a moratorium on oracular pronouncements foretelling climate doom and vaticinal prescriptions for drastic and irreversible action .
The sickly obsession with “ green energy ” has to be put out to pasture .
It behooves us to proceed gingerly and with humility when engaging in practices that can alter and even destroy livelihoods , that can profoundly affect the industrial and economic infrastructures on which prosperity depends , and that may meddle harmfully with natural processes .
Scientists are neither soothsayers nor sorcerer ’ s apprentices no matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquired .
Meanwhile , civilization is in no danger of collapsing—at least , not from natural causes ; the Earth is not about to become an orbital cinder ; hydrocarbons are not about to be exhausted ; and there is time to reflect , plan , experiment , and test a diversity of sustainable energy replacements .
Nuclear power plants , for example , are not only increasingly secure but create 300 times less toxic waste per unit of energy than do solar panels .
Working in proportionate tandem with oil-and-gas , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source can supply the energy needs of the future while preserving the environment as well as the job economy .
Precipitate action may benefit crony capitalists , corrupt politicians , academic imbeciles , Reset leftists and scientific sell-outs at the cost of planetary degradation and common suffering .
The possibilities for creating fear and panic to further the schemes and purposes of Green profiteers are endless .
“ Some say the world will end in fire , /Some say in ice , ” wrote Robert Frost .
In the 1970s it was ice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A pandemic , a Biblical flood , erupting volcanoes , the separating of the African and Eurasian tectonic plates that may release the hell of Tartarus upon the planet , as James Rollins fantasizes in his Sigma Force thriller The Last Odyssey—all are equally plausible , which is to say , implausible scenarios .
Perhaps it ’ s time to stop fetishizing cataclysmic theatrics , whether for lucre , reputation , or political control .
Moreover , the untutored enthusiasms of credulous multitudes need to be treated with unqualified skepticism as well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ know it ’ s time to take a breather on climate politics .
Too little is known and computer models are notoriously unreliable , often reflecting their programmers ’ biases or ineptness rather than the real world .
This practice of presuming on results is called by those in the field “ climate model tuning ” or “ parameter estimation targeting a chosen set of observations.
” According to the American Meteorological Society , “ tuning methodologies may affect fundamental results of climate models , such as climate sensitivity.
” There are , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ consistency issues across the model and its components , ” as well as “ limitations of process studies metrics , ” such as sampling issues , and also the fact that “ the climate system itself is not observed with sufficient fidelity to fully constrain models.
” The language is technical but the meaning in layman ’ s terms is clear : the results of current climate and environmentalism studies , given the “ arcane aspect of model construction , ” are untrustworthy and corrupted .
What is needed is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ratify an antecedent conclusion , but , as the AMS advises , “ a vigorous debate on model tuning and evaluation.
” There is far too much uncertainty arising from the inductive procedures currently in play .
Michael Crichton was right when he urged in State of Fear that we need “ more people working in the field , in the actual environment , and fewer people behind computer screens.
” No matter how sophisticated the regressive correlations and projective parameters used in computer simulations may be , there can be no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we should agree , at the very least , that a large amount of comprehensive research still needs to be done before the science is sufficiently stabilized to yield results that are not perennially contestable .
The old Latin maxim applies : In dubio non-agitur : when in doubt , don ’ t act .
Or at any rate , act circumspectly and with gradually accumulated knowledge rather than with the doctorings of desire , the existence of prior convictions , or a raft of maniacal assumptions .
Read more at The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Time to Abandon Fake News About a ‘Climate Catastrophe’
Written by David Solway
Not so long ago, we were all getting ready to freeze. In 1971, the Global Ecology network forecast the “continued rapid cooling of the Earth; in 1975 The New York Times brooded that the Earth “may be headed for another ice age,” as did Newsweek; in the March 1, 1975 issue of Science News.
We were informed that “the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age [was] a real possibility,” and in the July 1975 issue of National Wildlife, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization warned that “the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
A few years later, we are all in danger of frying to a crisp. Over the past decades, as we know to our cost, a consensus has developed that the world is warming as a result of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). There is, apparently, no room for doubt.
The trouble is that the “science” involved has been commandeered by an army of political pulpiteers whose underlying purposes are distressingly suspect.
Some of the movement’s advocates, to put it bluntly, are more concerned with saving their careers than saving the planet; others are building new careers at the expense of public credulity, the perks and salaries being just too good to give up. I imagine that a great number of them are dealing from the bottom of the deck.
Thus William Gray, professor emeritus of the Atmosphere Department of Colorado State University, laments that “fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out.”
Consequently, they must insist that “the science is settled”—an unscientific statement if ever there was one.
Gray received unlikely support from culture-hero James Lovelock who, in his various books on the apotheosis of Gaia, had been an ardent proponent of the Global Warming conjecture.
In a late interview, Lovelock more or less reversed course, claiming that the science is far from settled and that “our university and government scientists might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to a loss of funding.”
In adding his réclame to the debunking of climate conformity, Lovelock — who’s now 100 years old — showed both honesty and courage, rare attributes for climate commentators.
If so-called climate skeptics need nerves of steel to oppose the reigning ideology, it takes even more courage for a “Warmist” to buck the trend.
Lovelock, who in The Revenge of Gaia prophesied the charring of the planet, now confides he had been “extrapolating too far.”
Despite predictably hedging his bets and deferring catastrophe into the indefinite future, he avers that “we don’t know what the climate is doing” and disparages his previous work, as well as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers, as “alarmist.”
Financial Post journalist Peter Foster believes that progress toward a more sensible accord on climate may be occurring: “alarmist science, grand schemes of UN-coordinated global governance, carbon taxes, and government promoted ‘technologies of the future’—are crumbling.”
But is that really the case? Our professional elites seem not to be aware—or interested—as they continue to promote a failed ideology.
National governments and ambitious politicians are still beating the climate drum, whether Justin Trudeau in Canada or Gavin Newsom in California, leading their people down the road to economic perdition.
Thankfully, authentic scientists, men of courage and integrity, have no intention of surrendering to the climate commissars of the day. Their persistence in disseminating truth may eventually pay off.
Perhaps people may gradually become aware that the so-called greening of the Earth is actually leading to the blackening of the Earth.
The toxic waste flowing from Green renewables, unreported in the mainstream media, is off the charts.
Writing in Forbes, Michael Shellenberger, author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, cites reputable figures showing that by 2016 there were 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste to deal with, producing carcinogens washed into the soil by rainwater.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), he continues, “projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.” In addition, the costs are unsustainable.
Today, “recycling costs more than the economic value of the materials recovered, which is why most solar panels end up in landfills.”
Additionally, burning e-waste materials, which include plastic components, produces fumes that are teratogenic.
Wind farms create their own waste issues regarding the disposal of uncrushable, 100-to-300 feet long, used wind turbine blades, “a waste problem,” writes Christina Stella at NPR, “that runs counter to what the industry is held up to be.”
Perhaps people are also beginning to twig to the fact that, as P.F. Whalen writes in American Thinker, “the climate change cult’s agenda, is less about climate change and more about Socialism; maneuvering for the redistribution of wealth and increased government control over our lives, while disguised as well-intentioned activists striving for cleaner air.”
There’s nothing like the threat of an imminent apocalypse to advance a suspect agenda.
The scientific consensus today, as Foster believes, may be slowly shifting away from the catastrophism of the climate gurus, despite official and partisan resistance.
True, the shift has been tentative. Carbon-driven global warming was an easy sell, but it will be a hard buyback—too many professional reputations are on the line.
Nonetheless, the evidence is growing to suggest, variously, that the human contribution to global warming is far less than originally assumed, that there may be no global warming, and that in any event, a meteorological calamity is highly unlikely.
As far back as 2008, two-thirds of the scientists attending the 33rd International Geological Congress were “hostile to, even dismissive of, the U.N.’s IPCC report” on catastrophic climate.
In addition, a coalition of 49 former NASA scientists and seven Apollo astronauts, including the deputy director of the space shuttle program, has accused the bureaucracy of both NASA and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), with which NASA is affiliated, of diddling with the facts.
They write:
“We believe that [their] claims that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”
If Lovelock is right and we don’t know what the climate is doing, then it is surely time for a moratorium on oracular pronouncements foretelling climate doom and vaticinal prescriptions for drastic and irreversible action.
The sickly obsession with “green energy” has to be put out to pasture. It behooves us to proceed gingerly and with humility when engaging in practices that can alter and even destroy livelihoods, that can profoundly affect the industrial and economic infrastructures on which prosperity depends, and that may meddle harmfully with natural processes.
Scientists are neither soothsayers nor sorcerer’s apprentices no matter how many degrees and laurels they have acquired.
Meanwhile, civilization is in no danger of collapsing—at least, not from natural causes; the Earth is not about to become an orbital cinder; hydrocarbons are not about to be exhausted; and there is time to reflect, plan, experiment, and test a diversity of sustainable energy replacements.
Nuclear power plants, for example, are not only increasingly secure but create 300 times less toxic waste per unit of energy than do solar panels.
Working in proportionate tandem with oil-and-gas, a safe, plentiful, and affordable energy source can supply the energy needs of the future while preserving the environment as well as the job economy.
Precipitate action may benefit crony capitalists, corrupt politicians, academic imbeciles, Reset leftists and scientific sell-outs at the cost of planetary degradation and common suffering.
The possibilities for creating fear and panic to further the schemes and purposes of Green profiteers are endless. “Some say the world will end in fire,/Some say in ice,” wrote Robert Frost. In the 1970s it was ice; now it’s fire.
A pandemic, a Biblical flood, erupting volcanoes, the separating of the African and Eurasian tectonic plates that may release the hell of Tartarus upon the planet, as James Rollins fantasizes in his Sigma Force thriller The Last Odyssey—all are equally plausible, which is to say, implausible scenarios.
Perhaps it’s time to stop fetishizing cataclysmic theatrics, whether for lucre, reputation, or political control. Moreover, the untutored enthusiasms of credulous multitudes need to be treated with unqualified skepticism as well.
In short, informed and honorable people know it’s time to take a breather on climate politics. Too little is known and computer models are notoriously unreliable, often reflecting their programmers’ biases or ineptness rather than the real world.
This practice of presuming on results is called by those in the field “climate model tuning” or “parameter estimation targeting a chosen set of observations.”
According to the American Meteorological Society, “tuning methodologies may affect fundamental results of climate models, such as climate sensitivity.”
There are, as the AMS goes on to admit, “consistency issues across the model and its components,” as well as “limitations of process studies metrics,” such as sampling issues, and also the fact that “the climate system itself is not observed with sufficient fidelity to fully constrain models.”
The language is technical but the meaning in layman’s terms is clear: the results of current climate and environmentalism studies, given the “arcane aspect of model construction,” are untrustworthy and corrupted.
What is needed is not ad hoc adjustments to confirm a theory or ratify an antecedent conclusion, but, as the AMS advises, “a vigorous debate on model tuning and evaluation.” There is far too much uncertainty arising from the inductive procedures currently in play.
Michael Crichton was right when he urged in State of Fear that we need “more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens.”
No matter how sophisticated the regressive correlations and projective parameters used in computer simulations may be, there can be no substitute for concrete empirical work.
Ultimately, we should agree, at the very least, that a large amount of comprehensive research still needs to be done before the science is sufficiently stabilized to yield results that are not perennially contestable.
The old Latin maxim applies: In dubio non-agitur: when in doubt, don’t act. Or at any rate, act circumspectly and with gradually accumulated knowledge rather than with the doctorings of desire, the existence of prior convictions, or a raft of maniacal assumptions.
Read more at The Pipeline
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--2020-10-14--COVID19: Top Yale Professor Says ‘Decisions not Based on Science’

COVID19 : Top Yale Professor Says ‘ Decisions not Based on Science ’ You may not have heard , but on August 23 , a guy named Harvey Risch made some shocking accusations against Anthony Fauci .
Of course , that by itself doesn ’ t say much since a lot of people have accused Anthony Fauci of a lot of things since he stepped into the spotlight as the de facto leader of America ’ s response to COVID-19 .
But Harvey Risch isn ’ t just anybody .
Risch is a professor of epidemiology at Yale University .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ San Diego , a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago , and he ’ s published over 300 papers in a career that spans four decades .
Harvey Risch can ’ t be dismissed as a “ crackpot conspiracy theorist.
” You can ’ t brush aside such unbelievably serious accusations with some mantra about “ following the science ” when a world-renowned scientist is the one making them .
Yet what ’ s in a way more alarming than Risch ’ s accusations themselves is the way they , nonetheless , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t been a single call by anyone to investigate whether there ’ s any truth to what Risch is saying .
As the palace guard says after seeing the ghost of Hamlet ’ s father , something is rotten in the state of Denmark .
Very rotten .
Risch claims that Fauci has knowingly lied about the drug hydroxychloroquine and used his influence to get the FDA to help him suppress it because he and other bureaucrats are “ in bed with other forces that are causing them to make decisions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are ] killing Americans.
” Moreover , Risch specifically claims that Fauci and the FDA have caused ” the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans who could have been saved by ” HCQ Dr. Risch was mentioned in an open letter lambasting Fauci for lying about HCQ written by three working physicians I reported on a couple of months back .
The trio of doctors point out that Dr. Risch and the thousands of physicians worldwide who ’ ve had such great success with HCQ recommend it only for high-risk patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the onset of symptoms .
It also has to be administered in a “ cocktail ” along with zinc and another medication .
No one has ever claimed that HCQ is effective when taken by itself or more than a week after symptoms first appear .
Yet , as Drs .
Fareed , Jacobs , and Pompan go on to directly rebuke Fauci for shamelessly deceiving the public about , all of the randomized controlled trials which he claimed show that HCL is ineffective either used HCL by itself without the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t administer it within the first five to seven days after symptoms appeared .
The studies Fauci ’ s touting to suppress HCQ might as well be about some other drug entirely for all the relevance they have to the actual course of treatment those who ’ ve been saving lives with it since the outbreak began are recommending .
Harvey Risch and Drs .
Fareed , Jacobs , and Pompan are by no means the only physicians or scientists who ’ ve called out Fauci for ignoring established scientific facts and research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remedies on us .
As I pointed out way back in July , though the media pretends that Fauci ’ s opinions represent some kind of scientific consensus .
literally thousands of working physicians and distinguished scientists have been calling out his deadly quack medicine since almost the very beginning .
Their numbers even include Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist , Michael Levitt .
In May , over 600 physicians from “ all specialties and from all states ” signed a public letter to President Trump describing , not COVID-19 , but Fauci ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Their letter warned : The original 600 physicians who signed that letter warning us that Fauci was inflicting a literal mass casualty incident on America has since grown to the thousands .
The fact is the shocking number of experts warning that Fauci ’ s advice had no scientific basis and is causing an unprecedented disaster means that he should have been investigated ages ago .
But Harvey Risch has gone a step further and explicitly charged Fauci with suppressing a drug he knows full well would have saved hundreds of thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in bed with forces ” who benefit .
Risch also says that this is by no means the first time Fauci has caused Americans to die by depriving them of life-saving medication .
He says that Fauci did exactly the same when AIDS emerged in the 80s , resulting in over 17,000 needless deaths : This was started , and most noticeably in 1987 , when people with AIDS in New York City were dying of what is called pneumocystis pneumonia , PCP , and the clinical experience then had been amassed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevented from dying by use of the antibiotic , Bactrim .
This is even then was a generic medication and cheap .
And activists obtained a meeting with Dr. Fauci and 15 of his selected scientists at F.D.A.
, at N.I.H .
and asked Dr. Fauci just to make guidelines to physicians that they consider using Bactrim to treat preventively AIDS people so that they wouldn ’ t die of this pneumonia .
Dr. Fauci refused .
He said , I want randomized , controlled , blinded , controlled trial evidence .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or nothing .
The activists left .
The N.I.H .
did not fund any randomized trials .
They raised money themselves from their own AIDS patients to collect the data to do a randomized trial .
It took them two years .
They came back to Dr. Fauci .
During those two years , the F.D.A .
approved AZT as a treatment for AIDS , AZT works , but not completely .
It needs other medications as well .
And during the two years that it took them to get this data to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using Bactrim , 17,000 people with AIDS died because of Dr. Fauci ’ s insistence on not allowing even a statement supporting consideration of the use .
Moreover , Fauci himself even admits to ” killing people with red tape ” by withholding life-saving AIDS medication !
It ’ s difficult to understand how he even kept his job after that .
But something is even more seriously wrong when thousands of doctors and scientists spend months warning us that Fauci is peddling pseudoscientific quack medicine that ’ s causing a mass casualty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to openly accuse him of causing hundreds of thousands of deaths by suppressing medication he knows is effective because he ’ s in bed with special interests yet not a single person in authority has evinced the slightest concern about whether any of this is true .
As my colleague Bonchie reported this morning , in an interview on CNN yesterday Fauci claimed he ’ s unable to think of a single reason besides COVID-19 for the excess deaths America has suffered since his lockdowns began .
He must not read the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lockdowns had killed over 13,000 Alzheimer ’ s patients by August 15 alone .
God knows how many more have died since .
Of course , that ’ s just a number .
Sometimes to fully grasp how awful something is we need to see a picture… Or to read one woman ’ s awful story of how Fauci ’ s policies caused her beloved mother to suffer and die .
I know what some of you are thinking .
It was a tradeoff .
Lockdown was a difficult decision that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save countless more people from dying of COVID-19 .
Except this is utter BS .
There was never a shred of scientific evidence that putting healthy people in quarantine would accomplish anything and everything we know about viruses made it 100 % certain it wouldn ’ t .
Even the CDC ’ s most recent pandemic planning guide from 2017 admits that “ direct evidence for the effectiveness of these measures is limited.
” And by limited they meant non-existent .
There isn ’ t a single study that supports the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop viruses from spreading .
The European Centre for Disease Control ’ s summary of the research was more honest .
They noted that “ there are few , if any , empirical data underpinning these assumptions ” that workplace closures do anything to stop viruses from spreading .
Indeed , they found no evidence for the effectiveness of any social distancing measures .
Another review of the research published in the journal , Biosecurity and Bioterrorism , concluded : And the reason they mention influenza specifically is that every single study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was narrowly focused on whether isolation stops the spread of the flu .
So , even if any of them had shown that social distancing would do anything , WHICH NOT A SINGLE ONE DID , it still wouldn ’ t have proved anything about COVID-19 .
Finally , as the previous study noted , even the World Health Organization had concluded that “ forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.
” You can find lots of research saying that there was no reason to think putting healthy people in quarantine would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t find a single one that claims there ’ s any solid reason to think it would .
And everything we know about viruses made it a given that social distancing wouldn ’ t do a damn thing to stop one from spreading .
Respiratory viruses travel in tiny pockets of moisture called aerosols that almost certainly make their way across the ocean .
In 1969 , a group of people in Antarctica experienced a spontaneous respiratory virus outbreak in their 17th week of isolation !
And if you ’ re thinking that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that applies to COVID-19 , you ’ ve got another think coming .
An Argentinian naval ship suffered a COVID-19 outbreak after 35 days at sea which were preceded by 14 days of isolation for everyone on board .
But forget that .
Researchers have found aerosols containing live COVID-19 virus 16-feet away from the only people who could have possibly shed them .
That ’ s as far as they tried to find them and , as that crew of Argentinian sailors found out , they ’ re bound to travel a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as stupid as the idea of quarantining healthy people was , we weren ’ t even truly isolated at all .
Instead of shopping in local stores , we were funneled into megastores like Walmart and Costco and exposed to the germs of literally thousands of people we otherwise would have never had an opportunity to catch a disease from .
The utter ineffectiveness of the measures we were conned into adopting was as obvious from the very beginning as the massive harm they would cause which Fauci and the others pushing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was literally no scientific justification for thinking lockdown would accomplish anything except raining down hardship , misery , and death on the heads of the American people , which was 100 % guaranteed .
If it hadn ’ t been marketed under the nifty sounding name “ social distancing ” along with that idiotic slogan we were taught to mindlessly bark at each other , Flatten the curve !
, but instead been described accurately as quarantining the healthy , everyone would have immediately realized the preposterous BS we were being fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been at least eight studies showing what anyone who looked into the matter and wasn ’ t an imbecile would have known from the start .
Lockdowns did absolutely nothing to slow down the virus ’ s spread or decrease the number of people who allegedly died from it .
Areas that lockdown did no better than those that didn ’ t .
In fact , some studies found the reverse to be the case .
Dr. Dan Erickson is one of the leaders of a group of working physicians called Frontline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-science policies Fauci inflicted on us .
He ’ s been trying since almost the beginning of this nightmare to get people to understand that “ social distancing ” – which somehow wasn ’ t mentioned when the Swine Flu hit under Obama or in all of recorded human history prior to the propaganda campaign that kicked off seven months ago – should really be described as quarantining the healthy .
As such , it contradicts the basic tenets of both microbiology and immunology .
You ’ ll notice that I haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when referring to Fauci .
That ’ s something that has to stop right now .
Fauci literally hasn ’ t seen a single patient in his entire 50-year professional career .
And calling him Dr. Fauci is obscene – like referring to Joseph Mengele as Dr. Mengele .
Because those tens of thousands of elderly Americans suffering from Alzheimer ’ s that Fauci ’ s policies killed are just the tip of the iceberg even putting aside the hundreds of thousands of deaths Dr. Risch says Fauci knowingly condemned to death and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s admitted to “ killing with red tape ” as if it were no big deal .
And , as my colleague Bonchie noted in his column this morning , Fauci knows full well about all the devastation and death he ’ s inflicted on us .
“ He ’ s not stupid , he just thinks you are.
” Are we really supposed to believe he didn ’ t know that shutting down medical care for all other ailments was going to kill a lot of people ?
Did he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggling with depression or addiction from other human beings would drive a lot of them to suicide or back to deadly drugs ?
Was he unaware that inflicting economic hardship on them while taking away their daily routine would push even more past the brink of despair ?
Random people on Twitter were pointing out the horrors Fauci ’ s cruel and pointless lockdowns would bring before the hellish nightmare he inflicted on our most vulnerable fellow citizens even began .
But we ’ re supposed to believe none of this ever occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact , that to this day it still hasn ’ t ?
Well-known people with huge platforms also warned of what was to come at the very beginning .
But Fauci somehow never heard anything about or even considered it ?
Doctors take an oath to “ first do no harm.
” So for heaven ’ s sake , under no circumstances should you or anyone else be calling Anthony Fauci , Dr .
If you don ’ t get it , take another look at that video above of the poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to claw her way out of the prison Fauci put her , reread the awful account of the miserable and degrading death he inflicted on another woman ’ s mother , then imagine how many times similar scenes have played themselves out these past seven months .
There was ample reason to fire and investigate Fauci months ago .
But how is it possible that a renowned epidemiologist from Yale can openly accuse Fauci of suppressing medication he knows would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives because he ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from such unspeakable evil without anyone in authority becoming concerned enough to look into the matter ?
Something ’ s very wrong with America at this moment in time .
And if it doesn ’ t get right soon , it ’ s hard to see how our nation has much of a future .
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19 PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

COVID19: Top Yale Professor Says ‘Decisions not Based on Science’
Written by Michael Thau
You may not have heard, but on August 23, a guy named Harvey Risch made some shocking accusations against Anthony Fauci.
Of course, that by itself doesn’t say much since a lot of people have accused Anthony Fauci of a lot of things since he stepped into the spotlight as the de facto leader of America’s response to COVID-19.
But Harvey Risch isn’t just anybody. Risch is a professor of epidemiology at Yale University. He has an M.D. from UC San Diego, a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and he’s published over 300 papers in a career that spans four decades.
Harvey Risch can’t be dismissed as a “crackpot conspiracy theorist.” You can’t brush aside such unbelievably serious accusations with some mantra about “following the science” when a world-renowned scientist is the one making them.
Yet what’s in a way more alarming than Risch’s accusations themselves is the way they, nonetheless, have been completely brushed aside. There hasn’t been a single call by anyone to investigate whether there’s any truth to what Risch is saying. As the palace guard says after seeing the ghost of Hamlet’s father, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Very rotten.
Risch claims that Fauci has knowingly lied about the drug hydroxychloroquine and used his influence to get the FDA to help him suppress it because he and other bureaucrats are “in bed with other forces that are causing them to make decisions that are not based on the science [and are] killing Americans.”
Moreover, Risch specifically claims that Fauci and the FDA have caused ” the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans who could have been saved by” HCQ
Dr. Risch was mentioned in an open letter lambasting Fauci for lying about HCQ written by three working physicians I reported on a couple of months back.
Drs. George C. Fareed, Michael M. Jacobs, and Donald C. Pompan open with a perfect description of the disturbing way Fauci’s opinions are presented as incontrovertible fact “without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree,” which, despite his media branding as a “man of science,” is actually the antithesis of how science should operate and, in fact, emblematic of a cult. From the very beginning of the pandemic: “[P]hysicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as outpatients, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.” Besides the “hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals” with HCQ, there are also “at least 10 studies demonstrating” its effectiveness. The three MDs go on to cite an article by esteemed Yale epidemiologist, Dr. Harvey Risch in the American Journal of Epidemiology that urged in its very title – sadly to no avail – that prescribing HCQ should be “…Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.”
The trio of doctors point out that Dr. Risch and the thousands of physicians worldwide who’ve had such great success with HCQ recommend it only for high-risk patients within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms. It also has to be administered in a “cocktail” along with zinc and another medication. No one has ever claimed that HCQ is effective when taken by itself or more than a week after symptoms first appear.
Yet, as Drs. Fareed, Jacobs, and Pompan go on to directly rebuke Fauci for shamelessly deceiving the public about, all of the randomized controlled trials which he claimed show that HCL is ineffective either used HCL by itself without the rest of the full cocktail or didn’t administer it within the first five to seven days after symptoms appeared.
The studies Fauci’s touting to suppress HCQ might as well be about some other drug entirely for all the relevance they have to the actual course of treatment those who’ve been saving lives with it since the outbreak began are recommending.
Harvey Risch and Drs. Fareed, Jacobs, and Pompan are by no means the only physicians or scientists who’ve called out Fauci for ignoring established scientific facts and research to justify inflicting ruinous and deadly fake remedies on us.
As I pointed out way back in July, though the media pretends that Fauci’s opinions represent some kind of scientific consensus. literally thousands of working physicians and distinguished scientists have been calling out his deadly quack medicine since almost the very beginning. Their numbers even include Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist, Michael Levitt.
In May, over 600 physicians from “all specialties and from all states” signed a public letter to President Trump describing, not COVID-19, but Fauci’s lockdowns as a “mass casualty incident.” Their letter warned:
It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown. Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a persons health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come. The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.
The original 600 physicians who signed that letter warning us that Fauci was inflicting a literal mass casualty incident on America has since grown to the thousands.
The fact is the shocking number of experts warning that Fauci’s advice had no scientific basis and is causing an unprecedented disaster means that he should have been investigated ages ago. But Harvey Risch has gone a step further and explicitly charged Fauci with suppressing a drug he knows full well would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives because he’s “in bed with forces” who benefit.
Risch also says that this is by no means the first time Fauci has caused Americans to die by depriving them of life-saving medication. He says that Fauci did exactly the same when AIDS emerged in the 80s, resulting in over 17,000 needless deaths:
This was started, and most noticeably in 1987, when people with AIDS in New York City were dying of what is called pneumocystis pneumonia, PCP, and the clinical experience then had been amassed. A large number of cases who were prevented from dying by use of the antibiotic, Bactrim. This is even then was a generic medication and cheap. And activists obtained a meeting with Dr. Fauci and 15 of his selected scientists at F.D.A., at N.I.H. and asked Dr. Fauci just to make guidelines to physicians that they consider using Bactrim to treat preventively AIDS people so that they wouldn’t die of this pneumonia. Dr. Fauci refused. He said, I want randomized, controlled, blinded, controlled trial evidence. That’s my gold standard. That or nothing. The activists left. The N.I.H. did not fund any randomized trials. They raised money themselves from their own AIDS patients to collect the data to do a randomized trial. It took them two years. They came back to Dr. Fauci. During those two years, the F.D.A. approved AZT as a treatment for AIDS, AZT works, but not completely. It needs other medications as well. And during the two years that it took them to get this data to come back to Dr. Fauci to support using Bactrim, 17,000 people with AIDS died because of Dr. Fauci’s insistence on not allowing even a statement supporting consideration of the use.
Moreover, Fauci himself even admits to”killing people with red tape” by withholding life-saving AIDS medication!
The gay groups said we were killing people with red tape. When the smoke cleared we realized that much of their criticism was absolutely valid.
It’s difficult to understand how he even kept his job after that.
But something is even more seriously wrong when thousands of doctors and scientists spend months warning us that Fauci is peddling pseudoscientific quack medicine that’s causing a mass casualty incident and a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist goes on to openly accuse him of causing hundreds of thousands of deaths by suppressing medication he knows is effective because he’s in bed with special interests yet not a single person in authority has evinced the slightest concern about whether any of this is true.
As my colleague Bonchie reported this morning, in an interview on CNN yesterday Fauci claimed he’s unable to think of a single reason besides COVID-19 for the excess deaths America has suffered since his lockdowns began.
He must not read the Washington Post. Even they reported Fauci’s lockdowns had killed over 13,000 Alzheimer’s patients by August 15 alone. God knows how many more have died since.
Of course, that’s just a number. Sometimes to fully grasp how awful something is we need to see a picture…
…or a video…
Or to read one woman’s awful story of how Fauci’s policies caused her beloved mother to suffer and die.
I know what some of you are thinking.
It was a tradeoff. Lockdown was a difficult decision that had to be made in order to save countless more people from dying of COVID-19.
Except this is utter BS. There was never a shred of scientific evidence that putting healthy people in quarantine would accomplish anything and everything we know about viruses made it 100% certain it wouldn’t.
Even the CDC’s most recent pandemic planning guide from 2017 admits that “direct evidence for the effectiveness of these measures is limited.” And by limited they meant non-existent. There isn’t a single study that supports the idea that isolating healthy people does a damn thing to stop viruses from spreading.
The European Centre for Disease Control’s summary of the research was more honest. They noted that “there are few, if any, empirical data underpinning these assumptions” that workplace closures do anything to stop viruses from spreading. Indeed, they found no evidence for the effectiveness of any social distancing measures.
Another review of the research published in the journal, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, concluded:
There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza.
And the reason they mention influenza specifically is that every single study that has been done on the subject was narrowly focused on whether isolation stops the spread of the flu. So, even if any of them had shown that social distancing would do anything, WHICH NOT A SINGLE ONE DID, it still wouldn’t have proved anything about COVID-19.
Finally, as the previous study noted, even the World Health Organization had concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.”
You can find lots of research saying that there was no reason to think putting healthy people in quarantine would accomplish anything. But you won’t find a single one that claims there’s any solid reason to think it would.
And everything we know about viruses made it a given that social distancing wouldn’t do a damn thing to stop one from spreading.
Respiratory viruses travel in tiny pockets of moisture called aerosols that almost certainly make their way across the ocean.
In 1969, a group of people in Antarctica experienced a spontaneous respiratory virus outbreak in their 17th week of isolation!
And if you’re thinking that it’s possible that none of that applies to COVID-19, you’ve got another think coming. An Argentinian naval ship suffered a COVID-19 outbreak after 35 days at sea which were preceded by 14 days of isolation for everyone on board.
But forget that. Researchers have found aerosols containing live COVID-19 virus 16-feet away from the only people who could have possibly shed them. That’s as far as they tried to find them and, as that crew of Argentinian sailors found out, they’re bound to travel a lot farther than that.
Moreover, as stupid as the idea of quarantining healthy people was, we weren’t even truly isolated at all. Instead of shopping in local stores, we were funneled into megastores like Walmart and Costco and exposed to the germs of literally thousands of people we otherwise would have never had an opportunity to catch a disease from.
The utter ineffectiveness of the measures we were conned into adopting was as obvious from the very beginning as the massive harm they would cause which Fauci and the others pushing them pretended didn’t even exist. There was literally no scientific justification for thinking lockdown would accomplish anything except raining down hardship, misery, and death on the heads of the American people, which was 100% guaranteed.
If it hadn’t been marketed under the nifty sounding name “social distancing” along with that idiotic slogan we were taught to mindlessly bark at each other, Flatten the curve!, but instead been described accurately as quarantining the healthy, everyone would have immediately realized the preposterous BS we were being fed.
Since lockdowns were imposed, there have been at least eight studies showing what anyone who looked into the matter and wasn’t an imbecile would have known from the start. Lockdowns did absolutely nothing to slow down the virus’s spread or decrease the number of people who allegedly died from it. Areas that lockdown did no better than those that didn’t. In fact, some studies found the reverse to be the case.
Dr. Dan Erickson is one of the leaders of a group of working physicians called Frontline Doctors who organized to oppose the deadly anti-science policies Fauci inflicted on us.
He’s been trying since almost the beginning of this nightmare to get people to understand that “social distancing” – which somehow wasn’t mentioned when the Swine Flu hit under Obama or in all of recorded human history prior to the propaganda campaign that kicked off seven months ago – should really be described as quarantining the healthy. As such, it contradicts the basic tenets of both microbiology and immunology.
We decided to keep people at home and isolate them, even though everything we’ve studied about quarantine…[says] you quarantine the sick. When someone has measles you quarantine them. We’ve never…[taken] those without disease and without symptoms and lock[ed] them in [their] homes. So, some of these things [given] what we’ve studied from immunology and microbiology aren’t really meshing with what we know as people of science…
You’ll notice that I haven’t use the title “Dr.” when referring to Fauci. That’s something that has to stop right now. Fauci literally hasn’t seen a single patient in his entire 50-year professional career. And calling him Dr. Fauci is obscene – like referring to Joseph Mengele as Dr. Mengele.
Because those tens of thousands of elderly Americans suffering from Alzheimer’s that Fauci’s policies killed are just the tip of the iceberg even putting aside the hundreds of thousands of deaths Dr. Risch says Fauci knowingly condemned to death and the tens of thousands of AIDS patients he’s admitted to “killing with red tape” as if it were no big deal.
And, as my colleague Bonchie noted in his column this morning, Fauci knows full well about all the devastation and death he’s inflicted on us. “He’s not stupid, he just thinks you are.”
Are we really supposed to believe he didn’t know that shutting down medical care for all other ailments was going to kill a lot of people?
Did he not realize that isolating American’s struggling with depression or addiction from other human beings would drive a lot of them to suicide or back to deadly drugs?
Was he unaware that inflicting economic hardship on them while taking away their daily routine would push even more past the brink of despair?
Random people on Twitter were pointing out the horrors Fauci’s cruel and pointless lockdowns would bring before the hellish nightmare he inflicted on our most vulnerable fellow citizens even began. But we’re supposed to believe none of this ever occurred to Fauci at all? And, in fact, that to this day it still hasn’t?
Well-known people with huge platforms also warned of what was to come at the very beginning. But Fauci somehow never heard anything about or even considered it?
Doctors take an oath to “first do no harm.” So for heaven’s sake, under no circumstances should you or anyone else be calling Anthony Fauci, Dr.
If you don’t get it, take another look at that video above of the poor old woman breaking down from loneliness and trying to claw her way out of the prison Fauci put her, reread the awful account of the miserable and degrading death he inflicted on another woman’s mother, then imagine how many times similar scenes have played themselves out these past seven months.
There was ample reason to fire and investigate Fauci months ago. But how is it possible that a renowned epidemiologist from Yale can openly accuse Fauci of suppressing medication he knows would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives because he’s “in bed with forces” who profit from such unspeakable evil without anyone in authority becoming concerned enough to look into the matter?
Something’s very wrong with America at this moment in time. And if it doesn’t get right soon, it’s hard to see how our nation has much of a future.
Read more at www.redstate.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
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--2020-10-14--Head of Operation Warp Speed Wants to Immunize All Americans by 2021

Head of Operation Warp Speed Wants to Immunize All Americans by 2021 The head of President Donald Trump ’ s “ Operation Warp Speed ” says the ultimate goal is to vaccinate the entire population of the United States by 2021 .
There is also going to be a push to propagandize this vaccine and “ educate ” the public into compliance .
Top health experts working to “ educate the public ” ( use propaganda ) about the complex vaccine approval and distribution process joined in a Tuesday webinar in which the head of Operation Warp Speed said its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against COVID-19 by 2021 .
Bill Gates : The U.S. Should “ Brainstorm ” Ways To Reduce “ Vaccine Hesitancy ” “ Our mission is to deliver approved vaccines to the American people before the end of the year , and in enough quantities so as to immunize the U.S. population potentially by 2021 or slightly later , ” said Moncef Slaoui , chief adviser of Operation Warp Speed , the federal public-private partnership aimed at creating a vaccine .
Slaoui said the process of stockpiling millions of vaccine doses already has begun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of doses of each of the eight Operation Warp Speed vaccine candidates will be stockpiled .
–Boston Herald FDA Commissioner Is Willing To Skip Phase 3 Trials On COVID-19 Vaccine Trump Administration Is Stockpiling 3 Different Types Of COVID-19 Vaccines Time is almost up .
The vaccine will be here soon , and please don ’ t delude yourself into somehow believe this will be “ voluntary ” .
If you don ’ t “ voluntarily ” take the vaccine , you will be punished , and they ’ ve already rolled out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that punishment will be .
Medical Journal : Get The COVID-19 Vaccine , Or Be Punished HARSHLY “ I ’ m amazed , actually , to just take a step back and realize that the sequence of this virus was described on Jan. 23 , 2020 , which is less than 10 months ago , and we ’ re sitting here talking about programs in phase three trials , ” Slaoui said .
Pay attention to this vaccine rollout .
This won ’ t stop and you will be put in a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just know that there will be consequences to both .
Brace yourselves for this winter .
We have a vaccine coming around the time of what ’ s already been promised to be a chaotic election , at best .
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19 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 @ @ @ @ @

Head of Operation Warp Speed Wants to Immunize All Americans by 2021
Written by Mac Slavo
The head of President Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” says the ultimate goal is to vaccinate the entire population of the United States by 2021. There is also going to be a push to propagandize this vaccine and “educate” the public into compliance.
Top health experts working to “educate the public” (use propaganda) about the complex vaccine approval and distribution process joined in a Tuesday webinar in which the head of Operation Warp Speed said its goal is to immunize the American population against COVID-19 by 2021.
Bill Gates: The U.S. Should “Brainstorm” Ways To Reduce “Vaccine Hesitancy”
“Our mission is to deliver approved vaccines to the American people before the end of the year, and in enough quantities so as to immunize the U.S. population potentially by 2021 or slightly later,” said Moncef Slaoui, chief adviser of Operation Warp Speed, the federal public-private partnership aimed at creating a vaccine. Slaoui said the process of stockpiling millions of vaccine doses already has begun, and in November tens of millions of doses of each of the eight Operation Warp Speed vaccine candidates will be stockpiled. –Boston Herald
FDA Commissioner Is Willing To Skip Phase 3 Trials On COVID-19 Vaccine
Trump Administration Is Stockpiling 3 Different Types Of COVID-19 Vaccines
Time is almost up. The vaccine will be here soon, and please don’t delude yourself into somehow believe this will be “voluntary”. If you don’t “voluntarily” take the vaccine, you will be punished, and they’ve already rolled out medical journals to show just how harshly that punishment will be.
Medical Journal: Get The COVID-19 Vaccine, Or Be Punished HARSHLY
“I’m amazed, actually, to just take a step back and realize that the sequence of this virus was described on Jan. 23, 2020, which is less than 10 months ago, and we’re sitting here talking about programs in phase three trials,” Slaoui said.
Pay attention to this vaccine rollout. This won’t stop and you will be put in a position to either refuse or take the vaccine. Just know that there will be consequences to both. Brace yourselves for this winter. We have a vaccine coming around the time of what’s already been promised to be a chaotic election, at best.
Read more at www.shtfplan.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
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--2020-10-15--Tunguska Explosion Caused by Asteroid Grazing the Earth, Say Scientists

Tunguska Explosion Caused by Asteroid Grazing the Earth , Say Scientists In the early morning of Jun .
30 , 1908 , a massive explosion flattened entire forests in a remote region of Eastern Siberia along the Tunguska River .
Curiously , the explosion left no crater , creating a mystery that has puzzled scientists ever since — what could have caused such a huge blast without leaving any remnants of itself ?
Now Daniil Khrennikov at the Siberian Federal University in Russia and colleagues have published a new model of the incident that may finally resolve the mystery .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused by an asteroid that grazed the Earth , entering the atmosphere at a shallow angle and then passing out again into space .
“ We argue that the Tunguska event was caused by an iron asteroid body , which passed through the Earth ’ s atmosphere and continued to the near-solar orbit , ” they say .
If they are correct , the theory suggests Earth escaped an even larger disaster by a hair ’ s breadth .
First some background .
Scientists have long speculated on the cause of the Tunguska @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea is that the explosion was the result of an icy body , such as a comet , entering the atmosphere .
The ice then rapidly heated up and evaporated explosively in mid-air but without ever hitting the ground .
Such an explosion could have been powerful enough to flatten trees without leaving a crater .
And it would have left little evidence other than vapor in the atmosphere .
But this theory does not fit some of the other evidence .
There were just a handful of eyewitness reports of the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ split in two , ” a huge explosion and widespread fire .
But together , they provide evidence that the impactor traveled some 435 miles ( 700 km ) through the atmosphere before the explosion that morning .
So Khrennikov and colleagues simulated the effect of meteorites made of rock , metal or ice , moving through the atmosphere at a speed of 12 miles per second ( 20 kilometers per second ) .
( Meteorites enter the atmosphere with a minimum speed of 11 kilometers per second . )
Friction with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while iron vaporizes at around 5,432 degrees Fahrenheit ( 3000 degrees Centigrade ) , water vaporizes at only 212 degrees F ( 100 degrees C ) .
So icy meteorites do not last long .
Indeed , Khrennikov and colleagues calculate that an icy body large enough to cause such a large explosion would have traveled no more than 186 miles ( 300 kilometers ) through the atmosphere before vaporizing completely .
That suggests the Tunguska meteorite could not have been made of ice .
Instead , Khrennikov and colleagues say a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the explosion must have been caused by an iron meteorite about the size of a football stadium .
This must have passed through the upper atmosphere , heated rapidly , and then passed out into the Solar System again .
The shock wave from this trajectory was what flattened trees .
The shock wave would have caused an explosion of about the right magnitude , and any vaporized iron would have condensed into dust that would be indistinguishable on the ground .
Crucially , this scenario would not have left any visible asteroid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dust in the upper atmosphere over Europe after the impact .
If Khrennikov and colleagues are correct , then Earth had a lucky near-miss that morning .
A direct impact with a 656 foot-wide ( 200 meter-wide ) asteroid would have devastated Siberia , leaving a crater 2 miles ( 3 kilometers ) wide .
It would also have had catastrophic effects on the biosphere , perhaps ending modern civilization .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Tunguska Explosion Caused by Asteroid Grazing the Earth, Say Scientists
Written by The Physics arXiv Blog
In the early morning of Jun. 30, 1908, a massive explosion flattened entire forests in a remote region of Eastern Siberia along the Tunguska River. Curiously, the explosion left no crater, creating a mystery that has puzzled scientists ever since — what could have caused such a huge blast without leaving any remnants of itself?
Now Daniil Khrennikov at the Siberian Federal University in Russia and colleagues have published a new model of the incident that may finally resolve the mystery. Khrennikov and co say the explosion was caused by an asteroid that grazed the Earth, entering the atmosphere at a shallow angle and then passing out again into space.
“We argue that the Tunguska event was caused by an iron asteroid body, which passed through the Earth’s atmosphere and continued to the near-solar orbit,” they say. If they are correct, the theory suggests Earth escaped an even larger disaster by a hair’s breadth.
First some background. Scientists have long speculated on the cause of the Tunguska impact. Perhaps the most widely discussed idea is that the explosion was the result of an icy body, such as a comet, entering the atmosphere. The ice then rapidly heated up and evaporated explosively in mid-air but without ever hitting the ground.
Little Evidence
Such an explosion could have been powerful enough to flatten trees without leaving a crater. And it would have left little evidence other than vapor in the atmosphere.
But this theory does not fit some of the other evidence. There were just a handful of eyewitness reports of the event. These describe how “the sky split in two,” a huge explosion and widespread fire. But together, they provide evidence that the impactor traveled some 435 miles (700 km) through the atmosphere before the explosion that morning.
Fallen trees at Tunguska in 1927. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
So Khrennikov and colleagues simulated the effect of meteorites made of rock, metal or ice, moving through the atmosphere at a speed of 12 miles per second (20 kilometers per second). (Meteorites enter the atmosphere with a minimum speed of 11 kilometers per second.)
Friction with the atmosphere immediately heats these objects. But while iron vaporizes at around 5,432 degrees Fahrenheit (3000 degrees Centigrade), water vaporizes at only 212 degrees F (100 degrees C). So icy meteorites do not last long.
Indeed, Khrennikov and colleagues calculate that an icy body large enough to cause such a large explosion would have traveled no more than 186 miles (300 kilometers) through the atmosphere before vaporizing completely. That suggests the Tunguska meteorite could not have been made of ice.
Instead, Khrennikov and colleagues say a different scenario fits the facts. They say the explosion must have been caused by an iron meteorite about the size of a football stadium. This must have passed through the upper atmosphere, heated rapidly, and then passed out into the Solar System again. The shock wave from this trajectory was what flattened trees.
The shock wave would have caused an explosion of about the right magnitude, and any vaporized iron would have condensed into dust that would be indistinguishable on the ground. Crucially, this scenario would not have left any visible asteroid remnants.
It could also explain reports of dust in the upper atmosphere over Europe after the impact.
Lucky Miss
If Khrennikov and colleagues are correct, then Earth had a lucky near-miss that morning. A direct impact with a 656 foot-wide (200 meter-wide) asteroid would have devastated Siberia, leaving a crater 2 miles (3 kilometers) wide. It would also have had catastrophic effects on the biosphere, perhaps ending modern civilization.
Read more at www.discovermagazine.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