principiascientificinternational--2020-09-14--The Brothers Grim: Bill and Mike’s Pandemic Panopticon

Even now a chorus line of contact tracers assembles in the wings .
In short order they ’ ll take center stage – donning newly minted digital certificates of compliance and indoctrination .
This post is about one of the production ’ s underwriters , Michael Bloomberg .
Bloomberg , in coordination with New York governor Andrew Cuomo , paid Johns Hopkins to choreograph this viral surveillance roll out with the Rockefeller Foundation looking on from the royal box .
John ’ s Hopkins School of Public Health uploaded a digital contact-tracing training module to Coursera this week .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fidelity of the chorus ’ s high-kicks across state lines .
Almost 130,000 people signed up in the first week .
Free enrollment , while supplies last , compliments of your friendly globalist oligarch !
Almost unimaginable , but so many have had their sole means of economic support pulled out from under them by this lock down .
This biometric surveillance train is moving full speed ahead fueled in equal parts by desperation and the desire of some to dominate others .
Get ready , find your people , know your values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solidarity with the vulnerable .
The lights are dimming ; intermission is over .
Bloomberg , three-term mayor of New York , made his fortune in finance data analytics .
He ’ s a social impact investment rainmaker and Trilateral Commission member who also served as a global envoy to the World Health Organization and climate ambassador to the United Nations .
He received his undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from Johns Hopkins in 1964 and has maintained close ties with that institution ever since .
Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg have collaborated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participated in David Rockefeller ’ s “ Good Club ” gathering in 2009 , which was convened in the aftermath of the previous global economic crisis .
That exclusive meeting , held at the home of the president of Rockefeller University , featured short presentations on the future of “ philanthropy.
” In the years following , as wealth became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands , giving has been strategically deployed in an attempt to smooth the persistently rough edges of mass poverty and dispossession .
“ The Good Club ” has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system , one that is biocapitalist in nature .
I talk about it here .
Open Society ( Soros also a member of the club ) paid for the Chicago boys to create neoliberal human capital equations for the coming futures commodity markets .
End times make strange bedfellows .
The new model , which will be emerging from the Covid-19 ruins , is steeped in debt and data extraction .
The latter advancing not only pay for success finance , but development of artificial intelligence through machine learning .
Everyone in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the big game .
Blockchain token economies like Singularity.net and Ocean Protocol will eventually allow AI systems to pursue their own development through value creation and exchange – beyond the reach of humans .
Whoever ( or whatever ) achieves general artificial intelligence first will be in a position to control the world ; that is if they ’ re ALSO able to control emergent AI behavior – a very big IF .
These electrical engineers must not comprehend that the actions they are taking could have devastating consequences for those of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in peace with free will in the REAL world .
I encourage you to read Whitney Webb ’ s April 23 , 2020 piece in Activist Post , Techno-Tyranny How the US National Security State Is Using Corona Virus To Fulfill An Orwellian Vision .
It discusses in detail a document obtained as part of an open records request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center ( EPIC ) .
The “ Chinese Tech Landscape Overview , ” which was prepared by NSCAI in May 2019 describes a future where the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to obtain sufficient training data needed to fuel the development of Artificial Intelligence and stay ahead of China .
It talks about removing barriers to the platforming and digital control of our lives by eliminating such legacy systems as non-digital payments ( cash ) , private cars , bricks-and-mortar stores ( shift to e-commerce ) , and non-digital medical treatment .
The smart cities Bloomberg is backing in the US , Europe , and India are built with 5G and Internet of Things .
Ubiquitous computing will enable : the automation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the adoption of new mechanisms of high-tech policing ; and the infrastructure required to maximize data harvest .
“ Civic participation ” = offering up one ’ s life to bring about , apparently , the end of humanity as we know it .
Surely a raw deal if there ever was one .
Better off a dissident than becoming a battery to fuel such a monstrous program .
The map below features some of the projects Bloomberg is pursuing through his foundation including : behavioral economic nudges , blockchain identity , digital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government contracting , and interoperable data systems .
It is important to note in the upper left corner of the map his involvement with the Global Parliament of Mayors and their advancement of vaccinations as a key area of interest .
Lots of data here .
Lots of data to train AI .
The map below is a signature project from Bloomberg ’ s time as mayor .
The Small Data Lab is part of the Cornell-Technion campus built from scratch on Roosevelt Island in New York City with backing from Qualcomm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The lab is led by Deborah Estrin who made a career researching sensors and health analytics .
Donors to the lab are also involved with blockchain health records , value-based care reimbursement , brain research , and impact investing .
Interactive version of the map here .
This video shows Estrin discussing plans to leverage ” small data , ” digital traces , from smart phones to influence “ personal health management.
” It is important to recognize that the move into contract tracing is an extension of this work .
Once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and their networks within the context of pandemic they can move into using these apps to influence health-related behaviors in subtle and overt ways .
All of this will be linked to human capital markets , and all of it will be used to train AI .
Many big data proponents have a transhumanist inclination , embracing cybernetics as the next phase of human evolution .
There are those who would abandon the messy beauty and power of nature for the logic and faux immortality promised by the virtual .
Facebook , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out new avatar systems , preparing us for a future where we extend ourselves using a “ digital twin ” whose virtual actions can ALSO be harvested as data .
You see how they plan for this to go ?
In 2016 Google developed a short film exploring the idea of cyborg evolution , data aggregation on blockchain , and mind uploading .
I found it quite disturbing , and decided to make a concept map of the ideas the creators referenced .
Interactive version of the concept map for Google ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are living through a moment where energy systems are colliding , and the future is highly uncertain .
Life and anti-life , love and derangement , green and scorched-this grand struggle is playing out in “ the alley ” behind “ the theater ” where few know to look .
Too many are simply enthralled by the chorus line .
I ’ m telling you to step out of your comfort zone and head to the alley .
Join in community to stand on the side of life , love , green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a statement of solidarity with Wet ’ suwet ’ en Nation .
These women are the anti-Bloombergs .
In this moment of Covid distraction we need to reconnect with a greater earthly spiritual power to deflect the machinations of the “ Good Club ” predators .
Bloomberg and the technocrats have been very diligent in their cooptation of the non-profit / third sector , creating systems of data extraction cloaked in the benevolent trappings of cardboard checks and glittering galas .
Global health has been the focus of much subterfuge .
Gates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , family planning , polio , and most recently “ economic mobility.
” All , of course , are impact investment markets .
It is worth noting that Event 201 , the corona virus tabletop exercise held at the Pierre Hotel in New York last October , was a joint enterprise of the Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , an initiative of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of public health .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The Brothers Grim: Bill and Mike’s Pandemic Panopticon
Written by Alison McDowel
Bill and Melinda Gates have leading roles to play in the unfolding drama that is Covid-19. Everything seems to be advancing according to Davos’s plan. The soon-to-be trillionaire couple has provided useful cover for their fellow billionaires, the ones backstage pulling the ropes that will drop the Fourth Industrial Revolution scenery for the techno-fascist second act.
Even now a chorus line of contact tracers assembles in the wings. In short order they’ll take center stage – donning newly minted digital certificates of compliance and indoctrination.
This post is about one of the production’s underwriters, Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, in coordination with New York governor Andrew Cuomo, paid Johns Hopkins to choreograph this viral surveillance roll out with the Rockefeller Foundation looking on from the royal box.
John’s Hopkins School of Public Health uploaded a digital contact-tracing training module to Coursera this week. The videos therein are meant to ensure synchronized fidelity of the chorus’s high-kicks across state lines. Almost 130,000 people signed up in the first week. Free enrollment, while supplies last, compliments of your friendly globalist oligarch!
Source
Almost unimaginable, but so many have had their sole means of economic support pulled out from under them by this lock down. This biometric surveillance train is moving full speed ahead fueled in equal parts by desperation and the desire of some to dominate others. Get ready, find your people, know your values, and be prepared to stand in solidarity with the vulnerable. The lights are dimming; intermission is over.
Bloomberg, three-term mayor of New York, made his fortune in finance data analytics. He’s a social impact investment rainmaker and Trilateral Commission member who also served as a global envoy to the World Health Organization and climate ambassador to the United Nations. He received his undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from Johns Hopkins in 1964 and has maintained close ties with that institution ever since.
Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg have collaborated for over a decade. They both participated in David Rockefeller’s “Good Club” gathering in 2009, which was convened in the aftermath of the previous global economic crisis. That exclusive meeting, held at the home of the president of Rockefeller University, featured short presentations on the future of “philanthropy.” In the years following, as wealth became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, giving has been strategically deployed in an attempt to smooth the persistently rough edges of mass poverty and dispossession.
Source
“The Good Club” has been working out a new global economic system, one that is biocapitalist in nature. I talk about it here. Open Society (Soros also a member of the club) paid for the Chicago boys to create neoliberal human capital equations for the coming futures commodity markets. End times make strange bedfellows.
The new model, which will be emerging from the Covid-19 ruins, is steeped in debt and data extraction. The latter advancing not only pay for success finance, but development of artificial intelligence through machine learning. Everyone in the know, including Bloomberg, understands THIS is the big game.
Blockchain token economies like Singularity.net and Ocean Protocol will eventually allow AI systems to pursue their own development through value creation and exchange – beyond the reach of humans. Whoever (or whatever) achieves general artificial intelligence first will be in a position to control the world; that is if they’re ALSO able to control emergent AI behavior – a very big IF.
Source
These electrical engineers must not comprehend that the actions they are taking could have devastating consequences for those of us who seek to live in community and in peace with free will in the REAL world.
I encourage you to read Whitney Webb’s April 23, 2020 piece in Activist Post, Techno-Tyranny How the US National Security State Is Using Corona Virus To Fulfill An Orwellian Vision. It discusses in detail a document obtained as part of an open records request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
The “Chinese Tech Landscape Overview,” which was prepared by NSCAI in May 2019 describes a future where the United States must maximize “smart” city surveillance in order to obtain sufficient training data needed to fuel the development of Artificial Intelligence and stay ahead of China. It talks about removing barriers to the platforming and digital control of our lives by eliminating such legacy systems as non-digital payments (cash), private cars, bricks-and-mortar stores (shift to e-commerce), and non-digital medical treatment.
Source
The smart cities Bloomberg is backing in the US, Europe, and India are built with 5G and Internet of Things. Ubiquitous computing will enable: the automation craved by Fourth Industrial Revolution devotees; the adoption of new mechanisms of high-tech policing; and the infrastructure required to maximize data harvest.
Stay ahead of China.
Hasten the singularity.
“Civic participation” = offering up one’s life to bring about, apparently, the end of humanity as we know it. Surely a raw deal if there ever was one. Better off a dissident than becoming a battery to fuel such a monstrous program.
Source
The map below features some of the projects Bloomberg is pursuing through his foundation including: behavioral economic nudges, blockchain identity, digital governance, labor market analytics, performance-based government contracting, and interoperable data systems. It is important to note in the upper left corner of the map his involvement with the Global Parliament of Mayors and their advancement of vaccinations as a key area of interest. Lots of data here. Lots of data to train AI.
Interactive map here.
The map below is a signature project from Bloomberg’s time as mayor. The Small Data Lab is part of the Cornell-Technion campus built from scratch on Roosevelt Island in New York City with backing from Qualcomm, Verizon, Tata Consulting, and Google. The lab is led by Deborah Estrin who made a career researching sensors and health analytics. Donors to the lab are also involved with blockchain health records, value-based care reimbursement, brain research, and impact investing.
Interactive version of the map here.
This video shows Estrin discussing plans to leverage” small data,” digital traces, from smart phones to influence “personal health management.” It is important to recognize that the move into contract tracing is an extension of this work. Once the state normalizes the practice of tracking people and their networks within the context of pandemic they can move into using these apps to influence health-related behaviors in subtle and overt ways. All of this will be linked to human capital markets, and all of it will be used to train AI.
Many big data proponents have a transhumanist inclination, embracing cybernetics as the next phase of human evolution. There are those who would abandon the messy beauty and power of nature for the logic and faux immortality promised by the virtual. Facebook, in fact, is right now rolling out new avatar systems, preparing us for a future where we extend ourselves using a “digital twin” whose virtual actions can ALSO be harvested as data. You see how they plan for this to go?
Source from Pavel Luksha.
Source
In 2016 Google developed a short film exploring the idea of cyborg evolution, data aggregation on blockchain, and mind uploading. I found it quite disturbing, and decided to make a concept map of the ideas the creators referenced.
Interactive version of the concept map for Google’s “The Selfish Ledger” here.
We are living through a moment where energy systems are colliding, and the future is highly uncertain. Life and anti-life, love and derangement, green and scorched-this grand struggle is playing out in “the alley” behind “the theater” where few know to look. Too many are simply enthralled by the chorus line.
I’m telling you to step out of your comfort zone and head to the alley. Join in community to stand on the side of life, love, green! As with my previous post written as a statement of solidarity with Wet’suwet’en Nation. These women are the anti-Bloombergs. In this moment of Covid distraction we need to reconnect with a greater earthly spiritual power to deflect the machinations of the “Good Club” predators.
Bloomberg and the technocrats have been very diligent in their cooptation of the non-profit / third sector, creating systems of data extraction cloaked in the benevolent trappings of cardboard checks and glittering galas. Global health has been the focus of much subterfuge. Gates and Bloomberg united to tackle tobacco use, family planning, polio, and most recently “economic mobility.” All, of course, are impact investment markets.
It is worth noting that Event 201, the corona virus tabletop exercise held at the Pierre Hotel in New York last October, was a joint enterprise of the Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, an initiative of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of public health.
Read the full article at www.wrenchinthegears.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--2020-09-14--Dozens of scientific journals have vanished from the internet

Dozens of scientific journals have vanished from the internet Eighty-four online-only , open-access ( OA ) journals in the sciences , and nearly 100 more in the social sciences and humanities , have disappeared from the internet over the past 2 decades as publishers stopped maintaining them , potentially depriving scholars of useful research findings , a study has found .
An additional 900 journals published only online also may be at risk of vanishing because they are inactive , says a preprint posted on 3 September on the arXiv server .
The number of OA journals tripled from 2009 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vanished titles operated for nearly 10 years before going dark , which “ might imply that a large number … is yet to vanish , ” the authors write .
The study didn ’ t identify examples of prominent journals or articles that were lost , nor collect data on the journals ’ impact factors and citation rates to the articles .
About half of the journals were published by research institutions or scholarly societies ; none of the societies are large players in the natural sciences .
None of the now-dark journals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Still , “ The analysis demonstrates that research integrity and the scholarly record preservation … are at risk across all academic disciplines and geographical regions , ” says Andrea Marchitelli , managing editor of JLIS.it , the Italian Journal of Library , Archives , and Information Science , who was not involved in the study .
Publishers should dedicate money to improve preservation , he says .
A new mandate by research funders set to take effect in January 2021 requires preservation schemes—but most online-only journals currently lack such plans , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is contained in Plan S , backed by mostly European research funders .
Scholars financed by Plan S funders must make the articles OA ( immediately free to read upon publication ) .
Overall , only about one-third of the 14,068 journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals in 2019 ensure the long-term preservation of their content , the preprint study found .
Some commercial services offer it , and at least one—the Public Knowledge Project Preservation Network , a multiuniversity initiative—does so for free .
It ’ s not clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dark in recent years .
But such journals have some advantages over OA titles when it comes to preservation , says Mikael Laakso of the Hanken School of Economics , one of the authors of the new study .
“ Subscription-based content has historically been better covered by libraries , either by having paper copies on shelves or electronically , ” he wrote in an email .
“ There ’ s been established processes , budgets , and culture in place for libraries to preserve purchased content , while what is just out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free has not been enrolled in such processes and thus runs the risk of falling through the cracks if the publisher vanishes.
” There ’ s little consensus about who is ultimately responsible for digital preservation of OA journals—publishers , authors , libraries , or universities .
Preserving OA journals may pose a particularly big financial challenge for those publishers that do not charge authors to publish articles .
Library budgets , meanwhile , have faced cuts or minimal growth .
Articles that appeared in vanished journals could also be preserved in university @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” open access— but not all institutions or funders mandate that the manuscripts be deposited in such repositories .
Preservation “ is a time-consuming activity , ” Marchitelli says , “ and sometimes seems less important than working on the inclusion of the articles in bibliographic databases , ” which European funders often use to evaluate the quality of university scholarship .
To determine the list of the 176 vanished journals , the authors of the new preprint did some digital detective work because clues about them are fragmentary .
After the journals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ names no longer appear in bibliometric databases .
The authors—Laakso , Lisa Matthias of the Free University of Berlin , and Najko Jahn of the University of Göttingen—defined a vanished journal as one that published at least one complete volume as immediate OA , and less than 50 % of its content is now available for free online .
Some of the content may be accessible as printed copies or in paywalled commercial services .
They used a historical archive of internet content , the Internet Archive ’ s Wayback Machine , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the journal started , on average ) and when content disappeared from the internet ( within 5 years for three-quarters of the journals ) .
The journals had been based in 50 different countries , most of them high-income ones .
Most of the lost journals published articles only in English .
Laakso notes that many predictions have been made that OA journals represent the future of scholarly publishing .
But , he adds , his study suggests that “ maybe we could also spend a bit more time looking at more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the publishing model matures.
” 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 .

Dozens of scientific journals have vanished from the internet
Written by Jeffrey Brainard
Eighty-four online-only, open-access (OA) journals in the sciences, and nearly 100 more in the social sciences and humanities, have disappeared from the internet over the past 2 decades as publishers stopped maintaining them, potentially depriving scholars of useful research findings, a study has found.
An additional 900 journals published only online also may be at risk of vanishing because they are inactive, says a preprint posted on 3 September on the arXiv server. The number of OA journals tripled from 2009 to 2019, and on average the vanished titles operated for nearly 10 years before going dark, which “might imply that a large number … is yet to vanish,” the authors write.
The study didn’t identify examples of prominent journals or articles that were lost, nor collect data on the journals’ impact factors and citation rates to the articles. About half of the journals were published by research institutions or scholarly societies; none of the societies are large players in the natural sciences. None of the now-dark journals was produced by a large commercial publisher.
Still, “The analysis demonstrates that research integrity and the scholarly record preservation … are at risk across all academic disciplines and geographical regions,” says Andrea Marchitelli, managing editor of JLIS.it, the Italian Journal of Library, Archives, and Information Science, who was not involved in the study. Publishers should dedicate money to improve preservation, he says.
A new mandate by research funders set to take effect in January 2021 requires preservation schemes—but most online-only journals currently lack such plans, the authors say. The new preservation rule is contained in Plan S, backed by mostly European research funders. Scholars financed by Plan S funders must make the articles OA (immediately free to read upon publication).
Overall, only about one-third of the 14,068 journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals in 2019 ensure the long-term preservation of their content, the preprint study found. Some commercial services offer it, and at least one—the Public Knowledge Project Preservation Network, a multiuniversity initiative—does so for free.
It’s not clear how many subscription-based journals also have gone dark in recent years. But such journals have some advantages over OA titles when it comes to preservation, says Mikael Laakso of the Hanken School of Economics, one of the authors of the new study. “Subscription-based content has historically been better covered by libraries, either by having paper copies on shelves or electronically,” he wrote in an email. “There’s been established processes, budgets, and culture in place for libraries to preserve purchased content, while what is just out there available for anyone to download for free has not been enrolled in such processes and thus runs the risk of falling through the cracks if the publisher vanishes.”
There’s little consensus about who is ultimately responsible for digital preservation of OA journals—publishers, authors, libraries, or universities. Preserving OA journals may pose a particularly big financial challenge for those publishers that do not charge authors to publish articles. Library budgets, meanwhile, have faced cuts or minimal growth. Articles that appeared in vanished journals could also be preserved in university repositories—a form of preservation called “green” open access— but not all institutions or funders mandate that the manuscripts be deposited in such repositories.
Preservation “is a time-consuming activity,” Marchitelli says, “and sometimes seems less important than working on the inclusion of the articles in bibliographic databases,” which European funders often use to evaluate the quality of university scholarship.
To determine the list of the 176 vanished journals, the authors of the new preprint did some digital detective work because clues about them are fragmentary. After the journals go dark, for example, their names no longer appear in bibliometric databases.
The authors—Laakso, Lisa Matthias of the Free University of Berlin, and Najko Jahn of the University of Göttingen—defined a vanished journal as one that published at least one complete volume as immediate OA, and less than 50% of its content is now available for free online. Some of the content may be accessible as printed copies or in paywalled commercial services.
They used a historical archive of internet content, the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, to determine when production ceased (6 years after the journal started, on average) and when content disappeared from the internet (within 5 years for three-quarters of the journals). The journals had been based in 50 different countries, most of them high-income ones. Most of the lost journals published articles only in English.
Laakso notes that many predictions have been made that OA journals represent the future of scholarly publishing. But, he adds, his study suggests that “maybe we could also spend a bit more time looking at more problematic aspects that could be improved as the publishing model matures.”
Read more at www.sciencemag.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-14--The Focus on ‘Cases,’ Not COVID Deaths is a Trick

The Focus on ‘ Cases , ’ Not COVID Deaths is a Trick The Centre for Evidence Based-Medicine at Oxford University has posted the following article , When is Covid , Covid ?
( September 11 , 2020 ) .
For clarity , it should be remembered that Professor Carl Heneghan is Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine & Director of Studies for the Evidence-Based Health Care Programme , and it was his work at the CEBM that forced the government to revise its method of counting deaths , so that only people dying within 28 days of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the virus .
The article starts by saying : We are constantly following the tally of Covid-19 cases .
But one question won ’ t go away : when is Covid-19 actually Covid-19 ?
Covid-19 was first identified as a severe disease-causing atypical pneumonia , accompanied by fever , cough and sometimes a range of other symptoms .
The clinical features of the 41 patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan included pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT .
The agent was identified as SARS-CoV-2 .
Testing by RT-PCR has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought to be unique to SARS-CoV-2 .
Worldwide case numbers are based on the reporting of the presence or absence of small RNA sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 genome .
( Emphasis added ) Thought to be unique ?
But presumably then not proven to be .
Some diseases can be diagnosed based on a test alone ; most diseases , however , are defined by the cluster of symptoms and signs , in addition to test results .
A recent review found that a single symptom or sign could not accurately diagnose COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited rapid review guideline defined a suspected case as a patient with any of two of the following clinical features : fever , imaging features of pneumonia , normal or reduced white blood cell count , or reduced lymphocyte count in the early stages of the disease onset .
A confirmed case was defined as positive for the 2019-nCoV by the real-time PCR test for nucleic acid in respiratory or blood samples .
Disease control agencies and the World Health Organisation have produced guidance for diagnosing Covid-19 .
We looked up case definitions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to compare them .
The table can be seen here : docs.google.com The article then mentions how various organisations and countries define the virus characteristics and testing methods .
For the purposes of this article , I use only data for the UK , USA & EU .
• A suspect case has clinical symptoms of respiratory disease , perhaps with other associated presentations .
• A probable case is a suspect case for whom laboratory testing was inconclusive or not possible .
• A confirmed case is “ A person with laboratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical signs and symptoms.
” ( Emphasis in original ) Thus , a positive laboratory test – type of test not specified here – trumps all else .
We were not able to find WHO guidance on how PCR tests should be interpreted , specifically in relation to cycle count or viral load .
( Emphasis added ) For the European Centres for Disease Control ( ECDC ) , a case may be defined from clinical symptoms , or from radiology , or from “ detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in a clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if diagnosed from clinical criteria , • Probable if diagnosed from clinical and epidemiological criteria , • Confirmed in “ any person meeting the laboratory criteria ” .
( Emphasis in original ) So , again , a positive laboratory test is more important than clinical diagnoses , and again , we were unable to find guidance on how laboratory tests should be applied and interpreted , particularly in PCR in relation to cycle count and viral load .
( Emphasis added ) The US Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemiological evidence , or has presumptive laboratory evidence with either clinical or epidemiological evidence , or has Covid-19 or SARS-CoV-2 on the death certificate as a cause or significant contributor to death .
No information is given on interpreting PCR tests in relation to cycle count thresholds or viral load .
Again , it looks as though a PCR test trumps clinical diagnoses .
( Emphasis added ) The UK government guidance on diagnosis is based on clinical symptoms .
Testing ( not specified ) is recommended for cases who are well enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance is given as to how to interpret such a test or any actions that should be taken consequent to the test results .
Thus , new cases in the UK could reasonably be thought to mean cases diagnosed by clinical symptoms .
( Emphasis in original ) The methodology for counting cases states the following : “ If a person has both a negative and a positive test , then only their positive test will be counted .
If a person is tested as positive under both pillar 1 and pillar 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is counted.
” ( Emphasis added ) Only positive test results are counted , negative ones are ignored .
An asymptomatic person who tested positive could have two confirmatory negative tests , but would still count as a confirmed case .
In Wales , data is deduplicated on 42-day episodes ; if someone is tested twice , 43 days apart , they will be included in the case count measure twice .
( Emphasis added ) The latest guidance states that ‘ positive test results at the limit of detection that occur early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as these represent individuals who may go on to transmit infection.
’ The guidance asks laboratories to ‘ determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of detection based on the in-use assay , ’ without stating what the threshold should be .
If necessary , the laboratory should request a repeat sample ; again this advice is given without a threshold to guide when to do the repeat test .
( Emphasis added ) What is the case definition being used for clusters of UK cases being reported currently ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is most probably simply the result of a positive PCR test .
The new guidance is meaningless unless it provides a clear threshold for the limits of detection .
For many whose test turns up positive , there may be nothing recorded about any clinical symptoms .
( Emphasis added ) The definition of suspected cases resembles what we would normally expect for making a diagnosis based on a set of clinical criteria .
This is , however , discarded when it comes to a confirmatory diagnosis and replaced by a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no guidance providing details on the specific RNA sequences required by testing , a threshold for the test result and the need for confirmatory testing .
It is therefore not clear to us what constitutes a positive result .
Currently , any person meeting the laboratory criteria is a confirmed case .
Yet , a case definition should be a set of standard criteria for classifying whether a person has a certain disease , syndrome , or other health condition .
The PCR test positivity counts should include a standardized threshold level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the recording of the presence or absence of symptoms .
As a disease , the COVID-19 case definition should constitute a disorder that produces a specific set of symptoms and signs .
The in-hospital case definition should , therefore , record the CT lung findings and associated blood tests .
Only when an international standard is agreed upon will we be able to make comparisons , and answer the question of when is Covid , Covid ?
You see now how the focus on tests and cases rather than deaths is making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much worse than it really is , and rising cases is being used to justify continued and increasing restrictions .
Negative tests are ignored if there was a positive test , and some positive tests are double-counted .
We have to wonder why this apparently deliberate deception revealed by the CEBM is being perpetrated across the world , and for what end , though I think many readers can probably guess .
About the author : Andy Rowlands is a British Principia Scientific International researcher , writer and editor who co-edited the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dragon Slayers : Victory Lap ‘ PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The Focus on ‘Cases,’ Not COVID Deaths is a Trick
Written by Andy Rowlands
The Centre for Evidence Based-Medicine at Oxford University has posted the following article, When is Covid, Covid? (September 11, 2020).
For clarity, it should be remembered that Professor Carl Heneghan is Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine & Director of Studies for the Evidence-Based Health Care Programme, and it was his work at the CEBM that forced the government to revise its method of counting deaths, so that only people dying within 28 days of a positive test were counted as having died from the virus.
The article starts by saying:
We are constantly following the tally of Covid-19 cases. But one question won’t go away: when is Covid-19 actually Covid-19? Covid-19 was first identified as a severe disease-causing atypical pneumonia, accompanied by fever, cough and sometimes a range of other symptoms. The clinical features of the 41 patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan included pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. The agent was identified as SARS-CoV-2. Testing by RT-PCR has been globally implemented to identify RNA sequences thought to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. Worldwide case numbers are based on the reporting of the presence or absence of small RNA sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 genome. (Emphasis added)
Thought to be unique? But presumably then not proven to be.
The article continues:
Some diseases can be diagnosed based on a test alone; most diseases, however, are defined by the cluster of symptoms and signs, in addition to test results. A recent review found that a single symptom or sign could not accurately diagnose COVID-19. (Emphasis added) A highly cited rapid review guideline defined a suspected case as a patient with any of two of the following clinical features: fever, imaging features of pneumonia, normal or reduced white blood cell count, or reduced lymphocyte count in the early stages of the disease onset. A confirmed case was defined as positive for the 2019-nCoV by the real-time PCR test for nucleic acid in respiratory or blood samples. Disease control agencies and the World Health Organisation have produced guidance for diagnosing Covid-19. We looked up case definitions, and copied them into a table to compare them.
The table can be seen here: docs.google.com
The article then mentions how various organisations and countries define the virus characteristics and testing methods. For the purposes of this article, I use only data for the UK, USA & EU.
It says:
WHO A suspect case has clinical symptoms of respiratory disease, perhaps with other associated presentations.
has clinical symptoms of respiratory disease, perhaps with other associated presentations. A probable case is a suspect case for whom laboratory testing was inconclusive or not possible.
is a suspect case for whom laboratory testing was inconclusive or not possible. A confirmed case is “A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.” (Emphasis in original) Thus, a positive laboratory test – type of test not specified here – trumps all else. We were not able to find WHO guidance on how PCR tests should be interpreted, specifically in relation to cycle count or viral load. (Emphasis added) European Union For the European Centres for Disease Control (ECDC), a case may be defined from clinical symptoms, or from radiology, or from “detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in a clinical specimen” alone. Possible cases if diagnosed from clinical criteria,
cases if diagnosed from clinical criteria, Probable if diagnosed from clinical and epidemiological criteria,
if diagnosed from clinical and epidemiological criteria, Confirmed in “any person meeting the laboratory criteria”. (Emphasis in original) So, again, a positive laboratory test is more important than clinical diagnoses, and again, we were unable to find guidance on how laboratory tests should be applied and interpreted, particularly in PCR in relation to cycle count and viral load. (Emphasis added) USA The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states Probable case meets clinical criteria and epidemiological evidence, or has presumptive laboratory evidence with either clinical or epidemiological evidence, or has Covid-19 or SARS-CoV-2 on the death certificate as a cause or significant contributor to death.
case meets clinical criteria and epidemiological evidence, or has presumptive laboratory evidence with either clinical or epidemiological evidence, or has Covid-19 or SARS-CoV-2 on the death certificate as a cause or significant contributor to death. Confirmed case “Meets confirmatory laboratory evidence”. (Emphasis in original) No information is given on interpreting PCR tests in relation to cycle count thresholds or viral load. Again, it looks as though a PCR test trumps clinical diagnoses. (Emphasis added) UK The UK government guidance on diagnosis is based on clinical symptoms. Testing (not specified) is recommended for cases who are well enough to remain in the community. No guidance is given as to how to interpret such a test or any actions that should be taken consequent to the test results. Thus, new cases in the UK could reasonably be thought to mean cases diagnosed by clinical symptoms. (Emphasis in original) The methodology for counting cases states the following: “If a person has both a negative and a positive test, then only their positive test will be counted. If a person is tested as positive under both pillar 1 and pillar 2, then only the first positive case is counted.” (Emphasis added)
Only positive test results are counted, negative ones are ignored.
It continues:
An asymptomatic person who tested positive could have two confirmatory negative tests, but would still count as a confirmed case. In Wales, data is deduplicated on 42-day episodes; if someone is tested twice, 43 days apart, they will be included in the case count measure twice. (Emphasis added) The latest guidance states that ‘positive test results at the limit of detection that occur early in the cycle of infection are important as these represent individuals who may go on to transmit infection.’ The guidance asks laboratories to ‘determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of detection based on the in-use assay,’ without stating what the threshold should be. If necessary, the laboratory should request a repeat sample; again this advice is given without a threshold to guide when to do the repeat test. (Emphasis added) What is the case definition being used for clusters of UK cases being reported currently? We deduce that a reported “case” is most probably simply the result of a positive PCR test. The new guidance is meaningless unless it provides a clear threshold for the limits of detection. For many whose test turns up positive, there may be nothing recorded about any clinical symptoms. (Emphasis added) The definition of suspected cases resembles what we would normally expect for making a diagnosis based on a set of clinical criteria. This is, however, discarded when it comes to a confirmatory diagnosis and replaced by a single PCR test result. However, there is no guidance providing details on the specific RNA sequences required by testing, a threshold for the test result and the need for confirmatory testing. It is therefore not clear to us what constitutes a positive result. Currently, any person meeting the laboratory criteria is a confirmed case. Yet, a case definition should be a set of standard criteria for classifying whether a person has a certain disease, syndrome, or other health condition. The PCR test positivity counts should include a standardized threshold level of detection, and at a minimum, the recording of the presence or absence of symptoms. As a disease, the COVID-19 case definition should constitute a disorder that produces a specific set of symptoms and signs. The in-hospital case definition should, therefore, record the CT lung findings and associated blood tests. Only when an international standard is agreed upon will we be able to make comparisons, and answer the question of when is Covid, Covid?
You see now how the focus on tests and cases rather than deaths is making people think this ‘pandemic’ is much worse than it really is, and rising cases is being used to justify continued and increasing restrictions. Negative tests are ignored if there was a positive test, and some positive tests are double-counted.
We have to wonder why this apparently deliberate deception revealed by the CEBM is being perpetrated across the world, and for what end, though I think many readers can probably guess.
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a British Principia Scientific International researcher, writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book, ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap‘
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--2020-09-14--Robert Kennedy: Google Is Effectively a Vaccine Company

On July 29 , YouTube terminated Del Bigtree ’ s “ The Highwire ” account after he posted a video of Del and me discussing my debate with Alan Dershowitz on vaccine mandates .
YouTube also purged hundreds of other truthful videos on vaccines .
YouTube ’ s owner , Google , is effectively a vaccine company .
Two subsidiaries of Google ’ s parent company , Alphabet , market and manufacture vaccines : Calico and Verily .
Arthur Levinson , Genentech ’ s former CEO , runs Calico , an anti-aging drug company while Verily teams with Pharma to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2016 , Alphabet inked a $ 715 million deal with GlaxoSmithKline to create Galvani , another venture to develop bioelectronic medicines and vaccines and to mine medical information from Google customers .
Google ’ s Customer Services President , Mary Ellen Coe , sits on Merck ’ s board .
In 2016 , Google partnered with Sanofi launching Onduo , a virtual diabetes clinic and in 2018 in another business that uses analytics to develop new drugs and vaccines .
In 2018 , Google invested $ 27,000,000 in Vaccitech to make vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancer .
Vaccitech calls itself “ the future of mass vaccine production.
” In 2020 , Vaccitech started work on a COVID vaccine .
Google claims to provide politically and commercially neutral searches , but it systemically manipulates search results to suppress accurate vaccine safety and efficacy information and steers users toward deceptive and fraudulent Pharma propaganda .
Google ’ s algorithms censor negative information about COVID vaccines and positive information about therapies like hydroxychloroquine that compete with the vaccines in development .
Google censors reports that diminish public panic about COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is “ any information , even if accurate and true , which criticizes vaccination products.
” Facebook and Google hired “ FactChecker ” ( Politifact ) to censor vaccine misinformation .
Politifact was launched by a grant from the Gates Foundation , the world ’ s largest vaccine promoter .
Google ’ s orchestrated censorship across social media is crippling legitimate debates over international vaccination policies .
This is a crisis for liberal democracies .

Robert Kennedy: Google Is Effectively a Vaccine Company
Written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
On July 29, YouTube terminated Del Bigtree’s “The Highwire” account after he posted a video of Del and me discussing my debate with Alan Dershowitz on vaccine mandates. YouTube also purged hundreds of other truthful videos on vaccines.
YouTube’s owner, Google, is effectively a vaccine company. Two subsidiaries of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, market and manufacture vaccines: Calico and Verily. Arthur Levinson, Genentech’s former CEO, runs Calico, an anti-aging drug company while Verily teams with Pharma to conduct drug and vaccine clinical trials.
In 2016, Alphabet inked a $715 million deal with GlaxoSmithKline to create Galvani, another venture to develop bioelectronic medicines and vaccines and to mine medical information from Google customers. Google’s Customer Services President, Mary Ellen Coe, sits on Merck’s board.
In 2016, Google partnered with Sanofi launching Onduo, a virtual diabetes clinic and in 2018 in another business that uses analytics to develop new drugs and vaccines.
In 2018, Google invested $27,000,000 in Vaccitech to make vaccines for flu, MERS, and prostate cancer. Vaccitech calls itself “the future of mass vaccine production.” In 2020, Vaccitech started work on a COVID vaccine. Google claims to provide politically and commercially neutral searches, but it systemically manipulates search results to suppress accurate vaccine safety and efficacy information and steers users toward deceptive and fraudulent Pharma propaganda.
Google’s algorithms censor negative information about COVID vaccines and positive information about therapies like hydroxychloroquine that compete with the vaccines in development. Google censors reports that diminish public panic about COVID-19. Google’s definition of “misinformation” is “any information, even if accurate and true, which criticizes vaccination products.” Facebook and Google hired “FactChecker” (Politifact) to censor vaccine misinformation.
Politifact was launched by a grant from the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest vaccine promoter. Google’s orchestrated censorship across social media is crippling legitimate debates over international vaccination policies. This is a crisis for liberal democracies.
Support Del: TheHighWire.com
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
Read more at frankreport.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--2020-09-14--Australia Is A Full Scale Pilot Test For The New World Order

Australia Is A Full Scale Pilot Test For The New World Order Several journalists and content creators have noticed that Australia looks like the most totalitarian police state that has existed in recent history .
It has become a full-scale pilot test for the elitists to see how well they can implement the New World Order .
Australians have been subjected to some of the most horrendous basic human rights and dignity violations during this entire scamdemic .
The elitists are using Australia to test out these authoritarian measures , such as getting the public used to a police state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patrol the streets ready to commit violence against other humans for refusing to quarantine when not sick or not wearing their New World Order issued muzzle…I mean , face mask .
“ These guys know full well what they are doing .
They are psychopaths , but they aren ’ t stupid , ” says Brian in the above video .
The politicians are redistributing both wealth and power away from the public and consolidating it into their own hands .
We are in big trouble if we can not get the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of the tyrants to realize what they are doing to humanity .
All of this is over 17 new cases of COVID-19 .
This absolutely horrifying that people continue to buy this scam .
If you don ’ t think this is coming back to the United States in the form of a second lockdown , think again .
The media has been preparing us for a “ dark winter ” and a “ second wave ” since the first false wave happened .
Wake up .
Time is now extremely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have food or water , now is the time to get what you can .
If you don ’ t have emergency plans , now is the time to make some with your family .
If you are already well prepared for any disaster , the best thing you can do is to stay alert and fearless .
Don ’ t live a life terrified ( they enslave you with your fear ) , but make sure you know what ’ s going on .
The best preparedness plan includes one of awareness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ourselves in today .
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 .

Australia Is A Full Scale Pilot Test For The New World Order
Written by Mac Slavo
Several journalists and content creators have noticed that Australia looks like the most totalitarian police state that has existed in recent history. It has become a full-scale pilot test for the elitists to see how well they can implement the New World Order.
Australians have been subjected to some of the most horrendous basic human rights and dignity violations during this entire scamdemic.
The elitists are using Australia to test out these authoritarian measures, such as getting the public used to a police state in which the military and police both patrol the streets ready to commit violence against other humans for refusing to quarantine when not sick or not wearing their New World Order issued muzzle…I mean, face mask.
“These guys know full well what they are doing. They are psychopaths, but they aren’t stupid,” says Brian in the above video. The politicians are redistributing both wealth and power away from the public and consolidating it into their own hands. We are in big trouble if we cannot get the military and the police who are committing violence on behalf of the tyrants to realize what they are doing to humanity.
All of this is over 17 new cases of COVID-19. This absolutely horrifying that people continue to buy this scam.
“Heavy-handed tyranny and oppression is happening everywhere,” Brian adds.
If you don’t think this is coming back to the United States in the form of a second lockdown, think again. The media has been preparing us for a “dark winter” and a “second wave” since the first false wave happened.
Wake up. Time is now extremely short. If you don’t have food or water, now is the time to get what you can. If you don’t have emergency plans, now is the time to make some with your family. If you are already well prepared for any disaster, the best thing you can do is to stay alert and fearless. Don’t live a life terrified (they enslave you with your fear), but make sure you know what’s going on. The best preparedness plan includes one of awareness of this situation we’ve found ourselves in today.
Read more at www.zerohedge.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-14--Scottish University Will Rename David Hume Tower After George Floyd

The University of Edinburgh in Scotland announced that it would rename a university building after George Floyd on Thursday .
The Hume Tower was previously named after Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume , who is thought of as a notable classical liberal philosopher .
The Hume Tower will now be known as 40 George Floyd .
The prestigious university , located in Scotland ’ s capital city , explained in a statement that the renaming was taking place because “ of the sensitivities around asking students to use a building named after the 18th century philosopher whose comments on matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time , rightly cause distress today.
” Trending : Convicted BLM Rioter Arrested for Arson in Washington As Massive Wildfires Blaze Many of Hume ’ s ideas and publications had influenced the American Revolution and later European movements against absolute monarchy .
The University of Edinburgh claims that the strange renaming is only temporary , but give no timeframe as to when the tower will be reverted to its original name , or changed back at all .
They ’ re probably setting up some clueless , feckless university administrator to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists who demand that the Floyd name be honored in perpetuity .
Floyd is primarily known for his controversial death during an arrest in the Minneapolis Police Department , in which the fentanyl and methamphetamine-intoxicated felon died under highly questionable circumstances .
Floyd had been convicted earlier in life for participating in an armed home invasion robbery that earned him a prison sentence of several years .
It seems that Floyd has been canonized as a saint of ideological American liberalism , going to the point where he is honored in other countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota native .
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 .

Scottish University Will Rename David Hume Tower After George Floyd
Written by Richard Moorhead
The University of Edinburgh in Scotland announced that it would rename a university building after George Floyd on Thursday. The Hume Tower was previously named after Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume, who is thought of as a notable classical liberal philosopher.
The Hume Tower will now be known as 40 George Floyd. The prestigious university, located in Scotland’s capital city, explained in a statement that the renaming was taking place because “of the sensitivities around asking students to use a building named after the 18th century philosopher whose comments on matters of race, though not uncommon at the time, rightly cause distress today.”
Trending: Convicted BLM Rioter Arrested for Arson in Washington As Massive Wildfires Blaze
Many of Hume’s ideas and publications had influenced the American Revolution and later European movements against absolute monarchy.
The University of Edinburgh claims that the strange renaming is only temporary, but give no timeframe as to when the tower will be reverted to its original name, or changed back at all. They’re probably setting up some clueless, feckless university administrator to back down in the face of militant liberal activists who demand that the Floyd name be honored in perpetuity.
Floyd is primarily known for his controversial death during an arrest in the Minneapolis Police Department, in which the fentanyl and methamphetamine-intoxicated felon died under highly questionable circumstances. Floyd had been convicted earlier in life for participating in an armed home invasion robbery that earned him a prison sentence of several years.
It seems that Floyd has been canonized as a saint of ideological American liberalism, going to the point where he is honored in other countries with no connection to the Texas and Minnesota native.
Read more at bigleaguepolitics.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--2020-09-14--E-MASK-ulation: The Lies They Keep Telling Us

E-MASK-ulation : The Lies They Keep Telling Us If you are looking for the scientific rationale behind universal mask-wearing , you certainly won ’ t find it now that the issue has become as political as guns , abortion , and taxes .
We are now at a point where Canada ’ s chief public health officer is calling on people to wear masks when engaging in sexual activities and 19-month-old babies are being forced to wear them on airplanes .
There is no rational thought in a political cult .
But what did the governmental and scientific literature say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
On April 3 , already several weeks into the unprecedented lockdown over coronavirus , but before the big media push for universal masking , the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued guidance for respiratory protection for workers exposed to people with the virus .
It stated clearly what governments had said all along about other forms of airborne contamination , such as smoke inhalation — “ Surgical masks and eye protection ( e.g.
, face shields , goggles ) were provided as an interim measure to protect against splashes and large droplets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respirators and do not provide protection against aerosol-generating procedures ) .
” In other words , they knew that because the virions of coronavirus are roughly 100 nanometers , 1/1000 the width of a hair and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations ( about 3.0 microns or 3,000 nanometers ) , surgical masks ( not to mention cloth ones ) do not help .
This would explain why experience has shown that all of the places with universal mask orders in place for months , such as Japan , Hong Kong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hawaii , California , and Miami , failed to stave off the spread of the infection .
Surgical masks could possibly stop large droplets from those coughing with very evident symptoms , but would not stop the flow of aerosolized airborne particles , certainly not from asymptomatic individuals .
This is why the CDC , as late as May , was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “ no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.
” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population , nor in healthcare workers.
” When Dr. Fauci spoke so assertively against universal mask-wearing early on in the epidemic , it was clearly based on this knowledge .
“ There ’ s no reason to be walking around with a mask , “ infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told “ 60 Minutes ” on March 8 .
He went on to explain that masks can only block large droplets , they give a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause people to get more germs on their hands by fiddling with it .
Those facts don ’ t change with time .
Several weeks later , Surgeon General Jerome Adams punctuated this point about the counterproductivity of wearing masks in public .
Appearing on “ Fox & Friends ” on March 31 , Adams said that based on a study that shows medical students who wear masks touch their faces 23 times more often , one has to assume that “ wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have all seen how people leave masks in their pockets or cars for days and continuously put it on and off as needed without washing their hands .
It ’ s inconceivable that this is not serving as a bacteria trap , if not downright helping spread the virus on our hands .
A 2015 randomized clinical trial from the University of South Wales testing the effectiveness of cloth masks among health care workers in Hanoi found that the poor filtration becomes a conduit for moisture retention .
Researchers found a high rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ their reuse and poor filtration may explain the increased risk of infection.
” Can you imagine how much worse this is in a non-health-care setting where reuse and cross-contamination are rampant ?
This is why before mask-wearing became a cult in Canada , Quebec ’ s public health director Horacio Arruda told the Montreal Gazette that masks are counterproductive .
Arruda ’ s guidance as given in the article states that masks “ get saturated with moisture from the mouth and nose after about 20 minutes .
Once they ’ re wet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against viruses trying to come through or exit.
” This renders the daylong mask wearing in businesses , stores , and schools , as opposed to the short onetime use in clinical settings , a complete hazard to spread of bacteria and pathogens .
Nothing about the biology of the virus or our discovery of it has changed in the past few months that would lead us to believe that masks are somehow more effective against it than they are against the spread of other respiratory viruses .
What has changed is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our lives through wholesale lockdowns , because it was logistically untenable , so they created the mask mandate as a way of permanently controlling our movement .
They wisely did this on the heels of the full-scale lockdown when people were grateful just to be back in business under any conditions and were desperately willing to do anything to stave off a shutdown .

E-MASK-ulation: The Lies They Keep Telling Us
Written by Daniel Horowitz
If you are looking for the scientific rationale behind universal mask-wearing, you certainly won’t find it now that the issue has become as political as guns, abortion, and taxes. We are now at a point where Canada’s chief public health officer is calling on people to wear masks when engaging in sexual activities and 19-month-old babies are being forced to wear them on airplanes.
There is no rational thought in a political cult. But what did the governmental and scientific literature say on the issue before it became political?
On April 3, already several weeks into the unprecedented lockdown over coronavirus, but before the big media push for universal masking, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued guidance for respiratory protection for workers exposed to people with the virus. It stated clearly what governments had said all along about other forms of airborne contamination, such as smoke inhalation — “Surgical masks and eye protection (e.g., face shields, goggles) were provided as an interim measure to protect against splashes and large droplets (note: surgical masks are not respirators and do not provide protection against aerosol-generating procedures).”
In other words, they knew that because the virions of coronavirus are roughly 100 nanometers, 1/1000 the width of a hair and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations (about 3.0 microns or 3,000 nanometers), surgical masks (not to mention cloth ones) do not help.
This would explain why experience has shown that all of the places with universal mask orders in place for months, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, and Miami, failed to stave off the spread of the infection. Surgical masks could possibly stop large droplets from those coughing with very evident symptoms, but would not stop the flow of aerosolized airborne particles, certainly not from asymptomatic individuals.
This is why the CDC, as late as May, was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized six international studies which “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”
When Dr. Fauci spoke so assertively against universal mask-wearing early on in the epidemic, it was clearly based on this knowledge. “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,“ infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told “60 Minutes” on March 8. He went on to explain that masks can only block large droplets, they give a false sense of security, and they cause people to get more germs on their hands by fiddling with it. Those facts don’t change with time.
Several weeks later, Surgeon General Jerome Adams punctuated this point about the counterproductivity of wearing masks in public. Appearing on “Fox & Friends” on March 31, Adams said that based on a study that shows medical students who wear masks touch their faces 23 times more often, one has to assume that “wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease.”
Ever since then, we have all seen how people leave masks in their pockets or cars for days and continuously put it on and off as needed without washing their hands. It’s inconceivable that this is not serving as a bacteria trap, if not downright helping spread the virus on our hands.
A 2015 randomized clinical trial from the University of South Wales testing the effectiveness of cloth masks among health care workers in Hanoi found that the poor filtration becomes a conduit for moisture retention. Researchers found a high rate of infection among those workers presumably because “their reuse and poor filtration may explain the increased risk of infection.” Can you imagine how much worse this is in a non-health-care setting where reuse and cross-contamination are rampant?
This is why before mask-wearing became a cult in Canada, Quebec’s public health director Horacio Arruda told the Montreal Gazette that masks are counterproductive. Arruda’s guidance as given in the article states that masks “get saturated with moisture from the mouth and nose after about 20 minutes. Once they’re wet, they no longer form a barrier against viruses trying to come through or exit.” This renders the daylong mask wearing in businesses, stores, and schools, as opposed to the short onetime use in clinical settings, a complete hazard to spread of bacteria and pathogens.
Nothing about the biology of the virus or our discovery of it has changed in the past few months that would lead us to believe that masks are somehow more effective against it than they are against the spread of other respiratory viruses. What has changed is the politics.
Governments could no longer control our lives through wholesale lockdowns, because it was logistically untenable, so they created the mask mandate as a way of permanently controlling our movement. They wisely did this on the heels of the full-scale lockdown when people were grateful just to be back in business under any conditions and were desperately willing to do anything to stave off a shutdown.
If you are looking for the scientific rationale behind universal mask-wearing, you certainly won’t find it now that the issue has become as political as guns, abortion, and taxes. We are now at a point where Canada’s chief public health officer is calling on people to wear masks when engaging in sexual activities and 19-month-old babies are being forced to wear them on airplanes. There is no rational thought in a political cult. But what did the governmental and scientific literature say on the issue before it became political? On April 3, already several weeks into the unprecedented lockdown over coronavirus, but before the big media push for universal masking, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued guidance for respiratory protection for workers exposed to people with the virus. It stated clearly what governments had said all along about other forms of airborne contamination, such as smoke inhalation — “Surgical masks and eye protection (e.g., face shields, goggles) were provided as an interim measure to protect against splashes and large droplets (note: surgical masks are not respirators and do not provide protection against aerosol-generating procedures).” In other words, they knew that because the virions of coronavirus are roughly 100 nanometers, 1/1000 the width of a hair and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations (about 3.0 microns or 3,000 nanometers), surgical masks (not to mention cloth ones) do not help. This would explain why experience has shown that all of the places with universal mask orders in place for months, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, and Miami, failed to stave off the spread of the infection. Surgical masks could possibly stop large droplets from those coughing with very evident symptoms, but would not stop the flow of aerosolized airborne particles, certainly not from asymptomatic individuals. This is why the CDC, as late as May, was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized six international studies which “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.” Dr. Jeffery Klausner, an infectious disease doctor at UCLA, described mask-wearing in early February as all psychological, not physiological. He told the Los Angeles Times that “fear spreads a lot faster than the virus” and that a mask only “makes you feel better.” What is so dangerous about this is that, as Fauci and others originally warned when they were actually speaking from a modicum of scientific grounding, is that many immunocompromised people will go to dangerous places thinking the mask protects them. I’ve seen countless friends and neighbors who are concerned about their heart conditions and diabetes blissfully walk around indoors thinking the mask is their shield. This is why Swedish epidemiologist Anders Tegnell warned that because scientific evidence for mask-wearing to prevent COVID-19 is “astonishingly weak,” it is “very dangerous” to believe that face masks on their own could control the spread of the disease rather than hand washing or, in the case of those who are seriously ill, staying away from indoor gatherings. He would know, because his country barely has any cases left, and almost nobody in Sweden wears a mask. The Dutch government made the prudent decision of only requiring masks on public transit when people are really close to each other for a limited period of time. With such scant evidence of the effectiveness of mask-wearing, how can we disrupt lives of children in school, businessmen in offices, and even people walking outdoors in some countries and states? “From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation,” said Netherlands Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark in August. The Danish supposedly commissioned a randomized clinical trial to study mask effectiveness specifically as it relates to protecting against SARS-CoV-2, but despite promises of imminent release weeks ago, the study has not been published. Henning Bundgaard, chief physician at Denmark’s Rigshospitale, noted, “All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies.”It doesn’t appear that anyone else is interested in finding out the truth. Even in England, where there is more mask-wearing than in some of the other northern European countries, Public Health England concluded, “There is weak evidence from epidemiological and modelling studies that mask wearing in the community may contribute to reducing the spread of COVID-19 and that early intervention may result in a lower peak infection rate.” Read the full article at www.theblaze.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--2020-09-15--How To Make Poverty Expensive: Embrace Net-Zero

“ Do you not know .
my son , with how little wisdom the world is governed ?
” That ’ s a famous remark by a Swedish statesman , Axel Oxenstierna ( 1583-1654 ) , one of the most celebrated men of his time who is now largely forgotten except by historians .
He gave that advice in a letter to reassure his nervous son that he need not worry about the diplomatic negotiations in which the young man was about to engage because he wouldn ’ t find them that difficult .
Message : Don ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They may have no idea what they ’ re doing .
Most people recognize the wisdom of this remark on hearing it but they ’ re not always able to explain why .
My own view is that many of us get it wrong .
We think Oxenstierna is deploring the low vices—greed , ambition , jealous rivalry , etc.—that lead people in positions of power into corruption and disaster .
Such things happen and they produce bad results .
But the disaster arising from greed and corruption are fairly minor compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idealism so virtuous that no one opposed them on grounds of cost for fear of seeming petty .
They ’ re the really big-ticket items .
That was brought home to me this week when I came across a televised debate in the U.K. House of Lords in June 2019 in which Viscount Ridley ( in private life , Matt Ridley , author of The Rational Optimist and Innovation , and on climate change a “ lukewarmer ” ) was complaining the British government didn ’ t seem to have conducted a cost/benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would eradicate its net contribution to climate change by 2050 .
Ridley was less proud because he thought that spending a vast but unknown sum to reduce U.K. carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050 without first discovering what it would cost or what benefits it would deliver suggested a spirit of light-hearted financial abandon .
Ridley went on to point out that when you added in the costs of other measures to reduce emissions—converting gas-heated homes to electricity , switching to hydrogen-based fuels , etc.—the total costs of U.K. policy came to something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the monograph Greenhouse Emissions : the Global Picture , Martin Livermore estimates the various costs of government measures to mitigate climate change as likely to present every family in Britain with a bill for 100,000 pounds .
These are massive expenditures—so massive that we have no real sense of what the statistics mean until someone like Ridley takes the trouble to express them in an arresting way .
That explains why two of the earlier speakers in the Lords debate had dismissed them implausibly as “ nickles and dimes ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everett Dirksen ’ s Kool-Aid : “ A billion here , a billion there , and pretty soon you ’ re talking real money ” —except that a billion ’ s no longer real money .
And , finally , they are being spent at a time when other vast sums are being allocated both to treat patients suffering from Covid-19 and to sustain the living standards of workers made unemployed by the lockdown even though the expected recession will greatly reduce revenues going to the Treasury .
A certain giddiness has seized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials .
If you ask the question : “ Is the U.K. taxpayer getting decent value for the expenditures being made on his behalf , ” you ’ re likely to be told that ’ s not the point .
What is the point then ?
It ’ s to save the world by setting a moral example of a mature developed nation making sacrifices for the common good of the world by moving to a net-zero carbon economy .
That argument falls at more fences than there are in the Grand National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the fall in Western CO2 levels comes from moving our industries overseas to Asia and then importing the goods they produce back home .
Our consumption levels still push up carbon dioxide levels .
Even if we went without those goods , that would persuade Asians not to cut back on CO2 emissions but to look for new markets .
They want higher production and higher standards of living which , in the absence of major technological breakthroughs , will require greater use of fossil fuels and higher CO2 emissions .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emission cuts promised by their leaders , that would mean much higher electricity and other fuel prices and a much-reduced standard of living , inflicted on Western voters by their own governments .
Even then , in the case of Britain , it would have no impact on global emission levels because the U.K. ’ s share of them is so small .
As the Brits were making these painful but pointless sacrifices for the common good , China , India , and the former developing countries would be surging ahead and pushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , that ’ s exactly what they are doing and why carbon emissions are not falling but rising .
Among other consequences , the shift of economic and financial power ( and ultimately of military power too , as we ’ re starting to realize ) from the West to Asia would be greatly accelerated by our own energy policy !
And what makes the position of Western governments still more uncomfortable , as Livermore points out , is ( 1 ) that their long-term strategy for getting to net-zero is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capture and storage technologies that don ’ t yet exist , and ( 2 ) that they will have to modify it by adopting energy solutions such as nuclear power that they and their peoples have rejected until now .
Livermore ’ s picture of Western policy is like a maze with exits that close as soon as you approach them .
No sensible analyst thinks that the plans for net-zero carbon economies by 2050 ( let alone 2030 ) can possibly succeed .
They have no justification unless it ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sainthood .
The voters won ’ t tolerate them even if small groups of fanatical greens agitate violently to impose them or if the Eurocrats try to close down democratic access to energy policy , which Andrew Willshire recently hinted at in his Spectator piece on the EU ’ s new energy targets .
And their enormous cost will become increasingly burdensome as the bills for so many other better causes fall due .
Read more at The Pipeline About the author : ( Not to be confused with PSI ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Sullivan is editor-at-large of National Review , editor of Australia ’ s Quadrant , and President of the Danube Institute .
He has served in the past as associate editor of the London Times , editorial and op-ed editor for Canada ’ s National Post , and special adviser to Margaret Thatcher .
He is the author of The President , the Pope and the Prime Minister : Three Who Changed the World .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

How To Make Poverty Expensive: Embrace Net-Zero
Written by John O'Sullivan
“Do you not know. my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?” That’s a famous remark by a Swedish statesman, Axel Oxenstierna (1583-1654), one of the most celebrated men of his time who is now largely forgotten except by historians.
He gave that advice in a letter to reassure his nervous son that he need not worry about the diplomatic negotiations in which the young man was about to engage because he wouldn’t find them that difficult. Message: Don’t be too impressed by important people, son. They may have no idea what they’re doing.
Most people recognize the wisdom of this remark on hearing it but they’re not always able to explain why. My own view is that many of us get it wrong.
We think Oxenstierna is deploring the low vices—greed, ambition, jealous rivalry, etc.—that lead people in positions of power into corruption and disaster. Such things happen and they produce bad results.
But the disaster arising from greed and corruption are fairly minor compared to those produced by great schemes of idealism so virtuous that no one opposed them on grounds of cost for fear of seeming petty. They’re the really big-ticket items.
That was brought home to me this week when I came across a televised debate in the U.K. House of Lords in June 2019 in which Viscount Ridley (in private life, Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist and Innovation, and on climate change a “lukewarmer”) was complaining the British government didn’t seem to have conducted a cost/benefit analysis of its decision that the U.K. would eradicate its net contribution to climate change by 2050.
In fact, when Prime Minister Theresa May announced the decision the previous week, she had said proudly: “This means the U.K. will be the first G7 country to legislate for net-zero emissions.” (Tory cheers!)
Ridley was less proud because he thought that spending a vast but unknown sum to reduce U.K. carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050 without first discovering what it would cost or what benefits it would deliver suggested a spirit of light-hearted financial abandon.
“We’re faced with a measure,” he declared, “that is likely to cost at least a trillion pounds on top of the 15 billion pounds a year that we’re now spending on subsidies to renewable energy. Let’s remind ourselves for a second just how big a sum a trillion pounds is. If you spent a pound a second, it would take you thirty thousand years to get through one trillion pounds. You’d have to start before the peak of the last Ice Age where woolly mammoths and Neanderthals roamed across a tundra where we now sit.”
Ridley went on to point out that when you added in the costs of other measures to reduce emissions—converting gas-heated homes to electricity, switching to hydrogen-based fuels, etc.—the total costs of U.K. policy came to something like £2.8 trillion.
Similarly, writing in the monograph Greenhouse Emissions: the Global Picture, Martin Livermore estimates the various costs of government measures to mitigate climate change as likely to present every family in Britain with a bill for 100,000 pounds.
These are massive expenditures—so massive that we have no real sense of what the statistics mean until someone like Ridley takes the trouble to express them in an arresting way.
That explains why two of the earlier speakers in the Lords debate had dismissed them implausibly as “nickles and dimes” and “manageable.”
These Brits had already swallowed Everett Dirksen’s Kool-Aid: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money”—except that a billion’s no longer real money.
And, finally, they are being spent at a time when other vast sums are being allocated both to treat patients suffering from Covid-19 and to sustain the living standards of workers made unemployed by the lockdown even though the expected recession will greatly reduce revenues going to the Treasury.
A certain giddiness has seized the minds of hitherto sober politicians and officials. If you ask the question: “Is the U.K. taxpayer getting decent value for the expenditures being made on his behalf,” you’re likely to be told that’s not the point.
What is the point then? It’s to save the world by setting a moral example of a mature developed nation making sacrifices for the common good of the world by moving to a net-zero carbon economy.
That argument falls at more fences than there are in the Grand National. We exaggerate our sacrifice. Much of the fall in Western CO2 levels comes from moving our industries overseas to Asia and then importing the goods they produce back home.
Our consumption levels still push up carbon dioxide levels. Even if we went without those goods, that would persuade Asians not to cut back on CO2 emissions but to look for new markets.
They want higher production and higher standards of living which, in the absence of major technological breakthroughs, will require greater use of fossil fuels and higher CO2 emissions.
And for Western countries to make the deeper emission cuts promised by their leaders, that would mean much higher electricity and other fuel prices and a much-reduced standard of living, inflicted on Western voters by their own governments.
Even then, in the case of Britain, it would have no impact on global emission levels because the U.K.’s share of them is so small.
As the Brits were making these painful but pointless sacrifices for the common good, China, India, and the former developing countries would be surging ahead and pushing up carbon emission levels ahead of themselves.
Indeed, that’s exactly what they are doing and why carbon emissions are not falling but rising. Among other consequences, the shift of economic and financial power (and ultimately of military power too, as we’re starting to realize) from the West to Asia would be greatly accelerated by our own energy policy!
And what makes the position of Western governments still more uncomfortable, as Livermore points out, is (1) that their long-term strategy for getting to net-zero is neither economically nor politically plausible without carbon capture and storage technologies that don’t yet exist, and (2) that they will have to modify it by adopting energy solutions such as nuclear power that they and their peoples have rejected until now.
Livermore’s picture of Western policy is like a maze with exits that close as soon as you approach them.
No sensible analyst thinks that the plans for net-zero carbon economies by 2050 (let alone 2030) can possibly succeed. They have no justification unless it’s an exercise in multicultural masochism and the politics of sainthood.
The voters won’t tolerate them even if small groups of fanatical greens agitate violently to impose them or if the Eurocrats try to close down democratic access to energy policy, which Andrew Willshire recently hinted at in his Spectator piece on the EU’s new energy targets.
And their enormous cost will become increasingly burdensome as the bills for so many other better causes fall due.
Read more at The Pipeline
About the author: (Not to be confused with PSI’s John O’Sullivan): John O’Sullivan is editor-at-large of National Review, editor of Australia’s Quadrant, and President of the Danube Institute. He has served in the past as associate editor of the London Times, editorial and op-ed editor for Canada’s National Post, and special adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He is the author of The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World.
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