principiascientificinternational--2020-07-27--Statistical Shenanigans: England’s Fake COVID19 Deaths

People living in England have become increasingly concerned in the face of Public Health England ’ s ( PHE ) figures demonstrating a relentless daily toll of more than a hundred COVID-associated deaths several days a week ( see Figure 1 ) .
This is in stark contrast to the more reassuring recovery in neighbouring regions ( Wales , Scotland and Northern Ireland ) , where there are days with no COVID-associated deaths whatsoever .
One reason for this due is a statistical flaw in the way that PHE compiles ‘ out of hospital ’ deaths data , rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK : Here , it seems that PHE regularly looks for people on the NHS database who have ever tested positive , and simply checks to see if they are still alive or not .
PHE does not appear to consider how long ago the COVID test result was , nor whether the person has been successfully treated in hospital and discharged to the community .
Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness .
A patient who has tested positive , but successfully treated and discharged from hospital , will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later .
This why the PHE figures vary substantially from day to day .
For example , 16 new deaths were announced on 6th July , but the following day , 152 were reported – today ’ s figure is 66 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 125 000 patients have been admitted to NHS hospitals for COVID , the majority being successfully treated and discharged .
There are now less than 1900 patients in hospital .
So , roughly 80 000 recovered patients in the community will continue being monitored by PHE for the daily death statistics .
More and more people ( who are mainly in the older age group ) are being discharged to the community , but they clearly may die of other illnesses .
This is why ‘ out of hospital setting ’ deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even though the Office of National Statistics data shows there have been fewer deaths than the five year average in the last three weeks , and NHS England data shows a moving average of 19 deaths per day in hospital .
It ’ s time to fix this statistical flaw that leads to an over-exaggeration of COVID-associated deaths .
One reasonable approach would be to define community COVID-related deaths as those that occurred within 21 days of a COVID positive test result .
In summary , PHE ’ s definition of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has ever had COVID at any time must die with COVID too .
So , the COVID death toll in Britain up to July 2020 will eventually exceed 290k , if the follow-up of every test-positive patient is of long enough duration .
Figure 1 .
This graph confirms a gradual but steady decline in NHS England deaths in hospital .
But there is a persistent pattern where ‘ out of hospital ’ data are contributing hundreds of additional deaths to the daily figures , and this shows no signs of letting up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-hospital daily deaths recorded on 14 occasions over the last 30 days .
The fluctuations across the working week and weekends are likely related to the intermittent frequency of database updates and subsequent inclusion of data not captured from previous weeks .
Authors : Prof. Yoon K Loke is Professor of Medicine and Pharmacology , Norwich Medical School , University of East Anglia , UK .
Carl Heneghan is Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine and Director of Studies for the Evidence-Based Health Care Programmes PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Statistical Shenanigans: England’s Fake COVID19 Deaths
Written by Professors Yoon K Loke & Carl Heneghan
People living in England have become increasingly concerned in the face of Public Health England’s (PHE) figures demonstrating a relentless daily toll of more than a hundred COVID-associated deaths several days a week (see Figure 1).
This is in stark contrast to the more reassuring recovery in neighbouring regions (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), where there are days with no COVID-associated deaths whatsoever.
One reason for this due is a statistical flaw in the way that PHE compiles ‘out of hospital’ deaths data, rather than any genuine difference between the regions of the UK:
“Linking data on confirmed positive cases (identified through testing by NHS and PHE laboratories and commercial partners) to the NHS Demographic Batch Service: when a patient dies, the NHS central register of patients is notified (this is not limited to deaths in hospitals). The list of all lab confirmed cases is checked against the NHS central register each day, to check if any of the patients have died.”
Here, it seems that PHE regularly looks for people on the NHS database who have ever tested positive, and simply checks to see if they are still alive or not. PHE does not appear to consider how long ago the COVID test result was, nor whether the person has been successfully treated in hospital and discharged to the community.
Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures. By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness.
A patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.
This why the PHE figures vary substantially from day to day. For example, 16 new deaths were announced on 6th July, but the following day, 152 were reported – today’s figure is 66. PHE data also confirm that more than 125 000 patients have been admitted to NHS hospitals for COVID, the majority being successfully treated and discharged.
There are now less than 1900 patients in hospital. So, roughly 80 000 recovered patients in the community will continue being monitored by PHE for the daily death statistics. More and more people (who are mainly in the older age group) are being discharged to the community, but they clearly may die of other illnesses.
This is why ‘out of hospital setting’ deaths remain constantly high (Figure 1), even though the Office of National Statistics data shows there have been fewer deaths than the five year average in the last three weeks, and NHS England data shows a moving average of 19 deaths per day in hospital.
It’s time to fix this statistical flaw that leads to an over-exaggeration of COVID-associated deaths. One reasonable approach would be to define community COVID-related deaths as those that occurred within 21 days of a COVID positive test result.
In summary, PHE’s definition of the daily death figures means that everyone who has ever had COVID at any time must die with COVID too. So, the COVID death toll in Britain up to July 2020 will eventually exceed 290k, if the follow-up of every test-positive patient is of long enough duration.
Figure 1. This graph confirms a gradual but steady decline in NHS England deaths in hospital. But there is a persistent pattern where ‘out of hospital’ data are contributing hundreds of additional deaths to the daily figures, and this shows no signs of letting up.
Indeed, there were >100 non-hospital daily deaths recorded on 14 occasions over the last 30 days. The fluctuations across the working week and weekends are likely related to the intermittent frequency of database updates and subsequent inclusion of data not captured from previous weeks.
Authors:
Prof. Yoon K Loke is Professor of Medicine and Pharmacology, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, UK.
Carl Heneghan is Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine and Director of Studies for the Evidence-Based Health Care Programmes
Read more at www.cebm.net
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--2020-07-27--Growing Concerns Over COVID-19 False Positives Test ‘Flaw’

Elon Musk is one of many criticizing high levels of false positive COVID-19 tests .
Musk says that HALF of the tests showing positive for coronavirus are FALSE .
Below is a snapshot of the growing evidence that something may be seriously amiss .
The state ’ s Department of Public Health said that its state laboratory found a “ flaw ” in one of its testing systems and that 90 of 144 people who were tested for the virus between June 15 and June 17 received false positive tests .
161 specimens were collected and a total of 91 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those who received the false tests were nursing home residents .
The state said that it reported the flaw to the test manufacturer and the FDA .
It has taken “ immediate steps ” to make sure patients have been notified – hopefully more than just forwarding them a copy of this article .
Even more alarming , the State Department of Health said the flawed numbers came “ from a widely-used laboratory testing platform that the state laboratory started using on June 15.
” Acting Commissioner Deidre S. Gifford said : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for everyone who received a false positive test result from our state laboratory .
Accurate and timely testing for the novel coronavirus is one of the pillars supporting effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
” Adjustments have been made to ensure the accuracy of future tests , she said .
Additionally , she said all positive tests will be further reviewed by “ multiple laboratory scientists ” and retested using another method .
We wonder how many other states are administering tests from the same “ widely-used ” platform… PSI Editor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioning the reliability of COVID-19 testing include : • Texas State health officials are investigating a high rate of false-positive COVID-19 test results for residents and employees at nursing homes in Snyder , Eastland and Cisco .
• both the Times and The Atlantic have reported coronavirus antibody tests are indeed particularly vulnerable to recording false positives .
• Accuracy of coronavirus tests questioned after PGA golfer tests positive , and then negative • Dr Birx admits HALF of COVID positive tests may be FALSE POSITIVES ( and CDC admits it ) • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests ?
• UK Healthcare says a software flaw led to false positive results on their COVID-19 tests As with any infectious disease , we expect ever more of the population to have COVID-19 ( coronavirus infection ) .
Our bodies plus the atmosphere around us contains billions of viruses .
It is accepted medical practice that herd immunity will develop and as time passes all such viruses mutate and become less deadly .
The lockdown ( mass quarantine ) and social distancing was only ever intended to ‘ flatten the curve ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get overrun .
The data shows they never did .
The notion of a vaccine being the solution is dubious at best , since the common cold ( which is a corona type virus ) has yet to see a vaccine , and every year the flu vaccines are hit or miss .
The sooner this overblown ‘ pandemic ’ runs through society ( while protecting only the most vulnerable ) the better it will be for us all .
About the author : John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) .
John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Growing Concerns Over COVID-19 False Positives Test ‘Flaw’
Written by John O'Sullivan
Elon Musk is one of many criticizing high levels of false positive COVID-19 tests. Musk says that HALF of the tests showing positive for coronavirus are FALSE. Below is a snapshot of the growing evidence that something may be seriously amiss.
Zerohedge.com tells us:
The state’s Department of Public Health said that its state laboratory found a “flaw” in one of its testing systems and that 90 of 144 people who were tested for the virus between June 15 and June 17 received false positive tests. 161 specimens were collected and a total of 91 of those showed false positives.
Many of those who received the false tests were nursing home residents.
The state said that it reported the flaw to the test manufacturer and the FDA. It has taken “immediate steps” to make sure patients have been notified – hopefully more than just forwarding them a copy of this article.
Even more alarming, the State Department of Health said the flawed numbers came “from a widely-used laboratory testing platform that the state laboratory started using on June 15.”
Acting Commissioner Deidre S. Gifford said: “We have notified the healthcare facilities for everyone who received a false positive test result from our state laboratory. Accurate and timely testing for the novel coronavirus is one of the pillars supporting effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Adjustments have been made to ensure the accuracy of future tests, she said. Additionally, she said all positive tests will be further reviewed by “multiple laboratory scientists” and retested using another method. We wonder how many other states are administering tests from the same “widely-used” platform…
Read more at www.zerohedge.com
PSI Editor’s note: Other reports revealing growing concerns questioning the reliability of COVID-19 testing include:
Principia Scientific’s Opinion:
As with any infectious disease, we expect ever more of the population to have COVID-19 (coronavirus infection). Our bodies plus the atmosphere around us contains billions of viruses.
It is accepted medical practice that herd immunity will develop and as time passes all such viruses mutate and become less deadly. The lockdown (mass quarantine) and social distancing was only ever intended to ‘flatten the curve’ so hospitals and medical services would not get overrun. The data shows they never did.
The notion of a vaccine being the solution is dubious at best, since the common cold (which is a corona type virus) has yet to see a vaccine, and every year the flu vaccines are hit or miss. The sooner this overblown ‘pandemic’ runs through society (while protecting only the most vulnerable) the better it will be for us all.
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-26--Science Says Healthy People Should NOT Wear Masks

Science Says Healthy People Should NOT Wear Masks Healthy people wearing masks .
These days you see them everywhere .
But according to Patricia Neuenschwander , M.S.N.
, R.N.
, C.P.N.P.-P.C.
, an emergency room nurse with over two decades of experience , the science doesn ’ t support healthy people wearing masks .
When Neuenschwander found out that her grandchild ’ s Montessori preschool was going to require even toddlers to wear masks , she did a deep dive into the research to better educate herself and her grandchild ’ s school about mask-wearing .
The following is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the preschool administrators .
Should Healthy People Be Wearing Masks During This COVID-19 Crisis ?
By Patricia Neuenschwander , M.S.N.
, R.N.
, C.P.N.P.-P.C .
In the process of making decisions one must evaluate the options , including the risks and benefits of the recommendation .
While there is considerable debate about this subject , because of the current coronavirus situation , healthy people are being told by government officials to wear masks .
To evaluate this recommendation , we have to ask some commonsense questions : • What are the risks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
• What are the benefits—using science and data—of healthy people wearing masks to prevent spreading a virus ?
• What are the risks to healthy people wearing masks ?
Looking at risk of death from this novel coronavirus , we need to look at real numbers .
The models and predictions have not been shown to be accurate .
The population in the United States is approximately 326,700,000 .
As of May 9 , 76,934 have been reported to die from COVID , as a complication of it , or with it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially at risk ( as we all are ) and the number of these deaths , it works out to be 0.00023 or 0.023 % of the population .
That is essentially a 0 % death rate in the general population .
It looks like the death rate from this is higher because not everybody has been exposed , so the death rate is higher in those known to be exposed .
The problem is we don ’ t know how many have been exposed .
Without an accurate denominator , we don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dying if you become infected .
However , several studies show most people infected have mild to no symptoms and fully recover .
A few recent studies looking at populations with real data of people who were infected , that did not have symptoms or receive treatment , have shown the death rate to be much lower than previously reported .
Because most of the people tested were sick or were at a very high risk of infection based on exposure , we have no idea how many fully recovered .
We do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have severe underlying medical conditions ( like heart or lung disease or diabetes ) seem to be at higher risk for developing serious complications from COVID-19 illness .
As none of these risk factors are applicable to healthy children , children with no underlying health issues remain at an extremely low risk of being seriously affected or dying from this infection .
I have no qualms with people at high risk staying home or wearing a mask in public to try to protect themselves from contracting this infection .
I do have qualms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to partake in an intervention that has not shown to benefit anyone ( using science and data ) and can potentially cause harm .
An important study using science to evaluate cloth mask use to prevent infection was conducted in March 2015 .
It is a large , prospective , randomized clinical trial ; and the first randomized clinical trial ever conducted of cloth masks .
The international team of researchers concluded : This study doesn ’ t provide evidence for effectiveness in high-risk populations ; it certainly does not support healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , researchers from University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health reviewed the scientific literature .
While not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and personal protection equipment ( PPE ) , this review was made in an effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations .
The review , which has 52 citations , concludes : A 2020 study in Seoul , South Korea looked at the effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking COVID-19 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The COVID-infected patients were put in negative pressure isolated rooms .
The scientists compared disposable surgical masks ( 3 layers ) with reusable cotton masks .
Patients were instructed to cough 5 times while wearing no mask , surgical mask , or cotton mask .
Interestingly , all swabs from the outer masks—including surgical masks—were positive for COVID-19 .
Inner masks were also found to be contaminated .
That means the mask did not effectively filter out the COVID virus since it is too small .
The authors assert : The World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks The World Health Organization ( WHO ) has as its mission to direct international health within the United Nations ’ system and to lead partners in global health responses .
So what does the WHO recommend when it comes to healthy people wearing masks ?
“ WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick.
” “ There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit , ” Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in infectious diseases and public health and who is the executive director of the WHO health emergencies program , said at a media briefing .
“ In fact , there ’ s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly ” ( source ) .
According to the CDC , avoiding close contact with sick individuals ; frequently washing your hands with soap and water ; not touching your eyes , nose , or mouth with unwashed hands are effective prevention tips .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nose with a cloth face cover when around others , and practicing good respiratory hygiene ( source ) .
But here ’ s the rub .
The CDC then goes on to say that the cloth face cover is meant to protect other people in case you are infected but there are no scientific citations to support that wearing a mask is effective at preventing you from spreading the virus to others .
As a matter of fact , one of the reasons America ’ s surgeon general , Jerome Adams , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview in March that masks can be dangerous is because people tend to touch their masks many times per hour and can spread the disease that way .
A CNN News story that has since been removed from the internet had a headline that read : “ Masks may actually increase your coronavirus risk if worn improperly , surgeon general warns ” ( click here to read it via the Wayback Machine ) : On a separate page , the CDC discusses masks .
They write : However , there are no scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page .
They go on to say that the recommendation has changed because they have figured out it is transmissible person to person .
These mixed messages are confusing .
But what we know for sure is that the CDC knew from February 26 when the first community spread case documented in the U.S. that this virus was transmitted person to person ; and not only was there no recommendation to wear a mask then , they strongly opposed the general public wearing masks .
Additionally , The World Health Organization warned of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 : The CDC has known for decades that the influenza virus is transmitted person to person , but we have never been told to wear a mask to stop the spread of that virus .
As a matter of fact , the CDC specifically says masks don ’ t work ; and they do not recommend wearing a mask , to prevent transmission of the flu !
But wait .
On this separate page related to the recommendation to wear a face covering , the CDC does provide seven recent publications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID – https : //www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html Here is a brief summary of each study listed .
I recommend you read them in their entirety .
• Rothe C , Schunk M , Sothmann P , et al .
Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany .
The New England Journal of Medicine .
2020 ; 382 ( 10 ) :970-971 .
This study is about transmission from one person exposed to four people- “ The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is nothing in this study about masks related to benefits or risks of wearing one .
• Zou L , Ruan F , Huang M , et al .
SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients .
The New England Journal of Medicine .
2020 ; 382 ( 12 ) :1177-1179 .
This study is about viral load in 17 patients : “ We analyzed the viral load in nasal and throat swabs obtained from the 17 symptomatic patients in relation to day of onset of any symptoms ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ support or evaluate healthy people wearing masks .
• Pan X , Chen D , Xia Y , et al .
Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection .
The Lancet Infectious Diseases .
2020 .
You can kind of tell by the title of this study but their conclusion : “ To prevent and control this highly infectious disease as early as possible , people with family members with SARS-CoV-2 infection should be closely monitored and examined to rule out infection , even if they do not have any symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since the time between presentation and identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection was short , more studies are needed to observe the symptoms and test results of infected individuals in greater detail.
” Again , there is nothing in the study that supports the use of wearing a mask !
Yet another study that has nothing to do with healthy people wearing masks .
“ A familial cluster of 5 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Anyang , China , had contact before their symptom onset with an asymptomatic family member who had traveled from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kimball A HK , Arons M , et al .
Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Residents of a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility — King County , Washington , March 2020 .
MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report .
2020 ; ePub : 27 March 2020 .
This citation ( read it here ) again provides no evidence that healthy people wearing masks prevents the spread of infection or that wearing masks is a safe and effective measure .
• Wei WE LZ , Chiew CJ , Yong SE , Toh MP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARS-CoV-2 — Singapore , January 23–March 16 , 2020 .
MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report .
2020 ; ePub : 1 April 2020 .
I know you will be shocked to learn that yet again the CDC is citing research that offers no science to support healthy people wearing masks .
“ Investigation of all 243 cases of COVID-19 reported in Singapore during January 23–March 16 identified seven clusters of cases in which presymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for the occurrence of secondary cases.
” • Li R , Pei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus ( SARS-CoV2 ) .
Science ( New York , NY ) .
2020 .
Ready for the shocker ?
You already guessed what it is ?
Right .
Nothing about the safety or effectiveness of wearing a mask in Study # 7 either .
So what have we established ?
That the CDC ’ s change in recommendations about mask wearing is based on nothing more than that the COVID-19 virus is transmissible , something every scientist who studies viruses already knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realizes that most people won ’ t take the time to actually read the science .
But I do .
As you can see , none of these seven studies supports that wearing a mask is effective or safe in preventing transmission .
They only support that transmission is person to person and this is the case for numerous viruses .
On March 2 , after we had more confirmation that COVID-19 was indeed transmitted person to person , the surgeon general was pleading with the general public not to wear masks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t work and they actually can increase your risk .
His exact words : “ one of the things they shouldn ’ t be doing , the general public , is going out and buying masks .
It actually does not help and it has not been proven to be effective at preventing the spread of Corona virus decreasing amongst the general public.
” Listen to one of his interviews here .
He also took to Twitter to get the point across .
On February 29 the Surgeon General tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
They are not effective in preventing the general public from catching the corona virus.
” Wearing masks does not stop the spread of influenza viruses For decades , we have known that masks have not been shown to be effective in preventing influenza transmission .
How is it that masks don ’ t work for this virus , but they magically work for the COVID virus ?
The CDC , as of today , has not changed its advice about influenza .
According to the CDC , “ No recommendation can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the community by asymptomatic persons , including those at high risk for complications , to prevent exposure to influenza viruses.
” You might want to save that as a PDF , before it gets censored .
I have not been able to locate any published research on the psychological or emotional effects of having healthy children wear masks daily for hours at a time .
I can only make an educated assumption based on over two decades of working as a healthcare professional that forcing children to wear masks will cause fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caregivers .
Mask wearing will affect children differently based on their developmental level .
You can not explain to a two-year-old why they are being forced to cover their nose and mouth .
Covering the mouth and nose for hours is not only uncomfortable for children ( and adults ) , it also limits the airflow and the flow of oxygen coming in .
It causes children to breath their own carbon dioxide , which we know is harmful .
In addition , it provides a dark , warm , moist environment that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fear is driving this recommendation for healthy people to wear masks , not science .
As a nurse for over 25 years and holding a Master ’ s Degree in Science , I can not in good conscience allow my grandchild to be subjected to an intervention that may cause physical , emotional , and psychological harm without being provided significant evidence that the benefits of such intervention outweigh the risks .
Should we be encouraging healthy people to wear masks ?
The answer is unequivocally no .
About Patricia Neuenschwander : Patricia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is a board-certified pediatric nurse practitioner .
A registered nurse for over 25 years , she is the co-founder , co-owner , and CEO of Creating Brighter Futures , an ABA center , located in Ann Arbor , Michigan .
She also currently serves as the office manager for Bio Energy Medical Center , a multidisciplinary group medical practice , which she joined in 2007 .
She worked as an emergency department nurse for over 17 years .
She left emergency nursing to return to school to pursue a Master ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Laude , from Wayne State University in 2014 from the pediatric nurse practitioner program in primary care .
Tricia is a member of the State and National Association of Pediatric Nurses Practitioners .
She is a member of Michigan For Vaccine Choice and the Children ’ s Health Defense organization .
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 @

Science Says Healthy People Should NOT Wear Masks
Written by Patricia Neuenschwander, M.S.N., R.N., C.P.N.P.-P.C.
Healthy people wearing masks. These days you see them everywhere. But according to Patricia Neuenschwander, M.S.N., R.N., C.P.N.P.-P.C., an emergency room nurse with over two decades of experience, the science doesn’t support healthy people wearing masks.
When Neuenschwander found out that her grandchild’s Montessori preschool was going to require even toddlers to wear masks, she did a deep dive into the research to better educate herself and her grandchild’s school about mask-wearing.
The following is a version of the letter Patricia Neuenschwander sent to the preschool administrators.
Should Healthy People Be Wearing Masks During This COVID-19 Crisis?
By Patricia Neuenschwander, M.S.N., R.N., C.P.N.P.-P.C.
In the process of making decisions one must evaluate the options, including the risks and benefits of the recommendation. While there is considerable debate about this subject, because of the current coronavirus situation, healthy people are being told by government officials to wear masks. To evaluate this recommendation, we have to ask some commonsense questions:
What are the risks of serious complications or death from COVID-19?
What are the benefits—using science and data—of healthy people wearing masks to prevent spreading a virus?
What are the risks to healthy people wearing masks?
Risk of death from coronavirus
Looking at risk of death from this novel coronavirus, we need to look at real numbers. The models and predictions have not been shown to be accurate. The population in the United States is approximately 326,700,000. As of May 9, 76,934 have been reported to die from COVID, as a complication of it, or with it. Using the real numbers of people potentially at risk (as we all are) and the number of these deaths, it works out to be 0.00023 or 0.023% of the population. That is essentially a 0% death rate in the general population.
It looks like the death rate from this is higher because not everybody has been exposed, so the death rate is higher in those known to be exposed. The problem is we don’t know how many have been exposed. Without an accurate denominator, we don’t really know the risk of dying if you become infected.
However, several studies show most people infected have mild to no symptoms and fully recover. A few recent studies looking at populations with real data of people who were infected, that did not have symptoms or receive treatment, have shown the death rate to be much lower than previously reported.
Because most of the people tested were sick or were at a very high risk of infection based on exposure, we have no idea how many fully recovered. We do know that older adults and people who have severe underlying medical conditions (like heart or lung disease or diabetes) seem to be at higher risk for developing serious complications from COVID-19 illness.
As none of these risk factors are applicable to healthy children, children with no underlying health issues remain at an extremely low risk of being seriously affected or dying from this infection.
I have no qualms with people at high risk staying home or wearing a mask in public to try to protect themselves from contracting this infection. I do have qualms about healthy people wearing masks, asking them to partake in an intervention that has not shown to benefit anyone (using science and data) and can potentially cause harm.
Does wearing a mask help prevent coronavirus infection?
An important study using science to evaluate cloth mask use to prevent infection was conducted in March 2015. It is a large, prospective, randomized clinical trial; and the first randomized clinical trial ever conducted of cloth masks. The international team of researchers concluded:
This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”
This study doesn’t provide evidence for effectiveness in high-risk populations; it certainly does not support healthy people wearing cloth masks.
More recently, researchers from University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health reviewed the scientific literature. While not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and personal protection equipment (PPE), this review was made in an effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. The review, which has 52 citations, concludes:
We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because: There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission
Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection
We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.
A 2020 study in Seoul, South Korea looked at the effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking COVID-19 in a controlled comparison of four patients. The COVID-infected patients were put in negative pressure isolated rooms. The scientists compared disposable surgical masks (3 layers) with reusable cotton masks.
Patients were instructed to cough 5 times while wearing no mask, surgical mask, or cotton mask. Interestingly, all swabs from the outer masks—including surgical masks—were positive for COVID-19. Inner masks were also found to be contaminated. That means the mask did not effectively filter out the COVID virus since it is too small. The authors assert:
Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered {COVID-19} during coughs by infected patients.” Conclusion: “both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”
The World Health Organization does not support healthy people wearing masks
The World Health Organization (WHO) has as its mission to direct international health within the United Nations’ system and to lead partners in global health responses. So what does the WHO recommend when it comes to healthy people wearing masks? “WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick.”
“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit,” Dr. Mike Ryan, an epidemiologist who specializes in infectious diseases and public health and who is the executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing. “In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly” (source).
The CDC’s mixed mask messages
According to the CDC, avoiding close contact with sick individuals; frequently washing your hands with soap and water; not touching your eyes, nose, or mouth with unwashed hands are effective prevention tips. The CDC also recommends covering your mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others, and practicing good respiratory hygiene (source).
But here’s the rub. The CDC then goes on to say that the cloth face cover is meant to protect other people in case you are infected but there are no scientific citations to support that wearing a mask is effective at preventing you from spreading the virus to others. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons America’s surgeon general, Jerome Adams, M.D., M.P.H., said in an interview in March that masks can be dangerous is because people tend to touch their masks many times per hour and can spread the disease that way.
A CNN News story that has since been removed from the internet had a headline that read: “Masks may actually increase your coronavirus risk if worn improperly, surgeon general warns” (click here to read it via the Wayback Machine):
You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider,” Adams said during an interview on Fox & Friends on Monday morning. “Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus,” Adams said. “We’re certainly seeing more spread in communities, but it’s important for folks to know that right now their risk as American citizens remains low. There are things people can do to stay safe. There are things they shouldn’t be doing and one of the things they shouldn’t be doing in the general public is going out and buying masks,” he said.
On a separate page, the CDC discusses masks. They write:
CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.”
However, there are no scientific citations provided to support this on that page. They go on to say that the recommendation has changed because they have figured out it is transmissible person to person.
These mixed messages are confusing. But what we know for sure is that the CDC knew from February 26 when the first community spread case documented in the U.S. that this virus was transmitted person to person; and not only was there no recommendation to wear a mask then, they strongly opposed the general public wearing masks.
Additionally, The World Health Organization warned of human to human transmission on January 14, 2020:
WHO’s technical lead for the response noted in a press briefing there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus (in the 41 confirmed cases), mainly through family members, and that there was a risk of a possible wider outbreak. The lead also said that human-to-human transmission would not be surprising given our experience with SARS, MERS and other respiratory pathogens” (source).
The CDC has known for decades that the influenza virus is transmitted person to person, but we have never been told to wear a mask to stop the spread of that virus. As a matter of fact, the CDC specifically says masks don’t work; and they do not recommend wearing a mask, to prevent transmission of the flu!
No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses” (source).
But wait. On this separate page related to the recommendation to wear a face covering, the CDC does provide seven recent publications to support the use of masks for COVID – https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html
Here is a brief summary of each study listed. I recommend you read them in their entirety.
Rothe C, Schunk M, Sothmann P, et al. Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(10):970-971.
This study is about transmission from one person exposed to four people- “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.” There is nothing in this study about masks related to benefits or risks of wearing one.
Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(12):1177-1179.
This study is about viral load in 17 patients: “We analyzed the viral load in nasal and throat swabs obtained from the 17 symptomatic patients in relation to day of onset of any symptoms”. There is nothing in this publication to support or evaluate healthy people wearing masks.
Pan X, Chen D, Xia Y, et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2020.
You can kind of tell by the title of this study but their conclusion: “To prevent and control this highly infectious disease as early as possible, people with family members with SARS-CoV-2 infection should be closely monitored and examined to rule out infection, even if they do not have any symptoms.
In the case of this family, since the time between presentation and identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection was short, more studies are needed to observe the symptoms and test results of infected individuals in greater detail.” Again, there is nothing in the study that supports the use of wearing a mask!
Bai Y, Yao L, Wei T, et al. Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020.
Yet another study that has nothing to do with healthy people wearing masks. “A familial cluster of 5 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Anyang, China, had contact before their symptom onset with an asymptomatic family member who had traveled from the epidemic center of Wuhan.”
Kimball A HK, Arons M, et al. Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Residents of a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility — King County, Washington, March 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2020; ePub: 27 March 2020.
This analysis suggests that symptom screening could initially fail to identify approximately one half of SNF residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Unrecognized asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections might contribute to transmission in these settings. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, SNFs and all long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to prevent introduction of SARS-CoV-2, including restricting visitors except in compassionate care situations, restricting nonessential personnel from entering the building, asking staff members to monitor themselves for fever and other symptoms, screening all staff members at the beginning of their shift for fever and other symptoms, and supporting staff member sick leave, including for those with mild symptoms.”
This citation (read it here) again provides no evidence that healthy people wearing masks prevents the spread of infection or that wearing masks is a safe and effective measure.
Wei WE LZ, Chiew CJ, Yong SE, Toh MP, Lee VJ. Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 — Singapore, January 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2020;ePub: 1 April 2020.
I know you will be shocked to learn that yet again the CDC is citing research that offers no science to support healthy people wearing masks. “Investigation of all 243 cases of COVID-19 reported in Singapore during January 23–March 16 identified seven clusters of cases in which presymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for the occurrence of secondary cases.”
Li R, Pei S, Chen B, et al. Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). Science (New York, NY). 2020.
The transmission rate of undocumented infections per person was 55% the transmission rate of documented infections (95% CI: 46-62%), yet, because of their greater numbers, undocumented infections were the source of 79% of the documented cases. These findings explain the rapid geographic spread of SARS-CoV-2 and indicate that containment of this virus will be particularly challenging.”
Ready for the shocker? You already guessed what it is? Right. Nothing about the safety or effectiveness of wearing a mask in Study #7 either.
So what have we established? That the CDC’s change in recommendations about mask wearing is based on nothing more than that the COVID-19 virus is transmissible, something every scientist who studies viruses already knew. I’m sure the CDC realizes that most people won’t take the time to actually read the science. But I do.
As you can see, none of these seven studies supports that wearing a mask is effective or safe in preventing transmission. They only support that transmission is person to person and this is the case for numerous viruses.
On March 2, after we had more confirmation that COVID-19 was indeed transmitted person to person, the surgeon general was pleading with the general public not to wear masks. As mentioned above, Dr. Adams said they don’t work and they actually can increase your risk. His exact words: “one of the things they shouldn’t be doing, the general public, is going out and buying masks. It actually does not help and it has not been proven to be effective at preventing the spread of Corona virus decreasing amongst the general public.” Listen to one of his interviews here.
He also took to Twitter to get the point across. On February 29 the Surgeon General tweeted: “Seriously people -STOP BUYING MASKS! They are not effective in preventing the general public from catching the corona virus.”
Wearing masks does not stop the spread of influenza viruses
For decades, we have known that masks have not been shown to be effective in preventing influenza transmission. How is it that masks don’t work for this virus, but they magically work for the COVID virus? The CDC, as of today, has not changed its advice about influenza.
According to the CDC, “No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses.”
You might want to save that as a PDF, before it gets censored.
Masks make children fearful
I have not been able to locate any published research on the psychological or emotional effects of having healthy children wear masks daily for hours at a time.
I can only make an educated assumption based on over two decades of working as a healthcare professional that forcing children to wear masks will cause fear, anxiety, and negative feedback from caregivers. Mask wearing will affect children differently based on their developmental level. You cannot explain to a two-year-old why they are being forced to cover their nose and mouth.
Covering the mouth and nose for hours is not only uncomfortable for children (and adults), it also limits the airflow and the flow of oxygen coming in. It causes children to breath their own carbon dioxide, which we know is harmful. In addition, it provides a dark, warm, moist environment that potentially increases the risk of infection.
Fear is driving this recommendation for healthy people to wear masks, not science.
As a nurse for over 25 years and holding a Master’s Degree in Science, I cannot in good conscience allow my grandchild to be subjected to an intervention that may cause physical, emotional, and psychological harm without being provided significant evidence that the benefits of such intervention outweigh the risks.
Should we be encouraging healthy people to wear masks? The answer is unequivocally no.
Sincerely,
Patricia Neuenschwander, M.S.N., R.N., C.P.N.P.-P.C.
About Patricia Neuenschwander: Patricia Neuenschwander, MSN, RN, CPNP-PC, is a board-certified pediatric nurse practitioner. A registered nurse for over 25 years, she is the co-founder, co-owner, and CEO of Creating Brighter Futures, an ABA center, located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. She also currently serves as the office manager for Bio Energy Medical Center, a multidisciplinary group medical practice, which she joined in 2007. She worked as an emergency department nurse for over 17 years. She left emergency nursing to return to school to pursue a Master’s of Science in Nursing graduating Summa Cum Laude, from Wayne State University in 2014 from the pediatric nurse practitioner program in primary care. Tricia is a member of the State and National Association of Pediatric Nurses Practitioners. She is a member of Michigan For Vaccine Choice and the Children’s Health Defense organization.
Read more at jennifermargulis.net
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-26--New Study: Strong Correlation Between Earthquakes & Solar Activity

Reliable earthquake forecasting may have taken a step closer to being realized thanks to a new study ‘ On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide.
’ [ 1 ] While many scientists have hypothesized that oceans and solar activity play a role in earthquakes the evidence has been sketchy .
But this new study relies on data about worldwide earthquakes and SOHO satellite proton measurements to determine a more reliable correlation .
“ This paper gives the first , strongly statistically significant , evidence for a high correlation between large worldwide earthquakes and the proton density near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind .
“ “ Large earthquakes occurring worldwide have long been recognized to be non Poisson distributed , so involving some large scale correlation mechanism , which could be internal or external to the Earth .
Till now , no statistically significant correlation of the global seismicity with one of the possible mechanisms has been demonstrated yet.
” These latest findings will be welcome among those independent researchers who have been winning followers for their work on earthquake forecasting .
Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) has been monitoring this emerging science for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ links with earth rotation speed variations , solar activity , electro-magnetic storms and earthquakes is growing stronger .
Among those we have keenly followed is ex-NASA engineer John L. Casey , who wrote Dark Winter , predicting a coming cold period relating to low Solar magnetic activity ( sunspot numbers ) .
Casey is president of the Space and Science Research Corp. and CEO of the International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center The PSI article ‘ Do Cosmic Rays Trigger Earthquakes , Volcanic Eruptions ?
‘ showed how Casey made a strong case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in triggering these strong quakes .
[ 2 ] See also “ Is Katla Ready to Erupt ?
” by Casey .
As PSI researcher Bob Beatty notes , Casey ’ s work ties in with the following : This correlation is with solar minimums and suggests the effect may be more associated with increased cosmic ray activity which is more noticeable during reduced solar radiation .
The Katla Volcano is significantly sited at the northern end of the Mid Atlantic Ridge ( MAR ) .
This information suggests that the expanding Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further evidenced by the periodic lava outflows discovered in the matching ridges on either side of the MAR .
In 2017 we also posted ‘ Scientists Discover Connection Between Full Moon And Earthquakes ’ which showed large earthquakes are more likely to occur when there is a full or new moon because of the gravitational pull on tides , according to a new study .
The first idea that sunspots could influence the earthquake occurrence dates back 1853 .
The mechanisms proposed to justify such correlations have been varied : small changes induced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rotation speed ; eddy electric currents induced in faults , heating them and reducing shear strength , etc .
PSI ’ s own Arthur Viterito , a professor of Geography of the College of Southern Maryland , is a leading figure in attributing to geothermal effects an influence on climate change .
He is also open to the idea that cosmic impacts also alter our climate .
[ 2 ] Also on the earthquake trail is Ben Davidson .
He runs a website regarded as home of the study of pre-seismic signals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Earthquake Prediction Center at QuakeWatch.net is a division of SpaceWeatherNews and is supported by the collective of more than 300,000 “ Suspicious0bservers ” .
TO download the new paper in full please visit www.nature.com [ 1 ] ‘ On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide ’ Vito Marchitelli et al .
Published July 13 2020 .
DOIhttps : //doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67860-3 PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

New Study: Strong Correlation Between Earthquakes & Solar Activity
Written by John O'Sullivan
Reliable earthquake forecasting may have taken a step closer to being realized thanks to a new study ‘On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide.’ [1]
While many scientists have hypothesized that oceans and solar activity play a role in earthquakes the evidence has been sketchy. But this new study relies on data about worldwide earthquakes and SOHO satellite proton measurements to determine a more reliable correlation.
“This paper gives the first, strongly statistically significant, evidence for a high correlation between large worldwide earthquakes and the proton density near the magnetosphere, due to the solar wind. “ “Large earthquakes occurring worldwide have long been recognized to be non Poisson distributed, so involving some large scale correlation mechanism, which could be internal or external to the Earth. Till now, no statistically significant correlation of the global seismicity with one of the possible mechanisms has been demonstrated yet.”
These latest findings will be welcome among those independent researchers who have been winning followers for their work on earthquake forecasting. Principia Scientific International (PSI) has been monitoring this emerging science for several years.
The feasibility of uncovering links with earth rotation speed variations, solar activity, electro-magnetic storms and earthquakes is growing stronger.
Among those we have keenly followed is ex-NASA engineer John L. Casey, who wrote Dark Winter, predicting a coming cold period relating to low Solar magnetic activity (sunspot numbers). Casey is president of the Space and Science Research Corp. and CEO of the International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center
The PSI article ‘Do Cosmic Rays Trigger Earthquakes, Volcanic Eruptions?‘ showed how Casey made a strong case for grand minimums being a causal factor in triggering these strong quakes. [2]
See also “Is Katla Ready to Erupt?” by Casey.
As PSI researcher Bob Beatty notes, Casey’s work ties in with the following:
Year of Eruption Associated Solar Minimum
920 AD Mayan Minimum
1612 AD Maunder Minimum
1823 AD Dalton Minimum
TBD Eddy Minimum (2014-2045)
This correlation is with solar minimums and suggests the effect may be more associated with increased cosmic ray activity which is more noticeable during reduced solar radiation.
The Katla Volcano is significantly sited at the northern end of the Mid Atlantic Ridge (MAR).
This information suggests that the expanding Earth may be a spasmodic event which is further evidenced by the periodic lava outflows discovered in the matching ridges on either side of the MAR.
In 2017 we also posted ‘Scientists Discover Connection Between Full Moon And Earthquakes’ which showed large earthquakes are more likely to occur when there is a full or new moon because of the gravitational pull on tides, according to a new study.
The first idea that sunspots could influence the earthquake occurrence dates back 1853. The mechanisms proposed to justify such correlations have been varied: small changes induced by Sun-Earth coupling in the Earth’s rotation speed; eddy electric currents induced in faults, heating them and reducing shear strength, etc.
Cosmic Forces Impacting Our Climate
PSI’s own Arthur Viterito, a professor of Geography of the College of Southern Maryland, is a leading figure in attributing to geothermal effects an influence on climate change. He is also open to the idea that cosmic impacts also alter our climate. [2]
Also on the earthquake trail is Ben Davidson. He runs a website regarded as home of the study of pre-seismic signals, and the practice of earthquake forecasting. The Earthquake Prediction Center at QuakeWatch.net is a division of SpaceWeatherNews and is supported by the collective of more than 300,000 “Suspicious0bservers”.
TO download the new paper in full please visit www.nature.com
[1] ‘On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide’ Vito Marchitelli et al. Published July 13 2020. DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67860-3
[2] https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/podcasts/arthur-viterito-other-factors-that-impact-global-temperatures
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-26--New Study Reveals Most of Our DNA is Junk

New Study Reveals Most of Our DNA is Junk At least three quarters of the human genome consists of non-functional , ‘ junk DNA ‘ , according to a new study , and the actual proportion is likely to be even greater than that .
Ever since Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA back in the 1950s , scientists have been debating what extent of the genome is responsible for making you you – and now an evolutionary biologist says the answer to the riddle lies in some basic math .
Dan Graur from the University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the human genome probably constitutes only about 10 to 15 percent of our overall DNA , with an upper limit of 25 percent .
The rest of our genome – somewhere between around 75 to 90 percent of our DNA – is what ’ s called junk DNA : not necessarily harmful or toxic genetic matter , but useless , garbled nucleotide sequences that aren ’ t functional in terms of encoding proteins that spur all the important chemical reactions going off inside our bodies .
The rationale for Graur ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creep into DNA , and how as a species we weed these mutations out for the benefit of all .
These kinds of genetic variants , called deleterious mutations , appear in our genome over time , subtly shifting or reordering the four chemical bases that make up DNA – adenine , cytosine , guanine and thymine – in parts of our genetic code .
When mutations take place in junk DNA , they ’ re considered neutral – since that genetic code doesn ’ t do anything , anyway – but when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DNA , they can often be harmful and even ultimately lethal , as they mess up the instructions that code for healthy tissue and biological processes .
On that basis , it ’ s better for our evolutionary prospects if less of our DNA is functional , because less of it is then exposed to the risk of mutation and the increased chances of early death it invites .
In Graur ’ s calculations , given the risk of deleterious mutations to the survival of the species on one hand – and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout human history on the other – the limit of functional DNA has to be very low .
Otherwise dangerous mutations would keep stacking up , meaning we ’ d have to produce impossibly huge numbers of offspring for the small percentage of healthy bubs to survive .
“ Under the assumption of 100 percent functionality and the range of deleterious mutation rates used in this paper , maintaining a constant population size would necessitate that each couple on average produce a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 5 × 1053 children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , nobody really other than creationists is suggesting that we carry around zero junk DNA , but a huge 2012 study called the Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements ( ENCODE ) project did claim that as much as 80 percent of human DNA was functional .
That study was controversial – partly because many scientists claimed that the ENCODE definition of ‘ functional ’ was too broad .
In Graur ’ s use of the term – where functional DNA is code that ’ s evolved to be useful in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent figure just doesn ’ t add up .
“ For 80 percent of the human genome to be functional , each couple in the world would have to beget on average 15 children and all but two would have to die or fail to reproduce , ” he writes .
It ’ s more likely then that only about 10 to 25 percent isn ’ t junk DNA , Graur thinks .
While his is unlikely to be the last word on the subject – the new results do coincide somewhat neatly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study – and could help focus vital scientific efforts on researching a smaller window of uncontested , ‘ functional ’ DNA .
“ We need to know the functional fraction of the human genome in order to focus biomedical research on the parts that can be used to prevent and cure disease , ” Graur says .
“ There is no need to sequence everything under the sun .
We need only to sequence the sections we know are functional.
” The findings are reported in Genome Biology and Evolution .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

New Study Reveals Most of Our DNA is Junk
Written by Peter Dockrill
At least three quarters of the human genome consists of non-functional, ‘junk DNA‘, according to a new study, and the actual proportion is likely to be even greater than that.
Ever since Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA back in the 1950s, scientists have been debating what extent of the genome is responsible for making you you – and now an evolutionary biologist says the answer to the riddle lies in some basic math.
Dan Graur from the University of Houston calculates that the functional portion of the human genome probably constitutes only about 10 to 15 percent of our overall DNA, with an upper limit of 25 percent.
The rest of our genome – somewhere between around 75 to 90 percent of our DNA – is what’s called junk DNA: not necessarily harmful or toxic genetic matter, but useless, garbled nucleotide sequences that aren’t functional in terms of encoding proteins that spur all the important chemical reactions going off inside our bodies.
The rationale for Graur’s model is based on the way mutations creep into DNA, and how as a species we weed these mutations out for the benefit of all.
These kinds of genetic variants, called deleterious mutations, appear in our genome over time, subtly shifting or reordering the four chemical bases that make up DNA – adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine – in parts of our genetic code.
When mutations take place in junk DNA, they’re considered neutral – since that genetic code doesn’t do anything, anyway – but when mutations occur to our functional, defining DNA, they can often be harmful and even ultimately lethal, as they mess up the instructions that code for healthy tissue and biological processes.
On that basis, it’s better for our evolutionary prospects if less of our DNA is functional, because less of it is then exposed to the risk of mutation and the increased chances of early death it invites.
In Graur’s calculations, given the risk of deleterious mutations to the survival of the species on one hand – and the known stability of population and reproduction rates throughout human history on the other – the limit of functional DNA has to be very low.
Otherwise dangerous mutations would keep stacking up, meaning we’d have to produce impossibly huge numbers of offspring for the small percentage of healthy bubs to survive.
“Under the assumption of 100 percent functionality and the range of deleterious mutation rates used in this paper, maintaining a constant population size would necessitate that each couple on average produce a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 5 × 1053 children,” he writes in his paper.
Of course, nobody really other than creationists is suggesting that we carry around zero junk DNA, but a huge 2012 study called the Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project did claim that as much as 80 percent of human DNA was functional.
That study was controversial – partly because many scientists claimed that the ENCODE definition of ‘functional’ was too broad.
In Graur’s use of the term – where functional DNA is code that’s evolved to be useful in terms of its evolutionary effects – the 80 percent figure just doesn’t add up.
“For 80 percent of the human genome to be functional, each couple in the world would have to beget on average 15 children and all but two would have to die or fail to reproduce,” he writes.
It’s more likely then that only about 10 to 25 percent isn’t junk DNA, Graur thinks.
While his is unlikely to be the last word on the subject – the new results do coincide somewhat neatly with the findings of a separate 2014 study – and could help focus vital scientific efforts on researching a smaller window of uncontested, ‘functional’ DNA.
“We need to know the functional fraction of the human genome in order to focus biomedical research on the parts that can be used to prevent and cure disease,” Graur says.
“There is no need to sequence everything under the sun. We need only to sequence the sections we know are functional.”
The findings are reported in Genome Biology and Evolution.
Read more at www.sciencealert.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