Archive for the ‘science’ Category

The “Deadly” Hydroxychloroquine Publishing Scandal

July 1, 2020

by Elizabeth Woodworth, OffGuardian

As the COVID – 19 pandemic continues to dominate the news and defy the efforts of researchers to understand its many mysteries, including its origins and why it affects people who contract the virus in wildly different ways, one thing we have learned for certain so far is the extent to which the Pharmaceuticals manufacturers cartel (colloquially Big Pharma,) exercise a pernicious influence over medical research and healthcare. Cast you minds back to early in the pandemic and one of the pronouncements of President Trump on the disease. The Donald recommended as a preventative daily doses of cofveve, a drug with the tongue torturing title Hydroxychloroquine and speculated that it might also provide a cure.

Mainstream media went into meltdown: how dare a politician with no qualifications offer his opinion on medical matters, use of the anti-malarial drug Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid 19 would be totally irresponsible it had been shown to have very serious, possibly fatal side effects and there was no proof it worked to alleviate cases of COVID-19, to start prescribing it wholesale could kill more than  it cured. All of which, apart from the last bit about killing more than it cured is true … or at lest partly true.

The whole truth is that the drug, like many commonly used drugs, does have side effects that make it unsafe for some people but has also been around for a long time and those side effects and the previous or pre – existing conditions that make it unsafe for some people are well known.  Known commonly as quinine and chloroquine, it is on the WHO list of essential medicines. And yet the WHO was among those establishment organisations briefing against quinine as a treatment for COVID – 19organisations

Brought to Europe by Roman Catholic missionaries in the 17th century the drug, first known as The Jesuit’s Bark. is derived from bark of the South American quina-quina tree and has been used to treat malaria for 400 years. Quinine, a generic drug costing pennies a dose in rare cases it can cause dizziness and irregular heartbeat, but can be purchased online and therin lies the problem. However, had the medical professions which are in the pockets of Big Pharma which collectively saw the pandemic as an opportunity to redistribute wealth via the tax system from the peoples’ pockets into their own overflowing coffers, and the bulk of the media which simply saw an opportunity to attack Donald Trump.

Convenient Lies and Inconvenient Truths

The two leading medical journals in the economically developed world are UK publication The Lancet and USA’s New England Journal of Medicine

In May, 2020,  a report credited to four authors and claiming that HCQ used in hospitals to treat Covid-19 had been shown conclusively to be a high risk for patients with  for heart conditions and could easily cause  premature death. The data allegedly covered 96,000 patients in 671 hospitals on six continents.

At the height of the campaign of fear and panic about COVID – 19 the article remained in the headlines for two weeks, as scientific objections, contradictory evidence and accusations of bad practice emerged, then on June 5 three of the authors retracted it.

While the controversy raged, covered with the usual pro = establishment bias by the media, a clandestine meeting involving senior staff from The Lancet and NEJM held sometime in May was leaked to journalists in France. The Lancet and NEJM editors also discussed how financially powerful pharmaceutical players were “criminally” corrupting medical science to advance their interests.

At that meeting the gathered experts discussed the pandemic and the their suspicions about the reliability of the damning report on HCQ. Comments regarding the Lancet article were leaked to the French press by a well-known health figure, Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy, who felt compelled to blow the whistle.

The Fear And Panic Effect

On May 22, 2020, the Lancet had published the stunning claim that 671 hospitals on six continents were reporting life-threatening heart rhythms in patients taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for Covid-19.   Although increased use of the drug as a treatment for the Wuhan Coronavirus had been requested in a petition signed by nearly 500,000 French doctors and citizens, the WHO and other health agencies responded to the article by immediately suspending the clinical trials that may have cleared it for use on Wuhan Coronavirus patients.

Headlines in the American media decided not to mention that HCQ was none other than quinine, the time honoured treatment for malaria which is not simply cleaded from general use under medical supervision but has been on the WHO list of essential drugs since that list was launched in 1977. Nor did they mention that the bad press hydroxychloroquine had been getting prior to May 22 was influenced by organisations which had financial interests in persuading governments and health agencies to favour the new, more expensive drug, Remdesivir.  as an investigative report published on May 21st revealed

More COVID Statistics And Lies

As someone who has a qualification in statistics, not a degree but earned long before degree level qualifications were about as commonplace as confetti at a wedding, I have long understood that far from being a science, the study of statistics is more akin to a branch of the dark arts, I am well placed to see how statistics are being presented in ways intended to convey a false impression of what data really means. As the saying goes, I can make statistics tell me anything except the truth.

Health statistics are no exception. Developed to serve different purposes in different contexts, causing them to exist in isolated data bubbles, for example in a previous article I described how the UK’s method for recording death statistics had been deliberately manipulated to ensure each from coronavirus, with coronavirus or simply coronavirus >realted, had been counted several times. Prior to the pandemic any death, whether it occurred in hospital, at home or in a public place or place of work had to first be certified by a doctor and then notified, along with personal details of the deceased to the nearest Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths office. Once the details had been verified they were forwarded to the National Statistics Office to ensure each death was only counted once.

Ostensibly to make life easier in the pandemic, certification by a medical professional was no longer required, death statistics were to be collaged by hospitals, medical practices and funeral directors as well as the National Statistics Office and numbers of reported from causes related to the pandemic were based on the numbers ‘reported’ on any given day by all sources. It has been confirmed that similar practices were in operation in Italy, resulting in inflated figures, while Germany, where the medical professions refused to deviate from their reliable and safe method to anything like the chaotic data gathering procedures used in UK, has throughout the pandemic reported much lower kill rates for the virus.

Another thing that jumped out at me as I read of the fraudulent attempt to discredit the efficacy of quinine in this crisis was how could 671 hospitals worldwide, including some of the most backward nations of Asia and Africa, report comparable treatment outcomes for 96,000 COVID patients so quickly? These things usually take years to organise

The Lancet is a leading authority on public health policy and must surely suspected have found the alacrity with which this major study was completed somewhat suspect. Its editor-in-chief, Dr. Richard Horton, has been in his job since 1995 so cannot be accused of lacking experience in the ways Big Pharma have manipulated information in trials and studies..

There were huge question marks over the ease with which claims from various sources casting doubt on the usefulness of HCQ in treating COVID – 19 were so readily accepted? There were, but they were not being asked by politicians who are tasked with defending our interests, academics whose job description includes scrutinizing new work and questioning its authors on any apparent weakness or errors.

Throughout the pandemic, since the virus reached the USA and Europe the only serious questioning of ‘the science’ has occurred in alternative media, for example in this article.

The Empirical Evidence Strikes Back

The benchmark for verification of scientific research has always been the ‘peer review’ process and though this is largely dicredited after it wass revealed that the pcrocess had been preverted by corporate money since the days colleagues in the same field operated a kind of honour system and could be relied on to provide an honest and impartial review of research projects presented to them. Now peer review is pal review in which a sympathetic colleague wil provide a favourable review in return for ‘hospitality’, the guarantee of career enhancing opportunities or a direct cash bung.

In the case of the unfavourable HCQ study an open letter from 200 scientists to the authors and The Lancet asked for the study’s data to be made available for independent audit. The letter was signed by clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians, and ethicists, (full text here.)

In a move reminiscent of Mike (Hockey Stick) Mann, the now discredited climatologist whose ‘hockey Stick Graph kicked off the climate change scare, the HCQ report authors refused to reveal their data, or even the names of hospitals they claimed had taken part in their study. Meanwhile, investigative analysis was showing the statistics to be deeply flawed.

If this were not enough, the lead author was found to be in a conflict of interest because of links to HCQ’s rival drug, Remdesivir:

Dr. Mandeep Mehra, the lead co-author is a director at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, co funder of the study according to its own press department.

Dr. Mehra and The Lancet failed to disclose that Brigham Hospital has a partnership with drug manufacturer Gilead and is currently conducting two trials on Remdesivir, the prime competitor of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19, the focus of the study.”

How did this fraud get accepted for publication by The Lancet? you might well ask.

The answer emerges from a French television interview, although it has been quoted in the alternative media.

On May 24, a closed-door Chatham House expert meeting (sic) about Covid included the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the NEJM. Comments regarding the article were leaked to the French press by a well-known doctore and medical pundit, Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy,[xvii] who felt compelled to blow the whistle.

His resulting BFM TV television appearance was posted to YouTube with English subtitles on May 31, but the potentially sensational story was not picked up by the mainstream media in the anglosphere.

****************************************************

Lancet editor Dr. Richard Horton, quoted by Dr. Douste-Blazy said:
If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want to conclude.”

Doust-Blazy made his own comments on Horton’s words and the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine agreed. He even said it was ‘criminal’. The final words in Doust-Blazy’s interview were:
When there is an outbreak like Covid, in reality, there are people like us – doctors – who see mortality and suffering. And there are people who see dollars. That’s it.”

The scientific process of building a trustworthy knowledge base is one of the foundations of our civilization. Violating this process in pursuit of profit or power is a crime against both truth and humanity.

***************************************************************

Evidently the North American media does not consider this extraordinary crime to be worth reporting.

Originally published at Global Research. An interesting side note, before this fake study was published, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg theorised that use of HCQ may explain the higher death rate in patients of African ancestry – ed.

MORE on the pandemic

[Daily Stirrer] … [Boggart Aboad] … [ Greenteeth Home ] … [ Medium.com ] … [ Original Boggart Blog ]

Coronavirus is a dream come true for Bill Gates, who lives to vaccinate

April 17, 2020

In case you haven’t noticed, Microsoft co-founder and billionaire “philanthropist” Bill Gates is champing at the bit to implement his long-awaited mandatory vaccination agenda. And what better catalyst for making it happen than the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis?

Just months after his infamous Event 201, which was all about a hypothetical pandemic scenario, out pops the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) right on schedule to bring to life Gates’ fantasy dream of jabbing every person on the planet with one of his “philanthropic” vaccines.

And wouldn’t you know it, but Gates also recently stepped down from the board of Microsoft – just before the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) struck, it’s important to note – in order to focus more on his “philanthropic” endeavors, which we know from history actually center around his eugenics agenda.

With the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) being a ripe target for exploitation, Gates has already thrown billions of dollars into setting up multiple avenues for developing not just one, but seven, potential vaccines for it. He’s also calling for “digital certificates” to prove that a person has been vaccinated, allowing them reentry back into the world economy.

This is in addition to the $450 million that Gates contributed to the effort to “eradicate polio,” as well as numerous other endeavors he’s been a part of over the years that all have one thing in common: mandatory vaccination.

The guy lives to vaccinate, and it’s really the only thing he ever seems to talk about. Sure, he’ll occasionally mention pharmaceuticals as well – never nutrition, by the way – but vaccines are Gates’ thing, for which he almost has a bizarre type of fetish … Continue reading

The Source of Wisdom

February 26, 2020

Tesla-wisdom-quote

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

― Nikola Tesla

 

Who Would Want To Destroy The World? More People Than You Might Think

October 27, 2019

As well as megalomaniac tyrants woth access to weapons of mass destruction, mad scientists busy genetically modifying viruses and bacteria in order to weaponise the air we breathe and the water we drink, the corporate greed that drives companies to fill our food and environment with toxic shite in their quest for bigger profits, we have social justice warriors calling for the genocide of ethnic Europeans (having completely failed to notice that they, themselves, are mostly of European extraction, and eco – warriors claiming that the only way ro “save the planet” is through the extinction of humanity. Obviously these somewhat less than bright sparks have never heard that old riddle that goes, 2if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it does it make a sound. Here’s one p-o-v on that, which suggests that vibrations in the air as would be caused by a tree hitting the ground cannot be called a sound unless they collide with the eardrum of a creature that knows what a sound is.

So who wants to destry humanity and do they have a supportable argument?

Who Wants To Destroy The World

More people than you might expect — and new technologies might give them the power to do it

Authored by Phil Torres, Originally published at Medium.com

Photo: NurPhoto/Getty

FFor most of human history, the question of who would want to destroy the world didn’t much matter. The reason, of course, was that that no individual or group of humans could demolish civilization or cause our extinction. Our ancestors just didn’t have the tools: no amount of spears, arrows, swords, or catapults would have enabled them — even the most bloodthirsty and misanthropic — to have inflicted harm in every corner of the world.

This changed with the invention of the atomic bomb. While scholars often identify 1945 as the year that human self-annihilation became possible, a more accurate date is 1948 or 1949, since this is when the United States stockpiled enough nuclear weapons (about 100) to have initiated a hemisphere-spanning “nuclear winter.” (See this work in progress for why I’m focusing on 100 nuclear weapons as a threshold.) A nuclear winter occurs when soot from burning cities significantly reduces the amount of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface for a period of months or years, thereby causing temperatures to plummet and famines to ensue. Quite unsettlingly, it wasn’t until the 1980s — decades after we had enough nukes to blot out the sun — that the nuclear winter phenomenon was first identified, although lingering questions remain even today.

Thanks to new technologies, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and lone wolves are getting in on the action, too, and might be more willing than national governments to push the proverbial doomsday button.

The U.S. monopoly on world-ending power didn’t last long: by 1953, the Soviet Union had likewise expanded to 100 weapons. Now there were two nations on Earth that could obliterate civilization. But again, this didn’t last very long. The United Kingdom joined the club of potential world-enders around 1962, China around 1971, and France around 1973, with Israel, Pakistan, and India becoming members of this club in the 2010s. Hence, in less than a century, the world went from containing zero actors capable of unilaterally destroying the world to eight.

This is a scary situation. Unfortunately, it’s getting worse — much worse. The reason is that states are no longer the only players in the game. Thanks to new technologies, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and lone wolves are getting in on the action, too, and they might be a lot more willing than national governments to push the proverbial doomsday button.

My own research suggests that the percentage of people who would push a doomsday button, if it were placed within finger’s reach, is fairly small, but the absolute number is unacceptably high. Even a quick Google search seems to affirm this. Consider the following answers, taken from different online sources, to the question of whether one would destroy the world if one could (quoting typos and all):

“Yes. It is obvious that we gain nothing from living and there is a huge amount of human suffering that I find quite unjustifiable. The complete annihilation of the human race would be the greatest act of compassion ever.” Reddit.com

“Yes, we suck as a human race.” Reddit.com

“Yes. Because you all are assholes. And this is not a joke I would love to push something that ends humanity. I always thought about it and now there is the question about that topic and I am happy to say I want you all dead everyone single one of you fuckers. Please give me the chance to wipe out humanity.” Reddit.com

“My view is that Mankind is a plague… I vote to destroy mankind and let nature start over.” Debate.org

“The human animal is the only evil animal in the animal kingdom. We destroy everything… I email the president weekly and beg him to push the button and stop the madness already.” Debate.org

“In the short time we’ve been on this planet, humans have already destroyed so much. We destroy ecosystems, and kill off entire species of animals… The world would be better off without humans as a whole.” Debate.org

Of course, saying something definitely isn’t the same as doing it. Even so, can we be fully certain that not a single person in the world would attempt to follow through on his or her annihilatory fantasies? One way to approach this question is to look for historical examples of groups or people who both expressed a desire to kill everyone and committed some terrible act or acts of violence. The combination of these two phenomena implies that such people would be willing to act on their omnicidal (meaning killing everyone) impulses and willingly, perhaps even eagerly, push a doomsday button. So are there such examples?

Unfortunately, yes. Lots of them. And they seem to fall into a handful of basic categories.

Eric Harris mused, “I think I would want us to go extinct,” to which he added, “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible… I want to burn the world” and “I just wish I could actually DO this instead of just DREAM about it all.”

Consider the disturbing case of Eric Harris, the psychopathic mastermind behind the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. His journal is full of all sorts of genuinely horrifying, ghoulish fantasies. On several occasions, he explicitly mentions his burning desire to extinguish humanity. At one point. he writes: “If you recall your history the Nazis came up with a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish problem. Kill them all. Well, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I say ‘KILL MANKIND’ no one should survive.”

Elsewhere, Harris mused, “I think I would want us to go extinct,” to which he added, “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible… I want to burn the world” and “I just wish I could actually DO this instead of just DREAM about it all.”

When Harris and Dylan Klebold, his partner in crime, perpetrated their massacre in Columbine, they were equipped with garden-variety weapons. Dangerous to be sure, but hardly capable of “burning the world.” Can there be any doubt, though, that if Harris — who was relatively intelligent and liked math and science — had had access to some of the advanced technologies of tomorrow, he would have, when committing suicide, tried to go out with a much bigger bang?

The Columbine massacre had a huge influence on later rampage shooters, some of whom also dreamt of omnicide. For example, in 2007, an 18-year-old Finnish student named Pekka-Eric Auvinen shot several people at his school, which he also tried to burn down. Like Harris, he wrote about “a final solution” as “the death of the entire human race,” and described his massacre as “an operation against humanity with the purpose of killing as many people as possible.” Yet another rampage shooter from Finland, Matti Saari, wrote in his suicide note, “I hate the human race, I hate mankind, I hate the whole world, and I want to kill as many people as possible.”

Then, of course, there was Elliot Rodger, the incel psychopath who killed seven people and injured 14 in the 2014 Isla Vista killings. In a video shot one day before the rampage, he said in no uncertain terms: “I hate all of you. Humanity is a disgusting, wretched, depraved species. If I had it in my power, I would stop at nothing to reduce every single one of you to mountains of skulls and rivers of blood. And rightfully so. You deserve to be annihilated. And I’ll give that to you.”

School shooters and other lone wolves have idiosyncratic motives, such as a misanthropic hatred of humanity, or a desire to retaliate against women for perceived romantic and sexual slights. Together, though, they comprise a relatively cohesive category of omnicidal actors, and a relatively unpredictable one at that.

Another type of omnicidal actor comes in the form of apocalyptic terrorists who believe that to save the world, it must first be destroyed. ISIS, arguably the largest and richest terrorist group in history, is a paradigm case. While some members of ISIS probably didn’t hold apocalyptic beliefs, the leadership most certainly did — and they made strategic decisions based on these beliefs. The man who essentially founded ISIS, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, believed that Islam’s version of Armageddon was about to unfold around the small Syrian town of Dabiq. Hence, the name of the group’s propaganda magazine, Dabiq. After the U.S. military killed al-Zarqawi in 2006, leadership of ISIS transferred to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, a fevered apocalypticist who insisted that the Islamic end-of-days messianic figure, the “Mahdi,” was about to appear in Iraq. Like al-Zarqawi, he based his strategy on his apocalyptic belief — and it backfired. He soon met his end at the hands of Western forces.

Both of these individuals really believed that the end was nigh, and that it was their duty to use violence — catastrophic violence, to be more specific — to bring about the apocalypse. ISIS members talked about acquiring nuclear weapons, releasing deadly pathogens, and building dirty bombs. I personally haven’t spoken to a single terrorism scholar who doesn’t think that ISIS would have gleefully pushed a “destroy-the-world” button, especially if Western forces were marching toward Dabiq.

But ISIS is far from the only apocalyptic group. Famously, the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo attempted to trigger Armageddon by releasing sarin in the Tokyo subway in 1995. Here in the U.S., more than a dozen hate groups subscribe to Christian Identity, an apocalyptic worldview that endorses the use of catastrophic violence as a means of triggering a “race war” that will initiate the end of the world. And one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, the Taiping Rebellion, involved an apocalyptic movement called the “Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.” This was led by a man named Hong Xiuquan, who believed that he was the brother of Jesus Christ, “commissioned by the Lord of Heaven to slay the devil-demons (Manchus) whose rule had brought ruin to China.”

A final type of omnicidal actor lingers within the outermost fringe of radical environmentalist, anarcho-primitivist, and Neo-Luddite ideologies. Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, provides an example par excellence. Beginning in 1978, Kaczynski perpetrated numerous domestic terrorist attacks, killing three people and injuring 23 others. A former UC Berkeley mathematics professor and Harvard alumnus, Kaczynski didn’t wish for humanity to go extinct. Rather, he wanted to trigger a global revolution against industrial society, with the ultimate goal of causing its collapse. Kaczynski ultimately didn’t care whether his revolution would cause people to die, since in his utilitarian calculus the ends would justify the means. As Kaczynski wrote in 1995: “This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.”

In contrast, other actors in this category have explicitly embraced pro-extinction convictions. For example, the Gaia Liberation Front (GLF), an ecoterrorist group, holds as their mission “the total liberation of the Earth, which can be accomplished only through the extinction of the Humans as a species.” In advocating this, they argue that “if any Humans survive, they may start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take no chances.”

How might they accomplish their omnicidal aims? GLF contends that bioengineering is “the specific technology for doing the job right of annihilating humanity — and it’s something that could be done by just one person with the necessary expertise and access to the necessary equipment.” They continue: “…genetically engineered viruses… have the advantage of attacking only the target species. To complicate the search for a cure or a vaccine, and as insurance against the possibility that some Humans might be immune to a particular virus, several different viruses could be released (with provision being made for the release of a second round after the generals and the politicians had come out of their shelters).”

Technologies such as gene drives, digital-to-biological converters, and CRISPR-Cas9 are making it increasingly feasible to synthesize designer pathogens that could be far more devastating than anything found in nature.

This parallels an anonymous article in the Earth First! Journal, published in 1989, meaning that this idea has been around for a while: “Contributions are urgently solicited for scientific research on a species specific virus that will eliminate Homo shiticus from the planet. Only an absolutely species specific virus should be set loose. Otherwise it will be just another technological fix. Remember, Equal Rights for All Other Species.”

While the most radical fringe of the environmentalist movement has avoided the limelight in recent years, some experts, such as the terrorism scholar Frances Flannery, expect a resurgence as climate and biodiversity crises worsen. This poses an obvious danger in a world replete with bullets and bombs; but it poses an existential threat in a world of cheap and easy gene editing. Technologies such as gene drives, digital-to-biological converters, and CRISPR-Cas9 are making it increasingly feasible to synthesize designer pathogens that could be far more devastating than anything found in nature.

Are there any solutions to the problems posed by virus-toting omnicidal maniacs? One hard-to-avoid — and completely terrifying — answer is mass surveillance. This could take the form of what the philosopher Jeremy Bentham called a “panopticon,” whereby the state (perhaps run by computer programs designed specifically to govern — a form of government called “algocracy”) monitors every action of its citizens. The obvious danger is that this could collapse into tyrannical totalitarianism, which itself constitutes an existential risk.

Another possibility involves what the science fiction writer, David Brin, dubs the “transparent society.” This would make surveillance egalitarian, so to speak: everyone would be able to see what everyone else is doing all the time, thereby enabling those watched to watch the watchers. Brin doesn’t argue that this is an ideal situation, only that it’s a better situation than one in which the state has all the power. Perhaps a total loss of privacy is the cost of existential security.

Alternatively, I have previously claimed that, in order to reduce the risks posed by malicious agents like those mentioned above, society should prioritize mitigating climate change and ecological destruction. Both phenomena are threat multipliers and threat intensifiers, which means that they’ll introduce new problems while making old problems even worse. Better environmental policies would lower the threat posed by ecoterrorists, whose fundamental complaint — “Humans are stupidly destroying the biosphere” — is scientifically accurate. Such policies would also decrease the number and severity of natural disasters, which could fertilize apocalyptic fervor among religious extremists. As the terrorism scholar Mark Juergensmeyer has remarked, “radical times will breed radical religion,” a hypothesis apparently supported by the rise of ISIS during the Syrian civil war.

Moving forward, people who care about human survival need to think hard not just about the various technologies that will become available, but about the types of actors who might try to use these technologies for catastrophic ill. The future of the human race could quite literally depend on it.

OneZero

 

The Logical Failure Of Science Fans

January 27, 2019

If it’s science it must be right, coz science is kool, right?

Thus in essence is the basis on which many science fans argue in internet comment threads.
A question posted on Quora involved me in a discussion with a typical member of this group, he’s besotted with science and argues from the perspective of a religious believer rather that somebody who questions things objectively. To the question:

As a scientist, is there any possibility that evolution did not give rise to mankind?

I had answered:

Ian Thorpe
Ian Thorpe, writer, poet, free thinker

Sorry I can’t answer because I’m not a scientist.
But if I was a scientist I wouldn’t be a biologists so I’d probably give the same answer as would occurs to me as a well – read retired management consultant: There are always possibilities. It’s often said that we evolved from monkeys, but more likely we and monkeys shared a common ancestor which might have been so far back it was just a blob of jelly floating in a primeval salt marsh. Nobody truly knows.
Likewise human intelligence. The theory that we developed conscious intelligence spontaneously as our brains reached a certain mass has been debunked. Homo Neanderthalis had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens and yet they became extinct.

At some stage we progressed from Homo Sapiens (man who knows) to Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Man who knows he knows) with far greater cognitive skills and the ability to handle abstract ideas than our predecessors. When and how that change occurred is a mystery and so far no evolutionary evidence has been found to explain it.

Did aliens visit us and get jiggy with girl troglodites? Was intelligence seeded in us by a perhistoric super – race that knew they were dying? Was it some form of supernatural process? Did our ancient ancestors eat magic mushrooms and experience an expansion of consciousness? All these are theories believe by some.

My advice is don’t think about these things too much, it has driven people crazy.

Other studies show that is not true. Baysean inference might have been a factor in either conclusion. That’s the trouble with scientific studies.
However Chimps and Bonobos are reckoned to have evolved from a common species about a million years ago, around the same time as homo erectus separated into neanderthalis and sapiens.
Chimps are pretty much as they were then according to naturalists and anthropoligists, we made the leap from sapiens to sapiens sapiens and now construct tower blocks almost a mile high, fly around the world in jet aircraft, and invent increasingly sophisticated ways of killing each other. Given that they have had the same amount of time to develop, I’d say chimp intelligence cannot reasonably be compared with human intelligence.

So why have chimps not evolved when we have? That’s a part of the mystery.

Other studies? Well here’s one.
Pioneering brain study reveals ‘software’ differences between humans and monkeys

Then there’s Thomas Suddendorf’s work in which he identifies what he calls episodic memory as a big part of what differentiates us from all other species.
Episodic memory versus episodic foresight: Similarities and differences

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/312/5776/1006.full
(you have to have hacking skills to open this one, but it’s not that difficult
)
It’s late now and I don’t want to sit here all night compiling a comprehensive list, so I’ll leave you to continue in your own time.

Ian Thorpe

No, it doesn’t. That’s because the research paper is about the things that make humans unique among species. And the question asked was about whether here is any possibility humans are not a product of evolution. Thus my reply concerned that mystery of how we humans developed our unique intellige…

(more)

Phil Dunlap

MORE ON SCIENCE & EVOLUTION
First humans from Australia?
Human Origins Not In Africa?
Science and technology menu
Science Wins – Trump Administration Proposes Transgender Policy Based On Biology
Plants and Trees Are Conscious (sort of)

Ghost particle found beneath Antarctica holds key to breakthrough in understanding the universe.

July 13, 2018

18ltngj167z4zjpg
Split an atom and a host of sub atomic particles are released. The problem is these are little fizzes of energy which dissipate in less than one millionth of a second. (Image: gawker)

In another great scientific breakthrough that will make absolutely no difference to anything but is likely to cost taxpayers a pile of money as scientists scam research grants out of politicians by selling the idea that it is really important we understand and learn to control processes which have worked for billions of years without needing assistance from scientists, the mystery of the origins of light are set to be unlocked by the discovery of an elusive “ghost” particle a mile beneath Antarctica, scientists have announced.

Astronomers have for the first time identified the source of a high-energy neutrino which shot through a solid ice laboratory at the South Pole last year in “a “triumph that promises to revolutionise understanding of fundamental physics.”

Sorry but the only breakthrough I can see here is that these scientists have taken the idiotic hyoerbole of cosmology further away from reality than ever before. For people who have taken little interest in theoretical physics, Neutrinos are, according to people who believe the meaning of life can be found in equations, are virtually massless, subatomic particles which race across the universe, passing unnoticed through planets and stars. Despite their abundance – hundreds of billions pass through each human every second – they have so far proved impossible to detect because they interact with matter so rarely.

Or in layman’s terms, they are imaginary things like fairies, demons and the Disney Princess who sings “Let It Go,” in Frozen.

The alleged detection of this frozen neutrino on September 22 2017 has since, according to its discoverers, enabled scientists to identify its point of origin. Using a complex network of ground and space-based radiation telescopes and the highly advanced scientific technique of making stuff up, the international team traced the particle’s provenance to a flaring galaxy, or “blazar”, with a supermassive black hole at its heart four billion light years away.

Quantum mechanics theory tells us a particle doesn’t exist until it is observed (by a cat which is simultaneously dead and alive or something), so how can this one have been tracked back to it’s point of origin before it interacted with the astronomers in Antarctica last September?

Nutrinos, like many other sub atomic particles, are based on a theory that has been ‘proven’ using other theories. Presumably these theoretical particles, which remember, are ripping through your body tissue at a rate of millions per second without you noticing, will be used to prove other theories down the line, the kind of theories beloved of modern science, because the high pontiffs tell us that like God, they must to be considered true until someone can prove they are untrue.

When they do, the rest come tumbling down like dominoes.Big Bang theory proposes that before BigBang everything was compressed into a single mass, The Singularity, a mass varying in size between a grain of salt and a small planet (I go for a rat turd). Question what existed before Big Bang, what did this very singular rat turd live in, what existed outside it, and you will be told, usually rather tetchily, that nothing existed.

“The cosmic rat turd was floating around an infinite void then?” You offer only to be told that a void could not exist, nothing could exist outside the rat turd. All the voids, all the time and space, all everything was compressed into the rat turd.

“So the rat turd existed in infinity?” you venture.

“NO YOU IDIOT, NNNNOOOOO, infinity was in the rat turd,” your physicist debating partner will scream.

And thus all the theories of cosmology built around Big Bang collapse.

The sciencetits do not give up however, original theories are ‘tweaked’ to add some special rule to fit the real world again, dark matter is invented, or dark energy. Gravitational waves are conjured out of thin air to prop up failed theories. And again the scientific academe insists they must be assumed to be true because nobody can prove they aren’t.

It all keeps the academics busy consuming our tax money in the form of research grants, and living well while people whose work actually matters struggle.

I cannot be the only one who considers that modern physics (i.e. theoretical physics) in which any ‘proofs’ offered are nothing more than mathematical speculations based on other theories is a load of bollocks. Just as climate change scaremongers tell us ‘the science is settled’ and dismiss any criticism of the all too obvious flaws in their ‘science’, so physicists dismiss any criticism as coming from people outside their quasi – religious cult. My experience has shown that such attacks are used in self-interest. This latest non – revelation is just more of the same.

So long as politicians keep wasting our money funding them, physicists will continue to learn more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing. Biologists and Chemists don’t have it so easy, they have to deal with things that exist in reality.

I should add here that in the 1980s I worked in several organisations involved in atomic research, and though my job was in computer systems, I learned a little from talking to the engineers and physicists involved in real world stuff. And those guys unanimously regard the theoreticians of the academic world as a bunch of clowns.

Landmark climate change report leaked online

December 14, 2012

Landmark climate change report leaked online

Draft of IPCC’s fifth assessment, due to be published in September 2013, leaked online by climate sceptic Alex Rawls. It’s a safe bet that the content differs widely from what will eventually be published by mainstream media.

Thhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-climate-change-report-leaked-onlinee draft of a major global warming report by the UN’s climate science panel has been leaked online.

The fifth assessment report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is not due to be published in full until September 2013, was uploaded onto a website called Stop Green Suicide on Thursday and has since been mirrored elsewhere on the internet.

The IPCC, which confirmed the draft is genuine, said in a statement: “The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review. We will continue not to comment on the contents of draft reports, as they are works in progress.”

A little-known US-based climate sceptic called Alex Rawls, who had been accepted by the IPCC to be one of the report’s 800 expert reviewers, admitted to leaking the document. In a statement posted online, he sought to justify the leak: “The addition of one single sentence [discussing the influence of cosmic rays on the earth’s climate] demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.”

Climate sceptics have heralded the sentence – which they interpret as meaning that cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind’s emissions – as “game-changing”.

The isolation by climate sceptics of one sentence in the 14-chapter draft report was described as “completely ridiculous” by one of the report’s lead authors. Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: “You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It’s a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn’t say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we’re really saying the opposite.”

The leaked draft “summary for policymakers” contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics’ interpretation.

It says: “There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

By “virtually certain”, the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man’s emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC’s last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a “very high confidence” – 90% sure – humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm.

Richard Betts, a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and an AR5 lead author, tweeted that the report is still a draft and could well change: “Worth pointing out that the wording in the leaked IPCC WG1 [working group 1, which examines the “physical science basis” of climate change] draft chapters may still change in the final versions, following review comments.”

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, said that Rawls appeared to have broken the confidentiality agreement signed by reviewers: “As a registered reviewer of the IPCC report, I condemn the decision by a climate change sceptic to violate the confidentiality of the review process. The review of the IPCC report is being carried out in line with the principles of peer review which operate throughout academic science, including an expectation of high standards of ethical behaviour by reviewers. It is disappointing, if not surprising, that climate change sceptics have been unable to meet these high standards of ethical behaviour.”

The IPCC, which publishes a detailed synthesis of the latest climate science every seven years to help guide policy makers, has experienced leaks before. In 2000, the third assessment report was leaked to the New York Times, while the fourth assessment report was published in 2006 by the US government a year ahead of its official publication.

Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London and contributing author on the recent IPCC report on climate change and extreme events, said that sceptics’ reading of the draft was incorrect: “Alex Rawls’ interpretation of what IPCC5 says is quite simply wrong. In fact, while temperatures have been ramping up in recent decades, solar activity has been pretty subdued, so any interaction with cosmic rays is clearly having minimal – if any – effects. IPCC AR5 reiterates what we can be absolutely certain of: that contemporary climate change is not a natural process, but the consequence of human activities.”

Prof Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds, said: “Although this may seem like a ‘leak’, the draft IPCC reports are not kept secret and the review process is open. The rationale in not disseminating the findings until the final version is complete, is to try and iron out all the errors and inconsistencies which might be inadvertently included. Personally, I would be happy if the whole IPCC process were even more open and public, and I think we as scientists need to explore how we can best match the development of measured critical arguments with those of the Twitter generation.”

What we may note from the above is how dishonest those who ride the climate change gravy train are prepared to be in defence of the fake science that gives them luxurious lifestyles. Firstly the accusation that Rawls has misinterpreted the report. This really is just the old argument from authority trick, saying in effect, “He’s not a scientists so he cant understand the science. Really however the language is fairly straightforward, it says what it says and there is only so much room for interpretation.

Then there is the claim that ‘temperatures have been ramping up l.ately’. This is a blatant lie, while the ‘adjusted data’ shows eash succeeding year is the ‘hottest on record’ (although even that depends on whose records you look at) raw data shows 1998 was the hottest in the modern era and surface temperatures have not warmed significantly since.

It is possible to go on and on providing hundreds of items of evidence that show climate change (which is a constant and natural process) is not being caused by human activity, but there’s no point. The believers will go on praying to their science God for some Sodom and Gomorrah style even to punish the faithless, the sane will go on living their lives safe in the knowledge that no global catastrophes are imminent and the ruling elites will go on exploiting scaremongering propaganada to justify punitive taxes on energy and other essentials.