Alex1Powell Categories Science
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
"NO LONGER BEST IN THE WORLD"
UNEP's new Human Development Index includes a new (separate) index: Planetary pressures-adjusted HDI (PHDI). News in Norway is that its position drops from #1 to #16 because of this, while Ireland rises from #2 to #1.
Why?
https://t.co/aVraIEzRfh
Check out Norway's 'Domestic Material Consumption'. Fossil fuels are no different here to Ireland's. What's different is this huge 'non-metallic minerals' category.
(Note also the jump in 1998, suggesting data problems.)
https://t.co/5QvzONbqmN
In Norway's case, it looks like the apparent consumption equation (production+imports-exports) for non-metal minerals is dominated by production: extraction of material in Norway.
https://t.co/5QvzONbqmN
And here we see that this production of non-metallic minerals is sand, gravel and crushed rock for construction. So it's about Norway's geology.
https://t.co/y6rqWmFVWc
Norway drops 15 places on the PHDI list not because of its CO₂ emissions (fairly high at 41st highest in the world per capita), but because of its geology, because it shifts a lot of rock whenever it builds anything.
UNEP's new Human Development Index includes a new (separate) index: Planetary pressures-adjusted HDI (PHDI). News in Norway is that its position drops from #1 to #16 because of this, while Ireland rises from #2 to #1.
Why?
https://t.co/aVraIEzRfh
Check out Norway's 'Domestic Material Consumption'. Fossil fuels are no different here to Ireland's. What's different is this huge 'non-metallic minerals' category.
(Note also the jump in 1998, suggesting data problems.)
https://t.co/5QvzONbqmN
In Norway's case, it looks like the apparent consumption equation (production+imports-exports) for non-metal minerals is dominated by production: extraction of material in Norway.
https://t.co/5QvzONbqmN
And here we see that this production of non-metallic minerals is sand, gravel and crushed rock for construction. So it's about Norway's geology.
https://t.co/y6rqWmFVWc
Norway drops 15 places on the PHDI list not because of its CO₂ emissions (fairly high at 41st highest in the world per capita), but because of its geology, because it shifts a lot of rock whenever it builds anything.
I want to share my thoughts, as someone who has been so alarmed by the so-called "dissident" scientists like Gupta, Heneghan, Kuldorff, Bhattacharya, & Ioannidis who consider themselves brave Galileos unfairly treated by "establishment scientists." I will try not to swear. 1/n
I want to talk about 3 things:
‼️Their fringe views are inhumane, unethical junk science that promotes harm
‼️They complain that they've been marginalized but this is simply untrue
‼️I am sick of people telling me we have to "listen to both sides." There aren't 2 sides here 2/n
These 'dissident' scientists have consistently downplayed COVID-19, urging policymakers not to take aggressive control measures. They claim it is not a serious threat. Gupta even went on TV saying people under 65 shouldn't worry about it!
RECEIPTS
They have consistently argued that policymakers should just let the virus rip, in an attempt to reach herd immunity by natural infection. Kuldorff *continues* to argue for this even now that we have many highly effective, safe vaccines.
We've never controlled a deadly, contagious pandemic before by just letting the virus spread, as this approach kills & disables too many people. In Manaus, Brazil, 66% of the city was infected & an astonishing *1 in 500* people died of COVID-19
If this is true raises the question of why certain (fringe & unethical) views got access to No.10 while others were ignored... https://t.co/A75HrSEqo4
— Prof. Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) December 13, 2020
I want to talk about 3 things:
‼️Their fringe views are inhumane, unethical junk science that promotes harm
‼️They complain that they've been marginalized but this is simply untrue
‼️I am sick of people telling me we have to "listen to both sides." There aren't 2 sides here 2/n
These 'dissident' scientists have consistently downplayed COVID-19, urging policymakers not to take aggressive control measures. They claim it is not a serious threat. Gupta even went on TV saying people under 65 shouldn't worry about it!
RECEIPTS
They have consistently argued that policymakers should just let the virus rip, in an attempt to reach herd immunity by natural infection. Kuldorff *continues* to argue for this even now that we have many highly effective, safe vaccines.
Focused Protection: The Middle Ground between Lockdowns and "Let-it-rip". An essay by Jay Bhattacharya (@Stanford), @SunetraGupta (@UniofOxford) and @MartinKulldorff (@Harvard). https://t.co/T8uLxSFwgh
— Martin Kulldorff (@MartinKulldorff) December 11, 2020
We've never controlled a deadly, contagious pandemic before by just letting the virus spread, as this approach kills & disables too many people. In Manaus, Brazil, 66% of the city was infected & an astonishing *1 in 500* people died of COVID-19
💥💥 Situation Update, Dec. 7th – DNI John Ratcliffe, the bogus science of PCR testing and China’s GMO super soldiers
✅ I cover the bogus science behind PCR testing, explaining from a lab science point of view why no PCR instrument can “quantify” anything,
[M. Adams]
1. whether it’s a coronavirus viral load or the percentage of a food that’s GMO. In fact, literally all the tests currently conducted with PCR equipment are scientifically invalid when it comes to diagnosing illness or determining infectiousness. The sample acquisition used for
2. PCR tests — nasal swabs — aren’t even standardized! (100% bogus junk science).
After covering PCR tests, today’s update then goes into detail about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, pointing out that he will be issuing a report on foreign interference
3. in U.S. elections on or before Dec. 18th. If this report confirms the existence of foreign interference that was capable of altering the outcome of the election, it gives President Trump full justification to declare the election null and void and dispatch military troops
4. to seize all ballots and hold a new count under military authority.
👉 Podcast notes and sources:
The office of military commissions has cleared its calendar for December:
https://t.co/u4nFRiUj8m
US military STOCKPILED Pfizer’s mRNA vaccineBEFORE it was approved by theFDA
✅ I cover the bogus science behind PCR testing, explaining from a lab science point of view why no PCR instrument can “quantify” anything,
[M. Adams]
1. whether it’s a coronavirus viral load or the percentage of a food that’s GMO. In fact, literally all the tests currently conducted with PCR equipment are scientifically invalid when it comes to diagnosing illness or determining infectiousness. The sample acquisition used for
2. PCR tests — nasal swabs — aren’t even standardized! (100% bogus junk science).
After covering PCR tests, today’s update then goes into detail about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, pointing out that he will be issuing a report on foreign interference
3. in U.S. elections on or before Dec. 18th. If this report confirms the existence of foreign interference that was capable of altering the outcome of the election, it gives President Trump full justification to declare the election null and void and dispatch military troops
4. to seize all ballots and hold a new count under military authority.
👉 Podcast notes and sources:
The office of military commissions has cleared its calendar for December:
https://t.co/u4nFRiUj8m
US military STOCKPILED Pfizer’s mRNA vaccineBEFORE it was approved by theFDA
An interesting thing about carp is that they can go into anoxic hibernation and switch to an anaerobic metabolism based on converting glycogen to ethanol.
The waste ethanol is diffused out the gills
https://t.co/V3D1umHf04
Carp can switch over to an anaerobic metabolism and quietly exhale booze until the situation gets better.
They basically evolved the same metabolic pathway as yeast, independently.
In theory, if you spent a few thousand years breeding carp for it, you could use them to make booze.
They'd be enormous, almost entirely glycogen deposits with a fish added as an afterthought.
The really interesting thing about anaerobic carp, is that they can go 4-5 months without oxygen by relying on liver glycogen.
You, a human, have only about 100 grams of glycogen in your liver, about 400 more grams in your skeletal muscles. Call it 500 grams total.
In humans, glycogen is also burned for energy. This is where the marathon runner's bonk comes from: you only have about 2,000 calories worth, and running a marathon burns those 2,000 calories.
The waste ethanol is diffused out the gills
https://t.co/V3D1umHf04
Carp can switch over to an anaerobic metabolism and quietly exhale booze until the situation gets better.
They basically evolved the same metabolic pathway as yeast, independently.
In theory, if you spent a few thousand years breeding carp for it, you could use them to make booze.
They'd be enormous, almost entirely glycogen deposits with a fish added as an afterthought.
The really interesting thing about anaerobic carp, is that they can go 4-5 months without oxygen by relying on liver glycogen.
You, a human, have only about 100 grams of glycogen in your liver, about 400 more grams in your skeletal muscles. Call it 500 grams total.
In humans, glycogen is also burned for energy. This is where the marathon runner's bonk comes from: you only have about 2,000 calories worth, and running a marathon burns those 2,000 calories.
Now, a more technical tweet thread to give updates on the science - which is moving fast. Again, I recommend following @arambaut, @firefoxx66, @EBIgoldman, @The_Soup_Dragon, @pathogenomenick and @jcbarret along with others to stay on the cutting edge of this
Most important has been the paper by the @CovidGenomicsUK consortium on the new variant, here:
(This is super-rapid pre-print on https://t.co/PHmxAcVUoB - other people will pick over this no doubt - but the openness of the data and quality of analysis from this group means this is super solid, and any updates on discussion likely to happen fast)
Two key take aways from this paper for me:
1. There is a big jump in number of changes - too big to be explainable with the natural progression over time. @arambaut and colleagues point out that similar big jumps have happened in immunocompromised patients treated via convalescent plasma + drugs
Most important has been the paper by the @CovidGenomicsUK consortium on the new variant, here:
(This is super-rapid pre-print on https://t.co/PHmxAcVUoB - other people will pick over this no doubt - but the openness of the data and quality of analysis from this group means this is super solid, and any updates on discussion likely to happen fast)
Two key take aways from this paper for me:
1. There is a big jump in number of changes - too big to be explainable with the natural progression over time. @arambaut and colleagues point out that similar big jumps have happened in immunocompromised patients treated via convalescent plasma + drugs
Sorry, Dr. Jha, but you shouldn't confuse medical care with the scientific enterprise. Although the 2 are commonly conflated, they are really distinct. 1/
The goal of science is to acquire knowledge. The goal of medicine is to help the sick. That's a fundamental distinction.
Also, scientists stand apart from their subject matter--as distantly as possible. Physicians, on the contrary, are in "a relationship" with patients. 2/
Of course, medical care should rely on scientific knowledge, but that means that science should be at the service of the patient-physician relationship, not the other way around! /3
Also, scientific knowledge can never be the ultimate arbiter of medical decisions.
First, scientific knowledge is often limited or provisional, especially with a new disease.
Second, for every patient there are myriad circumstances that influence a medical decision. /3
Third, even if excellent scientific knowledge is present, the physician must always judge how it applies to the patient, or whether it applies at all.
Fourth--and most pertinent here--one cannot narrowly limit the scientific knowledge to only RCTs as you do in your statement. /4
The hearings are meant as a questioning of the scientific process
— Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH (@ashishkjha) December 7, 2020
To sew doubt on what we know and how we know it
So a group of us organized a response, which we just posted on our website
It isn't pro or anti hydroxy
Its about the scientific method and why it matters
2/3
The goal of science is to acquire knowledge. The goal of medicine is to help the sick. That's a fundamental distinction.
Also, scientists stand apart from their subject matter--as distantly as possible. Physicians, on the contrary, are in "a relationship" with patients. 2/
Of course, medical care should rely on scientific knowledge, but that means that science should be at the service of the patient-physician relationship, not the other way around! /3
Also, scientific knowledge can never be the ultimate arbiter of medical decisions.
First, scientific knowledge is often limited or provisional, especially with a new disease.
Second, for every patient there are myriad circumstances that influence a medical decision. /3
Third, even if excellent scientific knowledge is present, the physician must always judge how it applies to the patient, or whether it applies at all.
Fourth--and most pertinent here--one cannot narrowly limit the scientific knowledge to only RCTs as you do in your statement. /4
https://t.co/uWmEqLo2Hs
THE MILGRAM EXPERIMENTS
"Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War 2, Nuremberg War trials. Their defence often was based on "obedience", they were just following orders from their superiors."
"Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II."
https://t.co/HzjxIr5KWN
https://t.co/Pqd1v2giaH
"-Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. "
THE MILGRAM EXPERIMENTS
"Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War 2, Nuremberg War trials. Their defence often was based on "obedience", they were just following orders from their superiors."
"Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II."
https://t.co/HzjxIr5KWN
https://t.co/Pqd1v2giaH
"-Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. "