principiascientificinternational--2020-07-23--How the Fake Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created

How the Fake Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created It is remarkable that a series of events taking place over the past 3 months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine , and produced similar policies about the drug in the US , Canada , Australia , NZ and western Europe .
The message is that generic , inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease , Covid-19 , for which there are no ( other ) reliable treatments .
Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is safe for its other uses , but dangerous when used for Covid-19 .
It doesn ’ t make sense , but it seems to have worked .
Were these acts carefully orchestrated ?
You decide .
Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going ?
To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population ?
Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship , eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich ?
Are these events evidence of a conspiracy ?
Here is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no special order .
Please help add to this list if you know of other actions I should include .
This will be a living document , added to as new information becomes available .
I have penned this as if it is the “ To Do ” list of items to be accomplished by those who pull the strings .
The items on the list have already been carried out .
One wonders what else might be on their list , yet to be carried out , for this pandemic .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ways it is most likely to be effective ( in outpatients at onset of illness ) .
You prohibit use outside of situations you can control .
• You prevent or limit use in outpatients by controlling the supply of the drug , using different methods in different countries andstates .
In NY state , by order of the governor , hydroxychloroquine could only be prescribed for hospitalized patients .
France has issued a series of different regulations to limit prescribers from using it .
France also changed the drugs ’ status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prescription .
• You play up the danger of the drug , emphasizing side effects that are very rare when the drug is used correctly .
You make sure everyone has heard about theman who died after consuming hydroxychloroquine in the form of fish tank cleaner .
Yet its toxicity at approved doses is minimal .
Chloroquine was added to table salt in some regions in the 1950s as a malaria preventive , according to Professor Nicholas White in his study for the Recovery trial .
• You limit clinical trials to hospitalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in outpatients , early in the illness , when it is predicted to be most effective .
Finally , but not until May , you have Fauci ’ s NIAID conduct a trial in outpatients , using hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin , but you only enroll 20 patients , after earlier planning for 2,000 .
Only half get the drugs .
You reduce the duration of followup from 24 weeks to 13 days post treatment .
This ridiculously small number of subjects assures meaningless results .
Who pulled the plug on this trial ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ too high a dose , ensuring the drug will cause harm in some subjects , sufficient to mask any possible beneficial effect .
You make sure that trials in 400 hospitals in 35 countries ( Solidarity ) plus most hospitals in the UK ( Recovery ) use these dangerous doses , as well as additional sites in 13 countries ( REMAP-Covid trial ) .
• You design clinical trials tocollect almost no safety data , so any cause of death due to drug toxicity will be attributed to the disease instead of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of the drug based on theresults of the UK Recovery study , which overdosed patients .
Of course the Recovery results showed more deaths in the hydroxychloroquine arm , since they gave patients 2.4 g in the first 24 hrs , 800 mg/day thereafter .
Furthermore , the UK has the 2nd highest death rate in the world for Covid-19 ( Belgium is 1st ) , so simply conducting the trial in the UK may have contributed to the poor results .
• You publish , in the world ’ s most-read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study from a huge worldwide database ( 96,000 Covid cases ) that says use of chloroquine drugs caused significantly increased mortality .
You make sure that all major media report on this result .
This was said to be the nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine .
Then you have 3 European countries announce they will not allow doctors to prescribe the drug .
• You do your best to ride out any controversy , never admitting culpability .
Even after hundreds of people renounced theLancet ’ s observational study due to easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not exist , and the claimed numbers did not agree with known numbers of cases–the Lancet held firm for two weeks , serving to muddy the waters about the trial , until finally 3 of its 4 coauthors ( but not the journal ) retracted the study .
But neither the authors nor the journal admitted responsibility .
You make sure very few media report that the data were fabricated and the “ study ” was fraudulent .
Even though the story was full of scandalous details , it went largely unnoticed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original story : that hydroxychloroquine routinely kills .
• You ensure federal agencies like FDA and CDC hew to your desired policies .
For example , FDA advised use only in hospitalized patients ( too late ) or in clinical trials ( which are limited , are difficult to enroll in , or may use excessive doses ) .
As of mid June , FDA advises patients and doctors to only give the drug to patients if they are in a clinical trial where , presumably , the results can be controlled .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsubstantiated and false claims , such as : “ Hospitalized patients were likely to have greater prospect of benefit ( compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness ) “ and claim the chloroquine drugs have a slow onset of action .
If that were really true , they would not be used for acute attacks of malaria or in critically ill patients with Covid .
( Disclosure : I once dosed myself with chloroquine for an acute attack of P. vivax malaria , and it worked very fast. )
.
Providing no other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information is a large part of its mission , CDC instead refers clinicians to the NIH guidelines , discussed below .
Despite the fact that Belgium ’ s COVID treatment guidelines repeatedly mention that the doses of HCQ in the Recovery and Solidarity trials were 4 times the cumulative dose used in Belgium , you make sure the Belgian guidelines , paradoxically , only recommend use of HCQ within clinical trials .
• You make sure to avoid funding/encouraging clinical trials that test drug combinations like hydroxychloroquine with zinc , with azithromycin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ample clinical evidence that such combinations provide a cumulative benefit to patients .
For example , one of very few studies to look at this combination had no funding .
• You have federal and UN agencies make false , illogical claims based on models ( or invention ) rather than human data .
For example , you have the FDA state on June 15 that the doserequired to treat Covid is so high it is toxic , after the Recovery and Solidarity trials have been exposed for toxic dosing .
This scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical trials that overdosed their patients .
According to Denise Hinton , RN , the FDA ’ s Chief Scientist ( yes , a registered nurse without scientific qualifications is the Chief Scientist at FDA ) , or some clumsy FDA wordsmith : “ Under the assumption that in vivo cellular accumulation is similar to that from the in vitro cell-based assays , the calculated free lung concentrations that would result from the EUA suggested dosing regimens are well below the in vitro EC50/EC90 values , making the antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the EUA .
The substantial increase in dosing that would be needed to increase the likelihood of an antiviral effect would not be acceptable due to toxicity concerns.
” You have a WHO report claim toxic doses are needed .
This is nonsense since : • the drug at normal doses is being tested in over 30 different medical conditions ( see clinicaltrials.gov ) , and • reports from many different countries say that the drug is effective for Covid-19 at normal doses , while • a high dose chloroquine treatment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the study was posted April 11 , or perhaps April 7 , after finding that drug effects were causing ventricular arrhythmias and deaths .
Toxicity was noted after only 3 days of treatment , during which 3.6 grams of chloroquine were administered .
But the Solidarity ( 3.2 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days ) , Recovery ( 3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days ) and REMAP-Covid trials ( 3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days ) continued overdosing patients until June , despite Brazil ’ s evidence of deaths by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rubenfeld wrote in April , after the Brazilian study came out in JAMA , “ if you are prescribing HCQ after these JAMA results , do yourself and your defense lawyer a favor .
Document in your medical record that you informed the patient of the potential risks of HCQ including sudden death and its benefits ( ?
?
? )
.
” • You create an NIH Guidelines committee for Covid treatment recommendations , in which16 members have or had financial entanglements with Gilead , maker of Remdesivir .
The members were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the three Co-Chairs are themselves financially entangled with Gilead .
Are you surprised that their guidelines recommend specifically against the use of hydroxychloroquine and in favor of Remdesivir , and that they deem this the new “ standard of care ” ?
• You frighten doctors so they don ’ t prescribe hydroxychloroquine , if prescribing it is even allowed in their jurisdiction , because prescribing outside the newNIH “ standard of care ” leaves them open to malpractice lawsuits .
You further tell them ( through the FDA ) they need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patient EKGs when using the drug , although this was never advised before , which makes it very difficult to use the drug in outpatients .
You have the European Medicines Agency issue similar warnings .
• You manage to control the conduct of most trials around the world by specially designing the WHO-managedSolidarity trials , currently conducted in 35 countries .
WHO halted hydroxychloroquine clinical trials around the world , twice .
The first time , May 25 , WHO claimed it was in response to the ( fraudulent ) Lancet study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , WHO claimed the stop was in response to the Recovery trial results .
Recovery used highly toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine in over 1500 patients , of whom 396 died .
You stop the trial before the data safety monitoring board has looked at your data , a move that is unlikely to be consistent with trial protocol .
WHO ’ s trial in over 400 hospitals overdosed patients with 2.0 g hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hours .
The trial was halted 3 days after the toxic doses were exposed ( by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world typing minimal patient information into an online WHO platform , which assigned the patient a treatment .
The only “ safety ” information collected during the trial was whether patients required oxygen , required a ventilator , or died .
This effectively masked the adverse effects of the drugs tested .
I should mention that WHO ’ s initial plan for its Solidarity trial entirely omitted the chloroquine drugs , but they were added at the urging of participating nations .
WHO ’ s fallback position appears to have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have theWHO pressure governments to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine .
• You have theWHO pressure professional societies to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine .
• You make sure that the most-consulted US medical encyclopedia , UptoDate , advises physicians to restrict hydroxychloroquine to only clinical trials , citing the FDA .
• You have the head of the Coronavirus Task Force , Dr. Tony Fauci , insist the drug can not be used in the absence of strong evidence…while he insisted exactly the opposite in the case of the MERS coronavirus outbreak several years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug combination for use…which had been developed for that purpose by his agency .
And while he was bemoaning the lack of evidence , he was refusing to pay for trials to study hydroxychloroquine .
And he was changing the goalposts on the Remdesivir trial , not once but twice , to make Remdesivir show a tiny bit of benefit , but no mortality benefit .
And don ’ t forget , Fauci was thrilled to sponsor a trial of a Covid vaccine in humans before there were any data from animal trials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence before risking use of drugs and vaccines in humans .
• You convince the population that the crisis will be long-lasting .
You have the 2nd richest man in the world , and biggest funder of the WHO , Bill Gates , keep repeating to the media megaphone thatwe can not go back to normal until everyone has been vaccinated or there is a perfect drug .
( The Gates Foundation helped design the WHO clinical trials , helped fund the Recovery trial , and Gates is heavily invested in Covid pharmaceuticals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC ( with help from FDA ) prevent the purchase of coronavirus test kits from Germany , China , WHO , etc , and fail to produce a valid test kit themselves .
The result was that during January and February , US cases could not be tested , and for several months thereafter insufficient and unreliable test kits made it impossible to track the epidemic and stop the spread .
• You have trusted medical spokesmen lie to the public about the pandemic ’ s severity , so precautions weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective and less long-lasting .
Congress wasrepeatedly briefed about the pandemic in January and February , which scared several Congress members enough that they sold off large amounts of stock , risking insider trading charges .
Senator Burr is one of them , currently under investigation for major stock sales on February 13 .
Yet Dr. Fauci told USA Today on February 17 that Americans should worry more about the flu than about coronavirus , the danger of which was “ just miniscule.
” Then on February 28 , Drs .
Fauci and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the New England Journal : “ …the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza ( which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1 % ) or a pandemic influenza ( similar to those in 1957 and 1968 ) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS , which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10 % and 36 % , respectively.
” • You destroy the reputation of respected physicians who stand in your way .
Professor Didier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used hydroxychloroquine on over 4,000 patients , reporting a mortality rate of about 0.8 % .
( The mortality rate of patients given hydroxychloroquine in the Recovery trial was 25.7 % . )
Raoult is very famous for discovering over 100 different microorganisms , and finding the long-sought cause of Whipple ’ s Disease .
With this reputation , Raoult apparently thought he could treat patients as he saw fit , which he has done , under great duress .
Raoult was featured in a New York Times Magazinearticle , with his face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 , 2020 .
After describing his accomplishments , the Times very unfavorably discussed his personality , implied he conducted unethical trials without approval , and using anonymous sourcing produced a detailed hit piece .
Raoult is now considered an unreliable crank in the US .
Physician and state senator Scott Jensen of Minnesota is being investigated by his state medical board due to anonymous complaints about what he said about COVID in interviews .
Jensen was previously selected as “ Family Physician of the Year ” in his state .
Now his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of how he treated a patient , but for what he said outside of the office .
Unprecedented .
• You have social media platforms ban content that does not agree with the desired narrative .
As YouTube CEO and ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brin , Susan Wojcickisaid , “ YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation ( WHO ) coronavirus recommendations .
Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.
” • When your clinical trials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have Oxford-affiliated , Wellcome Trust-supported scientists at Mahidol University publish papers ( aliterature review with modeling and a modeling study ) purporting to show that the doses used were not toxic .
You develop a new method to measure hydroxychloroquine in a handful of Recovery patients who were not poisoned .
However , there are 2 problems you forgot with this approach : • The Brazilian data , including 16 deaths , extensive clinical information and documented ventricular arrhythmias , are much more persuasive than a theoretical model of hydroxychloroquine pharmacokinetics .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use , even at normal doses , for a life-threatening disease , or even extremely high doses are safe .
You can ’ t have it both ways .
Oxford is the institution running the Recovery trial , and invented a Covid vaccine that already has 400 million doses on order .
The Wellcome Trust funded the Recovery trial .
• You change your trial ’ s primary outcome measures after the trials have started , in order to prevent detection of drug-induced deaths ( Recovery ) or to make your drug appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
• You stop manufacturers from supplying the drug .
Shortly after the fraudulentLancet paper came out , Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use with Covid , and would halt its two hydroxychloroquine clinical trials .
One of the cancelled Sanofi trials was expected to test 210 outpatients early in the course of disease .
The trial remains suspended at the time of writing , while the Lancet paper was retracted 13 days after publication .
You surely don ’ t want a trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might show an excellent effect .
And see this : Novartis will supply HCQ only under certain conditions , and halted its HCQ trial due to lack of enrollments , although enrollment was not an issue for its other COVID trials .
• Youattempt to retract published papersthat provide evidence to support use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID .
• You have your ‘ bought ’ scientistsconceal their financial conflicts of interest in their HCQ clinical trials and publicationsas well as in the guidelines they produce .
• You can get yourexperimental , unlicensed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheaply than under ordinary circumstances , on Covid patients in large clinical trials , but only as long as no drug is designated effective for the condition .
This opportunity only lasts while the “ standard of care ” is nothing more than supportive measures .
• You have a research organization with big Pharma members ( A.O.K.I . )
pressure the Russian Ministry of Healthto remove hydroxychloroquine from its treatment guidelines .
• You stopped use of hydroxychloroquine , allegedly in response to the fabricated Lancet study , in France , Italy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID mortality rates ) then Portugal then Switzerland .
But Switzerland restarted using HCQ 15 days later.This created a natural experiment in Switzerland .
About 2 weeks after hydroxychloroquine use was halted , death rates approximately tripled , for about 15 days .
Then , after its use was allowed again , two weeks later death rates from Covid fell back to their baseline .
( Thanks toFranceSoir : About the author : Meryl Nass , M.D .
is an internal medicine physician and activist with expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism ; her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amelioration , and safe and effective medical response .
See her You Tube interview with Gary Null , PhD on vaccine safety and corruption .
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 .

How the Fake Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created
Written by Meryl Nass, M.D.
It is remarkable that a series of events taking place over the past 3 months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine, and produced similar policies about the drug in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe.
The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, Covid-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.
Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients. And so the message was crafted that the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for Covid-19. It doesn’t make sense, but it seems to have worked.
Were these acts carefully orchestrated? You decide.
Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going? To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population? Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich? Are these events evidence of a conspiracy?
Here is a list of what happened, in no special order. Please help add to this list if you know of other actions I should include. This will be a living document, added to as new information becomes available.
I have penned this as if it is the “To Do” list of items to be accomplished by those who pull the strings. The items on the list have already been carried out. One wonders what else might be on their list, yet to be carried out, for this pandemic.
———————
You stop doctors from using the drug in ways it is most likely to be effective (in outpatients at onset of illness). You prohibit use outside of situations you can control.
Situations that were controlled to show no benefit included 3 large, randomized, multi-center clinical trials (Recovery, Solidarity and REMAP-Covid), the kind of trials that are generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence. However, each of them used excessive hydroxychloroquine doses that were known to be toxic and may have been fatal in some cases; see my previous articles here and here.
You prevent or limit use in outpatients by controlling the supply of the drug, using different methods in different countries andstates. In NY state, by order of the governor, hydroxychloroquine could only be prescribed for hospitalized patients. France has issued a series of different regulations to limit prescribers from using it. France also changed the drugs’ status from over-the-counter to a drug requiring a prescription.
You play up the danger of the drug, emphasizing side effects that are very rare when the drug is used correctly. You make sure everyone has heard about theman who died after consuming hydroxychloroquine in the form of fish tank cleaner. Yet its toxicity at approved doses is minimal. Chloroquine was added to table salt in some regions in the 1950s as a malaria preventive, according to Professor Nicholas White in his study for the Recovery trial.
You limit clinical trials to hospitalized patients, instead of testing the drug in outpatients, early in the illness,when it is predicted to be most effective.
Finally, but not until May, you have Fauci’s NIAID conduct a trial in outpatients, using hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, but you only enroll 20 patients, after earlier planning for 2,000. Only half get the drugs. You reduce the duration of followup from 24 weeks to 13 days post treatment. This ridiculously small number of subjects assures meaningless results. Who pulled the plug on this trial?
You design clinical trials to givemuch too high a dose, ensuring the drug will cause harm in some subjects, sufficient to mask any possible beneficial effect. You make sure that trials in 400 hospitals in 35 countries (Solidarity) plus most hospitals in the UK (Recovery) use these dangerous doses, as well as additional sites in 13 countries (REMAP-Covid trial).
You design clinical trials tocollect almost no safety data, so any cause of death due to drug toxicity will be attributed to the disease instead of the drug.
You issue rules for use of the drug based on theresults of the UK Recovery study, which overdosed patients. Of course the Recovery results showed more deaths in the hydroxychloroquine arm, since they gave patients 2.4 g in the first 24 hrs, 800 mg/day thereafter. Furthermore, the UK has the 2nd highest death rate in the world for Covid-19 (Belgium is 1st), so simply conducting the trial in the UK may have contributed to the poor results.
You publish, in the world’s most-read medical journal, theLancet, an observational study from a huge worldwide database (96,000 Covid cases) that says use of chloroquine drugs caused significantly increased mortality. You make sure that all major media report on this result. This was said to be the nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine. Then you have 3 European countries announce they will not allow doctors to prescribe the drug.
You do your best to ride out any controversy, never admitting culpability. Even after hundreds of people renounced theLancet’s observational study due to easily identified fabrications–the database used in the study did not exist, and the claimed numbers did not agree with known numbers of cases–the Lancet held firm for two weeks, serving to muddy the waters about the trial, until finally 3 of its 4 coauthors (but not the journal) retracted the study. But neither the authors nor the journal admitted responsibility. You make sure very few media report that the data were fabricated and the “study” was fraudulent. Even though the story was full of scandalous details, it went largely unnoticed. You make sure people believe the original story: that hydroxychloroquine routinely kills.
You ensure federal agencies like FDA and CDC hew to your desired policies. For example,FDA advised use only in hospitalized patients (too late) or in clinical trials (which are limited, are difficult to enroll in, or may use excessive doses). As of mid June, FDA advises patients and doctors to only give the drug to patients if they are in a clinical trial where, presumably, the results can be controlled.
You make sure to avoid funding/encouraging clinical trials that test drug combinations like hydroxychloroquine with zinc, with azithromycin, or with both, although there is ample clinical evidence that such combinations provide a cumulative benefit to patients. For example,one of very few studies to look at this combination had no funding.
You have federal and UN agencies make false, illogical claims based on models (or invention) rather than human data. For example, you have the FDA state on June 15 that the doserequired to treat Covid is so high it is toxic, after the Recovery and Solidarity trials have been exposed for toxic dosing. This scientific double-speak gives some legal cover to the clinical trials that overdosed their patients. According to Denise Hinton, RN, the FDA’s Chief Scientist (yes, a registered nurse without scientific qualifications is the Chief Scientist at FDA), or some clumsy FDA wordsmith:
“Under the assumption that in vivo cellular accumulation is similar to that from the in vitro cell-based assays, the calculated free lung concentrations that would result from the EUA suggested dosing regimens are well below the in vitro EC50/EC90 values, making the antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 not likely achievable with the dosing regimens recommended in the EUA. The substantial increase in dosing that would be needed to increase the likelihood of an antiviral effect would not be acceptable due to toxicity concerns.”
You have a WHO report claim toxic doses are needed. This is nonsense since:
Toxicity was noted after only 3 days of treatment, during which 3.6 grams of chloroquine were administered. But the Solidarity (3.2 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days), Recovery (3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days) and REMAP-Covid trials (3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days) continued overdosing patients until June, despite Brazil’s evidence of deaths by overdose.
Tellingly, JAMA editor Gordon Rubenfeld wrote in April, after the Brazilian study came out in JAMA, “if you are prescribing HCQ after these JAMA results, do yourself and your defense lawyer a favor. Document in your medical record that you informed the patient of the potential risks of HCQ including sudden death and its benefits (???).”
You create an NIH Guidelines committee for Covid treatment recommendations, in which16 members have or had financial entanglements with Gilead, maker of Remdesivir. The members were appointed by the Co-Chairs. Two of the three Co-Chairs are themselves financially entangled with Gilead. Are you surprised that their guidelines recommend specifically against the use of hydroxychloroquine and in favor of Remdesivir, and that they deem this the new “standard of care”?
You frighten doctors so they don’t prescribe hydroxychloroquine, if prescribing it is even allowed in their jurisdiction, because prescribing outside the newNIH “standard of care” leaves them open to malpractice lawsuits. You further tell them (through the FDA) they need to monitor a variety of lab parameters and patient EKGs when using the drug, although this was never advised before, which makes it very difficult to use the drug in outpatients. You have the European Medicines Agency issue similar warnings.
The only “safety” information collected during the trial was whether patients required oxygen, required a ventilator, or died. This effectively masked the adverse effects of the drugs tested.
I should mention that WHO’s initial plan for its Solidarity trial entirely omitted the chloroquine drugs, but they were added at the urging of participating nations. WHO’s fallback position appears to have been to use toxic doses.
You have theWHO pressure governments to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine.
You have theWHO pressure professional societies to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine.
You make sure that the most-consulted US medical encyclopedia, UptoDate,advises physicians to restrict hydroxychloroquine to only clinical trials, citing the FDA.
You convince the population that the crisis will be long-lasting. You have the 2nd richest man in the world, and biggest funder of the WHO, Bill Gates, keep repeating to the media megaphone thatwe cannot go back to normal until everyone has been vaccinated or there is a perfect drug. (The Gates Foundation helped design the WHO clinical trials, helped fund the Recovery trial, and Gates is heavily invested in Covid pharmaceuticals and vaccines.)
You have CDC (with help from FDA)prevent the purchase of coronavirus test kits from Germany, China, WHO, etc, and fail to produce a valid test kit themselves. The result was that during January and February, US cases could not be tested, and for several months thereafter insufficient and unreliable test kits made it impossible to track the epidemic and stop the spread.
You have trusted medical spokesmen lie to the public about the pandemic’s severity, so precautions weren’t taken when they might have been more effective and less long-lasting. Congress wasrepeatedly briefed about the pandemic in January and February, which scared several Congress members enough that they sold off large amounts of stock, risking insider trading charges. Senator Burr is one of them, currently under investigation for major stock sales on February 13.
Yet Dr. Fauci told USA Today on February 17 that Americans should worry more about the flu than about coronavirus, the danger of which was “just miniscule.” Then on February 28, Drs. Fauci and Robert Redfield (CDC Director) wrote in the New England Journal:
“…the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”
You destroy the reputation of respected physicians who stand in your way. Professor Didier Raoult and his team in Marseille have used hydroxychloroquine on over 4,000 patients, reporting a mortality rate of about 0.8%. (The mortality rate of patients given hydroxychloroquine in the Recovery trial was 25.7%.) Raoult is very famous for discovering over 100 different microorganisms, and finding the long-sought cause of Whipple’s Disease. With this reputation, Raoult apparently thought he could treat patients as he saw fit, which he has done, under great duress. Raoult was featured in a New York Times Magazinearticle, with his face on the magazine cover, on May 12, 2020. After describing his accomplishments, the Times very unfavorably discussed his personality, implied he conducted unethical trials without approval, and using anonymous sourcing produced a detailed hit piece. Raoult is now considered an unreliable crank in the US.
Physician and state senator Scott Jensen of Minnesota is being investigated by his state medical board due to anonymous complaints about what he said about COVID in interviews. Jensen was previously selected as “Family Physician of the Year” in his state. Now his medical license is at risk, not because of how he treated a patient, but for what he said outside of the office. Unprecedented.
You have social media platforms ban content that does not agree with the desired narrative. As YouTube CEO and ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brin, Susan Wojcickisaid,
“YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations. Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”
When your clinical trials are criticized for overdosing patients, you have Oxford-affiliated, Wellcome Trust-supported scientists at Mahidol University publish papers (aliterature review with modeling and a modeling study) purporting to show that the doses used were not toxic. You develop a new method to measure hydroxychloroquine in a handful of Recovery patients who were not poisoned. However, there are 2 problems you forgot with this approach:
The Brazilian data, including 16 deaths, extensive clinical information and documented ventricular arrhythmias, are much more persuasive than a theoretical model of hydroxychloroquine pharmacokinetics.
Either the drug is too toxic to use, even at normal doses, for a life-threatening disease, or even extremely high doses are safe. You can’t have it both ways.
Oxford is the institution running the Recovery trial, and invented a Covid vaccine that already has 400 million doses on order. The Wellcome Trust funded the Recovery trial.
You change your trial’s primary outcome measures after the trials have started, in order to prevent detection of drug-induced deaths (Recovery) or to make your drug appear to have efficacy (NIAID Remdesivir trial).
You stop manufacturers from supplying the drug. Shortly after the fraudulentLancet paper came out, Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use with Covid, and would halt its two hydroxychloroquine clinical trials. One of the cancelled Sanofi trials was expected to test 210 outpatients early in the course of disease. The trial remains suspended at the time of writing, while the Lancet paper was retracted 13 days after publication. You surely don’t want a trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment early in the disease, since it might show an excellent effect.
And see this: Novartis will supply HCQ only under certain conditions, and halted its HCQ trial due to lack of enrollments, although enrollment was not an issue for its other COVID trials.
http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/covid-19-lhydroxychloroquine-marche-une-preuve-irrefutable)
About the author: Meryl Nass, M.D. is an internal medicine physician and activist with expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism; her interest is in prevention, investigation, amelioration, and safe and effective medical response. See her You Tube interview with Gary Null, PhD on vaccine safety and corruption.
This originally appeared on Anthrax Vaccine Blogspot.
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--2020-07-23--Study illuminates fates of distant planetary atmospheres

When telescopes became powerful enough to find planets orbiting distant stars , scientists were surprised to see that a lot of them didn ’ t have atmospheres like Earth ’ s .
Instead , they appear to have thick blankets of hydrogen .
In a new study , two University of Chicago scientists investigated how those planets ‘ atmospheres evolve , and the likelihood of such planets ever acquiring an atmosphere more like ours .
By modeling thousands of simulated planets , they estimated that it would be very rare for a planet that started with a hydrogen atmosphere to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that such planets often wind up losing their atmospheres entirely .
Published July 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , the results deepen our understanding of how planetary atmospheres form and grow , and can help astronomers narrow down the best places to search for planets with Earth-like atmospheres .
“ The habitable zone for planets is on a line—a cosmic shoreline between too much and too little atmosphere , ” said Asst .
Prof. Edwin Kite , first author of the study and an expert on the history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worlds .
“ Are there lots of planets sitting along that shoreline , or are they rare ?
This is a big question in planetary science right now.
” “ We know very little about the atmospheres of rocky exoplanets , ” said Megan Barnett , a graduate student and second author of the paper .
“ The planets we ’ re looking at in this study are too close to their stars to host life , but studying them helps us understand the overall processes that make or destroy atmospheres.
” For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planets form with hydrogen atmospheres , but what happens after that initial formation is much less clear .
Do they keep that atmosphere , transition to another kind of atmosphere , or lose it entirely ?
Kite and Barnett took the information we do know , and fed it into a program to run simulations with planets of different sizes and with different kinds of atmospheres .
Then they posed different scenarios and observed what would happen to the atmospheres if , say , the nearby star ’ s brightness changes , changing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet ; or the star dims and the rock of the planet cools down ; or volcanoes erupt on the surface .
Their results suggested that if a planet starts out with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere , there are very few combinations of conditions under which it could eventually transition into an Earth-like atmosphere .
“ That really just doesn ’ t happen in our model , ” said Kite .
“ By far the most common outcome is that it loses its atmosphere and stays a bare rock forever.
” In a handful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little larger than Earth ’ s size managed to acquire and keep an Earth-like atmosphere by having a lot of volcanic eruptions that pour out gases .
Kite and Barnett also found that a planet that started out with an initial Earth-like atmosphere was more likely to keep it .
The results , the scientists said , will help guide searches for habitable planets by new telescopes such as the James Webb Space Telescope , scheduled to launch next year .
“ From our findings , it looks like if we want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we should target worlds that started out without hydrogen atmospheres , that orbit less active stars , or are unusually large , ” said Kite .

Study illuminates fates of distant planetary atmospheres
Written by University of Chicago
When telescopes became powerful enough to find planets orbiting distant stars, scientists were surprised to see that a lot of them didn’t have atmospheres like Earth’s. Instead, they appear to have thick blankets of hydrogen.
In a new study, two University of Chicago scientists investigated how those planets‘ atmospheres evolve, and the likelihood of such planets ever acquiring an atmosphere more like ours. By modeling thousands of simulated planets, they estimated that it would be very rare for a planet that started with a hydrogen atmosphere to evolve into one like Earth’s—and that such planets often wind up losing their atmospheres entirely.
Published July 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the results deepen our understanding of how planetary atmospheres form and grow, and can help astronomers narrow down the best places to search for planets with Earth-like atmospheres.
“The habitable zone for planets is on a line—a cosmic shoreline between too much and too little atmosphere,” said Asst. Prof. Edwin Kite, first author of the study and an expert on the history of Mars and the climates of other worlds. “Are there lots of planets sitting along that shoreline, or are they rare? This is a big question in planetary science right now.”
“We know very little about the atmospheres of rocky exoplanets,” said Megan Barnett, a graduate student and second author of the paper. “The planets we’re looking at in this study are too close to their stars to host life, but studying them helps us understand the overall processes that make or destroy atmospheres.”
For example, scientists know that many rocky planets form with hydrogen atmospheres, but what happens after that initial formation is much less clear. Do they keep that atmosphere, transition to another kind of atmosphere, or lose it entirely?
Kite and Barnett took the information we do know, and fed it into a program to run simulations with planets of different sizes and with different kinds of atmospheres. Then they posed different scenarios and observed what would happen to the atmospheres if, say, the nearby star’s brightness changes, changing the amount of radiation received by the planet; or the star dims and the rock of the planet cools down; or volcanoes erupt on the surface.
Their results suggested that if a planet starts out with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, there are very few combinations of conditions under which it could eventually transition into an Earth-like atmosphere. “That really just doesn’t happen in our model,” said Kite. “By far the most common outcome is that it loses its atmosphere and stays a bare rock forever.”
In a handful of cases, however, a planet a little larger than Earth’s size managed to acquire and keep an Earth-like atmosphere by having a lot of volcanic eruptions that pour out gases.
Kite and Barnett also found that a planet that started out with an initial Earth-like atmosphere was more likely to keep it.
The results, the scientists said, will help guide searches for habitable planets by new telescopes such as the James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled to launch next year.
“From our findings, it looks like if we want to find warm exoplanets with Earth-like atmospheres, we should target worlds that started out without hydrogen atmospheres, that orbit less active stars, or are unusually large,” said Kite.
Explore further Super-Earths discovered orbiting nearby red dwarf
More information: Edwin S. Kite et al. Exoplanet secondary atmosphere loss and revival, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2020). Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Edwin S. Kite et al. Exoplanet secondary atmosphere loss and revival,(2020). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2006177117
***
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--2020-07-23--COVID-19 Proving Deadly for Naysayer African Presidents

While the people of the western world occupy themselves wearing masks , pointing fingers and using so much hand sanitizer it literally kills them , the big world of Geo-Politics still ticks along , following the same tired old patterns with only slight variations in method .
A modern twist , if you will .
• The president of Burundi , Pierre Nkurunziza , dismissed covid19 as nonsense .
• The president of Burundi was vilified in the Western press .
• The president of Burundi expelled the World Health Organization from his country .
• The president of Burundi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
• The NEW president of Burundi immediately reversed his predecessor ’ s Covid19 policies .
It seems Covid19 is a disease of rare complexity .
Not only is it able to understand the importance of some social protests and avoid them entirely , it ’ s also able to sense when the world leader is inconvenient and take him out .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Defend The Scientific Method .

COVID-19 Proving Deadly for Naysayer African Presidents
Written by Off-Guardian.org
While the people of the western world occupy themselves wearing masks, pointing fingers and using so much hand sanitizer it literally kills them, the big world of Geo-Politics still ticks along, following the same tired old patterns with only slight variations in method. A modern twist, if you will.
Here’s a little summary of Burundi’s recent history:
The president of Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza, dismissed covid19 as nonsense.
The president of Burundi was vilified in the Western press.
The president of Burundi expelled the World Health Organization from his country.
The president of Burundi died suddenly of a “heart attack”.
The NEW president of Burundi immediately reversed his predecessor’s Covid19 policies.
It seems Covid19 is a disease of rare complexity. Not only is it able to understand the importance of some social protests and avoid them entirely, it’s also able to sense when the world leader is inconvenient and take him out.
Read the full article at Off-Guardian.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-23--Media Hypes Latest Polar Bear Death Scare

Google News and the establishment media are attempting to frighten people today with claims that polar bears may go extinct by 2100 .
The claims are absolute rubbish and fail the laugh test .
BBC , CBS , New Scientist , the New York Times , and Science Alert are among the many media outlets hyping the scare today .
The scare is based on a new Nature Climate Change paper titled , “ Fasting season length sets temporal limits for global polar bear persistence.
” In the paper , the authors claim , “ Our model captures demographic trends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and survival impact thresholds may already have been exceeded in some subpopulations .
… It also suggests that , with high greenhouse gas emissions , steeply declining reproduction and survival will jeopardize the persistence of all but a few high-Arctic subpopulations by 2100.
” BBC ’ s uncritical coverage of the report is typical of establishment media coverage .
In a story titled “ Climate change : Polar bears could be lost by 2100 , ” the authors write in the first two sentences of the story , “ Polar bears will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century unless more is done to tackle climate change , a study predicts .
Scientists say some populations have already reached their survival limits as the Arctic sea ice shrinks.
” However , as polar bear scientist Susan Crockford points out , the study ’ s claims are not based on data , but rather on projections based on extreme , unrealistic warming scenarios .
Also , the authors extrapolate population declines from small segments of the polar bear population across the entire polar bear range .
The Global Warming Policy Foundation recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State of the Polar Bear 2019 .
Crockford , a zoologist specializing in polar bear research and population trends , provides comprehensive evidence and data showing polar bears are doing quite fine as temperatures continue their modest warming .
Indeed , polar bear populations have been rising for more than half a century , and are likely quadruple the number that existed in the 1950s .
As real-world evidence shows something unalarming – in this case , substantial growth in polar bear populations – climate alarmists go to their usual bag of tricks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projections , and speculation to trick the general populace into believing global warming is causing a polar bear crisis .
Very dishonest , and very sad .
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 .

Media Hypes Latest Polar Bear Death Scare
Written by H Sterling Burnett
Google News and the establishment media are attempting to frighten people today with claims that polar bears may go extinct by 2100. The claims are absolute rubbish and fail the laugh test.
BBC, CBS, New Scientist, the New York Times, and Science Alert are among the many media outlets hyping the scare today.
The scare is based on a new Nature Climate Change paper titled, “Fasting season length sets temporal limits for global polar bear persistence.”
In the paper, the authors claim,
“Our model captures demographic trends observed during 1979–2016, showing that recruitment and survival impact thresholds may already have been exceeded in some subpopulations. … It also suggests that, with high greenhouse gas emissions, steeply declining reproduction and survival will jeopardize the persistence of all but a few high-Arctic subpopulations by 2100.”
BBC’s uncritical coverage of the report is typical of establishment media coverage.
In a story titled “Climate change: Polar bears could be lost by 2100,” the authors write in the first two sentences of the story,
“Polar bears will be wiped out by the end of the century unless more is done to tackle climate change, a study predicts. Scientists say some populations have already reached their survival limits as the Arctic sea ice shrinks.”
However, as polar bear scientist Susan Crockford points out, the study’s claims are not based on data, but rather on projections based on extreme, unrealistic warming scenarios.
Also, the authors extrapolate population declines from small segments of the polar bear population across the entire polar bear range.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation recently published Crockford’s report, The State of the Polar Bear 2019.
Crockford, a zoologist specializing in polar bear research and population trends, provides comprehensive evidence and data showing polar bears are doing quite fine as temperatures continue their modest warming.
Indeed, polar bear populations have been rising for more than half a century, and are likely quadruple the number that existed in the 1950s.
As real-world evidence shows something unalarming – in this case, substantial growth in polar bear populations – climate alarmists go to their usual bag of tricks and conjure up dubious computer models, projections, and speculation to trick the general populace into believing global warming is causing a polar bear crisis.
Very dishonest, and very sad.
Read more at Climate Realism
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-23--The Asthma Treatment That is Beating COVID-19

The Asthma Treatment That is Beating COVID-19 Dr. Richard Bartlett , a Dallas MD who previously advised Governor Rick Perry for 7 years has a lifesaving COVID breakthrough , that Taiwan , Japan , Singapore and Iceland are also using .
The breakthrough is an inexpensive generic drug used to help asthmatics for more than 20 years , but the US and most of the world ’ s governments are using the WHO ’ s blind acceptance of the failed China strategy .
The deaths in every state , and every country could almost stop overnight if health professionals changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NIH and CDC want to act as slow as molasses , but a small number of doctors are already doing this with their patients and they are seeing immediate success .
Will it work for every single patient ?
That remains to be seen , but many people who have used this protocol saw immediate results .
This is the same path taken by Taiwan ( 24 million people , 7 deaths ) , Japan ( 126 million , 977 deaths ) , Singapore ( 5.6 million , 26 deaths ) Iceland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Doctor and His Successes Dr. Richard Bartlett has been practicing in Texas for 28 years .
Gov .
Perry asked him to be on the Health Disparities Task Force for two years , and he stayed for seven years .
He is a regular CBS-TV health expert .
He is also a medical author , who undertakes medical missions around the world .
Dr Bartlett says he is giving his COVID-19 patients an inhaled steroid , a standard asthma treatment .
Not only is this treatment working , he says many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For best effect , this generic medicine is administered through a nebulizer machine , not an inhaler .
100 % of Dr. Bartlett ’ s patients are alive , and he has been using it since March , almost four months .
The Virus and The Medicine COVID is a respiratory inflammatory disease so an effective medicine must address respiratory inflammation .
The medicine used by Dr. Bartlett is administered as part of a trio .
First , there is an inhaled asthma medication , a steroid that costs $ 200 for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nebulizer , and it takes about 5 minutes .
In addition , Dr. Bartlett gives an antibiotic to protect from secondary infection of pneumonia , and also zinc , which fights against virus multiplication .
Here is how Dr. Bartlett explains it .
“ You plug in the machine , put the pre-mixed , pre-measured medicine from the pharmacy into the [ machine ] reservoir and push the ‘ on ’ button .
You breathe it for 5 minutes.
” “ Patients tell me they feel better during the first treatment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortness of breath goes away .
Then their fever breaks.
” This very safe medicine has been used on millions of people , including premature babies and also fragile people in nursing homes , for more than 20 years .
It has no cardiac risk .
Dr. Bertlett says “ COVID is a respiratory virus that goes into the lungs , and binds with ACE receptors in the lungs .
That triggers a cytokine storm ( inflammatory chemicals and enzymes ) all over the body.
” COVID kills some people if they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get COVID but they don ’ t even know .
For the 20 % at risk , there are treatments that are already valid and working .
Unfortunately , there are also failed protocols that are being used and repeated , killing people who did not need to die , had the right approach been taken , as Dr. Bartlett ’ s work shows .
“ There is a lot of research on this medicine already and it is very safe , ” Dr. Bartlett says .
One of Dr. Bartlett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is on chemotherapy .
After being in bed at home with a fever for 5 days , she called him and he started her on the treatment that night .
By the morning , her fever broke .
She recovered over the weekend and worked a full day on Monday , and has since had two negative COVID tests .
Another of his patients has a 50-year history of smoking , and had quadruple bypass surgery .
Even with high blood pressure and thyroid disease , this patient also had a positive result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed because the World Health Organization is promoting it .
Some countries have already realized the failure and changed to the same winning strategy used by Dr. Bartlett .
Although the treatment used by Dr. Bartlett , Singapore , Japan , and Taiwan works , and it is very low cost , the CDC and NIH allow very expensive experimental pharmaceuticals to be used by doctors .
The strategy Dr. Bartlett talks about is “ Early Testing .
Early Treatment.
” This is the same strategy the U.S. uses for cancer , heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is not the strategy promoted by WHO , which has praised the failed China strategy .
Italy followed their strategy and more than 30,000 people died there .
The failed Chinese strategy is “ wait until the house is burned 2/3 down and then seek help.
” The USA , Australia , the UK and most other countries are currently using the failed China strategy of lockdown and late intervention .
The US , at least has massively ramped up its testing regime .
The advice of many health authorities is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have mild-to-moderate symptoms .
Wait until you have severe symptoms , ” Dr Bartlett says .
Bartlett says some people go to the ER because they feel bad , but they are sent home with a positive test , and are told “ Take Tylenol and tough it out at home.
” “ That ’ s a terrible plan for any healthcare problem , especially one that can kill you , ” Bartlett says .
Dr. Fauci , the NIH , the CDC and governments around the world are pinning their hopes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doomed to failure because , just like influenza , viruses mutate all the time , and every year , the flu vaccine is changed .
This is the reason entities like the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma love vaccines so much .
They can make massive amounts of money , because it never ends – it is recurring income .
COVID-19 is just like the ‘ flu that kills more than a million people every year .
It is an inflammatory respiratory disease and there are already proven safe protocols to keep that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact that the course of action proposed by Dr. Bartlett costs $ 200 and some of the untested antivirals cost $ 30,000 plus a hospital stay says a lot about why some people push for a vaccine .
People have been conditioned to believe an annual vaccine is the answer to every problem .
In an effort to attract attention to this breakthrough information , Dr. Bartlett has written a paper that cites 51 other articles .
The problem is that papers take months to be peer-reviewed and published .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doctors could use this safe protocol now , without waiting , if they knew about it .
That ’ s the reason for this story – one more possibility of getting the information into the hands of people who can make a difference .
Dr. Bartlett isn ’ t sitting idle , either .
He is doing his best to get this information out , but governments work very slowly .
They always have and likely always will .
While governments around the world dither , people die .
Politicians are often protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their staff , who decide what they see .
We ’ re trying to get past those gatekeepers , and would appreciate your help .
This protocol may not work in every case , but the halting of new deaths in Taiwan , Japan , and Singapore shows that it is thousands of times better than what is happening in the U.S. and most other countries today .
The key is early action .
To hear the complete interview with Dr. Richard Bartlett by Debbie Georgatos on “ America Can We Talk , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the button to see the Case Study page .
Click here to visit the case study page PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The Asthma Treatment That is Beating COVID-19
Written by Alan Gray
Dr. Richard Bartlett, a Dallas MD who previously advised Governor Rick Perry for 7 years has a lifesaving COVID breakthrough, that Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Iceland are also using. The breakthrough is an inexpensive generic drug used to help asthmatics for more than 20 years, but the US and most of the world’s governments are using the WHO’s blind acceptance of the failed China strategy.
The deaths in every state, and every country could almost stop overnight if health professionals changed course immediately. For some reason, the NIH and CDC want to act as slow as molasses, but a small number of doctors are already doing this with their patients and they are seeing immediate success.
Will it work for every single patient? That remains to be seen, but many people who have used this protocol saw immediate results. This is the same path taken by Taiwan (24 million people, 7 deaths), Japan (126 million, 977 deaths), Singapore (5.6 million, 26 deaths) Iceland (341,000 population, 10 deaths).
The Doctor and His Successes
Dr. Richard Bartlett has been practicing in Texas for 28 years. Gov. Perry asked him to be on the Health Disparities Task Force for two years, and he stayed for seven years. He is a regular CBS-TV health expert. He is also a medical author, who undertakes medical missions around the world.
Dr Bartlett says he is giving his COVID-19 patients an inhaled steroid, a standard asthma treatment. Not only is this treatment working, he says many of his patients see immediate results. For best effect, this generic medicine is administered through a nebulizer machine, not an inhaler.
100% of Dr. Bartlett’s patients are alive, and he has been using it since March, almost four months.
The Virus and The Medicine
COVID is a respiratory inflammatory disease so an effective medicine must address respiratory inflammation.
The medicine used by Dr. Bartlett is administered as part of a trio. First, there is an inhaled asthma medication, a steroid that costs $200 for the complete treatment. It is administered through a nebulizer, and it takes about 5 minutes. In addition, Dr. Bartlett gives an antibiotic to protect from secondary infection of pneumonia, and also zinc, which fights against virus multiplication.
Here is how Dr. Bartlett explains it. “You plug in the machine, put the pre-mixed, pre-measured medicine from the pharmacy into the [machine] reservoir and push the ‘on’ button. You breathe it for 5 minutes.”
“Patients tell me they feel better during the first treatment. Their chest pain goes away. Their shortness of breath goes away. Then their fever breaks.”
This very safe medicine has been used on millions of people, including premature babies and also fragile people in nursing homes, for more than 20 years. It has no cardiac risk.
Why This Works
Dr. Bertlett says “COVID is a respiratory virus that goes into the lungs, and binds with ACE receptors in the lungs. That triggers a cytokine storm (inflammatory chemicals and enzymes) all over the body.”
COVID kills some people if they are not treated. 50% of people get COVID but they don’t even know. For the 20% at risk, there are treatments that are already valid and working. Unfortunately, there are also failed protocols that are being used and repeated, killing people who did not need to die, had the right approach been taken, as Dr. Bartlett’s work shows.
“There is a lot of research on this medicine already and it is very safe,” Dr. Bartlett says.
The Patients
One of Dr. Bartlett’s patients has 2 types of lymphoma and is on chemotherapy. After being in bed at home with a fever for 5 days, she called him and he started her on the treatment that night. By the morning, her fever broke. She recovered over the weekend and worked a full day on Monday, and has since had two negative COVID tests.
Another of his patients has a 50-year history of smoking, and had quadruple bypass surgery. Even with high blood pressure and thyroid disease, this patient also had a positive result.
Why Repeat The Failed China Strategy?
The failed China strategy is being followed because the World Health Organization is promoting it. Some countries have already realized the failure and changed to the same winning strategy used by Dr. Bartlett.
Although the treatment used by Dr. Bartlett, Singapore, Japan, and Taiwan works, and it is very low cost, the CDC and NIH allow very expensive experimental pharmaceuticals to be used by doctors.
The strategy Dr. Bartlett talks about is “Early Testing. Early Treatment.” This is the same strategy the U.S. uses for cancer, heart disease, stroke and other infections.
That is not the strategy promoted by WHO, which has praised the failed China strategy. Italy followed their strategy and more than 30,000 people died there.
The failed Chinese strategy is “wait until the house is burned 2/3 down and then seek help.” The USA, Australia , the UK and most other countries are currently using the failed China strategy of lockdown and late intervention. The US, at least has massively ramped up its testing regime.
Health Authority Advice
The advice of many health authorities is “Don’t seek help if you have mild-to-moderate symptoms. Wait until you have severe symptoms,” Dr Bartlett says.
Bartlett says some people go to the ER because they feel bad, but they are sent home with a positive test, and are told “Take Tylenol and tough it out at home.”
“That’s a terrible plan for any healthcare problem, especially one that can kill you,” Bartlett says.
Waiting For A Useless Vaccine
Dr. Fauci, the NIH, the CDC and governments around the world are pinning their hopes on a vaccine. That is a strategy doomed to failure because, just like influenza, viruses mutate all the time, and every year, the flu vaccine is changed. This is the reason entities like the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma love vaccines so much. They can make massive amounts of money, because it never ends – it is recurring income.
COVID-19 is just like the ‘flu that kills more than a million people every year. It is an inflammatory respiratory disease and there are already proven safe protocols to keep that kind of medical problem under control.
The fact that the course of action proposed by Dr. Bartlett costs $200 and some of the untested antivirals cost $30,000 plus a hospital stay says a lot about why some people push for a vaccine. People have been conditioned to believe an annual vaccine is the answer to every problem.
Dr. Bartlett’s Paper
In an effort to attract attention to this breakthrough information, Dr. Bartlett has written a paper that cites 51 other articles. The problem is that papers take months to be peer-reviewed and published. In the meantime, people continue to die. Doctors could use this safe protocol now, without waiting, if they knew about it. That’s the reason for this story – one more possibility of getting the information into the hands of people who can make a difference.
Dr. Bartlett isn’t sitting idle, either. He is doing his best to get this information out, but governments work very slowly. They always have and likely always will. While governments around the world dither, people die. Politicians are often protected from information like this, thanks to their staff, who decide what they see. We’re trying to get past those gatekeepers, and would appreciate your help.
This protocol may not work in every case, but the halting of new deaths in Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore shows that it is thousands of times better than what is happening in the U.S. and most other countries today. The key is early action.
To hear the complete interview with Dr. Richard Bartlett by Debbie Georgatos on “America Can We Talk,” watch the video HERE.
Click the button to see the Case Study page.
Click here to visit the case study page
Read more at newsblaze.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--2020-07-23--Hot Active Volcanoes on Venus Ready to Blow

We ’ ve known for some time now that our neighbor Venus is hell off-Earth , but new research suggests it ’ s even worse than we thought .
In addition to its toxic atmosphere and lead-melting ( literally ) temperatures , the second planet from the sun looks to be home to at least a few dozen active volcanoes belching up brimstone to add to the ambience .
“ This is the first time we are able to point to specific structures and say , ‘ Look , this is not an ancient volcano but one that is active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead , ' ” said Laurent Montési , geology professor at the University of Maryland , in a release .
“ This study significantly changes the view of Venus from a mostly inactive planet to one whose interior is still churning and can feed many active volcanoes.
” Montési is co-author of a new paper published Monday in Nature Geoscience identifying 37 “ recently active volcanic structures ” on Venus .
Perhaps ironically , geologically-active planets with hot interiors tend to be better candidates for habitability , because a molten core can also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radiation from the sun and space .
Venus , being the forsaken place it is , is the rare active planet that doesn ’ t generate its own magnetic field internally .
This planet is really about as inviting as a mouthful of razor wire .
Scientists have known there is evidence of volcanic activity on Venus for a while , but it was thought it was probably the remnants of ancient activity .
Montési and colleagues used 3D models of Venusian sub-surface activity to look at the features on the surface of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping them to identify potentially active hotspots .
The team hopes future missions to Venus could get a better look at its eruptive nature .
It may be a while , though , as many space programs are aiming for Mars right now .
However , the BepiColombo spacecraft bound for Mercury will make a pair of flybys past Venus over the next 13 months .
So maybe we ’ ll get more familiar with the worst place in the solar system soon enough .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Hot Active Volcanoes on Venus Ready to Blow
Written by Eric Mack
We’ve known for some time now that our neighbor Venus is hell off-Earth, but new research suggests it’s even worse than we thought.
In addition to its toxic atmosphere and lead-melting (literally) temperatures, the second planet from the sun looks to be home to at least a few dozen active volcanoes belching up brimstone to add to the ambience.
“This is the first time we are able to point to specific structures and say, ‘Look, this is not an ancient volcano but one that is active today, dormant perhaps, but not dead,'” said Laurent Montési, geology professor at the University of Maryland, in a release. “This study significantly changes the view of Venus from a mostly inactive planet to one whose interior is still churning and can feed many active volcanoes.”
Montési is co-author of a new paper published Monday in Nature Geoscience identifying 37 “recently active volcanic structures” on Venus.
Perhaps ironically, geologically-active planets with hot interiors tend to be better candidates for habitability, because a molten core can also power a magnetic field to deflect sterilizing radiation from the sun and space.
Venus, being the forsaken place it is, is the rare active planet that doesn’t generate its own magnetic field internally. This planet is really about as inviting as a mouthful of razor wire.
Scientists have known there is evidence of volcanic activity on Venus for a while, but it was thought it was probably the remnants of ancient activity.
Montési and colleagues used 3D models of Venusian sub-surface activity to look at the features on the surface of the planet in a new way, helping them to identify potentially active hotspots.
The team hopes future missions to Venus could get a better look at its eruptive nature. It may be a while, though, as many space programs are aiming for Mars right now.
However, the BepiColombo spacecraft bound for Mercury will make a pair of flybys past Venus over the next 13 months. So maybe we’ll get more familiar with the worst place in the solar system soon enough.
Read more at www.cnet.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--2020-07-24--In the Pest Control War Scientists Turn Female Mosquitos into Males

In the Pest Control War Scientists Turn Female Mosquitos into Males Virginia Tech researchers have proven that a single gene can convert female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes into fertile male mosquitoes and identified a gene needed for male mosquito flight .
Male mosquitoes do not bite and are unable to transmit pathogens to humans .
Female mosquitoes , on the other hand , are able to bite .
Female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes require blood to produce eggs , making them the prime carriers of the pathogens that cause Zika and dengue fever in humans .
“ The presence of a male-determining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ male sex in Aedes aegypti and the M locus is only inherited by the male offspring , much like the human Y chromosome , ” said Zhijian Tu , a professor in the Department of Biochemistry in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences .
“ By inserting Nix , a previously discovered male-determining gene in the M locus of Aedes aegypti , into a chromosomal region that can be inherited by females , we showed that Nix alone was sufficient to convert females to fertile males .
This may have implications for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .
“ We also discovered that a second gene , named myo-sex , was needed for male flight .
This work sheds light into the molecular basis of the function of the M locus , which contains at least 30 genes , ” said Azadeh Aryan , a research scientist in Tu ’ s lab and the first author on the paper .
James Biedler ( left ) , a research scientist in Zhijian Tu ’ s lab ; Azadeh Aryan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the paper and a research scientist in Zhijian Tu ’ s lab ; and Maria Sharakhova ( right ) , an assistant professor of entomology , discuss genetics in front of a dry erase board .
Photo courtesy of Alex Crookshanks for Virginia Tech.Aryan and colleagues generated and characterized multiple transgenic mosquito lines that expressed an extra copy of the Nix gene under the control of its own promoter .
Maria Sharakhova , an assistant professor of entomology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences , and Anastasia Naumencko , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chromosomal insertion site of the extra copy of Nix .
The Virginia Tech team , in collaboration with Zach Adelman ’ s lab in the Department of Entomology at Texas A & M University and Chunhong Mao of the Biocomplexity Institute & Initiative at the University of Virginia , found that the Nix transgene alone , even without the M locus , was sufficient to convert females into males with male-specific sexually dimorphic features and male-like gene expression .
“ Nix-mediated sex conversion was found to be highly penetrant and stable over many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these characteristics will be inherited for generations to come , ” said Michelle Anderson , a former member of the Adelman and Tu labs and currently a senior research scientist at the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom .
Although the Nix gene was able to convert the females into males , the converted males could not fly as they did not inherit the myo-sex gene , which is also located in the M locus .
Knocking out myo-sex in wild-type males confirmed that the lack of myo-sex in the sex-converted males is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Although flight is needed for mating , the sex-converted males were still able to father viable sex-converted progeny when presented with cold-anesthetized wild-type females .
Michelle Anderson ( left ) and Azadeh Aryan ( right ) are seen performing experiments in the insectary in 2016 .
“ Nix has great potential for developing mosquito control strategies to reduce vector populations through female-to-male sex conversion , or to aid in the Sterile Insect Technique , which requires releasing only nonbiting males , ” said James Biedler , a research scientist in the Tu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mating to control mosquitoes target only one specific species .
In this case , the Tu team is targeting Aedes aegypti , a species that invaded the Americas a few hundred years ago and poses a threat to humans .
However , more research is needed before potentially useful transgenic lines can be generated for initial testing in laboratory cages .
“ One of the challenges is to produce transgenic lines that convert females into fertile , flying male mosquitoes by inserting both the Nix and myo-sex genes into their genome together , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team looks to the near future , they wish to explore the mechanism by which the Nix gene activates the male developmental pathway .
The team is also interested in learning about how it evolves within mosquito species of the same genus .
“ We have found that the Nix gene is present in other Aedes mosquitoes .
The question is : how did this gene and the sex-determining locus evolve in mosquitoes ?
” said Tu , who is also an affiliated faculty member of the Fralin Life Sciences Institute .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nix gene in mosquitoes , researchers hope that these findings will inform future investigations into homomorphic sex chromosomes that are found in other insects , vertebrates , and plants .
Yumin Qi , a research scientist at Virginia Tech , and Justin Overcash , a former graduate student at both Virginia Tech and Texas A & M University , also contributed to this research .
Publication : Nix alone is sufficient to convert female Aedes aegypti into fertile males and myo-sex is needed for male flight .
Azadeh Aryan , Michelle A.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yumin Qi , Justin M. Overcash , Anastasia N. Naumenko , Maria V. Sharakhova , Chunhong Mao , Zach N. Adelman , Zhijian Tu .
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2020 ; 202001132 DOI : 10.1073/pnas.2001132117 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 .

In the Pest Control War Scientists Turn Female Mosquitos into Males
Written by Kristin Rose Jutras and Kendall Daniels
Virginia Tech researchers have proven that a single gene can convert female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes into fertile male mosquitoes and identified a gene needed for male mosquito flight.
Male mosquitoes do not bite and are unable to transmit pathogens to humans. Female mosquitoes, on the other hand, are able to bite.
Female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes require blood to produce eggs, making them the prime carriers of the pathogens that cause Zika and dengue fever in humans.
“The presence of a male-determining locus (M locus) establishes the male sex in Aedes aegypti and the M locus is only inherited by the male offspring, much like the human Y chromosome,” said Zhijian Tu, a professor in the Department of Biochemistry in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. “By inserting Nix, a previously discovered male-determining gene in the M locus of Aedes aegypti, into a chromosomal region that can be inherited by females, we showed that Nix alone was sufficient to convert females to fertile males. This may have implications for developing future mosquito control techniques.” These findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “We also discovered that a second gene, named myo-sex, was needed for male flight. This work sheds light into the molecular basis of the function of the M locus, which contains at least 30 genes,” said Azadeh Aryan, a research scientist in Tu’s lab and the first author on the paper.
James Biedler (left), a research scientist in Zhijian Tu’s lab; Azadeh Aryan (middle), the first author on the paper and a research scientist in Zhijian Tu’s lab; and Maria Sharakhova (right), an assistant professor of entomology, discuss genetics in front of a dry erase board.
Photo courtesy of Alex Crookshanks for Virginia Tech.Aryan and colleagues generated and characterized multiple transgenic mosquito lines that expressed an extra copy of the Nix gene under the control of its own promoter. Maria Sharakhova, an assistant professor of entomology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and Anastasia Naumencko, a former graduate research assistant, mapped the chromosomal insertion site of the extra copy of Nix. The Virginia Tech team, in collaboration with Zach Adelman’s lab in the Department of Entomology at Texas A&M University and Chunhong Mao of the Biocomplexity Institute & Initiative at the University of Virginia, found that the Nix transgene alone, even without the M locus, was sufficient to convert females into males with male-specific sexually dimorphic features and male-like gene expression. “Nix-mediated sex conversion was found to be highly penetrant and stable over many generations in the laboratory, meaning that these characteristics will be inherited for generations to come,” said Michelle Anderson, a former member of the Adelman and Tu labs and currently a senior research scientist at the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom. Although the Nix gene was able to convert the females into males, the converted males could not fly as they did not inherit the myo-sex gene, which is also located in the M locus. Knocking out myo-sex in wild-type males confirmed that the lack of myo-sex in the sex-converted males is the reason why they could not fly. Although flight is needed for mating, the sex-converted males were still able to father viable sex-converted progeny when presented with cold-anesthetized wild-type females.
Michelle Anderson (left) and Azadeh Aryan (right) are seen performing experiments in the insectary in 2016.
Photo courtesy of Avery Stolte. “Nix has great potential for developing mosquito control strategies to reduce vector populations through female-to-male sex conversion, or to aid in the Sterile Insect Technique, which requires releasing only nonbiting males,” said James Biedler, a research scientist in the Tu lab. Genetic methods that rely on mating to control mosquitoes target only one specific species. In this case, the Tu team is targeting Aedes aegypti, a species that invaded the Americas a few hundred years ago and poses a threat to humans. However, more research is needed before potentially useful transgenic lines can be generated for initial testing in laboratory cages. “One of the challenges is to produce transgenic lines that convert females into fertile, flying male mosquitoes by inserting both the Nix and myo-sex genes into their genome together,” said Adelman. As the Tu team looks to the near future, they wish to explore the mechanism by which the Nix gene activates the male developmental pathway. The team is also interested in learning about how it evolves within mosquito species of the same genus. “We have found that the Nix gene is present in other Aedes mosquitoes. The question is: how did this gene and the sex-determining locus evolve in mosquitoes?” said Tu, who is also an affiliated faculty member of the Fralin Life Sciences Institute. In addition to diving into the depths of the Nix gene in mosquitoes, researchers hope that these findings will inform future investigations into homomorphic sex chromosomes that are found in other insects, vertebrates, and plants. Yumin Qi, a research scientist at Virginia Tech, and Justin Overcash, a former graduate student at both Virginia Tech and Texas A&M University, also contributed to this research. Contacts and sources: Kristin Rose Jutras and Kendall Daniels Virginia Tech Publication: Nix alone is sufficient to convert female Aedes aegypti into fertile males and myo-sex is needed for male flight. Azadeh Aryan, Michelle A. E. Anderson, James K. Biedler, Yumin Qi, Justin M. Overcash, Anastasia N. Naumenko, Maria V. Sharakhova, Chunhong Mao, Zach N. Adelman, Zhijian Tu. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2020; 202001132 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2001132117 **** 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--2020-07-24--CDC: Masks Offer ‘no significant reduction’ in Flu Transmission

Dr. Anthony Fauci recently said he opposed conducting studies to determine whether face masks are effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19 .
Is it because he already knows that the studies would put the lie to the whole mask-mandate regime ?
During a July 14 conversation with students at Georgetown University ’ s Institute of Politics and Public Service , Fauci was asked by a student if it was possible to conduct studies to learn whether masks are effective .
“ What kind of studies can we do right now in the middle of the pandemic about masks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student asked .
“ Or are we just relying on anecdotal evidence because we are not able to do those kind of studies right now ?
” “ Right now , ” replied Fauci , “ I ’ m convinced enough in the summation and totality of the data that has been analyzed by meta-analysis that … the benefit of wearing a mask clearly is there and is better than not wearing a mask.
” Fauci went on to suggest it would be unethical to perform a “ randomized controlled study ” — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — “ because that would mean having people not wear masks and see if they do better.
” But is Fauci ’ s real concern protecting the health of potential study participants or preventing the truth from getting out ?
As it turns out , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) has already reviewed a number of studies concerning the efficacy of masks in preventing transmission of flu viruses — exactly the sort of “ meta-analysis ” that Fauci claimed proved masks worked — and found that masks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not have “ a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
” The CDC ’ s analysis , published in the May issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases , “ review [ ed ] the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in non-healthcare settings and discuss [ ed ] their potential inclusion in pandemic plans.
” The overall conclusion , according to the abstract : “ Evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.
” The CDC identified 10 randomized controlled studies on “ the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community ” published between 1946 and 2018 .
“ In pooled analysis , ” they wrote , “ we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.
” As to surgical masks , the CDC noted that they “ were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids , ” not to stop the spread of infectious diseases .
Indeed , penned the CDC , “ There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.
” Fauci has to be aware of this .
In fact , he and many other government officials were telling Americans a few months ago that they didn ’ t need to wear masks , only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point that masks are now being mandated in many states .
The same thing happened in other countries and even at the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , which suddenly went from saying masks weren ’ t effective to saying everyone should wear one .
Throughout this period , the scientific evidence has not changed .
What has changed is the political climate , in which leaders of supposedly free nations and states , drunk on power , desired to emulate ever more closely the Chinese communists ’ coronavirus policies .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deborah Cohen , tweeted that the WHO had changed its advice “ due to political lobbying , ” an accusation the WHO “ did not deny.
” It is telling , too , that Royal Society president Venki Ramakrishnan , the chief spokesman for the scientific community in the United Kingdom , also dismissed randomized controlled trials of masks as “ methodological fetishism.
” As scientists , Fauci and Ramakrishnan have nothing to fear from rigorous mask studies .
But their status as political movers and shakers is also at stake , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the test indicates which role they value more .
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 .

CDC: Masks Offer ‘no significant reduction’ in Flu Transmission
Written by Michael Tennant
Dr. Anthony Fauci recently said he opposed conducting studies to determine whether face masks are effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19. Is it because he already knows that the studies would put the lie to the whole mask-mandate regime?
During a July 14 conversation with students at Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service, Fauci was asked by a student if it was possible to conduct studies to learn whether masks are effective.
“What kind of studies can we do right now in the middle of the pandemic about masks and transmission of the disease?” the student asked. “Or are we just relying on anecdotal evidence because we are not able to do those kind of studies right now?”
“Right now,” replied Fauci, “I’m convinced enough in the summation and totality of the data that has been analyzed by meta-analysis that … the benefit of wearing a mask clearly is there and is better than not wearing a mask.”
Fauci went on to suggest it would be unethical to perform a “randomized controlled study” — the most scientifically valuable type of study — “because that would mean having people not wear masks and see if they do better.”
But is Fauci’s real concern protecting the health of potential study participants or preventing the truth from getting out?
As it turns out, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has already reviewed a number of studies concerning the efficacy of masks in preventing transmission of flu viruses — exactly the sort of “meta-analysis” that Fauci claimed proved masks worked — and found that masks and certain other practices recommended by health authorities did not have “a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
The CDC’s analysis, published in the May issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases, “review[ed] the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in non-healthcare settings and discuss[ed] their potential inclusion in pandemic plans.”
The overall conclusion, according to the abstract: “Evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” Moreover, there is only “limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.”
The CDC identified 10 randomized controlled studies on “the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community” published between 1946 and 2018. “In pooled analysis,” they wrote, “we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”
As to surgical masks, the CDC noted that they “were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids,” not to stop the spread of infectious diseases. Indeed, penned the CDC, “There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.”
Fauci has to be aware of this. In fact, he and many other government officials were telling Americans a few months ago that they didn’t need to wear masks, only to reverse course later on, to the point that masks are now being mandated in many states. The same thing happened in other countries and even at the World Health Organization (WHO), which suddenly went from saying masks weren’t effective to saying everyone should wear one.
Throughout this period, the scientific evidence has not changed. What has changed is the political climate, in which leaders of supposedly free nations and states, drunk on power, desired to emulate ever more closely the Chinese communists’ coronavirus policies. The BBC2’s Newsnight medical correspondent, Deborah Cohen, tweeted that the WHO had changed its advice “due to political lobbying,” an accusation the WHO “did not deny.”
It is telling, too, that Royal Society president Venki Ramakrishnan, the chief spokesman for the scientific community in the United Kingdom, also dismissed randomized controlled trials of masks as “methodological fetishism.”
As scientists, Fauci and Ramakrishnan have nothing to fear from rigorous mask studies. But their status as political movers and shakers is also at stake, and their reluctance to put their prescriptions to the test indicates which role they value more.
Read more at www.thenewamerican.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