principiascientificinternational--2020-09-15--Scientific American Goes Full-On Anti-Science

For several years it has been all the rage for media to accuse President Trump and his people of being “ anti-science.
” I compiled a collection of such accusations in a post on January 27 of that year , using the title “ Who Again Is ‘ Anti-Science ’ ?
” Among those I cited as making the accusation was the venerable magazine Scientific American , which had published a piece on January 18 , 2017 , with the title “ Trump ’ s 5 Most Anti-Science Moves.
” If you look at that 2017 Scientific American piece or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my post , you will see that those commenters are conceiving of “ science ” not as a special methodology , but rather as something more like : “ Science is what people who call themselves scientists do.
” The basic complaint of the commenters was that Trump was “ anti-science ” because he was listening to or appointing people who disagreed with — or worse , sought to de-fund — functionaries in the government who called themselves scientists .
I have a different definition of the term “ science.
” Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a process for understanding reality through using experiment or data to attempt to falsify falsifiable hypotheses.
” Those are my words , but I have tried there to capture the gist of the classic conception of the scientific method articulated by philosopher Karl Popper .
For a somewhat longer articulation of the same thing , here is an excerpt discussing Popper ’ s principles from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Astute readers of this passage will immediately recognize that today ’ s political environment is full of theories that claim the mantle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be scientifically-established truth — but at the same time are “ permanently immunized from falsification.
” Exhibit A is the religion going under the name of “ climate science.
” Or consider Exhibit B , in the field of social science , the hypothesis that “ systemic racism ” is the cause of all economic underperformance by African Americans .
There are plenty more such examples .
In recent years , Scientific American has somehow gotten itself into the position of defending the truth of many such non-falsifiable claims , but most notably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarmism .
How to reconcile such advocacy with the use of the term “ Scientific ” in its title ?
If you are wondering how that could even be attempted , check out the piece in the current issue by a guy named Mano Singham , with the title and sub-title , “ The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘ Falsified ’ Is a Myth ; It ’ s time we abandoned the notion.
” Singham is identified as a member of the American Physical Society and is apparently a retired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Singham begins by acknowledging that “ [ E ] ver since the seminal work of philosopher of science Karl Popper , for a scientific theory to be worthy of its name , it has to be falsifiable by experiments or observations.
” However , Singham now understands that that whole approach has become passé .
Apparently , there is a new field , going by the name “ science studies , ” that “ compris [ es ] the history , philosophy and sociology of science.
” People in this new field have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work even in principle.
” Here ’ s the explanation : Got that ?
And now that we ’ ve deep-sixed falsifiability as having anything to do with science , what ’ s the replacement ?
Well , Mano , let ’ s consider my hypothesis that the thing that causes the sun to come up every morning is my going to sleep the night before .
I formulated this hypothesis a year ago based on some ten thousand consecutive nights where I had gone to sleep and the sun , therefore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested the hypothesis for a full year of going to sleep every night and observing that sure enough , the sun arose every succeeding morning , 365 consecutive times .
Surely my hypothesis has been established as true .
A friend points out that one time back in college I pulled an all-nighter , and the sun still came up .
So what ?
Under Singham ’ s “ science studies ” principles , that ’ s just putting “ one result ” up against “ the preponderance of the evidence.
” That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that my hypothesis has been falsified , but rather only that “ there is a disagreement between two sets of theories.
” ( Another thing that it might be telling us is that Singham is not very bright . )
Anyway , there is an obvious purpose for Singham ’ s piece appearing at this time in Scientific American , which is to attempt to defend the climate “ science ” scam against attacks that it is not real science because it lacks falsifiable hypotheses .
Singham : I don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used by what he calls “ anti-science forces , ” but a look at those examples demonstrates what his exercise is really about , which is exempting climate “ science ” from the requirement of falsifiable hypotheses .
The hypothesis that cigarette smoking is a significant factor in causing lung cancer could definitely be falsified by a study of thousands of randomly-selected non-smokers who developed lung cancer at the same rates as smokers .
The hypothesis that life forms change over time through a process of evolution could be falsified by the discovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” in a famous formulation of J.B.S .
Haldane that is actually quoted by Singham in his piece .
And vaccinations are subjected to double-blind clinical trials , which are explicit attempts to falsify the hypothesis that they are effective .
So the only one of the four examples selected by Singham that actually lacks falsifiable hypotheses , and that seeks to be “ permanently immunized from falsification , ” is climate change .
Overall , this is a thoroughly embarrassing performance , not just by Dr. Singham , but by Scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the editors of this once-prestigious publication , with the term “ Scientific ” in its name , could have so completely lost track of what makes science .
And then to top it off , they call the people who actually understand what science is “ anti-science.
” My message to the editors is this : The proponents of climate change alarmism , if they want to make any kind of legitimate claim to the mantle of “ science , ” need to specify the falsifiable hypothesis that they claim has been established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it emerged , they would agree had falsified the hypothesis .
Until they do that , their assertions have no more claim to the label of “ established science ” than does my hypothesis that my going to bed is what causes the sun to come up the next morning .
Those of us who understand what the scientific method is are onto the climate scammers .
As for Scientific American , your reputation at this point is beyond rehabilitation .
PSI Editor ’ s note : Principia Scientific International ( PSI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science body in the world legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method , as set out in the work of Karl Popper .
See : Our Mission Statement 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 .

Scientific American Goes Full-On Anti-Science
Written by Francis Menton
For several years it has been all the rage for media to accuse President Trump and his people of being “anti-science.” I compiled a collection of such accusations in a post on January 27 of that year, using the title “Who Again Is ‘Anti-Science’?”
Among those I cited as making the accusation was the venerable magazine Scientific American, which had published a piece on January 18, 2017, with the title “Trump’s 5 Most Anti-Science Moves.”
If you look at that 2017 Scientific American piece or the other articles that I cited in my post, you will see that those commenters are conceiving of “science” not as a special methodology, but rather as something more like: “Science is what people who call themselves scientists do.”
The basic complaint of the commenters was that Trump was “anti-science” because he was listening to or appointing people who disagreed with — or worse, sought to de-fund — functionaries in the government who called themselves scientists.
I have a different definition of the term “science.” Here’s my definition:
“Science is a process for understanding reality through using experiment or data to attempt to falsify falsifiable hypotheses.”
Those are my words, but I have tried there to capture the gist of the classic conception of the scientific method articulated by philosopher Karl Popper.
For a somewhat longer articulation of the same thing, here is an excerpt discussing Popper’s principles from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Popper’s falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be false. When theories are falsified by such observations, scientists can respond by revising the theory, or by rejecting the theory in favor of a rival . . . In either case, however, this process must aim at the production of new, falsifiable predictions. . . . [Popper] holds that scientific practice is characterized by its continual effort to test theories against experience and make revisions based on the outcomes of these tests. By contrast, theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific.
Astute readers of this passage will immediately recognize that today’s political environment is full of theories that claim the mantle of science — indeed, claim to be scientifically-established truth — but at the same time are “permanently immunized from falsification.”
Exhibit A is the religion going under the name of “climate science.” Or consider Exhibit B, in the field of social science, the hypothesis that “systemic racism” is the cause of all economic underperformance by African Americans. There are plenty more such examples.
In recent years, Scientific American has somehow gotten itself into the position of defending the truth of many such non-falsifiable claims, but most notably in its strenuous advocacy of climate change alarmism.
How to reconcile such advocacy with the use of the term “Scientific” in its title?
If you are wondering how that could even be attempted, check out the piece in the current issue by a guy named Mano Singham, with the title and sub-title, “The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth; It’s time we abandoned the notion.”
Singham is identified as a member of the American Physical Society and is apparently a retired professor from Case Western Reserve University.
Singham begins by acknowledging that “[E]ver since the seminal work of philosopher of science Karl Popper, for a scientific theory to be worthy of its name, it has to be falsifiable by experiments or observations.”
However, Singham now understands that that whole approach has become passé. Apparently, there is a new field, going by the name “science studies,” that “compris[es] the history, philosophy and sociology of science.”
People in this new field have now demonstrated that “falsification cannot work even in principle.” Here’s the explanation:
[A] theoretical prediction is never the product of a single theory but also requires using many other theories. When a “theoretical” prediction disagrees with “experimental” data, what this tells us is that that there is a disagreement between two sets of theories, so we cannot say that any particular theory is falsified.
Got that? And now that we’ve deep-sixed falsifiability as having anything to do with science, what’s the replacement?
Science studies . . . show[] that the strength of scientific conclusions arises because credible experts use comprehensive bodies of evidence to arrive at consensus judgments about whether a theory should be retained or rejected in favor of a new one. . . . It is the preponderance of evidence that is relevant in making such judgments, not one or even a few results.
Well, Mano, let’s consider my hypothesis that the thing that causes the sun to come up every morning is my going to sleep the night before.
I formulated this hypothesis a year ago based on some ten thousand consecutive nights where I had gone to sleep and the sun, therefore, arose the next morning.
I then tested the hypothesis for a full year of going to sleep every night and observing that sure enough, the sun arose every succeeding morning, 365 consecutive times. Surely my hypothesis has been established as true.
A friend points out that one time back in college I pulled an all-nighter, and the sun still came up. So what? Under Singham’s “science studies” principles, that’s just putting “one result” up against “the preponderance of the evidence.”
That one conflicting observation does not tell us that my hypothesis has been falsified, but rather only that “there is a disagreement between two sets of theories.” (Another thing that it might be telling us is that Singham is not very bright.)
Anyway, there is an obvious purpose for Singham’s piece appearing at this time in Scientific American, which is to attempt to defend the climate “science” scam against attacks that it is not real science because it lacks falsifiable hypotheses. Singham:
[The] knowledge [of science studies] equips people to better argue against anti-science forces that use the same strategy over and over again, whether it is about the dangers of tobacco, climate change, vaccinations, or evolution. Their goal is to exploit the slivers of doubt and discrepant results that always exist in science in order to challenge the consensus views of scientific experts.
I don’t know how Singham chose his examples of arguments used by what he calls “anti-science forces,” but a look at those examples demonstrates what his exercise is really about, which is exempting climate “science” from the requirement of falsifiable hypotheses.
The hypothesis that cigarette smoking is a significant factor in causing lung cancer could definitely be falsified by a study of thousands of randomly-selected non-smokers who developed lung cancer at the same rates as smokers.
The hypothesis that life forms change over time through a process of evolution could be falsified by the discovery of “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian,” in a famous formulation of J.B.S. Haldane that is actually quoted by Singham in his piece.
And vaccinations are subjected to double-blind clinical trials, which are explicit attempts to falsify the hypothesis that they are effective.
So the only one of the four examples selected by Singham that actually lacks falsifiable hypotheses, and that seeks to be “permanently immunized from falsification,” is climate change.
Overall, this is a thoroughly embarrassing performance, not just by Dr. Singham, but by Scientific American.
It is beyond explanation how the editors of this once-prestigious publication, with the term “Scientific” in its name, could have so completely lost track of what makes science.
And then to top it off, they call the people who actually understand what science is “anti-science.”
My message to the editors is this: The proponents of climate change alarmism, if they want to make any kind of legitimate claim to the mantle of “science,” need to specify the falsifiable hypothesis that they claim has been established, and also the evidence which, if it emerged, they would agree had falsified the hypothesis.
Until they do that, their assertions have no more claim to the label of “established science” than does my hypothesis that my going to bed is what causes the sun to come up the next morning.
Those of us who understand what the scientific method is are onto the climate scammers. As for Scientific American, your reputation at this point is beyond rehabilitation.
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
PSI Editor’s note: Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent, non-profit science body in the world legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper. See: Our Mission Statement
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-15--Chinese Virologist Shows Evidence COVID-19 Created In Lab

On Saturday we reported that Dr. Li-Meng Yan – a Chinese virologist ( MD , PhD ) who fled the country , leaving her job at a prestigious Hong Kong university – appeared last week on British television where she claimed SARS-CoV-2 , the virus which causes COVID-19 , was created by Chinese scientists in a lab .
Last week she gave this interview on mainstream UK tv : On Sunday , Dr. Li-Meng joined Twitter -and on Monday she tweeted a link to a paper she co-authored with three other Chinese scientists titled : She also posted a link @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her ( prior ? )
affiliation with The University of Hong Kong and 13 publications which have been cited 557 times .
Here is the extended punchline : The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike can not be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineering .
The Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles .
They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and tissue tropism of the virus .
The Spike protein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 ) .
The front or N-terminal half is named S1 , which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor .
In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections , the host cell receptor is hACE2 .
Within S1 , a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif ( RBM ) ( Figure 3C ) .
In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 , the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2 .
The C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2 .
The main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2 ’ position , mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus .
Similar to what is observed for other viral proteins , S2 of SARS-CoV-2 shares a high sequence identity ( 95 % ) with S2 of ZC45/ZXC21 .
In stark contrast , between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 , the S1 protein , which dictates which host ( human or bat ) the virus can infect , is much less conserved with the amino acid sequence identity being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sequence alignment of the Spike proteins from six β coronaviruses .
Two are viruses isolated from the current pandemic ( Wuhan-Hu-1 , 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1 ) ; two are the suspected template viruses ( Bat_CoV_ZC45 , Bat_CoV_ZXC21 ) ; two are SARS coronaviruses ( SARS_GZ02 , SARS ) .
The RBM is highlighted in between two orange lines .
Clearly , despite the high sequence identity for the overall genomes , the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 differs significantly from those of ZC45 and ZXC21 .
Intriguingly , the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 resembles , on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spike .
Although this is not an exact “ copy and paste ” , careful examination of the Spike-hACE2 structures37,38 reveals that all residues essential for either hACE2 binding or protein folding ( orange sticks in Figure 3C and what is highlighted by red short lines in Figure 4 ) are “ kept ” .
Most of these essential residues are precisely preserved , including those involved in disulfide bond formation ( C467 , C474 ) and electrostatic interactions ( R444 , E452 , R453 , D454 ) , which are pivotal for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Figure 3C and 4 ) .
The few changes within the group of essential residues are almost exclusively hydrophobic “ substitutions ” ( I428àL , L443àF , F460àY , L472àF , Y484àQ ) , which should not affect either protein folding or the hACE2-interaction .
At the same time , majority of the amino acid residues that are non-essential have “ mutated ” ( Figure 4 , RBM residues not labeled with short red lines ) .
Judging from this sequence analysis alone , we were convinced early on that not only would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also the binding would resemble , precisely , that between the original SARS Spike protein and hACE223 .
Recent structural work has confirmed our prediction .
As elaborated below , the way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual .
Collectively , this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution .
The paper then makes two critical observations for those who claim that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin : its RBM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the two possible routes : 1 ) an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution or 2 ) a natural recombination event that occurred fairly recently .
In the second scenario , the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2 .
The likelihood of such an event depends , in part , on the general requirements of natural recombination : 1 ) that the two different viruses share significant sequence similarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and be present in the same cell of the same animal ; 3 ) that the recombinant virus would not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct ; 4 ) that the recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible within the host species .
In regard to this recent recombination scenario , the animal reservoir could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans .
In addition , there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late 2019 .
Intriguingly , according to a recent bioinformatics study , SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak .
Which leaves just one option : Only one other possibility of natural evolution remains , which is that the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM could have recombined in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homologous to hACE2 .
Several laboratories have reported that some of the Sunda pangolins smuggled into China from Malaysia carried coronaviruses , the receptor-binding domain ( RBD ) of which is almost identical to that of SARS-CoV-227-29,31 .
They then went on to suggest that pangolins are the likely intermediate host for SARS-CoV-227-29,31 .
However , recent independent reports have found significant flaws in this data40-42 .
Furthermore , contrary to these reports27-29,31 , no coronaviruses have been detected in Sunda pangolin samples collected for over a decade in Malaysia and Sabah between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also showed that the RBD , which is shared between SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses , binds to hACE2 ten times stronger than to the pangolin ACE22 , further dismissing pangolins as the possible intermediate host .
Finally , an in silico study , while echoing the notion that pangolins are not likely an intermediate host , also indicated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins examined in their study exhibited more favorable binding potential to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein than hACE2 did .
This last study virtually exempted all animals from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans from the start of the outbreak .
This is significant because these findings collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for SARS-CoV-2 , which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host .
Given that RBM fully dictates hACE2-binding and that the SARS RBM-hACE2 binding was fully characterized by high-resolution structures ( Figure 3 ) 37,38 , this RBM-only swap would not be any riskier than the full Spike swap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this RBM-swap strategy has been proven .
In 2008 , Dr. Zhengli Shi ’ s group swapped a SARS RBM into the Spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimized spike gene ( Figure 5C ) .
They then validated the binding of the resulted chimeric Spike proteins with hACE2 .
Furthermore , in a recent publication , the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 was swapped into the receptor-binding domain ( RBD ) of SARSCoV , resulting in a chimeric RBD fully functional in binding hACE2 ( Figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both cases , the manipulated RBM segments resemble almost exactly the RBM defined by the positions of the EcoRI and BstEII sites ( Figure 5C ) .
Although cloning details are lacking in both publications39,47 , it is conceivable that the actual restriction sites may vary depending on the spike gene receiving the RBM insertion as well as the convenience in introducing unique restriction site ( s ) in regions of interest .
It is noteworthy that the corresponding author of this recent publication , Dr. Fang Li , has been an active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dr. Li was the first person in the world to have structurally elucidated the binding between SARS-CoV RBD and hACE238 and has been the leading expert in the structural understanding of Spike-ACE2 interactions .
The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM , respectively , and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator , respectively , using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence .
Rather , it is the smoking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a product of genetic manipulation.
” It gets better , because the Chinese scientists then presciently tried to cover their tracks : Although it may be convenient to copy the exact sequence of SARS RBM , it would be too clear a sign of artificial design and manipulation .
The more deceiving approach would be to change a few nonessential residues , while preserving the ones critical for binding .
This design could be well-guided by the high-resolution structures ( Figure 3 ) 37,38 .
This way , when the overall sequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more distinct from that of the SARS RBM , the hACE2-binding ability would be well-preserved .
We believe that all of the crucial residues ( residues labeled with red sticks in Figure 4 , which are the same residues shown in sticks in Figure 3C ) should have been “ kept ” .
As described earlier , while some should be direct preservation , some should have been switched to residues with similar properties , which would not disrupt hACE2-binding and may even strengthen the association further [ ZH : i.e.
, the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , changes might have been made intentionally at non-essential sites , making it less like a “ copy and paste ” of the SARS RBM .
… a close examination of the nucleotide sequence of the furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 spike has revealed that the two consecutive Arg residues within the inserted sequence ( - PRRA- ) are both coded by the rare codon CGG ( least used codon for Arg in SARS-CoV-2 ) ( Figure 7 ) .
In fact , this CGGCGG arrangement is the only instance found in the SARS-CoV-2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in tandem .
This observation strongly suggests that this furin-cleavage site should be a result of genetic engineering .
Adding to the suspicion , a FauI restriction site is formulated by the codon choices here , suggesting the possibility that the restriction fragment length polymorphism , a technique that a WIV lab is proficient at , could have been involved .
There , the fragmentation pattern resulted from FauI digestion could be used to monitor the preservation of the furin-cleavage site in Spike as this furin-cleavage site is prone to deletions in vitro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gene of the recovered viruses from cell cultures or laboratory animals could be carried out , the product of which would be subjected to FauI digestion .
Viruses retaining or losing the furin-cleavage site would then yield distinct patterns , allowing convenient tracking of the virus ( es ) of interest .
And another critical allegation : once again , the Wuhan Researchers were doing everything in their power to weaponize and boost the “ enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus ” : PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Chinese Virologist Shows Evidence COVID-19 Created In Lab
Written by Tyler Durden
On Saturday we reported that Dr. Li-Meng Yan – a Chinese virologist (MD, PhD) who fled the country, leaving her job at a prestigious Hong Kong university – appeared last week on British television where she claimed SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, was created by Chinese scientists in a lab.
Last week she gave this interview on mainstream UK tv:
On Sunday, Dr. Li-Meng joined Twitter -and on Monday she tweeted a link to a paper she co-authored with three other Chinese scientists titled:
Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route
She also posted a link to her credentials on ResearchGate, revealing her (prior?) affiliation with The University of Hong Kong and 13 publications which have been cited 557 times.
Cutting to the chase:
“The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months.
Here is the extended punchline:
The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineering. The Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles. They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and tissue tropism of the virus. The Spike protein is split into two halves (Figure 3). The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor. In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif (RBM) (Figure 3C). In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2. The main function of S2 includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus.
Similar to what is observed for other viral proteins, S2 of SARS-CoV-2 shares a high sequence identity (95%) with S2 of ZC45/ZXC21. In stark contrast, between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, the S1 protein, which dictates which host (human or bat) the virus can infect, is much less conserved with the amino acid sequence identity being only 69%. Figure 4 shows the sequence alignment of the Spike proteins from six β coronaviruses. Two are viruses isolated from the current pandemic (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1); two are the suspected template viruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21); two are SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, SARS). The RBM is highlighted in between two orange lines. Clearly, despite the high sequence identity for the overall genomes, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 differs significantly from those of ZC45 and ZXC21. Intriguingly, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 resembles, on a great deal, the RBM of SARS Spike. Although this is not an exact “copy and paste”, careful examination of the Spike-hACE2 structures37,38 reveals that all residues essential for either hACE2 binding or protein folding (orange sticks in Figure 3C and what is highlighted by red short lines in Figure 4) are “kept”. Most of these essential residues are precisely preserved, including those involved in disulfide bond formation (C467, C474) and electrostatic interactions (R444, E452, R453, D454), which are pivotal for the structural integrity of the RBM (Figure 3C and 4). The few changes within the group of essential residues are almost exclusively hydrophobic “substitutions” (I428àL, L443àF, F460àY, L472àF, Y484àQ), which should not affect either protein folding or the hACE2-interaction. At the same time, majority of the amino acid residues that are non-essential have “mutated” (Figure 4, RBM residues not labeled with short red lines). Judging from this sequence analysis alone, we were convinced early on that not only would the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein bind hACE2 but also the binding would resemble, precisely, that between the original SARS Spike protein and hACE223. Recent structural work has confirmed our prediction.
As elaborated below, the way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual.
Collectively, this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution.
The paper then makes two critical observations for those who claim that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin: its RBM could have only been acquired in one of the two possible routes: 1) an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution or 2) a natural recombination event that occurred fairly recently.
She first dismisses option 1:
“this convergent evolution process would also result in the accumulation of a large amount of mutations in other parts of the genome, rendering the overall sequence identity relatively low. The high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support this scenario and, therefore, clearly indicates that SARS-CoV- 2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route.”
She then dismisses option 2:
In the second scenario, the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2. The likelihood of such an event depends, in part, on the general requirements of natural recombination: 1) that the two different viruses share significant sequence similarity; 2) that they must co-infect and be present in the same cell of the same animal; 3) that the recombinant virus would not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct; 4) that the recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible within the host species. In regard to this recent recombination scenario, the animal reservoir could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2. This animal reservoir also could not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans. In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late 2019. Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak.
Which leaves just one option:
Only one other possibility of natural evolution remains, which is that the ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM could have recombined in an intermediate host where the ACE2 protein is homologous to hACE2. Several laboratories have reported that some of the Sunda pangolins smuggled into China from Malaysia carried coronaviruses, the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of which is almost identical to that of SARS-CoV-227-29,31. They then went on to suggest that pangolins are the likely intermediate host for SARS-CoV-227-29,31. However, recent independent reports have found significant flaws in this data40-42. Furthermore, contrary to these reports27-29,31, no coronaviruses have been detected in Sunda pangolin samples collected for over a decade in Malaysia and Sabah between 2009 and 201943. A recent study also showed that the RBD, which is shared between SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses, binds to hACE2 ten times stronger than to the pangolin ACE22, further dismissing pangolins as the possible intermediate host. Finally, an in silico study, while echoing the notion that pangolins are not likely an intermediate host, also indicated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins examined in their study exhibited more favorable binding potential to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein than hACE2 did. This last study virtually exempted all animals from their suspected roles as an intermediate host, which is consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans from the start of the outbreak. This is significant because these findings collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for SARS-CoV-2, which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host.
Fast-forwarding to the smoking gun:
Given that RBM fully dictates hACE2-binding and that the SARS RBM-hACE2 binding was fully characterized by high-resolution structures (Figure 3)37,38, this RBM-only swap would not be any riskier than the full Spike swap. In fact, the feasibility of this RBM-swap strategy has been proven. In 2008, Dr. Zhengli Shi’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the Spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimized spike gene (Figure 5C). They then validated the binding of the resulted chimeric Spike proteins with hACE2. Furthermore, in a recent publication, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 was swapped into the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARSCoV, resulting in a chimeric RBD fully functional in binding hACE2 (Figure 5C)39. Strikingly, in both cases, the manipulated RBM segments resemble almost exactly the RBM defined by the positions of the EcoRI and BstEII sites (Figure 5C). Although cloning details are lacking in both publications39,47, it is conceivable that the actual restriction sites may vary depending on the spike gene receiving the RBM insertion as well as the convenience in introducing unique restriction site(s) in regions of interest. It is noteworthy that the corresponding author of this recent publication, Dr. Fang Li, has been an active collaborator of Dr. Zhengli Shi since 201049-53. Dr. Li was the first person in the world to have structurally elucidated the binding between SARS-CoV RBD and hACE238 and has been the leading expert in the structural understanding of Spike-ACE2 interactions. The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation.”
It gets better, because the Chinese scientists then presciently tried to cover their tracks:
Although it may be convenient to copy the exact sequence of SARS RBM, it would be too clear a sign of artificial design and manipulation. The more deceiving approach would be to change a few nonessential residues, while preserving the ones critical for binding. This design could be well-guided by the high-resolution structures (Figure 3)37,38. This way, when the overall sequence of the RBM would appear to be more distinct from that of the SARS RBM, the hACE2-binding ability would be well-preserved. We believe that all of the crucial residues (residues labeled with red sticks in Figure 4, which are the same residues shown in sticks in Figure 3C) should have been “kept”. As described earlier, while some should be direct preservation, some should have been switched to residues with similar properties, which would not disrupt hACE2-binding and may even strengthen the association further [ZH: i.e., the virus was weaponized and enchanced]. Importantly, changes might have been made intentionally at non-essential sites, making it less like a “copy and paste” of the SARS RBM.
Yan also discusses the infamous furin-cleavage site:
… a close examination of the nucleotide sequence of the furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 spike has revealed that the two consecutive Arg residues within the inserted sequence (- PRRA-) are both coded by the rare codon CGG (least used codon for Arg in SARS-CoV-2) (Figure 7). In fact, this CGGCGG arrangement is the only instance found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome where this rare codon is used in tandem. This observation strongly suggests that this furin-cleavage site should be a result of genetic engineering. Adding to the suspicion, a FauI restriction site is formulated by the codon choices here, suggesting the possibility that the restriction fragment length polymorphism, a technique that a WIV lab is proficient at, could have been involved. There, the fragmentation pattern resulted from FauI digestion could be used to monitor the preservation of the furin-cleavage site in Spike as this furin-cleavage site is prone to deletions in vitro. Specifically, RT-PCR on the spike gene of the recovered viruses from cell cultures or laboratory animals could be carried out, the product of which would be subjected to FauI digestion. Viruses retaining or losing the furin-cleavage site would then yield distinct patterns, allowing convenient tracking of the virus(es) of interest.
And another critical allegation: once again, the Wuhan Researchers were doing everything in their power to weaponize and boost the “enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus”:
The evidence collectively suggests that the furin-cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein may not have come from nature and could be the result of genetic manipulation. The purpose of this manipulation could have been to assess any potential enhancement of the infectivity and pathogenicity of the laboratory-made coronavirus.
Read more at www.zerohedge.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-15--Audio Discussion on the Essential Concerns About Vaccines

Audio Discussion on the Essential Concerns About Vaccines Independent vaccine researcher , Jeff G , gives a 30-minute audio interview @ @ @ @ @ A Light ‘ in which he offers listeners a grounding in the most concerning aspects @ @ @ @ @ of the ingredients , and the harmful consequences .
About the author : Jeff G @ @ @ @ @ researcher having spent his adult life studying health and the impacts of vaccines .
Jeff @ @ @ @ @ available to purchase here : www.virusesarenotcontagious.com PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK @ @ @ @ @ charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
@ @ @ @ @ Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Audio Discussion on the Essential Concerns About Vaccines
Written by Jeff G
Independent vaccine researcher, Jeff G, gives a 30-minute audio interview with Alana Fournet ‘Shine A Light‘ in which he offers listeners a grounding in the most concerning aspects of vaccines, the toxicities of the ingredients, and the harmful consequences.
About the author: Jeff G is an Alternative Nutritionist and researcher having spent his adult life studying health and the impacts of vaccines. Jeff G’s book is available to purchase here: www.virusesarenotcontagious.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-17--The Great Covid Robbery

The Great Covid Robbery

I ’ m not quite sure why anyone thought that this virus was about anything but money .
The U.S. government has distributed well over two trillion dollars during this so-called emergency and the states and medical establishment have sucked it up faster than a dry sponge at a car wash. As Rahm Emanuel once said , “ You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.
” We Americans have to be some of the most gullible people in the world when it comes to fearing a disease that the medical establishment says could kill us .
None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of this virus have come true and in fact , what we are seeing now is a race to see which state can claim the most deaths to collect the millions of dollars in government aid .
Just look at Idaho , it will receive $ 100,000 for every Covid-19 case .
What an incentive to cook the books and grab this windfall being distributed with borrowed money that our grandchildren will have to pay back .
We have all been victims of fear-mongering by not only corrupt politicians and the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from any drug that they can develop to contain this virus .
If anyone thinks this whole Covid fiasco is about anything but money , you are sadly mistaken because that is all it is about .
When this virus broke out there were dire cries from the WHO , CDC , and NIH that we were in a crisis and millions would die if we did not quarantine everyone immediately and basically close the economy .
Well folks that ’ s what they did for what is turning out to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an enemy of our country .
China has caused complete chaos in the U.S. since the beginning of this year and they are clearly pleased with the result .
As they get back to work and restart their economy we are still sitting with an unemployment rate of 8.4 % and many of our states are still on restrictions because of governors who are opportunists when it comes to getting free money from the federal government our own included .
Depending on what study you read the death rate from Covid-19 can range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high as 3 % , but you have to remember that for every covid case and death there is money to be had by the states .
While we all know that the age group with the highest fatality rate is the elderly who have other contributing co-morbid conditions .
The way the hospitals are counting the deaths from this virus is no less than criminal as they know that they will get paid more money if they can attribute more deaths to Covid-19 .
All the while the medical community is sucking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies have been reaping a windfall harvest in earnings as many hospitals have closed for regular business .
The real winners in this fiasco are going to be the drug companies who have been very effective in eliminating the use of Hydroxychloroquine with zinc as a method of treatment .
No one realizes how much power this group has in our country .
Armed with billions in advertising dollars they can spend 5 times what a presidential candidate spends in an election to lie to the public .
They create a panic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a cure for this virus .
Just think about the billions being thrown at these drug companies for research into a vaccine that no one even knows will be effective .
This virus will mutate just like any other and next year it will be more money for a different strain of the virus .
What do you think happens every year when they come out with a new flu vaccine ?
They guess at what strain will be the most active and develop and produce the vaccine that will hopefully prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Problem is that they never know if it will be effective and in most cases , it is never more than 60 % effective in preventing the flu .
They know it can not stop the flu 100 % yet all you hear in September and October is get your flu shot , get your flu shot now .
Have any of you ever even read the label on the vaccine that they are injecting into your body .
Most likely not .
Most of us are afraid of death and what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scare the pants off of us with their bombardment of advertisements for their flu vaccines .
You pay them to reduce your fear of death and they walk away laughing their asses off because you don ’ t even know what is in that vaccine that you paid for and to top it off they have no liability for any ill effects the vaccine causes .
Yes folks this is just one more way for the bureaucrats and the elite to steal our tax dollars and put us in fear for our lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around like faceless Americans thinking that staying 6 feet away from anyone and breathing your own saliva back into your body is beneficial the bureaucrats continue to control how you live your lives and take your tax dollars .
They get more powerful as you get more fearful .
I look at this whole pandemic as a ruse to plunder , steal , and create fear .
As for me , I have no fear of this virus or any other that might be out there .
As a Christian and a believer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be fearful .
God is in charge of my life and my destiny and when he wants me he will make that decision , not some doctor or virus created in a foreign country .
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 .

The Great Covid Robbery
Written by Bob "Nugie" Neugebauer
I’m not quite sure why anyone thought that this virus was about anything but money. The U.S. government has distributed well over two trillion dollars during this so-called emergency and the states and medical establishment have sucked it up faster than a dry sponge at a car wash.
As Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” We Americans have to be some of the most gullible people in the world when it comes to fearing a disease that the medical establishment says could kill us.
None of the original predictions about the death rate of this virus have come true and in fact, what we are seeing now is a race to see which state can claim the most deaths to collect the millions of dollars in government aid. Just look at Idaho, it will receive $100,000 for every Covid-19 case. What an incentive to cook the books and grab this windfall being distributed with borrowed money that our grandchildren will have to pay back.
We have all been victims of fear-mongering by not only corrupt politicians and the media but also those who will profit handsomely from any drug that they can develop to contain this virus. If anyone thinks this whole Covid fiasco is about anything but money, you are sadly mistaken because that is all it is about.
When this virus broke out there were dire cries from the WHO, CDC, and NIH that we were in a crisis and millions would die if we did not quarantine everyone immediately and basically close the economy. Well folks that’s what they did for what is turning out to be a bad flu bug that was created by an enemy of our country. China has caused complete chaos in the U.S. since the beginning of this year and they are clearly pleased with the result.
As they get back to work and restart their economy we are still sitting with an unemployment rate of 8.4% and many of our states are still on restrictions because of governors who are opportunists when it comes to getting free money from the federal government our own included.
Depending on what study you read the death rate from Covid-19 can range from less than 1% to as high as 3%, but you have to remember that for every covid case and death there is money to be had by the states. While we all know that the age group with the highest fatality rate is the elderly who have other contributing co-morbid conditions.
The way the hospitals are counting the deaths from this virus is no less than criminal as they know that they will get paid more money if they can attribute more deaths to Covid-19. All the while the medical community is sucking up our borrowed tax dollars the insurance companies have been reaping a windfall harvest in earnings as many hospitals have closed for regular business.
The real winners in this fiasco are going to be the drug companies who have been very effective in eliminating the use of Hydroxychloroquine with zinc as a method of treatment. No one realizes how much power this group has in our country. Armed with billions in advertising dollars they can spend 5 times what a presidential candidate spends in an election to lie to the public.
They create a panic and then create a new pharmaceutical that might be a cure for this virus. Just think about the billions being thrown at these drug companies for research into a vaccine that no one even knows will be effective. This virus will mutate just like any other and next year it will be more money for a different strain of the virus. What do you think happens every year when they come out with a new flu vaccine?
They guess at what strain will be the most active and develop and produce the vaccine that will hopefully prevent people from getting this flu bug. Problem is that they never know if it will be effective and in most cases, it is never more than 60% effective in preventing the flu.
They know it cannot stop the flu 100% yet all you hear in September and October is get your flu shot, get your flu shot now. Have any of you ever even read the label on the vaccine that they are injecting into your body. Most likely not. Most of us are afraid of death and what the drug companies do each year is to scare the pants off of us with their bombardment of advertisements for their flu vaccines.
You pay them to reduce your fear of death and they walk away laughing their asses off because you don’t even know what is in that vaccine that you paid for and to top it off they have no liability for any ill effects the vaccine causes.
Yes folks this is just one more way for the bureaucrats and the elite to steal our tax dollars and put us in fear for our lives. Therefore, while we all walk around like faceless Americans thinking that staying 6 feet away from anyone and breathing your own saliva back into your body is beneficial the bureaucrats continue to control how you live your lives and take your tax dollars.
They get more powerful as you get more fearful. I look at this whole pandemic as a ruse to plunder, steal, and create fear. As for me, I have no fear of this virus or any other that might be out there. As a Christian and a believer in God, I have no need to be fearful. God is in charge of my life and my destiny and when he wants me he will make that decision, not some doctor or virus created in a foreign country.
Read more at gemstatepatriot.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-17--Why You DO NOT Have to Wear a Mask in UK Shops

Why You DO NOT Have to Wear a Mask in UK Shops We have been asked to provide our UK readers with advice regarding how to legally refuse to wear a mask in any public spaces , public transport , shops , etc .
The anti-science mask mandate was recently imposed on citizens by politicians claiming it is necessary to fight the COVID19 pandemic .
In the simplest terms possible , the legal position in England and Wales is that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WEAR A MASK .
The Government has issued a “ guideline ” only .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NOT have to comply if you believe it is not in the best interest of your health to do so .
The guidelines appear on the official gov.uk website under the heading , ‘ When you do not need to wear a face covering ’ The link is here : For protecting your rights , the section of law that most pertains to this issue is The Equality Act 2010 .
This Act gives you the right to refuse to wear a mask if you believe you have a reasonable excuse , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) : a physical difficulty , a mental illness or impairment , or disability or you simply believe that wearing a mask will cause you severe distress .
When entering any shop or on public transport where someone challenges you for not wearing a face mask simply reply : “ I am medically exempt ” and that is all the law requires of you .
However , if you are further challenged…… Cite THE EQUALITY ACT ( 2010 ) which says you DO NOT have to provide ANY details of your medical exemption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Equality Act 2010 ( 1 ) ) The legislation , as written , does not require an exempt person to prove their exemption in order for it to be valid .
The government ’ s own guidelines discourage shopkeepers ( etc . )
from asking for proof .
BUT IF YOU ARE CHALLENGED , YOU HAVE FOLLOWING OPTIONS : The Equality Act became law in 2010 .
It covers everyone in Britain and protects people from discrimination , harassment and victimisation .
Quote section 112 and section 119 of the Equality Act ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demands that they risk a fine of up to £5,000 plus compensation costs to you .
Ask the person challenging you to provide you with a copy of the ‘ bio security order ’ or the ‘ public health order ’ which specifically permits that named individual to stop and challenge you .
Ask them “ do you claim to be an authorised officer under the public health and wellbeing act ” , if they say “ yes ” then tell them “ I require a copy of your instrument of delegation ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are impersonating a health officer and that is a CRIME .
Ask them are they willing to sign a LIABILITY notice and accept FULL LIABILITY for any physical or mental health problems brought on by you wearing a mask while on their premises ( shop , etc ) If they put you under duress to comply they are committing a CRIME so make sure you are recording the altercation .
It is not against the law to film somebody as this is your evidence of them committing a CRIME .
Those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason for not wearing a face covering should not be routinely asked to give any written evidence of this , this includes exemption cards ( example , right ) .
No person needs to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about their reason for not wearing a face covering .
Some people may feel more comfortable showing something that says they do not have to wear a face covering .
This could be in the form of an exemption card , badge or even a home-made sign .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary in law .
For exemptions in different parts of the UK please refer to the specific guidance for Northern Ireland , Scotland and Wales .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Why You DO NOT Have to Wear a Mask in UK Shops
Written by John O'Sullivan
We have been asked to provide our UK readers with advice regarding how to legally refuse to wear a mask in any public spaces, public transport, shops, etc. The anti-science mask mandate was recently imposed on citizens by politicians claiming it is necessary to fight the COVID19 pandemic.
In the simplest terms possible, the legal position in England and Wales is that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WEAR A MASK. The Government has issued a “guideline” only. This is NOT A LAW. You DO NOT have to comply if you believe it is not in the best interest of your health to do so.
The guidelines appear on the official gov.uk website under the heading, ‘When you do not need to wear a face covering’ The link is here:
www.gov.uk/government
For protecting your rights, the section of law that most pertains to this issue is The Equality Act 2010. This Act gives you the right to refuse to wear a mask if you believe you have a reasonable excuse, which includes (but is not limited to):
a physical difficulty, a mental illness or impairment, or disability or you simply believe that wearing a mask will cause you severe distress.
When entering any shop or on public transport where someone challenges you for not wearing a face mask simply reply: “I am medically exempt” and that is all the law requires of you.
However, if you are further challenged……
Cite THE EQUALITY ACT (2010) which says you DO NOT have to provide ANY details of your medical exemption (see: Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1))
MOREOVER:
The legislation, as written, does not require an exempt person to prove their exemption in order for it to be valid. The government’s own guidelines discourage shopkeepers (etc.) from asking for proof.
BUT IF YOU ARE CHALLENGED, YOU HAVE FOLLOWING OPTIONS:
Option One
The Equality Act became law in 2010. It covers everyone in Britain and protects people from discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Quote section 112 and section 119 of the Equality Act (2010) and inform whoever is making demands that they risk a fine of up to £5,000 plus compensation costs to you.
Option Two
Ask the person challenging you to provide you with a copy of the ‘bio security order’ or the ‘public health order’ which specifically permits that named individual to stop and challenge you. Ask them “do you claim to be an authorised officer under the public health and wellbeing act”, if they say “yes” then tell them “I require a copy of your instrument of delegation” if they can’t provide this they are impersonating a health officer and that is a CRIME.
Option Three
Ask them are they willing to sign a LIABILITY notice and accept FULL LIABILITY for any physical or mental health problems brought on by you wearing a mask while on their premises (shop, etc)
If they put you under duress to comply they are committing a CRIME so make sure you are recording the altercation. It is not against the law to film somebody as this is your evidence of them committing a CRIME.
Exemption cards
Those who have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering should not be routinely asked to
give any written evidence of this, this includes exemption cards (example, right).
No person needs to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about their reason for not wearing a face covering.
Some people may feel more comfortable showing something that says they do not have to wear a face covering. This could be in the form of an exemption card, badge or even a home-made sign.
This is a personal choice and is not necessary in law.
Access exemption card templates
For exemptions in different parts of the UK please refer to the specific guidance for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-17--Scientific Fact: 5G DOES Interfere With Our Immune System

Scientific Fact : 5G DOES Interfere With Our Immune System British Anti-5G campaigner , Mark Steele .
who won a landmark court case last year exposing the dangers to humans of the radiation from 5G millimeter waves , gives a no-holds-barred interview on BBC radio calling out the “ criminals ” pushing this untested technology .
In the BBC interview Mark tears apart the BBC mainstream media narrative , while they slavishly try to stick to their cognitive dissonance , appeals to authority and demonstrate a complete failure to come back with any kind of argument from an empirical perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5g being neutralized as premature .
Yes , there are prospects of neutralization .
No it has not happened .
• We need to know the Voltage of the equipment .
It ’ s A X V = W so if its 50 x 450 = 22500 Watts power .
I can kill you with a lot less than that .
1 thousands of a Watt cm for 6 Min is the ICNIRP guideline and would not be safe .
It ’ s the resonant frequency that can dissociate the molecular bonds using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its not just about the Watts in the beam wave delivery system .
• With technology we developed 15 years ago we can lock on a missile traveling at Mach 2 and knock it out of the air .
So yes there is tech that can lock on a person or cell phone at 1000ft .
The question is then , does a cell tower that is 5g rated have enough power to it to transmit enough EMF to vaporize someone .
Based on the 55 5g cell towers I ’ ve watched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are rated at 50 amps .
That ’ s not nearly enough power to vaporizer even a bottle of water .
There are other delivery systems .
Phi Beta Iota : There is also the matter of the deliberate toxification of humans with metals via chem trails , food , floride in the matter , and more , along with mercury and other toxins injected by a criminal vaccine enterprise with full immunity from equally criminal members of Congress .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Scientific Fact: 5G DOES Interfere With Our Immune System
Written by phibetaiota.net
British Anti-5G campaigner, Mark Steele. who won a landmark court case last year exposing the dangers to humans of the radiation from 5G millimeter waves, gives a no-holds-barred interview on BBC radio calling out the “criminals” pushing this untested technology.
In the BBC interview Mark tears apart the BBC mainstream media narrative, while they slavishly try to stick to their cognitive dissonance, appeals to authority and demonstrate a complete failure to come back with any kind of argument from an empirical perspective.
Mark Steele shreds recent comments about 5g being neutralized as premature. Yes, there are prospects of neutralization. No it has not happened.
We need to know the Voltage of the equipment. It’s A X V = W so if its 50 x 450 = 22500 Watts power. I can kill you with a lot less than that. 1 thousands of a Watt cm for 6 Min is the ICNIRP guideline and would not be safe. It’s the resonant frequency that can dissociate the molecular bonds using the dielectric properties of the molecules. Its not just about the Watts in the beam wave delivery system.
With technology we developed 15 years ago we can lock on a missile traveling at Mach 2 and knock it out of the air. So yes there is tech that can lock on a person or cell phone at 1000ft. The question is then, does a cell tower that is 5g rated have enough power to it to transmit enough EMF to vaporize someone. Based on the 55 5g cell towers I’ve watched being installed, the actual power cables are rated at 50 amps. That’s not nearly enough power to vaporizer even a bottle of water. There are other delivery systems.
Phi Beta Iota: There is also the matter of the deliberate toxification of humans with metals via chem trails, food, floride in the matter, and more, along with mercury and other toxins injected by a criminal vaccine enterprise with full immunity from equally criminal members of Congress.
Read more at phibetaiota.net
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-17--Cambridge University Goes Full Fascist on COVID Rules!

Students at a Cambridge college have received a coronavirus “ Community Statement ” that they must sign and adhere to or risk being ejected from college accommodation .
Lockdown Sceptics has seen the draconian rules issued by Trinity College to its students and it ’ s a shocker .
The rules , sorry , I mean “ community guidelines ” , include being prepared to move rooms or leave at “ very short notice ” , rigorous cleaning duties , no visitors , being limited to the bare minimum of possessions for “ basic living standards ” , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three days ’ supply of non-perishable food for use in the event of a lockdown ” .
Parties are “ likely to be deemed a grave breach ” .
The rules can change at any point .
( The Guardian also has the story . )
It is left entirely up to academic supervisors whether they will teach their students in person , leaving many at risk of a substandard education .
As one university lecturer told us : New students were told before term began that they can not defer their place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s our way or the highway at Trinity College , Cambridge .
The college which , over the course of its history , has won more Nobel Prizes than France and Belgium combined has turned into a citadel of unscientific , hysterical group think .
Perhaps it ’ s because the new Master is Sally Davies , the former Chief Medical Officer .
Treating young people in this way is cruel .
Dressing it up as a “ Community Statement ” which “ represents a commitment ” by students – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether to make – is Orwellian doublespeak .
If they don ’ t make this supposedly voluntary “ commitment ” , they lose their place at Cambridge .
We are used to “ Generation Snowflake ” complaining of micro-aggressions and wanting safe spaces and trigger warnings – fatuous nonsense , which is nonetheless frequently indulged by university authorities .
Yet here we have a genuine example of oppressive treatment likely to cause harm to students ’ well-being and mental health that ’ s due to the snowflakery of the grown ups .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this “ deadly ” virus .
Yet a recent analysis by Professor David Spiegelhalter in the BMJ has shown that the risk to people under 35 is almost zero .
All these rules and restrictions are in place for the benefit of much , much older people suffering from co-morbidities , in other words .
What a dreadful burden to impose on the young , who have already had their education disrupted , their exams cancelled and been put through an A-Level grades fiasco which left many of them unsure whether they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last minute .
Students are informed at the end of the Statement that the College has “ a Mental Health and Wellbeing Advisor as well as a Counsellor ” .
They ’ re going to need them .
Boris Needs to Look Again at the Facts About Covid Too many people still assume that lockdown is the only thing that stood between us and Armageddon , and that restrictions of varying severity must continue until there is a vaccine or a cure .
But is that what the evidence tells us ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday making the case that Boris and the Government need to look again .
To get to the truth of what is happening – and to work out the approach we need to take – we need a control , something to show what happens when things are done differently .
Peru offers one possible example : it has one of the world ’ s strictest lockdowns , yet also the world ’ s highest official death toll , at a rate of 929 per million .
We also have Sweden , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been no new big rise in cases or deaths and the country ’ s economy is getting back on its feet .
Critics point out that Sweden fared significantly worse than its Nordic neighbours , with 578 deaths per million , compared to Denmark ’ s 109 and Finland ’ s 61 .
However , Sweden , which never took on the burden of indefinite suppression , is now in a much stronger position to contemplate a return to normal life .
What ’ s more , an international comparison in the Lancet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the timing and strictness of lockdown in a country and the COVID-19 death rate .
Yet still our leaders insist that wide-ranging restrictions on social and economic life are the best way to respond to this threat .
The public can be forgiven for overestimating the severity of the virus , having been subjected to a barrage of terror for the past six months .
But the government and its advisers have no excuse .
They ought to have twigged by now that , for most people , the threat has been overegged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of proportion to the danger it poses .
Being able to step back and reappraise evidence and change direction in light of that – and then , crucially , bringing the public along with you – is an essential characteristic of a good leader and one that we are in desperate need of right now .
On this count , Boris is failing badly .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Cambridge University Goes Full Fascist on COVID Rules!
Written by Will Jones
Students at a Cambridge college have received a coronavirus “Community Statement” that they must sign and adhere to or risk being ejected from college accommodation. Lockdown Sceptics has seen the draconian rules issued by Trinity College to its students and it’s a shocker.
It states:
You are required to sign this statement and adhere to it if you would like to return to, or remain resident in, College accommodation. No accommodation for the new academic year will be allocated until you return a signed copy of this statement. The Senior Tutor and Junior Bursar can withdraw your accommodation if you breach your commitment to follow the Community Statement.
The rules, sorry, I mean “community guidelines”, include being prepared to move rooms or leave at “very short notice”, rigorous cleaning duties, no visitors, being limited to the bare minimum of possessions for “basic living standards”, and a requirement to store in your room “three days’ supply of non-perishable food for use in the event of a lockdown”. Parties are “likely to be deemed a grave breach”. The rules can change at any point. (The Guardian also has the story.)
It is left entirely up to academic supervisors whether they will teach their students in person, leaving many at risk of a substandard education. As one university lecturer told us:
“I have been at the receiving end of online teaching, and it is absolutely not as good as the real thing. Even in a small group you lose the immediacy, your attention drifts, and your tutor loses the body language necessary to get a feel of how you are responding to the instruction.”
New students were told before term began that they cannot defer their place if this is not to their liking. It’s our way or the highway at Trinity College, Cambridge. The college which, over the course of its history, has won more Nobel Prizes than France and Belgium combined has turned into a citadel of unscientific, hysterical group think. Perhaps it’s because the new Master is Sally Davies, the former Chief Medical Officer.
Treating young people in this way is cruel. Dressing it up as a “Community Statement” which “represents a commitment” by students – a commitment they had no choice about whether to make – is Orwellian doublespeak. If they don’t make this supposedly voluntary “commitment”, they lose their place at Cambridge.
We are used to “Generation Snowflake” complaining of micro-aggressions and wanting safe spaces and trigger warnings – fatuous nonsense, which is nonetheless frequently indulged by university authorities. Yet here we have a genuine example of oppressive treatment likely to cause harm to students’ well-being and mental health that’s due to the snowflakery of the grown ups. All in the name of protecting people from this “deadly” virus. Yet a recent analysis by Professor David Spiegelhalter in the BMJ has shown that the risk to people under 35 is almost zero.
Observed population fatality rates for 49,607 deaths mentioning COVID-19, registered in England and Wales between March 7th and June 26th, 2020. The COVID-19 death rates create a remarkably straight line on a logarithmic scale (top), indicating an exponential increase of risk with age. The “normal” risk (dashed lines) is the actuarial annual mortality, scaled by a factor 16/52 to reflect the risk over 16 weeks.
All these rules and restrictions are in place for the benefit of much, much older people suffering from co-morbidities, in other words. What a dreadful burden to impose on the young, who have already had their education disrupted, their exams cancelled and been put through an A-Level grades fiasco which left many of them unsure whether they’d get a place at university until the last minute.
Students are informed at the end of the Statement that the College has “a Mental Health and Wellbeing Advisor as well as a Counsellor”. They’re going to need them.
Boris Needs to Look Again at the Facts About Covid
Sweden now has one of the lowest case rates in Europe and has announced it will allow visits to care homes again from October 1st
Too many people still assume that lockdown is the only thing that stood between us and Armageddon, and that restrictions of varying severity must continue until there is a vaccine or a cure. But is that what the evidence tells us? I wrote a piece for the Spectator yesterday making the case that Boris and the Government need to look again.
To get to the truth of what is happening – and to work out the approach we need to take – we need a control, something to show what happens when things are done differently. Peru offers one possible example: it has one of the world’s strictest lockdowns, yet also the world’s highest official death toll, at a rate of 929 per million. We also have Sweden, which favoured a light-touch approach; there has been no new big rise in cases or deaths and the country’s economy is getting back on its feet. Critics point out that Sweden fared significantly worse than its Nordic neighbours, with 578 deaths per million, compared to Denmark’s 109 and Finland’s 61. However, Sweden, which never took on the burden of indefinite suppression, is now in a much stronger position to contemplate a return to normal life. What’s more, an international comparison in the Lancet in July offered little conclusive evidence connecting the timing and strictness of lockdown in a country and the COVID-19 death rate. Yet still our leaders insist that wide-ranging restrictions on social and economic life are the best way to respond to this threat. The public can be forgiven for overestimating the severity of the virus, having been subjected to a barrage of terror for the past six months. But the government and its advisers have no excuse. They ought to have twigged by now that, for most people, the threat has been overegged and the response to it far out of proportion to the danger it poses. Being able to step back and reappraise evidence and change direction in light of that – and then, crucially, bringing the public along with you – is an essential characteristic of a good leader and one that we are in desperate need of right now. On this count, Boris is failing badly.
Read more at lockdownsceptics.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-17--Media Admits 5G Energy Weapons Use Against Citizens is Real!

Media Admits 5G Energy Weapons Use Against Citizens is Real !
Principia Scientific International , among others , has long been warning about the sinister weaponization of the 5G ( millimeter wave ) system .
Finally , the mainstream media are waking up to deadly dangers of this new technology .
5G was never really about giving you faster download speeds – the real purpose is as a weapon of mass control .
NPR and CNN are among the news outlets finally reporting on how politicians are actively planning to unleash these harmful “ heat rays ” to quell public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unwarranted and fascist ‘ lockdown ’ of our freedoms .
“ Hours before federal police officers cleared a crowded park near the White House with smoke and tear gas on June 1 , the lead military police officer in the Department of Defense for the D.C. region asked if the D.C. National Guard had a kind of military heat ray that might be deployed against demonstrators in the nation ’ s capital , according to one of the most senior National Guard officers on the scene.
” [ emphasis added ] Major Adam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to NPR details of the device from an email received from the Provost Marshal of Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region .
There are two such weapons the wider public needs to immediately wake up about .
They are a long range acoustic device , a kind of sound cannon known as an LRAD , and the other device is called the Active Denial System , or ADS .
The email explains that the ADS can direct a beam toward a group and that The above photograph is a mobile millimeter wave military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeing the rapid deployment of fixed antennae on our hospitals , schools and other public buildings for the same purpose , all under the guise of offering consumers a better online experience !
Last month , the New York Times reported that U.S. border officials weighed deploying the so-called “ heat ray ” against migrants a few weeks before the 2018 elections .
NPR continues : “ The ADS was developed by the military some twenty years ago as a way to disperse crowds .
There have been questions about whether it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place .
It uses millimeter wave technology to essentially heat the skin of people targeted by its invisible ray.
” In plain and simple English , millimeter wave technology is 5G !
In their article , ’ Border Officials Weighed Deploying Migrant ‘ Heat Ray ’ Ahead of Midterms ’ the New York Times reports that Let that sink it —the DHS realized the pain ray heat gun was inhumane to use on illegal immigrants storming through the US border .
But with the growing dissent over the fake pandemic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Orwellian weaponry will be used to stamp us down .
In July 2020 we posed the question : ‘ 5G – The Ultimate Weapon Of Depopulation ?
’ because we live in an increasingly irradiated environment ( radiation soup ) with all the smartphones , tablets , Wi-Fi networks , and cell towers and their microwave transmissions .
People , especially teenagers and young people , are increasingly dying of brain cancer because of the increased exposure to EMF/RF radiation , according to RF Safe and The Telegraph .
As always , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research and become better informed on all scientific developments that impact our daily lives .
Because if one thing is becoming clear , it is that our political leaders do not have our best interests at heart .

Media Admits 5G Energy Weapons Use Against Citizens is Real!
Written by John O'Sullivan
Principia Scientific International, among others, has long been warning about the sinister weaponization of the 5G (millimeter wave) system.
Finally, the mainstream media are waking up to deadly dangers of this new technology. 5G was never really about giving you faster download speeds – the real purpose is as a weapon of mass control.
NPR and CNN are among the news outlets finally reporting on how politicians are actively planning to unleash these harmful “heat rays” to quell public dissent and disperse protesters for opposing the unwarranted and fascist ‘lockdown’ of our freedoms.
In ‘Military Police Leaders Weighed Deploying ‘Heat Ray’ Against D.C. Protesters‘ ( September 16, 2020) NPR reports:
“Hours before federal police officers cleared a crowded park near the White House with smoke and tear gas on June 1, the lead military police officer in the Department of Defense for the D.C. region asked if the D.C. National Guard had a kind of military heat ray that might be deployed against demonstrators in the nation’s capital, according to one of the most senior National Guard officers on the scene.” [emphasis added]
Major Adam DeMarco of the D.C. National Guard revealed to NPR details of the device from an email received from the Provost Marshal of Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region.
CNN’s Jim Acosta reported the issue on Twitter:
There are two such weapons the wider public needs to immediately wake up about. They are a long range acoustic device, a kind of sound cannon known as an LRAD, and the other device is called the Active Denial System, or ADS. The email explains that the ADS can direct a beam toward a group and that
“provides a sensation of intense heat on the surface of the skin. The effect is overwhelming, causing an immediate repel response by the targeted individual.”
The above photograph is a mobile millimeter wave military platform. In our local communities we are seeing the rapid deployment of fixed antennae on our hospitals, schools and other public buildings for the same purpose, all under the guise of offering consumers a better online experience!
Last month, the New York Times reported that U.S. border officials weighed deploying the so-called “heat ray” against migrants a few weeks before the 2018 elections. NPR continues:
“The ADS was developed by the military some twenty years ago as a way to disperse crowds. There have been questions about whether it worked, or should be deployed in the first place. It uses millimeter wave technology to essentially heat the skin of people targeted by its invisible ray.”
In plain and simple English, millimeter wave technology is 5G!
In their article,’Border Officials Weighed Deploying Migrant ‘Heat Ray’ Ahead of Midterms’ the New York Times reports that
“the DHS once considered same thing to use on migrants at the border. But then DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen shut in down.”
Let that sink it —the DHS realized the pain ray heat gun was inhumane to use on illegal immigrants storming through the US border. But with the growing dissent over the fake pandemic and increase in citizen protests, it appears this Orwellian weaponry will be used to stamp us down. In July 2020 we posed the question: ‘ 5G – The Ultimate Weapon Of Depopulation?’ because we live in an increasingly irradiated environment (radiation soup) with all the smartphones, tablets, Wi-Fi networks, and cell towers and their microwave transmissions. People, especially teenagers and young people, are increasingly dying of brain cancer because of the increased exposure to EMF/RF radiation, according to RF Safe and The Telegraph.
More recently, as the coronavirus pandemic unfolded we addressed some of the concerns of a 5G link to the COVID19 virus, being that symptoms of the virus are uncannily similar to symptoms of exposure to millimeter waves. See: Magnetobiology To Connect 5G, Low Oxygen Intake & CV-19?
Even sections of the US military are very concerned about the mass roll out of 5G and oppose it. See: U.S. Military Oppose Mass 5G Plan.
As “Top Pentagon officials told lawmakers that a proposed nationwide network to provide 5G and internet-of-things services was “too risky to be worth it.””
As always, we encourage readers to do their own research and become better informed on all scientific developments that impact our daily lives. Because if one thing is becoming clear, it is that our political leaders do not have our best interests at heart.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-17--Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden for President

The magazine Scientific American backed 2020 Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden in its first-ever presidential endorsement in the magazine ’ s 175-year history .
The editors wrote that they felt “ compelled ” to support Biden in his effort to defeat President Donald Trump , citing Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus crisis and his skepticism on issues such as climate change .
“ The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science , ” the editors wrote in the magazine ’ s October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urge you to vote for Joe Biden , who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health , our economy and the environment .
These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer , more prosperous , and more equitable future , ” the magazine ’ s endorsement continued .
The editorial focuses primarily on Trump ’ s response to the pandemic and his attempts to downplay the situation .
At least 194,700 Americans have died of the coronavirus as of Tuesday afternoon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The endorsement comes with fewer than 50 days until the presidential election and the country dealing with multiple crises other than the coronavirus pandemic , including deadly wildfires on the West Coast and a heavy hurricane season in the Atlantic — especially around the Gulf of Mexico .
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 .

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden for President
Written by Katherine Rodriguez
The magazine Scientific American backed 2020 Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden in its first-ever presidential endorsement in the magazine’s 175-year history.
The editors wrote that they felt “compelled” to support Biden in his effort to defeat President Donald Trump, citing Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis and his skepticism on issues such as climate change.
“The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science,” the editors wrote in the magazine’s October issue.
“That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous, and more equitable future,” the magazine’s endorsement continued.
The editorial focuses primarily on Trump’s response to the pandemic and his attempts to downplay the situation. At least 194,700 Americans have died of the coronavirus as of Tuesday afternoon, according to a New York Times database.
The endorsement comes with fewer than 50 days until the presidential election and the country dealing with multiple crises other than the coronavirus pandemic, including deadly wildfires on the West Coast and a heavy hurricane season in the Atlantic — especially around the Gulf of Mexico.
Read more at www.breitbart.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related