principiascientificinternational--2020-06-26--Norway Health Chief: Covid lockdown was not needed

Norway is assembling a picture of what happened before lockdown and its latest discovery is pretty significant .
It is using observed data – hospital figures , infection numbers and so on – to construct a picture of what was happening in March .
At the time , no one really knew .
It was feared that virus was rampant with each person infecting two or three others – and only lockdown could get this exponential growth rate ( the so-called R number ) down to a safe level of 1 .
This was the hypothesis advanced in various graphs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Norway and several European countries .
But the Norwegian public health authority has published a report with a striking conclusion : the virus was never spreading as fast as had been feared and was already on the way out when lockdown was ordered .
‘ It looks as if the effective reproduction rate had already dropped to around 1.1 when the most comprehensive measures were implemented on 12 March , and that there would not be much to push it down below 1… We have seen in retrospect that the infection was on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the graph , with the R-number on the right-hand scale : This raises an awkward question : was lockdown necessary ?
This raises an awkward question : was lockdown necessary ?
What did it achieve that could not have been achieved by voluntary social distancing ?
Camilla Stoltenberg , director of Norway ’ s public health agency , has given an interview where she is candid about the implications of this discovery .
‘ Our assessment now , and I find that there is a broad consensus in relation to the reopening , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same effect – and avoid part of the unfortunate repercussions – by not closing .
But , instead , staying open with precautions to stop the spread.
’ This is important to admit , she says , because if the infection levels rise again – or a second wave hits in the winter – you need to be brutally honest about whether lockdown proved effective .
Norway ’ s statistics agency was also the first in the world to calculate the permanent damage inflicted by school closures : every week of classroom education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stymies life chances and permanently lowers earnings potential .
So a country should only enforce this draconian measure if it is sure that the academic foundation for lockdown was sound .
And in Stoltenberg ’ s opinion , ‘ the academic foundation was not good enough ’ for lockdown this time .
The leading article in the new Spectator , out tomorrow , argues that Brits deserve the same candour .
There is a wealth of UK data to draw from : 999 calls , infections , hospital data , weekly figures on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And from this it ’ s not hard for the UK government to do what the Norwegian and Swedish authorities have done : produce an estimate of the R number dating back to February or March .
And use observed data – rather than assumptions and models – to measure the lockdown effect .
The results of such a study might make for uncomfortable reading for a government still asking police to enforce lockdown .
But these things have a habit of becoming public eventually .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Norway Health Chief: Covid lockdown was not needed
Written by Fraser Nelson
Norway is assembling a picture of what happened before lockdown and its latest discovery is pretty significant. It is using observed data – hospital figures, infection numbers and so on – to construct a picture of what was happening in March.
At the time, no one really knew. It was feared that virus was rampant with each person infecting two or three others – and only lockdown could get this exponential growth rate (the so-called R number) down to a safe level of 1. This was the hypothesis advanced in various graphs by Imperial College London for Britain, Norway and several European countries.
But the Norwegian public health authority has published a report with a striking conclusion: the virus was never spreading as fast as had been feared and was already on the way out when lockdown was ordered. ‘It looks as if the effective reproduction rate had already dropped to around 1.1 when the most comprehensive measures were implemented on 12 March, and that there would not be much to push it down below 1… We have seen in retrospect that the infection was on its way down.’ Here’s the graph, with the R-number on the right-hand scale:
” />
This raises an awkward question: was lockdown necessary? This raises an awkward question: was lockdown necessary? What did it achieve that could not have been achieved by voluntary social distancing? Camilla Stoltenberg, director of Norway’s public health agency, has given an interview where she is candid about the implications of this discovery. ‘Our assessment now, and I find that there is a broad consensus in relation to the reopening, was that one could probably achieve the same effect – and avoid part of the unfortunate repercussions – by not closing. But, instead, staying open with precautions to stop the spread.’ This is important to admit, she says, because if the infection levels rise again – or a second wave hits in the winter – you need to be brutally honest about whether lockdown proved effective.
Norway’s statistics agency was also the first in the world to calculate the permanent damage inflicted by school closures: every week of classroom education denied to students, it found, stymies life chances and permanently lowers earnings potential.
So a country should only enforce this draconian measure if it is sure that the academic foundation for lockdown was sound. And in Stoltenberg’s opinion, ‘the academic foundation was not good enough’ for lockdown this time.
The leading article in the new Spectator, out tomorrow, argues that Brits deserve the same candour. There is a wealth of UK data to draw from: 999 calls, infections, hospital data, weekly figures on respiratory infections and some 37,000 Covid deaths.
And from this it’s not hard for the UK government to do what the Norwegian and Swedish authorities have done: produce an estimate of the R number dating back to February or March. And use observed data – rather than assumptions and models – to measure the lockdown effect.
The results of such a study might make for uncomfortable reading for a government still asking police to enforce lockdown. But these things have a habit of becoming public eventually.
Read more at www.spectator.co.uk
H/T NecktopPC
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-26--FDA WARNING: Hand Sanitizers That Could Cause Methanol Poisoning

FDA WARNING : Hand Sanitizers That Could Cause Methanol Poisoning Nine types of hand sanitizers made by Eskbiochem SA de CV , a Mexican company , contain methanol , a wood alcohol that can be toxic when absorbed through the skin or ingested , according to the FDA , and consumers should discontinue use immediately .
FDA tested samples of Lavar Gel and CleanCare No Germ .
Lavar Gel contains 81 percent ( v/v ) methanol and no ethyl alcohol , and CleanCare No Germ contains 28 percent ( v/v ) methanol .
Methanol is not an acceptable ingredient for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to its toxic effects .
Consumers who have been exposed to hand sanitizer containing methanol should seek immediate treatment , which is critical for potential reversal of toxic effects of methanol poisoning .
Substantial methanol exposure can result in nausea , vomiting , headache , blurred vision , permanent blindness , seizures , coma , permanent damage to the nervous system or death .
Although all persons using these products on their hands are at risk , young children who accidentally ingest these products and adolescents and adults who drink these products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are most at risk for methanol poisoning .
( source ) Although the FDA has asked Eskbiochem to remove the sanitizers from store shelves , they have not complied .
If you have any of these products , you are to dispose of them as hazardous waste .
Do not flush them down the toilet or pour them down the drain .
These are the hand sanitizers that contain methanol .
Do not use the following products : Washing your hands is always preferable to hand sanitizer .
If you do have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands isn ’ t possible , look for products with at least 60 % ethanol .
About the author : Daisy Luther writes about current events , preparedness , frugality , voluntaryism , and the pursuit of liberty on her website , The Organic Prepper .
She is widely republished across alternative media and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site , PreppersDailyNews.com .
Daisy is the best-selling author of 4 books and you can find her on Facebook , Pinterest , and Twitter .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

FDA WARNING: Hand Sanitizers That Could Cause Methanol Poisoning
Written by Daisy Luther
Nine types of hand sanitizers made by Eskbiochem SA de CV, a Mexican company, contain methanol, a wood alcohol that can be toxic when absorbed through the skin or ingested, according to the FDA, and consumers should discontinue use immediately.
FDA tested samples of Lavar Gel and CleanCare No Germ. Lavar Gel contains 81 percent (v/v) methanol and no ethyl alcohol, and CleanCare No Germ contains 28 percent (v/v) methanol. Methanol is not an acceptable ingredient for hand sanitizers and should not be used due to its toxic effects. Consumers who have been exposed to hand sanitizer containing methanol should seek immediate treatment, which is critical for potential reversal of toxic effects of methanol poisoning. Substantial methanol exposure can result in nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system or death. Although all persons using these products on their hands are at risk, young children who accidentally ingest these products and adolescents and adults who drink these products as an alcohol (ethanol) substitute, are most at risk for methanol poisoning. (source)
Although the FDA has asked Eskbiochem to remove the sanitizers from store shelves, they have not complied. If you have any of these products, you are to dispose of them as hazardous waste. Do not flush them down the toilet or pour them down the drain.
These are the hand sanitizers that contain methanol.
Do not use the following products:
All-Clean Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-002-01)
Esk Biochem Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-007-01)
CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} Alcohol (NDC: 74589-008-04)
Lavar 70 Gel Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-006-01)
The Good Gel Antibacterial Gel Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-010-10)
CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} Alcohol (NDC: 74589-005-03)
CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 75{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} Alcohol (NDC: 74589-009-01)
CleanCare NoGerm Advanced Hand Sanitizer 80{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} Alcohol (NDC: 74589-003-01)
Saniderm Advanced Hand Sanitizer (NDC: 74589-001-01)
Washing your hands is always preferable to hand sanitizer. If you do have to use hand sanitizer when washing your hands isn’t possible, look for products with at least 60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} ethanol.
Read more at www.theorganicprepper.com
About the author: Daisy Luther writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, voluntaryism, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, The Organic Prepper. She is widely republished across alternative media and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site, PreppersDailyNews.com. Daisy is the best-selling author of 4 books and you can find her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-26--Swedish CV-19 Expert: Lockdown Was Wrong Approach

The world went crazy ’ with lockdowns , says Sweden ’ s coronavirus expert as he blasts WHO for ‘ misinterpreting data ’ with set of 11 nations seeing a ‘ resurgence ’ Sweden ’ s top virus expert has said the ‘ world went mad ’ with coronavirus lockdowns which ‘ fly facing what is known about handling virus pandemics ’ .
Anders Tegnell , who advised Sweden to avoid full lockdown towards a ‘ herd immunity ’ strategy , said world leaders caved to political pressure amid panic – and that the long-term downsides of lockdown will far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out at the WHO after it placed Sweden on a list of 11 countries seeing a ‘ dangerous resurgence ’ in the virus , saying it had ‘ totally misinterpreted ’ the data .
Sweden has seen seen its daily coronavirus case totals spike in recent weeks , leading the WHO to warn it really is seeing a ‘ resurgence ’ of the disease .
But the country ’ s virus expert Anders Tegnell said the WHO had ‘ totally misinterpreted ’ the info , saying the ‘ spike ’ is down to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as evidence Tegnell said a ‘ surge ’ in cases throughout the last week is really the result of more testing , meaning mild cases that previously went undetected are now showing in the info .
He pointed to a steady fall in deaths , hospital admissions and ICU admissions as evidence that Sweden ’ s outbreak is actually retreating , not getting worse .
It employs WHO Europe director Hans Henri Kluge warned in a press conference on Thursday of 11 European countries that had seen a ‘ dangerous resurgence ’ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon be inundated .
The WHO later revealed Sweden was on that list , alongside Armenia , Moldova , North Macedonia , Azerbaijan , Kazakhstan , Albania , Bosnia-Herzegovina , Kyrgyzstan , Ukraine and Kosovo .
‘ This is entirely as a result of extended testing and that people find more mild cases .
We see no evidence at all that our epidemic in Sweden is getting worse – to the contrary .
It is regrettable that people are confusing Sweden with countries that have perhaps not previously had problems , which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearing the end.
’ Asked why the WHO had misinterpreted the data , Tegnell said no official was in contact with Swedish authorities – meaning they missed the nuances in the figures .
He added that being included on the list could cause issues for Sweden , especially as countries decide where to allow their citizens to travel .
WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned the other day that the world is entering a ‘ dangerous new phase ’ of coronavirus , as global cases topped 150,000 in one day .
Since they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now routinely above 180,000 daily.Tegnell was the man behind Sweden ’ s decision not to get into lockdown , towards social distancing and a ‘ herd immunity ’ strategy .
The spike comes as much countries , including those in Europe and the US , ease out of lockdowns which kept case-counts low .
While critics have pointed to a loosening of the rules for the rise in cases , others – including US President Donald Trump – say improved testing is really the cause.Like Tegnell , they have pointed to the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases rise as evidence .
However , the picture is further complicated by the fact that deaths often lag behind a growth in cases – taking two to three weeks to show in the data .
Many countries have only recently exited lockdowns , meaning a spike in deaths – when it is coming – is many weeks away .

Written by Chris Pleasance
The world went crazy’ with lockdowns, says Sweden’s coronavirus expert as he blasts WHO for ‘misinterpreting data’ with set of 11 nations seeing a ‘resurgence’
Sweden’s top virus expert has said the ‘world went mad’ with coronavirus lockdowns which ‘fly facing what is known about handling virus pandemics’.
Anders Tegnell, who advised Sweden to avoid full lockdown towards a ‘herd immunity’ strategy, said world leaders caved to political pressure amid panic – and that the long-term downsides of lockdown will far outweigh the benefits.
He also hit out at the WHO after it placed Sweden on a list of 11 countries seeing a ‘dangerous resurgence’ in the virus, saying it had ‘totally misinterpreted’ the data.
Sweden has seen seen its daily coronavirus case totals spike in recent weeks, leading the WHO to warn it really is seeing a ‘resurgence’ of the disease. But the country’s virus expert Anders Tegnell said the WHO had ‘totally misinterpreted’ the info, saying the ‘spike’ is down to improved testing and pointing to falling deaths as evidence
Tegnell said a ‘surge’ in cases throughout the last week is really the result of more testing, meaning mild cases that previously went undetected are now showing in the info.
He pointed to a steady fall in deaths, hospital admissions and ICU admissions as evidence that Sweden’s outbreak is actually retreating, not getting worse.
It employs WHO Europe director Hans Henri Kluge warned in a press conference on Thursday of 11 European countries that had seen a ‘dangerous resurgence’ in the virus, meaning healthcare systems could soon be inundated.
The WHO later revealed Sweden was on that list, alongside Armenia, Moldova, North Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Kosovo.
Tegnell said:
‘It’s an overall total misunderstanding, I’d say. They have looked at the amount of cases daily and it has increased steeply within the last week.”
Tegnell said Hans Henri Kluge, the WHO’s Europe chief, ‘got it wrong’ because he previously not spoken to anybody in Sweden before making his announcement
‘This is entirely as a result of extended testing and that people find more mild cases. We see no evidence at all that our epidemic in Sweden is getting worse – to the contrary. It is regrettable that people are confusing Sweden with countries that have perhaps not previously had problems, which are demonstrably in the beginning. Sweden is nearing the end.’
Asked why the WHO had misinterpreted the data, Tegnell said no official was in contact with Swedish authorities – meaning they missed the nuances in the figures.
He added that being included on the list could cause issues for Sweden, especially as countries decide where to allow their citizens to travel.
WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned the other day that the world is entering a ‘dangerous new phase’ of coronavirus, as global cases topped 150,000 in one day.
Since they have risen further, and so are now routinely above 180,000 daily.Tegnell was the man behind Sweden’s decision not to get into lockdown, towards social distancing and a ‘herd immunity’ strategy.
The spike comes as much countries, including those in Europe and the US, ease out of lockdowns which kept case-counts low.
While critics have pointed to a loosening of the rules for the rise in cases, others – including US President Donald Trump – say improved testing is really the cause.Like Tegnell, they have pointed to the fact deaths are continuing to fall even while cases rise as evidence.
However, the picture is further complicated by the fact that deaths often lag behind a growth in cases – taking two to three weeks to show in the data. Many countries have only recently exited lockdowns, meaning a spike in deaths – when it is coming – is many weeks away.


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-27--Study: Dems COVID19 Lockdown Measures Causing Most Deaths

New statistical study shows a pattern of adverse and counter-intuitive effects resulting from governmental measures ( ‘ lockdown ’ ) to limit the spread of COVID-19 .
In short , the more counter measures taken by a government the worse the outcome .
In ‘ An empirical analysis of the relationship between excess mortality and lockdown severity in the United States ‘ ( June 2020 ) author , Joel Smalley identifies a statistical pattern whereby Democrat-run states have substantially worse mortality rates than Republican .
According to hypothetical epidemiological models , certain non-pharmaceutical interventions like population-wide social distancing combined with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ university closure ought to have a very substantial impact on COVID-19 mortality .
However , the results of analysis of empirical data on mortality and counter-measure severity of all 50 US states , actually shows a statistically significant INCREASE in mortality associated with HIGHER degrees of counter-measure severity .
The results also show that Democrat states have roughly double the average severity as Republican states and account for 75 % of all the excess mortality during the observable period of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic .
It is evident that Democrat states have a much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to much poorer outcomes for citizens of those states .
Given the significantly heterogeneous nature of SARS-CoV-2 in terms of risk demography , it would not be a surprise to see homogeneous interventions having no impact on outcomes .
However , it is difficult to explain why outcomes should be materially worse .
The author tentatively proposes a hypothesis whereby an explanation may be assigned to the nature of collectivism versus individualism .
In this instance , Republicans might be more likely to take appropriate responsibility for their own welfare , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own perceived risks .
Conversely , members of collectivist states may be more inclined to rely on the diktats of the state even though they may not be logical or reasonable .
This conjecture would need much deeper investigation to be upheld .
On 16th March 2020 , Professor Neal Ferguson ’ s Imperial College model forecast a worst-case scenario of 2.2 million American deaths from COVID-19 if no mitigation action was taken [ i ] .
The report advised that the only option to avoid significant death was “ population-wide social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school and university closure ” .
On 26th March , Ferguson revised his UK death forecast down by 96 % as a result of the implementation of such measures , which would put the US number in the region of 88,000 .
In fact , most countries and states went further than the recommended measures that only called for reductions of 75 % of contact outside the household , implementing draconian lockdown orders instead .
It is , therefore , a reasonable hypothesis that the degree to which the individual states of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a range of mortality outcomes , significantly skewed in favour of those states that applied the measures most stringently .
In order to measure the outcome of the mitigation strategies employed by each state of America , it is necessary to have a measure of mortality that is free from bias and an objective measure of mitigation severity .
COVID-19 reported deaths are unreliable [ ii ] .
However , excess deaths are an unbiased measure of deaths that occur as a result of a shock to the natural death process .
Modelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Prevention ( CDC ) [ iii ] , it can be seen that deaths in the USA follow a predictable , smooth process .
The start and end of each year has a slightly higher rate than the middle summer months due to seasonal influenzas .
The curves can easily be fitted with a 4-order polynomial .
The polynomial for 2019 , for example , has a an R2 of 97 % , an extremely good fit .
Data analysts commonly compare an individual year with the average of the preceding five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( positive or negative ) mortality for the year in question .
However , in the case of America , 2020 started almost exactly in line with 2019 so we have adopted the polynomial fit of 2019 as our baseline expectation of mortality against which we can derive the “ excess ” mortality for 2020 .
Using this method , it is very clear to see the COVID-19 “ shock ” that first occurred in week 12 .
We apply the exact same methodology for each state ’ s mortality data ( again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excess number of deaths for each week , having observed similarly good degrees of fit of the expected curve .
For the period in question , we are only interested in positive excess mortality during the period we know that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating through the population , i.e .
from week 12 .
Since it is quite apparent whether there is excess mortality and its duration , using this method , we tally the total excess for the observed period .
This results in a range of excess death that spans a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0 to 12 ) .
For Republican states , the average duration is 7.4 weeks and for Democrat states it is 7.9 weeks .
In order to standardise the data for comparative purposes , we express the resultant number relative to the average expected death per week for the same period .
Thus , our target variable is the excess death expressed in number of weeks of expected death and ranges from 0 to 24.2 .
To measure the severity of counter-measures , we count the number of weeks that lockdowns , i.e @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” or equivalent orders were effectively imposed by each state governor [ iv ] [ v ] [ vi ] [ vii ] .
The number of weeks ranged from 0 to 14 .
For Republican states , the average duration is 4.0 weeks and for Democrat states it is 7.8 weeks .
In order to test for confounding explanatory variables , we also measured excess death , as calculated above , relative to the proportion of deaths of nursing home residents since it represented a significant number of COVID-19 deaths [ viii @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths using this method by summing the excess deaths of each state amounts to 119,302 which is broadly in line with the reported COVID-19 deaths of 127,000 [ ix ] .
25 % of these deaths occurred in Republican states and 75 % in Democrat states .
Plotting excess deaths against lockdown duration reveals a significantly positive correlation which is contrary to the hypothesis .
In fact of the 12 states that have experienced no excess death at all during the period in question ( Alaska ( R ) , Arkansas ( R @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , Kentucky , Maine , Montana , North Carolina , North Dakota ( R ) , Oklahoma ( R ) , South Dakota ( R ) , and West Virginia ( R ) ) , 5 of them ( Arkansas ( R ) , Kentucky ( D ) , North Dakota ( R ) , Oklahoma ( R ) , and South Dakota ( R ) ) had no ostensible lockdown .
In fact , only three “ no-lockdown ” states had any excess at all ( Nebraska ( R ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R ) ) and were all at the low end of the range .
There were three outliers .
New York City ( 24.2 standard excess vs 10 lockdown weeks ) and New Jersey ( 11.3 standard excess vs 12 lockdown weeks ) are both omitted from the chart due to scale .
Hawaii , with its unique geographical properties benefited with no excess mortality for the period but actually has endured the longest duration of lockdown at 14 weeks which is very difficult to explain .
There is no materially discernible error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Testing for confounding in the relationship between excess mortality and proportion of deaths in nursing home residents did not reveal anything of statistical significance .
The hypothesis that “ population-wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closure ” should lead to significantly better outcomes in terms of mortality from COVID-19 can not be supported given the empirical data that is available .
On the contrary , the empirical data very strongly suggests that mortality outcomes are improved with fewer interventions .
The argument that , relying only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still possible to claim that the counter-measures were responsible for what might have been an even larger number of deaths is difficult to accept where the empirical data shows such a strong contrarian correlation .
Moreover , it is even more difficult to reconcile the fact that all of the states that effectively deployed no significant measures at all have resulted in virtually no excess deaths .
There is low feasibility that this could be due to confounding or particular attributes of those states since they all share their borders with states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is evident that Democrat states have a much stronger tendency towards intervention and this has led to much poorer outcomes for citizens of those states .
Given the significantly heterogeneous nature of SARS-CoV-2 in terms of risk demography [ x ] , it would not be a surprise to see homogeneous interventions having no impact on outcomes .
However , it is difficult to explain why outcomes should be materially worse .
A possible reason could be in the nature of collectivism versus individualism , where Republicans might be more likely to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making decisions and taking actions according to their own perceived risks , whereas members of the collectivist states may be more inclined to rely on the diktats of the state even though they may not be logical or reasonable .
This conjecture would need much deeper investigation to be upheld .
About the author : Joel Smalley holds an MBA from the University of Toronto and works as a Blockchain architect and early stage , polymath data-driven technologist , specializing in fintech , healthtech and IoT .
He is currently CEO of Supermoney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labs .
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 .

Study: Dems COVID19 Lockdown Measures Causing Most Deaths
Written by Joel Smalley MBA
New statistical study shows a pattern of adverse and counter-intuitive effects resulting from governmental measures (‘lockdown’) to limit the spread of COVID-19. In short, the more counter measures taken by a government the worse the outcome.
In ‘An empirical analysis of the relationship between excess mortality and lockdown severity in the United States‘ (June 2020) author, Joel Smalley identifies a statistical pattern whereby Democrat-run states have substantially worse mortality rates than Republican.
Summary
According to hypothetical epidemiological models, certain non-pharmaceutical interventions like population-wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closure ought to have a very substantial impact on COVID-19 mortality.
However, the results of analysis of empirical data on mortality and counter-measure severity of all 50 US states, actually shows a statistically significant INCREASE in mortality associated with HIGHER degrees of counter-measure severity.
The results also show that Democrat states have roughly double the average severity as Republican states and account for 75{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all the excess mortality during the observable period of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
It is evident that Democrat states have a much stronger tendency towards intervention and this has led to much poorer outcomes for citizens of those states. Given the significantly heterogeneous nature of SARS-CoV-2 in terms of risk demography, it would not be a surprise to see homogeneous interventions having no impact on outcomes. However, it is difficult to explain why outcomes should be materially worse.
The author tentatively proposes a hypothesis whereby an explanation may be assigned to the nature of collectivism versus individualism. In this instance, Republicans might be more likely to take appropriate responsibility for their own welfare, making decisions and taking actions according to their own perceived risks. Conversely, members of collectivist states may be more inclined to rely on the diktats of the state even though they may not be logical or reasonable. This conjecture would need much deeper investigation to be upheld.
Introduction
On 16th March 2020, Professor Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College model forecast a worst-case scenario of 2.2 million American deaths from COVID-19 if no mitigation action was taken[i]. The report advised that the only option to avoid significant death was “population-wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closure”.
On 26th March, Ferguson revised his UK death forecast down by 96{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} as a result of the implementation of such measures, which would put the US number in the region of 88,000. In fact, most countries and states went further than the recommended measures that only called for reductions of 75{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of contact outside the household, implementing draconian lockdown orders instead.
It is, therefore, a reasonable hypothesis that the degree to which the individual states of America applied the recommended mitigation should result in a range of mortality outcomes, significantly skewed in favour of those states that applied the measures most stringently.
Methods
In order to measure the outcome of the mitigation strategies employed by each state of America, it is necessary to have a measure of mortality that is free from bias and an objective measure of mitigation severity.
COVID-19 reported deaths are unreliable[ii]. However, excess deaths are an unbiased measure of deaths that occur as a result of a shock to the natural death process.
Modelling data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)[iii], it can be seen that deaths in the USA follow a predictable, smooth process. The start and end of each year has a slightly higher rate than the middle summer months due to seasonal influenzas. The curves can easily be fitted with a 4-order polynomial. The polynomial for 2019, for example, has a an R2 of 97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, an extremely good fit.
Data analysts commonly compare an individual year with the average of the preceding five years in order to determine the excess (positive or negative) mortality for the year in question.
However, in the case of America, 2020 started almost exactly in line with 2019 so we have adopted the polynomial fit of 2019 as our baseline expectation of mortality against which we can derive the “excess” mortality for 2020. Using this method, it is very clear to see the COVID-19 “shock” that first occurred in week 12.
We apply the exact same methodology for each state’s mortality data (again from the CDC) to derive an excess number of deaths for each week, having observed similarly good degrees of fit of the expected curve. For the period in question, we are only interested in positive excess mortality during the period we know that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating through the population, i.e. from week 12.
Since it is quite apparent whether there is excess mortality and its duration, using this method, we tally the total excess for the observed period. This results in a range of excess death that spans a different number of weeks for each state (0 to 12). For Republican states, the average duration is 7.4 weeks and for Democrat states it is 7.9 weeks.
In order to standardise the data for comparative purposes, we express the resultant number relative to the average expected death per week for the same period. Thus, our target variable is the excess death expressed in number of weeks of expected death and ranges from 0 to 24.2.
To measure the severity of counter-measures, we count the number of weeks that lockdowns, i.e. “stay-at-home”, “shelter-in-place” or equivalent orders were effectively imposed by each state governor[iv] [v] [vi] [vii]. The number of weeks ranged from 0 to 14. For Republican states, the average duration is 4.0 weeks and for Democrat states it is 7.8 weeks.
In order to test for confounding explanatory variables, we also measured excess death, as calculated above, relative to the proportion of deaths of nursing home residents since it represented a significant number of COVID-19 deaths[viii].
Results
The total number of excess deaths using this method by summing the excess deaths of each state amounts to 119,302 which is broadly in line with the reported COVID-19 deaths of 127,000[ix]. 25{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of these deaths occurred in Republican states and 75{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in Democrat states.
Plotting excess deaths against lockdown duration reveals a significantly positive correlation which is contrary to the hypothesis.
In fact of the 12 states that have experienced no excess death at all during the period in question (Alaska (R), Arkansas (R), Hawaii, Idaho (R), Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota (R), Oklahoma (R), South Dakota (R), and West Virginia (R)), 5 of them (Arkansas (R), Kentucky (D), North Dakota (R), Oklahoma (R), and South Dakota (R)) had no ostensible lockdown. In fact, only three “no-lockdown” states had any excess at all (Nebraska (R), Utah (R) and Wyoming (R)) and were all at the low end of the range.
There were three outliers. New York City (24.2 standard excess vs 10 lockdown weeks) and New Jersey (11.3 standard excess vs 12 lockdown weeks) are both omitted from the chart due to scale. Hawaii, with its unique geographical properties benefited with no excess mortality for the period but actually has endured the longest duration of lockdown at 14 weeks which is very difficult to explain.
There is no materially discernible error in any of the state data.
Testing for confounding in the relationship between excess mortality and proportion of deaths in nursing home residents did not reveal anything of statistical significance.
Conclusion
The hypothesis that “population-wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closure” should lead to significantly better outcomes in terms of mortality from COVID-19 cannot be supported given the empirical data that is available.
On the contrary, the empirical data very strongly suggests that mortality outcomes are improved with fewer interventions.
The argument that, relying only on the hypothetical model itself, it is still possible to claim that the counter-measures were responsible for what might have been an even larger number of deaths is difficult to accept where the empirical data shows such a strong contrarian correlation.
Moreover, it is even more difficult to reconcile the fact that all of the states that effectively deployed no significant measures at all have resulted in virtually no excess deaths. There is low feasibility that this could be due to confounding or particular attributes of those states since they all share their borders with states with otherwise very different outcomes.
It is evident that Democrat states have a much stronger tendency towards intervention and this has led to much poorer outcomes for citizens of those states. Given the significantly heterogeneous nature of SARS-CoV-2 in terms of risk demography[x], it would not be a surprise to see homogeneous interventions having no impact on outcomes. However, it is difficult to explain why outcomes should be materially worse.
A possible reason could be in the nature of collectivism versus individualism, where Republicans might be more likely to take appropriate responsibility for their own welfare, making decisions and taking actions according to their own perceived risks, whereas members of the collectivist states may be more inclined to rely on the diktats of the state even though they may not be logical or reasonable. This conjecture would need much deeper investigation to be upheld.
[i] https://evidencenotfear.com/evidence/
[i] https://www.npr.org/2020/05/01/847415273/south-coronavirus-related-restrictions-by-state
[ii] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/23/us/coronavirus-which-states-stay-at-home-order-trnd/index.html
[iii] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/emergencies-closures-states-handling-coronavirus-200317213356419.html
[iv] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-map-coronavirus.html
[v] https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/05/26/nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities-0-6-of-the-u-s-population-43-of-u-s-covid-19-deaths/#5ec19e7d74cd
[vi] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
[vii] https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/bitstream/10044/1/77482/14/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
[viii] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-covid-19-deaths-are-counted1/
[ix] https://data.cdc.gov/
[x] https://evidencenotfear.com/evidence/
About the author: Joel Smalley holds an MBA from the University of Toronto and works as a Blockchain architect and early stage, polymath data-driven technologist, specializing in fintech, healthtech and IoT. He is currently CEO of Supermoney Ltd and CIO and CTO of Toucan Labs.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-29--‘Party’ Drugs Lose Out Because Of COVID-19

‘ Party ’ Drugs Lose Out Because Of COVID-19 According to an open online survey with 40,000 participants from twelve countries , the use of party drugs like MDMA and also cocaine has decreased around the world as clubs and other events are on hiatus .
Statista ’ s Katharina Buchholz reports that research project Global Drug Survey found that while the use of marijuana , alcohol and benzodiazepines ( Xanax , Valium ) was up during the pandemic , a net share of 19 percent of respondent said they were using less cocaine ( share of people saying they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying they used it less ) .
A net share of 29 percent said they were using less MDMA .
To quantify drug use , the survey asked people if they had used the drugs in question on more or less days of the week than usual .
Out of the twelve countries included in the survey , around 22 percent of Irish people and around 21 percent of Brits and Kiwis said their alcohol consumption during COVID-19 had increased a lot – the highest in the survey .
Ireland and New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot more ( 15 and 14 percent said so , respectively ) , while 47 percent of UK residents indicated they had started to drink earlier than usual .
The most common reasons respondents gave for the increase in alcohol consumption were “ I have more time to drink ” and “ I am more bored ” .
Marijuana use increased the most in Australia and the UK with 26 percent and 23 percent saying their consumption increased a lot .
Among party drug users , Australian and French respondents were most likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cocaine decreased significantly .
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 .

‘Party’ Drugs Lose Out Because Of COVID-19
Written by Tyler Durden
According to an open online survey with 40,000 participants from twelve countries, the use of party drugs like MDMA and also cocaine has decreased around the world as clubs and other events are on hiatus.
Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports that research project Global Drug Survey found that while the use of marijuana, alcohol and benzodiazepines (Xanax, Valium) was up during the pandemic, a net share of 19 percent of respondent said they were using less cocaine (share of people saying they used it more minus share of people saying they used it less).
A net share of 29 percent said they were using less MDMA. To quantify drug use, the survey asked people if they had used the drugs in question on more or less days of the week than usual.
Out of the twelve countries included in the survey, around 22 percent of Irish people and around 21 percent of Brits and Kiwis said their alcohol consumption during COVID-19 had increased a lot – the highest in the survey.
Ireland and New Zealand residents also admitted to binge drinking a lot more (15 and 14 percent said so, respectively), while 47 percent of UK residents indicated they had started to drink earlier than usual.
The most common reasons respondents gave for the increase in alcohol consumption were “I have more time to drink” and “I am more bored”.
Marijuana use increased the most in Australia and the UK with 26 percent and 23 percent saying their consumption increased a lot. Among party drug users, Australian and French respondents were most likely to say their use of MDMA and cocaine decreased significantly.
Read more at www.zerohedge.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


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-29--CO2 Not A Threat To Oceans

CO2 Not A Threat To Oceans

For the past three decades , the public has been taught by the news media and the folks who make a living composing mathematical equations they claim to simulate how our planet ’ s climate operates , that our oceans are in jeopardy .
They have all told you one of the biggest falsehoods in human history .
They say that carbon dioxide , the only reason man can inhabit Earth , is causing the planet to heat up to a dangerous level and the oceans will become unlivable for marine life .
There is no proof of these lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosperous under warmer than colder conditions .
We do know that as many as nine times more folks perish from excessive cold than excessive heat .
The oceans are prospering with more CO2 overhead .
Be that as it may much of the public has bought the scare .
Regardless of what scientists on the right side of the issue come up with to thwart the misinformation , they are drowned out by the media and the well-financed climate modelers on whom governments around the world have showered countless billions of dollars .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ science has succeeded in winning over the world ’ s governments to scientific reality .
Now comes along biologist Jim Steele of the CO2 Coalition and former Research Director of San Francisco State ’ s Sierra Nevada ’ s Field Campus to drop a blockbuster of truly new knowledge .
He has proven how our Oceans , all of them , are benefitting enormously by the increase in carbon dioxide which man ’ s industrialization has produced .
The global warming scaremongers have falsely preached that additional carbon dioxide could lower the pH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acidic , killing off ocean life .
This is physically and chemically impossible , and now we can better understand the enormous benefits CO2 is bringing to the oceans .
The Ocean “ acidification ” from carbon dioxide emissions preached by the scaremongers would require an impossible ten-fold decrease in the alkalinity of surface waters .
Even if atmospheric CO2 concentrations triple from today ’ s four percent of one percent , which would take about 600 years , today ’ s surface pH of 8.2 would plateau at 7.8 , still well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improved as a result of greater CO2 , as it feeds phytoplankton that stimulates the ocean ’ s food chain .
CO2 allows phytoplankton such as algae , bacteria , and seaweed to feed the rest of the open ocean food chain .
As carbon dioxide moves through this food web , much of it sinks or is transported away from the surface .
A high surface pH allows the ocean to store 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere .
Digestion of carbon at lower depths allows for storage there for centuries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from deep ocean waters to sunlit surface waters .
Upwelling injects far more ancient CO2 into the surface than diffuses from there atmospheric CO2 .
Upwelling at first lowers surface pH , but then stimulates photosynthesis , which raises surface pH .
It is a necessary process to generate bursts of life that sustain many ocean life forms .
When CO2 enters ocean water , it creates a bicarbonate ion plus a hydrogen ion , resulting in a slight decrease in pH .
However , photosynthesis requires CO2 .
So marine organisms convert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and pH rises again .
Contrary to popular claims that rising CO2 leads to shell disintegration , slightly lower pH does not stop marine organisms from using carbonate ions in building their shells .
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is governed by the balance between stored carbon and CO2 released back to the atmosphere .
On land , carbon is continuously stored as organic material in living and dead organisms , with some carbon eventually buried in sediments .
During the last major glaciation , expanding glaciers destroyed much of the northern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth ’ s ability to store terrestrial carbon .
Just as deforestation does today , that loss of forests should have increased atmospheric CO2 .
Instead , atmospheric CO2 decreased !
It appears that the missing CO2 was stored in the ocean .
Across the earth ’ s upwelling regions , ocean surface pH is primarily affected by the upwelling of ancient stored carbon , rather than human activities .
The ocean surface is seldom in equilibrium with the atmosphere .
Recent upwelling of subsurface carbon typically raises surface concentrations of CO2 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The upwelling of old carbon and other nutrients then stimulates photosynthesis in phytoplankton and seagrasses , which then reduces pH .
It is now estimated that 90 percent of the difference in pH between surface waters and deeper waters results from the downward movement of ocean life .
When transformed into organic matter , CO2 can be rapidly exported downwards .
For example , anchovy and sardine fecal pellets sink 780 meters in a day .
Tiny diatoms , which account for half of the ocean ’ s photosynthesis , are believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per day because of their dense silica shells .
Upwelling is a vital dynamic that brings carbon and nutrients , otherwise sequestered in the ocean ’ s depths , back to the surface .
Although there may be negative consequences of low-pH and low-oxygen upwelled waters , without the upwelling of low-pH waters , global marine productivity would be greatly reduced .
In the political arena of climate change , crucial factors are misleadingly ignored by those claiming that rising CO2 leads to shell disintegration .
First , shells of living organisms are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shells from changes in ocean chemistry .
Mollusk shells are typically covered by a periostracum .
This allows mollusks to thrive near low pH volcanic vents , or in acidic freshwater , or when buried in low pH sediments .
Coral skeletons are protected by their layer of living coral polyps .
When shell-forming organisms die they lose that layer of protective tissue and their shells or skeletons may indeed dissolve .
However , dissolution also releases carbonate ions , which buffers the surrounding waters and inhibits any further change in pH .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ organisms from converting bicarbonate ions into shell-building carbonate ions .
Some climate modelers incorrectly suggest that a small drop in pH will inhibit shell-building in marine organisms .
The ability to make shells despite experiencing atmospheric CO2 much higher than today has been preserved in massive deposits of calcium carbonate shells .
So what is the bottom line , the take home to share with friends ?
The oceans will not become acidic — CO2 enriches all life in the ocean .
There is no evidence to suggest that the oceans are becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life due to rising atmospheric CO2 .
CO2 is quickly consumed by photosynthesizing bacteria , plankton , and algae .
Greater productivity allows more organic carbon to be exported to depths where it can be sequestered for hundreds to thousands of years .
So now you have one more of the fraudulent global warming scares put to rest .
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 .

CO2 Not A Threat To Oceans
Written by Dr Jay Lehr
For the past three decades, the public has been taught by the news media and the folks who make a living composing mathematical equations they claim to simulate how our planet’s climate operates, that our oceans are in jeopardy.
They have all told you one of the biggest falsehoods in human history.
They say that carbon dioxide, the only reason man can inhabit Earth, is causing the planet to heat up to a dangerous level and the oceans will become unlivable for marine life. There is no proof of these lies whatever. Civilization has generally been most prosperous under warmer than colder conditions.
We do know that as many as nine times more folks perish from excessive cold than excessive heat. The oceans are prospering with more CO2 overhead. Be that as it may much of the public has bought the scare.
Regardless of what scientists on the right side of the issue come up with to thwart the misinformation, they are drowned out by the media and the well-financed climate modelers on whom governments around the world have showered countless billions of dollars.
Little of the true reality supported by science has succeeded in winning over the world’s governments to scientific reality.
Now comes along biologist Jim Steele of the CO2 Coalition and former Research Director of San Francisco State’s Sierra Nevada’s Field Campus to drop a blockbuster of truly new knowledge.
He has proven how our Oceans, all of them, are benefitting enormously by the increase in carbon dioxide which man’s industrialization has produced. The global warming scaremongers have falsely preached that additional carbon dioxide could lower the pH of the oceans to where they become acidic, killing off ocean life.
This is physically and chemically impossible, and now we can better understand the enormous benefits CO2 is bringing to the oceans. The Ocean “acidification” from carbon dioxide emissions preached by the scaremongers would require an impossible ten-fold decrease in the alkalinity of surface waters.
Even if atmospheric CO2 concentrations triple from today’s four percent of one percent, which would take about 600 years, today’s surface pH of 8.2 would plateau at 7.8, still well above neutral 7.
Ocean health has improved as a result of greater CO2, as it feeds phytoplankton that stimulates the ocean’s food chain.
CO2 allows phytoplankton such as algae, bacteria, and seaweed to feed the rest of the open ocean food chain. As carbon dioxide moves through this food web, much of it sinks or is transported away from the surface.
A high surface pH allows the ocean to store 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. Digestion of carbon at lower depths allows for storage there for centuries.
Periodic upwelling recycles carbon and nutrients from deep ocean waters to sunlit surface waters. Upwelling injects far more ancient CO2 into the surface than diffuses from there atmospheric CO2.
Upwelling at first lowers surface pH, but then stimulates photosynthesis, which raises surface pH. It is a necessary process to generate bursts of life that sustain many ocean life forms.
When CO2 enters ocean water, it creates a bicarbonate ion plus a hydrogen ion, resulting in a slight decrease in pH. However, photosynthesis requires CO2.
So marine organisms convert bicarbonate and hydrogen ions into usable CO2, and pH rises again.
Contrary to popular claims that rising CO2 leads to shell disintegration, slightly lower pH does not stop marine organisms from using carbonate ions in building their shells.
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is governed by the balance between stored carbon and CO2 released back to the atmosphere.
On land, carbon is continuously stored as organic material in living and dead organisms, with some carbon eventually buried in sediments.
During the last major glaciation, expanding glaciers destroyed much of the northern hemisphere’s forests and reduced the Earth’s ability to store terrestrial carbon.
Just as deforestation does today, that loss of forests should have increased atmospheric CO2. Instead, atmospheric CO2 decreased! It appears that the missing CO2 was stored in the ocean.
Across the earth’s upwelling regions, ocean surface pH is primarily affected by the upwelling of ancient stored carbon, rather than human activities. The ocean surface is seldom in equilibrium with the atmosphere.
Recent upwelling of subsurface carbon typically raises surface concentrations of CO2 to 1,000 ppm and temporarily lowers surface pH. The upwelling of old carbon and other nutrients then stimulates photosynthesis in phytoplankton and seagrasses, which then reduces pH.
It is now estimated that 90 percent of the difference in pH between surface waters and deeper waters results from the downward movement of ocean life. When transformed into organic matter, CO2 can be rapidly exported downwards.
For example, anchovy and sardine fecal pellets sink 780 meters in a day. Tiny diatoms, which account for half of the ocean’s photosynthesis, are believed to sink at rates over 500 meters per day because of their dense silica shells.
Upwelling is a vital dynamic that brings carbon and nutrients, otherwise sequestered in the ocean’s depths, back to the surface. Although there may be negative consequences of low-pH and low-oxygen upwelled waters, without the upwelling of low-pH waters, global marine productivity would be greatly reduced.
In the political arena of climate change, crucial factors are misleadingly ignored by those claiming that rising CO2 leads to shell disintegration.
First, shells of living organisms are protected by organic tissues that insulate the shells from changes in ocean chemistry. Mollusk shells are typically covered by a periostracum.
This allows mollusks to thrive near low pH volcanic vents, or in acidic freshwater, or when buried in low pH sediments. Coral skeletons are protected by their layer of living coral polyps.
When shell-forming organisms die they lose that layer of protective tissue and their shells or skeletons may indeed dissolve. However, dissolution also releases carbonate ions, which buffers the surrounding waters and inhibits any further change in pH.
Slightly lower pH does not stop ocean organisms from converting bicarbonate ions into shell-building carbonate ions. Some climate modelers incorrectly suggest that a small drop in pH will inhibit shell-building in marine organisms.
The ability to make shells despite experiencing atmospheric CO2 much higher than today has been preserved in massive deposits of calcium carbonate shells.
So what is the bottom line, the take home to share with friends? The oceans will not become acidic — CO2 enriches all life in the ocean.
There is no evidence to suggest that the oceans are becoming less of a great habitat for marine life due to rising atmospheric CO2.
CO2 is quickly consumed by photosynthesizing bacteria, plankton, and algae. Greater productivity allows more organic carbon to be exported to depths where it can be sequestered for hundreds to thousands of years.
So now you have one more of the fraudulent global warming scares put to rest.
Read more at CFACT
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-06-29--Are High-dose HCQ clinical trials intentionally murdering people?

Several clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) have been administering huge doses of the drug to COVID patients—doses that can easily be lethal .
Obviously , if the inexpensive HCQ is said to fail , and is called dangerous , then it is sidelined , in favor of far more expensive ( and profitable ) drugs .
And the promised vaccine has a clear field as the only “ reasonable strategy against the pandemic.
” Meaning : sky-high profits for the manufacturers .
Get it ?
The 6/20/2020 article exposing the crimes is posted at the Alliance for Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 Has Turned Public Health Into a Lethal , Patient-Killing Experimental Endeavor , ” by Vera Sharav .
Two detailed sections of the article are written by Meryl Nass , MD , who did the investigation to uncover the sordid and astonishing details : “ Dr .
Meryl Nass has uncovered a hornet ’ s nest of government sponsored Hydroxychloroquine experiments that were designed to kill severely ill , Covid-19 hospitalized patients .
On June 14th Dr. Nass first identified two Covid-19 experiments in which massive , high toxic doses – four times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given to severely ill hospitalized patients in intensive care units.
” • “ Solidarity [ experiment ] was being conducted by the World Health Organization , on 3500 Covid-19 patients at 400 hospitals , across 35 countries .
The trial was suspended following the fraudulent Surgisphere report in The Lancet that claimed 35 % higher death rates in patients receiving Hydroxychloroquine [ for the background on that fraudulent report , click here ] .
But when The Lancet retracted the report , the WHO resumed the Solidarity trial .
More than 100 countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” • None “ Recovery experiment used very similar doses .
It was sponsored by the Wellcome Trust ( GlaxoSmithKline ) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government .
The experiment was conducted at Oxford University , on 1,542 patients of these 396 patients ( 25.7 % ) who were in the high dose Hydroxychloroquine arm , died.
” “ Update : After Dr. Nass ’ discovery was publicly disseminated , the WHO suspended the trial on Wednesday June 17th.
” “ On Friday , June 19th , Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Worse ” hydroxychloroquine experiment .
REMAP targets patients who are on a ventilator , or in shock – i.e.
, near death .
Such patients are hardly capable of giving consent .
Rather than attempting to save their lives , they are being used given multiple high doses of hydroxychloroquine and other drugs whose combination is contraindicated.
” “ Of note : All the online protocols have been stamped ‘ Not for IRB ( Institutional Review Board ) submission ’ .
” [ emphasis in original ] “ This is an ongoing medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 200 sites in 14 countries : include : Australia , Belgium , Canada , Croatia , Germany , Hungary , Ireland , Netherlands , New Zealand , Portugal , Romania , Spain , United Kingdom , and the United States of America.
” “ Since all medicines are potential poison at high doses , why one wonders , are influential academic physicians and international public health institutions designing and conducting experiments that expose extremely vulnerable patients to poisonous levels of the drug Hydroxychloroquine ?
” The article goes on to spell out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials of HCQ have been conducted .
So , Mr. Barr , you should be working with law enforcement in all countries where these horrific studies are being run .
The medical perpetrators , and their knowing assistants , need to be arrested and put on trial .
No time to waste here .
Get busy .
You can be sure records have already been hidden , changed , and shredded .
Denials of crimes will be couched in technical medical language— “ you civilians couldn ’ t possibly understand what we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SOP in such cases .
About the author : Jon Rappaport has written three explosive collections , THE MATRIX REVEALED , EXIT FROM THE MATRIX , and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California .
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients , the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power .
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize , he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years , writing articles on politics , medicine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weekly , Spin Magazine , Stern , and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe .
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 .

Are High-dose HCQ clinical trials intentionally murdering people?
Written by Jon Rappoport
Several clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been administering huge doses of the drug to COVID patients—doses that can easily be lethal.
Obviously, if the inexpensive HCQ is said to fail, and is called dangerous, then it is sidelined, in favor of far more expensive (and profitable) drugs.
And the promised vaccine has a clear field as the only “reasonable strategy against the pandemic.” Meaning: sky-high profits for the manufacturers. Get it?
The 6/20/2020 article exposing the crimes is posted at the Alliance for Human Research Protection (ahrp.org): “COVID-19 Has Turned Public Health Into a Lethal, Patient-Killing Experimental Endeavor,” by Vera Sharav. Two detailed sections of the article are written by Meryl Nass, MD, who did the investigation to uncover the sordid and astonishing details:
“Dr. Meryl Nass has uncovered a hornet’s nest of government sponsored Hydroxychloroquine experiments that were designed to kill severely ill, Covid-19 hospitalized patients. On June 14th Dr. Nass first identified two Covid-19 experiments in which massive, high toxic doses – four times higher than safe of hydroxychloroquine were being given to severely ill hospitalized patients in intensive care units.”
“Solidarity [experiment] was being conducted by the World Health Organization, on 3500 Covid-19 patients at 400 hospitals, across 35 countries. The trial was suspended following the fraudulent Surgisphere report in The Lancet that claimed 35{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} higher death rates in patients receiving Hydroxychloroquine [for the background on that fraudulent report, click here]. But when The Lancet retracted the report, the WHO resumed the Solidarity trial. More than 100 countries expressed interest in participating in the trial.”
“Recovery experiment used very similar doses. It was sponsored by the Wellcome Trust (GlaxoSmithKline) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government. The experiment was conducted at Oxford University, on 1,542 patients of these 396 patients (25.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) who were in the high dose Hydroxychloroquine arm, died.”
“Update: After Dr. Nass’ discovery was publicly disseminated, the WHO suspended the trial on Wednesday June 17th.”
“On Friday, June 19th, Dr. Nass uncovered a third, “Even Worse” hydroxychloroquine experiment. REMAP targets patients who are on a ventilator, or in shock – i.e., near death. Such patients are hardly capable of giving consent. Rather than attempting to save their lives, they are being used given multiple high doses of hydroxychloroquine and other drugs whose combination is contraindicated.”
“Of note: All the online protocols have been stamped ‘Not for IRB (Institutional Review Board) submission’.” [emphasis in original]
“This is an ongoing medical atrocity being perpetrated by medical doctors at 200 sites in 14 countries: include: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States of America.”
“Since all medicines are potential poison at high doses, why one wonders, are influential academic physicians and international public health institutions designing and conducting experiments that expose extremely vulnerable patients to poisonous levels of the drug Hydroxychloroquine?”
The article goes on to spell out, in great detail, how these clinical trials of HCQ have been conducted.
So, Mr. Barr, you should be working with law enforcement in all countries where these horrific studies are being run. The medical perpetrators, and their knowing assistants, need to be arrested and put on trial. No time to waste here. Get busy. You can be sure records have already been hidden, changed, and shredded. Denials of crimes will be couched in technical medical language—“you civilians couldn’t possibly understand what we’re doing.” This unconscionable strategy is SOP in such cases.
About the author: Jon Rappaport has written three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.
Read more at blog.nomorefakenews.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--2020-07-01--Exposed: NIH Has Financial Stake in Bill Gates CV19 Vaccine

Exposed : NIH Has Financial Stake in Bill Gates CV19 Vaccine National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) own a financial stake in the Bill Gates-funded Moderna Coronavirus vaccine , raising big questions about the supposed impartiality of the federal government ’ s policy decisions during the Coronavirus outbreak .
NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci , a financial ally of Bill Gates whose institute is part of NIH , has been critical of Hydroxychloroquine and the FBI even raided a health spa serving intravenous vitamin C , which are competitors to a vaccine .
“ We do have some particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Moderna vaccine stated Francis Collins , the director of NIH , in a revelatory recent Economic Club panel discussion .
“ “ One of the vaccines– the one that ’ s furthest along– what started , actually , at the federal government in our own Vaccine Research Center at NIH– then worked with a biotechnology company called Moderna to get to where we are now , with very impressive Phase I results and getting ready to go into a large-scale trial as early as July .
That one , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intellectual property .
Others , though , come from companies who ’ ve invested their efforts into getting them to the point where they might now be ready for a trial , ” Collins stated .
“ The U.S. government may jointly own a potential coronavirus vaccine .
The National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) has played a critical role in coronavirus research for years .
Building off this work , federal scientists have helped design and test mRNA-1273—a vaccine candidate developed in partnership with Moderna .
[ 2 ] The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mRNA-1273 .
In this report , we describe two patent applications that list federal scientists as co-inventors .
[ 3 ] If the government successfully pursued its patent filings , the resulting patents would likely confer significant rights .
We also review recently disclosed contracts between NIH and Moderna .
The agreements suggest that NIH has not transferred its rights , but instead maintains a joint stake.
” Journalist Patrick Howley exposes the Coronavirus “ Contact Tracing ” program in the first-ever episode of NATIONAL FILE TV .
Dr. Anthony Fauci funded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Virology , believed to be the source of the outbreak , then the Political Class tried to suppress treatment as Fauci ’ s friend and associate Bill Gates prepared mass vaccinations and the economy got battered .
And the whole episode was written out , planned , in advance .
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 @

Exposed: NIH Has Financial Stake in Bill Gates CV19 Vaccine
Written by Patrick Howley
National Institutes of Health (NIH) own a financial stake in the Bill Gates-funded Moderna Coronavirus vaccine, raising big questions about the supposed impartiality of the federal government’s policy decisions during the Coronavirus outbreak.
NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci, a financial ally of Bill Gates whose institute is part of NIH, has been critical of Hydroxychloroquine and the FBI even raided a health spa serving intravenous vitamin C, which are competitors to a vaccine.
“We do have some particular stake in the intellectual property” for the Moderna vaccine stated Francis Collins, the director of NIH, in a revelatory recent Economic Club panel discussion. “
“One of the vaccines– the one that’s furthest along– what started, actually, at the federal government in our own Vaccine Research Center at NIH– then worked with a biotechnology company called Moderna to get to where we are now, with very impressive Phase I results and getting ready to go into a large-scale trial as early as July. That one, of course, we do have some particular stake in the intellectual property. Others, though, come from companies who’ve invested their efforts into getting them to the point where they might now be ready for a trial,” Collins stated.
Newly published documents from Public Citizen have massive implications. Public Citizen states:
“The U.S. government may jointly own a potential coronavirus vaccine. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has played a critical role in coronavirus research for years. Building off this work, federal scientists have helped design and test mRNA-1273—a vaccine candidate developed in partnership with Moderna.[2] The federal government has filed multiple patents covering mRNA-1273. In this report, we describe two patent applications that list federal scientists as co-inventors.[3] If the government successfully pursued its patent filings, the resulting patents would likely confer significant rights. We also review recently disclosed contracts between NIH and Moderna. The agreements suggest that NIH has not transferred its rights, but instead maintains a joint stake.”
Journalist Patrick Howley exposes the Coronavirus “Contact Tracing” program in the first-ever episode of NATIONAL FILE TV. Dr. Anthony Fauci funded the Coronavirus bat research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, believed to be the source of the outbreak, then the Political Class tried to suppress treatment as Fauci’s friend and associate Bill Gates prepared mass vaccinations and the economy got battered. And the whole episode was written out, planned, in advance.
Read the full story at nationalfile.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--2020-07-01--China Has ‘First-Strike’ EPW Capability To Melt U.S. Power Grid

China Has ‘ First-Strike ’ EPW Capability To Melt U.S. Power Grid Last week , the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security issued a scary report on China ’ s ability to conduct an Electromagnetic Pulse attack on the United States .
The key takeaway , according to Dr. Peter Pry , executive director of the task force , is that China now has super-EMP weapons , knows how to protect itself against an EMP attack , and has developed protocols to conduct a first-strike attack , even as they deny they would ever do so .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , China has the most active ballistic missile development program in the world , so this is doubly troubling .
China used stolen U.S. technology to develop at least three types of high-tech weapons to attack the electric grid and key technologies that could cause a surprise “ Pearl Harbor ” attack that could produce a deadly blackout to the entire country .
Dr. Pry outlines how China has built a network of satellites , high-speed missiles , and super-electromagnetic pulse weapons that could melt down our electric grid , fry critical communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our aircraft carrier groups to respond .
EMPs are one of those things that many people think is fake , or over-blown , or a conspiracy theorist ’ s dream .
But they are real .
EMPs can be either natural , from things like extreme solar geomagnetic disturbances , or man-made like a large thermonuclear detonation or a cyberattack .
If they are coordinated with physical attacks then things can get real dicey real fast .
High-voltage control cables and large transformers that control the grid are particularly vulnerable .
Transformers weigh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build , and cost $ 7 million apiece .
We are already way behind in having backup transformers ready , so if many go out at once , we have a big problem just powering our country .
The phenomenon of a large electromagnetic pulse is not new .
The first human-caused EMP occurred in 1962 when the 1.4 megaton Starfish Prime thermonuclear weapon detonated 400 km above the Pacific Ocean .
One hundred times bigger than what we dropped on Hiroshima , Starfish Prime resulted in an EMP which caused electrical damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It knocked out about 300 streetlights , set off numerous burglar alarms , and damaged a telephone company microwave link that shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands .
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 .

China Has ‘First-Strike’ EPW Capability To Melt U.S. Power Grid
Written by James Conca
Last week, the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security issued a scary report on China’s ability to conduct an Electromagnetic Pulse attack on the United States. The key takeaway, according to Dr. Peter Pry, executive director of the task force, is that China now has super-EMP weapons, knows how to protect itself against an EMP attack, and has developed protocols to conduct a first-strike attack, even as they deny they would ever do so.
According to the Center for Strategic International Studies, China has the most active ballistic missile development program in the world, so this is doubly troubling. China used stolen U.S. technology to develop at least three types of high-tech weapons to attack the electric grid and key technologies that could cause a surprise “Pearl Harbor” attack that could produce a deadly blackout to the entire country.
Dr. Pry outlines how China has built a network of satellites, high-speed missiles, and super-electromagnetic pulse weapons that could melt down our electric grid, fry critical communications, and even takeout the ability of our aircraft carrier groups to respond.
EMPs are one of those things that many people think is fake, or over-blown, or a conspiracy theorist’s dream. But they are real. EMPs can be either natural, from things like extreme solar geomagnetic disturbances, or man-made like a large thermonuclear detonation or a cyberattack. If they are coordinated with physical attacks then things can get real dicey real fast.
High-voltage control cables and large transformers that control the grid are particularly vulnerable. Transformers weigh 400 tons, take two years to build, and cost $7 million apiece. We are already way behind in having backup transformers ready, so if many go out at once, we have a big problem just powering our country.
The mechanism for a 400-kilometre-high (250 mi) burst EMP: gamma rays hit the atmosphere, ejecting … [+] US ARMY
The phenomenon of a large electromagnetic pulse is not new. The first human-caused EMP occurred in 1962 when the 1.4 megaton Starfish Prime thermonuclear weapon detonated 400 km above the Pacific Ocean.
One hundred times bigger than what we dropped on Hiroshima, Starfish Prime resulted in an EMP which caused electrical damage nearly 900 miles away in Hawaii. It knocked out about 300 streetlights, set off numerous burglar alarms, and damaged a telephone company microwave link that shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.
Read the full article at www.forbes.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--2020-07-01--Ex UN IPCC Scientist Trashes New Climate Change Report

In a scathing attack upon the IPCC ‘ s latest alarmist predictions , Dr. Khadekar lambasted their report for its total lack of scientific backing .
“ You know earth ’ s climate was cooling from 1935-1977 when CO2 was rising very rapidly .
And nobody talks about it !
The earth ’ s climate warmed from 1977 – 1998 along with CO2 increase , but in the last 20 years , according to most climate scientists , there has not been any statistically significant warming of the earth ’ s climate.
” The IPCC are demanding that in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must agree to de-industrialize and stop carbon emissions so as to save the planet from what the IPCC describe as catastrophic global warming .
The IPCC are not basing their research on science , as repeatedly proven by climate scientists from around the world who are in disagreement with their findings .
If it were the case that the planet ’ s climate was becoming dangerously unbalanced , then would it not be a far more reasonable and intelligent approach to plan for the future and ensure the survival of people by modernizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Progress will lead us out of any possible impending catastrophe ; going backwards into a de-industrialized world will only lead to severe famines and populations exposed to natural disasters .
SO , WHO SHOULD WE BELIEVE , AN ACTUAL SCIENTIST OR A BUNCH OF DODGY BUREAUCRATS DRIVING A POLITICAL AGENDA ?
Dr. Madhav Khandekar holds a PhD in Meteorology from the Florida State University USA ( 1968 ) and an MSc in Statistics from Pune University India ( 1957 ) .
Khandekar has been in the field of weather and climate science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well over 150 papers , reports , book reviews and scientific commentaries .
His current interest is global weather anomalies and extremes and their possible linkage to climate change .
He retired as a Research Scientist at Environment Canada in 1997 and lives in Toronto .
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 .

Ex UN IPCC Scientist Trashes New Climate Change Report
Written by electroverse.net
In a scathing attack upon the IPCC ‘s latest alarmist predictions, Dr. Khadekar lambasted their report for its total lack of scientific backing.
“You know earth’s climate was cooling from 1935-1977 when CO2 was rising very rapidly. And nobody talks about it! The earth’s climate warmed from 1977 – 1998 along with CO2 increase, but in the last 20 years, according to most climate scientists, there has not been any statistically significant warming of the earth’s climate.” Dr. Madhav Khandekar (Source: Schiller Institute)
The IPCC are demanding that in order to reduce CO2 levels, all nations must agree to de-industrialize and stop carbon emissions so as to save the planet from what the IPCC describe as catastrophic global warming. The IPCC are not basing their research on science, as repeatedly proven by climate scientists from around the world who are in disagreement with their findings.
If it were the case that the planet’s climate was becoming dangerously unbalanced, then would it not be a far more reasonable and intelligent approach to plan for the future and ensure the survival of people by modernizing the entire world economy through global development?
Progress will lead us out of any possible impending catastrophe; going backwards into a de-industrialized world will only lead to severe famines and populations exposed to natural disasters.
SO, WHO SHOULD WE BELIEVE, AN ACTUAL SCIENTIST OR A BUNCH OF DODGY BUREAUCRATS DRIVING A POLITICAL AGENDA?
Dr. Madhav Khandekar holds a PhD in Meteorology from the Florida State University USA (1968) and an MSc in Statistics from Pune University India (1957). Khandekar has been in the field of weather and climate science for over 60 years and has published well over 150 papers, reports, book reviews and scientific commentaries.
His current interest is global weather anomalies and extremes and their possible linkage to climate change. He retired as a Research Scientist at Environment Canada in 1997 and lives in Toronto.
Read more at electroverse.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--2020-07-01--Your Brain, Bones, and Boron

Your Brain, Bones, and Boron

Boron is an element found naturally in leafy green vegetables like kale and spinach .
It can also be found in grains , prunes , raisins , noncitrus fruits , and nuts .
A person ’ s daily diet typically contains 1.5 to 3 milligrams ( mg ) of boron .
The five most common sources of boron in a person ’ s daily diet are : Boron helps your body metabolize key vitamins and minerals , has a key role in bone health , and it also affects estrogen and testosterone levels .
There ’ s no established dietary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value .
A boron deficiency also hasn ’ t been proven to cause any diseases .
Small studies have indicated that boron may play a role in brain function .
Early studies in the 1990s showed promise for human supplementation with boron .
For example , one 1994 study published in the journal Environmental Health PerspectivesTrusted Source found that people who added 3.25 mg of boron to their diets were better at memory and hand-eye coordination tasks than people with low boron levels .
Now boron-related research studies are mostly limited to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that boron plays a role in many human functions , its status as a minor mineral means there aren ’ t many recent human trials regarding boron ’ s benefits on the brain .
Boron can aid in keeping your bones strong along with possibly improving brain function .
Boron is known to play a role in extending the half-life of vitamin D and estrogen .
The half-life is the amount of time it takes for a substance to break down to half its starting amount .
Scientists aren ’ t exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could be important for bone health in several ways .
First , vitamin D is essential for bone health because it enhances your body ’ s ability to absorb calcium .
Calcium is a mineral responsible for making bones strong .
Boron could help enhance bone health by increasing how long vitamin D works in your body .
According to an article in The Open Orthopaedics JournalTrusted Source , people with low levels of vitamin D are more likely to have low levels of boron .
This shows that the two nutrients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ availability in the body .
Estrogen is another hormone that plays a role in bone health .
It protects against bone loss that can lead to osteoporosis .
This is a condition that can make bones weak and brittle in both men and women .
By extending the amount of time estrogen is present in the body , boron may help to maintain healthy bones .
While boron supplements have been considered as a possible treatment for people with arthritis , more clinical evidence is needed to support this claim .
The above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rose Wilson , PhD , MSN , RN , IBCLC , AHN-BC , CHT 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 .

Your Brain, Bones, and Boron
Written by Brian Krans and Rachel Nall
Boron is an element found naturally in leafy green vegetables like kale and spinach. It can also be found in grains, prunes, raisins, noncitrus fruits, and nuts. A person’s daily diet typically contains 1.5 to 3 milligrams (mg) of boron. The five most common sources of boron in a person’s daily diet are:
apples
coffee
dried beans
milk
potatoes
Boron helps your body metabolize key vitamins and minerals, has a key role in bone health, and it also affects estrogen and testosterone levels.
There’s no established dietary recommendation for boron in terms of daily value. A boron deficiency also hasn’t been proven to cause any diseases.
Boron and the brain Small studies have indicated that boron may play a role in brain function. Early studies in the 1990s showed promise for human supplementation with boron. For example, one 1994 study published in the journal Environmental Health PerspectivesTrusted Source found that people who added 3.25 mg of boron to their diets were better at memory and hand-eye coordination tasks than people with low boron levels. These encouraging results didn’t spur a boron research boom. Now boron-related research studies are mostly limited to those performed on laboratory rats. Although researchers know that boron plays a role in many human functions, its status as a minor mineral means there aren’t many recent human trials regarding boron’s benefits on the brain. Bones and joints
Boron can aid in keeping your bones strong along with possibly improving brain function. Boron is known to play a role in extending the half-life of vitamin D and estrogen. The half-life is the amount of time it takes for a substance to break down to half its starting amount. Scientists aren’t exactly sure how boron does this. But it could be important for bone health in several ways. First, vitamin D is essential for bone health because it enhances your body’s ability to absorb calcium. Calcium is a mineral responsible for making bones strong. Boron could help enhance bone health by increasing how long vitamin D works in your body. According to an article in The Open Orthopaedics JournalTrusted Source, people with low levels of vitamin D are more likely to have low levels of boron. This shows that the two nutrients have a relationship in terms of their availability in the body. Estrogen is another hormone that plays a role in bone health. It protects against bone loss that can lead to osteoporosis. This is a condition that can make bones weak and brittle in both men and women. By extending the amount of time estrogen is present in the body, boron may help to maintain healthy bones. While boron supplements have been considered as a possible treatment for people with arthritis, more clinical evidence is needed to support this claim. Read more at www.healthline.com The above article has been medically reviewed by Debra Rose Wilson, PhD, MSN, RN, IBCLC, AHN-BC, CHT **** 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