principiascientificinternational--2020-04-22--What You Are Not Being Told About the COVID-19 Lockdown – Part 1

What You Are Not Being Told About the COVID-19 Lockdown – Part 1 We have been given a very clear narrative about the declared coronavirus pandemic .
The UK State has passed legislation , in the form of the Coronavirus Act , to compel people to self isolate and practice social distancing in order to delay the spread of SARS-CoV-2 ( SC2 ) .
We are told this “ lockdown ” – a common prison term , is essential .
We are also told that SC2 has been clearly identified to be the virus which causes the COVID 19 syndrome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is said to have infected 60,733 people with 7,097 people supposedly dying of COVID 19 in the UK .
This case fatality ration ( CFR ) of 11.7 % is seemingly one of the worst in the world .
Furthermore , with just 135 people recovered , the recovery rate in the UK is inexplicably low .
Some reading this may baulk at use of words like “ seemingly ” and “ alleged ” in reference to these statistics .
The mainstream media ( MSM ) have been leading the charge to cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus narrative as putting lives at risk .
The claim being that questioning what we are told by the State , its officials and the MSM undermines the lockdown .
The lockdown is , we are told , essential to save lives .
It is possible both to support the precautionary principle and question the lockdown .
Questioning the scientific and statistical evidence base , supposedly justifying the complete removal of our civil liberties , does not mean those doing so care nothing for their fellow citizens .
On the contrary , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of the lockdown on everyone .
It is desperately sad to see people blindly support their own house arrest while attacking anyone who questions the necessity for it .
The knee jerk reaction , assuming any questioning of the lockdown demonstrates a cavalier , uncaring disregard is puerile .
Grown adults shouldn ’ t simply believe everything they are told like mindless idiots .
Critical thinking and asking questions is never “ bad ” under any circumstances whatsoever .
Only the State , with the unwavering support of its MSM propaganda operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a system can not withstand questioning it suggests it is built upon shaky foundations and probably not worth maintaining .
Yet perhaps it is what we are not told that is more telling .
Among the many things we are not told is how many lives the lockdown will ruin and end prematurely .
Are these lives irrelevant ?
We are not told the evidence for the existence of a virus called SARS-CoV-2 is highly questionable and the tests for it unreliable ; we are not told that the numbers of deaths reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seemingly deliberately so ; we are not told that these deaths are well within the normal range of excess winter mortality and we are not told that in previous years excess winter deaths have been higher than they are now .
We didn ’ t need to destroy the economy in response to those , far worse , periods of loss so why do we need to do so for this ?
We will look at this in more detail in Part 2 .
Before we address what we are not being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the MSM is spreading disinformation .
On February 22nd one rag printed a story which absurdly alleged , without a shred of evidence , that Russia was somehow deliberately spreading disinformation about coronavirus .
It reported this uncritically , questioning nothing .
Their opening paragraph read : On March 10th the same rag reported another story about disinformation in which it was noted : The irony shouldn ’ t be overlooked .
Directly contradicting their own previous disinformation , this MSM pulp assumes we are all so stupid we won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The UK ’ s national broadcaster the BBC is perhaps the worst of all the disinformation propagandists .
The sheer volume of disinformation they are pumping out is quite breathtaking .
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights spells out what freedom of expression means .
All human beings are born free with equal dignity and rights .
All are afforded these rights without any distinction at all .
Article 19 states : The BBC , who obviously couldn ’ t care less about human rights , gleefully supported the censorship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They did so by spreading disinformation .
Icke raised concerns about the possible link between 5G and the spread of coronavirus .
He did not incite violence , as suggested in the BBC ’ s disinformation .
The BBC misled the public utterly when they stated : While I agree with the BBC that there is no evidence of a link between 5G and the apparent coronavirus , we certainly can ’ t rule it out .
Because the second half of their statement , that there is no evidence that mobile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mendacious deceit .
There is a wealth of evidence of that risk .
The leading medical journal The Lancet noted these risks in 2018 : Why are the BBC so willing to mislead the public and expose them to unnecessary health harms ?
Is it deliberate or are they just shoddy journalists ?
Either way , quite clearly they are habitual pedlars of disinformation .
They appear to no better than the worst clickbait sites that have proliferated over recent years .
The MSM is responsible for the majority of misinformation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must diligently verify every claim they make and check the evidence ourselves .
They are not to be trusted .
As the BBC quite rightly points out : The UK State has been keen to insist that we all believe their lockdown response is led by the science .
However they have cherry picked the science to roll out the lockdown and ignored the considerable scientific evidence which contradicts it .
Both the UK and U.S. governments used the computer models of Imperial College London ( ICL ) , predicting millions of deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil liberties .
Almost as soon as the lockdown was in place the scientists , having launched their vaccine research fund raiser , downgraded their projections from an estimated 550,000 deaths in the UK to 20,000 or even lower .
Neil Furguson , the lead scientist responsible for the initial ICL report stated that they had revised the figures because of the effectiveness of the lockdown safety measures .
Claiming the lockdown would need to last for at least 18 months until a vaccine is found .
ICL are grant recipients of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have shown no interests at all in researching possible preventative treatments , reducing the need for a vaccine , such as hydroxychloroquine .
The initial ICL computer models were based upon unproven assumptions .
They assumed that SC2 would spread like influenza .
This was contrary to the findings of the World Health Organisation who stated both that SC2 did not appear to spread as quickly as influenza and was less virulent .
The WHO found up to a 20 % infection rate , where people were exposed to SC2 in crowded settings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % infection rate in the community .
This was nothing like the spread of the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic .
However , publishing their paper on March 16th , the ICL completely ignored the WHO research which was published a month earlier and stated , without any justification whatsoever : Public Health England ( PHE ) disagreed with ICL ’ s evidence free assumptions and downgraded COVID 19 from a High Consequence Infectious Disease ( HCID ) , due to relatively low mortality rates .
However , ignoring both the WHO and PHE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ICL knew what they were talking about .
Cherry-picking their highly dubious research , they insisted the lockdown was necessary to “ flatten the curve ” and , in the UK , protect the NHS .
The science the State has chosen to believe is the minority view it seems .
Epidemiologists , epidemiological statisticians , microbiologists , mathematicians and many other scientists and academics the world over have repeatedly warned that the lockdown is precisely the wrong thing to do .
COVID 19 , the disease supposedly caused by SC2 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad cough or cold by the vast majority of relatively healthy people .
Dr Knut M. Wittkowski ( Ph.D ) is among the growing number of globally renowned scientists who question what we are told by the State and its MSM .
In regard to both SC2 and COVID 19 .
Such scientists and academics are all completely ignored by the State .
Yet they believe others , such as Professor Neil Ferguson and Professor Karine Lacombe without hesitation .
Perhaps it is just a coincidence that the scientists the State chooses to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the globalist foundations and pharmaceutical corporations developing the vaunted coronavirus vaccine .
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THE CORONAVIRUS LOCKDOWN ?
Those who reject all criticiam of the lockdown , and simply accept whatever the State tells them , presumably believe the State only has our best interests at heart and would never do anything to harm us .
Perhaps they believe that to question the claims of the State can only ever be conspiracy theory .
Certainly that ’ s the message constantly reinforced by the MSM .
However , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequently deceives the public .
We only need look to the WMD lies told to start an illegal Iraq war in 2003 to understand that the State is willing to further the interests of the powerful and cares little about lives lost in the effort .
Therefore , in the UK , it is worth recapping what it is we are consenting to with the Coronavirus Act : We consent to increased State surveillance of ourselves and our family .
We are happy that we could be detained , without charge , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they suspect , we may be infected .
It is fine with us that we or our loved ones can be sectioned under the Mental Health Act on the recommendation of a single doctor and neither we nor they need to have the protection of a second opinion before we are locked up .
We accept that the state can retain our biometric data and fingerprints for an extended period .
We consent that jury trials are a bit of an anachronism and Judges can hear more evidence by video or even audio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evidence required , and processes undertaken , to determine and record our or our loved one ’ s deaths can be eroded to the point where they can be registered by people with no medical or legal expertise at all .
We don ’ t think the NHS needs to adhere to practice standards or bother with assessing the needs of some patients , especially older people .
We are also fine with the complete suspension of democracy in Britain .
We accept all of this based upon a unique subset of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known scientific principle , can never be questioned .
We agree with the MSM that people who question any aspect of the stories they tell us are dangerous because these people just don ’ t care if their own loved ones die .
Only true believers care about their families .
We also accept the need for the State to invest considerable resources creating counter disinformation units whose purpose is to censor anything and everything which questions our firmly held beliefs .
The beliefs informed by the many of the same people doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know about you , but I remain unconvinced by the evidence I ’ ve seen so far .
I have no doubt that there is a health crisis and excess seasonal deaths , but I have seen no evidence at all that the numbers are unprecedented or unusual in any way .
Evidence we will explore in greater detail in Part 2 .
I accept that we should exercise the precautionary principle and take steps to limit the risks to the most vulnerable but I do not accept that the lockdown is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nor do I see any necessity at all for all the other dictatorial clauses in the Coronavirus Act .
I do not consent .
If you think this will all be over soon and won ’ t get worse I ’ m afraid you may be disappointing .
The UK state have based this lockdown on the scientific rubbish spewed out by ICL .
Here ’ s another one of the ICL ’ s recommendations : There is nothing to suggest this isn ’ t the intention of the State .
Certainly voices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desire for an 18 month lockdown .
Apparently taking their cue directly from the discredited ICL report and steadfastly ignoring everything else .
Nor should we assume the draconian powers seized by the state won ’ t get worse .
Most of this response is being driven by globalist policy emanating , on this occasion , from the World Health Organisation .
Speaking at the daily WHO press briefing on the March 30th Dr. Michael Ryan , Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme , said : Given that we now live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no reason to believe that states across the globe won ’ t use this as justification to start removing people from their homes .
My hope is that sense will prevail and , as it becomes clear the pandemic is waning , public pressure will mount to repeal this dictatorial legislation .
However , given some of the comments I have seen on social media over the last two weeks , the panic buying and attacks upon anyone questioning the State ’ s narrative , it seems many people are so frightened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is trying to save them .
This fear is based upon apparent ignorance of the economic severity of the lockdown and the monumental health risk it poses .
People don ’ t seem to want to know there is considerable doubt the Coronavirus Act is even legal in international law .
There is also doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is an identifiable virus and the statistics we are given may well be based upon tests that can ’ t identify it anyway .
There is evidence that the statistics we have been given have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there is no evidence these excess deaths are “ unprecedented.
” If you are among the few willing to look at this evidence I hope you will read part 2 of this article series .
Coming soon .
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 .

What You Are Not Being Told About the COVID-19 Lockdown – Part 1
Written by Iain Davis, Off-Guardian.org
We have been given a very clear narrative about the declared coronavirus pandemic.
The UK State has passed legislation, in the form of the Coronavirus Act, to compel people to self isolate and practice social distancing in order to delay the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (SC2).
We are told this “lockdown” – a common prison term, is essential. We are also told that SC2 has been clearly identified to be the virus which causes the COVID 19 syndrome.
Necessary? Lawful?
At the time of writing SC2 is said to have infected 60,733 people with 7,097 people supposedly dying of COVID 19 in the UK. This case fatality ration (CFR) of 11.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} is seemingly one of the worst in the world. Furthermore, with just 135 people recovered, the recovery rate in the UK is inexplicably low.
Some reading this may baulk at use of words like “seemingly” and “alleged” in reference to these statistics. The mainstream media (MSM) have been leading the charge to cast anyone who questions the State’s coronavirus narrative as putting lives at risk. The claim being that questioning what we are told by the State, its officials and the MSM undermines the lockdown. The lockdown is, we are told, essential to save lives.
It is possible both to support the precautionary principle and question the lockdown. Questioning the scientific and statistical evidence base, supposedly justifying the complete removal of our civil liberties, does not mean those doing so care nothing for their fellow citizens. On the contrary, many of us are extremely concerned about the impact of the lockdown on everyone. It is desperately sad to see people blindly support their own house arrest while attacking anyone who questions the necessity for it.
Exercise? Yes / No?
The knee jerk reaction, assuming any questioning of the lockdown demonstrates a cavalier, uncaring disregard is puerile. Grown adults shouldn’t simply believe everything they are told like mindless idiots. Critical thinking and asking questions is never “bad” under any circumstances whatsoever.
Only the State, with the unwavering support of its MSM propaganda operation, enforces unanimity of thought. If a system cannot withstand questioning it suggests it is built upon shaky foundations and probably not worth maintaining.
Yet perhaps it is what we are not told that is more telling.
Among the many things we are not told is how many lives the lockdown will ruin and end prematurely. Are these lives irrelevant?
We are not told the evidence for the existence of a virus called SARS-CoV-2 is highly questionable and the tests for it unreliable; we are not told that the numbers of deaths reportedly caused by COVID 19 is statistically vague, seemingly deliberately so; we are not told that these deaths are well within the normal range of excess winter mortality and we are not told that in previous years excess winter deaths have been higher than they are now.
We didn’t need to destroy the economy in response to those, far worse, periods of loss so why do we need to do so for this?
We will look at this in more detail in Part 2.
UNDERSTANDING MAINSTREAM MEDIA DISINFORMATION
Before we address what we are not being told it’s worth looking at how the MSM is spreading disinformation. On February 22nd one rag printed a story which absurdly alleged, without a shred of evidence, that Russia was somehow deliberately spreading disinformation about coronavirus. It reported this uncritically, questioning nothing. Their opening paragraph read:
Thousands of Russian-linked social media accounts have launched a coordinated effort to spread misinformation and alarm about coronavirus, disrupting global efforts to fight the epidemic, US officials have said.”
On March 10th the same rag reported another story about disinformation in which it was noted:
Disinformation experts say, there remains little evidence of concerted efforts to spread falsehoods about the virus, suggesting that the misleading information in circulation is spread primarily through grassroots chatter.”
The irony shouldn’t be overlooked. Directly contradicting their own previous disinformation, this MSM pulp assumes we are all so stupid we won’t notice their perpetual spin and evidence-free claims. The UK’s national broadcaster the BBC is perhaps the worst of all the disinformation propagandists. The sheer volume of disinformation they are pumping out is quite breathtaking.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights spells out what freedom of expression means. All human beings are born free with equal dignity and rights. All are afforded these rights without any distinction at all. Article 19 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
The BBC, who obviously couldn’t care less about human rights, gleefully supported the censorship of so called conspiracy theorist David Icke. They did so by spreading disinformation. Icke raised concerns about the possible link between 5G and the spread of coronavirus. He did not incite violence, as suggested in the BBC’s disinformation. The BBC misled the public utterly when they stated:
“Conspiracy theories linking 5G signals to the coronavirus pandemic continue to spread despite there being no evidence the mobile phone signals pose a health risk.”
While I agree with the BBC that there is no evidence of a link between 5G and the apparent coronavirus, we certainly can’t rule it out. Because the second half of their statement, that there is no evidence that mobile signals pose a health risk, was a mendacious deceit.
There is a wealth of evidence of that risk.
The leading medical journal The Lancet noted these risks in 2018:
…mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects.”
Why are the BBC so willing to mislead the public and expose them to unnecessary health harms? Is it deliberate or are they just shoddy journalists?
Either way, quite clearly they are habitual pedlars of disinformation. They appear to no better than the worst clickbait sites that have proliferated over recent years.
The MSM is responsible for the majority of misinformation and disinformation circulating at the moment. We must diligently verify every claim they make and check the evidence ourselves. They are not to be trusted. As the BBC quite rightly points out:
STOP BEFORE YOU SHARE
CHECK YOUR SOURCES
(If it’s the MSM check to see if they offer any evidence at all or if it’s just their opinion. If it’s their opinion ignore it. It’s almost certainly unfounded)
PAUSE IF YOU FEEL EMOTIONAL
(If you do feel emotional you have probably just been manipulated by the MSM)
“SCIENCE LED” MEANS CHERRY PICKING SCIENCE
The UK State has been keen to insist that we all believe their lockdown response is led by the science. However they have cherry picked the science to roll out the lockdown and ignored the considerable scientific evidence which contradicts it. Both the UK and U.S. governments used the computer models of Imperial College London (ICL), predicting millions of deaths, to justify the removal of our civil liberties.
Almost as soon as the lockdown was in place the scientists, having launched their vaccine research fund raiser, downgraded their projections from an estimated 550,000 deaths in the UK to 20,000 or even lower. Neil Furguson, the lead scientist responsible for the initial ICL report stated that they had revised the figures because of the effectiveness of the lockdown safety measures.
Claiming the lockdown would need to last for at least 18 months until a vaccine is found. ICL are grant recipients of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They have shown no interests at all in researching possible preventative treatments, reducing the need for a vaccine, such as hydroxychloroquine.
The initial ICL computer models were based upon unproven assumptions. They assumed that SC2 would spread like influenza. This was contrary to the findings of the World Health Organisation who stated both that SC2 did not appear to spread as quickly as influenza and was less virulent.
The WHO found up to a 20{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} infection rate, where people were exposed to SC2 in crowded settings for prolonged periods, and a 1-5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} infection rate in the community. This was nothing like the spread of the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.
However, publishing their paper on March 16th, the ICL completely ignored the WHO research which was published a month earlier and stated, without any justification whatsoever:
COVID-19, a virus with comparable lethality to H1N1 influenza in 1918”
Dr Knut M. Wittkowski
Public Health England (PHE) disagreed with ICL’s evidence free assumptions and downgraded COVID 19 from a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID), due to relatively low mortality rates.
However, ignoring both the WHO and PHE, the UK and US decided only the ICL knew what they were talking about. Cherry-picking their highly dubious research, they insisted the lockdown was necessary to “flatten the curve” and, in the UK, protect the NHS.
The science the State has chosen to believe is the minority view it seems. Epidemiologists, epidemiological statisticians, microbiologists, mathematicians and many other scientists and academics the world over have repeatedly warned that the lockdown is precisely the wrong thing to do.
COVID 19, the disease supposedly caused by SC2, is experienced as little more than a bad cough or cold by the vast majority of relatively healthy people. Dr Knut M. Wittkowski (Ph.D) is among the growing number of globally renowned scientists who question what we are told by the State and its MSM. In regard to both SC2 and COVID 19.
Dr Wittkowski stated:
“With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity. About 80{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the people need to have had contact with the virus. it’s very important to keep the schools open and kids mingling to spread the virus to get herd immunity as fast as possible, and then the elderly people, who should be separated, and the nursing homes should be closed during that time, can come back and meet their children and grandchildren after about 4 weeks when the virus has been exterminated….If we had herd immunity now, there couldn’t be a second wave in autumn.”
Such scientists and academics are all completely ignored by the State. Yet they believe others, such as Professor Neil Ferguson and Professor Karine Lacombe without hesitation. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that the scientists the State chooses to believe overwhelmingly appear to have close links to the globalist foundations and pharmaceutical corporations developing the vaunted coronavirus vaccine.
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THE CORONAVIRUS LOCKDOWN?
Those who reject all criticiam of the lockdown, and simply accept whatever the State tells them, presumably believe the State only has our best interests at heart and would never do anything to harm us. Perhaps they believe that to question the claims of the State can only ever be conspiracy theory.
Certainly that’s the message constantly reinforced by the MSM.
However, there is also plenty of evidence that the State frequently deceives the public. We only need look to the WMD lies told to start an illegal Iraq war in 2003 to understand that the State is willing to further the interests of the powerful and cares little about lives lost in the effort.
Therefore, in the UK, it is worth recapping what it is we are consenting to with the Coronavirus Act:
We consent to increased State surveillance of ourselves and our family.
We are happy that we could be detained, without charge, because some state official suspects, or claims they suspect, we may be infected.
It is fine with us that we or our loved ones can be sectioned under the Mental Health Act on the recommendation of a single doctor and neither we nor they need to have the protection of a second opinion before we are locked up.
We accept that the state can retain our biometric data and fingerprints for an extended period.
We consent that jury trials are a bit of an anachronism and Judges can hear more evidence by video or even audio link.
We think its fine that the evidence required, and processes undertaken, to determine and record our or our loved one’s deaths can be eroded to the point where they can be registered by people with no medical or legal expertise at all.
We don’t think the NHS needs to adhere to practice standards or bother with assessing the needs of some patients, especially older people.
We are also fine with the complete suspension of democracy in Britain.
We accept all of this based upon a unique subset of scientific opinion which, contrary to every known scientific principle, can never be questioned.
We agree with the MSM that people who question any aspect of the stories they tell us are dangerous because these people just don’t care if their own loved ones die. Only true believers care about their families.
We also accept the need for the State to invest considerable resources creating counter disinformation units whose purpose is to censor anything and everything which questions our firmly held beliefs. The beliefs informed by the many of the same people doing the censoring.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi -world leading microbiologist
I don’t know about you, but I remain unconvinced by the evidence I’ve seen so far. I have no doubt that there is a health crisis and excess seasonal deaths, but I have seen no evidence at all that the numbers are unprecedented or unusual in any way. Evidence we will explore in greater detail in Part 2.
I accept that we should exercise the precautionary principle and take steps to limit the risks to the most vulnerable but I do not accept that the lockdown is the best way to go about it. Nor do I see any necessity at all for all the other dictatorial clauses in the Coronavirus Act. I do not consent.
If you think this will all be over soon and won’t get worse I’m afraid you may be disappointing. The UK state have based this lockdown on the scientific rubbish spewed out by ICL. Here’s another one of the ICL’s recommendations:
The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more).”
There is nothing to suggest this isn’t the intention of the State. Certainly voices in the U.S. are already indicating their desire for an 18 month lockdown. Apparently taking their cue directly from the discredited ICL report and steadfastly ignoring everything else. Nor should we assume the draconian powers seized by the state won’t get worse.
Most of this response is being driven by globalist policy emanating, on this occasion, from the World Health Organisation. Speaking at the daily WHO press briefing on the March 30th Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, said:
Lockdowns and shutdowns really should just be part of an overall comprehensive strategy…..Most of the transmission that’s actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household at family level….Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”
Given that we now live in a de facto dictatorship there’s no reason to believe that states across the globe won’t use this as justification to start removing people from their homes. My hope is that sense will prevail and, as it becomes clear the pandemic is waning, public pressure will mount to repeal this dictatorial legislation.
However, given some of the comments I have seen on social media over the last two weeks, the panic buying and attacks upon anyone questioning the State’s narrative, it seems many people are so frightened they desperately need to believe the State is trying to save them.
This fear is based upon apparent ignorance of the economic severity of the lockdown and the monumental health risk it poses. People don’t seem to want to know there is considerable doubt the Coronavirus Act is even legal in international law. There is also doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is an identifiable virus and the statistics we are given may well be based upon tests that can’t identify it anyway. There is evidence that the statistics we have been given have been deliberately manipulated to exaggerate the health risk and there is no evidence these excess deaths are “unprecedented.”
If you are among the few willing to look at this evidence I hope you will read part 2 of this article series. Coming soon.
Read more 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
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-04-22--Was a Military Experimental Vaccine The Cause of ‘Spanish Flu’?

Was a Military Experimental Vaccine The Cause of ‘ Spanish Flu ’ ?
The “ Spanish Flu ” killed an estimated 50-100 million people during a pandemic 1918-19 .
What if the story we have been told about this pandemic isn ’ t true ?
What if , instead , the killer infection was neither the flu nor Spanish in origin ?
Newly analyzed documents reveal that the “ Spanish Flu ” may have been a military vaccine experiment gone awry .
• The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets .
• The pandemic was not flu .
An estimated 95 % ( or higher ) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia , not influenza/a virus .
• The pandemic was not Spanish .
The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley , Kansas .
• From January 21 – June 4 , 1918 , an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Fort Riley .
• During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight , they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France .
• One study describes soldiers “ with active infections ( who ) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats , while others—often , in the same “ breathing spaces ” —were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) • The “ Spanish Flu ” attacked healthy people in their prime .
Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime .
Flu attacks the young , old and immunocompromised .
• When WW1 ended on November 11 , 1918 , soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts , spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide .
• During WW1 , the Rockefeller Institute also sent the antimeningococcic serum to England , France , Belgium , Italy and other countries , helping spread the epidemic worldwide .
During the pandemic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” killed 50-100 million people , including many soldiers .
Many people do not realize that disease killed far more soldiers on all sides than machine guns or mustard gas or anything else typically associated with WWI .
I have a personal connection to the Spanish Flu .
Among those killed by disease in 1918-19 are members of both of my parents ’ families .
On my father ’ s side , his grandmother Sadie Hoyt died from pneumonia in 1918 .
Sadie was a Chief Yeoman in the Navy .
Her death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anita to be raised by their aunt .
Sadie ’ s sister Marian also joined the Navy .
She died from “ the influenza ” in 1919 .
On my mother ’ s side , two of her father ’ s sisters died in childhood .
All of the family members who died lived in New York City .
I suspect many American families , and many families worldwide , were impacted in similar ways by the mysterious Spanish Flu .
In 1918 , “ influenza ” or flu was a catchall term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t carry the specific meaning it does today .
It meant some mystery disease which dropped out of the sky .
In fact , influenza is from the Medieval Latin “ influential ” in an astrological sense , meaning a visitation under the influence of the stars .
WHY IS WHAT HAPPENED 100 YEARS AGO IMPORTANT NOW ?
Between 1900-1920 , there were enormous efforts underway in the industrialized world to build a better society .
I will use New York as an example to discuss three major changes to society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their impact on mortality from infectious diseases .
In the late 19th century through the early 20th century , New York built an extraordinary system to bring clean water to the city from the Catskills , a system still in use today .
New York City also built over 6000 miles of sewer to take away and treat waste , which protects the drinking water .
The World Health Organization acknowledges the importance of clean water and sanitation in combating infectious diseases .
( 2 ) In the late 19th century through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built a power grid and wired the city so power was available in every home .
Electricity allows for refrigeration .
Refrigeration is an unsung hero as a public health benefit .
When food is refrigerated from farm to table , the public is protected from potential infectious diseases .
Cheap renewable energy is important for many reasons , including combating infectious diseases .
In the late 19th century through the early 20th century , New York became the home of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research ( now Rockefeller University ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry was born .
The Institute pioneered many of the approaches the pharmaceutical industry uses today , including the preparation of vaccine serums , for better or worse .
The vaccine used in the Fort Riley experiment on soldiers was made in horses .
US Mortality Rates data from the turn of the 20th century to 1965 clearly indicates that clean water , flushing toilets , effective sewer systems and refrigerated foods all combined to effectively reduce mortality from infectious diseases BEFORE vaccines for those diseases became available .
Have doctors and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from infectious disease which rightfully belongs to sandhogs , plumbers , electricians and engineers ?
If hubris at the Rockefeller Institute in 1918 led to a pandemic disease which killed millions of people , what lessons can we learn and apply to 2018 ?
THE DISEASE WAS NOT SPANISH While watching an episode of American Experience on PBS a few months ago , I was surprised to hear that the first cases of “ Spanish Flu ” occurred at Fort Riley , Kansas in 1918 .
I thought , how is it possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ badly misnamed 100 years ago and never corrected ?
Spain was one of a few countries not involved in World War I .
Most of the countries involved in the war censored their press .
Free from censorship concerns , the earliest press reports of people dying from disease in large numbers came from Spain .
The warring countries did not want to additionally frighten the troops , so they were content to scapegoat Spain .
Soldiers on all sides would be asked to cross no man ’ s land into machine gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowing that the trenches were a disease breeding ground .
One hundred years later , it ’ s long past time to drop “ Spanish ” from all discussion of this pandemic .
If the flu started at a United States military base in Kansas , then the disease could and should be more aptly named .
In order to prevent future disasters , the US ( and the rest of the world ) must take a hard look at what really caused the pandemic .
It is possible that one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrected is that it helps disguise the origin of the pandemic .
If the origin of the pandemic involved a vaccine experiment on US soldiers , then the US may prefer calling it Spanish Flu instead of The Fort Riley Bacteria of 1918 , or something similar .
The Spanish Flu started at the location this experimental bacterial vaccine was given making it the prime suspect as the source of the bacterial infections which killed so many .
It would be much more difficult to maintain the marketing mantra of “ vaccines save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States during the years of primitive manufacturing caused the deaths of 50-100 million people .
THE DISEASE WHICH KILLED SO MANY WAS NOT FLU OR A VIRUS .
IT WAS BACTERIAL .
During the mid-2000 ’ s there was much talk about “ pandemic preparedness.
” Influenza vaccine manufacturers in the United States received billions of taxpayer dollars to develop vaccines to make sure that we don ’ t have another lethal pandemic “ flu , ” like the one in 1918-19 .
Capitalizing on the “ flu ” part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion dollar checks from governments , even though scientists knew at the time that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer .
It is not my opinion that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer – thousands of autopsies confirm this fact .
According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper , bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7 % of the 1918-19 autopsies reviewed .
It is likely higher than 92.7 % .
The researchers looked at more than 9000 autopsies , and “ there were no negative ( bacterial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streptococci were found in “ 164 of ( the ) 167 lung tissue samples ” autopsied .
That is 98.2 % .
Bacteria was the killer .
WHERE DID THE SPANISH FLU BACTERIAL PNEUMONIA OF 1918-19 ORIGINATE ?
When the United States declared war in April 1917 , the fledgling Pharmaceutical industry had something they had never had before – a large supply of human test subjects in the form of the US military ’ s first draft .
Pre-war in 1917 , the US Army was 286,000 men .
Post-war in 1920 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had 296,000 men .
During the war years 1918-19 , the US Army ballooned to 6,000,000 men , with 2,000,000 men being sent overseas .
The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research took advantage of this new pool of human guinea pigs to conduct vaccine experiments .
A REPORT ON ANTIMENINGITIS VACCINATION AND OBSERVATIONS ON AGGLUTININS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRONIC MENINGOCOCCUS CARRIERS by Frederick L. Gates From the Base Hospital , Fort Riley , Kansas , and The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research , New York .
Received 1918 Jul 20 Between January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Gates reports on an experiment where soldiers were given 3 doses of a bacterial meningitis vaccine .
Those conducting the experiment on the soldiers were just spitballing dosages of a vaccine serum made in horses .
The vaccination regime was designed to be 3 doses .
4,792 men received the first dose , but only 4,257 got the 2nd dose ( down 11 % ) , and only 3702 received all three doses ( down 22.7 % ) .
A total of 1,090 men were not there for the 3rd dose .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they shipped East by train from Kansas to board a ship to Europe ?
Were they in the Fort Riley hospital ?
Dr. Gates ’ report doesn ’ t tell us .
An article accompanying the American Experience broadcast I watched sheds some light on where these 1,090 men might be .
Gates began his experiments in January 1918 .
By March of that year , “ 100 men a day ” were entering the infirmary at Fort Riley .
Are some of these the men missing from Dr. Gates ’ report – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2nd or 3rd dose ?
Gates does report that several of the men in the experiment had flu-like symptoms : coughs , vomiting and diarrhea after receiving the vaccine .
These symptoms are a disaster for men living in barracks , travelling on trains to the Atlantic coast , sailing to Europe , and living and fighting in trenches .
The unsanitary conditions at each step of the journey are an ideal environment for a contagious disease like bacterial pneumonia to spread .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Was a Military Experimental Vaccine The Cause of ‘Spanish Flu’?
Written by Kevin Barry, vaccineimpact.com
The “Spanish Flu” killed an estimated 50-100 million people during a pandemic 1918-19. What if the story we have been told about this pandemic isn’t true?
What if, instead, the killer infection was neither the flu nor Spanish in origin? Newly analyzed documents reveal that the “Spanish Flu” may have been a military vaccine experiment gone awry.
Summary
The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer.
More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets.
The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not influenza/a virus.
The pandemic was not Spanish. The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas.
From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley.
During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight, they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France.
One study describes soldiers “with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)
The “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime. Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immunocompromised.
When WW1 ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide.
During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent the antimeningococcic serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide.
During the pandemic of 1918-19, the so-called “Spanish Flu” killed 50-100 million people, including many soldiers.
Many people do not realize that disease killed far more soldiers on all sides than machine guns or mustard gas or anything else typically associated with WWI.
I have a personal connection to the Spanish Flu. Among those killed by disease in 1918-19 are members of both of my parents’ families.
On my father’s side, his grandmother Sadie Hoyt died from pneumonia in 1918. Sadie was a Chief Yeoman in the Navy. Her death left my grandmother Rosemary and her sister Anita to be raised by their aunt. Sadie’s sister Marian also joined the Navy. She died from “the influenza” in 1919.
On my mother’s side, two of her father’s sisters died in childhood. All of the family members who died lived in New York City.
I suspect many American families, and many families worldwide, were impacted in similar ways by the mysterious Spanish Flu.
In 1918, “influenza” or flu was a catchall term for disease of unknown origin. It didn’t carry the specific meaning it does today.
It meant some mystery disease which dropped out of the sky. In fact, influenza is from the Medieval Latin “influential” in an astrological sense, meaning a visitation under the influence of the stars.
WHY IS WHAT HAPPENED 100 YEARS AGO IMPORTANT NOW?
Between 1900-1920, there were enormous efforts underway in the industrialized world to build a better society. I will use New York as an example to discuss three major changes to society which occurred in NY during that time and their impact on mortality from infectious diseases.
1. Clean Water and Sanitation
In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built an extraordinary system to bring clean water to the city from the Catskills, a system still in use today. New York City also built over 6000 miles of sewer to take away and treat waste, which protects the drinking water. The World Health Organization acknowledges the importance of clean water and sanitation in combating infectious diseases. (2)
2. Electricity
In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built a power grid and wired the city so power was available in every home. Electricity allows for refrigeration. Refrigeration is an unsung hero as a public health benefit. When food is refrigerated from farm to table, the public is protected from potential infectious diseases. Cheap renewable energy is important for many reasons, including combating infectious diseases.
3. Pharmaceutical
In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York became the home of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University). The Institute is where the modern pharmaceutical industry was born. The Institute pioneered many of the approaches the pharmaceutical industry uses today, including the preparation of vaccine serums, for better or worse. The vaccine used in the Fort Riley experiment on soldiers was made in horses.
US Mortality Rates data from the turn of the 20th century to 1965 clearly indicates that clean water, flushing toilets, effective sewer systems and refrigerated foods all combined to effectively reduce mortality from infectious diseases BEFORE vaccines for those diseases became available.
Have doctors and the pharmaceutical manufacturers taken credit for reducing mortality from infectious disease which rightfully belongs to sandhogs, plumbers, electricians and engineers?
If hubris at the Rockefeller Institute in 1918 led to a pandemic disease which killed millions of people, what lessons can we learn and apply to 2018?
THE DISEASE WAS NOT SPANISH
While watching an episode of American Experience on PBS a few months ago, I was surprised to hear that the first cases of “Spanish Flu” occurred at Fort Riley, Kansas in 1918. I thought, how is it possible this historically important event could be so badly misnamed 100 years ago and never corrected?
Why “Spanish”?
Spain was one of a few countries not involved in World War I. Most of the countries involved in the war censored their press.
Free from censorship concerns, the earliest press reports of people dying from disease in large numbers came from Spain. The warring countries did not want to additionally frighten the troops, so they were content to scapegoat Spain. Soldiers on all sides would be asked to cross no man’s land into machine gun fire, which was frightening enough without knowing that the trenches were a disease breeding ground.
One hundred years later, it’s long past time to drop “Spanish” from all discussion of this pandemic. If the flu started at a United States military base in Kansas, then the disease could and should be more aptly named.
In order to prevent future disasters, the US (and the rest of the world) must take a hard look at what really caused the pandemic.
It is possible that one of the reasons the Spanish Flu has never been corrected is that it helps disguise the origin of the pandemic.
If the origin of the pandemic involved a vaccine experiment on US soldiers, then the US may prefer calling it Spanish Flu instead of The Fort Riley Bacteria of 1918, or something similar. The Spanish Flu started at the location this experimental bacterial vaccine was given making it the prime suspect as the source of the bacterial infections which killed so many.
It would be much more difficult to maintain the marketing mantra of “vaccines save lives” if a vaccine experiment originating in the United States during the years of primitive manufacturing caused the deaths of 50-100 million people.
“Vaccines save lives … except we may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19” is a far less effective sales slogan than the overly simplistic “vaccines save lives.”
THE DISEASE WHICH KILLED SO MANY WAS NOT FLU OR A VIRUS. IT WAS BACTERIAL.
During the mid-2000’s there was much talk about “pandemic preparedness.” Influenza vaccine manufacturers in the United States received billions of taxpayer dollars to develop vaccines to make sure that we don’t have another lethal pandemic “flu,” like the one in 1918-19.
Capitalizing on the “flu” part of Spanish flu helped vaccine manufacturers procure billion dollar checks from governments, even though scientists knew at the time that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer.
It is not my opinion that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer – thousands of autopsies confirm this fact.
According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the 1918-19 autopsies reviewed. It is likely higher than 92.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
The researchers looked at more than 9000 autopsies, and “there were no negative (bacterial) lung culture results.”
“… In the 68 higher-quality autopsy series, in which the possibility of unreported negative cultures could be excluded, 92.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of autopsy lung cultures were positive for ≥1 bacterium. … in one study of approximately 9000 subjects who were followed from clinical presentation with influenza to resolution or autopsy, researchers obtained, with sterile technique, cultures of either pneumococci or streptococci from 164 of 167 lung tissue samples. There were 89 pure cultures of pneumococci; 19 cultures from which only streptococci were recovered; 34 that yielded mixtures of pneumococci and/or streptococci; 22 that yielded a mixture of pneumococci, streptococci, and other organisms (prominently pneumococci and nonhemolytic streptococci); and 3 that yielded nonhemolytic streptococci alone. There were no negative lung culture results.” (3)
Pneumococci or streptococci were found in “164 of (the) 167 lung tissue samples” autopsied. That is 98.2{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. Bacteria was the killer.
WHERE DID THE SPANISH FLU BACTERIAL PNEUMONIA OF 1918-19 ORIGINATE?
When the United States declared war in April 1917, the fledgling Pharmaceutical industry had something they had never had before – a large supply of human test subjects in the form of the US military’s first draft.
Pre-war in 1917, the US Army was 286,000 men. Post-war in 1920, the US army disbanded, and had 296,000 men.
During the war years 1918-19, the US Army ballooned to 6,000,000 men, with 2,000,000 men being sent overseas. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research took advantage of this new pool of human guinea pigs to conduct vaccine experiments.
A REPORT ON ANTIMENINGITIS VACCINATION AND OBSERVATIONS ON AGGLUTININS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRONIC MENINGOCOCCUS CARRIERS
by Frederick L. Gates
From the Base Hospital, Fort Riley, Kansas, and The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York.
Received 1918 Jul 20
(Author note: Please read the Fort Riley paper in its entirety so you can appreciate the carelessness of the experiments conducted on these troops.)
Between January 21st and June 4th of 1918, Dr. Gates reports on an experiment where soldiers were given 3 doses of a bacterial meningitis vaccine. Those conducting the experiment on the soldiers were just spitballing dosages of a vaccine serum made in horses.
The vaccination regime was designed to be 3 doses. 4,792 men received the first dose, but only 4,257 got the 2nd dose (down 11{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}), and only 3702 received all three doses (down 22.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}).
A total of 1,090 men were not there for the 3rd dose. What happened to these soldiers? Were they shipped East by train from Kansas to board a ship to Europe? Were they in the Fort Riley hospital? Dr. Gates’ report doesn’t tell us.
An article accompanying the American Experience broadcast I watched sheds some light on where these 1,090 men might be. Gates began his experiments in January 1918.
By March of that year, “100 men a day” were entering the infirmary at Fort Riley.
Are some of these the men missing from Dr. Gates’ report – the ones who did not get the 2nd or 3rd dose?
“… Shortly before breakfast on Monday, March 11, the first domino would fall signaling the commencement of the first wave of the 1918 influenza. Company cook Albert Gitchell reported to the camp infirmary with complaints of a “bad cold.” Right behind him came Corporal Lee W. Drake voicing similar complaints. By noon, camp surgeon Edward R. Schreiner had over 100 sick men on his hands, all apparently suffering from the same malady…” (5)
Gates does report that several of the men in the experiment had flu-like symptoms: coughs, vomiting and diarrhea after receiving the vaccine.
These symptoms are a disaster for men living in barracks, travelling on trains to the Atlantic coast, sailing to Europe, and living and fighting in trenches.
The unsanitary conditions at each step of the journey are an ideal environment for a contagious disease like bacterial pneumonia to spread.
Read the full article at vaccineimpact.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--2020-04-22--AIDS Research Pioneer Blows Whistle on Dr. Fauci

A top U.S. scientist and research pioneer has broken her long silence , revealing an insider ’ s nightmare spanning three decades of conducting research under the governmental control of Dr. Anthony Fauci .
And if true , these details warrant a host of NEW federal investigations to get to the bottom of numerous Fauci-led schemes revealed by Dr. Judy Mikovits ( photo , top ) on the Thomas Paine Podcast on Tuesday .
Dr. Mikovits said Fauci helped imprison her after stealing her proprietary research not once , but twice and her allegations against the White House ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cronies paint a disturbing portrait of widespread institutional corruption .
And greed .
The alarming allegations include : stealing research , covering up tainted vaccines , fraud and much more .
And Fauci ’ s parent agency , the National Institute of Health is not the only governmental agency involved in what amounts here to decades of corruption gone awry .
Listen above or to the backup feed below — PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

AIDS Research Pioneer Blows Whistle on Dr. Fauci
Written by truepundit.com
A top U.S. scientist and research pioneer has broken her long silence, revealing an insider’s nightmare spanning three decades of conducting research under the governmental control of Dr. Anthony Fauci.
And if true, these details warrant a host of NEW federal investigations to get to the bottom of numerous Fauci-led schemes revealed by Dr. Judy Mikovits (photo, top) on the Thomas Paine Podcast on Tuesday.
Dr. Mikovits said Fauci helped imprison her after stealing her proprietary research not once, but twice and her allegations against the White House’s coronavirus top medical advisor and his government cronies paint a disturbing portrait of widespread institutional corruption. And greed.
The alarming allegations include: stealing research, covering up tainted vaccines, fraud and much more. And Fauci’s parent agency, the National Institute of Health is not the only governmental agency involved in what amounts here to decades of corruption gone awry.
Listen above or to the backup feed below —
More at truepundit.com
Also, watch this video:
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--2020-04-22--NIH Panel Opposes Hydroxychloroquine With Z-Pak to Treat COVID-19

The panel released its recommendations on Tuesday , including recommending against the combination , which is being used by a number of doctors in the United States and elsewhere .
The panel said it was recommending against the combination “ because of the potential for toxicities.
” The panel cited a single study , which has not been peer reviewed , for their recommendation .
Researchers from the New York University School of Medicine retrospectively studied the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 84 adult patients and reported an increased QTc , or an interval measured on an electrocardiogram that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart incidents .
The panel also recommended against the use of lopinavir and ritonavir , as well as other drugs that block protease , an HIV enzyme , “ because of unfavorable pharmacodynamics and negative clinical trial data.
” There are no approved treatments for COVID-19 but researchers around the world are racing to figure out which ones work against the new disease , which is caused by the CCP ( Chinese Communist Party ) virus .
Hydroxychloroquine is one of the most promising existing or experimental drugs , along with remdesivir .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) panel said that insufficient clinical data is currently available to recommend either for or against the use of hydroxychloroquine , the closely related chloroquine , or remdesivir .
If the drugs are used , clinicians are advised to monitor the patient for adverse effects .
Insufficient data led the panel to say it couldn ’ t recommend for or against the use of convalescent plasma , which involves taking blood from people who were infected with COVID-19 and later recovered and transfusing it to patients with the new illness .
The panel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against using hyperimmune globulin , which are concentrated preparations high in antibodies that protect against specific diseases , or interleukin inhibitors , targeted antibody therapies used to treat a range of conditions such as sarilumab , tocilizumab , and anakinra .
Similar to the recommendations against the combination including hydroxychloroquine , the experts recommended against the use of proteins released by cells known as interferons or drugs that temper overactive immune systems known as janus kinase inhibitors—the former because of a lack of effectiveness in other coronaviruses and the latter “ because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was co-chaired by Dr. Roy Gulick , chief of the Infectious Disease Division at Weill Medical Hospital of Cornell University in New York City , Dr. H. Clifford Lane , clinical director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at NIH , and Dr. Henry Masur , chief of the Critical Care Medicine Department at the NIH Clinical Center .
Members of the panel were appointed by the co-chairs .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

NIH Panel Opposes Hydroxychloroquine With Z-Pak to Treat COVID-19
Written by Zachary Steiber
Doctors and experts on a panel created by the National Institutes of Health are recommending against using hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug, with azithromycin, an antibiotic known as Z-Pak, in the treatment of COVID-19.
The panel released its recommendations on Tuesday, including recommending against the combination, which is being used by a number of doctors in the United States and elsewhere.
The panel said it was recommending against the combination “because of the potential for toxicities.”
The panel cited a single study, which has not been peer reviewed, for their recommendation.
Researchers from the New York University School of Medicine retrospectively studied the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 84 adult patients and reported an increased QTc, or an interval measured on an electrocardiogram that can signal a higher risk of having heart incidents.
The panel also recommended against the use of lopinavir and ritonavir, as well as other drugs that block protease, an HIV enzyme, “because of unfavorable pharmacodynamics and negative clinical trial data.”
There are no approved treatments for COVID-19 but researchers around the world are racing to figure out which ones work against the new disease, which is caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
Hydroxychloroquine is one of the most promising existing or experimental drugs, along with remdesivir.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) panel said that insufficient clinical data is currently available to recommend either for or against the use of hydroxychloroquine, the closely related chloroquine, or remdesivir. If the drugs are used, clinicians are advised to monitor the patient for adverse effects.
Insufficient data led the panel to say it couldn’t recommend for or against the use of convalescent plasma, which involves taking blood from people who were infected with COVID-19 and later recovered and transfusing it to patients with the new illness. The panel also couldn’t recommend for or against using hyperimmune globulin, which are concentrated preparations high in antibodies that protect against specific diseases, or interleukin inhibitors, targeted antibody therapies used to treat a range of conditions such as sarilumab, tocilizumab, and anakinra.
Similar to the recommendations against the combination including hydroxychloroquine, the experts recommended against the use of proteins released by cells known as interferons or drugs that temper overactive immune systems known as janus kinase inhibitors—the former because of a lack of effectiveness in other coronaviruses and the latter “because of their broad immunosuppressive effect.”
The panel was co-chaired by Dr. Roy Gulick, chief of the Infectious Disease Division at Weill Medical Hospital of Cornell University in New York City, Dr. H. Clifford Lane, clinical director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at NIH, and Dr. Henry Masur, chief of the Critical Care Medicine Department at the NIH Clinical Center.
Members of the panel were appointed by the co-chairs.
Read more at www.theepochtimes.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--2020-04-22--Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36%

In March 12th , 2020 , Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta held a global town hall on “ Corona Facts and Fears.
” During the discussion , Anderson said to the viewing audience , “ And , again , if you are concerned about coronavirus , and you haven ’ t gotten a flu shot…you should get a flu shot.
” Setting safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination aside , is Anderson ’ s claim that the flu shot will help people fight COVID-19 remotely true ?
The short answer is no .
In fact , the results of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anderson ’ s recommendation may have been the worst advice he could have given the public .
In searching the literature , the only study we have been able to find assessing flu shots and coronavirus is a 2020 US Pentagon study that found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36 % .
“ Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses , a phenomenon known as “ virus interference… ’ vaccine derived ’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus… ” Here are the findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds of coronavirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals with an odds ratio ( association between an exposure and an outcome ) of 1.36 .
In other words , the vaccinated were 36 % more likely to get coronavirus .
Many other studies suggest the increased risk of viral respiratory infections from the flu shot : This CDC supported study concluded an increased risk of acute respiratory illness ( ARI ) among children < 18 years caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Flu shot doubled risk of non-influenza viral infections and increased flu risk by 73 % .
A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from non-influenza virus infections .
Overall , the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness , including influenza , by 73 % .
2012 Hong Kong Study : Flu shots increased the risk of non-flu respiratory infections 4.4 times and tripled flu infections .
A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ARIs fivefold ( OR 4.91 , CI 1.04—8.14 ) and , including influenza , tripled the overall viral ARI risk ( OR 3.17 , CI 1.04—9.83 ) .
2017 Study : Vaccinated children are 5.9 more likely to suffer pneumonia and 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis than unvaccinated children .
Vaccinated children were 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis and 5.9 times more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children .
2014 Study : Influenza-vaccinated children were 1.6 times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a non-influenza “ Influenza-like-illness ” ( ILI ) .
The well-respected Cochrane Collaboration ’ s comprehensive 2010 meta-analysis of published influenza vaccine studies found that the influenza vaccination has “ no effect ” on hospitalization , and that there is “ no evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications .
” The Cochrane Researchers concluded that the scientific evidence “ seem [ s ] to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.
” In their meta-analysis , the Cochrane researchers accused the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support their universal influenza vaccination recommendation .
Nevertheless , CNN and other mainstream media outlets continually broadcast CDC pronouncements as gospel and , ironically , ridicules those of us who actually read the science as “ purveyors of ‘ vaccine misinformation ” .
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 .

Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36%
Written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
In March 12th, 2020, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta held a global town hall on “Corona Facts and Fears.” During the discussion, Anderson said to the viewing audience, “And, again, if you are concerned about coronavirus, and you haven’t gotten a flu shot…you should get a flu shot.”
Setting safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination aside, is Anderson’s claim that the flu shot will help people fight COVID-19 remotely true? The short answer is no.
In fact, the results of many peer-reviewed, published studies prove that Anderson’s recommendation may have been the worst advice he could have given the public.
In searching the literature, the only study we have been able to find assessing flu shots and coronavirus is a 2020 US Pentagon study that found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
“Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as “virus interference…’vaccine derived’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus…” Here are the findings:
2020 Pentagon study: Flu vaccines increase risk of coronavirus by 36{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}
Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of coronavirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals with an odds ratio (association between an exposure and an outcome) of 1.36. In other words, the vaccinated were 36{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} more likely to get coronavirus.
Many other studies suggest the increased risk of viral respiratory infections from the flu shot:
2018 CDC Study: Flu shots increase risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) in children.
This CDC supported study concluded an increased risk of acute respiratory illness (ARI) among children <18 years caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period.
2011 Australian Study: Flu shot doubled risk of non-influenza viral infections and increased flu risk by 73{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from non-influenza virus infections. Overall, the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
2012 Hong Kong Study: Flu shots increased the risk of non-flu respiratory infections 4.4 times and tripled flu infections.
A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu shots increased the risk of non-influenza viral ARIs fivefold (OR 4.91,CI 1.04—8.14) and, including influenza, tripled the overall viral ARI risk (OR 3.17, CI 1.04—9.83).
2017 Study: Vaccinated children are 5.9 more likely to suffer pneumonia and 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis than unvaccinated children.
Vaccinated children were 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis and 5.9 times more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children.
2014 Study: Influenza-vaccinated children were 1.6 times more likely than unvaccinated children to have a non-influenza “Influenza-like-illness” (ILI).
Even more published science
The well-respected Cochrane Collaboration’s comprehensive 2010 meta-analysis of published influenza vaccine studies found that the influenza vaccination has “no effect” on hospitalization, and that there is “no evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications.
” The Cochrane Researchers concluded that the scientific evidence “seem[s] to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.”
In their meta-analysis, the Cochrane researchers accused the CDC of deliberately misrepresenting the science in order to support their universal influenza vaccination recommendation. Nevertheless, CNN and other mainstream media outlets continually broadcast CDC pronouncements as gospel and, ironically, ridicules those of us who actually read the science as “purveyors of ‘vaccine misinformation”.
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense
Published by Children’s Health Defense
Read more at www.21cir.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-04-22--Surprise New Data Upends Long-held Idea About Venus’ Atmosphere

Philosopher Nicholas Rescher once wrote , “ Scientific discoveries are often made not on the basis of some well-contrived plan of investigation , but through some stroke of sheer luck.
” For a team of researchers at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory ( APL ) in Laurel , Maryland , that statement couldn ’ t be more true .
What started as a dry run to ensure instruments on NASA ’ s Mercury Surface , Space Environment , Geochemistry and Ranging ( MESSENGER ) spacecraft worked properly later turned into a 10-year saga that resulted in a chance discovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet , Mercury .
It ’ s about Venus and its atmosphere .
The team reports April 20 in Nature Astronomy that data fortuitously collected by MESSENGER reveals a sudden rise in nitrogen concentrations at about 30 miles above Venus ’ surface , demonstrating the planet ’ s atmosphere isn ’ t uniformly mixed , as expected .
That finding upends an understanding about Venus ’ atmosphere that has prevailed for decades .
The story started in June 2007 as MESSENGER sailed above Venus for its second flyby before veering toward Mercury .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ test their devices and collect data before the real show was set to begin some six months later .
Among the team members was David Lawrence , a nuclear physicist at APL .
He was the instrument scientist for MESSENGER ’ s neutron spectrometer , which detects neutrons set loose into space from cosmic rays colliding with molecules in a planet ’ s atmosphere or surface .
It aimed to find the telltale signs of neutrons coming from hydrogen atoms in water molecules that were suspected ( and later confirmed ) to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s poles .
Over Venus , however , Lawrence just wanted to collect some data to verify the instrument was operating correctly .
An initial check showed it worked , and the data was tabled .
But in 2010 , Lawrence revisited those measurements , this time with Patrick Peplowski , another nuclear physicist at APL .
Despite 50 years of sending robotic missions to Venus , including 13 atmospheric probes or landers , a lot of uncertainty about the nitrogen concentration in Venus ’ atmosphere , especially between 30 and 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That puzzled Peplowski and Lawrence because nitrogen is the second most abundant molecule floating in Venus ’ atmosphere , after carbon dioxide .
“ The uncertainty wasn ’ t necessarily just in the MESSENGER instrument—it could be in the entire planet , ” Lawrence said .
Lawrence knew of a 1962 paper , however , that suggested neutron spectroscopy could help determine Venus ’ atmospheric nitrogen concentration .
Nitrogen is fairly good at scavenging loose neutrons , unlike carbon and oxygen , which are some of the worst .
So on Venus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should depend on the amount of atmospheric nitrogen .
MESSENGER just happened to collect that information .
The pair ran a computer simulation that divvied the planet ’ s 60-mile-thick atmosphere into bands in which they could manipulate the nitrogen concentration and realistically model how many neutrons would come streaming out to the spacecraft above .
When they compared their models with the MESSENGER data , they found the best match was when atmospheric nitrogen made up 5 % of the volume , about 1.5 times that measured lower in the atmosphere .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a region between roughly 35 and 60 miles above the surface—exactly where there had been the greatest uncertainty .
“ That was very much a stroke of luck , ” Peplowski said .
Why nitrogen increases at higher altitude remains unknown .
Their discovery raised more than a few eyebrows , Peplowski said , but not because people were blown away .
“ Many scientists seemed surprised that this was even something worth investigating , ” Peplowski said .
“ The notion that there ’ s a higher nitrogen concentration in the upper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s range of thought.
” They ran into that impasse before when trying to get funding to complete the study .
The project was denied money three times because it was considered a dead end .
The data they needed to feel confident in their results and push their study over the finish line came by good fortune through Jack Wilson , an APL scientist who just happened to be analyzing the same MESSENGER data for an unrelated project .
After the team presented preliminary results during a conference in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their work in its Venera-D mission to study Venus ’ atmosphere and surface .
Currently , two mission proposals under consideration for NASA ’ s Discovery Program—DAVINCI+ and VERITAS , both of which include APL scientists on their teams—also aim to study Venus ’ atmosphere in greater detail .
Peplowski and Lawrence say this new result underscores the caution researchers need when drawing conclusions about atmospheric data , especially with the growing interest in planetary atmospheres in other solar systems .
“ We ’ re still learning fundamental things about Venus and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next-door neighbor , ” Peplowski said .
“ That scientists can speak with confidence about the atmospheres of exoplanets that are hundreds or thousands of light-years away is worth questioning.
” But getting that data may sometimes require just a bit of good luck .
More information : Patrick N. Peplowski et al .
Chemically distinct regions of Venus ’ s atmosphere revealed by measured N2 concentrations , Nature Astronomy ( 2020 ) .
DOI : 10.1038/s41550-020-1079-2

Surprise New Data Upends Long-held Idea About Venus’ Atmosphere
Written by Jeremy Rehm, Johns Hopkins University
Philosopher Nicholas Rescher once wrote, “Scientific discoveries are often made not on the basis of some well-contrived plan of investigation, but through some stroke of sheer luck.”
For a team of researchers at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, that statement couldn’t be more true.
What started as a dry run to ensure instruments on NASA’s Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft worked properly later turned into a 10-year saga that resulted in a chance discovery unrelated to the mission’s target planet, Mercury. It’s about Venus and its atmosphere.
The team reports April 20 in Nature Astronomy that data fortuitously collected by MESSENGER reveals a sudden rise in nitrogen concentrations at about 30 miles above Venus’ surface, demonstrating the planet’s atmosphere isn’t uniformly mixed, as expected. That finding upends an understanding about Venus’ atmosphere that has prevailed for decades.
The story started in June 2007 as MESSENGER sailed above Venus for its second flyby before veering toward Mercury. Mission instrument teams took the opportunity to test their devices and collect data before the real show was set to begin some six months later.
Among the team members was David Lawrence, a nuclear physicist at APL. He was the instrument scientist for MESSENGER’s neutron spectrometer, which detects neutrons set loose into space from cosmic rays colliding with molecules in a planet’s atmosphere or surface. It aimed to find the telltale signs of neutrons coming from hydrogen atoms in water molecules that were suspected (and later confirmed) to be frozen in the crater shadows at Mercury’s poles.
Over Venus, however, Lawrence just wanted to collect some data to verify the instrument was operating correctly. An initial check showed it worked, and the data was tabled.
But in 2010, Lawrence revisited those measurements, this time with Patrick Peplowski, another nuclear physicist at APL. Despite 50 years of sending robotic missions to Venus, including 13 atmospheric probes or landers, a lot of uncertainty about the nitrogen concentration in Venus’ atmosphere, especially between 30 and 60 miles above the surface, remained.
That puzzled Peplowski and Lawrence because nitrogen is the second most abundant molecule floating in Venus’ atmosphere, after carbon dioxide.
“The uncertainty wasn’t necessarily just in the MESSENGER instrument—it could be in the entire planet,” Lawrence said.
Lawrence knew of a 1962 paper, however, that suggested neutron spectroscopy could help determine Venus’ atmospheric nitrogen concentration. Nitrogen is fairly good at scavenging loose neutrons, unlike carbon and oxygen, which are some of the worst. So on Venus, the number of neutrons an instrument detects should depend on the amount of atmospheric nitrogen.
Nitrogen concentration through Venus’ atmosphere. New analysis of MESSENGER data shows an uptick in nitrogen concentration around Venus’ upper cloud deck roughly 30 miles (50 kilometers) up, upending a long-held idea that nitrogen is distributed equally throughout. The red line is a trend line fitted to data from multiple missions, including MESSENGER’s data, which was collected between 35 and 65 miles (60 and 100 km) high. Credit: Johns Hopkins APL
MESSENGER just happened to collect that information.
The pair ran a computer simulation that divvied the planet’s 60-mile-thick atmosphere into bands in which they could manipulate the nitrogen concentration and realistically model how many neutrons would come streaming out to the spacecraft above.
When they compared their models with the MESSENGER data, they found the best match was when atmospheric nitrogen made up 5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the volume, about 1.5 times that measured lower in the atmosphere. And all of the neutrons came from a region between roughly 35 and 60 miles above the surface—exactly where there had been the greatest uncertainty.
“That was very much a stroke of luck,” Peplowski said.
Why nitrogen increases at higher altitude remains unknown. Their discovery raised more than a few eyebrows, Peplowski said, but not because people were blown away.
“Many scientists seemed surprised that this was even something worth investigating,” Peplowski said. “The notion that there’s a higher nitrogen concentration in the upper atmosphere than in the lower was outside people’s range of thought.”
They ran into that impasse before when trying to get funding to complete the study. The project was denied money three times because it was considered a dead end. The data they needed to feel confident in their results and push their study over the finish line came by good fortune through Jack Wilson, an APL scientist who just happened to be analyzing the same MESSENGER data for an unrelated project.
After the team presented preliminary results during a conference in 2016, the Russian Federal Space Agency cited their work in its Venera-D mission to study Venus’ atmosphere and surface. Currently, two mission proposals under consideration for NASA’s Discovery Program—DAVINCI+ and VERITAS, both of which include APL scientists on their teams—also aim to study Venus’ atmosphere in greater detail.
Peplowski and Lawrence say this new result underscores the caution researchers need when drawing conclusions about atmospheric data, especially with the growing interest in planetary atmospheres in other solar systems.
“We’re still learning fundamental things about Venus and its atmosphere, and it’s our next-door neighbor,” Peplowski said. “That scientists can speak with confidence about the atmospheres of exoplanets that are hundreds or thousands of light-years away is worth questioning.”
Drawing rigorous and convincing conclusions requires a wide array of data.
But getting that data may sometimes require just a bit of good luck.
More information: Patrick N. Peplowski et al. Chemically distinct regions of Venus’s atmosphere revealed by measured N2 concentrations, Nature Astronomy (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-020-1079-2
Journal information: Nature Astronomy
***
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--2020-04-23--Paper: The Systemic Misuse Of Extreme Scenarios In Climate Science

Paper : The Systemic Misuse Of Extreme Scenarios In Climate Science Climate science research and assessments have misused scenarios for more than a decade .
Symptoms of this misuse include the treatment of an unrealistic , extreme scenario as the world ’ s most likely future in the absence of climate policy and the illogical comparison of climate projections across inconsistent global development trajectories .
( a ) competing demands for scenarios from users in diverse academic disciplines that ultimately conflated exploratory and policy-relevant pathways , ( b ) the evolving role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessment to literature coordination , ( c ) unforeseen consequences of employing a nuanced temporary approach to scenario development , ( d ) maintaining research practices that normalize careless use of scenarios in a vacuum of plausibility , and ( e ) the inherent complexity and technicality of scenarios in model-based research and in support of [ climate ] policy .
As a consequence , the climate research community is presently off-track .
Attempts to address scenario misuse within the community have thus far not worked .
The result has been the widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future climate change and climate policy .
Until reform is implemented , we can expect the production of such perspectives to continue .
However , because many aspects of climate change discourse are contingent on scenarios , there is considerable momentum that will make such a course correction difficult and contested – even as efforts to improve scenarios have informed research that will be included in the IPCC 6th Assessment .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Paper: The Systemic Misuse Of Extreme Scenarios In Climate Science
Written by Roger Pielke Jr PhD & Justin Ritchie
Climate science research and assessments have misused scenarios for more than a decade.
Symptoms of this misuse include the treatment of an unrealistic, extreme scenario as the world’s most likely future in the absence of climate policy and the illogical comparison of climate projections across inconsistent global development trajectories.
Reasons why this misuse arose include:
(a) competing demands for scenarios from users in diverse academic disciplines that ultimately conflated exploratory and policy-relevant pathways,
(b) the evolving role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which effectively extended its mandate from literature assessment to literature coordination,
(c) unforeseen consequences of employing a nuanced temporary approach to scenario development,
(d) maintaining research practices that normalize careless use of scenarios in a vacuum of plausibility, and
(e) the inherent complexity and technicality of scenarios in model-based research and in support of [climate] policy.
As a consequence, the climate research community is presently off-track. Attempts to address scenario misuse within the community have thus far not worked.
The result has been the widespread production of myopic or misleading perspectives on future climate change and climate policy.
Until reform is implemented, we can expect the production of such perspectives to continue.
However, because many aspects of climate change discourse are contingent on scenarios, there is considerable momentum that will make such a course correction difficult and contested – even as efforts to improve scenarios have informed research that will be included in the IPCC 6th Assessment.
Read the abstract here
Download full paper (PDF)
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