principiascientificinternational--2020-05-09--Coronavirus: A Perspective from Britain Part 5

Since Part 4 of my virus series was published last month , I have continued compiling information , and present my latest musings on the current situation .
Some of this may already be known to readers , but I include it for the fullest record possible .
On April 20th , the second , very long , part of an Off-Guardian piece was published , containing more information about how the virus ‘ pandemic ’ is being used to whittle away our rights and freedoms .
The article also goes into detail about who funds the World Health Organisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who wish to sell us vaccines .
Below are various quotes from the article .
Effectively a small group of policy decision makers have placed an estimated 3.5 billion people under house arrest .
It is only possible for them to do so with our consent .
Consent is carefully cultivated by controlling the information we are given .
C19 can be fatal for those with pre-existing comorbidities , and possibly even some without , as can other forms of pneumonia and influenza-like respiratory illness .
However , while every C19 death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far greater number of people who have died in the UK this year from other respiratory infections have even been mentioned .
Systems have been created to ensure the C19 statistics are as terrifying as possible .
Their statistical product is so vague it borders upon meaningless .
It seems we have been inculcated with misplaced fear to justify the lockdown regime , to convince us to accept it and prepare us for what is to come .
On the 11th March the WHO declared the SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic .
On 15th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that vulnerable people would be required to quarantine themselves or self isolate .
The State issued a set of guidelines for avoiding the spread of infection .
On the 16th March UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson issued a statement advising people to practice social distancing , avoid non essential travel and warned that drastic measures may be needed to protect the NHS and the most vulnerable .
On the 20th of March Boris Johnson ordered the closure of all venues for social gathering , such as pubs , cafes and restaurants .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Coronavirus Act and placed the UK in lockdown , as instructed by the WHO .
The basic premise , apparently believed by so many , that the State has now decided to act to keep us safe is tragically comical .
For us to swallow this tripe we need to be sufficiently terrified to willingly accept the imagined protection of the State .
The MSM has been doing its best to make sure we are and that we do .
Most of this is based upon claims about deaths and stories about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pressure .
Meanwhile , as millions of British people remain under house arrest , glued to their TV ’ s and fondle pads , the data that has been released by official sources doesn ’ t back up any of the tales we have been spun .
Evidence of NHS overload is entirely absent .
The State will claim this is thanks to the lockdown regime .
Certainly the fact that people with other serious conditions haven ’ t been treated has alleviated pressure on the NHS .
Unfortunately , the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing them in increasing numbers .
Though it seems unlikely the State will claim responsibility for that .
( Emphasis added ) The Financial Times reported that close to half of the UK ’ s hospital beds were empty .
With just 60 % of acute beds occupied this is 30 % less than this time last year .
( Emphasis added ) During a supposed global pandemic we ’ ve had the lowest ever national A & E attendance .
Manchester hospitals report a 57 % bed occupation rate compared to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hospitals erected in what must be record time by the British Army in such places as the Excel Centre in London and the NEC in Birmingham , have remained virtually unused .
In fact , the 500-bed facility at the NEC has not seen a single patient , and the Excel one less than 40 .
Elective surgery , life-saving operations , and things like cancer treatments have all been cancelled , so the death-rates for all of these have shot up , but most of the mainstream media is not reporting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the MSM has reported every single UK death which was supposedly due to COVID 19 .
This has been central to their effort to convince us of the severity of the pandemic .
The reporting always supports the State ’ s narrative that the lockdown is necessary .
( Emphasis added ) Under normal circumstances , when someone dies , a person who knows them well , such as a family member , or someone who was physically close to the person at the time of death , is the qualified informant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances and non medical details of the death .
That is not true for suspected C19 patients .
For them a funeral director , who has almost certainly never met the deceased , can be the qualified informant .
This places far more emphasis on the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death ( MCCD ) as registration can take place without any input from family or anyone else familiar with the circumstances of the death .
( Emphasis added ) Prior to the Coronavirus Act , the last attending doctor to the deceased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , in the case of suspected C19 deaths , that duty can be discharged by a doctor who has never met the patient .
( Emphasis added ) It is crucial to understand that for C19 to be recorded on the MCCD , as the underlying cause of death , there does not need to be any test based diagnosis of the syndrome .
( Emphasis added ) Even when a sample test is undertaken to identify C19 , questions remain .
The RT-PCR test commonly used to test for C19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nor is it designed as a diagnostic tool for identifying viruses .
Most of these studies indicate RT-PCR failure to detect C19 in symptomatic patients , so-called “ false negative ” tests .
When Chinese researchers from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics School of Public Health conducted data analysis of the RT-PCR tests of asymptomatic patients they also found an 80 % false positive rate .
( Emphasis added ) It seems scientific claims that C19 numbers are underestimated are fine , claims they are overestimated are not .
Either way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is plenty of evidence to question the reliability of the RT-PCR test for diagnosing COVID 19 .
( Emphasis added ) Further provision in the Coronavirus Act then allows for the body to be cremated , potentially against the family ’ s wishes , ensuring a confirmatory autopsy is impossible , though it is unlikely one will be conducted anyway .
( Emphasis added ) The Office of National Statistics ( ONS ) have released analysis of the C19 deaths that occurred during March 2020 .
In total 3,912 deaths were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) listed C19 as the underlying cause of death .
Of these , 38 ( 1 % ) were cases where C19 was only suspected as the underlying cause , meaning neither a test nor any clear clinical presentation was observed .
Of the 3,372 deaths recorded with underlying C19 , approximately 3,068 had at least one comorbidity with the majority having more than two .
Not only does the RT-PCR test fail to provide any reliable proof that these people even had C19 , the existence of other comorbidities provides further reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributory factor .
( Emphasis added ) Of the 3,912 people who died , 540 of them merely mentioned C19 on the MCCG with no indication that it contributed to the deaths .
With at least 91 % of patients having comorbidities , there is very little evidence that the people who died with a C19 infection wouldn ’ t have died without .
( Emphasis added ) Another , perhaps even more alarming possibility has arisen .
While heart disease accounts for 14 % of C19 comorbidities , reported deaths from heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount during the same period .
This clearly indicates that patients dying from other causes , such as heart failure , are being recorded , and certainly reported by the MSM , as dying from C19 .
( Emphasis added ) This illustrates a far more complex picture than we have been given to believe .
Why have the State and the MSM made so many alarming claims about people dying from C19 when the evidence supporting those claims is , at best , questionable ?
( Emphasis added ) On the March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State had instructed the ONS to change the way they record C19 deaths .
Explaining the change to recording “ mentions ” of COVID 19 an unnamed spokesperson for the ONS said : “ It will be based on mentions of Covid-19 on death certificates .
It will include suspected cases of Covid-19 where someone has not been tested positive for Covid-19.
” ( Emphasis added ) This habit of states deciding to change the C19 mortality data , by adding in people who are assumed to have died from it , appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China CDC did the same and the U.S have just added a significant number to their statistics .
In every case the revision increases and never decreases the fatality statistics .
Why do states around the world feel the need to do this ?
Is it because they are concerned about statistical rigour or are they more concerned about justifying their lockdown regimes ?
( Emphasis added ) The ONS reported all cause mortality for week 14 ending April 3rd .
They recorded 16,387 deaths which was 6,082 higher than the ONS 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of total deaths “ mentioned ” Covid 19 .
The MSM immediately pounced on this claiming this meant COVID 19 had pushed up the death toll to unprecedented levels .
This was outrageous disinformation .
That is not what the data showed .
( Emphasis added ) Therefore , at least 67 % of that excess mortality is being caused by other unknown factors that no one seems to care about .
The MSM have absolutely no interests at all in this more severe health crisis .
Why not ?
Once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny the existence of another , more significant reason for concern .
( Emphasis added ) Short of openly stating that C19 is no more deadly than any other pneumonia like illnesses , the ONS appear to be trying to get a message across .
Perhaps they can ’ t say it directly .
The MSM have recently started floating the idea that the lockdown regime could become the new normal .
According to the state it may be necessary to go in and out of various levels of the regime from time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s threat assessment .
( Emphasis added ) Seeing as it is increasingly evident that the C19 threat has been massively over-hyped , why would the State and its globalist partners want the economic destruction to continue ?
Firstly it delivers on a number of long held globalist objectives .
A cashless society , mandatory vaccination , universal basic income , a surveillance state , restricted freedom of movement and a complete restructuring of the global economy have already been touted as necessary following the “ pandemic.
” All of these ambitions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first emerged in China .
( Emphasis added ) The impact of the lockdown regime across the globe has already had a devastating economic impact .
All the indicators are that the regime will throw the global economy into a deep depression .
The longer it continues the worse it will get .
( Emphasis added ) The tendency of some to claim this doesn ’ t matter because saving life is the only concern is hopelessly myopic .
The link between poverty and significantly increased mortality is beyond dispute .
The cure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease .
As millions are forced into unemployment the outlook isn ’ t good .
( Emphasis added ) This has led to increasing calls for the State to provide a universal basic income .
This will create mass dependency upon the State for huge swathes of the population .
Affording the State immeasurable control over people ’ s lives .
What the globalists needed was a reason to reset the economy without losing power .
Perhaps it is another coincidence that the C19 lockdown regime just happens to deliver both the mechanism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reset button .
That it also ushers in all the globalist ’ s desires is just another in a very long line of remarkable coincidences .
( Emphasis added ) Now that global terrorism is no longer a daily threat and global warming has been put on the back burner , the new normal of the ever shifting threat from pandemic seems to be the novel war on terror .
Training , funding and equipping terrorist groups has served the State well in the first two decades of the 21st century but now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next phase by exploiting a terror closer to the heart of every home .
Disease .
In their totality , for those willing to look , it is transparent that these response measures have coalesced to create the framework for a totalitarian dictatorship .
One rolling out at pace in the UK .
Similar draconian diktats have sprung up across the globe .
( Emphasis added ) A coordinated global effort like this doesn ’ t just happen .
It takes years of training and planning .
The only people who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for whatever reason , choose not to .
( Emphasis added ) The article can be seen at off-guardian.org [ 1 ] On the 25th , Metro News carried an article saying the two-metre social distance rule was made up out of thin air .
The article quotes Professor Robert Dingwall , of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group ( NERVTAG ) , a committee of the Department of Health that feeds into the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ( SAGE ) , which is advising the cabinet on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The article can be seen at metro.co.uk [ 2 ] On the 27th , the BBC website carried a piece detailing the five conditions required to lift the British lockdown .
Copied from the website , they are : This chart is from another BBC webpage , showing declining daily deaths as of May 5th : - As it stands at the time of writing ( May 7th ) , the number of UK deaths ( 30,000 ) compared to the UK population ( 67,000,000 ) in round figures , gives a mortality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an accurate final figure will only be available after it is all over : The chart below , from the same BBC webpage as the one above , shows how hospital deaths are reducing across the UK , as of May 5th , from a peak in early April .
This sounds to me like we can look forward to an extended period of lockdown in the UK , so I think it ’ s safe to say we can kiss goodbye to the economy and face upwards of 10 million unemployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : - On May 1st , Fox News reported the WHO says Sweden should be the world model for coronavirus response , with moderate social distancing and no strict lockdown .
Sweden has received much hostility for taking this approach , yet it seems to have worked .
They are in 22nd place on the Worldometer list of countries , with just under 24,000 total cases and just under 3000 deaths , so it seems to me they must have been doing it right .
Putting countries under extended strict lockdowns has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , allows excess deaths when routine medical treatments are cancelled , and results in extra deaths from domestic abuse and suicide .
The video can be seen at video.foxnews.com [ 3 ] The following day , the Daily Mail had a commentary by Peter Hitchens , in which he said : ‘ Let me say it again : the coronavirus is not as dangerous as claimed .
Other comparable epidemics have taken place with far less fuss , and we have survived them .
The death rate is lower than the Government believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country on April 8 , well before the crazy measures introduced by the Government on March 23 could possibly have affected matters .
The actions we are taking against it are gravely out of proportion and will destroy the lives of thousands and the prosperity and health of millions .
This is not life versus money .
It is life versus life .
The country is having a gigantic self-inflicted heart attack and stroke combined .
Heaven knows what sort of trembling , weakened shadow of its former self it will be when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can guarantee that it – and we – will need to take many doses of very bitter medicine for as far into the future as it is possible to see .
More than half the population have been literally scared silly .
You meet them on pathways and pavements , flinching with real alarm at the approach of another human being as if bubonic plague were abroad .
They genuinely fear to go back to normal life .
So we face months of continuing idiocy , as the wealth of centuries is frittered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a grim penury , made worse by the increasing lack of freedom and the insolence of authority .
Nobody will be able to say , when the much-needed inquiry eventually sits in judgment on these times and on those responsible , that criticism is just hindsight and that nobody pointed out at the time that a grave mistake was being made.
’ The article can be seen at www.dailymail.co.uk [ 4 ] On May 5th , The Telegraph reported Neil Ferguson , The epidemiologist leading the team at Imperial College London , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK , has resigned from his Government advisory position , after being caught allowing his married lover to visit him at his home during the lockdown , while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing in order to reduce the spread of coronavirus .
The lover ; identified by The Telegraph as Antonia Staats , a married mother , who was quarantined with her family at a separate address to the professor , is described as a “ left-wing activist ” , and is said to be in an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook page shows strong left-wing themes , including paid activism as an employee of a campaign group , encouraging tactical voting in the last general election to oppose the Conservative party , and hard green activism .
The article can be seen at : www.telegraph.co.uk [ 5 ] As noted in a PSI article yesterday , the professor is not the first government scientific figure forced to resign after taking a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do posture to the general public .
Breitbart reported in April the chief scientific advisor for Scotland resigned her position after ordering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking them herself in public .
While Britons have been ordered to stay in their normal residences and not travel to country homes in hope of enjoying a more comfortable and less cramped lockdown period , Dr Catherine Calderwood was photographed travelling to her country home .
She received a police warning after being exposed in a national newspaper and resigned shortly afterwards .
In New Zealand , the government ’ s health minister was demoted after ignoring his own advice .
Dr David Clark was photographed going for a country bike ride @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beach to go surfing .
Reflecting on breaking the advice of his own department , Dr Clark noted : “ I ’ ve been an idiot ” .
Professor Neil Ferguson has been advising the British government for some years now , but his record of predictions is not exactly flattering .
In 2001 his team ’ s modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled , even if there was no evidence of infection .
This led to the government ordering the culling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion .
The following year , Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people could die in Britain from exposure to CJD , the human form of mad cow disease .
He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well .
There was no ‘ sheep epidemic ’ , and so far , there have only been 177 deaths from CJD .
In 2005 , he said that up to 200 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 282 people died worldwide from bird flu between 2003 and 2009 .
In 2009 , Ferguson predicted that swine flu could kill 65,000 people in Britain .
In the end it killed 457 .
On March 22nd this year , Ferguson said that Imperial College London ’ s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented , 13-year-old computer code , that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic , rather than a coronavirus .
Perhaps this is why it predicted a quarter of a million deaths from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advised the government of that predicted figure , as he must have known it was wildly inaccurate .
Yet he did , which leaves us with the question ; why ?
To top it all , on May 6th , the Police said they will be taking no action against Ferguson , not even the fine the rest of us would have to pay , and the BBC website covered his resignation , but did not mention once how badly wrong his previous predictions were .
It can be seen at www.bbc.co.uk [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ?
I think we probably know the answer to that already .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Coronavirus: A Perspective from Britain Part 5
Written by Andy Rowlands
Since Part 4 of my virus series was published last month, I have continued compiling information, and present my latest musings on the current situation. Some of this may already be known to readers, but I include it for the fullest record possible.
On April 20th, the second, very long, part of an Off-Guardian piece was published, containing more information about how the virus ‘pandemic’ is being used to whittle away our rights and freedoms.
The article also goes into detail about who funds the World Health Organisation, and the behind-the-scenes machinations that benefit those who wish to sell us vaccines.
Below are various quotes from the article.
Effectively a small group of policy decision makers have placed an estimated 3.5 billion people under house arrest. It is only possible for them to do so with our consent. Consent is carefully cultivated by controlling the information we are given. C19 can be fatal for those with pre-existing comorbidities, and possibly even some without, as can other forms of pneumonia and influenza-like respiratory illness. However, while every C19 death has been reported, none of the far greater number of people who have died in the UK this year from other respiratory infections have even been mentioned. Systems have been created to ensure the C19 statistics are as terrifying as possible. Their statistical product is so vague it borders upon meaningless. It seems we have been inculcated with misplaced fear to justify the lockdown regime, to convince us to accept it and prepare us for what is to come. On the 11th March the WHO declared the SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. On 15th March UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock stated that vulnerable people would be required to quarantine themselves or self isolate. The State issued a set of guidelines for avoiding the spread of infection. On the 16th March UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson issued a statement advising people to practice social distancing, avoid non essential travel and warned that drastic measures may be needed to protect the NHS and the most vulnerable. On the 20th of March Boris Johnson ordered the closure of all venues for social gathering, such as pubs, cafes and restaurants. On March 23rd the UK State legislated for the Coronavirus Act and placed the UK in lockdown, as instructed by the WHO. The basic premise, apparently believed by so many, that the State has now decided to act to keep us safe is tragically comical. For us to swallow this tripe we need to be sufficiently terrified to willingly accept the imagined protection of the State. The MSM has been doing its best to make sure we are and that we do. Most of this is based upon claims about deaths and stories about desperately overloaded hospitals struggling to cope with the pressure. Meanwhile, as millions of British people remain under house arrest, glued to their TV’s and fondle pads, the data that has been released by official sources doesn’t back up any of the tales we have been spun. Evidence of NHS overload is entirely absent. The State will claim this is thanks to the lockdown regime. Certainly the fact that people with other serious conditions haven’t been treated has alleviated pressure on the NHS. Unfortunately, the evidence also indicates the lockdown regime is probably killing them in increasing numbers. Though it seems unlikely the State will claim responsibility for that. (Emphasis added) The Financial Times reported that close to half of the UK’s hospital beds were empty. With just 60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of acute beds occupied this is 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} less than this time last year. (Emphasis added) During a supposed global pandemic we’ve had the lowest ever national A&E attendance. Manchester hospitals report a 57{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} bed occupation rate compared to their average of 94{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.
The Nightingale Hospitals erected in what must be record time by the British Army in such places as the Excel Centre in London and the NEC in Birmingham, have remained virtually unused. In fact, the 500-bed facility at the NEC has not seen a single patient, and the Excel one less than 40.
The article continues:-
Of the 1,555 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds available in London 1,245 are occupied. So questions must be asked why 19 patients, who presumably needed intensive care, were seemingly moved unnecessarily into the 4,000 bed London Nightingale over the Easter weekend. (Emphasis added) Not only is there no evidence that the NHS is even close to struggling to cope with a non-existent surge, the likely severe health consequences of the State’s lockdown policy are starting to emerge. When we look at the data on claimed COVID 19 deaths the picture only becomes more alarming.
Elective surgery, life-saving operations, and things like cancer treatments have all been cancelled, so the death-rates for all of these have shot up, but most of the mainstream media is not reporting on this.
The article continues:-
Every day, for weeks, the MSM has reported every single UK death which was supposedly due to COVID 19. This has been central to their effort to convince us of the severity of the pandemic. The reporting always supports the State’s narrative that the lockdown is necessary. (Emphasis added) Under normal circumstances, when someone dies, a person who knows them well, such as a family member, or someone who was physically close to the person at the time of death, is the qualified informant who can notify the registrar of the circumstances and non medical details of the death. That is not true for suspected C19 patients. For them a funeral director, who has almost certainly never met the deceased, can be the qualified informant. This places far more emphasis on the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD) as registration can take place without any input from family or anyone else familiar with the circumstances of the death. (Emphasis added) Prior to the Coronavirus Act, the last attending doctor to the deceased had the responsibility to register the death. However, in the case of suspected C19 deaths, that duty can be discharged by a doctor who has never met the patient. (Emphasis added) It is crucial to understand that for C19 to be recorded on the MCCD, as the underlying cause of death, there does not need to be any test based diagnosis of the syndrome. (Emphasis added) Even when a sample test is undertaken to identify C19, questions remain. The RT-PCR test commonly used to test for C19 does not appear to be very reliable, nor is it designed as a diagnostic tool for identifying viruses. Most of these studies indicate RT-PCR failure to detect C19 in symptomatic patients, so-called “false negative” tests. When Chinese researchers from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics School of Public Health conducted data analysis of the RT-PCR tests of asymptomatic patients they also found an 80{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} false positive rate. (Emphasis added) It seems scientific claims that C19 numbers are underestimated are fine, claims they are overestimated are not. Either way, whether false negative or false positive, there is plenty of evidence to question the reliability of the RT-PCR test for diagnosing COVID 19. (Emphasis added) Further provision in the Coronavirus Act then allows for the body to be cremated, potentially against the family’s wishes, ensuring a confirmatory autopsy is impossible, though it is unlikely one will be conducted anyway. (Emphasis added) The Office of National Statistics (ONS) have released analysis of the C19 deaths that occurred during March 2020. In total 3,912 deaths were recorded of which 3,372 (86{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) listed C19 as the underlying cause of death. Of these, 38 (1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) were cases where C19 was only suspected as the underlying cause, meaning neither a test nor any clear clinical presentation was observed. Of the 3,372 deaths recorded with underlying C19, approximately 3,068 had at least one comorbidity with the majority having more than two. Not only does the RT-PCR test fail to provide any reliable proof that these people even had C19, the existence of other comorbidities provides further reason to question if the C19 was a contributory factor. (Emphasis added) Of the 3,912 people who died, 540 of them merely mentioned C19 on the MCCG with no indication that it contributed to the deaths. With at least 91{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of patients having comorbidities, there is very little evidence that the people who died with a C19 infection wouldn’t have died without. (Emphasis added) Another, perhaps even more alarming possibility has arisen. While heart disease accounts for 14{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of C19 comorbidities, reported deaths from heart disease have mysteriously dropped by the corresponding amount during the same period. This clearly indicates that patients dying from other causes, such as heart failure, are being recorded, and certainly reported by the MSM, as dying from C19. (Emphasis added) This illustrates a far more complex picture than we have been given to believe. Why have the State and the MSM made so many alarming claims about people dying from C19 when the evidence supporting those claims is, at best, questionable? (Emphasis added) On the March 30th the MSM reported that the UK State had instructed the ONS to change the way they record C19 deaths. Explaining the change to recording “mentions” of COVID 19 an unnamed spokesperson for the ONS said: “It will be based on mentions of Covid-19 on death certificates. It will include suspected cases of Covid-19 where someone has not been tested positive for Covid-19.” (Emphasis added) This habit of states deciding to change the C19 mortality data, by adding in people who are assumed to have died from it, appears to be a global policy. The China CDC did the same and the U.S have just added a significant number to their statistics. In every case the revision increases and never decreases the fatality statistics. Why do states around the world feel the need to do this? Is it because they are concerned about statistical rigour or are they more concerned about justifying their lockdown regimes? (Emphasis added) The ONS reported all cause mortality for week 14 ending April 3rd. They recorded 16,387 deaths which was 6,082 higher than the ONS 5 year average. They stated that 21.2{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of total deaths “mentioned” Covid 19. The MSM immediately pounced on this claiming this meant COVID 19 had pushed up the death toll to unprecedented levels. This was outrageous disinformation. That is not what the data showed. (Emphasis added) Therefore, at least 67{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of that excess mortality is being caused by other unknown factors that no one seems to care about. The MSM have absolutely no interests at all in this more severe health crisis. Why not? Once again they have completely misled the public and deny the existence of another, more significant reason for concern. (Emphasis added) Short of openly stating that C19 is no more deadly than any other pneumonia like illnesses, the ONS appear to be trying to get a message across. Perhaps they can’t say it directly. The MSM have recently started floating the idea that the lockdown regime could become the new normal. According to the state it may be necessary to go in and out of various levels of the regime from time to time, depending on the State’s threat assessment. (Emphasis added) Seeing as it is increasingly evident that the C19 threat has been massively over-hyped, why would the State and its globalist partners want the economic destruction to continue? Firstly it delivers on a number of long held globalist objectives. A cashless society, mandatory vaccination, universal basic income, a surveillance state, restricted freedom of movement and a complete restructuring of the global economy have already been touted as necessary following the “pandemic.” All of these ambitions and economic realities existed before the pandemic first emerged in China. (Emphasis added) The impact of the lockdown regime across the globe has already had a devastating economic impact. All the indicators are that the regime will throw the global economy into a deep depression. The longer it continues the worse it will get. (Emphasis added) The tendency of some to claim this doesn’t matter because saving life is the only concern is hopelessly myopic. The link between poverty and significantly increased mortality is beyond dispute. The cure will definitely be far worse than the disease. As millions are forced into unemployment the outlook isn’t good. (Emphasis added) This has led to increasing calls for the State to provide a universal basic income. This will create mass dependency upon the State for huge swathes of the population. Affording the State immeasurable control over people’s lives. What the globalists needed was a reason to reset the economy without losing power. Perhaps it is another coincidence that the C19 lockdown regime just happens to deliver both the mechanism and the excuse to press that global reset button. That it also ushers in all the globalist’s desires is just another in a very long line of remarkable coincidences. (Emphasis added) Now that global terrorism is no longer a daily threat and global warming has been put on the back burner, the new normal of the ever shifting threat from pandemic seems to be the novel war on terror. Training, funding and equipping terrorist groups has served the State well in the first two decades of the 21st century but now it is ready to move on to the next phase by exploiting a terror closer to the heart of every home. Disease. In their totality, for those willing to look, it is transparent that these response measures have coalesced to create the framework for a totalitarian dictatorship. One rolling out at pace in the UK. Similar draconian diktats have sprung up across the globe. (Emphasis added) A coordinated global effort like this doesn’t just happen. It takes years of training and planning. The only people who can’t see it are those who, for whatever reason, choose not to. (Emphasis added)
The article can be seen at off-guardian.org [1]
On the 25th, Metro News carried an article saying the two-metre social distance rule was made up out of thin air. The article quotes Professor Robert Dingwall, of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), a committee of the Department of Health that feeds into the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), which is advising the cabinet on the country’s coronavirus response.
The article quotes Professor Dingwall:
“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population. I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere.” (Emphasis added)
He added:
“Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. ‘There’s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.” (Emphasis added)
The article continues:
‘UK government advice currently recommends people maintain a distance of two metres, while the World Health Organisation advises staying at least one metre away from others. (Emphasis added) Sociologist Mr Dingwall has previously claimed the government should ‘call off the dogs’, saying he has seen no evidence at NERVTAG that there is a major threat of coronavirus transmission outdoors. He told The Telegraph: “If it was entirely down to me, I would be calling the dogs off. I don’t think it is appropriate to harass sunbathers. It is an indictment of the political and scientific elite that they are not recognising that people living in flats and social housing do not have an alternative to going to parks.” ’
The article can be seen at metro.co.uk [2]
On the 27th, the BBC website carried a piece detailing the five conditions required to lift the British lockdown. Copied from the website, they are:
1 Making sure the NHS can cope. It has been clear for a number of weeks that the health service is in a good position to cope. In the first half of April, NHS Providers, which represents hospitals, was saying it was ‘increasingly confident’ the NHS had (the) capacity needed. This is because of the work done to free beds in hospitals – about a third of the 100,000 plus beds across the UK were emptied as routine work was cancelled and community services agreed to take care of patients recovering in hospital. (Emphasis added) 2 A ‘sustained and consistent’ fall in the daily death rate For the past few weeks it has looked like the number of deaths in hospital might be slowing, but it has been hard to call, from the daily figures released by government. However, a new analysis now suggests the peak may have been passed in the second week of April.
This chart is from another BBC webpage, showing declining daily deaths as of May 5th:-
As it stands at the time of writing (May 7th), the number of UK deaths (30,000) compared to the UK population (67,000,000) in round figures, gives a mortality rate of 0.044{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. Of course, an accurate final figure will only be available after it is all over:
3 Rate of infection decreasing to ‘manageable levels’ This is a trickier one to call because there is limited testing outside hospitals at the moment. Only key workers, health staff and care home residents were being tested up until late April. So that means ministers are having to rely on the numbers being admitted to hospital with coronavirus as a guide and estimate the amount of infection in the wider population from that. (Emphasis added) When it comes to measuring the rate of infection, scientists refer to something called the R0 number. This is a measure of how many people on average an infected person is passing the virus to. Without any social distancing measures, the average person would [perhaps this should say ‘could’] infect between two and three people. Chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said he thought the R0 number was down to one, but he wanted it well below one to meet the definition of manageable levels. Germany started easing restrictions when it got it down to 0.7.
The chart below, from the same BBC webpage as the one above, shows how hospital deaths are reducing across the UK, as of May 5th, from a peak in early April.
4 Ensuring supply of tests and PPE can meet future demand Currently the UK has capacity to carry out more than 50,000 tests a day, although the most that has been done is 37,000. That’s partly because the drive-through testing centres are not always in convenient locations for everyone and also some teething problems with the way the process works. To combat this, the government is rolling out mobile testing units run by the military and sending out home-testing kits. The government’s target is to be able to do 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month. Staff – in hospitals, care homes and, to a lesser extent, other public services – will also need personal protective equipment (PPE) if they are to cope with any rises in cases or at least a sustained stream. It is pretty obvious that PPE remains a problem. The British Medical Association is still warning its members are “frightened” by the lack of equipment and having to face difficult decisions over whether to continue treating patients. The pinch-point for hospitals is gowns. The UK only has one manufacturer and therefore is having to do its best to secure supplies from abroad in an international marketplace where there is huge demand. The government says a deal has been struck with China to supply 25 million gowns, but it is unclear exactly when these will be delivered. (Emphasis added)
China?? Oh the irony!
5 Being confident any adjustments would not risk a second peak Without a vaccine, this will be a very tricky one to navigate. As mentioned above, it will need widespread community testing to help contain any outbreaks. But the government is also exploring the feasibility of using an app to log the close contacts of anyone who tests positive. And 18,000 contact tracers are being recruited. Council staff such as environmental health officer and sexual-health nurses may be used. This test also requires the government to give itself some wriggle room to respond if infection rates start climbing, which is why Sir Patrick is aiming for an R0 number of well below one. One advantage the UK has is that countries such as Germany and Austria have started relaxing their restrictions. Officials will be closely monitoring those countries to see what happens. It will take several weeks before the impact will be known. Where does that leave the lockdown? Based on the five tests, it is clear we are not in a position to ease the lockdown. The biggest hurdles seem to be the two issues the government is receiving most criticism for – testing and PPE. Until they are resolved, it seems hard to see how the situation can change.
This sounds to me like we can look forward to an extended period of lockdown in the UK, so I think it’s safe to say we can kiss goodbye to the economy and face upwards of 10 million unemployed.
The webpage can be seen here:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52374513
On May 1st, Fox News reported the WHO says Sweden should be the world model for coronavirus response, with moderate social distancing and no strict lockdown. Sweden has received much hostility for taking this approach, yet it seems to have worked.
They are in 22nd place on the Worldometer list of countries, with just under 24,000 total cases and just under 3000 deaths, so it seems to me they must have been doing it right.
Putting countries under extended strict lockdowns has a very damaging effect on economies and businesses, allows excess deaths when routine medical treatments are cancelled, and results in extra deaths from domestic abuse and suicide.
The video can be seen at video.foxnews.com [3]
The following day, the Daily Mail had a commentary by Peter Hitchens, in which he said:
‘Let me say it again: the coronavirus is not as dangerous as claimed. Other comparable epidemics have taken place with far less fuss, and we have survived them. The death rate is lower than the Government believed. It passed its peak in this country on April 8, well before the crazy measures introduced by the Government on March 23 could possibly have affected matters. The actions we are taking against it are gravely out of proportion and will destroy the lives of thousands and the prosperity and health of millions. This is not life versus money. It is life versus life. The country is having a gigantic self-inflicted heart attack and stroke combined. Heaven knows what sort of trembling, weakened shadow of its former self it will be when this is over. I think I can guarantee that it – and we – will need to take many doses of very bitter medicine for as far into the future as it is possible to see. More than half the population have been literally scared silly. You meet them on pathways and pavements, flinching with real alarm at the approach of another human being as if bubonic plague were abroad. They genuinely fear to go back to normal life. So we face months of continuing idiocy, as the wealth of centuries is frittered away for nothing and we sink into a grim penury, made worse by the increasing lack of freedom and the insolence of authority. Nobody will be able to say, when the much-needed inquiry eventually sits in judgment on these times and on those responsible, that criticism is just hindsight and that nobody pointed out at the time that a grave mistake was being made.’
The article can be seen at www.dailymail.co.uk[4]
On May 5th, The Telegraph reported Neil Ferguson, The epidemiologist leading the team at Imperial College London, which advised Boris Johnson to lock down the UK, has resigned from his Government advisory position, after being caught allowing his married lover to visit him at his home during the lockdown, while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing in order to reduce the spread of coronavirus.
The lover; identified by The Telegraph as Antonia Staats, a married mother, who was quarantined with her family at a separate address to the professor, is described as a “left-wing activist”, and is said to be in an “open marriage”.
Staat’s Facebook page shows strong left-wing themes, including paid activism as an employee of a campaign group, encouraging tactical voting in the last general election to oppose the Conservative party, and hard green activism.
Admitting his error, Professor Ferguson told the paper:
“I accept I made an error of judgment and took the wrong course of action. I have therefore stepped back from my involvement in Sage [the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies]. I acted in the belief that I was immune, having tested positive for coronavirus, and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms. I deeply regret any undermining of the clear messages around the continued need for social distancing to control this devastating epidemic. The Government guidance is unequivocal, and is there to protect all of us.”
The article can be seen at: www.telegraph.co.uk[5]
As noted in a PSI article yesterday, the professor is not the first government scientific figure forced to resign after taking a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do posture to the general public. Breitbart reported in April the chief scientific advisor for Scotland resigned her position after ordering citizens to obey the lockdown measures while breaking them herself in public.
While Britons have been ordered to stay in their normal residences and not travel to country homes in hope of enjoying a more comfortable and less cramped lockdown period, Dr Catherine Calderwood was photographed travelling to her country home. She received a police warning after being exposed in a national newspaper and resigned shortly afterwards.
In New Zealand, the government’s health minister was demoted after ignoring his own advice. Dr David Clark was photographed going for a country bike ride, and subsequently drove his family to the beach to go surfing. Reflecting on breaking the advice of his own department, Dr Clark noted: “I’ve been an idiot”.
Professor Neil Ferguson has been advising the British government for some years now, but his record of predictions is not exactly flattering. In 2001 his team’s modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection.
This led to the government ordering the culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.
The following year, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people could die in Britain from exposure to CJD, the human form of mad cow disease. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. There was no ‘sheep epidemic’, and so far, there have only been 177 deaths from CJD.
In 2005, he said that up to 200 million people could die from bird flu. 282 people died worldwide from bird flu between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, Ferguson predicted that swine flu could kill 65,000 people in Britain. In the end it killed 457.
On March 22nd this year, Ferguson said that Imperial College London’s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus.
Perhaps this is why it predicted a quarter of a million deaths from the virus. Surely Ferguson should not have advised the government of that predicted figure, as he must have known it was wildly inaccurate. Yet he did, which leaves us with the question; why?
To top it all, on May 6th, the Police said they will be taking no action against Ferguson, not even the fine the rest of us would have to pay, and the BBC website covered his resignation, but did not mention once how badly wrong his previous predictions were. It can be seen at www.bbc.co.uk[6]
Is there a hidden agenda here? I think we probably know the answer to that already.
References:
[1] https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/20/coronavirus-lockdown-and-what-you-are-not-being-told-part-2/?fbclid=IwAR1BMmobp0ccofZeYh0W87YRM-ctJCVM0GpcHyFFr8IAdpTpRQLgCOB1x9c
[2] https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/25/two-metre-social-distancing-rule-conjured-nowhere-professor-claims-12609448/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.facebook&fbclid=IwAR3s0tG38MPiPpW-_FMPWn-YccHMX5qWMdauPyodh_FiOLvXPi9ME2tlINA
[3] https://video.foxnews.com/v/6153524021001?fbclid=IwAR08h91thZmTfpeuFgg71bDjAcn0kd_m_HfdKgDabxe2PrB8qQfJShF81Wo#sp=show-clips
[4] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8281063/PETER-HITCHENS-destroying-nations-wealth-health-millions.html?fbclid=IwAR3Lb84emtAidlLnwQExrVtFdjpK1ZP8gSVLIkeXoR1TMpApOwdT-H_RCa8
[5] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/05/exclusive-government-scientist-neil-ferguson-resigns-breaking/
[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52553229?fbclid=IwAR1HTVajCKH80pQIlR8c2KkwN_qPmiocrHguSrXxpTcPsOJO1YXY1vXY3yQ
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
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--2020-05-11--Study: Autopsies Prove EVERY CV-19 Death Had Co-Morbidity

New study from Germany finds that every COVID-19 death was someone who had cancer , lung disease , was a heavy smoker or morbidly obese .
The WHO Director , Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , estimated on March 3 , 2020 that the coronavirus mortality rate was 3.4 % This was a completely inaccurate number that caused a global panic .
Professor Klaus Püschel , head of Hamburg forensic medicine , autopsied the corona dead in Hamburg and he reports : “ This virus affects our lives in a completely exaggerated way .
This bears no relation to the danger posed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic damage now arising is not commensurate with the danger posed by the virus .
I am convinced that corona mortality will not even make itself felt as a peak in annual mortality … “ In Switzerland children went back to school on Monday since researchers found that children rarely get virus or transmit it .
Now this new study from Germany shows that every single death was someone who had cancer , lung disease , was a heavy smoker or morbidly obese .
We are seeing this a lot lately .
About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founder of The Gateway Pundit , one of the top conservative news outlets in America .
Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016 .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Study: Autopsies Prove EVERY CV-19 Death Had Co-Morbidity
Written by Jim Hoft
New study from Germany finds that every COVID-19 death was someone who had cancer, lung disease, was a heavy smoker or morbidly obese.
The WHO Director, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, estimated on March 3, 2020 that the coronavirus mortality rate was 3.4{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} This was a completely inaccurate number that caused a global panic.
Professor Klaus Püschel, head of Hamburg forensic medicine, autopsied the corona dead in Hamburg and he reports:
“This virus affects our lives in a completely exaggerated way. This bears no relation to the danger posed by the virus. And the astronomical economic damage now arising is not commensurate with the danger posed by the virus. I am convinced that corona mortality will not even make itself felt as a peak in annual mortality … “
In Switzerland children went back to school on Monday since researchers found that children rarely get virus or transmit it.
Now this new study from Germany shows that every single death was someone who had cancer, lung disease, was a heavy smoker or morbidly obese.
Via Dr. Andrew Bostom. We are seeing this a lot lately. About the author: Jim Hoft is the founder of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016. Read more at www.thegatewaypundit.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 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--2020-05-11--Harvard Retreats on Air Pollution-Coronavirus Deaths Link

Harvard researchers publicly walked back Monday a key finding in a highly touted but hotly contested paper linking air pollution exposure to deaths from the novel coronavirus , slashing the estimated mortality rate in half .
The preliminary study by researchers at the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health made a splash when the results were announced April 7 in The New York Times , prompting alarm on the left as Democrats sought to connect COVID-19 deaths to the Trump administration ’ s regulatory pushback .
A few weeks later , however , its researchers quietly backtracked from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades in areas with slightly more particulate matter in the air are 15 % more likely to die from the coronavirus , lowering the figure to 8 % .
The press release was revised Monday .
“ This article was updated on May 4 , 2020 , based on an updated analysis from the researchers using data through April 22 , ” reads a footnote on the Harvard press release .
The revision came after weeks of criticism over the study ’ s modeling and analysis .
Tony Cox , a University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee , said the model used to derive the 8 % figure had “ no basis in reality.
” “ The model has not been validated and its assumptions are unrealistic , ” said Mr. Cox , who heads the advanced analytics consulting firm Cox Associates .
“ In layman ’ s terms , it assumes an unrealistic effect of fine particulate matter on deaths , and then with that assumption built into the model , it uses data to estimate how big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re making an assumption that has no basis in reality.
” JunkScience ’ s Steve Milloy said the Harvard paper is “ not just junk science , it ’ s scientific fraud.
” “ There is no biological data to support the notion that air quality in any way affects the outcome of coronavirus infection — and the researchers know it , ” Mr. Milloy said .
The paper has been submitted for publication but has not yet been peer-reviewed , meaning its estimates could change again .
“ I would expect that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis further , and start putting in some of the important confounders that they omitted , that their association will continue to get smaller , ” Mr. Cox said .
Even so , the initial results have been trumpeted by Democrats as fresh evidence of the health risk posed by fossil fuels , given that the fine particulate air pollution , or PM2.5 , examined in the study is generated “ largely from fuel combustion from cars , refineries , and power plants , ” according to the Harvard release .
Gina McCarthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg cited the study in a Monday op-ed for his eponymous news outlet , “ How Trump ’ s EPA is Making Covid-19 More Deadly.
” “ A recent Harvard study shows that even a tiny increase in fine particulate matter air pollution — commonly known as ‘ soot ’ — increases death rates from Covid-19 , ” said the op-ed .
“ Hit the hardest are low-income communities and people of color , who are disproportionately exposed to pollution sources , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they said , “ the Trump administration has launched a series of attempts to make our air dirtier and harder to breathe.
” Eight Democratic senators fired off a letter to the EPA warning that its pushback on the Obama administration ’ s climate agenda could “ potentially increase the COVID-19 death toll and hospitalizations , ” while the Joseph R. Biden presidential campaign touted the study on a press call with The Washington Post .
House Democrats also have pointed to the paper ’ s findings , while a petition from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latino Forum calling for a halt to a major Interstate 70 highway project referred to the COVID-19 risks outlined in the paper .
“ In fact , one recently published study by Harvard University found that even a slight increase in exposure to air pollution ‘ leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate , ’ ” said the petition to Gov .
Jared Polis on ActionNetwork .
In a Friday letter , Rep. Andy Harris , Maryland Republican , asked the EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims ” in the Harvard study on a “ causal association between long-term exposure to fine-particulate matter and the likelihood of dying of COVID-19.
” “ Clearly , the widespread political and media attention to the pre-publication findings has the potential to significantly influence public perception and policy outcomes associated with the nation ’ s response to the COVID-19 pandemic , ” Mr. Harris said in the letter .
The paper was led by a Harvard doctoral candidate , Xiao Wu , and its co-authors include Harvard biostatistics professor Francesca Dominici , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to “ more updated data plus a more comprehensive and rigorous adjustment for potential confounding factors.
” Ms. Dominici said the paper was upfront about the research ’ s limitations , pointing out that “ [ h ] igh quality nationwide individual-level COVID-19 outcome data are unavailable at this time and for the foreseeable future , thus necessitating the use of an ecologic study design for these analyses.
” “ The study used standard statistical approaches and it is fully reproducible ( data and code are publicly available ) and accounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have conducted over 68 sensitivity analyses to check the sensitivity of the results to the specification of the statistical model , ” Ms. Dominici said in an email .
Mr. Cox argued that the study failed to control adequately for confounders such as the differences in crowding between rural and urban communities .
“ They really didn ’ t look at the rural urban continuum , and it ’ s puzzling to me that they didn ’ t do so , because it ’ s very easily available information , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
And in my opinion , that would be a very important variable to include.
” The EPA has moved to address the impact of factors such air pollution on COVID-19 , a “ rapid review ” from the Scientific Advisory Board on the health and environmental impacts of the contagious virus that has killed 248,000 worldwide since emerging in December in Wuhan , China .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Defend The Scientific Method .

Harvard Retreats on Air Pollution-Coronavirus Deaths Link
Written by Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times
Harvard researchers publicly walked back Monday a key finding in a highly touted but hotly contested paper linking air pollution exposure to deaths from the novel coronavirus, slashing the estimated mortality rate in half.
The preliminary study by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health made a splash when the results were announced April 7 in The New York Times, prompting alarm on the left as Democrats sought to connect COVID-19 deaths to the Trump administration’s regulatory pushback.
A few weeks later, however, its researchers quietly backtracked from their finding that people who live for decades in areas with slightly more particulate matter in the air are 15{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} more likely to die from the coronavirus, lowering the figure to 8{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. The press release was revised Monday.
“This article was updated on May 4, 2020, based on an updated analysis from the researchers using data through April 22,” reads a footnote on the Harvard press release.
The revision came after weeks of criticism over the study’s modeling and analysis. Tony Cox, a University of Colorado Denver mathematics professor and chairman of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, said the model used to derive the 8{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} figure had “no basis in reality.”
“The model has not been validated and its assumptions are unrealistic,” said Mr. Cox, who heads the advanced analytics consulting firm Cox Associates. “In layman’s terms, it assumes an unrealistic effect of fine particulate matter on deaths, and then with that assumption built into the model, it uses data to estimate how big that unrealistic effect is. They’re making an assumption that has no basis in reality.” JunkScience’s Steve Milloy said the Harvard paper is “not just junk science, it’s scientific fraud.” “There is no biological data to support the notion that air quality in any way affects the outcome of coronavirus infection — and the researchers know it,” Mr. Milloy said. The paper has been submitted for publication but has not yet been peer-reviewed, meaning its estimates could change again. “I would expect that if they keep going and improve the analysis further, and start putting in some of the important confounders that they omitted, that their association will continue to get smaller,” Mr. Cox said. Even so, the initial results have been trumpeted by Democrats as fresh evidence of the health risk posed by fossil fuels, given that the fine particulate air pollution, or PM2.5, examined in the study is generated “largely from fuel combustion from cars, refineries, and power plants,” according to the Harvard release. Gina McCarthy, EPA administrator under then-President Barack Obama, and former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg cited the study in a Monday op-ed for his eponymous news outlet, “How Trump’s EPA is Making Covid-19 More Deadly.” “A recent Harvard study shows that even a tiny increase in fine particulate matter air pollution — commonly known as ‘soot’ — increases death rates from Covid-19,” said the op-ed. “Hit the hardest are low-income communities and people of color, who are disproportionately exposed to pollution sources, such as highways and refineries.” Despite that, they said, “the Trump administration has launched a series of attempts to make our air dirtier and harder to breathe.” Eight Democratic senators fired off a letter to the EPA warning that its pushback on the Obama administration’s climate agenda could “potentially increase the COVID-19 death toll and hospitalizations,” while the Joseph R. Biden presidential campaign touted the study on a press call with The Washington Post. House Democrats also have pointed to the paper’s findings, while a petition from the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and the Colorado Latino Forum calling for a halt to a major Interstate 70 highway project referred to the COVID-19 risks outlined in the paper. “In fact, one recently published study by Harvard University found that even a slight increase in exposure to air pollution ‘leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate,’” said the petition to Gov. Jared Polis on ActionNetwork. In a Friday letter, Rep. Andy Harris, Maryland Republican, asked the EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services to “undertake an assessment of the recent claims” in the Harvard study on a “causal association between long-term exposure to fine-particulate matter and the likelihood of dying of COVID-19.” “Clearly, the widespread political and media attention to the pre-publication findings has the potential to significantly influence public perception and policy outcomes associated with the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Mr. Harris said in the letter. The paper was led by a Harvard doctoral candidate, Xiao Wu, and its co-authors include Harvard biostatistics professor Francesca Dominici, who said the 15{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} figure was lowered in response to “more updated data plus a more comprehensive and rigorous adjustment for potential confounding factors.” Ms. Dominici said the paper was upfront about the research’s limitations, pointing out that “[h]igh quality nationwide individual-level COVID-19 outcome data are unavailable at this time and for the foreseeable future, thus necessitating the use of an ecologic study design for these analyses.” “The study used standard statistical approaches and it is fully reproducible (data and code are publicly available) and accounts for over 20 confounding variables and we have conducted over 68 sensitivity analyses to check the sensitivity of the results to the specification of the statistical model,” Ms. Dominici said in an email. Mr. Cox argued that the study failed to control adequately for confounders such as the differences in crowding between rural and urban communities. “They really didn’t look at the rural urban continuum, and it’s puzzling to me that they didn’t do so, because it’s very easily available information,” he said. “They didn’t include it. And in my opinion, that would be a very important variable to include.” The EPA has moved to address the impact of factors such air pollution on COVID-19, a “rapid review” from the Scientific Advisory Board on the health and environmental impacts of the contagious virus that has killed 248,000 worldwide since emerging in December in Wuhan, China. Read more at www.washingtontimes.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 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--2020-05-11--Debunking the Myth of Man-Made Ozone Depletion

The ozone “ hole ” is really just a thinning .
Ozone is produced by solar radiation at stratospheric elevations converting O2 to O3 .
Ozone is therefore not produced during the polar winters and is at its lowest level in the polar springtime .
It recovers during the sunlit summers .
In 1958 , Eugene Parker developed a theory showing how the Sun ’ s hot corona — by then known to be millions of degrees Fahrenheit — is so hot that it overcomes the Sun ’ s gravity and generates the solar wind , a stream of free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at speeds up to 1.8 million miles per hour .
A year later , the Soviet spacecraft Luna 1 detected solar wind particles in space , and in 1962 the observations were confirmed by NASA ’ s Mariner 2 spacecraft .
The solar wind is deflected by the Earth ’ s magnetic field but such protection does not extend over the polar regions .
Ozone production varies from summer to winter but ozone is continuously ripped off .
Due to the vigorous circumpolar winds ( Antarctica ’ s polar vortex ) , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Any ozone produced in mid-latitude regions does not bleed into the stratosphere over Antarctica .
Therefore , the thinning of the ozone is generally most pronounced at the South Pole .
The polar vortex of the Arctic wanders due to the different geography and topography , so mid-latitude ozone does bleed into the Arctic .
In the winter of 2019-2020 the northern polar vortex remained very stable and provided the same isolating conditions as the Antarctic .
The Arctic was particularly cold , setting record low temperatures in northern Greenland .
On March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarmed about the record loss of ozone over the Arctic .
www.nasa.gov [ 1 ] On April 24 , 2020 , observers of the Copernicus Climate Change Service ( C3S ) confirmed that the Arctic ozone layer had rebounded and observers were equally “ surprised ” and relieved .
www.theweek.in [ 2 ] In 1957 , the British Antarctic Survey conducted balloon sampling of Antarctica ’ s atmosphere with a Dobson Spectrophotometer .
These measurements gave the first clues that there was a seasonal thinning of the ozone layer .
This was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1974 paper about the destruction of ozone by chlorine or bromine .
It was just assumed that the chlorine and bromine in the Antarctic atmosphere came from chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs ) , yet it is known that a great number of chlorine and bromine compounds are emitted from volcanoes — such as Antarctica ’ s Mt .
Erebus ( see link ) .
www.sciencedirect.com [ 3 ] Routine monitoring of Antarctica ’ s ozone layer began in earnest in 1985 ( J.C. Farman , et al ) and continues today .
The seasonal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The 1974 paper by Molina and Rowland was strictly a modeling effort , drawing on modeling by others .
No observations , not even a lab hood .
The solar wind did not blow thru their model nor did they have volcanoes in their model .
They did not have the downdrafts from intense rain storms .
Molina and Rowland developed the premise of a “ one dimensional vertical diffusion model with eddy diffusion coefficients ” — entirely based upon assumed values .
That is , Molina and Rowland stated that the CFCs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than air , just go straight up .
In fact , any CFCs released at the surface just stay down here .
Moreover , Molina and Rowland stated that the CFCs are not soluble in water so rainwater would not scrub them out of the air .
Big deal .
Intense rains bring downdrafts .
CFCs and several organics adsorb on dust particles as well as aerosols .
unep.ch/ozone [ 4 ] Some of the actual statements in the paper from Molina & Rowland : Please read the entire section on ‘ Photolytic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s all unmitigated bunkum .
Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize for their pronouncement about CFCs and ozone destruction .
The cash award for the Nobel Prize is approx .
$ 900,000 .
The Nobel Prize can also serve as an excellent door stop or shim for a wobbly table .
Furthermore , Dr. Gordon Gribble of Dartmouth has catalogued thousands of naturally occurring chlorinated and brominated compounds , including CFCs emitted by volcanoes and large wildfires — even though it was claimed that CFCs are strictly man-made .
www.google.com/search @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mt .
Erebus ( photo , above ) delivers CFCs in trace amounts over Antarctica .
Likewise , the volcanoes of Iceland deliver CFCs into the Arctic .
These heavy compounds just drift back down although there is always a trace equilibrium presence .
The Montreal Protocol to replace CFCs was established in 1987 .
All nations self-report and nobody can audit anybody .
All of the original Freons @ R are still produced in China and sold around the world .
The specific location is known from downwind sampling over the Pacific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can also buy any of these original refrigerants on eBay or Amazon .
www.ebay.com [ 7 ] But Whoo-Hoo !
!
We have won the war on Chlorine and Bromine !
!
Now onto the war on Carbon !
!
If you declare war on elements of the Periodic Table , you gon na lose .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific @ @

Debunking the Myth of Man-Made Ozone Depletion
Written by Richard F. Cronin
The ozone “hole” is really just a thinning. Ozone is produced by solar radiation at stratospheric elevations converting O2 to O3. Ozone is therefore not produced during the polar winters and is at its lowest level in the polar springtime. It recovers during the sunlit summers.
In 1958, Eugene Parker developed a theory showing how the Sun’s hot corona — by then known to be millions of degrees Fahrenheit — is so hot that it overcomes the Sun’s gravity and generates the solar wind, a stream of free protons and electrons (plasma) moving at speeds up to 1.8 million miles per hour.
A year later, the Soviet spacecraft Luna 1 detected solar wind particles in space, and in 1962 the observations were confirmed by NASA’s Mariner 2 spacecraft.
The solar wind is deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field but such protection does not extend over the polar regions. Ozone production varies from summer to winter but ozone is continuously ripped off.
Due to the vigorous circumpolar winds (Antarctica’s polar vortex), the atmosphere above Antarctica is largely confined. Any ozone produced in mid-latitude regions does not bleed into the stratosphere over Antarctica. Therefore, the thinning of the ozone is generally most pronounced at the South Pole.
The polar vortex of the Arctic wanders due to the different geography and topography, so mid-latitude ozone does bleed into the Arctic.
In the winter of 2019-2020 the northern polar vortex remained very stable and provided the same isolating conditions as the Antarctic. The Arctic was particularly cold, setting record low temperatures in northern Greenland.
On March 12, 2020, NASA observers were alarmed about the record loss of ozone over the Arctic.
www.nasa.gov [1]
On April 24, 2020, observers of the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) confirmed that the Arctic ozone layer had rebounded and observers were equally “surprised” and relieved.
www.theweek.in[2]
In 1957, the British Antarctic Survey conducted balloon sampling of Antarctica’s atmosphere with a Dobson Spectrophotometer. These measurements gave the first clues that there was a seasonal thinning of the ozone layer.
This was the basis for Molina & Rowland’s 1974 paper about the destruction of ozone by chlorine or bromine. It was just assumed that the chlorine and bromine in the Antarctic atmosphere came from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), yet it is known that a great number of chlorine and bromine compounds are emitted from volcanoes — such as Antarctica’s Mt. Erebus
(see link). www.sciencedirect.com [3]
Routine monitoring of Antarctica’s ozone layer began in earnest in 1985 (J.C. Farman, et al) and continues today. The seasonal waxing and waning are well documented. The 1974 paper by Molina and Rowland was strictly a modeling effort, drawing on modeling by others. No observations, not even a lab hood.
The solar wind did not blow thru their model nor did they have volcanoes in their model. They did not have the downdrafts from intense rain storms.
Molina and Rowland developed the premise of a “one dimensional vertical diffusion model with eddy diffusion coefficients” — entirely based upon assumed values.
That is, Molina and Rowland stated that the CFCs, which are 1.4 to 3.7x heavier than air, just go straight up. In fact, any CFCs released at the surface just stay down here. Moreover, Molina and Rowland stated that the CFCs are not soluble in water so rainwater would not scrub them out of the air. Big deal.
Intense rains bring downdrafts. CFCs and several organics adsorb on dust particles as well as aerosols. unep.ch/ozone [4]
Some of the actual statements in the paper from Molina & Rowland:
“Calculations of the rate of photolysis of molecules at a given altitude at these
wavelengths is complicated by the intense narrow band structure in the SchumannRunge region, and the effective rates of vertical diffusion of molecules at these altitudes are also subject to substantial uncertainties.”
Please read the entire section on ‘Photolytic Sink’ in their paper. It’s all unmitigated bunkum.
Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize for their pronouncement about CFCs and ozone destruction. The cash award for the Nobel Prize is approx. $900,000.
The Nobel Prize can also serve as an excellent door stop or shim for a wobbly table. Furthermore, Dr. Gordon Gribble of Dartmouth has catalogued thousands of naturally occurring chlorinated and brominated compounds, including CFCs emitted by volcanoes and large wildfires — even though it was claimed that CFCs are strictly man-made. www.google.com/search [5]
It is known that Mt. Erebus (photo, above) delivers CFCs in trace amounts over Antarctica. Likewise, the volcanoes of Iceland deliver CFCs into the Arctic. These heavy compounds just drift back down although there is always a trace equilibrium presence.
The Montreal Protocol to replace CFCs was established in 1987. All nations self-report and nobody can audit anybody. All of the original Freons@R are still produced in China and sold around the world. The specific location is known from downwind sampling over the Pacific Ocean. www.nature.com [6]
You can also buy any of these original refrigerants on eBay or Amazon. www.ebay.com [7] But Whoo-Hoo !! We have won the war on Chlorine and Bromine !! Now onto the war on Carbon !! If you declare war on elements of the Periodic Table, you gonna lose.
Download the full paper at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3592885
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/nasa-reports-arctic-stratospheric-ozonedepletion-hit-record-low-in-march/
[2] https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2020/04/26/ozone-layer-hole-over-arctic-closesconfirm-scientists.html
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231015304246
[4] https://unep.ch/ozone/pdf/stratopheric.pdf
[5] https://www.google.com/search?q=Naturally{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Occurring{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Organohalogen{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Compounds{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20-{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20A{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Comprehensive{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Update{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Gordon{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20W.{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Gribble
[6] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02109-2
[7] https://www.ebay.com/p/1232730084
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
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--2020-05-11--Astrophotographer creates clearest-ever image of the moon

The “ world ’ s clearest picture of the moon ’ s craters ” has been revealed .
The stunning image is courtesy of a Californian astrophotographer who combined snaps of “ lunar phases ” to create it .
Andrew McCarthy stacked thousands of Moon photos together to create the masterpiece .
He took two weeks worth of images of the waxing Moon because this is a time when the amount of visible illuminated surfaces increase .
This increased light and good positioning of the ‘ lunar terminator ’ – the line between light and dark sides of the Moon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pronounced .
It ’ s also said to make them look elongated .
McCarthy has called the snap “ All Terminator ” and described it as a “ beast of a project.
” He wrote on his Instagram @ cosmic_background : “ This moon might look a little funny to you , and that ’ s because it is an impossible scene.
” “ From two weeks of images of the waxing moon , I took the section of the picture that has the most contrast ( right before the lunar terminator where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and blended them to show the rich texture across the entire surface.
” He added : “ This was exhausting to say the least , namely because the moon doesn ’ t line up day over day , so each image had to be mapped to a 3D sphere and adjusted to make sure each image aligned.
” Luckily for us , he might try to create another image if he gets good feedback .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Astrophotographer creates clearest-ever image of the moon
Written by Charlotte Edwards, The Sun
The “world’s clearest picture of the moon’s craters” has been revealed. The stunning image is courtesy of a Californian astrophotographer who combined snaps of “lunar phases” to create it.
Andrew McCarthy stacked thousands of Moon photos together to create the masterpiece.
He took two weeks worth of images of the waxing Moon because this is a time when the amount of visible illuminated surfaces increase.
This increased light and good positioning of the ‘lunar terminator’ – the line between light and dark sides of the Moon – has made the craters look more pronounced.
It’s also said to make them look elongated.
McCarthy has called the snap “All Terminator” and described it as a “beast of a project.”
He wrote on his Instagram @cosmic_background: “This moon might look a little funny to you, and that’s because it is an impossible scene.”
“From two weeks of images of the waxing moon, I took the section of the picture that has the most contrast (right before the lunar terminator where shadows are the longest), aligned and blended them to show the rich texture across the entire surface.”
He added: “This was exhausting to say the least, namely because the moon doesn’t line up day over day, so each image had to be mapped to a 3D sphere and adjusted to make sure each image aligned.”
Luckily for us, he might try to create another image if he gets good feedback.
Read more at nypost.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
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--2020-05-11--COVID19 Doctors Criticize ‘Inflated’ Mortality Numbers

Frontline COVID-19 doctors this week have gone public saying they feel pressured to show COVID-19 as cause-of-death on certificates of patients suspected of having the virus when they also have had underlying medical conditions .
Dr. Jonathan Fishbein , a clinical researcher , says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease and the World Health Organization have issued “ vague if not misguided recommendations that unfortunately have been adopted by national , state and local leaders.
” “ It is absolutely critical that we have accurate data to support decision-makers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If the data in our assessments included patients who have not definitively tested positive for COVID-19 , that provides misleading information to policy-makers .
In cases of pandemics or epidemics , world organizations set the cause-of-death guidelines to create a uniformity among countries and related , international health agencies .
It is not unusual for the CDC , in conjunction with WHO , to add new codes when a new disease appears .
But it is unusual when there is a new disease and a patient dies and the cause of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like diabetes or congestive heart failure and the doctors are pressured to report the cause of death as COVID-19 instead .
Such reporting could result in inaccurately inflating the number of virus-related deaths and hurt those drafting public health policy for future pandemics or epidemics .
On March 4 , Steven Schwartz , director of Vital Statistics at the CDC ’ s National Center for Health Statistics released an Alert to hospital administrators to inform them that formal guidance was forthcoming to death certificate certifiers , but that in the meantime , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.
” On March 24 , 2020 , Schwartz sent out a second Alert addressing the World Health Organization ’ s new International Classification of Diseases .
‘ “ The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate .
However , the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID19 being the underlying cause more often than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
“ COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death , ” Schwartz also wrote .
“ If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed , these conditions can be reported in Part II.
” “ Distinguishing between those nuances is crucial for accurate analysis and appropriately responding to the crisis , ” Fishbein said .
Fishbein and his colleagues have in response created an independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors and treatments for COVID-19 , with the expectation of more accurately recording causes of death .
The reporting tool was developed by Veracuity and the survey is being conducted in partnership with the Alliance for Clinical Research Excellence and Safety ( ACRES ) .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

COVID19 Doctors Criticize ‘Inflated’ Mortality Numbers
Written by Christine Dolan
Frontline COVID-19 doctors this week have gone public saying they feel pressured to show COVID-19 as cause-of-death on certificates of patients suspected of having the virus when they also have had underlying medical conditions.
Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, a clinical researcher, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease and the World Health Organization have issued “vague if not misguided recommendations that unfortunately have been adopted by national, state and local leaders.”
“It is absolutely critical that we have accurate data to support decision-makers,” he also told Just the News. “If the data in our assessments included patients who have not definitively tested positive for COVID-19, that provides misleading information to policy-makers.
In cases of pandemics or epidemics, world organizations set the cause-of-death guidelines to create a uniformity among countries and related, international health agencies.
It is not unusual for the CDC, in conjunction with WHO, to add new codes when a new disease appears.
But it is unusual when there is a new disease and a patient dies and the cause of their death may be their underlying condition like diabetes or congestive heart failure and the doctors are pressured to report the cause of death as COVID-19 instead.
Such reporting could result in inaccurately inflating the number of virus-related deaths and hurt those drafting public health policy for future pandemics or epidemics.
On March 4, Steven Schwartz, director of Vital Statistics at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics released an Alert to hospital administrators to inform them that formal guidance was forthcoming to death certificate certifiers, but that in the meantime, “Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”
On March 24, 2020, Schwartz sent out a second Alert addressing the World Health Organization’s new International Classification of Diseases.
‘“The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID19 being the underlying cause more often than not,” the report in part states.
“COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death,” Schwartz also wrote. “If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.”
“Distinguishing between those nuances is crucial for accurate analysis and appropriately responding to the crisis,” Fishbein said.
Fishbein and his colleagues have in response created an independent survey to collect evidence to evaluate risk factors and treatments for COVID-19, with the expectation of more accurately recording causes of death.
The reporting tool was developed by Veracuity and the survey is being conducted in partnership with the Alliance for Clinical Research Excellence and Safety (ACRES).
Read more at justthenews.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
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--2020-05-10--Harvard: Strong Link Between Pollution & COVID-19

People with COVID-19 who live in U.S. regions with high levels of air pollution are more likely to die from the disease than people who live in less polluted areas , according to a new nationwide study from Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health .
The study , which has not yet been peer reviewed , was published on the preprint server MedRxiv .
It is the first study to look at the link between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution ( PM2.5 ) —generated largely from fuel combustion from cars , refineries , and power plants—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S .
The study looked at more than 3,000 counties across the country , comparing levels of fine particulate air pollution with coronavirus death counts for each area .
Adjusting for population size , hospital beds , number of people tested for COVID-19 , weather , and socioeconomic and behavioral variables such as obesity and smoking , the researchers found that a small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in the COVID-19 death rate .
The study found , for example , that someone who lives for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fine particulate pollution is 8 % * more likely to die from COVID-19 than someone who lives in a region that has just one unit ( one microgram per cubic meter ) less of such pollution .
The study suggests that counties with higher pollution levels “ will be the ones that have higher numbers of hospitalizations , higher numbers of deaths and where many of the resources should be concentrated , ” said senior study author Francesca Dominici , Clarence James Gamble Professor of Biostatistics , Population , and Data Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 7 , 2020 New York Times article .
The new findings align with known connections between PM2.5 exposure and higher risk of death from many other cardiovascular and respiratory ailments .
The researchers wrote , “ The study results underscore the importance of continuing to enforce existing air pollution regulations to protect human health both during and after the COVID-19 crisis.
” Lead authors of the study were Xiao Wu , doctoral student , and Rachel Nethery , assistant professor of biostatistics .
Other Harvard Chan School authors included research assistant Benjamin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Read the New York Times article : New Research Links Air Pollution to Higher Coronavirus Death Rates *This article was updated on May 5 , 2020 based on updated analyses from the researchers , using data through April 22 , that adjust for epidemic characteristics , including time since outbreak began and time since states ’ stay-at-home orders were issued .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Help Our Non-Profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Harvard: Strong Link Between Pollution & COVID-19
Written by www.hsph.harvard.edu
People with COVID-19 who live in U.S. regions with high levels of air pollution are more likely to die from the disease than people who live in less polluted areas, according to a new nationwide study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was published on the preprint server MedRxiv. It is the first study to look at the link between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5)—generated largely from fuel combustion from cars, refineries, and power plants—and the risk of death from COVID-19 in the U.S.
The study looked at more than 3,000 counties across the country, comparing levels of fine particulate air pollution with coronavirus death counts for each area. Adjusting for population size, hospital beds, number of people tested for COVID-19, weather, and socioeconomic and behavioral variables such as obesity and smoking, the researchers found that a small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in the COVID-19 death rate.
The study found, for example, that someone who lives for decades in a county with high levels of fine particulate pollution is 8{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}* more likely to die from COVID-19 than someone who lives in a region that has just one unit (one microgram per cubic meter) less of such pollution.
The study suggests that counties with higher pollution levels “will be the ones that have higher numbers of hospitalizations, higher numbers of deaths and where many of the resources should be concentrated,” said senior study author Francesca Dominici, Clarence James Gamble Professor of Biostatistics, Population, and Data Science at Harvard Chan School, in an April 7, 2020 New York Times article.
The new findings align with known connections between PM2.5 exposure and higher risk of death from many other cardiovascular and respiratory ailments. The researchers wrote, “The study results underscore the importance of continuing to enforce existing air pollution regulations to protect human health both during and after the COVID-19 crisis.”
Lead authors of the study were Xiao Wu, doctoral student, and Rachel Nethery, assistant professor of biostatistics. Other Harvard Chan School authors included research assistant Benjamin Sabath and research scientist Danielle Braun.
Read the New York Times article: New Research Links Air Pollution to Higher Coronavirus Death Rates
*This article was updated on May 5, 2020 based on updated analyses from the researchers, using data through April 22, that adjust for epidemic characteristics, including time since outbreak began and time since states’ stay-at-home orders were issued.
Read more at www.hsph.harvard.edu
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
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