principiascientificinternational--2020-08-06--COVID-19: Vaccine ‘Not Possible’ for a Virus Not Yet Quantifiable

COVID-19 : Vaccine ‘ Not Possible ’ for a Virus Not Yet Quantifiable Regulatory authorities , such as the CDC/FDA all insist that their handling of the current Coronavirus pandemic ( SARS-CoV2/COVID-19 ) is based on science and associated data or facts .
This is especially the case in the United States .
We are told that an identified virus causes the infection which in turn causes , or may cause , deaths – potentially in the millions .
Furthermore , authorities also claim that the viral disease ( COVID-19 ) can only be treated with a vaccine – which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be developed urgently and then made available to the public worldwide .
Let us evaluate these claims on a proper scientific basis .
First of all , let us see if the virus has been proven to exist in humans .
Then more importantly , determine to what extent , if any , it can be measured as the disease which causes all these alleged deaths .
The presence or absence of COVID-19 in humans has not been determined effectively and efficiently because of the known current technical ( scientific ) limitations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases ( in fact , in almost all cases ) the presence/absence of the virus is established by indirect testing .
These indirect tests are commonly known as PCR and antibody tests .
Without going into technical details , one may consider that these tests monitor specific types of proteins or related chemicals which are produced by the presence of viruses , not only by SARS-CoV2 or COVID-19 , but by all pathogenic viruses as a defence mechanism to get rid of the viruses and/or to protect our bodies from their ill effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when someone refers to testing for a virus , one does not determine the actual virus itself but a marker ( such as a protein ) .
The irony is that these markers are not specific to COVID-19 , but are generic to all viruses to which we are exposed .
Saying it differently , these tests are never sufficiently specific – and scientifically speaking should not be relied upon for declaring the presence of a specific virus – including COVID-19 .
Obviously , if a virus can not be monitored reliably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or deaths can not be established reliably and accurately – at least scientifically .
Hence , we see confusion and the inaccuracies over the predicted death rate which turns out to be no higher than a normal to severe influenza and concurrent attrition rate .
In a simpler and daily life example , one may explain the situation as akin to establishing car safety by monitoring the air pressure levels of the tires ( the marker ) because someone decided that deviation in car tire pressure is to be the determinant of safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance ) that a deviation in tire pressure could compromise vehicle performance/safety .
However , it is neither accurate or logical using tire pressure alone as your safety criteria and to then label “ unsafe ” any and all cars with one or more tires with somewhat irregular pressure .
One or more tires alone may be the problem – not the car .
Unfortunately , in the extreme , the authorities end up deciding that all car safety will be monitored only on the basis of tire pressure level .
Now this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” or the law for car safety assessment .
On top of this comes the irony that these authorities provide their own version of tire pressure gauges to test all our tires , which happens to show tire failure routinely in otherwise perfectly acceptable cars .
This is exactly the situation we have with the pandemic and COVID-19 monitoring i.e .
a regulatory compliance requirement that COVID-19 infection will be established based on PCR/antibody tests ( let ’ s call that the “ Official Test ” ) which , as noted above , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Worst yet , the authorities are specifying the use of a testing protocol instituted and “ approved/authorized ” by them alone .
It is important to understand that the “ Official Test ” is solely on a regulatory compliance requirement basis .
It is NOT a scientific validation of having COVID-19 .
Yet it is promoted as scientific .
While it may be true that believers and promoters of this requirement of testing are experts from the areas of pharmacy , epidemiology , virology , genetics , microbiology , immunology , medicines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are not experts in testing .
Where the real capability lies in determining a valid test falls in the category of analytical chemistry .
The multiple aforementioned disciplines named are the users of the tests .
They should not claim to being the developers and/or validators of the test – they lack the required expertise .
I say this as an expert in this field of testing .
To better illustrate the subtlety of this point let us consider the analogy of a baker who uses agricultural products ( e.g .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
oven ) to make bread but then believes he is somehow also qualified and holds authority over the developing and manufacturing of the items used to make the bread .
If one sees the issue from an analytical chemistry perspective , it should become immediately obvious that such inexpert testing is scientifically invalid and so , too , are all the associated claims based upon it .
The reason that current COVID-19 testing should be considered bogus is that these tests do not meet the basic and fundamental requirements of science ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of validation of the tests .
This validation step is commonly based on establishing four parameters : ( 1 ) accuracy ; ( 2 ) precision ; ( 3 ) specificity ; ( 4 ) references used to validate the test .
No analytical test is accepted without meeting these validation requirements – the most essential scientific requirements .
However , at present no COVID-19 test is used ( or is even available ) which has such validation .
As such , the current practice is ordinarily considered as a cardinal sin in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often argue that seeking a specific test for COVID-19 ( or its associated disease ) is like seeking “ absolute truth ” which would hinder the current and ( to them ) “ acceptable ” testing/science .
This unfortunately is the most deceptive , even fraudulent position possible and yet it is often supported ( and promoted ) by the regulatory authorities .
Therefore , at present , regulatory authorities are not implementing the true scientific principles applicable to this pharmaceutical issue .
Instead , their methodology is self-created and an arbitrary science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various flashy and catchy marketing phrases .
Now , if the COVID-19 virus can not be determined ( isolated ) , and by extension the real nature of the pandemic , for what purpose is a vaccine being developed ?
Again , this is all just a regulatory requirement because regulatory authorities are asking for it , and as such , it needs to be developed .
On the other hand , it is impossible to develop a true vaccine for COVID-19 because – if we are incapable of actually monitoring the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a vaccine be established ?
In short , it can not !
Therefore , most likely a fake vaccine will be developed to satisfy the regulators ’ wishes ( as well as to calm down the created public hysteria and fear ) .
Unfortunately , such vaccines , if developed and administered , will certainly create potentially dangerous side effects , without any presumed benefits , by interfering with the body ’ s own immune system , as well as other related physiological processes .
The ill-thought out regulatory compliance requirement is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is pervasive in other pharmaceutical areas as well .
For example , it reigns for the approval process of traditional pharmaceutical products such as a tablet or capsule – and it has been standard procedure for at least three decades , which certainly has ruined the science , as well as pharmaceutical product development and manufacturing .
All kinds of enforceable regulatory requirements have been spawned and implemented in the name of quality control of the manufactured products .
The irony here is that authorities have never defined what they mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some ( scientifically ) measurable parameter/criteria .
However , there now exists a huge battery of compliance requirements ( such as regulatory guidance documents ) available from authorities , in particular the FDA .
The requirements and guidance , are enforced with or without numerous unrelated testing requirements .
They have never been validated to see if they meet their intended purpose or claim .
But industry must comply if it wants to survive and the public goes on assuming it is receiving “ quality ” pharmaceutical products .
In summary , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flaw in the practice of regulating pharmaceutical products , development and assessment .
This can only be addressed by critically evaluating and implementing appropriate scientific principles from relevant scientific disciplines and expertise .
PS : If one requires specific references to the views presented here , they could be obtained by visiting the site ( www.drug-dissolution-testing.com ) or directly contacting the author at principal @ pharmacomechanics.com .
About the author : Saeed A Qureshi PhD gained extensive ( 30+ year ) experience in conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada .
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics , biopharmaceutics , drug dissolution testing , analytical chemistry as related to characterization of pharmaceuticals , in particular , based on in vitro ( dissolution ) and bioavailability/bioequivalence ( humans and animals ) assessments .
At present , Dr. Qureshi provides teaching , training and consulting services , in the area of his expertise as noted above , for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments .
Dr. Qureshi can be reached by email ( principal @ pharmacomechanics.com ) or Tel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above article is derived from the original version published 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 .

COVID-19: Vaccine ‘Not Possible’ for a Virus Not Yet Quantifiable
Written by Saeed A Qureshi PhD (edited by John O'Sullivan)
Regulatory authorities, such as the CDC/FDA all insist that their handling of the current Coronavirus pandemic (SARS-CoV2/COVID-19) is based on science and associated data or facts. This is especially the case in the United States.
We are told that an identified virus causes the infection which in turn causes, or may cause, deaths – potentially in the millions.
Furthermore, authorities also claim that the viral disease (COVID-19) can only be treated with a vaccine – which at present does not exist – and must be developed urgently and then made available to the public worldwide.
Let us evaluate these claims on a proper scientific basis. First of all, let us see if the virus has been proven to exist in humans. Then more importantly, determine to what extent, if any, it can be measured as the disease which causes all these alleged deaths.
The presence or absence of COVID-19 in humans has not been determined effectively and efficiently because of the known current technical (scientific) limitations, as explained below.
In most cases (in fact, in almost all cases) the presence/absence of the virus is established by indirect testing. These indirect tests are commonly known as PCR and antibody tests. Without going into technical details, one may consider that these tests monitor specific types of proteins or related chemicals which are produced by the presence of viruses, not only by SARS-CoV2 or COVID-19, but by all pathogenic viruses as a defence mechanism to get rid of the viruses and/or to protect our bodies from their ill effects.
It is important to note here that when someone refers to testing for a virus, one does not determine the actual virus itself but a marker (such as a protein).
The irony is that these markers are not specific to COVID-19, but are generic to all viruses to which we are exposed.
Saying it differently, these tests are never sufficiently specific – and scientifically speaking should not be relied upon for declaring the presence of a specific virus – including COVID-19. Obviously, if a virus cannot be monitored reliably, then by implication the associated disease or deaths cannot be established reliably and accurately – at least scientifically.
Hence, we see confusion and the inaccuracies over the predicted death rate which turns out to be no higher than a normal to severe influenza and concurrent attrition rate. In a simpler and daily life example, one may explain the situation as akin to establishing car safety by monitoring the air pressure levels of the tires (the marker) because someone decided that deviation in car tire pressure is to be the determinant of safety.
It is quite possible (by chance) that a deviation in tire pressure could compromise vehicle performance/safety. However, it is neither accurate or logical using tire pressure alone as your safety criteria and to then label “unsafe” any and all cars with one or more tires with somewhat irregular pressure. One or more tires alone may be the problem – not the car.
Unfortunately, in the extreme, the authorities end up deciding that all car safety will be monitored only on the basis of tire pressure level. Now this would become a “Regulatory Compliance Requirement” or the law for car safety assessment.
On top of this comes the irony that these authorities provide their own version of tire pressure gauges to test all our tires, which happens to show tire failure routinely in otherwise perfectly acceptable cars.
This is exactly the situation we have with the pandemic and COVID-19 monitoring i.e. a regulatory compliance requirement that COVID-19 infection will be established based on PCR/antibody tests (let’s call that the “Official Test”) which, as noted above, is not specific at all to COVID-19. Worst yet, the authorities are specifying the use of a testing protocol instituted and “approved/authorized” by them alone.
It is important to understand that the “Official Test” is solely on a regulatory compliance requirement basis. It is NOT a scientific validation of having COVID-19. Yet it is promoted as scientific.
While it may be true that believers and promoters of this requirement of testing are experts from the areas of pharmacy, epidemiology, virology, genetics, microbiology, immunology, medicines, and biochemistry to name a few. They are not experts in testing.
Where the real capability lies in determining a valid test falls in the category of analytical chemistry. The multiple aforementioned disciplines named are the users of the tests. They should not claim to being the developers and/or validators of the test – they lack the required expertise. I say this as an expert in this field of testing.
To better illustrate the subtlety of this point let us consider the analogy of a baker who uses agricultural products (e.g. flour) and cooking equipment (e.g. oven) to make bread but then believes he is somehow also qualified and holds authority over the developing and manufacturing of the items used to make the bread. If one sees the issue from an analytical chemistry perspective, it should become immediately obvious that such inexpert testing is scientifically invalid and so, too, are all the associated claims based upon it.
The reason that current COVID-19 testing should be considered bogus is that these tests do not meet the basic and fundamental requirements of science (analytical chemistry) which is the procedure of validation of the tests.
This validation step is commonly based on establishing four parameters: (1) accuracy; (2) precision; (3) specificity; (4) references used to validate the test.
No analytical test is accepted without meeting these validation requirements – the most essential scientific requirements.
However, at present no COVID-19 test is used (or is even available) which has such validation. As such, the current practice is ordinarily considered as a cardinal sin in the scientific community.
Pro-PCR/antibody test scientists often argue that seeking a specific test for COVID-19 (or its associated disease) is like seeking “absolute truth” which would hinder the current and (to them) “acceptable” testing/science. This unfortunately is the most deceptive, even fraudulent position possible and yet it is often supported (and promoted) by the regulatory authorities.
Therefore, at present, regulatory authorities are not implementing the true scientific principles applicable to this pharmaceutical issue. Instead, their methodology is self-created and an arbitrary science of “regulatory compliance requirements” with various flashy and catchy marketing phrases.
Now, if the COVID-19 virus cannot be determined (isolated), and by extension the real nature of the pandemic, for what purpose is a vaccine being developed?
Again, this is all just a regulatory requirement because regulatory authorities are asking for it, and as such, it needs to be developed. On the other hand, it is impossible to develop a true vaccine for COVID-19 because – if we are incapable of actually monitoring the virus or disease – how can the effectiveness of a vaccine be established?
In short, it cannot!
Therefore, most likely a fake vaccine will be developed to satisfy the regulators’ wishes (as well as to calm down the created public hysteria and fear). Unfortunately, such vaccines, if developed and administered, will certainly create potentially dangerous side effects, without any presumed benefits, by interfering with the body’s own immune system, as well as other related physiological processes.
The ill-thought out regulatory compliance requirement is not new or just associated with COVID-19, it is pervasive in other pharmaceutical areas as well. For example, it reigns for the approval process of traditional pharmaceutical products such as a tablet or capsule – and it has been standard procedure for at least three decades, which certainly has ruined the science, as well as pharmaceutical product development and manufacturing.
All kinds of enforceable regulatory requirements have been spawned and implemented in the name of quality control of the manufactured products. The irony here is that authorities have never defined what they mean by a “quality product” with some (scientifically) measurable parameter/criteria.
However, there now exists a huge battery of compliance requirements (such as regulatory guidance documents) available from authorities, in particular the FDA. The requirements and guidance, are enforced with or without numerous unrelated testing requirements. They have never been validated to see if they meet their intended purpose or claim. But industry must comply if it wants to survive and the public goes on assuming it is receiving “quality” pharmaceutical products.
In summary, at present there is a serious and fatal flaw in the practice of regulating pharmaceutical products, development and assessment. This can only be addressed by critically evaluating and implementing appropriate scientific principles from relevant scientific disciplines and expertise.
PS: If one requires specific references to the views presented here, they could be obtained by visiting the site (www.drug-dissolution-testing.com) or directly contacting the author at [email protected].
About the author: Saeed A Qureshi PhD gained extensive (30+ year) experience in conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada.
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, drug dissolution testing, analytical chemistry as related to characterization of pharmaceuticals, in particular, based on in vitro (dissolution) and bioavailability/bioequivalence (humans and animals) assessments.
At present, Dr. Qureshi provides teaching, training and consulting services, in the area of his expertise as noted above, for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments. Dr. Qureshi can be reached by email ([email protected]) or Tel (+1 613 797 9815)
The above article is derived from the original version published 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


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-09--Two Top Oxford Medical Experts Agree: ‘No Evidence’ Masks Work

In a video interview two internationally-respected British doctors from the Centre For Evidence Based Medicine ( University of Oxford ) are very clear that there is no scientific basis to support mandatory mask wearing in public .
In fact , they say it is possible that the policy may do more harm than good .
Carl Heneghan ( Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine , University of Oxford , Editor In Chief with BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine ) sums it up declaring : As the confusion and controversy rages on both these eminent medical professionals are at pains to point out that little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performed into the effectiveness of the mass wearing of masks during a pandemic .
“ The evidence was also mostly generated by two groups of researchers and the harms of masks were under-reported and no one reported in detail on non-compliance and possible reasons for it .
Ideally , we should carry out global trials testing the effects of the absence of masks , but we doubt politicians would be willing to take the risk that Max Von Pettenkopfer did when he swallowed a suspension of Vibrio cholerae to test the bacterial causal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know it ’ s effectiveness how can you claim to know the risks .
“ Better safe then sorry ” when you can ’ t prove safe , just means you don ’ t know the level of sorry it may bring .
Masks or no masks to enforce a policy based on no evidence under the guise of science has more to do with the demise of Max Von Pettenkopfer then what the mask “ experts ” realize .
Both experts interviewed concur on the point that there is no evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a negative effect when worn outside a clinical setting .
NEITHER of the Oxford experts recommend healthy people wearing them on the misguided anti-science maxim : ‘ just in case.
’ Both experts concur that the best time to do trials was early in the pandemic not now .
Both say mask wearing by untrained non-medical citizens is very problematic and can actually cause more harm than good by making infection MORE likely .
So , please stop trying to make this a simplistic ” right or wrong – science versus anti-science ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for sure .
Read the accompanying article on UnHerd here : https : //unherd.com/thepost/oxford-epi… 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Two Top Oxford Medical Experts Agree: ‘No Evidence’ Masks Work
Written by John O'Sullivan
In a video interview two internationally-respected British doctors from the Centre For Evidence Based Medicine (University of Oxford) are very clear that there is no scientific basis to support mandatory mask wearing in public. In fact, they say it is possible that the policy may do more harm than good.
Carl Heneghan (Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Editor In Chief with BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine) sums it up declaring:
“By all means, people can wear masks, but they can’t say it’s an evidence-based decision.”
Tom Jefferson (Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Centre For Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford) agrees adding:
“Aside from people who are exposed on the medical front lines, there is no evidence masks make any difference.
As the confusion and controversy rages on both these eminent medical professionals are at pains to point out that little to no scientific investigation has ever been performed into the effectiveness of the mass wearing of masks during a pandemic.
Professor Heneghan:
“The evidence was also mostly generated by two groups of researchers and the harms of masks were under-reported and no one reported in detail on non-compliance and possible reasons for it. Ideally, we should carry out global trials testing the effects of the absence of masks, but we doubt politicians would be willing to take the risk that Max Von Pettenkopfer did when he swallowed a suspension of Vibrio cholerae to test the bacterial causal theory.”
If you don’t know it’s effectiveness how can you claim to know the risks. “Better safe then sorry” when you can’t prove safe, just means you don’t know the level of sorry it may bring.
Masks or no masks to enforce a policy based on no evidence under the guise of science has more to do with the demise of Max Von Pettenkopfer then what the mask “experts” realize.
Both experts interviewed concur on the point that there is no evidence that wearing masks offer either a positive or a negative effect when worn outside a clinical setting.
NEITHER of the Oxford experts recommend healthy people wearing them on the misguided anti-science maxim: ‘just in case.’
Both experts concur that the best time to do trials was early in the pandemic not now. Both say mask wearing by untrained non-medical citizens is very problematic and can actually cause more harm than good by making infection MORE likely.
So, please stop trying to make this a simplistic ”right or wrong – science versus anti-science‘ issue because right now no one knows for sure.
“It’s so sad, that what science used to represent as objective truth, has become nothing more than a puppet for politics, and big Pharma interests.” – Dr. Vladimir Zelenko
Read the accompanying article on UnHerd here: https://unherd.com/thepost/oxford-epi…
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--2020-08-10--Anti-science Greens Now Want Sterile Energy

Queensland ’ s Great Barrier Reef ( pictured ) is once again the excuse for extending Green control of all land and waters .
The current scare concerns the quality of water draining into the Coral Sea .
The Greens ’ hidden agenda is to eliminate coastal agriculture , mining , and commercial fishing .
They would surrender the land to kangaroos , cassowaries , lantana , cane toads , wild cats , and feral pigs and the seas to marauding sharks , cruising whales , and aboriginal fishermen .
Reef Warriors will never be satisfied until pure water drains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rivers along the Queensland coast .
This is an impossible and misguided dream .
Pure water is sterile , and nothing flourishes in it .
Vibrant offshore life needs wind , rivers , and creeks to deliver minerals and nutrients into coastal waters .
Corals , shellfish , and marine plants need calcium , magnesium , potassium , phosphorus , nitrogen , sulfur , carbon dioxide , and trace elements to build their skeletons , shells , and plant tissues .
Australian soils are leached and deficient in many minerals .
Farmers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need mineral fertilizers for healthy growth .
So do potted plants , orchards , and gardens , and so does all ocean life .
Many of these minerals are supplied naturally by the erosion of rocks such as limestone , magnesite , rock phosphate , dolomite , basalt , and granite .
This is a slow process , but mining , crushing , or calcining these rocks can speed things up , providing natural mineral fertilizer for farms , and any dust and river runoff provides free fertilizer for offshore marine life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ muds delivered by flooding rivers , and all marine animals welcome bits of dead animal life .
All-natural fertilizers used for land plants will also benefit sea plants .
Dust and smoke from bushfires , volcanoes , smelters , and power stations can deliver natural nutrients such as oxides of nitrogen , sulfur , and carbon ( all essential for vigorous , healthy vegetation ) to soils and plants in surrounding areas .
There is no danger as long as exhaust stacks or volcanic cones are high enough or remote enough to dilute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The atmosphere and surface waters are efficient distributors of dilute aerial fertilizers to land and sea plants .
This is far safer and cheaper than manufacturing artificial fertilizers and animal supplements and then selling these products to farmers who sometimes over-apply .
The main run-off dangers to coastal waters are herbicide and pesticide residue and soluble artificial chemical fertilizers used in excessive quantities .
This is real pollution , and it must be controlled .
Farmers have an incentive to control it — every bit that runs off is money wasted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employing green activists .
We must restore a real department of agriculture employing experienced agronomists dedicated to helping farmers , not looking for ways to put them out of business .
One of the safest and most complete sources of trace nutrients for land and sea plants is coal — decomposed coal , coal dust , or emissions from coal combustion .
Why so good ?
Because almost every element in coal came from plants and is needed by plants .
In the coalfields , the outcrops of weathered coal seams can often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of better soil and thicker , healthier scrub .
Barrier Reef Water Warriors need a dose of reality and perspective .
Since the construction of the Burdekin Falls Dam , the mighty Burdekin River delivers far less in sediment and nutrients into the Coral Sea .
We can assist nature to restore some of this loss with aerial or aqueous mineral nutrients from mining and agricultural sources .
Coal mining and combustion provide many nutrients that benefit all plant and animal life .
None is toxic unless artificially concentrated .
Viv Forbes has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farming , pasture , and water management and the geology and chemistry of minerals , soils , and coal .
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 .

Anti-science Greens Now Want Sterile Energy
Written by Viv Forbes
Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef (pictured) is once again the excuse for extending Green control of all land and waters. The current scare concerns the quality of water draining into the Coral Sea. The Greens’ hidden agenda is to eliminate coastal agriculture, mining, and commercial fishing.
They would surrender the land to kangaroos, cassowaries, lantana, cane toads, wild cats, and feral pigs and the seas to marauding sharks, cruising whales, and aboriginal fishermen.
Reef Warriors will never be satisfied until pure water drains from farms, mines, ports, and rivers along the Queensland coast. This is an impossible and misguided dream. Pure water is sterile, and nothing flourishes in it.
Vibrant offshore life needs wind, rivers, and creeks to deliver minerals and nutrients into coastal waters.
Corals, shellfish, and marine plants need calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, nitrogen, sulfur, carbon dioxide, and trace elements to build their skeletons, shells, and plant tissues.
Australian soils are leached and deficient in many minerals. Farmers know that farm crops and domestic animals need mineral fertilizers for healthy growth. So do potted plants, orchards, and gardens, and so does all ocean life.
Many of these minerals are supplied naturally by the erosion of rocks such as limestone, magnesite, rock phosphate, dolomite, basalt, and granite.
This is a slow process, but mining, crushing, or calcining these rocks can speed things up, providing natural mineral fertilizer for farms, and any dust and river runoff provides free fertilizer for offshore marine life.
Seaweed and other marine plants need fertile muds delivered by flooding rivers, and all marine animals welcome bits of dead animal life.
All-natural fertilizers used for land plants will also benefit sea plants. Dust and smoke from bushfires, volcanoes, smelters, and power stations can deliver natural nutrients such as oxides of nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon (all essential for vigorous, healthy vegetation) to soils and plants in surrounding areas.
There is no danger as long as exhaust stacks or volcanic cones are high enough or remote enough to dilute these gases before they reach the ground.
The atmosphere and surface waters are efficient distributors of dilute aerial fertilizers to land and sea plants.
This is far safer and cheaper than manufacturing artificial fertilizers and animal supplements and then selling these products to farmers who sometimes over-apply.
The main run-off dangers to coastal waters are herbicide and pesticide residue and soluble artificial chemical fertilizers used in excessive quantities. This is real pollution, and it must be controlled.
Farmers have an incentive to control it — every bit that runs off is money wasted in purchase and application. Governments should stop employing green activists.
We must restore a real department of agriculture employing experienced agronomists dedicated to helping farmers, not looking for ways to put them out of business.
One of the safest and most complete sources of trace nutrients for land and sea plants is coal — decomposed coal, coal dust, or emissions from coal combustion.
Why so good? Because almost every element in coal came from plants and is needed by plants. In the coalfields, the outcrops of weathered coal seams can often be seen on aerial photos as bands of better soil and thicker, healthier scrub.
Barrier Reef Water Warriors need a dose of reality and perspective. Since the construction of the Burdekin Falls Dam, the mighty Burdekin River delivers far less in sediment and nutrients into the Coral Sea.
We can assist nature to restore some of this loss with aerial or aqueous mineral nutrients from mining and agricultural sources.
Coal mining and combustion provide many nutrients that benefit all plant and animal life. None is toxic unless artificially concentrated.
Viv Forbes has a lifetime of knowledge and experience in farming, pasture, and water management and the geology and chemistry of minerals, soils, and coal.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-10--‘Mask mouth’: The smelly side effect of wearing a mask, say Dentists

‘ Mask mouth ’ : The smelly side effect of wearing a mask , say Dentists Some bad breath just can ’ t be covered up .
Now that dentists have reopened their doors , they ’ re having patients show up with a nasty set of symptoms , which the doctors have dubbed “ mask mouth.
” The new oral hygiene issue — caused by , you guessed it , wearing a mask all the time to prevent the spread of the coronavirus — is leading to all kinds of dental disasters like decaying teeth , receding gum lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re seeing inflammation in people ’ s gums that have been healthy forever , and cavities in people who have never had them before , ” says Dr .
Rob Ramondi , a dentist and co-founder of One Manhattan Dental .
“ About 50 % of our patients are being impacted by this , [ so ] we decided to name it ‘ mask mouth ’ — after ‘ meth mouth.
’ ” The term “ meth mouth ” is widely used by dentists to describe the dental problems that arise among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with cracked , black- and brown-stained teeth because the stimulant causes sugar cravings , teeth grinding and jaw clenching .
They also often neglect their oral hygiene .
While mask mouth isn ’ t quite as obvious , if left untreated , the results could be equally harmful .
“ Gum disease — or periodontal disease — will eventually lead to strokes and an increased risk of heart attacks , ” says Dr. Marc Sclafani , another co-founder of One Manhattan Dental .
He says the stinky syndrome is triggered by face coverings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the mouth — and a buildup of bad bacteria .
“ People tend to breathe through their mouth instead of through their nose while wearing a mask , ” says Sclafani .
“ The mouth breathing is causing the dry mouth , which leads to a decrease in saliva — and saliva is what fights the bacteria and cleanses your teeth.
” He adds that “ saliva is also what neutralizes acid in the mouth and helps prevent tooth decay and gum disease.
” People ’ s tendency to drink less water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consume more coffee and alcohol during lockdown , have also added to the widespread dehydration he ’ s seeing .
On the bright side , the dentists say that they ’ re packing in breath-conscious patients who might otherwise neglect their dental health during the pandemic .
“ Patients are coming into us like , ‘ Wow , my breath smells , I need a cleaning.
’ [ But ] when you smell the bad breath , you either already have periodontal disease or you have a lot of bacteria that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mouth , ” says Sclafani .
While masks are not negotiable given the times , Sclafani says there are things wearers can do to avoid their grossest side effect : drink more water , cut down on caffeine , snag a humidifier ( to “ help moisten the air ” ) , use an alcohol-free mouthwash , scrape your tongue and don ’ t smoke .
And if all else fails ?
“ Just breathe through your nose !
” PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

‘Mask mouth’: The smelly side effect of wearing a mask, say Dentists
Written by Melkorka Licea
Some bad breath just can’t be covered up. Now that dentists have reopened their doors, they’re having patients show up with a nasty set of symptoms, which the doctors have dubbed “mask mouth.”
The new oral hygiene issue — caused by, you guessed it, wearing a mask all the time to prevent the spread of the coronavirus — is leading to all kinds of dental disasters like decaying teeth, receding gum lines and seriously sour breath.
“We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before,” says Dr. Rob Ramondi, a dentist and co-founder of One Manhattan Dental. “About 50% of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it ‘mask mouth’ — after ‘meth mouth.’ ”
The term “meth mouth” is widely used by dentists to describe the dental problems that arise among methamphetamine users. Addicts often end up with cracked, black- and brown-stained teeth because the stimulant causes sugar cravings, teeth grinding and jaw clenching. They also often neglect their oral hygiene.
While mask mouth isn’t quite as obvious, if left untreated, the results could be equally harmful.
“Gum disease — or periodontal disease — will eventually lead to strokes and an increased risk of heart attacks,” says Dr. Marc Sclafani, another co-founder of One Manhattan Dental.
He says the stinky syndrome is triggered by face coverings since wearing a mask increases the dryness of the mouth — and a buildup of bad bacteria.
“People tend to breathe through their mouth instead of through their nose while wearing a mask,” says Sclafani. “The mouth breathing is causing the dry mouth, which leads to a decrease in saliva — and saliva is what fights the bacteria and cleanses your teeth.”
He adds that “saliva is also what neutralizes acid in the mouth and helps prevent tooth decay and gum disease.”
People’s tendency to drink less water while masked up, as well as consume more coffee and alcohol during lockdown, have also added to the widespread dehydration he’s seeing.
On the bright side, the dentists say that they’re packing in breath-conscious patients who might otherwise neglect their dental health during the pandemic.
“Patients are coming into us like, ‘Wow, my breath smells, I need a cleaning.’ [But] when you smell the bad breath, you either already have periodontal disease or you have a lot of bacteria that’s sitting on your tongue because of dry mouth,” says Sclafani.
While masks are not negotiable given the times, Sclafani says there are things wearers can do to avoid their grossest side effect: drink more water, cut down on caffeine, snag a humidifier (to “help moisten the air”), use an alcohol-free mouthwash, scrape your tongue and don’t smoke.
And if all else fails? “Just breathe through your nose!”
Read more at www.foxnews.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--2020-08-10--COVID-19: High Profile ‘False Positives’ Discredit Testing Regime

Recently , NFL Quarterback Matthew Stafford and Ohio Governor Mike Dewine recorded “ false positives ” after taking COVID-19 tests .
Re-tests for both men showed that neither of them had the Chinese-based virus that has caused mass hysteria throughout the globe .
“ We feel confident in the results from Wexner Medical Center , ” Gov .
Dewine ’ s office said of the second PCR test .
“ This is the same PCR test that has been used over 1.6 million times in Ohio by hospitals and labs all over the state.
” They added that officials will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a better understanding of how the discrepancy between these two tests could have occurred.
” The same thing happened to Stafford , an NFL QB with the Detroit Lions , and his wife , Kelly , has reported what a nightmare it has been since his bogus diagnosis .
They are undergoing discrimination from fear-crazed jackals in their community who have lost their souls to the mass hysteria .
“ I have been losing my mind because of how my Family has been treated since my husband was put on COVID-19 IR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instagram post .
She added : “ Even after we knew it was false positive , our school told us they ( children ) were not allowed back , I was approached in a grocery store and told I was ‘ endangering others , ’ my kids were harassed and kicked off the playground… ” Kelly Stafford blames the NFL for publicizing the COVID-19 list before it was clear that her husband had the virus .
His team has come out publicly to make it clear that Stafford has never had the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does NOT have COVID-19 and never has had COVID-19 and the test in question was a False-Positive , ” the Detroit Lions said in a statement .
“ Also , all of Matthew ’ s family have been tested and everyone is negative.
” These false positives cast the total of COVID-19 cases that have been reported into doubt , and they are far from the only discrepancies that have emerged in the reporting .
Big League Politics has reported on widespread errors coming from certain COVID-19 testing facilities , with the total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida Department of Health is scrambling after fraud was discovered in how COVID-19 testing rates were being reported across the state .
After the health department released a report showing a stunning statewide positivity rate of 11 percent , analysis of the numbers revealed severe irregularities .
Many labs reported 100 percent positivity , meaning that every test came back positive .
In addition to the labs reporting 100 percent positivity , there were other testing facilities that reported abnormal levels of positive tests .
FOX 35 found that Centra Care reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counted as positive .
The Orlando Veteran ’ s Affairs Medical Center reported a 76 percent positivity rate , NCF Diagnostics reported tests at a 88 percent positivity rate , and Orlando Health reported a 98 percent positivity rate .
Orlando Health has admitted that the results from the health department ’ s report are dubious .
They said that their positivity rate was only 9.4 percent , not 98 percent as it was shown in the report .
This casts major doubt regarding the accuracy of the total cases that have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has used Florida as an example to bolster their COVID-19 mass hysteria due to all of the supposed cases that were popping up throughout the state .
The COVID-19 scamdemic is largely based on these huge test numbers , but they could be completely bogus .
This may ultimately go down as the cruelest hoax in human history .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Method .

COVID-19: High Profile ‘False Positives’ Discredit Testing Regime
Written by Shane Trejo
Recently, NFL Quarterback Matthew Stafford and Ohio Governor Mike Dewine recorded “false positives” after taking COVID-19 tests. Re-tests for both men showed that neither of them had the Chinese-based virus that has caused mass hysteria throughout the globe.
“We feel confident in the results from Wexner Medical Center,” Gov. Dewine’s office said of the second PCR test. “This is the same PCR test that has been used over 1.6 million times in Ohio by hospitals and labs all over the state.”
They added that officials will be “working with the manufacturer to have a better understanding of how the discrepancy between these two tests could have occurred.”
The same thing happened to Stafford, an NFL QB with the Detroit Lions, and his wife, Kelly, has reported what a nightmare it has been since his bogus diagnosis. They are undergoing discrimination from fear-crazed jackals in their community who have lost their souls to the mass hysteria.
“I have been losing my mind because of how my Family has been treated since my husband was put on COVID-19 IR,” Kelly Stafford said in an Instagram post.
She added: “Even after we knew it was false positive, our school told us they (children) were not allowed back, I was approached in a grocery store and told I was ‘endangering others,’ my kids were harassed and kicked off the playground…”
Kelly Stafford blames the NFL for publicizing the COVID-19 list before it was clear that her husband had the virus. His team has come out publicly to make it clear that Stafford has never had the virus.
“To be clear, Matthew does NOT have COVID-19 and never has had COVID-19 and the test in question was a False-Positive,” the Detroit Lions said in a statement. “Also, all of Matthew’s family have been tested and everyone is negative.”
These false positives cast the total of COVID-19 cases that have been reported into doubt, and they are far from the only discrepancies that have emerged in the reporting.
Big League Politics has reported on widespread errors coming from certain COVID-19 testing facilities, with the total of cases being widely overinflated.
The Florida Department of Health is scrambling after fraud was discovered in how COVID-19 testing rates were being reported across the state. After the health department released a report showing a stunning statewide positivity rate of 11 percent, analysis of the numbers revealed severe irregularities. Many labs reported 100 percent positivity, meaning that every test came back positive. In addition to the labs reporting 100 percent positivity, there were other testing facilities that reported abnormal levels of positive tests. FOX 35 found that Centra Care reported that 83 people who submitted tests were all counted as positive. The Orlando Veteran’s Affairs Medical Center reported a 76 percent positivity rate, NCF Diagnostics reported tests at a 88 percent positivity rate, and Orlando Health reported a 98 percent positivity rate. Orlando Health has admitted that the results from the health department’s report are dubious. They said that their positivity rate was only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as it was shown in the report. This casts major doubt regarding the accuracy of the total cases that have been reported in Florida. The fake news has used Florida as an example to bolster their COVID-19 mass hysteria due to all of the supposed cases that were popping up throughout the state.
The COVID-19 scamdemic is largely based on these huge test numbers, but they could be completely bogus. This may ultimately go down as the cruelest hoax in human history.
Read more at bigleaguepolitics.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--2020-08-10--Please Sign the White House ‘HCQ Over the Counter’ Petition!

Please Sign the White House ‘ HCQ Over the Counter ’ Petition !
We need your urgent help to add your name to this important White House Petition to make the life-saving drug , Hydroxychloroquine , available over the counter ( OTC ) from pharmacies .
As our loyal readers know , doctors have saved thousands of patients from dying with COVID-19 using HCQ .
Please sign below today !
• In most states , physicians and pharmacies face unprecedented barriers to prescribing HCQ for prevention or early treatment of COVID-19 .
Prevention and early treatment is key .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including aspirin , acetaminophen , diphenhydramine , and Plan B .
• HCQ has been used for more than 65 years in hundreds of millions of patients , and has been available OTC in many places .
• A number of studies and the experience of many physicians show that early HCQ , especially with zinc supplements , is highly effective .
• The only way to assure that powerful bureaucracies or vested interests can not prevent patients from exercising freedom to choose is to make the drug available OTC ( AAPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Please Sign the White House ‘HCQ Over the Counter’ Petition!
Written by John O'Sullivan
We need your urgent help to add your name to this important White House Petition to make the life-saving drug, Hydroxychloroquine, available over the counter (OTC) from pharmacies. As our loyal readers know, doctors have saved thousands of patients from dying with COVID-19 using HCQ. Please sign below today!
SIGN THE PETITION HERE
In most states, physicians and pharmacies face unprecedented barriers to prescribing HCQ for prevention or early treatment of COVID-19. Prevention and early treatment is key.
HCQ is safer than other OTC drugs, including aspirin, acetaminophen, diphenhydramine, and Plan B.
HCQ has been used for more than 65 years in hundreds of millions of patients, and has been available OTC in many places.
A number of studies and the experience of many physicians show that early HCQ, especially with zinc supplements, is highly effective.
The only way to assure that powerful bureaucracies or vested interests cannot prevent patients from exercising freedom to choose is to make the drug available OTC (AAPS)
Visit the petition website at: petitions.whitehouse.gov
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--2020-08-10--NYC Democrat Councilman: ‘Hydroxychloroquine Saved My Life’

Democratic city councilman in New York City , says hydroxychloroquine saved his life when he was ravaged by coronavirus earlier this year .
“ I couldn ’ t breathe , very weak , couldn ’ t get out of bed , ” Paul Vallone , who represents the city ’ s 19th Council District , told the New York Post .
” My doctor prescribed it .
My pharmacy had it .
Took it that day and within two to three days I was able to breathe.
” The drug acted quickly to save him , Vallone ( photo , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Within a week I was back on my feet.
” Pallone took the medicine in concert with a Z-pack of the antibiotic Azythromyicin , which is used to treat bacterial pneumonia and bronchitis .
In April , Vallone wrote on Twitter that he was having mild , manageable symptoms , and was “ on the road to recovery.
” In truth , his illness worsened to the point of threatening his life , he told the Post .
His condition was complicated , he said , by a longstanding case of sarcoidosis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We were in panic mode when I went down because I didn ’ t have a lot of immune response , ” Vallone said .
“ I needed something to stay alive.
” His doctors prescribed hydroxychloroquine .
Only then did he begin to recover .
A malaria medication that has been used since 1955 , hydroxychloroquine resurfaced to controversy this year , when it was touted as a possible cure for COVID-19 .
President Trump was chastised by critics when he said that he has taken the drug , himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Vallone family is not among the drug ’ s critics .
“ I guess all those doctors who are prescribing it are right , ” Vallone ’ s brother Peter , a civil court judge in Queens , reportedly wrote on Facebook .
“ This drug is already on the market and the patent is up so it ’ s cheap .
A new drug won ’ t be .
So big money does not want this drug to be used .
Always follow the money.
” Paul Vallone responded in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saved my life.
” In June , the Food and Drug Administration warned against hydroxychloroquine outside of a clinical setting , saying that it could cause heart rhythm problems .
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 .

NYC Democrat Councilman: ‘Hydroxychloroquine Saved My Life’
Written by Susan Katz Keating
Democratic city councilman in New York City, says hydroxychloroquine saved his life when he was ravaged by coronavirus earlier this year.
“I couldn’t breathe, very weak, couldn’t get out of bed,” Paul Vallone, who represents the city’s 19th Council District, told the New York Post. ”My doctor prescribed it. My pharmacy had it. Took it that day and within two to three days I was able to breathe.”
The drug acted quickly to save him, Vallone (photo, above) told the Post. “Within a week I was back on my feet.”
Pallone took the medicine in concert with a Z-pack of the antibiotic Azythromyicin, which is used to treat bacterial pneumonia and bronchitis.
In April, Vallone wrote on Twitter that he was having mild, manageable symptoms, and was “on the road to recovery.”
In truth, his illness worsened to the point of threatening his life, he told the Post. His condition was complicated, he said, by a longstanding case of sarcoidosis, an auto-immune disease that attacks his lungs.
“We were in panic mode when I went down because I didn’t have a lot of immune response,” Vallone said. “I needed something to stay alive.”
His doctors prescribed hydroxychloroquine. Only then did he begin to recover.
A malaria medication that has been used since 1955, hydroxychloroquine resurfaced to controversy this year, when it was touted as a possible cure for COVID-19. President Trump was chastised by critics when he said that he has taken the drug, himself, to fend off the virus.
The Vallone family is not among the drug’s critics.
“I guess all those doctors who are prescribing it are right,” Vallone’s brother Peter, a civil court judge in Queens, reportedly wrote on Facebook. “This drug is already on the market and the patent is up so it’s cheap. A new drug won’t be. So big money does not want this drug to be used. Always follow the money.”
Paul Vallone responded in the comments: ““[It] saved my life.”
In June, the Food and Drug Administration warned against hydroxychloroquine outside of a clinical setting, saying that it could cause heart rhythm problems.
Read more at justthenews.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--2020-08-10--COVID19 Pandemic: Planned in the US, Activated in the UK

COVID19 Pandemic : Planned in the US , Activated in the UK First let ’ s check the deaths so far , that are officially attributed to COVID-19 .
I ’ m using the Worldometer website as source , it gives daily deaths .
Comparing the US with the UK , France , Italy and Sweden we express them as deaths per million , or which some may prefer , as percentages .
The UK – oddly enough – comes out top : So all the convulsions of the USA , practically destroying the very fabric of its civilization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of the populace – over a six- month period !
The average age of these ‘ COVID deaths ’ has been generally around eighty .
A ‘ PCR test ’ is given , from which a yes/no answer will emerge .
This test will obtain a strip of your DNA and somehow multiply it – the method discovered in 1984 by Kary Mullis .
But , how the presence of an alleged virus is thereby inferred , remains obscure .
I ’ d guess that no reader has read any account of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that is ‘ detected ’ by this test , you are then ‘ positive ’ .
This means ( a ) you must stay at home for two weeks , and ( b ) if you ’ ve just come into a hospital – which is when most of these test are done – then if you die you will be registered as having died of COVID-19 .
That ’ s the clever bit .
So this hoax plays on the very fear of death itself .
No wonder it works so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ have been reported as due to very diverse conditions : old age , heart disease , Parkinson ’ s disease , diabetes , pneumonia etc .
There was an insightful report by some Swiss doctors who concluded that a ‘ real ’ phenomenon was here present , but it comprised about 4 % of all the COVID deaths : ‘ only about 4 % of the deceased had no serious preconditions ’ .
For the total of American COVID-related deaths , presently 482 per million : if the phenomenon really exists then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure , ie 19 deaths per million .
That is a fairly ‘ real ’ value of how this disease has been working in America to-date .
It ’ s not a lot , one must say .
The Experiment that Can not be Performed As a science historian , I ’ m intrigued by the way Big Pharma is here streamrollering over traditional , normal scientific method .
John Rappaport pointed out how the following rudimentary experiment should have been done before any discussion of how real is this disease takes place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ward of people who are ill from COVID-19 .
We ’ ve all seen heart-rending images of them on incubators , to keep them breathing .
Well OK , take a sample of phlegm from each of them .
Then take samples from the same number of healthy people .
They are all given to a lab that does the PCR tests , and how well can it differentiate between these two ?
Now , if real science were going on here we ’ d all have heard a definite figure here by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 80 % .
Or , 90 % .
What figure would you require here , to see it as a reliable method ?
That is the experiment , that can not be done .
Ditto for repeatability : we should all have been told a clear figure about how repeatable this PCR test is , applied to the same individual on different days or the same individual with different hospitals doing the testing .
Would it be say 60 % ?
Or 90 % ?
Have you ever seen any figures here ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would need to be high enough to reassure us that the test can be relied upon .
I feel this is an important modern concept , of the experiment that can not be done and here ’ s one more .
All the world seems to be longing for a vaccine to appear .
Well fine , if people want to take the vaccine then go ahead .
But there is one , simple request we make here : that a similar group of non-vaccinated persons be collected , and the health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and years .
I ’ ll wager a large sum of money that some proportion of the former group would suffer far-reaching damage to its health – maybe permanent – as compared to the unvaccinated .
Americans are now probably the most vaccinated people of earth , as growing kids get about seventy different vaccines stuffed into them .
Have you ever heard of a control experiment , of comparing a group of them with un-vaccinated kids ?
I ’ d wager the latter group would do better at school – if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I decided to write a book on the coronavirus topic when it became evident that not one but two surveys had shown that the more a country went into lockdown , the more COVID-19 it experienced .
There was a third study showingthat within America , the different states experienced COVID-19 in proportion to how much they locked down ( J.P.Morgan , 21 May ) , then a further study showed that in every case where reliable death-data was available , the increase in mortality in a country started immediately after the lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is the stress , despair and loneliness of the lockdown that produces , especially for old folk , the extra deaths .
Here ’ s a bar-chart prepared for the ‘ UK column ’ for one of Vanessa Beeley ’ s important articles on the subject ( click here ) : This was the first indication that non-lockdown countries did better .
You can see how the USA on the far-right is doing much better than European countries – again using deaths per million .
These figures are for mid-April .
Japan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ score remains a bit of a mystery .
Here is a different kind of graph from an Oxford University study , which estimated what they called ‘ stringency ’ of lockdown ’ versus CV-deaths .
We see how the best-fit straight line put through the data has a positive gradient .
Here is a British expert Iain Davies commenting on this in the Off-Guardian ( one of the best UK sites on this topic ) : It ’ s pretty obvious really : fresh air and sunshine are good for you while staying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Especially in the summertime .
It ’ s how we were designed .
Here is a laconic quote from the well-informed Brit Rob Slane which may help to put into perspective the great folly : The idea of quarantining millions of perfectly healthy people and stopping them from doing normal , healthy things is something that has apparently never occurred to any national leaders in the past .
Americans should re-read papers by the legendary US doctor Donald Henderson , who is remembered as the 20thcentury ’ s most acclaimed disease eradicator .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be handled , and why lockdowns were not the answer , is highly relevant today .
[ 1 ] In the UK , daily COVID death figures had more or less petered out by July , and some new scare was needed .
Shops were opening , cafes were opening , even pubs .
So on 24/7 ( a memorable date ) facemasks were declared mandatory .
Total weekly deaths from all causes had sunk down to below average , which was to be expected : in the months after the lockdown on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge surge in deaths of old people , caused by the Lockdown , so naturally once that stress was off or mitigated , the weekly death figures will drop .
Anyhow here are UK daily death figures : This graph shows deaths of persons who were PCR-test positive .
It does not show any basis for scaring the populace with talk of a ‘ second wave.
’ The graph of total ‘ covid cases ’ ie positive PCR test does show a slight upturn , but this no doubt reflects an increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any source of daily US deaths for comparison .
Planning and Gestation of the Event In 2000 , the Neo-Con Pentagon document ‘ Rebuilding America ’ s Defences ’ advocated the policy that : Two days before the Trump inauguration , his medical advisor Anthony Fauci informed the world that : ‘ No question ?
’ – how did he know that ?
And how would it be a surprise if he knew it was coming ?
Fauci , under the Obama administration , had been in charge of the National Institute for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3.7 million to a Wuhan virus-related laboratory .
The year 2019 featured two planning events which blueprinted what was to come .
On August 13th a four-day Operation Crimson Contagion was held in Washington DC which planned for a ‘ global influenza pandemic ’ featuring school closures , social distancing , medical countermeasures etc .
with everyone being told to stay at home : it had a Pandemic Crisis Action Plan .
True to ‘ real life ’ it featured visitors from China who carried the new virus into the USA .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 2019 , with its ‘ Global Pandemic Exercise ’ organized by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation plus the World Economic Forum .
Held at the Pierre Hotel in New York City under the auspices of Johns Hopkins University ’ s Center for Health Security , it simulated a global coronavirus outbreak .
Its brochure opened with the firm statement : ‘ We need to prepare for the event that becomes a pandemic.
’ Flights would be cancelled and everyone had to stay at home .
The synchronies here are important .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on 12th of August , the day before Operation Crimson Contagion begins .
He is the one person everyone would have liked to consult about this whole scam : honest , well-informed and fearless , a Nobel-prize winning biochemist .
He had to go before the whole thing could happen .
Then on 18th October the very day that Event 201 began , US soldiers arrived in Wuhan , China for the Military Olympic Games .
They stayed within a hundred yards or so of a seafood market , where the outbreak allegedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They performed so badly in the games that Chinese officials concluded they were not trying , and were there for some other purpose… Infections began in October-November , but the Chinese medical authorities only realised that some new form of flu had broken out on 30th December , and at once reported it to the World Health Organization .
It ’ s not true what Trump is claiming , that they somehow neglected to inform people .
As to where it came from , Ron Unz published his big-hit article ‘ Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and soon found the articles on his immensely popular website being banned from Facebook and Google .
Put that title into Google , it will not find the unz.com site .
Go to the Russian search engine Yandex , it comes up top .
So the whole thing was blueprinted in America , but the ‘ On ’ switch to activate the program was in London .
A paper appeared on March 17th with thirty authors from Imperial College , London .
It predicted two million dead in the USA , half a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been said that no science paper ever had such an effect .
Suddenly politicians were talking about ‘ exponential ’ growth of the illness .
Clearly , Lockdown was the answer – with no time for Parliament to discuss it !
No British scientist has so consistent a record of being catastrophically wrong as Neil Ferguson , but he ’ s very good at invoking fear , which politicians seem to need these days .
The entire Event 201 program was activated by this paper .
[ 1 ] His classic 2006 study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Control of Pandemic Influenza .
‘ How a Free Society Deals with Pandemics , According to Legendary Epidemiologist and Smallpox Eradicator Donald Henderson ’ ( 21 May aeir.org ; also jamesfetzer.org ) .
John P. Costella , Ph.D. , has been specifically tracking most of the affected countries since the beginning : http : // johncostella.com/covid-19/ world-deaths.png This graph shows that only one ( tiny ) country–San Marino–is over 0.1 % : http : //johncostella.com/ covid-19/top-world-deaths.png All of his graphs at http : //johncostella.com/ covid-19/ About the author : Nicholas Kollerstrom PhD has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the first at Cambridge followed by his Ph.D. at London , where he became a member of staff in the Science and Technology Studies Department .
He was accepted as a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences in 1999 , and invited to contribute to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomy ( William Hockey , ed.
, 2007 ) , where he contributed the biography of Sir Isaac Newton .
He has been a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society for several decades .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

COVID19 Pandemic: Planned in the US, Activated in the UK
Written by Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D.
First let’s check the deaths so far, that are officially attributed to COVID-19. I’m using the Worldometer website as source, it gives daily deaths. Comparing the US with the UK, France, Italy and Sweden we express them as deaths per million, or which some may prefer, as percentages. The UK – oddly enough – comes out top:
UK 825 deaths / million => 0.08% of population Italy 582 “ => 0.06% of population Sweden 558 “ => 0.06% of population USA 482 “ => 0.05% of population France 452. “ => 0.05% of population
So all the convulsions of the USA, practically destroying the very fabric of its civilization, was for the deaths of merely 0.05% of the populace – over a six- month period! The average age of these ‘COVID deaths’ has been generally around eighty.
A ‘PCR test’ is given, from which a yes/no answer will emerge. This test will obtain a strip of your DNA and somehow multiply it – the method discovered in 1984 by Kary Mullis. But, how the presence of an alleged virus is thereby inferred, remains obscure. I’d guess that no reader has read any account of this which makes sense. Whatever it is that is ‘detected’ by this test, you are then ‘positive’. This means (a) you must stay at home for two weeks, and (b) if you’ve just come into a hospital – which is when most of these test are done – then if you die you will be registered as having died of COVID-19. That’s the clever bit. So this hoax plays on the very fear of death itself. No wonder it works so well.
Nearly all COVID ‘deaths’ have been reported as due to very diverse conditions: old age, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, pneumonia etc. There was an insightful report by some Swiss doctors who concluded that a ‘real’ phenomenon was here present, but it comprised about 4% of all the COVID deaths:
‘only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions’.
For the total of American COVID-related deaths, presently 482 per million: if the phenomenon really exists then we should take 4% of that figure, ie 19 deaths per million. That is a fairly ‘real’ value of how this disease has been working in America to-date.
It’s not a lot, one must say.
The Experiment that Cannot be Performed
As a science historian, I’m intrigued by the way Big Pharma is here streamrollering over traditional, normal scientific method. John Rappaport pointed out how the following rudimentary experiment should have been done before any discussion of how real is this disease takes place. Say, we have a hospital ward of people who are ill from COVID-19. We’ve all seen heart-rending images of them on incubators, to keep them breathing. Well OK, take a sample of phlegm from each of them. Then take samples from the same number of healthy people. They are all given to a lab that does the PCR tests, and how well can it differentiate between these two? Now, if real science were going on here we’d all have heard a definite figure here by way of reply. Say, eg 80%. Or, 90%. What figure would you require here, to see it as a reliable method? That is the experiment, that cannot be done.
Ditto for repeatability: we should all have been told a clear figure about how repeatable this PCR test is, applied to the same individual on different days or the same individual with different hospitals doing the testing. Would it be say 60%? Or 90%? Have you ever seen any figures here? Whatever the actual figures are here, they would need to be high enough to reassure us that the test can be relied upon.
I feel this is an important modern concept, of the experiment that cannot be done and here’s one more. All the world seems to be longing for a vaccine to appear. Well fine, if people want to take the vaccine then go ahead. But there is one, simple request we make here: that a similar group of non-vaccinated persons be collected, and the health of the two groups followed over months and years. I’ll wager a large sum of money that some proportion of the former group would suffer far-reaching damage to its health – maybe permanent – as compared to the unvaccinated.
Americans are now probably the most vaccinated people of earth, as growing kids get about seventy different vaccines stuffed into them. Have you ever heard of a control experiment, of comparing a group of them with un-vaccinated kids? I’d wager the latter group would do better at school – if they would be allowed to go there.
Lockdown: The Error
I decided to write a book on the coronavirus topic when it became evident that not one but two surveys had shown that the more a country went into lockdown, the more COVID-19 it experienced. There was a third study showingthat within America, the different states experienced COVID-19 in proportion to how much they locked down (J.P.Morgan, 21 May), then a further study showed that in every case where reliable death-data was available, the increase in mortality in a country started immediately after the lockdown protocols began. In other words, it is the stress, despair and loneliness of the lockdown that produces, especially for old folk, the extra deaths.
Here’s a bar-chart prepared for the ‘UK column’ for one of Vanessa Beeley’s important articles on the subject (click here):
This was the first indication that non-lockdown countries did better. You can see how the USA on the far-right is doing much better than European countries – again using deaths per million. These figures are for mid-April. Japan here is extremely low and its low score remains a bit of a mystery.
Here is a different kind of graph from an Oxford University study, which estimated what they called ‘stringency’ of lockdown’ versus CV-deaths. We see how the best-fit straight line put through the data has a positive gradient. Here is a British expert Iain Davies commenting on this in the Off-Guardian (one of the best UK sites on this topic):
Nor is there any evidence that lockdown regimes have any positive impact upon infection rates. Comparisons between severe lockdown states and those who opted for less draconian measures reveal no advantage to placing your population under house arrest… Oxford University found a direct correlation between infection rates and the relative severity of lockdown regimes. It suggests the more stringent the lockdown, the higher the infection rate. This is not unexpected, as numerous epidemiological studies have shown that infection rates for C19 are higher when people are exposed to it for prolonged periods in confined spaces. Locking people up in their homes is probably the worst thing you could do if you wanted to reduce the infections and the duration of the outbreak.
It’s pretty obvious really: fresh air and sunshine are good for you while staying indoors all day isn’t. Especially in the summertime. It’s how we were designed. Here is a laconic quote from the well-informed Brit Rob Slane which may help to put into perspective the great folly:
The idea of quarantining millions of perfectly healthy people and stopping them from doing normal, healthy things is something that has apparently never occurred to any national leaders in the past.
Americans should re-read papers by the legendary US doctor Donald Henderson, who is remembered as the 20thcentury’s most acclaimed disease eradicator. His sage advice about how epidemics should be handled, and why lockdowns were not the answer, is highly relevant today.[1]
A Second wave?
In the UK, daily COVID death figures had more or less petered out by July, and some new scare was needed. Shops were opening, cafes were opening, even pubs. So on 24/7 (a memorable date) facemasks were declared mandatory. Total weekly deaths from all causes had sunk down to below average, which was to be expected: in the months after the lockdown on the spring equinox, there had been a huge surge in deaths of old people, caused by the Lockdown, so naturally once that stress was off or mitigated, the weekly death figures will drop. Anyhow here are UK daily death figures:
This graph shows deaths of persons who were PCR-test positive. It does not show any basis for scaring the populace with talk of a ‘second wave.’ The graph of total ‘covid cases’ ie positive PCR test does show a slight upturn, but this no doubt reflects an increase in testing. I could not find any source of daily US deaths for comparison.
Planning and Gestation of the Event
In 2000, the Neo-Con Pentagon document ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’ advocated the policy that:
‘…advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.’ (p.60)
Two days before the Trump inauguration, his medical advisor Anthony Fauci informed the world that:
There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases… But also there will be a surprise outbreak.
‘No question?’ – how did he know that? And how would it be a surprise if he knew it was coming? Fauci, under the Obama administration, had been in charge of the National Institute for Heath and in 2015 it transferred $3.7 million to a Wuhan virus-related laboratory.
The year 2019 featured two planning events which blueprinted what was to come. On August 13th a four-day Operation Crimson Contagion was held in Washington DC which planned for a ‘global influenza pandemic’ featuring school closures, social distancing, medical countermeasures etc. with everyone being told to stay at home: it had a Pandemic Crisis Action Plan. True to ‘real life’ it featured visitors from China who carried the new virus into the USA. That was followed by Event 201 held in October 2019, with its ‘Global Pandemic Exercise’ organized by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation plus the World Economic Forum. Held at the Pierre Hotel in New York City under the auspices of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security, it simulated a global coronavirus outbreak. Its brochure opened with the firm statement: ‘We need to prepare for the event that becomes a pandemic.’ Flights would be cancelled and everyone had to stay at home.
The synchronies here are important. The death of Kary Mullis is reported on 12th of August, the day before Operation Crimson Contagion begins. He is the one person everyone would have liked to consult about this whole scam: honest, well-informed and fearless, a Nobel-prize winning biochemist. He had to go before the whole thing could happen. Then on 18th October the very day that Event 201 began, US soldiers arrived in Wuhan, China for the Military Olympic Games. They stayed within a hundred yards or so of a seafood market, where the outbreak allegedly began and were there as it began. They performed so badly in the games that Chinese officials concluded they were not trying, and were there for some other purpose…
Infections began in October-November, but the Chinese medical authorities only realised that some new form of flu had broken out on 30th December, and at once reported it to the World Health Organization. It’s not true what Trump is claiming, that they somehow neglected to inform people. As to where it came from, Ron Unz published his big-hit article ‘Our Coronavirus Catastrophe as Biowarfare Blowback?’ and soon found the articles on his immensely popular website being banned from Facebook and Google. Put that title into Google, it will not find the unz.com site. Go to the Russian search engine Yandex, it comes up top.
So the whole thing was blueprinted in America, but the ‘On’ switch to activate the program was in London. A paper appeared on March 17th with thirty authors from Imperial College, London. It predicted two million dead in the USA, half a million dead in the UK. Its been said that no science paper ever had such an effect. Suddenly politicians were talking about ‘exponential’ growth of the illness. Clearly, Lockdown was the answer – with no time for Parliament to discuss it! No British scientist has so consistent a record of being catastrophically wrong as Neil Ferguson, but he’s very good at invoking fear, which politicians seem to need these days. The entire Event 201 program was activated by this paper.
NOTES:
[1] His classic 2006 study, ‘Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza. ‘How a Free Society Deals with Pandemics, According to Legendary Epidemiologist and Smallpox Eradicator Donald Henderson’ (21 May aeir.org; also jamesfetzer.org).
John P. Costella, Ph.D., has been specifically tracking most of the affected countries since the beginning: http:// johncostella.com/covid-19/ world-deaths.png This graph shows that only one (tiny) country–San Marino–is over 0.1%: http://johncostella.com/ covid-19/top-world-deaths.png All of his graphs at http://johncostella.com/ covid-19/
About the author: Nicholas Kollerstrom PhD has two degrees in the History of Science, the first at Cambridge followed by his Ph.D. at London, where he became a member of staff in the Science and Technology Studies Department. He was accepted as a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences in 1999, and invited to contribute to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomy (William Hockey, ed., 2007), where he contributed the biography of Sir Isaac Newton. He has been a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society for several decades.
Read more at jamesfetzer.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--2020-08-10--Emperor Penguins Thrive Despite Alarmist Claims of ‘Vulnerable’ Listing

Emperor penguin ( Aptenodytes fosteri ) populations in 2019 were found to have grown by up to 10 % since 2009 – to as many as 282,150 breeding pairs ( up from about 256,500 ) out of a total population of over 600,000 birds ( Fretwell et al .
2012 ; Fretwell and Trathan 2020 ; Trathan et al .
2020 ) – despite a loss of thousands of chicks in 2016 when an ice shelf collapsed .
Yet , biologists studying this species are currently petitioning the IUCN to upgrade emperor penguins to ‘ Vulnerable ’ ( Trathan et @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that use the implausible and extreme RCP8.5 ‘ worst-case ‘ climate-change scenario ( e.g .
Hausfather and Peters 2020 ) that polar bear biologists find so compelling .
Not surprisingly , their unscientific models suggest emperor penguins could be close to extinction by 2100 under these unlikely conditions – but if we reduce CO2 emissions via political policy , the penguins will be saved !
Surprisingly , these researchers are going ahead with their petition to have emperor penguins uplisted despite the population increase and the reservations their colleagues expressed in 2018 about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a classification of ‘ Near Threatened ’ for the IUCN Red List assessment ( Birdlife International 2018 ) , as noted below in their ‘ justification ’ : Like polar bear biologists , some emperor penguin biologists just won ’ t give up on the prediction they developed back in the mid-2000s that climate change is sure to drive this species to near extinction .
For example , Jenouvrier et al .
( 2009 ) calculated that there was at least a 36 % chance of a 95 % or more decline in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called a “ quasi-extinction ” ) due to changes in sea ice distribution .
They suggested a decline of this magnitude would entail a fall from about 6,000 breeding pairs to about 400 in a single colony .
The newest model ( Jenouvrier et al .
2020 ) similarly uses the RCP8.5 ‘ worse case ’ scenario to predict near-extinction by 2100 , as their ‘ graphic abstract ’ below shows .
This group is also recommending that “ the species is listed by the Antarctic Treaty as an Antarctic Specially Protected Species @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plan ( Trathan et al .
2020 ) .
And as co-author Peter Fretwell told the BBC last fall ( 9 October 2019 ) : “ Everything we know – all the experts , all the models – tells us that Emperors are going to be in real trouble .
We need to pull out all the stops to help them .
That ’ s going to be hard because we know the one thing that ’ s really going to save them is stabilisation of the global climate.
” Sounds like something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Except that for polar bears , the catastrophe they keep predicting just won ’ t happen despite the fact that summer Arctic sea ice has been declining faster than anyone expected – so far , an almost 50 % decline in ice has already happened yet global polar bear numbers keep slowly increasing ( Crockford 2019 ; 2020 ) .
I ’ d suggest that using far-fetched ‘ worst-case ’ scenario predictions to propose an unlikely but scary-sounding future catastrophe isn ’ t likely to work any better for emperor penguins than it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the animals keep thriving .
However , some of the papers listed below are open access , so if you ’ re interested in more details I suggest you have a look .
If you ’ d like a copy of the modeling paper ( Jenouvrier et al .
2020 ) , contact me and I ’ ll send it along .
You ’ ll find more on the emperor penguin conservation issue in this essay by biologist Jim Steele .
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist ( former adjunct professor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mammals , including polar bears and walruses .
Her new book is The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened ( Amazon ) .
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 .

Emperor Penguins Thrive Despite Alarmist Claims of ‘Vulnerable’ Listing
Written by Susan J Crockford PhD
Emperor penguin (Aptenodytes fosteri) populations in 2019 were found to have grown by up to 10% since 2009 – to as many as 282,150 breeding pairs (up from about 256,500) out of a total population of over 600,000 birds (Fretwell et al. 2012; Fretwell and Trathan 2020; Trathan et al. 2020) – despite a loss of thousands of chicks in 2016 when an ice shelf collapsed.
Yet, biologists studying this species are currently petitioning the IUCN to upgrade emperor penguins to ‘Vulnerable’ (Trathan et al. 2020) based on models that use the implausible and extreme RCP8.5 ‘worst-case‘ climate-change scenario (e.g. Hausfather and Peters 2020) that polar bear biologists find so compelling.
Not surprisingly, their unscientific models suggest emperor penguins could be close to extinction by 2100 under these unlikely conditions – but if we reduce CO2 emissions via political policy, the penguins will be saved!
Surprisingly, these researchers are going ahead with their petition to have emperor penguins uplisted despite the population increase and the reservations their colleagues expressed in 2018 about using climate change predictions to arrive at a classification of ‘Near Threatened’ for the IUCN Red List assessment (Birdlife International 2018), as noted below in their ‘justification’:
This species is listed as Near Threatened because it is projected to undergo a moderately rapid population decline over the next three generations owing to the projected effects of climate change. However, it should be noted that there is considerable uncertainty over future climatic changes and how these will impact the species.
Like polar bear biologists, some emperor penguin biologists just won’t give up on the prediction they developed back in the mid-2000s that climate change is sure to drive this species to near extinction.
For example, Jenouvrier et al. (2009) calculated that there was at least a 36% chance of a 95% or more decline in emperor penguins by 2100 (what they called a “quasi-extinction”) due to changes in sea ice distribution.
They suggested a decline of this magnitude would entail a fall from about 6,000 breeding pairs to about 400 in a single colony.
The newest model (Jenouvrier et al. 2020) similarly uses the RCP8.5 ‘worse case’ scenario to predict near-extinction by 2100, as their ‘graphic abstract’ below shows.
This group is also recommending that “the species is listed by the Antarctic Treaty as an Antarctic Specially Protected Species” that would require a Species Action Plan (Trathan et al. 2020).
And as co-author Peter Fretwell told the BBC last fall (9 October 2019):
“Everything we know – all the experts, all the models – tells us that Emperors are going to be in real trouble. We need to pull out all the stops to help them. That’s going to be hard because we know the one thing that’s really going to save them is stabilisation of the global climate.”
Sounds like something a polar bear specialist would say. Except that for polar bears, the catastrophe they keep predicting just won’t happen despite the fact that summer Arctic sea ice has been declining faster than anyone expected – so far, an almost 50% decline in ice has already happened yet global polar bear numbers keep slowly increasing (Crockford 2019; 2020).
I’d suggest that using far-fetched ‘worst-case’ scenario predictions to propose an unlikely but scary-sounding future catastrophe isn’t likely to work any better for emperor penguins than it has done for polar bears, especially when the animals keep thriving.
However, some of the papers listed below are open access, so if you’re interested in more details I suggest you have a look. If you’d like a copy of the modeling paper (Jenouvrier et al. 2020), contact me and I’ll send it along. You’ll find more on the emperor penguin conservation issue in this essay by biologist Jim Steele.
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist (former adjunct professor, University of Victoria) specializing in Holocene mammals, including polar bears and walruses. Her new book is The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Amazon).
Read rest at Polar Bear Science
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--2020-08-11--Study: Southern Ocean Now as Cold as Last Ice Age-Era

Study : Southern Ocean Now as Cold as Last Ice Age-Era A new temperature reconstruction indicates today ’ s sea surface temperatures are colder than all but a few millennia out of the last 156,000 years .
A Southern Ocean site analyzed in a new study ( Ghadi et al.
, 2020 ) has averaged 1-2°C during glacials and 4°C during interglacials .
Today , with a 410 ppm CO2 concentration , this location has again plummeted to glacial/ice age levels ( 2°C ) .
The site was 2°C warmer than now when CO2 concentrations were 180 ppm about 20,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the last ice age .
During the Early Holocene ( 10,000 to 8,000 years ago ) , summer sea surface temperatures were also 2°C warmer than today .
There is no indication that CO2 concentration changes are in any way correlated with temperature changes throughout this entire 156,000-year epoch .
Read more at No Tricks Zone 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Study: Southern Ocean Now as Cold as Last Ice Age-Era
Written by Kenneth Richard
A new temperature reconstruction indicates today’s sea surface temperatures are colder than all but a few millennia out of the last 156,000 years.
A Southern Ocean site analyzed in a new study (Ghadi et al., 2020) has averaged 1-2°C during glacials and 4°C during interglacials. Today, with a 410 ppm CO2 concentration, this location has again plummeted to glacial/ice age levels (2°C).
The site was 2°C warmer than now when CO2 concentrations were 180 ppm about 20,000 years ago, or during the peak of the last ice age.
During the Early Holocene (10,000 to 8,000 years ago), summer sea surface temperatures were also 2°C warmer than today.
There is no indication that CO2 concentration changes are in any way correlated with temperature changes throughout this entire 156,000-year epoch.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
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