iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-02--Pseudo-Science behind the Assault on Hydroxychloroquine

This is a research article published as information for health care professionals and public officials , and for an open peer review .
It is not medical advice .
I reviewed the scientific literature on hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) , azithromycin ( AZ ) , and their use for COVID-19 .
My conclusions : • HCQ-based treatments are effective in treating COVID-19 , unless started too late .
• Studies , cited in opposition , have been misinterpreted , invalid , or worse .
• HCQ and AZ are some of the most tested and safest prescription drugs .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including heart arrhythmia .
QTc prolonging drugs might amplify this tendency .
Millions of people regularly take drugs having strong QTc prolongation effect , and neither FDA nor CDC bother to warn them .
HCQ+AZ combination , probably has a mild QTc prolongation effect .
Concerns over its negative effects , however minor , can be addressed by respecting contra-indications .
• Effectiveness of HCQ-based treatment for COVID-19 is hampered by conditions that are presented as precautions , delaying the onset of treatment .
For examples , some states require that COVID-19 patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settings .
• The COVID-19 Treatment Panel of NIH evaded disclosure of the massive financial links of its members to Gilead Sciences , the manufacturer of a competing drug remdesivir .
Among those who failed to disclose such links are 2 out of 3 of its co-chairs .
• Despite all the attempts by certain authorities to prevent COVID-19 treatment with HCQ and HCQ+AZ , both components are approved by FDA , and doctors can prescribe them for COVID-19 .
Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) was accepted as a COVID-19 treatment by the medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early April .
67 % of the US physicians said they would prescribe HCQ or chloroquine CQ for COVID-19 to a family member ( Town Hall , 2020-04-08 ) .
An international poll of doctors rated HCQ the most effective coronavirus treatment ( NY Post , 2020-04-02 ) .
On April 6 , Peter Navarro told CNN that “ Virtually Every COVID-19 Patient In New York Is Given Hydroxychloroquine.
” This might explain decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the New York state after April 15 .
The time lag is because COVID-19 deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms .
But on April 21 , several perfectly coordinated events took place , attacking HCQ ’ s use for COVID-19 patients .
• The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel of the National Institute of Health issued recommendations with negative-ambivalent stance regarding the use of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment .
This surprising stance was taken contrary to the ample evidence of the efficacy and safety of HCQ and despite absence evidence of its harm .
The panel also strongly recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin ( AZ ) , the combination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same day , a paper ( Magagnoli , 2020 ) was posted on a pre-print server medRxiv , insinuating that HCQ is not only ineffective , but even harmful .
This not-yet peer reviewed paper , by unqualified authors with conflicts of interest , received wall-to-wall media coverage , as it if were a cancer cure .
It used data from Veterans Administration hospitals , spicing its effects .
The paper has shown to be somewhere between junk science and fraud .
• Rick Bright , a government official who was probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preparedness to the epidemic than most others , and had been re-assigned to a lower position earlier , emerged as a “ whistleblower.
” He claimed he had been demoted for opposing hydroxychloroquine , the claim to be soon debunked by documents bearing his signature .
The media also gave him a wall-to-wall coverage .
On April 24 , the FDA struck its own blow , issuing a stern warning against use of HCQ for COVID-19 treatment .
While these warnings are not binding to doctors , they do produce a chilling effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive necessary treatment , or they receive it with a delay , sharper decreasing its effect .
This allows detractors to question HCQ efficacy even more aggressively .
Below , I review problems in the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines and other sources , used to wage anti-HCQ propaganda .
The relevant section of ( COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel , 2020 ) is Potential Antiviral Drugs .
The antiviral treatment recommendations ( more accurately , failure to provide recommendations ) include : Notice that CQ and HCQ are addressed together , although these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly superior to CQ both in efficiency and safety .
Also notice that the basic recommendation of “ insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against ” is given to both HCQ and Remdesivir .
However , the recommendation for HCQ goes further to state that when using HCQ , “ clinicians should monitor the patient for adverse effects ( AEs ) , especially prolonged QTc interval ” .
Practically , this means that HCQ should be used only in hospital settings .
No such restrictions are set for Remdesivir , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It goes against all logic .
The demand to use HCQ only in hospital settings means : • HCQ treatment will be delayed until a patient decides to be admitted to a hospital , thus lowering HCQ ’ s efficiency • Hospitals will quickly become overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients This drug combination is the most effective and widely used treatment for COVID-19 , and the Panel recommends against it !
The Panel criticizes some studies of patients ’ treatment with HCQ+AZ for the absence of a control group .
Stephen McIntyre tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used it : “ there ’ s a very large control group of COVID19 patients not receiving this drug combination : hospitals and morgues are full of them.
” There are only two studies , quoted by the Panel against HCQ+AZ , ( Molina , 2020 ) and ( Chorin , 2020 ) .
Both are misinterpreted by the Panel .
Despite ( Molina , 2020 ) ’ s angry tone and aggressiveness , it reports no results contradicting efficiency of HCQ or HCQ+AZ .
The paper describes treatment of 11 hospitalized COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one had AIDS , and almost all were in a bad shape : “ at the time of treatment initiation , 10 of the 11 patients had a fever and received nasal oxygen therapy.
” Using HCQ+AZ , 10 of the patients ’ lives were saved .
The article ’ s point of contention is that when they tested these patients , 5-6 days after the treatment initiation , they still found CoV2 RNA in 8 out of 10 .
Virus RNA is a molecule .
Some viral RNA remains in patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is neither harmful nor infectious .
Detecting viral RNA depends on the sensitivity of the testing equipment .
The study ’ s title is No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection seems to be lost on the Panel .
The Panel also quotes ( Chorin , 2020 ) as evidence that HCQ+AZ therapy causes QTc prolongation .
QTc prolongation is not a health condition itself , but a warning sign that a person is at higher risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , heart arrhythmia , or tachycardia , which might lead to cardiac arrest and death ( Simpson , 2020 ) .
Nevertheless , none of the patients , treated with HCQ+AZ , suffered TdP or arrhythmia .
Four patients died , but none of them had an arrhythmia .
Other studies , in which COVID-19 patients are treated with HCQ+AZ , reported taking patients off this medicine after QTc exceeds 500ms .
But the treatment may have already had its effect at that time or later , while HCQ remained in the bloodstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It provides no information on whether QTc prolongation was caused by the disease or the therapy .
( FDA WARNING , 2020 ) , issued on April 24 , piggybacks on the COVID-19 Panel Guidelines .
It says This statement is confused , and probably not true about hydroxychloroquine .
See below .
I think that HCQ+AZ is a proven treatment for COVID-19 .
There is a difference between proven treatment and approved treatment .
HCQ+AZ is not approved but proven , because many patients have been treated with this combination and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 !
See ( Bansal , 2020 ) and ( Wang , et al.
, 2020 ) .
The media hysteria played its role , too .
The articles about the supposed dangers of HCQ , with detailed description of the symptoms , triggered complaints even before the April 24 warning .
And there are people who tried to self-medicate – in the situation when authorities make it difficult to obtain prescription for HCQ – and took the wrong drug or overdosed .
Also , QT interval prolongation is not an event , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urging and advertisement guarantee that the FDA will receive mountains of complaints .
HCQ & CQ are two different drugs .
HCQ is clearly superior to CQ .
HCQ has already been selected over CQ .
Discussing these two drugs as if they were co-equal in COVID-19 treatment is misleading and a sign of bad faith .
HCQ and AZ are some of the most widely prescribed drugs and have been prescribed for decades .
HCQ is as safe as a prescription drug can be .
AZ is an antibiotic , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
Because these drugs have been prescribed so widely , their adverse effects have been studied .
A few adverse events associated with them have been reported .
Combining these few anecdotal cases , some medical researchers have raised some concern , as a precaution .
Doctors understand this .
Statisticians understand this .
But unscrupulous media uses this information to mislead the naïve public and even public figures Remdisivir is the opposite .
It has been developed very recently and has been scarcely used .
There is little information about its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present this lack of evidence of adverse effects as evidence of the absence of adverse effects .
The leading objection against HCQ / HCQ+AZ is possible QTc prolongation .
Most professionals refer to ( CredibleMeds.org , 2020 ) which puts both HCQ and AZ in the category of Known Risk of TdP ( KR ) .
I think that HCQ was listed in that category by mistake .
A review of the literature reveals only few anecdotal cases .
Some of them are poisoning by large overdoses of HCQ .
Then there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , suddenly got sick and recovered when HCQ was withdrawn .
While there are millions of people continuously taking HCQ , only a few cases of cardiac events have been reported .
Even if HCQ was the cause of these rare cases , which is usually unknown , it is still statistically insignificant .
It is much safer than driving .
Other antivirals are known to cause QTc prolongation too but are not being pulled from practice .
In the case of HCQ , it seems that a precaution principle has prevailed over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in the KR category , just like many other antibiotics , including Erythromycin .
I have never heard of patients requiring QTc monitoring , when taking Erythromycin .
Attention of the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd : many widely used psycho-active drugs are also listed in the KR category .
That includes anti-psychotic Haloperidol , anti-depressants Escitalopram ( Cipralex , Lexapro ) and Citalopram ( Celexa ) .
The most reliable source of information about arrhythmia risks is the American College of Cardiology .
( Simpson , 2020 ) in the Cardiology Magazine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , after over 50 years of effective use , HCQ and AZ have proven their safety and efficacy .
There is no reason for fear , except the fear itself .
But some people might be vulnerable , so the article explains how to calculate an individual Risk Score for QTc prolongers .
Individuals with higher Risk Score might need QTc monitoring .
Also , the authors suggest avoiding other QTc prolonging medications in the time of HCQ+AZ treatment .
The cardiologists who wrote this article did not dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pertaining to it and suggest proper mitigation measures .
Other literature also suggests low risk of HCQ and AZ .
( Prutkin , 2020 ) : HCQ and AZ have other known contra-indications , but they are out of the scope here .
Many studies show that COVID-19 causes heart arrhythmia .
Cardiac arrest , not directly caused by respiratory damage , is one of the leading direct causes of COVID-19 deaths .
( Bansal , 2020 ) is a review .
It finds that It also notes that CoV2 virus might cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility of a treatment impact is mentioned as a less likely one .
( Wang , et al.
, 2020 ) finds that 44 % of the patients transferred to ICU developed arrhythmia .
None of them received HCQ or CQ .
Most of the patients received an unrelated anti-viral and an antibiotic .
Only in 18 % of the patients the antibiotic was AZ .
At least some of the patients developed an arrhythmia before the treatment .
Thus , the hypothesis that CVOID-19 patients experience QTc prolongation and arrhythmia because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HCQ+AZ treatment , is well founded .
AZ may increase the odds of QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients , who would otherwise die from cardiac arrest or multiple organs failure .
The media and professional publications report a sharp increase of mortality from cardiac arrest at home in the last few weeks .
Some of these cases are known to be COVID-19 , but most of them are not tested .
Could many of them be happening due to the cardiac damage caused by COVID-19 ?
Can the cardiac impact of COVID-19 be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people take regularly ?
There are countless variables confounding this statistic .
There is an especially sharp increase in home cardiac arrests in New York , which is usually explained by people ’ s reluctance to call an ambulance or ER .
( Kochi , 2020 ) provides in-depth explanation of the cardiac effects of respiratory infections and interaction with QTc prolongation medications .
Gone unmentioned are HCQ ’ s positive cardiac effects .
They were widely reported before HCQ had misfortune of being mentioned by President Trump .
For example , Taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heart Risk by 17 % The article is based on ( Jorge , 2019 ) .
These findings might be applicable only to long term taking of HCQ , not a 5-day course for COVID-19 , but the same can be said about the alleged negative cardiac effects .
Listed here are several other papers , influential in the media , but not in the science .
These papers span the range from erroneous to … non-existent .
( Magagnoli , 2020 ) is a not peer-reviewed pre-print .
It makes a retrospective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients , who received HCQ or HCQ+AZ treatment prior to April 11 , in Veterans Affairs hospitals .
In the Abstract , it claims that a larger percentage of HCQ treated patients died compared to untreated patients .
This ignores the fact that HCQ or HCQ+AZ treatment was given only in the most desperate cases , frequently as compassionate care .
Deep inside of the manuscript , it does acknowledge that initial conditions of the HCQ and HCQ+AZ groups was much worse than those of the untreated group , but then ignores it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ study ” was published on April 21 .
It received crushing criticism in the comments and was replaced with another one on April 23 , hiding those comments .
Casting even further doubt on the credibility of this study , one of the authors disclosed Gilead funding for another research .
This work was funded by a NIH grant .
Despite its multiple flaws , lack of peer review , and obscurity of the authors , this pre-print immediately received wall-to-wall media coverage .
Given these circumstances , this work looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scientific one .
( Tang , 2020 ) is a not peer-reviewed pre-print .
It reports results of a clinical trial in China , in which HCQ was given to patients 16-17 days after onset of the disease .
This is too late for an anti-viral to work .
Thus , this study describes the incorrect use of HCQ , rather than efficacy or safety of the drug .
From the comments : Once again , despite its obvious errors , the study was widely covered , including the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article addresses the obvious lateness of the drug ’ s application .
( Mahevas , 2020 ) is another not peer-reviewed pre-print .
Didier Raoult and his colleagues replied to it with a bluntness , rare in scientific journals : Scientific fraud to demonstrate the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine compared to placebo in a non-randomized retrospective cohort of patients with Covid : Response to MAHEVAS et al .
, MedRxiv , 2020 .
( Brouqui , et al.
, 2020 ) .
( Mahevas , 2020 ) also gathered many negative comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients at 22 hospitals in New York is being conducted by the University at Albany School of Public Health under the management of dean David Holtgrave .
Although the study was not finished , Mr. Holtgrave already announced that the results are negative : “ We don ’ t see a statistically significant difference between patients who took the drugs [ HCQ , HCQ+AZ ] and those who did not , ” according to CNN .
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo referred to the results as neither positive nor negative , per CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even pre-print , reporting these results , has been published , as of April 29 ( searches on Google Scholar , PubMed , and medRxiv were conducted for Holtgrave hydroxychloroquine ; Holtgrave COVID-19 ) .
New York and other “ resistance ” states make patients jump through hoops to obtain HCQ .
As an anti-viral , it should be taken as soon as possible .
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko explained that in his letter , which is worth reading in its entirety : He refers to patients in the high-risk category – older than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or shortness of breath .
The resistance states established onerous requirements that delay HCQ treatment for days .
This sharply lowers the efficiency of the treatment , and possibly increases TdP risks .
The mixed results , promised by Mr. Holtgrave , might be caused by this delay .
On March 28 , Russia announced a COVID-19 treatment based on Mefloquine .
Mefloquine , invented in the US in 1970s , is another anti-malaria drug , similar to HCQ .
In the West , Mefloquine was withdrawn from use after a controversy about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use HCQ .
From a Russian brochure ( Nikiforov , 2020 ) : The mechanisms of HCQ and HCQ+AZ action are explained ( Hache & Raoult , 2020 ) .
On March 27 , WHO erected another roadblock to treating COVID-19 patients with HCQ .
WHO stated that HCQ was not only insufficiently tested ( which was true at that time ) , but that it was considered for COVID-19 at much higher doses than for malaria .
This is dangerous misinformation .
HCQ dosage for COVID-19 is the same or lower than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
WHO was aware of this , because it was already conducting clinical trials including HCQ and a number of other Big Pharma drugs .
Yet , as of April 29 , this paragraph still appears there .
This act alone justifies not only defunding but ignoring WHO .
Google and Facebook adhered to WHO on everything related to COVID-19 .
Together with Twitter , they purged information favorable to HCQ .
These is outrageous behavior for telecommunications and computational services providers .
• It seems that the main contra-indication for HCQ treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed for healthy individuals below age 50 .
• Persons in the President ’ s circle were claiming that HCQ / HCQ+AZ are unproven treatments .
That might have been true a month ago , but not now .
These drugs are proven by practice and by failure of its opponents to disprove their efficacy and relative safety .
• The Guidelines are accompanied by a financial disclosure of the panel members .
Weirdly , this disclosure covers a period of 11 months : May 1 , 2019 to March 31 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some reason .
Nevertheless , 9 out of 50 members of the panel disclosed financial ties to Gilead .
Gilead ’ s Remdesivir is an inferior competitor to HCQ – more expensive , almost untested , and less efficient ( as far as the little testing with it has shown ) .
HCQ is a generic drug with low profit margin .
Gilead Sciences directly participates in WHO trials of Remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment .
• HCQ / HCQ+AZ are prescribed by a doctor .
They are not OTC and should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HCQ+AZ is the most common treatment .
HCQ acts on its own but is much more effective with Zinc ; AZ is an antibiotic and a source of Zinc .
See Dr. Zelenko ’ s regimen is HCQ+AZ+Zinc .
• There is a live document by Michael J .
A. Robb , M.D.
, tracking effectiveness of HCQ-based treatments https : //drive.google.com/file/d/1w6p_HqRXCrW0_wYNK7m_zpQLbBVYcvVU/view Brouqui , P. , Million , M. & Raoult , D. , 2020 .
Scientific fraud to demonstrate the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine compared to placebo in a non-randomized retrospective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to MAHEVAS et al .
, MedRxiv , 2020 .
Mediterranee Infection , 24 04 .
Chorin , E. e. a. , 2020 .
The QT Interval in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Treated with Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin .
medRxiv , 3 April .
CredibleMeds.org , 2020 .
COMBINED LIST OF DRUGS THAT PROLONG QT AND/OR CAUSE TORSADES DE POINTES ( TDP ) .
[ Online ] Available at : https : //ift.tt/35nxoIk FDA WARNING , 2020 .
FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital … .
[ Online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gautret , P. & Raoult , D. e. a. , 2020 .
Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up : A pilot observational study .
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease , 4 April .
Hache , G. & Raoult , D. e. a. , 2020 .
Combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin as potential treatment for COVID 19 patients : pharmacology , safety profile , drug interactions and management of toxicity.. Mediterranee Infection , 22 April .
Jorge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Use and Cardiovascular Events Among Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Rheumatoid Arthritis .
American College of Rheumatology .
Kochi , A. e. a. , 2020 .
Cardiac and arrhythmic complications in patients with COVID-19.. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology , 08 April .
Magagnoli , J. e. a. , 2020 .
Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19 .
medRxiv , 23 April .
Mahevas , M. e. a. , 2020 .
No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data to emulate a target trial .
medRxiv , 14 April .
Molina , J. M. e. a. , 2020 .
No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection .
Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses , 28 March .
Simpson , T. e. a. , 2020 .
Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Due to Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin Treatment For COVID-19 .
[ Online ] Available at : https : //ift.tt/2RfRdM2 Tang , W. e. a. , 2020 .
Hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
medRxiv , 14 April .
Wang , D. , Hu , B .
& Hu , C. , 2020 .
Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan , China .
JAMA Network , 7 February .

This is a research article published as information for health care professionals and public officials, and for an open peer review. It is not medical advice.
Summary
I reviewed the scientific literature on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin (AZ), and their use for COVID-19. My conclusions:
HCQ-based treatments are effective in treating COVID-19, unless started too late.
Studies, cited in opposition, have been misinterpreted, invalid, or worse.
HCQ and AZ are some of the most tested and safest prescription drugs.
Severe COVID-19 frequently causes cardiac effects, including heart arrhythmia. QTc prolonging drugs might amplify this tendency. Millions of people regularly take drugs having strong QTc prolongation effect, and neither FDA nor CDC bother to warn them. HCQ+AZ combination, probably has a mild QTc prolongation effect. Concerns over its negative effects, however minor, can be addressed by respecting contra-indications.
Effectiveness of HCQ-based treatment for COVID-19 is hampered by conditions that are presented as precautions, delaying the onset of treatment. For examples, some states require that COVID-19 patients be treated with HCQ exclusively in hospital settings.
The COVID-19 Treatment Panel of NIH evaded disclosure of the massive financial links of its members to Gilead Sciences, the manufacturer of a competing drug remdesivir. Among those who failed to disclose such links are 2 out of 3 of its co-chairs.
Despite all the attempts by certain authorities to prevent COVID-19 treatment with HCQ and HCQ+AZ, both components are approved by FDA, and doctors can prescribe them for COVID-19.
Intro
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was accepted as a COVID-19 treatment by the medical community in the US and worldwide by early April. 67% of the US physicians said they would prescribe HCQ or chloroquine CQ for COVID-19 to a family member (Town Hall, 2020-04-08). An international poll of doctors rated HCQ the most effective coronavirus treatment (NY Post, 2020-04-02). On April 6, Peter Navarro told CNN that “Virtually Every COVID-19 Patient In New York Is Given Hydroxychloroquine.” This might explain decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the New York state after April 15. The time lag is because COVID-19 deaths happen on average 14 days after showing symptoms.
But on April 21, several perfectly coordinated events took place, attacking HCQ’s use for COVID-19 patients.
The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel of the National Institute of Health issued recommendations with negative-ambivalent stance regarding the use of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment. This surprising stance was taken contrary to the ample evidence of the efficacy and safety of HCQ and despite absence evidence of its harm. The panel also strongly recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (AZ), the combination of choice among practitioners. On the same day, a paper (Magagnoli, 2020) was posted on a pre-print server medRxiv, insinuating that HCQ is not only ineffective, but even harmful. This not-yet peer reviewed paper, by unqualified authors with conflicts of interest, received wall-to-wall media coverage, as it if were a cancer cure. It used data from Veterans Administration hospitals, spicing its effects. The paper has shown to be somewhere between junk science and fraud. Rick Bright, a government official who was probably more responsible for the low level of preparedness to the epidemic than most others, and had been re-assigned to a lower position earlier, emerged as a “whistleblower.” He claimed he had been demoted for opposing hydroxychloroquine, the claim to be soon debunked by documents bearing his signature. The media also gave him a wall-to-wall coverage.
On April 24, the FDA struck its own blow, issuing a stern warning against use of HCQ for COVID-19 treatment.
While these warnings are not binding to doctors, they do produce a chilling effect. Consequently, either patients do not receive necessary treatment, or they receive it with a delay, sharper decreasing its effect. This allows detractors to question HCQ efficacy even more aggressively. Below, I review problems in the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines and other sources, used to wage anti-HCQ propaganda.
NIH Panel Guidelines
The relevant section of (COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, 2020) is Potential Antiviral Drugs. The antiviral treatment recommendations (more accurately, failure to provide recommendations) include:
“Remdesivir There are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against the use of the investigational antiviral agent remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 (AIII). Clinical Data to Date: Only anecdotal data are available.“ “AIII” means a strong position based on expert opinion rather than on evidence. “Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine There are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against using chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 (AIII) . When chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is used, clinicians should monitor the patient for adverse effects (AEs), especially prolonged QTc interval (AIII) .
or for the treatment of COVID-19 . Clinical Data in COVID-19 The clinical data available to date on the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 have been mostly from use in patients with mild, and in some cases, moderate disease; data on use of the drugs in patients with severe and critical COVID-19 are very limited. [Follows is a description of some studies]“
Notice that CQ and HCQ are addressed together, although these are two different drugs, and HCQ is clearly superior to CQ both in efficiency and safety.
Also notice that the basic recommendation of “insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” is given to both HCQ and Remdesivir. However, the recommendation for HCQ goes further to state that when using HCQ, “clinicians should monitor the patient for adverse effects (AEs), especially prolonged QTc interval”. Practically, this means that HCQ should be used only in hospital settings. No such restrictions are set for Remdesivir, for which there is no clinical data available. It goes against all logic.
The demand to use HCQ only in hospital settings means:
HCQ treatment will be delayed until a patient decides to be admitted to a hospital, thus lowering HCQ’s efficiency Hospitals will quickly become overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients
Then the Panel nixes HCQ+AZ:
“Hydroxychloroquine plus Azithromycin The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in the context of a clinical trial (AIII).“
This drug combination is the most effective and widely used treatment for COVID-19, and the Panel recommends against it!
The Panel criticizes some studies of patients’ treatment with HCQ+AZ for the absence of a control group. Stephen McIntyre tweeted about this argument long before the Panel used it: “there’s a very large control group of COVID19 patients not receiving this drug combination: hospitals and morgues are full of them.”
There are only two studies, quoted by the Panel against HCQ+AZ, (Molina, 2020) and (Chorin, 2020). Both are misinterpreted by the Panel.
Molina et al.
Despite (Molina, 2020)’s angry tone and aggressiveness, it reports no results contradicting efficiency of HCQ or HCQ+AZ. The paper describes treatment of 11 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, five of which had cancer, one had AIDS, and almost all were in a bad shape: “at the time of treatment initiation, 10 of the 11 patients had a fever and received nasal oxygen therapy.” Using HCQ+AZ, 10 of the patients’ lives were saved. The article’s point of contention is that when they tested these patients, 5-6 days after the treatment initiation, they still found CoV2 RNA in 8 out of 10. Virus RNA is a molecule. Some viral RNA remains in patients for weeks after full recovery, but it is neither harmful nor infectious. Detecting viral RNA depends on the sensitivity of the testing equipment. The study’s title is No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection seems to be lost on the Panel.
Chorin et al.
The Panel also quotes (Chorin, 2020) as evidence that HCQ+AZ therapy causes QTc prolongation. QTc prolongation is not a health condition itself, but a warning sign that a person is at higher risk of torsades de pointes (TdP), heart arrhythmia, or tachycardia, which might lead to cardiac arrest and death (Simpson, 2020).
Nevertheless, none of the patients, treated with HCQ+AZ, suffered TdP or arrhythmia. Four patients died, but none of them had an arrhythmia. Other studies, in which COVID-19 patients are treated with HCQ+AZ, reported taking patients off this medicine after QTc exceeds 500ms. But the treatment may have already had its effect at that time or later, while HCQ remained in the bloodstream.
This study has no control group. It provides no information on whether QTc prolongation was caused by the disease or the therapy.
FDA Warning
(FDA WARNING, 2020), issued on April 24, piggybacks on the COVID-19 Panel Guidelines. It says
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can cause abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation and a dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia.
This statement is confused, and probably not true about hydroxychloroquine. See below.
Be aware that there are no proven treatments for COVID-19 …
I think that HCQ+AZ is a proven treatment for COVID-19. There is a difference between proven treatment and approved treatment. HCQ+AZ is not approved but proven, because many patients have been treated with this combination and have recovered.
We have reviewed case reports … concerning serious heart-related adverse events and death in patients with COVID-19 receiving hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, either alone or combined with azithromycin or other QT prolonging medicines. These adverse events were reported from the hospital and outpatient settings for treating or preventing COVID-19, and included QT interval prolongation, ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, and in some cases death.
These are manifestations of COVID-19! See (Bansal, 2020) and (Wang, et al., 2020). The media hysteria played its role, too. The articles about the supposed dangers of HCQ, with detailed description of the symptoms, triggered complaints even before the April 24 warning. And there are people who tried to self-medicate – in the situation when authorities make it difficult to obtain prescription for HCQ – and took the wrong drug or overdosed. Also, QT interval prolongation is not an event, but an early warning.
To help FDA track safety issues with medicines, we urge patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program, using the information in the “Contact FDA” box at the bottom of the page.
Such an urging and advertisement guarantee that the FDA will receive mountains of complaints.
HCQ and AZ Safety
HCQ, CQ, and AZ
HCQ & CQ are two different drugs. HCQ is clearly superior to CQ. HCQ has already been selected over CQ. Discussing these two drugs as if they were co-equal in COVID-19 treatment is misleading and a sign of bad faith.
HCQ and AZ are some of the most widely prescribed drugs and have been prescribed for decades. HCQ is as safe as a prescription drug can be. AZ is an antibiotic, and it is as safe as an antibiotic can be.
Because these drugs have been prescribed so widely, their adverse effects have been studied. A few adverse events associated with them have been reported. Combining these few anecdotal cases, some medical researchers have raised some concern, as a precaution. Doctors understand this. Statisticians understand this. But unscrupulous media uses this information to mislead the naïve public and even public figures
Remdisivir is the opposite. It has been developed very recently and has been scarcely used. There is little information about its adverse effects. The corrupt news networks present this lack of evidence of adverse effects as evidence of the absence of adverse effects.
CredibleMeds
The leading objection against HCQ / HCQ+AZ is possible QTc prolongation. Most professionals refer to (CredibleMeds.org, 2020) which puts both HCQ and AZ in the category of Known Risk of TdP (KR).
I think that HCQ was listed in that category by mistake. A review of the literature reveals only few anecdotal cases. Some of them are poisoning by large overdoses of HCQ. Then there are patients who were on HCQ for years, suddenly got sick and recovered when HCQ was withdrawn. While there are millions of people continuously taking HCQ, only a few cases of cardiac events have been reported. Even if HCQ was the cause of these rare cases, which is usually unknown, it is still statistically insignificant. It is much safer than driving. Other antivirals are known to cause QTc prolongation too but are not being pulled from practice. In the case of HCQ, it seems that a precaution principle has prevailed over statistical reasoning and common sense.
AZ is in the KR category, just like many other antibiotics, including Erythromycin. I have never heard of patients requiring QTc monitoring, when taking Erythromycin.
Attention of the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd: many widely used psycho-active drugs are also listed in the KR category. That includes anti-psychotic Haloperidol, anti-depressants Escitalopram (Cipralex, Lexapro) and Citalopram (Celexa).
American College of Cardiology
The most reliable source of information about arrhythmia risks is the American College of Cardiology. (Simpson, 2020) in the Cardiology Magazine:
Chloroquine, and its more contemporary derivative hydroxychloroquine, have remained in clinical use for more than a half-century as an effective therapy for treatment of some malarias, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. … Despite these suggestive findings, several hundred million courses of chloroquine have been used worldwide making it one of the most widely used drugs in history, without reports of arrhythmic death under World Health Organization surveillance.
HCQ is even milder than CQ.
Azithromycin, a frequently used macrolide antibiotics lacks strong pharmacodynamic evidence of iKr inhibition [associated with QT prolongation]. Epidemiologic studies have estimated an excess of 47 cardiovascular deaths which are presumed arrhythmic per 1 million completed courses, although recent studies suggest this may be overestimated.
In other words, after over 50 years of effective use, HCQ and AZ have proven their safety and efficacy. There is no reason for fear, except the fear itself. But some people might be vulnerable, so the article explains how to calculate an individual Risk Score for QTc prolongers. Individuals with higher Risk Score might need QTc monitoring. Also, the authors suggest avoiding other QTc prolonging medications in the time of HCQ+AZ treatment.
The cardiologists who wrote this article did not dismiss the concern. They explained the science pertaining to it and suggest proper mitigation measures.
Other literature also suggests low risk of HCQ and AZ. (Prutkin, 2020):
Limited data on hydroxychloroquine suggest it has a low risk of causing TdP, based on its use for rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and antimalarial therapy. … For these medications [HCQ and AZ], their time window of use is short duration, which is another reason the risk of TdP may be lower
HCQ and AZ have other known contra-indications, but they are out of the scope here.
COVID-19 caused Arrhythmia
Many studies show that COVID-19 causes heart arrhythmia. Cardiac arrest, not directly caused by respiratory damage, is one of the leading direct causes of COVID-19 deaths.
(Bansal, 2020) is a review. It finds that
COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory illness but cardiovascular involvement can occur through several mechanisms.
Acute cardiac injury is the most reported cardiovascular abnormality in COVID-19, with average incidence 8-12%
Both tachy- and brady-arrhythmias are known to occur in COVID-19. A study describing clinical profile and outcomes in 138 Chinese patients with COVID-19 reported 16.7% incidence of arrhythmia. The incidence was much higher (44.4%) in those requiring ICU admission …
It also notes that CoV2 virus might cause cardiac injury directly or indirectly. The possibility of a treatment impact is mentioned as a less likely one.
(Wang, et al., 2020) finds that 44% of the patients transferred to ICU developed arrhythmia. None of them received HCQ or CQ. Most of the patients received an unrelated anti-viral and an antibiotic. Only in 18% of the patients the antibiotic was AZ. At least some of the patients developed an arrhythmia before the treatment.
(Hawryluk, 2020):
Doctors have found that the infection can mimic a heart attack. They have taken patients to the cardiac catheterization lab to clear a suspected blockage, only to find the patient wasn’t really experiencing a heart attack but had COVID-19.
Thus, the hypothesis that CVOID-19 patients experience QTc prolongation and arrhythmia because of the disease, rather than due to HCQ+AZ treatment, is well founded. AZ may increase the odds of QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients, who would otherwise die from cardiac arrest or multiple organs failure.
The media and professional publications report a sharp increase of mortality from cardiac arrest at home in the last few weeks. Some of these cases are known to be COVID-19, but most of them are not tested. Could many of them be happening due to the cardiac damage caused by COVID-19? Can the cardiac impact of COVID-19 be aggravated by strong QTc prolongers that many people take regularly? There are countless variables confounding this statistic. There is an especially sharp increase in home cardiac arrests in New York, which is usually explained by people’s reluctance to call an ambulance or ER.
(Kochi, 2020) provides in-depth explanation of the cardiac effects of respiratory infections and interaction with QTc prolongation medications.
Positive Cardiac Effects of HCQ
Gone unmentioned are HCQ’s positive cardiac effects. They were widely reported before HCQ had misfortune of being mentioned by President Trump. For example, Taking Hydroxychloroquine for RA or Lupus Can Reduce Heart Risk by 17%
If you take the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) as part of your treatment for lupus or rheumatoid arthritis (RA), you may be getting cardiovascular protection as an added bonus.
The article is based on (Jorge, 2019). These findings might be applicable only to long term taking of HCQ, not a 5-day course for COVID-19, but the same can be said about the alleged negative cardiac effects.
Articles/Studies criticizing HCQ
Listed here are several other papers, influential in the media, but not in the science. These papers span the range from erroneous to … non-existent.
Magagnoli et al.
(Magagnoli, 2020) is a not peer-reviewed pre-print. It makes a retrospective statistical comparison of the outcome in COVID-19 patients, who received HCQ or HCQ+AZ treatment prior to April 11, in Veterans Affairs hospitals. In the Abstract, it claims that a larger percentage of HCQ treated patients died compared to untreated patients. This ignores the fact that HCQ or HCQ+AZ treatment was given only in the most desperate cases, frequently as compassionate care. Deep inside of the manuscript, it does acknowledge that initial conditions of the HCQ and HCQ+AZ groups was much worse than those of the untreated group, but then ignores it
The original version (archived) of the “study” was published on April 21. It received crushing criticism in the comments and was replaced with another one on April 23, hiding those comments. Casting even further doubt on the credibility of this study, one of the authors disclosed Gilead funding for another research. This work was funded by a NIH grant.
Despite its multiple flaws, lack of peer review, and obscurity of the authors, this pre-print immediately received wall-to-wall media coverage. Given these circumstances, this work looks like a criminal fraud, rather than a scientific one.
Tang et al.
(Tang, 2020) is a not peer-reviewed pre-print. It reports results of a clinical trial in China, in which HCQ was given to patients 16-17 days after onset of the disease. This is too late for an anti-viral to work. Thus, this study describes the incorrect use of HCQ, rather than efficacy or safety of the drug. From the comments:
With an average delay of 16 days from symptom onset to enrollment and treatment in this trial, those patients are pretty much past the viral phase of the disease, where an antiviral treatment would have the most value, and are well on their way to pneumonia and a cytokine storm problem, which is ultimately what kills.
Once again, despite its obvious errors, the study was widely covered, including the New York Times and LA Times. Neither headline nor article addresses the obvious lateness of the drug’s application.
Mahevas et al.
(Mahevas, 2020) is another not peer-reviewed pre-print. Didier Raoult and his colleagues replied to it with a bluntness, rare in scientific journals: Scientific fraud to demonstrate the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine compared to placebo in a non-randomized retrospective cohort of patients with Covid: Response to MAHEVAS et al. , MedRxiv, 2020. (Brouqui, et al., 2020). (Mahevas, 2020) also gathered many negative comments on MedRxiv.
Oral Statements of Holtgrave & Cuomo
A study of 600 patients at 22 hospitals in New York is being conducted by the University at Albany School of Public Health under the management of dean David Holtgrave. Although the study was not finished, Mr. Holtgrave already announced that the results are negative: “We don’t see a statistically significant difference between patients who took the drugs [HCQ, HCQ+AZ] and those who did not,” according to CNN. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo referred to the results as neither positive nor negative, per CNN and ABC.
No paper, or even pre-print, reporting these results, has been published, as of April 29 (searches on Google Scholar, PubMed, and medRxiv were conducted for Holtgrave hydroxychloroquine; Holtgrave COVID-19).
New York and other “resistance” states make patients jump through hoops to obtain HCQ. As an anti-viral, it should be taken as soon as possible. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko explained that in his letter, which is worth reading in its entirety:
It is essential to start treatment against Covid-19 immediately upon clinical suspicion of infection and not to wait for confirmatory testing. There is a very narrow window of opportunity to eliminate the virus before pulmonary complications begin. The waiting to treat is the essence of the problem.
He refers to patients in the high-risk category – older than 60, having certain health conditions, or shortness of breath. The resistance states established onerous requirements that delay HCQ treatment for days. This sharply lowers the efficiency of the treatment, and possibly increases TdP risks. The mixed results, promised by Mr. Holtgrave, might be caused by this delay.
Russia
On March 28, Russia announced a COVID-19 treatment based on Mefloquine. Mefloquine, invented in the US in 1970s, is another anti-malaria drug, similar to HCQ. In the West, Mefloquine was withdrawn from use after a controversy about its long-term effects. Russia might also use HCQ. From a Russian brochure (Nikiforov, 2020):
These drugs have a comprehensive negative effect on the coronavirus. It may take years of scientific experimentation to understand how and what exactly they affect. Now the fact of a positive effect has been established, and the drugs should and will be used.
The mechanisms of HCQ and HCQ+AZ action are explained (Hache & Raoult, 2020).
WHO
On March 27, WHO erected another roadblock to treating COVID-19 patients with HCQ. WHO stated that HCQ was not only insufficiently tested (which was true at that time), but that it was considered for COVID-19 at much higher doses than for malaria.
In the context of the COVID-19 response, the dosage and treatment schedules for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine that are currently under consideration do not reflect those used for treating patients with malaria. The ingestion of high doses of these medicines may be associated with adverse or seriously adverse health outcomes.
This is dangerous misinformation. HCQ dosage for COVID-19 is the same or lower than for malaria (Drugs.com, 2019). WHO was aware of this, because it was already conducting clinical trials including HCQ and a number of other Big Pharma drugs. Yet, as of April 29, this paragraph still appears there. This act alone justifies not only defunding but ignoring WHO.
Google and Facebook adhered to WHO on everything related to COVID-19. Together with Twitter, they purged information favorable to HCQ. These is outrageous behavior for telecommunications and computational services providers.
Remarks
It seems that the main contra-indication for HCQ treatment of COVID-19 is that no treatment is needed for healthy individuals below age 50.
Persons in the President’s circle were claiming that HCQ / HCQ+AZ are unproven treatments. That might have been true a month ago, but not now. These drugs are proven by practice and by failure of its opponents to disprove their efficacy and relative safety.
The Guidelines are accompanied by a financial disclosure of the panel members. Weirdly, this disclosure covers a period of 11 months: May 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. The latest three weeks were excluded for some reason. Nevertheless, 9 out of 50 members of the panel disclosed financial ties to Gilead. Gilead’s Remdesivir is an inferior competitor to HCQ – more expensive, almost untested, and less efficient (as far as the little testing with it has shown). HCQ is a generic drug with low profit margin. Gilead Sciences directly participates in WHO trials of Remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment.
HCQ / HCQ+AZ are prescribed by a doctor. They are not OTC and should not be used for self-medication.
HCQ+AZ is the most common treatment. HCQ acts on its own but is much more effective with Zinc; AZ is an antibiotic and a source of Zinc. See Dr. Zelenko’s regimen is HCQ+AZ+Zinc.
There is a live document by Michael J. A. Robb, M.D., tracking effectiveness of HCQ-based treatments https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w6p_HqRXCrW0_wYNK7m_zpQLbBVYcvVU/view
References
Bansal, M., 2020. Cardiovascular disease and COVID-19. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 25 March.
Brouqui, P., Million, M. & Raoult, D., 2020. Scientific fraud to demonstrate the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine compared to placebo in a non-randomized retrospective cohort of patients with Covid: Response to MAHEVAS et al. , MedRxiv, 2020. Mediterranee Infection, 24 04.
Chorin, E. e. a., 2020. The QT Interval in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Treated with Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin. medRxiv, 3 April.
COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, 2020. COVID-19 Treatement Guildelines, s.l.: s.n.
CredibleMeds.org, 2020. COMBINED LIST OF DRUGS THAT PROLONG QT AND/OR CAUSE TORSADES DE POINTES (TDP). [Online]
Available at: https://ift.tt/35nxoIk
Drugs.com, 2019. Hydroxychloroquine Dosage. [Online]
Available at: https://ift.tt/2WiPXcz
FDA WARNING, 2020. FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital …. [Online]
Available at: https://ift.tt/3aXSPRw
Gautret, P. & Raoult, D. e. a., 2020. Clinical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: A pilot observational study. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 4 April.
Hache, G. & Raoult, D. e. a., 2020. Combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin as potential treatment for COVID 19 patients: pharmacology, safety profile, drug interactions and management of toxicity.. Mediterranee Infection, 22 April.
Hawryluk, M., 2020. Mysterious Heart Damage Hitting COVID-19 Patients. WebMD, 06 April.
Jorge, A. e. a., 2019. Hydroxychloroquine Use and Cardiovascular Events Among Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Rheumatoid Arthritis. American College of Rheumatology.
Kochi, A. e. a., 2020. Cardiac and arrhythmic complications in patients with COVID-19.. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 08 April.
Magagnoli, J. e. a., 2020. Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19. medRxiv, 23 April.
Mahevas, M. e. a., 2020. No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement: results of a study using routinely collected data to emulate a target trial. medRxiv, 14 April.
Molina, J. M. e. a., 2020. No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses, 28 March.
Nikiforov, B. B., 2020. Modern Approaches to COVID-19 Therapy. [Online]
Available at: https://ift.tt/3bWjxvd
Prutkin, J. M., 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Arrhythmias and conduction system disease. UpToDate, 24 April.
Simpson, T. e. a., 2020. Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Due to Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin Treatment For COVID-19. [Online]
Available at: https://ift.tt/2RfRdM2
Tang, W. e. a., 2020. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized, controlled trial. medRxiv, 14 April.
Wang, D., Hu, B. & Hu, C., 2020. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Network, 7 February.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-02--It’s All Over For Angela Merkel’s Climate Agenda

Germany ’ s climate protection policies drawn up during full employment won ’ t survive the looming economic disaster .
Angela Merkel once again gave the ‘ Climate Chancellor ’ for a day .
At the Petersberg Climate Dialogue she asked , via video , to keep a close eye on climate targets .
But of course everyone knows that the topic has slipped far behind on the Chancellor ’ s list of priorities .
First , the coronavirus pandemic needs to be contained .
Then the economy is facing the greatest recession – probably ever .
And finally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school openings and the revitalisation of social and cultural life .
Even the biggest loners are currently realising that they aren ’ t hermits .
Virologists have long since outclassed climate scientists .
You can hardly hear anything from Greta .
Her claim that the youth was stolen from her can easily be transferred to the pandemic .
This is the fate millions of children face .
This time , however , it is not about a single Swedish teenager who is on a sabbatical , but about millions of children who do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and homeschooling .
It is hard to imagine that in this unprecedented economic crisis companies will be burdened further .
Those who continue to demand pricing of CO2 emissions will intensify the recession and torpedo the planned stimulus package .
The shutdown gives us an impression of what deindustrialization means .
The aim now is to prevent mass unemployment and not to make the social explosion even bigger .
Cynics and some climate researchers can certainly benefit from the pandemic .
The short-term climate goals are achieved .
But at what price !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of this .
She also no longer has to hit the targets .
But at some point she will have to explain that the climate plans drawn up during full employment are no longer viable .
The post It ’ s All Over For Angela Merkel ’ s Climate Agenda appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

Germany’s climate protection policies drawn up during full employment won’t survive the looming economic disaster.
Angela Merkel once again gave the ‘Climate Chancellor’ for a day. At the Petersberg Climate Dialogue she asked, via video, to keep a close eye on climate targets. But of course everyone knows that the topic has slipped far behind on the Chancellor’s list of priorities.
First, the coronavirus pandemic needs to be contained. Then the economy is facing the greatest recession – probably ever. And finally, there are the small matters such as school openings and the revitalisation of social and cultural life. Even the biggest loners are currently realising that they aren’t hermits.
Virologists have long since outclassed climate scientists. You can hardly hear anything from Greta. Her claim that the youth was stolen from her can easily be transferred to the pandemic. This is the fate millions of children face. This time, however, it is not about a single Swedish teenager who is on a sabbatical, but about millions of children who do not want to lose out in lockdown and homeschooling.
It is hard to imagine that in this unprecedented economic crisis companies will be burdened further. Those who continue to demand pricing of CO2 emissions will intensify the recession and torpedo the planned stimulus package. The shutdown gives us an impression of what deindustrialization means. The aim now is to prevent mass unemployment and not to make the social explosion even bigger.
Cynics and some climate researchers can certainly benefit from the pandemic. The short-term climate goals are achieved. But at what price! The Chancellor, of course, knows all of this. She also no longer has to hit the targets. But at some point she will have to explain that the climate plans drawn up during full employment are no longer viable.
Translation GWPF
The post It’s All Over For Angela Merkel’s Climate Agenda appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2SupLun
May 2, 2020 at 03:37AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-02--Some of the latest climate models provide unrealistically high projections of future warming

They might do well to remember that historic climate data always show carbon dioxide rises *following* temperature rises , often with quite a long time lag , never leading them , which raises awkward questions for ‘ heat-trapping ’ theories and climate models based on them .
– – – A new study from University of Michigan climate researchers concludes that some of the latest-generation climate models may be overly sensitive to carbon dioxide increases and therefore project future warming that is unrealistically high , says Phys.org .
In a letter scheduled for publication April 30 in the journal Nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projections from one of the leading models , known as CESM2 , are not supported by geological evidence from a previous warming period roughly 50 million years ago .
The researchers used the CESM2 model to simulate temperatures during the Early Eocene , a time when rainforests thrived in the tropics of the New World , according to fossil evidence .
But the CESM2 model projected Early Eocene land temperatures exceeding 55 degrees Celsius ( 131 F ) in the tropics , which is much higher than the temperature tolerance of plant photosynthesis—conflicting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the globe , the model projected surface temperatures at least 6 C ( 11 F ) warmer than estimates based on geological evidence .
“ Some of the newest models used to make future predictions may be too sensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and thus predict too much warming , ” said U-M ’ s Chris Poulsen , a professor in the U-M Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and one of the study ’ s three authors .
The other authors are U-M postdoctoral researcher Jiang Zhu and Bette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research .
They say their study shows how geological evidence can be used to benchmark climate models and predictions of future warming .
The new study focuses on a key climate parameter called equilibrium climate sensitivity , or ECS .
ECS refers to the long-term change in global temperature that would result from a sustained doubling—lasting hundreds to thousands of years—of heat-trapping carbon dioxide above the preindustrial baseline level of 285 parts per million .
The present-day CO2 level is about 410 ppm , and climate scientists say atmospheric concentrations could hit 1,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is done to limit carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels .
For decades , most of the top climate models predicted an equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees Celsius ( 5.4 F ) , with a range of 1.5 to 4.5 C ( 2.7 to 8.1 F ) .
But that changed recently with some of the newest climate models participating in CMIP6 .
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project ( CMIP ) is an internationally coordinated effort between climate-science institutions , and it is now in its sixth phase .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , which is due next year , will rely on CMIP6 models .
Ten of the 27 CMIP6 models have an equilibrium climate sensitivity higher than 4.5 C ( 8.1 F ) , meaning that they are more sensitive to CO2 increases than most previous-generation models .
The CESM2 model ( Community Earth System Model , version 2 ) tested by the U-M-led research team is one of those CMIP6 models and has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 5.3 C ( 9.5 F ) .
The predecessor to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a remarkably good job of simulating temperatures during the Early Eocene , according to the researchers .
It has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 C ( 7.6 F ) .
“ Our study implies that CESM2 ’ s climate sensitivity of 5.3 C is likely too high .
This means that its prediction of future warming under a high-CO2 scenario would be too high as well , ” said Zhu , first author of the Nature Climate Change letter .
“ Figuring out whether the high climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to anticipate future warming and to make adaptation plans , ” said NCAR ’ s Otto-Bliesner .

They might do well to remember that historic climate data always show carbon dioxide rises *following* temperature rises, often with quite a long time lag, never leading them, which raises awkward questions for ‘heat-trapping’ theories and climate models based on them.
– – –
A new study from University of Michigan climate researchers concludes that some of the latest-generation climate models may be overly sensitive to carbon dioxide increases and therefore project future warming that is unrealistically high, says Phys.org.
In a letter scheduled for publication April 30 in the journal Nature Climate Change, the researchers say that projections from one of the leading models, known as CESM2, are not supported by geological evidence from a previous warming period roughly 50 million years ago.
The researchers used the CESM2 model to simulate temperatures during the Early Eocene, a time when rainforests thrived in the tropics of the New World, according to fossil evidence.
But the CESM2 model projected Early Eocene land temperatures exceeding 55 degrees Celsius (131 F) in the tropics, which is much higher than the temperature tolerance of plant photosynthesis—conflicting with the fossil evidence.
On average across the globe, the model projected surface temperatures at least 6 C (11 F) warmer than estimates based on geological evidence.
“Some of the newest models used to make future predictions may be too sensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and thus predict too much warming,” said U-M’s Chris Poulsen, a professor in the U-M Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and one of the study’s three authors.
The other authors are U-M postdoctoral researcher Jiang Zhu and Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They say their study shows how geological evidence can be used to benchmark climate models and predictions of future warming.
The new study focuses on a key climate parameter called equilibrium climate sensitivity, or ECS. ECS refers to the long-term change in global temperature that would result from a sustained doubling—lasting hundreds to thousands of years—of heat-trapping carbon dioxide above the preindustrial baseline level of 285 parts per million.
The present-day CO2 level is about 410 ppm, and climate scientists say atmospheric concentrations could hit 1,000 ppm by the year 2100 if nothing is done to limit carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
For decades, most of the top climate models predicted an equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 F), with a range of 1.5 to 4.5 C (2.7 to 8.1 F).
But that changed recently with some of the newest climate models participating in CMIP6. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is an internationally coordinated effort between climate-science institutions, and it is now in its sixth phase. The next assessment report from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is due next year, will rely on CMIP6 models.
Ten of the 27 CMIP6 models have an equilibrium climate sensitivity higher than 4.5 C (8.1 F), meaning that they are more sensitive to CO2 increases than most previous-generation models. The CESM2 model (Community Earth System Model, version 2) tested by the U-M-led research team is one of those CMIP6 models and has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 5.3 C (9.5 F).
The predecessor to CESM2, the CESM1.2 model, did a remarkably good job of simulating temperatures during the Early Eocene, according to the researchers. It has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 C (7.6 F).
“Our study implies that CESM2’s climate sensitivity of 5.3 C is likely too high. This means that its prediction of future warming under a high-CO2 scenario would be too high as well,” said Zhu, first author of the Nature Climate Change letter.
“Figuring out whether the high climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models is realistic is of tremendous importance for us to anticipate future warming and to make adaptation plans,” said NCAR’s Otto-Bliesner.
Full article here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/35qGB2p
May 2, 2020 at 03:00AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-02--Home Wreckers: Wind Turbine Noise Destroys Ability to Enjoy Normal Sleep

For those unfortunates forced to live with incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound , the cause of their inability @ @ @ @ @ .
For a taste of what life with these things is really like , why @ @ @ @ @ Trina Gare ( South Australian farmers paid $ 200,000 per year to host 19 2MW @ @ @

For those unfortunates forced to live with incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound, the cause of their inability to sleep is no mystery. For a taste of what life with these things is really like, why not start with Clive and Trina Gare (South Australian farmers paid $200,000 per year to host 19 2MW […]
via STOP THESE THINGS
https://ift.tt/2YuhWbV
May 2, 2020 at 02:31AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-02--A million have recovered from the Chinese virus

Some good news : more than a million people have now recovered from the Chinese virus .
And some more good news : lockdowns are being unwound by little and little .
Even HM Government , which has moved with all the vim , dash and rapidity of a glacier flowing uphill over a vat of superglue , is talking of setting out an unlocking plan sometime next week .
Maybe .
Once it has had a nice cup of tea .
Here are the dates on which various territories locked down , and the dates on which some began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last states to go into a strictish lockdown , is among the first to unlock .
The Governor , Brian Kemp ( Republican ) has issued a down-to-earth , practical , quite detailed and very clearly-explained unlock strategy .
Here are a couple of slides encapsulating some aspects of that strategy .
More at his website : It is not only the “ Democrats ” who are beside themselves with fury , on the ground that there may be a second peak if the state is unlocked .
Health professionals are also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor is banking on people following the rules he has set out , and using their common sense .
Georgia , then , will join Sweden as one of the places to watch .
Some more good news ( h/t Mosher , who has kindly been supplying first-class information on the pandemic ) .
Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine shows that lockdowns have discernibly halted the infection ’ s exponential spread in some countries , though not in all .
Take the United States : Mr Trump declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Four key states – New York , California , Illinois and New Jersey – locked down between March 19 and March 22 .
About a week later , a peak in new infections ( which the School estimates occur a couple of week before the cases were reported ) was reached in the U.S.A .
Looking at six populous states , the lockdown had no apparent effect in California , Illinois or Massachusetts , and the peak in Pennsylvania was ten days after the lockdown , but in densely-populated New York and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week of the lockdown .
In the UK the lockdown came into full effect on March 24 and the peak in new infections was on April 4 , 11 days later .
However , the half-dozen most-affected regions all showed near-immediate peaks following the UK-wide lockdown : One notable feature of all these curves of daily cases is that , though the approach to the peak is steep the decline from it is slower .
The reason is that lockdowns delay the acquisition of “ herd immunity ” and , therefore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of the peak that , as my good friend Willis Eschenbach has rightly pointed out , is characteristic of a pandemic following the logistic curve does not arise .
For contrast , here is Sweden , which has not locked down at all .
The School thinks a peak has been reached nonetheless : One more piece of good news : our daily graphs show that in the United States estimated active cases ( on the cautious , weekly-averaged basis ) are at last declining .
Fig .
1 .
Mean compound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 for the world excluding China ( red ) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from April 1 to April 30 , 2020 .
Fig .
2 .
Mean compound daily growth rates in cumulative COVID-19 deaths for the world excluding China ( red ) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from April 8 to April 30 , 2020 .
Ø High-definition Figures 1 and 2 are here .
Sweden now has the highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the countries we are following , and the third highest death-rate .
Its Public Health Authority is no longer holding daily press conferences , and the director of the Authority is currently preparing a report on why so many people have died in care homes ( a problem that has afflicted Britain and many other European countries , with the notable exception of Germany ) .
Finally , I apologize for having mangled yesterday ’ s equation ( 1 ) .
I explained that once the deaths are falling by one-nth per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue to decline at that rate , one can estimate the total deaths T from any day d simply as the product of n and that day ’ s deaths m. The corrected equation for the sum of the relevant infinite series is : Ø A growing number of commenters here are providing valuable information about best practice in public policy and in approaches to treatment of the virus .
Keep this information coming and I shall feature the best information here from time to time , as I have today .

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Some good news: more than a million people have now recovered from the Chinese virus.
And some more good news: lockdowns are being unwound by little and little. Even HM Government, which has moved with all the vim, dash and rapidity of a glacier flowing uphill over a vat of superglue, is talking of setting out an unlocking plan sometime next week. Maybe. Once it has had a nice cup of tea. Here are the dates on which various territories locked down, and the dates on which some began to unlock:
Georgia, one of the last states to go into a strictish lockdown, is among the first to unlock. The Governor, Brian Kemp (Republican) has issued a down-to-earth, practical, quite detailed and very clearly-explained unlock strategy. Here are a couple of slides encapsulating some aspects of that strategy. More at his website:
It is not only the “Democrats” who are beside themselves with fury, on the ground that there may be a second peak if the state is unlocked. Health professionals are also muttering into their beards. But the Governor is banking on people following the rules he has set out, and using their common sense. Georgia, then, will join Sweden as one of the places to watch.
Some more good news (h/t Mosher, who has kindly been supplying first-class information on the pandemic). Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine shows that lockdowns have discernibly halted the infection’s exponential spread in some countries, though not in all. Take the United States:
Mr Trump declared a state of emergency on March 13. Four key states – New York, California, Illinois and New Jersey – locked down between March 19 and March 22. About a week later, a peak in new infections (which the School estimates occur a couple of week before the cases were reported) was reached in the U.S.A.
Looking at six populous states, the lockdown had no apparent effect in California, Illinois or Massachusetts, and the peak in Pennsylvania was ten days after the lockdown, but in densely-populated New York and New Jersey the peak was reached within a week of the lockdown.
In the UK the lockdown came into full effect on March 24 and the peak in new infections was on April 4, 11 days later. However, the half-dozen most-affected regions all showed near-immediate peaks following the UK-wide lockdown:
One notable feature of all these curves of daily cases is that, though the approach to the peak is steep the decline from it is slower. The reason is that lockdowns delay the acquisition of “herd immunity” and, therefore, the symmetrical shape of the curve either side of the peak that, as my good friend Willis Eschenbach has rightly pointed out, is characteristic of a pandemic following the logistic curve does not arise.
For contrast, here is Sweden, which has not locked down at all. The School thinks a peak has been reached nonetheless:
One more piece of good news: our daily graphs show that in the United States estimated active cases (on the cautious, weekly-averaged basis) are at last declining.
Fig. 1. Mean compound daily growth rates in estimated active cases of COVID-19 for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from April 1 to April 30, 2020.
Fig. 2. Mean compound daily growth rates in cumulative COVID-19 deaths for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from April 8 to April 30, 2020.
Ø High-definition Figures 1 and 2 are here.
Sweden now has the highest growth-rate in estimated weekly-averaged active cases among all the countries we are following, and the third highest death-rate. Its Public Health Authority is no longer holding daily press conferences, and the director of the Authority is currently preparing a report on why so many people have died in care homes (a problem that has afflicted Britain and many other European countries, with the notable exception of Germany).
Finally, I apologize for having mangled yesterday’s equation (1). I explained that once the deaths are falling by one-nth per day, on the assumption that deaths will continue to decline at that rate, one can estimate the total deaths T from any day d simply as the product of n and that day’s deaths m. The corrected equation for the sum of the relevant infinite series is:
Ø A growing number of commenters here are providing valuable information about best practice in public policy and in approaches to treatment of the virus. Keep this information coming and I shall feature the best information here from time to time, as I have today.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-02--Death rate in South Dakota lowest of any state

Other states following politically biased scientists over a cliff .
____________ Death rate in South Dakota lowest of any state Am I the only one who has noticed that , as of May 1 statistics on Worldometer.com , Michigan , whose governor is ruling like a Central American dictator and who threatened doctors with jail if they prescribed HydroChloroquine to COVID patients , has the highest death rate ( 9.1 % of reported cases ) of any state ?
At the other extreme , South Dakota ’ s governor decided early on to keep the state open for business , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor announced that her state would be a testing ground to see if HydroChloroquine works .
The death rate in South Dakota is the lowest of any state , at 0.83 % .
If “ following the science ” meant following the data , instead of following politically biased scientists over a cliff , those results should be the opposite of what we ’ ve seen .
Also compare Maine , a state with another militant Democratic governor , also a large state , thinly populated , but with about 50 % more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death rate of 5 % , or 6 times as high as South Dakota ’ s .
These are the states with death rates of less than 3 % of reported cases : States at around 3 % are : New Mexico , Montana , Idaho , Mississippi , Alabama , New Hampshire , and South Carolina .
Seems to be somewhat of a pattern , except for Hawaii .
But I think I can safely say that mere facts won ’ t change any minds .
The post Death rate in South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Ice Age Now .

Other states following politically biased scientists over a cliff.
____________
Death rate in South Dakota lowest of any state
Michel Jenkins
Am I the only one who has noticed that, as of May 1 statistics on Worldometer.com, Michigan, whose governor is ruling like a Central American dictator and who threatened doctors with jail if they prescribed HydroChloroquine to COVID patients, has the highest death rate (9.1% of reported cases) of any state?
At the other extreme, South Dakota’s governor decided early on to keep the state open for business, while suggesting sensible precautions, and the governor announced that her state would be a testing ground to see if HydroChloroquine works. The death rate in South Dakota is the lowest of any state, at 0.83%.
If “following the science” meant following the data, instead of following politically biased scientists over a cliff, those results should be the opposite of what we’ve seen.
Also compare Maine, a state with another militant Democratic governor, also a large state, thinly populated, but with about 50% more people than South Dakota, with a death rate of 5%, or 6 times as high as South Dakota’s.
These are the states with death rates of less than 3% of reported cases:
Texas — 2.79%
Hawaii — 2.59%
Alaska — 2.47%
N. Dakota — 2.08%
Iowa — 1.89%
Tennessee — 1.71%
Nebraska — 1.64%
Wyoming — 1.25%
Utah — 0.95%
S. Dakota — 0.83%
States at around 3% are: New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Seems to be somewhat of a pattern, except for Hawaii. But I think I can safely say that mere facts won’t change any minds.
The post Death rate in South Dakota lowest of any state appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/35pfq8v
May 1, 2020 at 09:30PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-02--‘This tastes freaking delicious’

‘This tastes freaking delicious’

Crickets ?
Cockroaches ?
Grasshoppers ?
I ’ d have to be awfully desperate .
… it says , in the latest dietary advice on how to procure your protein needs from insects , mealy bugs , grasshoppers , and the like .
Just “ consume ” Popular Science ’ s ( PS ) “ Bug Eating Guide ” ( https : //www.popsci.com/story/diy/insect-bug-eating-guide/ ) .
Now , I don ’ t want to question anyone ’ s culinary delights .
After all , they depend on what you are used to eating and in which you find sustenance .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mine may not exactly match .
So , if you ’ re used to dining on sushi-kind bat-wings or whatever , no problem .
And you can , sort-a , start getting the feel for it following PS ’ s helpful advice , like “ When people think about eating bugs , they most immediately picture a taco with chapulines [ for non-foodies : that ’ s a chef ’ s term for some grasshoppers ] or a bowl of sautéed crickets .
But the truth is you can opt for a less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in need of a Mexican recipe for them delicious hoppers , kindly see https : //www.thespruceeats.com/chapulines-mexican-grasshoppers-2342567 .
More importantly though , it ’ s the kind of nourishment that one supposedly will get from that kind of meal .
That , after all is the real issue .
Nutrition – You tell me The PS-post author , Sandra Guiterrez G. , ( SGG ) also claims “ Bugs have another upside they can be hacked to improve their nutritional content even further.
” With “ hacked ” , I think she means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oh yeah , that increases their nutritional value by exactly zero .
But wait , there is even a scientific explanation .
As the author explains : “ …enzymatic hydrolysis … boosts the nutrient count by rendering the chitin… exoskeletons … more protein bits to bond with other ingredients.
” Even the river otters and raccoons in our environs that catch plenty of crayfish with chitin exoskeletons can not digest such .
Instead , they deposit these delicious and nutritious exoskeletal remnants of that prey in heaps onshore or other firm surfaces .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is not a source of protein .
At best , it ’ s an indigestible source of starch .
Chitin is not a source of protein but does contain small amounts of one or more amino-acids that make up all kinds of real protein .
The idea that one could live a healthy life on that kind of “ nutrition ” is nonsense .
Besides , it ’ s entirely irrelevant – in terms of nutritional value – how a particular food tastes as perceived by your personal taste buds .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plague in eastern Africa .
These critters swarm by the billions and devour the farmers ’ vegetables and grains without abandon .
Strangely , if you believe the story in PS , the farmers ought to welcome all that nutritious free protein rather than being afraid for their livelihood .
Perhaps they could roast the locusts and develop a flourishing export market for the eagerly waiting and bug-eating folks in the Big Apple .
Rather than salivating about “ freaking delicious ” grasshoppers , crickets , cockroaches and friends , kindly permit me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meat or fish and I will permit you to drool over your insect exoskeletons .
Dr. Klaus L.E .
Kaiser is a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Technical University , Munich , Germany .
He has worked as a research scientist and project chief at Environment Canada ‘ s Canada Centre for Inland Waters for over 30 years and is currently Director of Research at TerraBase Inc .
He is author of nearly 300 publications in scientific journals , government and agency reports , books , computer programs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Kaiser has been president of the International Association for Great Lakes Research , a peer reviewer of numerous scientific papers for several journals , Editor-in-Chief of the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly a decade , and an adjunct professor .
He has contributed to a variety of scientific projects and reports and has made many presentations at national and international conferences .
Dr. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS , the green revolution – perceptions , politics , and facts convenientmyths.com Dr. Kaiser can be reached at : mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freaking delicious ’ appeared first on Ice Age Now .

Crickets? Cockroaches? Grasshoppers? I’d have to be awfully desperate.
___________
‘This tastes freaking delicious’
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser
… it says, in the latest dietary advice on how to procure your protein needs from insects, mealy bugs, grasshoppers, and the like. Just “consume” Popular Science’s (PS) “Bug Eating Guide” ( https://www.popsci.com/story/diy/insect-bug-eating-guide/ ).
Deliciously crunchy grasshoppers
Now, I don’t want to question anyone’s culinary delights. After all, they depend on what you are used to eating and in which you find sustenance. It’s just that your tastes and mine may not exactly match.
Culinary Delights
So, if you’re used to dining on sushi-kind bat-wings or whatever, no problem. And you can, sort-a, start getting the feel for it following PS’s helpful advice, like “When people think about eating bugs, they most immediately picture a taco with chapulines [for non-foodies: that’s a chef’s term for some grasshoppers] or a bowl of sautéed crickets. But the truth is you can opt for a less shocking alternative.”
Just in case you are in need of a Mexican recipe for them delicious hoppers, kindly see https://www.thespruceeats.com/chapulines-mexican-grasshoppers-2342567.
More importantly though, it’s the kind of nourishment that one supposedly will get from that kind of meal. That, after all is the real issue.
Nutrition – You tell me
The PS-post author, Sandra Guiterrez G., (SGG) also claims “Bugs have another upside they can be hacked to improve their nutritional content even further.” With “hacked”, I think she means cut or chopped into tiny pieces. Oh yeah, that increases their nutritional value by exactly zero.
But wait, there is even a scientific explanation. As the author explains: “…enzymatic hydrolysis … boosts the nutrient count by rendering the chitin… exoskeletons … more protein bits to bond with other ingredients.”
What hogwash!
Even the river otters and raccoons in our environs that catch plenty of crayfish with chitin exoskeletons cannot digest such. Instead, they deposit these delicious and nutritious exoskeletal remnants of that prey in heaps onshore or other firm surfaces.
Chitin – a Source of Protein?
Chitin, essentially a kind of starch-polymer, is not a source of protein. At best, it’s an indigestible source of starch. Chitin is not a source of protein but does contain small amounts of one or more amino-acids that make up all kinds of real protein. The idea that one could live a healthy life on that kind of “nutrition” is nonsense. Besides, it’s entirely irrelevant – in terms of nutritional value – how a particular food tastes as perceived by your personal taste buds.
Moreover, there is currently a real locust plague in eastern Africa. These critters swarm by the billions and devour the farmers’ vegetables and grains without abandon. Strangely, if you believe the story in PS, the farmers ought to welcome all that nutritious free protein rather than being afraid for their livelihood. Perhaps they could roast the locusts and develop a flourishing export market for the eagerly waiting and bug-eating folks in the Big Apple.
Rather than salivating about “freaking delicious” grasshoppers, crickets, cockroaches and friends, kindly permit me to state my preference for some real meat or fish and I will permit you to drool over your insect exoskeletons.
__________________________
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Technical University, Munich, Germany. He has worked as a research scientist and project chief at Environment Canada‘s Canada Centre for Inland Waters for over 30 years and is currently Director of Research at TerraBase Inc. He is author of nearly 300 publications in scientific journals, government and agency reports, books, computer programs, trade magazines, and newspaper articles.
Dr. Kaiser has been president of the International Association for Great Lakes Research, a peer reviewer of numerous scientific papers for several journals, Editor-in-Chief of the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly a decade, and an adjunct professor. He has contributed to a variety of scientific projects and reports and has made many presentations at national and international conferences.
Dr. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts
convenientmyths.com
Dr. Kaiser can be reached at: mail@convenientmyths.com
The post ‘This tastes freaking delicious’ appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/2KR06I3
May 1, 2020 at 08:33PM


Fact 13

The thesis of this post is stark : there ’ s no point debating climate further until Fact 13 has been established .
What is Fact 13 ?
The $ 1.5 trillion a year the ‘ climate change industry ’ was reported to have become by August 2015 .
Was that number even remotely right ?
What ’ s the correct one going to be in August 2020 ?
And in August 2025 ?
And how can we be sure , allowing a suitable lag , that we have a decent idea of the answer ?
Here ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written by a mysterious character called Alan Kendall to Phil Jones in March 2007 : Phil , I can assure you that Dave Palmer did not know about the particular threadline that I drew his attention to because , during my telephone conversation with him , his voice expressed surprise ( and perhaps resignation ? )
as he opened up the website and because he thanked me for drawing the information to his attention .
I repeat , I am not primarily interested in the dispute between yourself and ClimateAudit and will keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I read that people are suggested methods of legal redress against the University for not supplying research data , I felt that I needed to act .
I could not contact you by telephone , so resorted to informing Dave Palmer .
I would do exactly the same if similar circumstances arose again .
Jones had emailed Kendall three days before , including these damning words about Steve McIntyre and his merry band of bloggers , two and half years into Climate Audit ’ s existence : “ Also , these people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , if I get my way .
I ’ m hereby proposing an official , comprehensive , global audit of everything that can be considered the “ climate change business ” .
Including fossil fuel subsidies , by the way .
Though that would I assume come under a different heading .
Does an audit , even a very good one , give rise to facts ?
The official phrase is that having reviewed a company ’ s accounts the auditors must be able declare them to be a “ true and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That will do me but I expect , indeed welcome , criticism from John Ridgway and others on this point .
A year ago today I posted a response to the flagship BBC documentary called Climate Change – The Facts which had first been shown on 18th April 2019 .
Mine was called Climate Change – the Missing Facts and claimed to state twelve facts that the presenter David Attenborough and his band of experts had chosen not to mention .
And nobody has in the last year debunked even one the facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that article , I had been careful , some would even say crafty .
I didn ’ t claim that the $ 1.5 trillion a year was a fact .
Instead the first fact began like this : There was no mention of trade-offs in the programme , by Attenborough or anyone else , but it is a fact that they abound in the science , engineering and economics of energy , as we seek to make sense of , and respond to , what we are learning about climate change .
Naomi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trained as a geologist , was quoted as follows : There are many reasons we haven ’ t acted on climate change .
Science is definitely part of the story .
The science is complicated .
We agree that the science is complicated .
We strongly disagree that “ we haven ’ t acted ” .
$ 1.5 trillion a year is a lot of money .
The issue is whether the actions taken since man-made global warming came to prominence as an idea , in 1988 , have made sense .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart enough to make the right trade-offs , based on all the available facts .
The following sections give some food for thought on that .
I wasn ’ t willing to be challenged on this number as a fact , not least because of questions about its provenance .
I felt sure such knockdown point-scoring would only detract from the overall message .
But a year later I ’ ve found myself wondering “ Why isn ’ t this a known fact ?
It has to be foundational for all other climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting the Covid-19 pandemic , at such extreme expense , would now agree , as would Michael Moore and the millions of viewers of his very detailed film on the many current abuses within the enormously well-funded ‘ green energy ’ movement.
” The embryo is 13 weeks old , just as the BBC show that began this train of thought is now in its 13th month .
But the embryo is also me .
I ’ m very aware that I ’ m inadequate , a nobody , to propose such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least able to suck my thumb , showing both that I ’ m thinking about it and that I need to comfort myself .
Please be gentle with me but , more importantly , allow the idea itself to grow .

The thesis of this post is stark: there’s no point debating climate further until Fact 13 has been established.
What is Fact 13? The $1.5 trillion a year the ‘climate change industry’ was reported to have become by August 2015. Was that number even remotely right? What’s the correct one going to be in August 2020? And in August 2025? And how can we be sure, allowing a suitable lag, that we have a decent idea of the answer?
The *Big* Climate Audit
Here’s an email from the second Climategate tranche, written by a mysterious character called Alan Kendall to Phil Jones in March 2007:
Phil, I can assure you that Dave Palmer did not know about the particular threadline that I drew his attention to because, during my telephone conversation with him, his voice expressed surprise (and perhaps resignation?) as he opened up the website and because he thanked me for drawing the information to his attention. I repeat, I am not primarily interested in the dispute between yourself and ClimateAudit and will keep my opinions to myself. However when I read that people are suggested methods of legal redress against the University for not supplying research data, I felt that I needed to act. I could not contact you by telephone, so resorted to informing Dave Palmer. I would do exactly the same if similar circumstances arose again.
Jones had emailed Kendall three days before, including these damning words about Steve McIntyre and his merry band of bloggers, two and half years into Climate Audit’s existence: “Also, these people are self-appointed auditors.” Well, not any more, if I get my way. I’m hereby proposing an official, comprehensive, global audit of everything that can be considered the “climate change business”. Including fossil fuel subsidies, by the way. Though that would I assume come under a different heading.
(May I take this opportunity to wish Alan, one of Cliscep’s most appreciated commenters, the very best for a full recovery of his health. I’m sure we’ll hear more on that soon.)
Does an audit, even a very good one, give rise to facts? The official phrase is that having reviewed a company’s accounts the auditors must be able declare them to be a “true and fair view” of the situation. That will do me but I expect, indeed welcome, criticism from John Ridgway and others on this point.
Why ‘Fact 13’?
A year ago today I posted a response to the flagship BBC documentary called Climate Change – The Facts which had first been shown on 18th April 2019. Mine was called Climate Change – the Missing Facts and claimed to state twelve facts that the presenter David Attenborough and his band of experts had chosen not to mention. And nobody has in the last year debunked even one the facts so stated.
But, in drafting that article, I had been careful, some would even say crafty. I didn’t claim that the $1.5 trillion a year was a fact. Instead the first fact began like this:
1. Trade-offs There was no mention of trade-offs in the programme, by Attenborough or anyone else, but it is a fact that they abound in the science, engineering and economics of energy, as we seek to make sense of, and respond to, what we are learning about climate change. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science who trained as a geologist, was quoted as follows: There are many reasons we haven’t acted on climate change. Science is definitely part of the story. The science is complicated. We agree that the science is complicated. We strongly disagree that “we haven’t acted”. $1.5 trillion a year is a lot of money. The issue is whether the actions taken since man-made global warming came to prominence as an idea, in 1988, have made sense. That depends on whether we’ve been smart enough to make the right trade-offs, based on all the available facts. The following sections give some food for thought on that.
I wasn’t willing to be challenged on this number as a fact, not least because of questions about its provenance. I felt sure such knockdown point-scoring would only detract from the overall message.
But a year later I’ve found myself wondering “Why isn’t this a known fact? It has to be foundational for all other climate debate by now. Surely policy wonks fighting the Covid-19 pandemic, at such extreme expense, would now agree, as would Michael Moore and the millions of viewers of his very detailed film on the many current abuses within the enormously well-funded ‘green energy’ movement.”
Why the embryo?
The embryo is 13 weeks old, just as the BBC show that began this train of thought is now in its 13th month. But the embryo is also me. I’m very aware that I’m inadequate, a nobody, to propose such a thing. But I am now at least able to suck my thumb, showing both that I’m thinking about it and that I need to comfort myself. Please be gentle with me but, more importantly, allow the idea itself to grow.