principiascientificinternational--2020-08-13--An Arctic warming anomaly?

An Arctic warming anomaly?

A couple weeks ago , the Danish Meteorological Institute recorded an unusual warming event in the Arctic .
I had expected climate alarmists would have jumped on it as evidence of man-made warming , but they seem to have missed it .
The normal summer melt season in the Arctic is from around the beginning of April to the end of August , when the temperature above 80 degrees north rises above zero C , usually getting up to around two degrees C above freezing .
Around the end of July , the temperature increased for about five days a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , induce more melting of the ice .
After this blip , it dropped back to the mean average temperature and continued as normal .
It is now dropping towards the freezing point again as the summer melt season winds down .
For about two weeks prior to the unusual warming blip , the temperature had been about a degree below average , so the two probably cancelled each other out .
You can see the blip in the chart below : To see just how unusual this was , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s archive , which goes back to 1958 , and was rather surprised to see how many times a similar thing has happened before .
Years with above average temperatures in the summer melt season were 1959 , almost all of 1960 , 1961 and 1962 , 1964 right at end of the melt season , 1965 , 1966 and 1968 twice , three times in 1975 , 1976 , three times in 1979 , 1981 , the second half of 1984 and 1985 , almost all of 1987 , 1988 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1992 , 1993 and 1994 , three times in 1995 , twice in 1997 , almost all of 1998 , the first half of 2000 , twice in 2007 , three times in 2008 , once in 2016 and at the end of the melt season in 2018 .
From this we can see warmer than average melt season temperatures are not uncommon .
This is 1962 : Below is 1991 .
Almost the whole melt season was above average temperatures : Below is 2018 .
We can see much of the 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then warmed right at the end .
Seeing as there were so many years with above average melt season temperatures , I decided to see how many years had below average temperatures .
The DMI archive reveals 1969 , the second half 1972 , most of 1975 & 1976 , the first half 1978 , most of 1980 , the start & end of 1985 , the end of 1986 , most of 1992 , the beginning & end of 1994 , the second half of 1996 , 2001 , the second half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2006 , the first half of 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , the first half of 2010 , 2012 .
The years 2013 & 2014 were well below the average melt season temperature , 2017 and 2018 .
Below is 2013 .
We can see a significantly shortened melt season that year : Below is 2018 .
Most of the melt season was colder than usual , and warmed right at the end : • The other years had pretty much average melt season temperatures .
While there have been slightly more years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is however , interesting to note that since the turn of the century , 13 of the 20 years have had below average summer melt seasons temperatures , while the majority of years with above average melt season temperatures occurred before 2000 .
The significantly shortened melt season in 2013 , coupled with the number of other years of below average melt season temperatures since 2000 , rather puts an end to the alarmist claims the Arctic is warmer and melting more now than ever before .
You can check this out for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasize the point , nature appears to have stepped in at just the right moment .
In the last few days , Greenland has seen an unprecedented amount of new snowfall , in the region of seven billion tons .
This is much more and much sooner than would be expected , and is way above the 1982-2010 mean .
It should also not be forgotten that Greenland had a large increase of snow in June at the start of the melt season , which was also way above the seasonal average .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ value from the period 1981-2010 .
The light grey band shows differences from year to year .
It can be seen here : - So , what is the punchline that we can reasonably state here ?
Well , we need look no further than this one important admission from the UN IPCC , as stated in the scientific section of the Third Assessment Report , which illustrates how little they actually know about climate futures : About the author : Andy Rowlands is a regular contributor to Principia Scientific International ; a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editor of the game-changing new climate science book , The Sky Dragon Slayers : Victory Lap .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

An Arctic warming anomaly?
Written by Andy Rowlands
A couple weeks ago, the Danish Meteorological Institute recorded an unusual warming event in the Arctic. I had expected climate alarmists would have jumped on it as evidence of man-made warming, but they seem to have missed it.
The normal summer melt season in the Arctic is from around the beginning of April to the end of August, when the temperature above 80 degrees north rises above zero C, usually getting up to around two degrees C above freezing.
Around the end of July, the temperature increased for about five days a further degree or so, which would of course, induce more melting of the ice. After this blip, it dropped back to the mean average temperature and continued as normal. It is now dropping towards the freezing point again as the summer melt season winds down.
For about two weeks prior to the unusual warming blip, the temperature had been about a degree below average, so the two probably cancelled each other out.
You can see the blip in the chart below:
To see just how unusual this was, I looked back at the Danish Meteorological Institute’s archive, which goes back to 1958, and was rather surprised to see how many times a similar thing has happened before.
Years with above average temperatures in the summer melt season were 1959, almost all of 1960, 1961 and 1962, 1964 right at end of the melt season, 1965, 1966 and 1968 twice, three times in 1975, 1976, three times in 1979, 1981, the second half of 1984 and 1985, almost all of 1987, 1988, 1990, almost all of 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994, three times in 1995, twice in 1997, almost all of 1998, the first half of 2000, twice in 2007, three times in 2008, once in 2016 and at the end of the melt season in 2018.
From this we can see warmer than average melt season temperatures are not uncommon. This is 1962:
Below is 1991. Almost the whole melt season was above average temperatures:
Below is 2018. We can see much of the 2018 melt season temperature was below average, then warmed right at the end.
Seeing as there were so many years with above average melt season temperatures, I decided to see how many years had below average temperatures.
The DMI archive reveals 1969, the second half 1972, most of 1975 & 1976, the first half 1978, most of 1980, the start & end of 1985, the end of 1986, most of 1992, the beginning & end of 1994, the second half of 1996, 2001, the second half of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, the first half of 2007, 2008, 2009, the first half of 2010, 2012. The years 2013 & 2014 were well below the average melt season temperature, 2017 and 2018.
Below is 1972:
Below is 1996:
Below is 2013. We can see a significantly shortened melt season that year:
Below is 2018. Most of the melt season was colder than usual, and warmed right at the end:
Years of above average melt season temperatures 29
Years of below average melt season temperatures 25
The other years had pretty much average melt season temperatures.
While there have been slightly more years with above-average melt season temperatures, it is however, interesting to note that since the turn of the century, 13 of the 20 years have had below average summer melt seasons temperatures, while the majority of years with above average melt season temperatures occurred before 2000.
The significantly shortened melt season in 2013, coupled with the number of other years of below average melt season temperatures since 2000, rather puts an end to the alarmist claims the Arctic is warmer and melting more now than ever before.
You can check this out for yourselves here:-
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
As if to emphasize the point, nature appears to have stepped in at just the right moment. In the last few days, Greenland has seen an unprecedented amount of new snowfall, in the region of seven billion tons. This is much more and much sooner than would be expected, and is way above the 1982-2010 mean.
It should also not be forgotten that Greenland had a large increase of snow in June at the start of the melt season, which was also way above the seasonal average.
The dark grey curve traces the mean value from the period 1981-2010. The light grey band shows differences from year to year.
It can be seen here:-
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
So, what is the punchline that we can reasonably state here? Well, we need look no further than this one important admission from the UN IPCC, as stated in the scientific section of the Third Assessment Report, which illustrates how little they actually know about climate futures:
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a regular contributor to Principia Scientific International; a British independent researcher and writer and assistant editor of the game-changing new climate science book, The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-13--640 European Doctors Speak Out Against the COVID-19 Scamdemic

640 European Doctors Speak Out Against the COVID-19 Scamdemic Now European doctors gather to ask how did we get here with COVID .
On July 27 , 2020 , a group of frontline doctors in the US held a gathering in Washington D.C. where they expressed their concerns with COVID from a frontline doctor point of view .
Frontline doctors from across the US held a “ White Coat Summit ” on Monday in Washington DC to dispel the misinformation and myths surrounding the coronavirus .
The doctors are very concerned with the disinformation campaign being played out in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors claimed HCQ worked and was saving lives .
Shortly after their presentation , and after 17 million views , the videos from the doctors were taken down by Facebook and YouTube .
Americans were not allowed to see the truth .
One doctor at the conference said : We want to defend our families and our citizens .
Well and to close this , this story is really quite simple .
If you look behind the curtains , you ’ ll see ok , this medical story with COVID-19 , we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SCAM – IT ’ S FAKE .
So we need to ask who gets the benefit out of this and who has got the power to CREATE THIS FAKE .
Well and the target , it ’ s about you .
You the citizens , you and the economy , it ’ s about the economy stupid .
It ’ s about the economy .
The doctors concluded that we need solidarity .
People are dying from COVID not from catching the virus , but from electing not to have surgeries that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they share more on the worldwide reactions to COVID .
The world is waking up to the COVID-19 scam .
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 .

640 European Doctors Speak Out Against the COVID-19 Scamdemic
Written by Joe Hoft
Now European doctors gather to ask how did we get here with COVID. On July 27, 2020, a group of frontline doctors in the US held a gathering in Washington D.C. where they expressed their concerns with COVID from a frontline doctor point of view.
We reported:
Frontline doctors from across the US held a “White Coat Summit” on Monday in Washington DC to dispel the misinformation and myths surrounding the coronavirus. The doctors are very concerned with the disinformation campaign being played out in the far left American media today.
From their website:
“If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease.”
These doctors claimed HCQ worked and was saving lives. Shortly after their presentation, and after 17 million views, the videos from the doctors were taken down by Facebook and YouTube. Americans were not allowed to see the truth.
One doctor at the conference said:
We want to defend our families and our citizens. Well and to close this, this story is really quite simple. If you look behind the curtains, you’ll see ok, this medical story with COVID-19, we have the facts – IT’S A SCAM – IT’S FAKE. So we need to ask who gets the benefit out of this and who has got the power to CREATE THIS FAKE. Well and the target, it’s about you. You the citizens, you and the economy, it’s about the economy stupid. It’s about the economy.
The doctors concluded that we need solidarity.
People are dying from COVID not from catching the virus, but from electing not to have surgeries that are needed.
The doctors have a website where they share more on the worldwide reactions to COVID. The world is waking up to the COVID-19 scam.
Read more at www.thegatewaypundit.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--2020-08-13--From Germany: Never Rely on a Government ‘Expert’

From Germany : Never Rely on a Government ‘ Expert ’ Pierre Gosselin continues to do yeoman ’ s work at NoTrickZone in exposing the climate fraud in Germany .
His latest exposes more disinformation at ZDF , German public broadcasting .
The masses are learning that , as with climate change fraud , as with the fake pandemic .
This week we see ‘ German ZDF Public Television Under Fire For Use Of Deceptive , Fudged Hockey Stick Chart ’ as revealed by ‘ Die Welt ’ science editor Axel Bojanowski , who shows how government-approved science fakery is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centerpiece chart from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research ( PIK ) recently trumpeted by German media and depicting the disgraced puck-slapper Dr Michael Mann ’ s hockey stick temperature curve graph .
Since 1999 the graph has been peddled by the UN , world governments , NGO ’ s and other nefarious co-conspirators to try to fool us all over the frightful dangers of man-made global warming .
As with the pandemic , so with combating climate challenge : each requires enormous personal financial and social sacrifice from average citizens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ – make sacrifices the ‘ One Percent ’ gets ever richer .
Funny how that works !
Speaking of deception , honest German scientists are beginning the pushback against the climate and Covid crooks .
Recently , more than 600 medical and other professionals debunked the COVID-19 narrative , which has harmed more people than the virus itself .
Despite being heavily censored on every media platform the message seeps through and – drip , drip , drip – the global citizenry will eventually all have a healthy dose of reality on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science ‘ experts.
’ For over 20 years I ’ ve battled systemic government corruption .
Alongside other seasoned cynics , we know all too well that the same modus operandi used in the global climate fraud has been in play in the COVID-19 fraud .
These schemes are planned years in advance and are sophisticated and well camouflaged by wholesale media cooperation .
If you are in any doubt , look no further than the sham experts : Dr Anthony Fauci ( US ) and Professor Neil Ferguson ( UK ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two characters ( photos , above ) behind the insane ‘ lockdown ’ are just as sold out to science fraud as Dr Michael E Mann ( photo , below ) ?
Conspiracies don ’ t need an army of cognisant helpers when they can be driven by fear of authority , career repercussion and a group think mindset to ‘ not rock the boat.
’ Science , itself , tells us you only need to subvert and control the top of the establishment science pyramid to be able to manipulate the minions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along , to get along ’ was proven in the lab by the Milgram experiment .
[ 1 ] In the 1960s , psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of studies on the concepts of obedience and authority .
Milgram ’ s experiment showed the extent of humans ’ willingness to obey orders from an authority figure .
As Tim Ball sagely put it : Mann “ belongs in the state pen , not Penn .
State ” Let ’ s be clear on this : the author of the iconic hockey stick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst climate crook still walking the streets .
But they all deserve a long and meaningful spell in the slammer .
I say this from a position of experience and some authority , having helped defeat the disgusting and bogus multi-million-dollar lawsuit Mann brought against my friend and colleague , Dr Tim Ball .
Here is a little clue as to the immorality of such characters .
Mann not only lost his bogus lawsuit versus Dr Ball ( because he wouldn ’ t show the court his hidden data for his faked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now over a year since this low-life was humiliated in court and he hasn ’ t paid a penny of the court costs the judge ordered him to pay to Dr Ball ( see judge ’ s decision ) .
With accrued interest , that debt owed is likely to now exceed one million dollars .
So , not only does the ‘ world-leading climate scientist ’ break the rules of science , he flagrantly breaks the law , too !
And with no fear of repercussions .
We know Fauci owns half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We also know that Ferguson believes lockdowns are for peons not Covid professors .
Greed and narcissistic arrogance are their hallmarks .
The globalist elites have long manipulated and steered the top flight in scientific and medical institutions of both these two influential First World nations which are home to so many eugenicist billionaires .
John D Rockefeller was the prime example .
In the early 20th Century Rockefeller owned 90 percent of American oil business .
He concluded that he could also monopolize not only the oil business but also chemical and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million to medical facilities and colleges to persuade them to do his bidding .
Read ‘ Rockefeller , Big Pharma & The War Against Cheap , Natural Cures ‘ and learn why The General Education Board was founded , mass indoctrination began and how the grassroots of Big Pharma was successfully birthed .
The government in the United States now invests 15 percent of the Gross domestic budget in mainstream health care .
Honest , independent scientists not invested in such trillion-dollar scams are de-platformed , smeared , doxxed , threatened , blackmailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mann .
Conversely , the immoral data-fiddlers get lavish accolades , lucrative grants , fame , book deals , etc .
for selling their souls to lie and cheat about doomsaying narratives that unscrupulous policymakers deploy to curb our freedoms and tax us to death .
All of us – not just the few heroic scientists who risk their all – need to stand together and demand that our governments stop the lies about “ following the science ” – that ugly trope used whenever they want to pull another scam on us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubious practice of wanting to be guided in our decisions by government experts , please can we stop expecting these government shills to tell us anything other than what fits their own agenda .
It is likely that the opposite of what they say is closer to the truth .
[ 1 ] ‘ The Milgram Experiment : How Far Will You Go to Obey an Order ?
’ https : //www.thoughtco.com/milgram-experiment-4176401 About the author : John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder ( with Dr Tim Ball ) of Principia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

From Germany: Never Rely on a Government ‘Expert’
Written by John O'Sullivan
Pierre Gosselin continues to do yeoman’s work at NoTrickZone in exposing the climate fraud in Germany. His latest exposes more disinformation at ZDF, German public broadcasting. The masses are learning that, as with climate change fraud, as with the fake pandemic.
This week we see ‘German ZDF Public Television Under Fire For Use Of Deceptive, Fudged Hockey Stick Chart’ as revealed by ‘Die Welt’ science editor Axel Bojanowski, who shows how government-approved science fakery is cunningly put together.
Bojanowski targets the centerpiece chart from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) recently trumpeted by German media and depicting the disgraced puck-slapper Dr Michael Mann’s hockey stick temperature curve graph. Since 1999 the graph has been peddled by the UN, world governments, NGO’s and other nefarious co-conspirators to try to fool us all over the frightful dangers of man-made global warming.
As with the pandemic, so with combating climate challenge: each requires enormous personal financial and social sacrifice from average citizens. As we – the ’99 percent’ – make sacrifices the ‘One Percent’ gets ever richer. Funny how that works!
All by utter deception.
Speaking of deception, honest German scientists are beginning the pushback against the climate and Covid crooks. Recently, more than 600 medical and other professionals debunked the COVID-19 narrative, which has harmed more people than the virus itself.
Despite being heavily censored on every media platform the message seeps through and – drip, drip, drip – the global citizenry will eventually all have a healthy dose of reality on the corruption and incompetence of so-called government science ‘experts.’
For over 20 years I’ve battled systemic government corruption. Alongside other seasoned cynics, we know all too well that the same modus operandi used in the global climate fraud has been in play in the COVID-19 fraud. These schemes are planned years in advance and are sophisticated and well camouflaged by wholesale media cooperation. If you are in any doubt, look no further than the sham experts: Dr Anthony Fauci (US) and Professor Neil Ferguson (UK).
Would anyone like to bet that these two characters (photos, above) behind the insane ‘lockdown’ are just as sold out to science fraud as Dr Michael E Mann (photo, below)?
Conspiracies don’t need an army of cognisant helpers when they can be driven by fear of authority, career repercussion and a group think mindset to ‘not rock the boat.’
Science, itself, tells us you only need to subvert and control the top of the establishment science pyramid to be able to manipulate the minions below. That the sheeple ‘go along, to get along’ was proven in the lab by the Milgram experiment. [1]
In the 1960s, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of studies on the concepts of obedience and authority. Milgram’s experiment showed the extent of humans’ willingness to obey orders from an authority figure.
As Tim Ball sagely put it: Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State”
Let’s be clear on this: the author of the iconic hockey stick graph, Michael E Mann is probably the worst climate crook still walking the streets. But they all deserve a long and meaningful spell in the slammer.
I say this from a position of experience and some authority, having helped defeat the disgusting and bogus multi-million-dollar lawsuit Mann brought against my friend and colleague, Dr Tim Ball.
Here is a little clue as to the immorality of such characters.
Mann not only lost his bogus lawsuit versus Dr Ball (because he wouldn’t show the court his hidden data for his faked hockey stick graph) but it is now over a year since this low-life was humiliated in court and he hasn’t paid a penny of the court costs the judge ordered him to pay to Dr Ball (see judge’s decision). With accrued interest, that debt owed is likely to now exceed one million dollars.
So, not only does the ‘world-leading climate scientist’ break the rules of science, he flagrantly breaks the law, too! And with no fear of repercussions.
We know Fauci owns half the patent on a COVID vaccine. We also know that Ferguson believes lockdowns are for peons not Covid professors. Greed and narcissistic arrogance are their hallmarks.
The globalist elites have long manipulated and steered the top flight in scientific and medical institutions of both these two influential First World nations which are home to so many eugenicist billionaires.
John D Rockefeller was the prime example. In the early 20th Century Rockefeller owned 90 percent of American oil business. He concluded that he could also monopolize not only the oil business but also chemical and medical industries and gave over $100 million to medical facilities and colleges to persuade them to do his bidding.
Read ‘Rockefeller, Big Pharma & The War Against Cheap, Natural Cures‘ and learn why The General Education Board was founded, mass indoctrination began and how the grassroots of Big Pharma was successfully birthed. The government in the United States now invests 15 percent of the Gross domestic budget in mainstream health care.
Honest, independent scientists not invested in such trillion-dollar scams are de-platformed, smeared, doxxed, threatened, blackmailed, etc. for exposing crooks like Mann. Conversely, the immoral data-fiddlers get lavish accolades, lucrative grants, fame, book deals, etc. for selling their souls to lie and cheat about doomsaying narratives that unscrupulous policymakers deploy to curb our freedoms and tax us to death.
All of us – not just the few heroic scientists who risk their all – need to stand together and demand that our governments stop the lies about “following the science” – that ugly trope used whenever they want to pull another scam on us.
If we must persist in the dubious practice of wanting to be guided in our decisions by government experts, please can we stop expecting these government shills to tell us anything other than what fits their own agenda. It is likely that the opposite of what they say is closer to the truth.
[1] ‘The Milgram Experiment: How Far Will You Go to Obey an Order?’ https://www.thoughtco.com/milgram-experiment-4176401
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-13--Hydroxychloroquine ‘SAFER than Tylenol’

Hydroxychloroquine ‘SAFER than Tylenol’

On a recent episode of “ Slightly Offens*ve , ” BlazeTV ’ s Elijah Schaffer headed to Washington , D.C. @ @ @ @ @ members of “ America ’ s Frontline Doctors , ” the group of medical professionals @ @ @ @ @ of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 was removed by Twitter , Facebook , YouTube , and @ @ @ @ @ false information.
” NOTE : After first banning this video for “ inappropriate content , @ @ @ @ @ re-air this episode with the following disclaimer : Some medical opinions in this show do @ @ @ @ @ , and local health official recommendations for treating COVID-19 .
Any and all statements should @ @ @ @ @ Viewer discretion is advised .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as @ @ @ @ @ purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please @ @ @ @ @ Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Hydroxychloroquine ‘SAFER than Tylenol’
Written by Elijah Schaffer
On a recent episode of “Slightly Offens*ve,” BlazeTV’s Elijah Schaffer headed to Washington, D.C., to meet with several members of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” the group of medical professionals whose video about the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 was removed by Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other sites for “sharing false information.”
NOTE: After first banning this video for “inappropriate content,” YouTube has agreed to re-air this episode with the following disclaimer: Some medical opinions in this show do not follow WHO, CDC, and local health official recommendations for treating COVID-19. Any and all statements should be taken with precaution. Viewer discretion is advised.
Watch the video below:
Read more at www.theblaze.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--2020-08-14--Study: Medieval cure does work on antibiotic-resistant infections

COVENTRY , United Kingdom — One of the biggest obstacles physicians face is treating infections that become resistant to antibiotics .
As scientists look to beat these adapting germs , one study says the answer may be in the distant past .
Researchers find a 1,000-year-old medieval remedy can actually be useful in fighting several types of bacteria , including ones which commonly infects diabetic ulcers .
Researchers at the University of Warwick say “ Bald ’ s eyesalve ” mixtures contain onion , garlic , wine , and bile salts .
Testing how these ancient remedies affect various germs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyesalve is effective against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive wound bacteria .
Among these dangerous strains is Staphylococcus aureus , a bacteria nearly one third of the population carries in their nose .
It ’ s usually harmless , but it can cause infection and even death when coming into contact with cuts and torn skin .
• Streptococcus pyogenes : Which causes infections like tonsillitis and scarlet fever • Staphylococcus epidermidis : Which causes infection in patients with catheters , surgical wounds , and those with compromised immune systems “ We have shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , garlic , wine , and bile can kill a range of problematic bacteria grown both planktonically and as biofilms , ” Dr. Freya Harrison says in a university release .
“ Because the mixture did not cause much damage to human cells in the lab , or to mice , we could potentially develop a safe and effective antibacterial treatment from the remedy.
” Researchers say the use of garlic in Bald ’ s eyesalve mixes may be a key ingredient .
Garlic contains allicin , which produces its famous smell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity health .
Although it helps , the British team says allicin alone can ’ t fight bacteria to the extent they ’ re seeing .
They add this special combination of ingredients gives this 1,000-year-old formula its strength .
“ Most antibiotics that we use today are derived from natural compounds , but our work highlights the need to explore not only single compounds but mixtures of natural products for treating biofilm infections , ” Harrison explains .
“ We think that future discovery of antibiotics from natural products could be enhanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than single plants or compounds.
” Before this study , co-author Christina Lee of the University of Nottingham read through the Bald ’ s Leechbook .
This book is an Old English leatherbound volume in the British Library and is believed to be one of the oldest medical textbooks containing Anglo-Saxon medical information .
Bald ’ s Leechbook gives advice and recipes to make natural medicines , salves , and treatments during medieval times .
“ Bald ’ s eyesalve underlines the significance of medical treatment throughout the ages , ” Lee says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Early Medieval England had at least some effective remedies.
” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , antibiotic-resistant bacteria causes infections in 2.8 million people in the United States each year .
More than 35,000 of those patients die from these strains .
The study appears in the journal Scientific Reports .
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 @ @ @ @ @

Study: Medieval cure does work on antibiotic-resistant infections
Written by Chris Melore
COVENTRY, United Kingdom — One of the biggest obstacles physicians face is treating infections that become resistant to antibiotics. As scientists look to beat these adapting germs, one study says the answer may be in the distant past.
Researchers find a 1,000-year-old medieval remedy can actually be useful in fighting several types of bacteria, including ones which commonly infects diabetic ulcers.
Researchers at the University of Warwick say “Bald’s eyesalve” mixtures contain onion, garlic, wine, and bile salts. Testing how these ancient remedies affect various germs, the study reveals Bald’s eyesalve is effective against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive wound bacteria.
An ancient cure-all?
Among these dangerous strains is Staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria nearly one third of the population carries in their nose. It’s usually harmless, but it can cause infection and even death when coming into contact with cuts and torn skin.
Bald’s eyesalve also shows promising results against:
Streptococcus pyogenes: Which causes infections like tonsillitis and scarlet fever
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: Commonly linked to respiratory infections
Acinetobacter baumanii: A common infection seen among combat wounds
Staphylococcus epidermidis: Which causes infection in patients with catheters, surgical wounds, and those with compromised immune systems
“We have shown that a medieval remedy made from onion, garlic, wine, and bile can kill a range of problematic bacteria grown both planktonically and as biofilms,” Dr. Freya Harrison says in a university release. “Because the mixture did not cause much damage to human cells in the lab, or to mice, we could potentially develop a safe and effective antibacterial treatment from the remedy.”
What makes Bald’s eyesalve work?
Researchers say the use of garlic in Bald’s eyesalve mixes may be a key ingredient. Garlic contains allicin, which produces its famous smell, but also has links to anti-inflammation and immunity health. Although it helps, the British team says allicin alone can’t fight bacteria to the extent they’re seeing. They add this special combination of ingredients gives this 1,000-year-old formula its strength.
“Most antibiotics that we use today are derived from natural compounds, but our work highlights the need to explore not only single compounds but mixtures of natural products for treating biofilm infections,” Harrison explains.
“We think that future discovery of antibiotics from natural products could be enhanced by studying combinations of ingredients, rather than single plants or compounds.”
Finding innovations in medieval medical journals
Before this study, co-author Christina Lee of the University of Nottingham read through the Bald’s Leechbook. This book is an Old English leatherbound volume in the British Library and is believed to be one of the oldest medical textbooks containing Anglo-Saxon medical information. Bald’s Leechbook gives advice and recipes to make natural medicines, salves, and treatments during medieval times.
“Bald’s eyesalve underlines the significance of medical treatment throughout the ages,” Lee says. “It shows that people in Early Medieval England had at least some effective remedies.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, antibiotic-resistant bacteria causes infections in 2.8 million people in the United States each year. More than 35,000 of those patients die from these strains.
The study appears in the journal Scientific Reports.
Read more at www.studyfinds.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--2020-08-14--Google Censorship Is a Danger to Public Health

How could it be otherwise ?
The drama of our lives plays out on the internet ; our physical well-being and that of our families depend on access to goods and information that exist only within a digital infrastructure .
The internet is less an arena of pure fantasy than an alternate dimension , connected to our own but governed by different laws .
It is imperative to learn what those laws are and follow them back to their source .
There are digital methods to encode and verify one ’ s identity so that you can be yourself online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your bills .
For the most part these methods work well and consistently so that we cease to question the rules by which the translation between online and offline occurs , and often lose track of the difference .
The reality of monopoly tech platforms acting to censor public availability of information and viewpoints is already with us , in ways that few people seem to acknowledge or understand .
On March 23 , for example , in the early weeks of the pandemic , Google removed a public Google document containing what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the efficacy of the drug hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment .
The company issued no formal warning to the document ’ s creator and offered no explanation for its action .
Were you even aware that such a thing was possible ?
The document simply went poof and disappeared .
No controversy ensued over Google ’ s actions , of course , because what was there to show for it but a dead link .
With so many other injustices going on in the world , who had time to get worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital deletion—how can there be a controversy over a simulacrum of nothing ?
And also , because by the time Google undertook its purge , the drug hydroxychloroquine had become associated with President Trump—who is himself commonly presented as a danger to public health—and labeled a dangerous snake oil pushed only by quacks and right-wing charlatans .
However , the FDA and other federal medical officials routinely contradicted or attempted to caveat the president ’ s increasingly full-throated endorsements of the drug , which triggered a quick backlash from the media—and led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censorship by monopoly speech platforms .
On March 23 , Google purged the original white paper posted by Todaro , replacing it with a single line : “ We ’ re sorry .
You can ’ t access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service.
” No details about the nature of that violation were provided either publicly or , according to Todaro , privately to him as the creator of the document .
For its part , Twitter placed warnings on tweets linking to the paper .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fit with a larger push by Google and other leading tech companies to actively regulate information in the name of “ public safety ” —a self-assigned brief that began with the coronavirus but seems unlikely to end there .
In an appearance on CNN ’ s Reliable Sources , Susan Wojcicki , the CEO of YouTube—a subsidiary of Google—described how the platform ’ s publishing policy calls for “ removing information that is problematic.
” Examples of “ problematic ” information cited by Wojcicki included people advocating vitamin C and the spice turmeric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations ” —a category which at various times during the pandemic would include wearing masks , travel bans , and asserting that the virus is highly contagious .
None of this back-and-forth , you may have noticed , actually tells us whether hydroxychloroquine is in any way an effective treatment for a disease that has already killed more than half a million people and may kill several million more .
What it does show is that WHO—whose recommendations are as good as law on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into changing world health policy by a shoddy con job ; one that was exposed , in part , by someone whose own work was deleted by YouTube ’ s parent company , and who was widely derided by the press as a MAGA conman .
Perhaps the most messed-up thing about the case of the purged Google doc is that no one seems to care that it happened , aside from those publications that celebrated the monopolist ’ s censorship .
And since no one cares , Google has zero incentive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the precedent it is setting .
It ’ s a private company , right ?
And they ’ re on our side .
And they own all our data anyway .
Protest is futile .
Besides , we want Google to censor us—meaning , we want Google to censor the views of people we disagree with , and not just their views , but any evidence they present that an activist and openly partisan press tells us is false .
All forms of business journalism have always included some degree of industry capture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of advertising for Detroit ’ s coolest new cars or the five best laptops under $ 500 .
But the digital environment as a whole is fundamentally captive .
Unlike the days in which the news industry was made up of a set of free-standing , self-financing institutions rooted in particular places , journalism now functions as an economically precarious subsidiary of the data monopolies for which they serve as sources of free content .
This foundational shift has had all sorts of deleterious effects on journalism , not least of which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional beat reporting that once explained to Americans how large institutions actually function .
Now ask yourself why you didn ’ t hear any outcry over any part of this .
Part of the answer is that the journalists who might have been putting pressure on Google in fact work for Google and other monopoly speech platforms .
Maybe not directly , but they depend on platforms like Google and Twitter and Facebook to subsidize and surface their work and to keep both individual journalists and corporate news brands in the public eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortage of journalism about tech , nearly all of it tends to focus attention away from the structural power of large monopolies and onto their political messaging or the personal , class and status-laced defects of particular tech personalities .

Google Censorship Is a Danger to Public Health
Written by Jacob Siegel
The mass migration into full-time internet existence caused by the COVID-19 quarantines should remove any lingering doubts that online is real life—and any pretense that there’s an impermeable wall separating the two is a dangerous and quite possibly deadly illusion.
How could it be otherwise? The drama of our lives plays out on the internet; our physical well-being and that of our families depend on access to goods and information that exist only within a digital infrastructure. The internet is less an arena of pure fantasy than an alternate dimension, connected to our own but governed by different laws.
It is imperative to learn what those laws are and follow them back to their source. There are digital methods to encode and verify one’s identity so that you can be yourself online, talk to your friends and pay your bills. For the most part these methods work well and consistently so that we cease to question the rules by which the translation between online and offline occurs, and often lose track of the difference.
However, in moments of crisis and conflict, these buried operations and laws can suddenly become critical. To what extent is the self you inhabit on Facebook actually yours to control—never mind the question of whether it’s actually you. Are your emails your property? Could Google come along like a digital repo man and reclaim possession of documents you created, but turn out to just be on loan to you like a piece of furniture in layaway?
In response to the present state of emergency, which shows no signs of lifting anytime soon, the large technology platforms and monopolists that control much of the world’s information flow and dictate the ways that Americans meet, interact, and engage in politics, have significantly—and likely, irreversibly—expanded their authority and influence into domains where it cannot be checked.
In the name of public safety, but without any public referendum or accountability, Google, Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook, are taking active steps to censor information and tweak the underlying algorithms that determine the picture of reality on our screens and newsfeeds. In doing so they have claimed to be acting, as governments once did, on behalf of the common good. But what happens when the actions taken by companies like Google make the public less safe, and spread misleading and downright false information?
The reality of monopoly tech platforms acting to censor public availability of information and viewpoints is already with us, in ways that few people seem to acknowledge or understand. On March 23, for example, in the early weeks of the pandemic, Google removed a public Google document containing what it apparently considered to be dangerous misinformation about the efficacy of the drug hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment. The company issued no formal warning to the document’s creator and offered no explanation for its action. Were you even aware that such a thing was possible? The document simply went poof and disappeared.
No controversy ensued over Google’s actions, of course, because what was there to show for it but a dead link. With so many other injustices going on in the world, who had time to get worked up over something as abstract as a digital deletion—how can there be a controversy over a simulacrum of nothing? And also, because by the time Google undertook its purge, the drug hydroxychloroquine had become associated with President Trump—who is himself commonly presented as a danger to public health—and labeled a dangerous snake oil pushed only by quacks and right-wing charlatans.
The paper that Google disappeared was co-created and posted on Twitter by a cryptocurrency investor and doctor with a degree from Columbia medical school named James Todaro. On March 13, Todaro tweeted, “There is growing evidence of Chloroquine as a highly effective treatment for COVID-19. In a collaborative effort,@RiganoESQ (Johns Hopkins), Thomas Broker, PhD (Stanford) & I explore Chloroquine as a treatment/prophylactic to treat & prevent coronavirus,” along with a link to a Google document detailing their findings.
From there, things moved quickly. On March 16, Tesla owner and tech billionaire Elon Musk tweeted, “Maybe worth considering chloroquine for C19” with a link to the paper. On March 19, Todaro’s co-author, Gregory Rigano, appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show touting a new study that he claimed showed the drug to be a 100% effective treatment against coronavirus.
While technically true, that was not the full story. Rigano was billed as an adviser to Stanford University medical school, a claim Stanford says is false. The study Rigano championed as 100% effective, conducted by the famed and iconoclastic French doctor Didier Raoult, was widely criticized in the medical field for breaking with standard protocol, not being double blind or randomized, and involving only 20 patients.
Still, enthusiasm quickly spread to the White House. On the same day as Rigano’s Carlson appearance, at a coronavirus task force press briefing, President Trump announced: “So you have remdesivir [another drug considered a potential treatment for COVID-19—ed.] and you have chloroquine and hydro- —hydroxychloroquine. So those are two that are out now, essentially approved for prescribed use. And I think it’s going to be very exciting. I think it could be a game changer and maybe not. And maybe not. But I think it could be, based on what I see, it could be a game changer. Very powerful.”
There you had it, chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine was very powerful and could be a game changer; maybe or maybe not. On March 21, Trump tweeted: “HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains – Thank You!”
However, the FDA and other federal medical officials routinely contradicted or attempted to caveat the president’s increasingly full-throated endorsements of the drug, which triggered a quick backlash from the media—and led to the rapid application of new kinds of censorship by monopoly speech platforms. On March 23, Google purged the original white paper posted by Todaro, replacing it with a single line: “We’re sorry. You can’t access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service.” No details about the nature of that violation were provided either publicly or, according to Todaro, privately to him as the creator of the document. For its part, Twitter placed warnings on tweets linking to the paper.
Dozens of subsequent news stories turned the drug’s efficacy, or lack thereof, into a political litmus test. A headline of an article published days after Trump’s tweet in the British Tabloid The Daily Mail read: “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Gift from God’ coronavirus ‘cure’ touted by Donald Trump is promoted by a FAKE Stanford University ‘researcher’ who is actually a cryptocurrency-hustling Long Island lawyer whose bogus science paper was removed by Google.” Headlines in the American media were relatively restrained by comparison. The Huffington Post wrote: “The Hucksters Pushing A Coronavirus ‘Cure’ With The Help Of Fox News And Elon Musk: Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck and more have given a giant platform to a sketchy paper touting chloroquine.”
The banning of the informal research paper fit with a larger push by Google and other leading tech companies to actively regulate information in the name of “public safety”—a self-assigned brief that began with the coronavirus but seems unlikely to end there. In an appearance on CNN’s Reliable Sources, Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube—a subsidiary of Google—described how the platform’s publishing policy calls for “removing information that is problematic.” Examples of “problematic” information cited by Wojcicki included people advocating vitamin C and the spice turmeric as cures for the coronavirus and “anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations”—a category which at various times during the pandemic would include wearing masks, travel bans, and asserting that the virus is highly contagious.
Hydroxychloroquine’s public profile reached a nadir on Friday May 22, when the prestigious medical journal The Lancet published a study based on data taken from more than 90,000 patients who had been administered the drug as a treatment for COVID-19. The study showed that the drug, far from being an effective treatment, actually led to increased mortality rates in patients. That Monday, WHO announced that it was immediately halting all trials of hydroxychloroquine, which was then being administered in countries around the world.
But there was a problem. A series of investigative reports in The Guardian as well as a lengthy exposition published on a website called Medicine (Un)censored, which is run by the deleted Google document’s co-author, Dr. James Todaro, showed that The Lancet paper was based on faked data.
Yes, that’s right. The supposedly authoritative study that led the world’s leading public health organization to ban all clinical trials of one of the only drugs suggested as a possible treatment for COVID-19 was based on fraudulent research carried out by Surgisphere—a fly-by-night company with barely any presence on the internet. Among the six employees listed on Surgisphere’s website, one was an apparent science fiction writer and another was an adult model/events hostess.
None of this back-and-forth, you may have noticed, actually tells us whether hydroxychloroquine is in any way an effective treatment for a disease that has already killed more than half a million people and may kill several million more. What it does show is that WHO—whose recommendations are as good as law on the YouTube, according to its CEO—was duped into changing world health policy by a shoddy con job; one that was exposed, in part, by someone whose own work was deleted by YouTube’s parent company, and who was widely derided by the press as a MAGA conman.
Perhaps the most messed-up thing about the case of the purged Google doc is that no one seems to care that it happened, aside from those publications that celebrated the monopolist’s censorship. And since no one cares, Google has zero incentive to answer questions about its actions or scrutinize the precedent it is setting. It’s a private company, right? And they’re on our side. And they own all our data anyway. Protest is futile. Besides, we want Google to censor us—meaning, we want Google to censor the views of people we disagree with, and not just their views, but any evidence they present that an activist and openly partisan press tells us is false.
There is a class of people who you might expect to take a professional interest in such matters: tech journalists. The problem is that tech journalism is not an autonomous, independently funded enterprise able to investigate the technology sector without fear or favor. Far from it.
All forms of business journalism have always included some degree of industry capture where the reporting serves as a form of advertising for Detroit’s coolest new cars or the five best laptops under $500. But the digital environment as a whole is fundamentally captive. Unlike the days in which the news industry was made up of a set of free-standing, self-financing institutions rooted in particular places, journalism now functions as an economically precarious subsidiary of the data monopolies for which they serve as sources of free content. This foundational shift has had all sorts of deleterious effects on journalism, not least of which is that it has eliminated much of the traditional beat reporting that once explained to Americans how large institutions actually function.
With the collapse of the journalism industry, much of the money and space that had once been devoted to a citizen-based approach to the operations of power now goes into the cheap manufacture of grand opinion narratives and status-anxious, in-group gossip. Often these two categories are intertwined, as is the case with tech journalism’s sneering commentary about “tech bros”—which, when you step back from it, sounds a lot like the pizza delivery guys bitching about the personalities of the managers at the local Pizza Hut. They may be right, but they are unlikely to give you much insight into the corporate operations of Pizza Hut or the nutritional value of their pizza.
Again, ask yourselves: Did you know that a Google doc you created can be deleted with no warning or explanation by Google? If the hydroxychloroquine white paper was so dangerous it had to be voided out of existence, shouldn’t Google educate the public about that danger—and take ownership of whatever process they used to make their determination? Does Google conduct its own research studies and clinical trials? Is Google an arm of the U.S. government with the power to censor speech, and on what laws does it base this authority?
Now ask yourself why you didn’t hear any outcry over any part of this. Part of the answer is that the journalists who might have been putting pressure on Google in fact work for Google and other monopoly speech platforms. Maybe not directly, but they depend on platforms like Google and Twitter and Facebook to subsidize and surface their work and to keep both individual journalists and corporate news brands in the public eye. So, while there is no shortage of journalism about tech, nearly all of it tends to focus attention away from the structural power of large monopolies and onto their political messaging or the personal, class and status-laced defects of particular tech personalities.
The question for many isn’t “did Google purge a Google document?” It’s whether it purged the right one, which is not how free societies are supposed to work.
But hey, clearly Google’s intentions were in the right place, and having the global surveillance operating data monopolies censor the internet beats depending on Donald Trump for information about science. That is, unless the next document that is disappeared contains information that you believe is vital to making decisions about the safety of your family—like the fact that the next WHO recommendation is a danger to public health, or the next Lancet study is a fake.
Jacob Siegel is a senior writer at Tablet. Read more at www.tabletmag.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--2020-08-14--Why Medical Journals Won’t Tell You a COVID Vaccine Isn’t Needed

Why Medical Journals Won ’ t Tell You a COVID Vaccine Isn ’ t Needed ‘ THE dog did nothing in the night-time , ’ said Inspector Gregory .
‘ That was the curious incident , ’ replies Sherlock Holmes , in Conan Doyle ’ s The Adventure of Silver Blaze .
Another dog that has for weeks done nothing in the night-time is the New England Journal of Medicine ( NEJM ) , along with the Lancet one of the world ’ s most respected medical journals , or at least formerly so .
It should have barked , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in June how the Lancet damaged its own reputation by publishing highly influential fake news on treatments for Covid-19 .
This was the most extraordinary example of fabricated propaganda planted in a prestige scientific journal .
It was retracted only after multiple governments ( and the WHO ) had changed policy on hydroxychloroquine , achieving major impact from falsehoods .
The NEJM was bound up with the same scandal , albeit less noticed .
The same authors retracted another paper from it on the same day ( June 4 ) as the Lancet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given was the same : the database was ‘ unverifiable ’ .
Bizarrely , this did not stop it reaching print on June 18 , albeit with a retraction ‘ banner ’ .
Amid the noise of the two retractions , and the near-simultaneous termination ( June 5 ) of the Oxford ‘ RECOVERY ’ clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine , another paper slipped into the NEJM on June 3 entitled ‘ A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 ’ .
Authored by Dr David Boulware ( University of Minnesota ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , taken at face value , was an attempt to establish whether hydroxychloroquine can not just treat but actually prevent Covid-19 .
The terminology ‘ postexposure prophylaxis ’ has been described as an oxymoron , but what it means is : if I have been exposed to Covid-19 ( for example if I get a message from NHS Test and Trace ) can taking hydroxychloroquine reduce my chance of developing the illness ?
This is like treating the illness , on the assumption you have already caught it , without waiting for either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is usually meant by prophylaxis is slightly different : before being exposed at all , can taking hydroxychloroquine reduce my chances of catching Covid-19 if I am exposed ?
Some people now call this ‘ pre-exposure prophylaxis ’ , but the qualifier shouldn ’ t be needed .
Either way , the idea that hydroxychloroquine might preventyou catching Covid-19 , or prevent symptoms developing if you do , isn ’ t strange .
It ’ s been around at least since 2005 , when a paper in Virology Journal entitled Chloroquine is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread was published .
The authors were talking about the original ‘ SARS-1 ’ , but the virus isn ’ t that different .
They reported ‘ inhibitory effects .
.
.
when the cells are treated .
.
.
either before or after exposure .
.
.
suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage ’ .
Sharp-eyed Americans have long pointed out that Dr Anthony Fauci , the Chris Whitty of the USA , must have known all about a paper published by the institute he headed at the time .
The same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper in Nature : Cell Research which also showed that chloroquine had a prophylactic effect , at least in vitro .
Her Majesty ’ s Government knows about this , because I told my MP on 3 April .
I asked if they would offer hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for front-line NHS workers , as India has done since March ( I still haven ’ t had an answer ) .
Not only does chloroquine have anti-viral action against Covid-19 once infected , it actually prevents infection ( at least in vitro ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t strange either : chloroquine has been used for decades to prevent , as well as treat , malaria .
I first took chloroquine at the age of eight .
Throughout my African childhood , I was regularly covered in mosquito bites , but never got malaria .
We didn ’ t need a vaccine .
One pill per week did it .
Chloroquine is eliminated slowly , over at least a month , so you don ’ t need daily dosing for prophylaxis .
It concentrates in the lungs ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plasma concentration ) .
This doesn ’ t help much in malaria , but is exactly where it ’ s needed to protect against respiratory infections .
As for hydroxychloroquine , it ’ s very similar , and even better against Covid-19 ( both treatment and prophylaxis ) .
To summarise : chloroquine not only inhibits , it prevents Covid-19 infections in vitro ; it is eliminated slowly and concentrates in the lungs ; hydroxychloroquine is similar and better .
So there are plenty of rational reasons to suppose hydroxychloroquine is an effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so ; the top dogs of the Chinese Communist Party think so ; Dr Zelenko , with only one lung and immune-compromised , is so confident that he sees Covid-19 patients without a mask .
He has just had surgery for his rare cancer , but hasn ’ t got Covid .
Showing effectivenessover many people is a bit harder : ‘ nothing happened ’ is the best result .
You ought also to show ‘ something bad happened ’ by not taking the medicine .
India is very happy : all healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western countries really should take note , but let ’ s return to the NEJM .
Boulware et al called for volunteers exposed to confirmed Covid cases , and allocated them at random to receive hydroxychloroquine or a placebo .
Yes , it was one of those ‘ randomised controlled trials ’ ( RCTs ) that bureaucrats set such store by .
So a big tick there .
Now for the downsides .
A cautious editorial remarked on ‘ many limitations ’ .
Among these were very few confirmatory tests being done ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was self-reported .
Many patients were ‘ lost to follow-up ’ .
They didn ’ t include zinc ( which may be critical , as explained elsewhere . )
Dr Boulware forgot to declare a conflict of interest in funding from the pharmaceutical company Gilead ( whose remdesivir is useless if hydroxychloroquine works ) .
When asked why on social media , he simply ‘ blocked ’ his interlocutor .
But it was an actual randomised trial , so it deserves scrutiny upon its own terms .
Findings ?
Sorry , there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As usual , this was the only message reported by the usual suspects .
But the ever-alert France Soir , with its ‘ collectif citoyen ’ ( a group of citizens who analyse and validate information ) , jumped on it within hours : ‘ The devil really is in the detail ’ .
There were delays in tests and in shipping the medications .
Boulware and colleagues had simply pooled all the data , no matter how long after the contact with the Covid-19 .
One consistent message is that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early ?
Taking the first two days after exposure , things look very different .
A more detailed critique showed how the effectiveness declines rapidly over four days .
We now come to the point where the NEJM failed to bark in the night .
A formal paper by Professor Marcio Watanabe , a statistician at the Fluminense Federal University , Brazil , was submitted to the NEJM as an explicit critique .
Watanabe analyses the data of Boulware and colleagues on their own terms .
Starting hydroxychloroquine one day after exposure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in symptomatic cases .
It falls off if delayed further .
Working backwards , he predicts that starting the same day as exposure results in 70 per cent fewer cases .
As primary care doctors have been saying for months , you must treat this illness early .
What has NEJM done ?
Professor Watanabe submitted his paper on June 24 , but the NEJM did nothing for weeks .
When chased , they replied that his manuscript would be considered after the appearance of the print version of Boulware ’ s paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( though it has been on-line since June 3 ) .
Watanabe got fed up , and sent his paper elsewhere .
Bingo !
The Boulware paper reached print on August 6 .
Simply by sitting on it , the NEJM has suppressed a manuscript pointing out flaws in a paper already published .
I wrote to NEJM asking why a re-analysis reversingthe conclusion of a paper already published had not been fully considered .
NEJM , so far , has been ‘ unavailable for comment ’ .
Like the Lancet ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had significant impacts on public policy worldwide .
The data is weak and the controls poor , but so is the analysis .
Look carefully and the conclusions reverse .
Yet the NEJM offers no correction or response to a professional statistical re-analysis .
A real infectious diseases expert who has been troubled by fake news and propaganda is Sir Nicholas White , who is planning a proper trial called ‘ COPCOV ’ on prophylaxis .
The Daily Mail reported last Thursday that baseless propaganda is damaging the prospects of a clinical trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why , even the BBC couldn ’ t ignore the story .
Why should formerly prestigious journals wish to suppress careful analysis of results from an actual randomised trial of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis ?
Will COPCOV go ahead ?
You need remember only this : if a cheap , safe , existing medicine works as prophylaxis , we don ’ t need a vaccine .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Why Medical Journals Won’t Tell You a COVID Vaccine Isn’t Needed
Written by Edmund Fordham
‘THE dog did nothing in the night-time,’ said Inspector Gregory. ‘That was the curious incident,’ replies Sherlock Holmes, in Conan Doyle’s The Adventure of Silver Blaze.
Another dog that has for weeks done nothing in the night-time is the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), along with the Lancet one of the world’s most respected medical journals, or at least formerly so. It should have barked, but didn’t.
We reported in June how the Lancet damaged its own reputation by publishing highly influential fake news on treatments for Covid-19. This was the most extraordinary example of fabricated propaganda planted in a prestige scientific journal. It was retracted only after multiple governments (and the WHO) had changed policy on hydroxychloroquine, achieving major impact from falsehoods.
The NEJM was bound up with the same scandal, albeit less noticed. The same authors retracted another paper from it on the same day (June 4) as the Lancet’s fake news. The reason given was the same: the database was ‘unverifiable’. Bizarrely, this did not stop it reaching print on June 18, albeit with a retraction ‘banner’.
Amid the noise of the two retractions, and the near-simultaneous termination (June 5) of the Oxford ‘RECOVERY’ clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine, another paper slipped into the NEJM on June 3 entitled ‘A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19’. Authored by Dr David Boulware (University of Minnesota) and others from Canada, the paper, taken at face value, was an attempt to establish whether hydroxychloroquine can not just treat but actually prevent Covid-19.
The terminology ‘postexposure prophylaxis’ has been described as an oxymoron, but what it means is: if I have been exposed to Covid-19 (for example if I get a message from NHS Test and Trace) can taking hydroxychloroquine reduce my chance of developing the illness? This is like treating the illness, on the assumption you have already caught it, without waiting for either symptoms or a test result.
What is usually meant by prophylaxis is slightly different: before being exposed at all, can taking hydroxychloroquine reduce my chances of catching Covid-19 if I am exposed? Some people now call this ‘pre-exposure prophylaxis’, but the qualifier shouldn’t be needed.
Either way, the idea that hydroxychloroquine might preventyou catching Covid-19, or prevent symptoms developing if you do, isn’t strange. It’s been around at least since 2005, when a paper in Virology Journal entitled Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread was published. The authors were talking about the original ‘SARS-1’, but the virus isn’t that different. They reported ‘inhibitory effects . . . when the cells are treated . . . either before or after exposure . . . suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage’. Sharp-eyed Americans have long pointed out that Dr Anthony Fauci, the Chris Whitty of the USA, must have known all about a paper published by the institute he headed at the time.
The same was observed with SARS-CoV-2 in a February paper in Nature: Cell Research which also showed that chloroquine had a prophylactic effect, at least in vitro. Her Majesty’s Government knows about this, because I told my MP on 3 April. I asked if they would offer hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for front-line NHS workers, as India has done since March (I still haven’t had an answer). Not only does chloroquine have anti-viral action against Covid-19 once infected, it actually prevents infection (at least in vitro).
Does this work in people? This isn’t strange either: chloroquine has been used for decades to prevent, as well as treat, malaria. I first took chloroquine at the age of eight. Throughout my African childhood, I was regularly covered in mosquito bites, but never got malaria.
We didn’t need a vaccine. One pill per week did it. Chloroquine is eliminated slowly, over at least a month, so you don’t need daily dosing for prophylaxis. It concentrates in the lungs (between 120 and 750 times the blood plasma concentration). This doesn’t help much in malaria, but is exactly where it’s needed to protect against respiratory infections. As for hydroxychloroquine, it’s very similar, and even better against Covid-19 (both treatment and prophylaxis).
To summarise: chloroquine not only inhibits, it prevents Covid-19 infections in vitro; it is eliminated slowly and concentrates in the lungs; hydroxychloroquine is similar and better. So there are plenty of rational reasons to suppose hydroxychloroquine is an effective prophylactic against Covid-19. Donald Trump thinks so; the top dogs of the Chinese Communist Party think so; Dr Zelenko, with only one lung and immune-compromised, is so confident that he sees Covid-19 patients without a mask. He has just had surgery for his rare cancer, but hasn’t got Covid.
Showing effectivenessover many people is a bit harder: ‘nothing happened’ is the best result. You ought also to show ‘something bad happened’ by not taking the medicine. India is very happy: all healthcare workers get hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis, and Western countries really should take note, but let’s return to the NEJM.
Boulware et al called for volunteers exposed to confirmed Covid cases, and allocated them at random to receive hydroxychloroquine or a placebo. Yes, it was one of those ‘randomised controlled trials’ (RCTs) that bureaucrats set such store by. So a big tick there. Now for the downsides. A cautious editorial remarked on ‘many limitations’.
Among these were very few confirmatory tests being done (Covid or a cold?) It was self-reported. Many patients were ‘lost to follow-up’. They didn’t include zinc (which may be critical, as explained elsewhere.) Dr Boulware forgot to declare a conflict of interest in funding from the pharmaceutical company Gilead (whose remdesivir is useless if hydroxychloroquine works).
When asked why on social media, he simply ‘blocked’ his interlocutor. But it was an actual randomised trial, so it deserves scrutiny upon its own terms.
Findings? Sorry, there was no difference between hydroxychloroquine and the controls. As usual, this was the only message reported by the usual suspects. But the ever-alert France Soir, with its ‘collectif citoyen’ (a group of citizens who analyse and validate information), jumped on it within hours: ‘The devil really is in the detail’.
There were delays in tests and in shipping the medications. Boulware and colleagues had simply pooled all the data, no matter how long after the contact with the Covid-19. One consistent message is that this disease must be treated early. How early? Taking the first two days after exposure, things look very different.
A more detailed critique showed how the effectiveness declines rapidly over four days.
We now come to the point where the NEJM failed to bark in the night. A formal paper by Professor Marcio Watanabe, a statistician at the Fluminense Federal University, Brazil, was submitted to the NEJM as an explicit critique. Watanabe analyses the data of Boulware and colleagues on their own terms.
Starting hydroxychloroquine one day after exposure, he finds a 50 per cent reduction in symptomatic cases. It falls off if delayed further. Working backwards, he predicts that starting the same day as exposure results in 70 per cent fewer cases. As primary care doctors have been saying for months, you must treat this illness early.
What has NEJM done? Professor Watanabe submitted his paper on June 24, but the NEJM did nothing for weeks. When chased, they replied that his manuscript would be considered after the appearance of the print version of Boulware’s paper. For which no date was set (though it has been on-line since June 3).
Watanabe got fed up, and sent his paper elsewhere. Bingo! The Boulware paper reached print on August 6. Simply by sitting on it, the NEJM has suppressed a manuscript pointing out flaws in a paper already published.
I wrote to NEJM asking why a re-analysis reversingthe conclusion of a paper already published had not been fully considered. NEJM, so far, has been ‘unavailable for comment’.
Like the Lancet’s fake news, the Boulware paper has had significant impacts on public policy worldwide. The data is weak and the controls poor, but so is the analysis. Look carefully and the conclusions reverse. Yet the NEJM offers no correction or response to a professional statistical re-analysis.
A real infectious diseases expert who has been troubled by fake news and propaganda is Sir Nicholas White, who is planning a proper trial called ‘COPCOV’ on prophylaxis.
The Daily Mail reported last Thursday that baseless propaganda is damaging the prospects of a clinical trial that could save thousands of lives. Why, even the BBC couldn’t ignore the story.
Why should formerly prestigious journals wish to suppress careful analysis of results from an actual randomised trial of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis? Will COPCOV go ahead?
You need remember only this: if a cheap, safe, existing medicine works as prophylaxis, we don’t need a vaccine.
Read more at conservativewoman.co.uk
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--2020-08-14--Belgians File Law Suit Against Bill Gates & ‘Professor Lockdown’

Hundreds of angry Belgians have filed a lawsuit against Bill Gates , Belgium , and a British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson in court .
They want all corona measures to be abolished .
They have argued that “ [ w ] ithout a lockdown , there would have been fewer deaths.
” People have lost their freedoms and their livelihood all to further a concocted agenda which is really to further Climate Change .
Bill Gates has come out and claimed that Climate Change will be far worse than COVID .
Gates is neither a climatologist nor a doctor .
Nevertheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority on both .
The sheer damage he has done to the world economy has not even been felt yet .
When the restrictions are lifted , if EVER , then the unpaid rents , the bankruptcies of commercial property , and rental properties who still have to pay taxes with no income are beyond all consideration .
This is not going back to normal and we are staring into the eyes of the worst economic collapse since the Black Death .
This 860 years from that event and it risks wiping out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting to see if the Belgium Court is real , or will they dismiss the suit upon orders from above .
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 .

Belgians File Law Suit Against Bill Gates & ‘Professor Lockdown’
Written by Martin Armstrong
Hundreds of angry Belgians have filed a lawsuit against Bill Gates, Belgium, and a British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson in court. They want all corona measures to be abolished.
They have argued that “[w]ithout a lockdown, there would have been fewer deaths.” People have lost their freedoms and their livelihood all to further a concocted agenda which is really to further Climate Change. Bill Gates has come out and claimed that Climate Change will be far worse than COVID.
Gates is neither a climatologist nor a doctor. Nevertheless, he pretends to the leading world authority on both. The sheer damage he has done to the world economy has not even been felt yet. When the restrictions are lifted, if EVER, then the unpaid rents, the bankruptcies of commercial property, and rental properties who still have to pay taxes with no income are beyond all consideration.
This is not going back to normal and we are staring into the eyes of the worst economic collapse since the Black Death. This 860 years from that event and it risks wiping out Western Civilization.
This will be most interesting to see if the Belgium Court is real, or will they dismiss the suit upon orders from above.
Read more at www.armstrongeconomics.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--2020-08-14--Our Pharmaceutical Emperors Have No Clothes

Our Pharmaceutical Emperors Have No Clothes Readers are urged to be cautious over the claimed high quality of licensed Pharmaceutical Products.
” Most of the claims made would be false and baseless at least scientifically , ” says an internationally respected expert in pharmaceutical standards and testing .
Saeed A Qureshi PhD has spent most of his career conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada .
More than most scientists , he knows the pitfalls of the claims made by Big Pharma over safety of medicines and vaccines .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnessed the whole process of testing and quality control riddled with subjectivity and favoritism , poor tests and accountability .
Consumers are provided with little , if any , objective , verifiable information to make rational decisions about the safety and reliability of the medicines being prescribed .
“ Regulatory authorities , in particular the FDA conduct observations and make statements following facility pharmaceutical facility inspections .
These facility inspections are conducted under the requirements of Good Manufacturing Practices or GMP – usually part of any country ’ s laws and regulations giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability .
The basis of GMP requirements and implementation is on the fundamental assumption that GMP requirements are enforced so that the end products from manufacturing are of quality , e.g .
as per FDA “ FDA ensures the quality of drug products by carefully monitoring drug manufacturers ’ compliance with its Current Good Manufacturing Practice ( CGMP ) regulations ” [ 1 ] .
A quick survey of literature provides examples of some descriptions of observed deficiencies ( often also knows as “ observations ” ) of compliance requirements which could fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as : organization and personnel ; buildings and facilities ; equipment ; control of components and drug product containers and closures ; production and process controls ; packaging and labeling control ; holding and distribution ; laboratory controls ; records and reports [ 2 ] .
These deficiencies or observations are usually descriptive or narrative in nature , not objectively measurable or quantifiable .
Therefore , these can be considered as subjective in nature , based on individual investigator ’ s personal judgement or inclination as noted by FDA as well e.g .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ may observe conditions they deem to be objectionable .
These observations , are listed on an FDA Form 483 when , in an investigator ’ s judgment , the observed conditions or practices indicate that an FDA-regulated product may be in violation of FDA ’ s requirements [ 3 ] .
Once such observations become public , people ( often experts/consultants external as well as internal to agencies ) blow these out of proportion arguably for their own personal and business advantages and benefits [ e.g .
see here 4 ] .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and/or promoted as “ ills ” of the manufacturing and/or the industry .
In short , the opinions expressed , formally or informally , by the investigators/inspectors mostly about operation are considered as “ ills ” of the industry and manufacturing .
It is important to note that , as per GMP requirements described above , inspections must establish or relate to the ability of the manufacturing of quality of products .
However , as noted above as well , most of noted deficiencies are related to manufacturing and its operation not about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , outcome of an inspection or warning letter is usually concluded as follows “ Because your methods , facilities , or controls for manufacturing , processing , packing , or holding do not conform to CGMP , your drug products are adulterated within the meaning of section 501 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) of the Federal Food , Drug , and Cosmetic Act ( FD & C Act ) , 21 U.S.C .
351 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ” [ 5,6 ] .
Question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of substandard quality ( or adulterated ) product ?
The products quality can only be established by testing a product itself , which is mostly neither part of the inspections nor “ observations ” claims .
It is like saying that as staff was not found properly cleaned and dressed ( in the investigator ’ s view ) hence staff would be considered lacking intelligence and/or competence for the job .
For the validity of such a statement or conclusion , it must be based on evaluating and establishing their competence and intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , experts/consultants would conclude and promote inspections/observations as product deficiencies or inability to manufacture “ quality ” products – these are simply false assumptions and conclusions , because observations are not linked or validated against the deficiencies of the product quality .
Therefore , putting blame on the manufacturing or industry for poor manufacturing of quality products would in general be inaccurate .
It is the practice of the current investigations or inspections which needs to be reassessed .
To make “ observation ” or inspections logical and scientifically valid agencies should define @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parameter .
Samples should be collected at appropriate check points and evaluated against ( strictest ) pre-set standards and specifications for the quality of products .
On the other hand , manufacturers and their affiliated contract facilities should seek help in addressing and defending the current irrelevant conclusions drawn from the facilities assessments and removing the weaknesses of the regulatory ( GMP ) requirements and practices on a worldwide basis.
” In short , there is no point making suggestions to industry .
The reason being FDA does not have even the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Therefore , it will always be hesitant to implement change because of fear of doing it wrong .
Hence Big Pharma practices are just the same as they were about 200 years ago .
The COVID-19 screw up is a case in point .
The FDA/CDC declared a pandemic from a virus which does not exist .
Their declaration of a pandemic is based on tests developed , approved or authorized by the FDA/CDC but without its validation – a cardinal sin in scientific practice .
Now they are expecting a vaccine which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year with no available gold standard test/method to treat the virus and its associated disease .
It really is the blind leading the blind .
Unless , of course , they don ’ t really care because the pandemic was a scam from start to finish .
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 .

Our Pharmaceutical Emperors Have No Clothes
Written by Saeed A Qureshi PhD (Edits by John O'Sullivan)
Readers are urged to be cautious over the claimed high quality of licensed Pharmaceutical Products.”Most of the claims made would be false and baseless at least scientifically,” says an internationally respected expert in pharmaceutical standards and testing.
Saeed A Qureshi PhD has spent most of his career conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada. More than most scientists, he knows the pitfalls of the claims made by Big Pharma over safety of medicines and vaccines.
Over a thirty-year career Dr Qureshi has witnessed the whole process of testing and quality control riddled with subjectivity and favoritism, poor tests and accountability.
Consumers are provided with little, if any, objective, verifiable information to make rational decisions about the safety and reliability of the medicines being prescribed.
Qureshi writes:
“Regulatory authorities, in particular the FDA conduct observations and make statements following facility pharmaceutical facility inspections. These facility inspections are conducted under the requirements of Good Manufacturing Practices or GMP – usually part of any country’s laws and regulations giving the practices “authenticity” and enforcement ability. The basis of GMP requirements and implementation is on the fundamental assumption that GMP requirements are enforced so that the end products from manufacturing are of quality, e.g. as per FDA “FDA ensures the quality of drug products by carefully monitoring drug manufacturers’ compliance with its Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations”[1]. A quick survey of literature provides examples of some descriptions of observed deficiencies (often also knows as “observations”) of compliance requirements which could fall in one of the nine categories such as: organization and personnel; buildings and facilities; equipment; control of components and drug product containers and closures; production and process controls; packaging and labeling control; holding and distribution; laboratory controls; records and reports [2]. These deficiencies or observations are usually descriptive or narrative in nature, not objectively measurable or quantifiable. Therefore, these can be considered as subjective in nature, based on individual investigator’s personal judgement or inclination as noted by FDA as well e.g. “During an inspection, ORA investigators may observe conditions they deem to be objectionable. These observations, are listed on an FDA Form 483 when, in an investigator’s judgment, the observed conditions or practices indicate that an FDA-regulated product may be in violation of FDA’s requirements [3]. Once such observations become public, people (often experts/consultants external as well as internal to agencies) blow these out of proportion arguably for their own personal and business advantages and benefits [e.g. see here 4]. These (“observations”) then become and/or promoted as “ills” of the manufacturing and/or the industry. In short, the opinions expressed, formally or informally, by the investigators/inspectors mostly about operation are considered as “ills” of the industry and manufacturing. It is important to note that, as per GMP requirements described above, inspections must establish or relate to the ability of the manufacturing of quality of products. However, as noted above as well, most of noted deficiencies are related to manufacturing and its operation not about quality of the products. For example, outcome of an inspection or warning letter is usually concluded as follows “Because your methods, facilities, or controls for manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding do not conform to CGMP, your drug products are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)” [5,6]. Question is where is the evidence of manufacturing of substandard quality (or adulterated) product? The products quality can only be established by testing a product itself, which is mostly neither part of the inspections nor “observations” claims. It is like saying that as staff was not found properly cleaned and dressed (in the investigator’s view) hence staff would be considered lacking intelligence and/or competence for the job. For the validity of such a statement or conclusion, it must be based on evaluating and establishing their competence and intelligence and must be established independently. However, experts/consultants would conclude and promote inspections/observations as product deficiencies or inability to manufacture “quality” products – these are simply false assumptions and conclusions, because observations are not linked or validated against the deficiencies of the product quality. Therefore, putting blame on the manufacturing or industry for poor manufacturing of quality products would in general be inaccurate. It is the practice of the current investigations or inspections which needs to be reassessed. To make “observation” or inspections logical and scientifically valid agencies should define quality of the products with a measurable parameter. Samples should be collected at appropriate check points and evaluated against (strictest) pre-set standards and specifications for the quality of products. On the other hand, manufacturers and their affiliated contract facilities should seek help in addressing and defending the current irrelevant conclusions drawn from the facilities assessments and removing the weaknesses of the regulatory (GMP) requirements and practices on a worldwide basis.”
In short, there is no point making suggestions to industry. The reason being FDA does not have even the most basic expertise in science and/or manufacturing. Therefore, it will always be hesitant to implement change because of fear of doing it wrong. Hence Big Pharma practices are just the same as they were about 200 years ago. The COVID-19 screw up is a case in point.
The FDA/CDC declared a pandemic from a virus which does not exist. Their declaration of a pandemic is based on tests developed, approved or authorized by the FDA/CDC but without its validation – a cardinal sin in scientific practice.
Now they are expecting a vaccine which will be developed in less than a year with no available gold standard test/method to treat the virus and its associated disease. It really is the blind leading the blind. Unless, of course, they don’t really care because the pandemic was a scam from start to finish.
Read more at www.drug-dissolution-testing.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