When you listen to math and science, COVID-19 loses its monstrous scariness.
When you listen to math and science, COVID-19 loses its monstrous scariness.
Please, remember that this is a question-everything blog. A thinking blog. A conspiracy blog. If you want confirmation of your beliefs, do go visit the mainstream media. I am still a scientist (social sciences) at heart and I need to know the truth, not the pre-packaged manufactured crap that passes as journalism, etc.
Anyway, If Dr. Kaufman is right, we all have to re-think what is going on. This is starting to look like population control. The old method repeated ad nauseam: Create a problem, wait for the reaction, and come up with the solution, which you had since the beginning. The old propaganda game.
If the virus is a hoax, it is being done at the same time that the entire planet is deploying the 5G infrastructure. That’s antennas every 500 meters in your neighborhood. Something like that. Think about it, if people die because of extra sensitivity to 5G microwave radiation, you can blame COVID-19.
David Icke was deleted on Youtube and (pretentious) Vimeo last week just for making that connection. 5G and COVID.
What’s next? Forced microchipping? Forced vaccinations?
I don’t know where the truth is right now but I will not stop questioning everything. I will especially question anything that comes from the media or the medical /Big Pharma establishment, as the narratives from both are constructed with fake ideologies and fake statistics. For example, what is the leading cause of death in North America? Wrong. Most will answer heart attacks and cancer. Medical error and overdose deaths from legal drugs are the number cause of death in North America. (See John Rappaport)
By the way, I hope these experts are right and that this is another false flag but I am following the rules of isolation like everyone else. The whole situation scares me. The unknown is the worse. Lou
March 24, 2020
* * *
Dr Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology. He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.
What he says:
We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.
[The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.
All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.
What he says:
Politicians are being courted by scientists…scientists who want to be important to get money for their institutions. Scientists who just swim along in the mainstream and want their part of it […] And what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.
We should be asking questions like “How did you find out this virus was dangerous?”, “How was it before?”, “Didn’t we have the same thing last year?”, “Is it even something new?”
Dr Joel Kettner s professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.
What he says:
I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why.
I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to that.
In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000. So maybe that would help to put things into perspective.
Dr John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).
He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.
As a physician, scientist and author he has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, data science and clinical research. In addition, he pioneered the field of meta-research. He has shown that much of the published research does not meet good scientific standards of evidence.
What he says:
Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.
The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.
Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes.
If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.
– “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data”, Stat News, 17th March 2020
Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.
What he says:
Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country. In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.
In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with those who die from the coronavirus.
…there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in 2009. That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it. But what? At that time there was no Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy. The coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.
Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.
– Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020
Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.
What he says:
We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned science journal ‹Science›, which examined the spread in China. This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have occurred without anyone noticing the infection. 90 percent of the deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over 80 years.
In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of every 1,000 people infected. Each individual case is tragic, but often – similar to the flu season – it affects people who are at the end of their lives.
If we close the schools, we will prevent the children from quickly becoming immune.
We should better integrate the scientific facts into the political decisions.
– Interview in St. Galler Tagblatt, 22nd March 2020
Frank Ulrich Montgomery is German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.
What he says:
I’m not a fan of lockdown. Anyone who imposes something like this must also say when and how to pick it up again. Since we have to assume that the virus will be with us for a long time, I wonder when we will return to normal? You can’t keep schools and daycare centers closed until the end of the year. Because it will take at least that long until we have a vaccine. Italy has imposed a lockdown and has the opposite effect. They quickly reached their capacity limits, but did not slow down the virus spread within the lockdown.
– Interview in General Anzeiger, 18th March 2020
Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.
What he says:
The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous than Sars-1. The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak. But that is also an advantage: Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it more dangerous.
You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics. But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.
– Interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine, 16th March 2020
Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. – A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the ‘Investments for the Future’ programme.
What they say:
The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.
This study compared the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries (1.3%) with the mortality rate of common coronaviruses identified in AP-HM patients (0.8%) from 1 January 2013 to 2 March 2020. Chi-squared test was performed, and the P-value was 0.11 (not significant).
…it should be noted that systematic studies of other coronaviruses (but not yet for SARS-CoV-2) have found that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is equal to or even higher than the percentage of symptomatic patients. The same data for SARS-CoV-2 may soon be available, which will further reduce the relative risk associated with this specific pathology.
– “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data”, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 19th March 2020
Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center
What he says:
I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.
– “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?”, New York Times 20th March 2020
Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
What he says:
Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold.
[T]he best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and “run” society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible. With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.
– “Facing covid-19 reality: A national lockdown is no cure”, Washington Post 21st March 2020
Dr Peter Goetzsche is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration. He has written several books on corruption in the field of medicine and the power of big pharmaceutical companies.
What he says:
Our main problem is that no one will ever get in trouble for measures that are too draconian. They will only get in trouble if they do too little. So, our politicians and those working with public health do much more than they should do.
No such draconian measures were applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic, and they obviously cannot be applied every winter, which is all year round, as it is always winter somewhere. We cannot close down the whole world permanently.
Should it turn out that the epidemic wanes before long, there will be a queue of people wanting to take credit for this. And we can be damned sure draconian measures will be applied again next time. But remember the joke about tigers. “Why do you blow the horn?” “To keep the tigers away.” “But there are no tigers here.” “There you see!”
– “Corona: an epidemic of mass panic”, blog post on Deadly Medicines 21st March 2020
Marcos E. García-Ojeda, a professor of molecular and cell biology, answers five questions about viruses.
Editor’s note: The coronavirus, which has claimed more than 51,000 lives worldwide and sickened 1,001,069 most likely originated in bats, most experts believe. From bats, the virus “jumped” to another species, likely pangolins, and then to humans. Why didn’t the virus make bats or pangolins sick? As it turns out, viruses are complicated – in addition to sometimes being deadly.
The family Coronaviridae contains about 39 different species of coronaviruses. Of these, only seven coronaviruses have been reported to infect and cause disease in people. Four coronaviruses cause mild symptoms similar to the common cold, but three coronaviruses cause severe and possibly deadly infections: the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and now, SARS-CoV2, which is responsible for the current coronavirus disease COVID-19.
SARS-CoV2 is a cousin of the coronavirus that caused SARS, having about 79 percent similarity in its genetic makeup. Though similar, these two viruses are not the same, and their disease manifestations are different. SARS was recognized at the end of February 2003 in China. Worldwide, 8,098 people became sick with SARS and 774 died, with the disease having a mortality rate of 10 percent.
MERS-CoV was first identified in Saudi Arabia in September 2012. Globally, MERS-CoV was responsible for 2,494 MERS cases and 858 deaths, with a mortality rate of 37 percent.
The ongoing SARS-CoV2 epidemic and the rate of infection and mortality seem different than both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. As of April 1, the U.S. has 215,344 Covid-19 cases. It seems that SARS-CoV2 is less deadly than the other two coronavirus strains, but it is more contagious.
Aggressive diseases like SARS give rise to epidemics – outbreaks where the number of new cases flares up rapidly in a region. Effective, evidence-based public health measures reduce the number of new patients infected, until these aggressive diseases are controlled. In contrast, an endemic disease is constantly present in a certain geographic region. A good example of an endemic disease is malaria, which is constantly present in tropical regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The 2003 SARS epidemic was controlled by a combination of effective international surveillance methods and local, evidence-based public health measures. International surveillance systems alerted the authorities of the emergence of a novel disease, helping set up guidance for travelers, airlines and crew. It also set in motion a global response that prevented the spread of the disease, and helped the local public health efforts to identify and quarantine infected people. Effectively, this combined response prevented SARS from becoming endemic.
By July 2003, four months from the onset of the outbreak, human-to-human transmission of SARS had stopped.
The majority of new diseases affecting humans are zoonotic, meaning that they originate in wild animals (mostly mammals) and then cross over to people. Among mammals, bats have a higher number of zoonotic viruses. These viruses might cause mild to no symptoms in bats. People and animals interacting with bats (or their urine, feces or saliva) might catch these zoonotic viruses and then spread them to other animals or people.
The trapping of wild animals for pets, food or medicinal purposes puts wild animals like bats in close contacts with other animals and people. That is what happened in the previous two coronavirus outbreaks. In the 2003 outbreak, the SARS coronavirus jumped from bats to civets being sold as food in a market, and then from civets to people. In the MERS outbreak, the MERS coronavirus jumped from bats to camels and from camels to people. As a result of the COVID-19 epidemic, China placed a permanent ban on wild animal markets.
Bats are pretty incredible animals. They are the only mammals that fly. Scientists have linked the genetic modifications associated with flight with beneficial modifications to the bat’s immune system. For example, the bat’s immune system fights viral infections but does not overreact to them, preventing bats from falling ill from the many viruses they have.
The outcome of a virus infecting an animal depends on two general factors: The first is how strong, or virulent, is the strain of the virus. The second is the effectiveness of the infected animal’s immune defenses. Initially, a virus might be highly lethal to animals. Rapidly killing its host is not beneficial to the virus because it limits the virus’s capacity to spread to other animals. Therefore, the virus become less virulent with time. On the other hand, animals sensitive to the virus die quickly, while animals with inherited resistance to the virus survive, passing that resistance to their offspring. This combination of events, over a large period of time, results in an equilibrium where the animal’s immune system is able to control a virus infection without completely eradicating it. In people, this type of equilibrium could be observed with herpes infections.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
There is something the media and the politicos are not telling us. Something does not jive. Let’s throw some science into the equation and see what comes up, no?
March 31, 2020
Below is a video of Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, is an internist, pulmonologist, social doctor, doctor of hygiene and environmental medicine and was for many years head of a health department. From 1994 to 2009 he was a Member of Parliament for the SPD in the Bundestag and their initiator and spokesman of the Enquetekommission Ethics and Law of Modern Medicine. He was also Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health. Now he works as a university teacher in Berlin and Flensburg and on a voluntary basis as a board member at Transparency International Germany. (source)
What he say’s is interesting, given his expertise in the field of viruses and medicine, it really makes you think about some things, and there’s nothing wrong with thinking.
Edited and abridged by Lasha Darkmoon,
with added commentary and must-see video
Progress now means “life getting worse all the time”. We are living in a dangerous world on a giddy-go-round to doom.
Over 180 scientists and doctors in almost 40 countries are warning the world about 5G health risks. These scientists spell it out in a recent letter in response to ‘Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe’:
“We, the undersigned scientists, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation 5G until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)… and has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
If you’re not alarmed about 5G radiation dangers, you should be.
With download speeds up to 20-30 times faster than 4G, 5G promises a new world, including becoming the foundation for self-driving cars while also causing a long list of potential health risks. “5G Cancer” is actually a thing. The cities of Brussels and Geneva have even blocked trials and banned upgrades to 5G out of this concern.
LD: Let me explain briefly for the benefit of beginners.
Before 2G, 3G, and 4G, radio frequencies were benign. This was when we had 1G. A simple landline telephone with wires is the usual example. No health hazards here. You couldn’t get cancer by calling someone on your landline phone — nor would you experience nausea, headaches, anxiety, panic attacks, depression, or the compulsion to commit suicide.
With each upgrade thereafter — from 2G to 3G and then to 4G—wireless communication became increasingly faster and more sophisticated, with proportionately increasing health hazards. It’s now a completely different ball game with 5G technology.
The dangers we now face are truly horrendous, with government and big transnational corporations doing their best to conceal these dangers from us. The reasons for this deliberate deception will become clearer to you after you have watched the 8-minute video at the end of this article and listened to the testimony of one of the world’s most highly qualified and respected authorities on 5G technology. This expert tells us he does not own a cell phone and never has. Confession. I have never owned a cell phone myself, and have somehow managed to survive so far without one.
As the writer of this article notes: “We never worried whether or not our drive-time radio shows would fry our brains. Sadly, once the concept of wireless “G” technology was initiated, we began exposing the global public to frequencies akin to microwaves at 1 billion cycles per second. Humans, animals and the environment have all been at risk for years. While 4G was bad enough, 5G takes the game to a whole new level of insanity.” [LD]
5G (or 5th Generation) refers to the latest advancement in wireless systems. 5G promises to bring larger channels, higher speeds, larger packets of data, exponential responsiveness, and the ability to connect a host of devices from a single location. At the start, 5G networks won’t all work the same. Some will be slow, and some of these networks will be super-fast, but with limited coverage. Eventually, they will form a global grid, unlike anything the Earth has seen.
While it would be fair to assume that 5G technology has been tested for risks, this is simply not the case. There is no compelling data on health risks. When 5G launches, it will be the first actual test on human beings ever performed.
LD: The public, in short, are being used as guinea pigs. They can’t test this new technology on rats for obvious reasons. So they have no other option but to test it on human beings. To quote a friend of mine: “They’ll mop the blood up from the floor later on.”
While 4G’s wavelengths travel along the surface of the skin, 5G’s millimeter waves are more insidious. When 5G wavelengths are emitted, our skin will automatically absorb them, which will naturally cause the skin to rise in temperature. Already live in three countries, 5G is the first global electromagnetic radiation test on human beings in the history of Planet Earth. While most wireless industry executives kibosh the long list of legitimate 5G health concerns, most scientists believe that the public is in danger and that further tests are needed.
The launch of 5G will be similar to turning on your microwave, opening its door, and leaving it on for the rest of your life.
Every cell tower in your neighborhood emits radio frequency (RF) radiation. Radiation causes cancer. By 2021, every city will have 5G towers and cell stations. These devices will be on the top or side of millions of buildings throughout the world. The wireless industry is not just building an infrastructure that provides faster downloads; it’s building a global microwave oven.
Yes, 5G towers and mini-stations are extremely dangerous.
Not only are the shorter millimeter waves more hazardous to human beings, because of the intensity of the technology, but it will also require millions of more mini cell towers than before, potentially one tower per 2 to 8 houses. This means a human being’s RF radiation exposure will not only increase, but it will also exponentially increase within months.
These towers are not only dangerous; they’re lethal. They should be considered a crime against humanity.
— § —
In general, radiation does one major thing to human beings and animals – it destroys our DNA, either by forcing the DNA to mutate or by killing specific groups of cells, all of which lead to cancer.
Here’s what to expect if you experience prolonged exposure to radiation: Nausea, swelling, hair loss, decreased appetite, low energy, general malaise, damaged bone marrow, damaged organs, more infections, confusion, anxiety, panic attacks, crippling depression, suicidal impulses, incapacitation, death.
Besides moving to Mars or the Moon, we are limited in ways to protect ourselves from this dangerous technology. Here are a few ideas to give you a fighting chance:
— Do not live near a cell tower or mini station.
— Purchase an EMF shield, and continue to measure the levels of radiation within 100 feet of your home.
— Eat healthily and take immune-boosting supplements.
— Spend lots of time in the forest.
— Refrain from using your cell phone for long periods, including never keeping your cell phone in your bedroom.
— When traveling with your cell phone, store it in an EMF protective bag.
Professor of Quantum Physics, Heriot-Watt University
PhD Candidate of Quantum Physics, Heriot-Watt University
Alternative facts are spreading like a virus across society. Now it seems they have even infected science – at least the quantum realm. This may seem counter intuitive. The scientific method is after all founded on the reliable notions of observation, measurement and repeatability. A fact, as established by a measurement, should be objective, such that all observers can agree with it.
But in a paper recently published in Science Advances, we show that, in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.
Observers are powerful players in the quantum world. According to the theory, particles can be in several places or states at once – this is called a superposition. But oddly, this is only the case when they aren’t observed. The second you observe a quantum system, it picks a specific location or state – breaking the superposition. The fact that nature behaves this way has been proven multiple times in the lab – for example, in the famous double slit experiment (see video below).
In 1961, physicist Eugene Wigner proposed a provocative thought experiment. He questioned what would happen when applying quantum mechanics to an observer that is themselves being observed. Imagine that a friend of Wigner tosses a quantum coin – which is in a superposition of both heads and tails – inside a closed laboratory. Every time the friend tosses the coin, they observe a definite outcome. We can say that Wigner’s friend establishes a fact: the result of the coin toss is definitely head or tail.
Wigner doesn’t have access to this fact from the outside, and according to quantum mechanics, must describe the friend and the coin to be in a superposition of all possible outcomes of the experiment. That’s because they are “entangled” – spookily connected so that if you manipulate one you also manipulate the other. Wigner can now in principle verify this superposition using a so-called “interference experiment” – a type of quantum measurement that allows you to unravel the superposition of an entire system, confirming that two objects are entangled.
When Wigner and the friend compare notes later on, the friend will insist they saw definite outcomes for each coin toss. Wigner, however, will disagree whenever he observed friend and coin in a superposition.
This presents a conundrum. The reality perceived by the friend cannot be reconciled with the reality on the outside. Wigner originally didn’t consider this much of a paradox, he argued it would be absurd to describe a conscious observer as a quantum object. However, he later departed from this view, and according to formal textbooks on quantum mechanics, the description is perfectly valid.
The scenario has long remained an interesting thought experiment. But does it reflect reality? Scientifically, there has been little progress on this until very recently, when Časlav Brukner at the University of Vienna showed that, under certain assumptions, Wigner’s idea can be used to formally prove that measurements in quantum mechanics are subjective to observers.
Brukner proposed a way of testing this notion by translating the Wigner’s friend scenario into a framework first established by the physicist John Bell in 1964. Brukner considered two pairs of Wigners and friends, in two separate boxes, conducting measurements on a shared state – inside and outside their respective box. The results can be summed up to ultimately be used to evaluate a so called “Bell inequality”. If this inequality is violated, observers could have alternative facts.
We have now for the first time performed this test experimentally at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh on a small-scale quantum computer made up of three pairs of entangled photons. The first photon pair represents the coins, and the other two are used to perform the coin toss – measuring the polarisation of the photons – inside their respective box. Outside the two boxes, two photons remain on each side that can also be measured.
Despite using state-of-the-art quantum technology, it took weeks to collect sufficient data from just six photons to generate enough statistics. But eventually, we succeeded in showing that quantum mechanics might indeed be incompatible with the assumption of objective facts – we violated the inequality.
The theory, however, is based on a few assumptions. These include that the measurement outcomes are not influenced by signals travelling above light speed and that observers are free to choose what measurements to make. That may or may not be the case.
Another important question is whether single photons can be considered to be observers. In Brukner’s theory proposal, observers do not need to be conscious, they must merely be able to establish facts in the form of a measurement outcome. An inanimate detector would therefore be a valid observer. And textbook quantum mechanics gives us no reason to believe that a detector, which can be made as small as a few atoms, should not be described as a quantum object just like a photon. It may also be possible that standard quantum mechanics does not apply at large length scales, but testing that is a separate problem.
This experiment therefore shows that, at least for local models of quantum mechanics, we need to rethink our notion of objectivity. The facts we experience in our macroscopic world appear to remain safe, but a major question arises over how existing interpretations of quantum mechanics can accommodate subjective facts.
Some physicists see these new developments as bolstering interpretations that allow more than one outcome to occur for an observation, for example the existence of parallel universes in which each outcome happens. Others see it as compelling evidence for intrinsically observer-dependent theories such as Quantum Bayesianism, in which an agent’s actions and experiences are central concerns of the theory. But yet others take this as a strong pointer that perhaps quantum mechanics will break down above certain complexity scales.
Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits.
(CNN)Authorities in China have approved a drug for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, the first new medicine with the potential to treat the cognitive disorder in 17 years.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
Oliver Sacks, the “neurological philosopher”, did a “different sort of medicine on behalf of chronic often warehoused and largely abandoned patients.” It combined art and science. Lawrence Weschler, in How Are You, Dr. Sacks?, says Sacks was from “the period before the science and the humanities split apart”.
But they didn’t just “split apart”. They were torn apart. Weschler doesn’t name the ideology responsible.
It didn’t convince everyone. Some saw through it, especially in the global South. Like Sacks, they wanted to know persons. Sacks had the “audacity to imagine that there might in fact be ongoing life persisting deep within those long-extinguished cores.” A nun at Little Sisters in the Bronx said: “Everyone who reads his [clinical] notes sees the patients differently …. Most consultants’ notes are cut and dried, aimed at the problem with no sense of the person …. With him the whole person becomes visible.”
European philosophers separated science and the humanities. They invented the “fact/value” distinction, between what is and what ought to be. They said knowledge of the latter doesn’t exist, or might not exist. Cuban scholar Armando Hart says anyone who cares about global justice in the 21st century should notice the damage done to the world by European philosophy. He meant liberalism. It denied truth – or at least put it in doubt – about humanness.
It made sense for those who defined humanness.
Sacks called himself a “clinical ontologist”. His science was about being, but not in the abstract. He meant the being of people, the “living statues” who were the subject of his masterpiece, Awakenings, later a film and a one-act play. He saw their stillness as active. Being as doing. Sacks responded to “philosophical emergencies”. It was part of his science.
There is an expectation in the North that Philosophy is useless, that it is at best a luxury for elite academics who live in universities and speak in complicated ways, only to each other. But Gramsci said that if you don’t understand the ideas explaining ideas, making them plausible, new ideas are ineffective because they are understood in terms of the old, mitigating their effect.
Weschler presents Sacks (affectionately) as odd without naming the ideology that makes him odd. Yet Sacks’ view was not odd.
Tolstoy knew it. Lenin commented that Tolstoy’s ideas were bourgeois but his writing revolutionary. It’s because artists, unlike philosophers, articulate the human condition. And human emancipation is impossible without knowing the human condition.
Tolstoy’s Pierre Bezukhov (War and Peace) reverses the popular myth of instrumental rationality. Pierre “did not wait, as before, for personal reasons, which he called people’s merits, in order to love them, but love overflowed his heart, and, loving people without reason, he discovered the unquestionable reasons for which it was worth loving them”.
Tolstoy calls it “insanity”. Pierre feels love, and as a result, has reasons. He doesn’t have purpose and from that get reasons. Indeed, he has no purpose. He has feeling, which Tolstoy describes as love. Pierre’s feelings explain what matters to him; it is not what matters to him – purpose – that explains his feelings: of energy, for instance, or importance.
In theory, Pierre’s approach is suspect. The 20th century philosopher, Che Guevara, said, “At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love”. The risk is real because love is not rational. Feelings are not rational. Love cannot guide because it is a feeling.
But this is ideology. And Guevara rejected it. He argued against the splitting of mind and body, feeling and intellect, art and science, faith and proof. Moreover, he followed a whole tradition of thinkers, not all revolutionaries, who also so argued. They wanted human, not just political, liberation, and they needed to know what “human” meant. They rejected liberalism because it didn’t make sense.
It doesn’t make sense, and this is known. But it persists because liberal intellectuals like Weschler don’t bother with philosophy. He admires Sacks, and names repeatedly the philosophers Sacks cared about. But he doesn’t do the work Gramsci said is essential to criticism: explaining the ideas that make other ideas plausible, even when they’re not, and it’s known.
It is significant that Pierre comes to his “insanity” after confronting death. He is a prisoner of Napoleon and is lined up to be executed. He watches the young man before him as he is shot dead. He notices how he crosses his leg as he stands, waiting to die. It is an ordinary gesture, but striking in the face of death, precisely for being ordinary.
Pierre expects to die. There’s no storytelling, no generating of meaning “from within” aimed at some abstraction called “self” or “purpose”. Herein lie what Tolstoy calls “unshakeable foundations”.
It’s mental silence: experience of the here and now, without expectations. A quiet mind is the exercise of one’s faculties – to see, hear, touch, smell, remember – without jarring, uncontrollable, mostly illogical mental conversation. Quietness fascinated Sacks.
He didn’t like Sartre’s “uncalmness”, his “chargedness”. Weschler mentions this but doesn’t explain. But we know Sacks didn’t like his own 1960s theory of behaviour because it didn’t account for “peacefulness, enoughness, satiety, repletion.” Sacks wouldn’t have liked Sartre because Sartre’s existentialism can’t handle stillness.
Liberal philosophy generally can’t handle it. It doesn’t fit with the liberal, capitalist “man of action”, the unrealistic individual with “power to seize their destiny”. Philosophers invented the “fact/value” distinction, suggesting knowledge about existence – what is – but not about what it means to be human.
It doesn’t respect science because it doesn’t respect cause and effect. But this is known, intellectually. It’s been argued for more than half a century in analytic philosophy of science. In practise, though, philosophy of science has no effect beyond its narrow specialization.
Sacks did have effect. His effect could be made more useful, though, if its real target were named and fully denounced.
1. And How Are You, Dr. Sacks? A Biographical Memoire of Oliver Sacks (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2019). See review https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/and-how-are-you ↑
After a thorough examination by a team of top-notch doctors, I was recently given some very disturbing news… I was diagnosed with an acute case of stage 4 platonic celebriphilia. In case you don’t know, celebriphilia is a disease where the afflicted have an abnormal and overwhelming adoration of celebrity.
My medical team, which includes Dr Phil, Dr Drew and Dr Oz, tells me that the symptoms of celebriphilia include feeling a false sense of familiarity and intimacy with celebrities which leads to the afflicted projecting an inordinate amount of inappropriate intelligence, wisdom and expertise upon celebrities.
My celebriphilia first manifested itself a few years ago when Academy Award-winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow created her “lifestyle brand” Goop. Through Goop, Gwyneth sold new-age, alternative therapies and devices at exorbitant prices, including “vaginal eggs” that were meant to be inserted into the vagina in order to aid “hormonal balance, and feminine energy.”
After re-mortgaging my home in order to finance the purchase, I bought a dozen vaginal eggs from Gwyneth. Now if you are wondering why I would buy vaginal eggs whose miracle powers were debunked in a lawsuit, especially since I don’t have a vagina, then you obviously do not have celebriphilia.
The way I see it is this: if I had a vagina, I would trust my friend Gwyneth to tell me (and sell me) the right wonder egg to stick into it in order to cure whatever ails me. If I’m going to trust anyone regarding my non-existent vagina, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be the woman who played Pepper Potts in the ‘Iron Man’ movies… that alone makes her an authority in vaginacology.
The same is true of anti-vaccination proponent Jenny McCarthy. Jenny is a TV host and former Playboy model, which is the celebrity equivalent of being a PhD in immunology, which is why I faithfully obey her when she orders me not to vaccinate my kids because they could get autism.
Suzanne Somers starred on ‘Three’s Company’ 40 years ago, which is equal to getting a master’s degree in bio-genetic engineering, and so when, contrary to mainstream medical opinion, she claims that “bio-identical hormone therapy” is the fountain of youth… I trust in Suzanne’s knowledge and wisdom.
You may think my celebriphilia is so severe I need to take some medication to temper it… well… you’d be wrong. Kirstie Alley and her Scientology lord and savior, Tom Cruise, have informed me that psychiatry is a “quack” science and psychiatric drugs are dangerous. Kirstie was on ‘Cheers,’ where everybody knows your name… and Tom Cruise is… well… TOM CRUISE! So they definitely know what they’re talking about and I trust their expertise implicitly and will remain untreated, thank you very much.
My celebriphilia isn’t limited to just medical questions. The infection has spread to my thoughts on foreign policy and politics too. Thanks to celebriphilia, I now blindly trust in Hollywood to tell me what to think. When Hollywood churns out star-studded, pro-war, pro-empire propaganda films and TV shows that have their scripts controlled by the Pentagon in exchange for military equipment, personnel, access and budgetary relief, I absorb the indoctrination unquestioningly.
We celebriphiliacs only get our news from rebellious comedians like John Oliver, Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert, and believe in every establishment talking point they sell us. I wholeheartedly put my faith in these second-rate hack comedians desperate to stay in the good graces of their corporate overlords to tell me the unvarnished truth.
As a celebriphiliac, I get all my insights regarding Russia from Rob Reiner, who is an expert because he played Meathead on the 1970’s sitcom ‘All in the Family.’ When Meathead tells me that we are at war with Russia because they stole our election in 2016, I treat his anti-Russian proclamations with all the respect it deserves.
To get my political opinions, I go to all the top experts… Robert DeNiro, Matt Damon, Bruce Willis, Brie Larson, Alec Baldwin, Tim Allen, Angelina Jolie, James Woods, Chris Evans and George Clooney. Sometimes these experts have conflicting opinions on political matters, like maybe Bruce Willis and Alec Baldwin disagree on tax policy, or Tim Allen and Chris Evans have opposing thoughts on immigration. In order to resolve these deeply troubling quagmires, I do the logical thing and choose what I believe by siding with the celebrity who has the most Twitter followers.
Luckily for me, I am not alone in being afflicted with celebriphilia, as it is a raging epidemic in America. Here in the US we adore our celebrities so much we actually vote them into high office. In the last 40 years alone, we have elected a senile, bad B-movie actor, Ronald Reagan, and a silver-spooned, D-list reality TV con-man, Donald Trump, to the presidency.
In my state of California, the epicenter of the celebriphilia epidemic, we have elected a sex-abusing, steroid-injecting, movie star, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to two terms in the governor’s mansion; and the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea elected Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, to be mayor 25 years before he berated an empty chair at the RNC convention in 2012.
We American celebriphiliacs not only forgave these men for their shortcomings, we also imbued them with a wisdom, competency and expertise they did not possess, all because of their status as celebrities.
You may think that because I suffer from celebriphilia and treat celebrities like experts on things well outside their skillset, that I am insane. If the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results,” then considering the level of corruption, incompetence and malevolence on display by “real” establishment experts in government, Wall Street, Big Pharma and the media over the years, be it in regards to 9-11, WMDs and the Iraq war, the housing bubble and ensuing 2008 economic collapse, the 2016 election, Russiagate and the opioid epidemic, then listening to, believing in, or trusting in these “official” experts is equally as insane as buying vaginal wonder eggs from Iron Man’s wife, Pepper Potts.
The bottom line is this: I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, but I have seen other people play them on TV, and I am a certified celebriphiliac, which I think qualifies me to make a formal diagnosis of what ails celebrity-obsessed, and expert-addled America. After careful study and deep thought, I have come to this conclusion: contrary to popular opinion, America is not losing its mind… just like me, it has already lost it.
Last year, a researcher from Shenzhen dropped a news bomb, announcing that he had successfully altered the genes of newly born twin girls. This shocked the scientific community, as genome-editing is frowned upon in many countries, being considered unethical and potentially harmful not only for the individuals affected, but also future generations.
Spanish researcher Juan Carlos Izpisua’s team has managed to produce the first-ever chimeras of a human and monkey in their laboratory-based in China, biologist at the Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM) Estrella Nunez, who worked with him, told the Spanish outlet El Pais. The scientist is reported to have injected human stem cells into the monkey embryos to grow organs for transplantation.
Researchers from UCAM and the US Salk Institute for Biological Studies reportedly genetically modified monkey embryos to inactivate the genes necessary for forming organs and injected human cells that are capable of generating any type of tissue.
However, they did not allow any monkey chimeras with human cells to be born, but interrupted the pregnancies. Nunez and her fellow researchers have not revealed any further details ahead of publications in international scientific magazines, but called the results “very promising”.
According to Izpisua, his team carried out “the world’s first experiment on chimeras of humans and pigs” in 2017, which did not have much success. As his co-author from Argentina, Pablo Ross, explained to El Pais, “human cells contributed to the development of the chimera embryo very little”.
However, the outlet points out that the team earlier managed to create chimeras of mice and rats. It used the CRISPR genetic editing technique to eliminate genes necessary for the development of the heart, eyes, and pancreas in mouse embryos and inserted rat stem cells instead. However, these chimera embryos were also aborted before the “14-day red line”. This limitation was set internationally for such experiments in order to prevent the embryos from developing human central nervous systems, which takes more than two weeks.
The team was not the first to produce such embryos, as research led by Japanese biologist Hiromitsu Nakauchi from Stanford University already did this back in 2010. His group generated mouse pancreas in rats and transplanted them into mice, thereby reversing diabetes. The scientist points out that although the National Institutes of Health of the United States does not support the research of human-animal chimeras, the Department of Defence and the Institute of Regenerative Medicine from California do.
The recent study on monkeys, in turn, was largely funded by the Catholic University of Murcia. While in Spain such experiments are limited to studies on terminal diseases, Nunez revealed that they opted for China to carry out the monkey experiments as they cannot be conducted in Spain due to a lack of infrastructure.
China made news in the scientific community after Shenzhen researcher He Jiankui said in an interview with the AP news agency last year that he had successfully altered the genes of twin girls in order to prevent them from contracting HIV. He later announced that there is “another potential pregnancy” involving a second couple. As the news agency Xinhua reported, he has “privately” organised a project team involving foreign staff and using “technology of uncertain safety and effectiveness” for illegal human embryo gene-editing.
If you love drinking sugary drinks, you should definitely read this. The artificial sweetener that’s used to add flavour to the diet drinks and sugar-free products isn’t safe for consumption.
According to a study in Archives of Public Health by the University of Sussex, the reassurance that was given in 2013 stating that aspartame is safe for consumption by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) consists of considerable flaws.
The new study has revealed that EFSA completely disregarded the results of every single one of the 73 studies (out of 154) that said aspartame consumption is harmful, stating it was unreliable.
Since 1974, aspartame (or Nutrasweet as it is commonly known) which is seen in sugar-free products like sodas, gums etc, is known to cause damage to brain, lung and liver cancer, brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders.
Professor Millstone, a University of Sussex expert on food chemical safety policy and one of the authors of this study is seeking suspension of authorisation for sale and consumption of Nutrasweet in the EU, till the independent re-examination and tests don’t prove its safety for consumption.
He said in a statement, “Our analysis of the evidence shows that, if the benchmarks the panel used to evaluate the results of reassuring studies had been consistently used to evaluate the results of studies that provided evidence that aspartame may be unsafe then they would have been obliged to conclude there was sufficient evidence to indicate aspartame is not acceptably safe.
He further adds, “This research adds weight to the argument that authorisation to sell or use aspartame should be suspended throughout the EU, including in the UK, pending a thorough re-examination of all the evidence by a reconvened EFSA that is able to satisfy critics and the public that they operate in a fully transparent and accountable manner applying a fair and consistent approach to evaluation and decision making.”
He believes that the drastic contrast in the findings could be due to a conflict of interest by commercial brands, who would have been affected adversely if Nutrasweet was indeed banned from consumption.
So until it is properly proven otherwise, it is highly advisable for you to stay away from sugar-free consumables.
“We are not saying (anti-depression medication) doesn’t work. But the studies that have been done are often of poor quality and it’s therefore difficult to say anything about the effect of antidepressants,” said Asger Sand Paludan-Müller, a Ph.D. student and one of the co-authors of the analysis, as cited by Videnskab.
Previous studies show that the medication is effective but don’t really quantify exactly how much more effective they are than a placebo or alternative treatments. In their recent meta analysis, the Danish researchers highlight pervasive positive selection bias, inadequate reporting of side effects as well as systematic distortion of results in up to 79 percent of the studies analyzed.
“Our argument here is that the uncertainty is so great that we think we should be saying that we don’t actually know for sure.”
In many cases within the meta analysis, previous researchers had stated a number of goals prior to conducting their studies but would then omit negative results and only focus on the goals achieved without mentioning where there were shortcomings, greatly inflating the apparent effectiveness of a given medication.
There were also repeated failures in double-blind tests, generally considered the highest standard of medical research, as both patients and doctors could quickly tell whether a placebo had been administered or not due to the appearance of side effects.
“When you experience side effects, it is easy for the subject as well as for the researchers to guess that you get medication, and then it is not blind,” explained lead author Klaus Munkholm.
The researchers suggest more in-depth analysis and new and better studies into the treatment of depression using so-called active placebos, which mimic side effects to a certain degree to guarantee that studies remain double-blind.
“If we do not and just choose to say that we now believe that the medicine works, then we do not find out how to make better trials and perhaps create a better treatment,” Munkholm concludes.
July 13, 2019
When AI isn’t busy taking our jobs, it’s making brand new scientific discoveries that our clunky human brains somehow overlooked.
Researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory trained an AI called Word2Vec on scientific papers to see if there was any “latent knowledge” that humans weren’t able to grock on first pass.
The study, published in Nature on July 3, reveals that the algorithm found predictions for potential thermoelectric materials which can convert heat into energy for various heating and cooling applications.
The algorithm didn’t know the definition of thermoelectric, though. It received no training in materials science. Using only word associations, the algorithm was able to provide candidates for future thermoelectric materials, some of which may be better than those we currently use. –Motherboard
“It can read any paper on material science, so can make connections that no scientists could,” said researcher Anubhav Jain. “Sometimes it does what a researcher would do; other times it makes these cross-discipline associations.”
The algorithm was designed to assess the language in 3.3 million abstracts from material sciences, and was able to build a vocabulary of around half-a-million words. Word2Vec used machine learning to analyze relationships between words.
“The way that this Word2vec algorithm works is that you train a neural network model to remove each word and predict what the words next to it will be,” said Jain, adding that “by training a neural network on a word, you get representations of words that can actually confer knowledge.”
Using just the words found in scientific abstracts, the algorithm was able to understand concepts such as the periodic table and the chemical structure of molecules. The algorithm linked words that were found close together, creating vectors of related words that helped define concepts. In some cases, words were linked to thermoelectric concepts but had never been written about as thermoelectric in any abstract they surveyed. This gap in knowledge is hard to catch with a human eye, but easy for an algorithm to spot.
After showing its capacity to predict future materials, researchers took their work back in time, virtually. They scrapped recent data and tested the algorithm on old papers, seeing if it could predict scientific discoveries before they happened. Once again, the algorithm worked. –Motherboard
As one example, researchers fed publications from before 2009 into the algorithm and were able to predict one of the most effective modern-day thermoelectric materials four years before it was actually discovered in 2012.
The technology isn’t restricted to materials science either – as it can be trained on a wide variety of disciplines by retraining it on literature from whichever subject for which one wants to provide a deeper analysis.
“This algorithm is unsupervised and it builds its own connections,” said the study’s lead author, Vahe Tshitoyan, adding “You could use this for things like medical research or drug discovery. The information is out there. We just haven’t made these connections yet because you can’t read every article.”
The identity of Apidima 1 could also cast doubt on other archaeological finds from Europe, such as stone tools with no accompanying fossils. Researchers had long assumed that within a certain time window, “any archaeology was all the work of Neanderthals,” says Wragg Sykes. But if modern humans also occupied this “safe range,” which species actually created those artifacts?
These interpretations depend on the dating of the Apidima skulls, which has always been difficult. They were found in an odd place—a small niche near the cave ceiling, separated from any sediments that could have been easily dated. They were also entombed in breccia, a composite rock made from fragments that have been cemented together. It seems that, as ice ages came and went and sea levels rose and fell, parts of the cave’s interior were flooded and eroded, and both skulls were dislodged from their original resting places. They fell into a cavity and got stuck.
Source: Spirit Science
June 10, 2019
The practice of smudging dates back to prehistoric times, and is still very much in use today worldwide for cleansing everything from dwellings to human spirits. However recent research has shed light on the popularity of this activity, revealing that burning certain plant matter actually clears harmful bacteria.
All Western use of burning herbs and plants for spiritual purposes aside, the activity rests firmly in the sensibilities of ancient cultures in that, historically, smudging was believed to put forth the spirits of various ‘allies’ to provide ease and balance to an individual or group.
In this way, the practice was used to clear spiritual and emotional negativity that has built up in a body or a space.
Of course, there are skeptics who belittle the practice as unscientific and akin to magic.
The practice has a negative association to a form of cultural imperialism, where traditions of dwindling indigenous populations are co-opted by the descendants of those who more-or-less conquered them.
The scientific paper entitled “Medicinal Smokes” and published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology focuses a scientific lens on the practice, which is becoming more and more widely practiced, despite skepticism.
It serves to play against the role that this activity has played in a culturally diverse range of religions and tribal beliefs.
The research study looked into herbal and non-herbal remedies that were administered by the burning of various matter.
The research included information from 50 countries over 5 continents and found that, predominantly, smoke administered medicinally is mostly used to aid lung, brain and skin function. In addition, it was revealed that passive fumes doubled as a sort of air purifier.
The purpose of the study was to see whether or not these medicinal smoke deliveries could be explored by western medicine, because “The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production.”
A follow up paper published in the same periodical, “Medicinal smoke reduces airborne bacteria,” found that the research concluded that, in addition to health benefits, smudging was a powerful antiseptic.
“We have observed that 1 hour treatment of medicinal smoke emanated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri=material used in oblation to fire all over India), on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24 hour in the closed room.
Absence of pathogenic bacteria Corynebacterium urealyticum, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter aerogenes (Klebsiella mobilis), Kocuria rosea, Pseudomonas syringae pv. persicae, Staphylococcus lentus, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. tardicrescens in the open room even after 30 days is indicative of the bactericidal potential of the medicinal smoke treatment.
We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to completely eliminate diverse plant and human pathogenic bacteria of the air within confined space.”
In short, burning medicinal herbs cleared airborne bacterial populations by 94%, and the space was still found to be disinfected a day later. What’s more, a month after smudging, much of the pathogens originally found were still undetectable.
This has profound implications, as modern air quality in the developed and undeveloped world is atrocious, containing up to 1,800 bacterial types, many of them pathogenic. With an increasing deadly array of antibacterial-resistant strains, we’ll need all the help we can get.
Conventional methods of sterilization often employ chemical cocktails that are typically much less effective than purported. Smudging seems to be an effective alternative, while also being natural and safe to use.
In conclusion, the ancient practice of burning powerful herbal material may be much much more than just a primitive belief that we can simply disregard due to it being unscientific.
Of course, this should not take away from the properties of smudging in the area of energy system and soul cleansing and in the power of aromatherapy.
New research suggests Canada’s Arctic is the warmest it has been in 10,000 years — and the temperatures are still climbing.
The study was recently published in the scientific journal Nature Communications.
Researchers studied permafrost samples in the Yukon near the Dempster Highway and determined that temperatures in the Arctic today are almost 2 C warmer than at any time in the past 10,000 years.
The temperatures recorded today are even higher than the previous highs believed to have occurred during the early Holocene period, about 9,900 and 6,400 years ago, when Earth’s axis was tilted more strongly toward the sun, the report states.
Duane Froese, a professor at the University of Alberta and a co-author of the study, suggests that time period may actually be much longer.
“I would guess we’re getting back over 100,000 years since we’ve seen temperatures at least this warm,” he said.
This study adds to the growing research showing dramatic warming in the Arctic.
Last month, the UN released its environment report on the Arctic, which describes scenarios where Arctic winter temperatures increase by three to five degrees by 2050 compared to 1986-2005.
Another study, published earlier this week, suggests the Arctic will no longer look the same, with greening tundra and warmer winters.
“The Earth is getting a lot warmer a lot faster,” Froese said. “We don’t seem to have any great political will or mechanisms to slow the rate of change.”
But people living in the Arctic are already taking action.
The Vuntut Gwich’in First Nation in Old Crow, Yukon, is set to declare a state of emergency due to climate change as they watch the effects unfold firsthand in their community. That includes rising temperatures, less snow cover, warmer winters and thawing permafrost.
Froese says these effects will only continue, especially as the permafrost melts, which may happen more slowly or less dramatically than melting glaciers.
“Permafrost behaves a bit different,” Froese said. “It has all the insulation of the vegetation and soil on the surface of it that slows the penetration of heat into the ground.
“Particularly in the western Arctic, we’re starting to see big, big changes from those warmer temperatures and melting permafrost.”
(Natural News) A crackpot theory no more, scientists from Massachusetts Institute of Technology just revealed they now possess the technology to beam voices into your head. For years , the mainstream media has been poking fun at anyone who actually believed the “powers that be” are desperately trying to usurp control over humanity — but some of the latest technological developments are clear indications that a totalitarian regime is brewing on the horizon.
At long last, scientists are now revealing the first wave of technology that could soon be used to bring the world at large to its knees. In 2018, we saw warnings of “pre-crime” policing systems come to pass, and video surveillance technology become more and more advanced.
Now, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers say they have developed the technology necessary to beam voices right into your head. What could go wrong?
Scientists from MIT have found not one, but two ways to transmit sounds directly to an individual’s brain via laser beam. A paper on their exploits was published in the journal Optics Letters in January 2019.
In a press release, researcher Charles Wynn said, “Our system can be used from some distance away to beam information directly to someone’s ear.”
“It is the first system that uses lasers that are fully safe for the eyes and skin to localize an audible signal to a particular person in any setting,” he added.
As Futurism reports, a material’s absorption of light can actually produce sound waves. This is called the “photoacoustic effect,” and both methods of sound-beaming technology rely on it to transmit tones, music and recorded speech via laser.
The MIT scientists used water vapor as their “material.” One of their chosen techniques was to “sweep” a laser beam at the speed of sound. By changing the lengths of the sweeping motion, they were able to “encode” different sounds.
As reported by Futurism:
This technique allowed them to transmit sound to a person more than 8.2 feet away at a volume of 60 decibels — about the loudness of background music or a conversation in a restaurant — without anyone between the source of the sound and the target hearing it.
The scientists also tried adjusting the laser beam’s power to encode a message. The team reported that this method produced a clearer response with lower volume.
It is no surprise that proponents of this new technology are already promoting its virtues to the public. As usual, the powers that be are promising that the voice-beam technology will be used for “good” instead of evil.
While the MIT scientists say they hope to see the technology used to assist in dangerous situations, researcher Ryan M. Sullenberger disclosed that they also plan on commercializing their tech.
“We hope that this will eventually become a commercial technology. There are a lot of exciting possibilities, and we want to develop the communication technology in ways that are useful,” Sullenberger commented.
This voice-beam technology could be very useful for a variety of purposes — but that doesn’t mean it will be used for things that are “good” for the average person.
While this voice-beaming technology is an undeniably impressive feat, the fact remains that there are probably more “bad” uses for this technology than “good.” MIT researchers say it can be used by authorities to communicate covertly in delicate situations — perhaps during a school shooting event, they propose — but beyond a select few instances, it’s hard to imagine how mass commercialization of this technology is going to be possible without putting the freedom and privacy of the public at risk.
This kind of technology sets the stage for a number of unintended consequences — whether it’s having advertisements sent directly to your brain, or full-blown mind-control, it is painfully obvious that in the wrong hands, voice-beam technology can be used for a number of corrupt purposes.
See more coverage of the latest developments in mind control technology at MindControl.news.
Sources for this article include: