Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

On The Impossibility Of Electrifying Everything Using Only Wind, Solar And Batteries

Two More Contributions

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | January 17, 2022

My post on Friday highlighted the work of Ken Gregory, who has attempted to quantify the costs of fully electrifying the U.S. energy system using as sources only wind, solar, and batteries. My post got circulated among my excellent colleagues in the CO2 Coalition, two of whom then provided me with links to their own work on closely-related subjects.

The two pieces are: (1) “How Many km2 of Solar Panels in Spain and how much battery backup would it take to power Germany,” by Lars Schernikau and William Smith, posted January 30, 2021 (revised April 23, 2021) at SSRN; and (2) “On the Ability of Wind and Solar Electric Generation to Power Modern Civilization,” by Wallace Manheimer, published October 7, 2021 in the Journal of Energy Research and Reviews.

Both pieces consider various cost and engineering issues involved in trying to develop a fully solar/battery or wind/solar/battery system to power a modern economy; and both quickly conclude for many reasons that such a project is completely infeasible and will surely fail. And yet the U.S. and Europe are both marching forward to implement such plans, without any detailed feasibility studies or cost estimates, let alone even a small scale demonstration project to show that this can work.

Schernikau and Smith consider a case of trying to power just Germany using solar power generated in Spain (Spain having the best conditions in Europe for generating power from the sun). The conclusion:

It appears that solar’s low energy density, high raw material input and low energy-Return-On-energy-Invested (eROeI) as well as large storage requirements make today’s solar technology an environmentally and economically unviable choice to replace conventional power at large scale.

S&S mainly focus on the incredible material requirements that would need to be met for this solar/battery project. First, as to the solar panels:

To match Germany’s electricity demand (or over 15% of EU’s electricity demand) solely from solar photovoltaic panels located in Spain, about 7% of Spain would have to be covered with solar panels (~35.000 km2). . . . To keep the Solar Park functioning just for Germany, PV panels would need to be replaced every 15 years, translating to an annual silicon requirement for the panels reaching close to 10% of current global production capacity (~135% for one-time setup). The silver requirement for modern PV panels powering Germany would translate to 30% of the annual global silver production (~450% for one-time setup). For the EU, essentially the entire annual global silicon production and 3x the annual global silver production would be required for replacement only.

And then there is the question of the battery storage requirement. S&S do not do an hour-by-hour spreadsheet like Gregory to come up with the storage requirement, but rather assume a need for 14 days’ worth of storage based on the possibility of 14 consecutive cloudy days in Spain. (The hour-by-hour analysis done by Gregory and by Roger Andrews would suggest that due to seasonality of solar generation, 30 days of storage would be more realistic.). But even with the 14 day assumption, S&S get these startling results:

To produce sufficient storage capacity from batteries using today’s leading technology would require the full output of 900 Tesla Gigafactories working at full capacity for one year, not counting the replacement of batteries every 20 years. . . . A 14-day battery storage solution for Germany would exceed the 2020 global battery production by a factor of 4 to 5x. To produce the required batteries for Germany alone (or over 15% of EU’s electricity demand) would require mining, transportation and processing of 0,4-0,8 billion tons of raw materials every year (7 to 13 billion tons for one-time setup), and 6x more for Europe. . . . The 2020 global production of lithium, graphite anodes, cobalt or nickel would not nearly suffice by a multiple factor to produce the batteries for Germany alone.

Manheimer’s piece is more general in its discussion of the problems of intermittency and storage, but then focuses particularly on the problem of disposing of the vast wind and solar facilities at the ends of their useful lives:

Let us first consider solar panels. These panels last about 25 years, so the 250,000 tons we have to recycle this year is just a trickle compared to the deluge coming at us in 2050, when we will have had a total of 78 million tons to dispose of. These are not appropriate for landfills, as they contain hazardous and poison materials such as lead and cadmium, which can leech into the soil. However, recycling is expensive. The cost of the recycled materials is considerably more than the cost of the raw materials.

For wind turbines, the blades and the towers pose separate problems:

Since the blades are fiber glass and last only about 10 years, we have had considerable experience here. These blades are gigantic, and are very costly to ship and dispose of. . . . The difficulty of disposing of the blades pales in comparison with disposing of the towers, which last ~25 years. . . . [T]he Washington Times estimates that a [realistic] cost estimate is $500,000 [per turbine].

Go ahead and look through the plans being put forth today by the likes of California, New York, Germany or the UK, and see how they address any of these issues. The answer is, they don’t.

January 19, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Environmentalism, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

The Last Days of the Covidian Cult

By CJ Hopkins | Consent Factory | January 18, 2022

This isn’t going to be pretty, folks. The downfall of a death cult rarely is. There is going to be wailing and gnashing of teeth, incoherent fanatical jabbering, mass deleting of embarrassing tweets. There’s going to be a veritable tsunami of desperate rationalizing, strenuous denying, shameless blame-shifting, and other forms of ass-covering, as suddenly former Covidian Cult members make a last-minute break for the jungle before the fully-vaxxed-and-boosted “Safe and Effective Kool-Aid” servers get to them.

Yes, that’s right, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, the official Covid narrative is finally falling apart, or is being hastily disassembled, or historically revised, right before our eyes. The “experts” and “authorities” are finally acknowledging that the “Covid deaths” and “hospitalization” statistics are artificially inflated and totally unreliable (which they have been from the very beginning), and they are admitting that their miracle “vaccines” don’t work (unless you change the definition of the word “vaccine”), and that they have killed a few people, or maybe more than a few people, and that lockdowns were probably “a serious mistake.”

I am not going to bother with further citations. You can surf the Internet as well as I can. The point is, the “Apocalyptic Pandemic” PSYOP has reached its expiration date. After almost two years of mass hysteria over a virus that causes mild-to-moderate common-cold or flu-like symptoms (or absolutely no symptoms whatsoever) in about 95% of the infected and the overall infection fatality rate of which is approximately 0.1% to 0.5%, people’s nerves are shot. We are all exhausted. Even the Covidian cultists are exhausted. And they are starting to abandon the cult en masse.

It was always mostly just a matter of time. As Klaus Schwab said, “the pandemic represent[ed] a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”

It isn’t over, but that window is closing, and our world has not been “reimagined” and “reset,” not irrevocably, not just yet. Clearly, GloboCap underestimated the potential resistance to the Great Reset, and the time it would take to crush that resistance. And now the clock is running down, and the resistance isn’t crushed … on the contrary, it is growing. And there is nothing GloboCap can do to stop it, other than go openly totalitarian, which it can’t, as that would be suicidal. As I noted in a recent column:

“New Normal totalitarianism — and any global-capitalist form of totalitarianism — cannot display itself as totalitarianism, or even authoritarianism. It cannot acknowledge its political nature. In order to exist, it must not exist. Above all, it must erase its violence (the violence that all politics ultimately comes down to) and appear to us as an essentially beneficent response to a legitimate ‘global health crisis’ …”

The simulated “global health crisis” is, for all intents and purposes, over. Which means that GloboCap has screwed the pooch. The thing is, if you intend to keep the masses whipped up into a mindless frenzy of anus-puckering paranoia over an “apocalyptic global pandemic,” at some point, you have to produce an actual apocalyptic global pandemic. Faked statistics and propaganda will carry you for a while, but eventually people are going to need to experience something at least resembling an actual devastating worldwide plague, in reality, not just on their phones and TVs.

Also, GloboCap seriously overplayed their hand with the miracle “vaccines.” Covidian cultists really believed that the “vaccines” would protect them from infection. Epidemiology experts like Rachel Maddow assured them that they would:

“Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person,” Maddow said on her show the evening of March 29, 2021. “A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else,” she added with a shrug. “It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people.”

And now they are all sick with … well, a cold, basically, or are “asymptomatically infected,” or whatever. And they are looking at a future in which they will have to submit to “vaccinations” and “boosters” every three or four months to keep their “compliance certificates” current, in order to be allowed to hold a job, attend a school, or eat at a restaurant, which, OK, hardcore cultists are fine with, but there are millions of people who have been complying, not because they are delusional fanatics who would wrap their children’s heads in cellophane if Anthony Fauci ordered them to, but purely out of “solidarity,” or convenience, or herd instinct, or … you know, cowardice.

Many of these people (i.e., the non-fanatics) are starting to suspect that maybe what we “tin-foil-hat-wearing, Covid-denying, anti-vax, conspiracy-theorist extremists” have been telling them for the past 22 months might not be as crazy as they originally thought. They are back-pedaling, rationalizing, revising history, and just making up all kinds of self-serving bullshit, like how we are now in “a post-vaccine world,” or how “the Science has changed,” or how “Omicron is different,” in order to avoid being forced to admit that they’re the victims of a GloboCap PSYOP and the worldwide mass hysteria it has generated.

Which … fine, let them tell themselves whatever they need to for the sake of their vanity, or their reputations as investigative journalists, celebrity leftists, or Twitter revolutionaries. If you think these “recovering” Covidian Cult members are ever going to publicly acknowledge all the damage they have done to society, and to people and their families, since March 2020, much less apologize for all the abuse they heaped onto those of us who have been reporting the facts … well, they’re not. They are going to spin, equivocate, rationalize, and lie through their teeth, whatever it takes to convince themselves and their audience that, when the shit hit the fan, they didn’t click heels and go full “Good German.”

Give these people hell if you need to. I feel just as angry and betrayed as you do. But let’s not lose sight of the ultimate stakes here. Yes, the official narrative is finally crumbling, and the Covidian Cult is starting to implode, but that does not mean that this fight is over. GloboCap and their puppets in government are not going to cancel the whole “New Normal” program, pretend the last two years never happened, and gracefully retreat to their lavish bunkers in New Zealand and their mega-yachts.

Totalitarian movements and death cults do not typically go down gracefully. They usually go down in a gratuitous orgy of wanton, nihilistic violence as the cult or movement desperately attempts to maintain its hold over its wavering members and defend itself from encroaching reality. And that is where we are at the moment … or where we are going to be very shortly.

Cities, states, and countries around the world are pushing ahead with implementing the New Normal biosecurity society, despite the fact that there is no longer any plausible justification for it. Austria is going ahead with forced “vaccination.” Germany is preparing to do the same. France is rolling out a national segregation system to punish “the Unvaccinated.” Greece is fining “unvaccinated” pensioners. Australia is operating “quarantine camps.” Scotland. Italy. Spain. The Netherlands. New York City. San Francisco. Toronto. The list goes on, and on, and on.

I don’t know what is going to happen. I’m not an oracle. I’m just a satirist. But we are getting dangerously close to the point where GloboCap will need to go full-blown fascist if they want to finish what they started. If that happens, things are going to get very ugly. I know, things are already ugly, but I’m talking a whole different kind of ugly. Think Jonestown, or Hitler’s final days in the bunker, or the last few months of the Manson Family.

That is what happens to totalitarian movements and death cults once the spell is broken and their official narratives fall apart. When they go down, they try to take the whole world with them. I don’t know about you, but I’m hoping we can avoid that. From what I have heard and read, it isn’t much fun.

#

January 19, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

New data on vaccine efficacy from scotland and more evidence on bayesian datacrime…

… and more bad news for “the experts”

el gato malo – bad cattitude – january 19, 2022

it’s becoming a bit like beating a dead horse to keep highlighting more and more data that shows the failure of the vaccines to act as promised, but this one highlights something else i was discussing recently and provides a tangible example of the math and definitional manipulation that’s going on.

so let’s take a quick spin:

(all data from HERE)

first, cases:

as is becoming endlessly apparent and replicable, “unvaxxed” is outperforming every other category.

vaccines are not stopping spread, they are most likely (subject to the limitations of non randomized society scale data) accelerating it.

this becomes readily apparent when we calculate risk ratios. (incidence of group divided by incidence in unvaxxed control, so any number >1 = more risk)

risk in the double vaxxed is well over twice as high as in the unvaxxed. boosters seem to help, but still cannot get you back to baseline and i want to emphasize the word “seem” here because i think this data is misleading and is vastly overstating booster efficacy and likely making double vaxxed look worse than it is. (more in a minute)

we can also look at hospitalization:

what’s most interesting here is that it seems like there was some vaccine efficacy against hospitalization but that it inverted as 2022 began.

we can see the risk ratio on 2 doses rise sharply from 0.76 (24% VE) to 1.39 (-39% VE). this is an 82% jump in risk ratio and it was durable into the following week. i have emphasized this in red.

boosters seem effective (but there’s that word again) but even this seeming efficacy is rapidly dropping and risk ratio is up from 0.15 in week 3 dec to 0.38 in week 2 jan, a 150% change.

i see 2 likely explanations here and they are not mutually exclusive:

  1. this is omicron, the OAS/vaccine (Original Antigenic Sin) evading variant showing up and taking over. as it does, vaccine efficacy drops like a rock because you are antigenically imprinted for the wrong spike proteins. what had been a help becomes actual harm because a bad response is worse for you than making one up on the fly and omicron is the optimized output of selection by leaky vaccine for vaccine evasion and superspread. we’re now into OAS territory, just as certain gatos told you we would be…
  2. this is bad math and bad definitions being used to hide properties of these vaccines and shift risk. defining as “3 doses” only those 2 weeks after their 3rd jab is bayesian datacrime, especially when the jab itself is known to cause ~2 weeks of immunosuppression and higher risk. the jab itself generates a high risk cohort but then attributes that risk to the cohort before it. it’s like blaming getting hit by a car crossing the street on having stayed on the sidewalk, and the effects can be gigantic. you can hide ANYTHING in that. it’s bad definitions leading to bad math and it’s been widespread practice since pfizer ginned it up to slant their trials.

you can get a full walk through on this issue and the various forms in which is can manifest here:

bayesian datacrime: defining vaccine efficacy into existence
the bottom line is that this is literally a card shark palming a bad card out of his hand and dropping it into yours. lumping this 2 week risk period into the group that did not get the most recent round of vaxxes is an absurd risk shifter. it will always make whatever the new round of vaccines is look like it’s working.

the examples linked about lay it out clearly: you can make a zero efficacy vaxx look like it works and this works even better if it causes a rise in risk in the 2 week period you lump into the prior group.

thus, boosters make “full vaxxed” look bad. fully vaxxed made unvaxxed look bad. so much of what has been claimed to be vaccine efficacy is just a mathematic rig job from poorly chosen definitions and there is simply no way that that was an accident.

pfizer does not make mistakes like that or like vaxxing the whole control group right when vaxx fade started to get bad. they make choices and those choices have been aided and abetted by regulators and public health agencies.

they all signed off on and adopted these misleading definitions and have been providing information and making policy based upon them.

i’m willing to believe that the CDC was too inept to spot this. it’s sad, but it’s plausible.

but the NIH should have seen it and the FDA not only should have spotted it instantly but should have disallowed a trial using such a shady tactic. it’s pure manipulation.

they both let it go because they were both involved. NIH licensed the IP for the vaccine payload to moderna. former FDA head gottlieb stepped down mid-term to join the pfizer board of directors.

this is what full blown regulatory capture looks like… Full article

January 19, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Prof Dr. Michael Palmer PHD “MRNA Injections Cause Injury Comparable To Radiation Damage”

JVWing | December 31, 2021

The lipid nanoparticals used as the delivery system for mRNA are toxic. These are cataonic, so positively charged. When the mRNA espcapes from the nano partical it disrupts the mytochondrien and causes damage similar to ionising radiation damage to the cells.

January 19, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

In a minority of one, the maskless would-be martyr

By Liz Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | January 17, 2022

As Nicola Sturgeon announces that the Scots may have to wear facemasks ‘for years to come’, all I can say is how glad I am that I don’t live in Scotland.

Since the new mask-wearing rules were introduced on November 30, I have refused to wear one and touch wood, fingers crossed, have got away with it.

In that time, I have been on buses, coaches, the London Underground, stayed in a hotel for three days over Christmas, been to the cinema and to the hairdresser, the beauty salon, nail bar and in many shops and supermarkets, blessedly mask-free. I have taken taxis all over the place. Only once have I been apprehended, and that was in Sainsbury’s, where a member of staff came up to me and asked: ‘Where is your mask, madam?’  I told him that I was medically exempt, and he nodded and went away.

In the hotel where I was staying, there were signs everywhere saying that masks were compulsory, and that anybody not wearing one may be reported to the authorities. Yet I did not wear one, nobody said anything and nor was I reported to the authorities.

I have also got away with not wearing a mask in a clinic where I went for hearing tests. I told the audiologist there that I didn’t believe in masks and he accepted it, although both he and the receptionist were wearing them, as were the other patients in the waiting room.

It is true that on buses I have been on the receiving end of some nasty stares, or as nasty as they can be when most of the faces and thus the expressions, of the other passengers, are hidden. It is also true that some people edge away from me as though I have got a deadly plague. My next-door neighbours, masked up to the eyeballs even when walking down the street, asked why I was not wearing a mask and I gave them the same response: ‘I am medically exempt.’  That, so far, has precluded further questioning although the truth is that I have exempted myself. I have no actual doctor’s exemption although if challenged, I have an exemption card in my wallet which I downloaded from a government site and which I can produce if demanded. So far, nobody has asked to see it.

The government website says quite plainly that if wearing a mask causes undue distress, you can exempt yourself from wearing one. In order to drive home the obvious fact that I am not wearing a mask, I make sure I am wearing bright red lipstick every time I leave the house. That way, I am making a clear statement that I am defying the rules and showing in no uncertain way that am proud to be mask-free.

We were warned that we could face on-the-spot fines of £200 if we refused to wear a mask on the London Underground. Since the end of November, I have taken the Tube many times, always maskless, and have never been confronted or asked to see proof of exemption. I decided that if I was fined, I would refuse to pay it and go to prison for my principles if it came to that. I would be a martyr for the cause! But none of the Underground staff has said a word and nor have any of the passengers. True, there are signs all over the place saying that masks are compulsory, both on trains and in stations, but I have just taken no notice.

The sad thing is that I seem to be in a minority of one. Everywhere I go, I am the only person, child or adult, who is not muzzled. It is monstrous that all secondary school pupils and children over the age of 11 have been told to wear masks in public indoor venues and on public transport. My neighbour, employed by Oxford University, says that she is required to wear a mask for work, even though most days she is the only person in the office. She also has to keep taking tests.

Actually, I am going further than not wearing a mask. I have never had a PCR or lateral flow test, not had the booster and am not going to have it, either in spite of Sir Chris Whitty telling me in the cinema that I must have it to protect myself and others. There are huge posters at bus stops and ads in every newspaper bullying me to get jabbed, but I ignore them all. And guess what? I have remained completely well, never had so much as a sniffle throughout all this so-called pandemic, while just about everybody I know who had had the jabs, the boosters, the tests and who never dares to venture out without a muzzle round their face, has had Covid or what passes for it. Most of my refusenik friends, the few I have left who are defying all the strictures, say the same.

The mask mandates in England at least are due to be reviewed on January 26 but if they are relaxed, as I expect them to be, I will place a bet here and now that the majority of people will continue to wear them and tell you that it is their choice. Such is the state of fear that governments don’t need to impose rules or threaten us with fines and imprisonment. We have become so cowed and terrified that we are imposing them on ourselves.

I just wonder how many people will be brave enough to defy the First Minister in Scotland, if she carries out her threat to make her compatriots wear masks for ever more?

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Rogue street art appears overnight in D.C., mocks Biden & Fauci’s COVID regime

“Mandate! Segregate! Subjugate!”

By Jordan Schachtel | The Dossier | January 15, 2022

I wanted to turn your attention to a handful of premier art masterpieces that have appeared overnight in Washington, D.C.

The artwork is a brilliant Soviet-style mockery of Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci COVID Mania regime. And seeing it appear in downtown Washington, D.C., the home of America’s ruling class and unquestioning COVID compliance, is the perfect setting for these absolute gems.

The first piece showcases an angry Joe Biden holding an OSHA-labeled mallet surrounded by the word “comply.” The second illustration, labeled, “good kids are compliant kids,” shows a handful of children in red masks looking up to an injection needle-surrounded Joe Biden. The third shows a sitting Joe Biden holding the coronavirus in his hand, with the caption, “Mandate! Segregate! Subjugate!” The last piece of artwork, “Trust The Scientism,” shows Anthony Fauci, dressed in clergy attire, possessing a giant hypodermic needle.

I particularly enjoy the Soviet propaganda style.

Here are the four posters lined up together, courtesy of Leigh Wolf’s Twitter page:

A DC Karen noticed the artwork and started to rip down the posters.

She was filmed desecrating the artwork by Leigh Wolf, a comms and production professional who happens to be a former colleague of mine at CRTV/Blaze Media Wolf spotted the artwork and took photos of it before it was ripped down.

I reached out to Leigh and asked if he had any inside info about how the artwork ended up in Washington D.C. Wolf told me he has no idea who put them up. I’ll post an update if I can find the artist behind these magnificent creations.

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

How Confident is the Government in its ‘Evidence’ on Masks

It turns out — not certain at all!

Health Advisory and Recovery Team | January 15, 2022

Dr Val Fraser, retired Lecturer in Teacher Education, Subject Expert for Ofqual and former OFSTED School Inspector, puts the last UK Government’s mask missive under the linguistic microscope:

What is the “material evidence” Nadhim Zahawi, Education Secretary speaks of (TalkRadio Monday 3rd January 2022) for recommending face coverings to be worn in secondary school classrooms and, more importantly, how convincing is it? The government document entitled Evidence Summary: Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the use of face coverings in education settings needs an understanding of ‘modality’ to help evaluate how robust this evidence is.

Modality is a term used in the study of grammar and linguistics to signal certainty.  Verbs qualified with modal verbs suggest whether an event or a claim is possible, probable, likely or certain.  The principal auxiliary modal verbs when placed on a continuum from possible to certain show this range: can, could, may, might, should, would, shall, must and will.

“Manchester United can win the league” is a hedging statement suggesting some caveats to be considered.  However, “Manchester United will win the league” is a definite statement of certainty and expectation. Advertisements make heavy use of modal verbs to sell their products without making claims that leave them open to legal difficulties. ‘Wrinkles can be reduced by up to 50%’ is a possibility of smoother skin that sells the product without over-promising.

Modality may also be conveyed by the use of adverbs. The famous example of “Probably the best lager in the world” steers Carlsberg away from litigation, whilst selling its product as a high quality one – “the best” is what resonates. Other adverbs making clear possibility, obligation and emphasis are: generally, maybe, perhaps, possibly, probably, promisingly, obviously, certainly, clearly and definitely. Again the range from least to most certain shows a continuum of expectation.

A document that is succinctly entitled Evidence Summary is a bold statement: the reader would expect to see certainty of claims, anchored in a secure evidence base and/or data providing concluding proof. However, an examination of the use of language in this particular document reveals a distinct hedging when it comes to the claims being made, in this case an attempt to underpin the government’s policy decision to recommend face coverings for secondary school classrooms.

Below are examples of how the document is using modality to avoid claiming any certainty for its evidence base:

  • ‘Face coverings can contribute to reducing transmission’. This is a general statement about the possibility (but not certainty) of masks helping to reduce viral spread.  There are two qualifiers in that clause: one is ‘can’: the author does not want to make a definite claim; the other is ‘contribute’: there are no claims that in and of itself masking is going to achieve a positive outcome.  This is an introductory comment and sets the tone for hedging, cautious claims and caveats. The same statement opens the main body of the text.
  • The reader is informed that the mode of transmission of the virus can be via droplets, aerosol particles and by contact. It is curious that, two years into the science studying the virus, that ‘can’ needed to be added.  A more definite statement such as ‘transmission occurs through’ would convey a more authoritative stance. Note again that possibility is being claimed not certainty. There are 17 uses of the modal verb ‘can’ revealing that this evidence submitted is peppered with a significant level of uncertainty and hedging of claims.
  • Could is used nine times. An example of this is, ‘Using a different maximum weighting threshold could result in slightly different results’. This is an alarming disclaimer for the validity of the claims provided as evidence.  ‘Could’ like ‘can’ distances the author from taking responsibility for a definite view or position.
  • We are further informed that masks ‘may further reduce risks of longer-range airborne transmission’. The term ‘may’ also indicates a possible but not a certain effect. There are 15 uses of the term ‘may’.
  • There is even less certainty in the document concerning how the Omicron variant is transmitted.  We are told it might show more airborne transmission (the reason for recommending masks now). When ‘might’ is used it is indicating guesswork.  The author is saying we simply don’t know and we have to signal that.

Modality and uncertainty are also conveyed through the use of adverbs as indicated above. An example is contained in this sentence: (researchers) ‘could explore expanding the time-period under study to potentially yield more precise estimates’.  Potentially is another term which pulls back from providing a more assertive claim for an outcome.  Moreover, this is only one of the three examples of the limitations of the evidence in that sentence: ‘could’ is used as prevaricator avoiding being drawn into a commitment to obtaining more concrete data (for the precise estimates – which in themselves, as estimates, are predictive not determined).

There are 42 uses of modal verbs and 18 uses of adverbs on the low certainty spectrum (as explained above). Why is the government presenting its findings in a tenuous and circumspect manner? Modality of language can be tracked in the methodology and findings of its ‘research’ but, more importantly, we can see the limitations of the research itself, which obliges the authors to also limit the claims they can present as evidence.

We learn from the research design that:

  • To evaluate the efficacy of face masks in schools they examined attendance rates, with no compelling rationale for this perceived correlation being offered.
  • The data collection period was from two separated out weeks in October 2021 which included some missing data.
  • They candidly state that it is a ‘preliminary, experimental analysis, which would benefit from robust external peer review to a longer timescale’.
  • They further cast doubt on their findings when they acknowledge that the results may not have any statistical significance as the differential is within a chance outcome.
  • They did not isolate the variables to be sure that face coverings were the determining factor in lowering absence rates. Further they state the study did not draw data for long enough time periods and different methodologies would have yielded different results.
  • The schools categorised as mask wearing ones were not a homogenous group in terms of their defined use.  Some used them only for communal areas and some for classroom use too but they were not differentiated for that within the categorisation.
  • Other variables such as Local Authority guidance and implementation and local rates of cases and infection were not considered.
  • The raw results showed that non-masking schools had a significantly lower absence rate and it was only after modelling that a positive outcome was found. The authors concede that using different assumptions for this modelling, different “weighting thresholds”, could result in different results.
  • They advise that a more robust study would go onto consider community COVID-19 case rates, regional data (LA, information on LA wider response to COVID-19, etc), other characteristics of pupils (proportion of pupils with SEND, etc) and any information on differential use of face coverings and would offer more reassurance about the validity of this evidence than they can currently provide.
  • They found that absence rates in the control group (unmasked) remain lower overall than those in the treatment group (masked). This is a surprising admission towards the end of the report.
  • The researchers consulted other studies.  This research method would normally give more validity to the findings, in terms of the triangulation of data with their own.  However, they had to acknowledge that the results from those were inconclusive, ‘mixed’ and the majority were observational studies, with only 2 RCTs, neither involving schools.
  • No data was available on Omicron: the variant of the virus for which the recommendations were being brought in to address.

The qualifications and caveats above reveal the report is at best a tentative proposal, which has not been subject to the usual quality assurance procedures before publication. The research design points to an insecure hypothesis between mask wearing and attendance rates which was neither explained, tested beforehand nor validated after. The methodologies did not keep the variables stable and therefore did not isolate the variable (masks) they were expecting to be able to analyse and base the claims upon. The results did not provide a secure evidence base to form a compelling case for recommending face coverings.

With these limitations in the research study, a reader would expect to see, as indeed is clear, a report sewn together with tenuous arguments, circumspect claims and qualified results and recommendations. The only way to compose such a report is prolific use of modal verbs and adverbs as indicated above.

Yet the harms of wearing face coverings in educational settings are openly stated in the report and couched in more definite measurable claims and certainty of language:

  • 80% of pupils reported that wearing a face covering made it difficult to communicate, and 55% felt wearing one made learning more difficult.
  • Wearing face coverings may have physical side effects and impair face identification, verbal and non-verbal communication between teacher and learner.
  • Almost all secondary leaders and teachers (94%) thought that wearing face coverings has made communication between teachers and students more difficult, with 59% saying it has made it a lot more difficult.
  • Research into the effect of mask wearing on communication has found that concealing a speaker’s lips led to lower performance, lower confidence scores, and increased perceived effort on the part of the listener.
  • Meta-cognitive monitoring was worse when listening in these conditions compared with listening to an unmasked talker.
  • A survey of impacts on communication with mask wearing …. reported that face coverings negatively impact hearing, understanding, engagement, and feelings of connection with the speaker.
  • People with hearing loss were impacted more than those without hearing loss. The inability to see facial expressions and to read lips have a major impact on speech understanding for those with hearing impairments.
  • The WHO reports that “the wearing of masks by children with hearing loss or auditory problems may present learning barriers and further challenges”.

Note the more certain arguments (some with precise percentages attached) in the above for the harms of mask wearing and especially for children. There are far fewer modal verbs used and the claims are, in the main, unambiguous: ‘were impacted’, ‘negatively impact’, ‘was worse’, ‘led to’. ‘made worse’, ‘more difficult’. The evidence for the harms of face coverings is measurable, precise, unambiguous and certain and the language used for presenting the evidence base, is equally unequivocal.

It would seem that Nadhim Zahawi’s promised ‘material’ evidence for his recommendations for face coverings in secondary classrooms is as flimsy as some of the cloth masks our teenagers will need to resort to using, as they do their best to cope with the challenges of learning in 2022.

In conclusion, perhaps we should ponder on the one piece of data expressed as a precise statistic, which might be driving this new guidance, namely: ‘71% of UNISON support staff thought face coverings in schools were an important safety measure’. If our Education Secretary has sacrificed children’s learning and social communication opportunities in schools, to appease Trade Unions, he will have to provide much more compelling evidence that schools are in any way unsafe for children or staff than he currently has. He has stiff opposition in the form of 150 comparative studies, peer reviewed with robust research, which come to the very definite and certain conclusion that, “to date, the evidence has been stable and clear that masks do not work to control the virus”. There is not a whisper of modality in that concluding statement either.

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

FAUCI’S NEW GOAL: CONTROL

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 13, 2022

Two years into the pandemic, the tired narrative of legacy media & public health authoritarians like Fauci, has almost completely reversed from driving fear of the Covid, to ‘we must learn to live with this virus’. So why have Fauci & Co. made such an abrupt ‘about face?’

January 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Serbia to File 2 More Lawsuits Against NATO Over Uranium Bombing

Sputnik | January 13, 2022

Two new lawsuits against NATO will be brought to the Higher Court in Belgrade on behalf of Serbian victims of the 1999 depleted uranium bombing in Yugoslavia, a year after the first claim over the issue was filed, lawyer Srdjan Aleksic told Sputnik.

The first lawsuit, over 20 years after the bombing, was filed in January 2021. Aleksic was working on material evidence to represent the interests of a Yugoslavian officer with cancer because of the airstrikes.

“On January 20, we are filing two new lawsuits in Belgrade from two victims and we hope that then every month, we will file two or three more [lawsuits]. It takes time and money for the work of an expert in explosives and weapons and a medical examiner’s conclusion. It must be clearly proved that NATO carried out depleted uranium bombings where the plaintiffs were located. It also has to be proved that the plaintiffs’ cancer has been caused by radiation from NATO uranium,” Aleksic said.

NATO could have used conventional weapons; however, it chose to use depleted uranium on the territory of Serbia, the lawyer went on, which will have a detrimental effect on people for many years to come.

“This is a war crime and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must compensate for damage to the Serbian citizens,” Aleksic said.

The lawyer added that last year’s claim was forwarded to NATO headquarters, but so far without acknowledgment of having been received. However, the Higher Court in Belgrade may pass a verdict to NATO even if the alliance does not take part in the proceedings under the Serbian legislation, Aleksic explained.

January 17, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines

Official government disinformation

By Joel S Hirschhorn | January 17, 2022

What our government is telling physicians is just plain idiotic. Read the following in a publication aimed at doctors.

This was just reported:

“Due to the Omicron variant and the short supply of COVID therapeutics, NIH recommends certain therapies over others for patients at high risk of progressing to severe COVID, said federal officials on a call with clinicians Wednesday [January 12].

In order of preference, clinicians should use the oral antiviral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid), the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab, the IV antiviral remdesivir (Veklury) and finally, the oral antiviral molnupiravir, said Alice Pau, PharmD, of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines panel.

While the drugs were ranked from 1 to 4, she noted that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, sotrovimab, and IV remdesivir three times a day all had similar clinical efficacy, with a relative risk reduction of 88%, 85%, and 87% in hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, versus placebo. However, molnupiravir, with its 30% efficacy, should be used only if the other three choices are not available, Pau noted.”

Here are the main reasons why the NIH list of preferred COVID treatments should not reassure the public:

1. The first preferred action, using the Pfizer drug Paxlovid, makes little sense because there is nearly no availability of it. And even if people could get prescriptions filled, would they be acting fast enough to get benefits. In the clinical trials people had to start the drug within three days of symptoms; even though they now talk of starting within five days, that too is totally impractical and unrealistic. Few people would be able to distinguish symptoms being COVID and not the flu or a bad cold quickly, getting an appointment with the doctor quickly and getting a prescription filled quickly. And the safety has not been adequately assessed.

2. The monoclonal antibody sotrovimab is nearly impossible to get because of extremely limited supply. And here too, a sick person would have to get medical attention quickly, that is extremely difficult. Even your local hospital might not have it.

3. The very expensive drug remdesivir has a terrible history of being both ineffective and having terrible side effects. It is mostly given to very ill patients in hospitals.

4. Then you get to the absolutely ludicrous fourth option, the new Merck antiviral that has a terrible level of effectiveness and that has not been proven safe.  An absolutely awful choice.

What is most obscene about what NIH tells doctors is that it still refuses to include ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine as treatment options. It ignores the extremely successful treatment protocols of frontline doctors like Dr. Fareed and Dr. Zelenko that do NOT include any of the four NIH preferences.

What a waste of US taxpayer money on the evil and criminal Fauci’s organization.

Do not trust the government to effectively protect your life.  Public health protection in the US is a disgrace. What NIH is saying is really insulting disinformation.

January 17, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Myocarditis Adverse Events in VAERS

America Out Loud | January 16, 2022

A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, Jessica Rose Ph.D., MSc, BSc, Peter A. McCullough MD, MPH.

Abstract – Following the global rollout and administration of the Pfizer Inc./BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines on December 17, 2020, in the United States, and of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S product on April 1st, 2021, in an unprecedented manner, hundreds of thousands of individuals have reported adverse events (AEs) using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS).

We used VAERS data to examine cardiac AEs, primarily myocarditis, reported following injection of the first or second dose of the COVID-19 injectable products. Myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in youths between the ages of 13 to 23 (p<0.0001) with ~80% occurring in males. Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males. A total of 67% of all cases occurred with BNT162b2. Of the total myocarditis AE reports, 6 individuals died (1.1%) and of these, 2 were under 20 years of age – 1 was 13.

These findings suggest a markedly higher risk for myocarditis subsequent to COVID-19 injectable product use than for other known vaccines, and this is well above known background rates for myocarditis. COVID-19 injectable products are novel and have a genetic, pathogenic mechanism of action causing uncontrolled expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells.

Integrating the temporal relationship of AE occurrence and reporting, biological plausibility of cause and effect, and the fact that these data are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical data (UK Yellow Card and EU EUDRA systems, published case series), it supports a conclusion that the COVID-19 biological products are deterministic for the occurrence of myocarditis observed after injection.

Journal Pre-proof

References:

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264

https://www.truthforhealth.org/patientguide/patient-treatment-guide/

January 17, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »