principiascientificinternational--2020-08-19--COVID test results can take so long that they’re ‘close to useless’

COVID test results can take so long that they ’ re ‘ close to useless ’ Widespread delays in COVID-19 test results have made nearly 40 % of all such tests epidemiologically pointless , according to expert opinion and a review on test turnaround times throughout the country .
“ [ A ] lmost 40 % of Americans had to wait more than three days for their [ coronavirus test ] results , ” CNBC reported on Saturday , announcing the results of a national survey run in partnership with the data firm Dynata .
That ’ s in spite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider a quick test turnaround to be critical for the purposes of contact tracing , a practice in which public health agents track down any contacts a COVID-positive individual may have had during the infectious stage of the disease .
Harvard global health professor Ashish Jha told CNBC that “ if tests take more than 48 hours , you ’ ve lost the window for contact tracing ” and that “ basically , beyond 72 hours , the test is close to useless.
” Over 60 % of respondents to the network ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three days , yet around 38 % stated that it took four days or longer to get their own results .
One woman who experienced COVID-like symptoms was tested for the disease but didn ’ t receive results until over three weeks later , after which she felt better .
The test result in her case was negative .
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 test results can take so long that they’re ‘close to useless’
Written by Daniel Payne
Widespread delays in COVID-19 test results have made nearly 40% of all such tests epidemiologically pointless, according to expert opinion and a review on test turnaround times throughout the country.
“[A]lmost 40% of Americans had to wait more than three days for their [coronavirus test] results,” CNBC reported on Saturday, announcing the results of a national survey run in partnership with the data firm Dynata.
That’s in spite of the fact that many health experts consider a quick test turnaround to be critical for the purposes of contact tracing, a practice in which public health agents track down any contacts a COVID-positive individual may have had during the infectious stage of the disease.
Harvard global health professor Ashish Jha told CNBC that “if tests take more than 48 hours, you’ve lost the window for contact tracing” and that “basically, beyond 72 hours, the test is close to useless.”
Over 60% of respondents to the network’s survey received their results back within three days, yet around 38% stated that it took four days or longer to get their own results.
One woman who experienced COVID-like symptoms was tested for the disease but didn’t receive results until over three weeks later, after which she felt better. The test result in her case was negative.
“The whole purpose is to find out if I have it before it’s over,” she told CNBC. “So that just completely defeated the purpose.”
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--2020-08-19--Scientists Expressed Worries About Lab-made Coronavirus in 2015

To those who naively believe it is nonsense to consider that COVID-19 may be a man-made , gain of function bioweapon then we suggest you read this revealing insight from experts at The Scientist and Nature magazines .
Update ( March 11 , 2020 ) : On social media and news outlets , a theory has circulated that the coronavirus at the root of the COVID-19 outbreak originated in a research lab .
Scientists say there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaped from a lab .
Ralph Baric , an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) published a study on his team ’ s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus , found in horseshoe bats in China , and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome ( SARS ) in mice .
The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice , according to the team ’ s results , which were published in Nature Medicine .
The results demonstrate the ability of the SHC014 surface protein to bind and infect human cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronaviruses found in bat species—may be capable of making the leap to people without first evolving in an intermediate host , Nature reported .
They also reignite a debate about whether that information justifies the risk of such work , known as gain-of-function research .
“ If the [ new ] virus escaped , nobody could predict the trajectory , ” Simon Wain-Hobson , a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris , told Nature .
In October 2013 , the US government put a stop to all federal funding for gain-of-function studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , SARS , and Middle East respiratory syndrome ( MERS ) .
“ NIH [ National Institutes of Health ] has funded such studies because they help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions , enable the assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents , and inform public health and preparedness efforts , ” NIH Director Francis Collins said in a statement at the time .
“ These studies , however , also entail biosafety and biosecurity risks , which need to be understood better.
” Baric ’ s study on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was announced , and the NIH allowed it to proceed during a review process , which eventually led to the conclusion that the work did not fall under the new restrictions , Baric told Nature .
But some researchers , like Wain-Hobson , disagree with that decision .
The debate comes down to how informative the results are .
“ The only impact of this work is the creation , in a lab , of a new , non-natural risk , ” Richard Ebright , a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others argued the study ’ s importance .
“ [ The results ] move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger , ” Peter Daszak , president of the EcoHealth Alliance , which samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe , told Nature .

Written by Jef Akst
To those who naively believe it is nonsense to consider that COVID-19 may be a man-made, gain of function bioweapon then we suggest you read this revealing insight from experts at The Scientist and Nature magazines.
Update (March 11, 2020): On social media and news outlets, a theory has circulated that the coronavirus at the root of the COVID-19 outbreak originated in a research lab. Scientists say there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaped from a lab.
MERS coronavirus FLICKR, NIAID
Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (November 9 2015) published a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice, according to the team’s results, which were published in Nature Medicine.
The results demonstrate the ability of the SHC014 surface protein to bind and infect human cells, validating concerns that this virus—or other coronaviruses found in bat species—may be capable of making the leap to people without first evolving in an intermediate host, Nature reported. They also reignite a debate about whether that information justifies the risk of such work, known as gain-of-function research. “If the [new] virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, told Nature.
In October 2013, the US government put a stop to all federal funding for gain-of-function studies, with particular concern rising about influenza, SARS, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). “NIH [National Institutes of Health] has funded such studies because they help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, enable the assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, and inform public health and preparedness efforts,” NIH Director Francis Collins said in a statement at the time. “These studies, however, also entail biosafety and biosecurity risks, which need to be understood better.”
Baric’s study on the SHC014-chimeric coronavirus began before the moratorium was announced, and the NIH allowed it to proceed during a review process, which eventually led to the conclusion that the work did not fall under the new restrictions, Baric told Nature. But some researchers, like Wain-Hobson, disagree with that decision.
The debate comes down to how informative the results are. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University, told Nature.
But Baric and others argued the study’s importance. “[The results] move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger,” Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, which samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe, told Nature.
Read more at www.the-scientist.com
***


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-19--Why Climate Change Will Not Cause New Epidemics

Why Climate Change Will Not Cause New Epidemics My daily Google search for “ Climate Change , ” turned up a whopper of a story published in Phys.org indicating a warmer world due to climate change could lead to a massive loss of lives due to resurgent infectious diseases from the past .
In the story , “ How climate change could expose new epidemics , ” the author writes : Climate change… is … emerging as a driver of infectious disease , whether by expanding the footprint of malaria- and dengue-carrying mosquitos , or defrosting prehistoric pathogens from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tundra could thaw due to climate change unleashing microbes and bacteria of diseases long frozen in the soil , citing , in particular , anthrax , the Spanish flu , or smallpox .
Yet anthrax has never left us .
Anthrax is rare in humans , with only approximately 2,000 cases annually , and extremely difficult to pass from an infected person to an uninfected one .
In instances wherein a person is infected with anthrax if proper protocols are followed , its spread is largely preventable and , with early treatment with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chances for survival have improved dramatically in recent decades .
There is no reason for thinking climate change with cause an explosion of anthrax infections .
Concerning dormant strains of the flu or even smallpox , the article itself quotes a researcher in the field , Vladimir Romanovsky , a professor of geophysics at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks , who wrote in an article published earlier in 2020 , such diseases “ have probably been inactivated.
” The article also admits , should smallpox be contained and still active in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent a pandemic from arising if the soil thaws unleashing the virus .
In short , there is little reason to fear if climate change does cause some of the permafrost to melt is will unleash untreatable plagues upon society .
Nor is climate change likely to contribute to an increase in the spread of infectious diseases like Dengue fever , malaria , or the Zika virus .
Voluminous amounts of research indicate if anything , a modestly warmer world would result in fewer deaths from disease rather than more .
In an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2004 , W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted , “ Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States , Europe , and almost all countries outside the tropics , and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.
” More recently in a study published in the Lancet in 2015 , researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries , accounting for more than 74 million deaths , and found cold weather , directly or indirectly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or hot weather .
Indeed , history shows pandemics like the bubonic plague and smallpox have thrived and spread during colder geologic periods , like the little ice age , rather than warmer periods .
Concerning vector-borne diseases—diseases spread from insect carriers , like mosquitoes—to humans , the data shows they have decreased during the recent modest warming , and , if proper preventative steps are taken , they should continue to decline precipitously in the future regardless of the climate .
The vast body of scientific literature detailed in Chapter Four of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including studies from Africa , to England and Wales , to North and South America , to Thailand and beyond find no link between human climate change and the spread of malaria , Dengue fever , West Nile virus , and other vector-borne diseases .
For instance in a 2010 study in Nature , Gething et al .
: …compared historical and contemporary maps of the range and incidence of malaria and found endemic/stable malaria is likely to have covered 58 % of the world ’ s land surface around 1900 but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report ‘ even more marked has been the decrease in prevalence within this greatly reduced range , with endemicity falling by one or more classes in over two-thirds of the current range of stable transmission.
’ They write , ‘ widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent.
’ And vector-borne disease expert Paul Reiter , a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control , has written extensively on the transmission of vector-borne diseases stating any links between climate change are not supported by evidence .
For instance , in a 2008 article in the Malaria Journal , Reiter wrote : Simplistic reasoning on the future prevalence of malaria is ill-founded ; malaria is not limited by the climate in most temperate regions , nor in the tropics , and in nearly all cases , ‘ new ’ malaria at high altitudes is well below the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuing ] future changes in climate may alter the prevalence and incidence of the disease , but an obsessive emphasis on ‘ global warming ’ as a dominant parameter is indefensible ; the principal determinants are linked to ecological and societal change , politics and economics .
The COVID-19 pandemic is scary enough without journals like Phys.org hyping unwarranted fears of a climate change/infection disease link .
Especially when they have no evidence to back up their claims .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Why Climate Change Will Not Cause New Epidemics
Written by H Sterling Burnett
My daily Google search for “Climate Change,” turned up a whopper of a story published in Phys.org indicating a warmer world due to climate change could lead to a massive loss of lives due to resurgent infectious diseases from the past.
In the story, “How climate change could expose new epidemics,” the author writes:
Climate change… is … emerging as a driver of infectious disease, whether by expanding the footprint of malaria- and dengue-carrying mosquitos, or defrosting prehistoric pathogens from the Siberian permafrost.
Phys.org warns the frozen tundra could thaw due to climate change unleashing microbes and bacteria of diseases long frozen in the soil, citing, in particular, anthrax, the Spanish flu, or smallpox.
Yet anthrax has never left us. Anthrax is rare in humans, with only approximately 2,000 cases annually, and extremely difficult to pass from an infected person to an uninfected one.
In instances wherein a person is infected with anthrax if proper protocols are followed, its spread is largely preventable and, with early treatment with antibiotics and recently developed treatment regimes, chances for survival have improved dramatically in recent decades.
There is no reason for thinking climate change with cause an explosion of anthrax infections.
Concerning dormant strains of the flu or even smallpox, the article itself quotes a researcher in the field, Vladimir Romanovsky, a professor of geophysics at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, who wrote in an article published earlier in 2020, such diseases “have probably been inactivated.”
The article also admits, should smallpox be contained and still active in the permafrost, a vaccine is available to prevent a pandemic from arising if the soil thaws unleashing the virus.
In short, there is little reason to fear if climate change does cause some of the permafrost to melt is will unleash untreatable plagues upon society.
Nor is climate change likely to contribute to an increase in the spread of infectious diseases like Dengue fever, malaria, or the Zika virus.
Voluminous amounts of research indicate if anything, a modestly warmer world would result in fewer deaths from disease rather than more.
In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W. R. Keatinge and G. C. Donaldson noted, “Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
More recently in a study published in the Lancet in 2015, researchers examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths, and found cold weather, directly or indirectly, killed 1,700 percent more people than warm or hot weather.
Indeed, history shows pandemics like the bubonic plague and smallpox have thrived and spread during colder geologic periods, like the little ice age, rather than warmer periods.
Concerning vector-borne diseases—diseases spread from insect carriers, like mosquitoes—to humans, the data shows they have decreased during the recent modest warming, and, if proper preventative steps are taken, they should continue to decline precipitously in the future regardless of the climate.
The vast body of scientific literature detailed in Chapter Four of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, including studies from Africa, to England and Wales, to North and South America, to Thailand and beyond find no link between human climate change and the spread of malaria, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, and other vector-borne diseases.
For instance in a 2010 study in Nature, Gething et al.:
…compared historical and contemporary maps of the range and incidence of malaria and found endemic/stable malaria is likely to have covered 58% of the world’s land surface around 1900 but only 30% by 2007.
They report ‘even more marked has been the decrease in prevalence within this greatly reduced range, with endemicity falling by one or more classes in over two-thirds of the current range of stable transmission.’
They write, ‘widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent.’
And vector-borne disease expert Paul Reiter, a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France, and a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control, has written extensively on the transmission of vector-borne diseases stating any links between climate change are not supported by evidence.
For instance, in a 2008 article in the Malaria Journal, Reiter wrote:
Simplistic reasoning on the future prevalence of malaria is ill-founded; malaria is not limited by the climate in most temperate regions, nor in the tropics, and in nearly all cases, ‘new’ malaria at high altitudes is well below the maximum altitudinal limits for transmission, [continuing] future changes in climate may alter the prevalence and incidence of the disease, but an obsessive emphasis on ‘global warming’ as a dominant parameter is indefensible; the principal determinants are linked to ecological and societal change, politics and economics.
The COVID-19 pandemic is scary enough without journals like Phys.org hyping unwarranted fears of a climate change/infection disease link. Especially when they have no evidence to back up their claims.
Read more at Climate Realism
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--2020-08-20--The Mathematics of ‘COVID19’ Testing

The Mathematics of ‘COVID19’ Testing

The Basic Arithmetic : As usual , I am writing about the SARS-CoV2 ( SC2 ) numbers from a Scottish perspective but the general conclusions apply to any country .
It is quite apparent from pronouncements from the First Minister , Ms Sturgeon , that she has no idea what the numbers she is communicating to the general public actually mean .
The Daily Record journalists Chris McCall and Peter Davidson wrote the following nonsense : “ Over the last 24 hours 47 new cases of the deadly virus were identified with no deaths since July 16.
” It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education system ( once regarded as one of the finest in the world ) that a journalist could write such condescending drivel .
A deadly virus has not killed anyone in a month ?
The 47 cases increased to 65 following Sturgeon ’ s usual cringe-worthy daily speech on the 14th August .
Tara Fitzpatrick of the same rag tells us that “ The total number of cases of the virus now stands at 19,238 throughout the country.
” The first major problem is that there was 13,991 ‘ tests ’ given to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s a 0.46 % rate of detection .
The second major problem is that there can not possibly be 19,238 cases throughout the country .
Quite apart from the fact that nearly 5,000 of them have died ( with COVID19 mentioned on the Death Certificate ) , the figure is a cumulative number of those who have tested ‘ positive ’ for SC2 .
So when does a ‘ COVID19 case ’ cease to be a ‘ case ’ ?
The estimated time from infection to either death or release from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested ‘ positive ’ more than 24 days before today can not be considered a case .
They have either recovered or are now dead .
Let ’ s be kind and measure the Government figures from July 1st 2020 .
They are as I expected , a complete mess .
Before 1st April ( 17,007 tests ) we don ’ t know where they were taken .
The total test numbers do not agree with each other .
They are all over the place .
A note excusing the mess reads : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) includes numbers of home tests and other tests through the social care portal that were not previously available from the UK Government ( UKG ) testing programme .
The increase in the cumulative figures in ( iv ) on 8 July is due to the addition of the backlog of care home portal tests and home tests to the database .
It is not possible to incorporate these in the previous daily figures .
However , we have some numbers we can work with from 1st July • There have been 435,617 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 261,684 through UK Gov Tests ) The number tested is , without doubt , a biased sample .
We don ’ t know who was tested , where or by whom .
But it amounts to 8 % of the total 5.5 million population of Scotland .
The worst case scenario is that 987 people in the country may have been infected by SC2 .
That is 0.22 % of people tested have shown as ‘ positive ’ .
This is the prevalence of SC2 in Scotland .
This is the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ war against the virus ” .
The graph above shows the true extent of SC2 in Scotland .
I prefer to show a graph from actual data to scale to give a realistic picture of what is actually happening .
You will need a magnifying glass to see the number of deaths per day and the number of ‘ positive ’ test results per day .
That ’ s not an illusion .
It is the actual numbers .
Feel free to disagree , but the numbers strongly suggest that SC2 had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test results have been almost non-existent since then despite the massive increase in testing .
Before we get on to the mathematics of SC2 testing , I would like to look at the overall cost of this search for the proverbial needle in a haystack .
Now I don ’ t know the actual cost of a single test the Scottish government actually pays .
I did look at the Lloyds pharmacy website and the cost of 1 antibody kit is £59 and a Swab Test Kit is £99 .
I know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labour , lab costs , transportation , handling etc .
So let ’ s say a range from £90 to £150 per test .
Given 435,617 tests from 1st July we have guesstimates of : • £34.85 million to £65.34 million spent so far to find nothing .
What we want to know is the probability of being infected with SC2 given that you test positive .
You may think that a PCR test which is 97 % accurate means that it is 97 % certain that you have been infected .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the accuracy of the test .
In this example I will use Bayes Theorem to calculate the likelihood of being positive given that you test positive .
Things are not quite as simple as they seem .
Bayes can be described in its simplest terms as : “ a mathematical equation used in probability and statistics to calculate conditional probability .
In other words , it is used to calculate the probability of an event based on its association with another event.
” As an example .
Let ’ s say Liverpool FC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initial estimate based on prior games , league position and player strength may lead you to the conclusion that the chance of a Liverpool win would be 80 % .
Then you learn that 3 Liverpool players have been sent off in the first 20 minutes .
Liverpool ’ s chance of a win now drops to 10 % .
Your prior beliefs change when new information is known .
Given that a SC2 test is 97 % accurate what is the likelihood that you are really positive given that there is only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We start with the assumption that the test is 97 % accurate and then update our assumption with the 0.3 % prevalence .
At it ’ s simplest , Bayes Theorem can be written as : Where P ( A|B ) means the probability ( P ) of event A given event B .
Before we start , it is important to describe a few of the terms we will use .
This the probability expressed as a static number of testing positive and actually being positive .
Some tests will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is important to know that this is not a static number .
It can vary tremendously on different factors .
For this analysis 97 % is used .
This is the probability expressed as a static number of testing negative and actually being negative .
Again , this can vary tremendously .
For this analysis 97 % is used .
This is the probability expressed as a static number of the amount of people actually being infected in the population .
0.3 % has been used in this analysis .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
1 – prevalence .
99.7 % has been used in this analysis based on the positive test returns .
This is the probability of testing positive without being infected .
3 % has been used in this analysis .
1 – sensitivity .
This is the probability of testing negative and being infected .
3 % has been used in this analysis .
1 – specificity .
When working out the equations , all percentage figures are written as 97 % = 0.97 etc .
Writing this out in terms of Bayes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Or an 8.87 % chance of actually having the disease .
Not only has it been shown that the number of cases has been wildly misreported and the prevalence of the SC2 virus has almost disappeared , the outbreak almost certainly burned itself out in mid May .
Using Bayes analysis and conditional probability shows that the likelihood of being infected with SC2 , even if you test positive is around 10 % .
( Probabilities are not static numbers .
They will have a range given the observed data ) Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the opposite is true .
They are grossly overestimated .
One further point which I think is vital is that people , whether asymptomatic or symptomatic , are not being tested for anything other that SC2 .
There is a large amount of time , money and effort being spent trying to find something which has such a low probability of actually being measured .
I ’ m not a virologist or an epidemiologist or a serologist .
I just look at the numbers .
• Thanks to Michael A Lewis for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to SC2 .
This is a must read article from the Significance magazine published by the Royal Statistical Society and the American Statistical Association .
• In medicine the use of Bayes Theorem is called PPV ( Positive Predictive Value ) .
There are many online calculators available to check the numbers for yourself .
About the author : Graeme McMillan graduated with Honours from Edinburgh University ( Politics , Philosophy and Economics ) then gained further qualifications in Business Analysis , Project management , Statistics and Programming .
He has had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mine planning , geological modelling and computer systems management and programming .
He then moved to the metals and minerals sector developing simulation modelling of materials handling ( scrap , slag , semi-finished and finished products ) as well as financial modelling of large mining and steel plant projects .
Latterly , he ran his company ’ s Middle East and North African division .
Graeme is now retired .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The Mathematics of ‘COVID19’ Testing
Written by Graeme McMillan
The Basic Arithmetic: As usual, I am writing about the SARS-CoV2 (SC2) numbers from a Scottish perspective but the general conclusions apply to any country.
It is quite apparent from pronouncements from the First Minister, Ms Sturgeon, that she has no idea what the numbers she is communicating to the general public actually mean.
The Daily Record journalists Chris McCall and Peter Davidson wrote the following nonsense: “Over the last 24 hours 47 new cases of the deadly virus were identified with no deaths since July 16.”
It is perhaps the noted failings of the Scottish education system (once regarded as one of the finest in the world) that a journalist could write such condescending drivel.
A deadly virus has not killed anyone in a month?
The 47 cases increased to 65 following Sturgeon’s usual cringe-worthy daily speech on the 14th August.
Tara Fitzpatrick of the same rag tells us that “The total number of cases of the virus now stands at 19,238 throughout the country.”
The first major problem is that there was 13,991 ‘tests’ given to identify these 65 ‘cases’. That’s a 0.46% rate of detection.
The second major problem is that there cannot possibly be 19,238 cases throughout the country.
Quite apart from the fact that nearly 5,000 of them have died (with COVID19 mentioned on the Death Certificate), the figure is a cumulative number of those who have tested ‘positive’ for SC2.
So when does a ‘COVID19 case’ cease to be a ‘case’?
The estimated time from infection to either death or release from hospital is 22-24 days. Anyone who tested ‘positive’ more than 24 days before today cannot be considered a case. They have either recovered or are now dead.
Let’s be kind and measure the Government figures from July 1st 2020. They are as I expected, a complete mess. Before 1st April (17,007 tests) we don’t know where they were taken. The total test numbers do not agree with each other. They are all over the place. A note excusing the mess reads:
As of 8 July, (iv) includes numbers of home tests and other tests through the social care portal that were not previously available from the UK Government (UKG) testing programme.
The increase in the cumulative figures in (iv) on 8 July is due to the addition of the backlog of care home portal tests and home tests to the database. It is not possible to incorporate these in the previous daily figures.
However, we have some numbers we can work with from 1st July
987 people have tested positive.
There have been 435,617 tests. (179,933 through NHS labs, 261,684 through UK Gov Tests)
The number tested is, without doubt, a biased sample. We don’t know who was tested, where or by whom. But it amounts to 8% of the total 5.5 million population of Scotland.
The worst case scenario is that 987 people in the country may have been infected by SC2.
That is 0.22% of people tested have shown as ‘positive’. This is the prevalence of SC2 in Scotland.
This is the number that Sturgeon relies on to continue the “war against the virus”.
The graph above shows the true extent of SC2 in Scotland. I prefer to show a graph from actual data to scale to give a realistic picture of what is actually happening.
You will need a magnifying glass to see the number of deaths per day and the number of ‘positive’ test results per day. That’s not an illusion. It is the actual numbers.
Feel free to disagree, but the numbers strongly suggest that SC2 had burned out by mid May. Positive test results have been almost non-existent since then despite the massive increase in testing.
Before we get on to the mathematics of SC2 testing, I would like to look at the overall cost of this search for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
Now I don’t know the actual cost of a single test the Scottish government actually pays. I did look at the Lloyds pharmacy website and the cost of 1 antibody kit is £59 and a Swab Test Kit is £99. I know that the government will have extra overheads including labour, lab costs, transportation, handling etc. So let’s say a range from £90 to £150 per test.
Given 435,617 tests from 1st July we have guesstimates of:
£34.85 million to £65.34 million spent so far to find nothing.
The Mathematics
What we want to know is the probability of being infected with SC2 given that you test positive.
You may think that a PCR test which is 97% accurate means that it is 97% certain that you have been infected. This would seem like a reasonable assumption given the accuracy of the test.
In this example I will use Bayes Theorem to calculate the likelihood of being positive given that you test positive. Things are not quite as simple as they seem.
Bayes can be described in its simplest terms as: “a mathematical equation used in probability and statistics to calculate conditional probability. In other words, it is used to calculate the probability of an event based on its association with another event.”
As an example. Let’s say Liverpool FC are playing Norwich at Anfield. Your initial estimate based on prior games, league position and player strength may lead you to the conclusion that the chance of a Liverpool win would be 80%. Then you learn that 3 Liverpool players have been sent off in the first 20 minutes. Liverpool’s chance of a win now drops to 10%.
Your prior beliefs change when new information is known.
Given that a SC2 test is 97% accurate what is the likelihood that you are really positive given that there is only a 0.3 chance of having the disease. We start with the assumption that the test is 97% accurate and then update our assumption with the 0.3% prevalence.
At it’s simplest, Bayes Theorem can be written as :
Where P(A|B) means the probability (P) of event A given event B.
Before we start, it is important to describe a few of the terms we will use.
Sensitivity
This the probability expressed as a static number of testing positive and actually being positive.
Some tests will be classified as having 99% specificity but it is important to know that this is not a static number. It can vary tremendously on different factors. For this analysis 97% is used.
Specificity
This is the probability expressed as a static number of testing negative and actually being negative. Again, this can vary tremendously. For this analysis 97% is used.
Prevalence
This is the probability expressed as a static number of the amount of people actually being infected in the population. 0.3% has been used in this analysis.
No Covid
This is the people who do are not infected. 1 – prevalence. 99.7% has been used in this analysis based on the positive test returns.
False Positive
This is the probability of testing positive without being infected. 3% has been used in this analysis. 1 – sensitivity.
False negative
This is the probability of testing negative and being infected. 3% has been used in this analysis. 1 – specificity.
When working out the equations, all percentage figures are written as 97% = 0.97 etc.
Writing this out in terms of Bayes we come up with the following formula:
P(Pos | Cov) is Sensitivity = 0.97
P(Cov) is Prevalence = 0.003
P(Pos|NoCov = 0.03
P(NoCov) = 0.997
Gives 0.97 * 0.003 = 0.00291
Divided by:
0.00291 + (0.03 * 0.997) = 0.00291 + 0.02991 = 0.03282
Gives 0.00291 / 0.03282 = 0.08872
Or an 8.87% chance of actually having the disease.
Conclusion
Not only has it been shown that the number of cases has been wildly misreported and the prevalence of the SC2 virus has almost disappeared, the outbreak almost certainly burned itself out in mid May.
Using Bayes analysis and conditional probability shows that the likelihood of being infected with SC2, even if you test positive is around 10%. (Probabilities are not static numbers. They will have a range given the observed data)
Despite media reports of SC2 infections being underestimated, the opposite is true. They are grossly overestimated.
One further point which I think is vital is that people, whether asymptomatic or symptomatic, are not being tested for anything other that SC2.
There is a large amount of time, money and effort being spent trying to find something which has such a low probability of actually being measured.
I’m not a virologist or an epidemiologist or a serologist. I just look at the numbers.
Notes
Thanks to Michael A Lewis for the graphic of Bayes formula as related to SC2. This is a must read article from the Significance magazine published by the Royal Statistical Society and the American Statistical Association. In medicine the use of Bayes Theorem is called PPV (Positive Predictive Value). There are many online calculators available to check the numbers for yourself.
About the author: Graeme McMillan graduated with Honours from Edinburgh University (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) then gained further qualifications in Business Analysis, Project management, Statistics and Programming. He has had a long career in the UK mining industry in mine planning, geological modelling and computer systems management and programming. He then moved to the metals and minerals sector developing simulation modelling of materials handling (scrap, slag, semi-finished and finished products) as well as financial modelling of large mining and steel plant projects. Latterly, he ran his company’s Middle East and North African division. Graeme is now retired.
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--2020-08-20--No, Whales Are Not At Risk Of Extinction

No , Whales Are Not At Risk Of Extinction In his recent book , Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All , Michael Shellenberger declares : “ Not a single whale species is at risk of extinction.
” That was true enough when his book was being written .
But in January 2020 , the International Union of Conservation of Nature ( IUCN ) declared one whale subspecies critically endangered .
Which sounds bad until we understand the context .
Technically , there are five kinds of Right Whales .
Two are doing fine – Bowheads are increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned about Pygmy Right Whales .
The three remaining Right Whales used to be considered a single species .
Recently some ( but not all ) whale experts have started viewing them as separate species according to geographical location .
If that hadn ’ t happened , we wouldn ’ t be having this conversation .
The IUCN thinks there are more Southern Right Whales currently than there were three generations ago .
Yay !
But it considers those in the North Pacific endangered .
In January , it changed the status of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endangered .
As few as 200 adult Right Whales are thought to remain in the North Atlantic .
But so what ?
Many other whales remain .
The natural world is always in flux .
Change is constant .
The loss of one subspecies of a whale from one part of the world is no cause for alarm .
Canadian waters are home to 26 whale species .
Of these , eight haven ’ t been assigned status by the IUCN due to a paucity of data .
It thinks one species – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively uncommon , ” but admits five other kinds of beaked whales – Baird ’ s , Blainville ’ s , Sowerby ’ s , Stejneger ’ s , and True ’ s – are “ not believed to be uncommon ” ( see here , here , here , here , and here ) .
Moreover , it acknowledges that Killer Whales are “ numerically abundant ( at least tens of thousands of mature individuals ) ” and that there are at least 40,000 Northern Bottlenose Whales .
A further 11 Canadian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the IUCN ( that organization has no unequivocal , thumbs-up ranking ) : • beluga whales ( global population is “ likely more than 200,000 ” ) Which leaves seven Canadian whale species , including the North Atlantic Right Whales and North Pacific Right Whales discussed above .
Despite admitting that there are at least 60,000 False Killer Whales , the IUCN classifies them as near threatened – five full stages from extinction .
Even though Sperm Whales number in the hundreds of thousands , the IUCN says they ’ re vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceed 100,000 , but the IUCN says they , too , are vulnerable .
Blue Whales are likewise increasing , with a current population of between 5,000 and 15,000 .
Nevertheless , the IUCN classifies them as endangered .
It ’ s a similar story with Sei Whales .
Despite a growing population that already tops 50,000 , they ’ re considered endangered .
In conservation circles , words don ’ t mean what a reasonable person thinks they do .
The bottom line is that we currently have millions of whales .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclude non-Canadian whales .
Yet they still add up to 2.5 million .
Whale populations have been rebounding since commercial whaling ended decades ago .
As Shellenberger reminds us , “ Nations harvest fewer than two thousand whales annually , an amount that is 97 percent less than the nearly seventy-five thousand whales killed in 1960.
” Yet the Canadian Wildlife Federation has just mailed out a fundraising appeal that declares : “ Our whales are in trouble !
” ( see the top of this post ) .
By no stretch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

No, Whales Are Not At Risk Of Extinction
Written by Donna Laframboise
In his recent book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, Michael Shellenberger declares: “Not a single whale species is at risk of extinction.”
That was true enough when his book was being written. But in January 2020, the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) declared one whale subspecies critically endangered. Which sounds bad until we understand the context.
Technically, there are five kinds of Right Whales. Two are doing fine – Bowheads are increasing, and the IUCN isn’t concerned about Pygmy Right Whales.
The three remaining Right Whales used to be considered a single species. Recently some (but not all) whale experts have started viewing them as separate species according to geographical location. If that hadn’t happened, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
The IUCN thinks there are more Southern Right Whales currently than there were three generations ago. Yay! But it considers those in the North Pacific endangered. In January, it changed the status of those in the North Atlantic to critically endangered.
As few as 200 adult Right Whales are thought to remain in the North Atlantic. But so what? Many other whales remain. The natural world is always in flux. Change is constant. The loss of one subspecies of a whale from one part of the world is no cause for alarm.
Canadian waters are home to 26 whale species. Of these, eight haven’t been assigned status by the IUCN due to a paucity of data.
It thinks one species – Hubbs’ Beaked Whale – is “relatively uncommon,” but admits five other kinds of beaked whales – Baird’s, Blainville’s, Sowerby’s, Stejneger’s, and True’s – are “not believed to be uncommon” (see here, here, here, here, and here).
Moreover, it acknowledges that Killer Whales are “numerically abundant (at least tens of thousands of mature individuals)” and that there are at least 40,000 Northern Bottlenose Whales.
A further 11 Canadian whale species are classified as least concern by the IUCN (that organization has no unequivocal, thumbs-up ranking):
Which leaves seven Canadian whale species, including the North Atlantic Right Whales and North Pacific Right Whales discussed above.
Despite admitting that there are at least 60,000 False Killer Whales, the IUCN classifies them as near threatened – five full stages from extinction.
Even though Sperm Whales number in the hundreds of thousands, the IUCN says they’re vulnerable.
Fin Whales are increasing and already exceed 100,000, but the IUCN says they, too, are vulnerable.
Blue Whales are likewise increasing, with a current population of between 5,000 and 15,000. Nevertheless, the IUCN classifies them as endangered.
It’s a similar story with Sei Whales. Despite a growing population that already tops 50,000, they’re considered endangered.
In conservation circles, words don’t mean what a reasonable person thinks they do. The bottom line is that we currently have millions of whales.
The numbers cited here are conservative and exclude non-Canadian whales. Yet they still add up to 2.5 million.
Whale populations have been rebounding since commercial whaling ended decades ago.
As Shellenberger reminds us, “Nations harvest fewer than two thousand whales annually, an amount that is 97 percent less than the nearly seventy-five thousand whales killed in 1960.”
Yet the Canadian Wildlife Federation has just mailed out a fundraising appeal that declares: “Our whales are in trouble!” (see the top of this post).
By no stretch of the imagination is that statement true.
Read more 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--2020-08-20--COVID19: The simulated pandemic planned by world governments

As far back as 2005 , the World Health Organisation ( WHO ) and its partners at the UN , the World Bank and similar international bodies together with 196 countries planned for the current pandemic .
In respect to that , this article briefly surveys how all this came to be and the coincidental international rolling out of the current pandemic and its containment measures .
IHR2005 is a BINDING international legal agreement sponsored by the UN and WHO which was initiated for the purpose of helping the international community prevent , control and respond to severe public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 196 countries have signed IHR2005 including all the member states of the World Health Organisation such as the Pacific island states of Fiji and Kiribati and Caribbean states such as Grenada and Trinidad & Tobago .
IHR2005 entered into force in 2007 .
IHR2005 signatories are bound to comply with the obligations set forth in it .
WHO ARE THE IHR2005 STATE SIGNATORIES ?
As of 15th June 2007 , the IHR2005 signatories are the following states ( and all WHO members ) : - Afghanistan , Albania , Algeria , Andorra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Argentina , Armenia , Australia , Austria , Azerbaijan , Bahamas , Bahrain , Bangladesh , Barbados , Belarus , Belgium , Belize , Benin , Bhutan , Bolivia ( Plurinational State of ) , Bosnia and Herzegovina , Botswana , Brazil , Brunei Darussalam , Bulgaria , Burkina Faso , Burundi , Cabo Verde , Cambodia , Cameroon , Canada , Central African Republic , Chad , Chile , China , Colombia , Comoros , Congo , Cook Islands , Costa Rica , Côte d ’ Ivoire , Croatia , Cuba , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Republic of Korea , Democratic Republic of the Congo , Denmark , Djibouti , Dominica , Dominican Republic , Ecuador , Egypt , El Salvador , Equatorial Guinea , Eritrea , Estonia , Ethiopia , Fiji , Finland , France , Gabon , Gambia , Georgia , Germany , Ghana , Greece , Grenada , Guatemala , Guinea , Guinea-Bissau , Guyana , Haiti , Holy See , Honduras , Hungary , Iceland , India ( 8 August 2007 ) , Indonesia , Iran ( Islamic Republic of – the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? )
, Iraq , Ireland , Israel , Italy , Jamaica , Japan , Jordan , Kazakhstan , Kenya , Kiribati , Kuwait , Kyrgyzstan , Lao People ’ s Democratic Republic , Latvia , Lebanon , Lesotho , Liberia , Libya , Liechtenstein ( 28 March 2012 ) , Lithuania , Luxembourg , Madagascar , Malawi , Malaysia , Maldives , Mali , Malta , Marshall Islands , Mauritania , Mauritius , Mexico , Micronesia ( Federated States of ) , Monaco , Mongolia , Montenegro ( 5 February 2008 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Namibia , Nauru , Nepal , Netherlands , New Zealand , Nicaragua , Niger , Nigeria , Niue , Norway , Oman , Pakistan , Palau , Panama , Papua New Guinea , Paraguay , Peru , Philippines , Poland , Portugal , Qatar , Republic of Korea , Republic of Moldova , Romania , Russian Federation , Rwanda , Saint Kitts and Nevis , Saint Lucia , Saint Vincent and the Grenadines , Samoa , San Marino , Sao Tome and Principe , Saudi Arabia , Senegal , Serbia , Seychelles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Slovenia , Solomon Islands , Somalia , South Africa , South Sudan ( 16 April 2013 ) , Spain , Sri Lanka , Sudan , Suriname , Swaziland , Sweden , Switzerland , Syrian Arab Republic , Tajikistan , Thailand , The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , Timor-Leste , Togo , Tonga 2 , Trinidad and Tobago , Tunisia , Turkey 2 , Turkmenistan , Tuvalu , Uganda , Ukraine , United Arab Emirates , United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland , United Republic of Tanzania , United States of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Uruguay , Uzbekistan , Vanuatu , Venezuela ( Bolivarian Republic of ) , Viet Nam , Yemen , Zambia , Zimbabwe .
NOTABLE IHR2005 PROVISIONS FOR STATE PARTIES CURRENTLY PLAYING OUT Per IHR2005 ’ s Article 18 : Recommendations with respect to persons , baggage , cargo , containers , conveyances , goods and postal parcels 1 .
Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice : require medical examinations ; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis ; require vaccination or other prophylaxis ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons ; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons ; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons ; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas ; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas .
Under IHR 2005 18 ( 2 ) in respect to goods and physical property : - implement quarantine , seizure and destruction of infected or contaminated or suspect baggage , cargo , containers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled conditions if no available treatment or process will otherwise be successful ; and refuse departure or entry .
THE GLOBAL PREPAREDNESS BOARD AND JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR HEALTH SECURITY The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board ( “ GMB ” ) is a body that advises the World Health Organisation ( WHO ) on its heath emergencies policies .
It was co-convened in May 2018 by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization .
Its principal advisor is John Hopkins University Center for Health Security .
The GMB ’ s 15-member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USA , China , Russia , UK , Netherlands , Norway and also includes those from the WHO , Red Cross , Bill Gates ’ Foundation , UNICEF , Netherlands , Japan , Chile , India as well as political leaders , heads of agencies , and experts .
GMB is led jointly by Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland , formerly Prime Minister of Norway and Director-General of the World Health Organization and Mr Elhadj As Sy , Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies .
The stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to : 1. assess the world ’ s ability to protect itself from health emergencies ; 2. identify critical gaps to preparedness across multiple perspectives ; 3. advocate for preparedness activities with national and international leaders and decision-makers .
Just before the Covid19 pandemic emerged , GMB ’ s “ A world at risk : annual report on global preparedness for health emergencies of September 2019 ” ( Geneva : World Health Organization ; 2019 .
Licence : CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO ) Annual Report was published .
The report was commissioned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GMB .
The Annual Report ’ s paper , “ Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic ” of September 2019 effectively sets the scene for the Covid19 event currently playing out worldwide and which started shortly after the paper was published .
• Jarbas Barbosa da Silva Jr. , Pan American Health Organization ; • Rick Bright , US Department of Health and Human Services ; • Elizabeth Cameron , Nuclear Threat Initiative ; • Gail Carson , University of Oxford ; • Jeremy Farrar , Wellcome Trust ; • Keiji Fukuda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bruce Gellin , Sabin Vaccine Institute ; • Julie Lyn Hall , International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies ; • William Hall , Wellcome Trust ; • Keith Hamilton , World Organisation for Animal Health ; • Anne Huvos , World Health Organization ; • Chikwe Ihekweazu , Nigeria Centre for Disease Control ; • Bruce Innis , PATH ; • Daniel Jernigan , US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ; • Kerri-Ann Jones , Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework Advisory Group ; to the World Health Organization ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Lawrence Kerr , US Department of Health and Human Services ; • Marie-Paule Kieny , INSERM ; • Marion Koopmans , Erasmus MC , University Medical Center , The Netherlands ; • Amanda McClelland , Resolve to Save Lives ; • Hilary Marston , National Institutes of Health ; • Claudia Nannei , World Health Organization ; • Toomas Palu , World Bank Group ; • Diane Post , National Institutes of Health ; • Eduard Salahov , Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation ; • Ethan Settembre , Seqirus ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Microbial Threats , National Academies of Sciences , Engineering and Medicine , USA ; • Beverly Taylor , Seqirus ; • Jonathan Van-Tam , Department of Health and Social Care , England ; • Netsanet Workie , World Bank Group ; • Members of the World Health Organization Strategic & Technical Advisory Group for Infectious Hazards .
The Paper ’ s – at page 29 – which is what all IHR2005 signatory countries are to have in place by September 2020 – is particularly telling in relation to the outbreak of Covid19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ regard : - 1 .
The Secretary-General of the United Nations , with the Director-General of WHO and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs strengthens coordination and identifies clear roles and responsibilities and timely triggers for a coordinated United Nations systemwide response for health emergencies in different countries and different health and humanitarian emergency contexts .
2 .
The United Nations ( including WHO ) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises , including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen ( coincidentally , in this video clip for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Trump , US Secretary of State , Mike Pompeo explains that the USA is in live “ exercise ” mode in relation to Covid19 – perhaps a slip of the tongue ?
3. WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national , international and multilateral action early in outbreaks , to complement existing mechanisms for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR ( 2005 ) .
4 .
The Secretary General of the United Nations convenes a high-level dialogue with health , security and foreign affairs officials to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen pandemic , as well as for managing preparedness for disease outbreaks in complex , insecure contexts .
As there have been inferences that the Covid19 outbreak was initiated by China solely , as it is a member of IHR2005 coupled with the tone of its declaration under IHR 2005 ( at Pt .
III ( page 62 extracted below ) , this is not a credible proposition : - 1 .
The Government of the People ’ s Republic of China decides that the International Health Regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ the IHR ” ) applies to the entire territory of the People ’ s Republic of China , including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region , the Macau Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan Province .
2 .
The Ministry of Health of the People ’ s Republic of China is designated as China ’ s National Focal Point , pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the IHR .
The local health administrative authorities are the health authorities responsible for the implementation of the IHR in their respective jurisdictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Inspection and Quarantine of the People ’ s Republic of China and its local offices are the competent authorities of the points of entry referred to in Article 22 of the IHR .
3 .
To meet the needs of applying the IHR , the Government of the People ’ s Republic of China is revising the Frontier Health and Quarantine Law of the People ’ s Republic of China .
It has incorporated the development , enhancement and maintenance of the core capability-building for rapid and effective response to public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern into its program of establishing a national health emergency response system during the 11 th Five-year Plan for National Economic and Social Development .
It is formulating the technical standards for the surveillance , reporting , assessment , determination and notification of public health emergencies of international concern .
It has established an inter-agency information-sharing and coordination mechanism for implementing the IHR .
And it has conducted cooperation and exchanges with relevant states parties on the implementation of the IHR .
4 .
The Government of the People ’ s Republic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 59 th World Health Assembly calling upon its member states to comply immediately , on a voluntary basis , with provisions of the IHR considered relevant to the risk posed by the avian influenza and pandemic influenza .
Is Covid19 a simulated pandemic planned by world governments and coordinated by the UN , WHO and similar international agencies ?
The evidence for an affirmation is circumstantial but nonetheless highly persuasive due to the high coincidence of how Covid19 unfolded and is unfolding in particular , the short time span between GMB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rolling out of the outbreak and the measures that IHR 2005 prescribed actually falling into place seamlessly worldwide thereafter as if by design .
Furthermore , the architects of IHR2005 , GMB and their associated bodies appear to be the very people who are totally in control of the release and control of information worldwide in regard to how Covid19 infections and deaths are reported and the measures that are imposed on the worldwide population to contain the pandemic which measures were put in place more than 15 years ago .
Accordingly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of explaining to give to millions who have lots their jobs , livelihoods , businesses and freedom from Covid19 if the pandemic turns out to be nothing more than a planned simulation of the most unkind type upon the world .
About the author : Andre Alexander PhD : is a Queen ’ s Counsel ( hon . )
Nominee Barrister ( Brussels ) , Chartered Journalist , Associate Member , Royal Society of Medicine PSI Editor ’ s note : please also watch this informative video that reinforces the analysis presented above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

COVID19: The simulated pandemic planned by world governments
Written by Dr Andre Alexander, Queen's Counsel (hon.) Nominee
As far back as 2005, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its partners at the UN, the World Bank and similar international bodies together with 196 countries planned for the current pandemic.
In respect to that, this article briefly surveys how all this came to be and the coincidental international rolling out of the current pandemic and its containment measures.
THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS 2005 (IHR 2005)
IHR2005 is a BINDING international legal agreement sponsored by the UN and WHO which was initiated for the purpose of helping the international community prevent, control and respond to severe public health risks that present international threats.
More than 196 countries have signed IHR2005 including all the member states of the World Health Organisation such as the Pacific island states of Fiji and Kiribati and Caribbean states such as Grenada and Trinidad & Tobago. IHR2005 entered into force in 2007. IHR2005 signatories are bound to comply with the obligations set forth in it.
WHO ARE THE IHR2005 STATE SIGNATORIES?
As of 15th June 2007, the IHR2005 signatories are the following states (and all WHO members):-
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China , Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India (8 August 2007) , Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of – the country recently reported 20 million Covid19 infections??), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein (28 March 2012), Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro (5 February 2008), Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal , Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan (16 April 2013), Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga 2 , Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey 2 , Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America (18 July 2007), Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
NOTABLE IHR2005 PROVISIONS FOR STATE PARTIES CURRENTLY PLAYING OUT
Per IHR2005’s Article 18: Recommendations with respect to persons, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods and postal parcels
1. Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice: require medical examinations; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis; require vaccination or other prophylaxis; place suspect persons under public health observation; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons ; implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.
Under IHR 2005 18 (2) in respect to goods and physical property:-
implement quarantine, seizure and destruction of infected or contaminated or suspect baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods or postal parcels under controlled conditions if no available treatment or process will otherwise be successful; and refuse departure or entry.
THE GLOBAL PREPAREDNESS BOARD AND JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR HEALTH SECURITY
The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (“GMB”) is a body that advises the World Health Organisation (WHO) on its heath emergencies policies. It was co-convened in May 2018 by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization. Its principal advisor is John Hopkins University Center for Health Security.
The GMB’s 15-member Board consists of senior figures from the USA, China, Russia, UK, Netherlands, Norway and also includes those from the WHO, Red Cross, Bill Gates’ Foundation, UNICEF, Netherlands, Japan, Chile, India as well as political leaders, heads of agencies, and experts.
GMB is led jointly by Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, formerly Prime Minister of Norway and Director-General of the World Health Organization and Mr Elhadj As Sy, Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
WHAT ARE GMB’S GOALS?
The stated goals of GMB’s Board are to: 1. assess the world’s ability to protect itself from health emergencies; 2. identify critical gaps to preparedness across multiple perspectives; 3. advocate for preparedness activities with national and international leaders and decision-makers.
GMB’S PRINCIPAL ADVISOR – JOHN HOPKINS CENTRE FOR HEALTH SECURITY
Just before the Covid19 pandemic emerged, GMB’s “A world at risk: annual report on global preparedness for health emergencies of September 2019” (Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO) Annual Report was published. The report was commissioned to Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security by GMB.
GMB’S REPORT’S PAPER “PREPAREDNESS FOR A HIGH-IMPACT RESPIRATORY PATHOGEN EPIDEMIC” OF SEPTEMBER 2019
The Annual Report’s paper, “Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic” of September 2019 effectively sets the scene for the Covid19 event currently playing out worldwide and which started shortly after the paper was published.
The Paper’s contributors are:-
• Jarbas Barbosa da Silva Jr., Pan American Health Organization; • Rick Bright, US Department of Health and Human Services; • Elizabeth Cameron, Nuclear Threat Initiative; • Gail Carson, University of Oxford; • Jeremy Farrar, Wellcome Trust; • Keiji Fukuda, University of Hong Kong; • Bruce Gellin, Sabin Vaccine Institute; • Julie Lyn Hall, International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; • William Hall, Wellcome Trust; • Keith Hamilton, World Organisation for Animal Health; • Anne Huvos, World Health Organization; • Chikwe Ihekweazu, Nigeria Centre for Disease Control; • Bruce Innis, PATH; • Daniel Jernigan, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; • Kerri-Ann Jones, Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework Advisory Group; to the World Health Organization; • Rebecca Katz, Georgetown University; • Lawrence Kerr, US Department of Health and Human Services; • Marie-Paule Kieny, INSERM; • Marion Koopmans, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, The Netherlands; • Amanda McClelland, Resolve to Save Lives;• Hilary Marston, National Institutes of Health; • Claudia Nannei, World Health Organization; • Toomas Palu, World Bank Group; • Diane Post, National Institutes of Health; • Eduard Salahov, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; • Ethan Settembre, Seqirus; • Cecilia Mundaca Shah, Forum on Microbial Threats, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, USA; • Beverly Taylor, Seqirus; • Jonathan Van-Tam, Department of Health and Social Care, England; • Netsanet Workie, World Bank Group; • Members of the World Health Organization Strategic & Technical Advisory Group for Infectious Hazards.
The Paper’s PROGRESS INDICATOR (S) BY SEPTEMBER 2020 – at page 29 – which is what all IHR2005 signatory countries are to have in place by September 2020 – is particularly telling in relation to the outbreak of Covid19.
Point 2 below is instructive in that regard:-
1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the Director-General of WHO and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs strengthens coordination and identifies clear roles and responsibilities and timely triggers for a coordinated United Nations systemwide response for health emergencies in different countries and different health and humanitarian emergency contexts.
2. The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen (coincidentally, in this video clip for a news report and in the presence of President Trump, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo explains that the USA is in live “exercise” mode in relation to Covid19 – perhaps a slip of the tongue?
3. WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national, international and multilateral action early in outbreaks, to complement existing mechanisms for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR (2005).
4. The Secretary General of the United Nations convenes a high-level dialogue with health, security and foreign affairs officials to determine how the world can address the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen pandemic, as well as for managing preparedness for disease outbreaks in complex, insecure contexts.
CHINA’S DECLARED OBLIGATIONS UNDER IHR2005
As there have been inferences that the Covid19 outbreak was initiated by China solely, as it is a member of IHR2005 coupled with the tone of its declaration under IHR 2005 (at Pt. III (page 62 extracted below), this is not a credible proposition:-
III. (CHINA’S) DECLARATIONS AND STATEMENTS
CHINA 1
1. The Government of the People’s Republic of China decides that the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as “the IHR”) applies to the entire territory of the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macau Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan Province.
2. The Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China is designated as China’s National Focal Point, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the IHR. The local health administrative authorities are the health authorities responsible for the implementation of the IHR in their respective jurisdictions. The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China and its local offices are the competent authorities of the points of entry referred to in Article 22 of the IHR.
3. To meet the needs of applying the IHR, the Government of the People’s Republic of China is revising the Frontier Health and Quarantine Law of the People’s Republic of China . It has incorporated the development, enhancement and maintenance of the core capability-building for rapid and effective response to public health hazards and public health emergencies of international concern into its program of establishing a national health emergency response system during the 11 th Five-year Plan for National Economic and Social Development. It is formulating the technical standards for the surveillance, reporting, assessment, determination and notification of public health emergencies of international concern. It has established an inter-agency information-sharing and coordination mechanism for implementing the IHR. And it has conducted cooperation and exchanges with relevant states parties on the implementation of the IHR.
4. The Government of the People’s Republic of China endorses and will implement the resolution of the 59 th World Health Assembly calling upon its member states to comply immediately, on a voluntary basis, with provisions of the IHR considered relevant to the risk posed by the avian influenza and pandemic influenza.
CONCLUSION
Is Covid19 a simulated pandemic planned by world governments and coordinated by the UN, WHO and similar international agencies? The evidence for an affirmation is circumstantial but nonetheless highly persuasive due to the high coincidence of how Covid19 unfolded and is unfolding in particular, the short time span between GMB’s September 2019 report and the rolling out of the outbreak and the measures that IHR 2005 prescribed actually falling into place seamlessly worldwide thereafter as if by design.
Furthermore, the architects of IHR2005, GMB and their associated bodies appear to be the very people who are totally in control of the release and control of information worldwide in regard to how Covid19 infections and deaths are reported and the measures that are imposed on the worldwide population to contain the pandemic which measures were put in place more than 15 years ago.
Accordingly, the WHO and UN have a lot of explaining to give to millions who have lots their jobs, livelihoods, businesses and freedom from Covid19 if the pandemic turns out to be nothing more than a planned simulation of the most unkind type upon the world.
About the author: Andre Alexander PhD: is a Queen’s Counsel (hon.) Nominee Barrister (Brussels), Chartered Journalist, Associate Member, Royal Society of Medicine
Read more at www.linkedin.com
PSI Editor’s note: please also watch this informative video that reinforces the analysis presented above:
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-20--Really Concerned About CO2 Emissions? Embrace Nuclear

In the words of James Hansen , the scientist most responsible for promoting global warming , wind and solar are “ grotesque ” solutions for reducing CO2 emissions .
Michael Shellenberger , a prominent activist , has the same opinion .
Hansen and Shellenberger , as well as many other global warming activists , have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only viable method of reducing CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity .
Nuclear reactors don ’ t emit CO2 .
Coal and natural gas do .
Hydroelectric electricity does not emit CO2 either , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States , most of the good sites have already been developed .
Wind and solar are grotesque because there are many problems .
Promoters of wind and solar simply lie about the problems .
Reducing emissions of CO2 by one metric tonne , 1,000 kilograms , or 2,204 pounds , is called a carbon offset .
Carbon offsets are bought and sold , usually for less than $ 10 each .
If you build wind or solar plants to displace electricity from natural gas or coal plants , you will generate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will cost about $ 60 if electricity from a coal plant is displaced .
If electricity from a natural gas plant is displaced , the cost per carbon offset will be about $ 160 .
Wind and solar are expensive methods of generating carbon offsets .
Wind and solar are not remotely competitive with coal or natural gas for generating electricity .
The promoters of wind and solar lie about this constantly , claiming that they are close to competitive .
The lies have two major components .
They ignore or misrepresent the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , amounting to 75 % of the cost .
Then they compare the subsidized cost of wind or solar with the total cost of gas or coal .
But wind or solar can ’ t replace existing fossil fuel infrastructure because they are erratic sources of electricity .
The existing infrastructure has to be retained when you add wind or solar because sometimes the wind doesn ’ t blow or the sun doesn ’ t shine .
The only fair comparison is to analyze the total cost of wind or solar per kilowatt-hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of gas or coal electricity .
That marginal cost is essentially the cost of the fuel .
The only economic benefit of wind or solar is reducing fuel consumption in existing fossil fuel plants .
It is hard to build wind or solar installations that generate electricity for less than 8-cents per kWh , but the cost of the fuel , for either gas or coal , is about 2-cents per kWh .
Wind and solar cost four times too much to be competitive .
Wind and solar run into difficulty if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 % of the electricity in a grid .
Getting to 50 % generally involves adding expensive batteries , further destroying the economics , and the usefulness for CO2 reduction .
The only justification for wind and solar is the reduction of CO2 emissions , but wind and solar are limited and costly for this purpose .
CO2-free nuclear energy can be both economical and practical .
That , clearly is the reason why prominent global warming activists are advocating nuclear , rather than wind and solar to alleviate the supposed global warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently cost-competitive with natural gas .
It ’ s not that nuclear or coal is so expensive as it is that natural gas , thanks to fracking , is incredibly cheap .
Gas that costs more than $ 10 per MMBtu ( million British thermal units ) a decade ago , now costs less than $ 2 .
Gas-generating plants are very cheap to build and incredibly efficient .
A gas plant using a combination of a gas turbine and a steam turbine can turn 65 % of the energy in the gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal plant struggles to reach 40 % .
Both coal and nuclear are handicapped by well-organized and unprincipled political opposition from the Sierra Club and similar organizations .
The Sierra Club hates natural gas too , but most of their efforts go into scaring people with the imaginary danger of coal .
The Sierra Club doesn ’ t need to expend much effort scaring people with nuclear because the nuclear industry has already been destroyed in the U.S. thanks to previous efforts of the environmental movement .
Coal and nuclear have one very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel on-site to continue operating if fuel deliveries are interrupted .
For coal , this is around 30 days , for nuclear , more than a year .
Some gas plants can temporarily use oil from local tanks , but in most cases that won ’ t last long .
Gas deliveries can be interrupted by pipeline failure or sabotage .
The pumping stations on natural gas pipelines are increasingly powered by electricity , rather than gas , creating a circular firing squad effect .
Nuclear electricity is a young industry with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Asia given the successful propaganda campaign to make people afraid of nuclear in the U.S. and in much of Europe .
Nuclear fuel is extremely cheap , around four times cheaper than gas or coal .
Nuclear reactors don ’ t have smokestacks and they don ’ t emit CO2 .
New designs will dramatically lower costs , increase safety , and effectively remove most of the objections to nuclear .
It is an incredible contradiction that most environmental organizations advocate wind and solar but demonizes nuclear .
In the future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is an intellectual and economic failure that the 30 U.S. states with policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions , called renewable portfolio standards , mostly explicitly exclude nuclear power as part of the plan .
Instead , they effectively mandate wind and solar .
There are signs of reform as some states have provided support to prevent nuclear power stations from being closed .
The global warming hysteria movement is surely one of the most successful junk science campaigns ever launched .
Predicting a catastrophe is a great way for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The many responsible scientists that object are attacked , if not fired .
Money trumps ethics every time .
The environmental movement needs looming catastrophes too , so they act as PR men for the science establishment .
The tragedy is that our legislators swallow these lies and waste billions on boondoggles like wind and solar .
It is ironic that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere has a bountiful effect on plant growth , greening the Earth , and increasing agricultural production .
Rather than a threat , CO2 is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the global warming hysteria movement , you should face reality and dump wind and solar for nuclear .
Wind and solar are not appropriate for the problem they are assigned to solve .
Nuclear is .
Norman Rogers is the author of the book : Dumb Energy : A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @

Really Concerned About CO2 Emissions? Embrace Nuclear
Written by Norman Rogers
In the words of James Hansen, the scientist most responsible for promoting global warming, wind and solar are “grotesque” solutions for reducing CO2 emissions.
Michael Shellenberger, a prominent activist, has the same opinion. Hansen and Shellenberger, as well as many other global warming activists, have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only viable method of reducing CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity.
Nuclear reactors don’t emit CO2. Coal and natural gas do. Hydroelectric electricity does not emit CO2 either, but opportunities for expansion are limited. In the United States, most of the good sites have already been developed.
Wind and solar are grotesque because there are many problems. Promoters of wind and solar simply lie about the problems.
Reducing emissions of CO2 by one metric tonne, 1,000 kilograms, or 2,204 pounds, is called a carbon offset. Carbon offsets are bought and sold, usually for less than $10 each.
If you build wind or solar plants to displace electricity from natural gas or coal plants, you will generate carbon offsets. Each carbon offset generated will cost about $60 if electricity from a coal plant is displaced.
If electricity from a natural gas plant is displaced, the cost per carbon offset will be about $160. Wind and solar are expensive methods of generating carbon offsets.
Wind and solar are not remotely competitive with coal or natural gas for generating electricity. The promoters of wind and solar lie about this constantly, claiming that they are close to competitive.
The lies have two major components. They ignore or misrepresent the massive subsidies that wind and solar get, amounting to 75% of the cost. Then they compare the subsidized cost of wind or solar with the total cost of gas or coal.
But wind or solar can’t replace existing fossil fuel infrastructure because they are erratic sources of electricity.
The existing infrastructure has to be retained when you add wind or solar because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.
The only fair comparison is to analyze the total cost of wind or solar per kilowatt-hour (kWh) with the marginal cost of gas or coal electricity. That marginal cost is essentially the cost of the fuel.
The only economic benefit of wind or solar is reducing fuel consumption in existing fossil fuel plants.
It is hard to build wind or solar installations that generate electricity for less than 8-cents per kWh, but the cost of the fuel, for either gas or coal, is about 2-cents per kWh. Wind and solar cost four times too much to be competitive.
Wind and solar run into difficulty if they are the source of more than about 25% of the electricity in a grid.
Getting to 50% generally involves adding expensive batteries, further destroying the economics, and the usefulness for CO2 reduction.
The only justification for wind and solar is the reduction of CO2 emissions, but wind and solar are limited and costly for this purpose. CO2-free nuclear energy can be both economical and practical.
That, clearly is the reason why prominent global warming activists are advocating nuclear, rather than wind and solar to alleviate the supposed global warming crisis.
Neither nuclear nor coal is currently cost-competitive with natural gas. It’s not that nuclear or coal is so expensive as it is that natural gas, thanks to fracking, is incredibly cheap.
Gas that costs more than $10 per MMBtu (million British thermal units) a decade ago, now costs less than $2. Gas-generating plants are very cheap to build and incredibly efficient.
A gas plant using a combination of a gas turbine and a steam turbine can turn 65% of the energy in the gas into electricity. By contrast, a coal plant struggles to reach 40%.
Both coal and nuclear are handicapped by well-organized and unprincipled political opposition from the Sierra Club and similar organizations. The Sierra Club hates natural gas too, but most of their efforts go into scaring people with the imaginary danger of coal.
The Sierra Club doesn’t need to expend much effort scaring people with nuclear because the nuclear industry has already been destroyed in the U.S. thanks to previous efforts of the environmental movement.
Coal and nuclear have one very important advantage over gas. They have fuel on-site to continue operating if fuel deliveries are interrupted. For coal, this is around 30 days, for nuclear, more than a year.
Some gas plants can temporarily use oil from local tanks, but in most cases that won’t last long. Gas deliveries can be interrupted by pipeline failure or sabotage.
The pumping stations on natural gas pipelines are increasingly powered by electricity, rather than gas, creating a circular firing squad effect.
Nuclear electricity is a young industry with a big future. That future is materializing in Asia given the successful propaganda campaign to make people afraid of nuclear in the U.S. and in much of Europe.
Nuclear fuel is extremely cheap, around four times cheaper than gas or coal. Nuclear reactors don’t have smokestacks and they don’t emit CO2.
New designs will dramatically lower costs, increase safety, and effectively remove most of the objections to nuclear.
It is an incredible contradiction that most environmental organizations advocate wind and solar but demonizes nuclear. In the future, nuclear may be cost-competitive with natural gas.
It is an intellectual and economic failure that the 30 U.S. states with policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions, called renewable portfolio standards, mostly explicitly exclude nuclear power as part of the plan.
Instead, they effectively mandate wind and solar. There are signs of reform as some states have provided support to prevent nuclear power stations from being closed.
The global warming hysteria movement is surely one of the most successful junk science campaigns ever launched. Predicting a catastrophe is a great way for a science establishment to gain fame and money.
The many responsible scientists that object are attacked, if not fired. Money trumps ethics every time. The environmental movement needs looming catastrophes too, so they act as PR men for the science establishment.
The tragedy is that our legislators swallow these lies and waste billions on boondoggles like wind and solar.
It is ironic that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere has a bountiful effect on plant growth, greening the Earth, and increasing agricultural production. Rather than a threat, CO2 is a boon.
If you still believe in the global warming hysteria movement, you should face reality and dump wind and solar for nuclear. Wind and solar are not appropriate for the problem they are assigned to solve. Nuclear is.
Norman Rogers is the author of the book: Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.
Read more at American Thinker
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--2020-08-20--President of World Academy of Bio Med Sciences: ‘COVID-19 is Bioweapon’

President of World Academy of Bio Med Sciences : ‘ COVID-19 is Bioweapon ’ Professor Giuseppe Tritto ( pictured ) , an international expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology who serves as president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies ( WABT ) , believes that COVID-19 was created in a laboratory as a bioweapon .
Prof. Tritto wrote in his new book , COVID 19 : La Chimera che ha cambiato il Mondo ( China COVID 19 : The chimera that changed the world ) , that it is obvious COVID-19 was genetically engineered in the infamous Wuhan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with help from France and the U.S. through the use of “ reverse genetics.
” He also noted that program director Dr. Shi Zhengli was encouraged by the People ’ s Liberation Army ( PLA ) to create bioweapons .
Prof. Tritto also explained how Dr. Anthony Fauci ’ s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease ( NIAID ) subsidized the deadly research with grant money .
He also noted that COVID-19 is rapidly mutating and finding a workable vaccine to stop the spread of the engineered virus will be difficult as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutations of COVID-19 , it is extremely unlikely that a single vaccine that blocks the virus will be found .
At the moment 11 different strains have been identified : the A2a genetic line which developed in Europe and the B1 genetic line which took root in North America are more contagious than the 0 strain originating in Wuhan , ” Prof. Tritto wrote .
“ I therefore believe that , at the most , a multivalent vaccine can be found effective on 4-5 strains and thus able to cover 70-75 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he added .
What makes Prof. Tritto ’ s allegations carry so much weight is his leadership role at the WABT , a globalist scientific body that works with the United Nations Educational , Scientific and Cultural Organisation ( UNESCO ) .
However , other high-profile individuals have made a similar assessment as Prof. Tritto regarding the origins of COVID-19 , as Big League Politics has reported : Sir Richard Dearlove , who was the former leader of the MI6 secret intelligence service in Britain , has said that he believes COVID-19 was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told The Telegraph that he came to his informed conclusion after seeing an “ important ” new scientific report indicating that the virus was made by man and did not emerge naturally .
The study he cited was undertaken by Professor Angus Dalgleish of St George ’ s Hospital , University of London , and Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen .
These scientists discovered “ inserted sections placed on the Sars-CoV-2 Spike surface , ” which allows the virus to more easily invade cells .
They also noted that the virus was “ significantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in their report .
Although they stopped short of calling it a deliberate bioweapon , they came to the conclusion that the virus was in fact man made .
Dearlove , who led MI6 from from 1999 until 2004 , believes that this news will eventually be used to compel China to pay “ reparations ” to nations across the world for the damage they have caused with their virus .
“ I do not think that this started as an accident , ” Dearlove said while appearing on the “ Planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will make every country in the world rethink how it treats its relationship with China , ” he added .
The medical establishment , such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , does not want this crucial information to be widely understood by the public .
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 @ @ @ @

President of World Academy of Bio Med Sciences: ‘COVID-19 is Bioweapon’
Written by Shane Trejo
Professor Giuseppe Tritto (pictured), an international expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology who serves as president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies (WABT), believes that COVID-19 was created in a laboratory as a bioweapon.
Prof. Tritto wrote in his new book, COVID 19: La Chimera che ha cambiato il Mondo (China COVID 19: The chimera that changed the world), that it is obvious COVID-19 was genetically engineered in the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 laboratory with help from France and the U.S. through the use of “reverse genetics.”
He also noted that program director Dr. Shi Zhengli was encouraged by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to create bioweapons. Prof. Tritto also explained how Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) subsidized the deadly research with grant money.
“Providing the matrix virus would have meant admitting that COVID-19 was created in the laboratory. In fact, the incomplete genome made available by China lacks some inserts of AIDS amino acids, which itself is a smoking gun,” Prof. Tritto wrote in his book.
He also noted that COVID-19 is rapidly mutating and finding a workable vaccine to stop the spread of the engineered virus will be difficult as a result.
“Given the many mutations of COVID-19, it is extremely unlikely that a single vaccine that blocks the virus will be found. At the moment 11 different strains have been identified: the A2a genetic line which developed in Europe and the B1 genetic line which took root in North America are more contagious than the 0 strain originating in Wuhan,” Prof. Tritto wrote. “I therefore believe that, at the most, a multivalent vaccine can be found effective on 4-5 strains and thus able to cover 70-75% of the world’s population,” he added.
What makes Prof. Tritto’s allegations carry so much weight is his leadership role at the WABT, a globalist scientific body that works with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).
However, other high-profile individuals have made a similar assessment as Prof. Tritto regarding the origins of COVID-19, as Big League Politics has reported:
Sir Richard Dearlove, who was the former leader of the MI6 secret intelligence service in Britain, has said that he believes COVID-19 was created in a Chinese laboratory. Dearlove told The Telegraph that he came to his informed conclusion after seeing an “important” new scientific report indicating that the virus was made by man and did not emerge naturally. The study he cited was undertaken by Professor Angus Dalgleish of St George’s Hospital, University of London, and Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen. These scientists discovered “inserted sections placed on the Sars-CoV-2 Spike surface,” which allows the virus to more easily invade cells. They also noted that the virus was “significantly different from any Sars we have studied” in their report. Although they stopped short of calling it a deliberate bioweapon, they came to the conclusion that the virus was in fact man made. Dearlove, who led MI6 from from 1999 until 2004, believes that this news will eventually be used to compel China to pay “reparations” to nations across the world for the damage they have caused with their virus. “I do not think that this started as an accident,” Dearlove said while appearing on the “Planet Normal” podcast. “I think it will make every country in the world rethink how it treats its relationship with China,” he added.
The medical establishment, such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, does not want this crucial information to be widely understood by the public.
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