principiascientificinternational--2020-11-11--Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed

Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed Moderna , Pfizer , AstraZeneca , and Johnson & Johnson are leading candidates for the completion of a Covid-19 vaccine likely to be released in the coming months .
These companies have published their vaccine trial protocols .
This unusually transparent action during a major drug trial deserves praise , close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns .
These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work , even if the measured effects are minimal .
What would a normal vaccine trial look like ?
Prevention of infection must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection .
Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines .
In fact , their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success , the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated .
Measuring differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection , only modify symptoms of those infected .
We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected .
Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna , Pfizer , and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough , or headache .
The greatest fear people have is dying from this disease .
A vaccine must significantly or entirely reduce deaths from Covid-19 .
Over two hundred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States and nearly a million worldwide .
None list mortality as a critical endpoint .
We recognize that the influenza vaccine does not prevent infection with that virus , but does have a measurable impact on hospitalization and death .
The moderate protections from the influenza virus can potentially be replicated and improved on with Covid-19 , but only with extensive trials that ensure the efficacy of a future vaccine .
Vaccine efficacy is typically proved by large clinical trials over several years .
The pharmaceutical companies intend to do trials ranging from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This scale of study would be sufficient for testing vaccine efficacy .
The first surprise found upon a closer reading of the protocols reveals that each study intends to complete interim and primary analyses that at most include 164 participants .
These companies likely intend to apply for an emergency use authorization ( EUA ) from the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) with just their limited preliminary results .
Interim analysis success requires a seventy percent efficacy .
The vaccine or placebo will be given to thousands of people in each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interim analysis will be based on the results of infection of only 53 people .
The judgment reached in interim analysis is dependent upon the difference in the number of people with symptoms , which may be mild , in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group .
Moderna ’ s success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group .
For Johnson & Johnson , their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients , with a success margin of 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the control group .
For AstraZeneca , their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients , with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group .
Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements .
Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients , with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group .
The primary analyses are a bit more expanded , but need to be less efficacious for success : about sixty percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Pfizer have primary analyses that distribute the vaccine to only 100 , 151 , 154 , and 164 participants respectively .
These companies state that they do not “ intend ” to stop trials after the primary analyses , but there is every chance that they intend to pursue an EUA and focus on manufacturing the vaccine rather than further thorough testing .
The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are .
A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one or two mild symptoms .
These include headache , fever , cough , or mild nausea .
This is far from adequate .
These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms .
These trials certainly do not give assurance that the vaccine will protect from the serious consequences of Covid-19 .
Johnson & Johnson is the only trial that requires the inclusion of severe Covid-19 cases , at least 5 for the 75 participant interim analysis .
One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone takes this vaccine , are they far less likely to become infected with the virus ?
These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19 , and not infections themselves .
Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance .
It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection .
Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group .
They do not measure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary motivation .
A greater concern for the millions of older people and those with preexisting conditions is whether these trials test the vaccine ’ s ability to prevent severe illness and death .
Again we find that severe illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials .
None list the prevention of death and hospitalization as a critically important barrier .
If total infections , hospitalizations , and death are going to be ignored in the preliminary trials of the vaccines , then there must be phase four testing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be long term massive scale monitoring of the vaccine .
There must be an indication that the authorized vaccines are reducing infection , hospitalization , and death , or else they will not be able to stop this pandemic .
These protocols do not emphasize the most important ramifications of Covid-19 that people are most interested in preventing : overall infection , hospitalization , and death .
It boggles the mind and defies common sense that the National Institute of Health , the Center for Disease Control , the National Institute of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would be distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success .
It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success .
As this is being written , the FDA is poised to announce tougher standards for a Covid-19 vaccine in the near future .
It is my hope that these new standards for an EUA will at a minimum include requirements for protections from infection itself , protections from severe virus-related disease leading to hospitalization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related mortality .
It is clear from these studies that the vaccines currently under trial will not be the silver bullet needed to end the pandemic .
We must do all we can public health measures to control Covid-19 as China and other Asian countries have successfully done .
Correction ( 10/7/20 ) : A former version of the article stated that 53 people received a vaccination for interim analysis in the Moderna trial .
The vaccine was in fact given to thousands of people , with 53 being the number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run the analysis .
About the author : William A. Haseltine is a scientist , businessman , author , and philanthropist .
For nearly two decades , he was a professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health where he founded two academic research departments , the Division of Biochemical Pharmacology and the Division of Human Retrovirology .
He is perhaps most well known for work on cancer , HIV/AIDS , genomics and , today , on COVID-19 .
His autobiography , My Lifelong Fight Against Disease , publishes this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ACCESS Health International , a nonprofit organization .
Please DONATE to HELP support our ongoing battle to expose the COVID-19 FRAUD !
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

Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed
Written by William A. Haseltine
Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson are leading candidates for the completion of a Covid-19 vaccine likely to be released in the coming months. These companies have published their vaccine trial protocols. This unusually transparent action during a major drug trial deserves praise, close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns.
These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal. What would a normal vaccine trial look like?
Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint. Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines.
In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2 underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.
We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.
The greatest fear people have is dying from this disease. A vaccine must significantly or entirely reduce deaths from Covid-19. Over two hundred thousand people have died in the United States and nearly a million worldwide. None list mortality as a critical endpoint.
We recognize that the influenza vaccine does not prevent infection with that virus, but does have a measurable impact on hospitalization and death. The moderate protections from the influenza virus can potentially be replicated and improved on with Covid-19, but only with extensive trials that ensure the efficacy of a future vaccine.
Vaccine efficacy is typically proved by large clinical trials over several years. The pharmaceutical companies intend to do trials ranging from thirty thousand to sixty thousand participants. This scale of study would be sufficient for testing vaccine efficacy. The first surprise found upon a closer reading of the protocols reveals that each study intends to complete interim and primary analyses that at most include 164 participants.
These companies likely intend to apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with just their limited preliminary results.
Interim analysis success requires a seventy percent efficacy. The vaccine or placebo will be given to thousands of people in each trial. For Moderna, the initial interim analysis will be based on the results of infection of only 53 people. The judgment reached in interim analysis is dependent upon the difference in the number of people with symptoms, which may be mild, in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group.
Moderna’s success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group. For Johnson & Johnson, their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 18 or less developing symptoms compared to 59 in the control group.
For AstraZeneca, their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group. Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements. Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group.
The primary analyses are a bit more expanded, but need to be less efficacious for success: about sixty percent. AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer have primary analyses that distribute the vaccine to only 100, 151, 154, and 164 participants respectively. These companies state that they do not “intend” to stop trials after the primary analyses, but there is every chance that they intend to pursue an EUA and focus on manufacturing the vaccine rather than further thorough testing.
The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms.
These trials certainly do not give assurance that the vaccine will protect from the serious consequences of Covid-19. Johnson & Johnson is the only trial that requires the inclusion of severe Covid-19 cases, at least 5 for the 75 participant interim analysis.
One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.
It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.
A greater concern for the millions of older people and those with preexisting conditions is whether these trials test the vaccine’s ability to prevent severe illness and death. Again we find that severe illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials. None list the prevention of death and hospitalization as a critically important barrier.
If total infections, hospitalizations, and death are going to be ignored in the preliminary trials of the vaccines, then there must be phase four testing to monitor their safety and efficacy. This would be long term massive scale monitoring of the vaccine. There must be an indication that the authorized vaccines are reducing infection, hospitalization, and death, or else they will not be able to stop this pandemic.
These protocols do not emphasize the most important ramifications of Covid-19 that people are most interested in preventing: overall infection, hospitalization, and death. It boggles the mind and defies common sense that the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would be distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success.
It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success. As this is being written, the FDA is poised to announce tougher standards for a Covid-19 vaccine in the near future. It is my hope that these new standards for an EUA will at a minimum include requirements for protections from infection itself, protections from severe virus-related disease leading to hospitalization, and a significant improvement in Covid-19 related mortality.
It is clear from these studies that the vaccines currently under trial will not be the silver bullet needed to end the pandemic. We must do all we can public health measures to control Covid-19 as China and other Asian countries have successfully done.
Correction (10/7/20): A former version of the article stated that 53 people received a vaccination for interim analysis in the Moderna trial. The vaccine was in fact given to thousands of people, with 53 being the number of people who must be infected with Covid-19 to run the analysis.
About the author: William A. Haseltine is a scientist, businessman, author, and philanthropist. For nearly two decades, he was a professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health where he founded two academic research departments, the Division of Biochemical Pharmacology and the Division of Human Retrovirology. He is perhaps most well known for work on cancer, HIV/AIDS, genomics and, today, on COVID-19. His autobiography, My Lifelong Fight Against Disease, publishes this October. He is chair and president of ACCESS Health International, a nonprofit organization.
Read more at www.forbes.com
Please DONATE to HELP support our ongoing battle to expose the COVID-19 FRAUD!
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--2020-11-12--‘Einstein was wrong!’ Scientists call for new theory

‘ Einstein was wrong !
’ Scientists call for new theory The general theory of relativity was published by the physics genius more than a century ago , to refine Isaac Newton ’ s law of universal gravitation .
Providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time , or spacetime , this model is still currently used by scientists as an explanation of gravitation in modern physics .
Einstein ’ s theory has important astrophysical implications as it alludes to the existence of black holes – cosmic phenomenons in which space and time are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not even light , can escape .
At the centre of a black hole , as described by general relativity , may lie a gravitational singularity , a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite .
But while mathematics says a singularity is possible , nature apparently proves these do not exist , Discovery Channel ’ s ‘ How The Universe Works ’ exposed .
The series explained : “ When a giant dying star collapses , the mass of the star falls in and keeps falling in crushing down into an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tegmark believes the “ singularity ” is “ just a fancy way of saying ‘ we have no idea what is happening here ’ .
” Astronomer Phil Plait explained why some experts have an issue with using this theory .
He said : “ The way our physics describes black holes when they form is you ’ re taking a finite amount of mass and you ’ re collapsing it down .
Its volume should shrink all the way down to zero , but that means it has infinite density and infinite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense.
” Theoretical physics Lawrence Krauss then explained why some are questioning Einstein ’ s theory .
He added : “ If you make a prediction and the answer is infinite , then it tells you that there is something wrong with your prediction.We have never seen infinity in the universe .
Maybe a black hole with an event horizon described by general relativity just isn ’ t the proper description of the physics.
” Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particles .
Leading astronomer and assistant director for Science Communication at NASA ’ s Goddard Space Flight Centre , Michelle Thaller , explained why it is key to the debate .
She said in 2018 : “ Have you ever thought about the term quantum mechanics and what those terms actually mean Everything in the universe is broken up into tiny units and there is a basic unit of energy , time and space that can not be divided any smaller.There is a limit to how small those things can be.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is known as a Planck Length to physicists .
But if there is a universal limit on the smallest size , then something infinitely small can not exist , according to some scientists .
“ If infinity doesn ’ t exist , then singularities don ’ t exist .
And if singularities don ’ t exist , then Einstein ’ s theory of General Relativity is not correct.The simplest thing we can do is change some equations , change his theory of gravity .
“ Let ’ s invent what we would call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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

‘Einstein was wrong!’ Scientists call for new theory
Written by Callum Hoare
The general theory of relativity was published by the physics genius more than a century ago, to refine Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation. Providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime, this model is still currently used by scientists as an explanation of gravitation in modern physics.
Einstein’s theory has important astrophysical implications as it alludes to the existence of black holes – cosmic phenomenons in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape.
At the centre of a black hole, as described by general relativity, may lie a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. But while mathematics says a singularity is possible, nature apparently proves these do not exist, Discovery Channel’s ‘How The Universe Works’ exposed. The series explained: “When a giant dying star collapses, the mass of the star falls in and keeps falling in crushing down into an infinitely small point. “This is called the singularity.”
But physicist Max Tegmark believes the “singularity” is “just a fancy way of saying ‘we have no idea what is happening here’.” Astronomer Phil Plait explained why some experts have an issue with using this theory. He said: “The way our physics describes black holes when they form is you’re taking a finite amount of mass and you’re collapsing it down. Its volume should shrink all the way down to zero, but that means it has infinite density and infinite gravity. That doesn’t make sense.” Theoretical physics Lawrence Krauss then explained why some are questioning Einstein’s theory. He added: “If you make a prediction and the answer is infinite, then it tells you that there is something wrong with your prediction.We have never seen infinity in the universe. Maybe a black hole with an event horizon described by general relativity just isn’t the proper description of the physics.” Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. Leading astronomer and assistant director for Science Communication at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, Michelle Thaller, explained why it is key to the debate. She said in 2018: “Have you ever thought about the term quantum mechanics and what those terms actually mean Everything in the universe is broken up into tiny units and there is a basic unit of energy, time and space that cannot be divided any smaller.There is a limit to how small those things can be.” The smallest unit in the universe is what is known as a Planck Length to physicists. Michelle Thaller explained quantum mechanics But if there is a universal limit on the smallest size, then something infinitely small cannot exist, according to some scientists. Quantum mechanics expert Sean Carroll explained: “If infinity doesn’t exist, then singularities don’t exist. And if singularities don’t exist, then Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is not correct.The simplest thing we can do is change some equations, change his theory of gravity. “Let’s invent what we would call exotic speculative physics.” Read more at www.express.co.uk **** 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--2020-11-12--‘Eco-Friendly’ Plastics Pose The Same Threat To Marine Life

‘ Eco-Friendly ’ Plastics Pose The Same Threat To Marine Life According to a study performed by Tel Aviv University , “ environmentally friendly ” cutlery like utensils and plates made with bioplastics is actually posing a threat to marine species .
Previously , it was thought that disposable tableware made out of bioplastics was much better for the environment than normal plastic because it would decompose quicker and pose fewer risks to fish , birds , and other sea creatures .
Now , this study from Tel Aviv University claims that bioplastics decompose at a similar rate to traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What ’ s worse is that these bioplastics pose the most severe threat to marine life with how they are disposed of .
Ocean critters are already under threat from enough plastic debris and overfishing .
“ At least in the short term , both types of plastic have a similar detrimental effect , Prof. Shenkar says .
‘ Bioplastics are made of natural materials and , in that sense , they are more beneficial environmentally speaking .
But they may also contain toxins just like regular plastic dishes and they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , the standard appearing on the label is dated .
It doesn ’ t refer at all to different kinds of plastic additives and speaks of biodegrading within 180 days , but that is specifically under conditions available only in industrial composting settings.
’ ” To read the entire analysis in ScienceDaily , click here .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Method

‘Eco-Friendly’ Plastics Pose The Same Threat To Marine Life
Written by CFACT
According to a study performed by Tel Aviv University, “environmentally friendly” cutlery like utensils and plates made with bioplastics is actually posing a threat to marine species.
Previously, it was thought that disposable tableware made out of bioplastics was much better for the environment than normal plastic because it would decompose quicker and pose fewer risks to fish, birds, and other sea creatures.
Now, this study from Tel Aviv University claims that bioplastics decompose at a similar rate to traditional plastics, negating any huge environmental benefit.
What’s worse is that these bioplastics pose the most severe threat to marine life with how they are disposed of. Ocean critters are already under threat from enough plastic debris and overfishing.
ScienceDaily reports:
“At least in the short term, both types of plastic have a similar detrimental effect, Prof. Shenkar says. ‘Bioplastics are made of natural materials and, in that sense, they are more beneficial environmentally speaking. But they may also contain toxins just like regular plastic dishes and they do not biodegrade quickly in the aquatic habitat. In fact, the standard appearing on the label is dated. It doesn’t refer at all to different kinds of plastic additives and speaks of biodegrading within 180 days, but that is specifically under conditions available only in industrial composting settings.’”
To read the entire analysis in ScienceDaily, click here.
Read more at CFACT
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-11-12--Google Promotes Study That Climate Change Causes Cancer

Among the top items Google is promoting today under the search term “ climate change ” is a paper out of the University of California at San Francisco ( UCSF ) titled , “ Climate Change Will Give Rise to More Cancers.
” As the title implies , the study claims climate change will contribute to “ higher rates of cancer , especially lung , skin and gastrointestinal cancers , ” because climate change will cause poor air quality and disruptions in the food supply .
However , there is no evidence climate change has had or will have any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , scientific evidence shows that , by UCSF ’ s logic , climate change will reduce the number of people getting cancer .
Playing on the public ’ s justified fear of cancer to hype action against climate change alarm is shameful .
In particular , the study asserts climate change will cause an increase in cancer rates and a decline in cancer treatment for three main reasons : • Climate change will cause an increase in wildfires , putting particulate matter and soot into the air , which , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in lung cancers .
• Climate change will disrupt food supplies resulting in malnutrition , which will contribute to increasing numbers of gastrointestinal cancers .
• Climate change will cause more “ [ e ] xtreme weather events such as storms and flooding [ that ] can destroy or damage health-care infrastructure , reducing health care quality and availability … [ as well as ] interrupting service delivery by causing power shortages , disrupting supply chains , transportation , and communication , and resulting in staff shortages.
” Tackling each of these claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildfires have declined over the past century even as the earth has experienced modest warming .
As documented in Climate at a Glance : Wildfires , long-term data from the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center ( NIFC ) show wildfires have dramatically declined in number and severity in recent decades .
Reporting data on U.S. wildfires from as far back as 1926 , NIFC documents that the number of acres annually burned recently is only1/4th to 1/5th of the annual acres burned in the 1930s .
Globally , the data on wildfires are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ False Alarm , Bjorn Lomborg observes : “ There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire , with satellites showing a 25 percent reduction globally in burned areas just over the past 18 years … In total , the global amount of area burned has declined by more than 540,000 square miles , from 1.9 million square miles in the early part of last century to 1.4 million square miles today.
” Because there is no evidence climate change is causing an increase in wildfires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is equally no evidence climate change is causing more incidences of lung cancer .
Real-world data concerning crop production directly contradict the UCSF study ’ s claim that food supply disruptions will lead to more gastrointestinal cancers .
The evidence is clear food production is improving with modest warming and higher carbon dioxide concentrations .
Data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) show yields of the most important cereal crops have increased dramatically over the past few decades , repeatedly setting new records .
As shown in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s recent “ Cereal Supply and Demand Brief ” reports new global records are being set nearly every year for the production of the cereal crops ( corn , wheat , rice , and similar crop staples ) that comprise most of the global food consumption .
Cereal grains include the Big Three food staples of corn , rice , wheat , and similar crops .
Corn , rice , and wheat by themselves comprise 66 percent of global human food consumption .
Cereal crops alone make up nine of the 15 crops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s food energy intake .
As shown above , the FAO reports cereal grain production set new records seven of the past 10 years .
Global warming lengthens growing seasons , reduces frost events , and makes more land suitable for crop production .
Also , carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer for plant life .
Fruits and vegetables also benefit from longer growing seasons , fewer frost events , and from the fertilization effect of increased levels of carbon dioxide .
As a result , climate change-induced crop abundance has resulted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and starvation in human history .
Increasing amounts of nutritious food mean cancers related to diet and nutrition should decline as well .
Finally , data recorded by the U.S. government and the International Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) presented in Climate at a Glance : Drought , Climate at a Glance : Floods , and Climate at a Glance Hurricanes , show that the number and severity of droughts , floods , and hurricanes have not increased during the past few decades of modest warming .
Concerning floods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low confidence ” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods .
Concerning drought , the IPCC reports with “ high confidence ” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere ( including the United States ) during the past 70 years , and it has “ low confidence ” about any negative trends globally .
Data also show , the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry ” conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history .
Data from the IPCC and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) show no increase in the number or severity of hurricanes in recent decades .
Indeed , NOAA reports , the United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike .
American also recently experienced its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period .
Since the evidence is clear that climate change is not causing more extreme weather events , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t making it more difficult to treat people for cancer by disrupting medical supplies or disrupting travel to hospitals and clinics for cancer treatment .
The UCSF study is filled with alarming claims and speculation but short on facts .
The available evidence indicates people have no reason to fear climate change is making or will make cancer more common or more difficult to treat .
People who fear cancer should instead fear that climate hucksters will try and use fear of climate change and false cancer links to divert money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and research , steering it instead toward climate research .
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

Google Promotes Study That Climate Change Causes Cancer
Written by H Sterling Burnett
Among the top items Google is promoting today under the search term “climate change” is a paper out of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) titled, “Climate Change Will Give Rise to More Cancers.”
As the title implies, the study claims climate change will contribute to “higher rates of cancer, especially lung, skin and gastrointestinal cancers,” because climate change will cause poor air quality and disruptions in the food supply.
However, there is no evidence climate change has had or will have any impact on cancer rates or treatment. In fact, scientific evidence shows that, by UCSF’s logic, climate change will reduce the number of people getting cancer.
Playing on the public’s justified fear of cancer to hype action against climate change alarm is shameful.
In particular, the study asserts climate change will cause an increase in cancer rates and a decline in cancer treatment for three main reasons:
Climate change will cause an increase in wildfires, putting particulate matter and soot into the air, which, when breathed in will contribute to an increase in lung cancers.
Climate change will disrupt food supplies resulting in malnutrition, which will contribute to increasing numbers of gastrointestinal cancers.
Climate change will cause more “[e]xtreme weather events such as storms and flooding [that] can destroy or damage health-care infrastructure, reducing health care quality and availability … [as well as] interrupting service delivery by causing power shortages, disrupting supply chains, transportation, and communication, and resulting in staff shortages.”
Tackling each of these claims, in turn, the evidence shows wildfires have declined over the past century even as the earth has experienced modest warming.
As documented in Climate at a Glance: Wildfires, long-term data from the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) show wildfires have dramatically declined in number and severity in recent decades.
Reporting data on U.S. wildfires from as far back as 1926, NIFC documents that the number of acres annually burned recently is only1/4th to 1/5th of the annual acres burned in the 1930s.
Globally, the data on wildfires are just as clear. In his book False Alarm, Bjorn Lomborg observes:
“There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire, with satellites showing a 25 percent reduction globally in burned areas just over the past 18 years … In total, the global amount of area burned has declined by more than 540,000 square miles, from 1.9 million square miles in the early part of last century to 1.4 million square miles today.”
Because there is no evidence climate change is causing an increase in wildfires or the air pollution they emit, there is equally no evidence climate change is causing more incidences of lung cancer.
Real-world data concerning crop production directly contradict the UCSF study’s claim that food supply disruptions will lead to more gastrointestinal cancers.
The evidence is clear food production is improving with modest warming and higher carbon dioxide concentrations.
Data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show yields of the most important cereal crops have increased dramatically over the past few decades, repeatedly setting new records.
As shown in the chart below, the FAO’s recent “Cereal Supply and Demand Brief” reports new global records are being set nearly every year for the production of the cereal crops (corn, wheat, rice, and similar crop staples) that comprise most of the global food consumption.
Cereal grains include the Big Three food staples of corn, rice, wheat, and similar crops. Corn, rice, and wheat by themselves comprise 66 percent of global human food consumption.
Cereal crops alone make up nine of the 15 crops that provide 90 percent of humanity’s food energy intake. As shown above, the FAO reports cereal grain production set new records seven of the past 10 years.
Global warming lengthens growing seasons, reduces frost events, and makes more land suitable for crop production.
Also, carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer for plant life. Fruits and vegetables also benefit from longer growing seasons, fewer frost events, and from the fertilization effect of increased levels of carbon dioxide.
As a result, climate change-induced crop abundance has resulted in the largest decline in hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in human history.
Increasing amounts of nutritious food mean cancers related to diet and nutrition should decline as well.
Finally, data recorded by the U.S. government and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented in Climate at a Glance: Drought, Climate at a Glance: Floods, and Climate at a Glance Hurricanes, show that the number and severity of droughts, floods, and hurricanes have not increased during the past few decades of modest warming.
Concerning floods, the IPCC has said it has “low confidence” in any climate change impact regarding the frequency or severity of floods.
Concerning drought, the IPCC reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) during the past 70 years, and it has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.
Data also show, the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions, and in 2017 and 2019 America registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.
Data from the IPCC and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show no increase in the number or severity of hurricanes in recent decades. Indeed, NOAA reports, the United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike.
American also recently experienced its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period.
Since the evidence is clear that climate change is not causing more extreme weather events, it must also be true climate change isn’t making it more difficult to treat people for cancer by disrupting medical supplies or disrupting travel to hospitals and clinics for cancer treatment.
The UCSF study is filled with alarming claims and speculation but short on facts. The available evidence indicates people have no reason to fear climate change is making or will make cancer more common or more difficult to treat.
People who fear cancer should instead fear that climate hucksters will try and use fear of climate change and false cancer links to divert money and resources away from direct cancer treatment and research, steering it instead toward climate research.
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--2020-11-12--Bacterium Survived on Outside of the Space Station for a Year!

Bacterium Survived on Outside of the Space Station for a Year !
A year in space is no walk in the park .
Just ask Scott Kelly , the American astronaut who spent a year on the International Space Station ( ISS ) in 2015 .
His long-term stay in space changed his DNA , telomeres , and gut microbiome , he lost bone density , and he still had sore feet three months later .
But it ’ s a whole other thing to survive in the naked space outside the protection of the ISS , where UV radiation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and microgravity are all imminent threats .
So , it ’ s quite a feat that a species of bacterium first found in a can of meat , Deinococcus radiodurans , was still alive and kicking after a year spent living on a specially designed platform outside the pressurized module of the ISS .
Researchers have been investigating these mighty microbes for a while ; back in 2015 , an international team set up the Tanpopo mission on the outside of the Japanese Experimental Module Kibo , to put hardy bacterial species to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has passed with flying colors .
The bacterial cells were dehydrated , shipped to the ISS , and placed in the Exposed Facility , a platform continuously exposed to the space environment ; in this case , the cells were behind a glass window that blocked out UV light at wavelengths lower than 190 nanometers .
“ Results presented in this study may increase awareness regarding planetary protection concerns on , for instance , the Martian atmosphere which absorbs UV radiation below 190-200 nm , ” the team from Austria , Japan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ To mimic this condition , our experimental setup on the ISS included a silicon dioxide glass window.
” This isn ’ t the longest time D. radiodurans has been kept in these conditions – back in August we wrote about a sample of the bacterium being left up there for three whole years .
But the team weren ’ t trying for a world record , instead they were trying to uncover what makes D. radiodurans just so good at surviving in these extreme conditions .
The survival rate was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the control version , but the bacteria that did survive seemed to be doing okay , even if they had turned a little different to their Earth-bound brethren .
The team found that the LEO bacteria were covered with small bumps or vesicles on the surface , a number of repair mechanisms had been triggered , and some proteins and mRNAs had become more abundant .
The team isn ’ t exactly sure why the vesicles ( which you can see in the picture above ) formed , but they do have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vesiculation after recovery from LEO exposure can serve as a quick stress response , which augments cell survival by withdrawing stress products , ” the team wrote .
“ Additionally , outer membrane vesicles may contain proteins important for nutrient acquisition , DNA transfer , transport of toxins and quorum sensing molecules , eliciting the activation of resistance mechanisms after space exposure.
” This kind of study helps us understand whether bacteria could survive other worlds , and maybe even the journey between them , which will become more and more important as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with us begin to travel farther than our Moon into the Solar System , and one day maybe even beyond .
“ These investigations help us to understand the mechanisms and processes through which life can exist beyond Earth , expanding our knowledge on how to survive and adapt in the hostile environment of outer space , ” said University of Vienna biochemist Tetyana Milojevic .
“ The results suggest that survival of D. radiodurans in LEO for a longer period is possible due to its efficient molecular response system and indicate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for organisms with such capabilities.
” The research has been published in Microbiome .
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

Bacterium Survived on Outside of the Space Station for a Year!
Written by Jacinta Bowler
A year in space is no walk in the park. Just ask Scott Kelly, the American astronaut who spent a year on the International Space Station (ISS) in 2015.
His long-term stay in space changed his DNA, telomeres, and gut microbiome, he lost bone density, and he still had sore feet three months later.
But it’s a whole other thing to survive in the naked space outside the protection of the ISS, where UV radiation, vacuum, huge temperature fluctuations, and microgravity are all imminent threats.
So, it’s quite a feat that a species of bacterium first found in a can of meat, Deinococcus radiodurans, was still alive and kicking after a year spent living on a specially designed platform outside the pressurized module of the ISS.
Researchers have been investigating these mighty microbes for a while; back in 2015, an international team set up the Tanpopo mission on the outside of the Japanese Experimental Module Kibo, to put hardy bacterial species to the test.
Now, D. radiodurans has passed with flying colors.
The bacterial cells were dehydrated, shipped to the ISS, and placed in the Exposed Facility, a platform continuously exposed to the space environment; in this case, the cells were behind a glass window that blocked out UV light at wavelengths lower than 190 nanometers.
“Results presented in this study may increase awareness regarding planetary protection concerns on, for instance, the Martian atmosphere which absorbs UV radiation below 190-200 nm,” the team from Austria, Japan, and Germany wrote in their new paper.
“To mimic this condition, our experimental setup on the ISS included a silicon dioxide glass window.”
This isn’t the longest time D. radiodurans has been kept in these conditions – back in August we wrote about a sample of the bacterium being left up there for three whole years.
But the team weren’t trying for a world record, instead they were trying to uncover what makes D. radiodurans just so good at surviving in these extreme conditions.
So, after a year of radiation, freezing and boiling temperatures, and no gravity, the researchers got the spacefaring bacteria back down to Earth, rehydrated both a control that had spent the year on Earth and the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) sample, and compared their results.
The survival rate was a lot lower for the LEO bacteria compared to the control version, but the bacteria that did survive seemed to be doing okay, even if they had turned a little different to their Earth-bound brethren.
The team found that the LEO bacteria were covered with small bumps or vesicles on the surface, a number of repair mechanisms had been triggered, and some proteins and mRNAs had become more abundant.
The team isn’t exactly sure why the vesicles (which you can see in the picture above) formed, but they do have a couple of ideas.
“Intensified vesiculation after recovery from LEO exposure can serve as a quick stress response, which augments cell survival by withdrawing stress products,” the team wrote.
“Additionally, outer membrane vesicles may contain proteins important for nutrient acquisition, DNA transfer, transport of toxins and quorum sensing molecules, eliciting the activation of resistance mechanisms after space exposure.”
This kind of study helps us understand whether bacteria could survive other worlds, and maybe even the journey between them, which will become more and more important as we humans and the germs we bring with us begin to travel farther than our Moon into the Solar System, and one day maybe even beyond.
“These investigations help us to understand the mechanisms and processes through which life can exist beyond Earth, expanding our knowledge on how to survive and adapt in the hostile environment of outer space,” said University of Vienna biochemist Tetyana Milojevic.
“The results suggest that survival of D. radiodurans in LEO for a longer period is possible due to its efficient molecular response system and indicate that even longer, farther journeys are achievable for organisms with such capabilities.”
The research has been published in Microbiome.
Read more at www.livescience.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--2020-11-12--Discredited: CDC SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Testing & Isolation Claims

A few days ago I provided critical comments on a publication from Australia ( University of Melbourne ) which claimed isolation and identification of SARS-CoV-2 virus [ 1 ] .
I suggested that claims were not supported by scientific evidence and logic .
The present article critically evaluates a similar claim from America ’ s Center for Disease Control ( CDC ) in a publication [ 2 ] entitled : The patient case report for this ( above mentioned ) study is detailed in a separate publication [ 3 ] , and is considered here first before we moved to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had recently returned from China presented to a clinic in Washington State with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever .
The patient visited the hospital voluntarily after hearing of a health alert over an alleged novel coronavirus outbreak in China apparently with similar symptoms to his own .
The medical examination indicated : body temperature ( 37.2°C ) ; blood pressure 134/87 mm Hg ; oxygen saturation 96 % ; chest radiography showed no abnormalities .
CDC staff decided to test the patient for 2019-nCoV ( subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation ” case definitions .
The patient was discharged from the hospital , but was later called back as his PCR test returned a positive reading .
Treatment during this time was largely supportive .
The patient received , as needed , 650 mg of acetaminophen every 4 hours and 600 mg of ibuprofen every 6 hours .
He also received 600 mg of guaifenesin for his continued cough and approximately 6 liters of normal saline over the first 6 days of hospitalization .
In view of the potential for hospital-acquired pneumonia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dose followed by 1 g administered intravenously every 8 hours ) and cefepime ( administered intravenously every 8 hours ) was begun .
The CDC asserted that the patient ’ s nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via rRT-PCR assay .
The stool and both respiratory specimens also tested positive by rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 , whereas the serum remained negative .
Treatment with intravenous remdesivir ( a novel nucleotide analogue prodrug ) was begun on the evening of day 7 , and no adverse events were observed in association with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evening of day 7 , and cefepime was discontinued the following day .
On hospital day 8 ( illness day 12 ) , the patient ’ s clinical condition improved .
Supplemental oxygen was discontinued , and his oxygen saturation values improved to 94 – 96 % while he was breathing ambient air .
The previous bilateral lower-lobe rales were no longer present .
His appetite improved , and he was asymptomatic aside from intermittent dry cough and rhinorrhea .
He was afebrile , and all symptoms have resolved with the exception of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severity .
Considering the case history , it is not clear as to why the patient was subjected to an rRT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 when he was exhibiting what would normally be diagnosed as a mild flu and which would therefore be treatable with antibiotics ( as per Australian response ) .
Nevertheless because the rRT-PCR test came out positive the assumption that the patient had SARS-CoV-2 prevailed leading to the antiviral drug , remdesivir was ( accordingly ) administered .
The fundamental error here is that the patient should not have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the SARS-CoV-2 and this is because the rRT-PCR test is not a validated test , and can not be validated without an independently extracted physical reference sample of the virus , which has not been obtained to date .
From a scientific view point , and with regard to the matter at hand , no assay can be valid without an independently verified physical reference sample .
Therefore the diagnosis , and the associated claim , that the patient had SARS-CoV-2 and its associated infection/disease ( COVID-19 ) , is necessarily false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the authorities/experts are aware the shortcoming of the ‘ PCR dialogistic process ’ , and ( accordingly ) attempt to overcome this with convoluted logic which runs as follows : And as if this were not bad enough , there is additional problem consisting of the fact that the DNA resulting from such creativity is not the actual virus itself but merely a virus marker which is commonly , but wrongly , referred to as the virus .
To clarify , rRT-PCR never determines a virus but only a DNA ( marker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PCR test does not even determine actual biological DNA from the swab samples , because it is almost invariably present in extremely small amounts which must be multiplied millions of times in order to be detected .
There is therefore no definitive link between the RNA/DNA in the mucus swab and the purported virus .
In short , one can not definitively establish the presence of a virus by simply assuming that a particular RNA/DNA strand relates to a certain patient ’ s symptoms , but must physically isolate the virus as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measurable quantities of DNA .
PCR is therefore not a valid diagnostic test but a simply a technique for manufacturing multiple ( millions and billions ) copies of DNA initially synthesized via a RNA primer , the resulting in measurable quantity then being used to ‘ confirm ’ the presence of that DNA via standard analytical chemistry tests .
The limits of the technique with regard to diagnostic accuracy are well documented , and Dr. Kary Mullis ( photo , above ) , Nobel Laureate and inventor of the PCR technique highlighted this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often not recommended , or at least should not be relied upon , for diagnostic purposes .
Parallel to producing multiple copies of DNA via the PCR technique , the CDC also used swab samples to inoculate cell culture to produce multiple copies of the ( supposed ) virus .
This ( later ) production was also monitored using the PCR technique .
That is , the process involve : ( 1 ) creating multiple replicate copies of the alleged virus DNA via the PCR technique ; ( 2 ) creating multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture/media/soup from the swab sample .
The study asserts that ; ( 1 ) electron microscope images of spherical particles with spikes are an indication of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus ; ( 2 ) observed DNA from the culture containing the spherical particles is similar to that of other corona viruses ( detected with PCR-technique and evaluated with computer-generated modelling ) and is assumed to be associated with SARS-CoV-2 .
This kind of “ confirmation ” treats the culture/media/soup as though it were the virus itself , which would be like saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is positive ( mind-set ) thinking not science : the analysis should have instead culminated in the isolation of the actual virus particles themselves , which is the standard procedure for confirming the existence of any virus , its link to disease and its clinical symptoms .
Therefore , as it stands now the publication does not provide any evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been positively identified .
Further , the question remains as to the basis upon which the SARS-CoV-2 is considered linked to the disease COVID-19 .
Just what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are its specific symptoms and clinical measurable parameters ?
The case study as well as the CDC-publication reveals nothing in this regard , but rather , it would appear that a trendy PCR digital testing regime has substituted for real , ‘ boring ’ empirical science .
And there are several associated claims of similar dubious merit : In summary , the resultant declaration by the CDC of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the USA was based on flawed ( PCR ) technique .
This declaration was then further assumed confirmed by electron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particles in cell lysate or cell culture .
No effort was made to isolate , identify , and characterise the particles from culture media to confirm that the particles were indeed SARS-CoV-2 and whether or not they might have represented other viruses previously catalogued .
It is quite clear that the analysis was not submitted to the rigours of empirically-based science .
Experts and authorities are requested to reconsider their views with regard to the scientific method in declaring the presence of the virus , its link to any disease and its spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state that there is currently no evidence available in support of the current claims and measures regarding the virus SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 narrative .
For further information please visit www.drug-dissolution-testing.com ) or directly contacting the author at principal @ pharmacomechanics.com .
About the author : Saeed A Qureshi PhD gained extensive ( 30+ year ) experience in conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada .
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics , biopharmaceutics , drug dissolution testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pharmaceuticals , in particular , based on in vitro ( dissolution ) and bioavailability/bioequivalence ( humans and animals ) assessments .
At present , Dr. Qureshi provides teaching , training and consulting services , in the area of his expertise as noted above , for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments .
Please DONATE to HELP support our ongoing battle to expose the COVID-19 FRAUD !
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method

Saeed A. Qureshi, Ph.D. (principal@pharmacomechanics.com)

Discredited: CDC SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Testing & Isolation Claims
Written by Saeed A. Qureshi, Ph.D. ([email protected])
A few days ago I provided critical comments on a publication from Australia (University of Melbourne) which claimed isolation and identification of SARS-CoV-2 virus [1]. I suggested that claims were not supported by scientific evidence and logic.
The present article critically evaluates a similar claim from America’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) in a publication [2] entitled:
“Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”. [ CDC-publication]
The patient case report for this (above mentioned) study is detailed in a separate publication [3], and is considered here first before we moved to the study itself.
Case Report – COVID-19 Diagnosis
A 35-year-old man who had recently returned from China presented to a clinic in Washington State with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever. The patient visited the hospital voluntarily after hearing of a health alert over an alleged novel coronavirus outbreak in China apparently with similar symptoms to his own.
The medical examination indicated: body temperature (37.2°C); blood pressure 134/87 mm Hg; oxygen saturation 96%; chest radiography showed no abnormalities. CDC staff decided to test the patient for 2019-nCoV (subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2) based on current CDC “persons under investigation” case definitions. The patient was discharged from the hospital, but was later called back as his PCR test returned a positive reading.
Treatment during this time was largely supportive. The patient received, as needed, 650 mg of acetaminophen every 4 hours and 600 mg of ibuprofen every 6 hours. He also received 600 mg of guaifenesin for his continued cough and approximately 6 liters of normal saline over the first 6 days of hospitalization.
In view of the potential for hospital-acquired pneumonia, treatment with vancomycin (a 1750-mg loading dose followed by 1 g administered intravenously every 8 hours) and cefepime (administered intravenously every 8 hours) was begun.
The CDC asserted that the patient’s nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via rRT-PCR assay. The stool and both respiratory specimens also tested positive by rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, whereas the serum remained negative.
Treatment with intravenous remdesivir (a novel nucleotide analogue prodrug) was begun on the evening of day 7, and no adverse events were observed in association with the infusion. Vancomycin was discontinued on the evening of day 7, and cefepime was discontinued the following day.
On hospital day 8 (illness day 12), the patient’s clinical condition improved. Supplemental oxygen was discontinued, and his oxygen saturation values improved to 94 – 96% while he was breathing ambient air. The previous bilateral lower-lobe rales were no longer present. His appetite improved, and he was asymptomatic aside from intermittent dry cough and rhinorrhea. He was afebrile, and all symptoms have resolved with the exception of his cough, which was decreasing in severity.
Considering the case history, it is not clear as to why the patient was subjected to an rRT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 when he was exhibiting what would normally be diagnosed as a mild flu and which would therefore be treatable with antibiotics (as per Australian response). Nevertheless because the rRT-PCR test came out positive the assumption that the patient had SARS-CoV-2 prevailed leading to the antiviral drug, remdesivir was (accordingly) administered.
The fundamental error here is that the patient should not have been given an rRT-PCR test for establishing presence of the SARS-CoV-2 and this is because the rRT-PCR test is not a validated test, and cannot be validated without an independently extracted physical reference sample of the virus, which has not been obtained to date. From a scientific view point, and with regard to the matter at hand, no assay can be valid without an independently verified physical reference sample. Therefore the diagnosis, and the associated claim, that the patient had SARS-CoV-2 and its associated infection/disease (COVID-19), is necessarily false.
CDC-publication
It would be safe to assume that the authorities/experts are aware the shortcoming of the ‘PCR dialogistic process’, and (accordingly) attempt to overcome this with convoluted logic which runs as follows:
“As no physical sample of the virus is available, let us ‘create’ the virus from RNA found in the patient’s swab samples and which we presume to be RNA from SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
And as if this were not bad enough, there is additional problem consisting of the fact that the DNA resulting from such creativity is not the actual virus itself but merely a virus marker which is commonly, but wrongly, referred to as the virus.
To clarify, rRT-PCR never determines a virus but only a DNA (marker) of the virus. Moreover, PCR test does not even determine actual biological DNA from the swab samples, because it is almost invariably present in extremely small amounts which must be multiplied millions of times in order to be detected. There is therefore no definitive link between the RNA/DNA in the mucus swab and the purported virus.
In short, one cannot definitively establish the presence of a virus by simply assuming that a particular RNA/DNA strand relates to a certain patient’s symptoms, but must physically isolate the virus as a whole, which will then provide us measurable quantities of DNA.
PCR is therefore not a valid diagnostic test but a simply a technique for manufacturing multiple (millions and billions) copies of DNA initially synthesized via a RNA primer, the resulting in measurable quantity then being used to ‘confirm’ the presence of that DNA via standard analytical chemistry tests.
The limits of the technique with regard to diagnostic accuracy are well documented, and Dr. Kary Mullis (photo, above), Nobel Laureate and inventor of the PCR technique highlighted this on several occasions. Hence, PCR is often not recommended, or at least should not be relied upon, for diagnostic purposes.
Parallel to producing multiple copies of DNA via the PCR technique, the CDC also used swab samples to inoculate cell culture to produce multiple copies of the (supposed) virus. This (later) production was also monitored using the PCR technique. That is, the process involve: (1) creating multiple replicate copies of the alleged virus DNA via the PCR technique; (2) creating multiple copies of the alleged virus in a culture/media/soup from the swab sample.
The study asserts that; (1) electron microscope images of spherical particles with spikes are an indication of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus; (2) observed DNA from the culture containing the spherical particles is similar to that of other corona viruses (detected with PCR-technique and evaluated with computer-generated modelling) and is assumed to be associated with SARS-CoV-2.
This kind of “confirmation” treats the culture/media/soup as though it were the virus itself, which would be like saying that sugar molasses is pure sugar! This is positive (mind-set) thinking not science: the analysis should have instead culminated in the isolation of the actual virus particles themselves, which is the standard procedure for confirming the existence of any virus, its link to disease and its clinical symptoms.
Therefore, as it stands now the publication does not provide any evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been positively identified.
Further, the question remains as to the basis upon which the SARS-CoV-2 is considered linked to the disease COVID-19. Just what actually is a COVID-19 disease? What are its specific symptoms and clinical measurable parameters? The case study as well as the CDC-publication reveals nothing in this regard, but rather, it would appear that a trendy PCR digital testing regime has substituted for real, ‘boring’ empirical science.
And there are several associated claims of similar dubious merit:
(1) SARS-CoV-2 is contagious; (2) SARS-CoV-2 is 5 or 10 times deadlier than the common flu virus; (3) face-masks provide protection from the virus; (4) social distancing protects the public by stopping or reducing the spread of the virus; (5) washing hands or exposed skin surfaces provides protection from the virus; (6) lockdowns (partial or full) help reduce the spread of the virus; (7) a significant increase in positive test results (“cases”) shows a wide spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; (8) vaccines are under development, with various time schedules for availability, to protect patients/public from the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
In summary, the resultant declaration by the CDC of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the USA was based on flawed (PCR) technique. This declaration was then further assumed confirmed by electron microscopic images of “virus-like” sphere-with-spikes particles in cell lysate or cell culture.
No effort was made to isolate, identify, and characterise the particles from culture media to confirm that the particles were indeed SARS-CoV-2 and whether or not they might have represented other viruses previously catalogued.
It is quite clear that the analysis was not submitted to the rigours of empirically-based science.
Experts and authorities are requested to reconsider their views with regard to the scientific method in declaring the presence of the virus, its link to any disease and its spread. The science of analytical chemistry would state that there is currently no evidence available in support of the current claims and measures regarding the virus SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 narrative.
References:
[1] http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3533
[2] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article
[3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191
For further information please visit www.drug-dissolution-testing.com)or directly contacting the author at [email protected].
About the author: Saeed A Qureshi PhD gained extensive (30+ year) experience in conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada.
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, drug dissolution testing, analytical chemistry as related to characterization of pharmaceuticals, in particular, based on in vitro (dissolution) and bioavailability/bioequivalence (humans and animals) assessments.
At present, Dr. Qureshi provides teaching, training and consulting services, in the area of his expertise as noted above, for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments.
Please DONATE to HELP support our ongoing battle to expose the COVID-19 FRAUD!
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--2020-11-14--Video: From Global Warming to Water to 9/11 to Today

Video : From Global Warming to Water to 9/11 to Today Principia Scientific International ’ s Joe Olson is a @ @ @ @ @ building construction .
He is the co-author of Slaying the Gas Dragon : Death of @ @ @ @ @ and many articles on science fraud in global warming , sustainable energy , and peak @ @ @ @ @ Robert David Steele and Joe discuss fake science from global warming to water to 9/11 @ @ @ @ @ to HELP support our ongoing battle to expose the COVID-19 FRAUD !
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL @ @ @ @ @ UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester @ @ @ @ @ .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method

Video: From Global Warming to Water to 9/11 to Today
Written by Robert David Steele
Principia Scientific International’s Joe Olson is a professional engineer specializing in complex building construction. He is the co-author of Slaying the Gas Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, and many articles on science fraud in global warming, sustainable energy, and peak oil.
In this video Robert David Steele and Joe discuss fake science from global warming to water to 9/11 to today.
Book: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS… 9/11 POTUS: https://phibetaiota.net/2018/07/joe-o… Joe Olson @ Phi Beta Iota: https://phibetaiota.net/?s=Joe+Olson 𝗥𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗧𝗼 𝗪𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵 💥 𝟱𝗚 𝗗𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 – 𝗘𝗠𝗙 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝘁 https://youtu.be/pdMyuHHx1gA 💥 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝘄𝗻 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝘁 https://youtu.be/VSkvjpztCFA 💥 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮 https://youtu.be/iBnTV33VLXc 𝗥𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗪𝗲𝗯𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀 Main website: https://RobertDavidSteele.com Blog https://PhiBetaIota.net Pedo Justice: https://PedoEmpire.org Wall Street Crime: https://StopNakedShortSelling.org
Please DONATE to HELP support our ongoing battle to expose the COVID-19 FRAUD!
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--2020-11-14--The False Promise Of Affordable Green Energy

Here is Michael Schellenberger writing about Germany ’ s “ ambitious ” ( as it is always called ) green energy transition known as die Energiewende ( energy transition , or turning point ) For some background , Energiewende is a series of policies first passed in 2010 with the object of completely transitioning the country away from conventional , carbon-emitting energy sources including coal , oil , and natural gas , and towards ones classified as low-to-zero carbon like nuclear , solar , wind , and biomass .
After the Fukushima disaster in 2011 , it was decided that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well , with the aspiration of having the country run exclusively on so-called renewable energy by 2022 .
As Schellenberger notes , since its passage Energiewende has been a constant source of hope for leftists the world over , because it gives them something to aim for .
Their contention is that it will show the world that cheap green energy is possible and that it can easily be reproduced anywhere in the world .
Of course , their panegyrics have been light on specifics .
In fact , the actual results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : That ’ s right — as the fracking revolution has contributed to America ’ s leading the world in carbon emissions decline , green Germany is bulldozing forests for the purposes of mining coal .
The problem is twofold .
First , green energy sources produce much less energy than traditional ones .
This was once treated as a feature , not a bug , by environmentalists , who believe that modern society requires too much energy , and the best way to fix that is , to borrow a phrase , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Luddite attitude is a hard sell to most people , modern environmentalists have adjusted by promising exciting new technologies that are always just over the horizon .
“ Governments and private investors poured $ 2 trillion into solar and wind and related infrastructure ” since 2000 , according to Schellenberger , though with not a great deal of substantive advancement to show for it .
This touches on the second problem — the expense .
Schellenberger points out that average Germans are increasingly frustrated with the cost ( €32 billion annually ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is only projected to increase .
“ Der Spiegel cites a recent estimate that it would cost Germany ‘ €3.4 trillion ( $ 3.8 trillion ) , ’ or seven times more than it spent from 2000 to 2025 , to increase solar and wind three to five-fold by 2050.
” Public opposition will put heat on the move to renew the twenty-year wind and solar energy subsidies which expire this year , the loss of which would be devastating .
What ’ s more , the obsession with “ net-zero ” has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which oil and gas companies are often accused of — “ Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants , and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells , to produce the same amount of energy.
” As bad as bulldozing churches and forests is for coal sounds in modern Germany , it will apparently be much worse if they ever do go completely renewable .
Read more at The Pipeline PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method

The False Promise Of Affordable Green Energy
Written by Tom Finnerty
Here is Michael Schellenberger writing about Germany’s “ambitious” (as it is always called) green energy transition known as die Energiewende (energy transition, or turning point)
For some background, Energiewende is a series of policies first passed in 2010 with the object of completely transitioning the country away from conventional, carbon-emitting energy sources including coal, oil, and natural gas, and towards ones classified as low-to-zero carbon like nuclear, solar, wind, and biomass.
After the Fukushima disaster in 2011, it was decided that Germany would move away from nuclear energy as well, with the aspiration of having the country run exclusively on so-called renewable energy by 2022.
As Schellenberger notes, since its passage Energiewende has been a constant source of hope for leftists the world over, because it gives them something to aim for.
Their contention is that it will show the world that cheap green energy is possible and that it can easily be reproduced anywhere in the world.
Of course, their panegyrics have been light on specifics. In fact, the actual results of Energiewende have been mixed so far:
[L]ast year, Germany was forced to acknowledge that it had to delay its phase-out of coal, and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction commitments. It announced plans to bulldoze an ancient church and forest in order to get at the coal underneath it.
That’s right — as the fracking revolution has contributed to America’s leading the world in carbon emissions decline, green Germany is bulldozing forests for the purposes of mining coal.
The problem is twofold. First, green energy sources produce much less energy than traditional ones.
This was once treated as a feature, not a bug, by environmentalists, who believe that modern society requires too much energy, and the best way to fix that is, to borrow a phrase, “starving the beast.”
But as this Luddite attitude is a hard sell to most people, modern environmentalists have adjusted by promising exciting new technologies that are always just over the horizon.
“Governments and private investors poured $2 trillion into solar and wind and related infrastructure” since 2000, according to Schellenberger, though with not a great deal of substantive advancement to show for it.
This touches on the second problem — the expense.
Schellenberger points out that average Germans are increasingly frustrated with the cost (€32 billion annually) of the project, an amount which is only projected to increase.
“Der Spiegel cites a recent estimate that it would cost Germany ‘€3.4 trillion ($3.8 trillion),’ or seven times more than it spent from 2000 to 2025, to increase solar and wind three to five-fold by 2050.”
Public opposition will put heat on the move to renew the twenty-year wind and solar energy subsidies which expire this year, the loss of which would be devastating.
What’s more, the obsession with “net-zero” has led to the type of environmental despoliation which oil and gas companies are often accused of — “Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy.”
As bad as bulldozing churches and forests is for coal sounds in modern Germany, it will apparently be much worse if they ever do go completely renewable.
Read more at The Pipeline
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--2020-11-14--Scientists Discover Coral Reefs Recovered Quickly After Bleaching

It was a depressing if expected inevitability when Western Australia ’ s Rowley Shoals showed the first signs of mass coral bleaching earlier this year , but a follow-up survey has found a remarkable recovery looks likely to preserve the reef ’ s near-pristine health — at least for now .
Tom Holmes , the marine monitoring coordinator at the WA Department of Biodiversity , Conservation , and Attractions , said that while his team was still processing the data , it appeared the coral had pulled off an “ amazing ” return towards health over the past six months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread mortality , and we just didn ’ t see it … which is a really amazing thing , ” Dr. Holmes said .
The survey was a follow-up to one conducted in April that found as much as 60 percent of corals on some Rowley Shoals reefs had bleached after the most widespread marine heatwave since reliable satellite monitoring began in 1993 .
It has long been known that high sea temperatures cause coral bleaching which can kill coral — as seen by the devastation of the Great Barrier Reef off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well known is that bleached corals do not die immediately .
“ So when a coral bleaches , it ’ s actually just a sign of initial stress , ” Dr. Holmes said .
However , corals rely on these microscopic algae as a food source and can not survive for long without them .
“ If that stress continues for a long time and those corals remain white , then it can lead to mortality , ” Dr. Holmes said .
“ But there are some cases of bleaching around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued for a long time , and the corals have been able to take that alga back in from the water.
” Dr. Holmes believes that the vital time gap between bleaching and dying created a chance for the reefs to recover at the Rowley Shoals , a chain of three coral atolls 300 kilometers off Broome on the edge of Australia ’ s continental shelf .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method

Scientists Discover Coral Reefs Recovered Quickly After Bleaching
Written by Ben Collins
It was a depressing if expected inevitability when Western Australia’s Rowley Shoals showed the first signs of mass coral bleaching earlier this year, but a follow-up survey has found a remarkable recovery looks likely to preserve the reef’s near-pristine health — at least for now.
Tom Holmes, the marine monitoring coordinator at the WA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation, and Attractions, said that while his team was still processing the data, it appeared the coral had pulled off an “amazing” return towards health over the past six months.
“We were expecting to see widespread mortality, and we just didn’t see it … which is a really amazing thing,” Dr. Holmes said.
The survey was a follow-up to one conducted in April that found as much as 60 percent of corals on some Rowley Shoals reefs had bleached after the most widespread marine heatwave since reliable satellite monitoring began in 1993.
It has long been known that high sea temperatures cause coral bleaching which can kill coral — as seen by the devastation of the Great Barrier Reef off the Queensland coast — but what is less well known is that bleached corals do not die immediately.
“So when a coral bleaches, it’s actually just a sign of initial stress,” Dr. Holmes said.
However, corals rely on these microscopic algae as a food source and cannot survive for long without them.
“If that stress continues for a long time and those corals remain white, then it can lead to mortality,” Dr. Holmes said.
“But there are some cases of bleaching around the world where … that stress hasn’t continued for a long time, and the corals have been able to take that alga back in from the water.”
Dr. Holmes believes that the vital time gap between bleaching and dying created a chance for the reefs to recover at the Rowley Shoals, a chain of three coral atolls 300 kilometers off Broome on the edge of Australia’s continental shelf.
Read rest at ABC.net
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


What is Heat?

A science and physics lesson on what heat is and how our knowledge of heat debunks the pseudoscientific field of @ @ @ @ @ any comments/questions specifically for Joe Postma at his website here : climateofsophistry.com PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL @ @ @ @ @ UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester @ @ @ @ @ .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method

What is Heat?
Written by Joseph E Postma
A science and physics lesson on what heat is and how our knowledge of heat debunks the pseudoscientific field of climate science.
Please post any comments/questions specifically for Joe Postma at his website here: climateofsophistry.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