principiascientificinternational--2020-05-07--Make America Great Again in Science: A Guide for All Sovereign Nations

Make America Great Again in Science : A Guide for All Sovereign Nations With his new paper ‘ Make America Great Again in Science : A Guide for All Sovereign Nations ’ J. Marvin Herndon , Ph.D. explains how U. S. President Donald J. Trump is leading America and the world against the elitist-globalist goal of a One World Government .
Herndon writes : The paper may be downloaded at : http : //116.203.177.230/index.php/ASSRJ/article/download/8141/4931 Science , the mother of technology , has the potential to make life on Earth a heaven or a hell , to enlighten or deceive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or degrade , to cure or kill .
The exponential growth of technology since World War II has been accompanied by a major decline in science , not only in progress but in understanding and application of its processes .
From a lifetime of first-hand knowledge and experience [ 1 ] Herndon , J. M. ( 2020 ) Make America Great Again in Science : A Guide for All Sovereign Nations .
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal , 7 ( 4 ) 310-317 .
I proffer insights and suggestions to make science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 20th century was a time of great discovery in the physical sciences .
New insights and discoveries fired imaginations leading to debates , discussions , and further discoveries .
The formulation of quantum mechanics , for example , eventually gave birth to the technology of solidstate electronics that makes possible modern communications and computers .
There were relatively few scientists during the first half of the 20th century .
Government support for science was virtually nonexistent .
Scientists maintained ethical and scientific standards of behavior .
In order to earn a Doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student was required to make a significant new discovery .
If someone else first published the solution of the problem the student was working on , the student had to start over on a different new problem .
Rarely today are students required to make an important discovery to earn that degree .
Back then , integrity was important and , while there were occasional personal lapses of integrity , institutional corruption was generally absent , unlike today .
After World War II , circumstances changed , driven by good intentions and maladministration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cognizant of the wartime technological advances that resulted from government funding , requested a plan for funding civilian science after the war .
The resulting report , Science the Endless Frontier , authored by Vannevar Bush [ 2 ] , became the basis for Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal ( ASSRJ ) Vol.7 , Issue 4 , Apr-2020 311 establishing in 1950 the National Science Foundation ( NSF ) , which wrote the rules for administrating government funding of civilian scientific research .
The NSF rules , adopted for subsequent agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Space Administration ( NASA ) , are a major factor in the decline and corruption of American science .
I use the word stupid to describe the NSF rules for funding civilian science because they fail to take into account human nature and reflect an ignorance of the manner by which fundamental scientific discoveries are made .
I have been unable to discover who wrote the stupid rules , but they were devised early in NSF ’ s operation .
Stupid Rule # 1 Early on , NSF decided that proposals for scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientist ’ s peers , usually the proposer ’ s competitors , frequently the most knowledgeable individuals on the subject .
Moreover , the competitor-reviewers were given anonymity .
To my knowledge , nowhere in human interactions has secrecy led to increased truthfulness and objectivity .
Rather , as in the Spanish Inquisition and in virtually all totalitarian governments , under aegis of anonymity individuals readily denounce their personal enemies so as to inflict harm .
The use of anonymous peer-reviews was thought to be such a great idea that it was adopted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific journals .
All it takes are less-than-positive remarks by secret reviewers , for which they are unaccountable , and the proposer ’ s career is potentially damaged and , perhaps , even ended .
But that is not the worst problem .
Scientists were quick to realize that , if they criticized another scientist ’ s work or a program that funds the work of other scientists , they expose themselves to potential retribution through secret peer-reviews .
To obviate that possibility , scientists moved en masse to adopt , not challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a perversion of science to be sure .
Science is about finding out what is wrong with current thinking and replacing the less-correct understanding with more-correct understanding .
In science , consensus is nonsense [ 3 ] , but decades of failure to challenge current thinking led many to ( falsely ) believe that consensus connotes correctness .
In many human endeavors , science included , the key to progress is to find out what is wrong and fix it .
Stupid Rule # 2 NSF ’ s procedure of scientists proposing projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was apparently conceived without an understanding of how important discoveries are made .
How can one say beforehand what is to be discovered that has never before been discovered , or how it is to be discovered ?
Those unique individuals who are capable of making discoveries suffer discrimination from a system that favors those who propose trivial projects that can be well described .
Moreover , proposal reviews are often a guise for bureaucrats or peer-reviewers to engage in exclusionary or questionable practices to the detriment of those unique individuals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffer discrimination by not fitting into bureaucrat-designed research programs , which also are not receptive to criticism .
Science support should be based upon a track record of important discoveries , or perhaps should be a lottery , which would at least provide a chance for funding to those who actually make important discoveries .
Stupid Rule # 3 NSF accepts proposals from non-profit institutions and considers the scientists only as “ Principal Investigators.
” Consequently , there is no direct legal responsibility for scientists to tell the truth .
Moreover , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reticent to redress their faculty members for scientific ethical-transgressions .
Rather than being classed as “ Principal Investigators , ” I posit , the proposing scientists should be classified as government contractors subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations [ 4 ] .
Stupid Rule # 4 Through the manner by which it pays for and/or allows publication of scientific results , NSF enriches commercial firms and special-interest associations to the great detriment of science .
The practices are so pervasive and egregious that they warrant considerable elaboration in the discussion below .
In 1974 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree in nuclear chemistry , I was invited to spend three years learning from two aging master-scientists , Harold C. Urey and Hans E. Suess , while conducting whatever research I deemed important [ 3 ] .
After that time I obtained a research position at the University of California , San Diego that was funded entirely by government grants .
In the course of my research , I realized a different composition of Earth ’ s inner core , an object at the center of Earth , slightly smaller than the Moon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I published the concept in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London [ 5 ] .
The entire abstract of that paper states : From observations of nature the suggestion is made that the inner core of the Earth consists not of nickel-iron metal but of nickel silicide .
Instead of engendering debate and discussion , there was silence .
It was as if the paper had never been published .
Moreover , for no good reason my NASA grant that funded the work was not renewed , my unfunded academic position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That was my first experience in governmental anti-science , but there was much more to come .
When a new idea arises , there should be debate and discussion .
Attempts should be made to refute the work , ideally in the same journal ; otherwise the work should be cited in subsequent studies on the subject .
Other researchers will see the work and perhaps be influenced to make additional discoveries .
That is how science progresses , but that is not the way of NSF and NASA science [ 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years following my ‘ excommunication ’ , I discovered considerable evidence supporting my nickel-silicide inner-core concept , but even now government funded researchers still investigate the inner-core as if it is composed of iron metal [ 8 , 9 ] .
Making scientific discoveries is like following a logical path through the wilderness .
Along the way , junctions occur .
Choose the wrong path and the progress stops , like being trapped in a cul-de-sac .
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal ( ASSRJ ) Vol.7 , Issue 4 , Apr-2020 313 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct logical path .
But sometimes the junctions are invisible , the requisite discoveries had not yet been made .
That was the case for the nickel-silicide inner core concept until the 1960s when the necessary underlying discoveries were made .
By ignoring new concepts , which is bad science , correct junctures can be missed .
Another reason why new concepts should be discussed and debated – not ignored – is that mistakes are made in science .
Scientists tend to be forward-looking , rarely looking questioningly at concepts from the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , might no longer be correct .
Progressing forward in science , on the basis of mistaken concepts , leads to confusion , not progress .
On the other hand , correcting past mistakes opens the way for new discoveries , connected logically and causally .
In Table 1 , I show four science mistakes that I personally corrected and the new discoveries that resulted [ 10 ] .
Table 1 .
Examples of science mistakes and the consequential discoveries made upon correction .
From [ 10 ] .
Examples of Science Faltering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth ’ s inner core Understanding Earth ’ s internal composition Giant planet internal energy production Nuclear origin of planetary magnetic fields Physical impossibility of core/mantle convection Invalidation and replacement of plate tectonics Thermonuclear ignition of stars Understanding luminous-star patterns of galaxies Science-funding bureaucrats make up programs to address what they envision constitutes science , and scientists then propose research within that framework .
Not surprisingly , most of the work done is trivial , and does not lead to further advances .
When I realized that the inner core composition might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partially crystallized nickel-iron metal , my NASA funding ceased , and the subject became “ politically incorrect ” , unmentionable ; BIG MISTAKE !
Whenever an observation does not seem to fit into the current understanding on a subject , it is an indication that something might be amiss with that understanding , possibly an invitation to make new discoveries .
It was not that just the inner core might have been misunderstood , but just about everything about the Earth .
The interior composition of the Earth , its origin , energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misunderstood , but which I corrected [ 11 , 12 ] .
Jupiter , Saturn , and Neptune each radiate about twice as much energy as they receive from the sun ; this was a great mystery for NASA-funded scientists .
I proffered a solution to that mystery and others involving the generation of magnetic fields within planets and large moons by planetocentric nuclear fission reactors [ 7 , 11 , 12 ] , but to my knowledge NASA-funded scientists have never cited that work .
URL : http : //dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.74.8141 314 Herndon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America Great Again in Science : A Guide for All Sovereign Nations .
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal , 7 ( 4 ) 310-317 .
Science is about discovering the truth about nature .
Failing to cite credible contradictory concepts is like lying to the public , and doing so at taxpayer expense .
Neither the scientists who practice deception nor the agencies that support them should receive funding .
There has been for decades a dearth of moral leadership in the taxpayer-supported scientific community .
It is common for scientists acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attempt to prevent or at least delay publication of competitors ’ papers .
By the mid-1990s , physicists ’ papers were taking up to two years to get published .
Then , the National Science Foundation supported development of an author-self-posting archive at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory .
The idea was that scientists could post pre-prints of not-yet-published papers that would immediately be available to scientists worldwide .
It was a great idea , but from the beginning there were allegations of blacklisting by the operators of the archive [ 13 ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cornell University almost one million dollars to take over ownership of the archive , called arxiv.org .
The archive developers then became employees of Cornell .
Blacklisting became institutionalized .
This is how it works .
Individuals whose email addresses ending with .gov or .edu can post without intervention .
Others with different email address-endings require being endorsed by someone who has been qualified by the archive to endorse .
I received endorsements , posted papers , and became qualified to endorse others in a number of areas : Then someone denounced me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by arXiv.org is a secret process that just happens .
When I would attempt to post a paper it would be sent to anonymous “ moderators ” who would decide whether it should be posted in an inappropriate place , like general physics , where it would go unnoticed , or whether it should not post at all .
On numerous occasions I complained to the Cornell University Provost , an officer of the corporation , but my complaint would just be sent to the very archive people I had complained about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in contracts and grants , some of which were for investigations contradicted by my postings that arXiv.org secret-moderators ‘ buried ’ or prevented from posting .
The blacklisting I describe is not only a wholly un-American activity , but it plays a major part in crippling American scientific and technological knowhow .
The people who get blacklisted are not the mediocrity ; they are the innovative , creative people who question the consensus nonsense .
The author-self-posting archive might have become a jewel in NSF ’ s crown , had it monitored the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a non-competitive entity , such as the Library of Congress .
Instead , NSF provided yet another reason to justify its demise .
When it comes to scientific publications , reviewers are not the only ones who engage in activities that prevent publication of new or contradictory work .
When I began working as a scientist in the early-1970s , publishers required editors to obtain reviews of submitted manuscripts .
Even though secrecy was used , at least there was a chance that some reviewers might be ethical and give honest reviews .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reject manuscripts without review .
Here is an example : The first ever georeactor review article [ 12 ] , was first rejected without review with a few pejorative remarks by an University of Oxford professor acting as editor of a new Elsevier journal .
Mainstream journals make millions of dollars annually from publication of government-funded research .
Presumably , it is in their financial interest not to publish work that contradicts the Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal ( ASSRJ ) Vol.7 , Issue 4 , Apr-2020 315 establishment , government-funded story-line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I published papers in Nature and Nature Physical Science , but after I started making important discoveries , my manuscripts were always rejected , typically without review .
Publishers , a high proportion being European , control not only what is published , but access to research work that was paid for with U. S. taxpayer dollars .
For decades , publishers have demanded to retain copyrights .
Universities pay a large fee , which gives their faculty access .
But independent scientists , like me , are expected to pay typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single article .
Considering the number of articles that I read , the cost is prohibitive .
Fortunately , there is a new generation of open access independent publishers who charge reasonable fees , maintain integrity , and insist on using reviewers .
Scientists , by virtue of their abilities and training , should be able to provide independent assessments related to human and environmental health .
But instead , academic scientists all too often function as cartels [ 14 ] .
Many , who tend to identify with globalist-elites , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 ] and/or have become pawns in international efforts to modify Earth ’ s natural environment [ 16 ] .
Had they have been objective scientists , committed to understanding the true nature of our planet , they might have ( but did not ! )
discovered that particulate pollution , not greenhouse gases , is the main cause of global warming [ 14 , 17-22 ] .
• S. President Donald J. Trump is leading America and the world against the elitist-globalist goal of a One World Government .
Since his election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-elected Deep State subculture has become abundantly evident .
Mainstream news media , previously relatively objective , have become less-truthful than Pravda during the existence of the Soviet Union .
Universities have become not only breeding grounds for ideologies that are inconsistent with sovereign nations , but have lost the ability to produce cutting-edge scientists and technologists that Trump ’ s economic renaissance requires .
The suggestions set forth here to “ Make America Great Again in Science ” are of value as a starting place for re-inventing scientific and technological education .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever-increasing tuition and fees , universities have become bloated bureaucracies , rendering them incapable of producing the high quality scientists and technologists the economic renaissance requires .
Teaching faculty , for example , are often evaluated by the students they teach .
While superficially , this may seem appropriate , in reality it imposes a bias against teachers ’ rigorous expectations of students , which may result in unhappy students giving less-than glowing evaluations .
Research professionals at universities , whether they are teaching faculty that are required to perform research or full-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of bureaucratically imposed bias .
Research grants provide a steady flow of income for the bureaucracy from ‘ indirect costs ’ , aka overhead .
Research professionals are generally measured on the basis of the amount of grants they obtain and the number of papers they publish , sometimes even on the number of citations a paper receives .
The bias , therefore , is to conduct research on popular , non-controversial subjects , rather than challenging topics that might not be as well received , but which might ultimately lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above , is that rather than being classed as “ Principal Investigators , ” the research scientists should be classified as government URL : http : //dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.74.8141 316 Herndon , J. M. ( 2020 ) Make America Great Again in Science : A Guide for All Sovereign Nations .
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal , 7 ( 4 ) 310-317. contractors subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations [ 4 ] .
The research professional then could negotiate with university officials or go it alone or with others as a business enterprise .
Major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of government-funded research .
First and foremost , an author-self-posting archive should be established at the Library of Congress with no restrictions other than to demonstrate having an advanced academic degree .
This would put all researchers on an even footing , with no blacklisting .
Commercial publication should only be open access and emphasize competition between all publishing companies .
Publication companies that hold copyrights to previously government-funded work should be required to make all of those papers open-access prior to being allowed to compete for future publication opportunities .
Publication companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practices should be debarred from further business .
The problems that currently underlie American science are in certain respects the same problems that beset citizens of socialist and totalitarian governments : Peoples ’ overwhelming desire to control the actions and opportunities of others .
The antidote in each case is freedom .
For the scientist that means the freedom to make and disclose important discoveries , and to compete on equal footing with other scientists .
With freedom from unwarranted control and restraint from others , scientists , like entrepreneurs , will flourish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Again in Science ” can as well be viewed as a guide for other sovereign nations .
• None Bush , V. , Science the Endless Frontier : A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush , Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development , July 19451945 , Washington DC : United States Government Printing Office .
184 • None Herndon , J.M.
, Some reflections on science and discovery .
Curr .
Sci.
, 2015 .
108 ( 11 ) : p. 1967-1968 .
PDF • None Regulations—FAR , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Acquisition Policy Division , FAR Secretariat ( MVP ) , Washington , DC .
5 .
Herndon , J.M.
, The nickel silicide inner core of the Earth .
Proc .
R. Soc .
Lond , 1979 .
A368 : p. 495-500 .
PDF • None Herndon , J.M.
, Herndon ’ s Earth and the Dark Side of Science2014 : Printed by CreareSpace ; Available at Amazon.com and through other book sellers .
LINK • None Herndon , J.M.
, NASA : Politics above Science2018 : Printed by CreareSpace ; Available at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LINK • None Yadav , R.K. , et al.
, Approaching a realistic force balance in geodynamo simulations .
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2016 .
113 ( 43 ) : p. 12065-12070 .
• None Corredoira , M.L .
and C.C .
Perelman , eds .
Against the Tide : A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics & Astronomy Get Done .
2008 , Universal Publishers : Boca Raton , Florida , USA .
265 .
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal ( ASSRJ ) Vol.7 , Issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , J.M.
, An open letter to members of AGU , EGU , and IPCC alleging promotion of fake science at the expense of human and environmental health and comments on AGU draft geoengineering position statement .
New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal , 2017 .
5 ( 3 ) : p. 413-416 .
PDF • None Herndon , J.M.
, M. Whiteside , and I. Baldwin , The ENMOD treaty and the sanctioned assault on agriculture and human and environmental health .
Agrotechnology , 2020 .
9 ( 191 ) : p. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J.M.
, Air pollution , not greenhouse gases : The principal cause of global warming .
J. Geog .
Environ .
Earth Sci .
Intn.
, 2018 .
17 ( 2 ) : p. 1-8 .
PDF • None Herndon , J.M.
, Fundamental climate science error : Concomitant harm to humanity and the environment J. Geog .
Environ .
Earth Sci .
Intn.
, 2018 .
18 ( 3 ) : p. 1-12 .
PDF • None Herndon , J.M.
, World War II holds the key to understanding global warming and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J. Geog .
Environ .
Earth Sci .
Intn.
, 2019 .
23 ( 4 ) : p. 1-13 .
PDF 21 .
Herndon , J.M .
and M. Whiteside , Further evidence that particulate pollution is the principal cause of global warming : Humanitarian considerations .
Journal of Geography , Environment and Earth Science International , 2019 .
• Herndon , J.M .
and M. Whiteside , Geophysical consequences of tropospheric particulate heating : Further evidence that anthropogenic global warming is principally caused by particulate pollution .
Journal of Geography , Environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22 ( 4 ) : p. 1-23 .
PDF PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Make America Great Again in Science: A Guide for All Sovereign Nations
Written by J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.
With his new paper ‘Make America Great Again in Science: A Guide for All Sovereign Nations’ J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D. explains how U. S. President Donald J. Trump is leading America and the world against the elitist-globalist goal of a One World Government. Herndon writes:
“His efforts to free American entrepreneurs from unwarranted control by others are producing an economic renaissance. From a lifetime of first-hand knowledge and experience, I describe the problems that beset American science, and posit solutions for producing the cutting-edge science that Trump’s economic renaissance requires.”
The paper may be downloaded at: http://116.203.177.230/index.php/ASSRJ/article/download/8141/4931
Read the full paper below:
INTRODUCTION
Science, the mother of technology, has the potential to make life on Earth a heaven or a hell, to enlighten or deceive, to free or enslave, to uplift or degrade, to cure or kill.
The exponential growth of technology since World War II has been accompanied by a major decline in science, not only in progress but in understanding and application of its processes. From a lifetime of first-hand knowledge and experience [1]
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.74.8141 312
Herndon, J. M. (2020) Make America Great Again in Science: A Guide for All Sovereign Nations. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(4) 310-317.
I proffer insights and suggestions to make science great again. The first half of the 20th century was a time of great discovery in the physical sciences. New insights and discoveries fired imaginations leading to debates, discussions, and further discoveries. The formulation of quantum mechanics, for example, eventually gave birth to the technology of solidstate electronics that makes possible modern communications and computers.
There were relatively few scientists during the first half of the 20th century. Government support for science was virtually nonexistent. Scientists maintained ethical and scientific standards of behavior. In order to earn a Doctor of Philosophy degree (Ph.D.) a student was required to make a significant new discovery.
If someone else first published the solution of the problem the student was working on, the student had to start over on a different new problem. Rarely today are students required to make an important discovery to earn that degree.
Back then, integrity was important and, while there were occasional personal lapses of integrity, institutional corruption was generally absent, unlike today. After World War II, circumstances changed, driven by good intentions and maladministration. U. S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, cognizant of the wartime technological advances that resulted from government funding, requested a plan for funding civilian science after the war.
The resulting report, Science the Endless Frontier, authored by Vannevar Bush [2], became the basis for Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 4, Apr-2020 311 establishing in 1950 the National Science Foundation (NSF), which wrote the rules for administrating government funding of civilian scientific research.
The NSF rules, adopted for subsequent agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are a major factor in the decline and corruption of American science.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION STUPID RULES
I use the word stupid to describe the NSF rules for funding civilian science because they fail to take into account human nature and reflect an ignorance of the manner by which fundamental scientific discoveries are made.
I have been unable to discover who wrote the stupid rules, but they were devised early in NSF’s operation. Stupid Rule #1 Early on, NSF decided that proposals for scientific research would be evaluated by the proposing scientist’s peers, usually the proposer’s competitors, frequently the most knowledgeable individuals on the subject.
Moreover, the competitor-reviewers were given anonymity. To my knowledge, nowhere in human interactions has secrecy led to increased truthfulness and objectivity. Rather, as in the Spanish Inquisition and in virtually all totalitarian governments, under aegis of anonymity individuals readily denounce their personal enemies so as to inflict harm.
The use of anonymous peer-reviews was thought to be such a great idea that it was adopted by other agencies and by publishers of scientific journals. All it takes are less-than-positive remarks by secret reviewers, for which they are unaccountable, and the proposer’s career is potentially damaged and, perhaps, even ended. But that is not the worst problem.
Scientists were quick to realize that, if they criticized another scientist’s work or a program that funds the work of other scientists, they expose themselves to potential retribution through secret peer-reviews. To obviate that possibility, scientists moved en masse to adopt, not challenge, the “consensus viewpoint,” a perversion of science to be sure.
Science is about finding out what is wrong with current thinking and replacing the less-correct understanding with more-correct understanding. In science, consensus is nonsense [3], but decades of failure to challenge current thinking led many to (falsely) believe that consensus connotes correctness. In many human endeavors, science included, the key to progress is to find out what is wrong and fix it.
Stupid Rule #2 NSF’s procedure of scientists proposing projects for funding, a delight for bureaucrats, was apparently conceived without an understanding of how important discoveries are made. How can one say beforehand what is to be discovered that has never before been discovered, or how it is to be discovered?
Those unique individuals who are capable of making discoveries suffer discrimination from a system that favors those who propose trivial projects that can be well described. Moreover, proposal reviews are often a guise for bureaucrats or peer-reviewers to engage in exclusionary or questionable practices to the detriment of those unique individuals who can make important discoveries.
Discovery-makers also suffer discrimination by not fitting into bureaucrat-designed research programs, which also are not receptive to criticism. Science support should be based upon a track record of important discoveries, or perhaps should be a lottery, which would at least provide a chance for funding to those who actually make important discoveries.
Stupid Rule #3 NSF accepts proposals from non-profit institutions and considers the scientists only as “Principal Investigators.” Consequently, there is no direct legal responsibility for scientists to tell the truth. Moreover, in my experience university provosts and presidents are reticent to redress their faculty members for scientific ethical-transgressions.
Rather than being classed as “Principal Investigators,” I posit, the proposing scientists should be classified as government contractors subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations [4].
Stupid Rule #4 Through the manner by which it pays for and/or allows publication of scientific results, NSF enriches commercial firms and special-interest associations to the great detriment of science. The practices are so pervasive and egregious that they warrant considerable elaboration in the discussion below.
SCIENCE SUPPRESSION
In 1974, just after I earned the Ph.D. degree in nuclear chemistry, I was invited to spend three years learning from two aging master-scientists, Harold C. Urey and Hans E. Suess, while conducting whatever research I deemed important [3].
After that time I obtained a research position at the University of California, San Diego that was funded entirely by government grants. In the course of my research, I realized a different composition of Earth’s inner core, an object at the center of Earth, slightly smaller than the Moon and about three times as massive.
I published the concept in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London [5].
The entire abstract of that paper states: From observations of nature the suggestion is made that the inner core of the Earth consists not of nickel-iron metal but of nickel silicide. Instead of engendering debate and discussion, there was silence.
It was as if the paper had never been published. Moreover, for no good reason my NASA grant that funded the work was not renewed, my unfunded academic position vanished; I was ‘excommunicated’.
That was my first experience in governmental anti-science, but there was much more to come. When a new idea arises, there should be debate and discussion. Attempts should be made to refute the work, ideally in the same journal; otherwise the work should be cited in subsequent studies on the subject.
Other researchers will see the work and perhaps be influenced to make additional discoveries. That is how science progresses, but that is not the way of NSF and NASA science [6, 7].
During the 40 years following my ‘excommunication’, I discovered considerable evidence supporting my nickel-silicide inner-core concept, but even now government funded researchers still investigate the inner-core as if it is composed of iron metal [8, 9].
Making scientific discoveries is like following a logical path through the wilderness. Along the way, junctions occur. Choose the wrong path and the progress stops, like being trapped in a cul-de-sac. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 4, Apr-2020 313
Progress is only possible by following the correct logical path. But sometimes the junctions are invisible, the requisite discoveries had not yet been made. That was the case for the nickel-silicide inner core concept until the 1960s when the necessary underlying discoveries were made.
By ignoring new concepts, which is bad science, correct junctures can be missed. Another reason why new concepts should be discussed and debated – not ignored – is that mistakes are made in science. Scientists tend to be forward-looking, rarely looking questioningly at concepts from the past which, in light of subsequent discoveries, might no longer be correct.
Progressing forward in science, on the basis of mistaken concepts, leads to confusion, not progress. On the other hand, correcting past mistakes opens the way for new discoveries, connected logically and causally.
In Table 1, I show four science mistakes that I personally corrected and the new discoveries that resulted [10]. Table 1. Examples of science mistakes and the consequential discoveries made upon correction. From [10].
Examples of Science Faltering Consequence of Revised Logical Progression Composition of Earth’s inner core Understanding Earth’s internal composition Giant planet internal energy production Nuclear origin of planetary magnetic fields Physical impossibility of core/mantle convection Invalidation and replacement of plate tectonics Thermonuclear ignition of stars Understanding luminous-star patterns of galaxies Science-funding bureaucrats make up programs to address what they envision constitutes science, and scientists then propose research within that framework.
Not surprisingly, most of the work done is trivial, and does not lead to further advances. When I realized that the inner core composition might be different from the idea of its being partially crystallized nickel-iron metal, my NASA funding ceased, and the subject became “politically incorrect”, unmentionable; BIG MISTAKE!
Whenever an observation does not seem to fit into the current understanding on a subject, it is an indication that something might be amiss with that understanding, possibly an invitation to make new discoveries. It was not that just the inner core might have been misunderstood, but just about everything about the Earth.
The interior composition of the Earth, its origin, energy sources, and geodynamic behavior were all misunderstood, but which I corrected [11, 12]. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune each radiate about twice as much energy as they receive from the sun; this was a great mystery for NASA-funded scientists.
I proffered a solution to that mystery and others involving the generation of magnetic fields within planets and large moons by planetocentric nuclear fission reactors [7, 11, 12], but to my knowledge NASA-funded scientists have never cited that work.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.74.8141 314 Herndon, J. M. (2020) Make America Great Again in Science: A Guide for All Sovereign Nations. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(4) 310-317.
Science is about discovering the truth about nature. Failing to cite credible contradictory concepts is like lying to the public, and doing so at taxpayer expense. Neither the scientists who practice deception nor the agencies that support them should receive funding.
There has been for decades a dearth of moral leadership in the taxpayer-supported scientific community. It is common for scientists acting as reviewers, shielded by anonymity, to attempt to prevent or at least delay publication of competitors’ papers.
By the mid-1990s, physicists’ papers were taking up to two years to get published. Then, the National Science Foundation supported development of an author-self-posting archive at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.
The idea was that scientists could post pre-prints of not-yet-published papers that would immediately be available to scientists worldwide. It was a great idea, but from the beginning there were allegations of blacklisting by the operators of the archive [13].
In about 2001, NSF gave Cornell University almost one million dollars to take over ownership of the archive, called arxiv.org. The archive developers then became employees of Cornell. Blacklisting became institutionalized. This is how it works. Individuals whose email addresses ending with .gov or .edu can post without intervention.
Others with different email address-endings require being endorsed by someone who has been qualified by the archive to endorse. I received endorsements, posted papers, and became qualified to endorse others in a number of areas: Then someone denounced me and I was blacklisted. Being denounced by arXiv.org is a secret process that just happens.
When I would attempt to post a paper it would be sent to anonymous “moderators” who would decide whether it should be posted in an inappropriate place, like general physics, where it would go unnoticed, or whether it should not post at all.
On numerous occasions I complained to the Cornell University Provost, an officer of the corporation, but my complaint would just be sent to the very archive people I had complained about. Cornell University annually receives millions of dollars in contracts and grants, some of which were for investigations contradicted by my postings that arXiv.org secret-moderators ‘buried’ or prevented from posting.
The blacklisting I describe is not only a wholly un-American activity, but it plays a major part in crippling American scientific and technological knowhow. The people who get blacklisted are not the mediocrity; they are the innovative, creative people who question the consensus nonsense.
The author-self-posting archive might have become a jewel in NSF’s crown, had it monitored the integrity and then transferred the archive to a non-competitive entity, such as the Library of Congress.
Instead, NSF provided yet another reason to justify its demise. When it comes to scientific publications, reviewers are not the only ones who engage in activities that prevent publication of new or contradictory work.
When I began working as a scientist in the early-1970s, publishers required editors to obtain reviews of submitted manuscripts. Even though secrecy was used, at least there was a chance that some reviewers might be ethical and give honest reviews. Later, journals started allowing editors to reject manuscripts without review.
Here is an example: The first ever georeactor review article [12], was first rejected without review with a few pejorative remarks by an University of Oxford professor acting as editor of a new Elsevier journal. Mainstream journals make millions of dollars annually from publication of government-funded research.
Presumably, it is in their financial interest not to publish work that contradicts the Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 4, Apr-2020 315 establishment, government-funded story-line.
When I was a graduate student, I published papers in Nature and Nature Physical Science, but after I started making important discoveries, my manuscripts were always rejected, typically without review.
Publishers, a high proportion being European, control not only what is published, but access to research work that was paid for with U. S. taxpayer dollars. For decades, publishers have demanded to retain copyrights. Universities pay a large fee, which gives their faculty access. But independent scientists, like me, are expected to pay typically US$ 50. for a pdf of a single article.
Considering the number of articles that I read, the cost is prohibitive. Fortunately, there is a new generation of open access independent publishers who charge reasonable fees, maintain integrity, and insist on using reviewers.
Scientists, by virtue of their abilities and training, should be able to provide independent assessments related to human and environmental health. But instead, academic scientists all too often function as cartels [14].
Many, who tend to identify with globalist-elites, are committed to the political global-warming agenda [15] and/or have become pawns in international efforts to modify Earth’s natural environment [16].
Had they have been objective scientists, committed to understanding the true nature of our planet, they might have (but did not!) discovered that particulate pollution, not greenhouse gases, is the main cause of global warming [14, 17-22].
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
S. President Donald J. Trump is leading America and the world against the elitist-globalist goal of a One World Government. Since his election in 2016, the existence of a non-elected Deep State subculture has become abundantly evident.
Mainstream news media, previously relatively objective, have become less-truthful than Pravda during the existence of the Soviet Union. Universities have become not only breeding grounds for ideologies that are inconsistent with sovereign nations, but have lost the ability to produce cutting-edge scientists and technologists that Trump’s economic renaissance requires.
The suggestions set forth here to “Make America Great Again in Science” are of value as a starting place for re-inventing scientific and technological education. With vast income from student loans and ever-increasing tuition and fees, universities have become bloated bureaucracies, rendering them incapable of producing the high quality scientists and technologists the economic renaissance requires.
Teaching faculty, for example, are often evaluated by the students they teach. While superficially, this may seem appropriate, in reality it imposes a bias against teachers’ rigorous expectations of students, which may result in unhappy students giving less-than glowing evaluations.
Research professionals at universities, whether they are teaching faculty that are required to perform research or full-time research scientists, are subject to another form of bureaucratically imposed bias.
Research grants provide a steady flow of income for the bureaucracy from ‘indirect costs’, aka overhead. Research professionals are generally measured on the basis of the amount of grants they obtain and the number of papers they publish, sometimes even on the number of citations a paper receives.
The bias, therefore, is to conduct research on popular, non-controversial subjects, rather than challenging topics that might not be as well received, but which might ultimately lead to breakthroughs.
My suggestion, as mentioned above, is that rather than being classed as “Principal Investigators,” the research scientists should be classified as government URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.74.8141 316 Herndon, J. M. (2020) Make America Great Again in Science: A Guide for All Sovereign Nations. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(4) 310-317. contractors subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations [4].
The research professional then could negotiate with university officials or go it alone or with others as a business enterprise. Major changes should take place in the publication of government-funded research.
First and foremost, an author-self-posting archive should be established at the Library of Congress with no restrictions other than to demonstrate having an advanced academic degree. This would put all researchers on an even footing, with no blacklisting.
Commercial publication should only be open access and emphasize competition between all publishing companies. Publication companies that hold copyrights to previously government-funded work should be required to make all of those papers open-access prior to being allowed to compete for future publication opportunities.
Publication companies who are found to engage in exclusionary practices should be debarred from further business. The problems that currently underlie American science are in certain respects the same problems that beset citizens of socialist and totalitarian governments: Peoples’ overwhelming desire to control the actions and opportunities of others.
The antidote in each case is freedom.
For the scientist that means the freedom to make and disclose important discoveries, and to compete on equal footing with other scientists. With freedom from unwarranted control and restraint from others, scientists, like entrepreneurs, will flourish. My suggestions to “Make America Great Again in Science” can as well be viewed as a guide for other sovereign nations.
References
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/cv4.pdf Bush, V., Science the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, July 19451945, Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office. 184 Herndon, J.M., Some reflections on science and discovery. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(11): p. 1967-1968. PDF Regulations—FAR, Subpart 25, General Services Administration Federal Acquisition Policy Division, FAR Secretariat (MVP), Washington, DC. 5. Herndon, J.M., The nickel silicide inner core of the Earth. Proc. R. Soc. Lond, 1979. A368: p. 495-500. PDF Herndon, J.M., Herndon’s Earth and the Dark Side of Science2014: Printed by CreareSpace; Available at Amazon.com and through other book sellers. LINK Herndon, J.M., NASA: Politics above Science2018: Printed by CreareSpace; Available at Amazon.com and through other book sellers. LINK Reshetnyak, M.Y., Geodynamo Models. Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics, 2019. 61(8-9): p. 537-544. Yadav, R.K., et al., Approaching a realistic force balance in geodynamo simulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2016. 113(43): p. 12065-12070. Herndon, J.M., Inseparability of science history and discovery. Hist. Geo Space Sci., 2010. 1: p. 25-41. PDF Herndon, J.M., New indivisible planetary science paradigm. Curr. Sci., 2013. 105(4): p. 450-460. PDF Herndon, J.M., Terracentric nuclear fission georeactor: background, basis, feasibility, structure, evidence and geophysical implications. Curr. Sci., 2014. 106(4): p. 528-541. PDF Corredoira, M.L. and C.C. Perelman, eds. Against the Tide: A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics & Astronomy Get Done. 2008, Universal Publishers: Boca Raton, Florida, USA. 265. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 4, Apr-2020 317 Herndon, J.M., Scientific misrepresentation and the climate-science cartel. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2018. 18(2): p. 1-13. PDF Herndon, J.M., An open letter to members of AGU, EGU, and IPCC alleging promotion of fake science at the expense of human and environmental health and comments on AGU draft geoengineering position statement. New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal, 2017. 5(3): p. 413-416. PDF Herndon, J.M., M. Whiteside, and I. Baldwin, The ENMOD treaty and the sanctioned assault on agriculture and human and environmental health. Agrotechnology, 2020. 9(191): p. 1-9. PDF Herndon, J.M., Air pollution, not greenhouse gases: The principal cause of global warming. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2018. 17(2): p. 1-8. PDF Herndon, J.M., Fundamental climate science error: Concomitant harm to humanity and the environment J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2018. 18(3): p. 1-12. PDF Herndon, J.M., Role of atmospheric convection in global warming. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2019. 19(4): p. 1-8. PDF Herndon, J.M., World War II holds the key to understanding global warming and the challenge facing science and society. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2019. 23(4): p. 1-13. PDF 21. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Further evidence that particulate pollution is the principal cause of global warming: Humanitarian considerations. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 2019.
21(1): p. 1-11. PDF
Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Geophysical consequences of tropospheric particulate heating: Further evidence that anthropogenic global warming is principally caused by particulate pollution. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, 2019. 22(4): p. 1-23. PDF
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-08--A Tale of 2 Drugs: Deep State Chose Money & Power Over Lives

Dr. Vliet is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons , AAPS .
At the presidential biefing on April 30 , Dr. Anthony Fauci announced early results , prior to peer-review , of one clinical trial using remdesivir , an intravenous ( IV ) experimental antiviral medicine in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 .
At the “ warp speed ” currently in vogue for the Fauci-led push to a new vaccine , the very next day the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization ( EUA ) for remdesivir to be used in seriously ill hospitalized patients .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with the CEO of the drug ’ s manufacturer , Gilead Sciences , in the Oval Office .
Such rapid authorization is quite unusual with the FDA .
Unlike the experimental remdesivir with no prior FDA approval , hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) required two months from reports of successful use in China and South Korea to get the March 28 FDA EUA for use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients .
HCQ was approved in 1955 for malaria , and later for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis .
Over the last 65 years , hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for HCQ worldwide .
The EUA for HCQ did not , however , expand its availability but imposed restrictions to prevent non-hospitalized patients from accessing the government ’ s stockpile of the drug .
Democratic Govs .
Cuomo ( New York ) , Sisolak ( Nevada ) and Whitmer ( Michigan ) then imposed restrictive orders on outpatient use , and all but four states have followed their lead .
In decades of widespread use , HCQ has an impressive safety record .
Irregular heart rhythm or damage to the retina occur rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term .
The FDA shows only 62 cardiac deaths attributed to HCQ out of more than 50 million prescriptions , or 0.000124 % ( 1.2 out of each 1 million Rx ) .
Rheumatology guidelines for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis do not even require baseline electrocardiograms before prescribing HCQ , since the risk is minimal .
Approximately $ 70 million in U.S. taxpayer funding began Gilead ’ s partnership with the U.S. Army , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) and National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) to develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it failed to show benefit and was shelved .
If remdesivir is used to treat COVID-19 , Gilead shareholders , not the taxpayers , will profit .
Early results of the first clinical trial of remdesivir against placebo in coronavirus showed modest benefits , according to The New York Times .
Surviving patients given remdesivir were discharged four days sooner than patients given placebo , though no criteria were given for determining improvement .
Death rates were not significantly different .
About 25 % of patients receiving remdesivir had potentially severe side effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shock , acute kidney injury and low blood pressure .
Another 23 % showed evidence on lab tests of liver damage .
Gilead ’ s own press release revealed the side effect of acute respiratory failure in 6 % of patients in the remdesivir five-day treatment group , and 10.7 % of patients in the 10-day treatment group , clearly ominous findings with a drug designed to treat respiratory failure caused by COVID-19 .
Dr. Steven Nissen , a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist who has conducted dozens of clinical trials , explained to The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a global health expert at Stanford University , expressed concern about Dr. Fauci ’ s overly enthusiastic praise for remdesivir : The leading communicable disease specialist in France , professor Didier Raoult , asked about another odd aspect of the remdesivir trial : Death as the primary outcome was moved to a secondary outcome , and days to recovery became the primary trial outcome .
Changing the primary outcome before trial results are completed is highly unusual and suggests “ p-hacking ” – manipulating the data to get a statistically significant “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multi-country compilation of evidence on HCQ and azithromycin in treatment of COVID-19 ( updated April 27 , 2020 ) has consistently shown that these older medicines prevent infections , significantly reduce severity of illness , reduce viral load and duration of infectivity , reduce number of hospitalizations , reduce ventilator use and markedly reduce deaths .
The data are far beyond “ anecodotal , ” as Dr. Fauci dismissively called it .
Money appears to be trumping medical wisdom in the recent enthusiasm for remdesivir based on just one study with modest results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have anything to do with the fact that the “ world ’ s largest asset manager , ” BlackRock , owns the largest share of all Gilead stock at 8.4 % .
BlackRock ’ s influence in Washington , D.C. , is legendary , and it recently was awarded the financial crown jewel of administering the Federal Reserve ’ s $ 4.5 trillion COVID-19 loan bail-out program .
Is someone stacking the deck in Gilead ’ s favor ?
Nine of the experts on the NIH COVID-19 Panel recommending treatment options have disclosed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these nine experts not recuse themselves ?
Did financial conflicts of interest affect the recommendation against HCQ , the older , safer , cheaper medicine , and for use of remdesivir , the new , expensive experimental medicine , based on weak , not-yet-peer-reviewed evidence ?
HCQ has been off patent for decades , is available from a dozen U.S. generic manufacturers and is also produced in China , India , Israel and other countries .
HCQ costs the patient on average less than $ 10 ( range 37-63 cents per tablet ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of treatment .
Remdesivir costs upwards of $ 1,000 per dose , plus the added costs of having to be hospitalized to receive it .
In addition to HCQ ’ s low cost , major pharmaceutical companies ( Novartis , Bayer , Teva , and others ) have donated nearly 50 million doses to the Strategic National Stockpile .
Tragically for Americans sick with COVID-19 , most of this medicine still sits in warehouses because state governments are interfering with its use in outpatients when it has greatest effect .
Patients ’ lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial interests and elite D.C. powerbrokers , instead of being entrusted to the judgment of patients ’ own physicians .
We are witnessing the deadly consequences of bureaucrats and governors practicing medicine .
Money over medical wisdom , and politics above patients : two viruses more lethal than COVID-19 .
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 .

A Tale of 2 Drugs: Deep State Chose Money & Power Over Lives
Written by Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D
Dr. Vliet is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, AAPS. At the presidential biefing on April 30, Dr. Anthony Fauci announced early results, prior to peer-review, of one clinical trial using remdesivir, an intravenous (IV) experimental antiviral medicine in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
At the “warp speed” currently in vogue for the Fauci-led push to a new vaccine, the very next day the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for remdesivir to be used in seriously ill hospitalized patients. To announce the emergency approval, President Trump met with the CEO of the drug’s manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, in the Oval Office.
Such rapid authorization is quite unusual with the FDA. Unlike the experimental remdesivir with no prior FDA approval, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) required two months from reports of successful use in China and South Korea to get the March 28 FDA EUA for use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
HCQ was approved in 1955 for malaria, and later for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Over the last 65 years, hundreds of millions of prescriptions have been written for HCQ worldwide.
The EUA for HCQ did not, however, expand its availability but imposed restrictions to prevent non-hospitalized patients from accessing the government’s stockpile of the drug. Democratic Govs. Cuomo (New York), Sisolak (Nevada) and Whitmer (Michigan) then imposed restrictive orders on outpatient use, and all but four states have followed their lead.
In decades of widespread use, HCQ has an impressive safety record. Irregular heart rhythm or damage to the retina occur rarely, usually with high doses used long term. The FDA shows only 62 cardiac deaths attributed to HCQ out of more than 50 million prescriptions, or 0.000124{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (1.2 out of each 1 million Rx). Rheumatology guidelines for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis do not even require baseline electrocardiograms before prescribing HCQ, since the risk is minimal.
Approximately $70 million in U.S. taxpayer funding began Gilead’s partnership with the U.S. Army, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop remdesivir. Initially for treating Ebola, it failed to show benefit and was shelved. If remdesivir is used to treat COVID-19, Gilead shareholders, not the taxpayers, will profit.
Early results of the first clinical trial of remdesivir against placebo in coronavirus showed modest benefits, according to The New York Times. Surviving patients given remdesivir were discharged four days sooner than patients given placebo, though no criteria were given for determining improvement. Death rates were not significantly different. About 25{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of patients receiving remdesivir had potentially severe side effects, including multiple organ dysfunction, septic shock, acute kidney injury and low blood pressure. Another 23{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} showed evidence on lab tests of liver damage.
Gilead’s own press release revealed the side effect of acute respiratory failure in 6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of patients in the remdesivir five-day treatment group, and 10.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of patients in the 10-day treatment group, clearly ominous findings with a drug designed to treat respiratory failure caused by COVID-19.
Dr. Steven Nissen, a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist who has conducted dozens of clinical trials, explained to The New York Times:
“The disclosure of trial results in a political setting, before peer review or publication, is very unusual. Scientists will need to see figures on harms associated with the drug in order to assess its benefits. … This is too important to be handled in such a sloppy fashion.”
Dr. Michele Barry, a global health expert at Stanford University, expressed concern about Dr. Fauci’s overly enthusiastic praise for remdesivir:
“It is unusual to call a drug the ‘standard of care’ until peer review of data and publication, and before studies have shown benefit in mortality.”
The leading communicable disease specialist in France, professor Didier Raoult, asked about another odd aspect of the remdesivir trial:
“Could Anthony Fauci explain why the investigators of the NIAID remdesivir trial did change the primary outcome during the course of the project?”
Death as the primary outcome was moved to a secondary outcome, and days to recovery became the primary trial outcome. Changing the primary outcome before trial results are completed is highly unusual and suggests “p-hacking” – manipulating the data to get a statistically significant “p value.”
In contrast, the multi-country compilation of evidence on HCQ and azithromycin in treatment of COVID-19 (updated April 27, 2020) has consistently shown that these older medicines prevent infections, significantly reduce severity of illness, reduce viral load and duration of infectivity, reduce number of hospitalizations, reduce ventilator use and markedly reduce deaths. The data are far beyond “anecodotal,” as Dr. Fauci dismissively called it.
Money appears to be trumping medical wisdom in the recent enthusiasm for remdesivir based on just one study with modest results. One naturally wonders whether this may have anything to do with the fact that the “world’s largest asset manager,” BlackRock, owns the largest share of all Gilead stock at 8.4{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. BlackRock’s influence in Washington, D.C., is legendary, and it recently was awarded the financial crown jewel of administering the Federal Reserve’s $4.5 trillion COVID-19 loan bail-out program.
Is someone stacking the deck in Gilead’s favor?
Nine of the experts on the NIH COVID-19 Panel recommending treatment options have disclosed financial support from Gilead.
Why did these nine experts not recuse themselves?
Did financial conflicts of interest affect the recommendation against HCQ, the older, safer, cheaper medicine, and for use of remdesivir, the new, expensive experimental medicine, based on weak, not-yet-peer-reviewed evidence?
HCQ has been off patent for decades, is available from a dozen U.S. generic manufacturers and is also produced in China, India, Israel and other countries. HCQ costs the patient on average less than $10 (range 37-63 cents per tablet), for the usual 5-7 day course of treatment. Remdesivir costs upwards of $1,000 per dose, plus the added costs of having to be hospitalized to receive it.
In addition to HCQ’s low cost, major pharmaceutical companies (Novartis, Bayer, Teva, and others) have donated nearly 50 million doses to the Strategic National Stockpile. Tragically for Americans sick with COVID-19, most of this medicine still sits in warehouses because state governments are interfering with its use in outpatients when it has greatest effect.
Patients’ lives are being sacrificed on the altar of financial interests and elite D.C. powerbrokers, instead of being entrusted to the judgment of patients’ own physicians. We are witnessing the deadly consequences of bureaucrats and governors practicing medicine.
Money over medical wisdom, and politics above patients: two viruses more lethal than COVID-19.
Read more at www.wnd.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--2020-05-08--Secret Science! UK Govt Pressured to Release Hidden CV-19 Models

There are increased calls for the British government to release the modelling upon which the national lockdown was based after it was revealed that its author , Professor Neil Ferguson , was found to have been flouting the social distancing rules in order to visit his left-wing activist married lover .
Leading Brexiteer and Conservative MP David Davis said that “ a bigger issue than Professor Ferguson ’ s private life is the accuracy of his model .
When applied to the Swedish policy , it forecast 40,000 deaths by now , over 15 times the reality.
” The government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SAGE ( Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ) committee advising the prime minister on the pandemic secret from public view and only released the names of the members of the group on Tuesday .
Before his resignation , Professor Ferguson was named as one of the 52 people on the board .
The disgraced professor ’ s model initially predicted that the United Kingdom could face upwards of 550,000 deaths from the Chinese coronavirus — should the country refuse to enter into a nationwide lockdown and implement strict social distancing rules .
Ferguson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the same day that the government passed the Coronavirus Act , which gave the British government sweeping emergency powers to deal with the pandemic .
Instead of releasing the source code upon which the modelling was based , as Ferguson initially promised , the professor has refused to share the full code to the public , thereby preventing experts from around the world to scrutinise the basis for the measures that have placed millions under effective house arrest .
On Wednesday , Health Secretary Matt Hancock told Sky News : “ Professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impressive scientist , and the science that he ’ s done has been an important part of what we have listened to.
” But he added that Ferguson took the “ right decision ” in resigning from his post .
Others , however , have called into question the epidemiologist ’ s track record on predicting the outcomes of infectious diseases .
During the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease ( FMD ) crisis , Ferguson ’ s mathematical modelling was used by the Tony Blair government to undertake the mass slaughtering of over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheep in order to prevent a widespread outbreak of the disease , leading to a £10 billion economic hit that devastated the livelihoods of farmers throughout the country .
In a review of the 2001 crisis , Professor Michael Thrusfield of Edinburgh University described Ferguson ’ s models as “ severely flawed ” saying that they were “ at best , crude estimations that could not differentiate risk between farms and , at worst , inaccurate representations of the epidemiology of FMD ” .
The former leader of the Welsh Conservative Party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He doesn ’ t have the best track record does Neil .
He got it horribly wrong on BSE ( Mad Cow Disease ) and foot and mouth , and has got it spectacularly wrong here !
I do hope his ‘ stepped back ’ comment means for good.
” The national lockdown that was based on Professor Ferguson ’ s coronavirus modelling has plunged the state of the world ’ s fifth-largest economy into freefall , with estimates projecting that Britain could face an 8.3 per cent decline by the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .

Secret Science! UK Govt Pressured to Release Hidden CV-19 Models
Written by Kurt Zindulka
There are increased calls for the British government to release the modelling upon which the national lockdown was based after it was revealed that its author, Professor Neil Ferguson, was found to have been flouting the social distancing rules in order to visit his left-wing activist married lover.
Leading Brexiteer and Conservative MP David Davis said that “a bigger issue than Professor Ferguson’s private life is the accuracy of his model. When applied to the Swedish policy, it forecast 40,000 deaths by now, over 15 times the reality.”
“We need the whole model, its assumptions and working in the public domain. We can no longer run our strategy on secret advice and potentially flawed calculations,” Davis added.
The government has largely kept the advice of the SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) committee advising the prime minister on the pandemic secret from public view and only released the names of the members of the group on Tuesday. Before his resignation, Professor Ferguson was named as one of the 52 people on the board.
The disgraced professor’s model initially predicted that the United Kingdom could face upwards of 550,000 deaths from the Chinese coronavirus — should the country refuse to enter into a nationwide lockdown and implement strict social distancing rules. Ferguson later revised that number to around 20,000 on the same day that the government passed the Coronavirus Act, which gave the British government sweeping emergency powers to deal with the pandemic.
Instead of releasing the source code upon which the modelling was based, as Ferguson initially promised, the professor has refused to share the full code to the public, thereby preventing experts from around the world to scrutinise the basis for the measures that have placed millions under effective house arrest.
On Wednesday, Health Secretary Matt Hancock told Sky News: “Professor Ferguson is a very very eminent and impressive scientist, and the science that he’s done has been an important part of what we have listened to.” But he added that Ferguson took the “right decision” in resigning from his post.
Others, however, have called into question the epidemiologist’s track record on predicting the outcomes of infectious diseases.
During the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) crisis, Ferguson’s mathematical modelling was used by the Tony Blair government to undertake the mass slaughtering of over six million cattle, pigs, and sheep in order to prevent a widespread outbreak of the disease, leading to a £10 billion economic hit that devastated the livelihoods of farmers throughout the country.
In a review of the 2001 crisis, Professor Michael Thrusfield of Edinburgh University described Ferguson’s models as “severely flawed” saying that they were “at best, crude estimations that could not differentiate risk between farms and, at worst, inaccurate representations of the epidemiology of FMD”.
The former leader of the Welsh Conservative Party, Andrew R. T. Davies, said: “He doesn’t have the best track record does Neil. He got it horribly wrong on BSE (Mad Cow Disease) and foot and mouth, and has got it spectacularly wrong here! I do hope his ‘stepped back’ comment means for good.”
The national lockdown that was based on Professor Ferguson’s coronavirus modelling has plunged the state of the world’s fifth-largest economy into freefall, with estimates projecting that Britain could face an 8.3 per cent decline by the end of the year.
Read more at www.breitbart.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-05-08--ER Doctors: ‘Lockdown’ Means Heart Attack & Stroke Patients Neglected

The patient described it as the “ worst headache of her life.
” She didn ’ t go to the hospital though .
Instead , the Washington state resident waited almost a week .
When Dr. Abhineet Chowdhary finally saw her , he discovered she had a brain bleed that had gone untreated .
The neurosurgeon did his best , but it was too late .
“ As a result , she had multiple other strokes and ended up passing away , ” says Chowdhary , director of the Overlake Neuroscience Institute in Bellevue , Wash. “ This is something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re able to prevent.
” Chowdhary says the patient , a stroke survivor in her mid-50s , had told him she was frightened of the hospital .
She was afraid of the coronavirus .
The fallout from such fear has concerned U.S. doctors for weeks while they have tracked a worrying trend : As the pandemic took hold , the number of patients showing up at hospitals with serious cardiovascular emergencies such as strokes and heart attacks has shrunk dramatically .
Across the U.S. , doctors call the drop-off staggering , unlike anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry a new wave of patients is headed their way — people who have delayed care and will be sicker and more injured when they finally arrive in emergency rooms .
It has alarmed certain medical groups such as the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association .
The latter is running ads to urge people to call 911 when they ’ re having symptoms of a heart attack or stroke .
“ Where are all these patients ?
” Across the country , ER volumes are down about 40 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jaquis , president of the American College of Emergency Physicians .
“ I haven ’ t seen anything like it , ever , ” he says .
“ We anticipated , actually , higher volumes.
” But doctors say once-busy emergency rooms have slowed to an eerie calm .
“ It was very scary , because it was so quiet , ” says Dr. David Tashman , medical director of the ER at USC Verdugo Hills Hospital in Glendale , Calif. , about the early days of the outbreak .
“ We normally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then you know , overnight , we were down to 30 or 40.
” Some of that decrease in normal patient volume was deliberate .
As hospitals prepared for a surge of COVID-19 patients , officials advised people to avoid emergency rooms if at all possible .
Tashman says he wasn ’ t surprised to see fewer trauma patients , because the roads were emptier .
But soon he and other ER physicians noticed that even truly urgent cases were not coming in .
“ We know the number of heart attacks isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic .
It really shouldn ’ t , ” Tashman says .
Dr. Larry Stock , an ER doctor at Antelope Valley Hospital in Lancaster , Calif. , wondered the same thing .
“ I mean , we ’ ve all been scratching our heads — where are all these patients ?
” Stock says .
“ They ’ re at home , and we ’ re starting to get … the tip of the iceberg of this phenomenon.
” One study collected data from nine hospitals across the country , focusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a blocked cardiac artery after a heart attack .
The hospitals performed 38 % fewer of those procedures in March , compared with previous months .
At Harborview Medical Center in Seattle , Dr. Malveeka Sharma has tracked a 60 % decline in stroke admissions in the first half of April compared with the previous year .
Nationally , 911 call volumes for strokes and heart attacks declined in March through early April , according to data collected by ESO , a software company used by emergency medical service agencies .
In Connecticut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trend at Yale New Haven Hospital .
Sheth started calling other stroke doctors , trying to understand what was happening .
“ The numbers had dramatically plummeted almost everywhere , ” says Sheth , chief of the division of neurocritical care and emergency neurology at Yale School of Medicine .
“ This is a big deal from a public health perspective.
” Sheth says clinical stroke centers have seen an “ unprecedented ” drop in stroke patients being treated , with decreases ranging from 50 % to 70 % .
In April , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put out emergency guidance to ensure health care providers keep stroke teams active and ready to treat patients during the pandemic .
Sheth says he worries it could be challenging to care for all the patients who eventually show up at hospitals in even worse shape after delaying care .
“ When those stroke numbers come back , we could have serious capacity issues , ” he says .
“ We were already bursting at the seams.
” “ People are in this fear mode , ” says Dr. John Harold , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles and board president of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Heart Association .
Harold says the full public health consequences of people avoiding the hospital aren ’ t yet clear .
“ The big question is , are these people dying at home ?
” he asks .
Patients fearful of going to the hospital Patients who are already at higher risk of experiencing medical emergencies describe a mix of fear and confusion about how to get safe and adequate care .
In March , Dustin Domzalski ran out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The 35-year-old from Bellingham , Wash. , had trouble reaching his doctor , whom he would normally see in person , to get a refill .
Within a few days of not taking the medication , he had a major seizure while in the shower .
His caregiver called an ambulance , which took him to the ER .
“ I woke up and asked where I was and what happened , ” Domzalski says .
“ The guy in the next room to me was coughing and doing all kinds of stuff.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Domzalski now plans to avoid the hospital , if at all possible .
“ I am not going to the hospital unless I have a seizure and injure myself , ” he says .
“ I ’ d rather stay here than potentially have problems from the virus.
” Miami resident Stayc Simpson recalls a frightening ordeal when she went to the ER in mid-March .
Simpson , who ’ s a cancer survivor with heart failure , woke up with a pounding heart rate that she worried could be a heart attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screened for the coronavirus and was soon moved to a unit for suspected cases because she had a cough , even though that is also a symptom of heart failure .
“ When the reality hit that I was in the COVID unit , I thought , if I didn ’ t have it before , then I probably will now , ” Simpson says .
She spent a day there , wracked with anxiety .
Six days later , back at home , she learned she had tested negative for the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many changes since the early days of the pandemic , but the thought of calling 911 still scares her .
“ I have seen news reports that tell me it ’ s safer now .
… I don ’ t know if I have full confidence in that right now , ” she says .
“ The risk of COVID is terrifying.
” In Los Angeles , Jacqueline Alikhaani , 60 , has the same fear .
She has diabetes and a rare form of heart disease , and she suffered a stroke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago she started experiencing chest pains .
She says that before the pandemic , she wouldn ’ t hesitate to go to her local ER .
“ That ’ s just not something I feel very comfortable with right now , ” she says .
“ It ’ s a tough call , tough decisions.
” Some physicians are already glimpsing the consequences of patients putting off care .
“ I ’ ve never seen the number of delays that I have in the last month or so , ” says Dr. Andrea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles .
She ’ s treating more serious cases because patients are waiting .
“ That ’ s really one of the tragedies of COVID-19 , ” Austin says .
“ They ’ re staying at home and trying to diagnose themselves or really playing down their symptoms.
” Chowdhary , the neurosurgeon from Bellevue , Wash. , says some of his stroke patients have already seen life-altering consequences .
One older man noticed weakness on the left side of his body but avoided the hospital for four days .
“ Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do anything to reverse the stroke , ” Chowdhary says .
“ That weakness is permanent.
” Because of the stroke damage , the patient could no longer take care of his wife , who has cognitive issues .
Eventually , the couple had to leave their home and move into a nursing home .
Jennifer Kurtz , stroke program coordinator at Overlake in Bellevue , says some patients who delayed care are now grappling with the physical and emotional toll .
“ They feel so much guilt and regret that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital earlier , ” she says .
One caregiver confessed to Kurtz that she didn ’ t bring her husband to the hospital when she first noticed symptoms of a stroke .
“ She can ’ t even tell her daughter [ that ] … because she is so ashamed , ” Kurtz says .
Patients must navigate the sometimes-conflicting messages from public officials as well as disruptions to their routine medical care .
Beginning in March , warnings about a coming flood of COVID-19 patients circulated around the country as public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst .
Stories emerged of health care workers falling ill and begging for more personal protective equipment such as masks , gowns and gloves .
The surge of COVID-19 patients in hot spots such as New York City and New Orleans led to “ the sense of an overstretched health care system without capacity , ” says Dr. Biykem Bozkurt , president of the Heart Failure Society of America and a cardiologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston .
“ This may have created a false sentiment that routine care is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no capacity for non-COVID patients — this is not the case , ” Bozkurt says .
“ We would like our patients to seek care , not wait.
” Hospitals are also trying to reassure patients that they are taking precautions to keep patients safe .
Many have set up protocols for admitting suspected COVID-19 patients such as separate screening areas inside the ER and dedicated areas of the hospital for coronavirus inpatients .
Tashman , the emergency physician at USC Verdugo Hills Hospital , is pleading with patients to come in for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms : “ Don ’ t delay .
You ’ re not bothering us .
You ’ re not imposing on us.
” “ We ’ re not incredibly busy with everything else at the moment , ” he says .
With stay-at-home orders in effect in parts of the country , physicians are trying to strike a balance in their messaging : They still want patients to avoid hospitals yet not hesitate to go if there are signs of an emergency .
“ The message has to be slightly more nuanced for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t get hurt by just listening to one message , which is stay home , ” says Stock , the emergency physician in Lancaster , Calif. “ We need to make people feel … that [ emergency rooms ] are safe , clean places for them to come.
” This story is part of NPR ’ s health reporting partnership with KPCC and Kaiser Health News .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

ER Doctors: ‘Lockdown’ Means Heart Attack & Stroke Patients Neglected
Written by Will Stone, Elly Yu
The patient described it as the “worst headache of her life.” She didn’t go to the hospital though. Instead, the Washington state resident waited almost a week.
When Dr. Abhineet Chowdhary finally saw her, he discovered she had a brain bleed that had gone untreated. The neurosurgeon did his best, but it was too late.
“As a result, she had multiple other strokes and ended up passing away,” says Chowdhary, director of the Overlake Neuroscience Institute in Bellevue, Wash. “This is something that most of the time we’re able to prevent.”
Chowdhary says the patient, a stroke survivor in her mid-50s, had told him she was frightened of the hospital.
She was afraid of the coronavirus.
The fallout from such fear has concerned U.S. doctors for weeks while they have tracked a worrying trend: As the pandemic took hold, the number of patients showing up at hospitals with serious cardiovascular emergencies such as strokes and heart attacks has shrunk dramatically.
Across the U.S., doctors call the drop-off staggering, unlike anything they’ve seen. And they worry a new wave of patients is headed their way — people who have delayed care and will be sicker and more injured when they finally arrive in emergency rooms.
It has alarmed certain medical groups such as the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. The latter is running ads to urge people to call 911 when they’re having symptoms of a heart attack or stroke.
“Where are all these patients?”
Across the country, ER volumes are down about 40{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} to 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, says Dr. William Jaquis, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
“I haven’t seen anything like it, ever,” he says. “We anticipated, actually, higher volumes.”
But doctors say once-busy emergency rooms have slowed to an eerie calm.
“It was very scary, because it was so quiet,” says Dr. David Tashman, medical director of the ER at USC Verdugo Hills Hospital in Glendale, Calif., about the early days of the outbreak.
“We normally see 100 patients a day, and then you know, overnight, we were down to 30 or 40.”
Some of that decrease in normal patient volume was deliberate.
As hospitals prepared for a surge of COVID-19 patients, officials advised people to avoid emergency rooms if at all possible. Tashman says he wasn’t surprised to see fewer trauma patients, because the roads were emptier. But soon he and other ER physicians noticed that even truly urgent cases were not coming in.
“We know the number of heart attacks isn’t going to go down in a pandemic. It really shouldn’t,” Tashman says.
Dr. Larry Stock, an ER doctor at Antelope Valley Hospital in Lancaster, Calif., wondered the same thing.
“I mean, we’ve all been scratching our heads — where are all these patients?” Stock says. “They’re at home, and we’re starting to get … the tip of the iceberg of this phenomenon.”
One study collected data from nine hospitals across the country, focusing on a crucial procedure used to reopen a blocked cardiac artery after a heart attack. The hospitals performed 38{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} fewer of those procedures in March, compared with previous months.
At Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Dr. Malveeka Sharma has tracked a 60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} decline in stroke admissions in the first half of April compared with the previous year.
Nationally, 911 call volumes for strokes and heart attacks declined in March through early April, according to data collected by ESO, a software company used by emergency medical service agencies.
In Connecticut, Dr. Kevin Sheth noticed a similar trend at Yale New Haven Hospital. Sheth started calling other stroke doctors, trying to understand what was happening.
“The numbers had dramatically plummeted almost everywhere,” says Sheth, chief of the division of neurocritical care and emergency neurology at Yale School of Medicine. “This is a big deal from a public health perspective.”
Sheth says clinical stroke centers have seen an “unprecedented” drop in stroke patients being treated, with decreases ranging from 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} to 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
In April, the American Heart and American Stroke associations put out emergency guidance to ensure health care providers keep stroke teams active and ready to treat patients during the pandemic.
Sheth says he worries it could be challenging to care for all the patients who eventually show up at hospitals in even worse shape after delaying care.
“When those stroke numbers come back, we could have serious capacity issues,” he says. “We were already bursting at the seams.”
“People are in this fear mode,” says Dr. John Harold, a cardiologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and board president of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Heart Association.
Harold says the full public health consequences of people avoiding the hospital aren’t yet clear.
“The big question is, are these people dying at home?” he asks.
Patients fearful of going to the hospital
Patients who are already at higher risk of experiencing medical emergencies describe a mix of fear and confusion about how to get safe and adequate care.
In March, Dustin Domzalski ran out of the medication used to treat his epilepsy.
The 35-year-old from Bellingham, Wash., had trouble reaching his doctor, whom he would normally see in person, to get a refill. Within a few days of not taking the medication, he had a major seizure while in the shower. His caregiver called an ambulance, which took him to the ER.
“I woke up and asked where I was and what happened,” Domzalski says. “The guy in the next room to me was coughing and doing all kinds of stuff.”
The experience was so unnerving that Domzalski now plans to avoid the hospital, if at all possible.
“I am not going to the hospital unless I have a seizure and injure myself,” he says. “I’d rather stay here than potentially have problems from the virus.”
Miami resident Stayc Simpson recalls a frightening ordeal when she went to the ER in mid-March. Simpson, who’s a cancer survivor with heart failure, woke up with a pounding heart rate that she worried could be a heart attack.
At the hospital, she was screened for the coronavirus and was soon moved to a unit for suspected cases because she had a cough, even though that is also a symptom of heart failure.
“When the reality hit that I was in the COVID unit, I thought, if I didn’t have it before, then I probably will now,” Simpson says.
She spent a day there, wracked with anxiety. Six days later, back at home, she learned she had tested negative for the virus. Simpson knows the hospitals have made many changes since the early days of the pandemic, but the thought of calling 911 still scares her.
“I have seen news reports that tell me it’s safer now. … I don’t know if I have full confidence in that right now,” she says. “The risk of COVID is terrifying.”
In Los Angeles, Jacqueline Alikhaani, 60, has the same fear. She has diabetes and a rare form of heart disease, and she suffered a stroke several years ago. A few weeks ago she started experiencing chest pains. She says that before the pandemic, she wouldn’t hesitate to go to her local ER.
“That’s just not something I feel very comfortable with right now,” she says. “It’s a tough call, tough decisions.”
Dangerous risks of postponing care
Some physicians are already glimpsing the consequences of patients putting off care.
“I’ve never seen the number of delays that I have in the last month or so,” says Dr. Andrea Austin, an ER physician in downtown Los Angeles.
She’s treating more serious cases because patients are waiting. “That’s really one of the tragedies of COVID-19,” Austin says. “They’re staying at home and trying to diagnose themselves or really playing down their symptoms.”
Sam Beckerman
Chowdhary, the neurosurgeon from Bellevue, Wash., says some of his stroke patients have already seen life-altering consequences. One older man noticed weakness on the left side of his body but avoided the hospital for four days.
“Now, at that point, we couldn’t do anything to reverse the stroke,” Chowdhary says. “That weakness is permanent.”
Because of the stroke damage, the patient could no longer take care of his wife, who has cognitive issues. Eventually, the couple had to leave their home and move into a nursing home. Jennifer Kurtz, stroke program coordinator at Overlake in Bellevue, says some patients who delayed care are now grappling with the physical and emotional toll.
“They feel so much guilt and regret that they didn’t come to the hospital earlier,” she says.
One caregiver confessed to Kurtz that she didn’t bring her husband to the hospital when she first noticed symptoms of a stroke.
“She can’t even tell her daughter [that] … because she is so ashamed,” Kurtz says.
Doctors plead “don’t delay”
Patients must navigate the sometimes-conflicting messages from public officials as well as disruptions to their routine medical care.
Beginning in March, warnings about a coming flood of COVID-19 patients circulated around the country as public health departments studied predictive models and braced for the worst. Stories emerged of health care workers falling ill and begging for more personal protective equipment such as masks, gowns and gloves.
Meanwhile, hospitals started canceling elective procedures, and physicians halted in-person office visits.
The surge of COVID-19 patients in hot spots such as New York City and New Orleans led to “the sense of an overstretched health care system without capacity,” says Dr. Biykem Bozkurt, president of the Heart Failure Society of America and a cardiologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
“This may have created a false sentiment that routine care is to be deferred or that there is no capacity for non-COVID patients — this is not the case,” Bozkurt says. “We would like our patients to seek care, not wait.”
Hospitals are also trying to reassure patients that they are taking precautions to keep patients safe. Many have set up protocols for admitting suspected COVID-19 patients such as separate screening areas inside the ER and dedicated areas of the hospital for coronavirus inpatients.
Tashman, the emergency physician at USC Verdugo Hills Hospital, is pleading with patients to come in for help immediately for heart attack and stroke symptoms: “Don’t delay. You’re not bothering us. You’re not imposing on us.”
“We’re not incredibly busy with everything else at the moment,” he says.
With stay-at-home orders in effect in parts of the country, physicians are trying to strike a balance in their messaging: They still want patients to avoid hospitals yet not hesitate to go if there are signs of an emergency.
“The message has to be slightly more nuanced for people to get it right, so they don’t get hurt by just listening to one message, which is stay home,” says Stock, the emergency physician in Lancaster, Calif. “We need to make people feel … that [emergency rooms] are safe, clean places for them to come.”
This story is part of NPR’s health reporting partnership with KPCC and Kaiser Health News.
Read more at www.npr.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--2020-05-08--CBS News Exposed for Staging Fake COVID-19 Test Line Up

This is reminiscent of another supposed “ editing mistake ” by CBS that showed footage of an overwhelmed hospital full of COVID-19 patients .
Problem was – the footage was shot in Italy .
Youtube is censoring more and more videos that go against the controlled narrative .
Recently I posted a portion of the documentary “ Plandemic ” set to come out this summer .
Youtube pulled it within the day .
You can see it on the author ’ s FB page : videos that go against the controlled narrative .
Recently I posted a portion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Youtube pulled it within the day .
You can see it on the author ’ s FB page : https : //madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/06/pandemic-part-1-direct-coverup-by-fauci-and-lipkin/ They also removed the citizen journalists who filmed media lies that people were lining up for testing , etc .
WE HIGHLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO POST INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS THAT AREN ’ T CENSORING .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

CBS News Exposed for Staging Fake COVID-19 Test Line Up
Written by Alicia Cashman
A CBS News crew pulled medical professionals off the floor at the Cherry Medical Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan, to line up in their vehicles so a CBS film crew would have a long line for their COVID-19 coverage. ‘We Could Have Done Other Stuff,” Registered Nurse complains. ‘Apparently, the news crew wanted more people in the line,’ said a Cherry Health Supervisor. “We pretended. There were a couple of real patients, which made it worse,” Said Another Registered Nurse.
Watch the full projectveritas.com video here:
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/cbs-news-this-morning-aired-faked-covid-19-drive-through-testing-site-line/
This is reminiscent of another supposed “editing mistake” by CBS that showed footage of an overwhelmed hospital full of COVID-19 patients. Problem was – the footage was shot in Italy.
Youtube is censoring more and more videos that go against the controlled narrative. Recently I posted a portion of the documentary “Plandemic” set to come out this summer. Youtube pulled it within the day. You can see it on the author’s FB page: videos that go against the controlled narrative. Recently I posted a portion of the documentaryset to come out this summer. Youtube pulled it within the day. You can see it on the author’s FB page: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/06/pandemic-part-1-direct-coverup-by-fauci-and-lipkin/
They also removed the citizen journalists who filmed media lies that people were lining up for testing, etc.
WE HIGHLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO POST INFORMATION ON ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS THAT AREN’T CENSORING. Read more at madisonarealymesupportgroup.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