principiascientificinternational--2020-07-01--How We Can Tackle Our Growing Waste Problem

How We Can Tackle Our Growing Waste Problem The increasing amount of waste is one of the most challenging problems facing the World , which creates enormous environmental problems .
According to the World Bank , Canada produces the most waste per capita in the world .
Additionally , Canada recycles just 9 percent of its plastics .
Banning foreign waste import by China and other counties has not helped to waste recycling business in Canada .
In addition , shifting the recycling program to the producer responsibility by the Ontario Government , will reduce further plastic waste recycling and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban of certain single-use plastic products ( e.g.
, straws , bags ) may not solve the spread of plastic litter and environmental problems .
Without more effective and sustainable ways to manage produced waste , more and more waste will end up in landfills polluting our land , water , and air .
At the same time , we have a tremendous business opportunity to convert waste into usable sustainable products .
According to a market study report prepared by Market Insights Reports , the smart waste management market was valued at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 and is expected to reach $ 5.19 billion by 2024 , registering a compound annual growth rate ( CAGR ) of 25.68 % , during the forecast period of 2019-2024 .
Contaminated and mixed waste products ( e.g.
, plastic , paper , industrial waste , medical waste , MSW ) are challenging to recycle by mechanical/physical processing .
Especially , traditional plastic waste recycling has difficulties and limitations .
Mechanical sorting is not effective for mixed plastic waste .
Thousands of different types of plastic are manufactured by combinations of different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition , the plastic material quality is very susceptible to contamination .
Even carefully selected plastic materials can only be recycled limited times in similar products since it degrades every time after reheating .
Therefore , most plastic products are downcycled into items of reduced value , such as textiles , toys or fibres , and eventually , end up in landfills and water resources creating tremendous environmental problems .
Replacing plastics with alternative materials , such as glass and metals would cost more to manufacture due to the higher energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the way of the current waste management operating .
On the other hand , waste plastic can be recycled into high-value products using advanced and cost-effective waste conversion technologies .
The circular economy is not only based on simple reusing waste products .
The purpose the recycling is to redesign and convert waste into forms retaining as high value as possible in a circular economy .
We need sustainable and effective waste management to protect our environment and develop a working circular economy .
In a circular economy , chemical recycling can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into usable materials and clean energy .
Chemical recycling as waste recycling using effective waste conversion technology is essential for a working circular economy .
Illinois and Ohio have become the most recent states to pass laws making it easier to build chemical recycling facilities , regulating them as recycling operations rather than waste processing plants .
Canadian Government could also consider that as a tool to develop a new approach – “ Chemical Recycling ” in waste management .
Regrettably , Canada and other G7 countries are planning to use waste-to-energy incineration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , incineration is a very costly and inefficient way for waste conversion into energy and generating highly toxic and carcinogenic pollutants .
The environmental impact of waste can be minimized by proper waste management applying advanced waste conversion technologies .
The government should address the demand to solve the incredible waste accumulation problem by developing appropriate tools for waste management challenges and supporting the development of effective waste conversion technologies .
We should focus more on waste diversion from landfills and water resources , and the conversion of waste into high-value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-value clean energy and sustainable products using advanced and cost-effective waste conversion technologies , such as anaerobic digestion , pyrolysis , gasification , plasma-enhanced gasification , and steam gasification .
Therefore , the circular economy should include the use of effective waste conversion technologies to produce high-value usable products .
Perspectives of different waste conversion technologies are provided in the article – “ Perspectives on Waste-to-Energy Technologies ” .
Chemical Recycling should be based on reliable and cost-effective waste conversion technologies .
Therefore , it is very important to do technical due diligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent wasting time and money .
Regrettably , investors often do not take the time to evaluate the proposed technology and , therefore , the underlying scientific/technological basis of the business is often neglected in the CleanTech sectors .
As a result of this , enormous and overpriced facilities were built producing not profitable products .
In addition to financial data and management of the company , the underlying scientific/technology base of the applied technology should be considered .
Science is supposed to be an essential pillar of a successful and sustainable business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to properly establish the underlying scientific/technology base for applied technologies to build a successful waste conversion plant .
The success of waste conversion technology applications depends on the following main factors : • The underlying scientific/technological basis of the process • Quantity and quality of the produced products As a result of many years of development , a unique and cost-effective waste convection technology has been developed and tested at the pre-commercial waste conversion facility .
The developed technology is based on a steam gasification process in combination with a reliable scrubbing/cleaning system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential alternative to the traditional treatments of waste feedstocks ( e.g .
plastic , biomass , MSW , sewage sludge , industrial by-products ) to produce high-quality syngas , which contains no noxious oxides and higher hydrogen concentration than products produced by traditional gasification .
The chemistry is different due to the high concentration of steam as a reactant and the total exclusion of air and , therefore , oxygen from the steam reformation process .
The proposed technology using an indirectly heated kiln in combination with a reliable and effective scrubbing/cleaning system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology uses “ off the shelf ” commercially proven equipment , which significantly lowers the capital and operating costs compared to other waste conversion technologies .
In a working circular economy , a solution for waste disposal and clean energy and sustainable product regeneration is an effective waste conversion technology application based on thermo-chemical and bio-chemical processes .
The produced product type depends on the types of feedstock and reactants , and the applied processing conditions as applied physico-chemical interaction conditions in the system .
The applied waste conversion technology type depends on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirement on the produced products from waste .
The suitable waste conversion technology can divert waste from landfills and convert waste into usable products and prevent contamination of our environment .
The waste steam gasification technology as a cost-effective process is most suitable for contaminated and mixed waste ( including plastic waste ) conversion into various forms of high-value sustainable products , such as electricity , hydrogen , liquid synthetic fuels , and chemicals .
At the current stage , based on market demand , hydrogen production from mixed waste ( including contaminated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solution .
Using the steam gasification technology for waste conversion into hydrogen is an opportunity for a profitable business , which can solve the world ’ s biggest problem – the enormous waste accumulation .
There is a requirement for a new and innovative approach in the development of a solution for waste management challenges , waste recycling , plastic waste pollution reduction and a working circular economy .
The used waste conversion technologies should be efficient and combined with a reliable scrubbing/cleaning system to remove contaminants in order to generate clean/ renewable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pollution of the surrounding environment .
The application of advanced and effective waste conversion technologies can offer an innovative solution to the waste accumulation problem and making a positive impact on the protection of our environment .
Chemical recycling based on cost-effective waste conversion technologies can provide a fundamental shift in the way of produced waste handling in a circular economy .
In the working circular economy , the use of cost-effective waste conversion technologies is an innovative waste management strategy to divert waste from landfills , produce clean energy and sustainable products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect our environment , save time and money .
Chemical recycling is a comprehensive and innovative solution to the complex problem of waste management and moving towards a circular economy .
Some articles on the topics of the current waste problem , a circular economy , perspectives of different waste conversion technologies and advantages of the steam gasification technology for advance waste management and protection of our environment can be downloaded from the website : https : //quasarsciencetech.com/resources .
Dr. Zoltan Kish has a Ph.D. in Chemistry with over 25 years of diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 70 scientific publications .
He has developed and managed complex research and development programs related to alternative/renewable energy , clean technologies , effective waste conversion into usable products , sustainability , and advanced materials applications , such as solar energy technology , ceramic engine & cutting tool components , materials processing , and electronics .
Dr. Kish was the Director of Research & Development at two Canadian alternative energy companies where he focused on R & D and commercialization of unique waste conversion technologies and reliable scrubbing/cleaning systems to produce clean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to global environmental challenges and the need for scientific evaluations and development of new technologies and advanced materials applications , he has established a consulting company – Quasar ScienceTech ( www.quasarsciencetech.com ) to develop advanced technologies and provide multidisciplinary science and technology consulting in the areas of Natural & Applied Sciences , Clean Technologies & Energy , Waste Conversion , Scrubbing Systems , Technical Due Diligence , Climate Change Mitigation , Circular Economy , Sustainability , Innovation , and Advanced Materials Applications .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

How We Can Tackle Our Growing Waste Problem
Written by Zoltan Kish, Ph.D.
The increasing amount of waste is one of the most challenging problems facing the World, which creates enormous environmental problems. According to the World Bank, Canada produces the most waste per capita in the world.
Additionally, Canada recycles just 9 percent of its plastics. Banning foreign waste import by China and other counties has not helped to waste recycling business in Canada. In addition, shifting the recycling program to the producer responsibility by the Ontario Government, will reduce further plastic waste recycling and will increase the plastic pollution.
A ban of certain single-use plastic products (e.g., straws, bags) may not solve the spread of plastic litter and environmental problems. Without more effective and sustainable ways to manage produced waste, more and more waste will end up in landfills polluting our land, water, and air.
At the same time, we have a tremendous business opportunity to convert waste into usable sustainable products. According to a market study report prepared by Market Insights Reports, the smart waste management market was valued at $1.41 billion (USD) in 2018 and is expected to reach $5.19 billion by 2024, registering a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 25.68{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, during the forecast period of 2019-2024.
Contaminated and mixed waste products (e.g., plastic, paper, industrial waste, medical waste, MSW) are challenging to recycle by mechanical/physical processing. Especially, traditional plastic waste recycling has difficulties and limitations.
Mechanical sorting is not effective for mixed plastic waste. Thousands of different types of plastic are manufactured by combinations of different resin types, dyes, and additives. In addition, the plastic material quality is very susceptible to contamination.
Even carefully selected plastic materials can only be recycled limited times in similar products since it degrades every time after reheating. Therefore, most plastic products are downcycled into items of reduced value, such as textiles, toys or fibres, and eventually, end up in landfills and water resources creating tremendous environmental problems.
Replacing plastics with alternative materials, such as glass and metals would cost more to manufacture due to the higher energy and other resource consumption. The problem is the way of the current waste management operating.
On the other hand, waste plastic can be recycled into high-value products using advanced and cost-effective waste conversion technologies. The circular economy is not only based on simple reusing waste products. The purpose the recycling is to redesign and convert waste into forms retaining as high value as possible in a circular economy.
We need sustainable and effective waste management to protect our environment and develop a working circular economy. In a circular economy, chemical recycling can play a pivotal role in waste conversion into usable materials and clean energy.
Figure 1. Chemical Recycling for a Circular Economy
Chemical recycling as waste recycling using effective waste conversion technology is essential for a working circular economy. Illinois and Ohio have become the most recent states to pass laws making it easier to build chemical recycling facilities, regulating them as recycling operations rather than waste processing plants.
Canadian Government could also consider that as a tool to develop a new approach – “Chemical Recycling” in waste management. Regrettably, Canada and other G7 countries are planning to use waste-to-energy incineration as part of a plastic pollution solution.
However, incineration is a very costly and inefficient way for waste conversion into energy and generating highly toxic and carcinogenic pollutants.
The environmental impact of waste can be minimized by proper waste management applying advanced waste conversion technologies. The government should address the demand to solve the incredible waste accumulation problem by developing appropriate tools for waste management challenges and supporting the development of effective waste conversion technologies.
We should focus more on waste diversion from landfills and water resources, and the conversion of waste into high-value products. Garbage can be converted into high-value clean energy and sustainable products using advanced and cost-effective waste conversion technologies, such as anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, gasification, plasma-enhanced gasification, and steam gasification.
Therefore, the circular economy should include the use of effective waste conversion technologies to produce high-value usable products. Perspectives of different waste conversion technologies are provided in the article – “Perspectives on Waste-to-Energy Technologies”.
Chemical Recycling should be based on reliable and cost-effective waste conversion technologies. Therefore, it is very important to do technical due diligence before investing and applying new technology to prevent wasting time and money.
Regrettably, investors often do not take the time to evaluate the proposed technology and, therefore, the underlying scientific/technological basis of the business is often neglected in the CleanTech sectors. As a result of this, enormous and overpriced facilities were built producing not profitable products.
In addition to financial data and management of the company, the underlying scientific/technology base of the applied technology should be considered. Science is supposed to be an essential pillar of a successful and sustainable business. Consequently, it is very important to properly establish the underlying scientific/technology base for applied technologies to build a successful waste conversion plant.
The success of waste conversion technology applications depends on the following main factors:
The underlying scientific/technological basis of the process
Implementation of effective scrubbing systems to remove contaminants
Process modelling
Mass & Energy balance
Proper engineering design
Financial data based on mass & energy balance
Waste feedstock evaluation, preparation and availability
Waste energy conversion efficiency
Quantity and quality of the produced products
Applications of the products
Cost-effectiveness of the project
As a result of many years of development, a unique and cost-effective waste convection technology has been developed and tested at the pre-commercial waste conversion facility. The developed technology is based on a steam gasification process in combination with a reliable scrubbing/cleaning system.
The steam gasification technology represents a potential alternative to the traditional treatments of waste feedstocks (e.g. plastic, biomass, MSW, sewage sludge, industrial by-products) to produce high-quality syngas, which contains no noxious oxides and higher hydrogen concentration than products produced by traditional gasification. The chemistry is different due to the high concentration of steam as a reactant and the total exclusion of air and, therefore, oxygen from the steam reformation process.
The proposed technology using an indirectly heated kiln in combination with a reliable and effective scrubbing/cleaning system without a feedstock sorting requirement. The technology uses “off the shelf” commercially proven equipment, which significantly lowers the capital and operating costs compared to other waste conversion technologies.
In a working circular economy, a solution for waste disposal and clean energy and sustainable product regeneration is an effective waste conversion technology application based on thermo-chemical and bio-chemical processes.
The produced product type depends on the types of feedstock and reactants, and the applied processing conditions as applied physico-chemical interaction conditions in the system. The applied waste conversion technology type depends on the waste feedstock composition and the market requirement on the produced products from waste.
The suitable waste conversion technology can divert waste from landfills and convert waste into usable products and prevent contamination of our environment. The waste steam gasification technology as a cost-effective process is most suitable for contaminated and mixed waste (including plastic waste) conversion into various forms of high-value sustainable products, such as electricity, hydrogen, liquid synthetic fuels, and chemicals.
At the current stage, based on market demand, hydrogen production from mixed waste (including contaminated plastic waste) is the most cost-effective solution. Using the steam gasification technology for waste conversion into hydrogen is an opportunity for a profitable business, which can solve the world’s biggest problem – the enormous waste accumulation.
There is a requirement for a new and innovative approach in the development of a solution for waste management challenges, waste recycling, plastic waste pollution reduction and a working circular economy.
The used waste conversion technologies should be efficient and combined with a reliable scrubbing/cleaning system to remove contaminants in order to generate clean/ renewable energy and other sustainable products and prevent pollution of the surrounding environment.
The application of advanced and effective waste conversion technologies can offer an innovative solution to the waste accumulation problem and making a positive impact on the protection of our environment.
Chemical recycling based on cost-effective waste conversion technologies can provide a fundamental shift in the way of produced waste handling in a circular economy. In the working circular economy, the use of cost-effective waste conversion technologies is an innovative waste management strategy to divert waste from landfills, produce clean energy and sustainable products, reduce depletion of natural resources, protect our environment, save time and money.
Chemical recycling is a comprehensive and innovative solution to the complex problem of waste management and moving towards a circular economy.
Annex
Some articles on the topics of the current waste problem, a circular economy, perspectives of different waste conversion technologies and advantages of the steam gasification technology for advance waste management and protection of our environment can be downloaded from the website: https://quasarsciencetech.com/resources.
About the Author
Dr. Zoltan Kish has a Ph.D. in Chemistry with over 25 years of diverse industrial and academic experience and contributed to more than 70 scientific publications. He has developed and managed complex research and development programs related to alternative/renewable energy, clean technologies, effective waste conversion into usable products, sustainability, and advanced materials applications, such as solar energy technology, ceramic engine & cutting tool components, materials processing, and electronics. Dr. Kish was the Director of Research & Development at two Canadian alternative energy companies where he focused on R&D and commercialization of unique waste conversion technologies and reliable scrubbing/cleaning systems to produce clean and sustainable energy products. In response to global environmental challenges and the need for scientific evaluations and development of new technologies and advanced materials applications, he has established a consulting company – Quasar ScienceTech (www.quasarsciencetech.com) to develop advanced technologies and provide multidisciplinary science and technology consulting in the areas of Natural & Applied Sciences, Clean Technologies & Energy, Waste Conversion, Scrubbing Systems, Technical Due Diligence, Climate Change Mitigation, Circular Economy, Sustainability, Innovation, and Advanced Materials Applications.
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--2020-07-01--The Real Pandemic Was a Nursing Home Problem

Over the last week , many governors have reinstituted coronavirus policy implementations which had been in various phases of cessation .
Why ?
This is because of an alleged “ spike ” in new COVID-19 infections .
Other states have abbreviated their phased lifting of lockdowns .
This is despite the fact that current US deaths from COVID-19 are now 90 % off their peak .
Washington State is considering criminalizing the refusal to wear a mask .
New York State governor Andrew Cuomo has imposed new out-of-state visitor bans ( with the comment that “ in addition to law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ s ] individuals such as hotel clerks … to question travelers from select states ” ) .
Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden ’ s comments that if he were to win the presidency , a federal mask mandate may follow .
The Speaker of the House quickly voiced her support for that measure .
These and other developments suggest that rather than approaching the end of the government-created crisis , we may be at the threshold of a new beginning .
That the recent rise in infections is mostly an artifact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to no one in the government or media .
Equally unnoticed is that the apparently much wider spread of COVID-19 infections , many of which show middling symptoms or are treated as annoyances , should result in a decrease of concern : it appears that many times the number of people estimated early on have been infected by the novel coronavirus to little or no consequence .
And further still , that some of the spike is accountable to the civil unrest in the wake of the murder of George Floyd .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gen-Zs and Millennials ( beside their prevalence in jobs that require COVID testing , such as in the fast food and service industries ) undoubtedly had much to do with the disingenuity of political officials who ordered them to stay home , out of work and away from social occasions , yet responded with deafening silence as protests , demonstrations , and rioting broke out .
As other statistics regarding the toll of the novel coronavirus outbreak firm up , certain patterns are beginning to come into focus .
With increasing certainty we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen four times the death toll of those which did not .
The effectiveness of masking is , as well , being revealed as suspect , as is social distancing in the absence of testing and contact tracing ( the efficacy of the latter of which is additionally questionable ) .
A more important revelation of the ongoing deluge of data has been either missed ( or ignored ) by the press .
At AIER , we noted the stunning death rates in long-term care facilities back in the third week of May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times reported that 54,000 deaths due to COVID-19 — 43 % of all deaths in the United States — occurred in nursing home residents and workers : New York State was only one of several states , though , which enacted orders increasing the virus death tolls .
And keep in mind that this 43 % average is massively dragged down because five states had zero deaths in nursing homes while other states had as many of 80 % of their deaths in nursing homes .
This development is magnified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the document which informed the lockdown policies .
The second-to-last paragraph in the original 2006 Nature article — the blueprint for the lockdowns , entitled “ Strategies for Mitigating an Influenza Pandemic ” reads , The apparent omission of considerations regarding individuals in long-term care facilities by epidemiologists and policymakers , and the consequently disproportionate number of total fatalities among that same population , provides context for a series of hasty , surreptitious actions by politicians to duck accountability ( and harvest more power ) .
It thus becomes increasingly clear that despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depression , destroying tens of thousands of businesses and the lives of millions of citizens , and elevating rates of domestic violence , divorce , substance abuse , and suicide , US government policies failed to protect the most vulnerable segment of the population : individuals in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities .
And furthermore , that despite 14 years between the publication of the “ Strategies ” paper and its real-world implementation , apparently no research was conducted that would have extended its conclusions to those particularly at-risk populations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vastly more fundamental issue than the inability of even the most complex computational methods to incorporate and account for social science phenomena .
The susceptibility of the elderly and institutionalized , and in particular those with pre-existing conditions , was a ubiquitous consideration of virtually all medical protocols .
Yet somehow between the 1970s and today , human knowledge regarding disease prevention and control — a product of informal institutions and cultural mores — was lost or forgotten ; and into the vacuum swept the rigidities of top-down edicts informed by scientism : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government agencies to lie and their prognoses and diagnoses to fail .
Policy failures are vastly more common than successes , and successes — where they may be found — are always and everywhere a veritable font of unintended consequences .
Far from producing better responses , models and simulations used as detailed outlines ( rather than for high-level , mostly abstract insights ) amplify , rather than attenuate , the failures of central planning .
The model-driven response to the coronavirus pandemic , which now includes directly sacrificing the most vulnerable segment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is only the latest .
And it joins a growing heap of episodes which include the Fed ’ s response to the late 1920s financial boom and more recently the destruction of Iraq over WMDs that scarcely existed and the botched emergency response to Hurricane Katrina .
Why do we continue to listen ?
About the author : Peter C. Earle is an economist and writer who joined AIER in 2018 and prior to that spent over 20 years as a trader and analyst in global financial markets on Wall Street .
Pete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American University , an MBA ( Finance ) , and a BS in Engineering from the United States Military Academy at West Point .
Follow him on Twitter .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The Real Pandemic Was a Nursing Home Problem
Written by Peter C. Earle
Over the last week, many governors have reinstituted coronavirus policy implementations which had been in various phases of cessation. Why? This is because of an alleged “spike” in new COVID-19 infections. Other states have abbreviated their phased lifting of lockdowns. This is despite the fact that current US deaths from COVID-19 are now 90{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} off their peak.
Washington State is considering criminalizing the refusal to wear a mask. New York State governor Andrew Cuomo has imposed new out-of-state visitor bans (with the comment that “in addition to law enforcement, [he] … expect[s] individuals such as hotel clerks … to question travelers from select states”).
Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s comments that if he were to win the presidency, a federal mask mandate may follow. The Speaker of the House quickly voiced her support for that measure.
These and other developments suggest that rather than approaching the end of the government-created crisis, we may be at the threshold of a new beginning. That the recent rise in infections is mostly an artifact of massively expanded testing capabilities seems to occur to no one in the government or media.
Equally unnoticed is that the apparently much wider spread of COVID-19 infections, many of which show middling symptoms or are treated as annoyances, should result in a decrease of concern: it appears that many times the number of people estimated early on have been infected by the novel coronavirus to little or no consequence.
And further still, that some of the spike is accountable to the civil unrest in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. The prevalence of new COVID-19 infections among mostly Gen-Zs and Millennials (beside their prevalence in jobs that require COVID testing, such as in the fast food and service industries) undoubtedly had much to do with the disingenuity of political officials who ordered them to stay home, out of work and away from social occasions, yet responded with deafening silence as protests, demonstrations, and rioting broke out.
Note the recent data trend in California:
Or in Minnesota:
As other statistics regarding the toll of the novel coronavirus outbreak firm up, certain patterns are beginning to come into focus. With increasing certainty we can say that locked down states have seen four times the death toll of those which did not. The effectiveness of masking is, as well, being revealed as suspect, as is social distancing in the absence of testing and contact tracing (the efficacy of the latter of which is additionally questionable).
A more important revelation of the ongoing deluge of data has been either missed (or ignored) by the press. At AIER, we noted the stunning death rates in long-term care facilities back in the third week of May.
Just a few days ago, the New York Times reported that 54,000 deaths due to COVID-19 — 43{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all deaths in the United States — occurred in nursing home residents and workers:
In 24 states, the number of residents and workers who have died accounts for either half or more than half of all deaths from the virus. Infected people linked to nursing homes also die at a higher rate than the general population. The median case fatality rate – the number or deaths divided by the number of cases – at facilities with reliable data is 17 percent, significantly higher than the 5 percent fatality rate nationwide.
New York State was only one of several states, though, which enacted orders increasing the virus death tolls.
States that issued orders similar to Cuomo’s recorded comparably grim outcomes. Michigan lost 5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of roughly 38,000 nursing home residents to COVID-19 since the outbreak began. New Jersey lost 12{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of its more than 43,000 residents. In Florida, where such transfers were barred, just 1.6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of 73,000 nursing home residents died of the virus. California, after initially moving toward a policy like New York’s, quickly revised it. So far, it has lost 2{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of its 103,000 nursing home residents.
And keep in mind that this 43{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} average is massively dragged down because five states had zero deaths in nursing homes while other states had as many of 80{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of their deaths in nursing homes.
This development is magnified in its awfulness upon close inspection of the document which informed the lockdown policies. The second-to-last paragraph in the original 2006 Nature article — the blueprint for the lockdowns, entitled “Strategies for Mitigating an Influenza Pandemic” reads,
Lack of data prevent us from reliably modeling transmission in the important context of residential institutions (for example, care homes, prisons) and health care settings; detailed planning for use of antivirals, vaccines, and infection control measures in such settings are needed, however. We do not present projections of the likely impact of personal protective measures (for example, face masks) on transmission, again due to a lack of data on effectiveness.
The apparent omission of considerations regarding individuals in long-term care facilities by epidemiologists and policymakers, and the consequently disproportionate number of total fatalities among that same population, provides context for a series of hasty, surreptitious actions by politicians to duck accountability (and harvest more power).
It thus becomes increasingly clear that despite driving the U.S. economy into an artificial depression, destroying tens of thousands of businesses and the lives of millions of citizens, and elevating rates of domestic violence, divorce, substance abuse, and suicide, US government policies failed to protect the most vulnerable segment of the population: individuals in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.
And furthermore, that despite 14 years between the publication of the “Strategies” paper and its real-world implementation, apparently no research was conducted that would have extended its conclusions to those particularly at-risk populations.
This, of course, is a vastly more fundamental issue than the inability of even the most complex computational methods to incorporate and account for social science phenomena. The susceptibility of the elderly and institutionalized, and in particular those with pre-existing conditions, was a ubiquitous consideration of virtually all medical protocols. Yet somehow between the 1970s and today, human knowledge regarding disease prevention and control — a product of informal institutions and cultural mores — was lost or forgotten; and into the vacuum swept the rigidities of top-down edicts informed by scientism: technocrats wielding agent-based models.
Americans expect government agencies to lie and their prognoses and diagnoses to fail. Policy failures are vastly more common than successes, and successes — where they may be found — are always and everywhere a veritable font of unintended consequences.
Far from producing better responses, models and simulations used as detailed outlines (rather than for high-level, mostly abstract insights) amplify, rather than attenuate, the failures of central planning. The model-driven response to the coronavirus pandemic, which now includes directly sacrificing the most vulnerable segment of the population to the virus, is only the latest. And it joins a growing heap of episodes which include the Fed’s response to the late 1920s financial boom and more recently the destruction of Iraq over WMDs that scarcely existed and the botched emergency response to Hurricane Katrina.
Why do we continue to listen?
About the author:Peter C. Earle is an economist and writer who joined AIER in 2018 and prior to that spent over 20 years as a trader and analyst in global financial markets on Wall Street. Pete holds an MA in Applied Economics from American University, an MBA (Finance), and a BS in Engineering from the United States Military Academy at West Point. Follow him on Twitter.
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--2020-06-30--Why Are We Ignoring Virus Infection Risks Via Our Eyes?

Why Are We Ignoring Virus Infection Risks Via Our Eyes ?
New studies are showing the public is being fed poor advice about wearing masks while not being informed of the real danger of virus infection via our eyes .
In short , wearing a mask without eye protection will not prevent infection .
Medical researchers at Johns Hopkins and Sun Yat-sen University , China publish a study ( May 10 , 2020 ) indicating high risk of COVID-19 transmission via the eyes .
The natural frequency of human hand-eye contact means our eyes are “ a portal of entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission of this virus.
” [ 1 ] The study suggests that if droplets from an infected person ’ s sneeze or cough were to reach the eye ’ s tissue , the pathogen could begin infiltrating cells there .
Meanwhile , a report by Foxnews.com goes as far as declaring ‘ Coronavirus up to 100 times more infectious through eyes , airways than SARS ’ ( May 08 , 2020 ) [ 2 ] Wearing glasses may offer protection , according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology .
Health care workers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially infected patients .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) on their website recommends eye protection for a variety of potential exposure settings where workers may be at risk of acquiring infectious diseases via ocular exposure .
[ 3 ] Doctors first claimed the virus could be spread through the eyes in January 2020 , when the epicenter was still in Wuhan , China .
Dr. Wang Guangfa said at the time that he believed he had been infected because he had not been wearing protective goggles , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Peking University respiratory specialist observed that his eyes were red .
Katherine Kam , reporting for webMB.com reported about Virologist Joseph Fair , PhD , an NBC News contributor who raised the issue of infection via the eyes after he became critically ill with COVID-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus .
Some research has begun pointing in that direction , according to Elia Duh , MD , a researcher and professor of ophthalmology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore .
The clear tissue that covers the white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the eyelid , known as the conjunctiva , “ can be infected by other viruses , such as adenoviruses associated with the common cold and the herpes simplex virus , ” he says .
There ’ s the same chance of infection with SARS-CoV-2 , says Duh : “ If there are droplets that an infected individual is producing by coughing or sneezing or even speaking , then the front of the eyes are directly exposed , just like the nasal passages are exposed .
In addition , people rub and touch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s certainly already the vulnerability … all of this evidence together seems to suggest that there ’ s a good likelihood that the ocular surface cells are susceptible to infection by coronavirus.
” ” Meanwhile , in ‘ Coronavirus can enter the body through the eyes , study says ’ Yaron Steinbuch of the New York Post tells us : In their study , published on bioRxiv , the researchers , led by Lingli Zhou , wrote : “ Ocular surface cells including conjunctiva are susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entry as well as a reservoir for person-to-person transmission of this virus.
” On www.linkedin.com Scott Oliver suggested readers look at the OSHA website which gives us a chilling warning about the dangers of wearing face masks : While OSHA also stipulates the minimum level of oxygen required ( 19.5 % ) in the atmosphere otherwise it would be considered an IDLH ( Immediate Danger to Life and Health ) .
OSHA further warns that if you wear any ordinary face mask , this lowers your oxygen levels to around 17.4 ( 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Life and Health ( IDLH ) [ 5,6,7,8 ] 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Why Are We Ignoring Virus Infection Risks Via Our Eyes?
Written by John O'Sullivan
New studies are showing the public is being fed poor advice about wearing masks while not being informed of the real danger of virus infection via our eyes. In short, wearing a mask without eye protection will not prevent infection.
Medical researchers at Johns Hopkins and Sun Yat-sen University, China publish a study (May 10, 2020) indicating high risk of COVID-19 transmission via the eyes. The natural frequency of human hand-eye contact means our eyes are “a portal of entry as well as a reservoir for person-to-person transmission of this virus.” [1]
The study suggests that if droplets from an infected person’s sneeze or cough were to reach the eye’s tissue, the pathogen could begin infiltrating cells there.
Meanwhile, a report by Foxnews.com goes as far as declaring ‘Coronavirus up to 100 times more infectious through eyes, airways than SARS’ (May 08, 2020) [2]
“SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes a COVID-19 infection, is nearly 100 times more effective at infecting the human conjunctiva — a thin, clear tissue covering the eyeball and inner surface of the eyelids — and upper respiratory airways than SARS, Dr. Michael Chan Chi-wai, who led the research team at Hong Kong University’s School of Public Health, told the South China Morning Post”
Wearing glasses may offer protection, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Health care workers are advised to use safety goggles when treating potentially infected patients.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on their website recommends eye protection for a variety of potential exposure settings where workers may be at risk of acquiring infectious diseases via ocular exposure. [3]
Doctors first claimed the virus could be spread through the eyes in January 2020, when the epicenter was still in Wuhan, China.
Dr. Wang Guangfa said at the time that he believed he had been infected because he had not been wearing protective goggles, the Express reported.Several days before experiencing pneumonia, the Peking University respiratory specialist observed that his eyes were red.
Katherine Kam, reporting for webMB.com reported about Virologist Joseph Fair, PhD, an NBC News contributor who raised the issue of infection via the eyes after he became critically ill with COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.
Kam writes:
“From a hospital bed in his hometown of New Orleans, he told the network that he had flown on a crowded plane where flight attendants weren’t wearing masks. He wore a mask and gloves, but no eye protection. “My best guess,” he told the interviewer, “was that it came through the eye route.” Asked if people should start wearing eye protection, Fair replied, “In my opinion, yes.”
Some research has begun pointing in that direction, according to Elia Duh, MD, a researcher and professor of ophthalmology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.
The clear tissue that covers the white of the eye and lines the inside of the eyelid, known as the conjunctiva, “can be infected by other viruses, such as adenoviruses associated with the common cold and the herpes simplex virus,” he says.
There’s the same chance of infection with SARS-CoV-2, says Duh:
“If there are droplets that an infected individual is producing by coughing or sneezing or even speaking, then the front of the eyes are directly exposed, just like the nasal passages are exposed. In addition, people rub and touch their eyes a lot. So there’s certainly already the vulnerability … all of this evidence together seems to suggest that there’s a good likelihood that the ocular surface cells are susceptible to infection by coronavirus.””
Meanwhile, in ‘Coronavirus can enter the body through the eyes, study says’ Yaron Steinbuch of the New York Post tells us:
“The novel coronavirus can be transmitted through the eyes because of a protein known as the “gateway” into cells inside the body, according to a new study. A team of researchers from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine have found that the eyes create the protein called ACE-2, making them a target for the virus, according to the Mirror.”
In their study, published on bioRxiv, the researchers, led by Lingli Zhou, wrote: “Ocular surface cells including conjunctiva are susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2, and could therefore serve as a portal of entry as well as a reservoir for person-to-person transmission of this virus.”
On www.linkedin.com Scott Oliver suggested readers look at the OSHA website which gives us a chilling warning about the dangers of wearing face masks:
“ Cloth face coverings: ‘Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.’ Surgical masks: ‘Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.” [4]
While OSHA also stipulates the minimum level of oxygen required (19.5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} ) in the atmosphere otherwise it would be considered an IDLH (Immediate Danger to Life and Health). OSHA further warns that if you wear any ordinary face mask, this lowers your oxygen levels to around 17.4 (3) which OSHA considers an Immediate Danger to Life and Health (IDLH) [5,6,7,8]
H/T Jeff Porter and Scott Oliver
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1.full.pdf
[2] https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-more-infectious-eyes-airways-sars
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/eye/eye-infectious.html
[4] https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html
[5] https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134
[6] https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/shipyard/shiprepair/confinedspace/oxygendeficient.html
[7] https://twitter.com/MdKnightBabe/status/1275537902009675776
[8] https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1995-05-01-2
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--2020-06-30--Expert: COVID19 Has Fizzled Out, No Vaccine Needed

Expert : COVID19 Has Fizzled Out , No Vaccine Needed A professor and infectious disease expert from Italy says that the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) is already fizzling out , and that a vaccine for it will probably already be obsolete by the time it arrives .
Matteo Bassetti , head of the infectious disease unit at the Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Italy told the British media that the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) virus , as it is also called , is rapidly losing virulence and could disappear completely without any further intervention .
Since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline in terms of infection severity , it is only a matter of time before it becomes a non-issue entirely , with no vaccine necessary .
“ The clinical impression I have is that the virus is changing in severity , ” he told The Telegraph ( UK ) .
As it turns out , the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) was much more serious back in March and early April than it is now , with current patterns suggesting it to be far less serious than other common illnesses .
“ Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the picture has completely changed in terms of patterns .
There could be a lower viral load in the respiratory tract , probably due to a genetic mutation in the virus which has not yet been demonstrated scientifically .
Also , we are now more aware of the disease and able to manage it.
” Listen below to The Health Ranger Report as Mike Adams , the Health Ranger , talks about how the next step in the endgame is to have contact tracers go door-to-door to administer forced vaccinations and kidnap people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of Pittsburgh Medical Center agree with Bassetti that coronavirus is quickly fading away Bassetti is not alone in this assessment as doctors from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center ( UPMC ) agree that the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) is rapidly becoming a non-threat , and that people are not getting as sick from it as they once were .
The idea that people are becoming infected with “ lower amounts ” of the virus seems to be spreading in popularity as medical experts wonder at the changes that are occurring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus certainly does not warrant the draconian measures still be pushed on the masses as a supposed means of keeping it in check .
Perhaps it is time to retake our freedoms and focus more on prevention in terms of building strong natural immunity to whatever our bodies might encounter .
Keep in mind that warm weather is also at play now that the Northern Hemisphere has entered true summer .
Just like with the first iteration of SARS – the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) is basically SARS 2.0 – it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , suggesting that increased exposure to vitamin D helped people to overcome it .
Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that the mortality rate for the Wuhan coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) was already low even before this , and restricted mostly to the elderly and the immunocompromised .
Now that rate is even lower , based on the assessment of Bassetti and others , which means people have little to worry about , generally speaking .
“ The virus was never that virulent for healthy individuals , ” wrote one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the view of other commenters that the whole thing has been painfully overblown .
“ Those with weak immune systems are still in isolation while the healthy are mostly getting mild infections.
” Another supported this by adding that , “ for those with strong immune systems , it was never an acute problem.
” To keep up with the latest news about the CCP virus , be sure to check out Pandemic.news .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Expert: COVID19 Has Fizzled Out, No Vaccine Needed
Written by Ethan Huff
A professor and infectious disease expert from Italy says that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is already fizzling out, and that a vaccine for it will probably already be obsolete by the time it arrives.
Matteo Bassetti, head of the infectious disease unit at the Policlinico San Martino Hospital in Italy told the British media that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus, as it is also called, is rapidly losing virulence and could disappear completely without any further intervention.
Since the novel virus is already showing signs of decline in terms of infection severity, it is only a matter of time before it becomes a non-issue entirely, with no vaccine necessary.
“The clinical impression I have is that the virus is changing in severity,” he told The Telegraph (UK). As it turns out, the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) was much more serious back in March and early April than it is now, with current patterns suggesting it to be far less serious than other common illnesses.
“Now, in the past four weeks, the picture has completely changed in terms of patterns. There could be a lower viral load in the respiratory tract, probably due to a genetic mutation in the virus which has not yet been demonstrated scientifically. Also, we are now more aware of the disease and able to manage it.”
Listen below to The Health Ranger Report as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, talks about how the next step in the endgame is to have contact tracers go door-to-door to administer forced vaccinations and kidnap people who refuse them:
Doctors from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center agree with Bassetti that coronavirus is quickly fading away
Bassetti is not alone in this assessment as doctors from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) agree that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is rapidly becoming a non-threat, and that people are not getting as sick from it as they once were.
The idea that people are becoming infected with “lower amounts” of the virus seems to be spreading in popularity as medical experts wonder at the changes that are occurring.
Whatever the case may be, the virus certainly does not warrant the draconian measures still be pushed on the masses as a supposed means of keeping it in check. Perhaps it is time to retake our freedoms and focus more on prevention in terms of building strong natural immunity to whatever our bodies might encounter.
Keep in mind that warm weather is also at play now that the Northern Hemisphere has entered true summer. Just like with the first iteration of SARS – the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is basically SARS 2.0 – it largely disappeared once the sun came out, suggesting that increased exposure to vitamin D helped people to overcome it.
Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that the mortality rate for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) was already low even before this, and restricted mostly to the elderly and the immunocompromised. Now that rate is even lower, based on the assessment of Bassetti and others, which means people have little to worry about, generally speaking.
“The virus was never that virulent for healthy individuals,” wrote one commenter at The Epoch Times, affirming the view of other commenters that the whole thing has been painfully overblown.
“Those with weak immune systems are still in isolation while the healthy are mostly getting mild infections.”
Another supported this by adding that, “for those with strong immune systems, it was never an acute problem.”
To keep up with the latest news about the CCP virus, be sure to check out Pandemic.news.
Sources for this article include:
TheEpochTimes.com
NaturalNews.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--2020-06-30--To Gain Attention the Climate Alarmists Go to Extremes

To Gain Attention the Climate Alarmists Go to Extremes Science is not supposed to mislead .
It ’ s supposed to be precise .
Rigorous .
Circumspect .
But in recent years , something sneaky and unethical has occurred .
Officials have begun talking about the worst-case climate scenario is if it were our likely future .
More than a decade ago , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed four fairy tales to describe how humans might impact the climate by the year 2100 .
There was an optimistic scenario , two mid-range scenarios , and a pessimistic scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( I think of it as Ridiculous Climate Prophesy 8 dot 5 ) .
In January , Zeke Hausfather and Glenn Peters published a comment in Nature reminding everyone that RCP8.5 isn ’ t a realistic vision of the future .
It represents an unlikely , high-risk , dystopian world ( their words ) in which “ the dice are loaded with the worst outcomes.
” It can ’ t become reality , they point out , unless humanity burns five times more coal than we currently do , “ an amount larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Whenever RCP8.5 gets mentioned , they say , it should be clearly labeled as an “ unlikely worst case.
” US climate analyst Roger Pielke Jr. has similarly written a trio of articles that document how RCP8.5 “ moved from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions , ” corrupting great swaths of the scientific literature along the way ( see here , here , and here ) .
He , too , calls the RCP8.5 vision of the future imaginary and impossible .
Canadian economist Ross McKitrick is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he says , is “ a scorcher that predicts historically unprecedented increases in global CO2 emissions.
” Using words such as implausible , improbable , exaggerated , and distortion , he makes it clear the only place this vision of the future exists is in fevered imaginations .
“ No one seriously believes , ” he says , that the increase of coal consumption described by RCP8.5 “ is even possible.
” Even journalists who ’ ve hyped the climate threat are wising up .
In an article titled We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Future – and It ’ s Not as Bad as It Once Looked , David Wallace-Wells reports that most experts he ’ s interviewed “ told me that they did not see RCP8.5 as a plausible scenario.
” By the year 2100 , remember , teenager Greta Thunberg will be 97 years old .
Wallace-Wells observes that any attempt to predict what the world will be like that far into the future is really just “ a foolish game.
” Yet that is what much of climate ‘ science ’ – and climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2018 , the front page of the New York Times announced : U.S .
Climate Report Warns of Damaged Environment and Shrinking Economy .
It began this way : Incredibly , that ‘ major scientific report ’ takes RCP8.5 seriously .
Calling it a “ core scenario , ” page 6 of the report presents it as a realistic possibility rather than a farfetched hallucination : This means the report is junk .
No matter how many federal agencies were involved in its creation .
But the Times didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .

To Gain Attention the Climate Alarmists Go to Extremes
Written by Donna Laframboise
Science is not supposed to mislead. It’s supposed to be precise. Rigorous. Circumspect.
But in recent years, something sneaky and unethical has occurred. Officials have begun talking about the worst-case climate scenario is if it were our likely future.
More than a decade ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed four fairy tales to describe how humans might impact the climate by the year 2100.
There was an optimistic scenario, two mid-range scenarios, and a pessimistic scenario. The latter is known as RCP8.5 (I think of it as Ridiculous Climate Prophesy 8 dot 5).
In January, Zeke Hausfather and Glenn Peters published a comment in Nature reminding everyone that RCP8.5 isn’t a realistic vision of the future.
It represents an unlikely, high-risk, dystopian world (their words) in which “the dice are loaded with the worst outcomes.”
It can’t become reality, they point out, unless humanity burns five times more coal than we currently do, “an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves.”
Whenever RCP8.5 gets mentioned, they say, it should be clearly labeled as an “unlikely worst case.”
Their plea is unmistakable:
We must all – from physical scientists and climate-impact modellers to communicators and policymakers – stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one. [bold added]
US climate analyst Roger Pielke Jr. has similarly written a trio of articles that document how RCP8.5 “moved from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions,” corrupting great swaths of the scientific literature along the way (see here, here, and here).
He, too, calls the RCP8.5 vision of the future imaginary and impossible.
Canadian economist Ross McKitrick is also ringing the alarm bell. RCP8.5, he says, is “a scorcher that predicts historically unprecedented increases in global CO2 emissions.”
Using words such as implausible, improbable, exaggerated, and distortion, he makes it clear the only place this vision of the future exists is in fevered imaginations.
“No one seriously believes,” he says, that the increase of coal consumption described by RCP8.5 “is even possible.”
Even journalists who’ve hyped the climate threat are wising up. In an article titled We’re Getting a Clearer Picture of the Climate Future – and It’s Not as Bad as It Once Looked, David Wallace-Wells reports that most experts he’s interviewed “told me that they did not see RCP8.5 as a plausible scenario.”
By the year 2100, remember, teenager Greta Thunberg will be 97 years old. Wallace-Wells observes that any attempt to predict what the world will be like that far into the future is really just “a foolish game.”
In his words:
Projecting what global energy use will be in the year 2100 is the equivalent of trusting projections made in 1940 about where we are today.
Yet that is what much of climate ‘science’ – and climate ‘journalism’ – now amounts to. In 2018, the front page of the New York Times announced: U.S. Climate Report Warns of Damaged Environment and Shrinking Economy.
It began this way:
A major scientific report issued by 13 federal agencies on Friday presents the starkest warnings to date of the consequences of climate change for the United States, predicting that if significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end. [bold added]
Incredibly, that ‘major scientific report’ takes RCP8.5 seriously. Calling it a “core scenario,” page 6 of the report presents it as a realistic possibility rather than a farfetched hallucination:
RCP8.5 is generally associated with higher population growth, less technological innovation, and higher carbon intensity of the global energy mix.
This means the report is junk. No matter how many federal agencies were involved in its creation. But the Times didn’t tell readers that.
Read rest at Big Pic News
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--2020-06-30--The Media Is Lying About a COVID ‘Second Wave’

The Media Is Lying About a COVID ‘ Second Wave ’ For months , the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media kept a morbid Covid-19 “ death count ” on their front pages and at the top of their news broadcasts .
The coronavirus outbreak was all about the number of dead .
The narrative was intended to boost governors like Cuomo in New York and Whitmer in Michigan , who turned their states authoritarian under the false notion that destroying people ’ s jobs , freedom , and lives would somehow keep a virus from doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a population until eventually losing strength and dying out .
The “ death count ” was always the headline .
But then all of a sudden early in June the mainstream media did a George Orwell and lectured us that it is all about “ cases ” and has always been all about “ cases.
” Death , and especially infection fatality rate , were irrelevant .
Why ?
Because from the peak in April , deaths had decreased by 90 percent and were continuing to crash .
That was not terrifying enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not exist .
With massive increases in testing , the “ case ” numbers climbed .
This is not rocket science : the more people you test the more “ cases ” you discover .
Unfortunately our mainstream media is only interested in pushing the “ party line.
” So the good news that millions more have been exposed while the fatality rate continues to decline – meaning the virus is getting weaker – is buried under hysterical false reporting of “ new cases.
” Unfortunately many governors , including our own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisting the endless lies of the mainstream media .
They are putting Americans again through the nightmare of forced business closures , mandated face masks , and restrictions of Constitutional liberties based on false propaganda .
In Texas the “ second wave ” propaganda has gotten so bad that the leaders of the four major hospitals in Houston took the extraordinary step late last week of holding a joint press conference to clarify that the scare stories of Houston hospitals being overwhelmed with Covid cases are simply untrue .
Dr. Marc Boom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity is misleading .
He said , “ quite frankly , we ’ re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now.
” In fact , there has been much reporting that the “ spike ” in Texas cases is not due to a resurgence of the virus but to hospital practices of Covid-testing every patient coming in for any procedure at all .
If it ’ s a positive , well that counts as a “ Covid hospitalization.
” Why would hospitals be so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriated Federal dollars are being funneled to facilities based on the number of “ Covid cases ” they can produce .
As I ’ ve always said , if you subsidize something you get more of it .
And that ’ s why we are getting more Covid cases .
Let ’ s go back to the original measurements used to scare Americans into giving up their Constitutional liberties : the daily death numbers .
Even though we know hospitals have falsely attributed countless deaths to “ Covid-19 ” that were deaths WITH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeing actual deaths steadily declining over the past month and a half .
Declining deaths are not a great way to push the “ second wave ” propaganda , so the media and politicians have moved the goal posts and decided that only “ cases ” are important .
It ’ s another big lie .
Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The Media Is Lying About a COVID ‘Second Wave’
Written by Dr Ron Paul
For months, the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media kept a morbid Covid-19 “death count” on their front pages and at the top of their news broadcasts.
The coronavirus outbreak was all about the number of dead. The narrative was intended to boost governors like Cuomo in New York and Whitmer in Michigan, who turned their states authoritarian under the false notion that destroying people’s jobs, freedom, and lives would somehow keep a virus from doing what viruses always do: spread through a population until eventually losing strength and dying out.
The “death count” was always the headline. But then all of a sudden early in June the mainstream media did a George Orwell and lectured us that it is all about “cases” and has always been all about “cases.”
Death, and especially infection fatality rate, were irrelevant. Why? Because from the peak in April, deaths had decreased by 90 percent and were continuing to crash. That was not terrifying enough so the media pretended this good news did not exist.
With massive increases in testing, the “case” numbers climbed. This is not rocket science: the more people you test the more “cases” you discover.
Unfortunately our mainstream media is only interested in pushing the “party line.” So the good news that millions more have been exposed while the fatality rate continues to decline – meaning the virus is getting weaker – is buried under hysterical false reporting of “new cases.”
Unfortunately many governors, including our own here in Texas, are incapable of resisting the endless lies of the mainstream media. They are putting Americans again through the nightmare of forced business closures, mandated face masks, and restrictions of Constitutional liberties based on false propaganda.
In Texas the “second wave” propaganda has gotten so bad that the leaders of the four major hospitals in Houston took the extraordinary step late last week of holding a joint press conference to clarify that the scare stories of Houston hospitals being overwhelmed with Covid cases are simply untrue. Dr. Marc Boom of Houston Methodist said the reporting on hospital capacity is misleading. He said, “quite frankly, we’re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now.”
In fact, there has been much reporting that the “spike” in Texas cases is not due to a resurgence of the virus but to hospital practices of Covid-testing every patient coming in for any procedure at all.
If it’s a positive, well that counts as a “Covid hospitalization.”
Why would hospitals be so dishonest in their diagnoses? Billions of appropriated Federal dollars are being funneled to facilities based on the number of “Covid cases” they can produce. As I’ve always said, if you subsidize something you get more of it. And that’s why we are getting more Covid cases.
Let’s go back to the original measurements used to scare Americans into giving up their Constitutional liberties: the daily death numbers. Even though we know hospitals have falsely attributed countless deaths to “Covid-19” that were deaths WITH instead of FROM the virus, we are seeing actual deaths steadily declining over the past month and a half. Declining deaths are not a great way to push the “second wave” propaganda, so the media and politicians have moved the goal posts and decided that only “cases” are important. It’s another big lie.
Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity
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--2020-06-30--‘Flattening The Curve’ is a Massive Bait And Switch

At one point , the theory of “ flattening the curve ” was ubiquitous .
The basic concept was that lockdowns could slow the spread of coronavirus , and this was of great importance since , as we were told at the time , “ We can ’ t stop this virus .
” The narrative went that if the virus were to spread unchecked , hospitals would be overwhelmed and both people with coronavirus and those needing medical attention for other ailments would die from the lack of access to care .
It all made sense .
To a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most graphics depicting flattening the curve , such as in The New York Times , showed two curves .
Typically , the first was associated with no lockdowns that peaked well above the capacity of the health-care system , while the second , “ flattened ” curve was associated with lockdowns with its peak hovering near capacity .
The areas under each curve , representing the total number of Covid-19 infections , were roughly equal .
Flattening the curve made two assumptions .
First , it assumed that a certain amount of deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we could do was delay the process .
No one promoting flattening the curve talked of stopping the disease ; there were no graphs showing that if we locked down , infections would go straight to zero .
Second , flattening the curve was always shown with the same level of flattening : just enough to not overwhelm the health-care system .
This was a tacit admission that flattening the curve would be painful and that it would not be beneficial to flatten the curve beyond the level needed to prevent overwhelming the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bait .
Next came the switch .
It didn ’ t take long for the “ flattening the curve ” storyline to be abandoned .
For example , California had more than 26,000 hospital beds available for coronavirus patients , but they locked down when they had about 200 coronavirus hospitalizations on March 20 .
That was less than 1 percent of their coronavirus hospital capacity .
It quickly became clear that the California hospital system was not under threat , yet the lockdowns remained and “ flatten the curve ” was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all costs.
” To this day , there are states that locked down during the initial flurry of panic and remain locked down despite the lack of any true threat to hospital capacity .
At its peak , Colorado had 888 coronavirus patients in hospitals .
As of June 24 , that number is 134 and has dropped near-continuously since April 23 , yet the governor is removing restrictions slowly and schools are contemplating remote learning for the fall .
The narrative of flattening the curve was almost silently replaced with “ lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in over-suppression , which meant any subsequent opening would be accompanied by an increase in cases and hospitalizations .
Yet , since the flatten-the-curve notion that infections were inevitable has been abandoned , any uptick in cases is now spun by most of the media as apocalyptic .
This can be seen in Florida , where cases are surging and ABC , CNN , and CBS all frequently report record numbers of cases .
This ignores the fact that Florida has more hospital beds available now for potential patients than before the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t confined to the United States but has played out all over the world .
New Zealand started talking of flattening the curve , but quickly enacted aggressive lockdowns and managed to stop the virus .
Now , however , they are in a situation where they can open up internally , but because of their lack of immunity , the entire country must remain isolated from the rest of the world .
The greatest tragedy associated with abandoning flattening the curve to suppress at all costs is the massive number of non-coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lockdowns .
The New York Times found that almost one-third of the excess deaths in New York and New Jersey were not from coronavirus .
It ’ s almost impossible to make a reasonable estimate at this point , but my calculations put this number around 30,000 .
Flattening the curve was sound logic when it was originally presented , and remains so today .
That ’ s why so many people across the political spectrum originally bought into the idea .
The change from flatten-the-curve to stop-the-virus-at-all-costs , however , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million people have lost their jobs .
The related angst and associated lack of social opportunities created a dry forest that exploded in flames when George Floyd was killed .
Moreover , deaths of despair and child abuse are both likely rising as a result .
We must reject the largest , most destructive bait and switch ever enacted and return to the principles of flattening the curve .
We must accept that nature can be brutal and more infections will happen .
Yet we must push through .
We must strive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and only implement mitigation efforts to the extent needed to avoid a clearly imminent threat of overwhelming hospitals .

Written by Karl Dierenbach
At one point, the theory of “flattening the curve” was ubiquitous. The basic concept was that lockdowns could slow the spread of coronavirus, and this was of great importance since, as we were told at the time, “ We can’t stop this virus .”
The narrative went that if the virus were to spread unchecked, hospitals would be overwhelmed and both people with coronavirus and those needing medical attention for other ailments would die from the lack of access to care.
It all made sense. To a certain extent, it still does. Most graphics depicting flattening the curve, such as in The New York Times, showed two curves. Typically, the first was associated with no lockdowns that peaked well above the capacity of the health-care system, while the second, “flattened” curve was associated with lockdowns with its peak hovering near capacity.
The areas under each curve, representing the total number of Covid-19 infections, were roughly equal.
Flattening the curve made two assumptions. First, it assumed that a certain amount of deaths and infections were inevitable and the best we could do was delay the process. No one promoting flattening the curve talked of stopping the disease; there were no graphs showing that if we locked down, infections would go straight to zero.
Second, flattening the curve was always shown with the same level of flattening: just enough to not overwhelm the health-care system. This was a tacit admission that flattening the curve would be painful and that it would not be beneficial to flatten the curve beyond the level needed to prevent overwhelming the healthcare system.
Flattening the curve was the bait. Next came the switch.
It didn’t take long for the “flattening the curve” storyline to be abandoned. For example, California had more than 26,000 hospital beds available for coronavirus patients, but they locked down when they had about 200 coronavirus hospitalizations on March 20. That was less than 1 percent of their coronavirus hospital capacity. It quickly became clear that the California hospital system was not under threat, yet the lockdowns remained and “flatten the curve” was abandoned in favor of “suppress at all costs.”
To this day, there are states that locked down during the initial flurry of panic and remain locked down despite the lack of any true threat to hospital capacity. At its peak, Colorado had 888 coronavirus patients in hospitals. As of June 24, that number is 134 and has dropped near-continuously since April 23, yet the governor is removing restrictions slowly and schools are contemplating remote learning for the fall.
The narrative of flattening the curve was almost silently replaced with “lockdowns save lives.” Many early shutdowns resulted in over-suppression, which meant any subsequent opening would be accompanied by an increase in cases and hospitalizations.
Yet, since the flatten-the-curve notion that infections were inevitable has been abandoned, any uptick in cases is now spun by most of the media as apocalyptic. This can be seen in Florida, where cases are surging and ABC, CNN, and CBS all frequently report record numbers of cases. This ignores the fact that Florida has more hospital beds available now for potential patients than before the pandemic started.
This curious phenomenon isn’t confined to the United States but has played out all over the world. New Zealand started talking of flattening the curve, but quickly enacted aggressive lockdowns and managed to stop the virus. Now, however, they are in a situation where they can open up internally, but because of their lack of immunity, the entire country must remain isolated from the rest of the world.
The greatest tragedy associated with abandoning flattening the curve to suppress at all costs is the massive number of non-coronavirus deaths that are a direct result of the lockdowns. The New York Times found that almost one-third of the excess deaths in New York and New Jersey were not from coronavirus. It’s almost impossible to make a reasonable estimate at this point, but my calculations put this number around 30,000.
Flattening the curve was sound logic when it was originally presented, and remains so today. That’s why so many people across the political spectrum originally bought into the idea. The change from flatten-the-curve to stop-the-virus-at-all-costs, however, has been a disaster.
More than 40 million people have lost their jobs. The related angst and associated lack of social opportunities created a dry forest that exploded in flames when George Floyd was killed. Moreover, deaths of despair and child abuse are both likely rising as a result.
We must reject the largest, most destructive bait and switch ever enacted and return to the principles of flattening the curve. We must accept that nature can be brutal and more infections will happen. Yet we must push through. We must strive to reopen our society as much as possible and only implement mitigation efforts to the extent needed to avoid a clearly imminent threat of overwhelming hospitals.


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-29--Prominent Eco Activist Shellenberger Apologises for Climate Scare

Green Guru Michael Shellenberger , formerly Time Magazine ’ s ‘ Hero of the Environment ’ has now abandoned the movement denouncing it as politically-driven and needlessly alarmist .
In a public statement he fully retracts his former position as follows : “ On behalf of environmentalists everywhere , I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years .
Climate change is happening .
It ’ s just not the end of the world .
It ’ s not even our most serious environmental problem .
I may seem like a strange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30 .
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony , and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report , I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
” … .
Some people will , when they read this imagine that I ’ m some right-wing anti-environmentalist .
I ’ m not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution…I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network…In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $ 90 billion into them… Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science .
Until last year , I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare .
Partly that ’ s because I was embarrassed .
After all , I am as guilty of alarmism as any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding .
But then , last year , things spiraled out of control .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “ The world is going to end in twelve years if we don ’ t address climate change.
” Britain ’ s most high-profile environmental group claimed “ Climate Change Kills Children.
” That is all I that I had hoped for in writing it .
If you ’ ve made it this far , I hope you ’ ll agree that it ’ s perhaps not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifelong environmentalist , progressive , and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism .
I further hope that you ’ ll accept my apology .
”

Written by Michael Shellenberger
Green Guru Michael Shellenberger, formerly Time Magazine’s ‘Hero of the Environment’ has now abandoned the movement denouncing it as politically-driven and needlessly alarmist. In a public statement he fully retracts his former position as follows:
“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem. I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.”….
Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution…I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network…In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them…
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science.
Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist…I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding.
But then, last year, things spiraled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”
That is all I that I had hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.
I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.”