principiascientificinternational--2020-09-08--Bite Sized NIBLETS Number 3: The tungsten lighting filament coil proof

This is the Third in a series of Bite Sized Niblet articles which will quickly and simply deal with a wide array of errors , which the “ TALL TALE TEACHERS TELL ” , to preach the lies of pretend climate crisis science .
Here we show the public that the Green Climate Con-artist industry is indeed lying to them .
How do we do this ?
By showing that when a coiled lighting filament coil is switched on , the inside of the coil is the same temperature as the outside of the coil .
This occurs , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself of all the IR and Lighting radiation it is emitting .
What is actually proven to happen in real world of applied science ( not the fantasy world of academic climate computer models ) is that the inside of the coil is simply brighter ( not warmer ) due to light reflections .
It is demonstrably shown that the material absorbs reflected light and then instantly re-emits it again , without experiencing an increase in temperature , whilst also emitting the light it would have emitted without the reflections .
This has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that surface from say 0.5 to 0.8 or more .
The lower the emissivity , the more potential for improvements in brightness are available due to light reflections and the higher the emissivity the less potential for improvements with 1 , black body being the maximum available .
When a blackbody material experiences full reflections , no increase in brightness occurs .
For proof you can read this research paper conducted in 1918 .
Yes that ’ s right , this one example , which is over 100 years old , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a concept is a total lie and this is one such demonstration which shows that .
This experiment not only compared the inside of the coiled filament with the outside , it also was compared with a straight filament .
Here is a picture of the type of helical loop which was investigated in the experiment , you can actually see the increase in brightness from inside the loops quite clearly .
This increase being due to light reflections .
This picture , from the same study explains more : The aforementioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outside and the inside of the coil is but 1 degree and that the differences under most unfavourable conditions did not exceed 5 degrees at 2900 Kelvin ; whereas an increase in temperature of 200 degrees would be needed to explain the increased brightness .
Such an increase in temperature also shifts the shortwave blue maximum emissions upwards along the black body curve which is not observed to occur .
“ This would shift the maximum emission by the amount of 0.06/x to 0.09/x toward the short wave lengths as compared with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside of the turn .
Such a large shift has not been observed.
” “ These data appear to furnish conclusive proof that the phenomenon of increased brightness within the helical filament can be accounted for by multiple reflections within the helix .
A slight blackening of the radiation may be produced by crimping in case the filament is wound upon a small mandrel , but there is little or no evidence that the temperature within the helix is higher than on the outside of the turn of the wire .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be accounted for on the basis of multiple reflection , the quality of the radiation in the infra-red is quite different from that of a black body at the same temperature .
“ The conclusion is the most interesting take home point : So there we have it .
If you have a material like tungsten which we use in lights to emit IR and light – coiled so that it reflects that IR energy upon itself – NO INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE FROM BACK RADIANCE OCCURS , when compared to straight filament or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absence of any ‘ back radiant heating ’ is a death blow to the consensus Radiative Greenhouse Effect theory .
It is shown to be false by real-world applied science examples such as the above .
As such , any so-called ‘ expert ’ having knowledge of such facts and who insists the theory is still valid is quite simply a FRAUD !
Oh and this has been known about for over 100 years , if you have a “ TALL TALE TEACHER ” telling you the lies of radiation greenhouse effect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain this .
About the author : Geraint Hughes is an independent British climate researcher and experimental scientist who has written Black Dragon : Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science .
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 .

Bite Sized NIBLETS Number 3: The tungsten lighting filament coil proof
Written by Geraint Hughes
This is the Third in a series of Bite Sized Niblet articles which will quickly and simply deal with a wide array of errors, which the “TALL TALE TEACHERS TELL”, to preach the lies of pretend climate crisis science.
Here we show the public that the Green Climate Con-artist industry is indeed lying to them. How do we do this? By showing that when a coiled lighting filament coil is switched on, the inside of the coil is the same temperature as the outside of the coil. This occurs, despite the inside receiving the full reflections from itself of all the IR and Lighting radiation it is emitting.
What is actually proven to happen in real world of applied science (not the fantasy world of academic climate computer models) is that the inside of the coil is simply brighter (not warmer) due to light reflections.
It is demonstrably shown that the material absorbs reflected light and then instantly re-emits it again, without experiencing an increase in temperature, whilst also emitting the light it would have emitted without the reflections.
This has the effect of increasing the apparent emissivity of that surface from say 0.5 to 0.8 or more. The lower the emissivity, the more potential for improvements in brightness are available due to light reflections and the higher the emissivity the less potential for improvements with 1, black body being the maximum available. When a blackbody material experiences full reflections, no increase in brightness occurs.
For proof you can read this research paper conducted in 1918.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/bulletin/14/nbsbulletinv14n1p115_A2b.pdf
Yes that’s right, this one example, which is over 100 years old, which is direct proof that back radiant heating as a concept is a total lie and this is one such demonstration which shows that. This experiment not only compared the inside of the coiled filament with the outside, it also was compared with a straight filament.
Here is a picture of the type of helical loop which was investigated in the experiment, you can actually see the increase in brightness from inside the loops quite clearly. This increase being due to light reflections.
This picture, from the same study explains more:
The aforementioned study mentions that the temperature difference between the outside and the inside of the coil is but 1 degree and that the differences under most unfavourable conditions did not exceed 5 degrees at 2900 Kelvin; whereas an increase in temperature of 200 degrees would be needed to explain the increased brightness.
Such an increase in temperature also shifts the shortwave blue maximum emissions upwards along the black body curve which is not observed to occur.
“This would shift the maximum emission by the amount of 0.06/x to 0.09/x toward the short wave lengths as compared with the maximum of the radiation from the outside of the turn. Such a large shift has not been observed.” “These data appear to furnish conclusive proof that the phenomenon of increased brightness within the helical filament can be accounted for by multiple reflections within the helix. A slight blackening of the radiation may be produced by crimping in case the filament is wound upon a small mandrel, but there is little or no evidence that the temperature within the helix is higher than on the outside of the turn of the wire. While the increased radiation from within the helix can be accounted for on the basis of multiple reflection, the quality of the radiation in the infra-red is quite different from that of a black body at the same temperature. “
The conclusion is the most interesting take home point:
“There is no indication that the temperature within the helix is higher than on the outside of the turn. A difference in temperature of 200 would be required to account for the observed differ- ence in brightness of 90 per cent, whereas pyrometric, thermal conductivity and other measurements place this temperature dif- ference at less than 5 .”
So there we have it. If you have a material like tungsten which we use in lights to emit IR and light – coiled so that it reflects that IR energy upon itself – NO INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE FROM BACK RADIANCE OCCURS, when compared to straight filament or the outside of the coil.
The absence of any ‘back radiant heating’ is a death blow to the consensus Radiative Greenhouse Effect theory. It is shown to be false by real-world applied science examples such as the above. As such, any so-called ‘expert’ having knowledge of such facts and who insists the theory is still valid is quite simply a FRAUD! Oh and this has been known about for over 100 years, if you have a “TALL TALE TEACHER” telling you the lies of radiation greenhouse effect, you might want to ask them to explain this.
About the author: Geraint Hughes is an independent British climate researcher and experimental scientist who has written Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science .
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--2020-09-08--Sweden, with No Lockdown or Masks, Claims COVID-19 Victory

Sweden , with No Lockdown or Masks , Claims COVID-19 Victory As the rest of Europe and the world remains under the grip of draconian rules and the threat of new lockdowns , Sweden , which allowed its citizens to remain free throughout the entire pandemic , has pretty much declared victory over the coronavirus .
The country now has one of the lowest infection rates on the planet , and it ’ s difficult not to admire how it has handled the past year , with no strict lockdown or compulsory face mask rules .
All businesses , schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the duration .
“ Sweden has gone from being the country with the most infections in Europe to the safest one , ” Sweden ’ s senior epidemiologist Dr. Anders Tegnell commented to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera .
“ What we see now is that the sustainable policy might be slower in getting results , but it will get results eventually , ” Tegnell clarified .
“ And then we also hope that the result will be more stable , ” he added .
Tegnell previously warned that encouraging people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” because it gives a false sense of security but does not effectively stem the spread of the virus .
Last week , the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control confirmed Sweden ’ s drop in infection rate , with only 12 cases per million , compared to 18 in neighbouring Denmark and 14 in nearby Norway .
At the peak of the Sweden ’ s outbreak , it was seeing 108 new infections per million people , as it pursued a “ herd immunity ” strategy .
The figures also show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested people in Sweden , none tested positive , compared to 0.9 percent positive in April , and 0.3 percent in May .
“ We interpret this as meaning there is not currently a widespread infection among people who do not have symptoms , ” said Karin Tegmark , deputy head of the Public Health Agency of Sweden .
When compared to the rest of Europe , Sweden ’ s death rate sits somewhere in the middle .
However , officials are confident that playing the long game will see this improve drastically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Sweden, with No Lockdown or Masks, Claims COVID-19 Victory
Written by Steve Watson
As the rest of Europe and the world remains under the grip of draconian rules and the threat of new lockdowns, Sweden, which allowed its citizens to remain free throughout the entire pandemic, has pretty much declared victory over the coronavirus.
The country now has one of the lowest infection rates on the planet, and it’s difficult not to admire how it has handled the past year, with no strict lockdown or compulsory face mask rules. All businesses, schools and public places remained open in Sweden for the duration.
“Sweden has gone from being the country with the most infections in Europe to the safest one,” Sweden’s senior epidemiologist Dr. Anders Tegnell commented to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.
“What we see now is that the sustainable policy might be slower in getting results, but it will get results eventually,” Tegnell clarified. “And then we also hope that the result will be more stable,” he added.
Tegnell previously warned that encouraging people to wear face masks is “very dangerous” because it gives a false sense of security but does not effectively stem the spread of the virus.
“The findings that have been produced through face masks are astonishingly weak, even though so many people around the world wear them,” Tengell has urged.
Last week, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control confirmed Sweden’s drop in infection rate, with only 12 cases per million, compared to 18 in neighbouring Denmark and 14 in nearby Norway.
Graphic: The Sun
At the peak of the Sweden’s outbreak, it was seeing 108 new infections per million people, as it pursued a “herd immunity” strategy.
The figures also show that out of 2500 randomly selected and tested people in Sweden, none tested positive, compared to 0.9 percent positive in April, and 0.3 percent in May.
“We interpret this as meaning there is not currently a widespread infection among people who do not have symptoms,” said Karin Tegmark, deputy head of the Public Health Agency of Sweden.
When compared to the rest of Europe, Sweden’s death rate sits somewhere in the middle. However, officials are confident that playing the long game will see this improve drastically.
Read more at summit.news
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--2020-09-08--UN admits new polio outbreak in Sudan is caused by vaccine

UN admits new polio outbreak in Sudan is caused by vaccine The World Health Organization says a new polio outbreak in Sudan is linked to an ongoing vaccine-sparked epidemic in Chad — a week after the U.N. health agency declared the African continent free of the wild polio virus .
In a statement this week , WHO said two children in Sudan — one from South Darfur state and the other from Gedarif state , close to the border with Ethiopia and Eritrea — were paralyzed in March and April .
Both had been recently vaccinated against polio .
WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are linked to an ongoing vaccine-derived outbreak in Chad that was first detected last year and is now spreading in Chad and Cameroon .
“ There is local circulation in Sudan and continued sharing of transmission with Chad , ” the U.N. agency said , adding that genetic sequencing confirmed numerous introductions of the virus into Sudan from Chad .
WHO said it had found 11 additional vaccine-derived polio cases in Sudan and that the virus had also been identified in environmental samples .
There are typically many more unreported cases for every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease can spread quickly in contaminated water and most often strikes children under 5 .
In rare instances , the live polio virus in the oral vaccine can mutate into a form capable of sparking new outbreaks .
Last week , WHO and partners declared that the African continent was free of the wild polio virus , calling it “ an incredible and emotional day.
” On Monday , WHO warned that the risk of further spread of the vaccine-derived polio across central Africa and the Horn of Africa was “ high , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region .
More than a dozen African countries are currently battling outbreaks of polio caused by the virus , including Angola , Congo , Nigeria and Zambia .
Amid the coronavirus pandemic , many of the large-scale vaccination campaigns needed to stamp out polio have been disrupted across Africa and elsewhere , leaving millions of children vulnerable to infection .
In April , WHO and its partners reluctantly recommended a temporary halt to mass polio immunization campaigns , recognizing the move could lead to a resurgence of the disease .
In May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccinate children against polio had been suspended in 38 countries , mostly in Africa , because of the coronavirus pandemic .
Some of the campaigns have recently been re-started , but health workers need to vaccinate more than 90 % of children in their efforts to eradicate the paralytic disease .
Health officials had initially aimed to wipe out polio by 2000 , a deadline repeatedly pushed back and missed .
Wild polio remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan ; both countries also are struggling to contain outbreaks of vaccine-derived polio .
PRINCIPIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

UN admits new polio outbreak in Sudan is caused by vaccine
Written by Maria Cheng
The World Health Organization says a new polio outbreak in Sudan is linked to an ongoing vaccine-sparked epidemic in Chad — a week after the U.N. health agency declared the African continent free of the wild polio virus.
In a statement this week, WHO said two children in Sudan — one from South Darfur state and the other from Gedarif state, close to the border with Ethiopia and Eritrea — were paralyzed in March and April. Both had been recently vaccinated against polio. WHO said initial outbreak investigations show the cases are linked to an ongoing vaccine-derived outbreak in Chad that was first detected last year and is now spreading in Chad and Cameroon.
“There is local circulation in Sudan and continued sharing of transmission with Chad,” the U.N. agency said, adding that genetic sequencing confirmed numerous introductions of the virus into Sudan from Chad.
WHO said it had found 11 additional vaccine-derived polio cases in Sudan and that the virus had also been identified in environmental samples. There are typically many more unreported cases for every confirmed polio patient. The highly infectious disease can spread quickly in contaminated water and most often strikes children under 5.
In rare instances, the live polio virus in the oral vaccine can mutate into a form capable of sparking new outbreaks.
Last week, WHO and partners declared that the African continent was free of the wild polio virus, calling it “an incredible and emotional day.”
On Monday, WHO warned that the risk of further spread of the vaccine-derived polio across central Africa and the Horn of Africa was “high,” noting the large-scale population movements in the region.
More than a dozen African countries are currently battling outbreaks of polio caused by the virus, including Angola, Congo, Nigeria and Zambia.
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, many of the large-scale vaccination campaigns needed to stamp out polio have been disrupted across Africa and elsewhere, leaving millions of children vulnerable to infection.
In April, WHO and its partners reluctantly recommended a temporary halt to mass polio immunization campaigns, recognizing the move could lead to a resurgence of the disease. In May, they reported that 46 campaigns to vaccinate children against polio had been suspended in 38 countries, mostly in Africa, because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Some of the campaigns have recently been re-started, but health workers need to vaccinate more than 90% of children in their efforts to eradicate the paralytic disease.
Health officials had initially aimed to wipe out polio by 2000, a deadline repeatedly pushed back and missed. Wild polio remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan; both countries also are struggling to contain outbreaks of vaccine-derived polio.
Read more at abcnews.go.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--2020-09-08--German Health Minister Admits Lockdowns Were a Mistake

While in the United States , Twitter , Youtube , CNN , and the rest of the growing Marxist supporters try to claim the CDC didn ’ t say that less than 10,000 people have died of only COVID-19 , the German Health Minister Jens Spahn has come out and publicly admitted that the lockdowns were too harsh and uncalled for .
This is starting where many are now calling for an investigation .
There is hope that perhaps this conspiracy to use this virus , that may have been created in a lab intentionally not to really cause massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this conspiracy to crash the economy in order to justify this Great Reset may at last unfold .
Keep in mind this has been funded by the Billionaire Dropouts who are suddenly experts on viruses , CO2 , population growth , and Marxist Equality – excluding them of course .
There is still hope with all their propaganda , we may see justice at last .
Everyone who has been involved from the head of CNN to the head of the World Economic Forum , should spend the rest of their lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equality behind bars where there is no paper money , which should make them very happy , and packets of fish are the number one barter currency .
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 .

German Health Minister Admits Lockdowns Were a Mistake
Written by Martin Armstrong
While in the United States, Twitter, Youtube, CNN, and the rest of the growing Marxist supporters try to claim the CDC didn’t say that less than 10,000 people have died of only COVID-19, the German Health Minister Jens Spahn has come out and publicly admitted that the lockdowns were too harsh and uncalled for.
This is starting where many are now calling for an investigation. There is hope that perhaps this conspiracy to use this virus, that may have been created in a lab intentionally not to really cause massive deaths, will lead to the exposure of this conspiracy to crash the economy in order to justify this Great Reset may at last unfold.
Keep in mind this has been funded by the Billionaire Dropouts who are suddenly experts on viruses, CO2, population growth, and Marxist Equality – excluding them of course. There is still hope with all their propaganda, we may see justice at last.
Everyone who has been involved from the head of CNN to the head of the World Economic Forum, should spend the rest of their lives being taken care off enjoying perfect Marxist equality behind bars where there is no paper money, which should make them very happy, and packets of fish are the number one barter currency.
Read more at www.armstrongeconomics.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--2020-09-08--The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Key to the Pandemic Fraud

The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Key to the Pandemic Fraud The polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) test – used as the bellwether for coronavirus – is not fit for purpose .
Herein , we summarize discredited COVID19 testing and encourage you to do your own research and become better informed as to how misdirection , incompetence and scientific fraud is gravely harming our personal and societal well being .
Nick Delgado wrote an excellent primer in April of how this COVID19 test is widely being used ( and abused ) and we incorporate some of his analysis herein .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ PCR test remains the most commonly used COVID-19 test both in the US and globally .
The PCR test was invented by Kary Mullis ( photo , top ) in 1985 but it was never intended for detecting disease ; it ’ s primary applications included biomedical research and criminal forensics .
Before his death in 2019 Mullis told reporters : Mullis often spoke out against using his test for diagnosing illnesses .
So-called experts ignored the warning .
But now , many independent scientists and medical professionals are coming forward to denounce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and NGO ’ s for pushing the number of novel coronavirus “ cases ” ( not deaths ) premised on spurious results from this problematic PCR test .
Reporting on the original 1980 ’ s great breakthrough of the Mullis Polymerase Chain Reaction innovation , the London Observer wrote : Other than Delgado ’ s excellent introductory article , we recommend reading who offers a more up to date ( August 16 , 2020 ) analysis citing recent evidence exposing the fallacies around COVID testing .
[ 1 ] Weisbecker poses the key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others correctly called out the idiocy of groupthink – the reliance on ill-informed and misguided ‘ experts ’ who direct government health policy .
A key culprit among prominent world bodies is the World Health Organization ( WHO ) loudly telling is to “ test , test , test !
” WHO head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and his co-conspirators pushing the new dystopian plan for a ‘ Great Reset ’ know full well the more you test , the more positive cases will emerge and the more their insane over reaction to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But dissenters are wise to this scam .
Here is a typical comment from one the thousands of experts dissenting from the accepted narrative : Widespread reliance on the PCR for COVID19 testing is beyond stupid .
It is criminal because it is pushed as justification for maintaining ‘ lockdown ’ measures and compounding the fear and misery ( including economic ) much of the world is still suffering as a consequence of this gigantic science fraud .
To better appreciate the insanity that has befallen us let ’ s review a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see how we sank into this nonsensical unscientific morass .
Canadian researcher David Crowe , with a degree in biology and mathematics , host of The Infectious Myth podcast had this to say on the testing insanity : “ The first thing to know is that the test is not binary .
In fact , I don ’ t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative .
In the early 1990 ’ s , PCR , ( Polymerase Chain Reaction ) came into popular use , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prize for it in 1993 .
PCR , simply put , is a thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample , making it large enough to study .
As it correctly says on PCR ’ s Wikipedia page , PCR is an “ …indispensable technique ” with a “ broad variety ” of applications , “ …including biomedical research and criminal forensics.
” [ Italics mine . ]
The page goes on to say , to my [ Mullis , the inventor of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the applications of PCR is “ …for the diagnosis of infectious diseases.
” … “ The first thing to know is that the test is not binary , ” he said .
“ In fact , I don ’ t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative .
What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.
” [ emphasis added ] “ That ’ s so important .
I think people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Positive or negative , like a pregnancy test .
You “ have it ” or you don ’ t. ” “ PCR is really a manufacturing technique , ” Crowe explained .
“ You start with one molecule .
You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles , which doesn ’ t sound like that much , but if you , if you double 30 times , you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with .
So as a manufacturing technique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where it gets wild .
“ In one paper , ” Crowe says , “ I found 37 cycles .
If you didn ’ t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles , you are considered negative .
In another , paper , the cutoff was 36 .
Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “ indeterminate.
” And if you got in that range , then you did more testing .
I ’ ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was .
So , it ’ s quite possible that different hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US , Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test .
So , if you cut off at 20 , everybody would be negative .
If you cut off a 50 , you might have everybody positive.
” ” The fact is a vast majority of people infected with COVID-19 have mild symptoms and it ’ s estimated that 50 % of people infected are asymptomatic .
Many of the people who allegedly died from COVID-19 were already very sick and would have died anyway in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data made available to the public proves that around 95 percent of deaths were patients were over 80 years of age with two or more comorbidities ( such as cancer ) .
Social media , mainstream scientific journals ( owned by self-serving corporations ) and the biased national press that makes money from selling bad news so are very much ’ in ’ on ensuring you and I do not get to see the evidence contradicting the accepted ‘ doom and gloom ’ pandemic narrative .
An important Chinese research paper that exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positives could be false positives was quietly withdrawn by PubMed .
Though only the abstract is still online even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available .
Interestingly , a month later , a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “ negative , ” “ positive ” and “ dubious.
” PCR for diagnosis is a big problem when you have to resort to amplifying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this increases the likelihood of generating massive amounts of false positives .
The United States , UK and other major nationals have all but abandoned classical diagnostic medicine in favor of biotech , or lab result medicine .
No longer are doctors physically examining patients and determining a simple respiratory infection like a cold or the flu .
Instead , due to prevailing fears , they are jumping the gun to assume “ covid ” because the symptoms are all but identical .
As a clue , check the official records and see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from those traditional ailments .
‘ Hey presto ‘ almost every chest infection now is certified as likely due to the novel coronavirus .
The PCR test is finding so many asymptomatic cases ( people who test positive but are otherwise very healthy with no symptoms ) because the very replication technique relied on is designed to find microscopic fragments and to amplify them so that they appear far worse than they are .
The PCR test , in almost all cases , is finding tiny fragments of nucleic acids .
On this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison , whose career and life were destroyed by an “ HIV test , ” and who litigated ferociously for years , against test manufacturers , Dr. Mullis wrote , on May 7 , 2013 : Fragments so microscopically tiny that there is no possibility any healthy person would be in danger from suffering a full-blown infection .
So microscopically small yet are being reported by labs and thereafter by policymakers as ‘ positives.
’ But by any rational , sane interpretation these are not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is sick .
These are people whose tests are showing up so infinitesimally small but are a ‘ positive ’ trigger even when they may be nothing more than the remnants of an inconsequential common cold they had weeks or months earlier .
Another example of the insanity is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients .
The majority went from “ positive ” to “ negative ” back to “ positive ” at least once , and up to five times in one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences , conceded in February that the PCR tests are “ only 30 to 50 per cent accurate ; ” while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO ’ s coronavirus response team and to Anthony Fauci on March 22 , 2020 , saying that : Also , the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that in Germany 70 percent of the people tested “ positive ” are not “ positive ” at all .
Yet “ they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what people imagine , say for a pregnancy test , where you have a definable positive or negative indicating a foetus ( or not ) .
You don ’ t keep amplifying the results of a negative pregnancy test until you get a ‘ positive ’ for a baby .
It is insane .
But this is what is happening ( and passes muster ) in coronavirus PCR tests .
As Crowe explained , a lab could conceivably opt to keep amplifying the sequence of testing of a sample UNTIL they reach the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ copies of their sample to declare a positive result for COVID19 .
Labs are thus motivated to amplify samples and find more covid cases – “ just to be safe !
” It is a vicious circle of fear driving stupidity .
No ‘ Gold Standard ’ Therefore No Testing Is Accurate In any case , those tests were not built on a “ gold standard ” which means purification of an actual virus .
Purification means the pathogen has been separated from all else .
HIV co-discoverer and Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview : “ I repeat , we did not purify.
” Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this .
In her paper “ Interpreting a COVID-19 test result , ” published recently in The British Medical Journal , she writes that there is a “ lack of such a clear-cut ‘ gold-standard ’ for COVID-19 testing.
” This admission was also made to us by Thomas Löscher , former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scientific International on the shocking absence of any such “ gold standard ” an internationally respected virus testing expert , Dr Saeed Qureshi said he knows of no such “ gold standard ” for the virus test .
He said this is because no lab has yet satisfactorily identified , isolated and replicated a distinct and new virus – COVID19 .
But compounding the problem of false positives is the systemic errors and perhaps potential fakery that is only just being uncovered .
Big League Politics has reported on widespread errors coming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total of cases being widely overinflated .
Award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht gives more details in his article ‘ COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless.
’ [ 4 ] Adding to the skepticism are pathologists who are yet to find a single autopsy showing COVID19 , as reported in a June 27 Off-Guardian article .
[ 5 ] The truth is , viruses are rarely deadly .
The majority of coronavirus-related deaths in humans are due to OTHER chronic diseases that hinder the immune system or cause it to go haywire in response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not damage caused by the virus itself .
We need to stop saying “ Stay safe !
” to everyone .
We are safe .
We have a powerful and intelligent immune system that is designed to withstand toxic , microbial inundation at all times .
The pandemic emergency needs to cease immediately and the world must never again resort to a knee-jerk reaction to a ‘ crisis ’ that , in effect , occurs every year in any normal flu season .
We know this particular outbreak is no worse than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nor UK Have ANY Excess Deaths From COVID19.
’ The CDC has even quietly updated that only 6 % of ~180,000 US “ virus ” deaths are directly attributed to the virus .
[ 6 ] .
While British mathematician , Andrew Maher ‘ s analysis of the official data goes even further .
He concluded that NO ONE has died from COVID19 .
[ 7 ] We must stop being sheep and start living our lives again .
Together , we refuse to surrender to fear .
About the author : John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-founder ( with Dr Tim Ball ) of Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) .
John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Key to the Pandemic Fraud
Written by John O'Sullivan
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – used as the bellwether for coronavirus – is not fit for purpose. Herein, we summarize discredited COVID19 testing and encourage you to do your own research and become better informed as to how misdirection, incompetence and scientific fraud is gravely harming our personal and societal well being.
Nick Delgado wrote an excellent primer in April of how this COVID19 test is widely being used (and abused) and we incorporate some of his analysis herein. Despite problems known even then, the PCR test remains the most commonly used COVID-19 test both in the US and globally.
The PCR test was invented by Kary Mullis (photo, top) in 1985 but it was never intended for detecting disease; it’s primary applications included biomedical research and criminal forensics.
Before his death in 2019 Mullis told reporters:
““Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction
Mullis often spoke out against using his test for diagnosing illnesses. So-called experts ignored the warning. But now, many independent scientists and medical professionals are coming forward to denounce the idiocy of governments, the media and NGO’s for pushing the number of novel coronavirus “cases” (not deaths) premised on spurious results from this problematic PCR test.
Reporting on the original 1980’s great breakthrough of the Mullis Polymerase Chain Reaction innovation, the London Observer wrote:
“Not since James Watt walked across Glasgow Green in 1765 and realized that the secondary steam condenser would transform steam power, an inspiration that set loose the industrial revolution, has a single, momentous idea been so well recorded in time and place.”….
Other than Delgado’s excellent introductory article, we recommend reading who offers a more up to date (August 16, 2020) analysis citing recent evidence exposing the fallacies around COVID testing. [1]
Weisbecker poses the key question we should ask ourselves:
“What do we mean when we say somebody has ‘tested positive’ for the Corona Virus? We’ve been hijacked by our technologies, but left illiterate about what they actually mean. In this case, I am in the rare position of having known, spent time with, and interviewed the inventor of the method used in the presently available Covid-19 tests, which is called PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction.)”
Mullis and others correctly called out the idiocy of groupthink – the reliance on ill-informed and misguided ‘experts’ who direct government health policy. A key culprit among prominent world bodies is the World Health Organization (WHO) loudly telling is to “test, test, test!”
WHO head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and his co-conspirators pushing the new dystopian plan for a ‘Great Reset’ know full well the more you test, the more positive cases will emerge and the more their insane over reaction to the ‘crisis’ becomes validated. But dissenters are wise to this scam. Here is a typical comment from one the thousands of experts dissenting from the accepted narrative:
“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine,” warns Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer.
As Delgado’s research discovered:
“The PCR test is so well known for giving inaccurate results that the CDC warns not to give the test to asymptomatic persons “because of the increased likelihood of false-positive results.” In fact, there is a famous Chinese paper that stated if you’re testing asymptomatic people with PCR, up to 80% of positives could be false positives. But the numbers aren’t just skewed by false positives, they are also skewed by how many people are offered the test and what condition they are in. For example, during the first few weeks of the ‘pandemic’ tests were scarce. As they became more widely available of course the number of infections accounted for increased as well, and false-positive results further increased those numbers.”
Widespread reliance on the PCR for COVID19 testing is beyond stupid. It is criminal because it is pushed as justification for maintaining ‘lockdown’ measures and compounding the fear and misery (including economic) much of the world is still suffering as a consequence of this gigantic science fraud.
To better appreciate the insanity that has befallen us let’s review a little of the history of the PCR test to see how we sank into this nonsensical unscientific morass. Canadian researcher David Crowe, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast had this to say on the testing insanity:
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. In the early 1990’s, PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction) came into popular use, and Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 1993. PCR, simply put, is a thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, making it large enough to study. As it correctly says on PCR’s Wikipedia page, PCR is an “…indispensable technique” with a “broad variety” of applications, “…including biomedical research and criminal forensics.” [Italics mine.] The page goes on to say, to my [Mullis, the inventor of the test] dismay, that one of the applications of PCR is “…for the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”… “The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.” [emphasis added] “That’s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You “have it” or you don’t.” “PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great… This is where it gets wild. “In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.””
The fact is a vast majority of people infected with COVID-19 have mild symptoms and it’s estimated that 50% of people infected are asymptomatic.
Many of the people who allegedly died from COVID-19 were already very sick and would have died anyway in a short period of time. The scientific data made available to the public proves that around 95 percent of deaths were patients were over 80 years of age with two or more comorbidities (such as cancer).
Social media, mainstream scientific journals (owned by self-serving corporations) and the biased national press that makes money from selling bad news so are very much’ in’ on ensuring you and I do not get to see the evidence contradicting the accepted ‘doom and gloom’ pandemic narrative.
An important Chinese research paper that exposed that around 80 percent of PCR test positives could be false positives was quietly withdrawn by PubMed. Though only the abstract is still online even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available.
Interestingly, a month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative,” “positive” and “dubious.”
‘s article tells us:
“I actually have a translation with a friend. I translated it into English and it’s a really, standard calculation of what they call positive predictive value. The abstract basically said that in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive.”
PCR for diagnosis is a big problem when you have to resort to amplifying the outcome a huge number of times – this increases the likelihood of generating massive amounts of false positives.
The United States, UK and other major nationals have all but abandoned classical diagnostic medicine in favor of biotech, or lab result medicine. No longer are doctors physically examining patients and determining a simple respiratory infection like a cold or the flu.
Instead, due to prevailing fears, they are jumping the gun to assume “covid” because the symptoms are all but identical. As a clue, check the official records and see how few people are classified as ill from those traditional ailments. ‘Hey presto‘ almost every chest infection now is certified as likely due to the novel coronavirus.
The PCR test is finding so many asymptomatic cases (people who test positive but are otherwise very healthy with no symptoms) because the very replication technique relied on is designed to find microscopic fragments and to amplify them so that they appear far worse than they are.
The PCR test, in almost all cases, is finding tiny fragments of nucleic acids. On this point consider an email from Kary Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an “HIV test,” and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:
“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “
Fragments so microscopically tiny that there is no possibility any healthy person would be in danger from suffering a full-blown infection. So microscopically small yet are being reported by labs and thereafter by policymakers as ‘positives.’
But by any rational, sane interpretation these are not to be relied on as evidence of someone who is sick. These are people whose tests are showing up so infinitesimally small but are a ‘positive’ trigger even when they may be nothing more than the remnants of an inconsequential common cold they had weeks or months earlier.
Another example of the insanity is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients. The majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.
Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate;” while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:
“It has been widely reported that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”
Also, the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that in Germany 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine.”
It isn’t what people imagine, say for a pregnancy test, where you have a definable positive or negative indicating a foetus (or not). You don’t keep amplifying the results of a negative pregnancy test until you get a ‘positive’ for a baby. It is insane. But this is what is happening (and passes muster) in coronavirus PCR tests.
As Crowe explained, a lab could conceivably opt to keep amplifying the sequence of testing of a sample UNTIL they reach the point they arbitrarily decide they have enough copies of their sample to declare a positive result for COVID19. Labs are thus motivated to amplify samples and find more covid cases – “just to be safe!” It is a vicious circle of fear driving stupidity.
No ‘Gold Standard’ Therefore No Testing Is Accurate
In any case, those tests were not built on a “gold standard” which means purification of an actual virus. Purification means the pathogen has been separated from all else. HIV co-discoverer and Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier famously told journalist Djamel Tahi in an interview: “I repeat, we did not purify.”
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result,” published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
This admission was also made to us by Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists. [2]
David Crowe explains it further:
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique. You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.” [3]
Speaking to Principia Scientific International on the shocking absence of any such “gold standard” an internationally respected virus testing expert, Dr Saeed Qureshi said he knows of no such “gold standard” for the virus test. He said this is because no lab has yet satisfactorily identified, isolated and replicated a distinct and new virus – COVID19.
But compounding the problem of false positives is the systemic errors and perhaps potential fakery that is only just being uncovered.
Big League Politics has reported on widespread errors coming from certain COVID-19 testing facilities, with the total of cases being widely overinflated.
“The Florida Department of Health is scrambling after fraud was discovered in how COVID-19 testing rates were being reported across the state. After the health department released a report showing a stunning statewide positivity rate of 11 percent, analysis of the numbers revealed severe irregularities. Many labs reported 100 percent positivity, meaning that every test came back positive. In addition to the labs reporting 100 percent positivity, there were other testing facilities that reported abnormal levels of positive tests. FOX 35 found that Centra Care reported that 83 people who submitted tests were all counted as positive. The Orlando Veteran’s Affairs Medical Center reported a 76 percent positivity rate, NCF Diagnostics reported tests at a 88 percent positivity rate, and Orlando Health reported a 98 percent positivity rate. Orlando Health has admitted that the results from the health department’s report are dubious. They said that their positivity rate was only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as it was shown in the report. This casts major doubt regarding the accuracy of the total cases that have been reported in Florida. The fake news has used Florida as an example to bolster their COVID-19 mass hysteria due to all of the supposed cases that were popping up throughout the state.”
Award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht gives more details in his article ‘COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless.’ [4]
Adding to the skepticism are pathologists who are yet to find a single autopsy showing COVID19, as reported in a June 27 Off-Guardian article. [5]
The truth is, viruses are rarely deadly. The majority of coronavirus-related deaths in humans are due to OTHER chronic diseases that hinder the immune system or cause it to go haywire in response to the virus (cytokine storm), and not damage caused by the virus itself.
We need to stop saying “Stay safe!” to everyone. We are safe. We have a powerful and intelligent immune system that is designed to withstand toxic, microbial inundation at all times.
The pandemic emergency needs to cease immediately and the world must never again resort to a knee-jerk reaction to a ‘crisis’ that, in effect, occurs every year in any normal flu season. We know this particular outbreak is no worse than a bad influenza because ‘Neither US Nor UK Have ANY Excess Deaths From COVID19.’
The CDC has even quietly updated that only 6% of ~180,000 US “virus” deaths are directly attributed to the virus. [6]. While British mathematician, Andrew Maher‘s analysis of the official data goes even further. He concluded that NO ONE has died from COVID19. [7]
We must stop being sheep and start living our lives again. Together, we refuse to surrender to fear.
[1] http://blog.banditobooks.com/labs-can-manipulate-how-many-cases-of-covid-19-their-country-has/
[2] E-mail from Prof. Thomas Löscher from March 6, 2020
[3] https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
[4] https://principia-scientific.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
[5] https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
[6] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
[7] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Andrew+Mather
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-09--COVID19 ‘clinical trials’ & their outcomes: fake science at its best!

COVID19 ‘ clinical trials ’ & their outcomes : fake science at its best !
The term clinical trial is being used often in the scientific literature and recently more so in particular in the public media with regard to developing treatments ( e.g .
pharmaceutical products , vaccines ) for the COVID-19 and its associated pandemic .
The term clinical trial is often presented to the public as if it is a form of highly sophisticated science based approach for developing medicines and treatments .
Further , it has been implied that clinical trials require higher level of understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recourses , which presumably only few developed economies can afford and support .
The purpose of this article is to decipher the mystery of clinical trials in simple language so that not only public could understand them but also to provide guidance to the professionals in the area as well .
In simple term , a clinical trial is a form of testing or test where tests are conducted using humans as test subjects for the medicines development , be they are tablets/capsules or vaccines .
If the same testing is conducted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in vitro or laboratory testing ( i.e .
without dosing humans or animals subjects ) .
A simple example of a “ clinical trial ” would be a trial/test to see if one gains weight ( the outcome parameter ) by eating chocolate loaded ice-cream for a month .
Such a trial/test can easily be done in home by anyone .
What would be required for such a clinical trial , chocolate loaded ice-cream , some human subjects and a weighing scale to monitor the weight ( outcome or response parameter ) before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so called “ dose ” ) .
The point , which must be kept in mind , is that a clinical trial is testing to monitor or measure outcome ( response ) before and after the treatment ( “ dose ” ) .
This means that clinical trials should be conducted under the management of normal/standard analytical ( measurement ) science or laboratory .
If the test products are chemical based ( simple or complex ) then tests should be conducted in an analytical chemistry laboratory .
However , a quick overview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if not all , clinical trials are conducted under non-analytical chemistry management mostly having medical , pharmaceutical and regulatory expertise .
These professions usually have no or limited underlying and required knowledge or understanding of analytical science and/or chemistry of the tested products and/or chemical nature of the body processes .
Therefore , it would be safe to assume that most “ clinical trials ” conducted at present would be of poor scientific authenticity more likely false and useless .
Current practices may be explained with the evaluation pharmaceutical products such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be made simpler to understand by considering an example of the development of a generic product vs innovator product .
The idea behind such evaluation is to establish if the generic products are of the same or similar quality , safety and efficacy as those of the respective innovators ’ products .
To establish this , one is required to conduct clinical trials , commonly known as bioavailability and/or bioequivalence assessment , for comparing a generic product against an innovator ’ s product .
That is to conduct testing after dosing the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome ( response ) which in this case is the drug levels of the administered drug .
For example , if someone likes to develop a generic version of Tylenol or Advil , then he/she has to administer a Tylenol or Advil against the in-house version of tablet and measures the plasma drug levels which in this case would be acetaminophen or ibuprofen , respectively .
Input is tablet , innovator or generic version , and output is plasma drug levels – basically a standard or normal analytical chemistry protocol .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of medical and pharmaceutical professionals following regulatory guidance with negligible contribution from chemical and/or analytical sciences for developing study protocol and/or interpretation of the results .
An appropriate analogy to describe the situation or testing would be assessing comparative efficiency of new fuel vs the old one for ships .
Ships would be operated following normal or standard protocol , without knowing about the tested fuel manufacturing and testing aspects .
Ship will be loaded with new or old fuel at random and will be operated as usual and at the end consumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involvement of ship caption or crew .
If fuel loader and ship operators kept blinded about which ship is getting which fuel , then in technical term the testing/evaluation will be called double blinded .
Similarly , if two medicinal products are to be tested in double blinded “ clinical trial ” both product administrators and volunteers would be blinded to the tested products .
A medical practitioner ’ s role would be just like ship captain to “ operate ” and monitor normality of the patients or volunteers .
A medical/pharmaceutical practitioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the manufacturing and/or quality of the products tested and/or their evaluation .
Now let us explore the products evaluation in little further detail .
The input part is the tablets or capsules , which for all practical purposes is compressed composite of the drug and some inactive ingredients .
This is similar to a candy making process ( consider M & M candy ) and note that it happens before the tablets/capsules are part of clinical testing .
No matter how loudly an argument is made the fact remains that it is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and/or physical tests are conducted to establish the suitability of the tablet/capsule products before administering to human subjects .
Once the product is administered , blood samples are withdrawn from human subjects to measure drug levels again in a typical analytical chemistry laboratory or environment .
The blood drugs levels are compared to establish similarity of the two tested products following standard analytical chemistry and statistical principles and methods .
Now consider if indeed one is measuring and/or evaluating similarity of the two tested products .
In scientific or technical term , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variance ) of blood drug levels for these two products .
If the means and variabilities are the same and similar for both products then products will be declared equivalent and authorities would allow their interchangeability .
Question , however , is , is this comparative protocol valid for seeing the mean and variability similarity or differences in the compared products .
The answer is certainly no !
The reason being , for such a protocol , there are three sets of variabilities contributing to the blood drug levels i.e .
( 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ; ( 2 ) inter and intra human subjects – physiological ; ( 3 ) blood drug level measurements .
It is a well-known fact that most variability in this regard comes from human physiological variations which are not only extremely high but also not possible to control or reduce .
Products and drug measurement variabilities are usually small and insignificant and are buried ( confounded ) in the physiological variability .
It is , therefore , not possible to determine accurately variabilities of the products or their quality , which in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bioequivalence assessment or the so called clinical trials .
It is often assumed that statistical analysis of the data take cares the different variabilities aspects , however , unfortunately this is not an accurate assumption as statistical analysis presumes constant or fix intra and inter subject variability – which is not correct .
So what is the use of conducting such testing/clinical-trails – not much !
It is important to note that such clinical trials are not only conducted for developing generic products , but also for innovators ’ products as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such bioavailability assessments of the drugs in humans are required by the authorities and are conducted accordingly .
In short , such studies ( clinical trials ) are not only scientifically false for the intended purpose , but also give false assurance to public that products are being assessed and approved based on science and/or clinical assessment .
Furthermore , unfortunately , participating human subjects , mostly healthy adults , are exposed to unnecessary risk of potent chemicals often labelled as “ lifesaving medicines ” .
Now let us consider the recent vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial explanation for assessing safety and efficacy and quality of a vaccine and/or its product .
To conduct a study/testing/clinical-trial , as noted above , one is required an input ( dose of a vaccine ) , output ( response ) and human ( patients or healthy subjects treated with virus ) .
Starting with a dose of vaccine – question is , from where this vaccine candidate will come to initiate a clinical trial .
The only way a trial vaccine could be developed is if one has access to a virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capable of killing at least in vitro to start with .
However , it is a well-known fact that a reference virus ( identified and quantified ) is not available , at least in sufficient quantities , then how a potential vaccine candidate would be developed to administer for clinical trials .
It can not be !
Therefore , it is impossible to have an appropriate vaccine candidate to conduct clinical trials .
Let us assume that somehow magically a potential vaccine candidate becomes available and ready for dosing to the subjects .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ measurable response which one would be monitoring to establish efficacy of the vaccine – presumably immunity to virus and/or its infection .
The only way to know about the immunity would be to inject virus to create sickness to see if the created immunity kills virus and/or protect humans from the sickness .
However , as stated previously , there is no virus SARS-COV2 available hence immunity against virus can not be checked and/or established .
So , what would these clinical trials be for – obviously nothing !
From the science perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ futile exercise at least at present .
However , medical , pharmaceutical and regulatory professionals are promoting and conducting clinical trials while clearly exposing human subjects to potentially dangerous and potent chemicals .
Therefore , the so called “ science ” of clinical trials should be challenged for its lack of relevance and usefulness on an urgent basis .
At present , medical and pharmaceutical science works on the basis of regulatory compliance , which means meeting regulatory criteria , set mostly with arbitrary or fictional standards and specifications at least from scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements of bioavailability/bioequivalence assessment are purely on arbitrary basis as explained above which does not provide any assurance about the quality , safety and efficacy of the tested products .
However , authorities would approve the products as safe and efficacious because they ( products ) meet their ( authorities ’ ) compliance criteria .
Similarly , in case of vaccine development , there is no possibility of developing an appropriate and valid vaccine as neither a valid reference virus nor a valid test is available to monitor efficacy of the vaccine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ set some arbitrary compliance requirements/standards based on some RNA/DNA monitoring along with some antibodies testing , both mostly nonspecific and irrelevant as described previously .
Therefore , if a vaccine will be developed , it will not be assessed and approved on the basis of its killing or neutralizing ability of the virus or curing patients , but based on meeting regulatory compliance requirements mostly unrelated to the virus and/or its associated disease ( COVID19 ) .
On the other hand , if one would consider the issue based on analytical or measurement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be resolved accurately but extremely efficiently and cost effectively .
For example , in case of bioequivalence testing , first of all , such irrelevant and flawed clinical testing is not necessary and should be discontinued immediately from the regulatory requirements .
Quality , efficacy and safety of the products ( generic and innovators ) can easily , accurately and with scientific validity be established with laboratory testing only .
It is hard to argue against the use of valid laboratory based testing alone in this regard .
With regard to vaccine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not possible to develop an appropriate and valid vaccine – in reality it is not even necessary to develop one .
At least two issues to consider in this respect are : ( 1 ) presumably vaccines are being developed for a still unknown , or non-quantifiable , virus in humans , so chances of being successful in this regard are almost zero ; ( 2 ) vaccine is being developed for protection/immunity from future viral attack .
What are the chances of coming back of exactly the same virus in future – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that experts in virology , along with epidemiologists , mistakenly claimed or assigned the ownership of the situation resulted in a labelled viral pandemic with a suggested solution to develop and have a vaccine .
However , issue clearly belongs to analytical science and chemistry .
If one considers the situation that the world has been attacked by a virus which causes severe acute respiratory syndrome ( so the name SARS ) resulting in infection which may lead to serious health issues and possibly deaths .
Hence logically would it not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typical infection medicines such as antibiotics .
There are suggestions that SARS infections can be treated with antibiotics , however , for some unknown reasons such treatment is neither allowed nor encouraged .
If for some reason , it is considered that an improved and/or specific antibiotic is needed , it will be much more efficient and cost effective to develop a new or modified antibiotic .
The reason being that the dose ( input ) would be a defined and well characterised chemical compound ( antibiotic ) relatively easier to develop and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , output or response would be measurable i.e .
changes in infection levels .
However , there appears to be a clear mindset that only solution is a vaccine which needs to be developed .
Such an approach certainly lacks logic indicating practice of flawed or fake-science .
This also indicates that the issue of disease/pandemic and its treatment are in the wrong hands , unfortunately with false assumptions and criteria , because claims are being made for the presence of virus and developing vaccines when in reality trials or studies are about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summary , clinical trials are specific type of tests in which products or treatments are tested using human subjects .
Such trials should be conducted under the management of analytical science or laboratory with scientifically valid protocols .
Unfortunately , however , at present trials are conducted in non-analytical science facilities and supervision often with invalid study protocols and interpretations .
Approved products based on such trials would provide false assurance of safety , efficacy and quality of the tested products .
Patients and public should be aware of current flawed scientific practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , if such evaluations are conducted with appropriate and scientifically valid and proven approaches , one could not only avoid false mishaps but also develop treatments and cure far more expeditiously and cost effectively .
PS : If one requires specific references to the views presented here , they could be obtained by visiting the site ( 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

COVID19 ‘clinical trials’ & their outcomes: fake science at its best!
Written by Saeed A. Qureshi, Ph.D
The term clinical trial is being used often in the scientific literature and recently more so in particular in the public media with regard to developing treatments (e.g. pharmaceutical products, vaccines) for the COVID-19 and its associated pandemic.
The term clinical trial is often presented to the public as if it is a form of highly sophisticated science based approach for developing medicines and treatments. Further, it has been implied that clinical trials require higher level of understanding of the complexities of science and financial recourses, which presumably only few developed economies can afford and support.
The purpose of this article is to decipher the mystery of clinical trials in simple language so that not only public could understand them but also to provide guidance to the professionals in the area as well. In simple term, a clinical trial is a form of testing or test where tests are conducted using humans as test subjects for the medicines development, be they are tablets/capsules or vaccines.
If the same testing is conducted in animals then it is called pre-clinical otherwise in vitro or laboratory testing (i.e. without dosing humans or animals subjects). A simple example of a “clinical trial” would be a trial/test to see if one gains weight (the outcome parameter) by eating chocolate loaded ice-cream for a month. Such a trial/test can easily be done in home by anyone.
What would be required for such a clinical trial, chocolate loaded ice-cream, some human subjects and a weighing scale to monitor the weight (outcome or response parameter) before and after taking the ice-cream (or the so called “dose”).
The point, which must be kept in mind, is that a clinical trial is testing to monitor or measure outcome (response) before and after the treatment (“dose”).
This means that clinical trials should be conducted under the management of normal/standard analytical (measurement) science or laboratory. If the test products are chemical based (simple or complex) then tests should be conducted in an analytical chemistry laboratory.
However, a quick overview of the literature would reveal that most, if not all, clinical trials are conducted under non-analytical chemistry management mostly having medical, pharmaceutical and regulatory expertise.
These professions usually have no or limited underlying and required knowledge or understanding of analytical science and/or chemistry of the tested products and/or chemical nature of the body processes.
Therefore, it would be safe to assume that most “clinical trials” conducted at present would be of poor scientific authenticity more likely false and useless. Current practices may be explained with the evaluation pharmaceutical products such as tablet or capsule.
It can further be made simpler to understand by considering an example of the development of a generic product vs innovator product. The idea behind such evaluation is to establish if the generic products are of the same or similar quality, safety and efficacy as those of the respective innovators’ products.
To establish this, one is required to conduct clinical trials, commonly known as bioavailability and/or bioequivalence assessment, for comparing a generic product against an innovator’s product. That is to conduct testing after dosing the two products separately and measuring and comparing the outcome (response) which in this case is the drug levels of the administered drug.
For example, if someone likes to develop a generic version of Tylenol or Advil, then he/she has to administer a Tylenol or Advil against the in-house version of tablet and measures the plasma drug levels which in this case would be acetaminophen or ibuprofen, respectively.
Input is tablet, innovator or generic version, and output is plasma drug levels – basically a standard or normal analytical chemistry protocol. However, such studies are conducted under the management of medical and pharmaceutical professionals following regulatory guidance with negligible contribution from chemical and/or analytical sciences for developing study protocol and/or interpretation of the results.
An appropriate analogy to describe the situation or testing would be assessing comparative efficiency of new fuel vs the old one for ships. Ships would be operated following normal or standard protocol, without knowing about the tested fuel manufacturing and testing aspects.
Ship will be loaded with new or old fuel at random and will be operated as usual and at the end consumption of fuel be measured and evaluated without involvement of ship caption or crew. If fuel loader and ship operators kept blinded about which ship is getting which fuel, then in technical term the testing/evaluation will be called double blinded.
Similarly, if two medicinal products are to be tested in double blinded “clinical trial” both product administrators and volunteers would be blinded to the tested products. A medical practitioner’s role would be just like ship captain to “operate” and monitor normality of the patients or volunteers. A medical/pharmaceutical practitioner would have no or limited knowledge about the manufacturing and/or quality of the products tested and/or their evaluation.
Now let us explore the products evaluation in little further detail. The input part is the tablets or capsules, which for all practical purposes is compressed composite of the drug and some inactive ingredients. This is similar to a candy making process (consider M&M candy) and note that it happens before the tablets/capsules are part of clinical testing.
No matter how loudly an argument is made the fact remains that it is a chemical composite candy manufacturing process. Chemical and/or physical tests are conducted to establish the suitability of the tablet/capsule products before administering to human subjects.
Once the product is administered, blood samples are withdrawn from human subjects to measure drug levels again in a typical analytical chemistry laboratory or environment. The blood drugs levels are compared to establish similarity of the two tested products following standard analytical chemistry and statistical principles and methods.
Now consider if indeed one is measuring and/or evaluating similarity of the two tested products. In scientific or technical term, one would be measuring mean and variability (variance) of blood drug levels for these two products.
If the means and variabilities are the same and similar for both products then products will be declared equivalent and authorities would allow their interchangeability. Question, however, is, is this comparative protocol valid for seeing the mean and variability similarity or differences in the compared products.
The answer is certainly no! The reason being, for such a protocol, there are three sets of variabilities contributing to the blood drug levels i.e. (1) inter and intra products (tablets/capsules); (2) inter and intra human subjects – physiological; (3) blood drug level measurements.
It is a well-known fact that most variability in this regard comes from human physiological variations which are not only extremely high but also not possible to control or reduce. Products and drug measurement variabilities are usually small and insignificant and are buried (confounded) in the physiological variability.
It is, therefore, not possible to determine accurately variabilities of the products or their quality, which in reality is the main objective of conducting the bioequivalence assessment or the so called clinical trials. It is often assumed that statistical analysis of the data take cares the different variabilities aspects, however, unfortunately this is not an accurate assumption as statistical analysis presumes constant or fix intra and inter subject variability – which is not correct.
So what is the use of conducting such testing/clinical-trails – not much! It is important to note that such clinical trials are not only conducted for developing generic products, but also for innovators’ products as well. Every time a product is developed such bioavailability assessments of the drugs in humans are required by the authorities and are conducted accordingly.
In short, such studies (clinical trials) are not only scientifically false for the intended purpose, but also give false assurance to public that products are being assessed and approved based on science and/or clinical assessment.
Furthermore, unfortunately, participating human subjects, mostly healthy adults, are exposed to unnecessary risk of potent chemicals often labelled as “lifesaving medicines”.
Now let us consider the recent vaccine development aspect with the above described clinical trial explanation for assessing safety and efficacy and quality of a vaccine and/or its product.
To conduct a study/testing/clinical-trial, as noted above, one is required an input (dose of a vaccine), output (response) and human (patients or healthy subjects treated with virus). Starting with a dose of vaccine – question is, from where this vaccine candidate will come to initiate a clinical trial.
The only way a trial vaccine could be developed is if one has access to a virus which the potential vaccine candidate would be capable of killing at least in vitro to start with.
However, it is a well-known fact that a reference virus (identified and quantified) is not available, at least in sufficient quantities, then how a potential vaccine candidate would be developed to administer for clinical trials. It cannot be!
Therefore, it is impossible to have an appropriate vaccine candidate to conduct clinical trials. Let us assume that somehow magically a potential vaccine candidate becomes available and ready for dosing to the subjects.
Then after dosing what would be the measurable response which one would be monitoring to establish efficacy of the vaccine – presumably immunity to virus and/or its infection. The only way to know about the immunity would be to inject virus to create sickness to see if the created immunity kills virus and/or protect humans from the sickness.
However, as stated previously, there is no virus SARS-COV2 available hence immunity against virus cannot be checked and/or established. So, what would these clinical trials be for – obviously nothing!
From the science perspective conducting such clinical trials is simply a futile exercise at least at present. However, medical, pharmaceutical and regulatory professionals are promoting and conducting clinical trials while clearly exposing human subjects to potentially dangerous and potent chemicals.
Therefore, the so called “science” of clinical trials should be challenged for its lack of relevance and usefulness on an urgent basis. At present, medical and pharmaceutical science works on the basis of regulatory compliance, which means meeting regulatory criteria, set mostly with arbitrary or fictional standards and specifications at least from scientific perspective.
For example, the compliance requirements of bioavailability/bioequivalence assessment are purely on arbitrary basis as explained above which does not provide any assurance about the quality, safety and efficacy of the tested products. However, authorities would approve the products as safe and efficacious because they (products) meet their (authorities’) compliance criteria.
Similarly, in case of vaccine development, there is no possibility of developing an appropriate and valid vaccine as neither a valid reference virus nor a valid test is available to monitor efficacy of the vaccine.
On the other hand, authorities would set some arbitrary compliance requirements/standards based on some RNA/DNA monitoring along with some antibodies testing, both mostly nonspecific and irrelevant as described previously.
Therefore, if a vaccine will be developed, it will not be assessed and approved on the basis of its killing or neutralizing ability of the virus or curing patients, but based on meeting regulatory compliance requirements mostly unrelated to the virus and/or its associated disease (COVID19).
On the other hand, if one would consider the issue based on analytical or measurement science, not only the issues can be resolved accurately but extremely efficiently and cost effectively. For example, in case of bioequivalence testing, first of all, such irrelevant and flawed clinical testing is not necessary and should be discontinued immediately from the regulatory requirements.
Quality, efficacy and safety of the products (generic and innovators) can easily, accurately and with scientific validity be established with laboratory testing only. It is hard to argue against the use of valid laboratory based testing alone in this regard.
With regard to vaccine, as explained above not only it is not possible to develop an appropriate and valid vaccine – in reality it is not even necessary to develop one. At least two issues to consider in this respect are:
(1) presumably vaccines are being developed for a still unknown, or non-quantifiable, virus in humans, so chances of being successful in this regard are almost zero;
(2) vaccine is being developed for protection/immunity from future viral attack. What are the chances of coming back of exactly the same virus in future – low to zero?
It can be argued that experts in virology, along with epidemiologists, mistakenly claimed or assigned the ownership of the situation resulted in a labelled viral pandemic with a suggested solution to develop and have a vaccine. However, issue clearly belongs to analytical science and chemistry.
If one considers the situation that the world has been attacked by a virus which causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (so the name SARS) resulting in infection which may lead to serious health issues and possibly deaths.
Hence logically would it not be more appropriate to treat the infection with typical infection medicines such as antibiotics. There are suggestions that SARS infections can be treated with antibiotics, however, for some unknown reasons such treatment is neither allowed nor encouraged.
If for some reason, it is considered that an improved and/or specific antibiotic is needed, it will be much more efficient and cost effective to develop a new or modified antibiotic. The reason being that the dose (input) would be a defined and well characterised chemical compound (antibiotic) relatively easier to develop and manufacture in large quantities with defined characteristics, output or response would be measurable i.e. changes in infection levels.
However, there appears to be a clear mindset that only solution is a vaccine which needs to be developed. Such an approach certainly lacks logic indicating practice of flawed or fake-science.
This also indicates that the issue of disease/pandemic and its treatment are in the wrong hands, unfortunately with false assumptions and criteria, because claims are being made for the presence of virus and developing vaccines when in reality trials or studies are about the analytical chemistry or science.
In summary, clinical trials are specific type of tests in which products or treatments are tested using human subjects. Such trials should be conducted under the management of analytical science or laboratory with scientifically valid protocols.
Unfortunately, however, at present trials are conducted in non-analytical science facilities and supervision often with invalid study protocols and interpretations. Approved products based on such trials would provide false assurance of safety, efficacy and quality of the tested products.
Patients and public should be aware of current flawed scientific practices in this regard. On the other hand, if such evaluations are conducted with appropriate and scientifically valid and proven approaches, one could not only avoid false mishaps but also develop treatments and cure far more expeditiously and cost effectively.
PS: If one requires specific references to the views presented here, they could be obtained by visiting the site (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.
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--2020-09-09--COVID Calamity: Counting ‘Cases’ Not Deaths Is Crazy!

By this point anyone who ’ s informed about the virus knows that the count of “ cases ” — which doesn ’ t actually mean people showing symptoms — is an absurd metric on which to base policy , for numerous reasons I ’ ve covered in the past .
Spikes in “ cases ” in various parts of the world have led the global midwit population to make all kinds of predictions about deaths that have consistently failed to materialize .
But we discovered — from the New York Times , of all places !
— within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case ” metric is even more absurd than we could have imagined .
As I noted in this space eight days ago , the New York Times ran the headline : “ Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive .
Maybe It Shouldn ’ t Be.
” We learned there that as many as 90 percent of positive COVID results were for people who were not contagious , and were therefore being ordered to quarantine and isolate for no reason .
It has to do with the PCR test and something called the “ cycle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States is set in most labs at a cutoff of around 40 or 37 instead of a more reasonable 30 .
Anyway , Phil Kerpen of American Commitment was curious about the situation in the District of Columbia , so he contacted the health authorities there to ask what cycle threshold they ’ re using for their tests ( so we can get a sense of the extent to which their tabulation of “ cases , ” already a notoriously unhelpful metric , is truly ludicrous ) .
Well , DC Health got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not have information about cycle thresholds.
” What kind of a joke is this ?
As one commenter put it , “ What ’ s worse ?
If they ’ re lying or if they really don ’ t have any ?
” Meanwhile , our supposedly nonpolitical expert , Dr. Fauci ( who revealed last week that he hopes the COVID crisis will lead to the adoption of something akin to the Green New Deal ) , to my knowledge has not acknowledged any of this .
The other day he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heading into flu season , without acknowledging this report and the fact that we now know the “ case count ” is wildly inflated .
We are truly living in a giant insane asylum .
More from Tom Woods at www.supportinglisteners.com About the author : Thomas Ernest Woods Jr. is an American author , historian and libertarian who is currently a senior fellow at the Mises Institute .
Woods is a New York Times Best-Selling author and has published twelve books .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

COVID Calamity: Counting ‘Cases’ Not Deaths Is Crazy!
Written by Tom Woods
By this point anyone who’s informed about the virus knows that the count of “cases” — which doesn’t actually mean people showing symptoms — is an absurd metric on which to base policy, for numerous reasons I’ve covered in the past.
Spikes in “cases” in various parts of the world have led the global midwit population to make all kinds of predictions about deaths that have consistently failed to materialize.
But we discovered — from the New York Times, of all places! — within the past week or two that the “case” metric is even more absurd than we could have imagined.
As I noted in this space eight days ago, the New York Times ran the headline: “Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.”
We learned there that as many as 90 percent of positive COVID results were for people who were not contagious, and were therefore being ordered to quarantine and isolate for no reason.
It has to do with the PCR test and something called the “cycle threshold,” which in the United States is set in most labs at a cutoff of around 40 or 37 instead of a more reasonable 30.
Anyway, Phil Kerpen of American Commitment was curious about the situation in the District of Columbia, so he contacted the health authorities there to ask what cycle threshold they’re using for their tests (so we can get a sense of the extent to which their tabulation of “cases,” already a notoriously unhelpful metric, is truly ludicrous).
After contacting them, Phil noted:
“If it is 37 to 40 like Nevada, New York, and Massachusetts then up to 90% of reported positives are from noninfectious, months-old viral debris.”
Well, DC Health got back to him.
“DC Health does not have information about cycle thresholds.”
What kind of a joke is this?
As one commenter put it, “What’s worse? If they’re lying or if they really don’t have any?”
Meanwhile, our supposedly nonpolitical expert, Dr. Fauci (who revealed last week that he hopes the COVID crisis will lead to the adoption of something akin to the Green New Deal), to my knowledge has not acknowledged any of this.
The other day he said the case count was unacceptably high heading into flu season, without acknowledging this report and the fact that we now know the “case count” is wildly inflated.
We are truly living in a giant insane asylum.
More from Tom Woods at www.supportinglisteners.com
About the author: Thomas Ernest Woods Jr. is an American author, historian and libertarian who is currently a senior fellow at the Mises Institute. Woods is a New York Times Best-Selling author and has published twelve books.
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