Observed Decrease in U.S. Child Mortality During the COVID-19 Lockdown of 2020

July 10th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Overview: Death certificate data, corrected for recent under-reporting, reveals a 10-20% decrease in weekly deaths compared to seasonal norms commencing in early March, 2020. This date coincides with the widespread closing of public schools. It is hypothesized that a decrease in traffic accidents is the most likely explanation for the decrease, a conclusion which would be confirmed from detailed analysis of the death certificate data.

I had previously blogged on the caution needed when analyzing the death counts from death certificate data compiled by the CDC. The most recent weeks always have under-counted totals because it takes weeks to months for all of the death certificates to trickle in and be counted. Use of the data without knowing this can lead to false conclusions about recently declining death rates. I outlined a simple method for doing a first-order correction of the data based upon the number of additional death reports in each successive week, a method which I use here.

The CDC data report weekly deaths in three age groups: less than 18 years old (“child”), 18-64, and 65 on up. The data are updated weekly, and the data online extend back to week 40 in 2015. I examined the death totals for the under-18 year old group versus the totals for the 18-and-older (combined) group. (Only those recent reports that were labeled as “100% reporting” were used, but this notation is misleading because the CDC means 100% of the locations around the country had submitted reports, not that all of the reports were complete.)

I removed the average seasonal cycle (2016-2019) from the weekly totals, which show a seasonal ~11% peak in deaths in early January for adults, and a weaker ~6% peak in children’s deaths in early June (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Seasonal variations (%) in deaths (all causes) for adults versus children, 2016 through 2019.

In order to corrected for under-reporting of recent deaths, I used the data from 4 successive weeks earlier this year to correct the most recent 52 weeks of data. Those 4 successive weeks yielded average week-to-week adjustments which accumulated to 16.5% under-reporting for 1 week previous to latest reported week; 10.4% at 2 weeks previous; 7.8% at 3 weeks; 6.4% at 4 weeks, dropping below 1% at 10 weeks previous, etc.

I then computed the weekly percent departures from the average seasonal cycle for the entire time period (since week 40 of 2015). The results (Fig. 2) show the unusually bad peak in seasonal flu and pneumonia deaths in 2017-18, which as expected results in a larger increase in adults that children.

Fig. 2. Weekly number of deaths as percent departures from seasonal normals, for adults versus children, plotted as a phase space diagram (successive weeks connected by a line).

Note that there is a 10-20% decrease in child deaths beginning in early March, which is when most schools in the U.S closed down. Since the most frequent cause of death in the under-18 age group is auto accidents, it makes sense that the greatly reduced traffic activity during “lockdown” led to fewer deaths.

Of course, the same kind of reduction would be expected in the adult age category, but it is completely overwhelmed in Fig. 2 by the large increase due to COVID-19 deaths, which peaked in mid-April. Since there have been very few COVID-19 deaths in children we more clearly see the reduction in that age group. In absolute terms, a 15% reduction in childhood deaths equates to about 85 children per week. 


422 Responses to “Observed Decrease in U.S. Child Mortality During the COVID-19 Lockdown of 2020”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. barry says:

    What is this article about? I couldn’t tell just by reading it. Keeping kids from school saves their lives? What?

    • Nate says:

      I agree.

      It seems to be trying to distract us from the enormous jump in overall deaths, by highlighting the least affected group, children.

      Reminds me of the focus on the few regions in the world that are not warming.

      • Roy W. Spencer says:

        I’m not implying anything policy-wise. It’s just an interesting factoid from the data.

      • Ron Hayes says:

        Wrong – The Death rate for new cases has dropped dramatically! We are effectively moving towards herd immunity.

        • Rune Valaker says:

          No country is currently close to herd immunity. Deaths per new cases will hardly be as high as in the beginning. But this is partly due to it is now younger groups of the population that are infected and that the health service has both learned a lot, and that there are also a number of medications that have some effect. If you look at the graphs showing when new infections peak, and when the deaths peak, there is a delay of several weeks in the deaths. In many cases, the sickest are on ventilator for weeks before dying.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          One way or another, herd immunity always eventually develops for infectious diseases. Herd immunity does not mean nobody gets it, it means there is no epidemic. The percent of the public that need to be immune for herd immunity to exist depends on the population density and the extent of precautions taken. If precautions slacken, cases will increase according to the R value (number of persons an infected person infects) with the slackened precautions. Case rate will increase until R again becomes less than 1. Do you want herd immunity with masks or without? If there is a vaccine, herd immunity can also be accomplished artificially by vaccination.

          Old people and people with fragile health (co-morbidities) and those interfacing with them should take all precautions to avoid getting the disease (symp.toms or not) including masks and hand washing/sanitizer.

          Here are hot links to US data sources: (delete the in cd-c)
          Deaths: https://www.cd-c.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
          Hospitalizations: https://gis.cd-c.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html

    • ClintR says:

      barry asks: “What is this article about?”

      The article clearly indicates what it is about–facts. But the consequences are people that hate reality will further reveal themselves.

  2. I request an update on the March article on high malaria rate nations and Covid deaths.

    It was the best Covid article I’ve read so far and we wonder if the initial findings held up.

    Does anyone knoe of a good stufy of lupus patiants eho take HQC and their Covid death rate?

    This article is not that clear.

    My only comment is that most doctors think the claimed deaths from ordinary flu are very over stated, based on models, not a list of the deseased patient’s names.

    • Steve Case says:

      Richard Greene at 11:03 AM:

      If you can find your way to the WattsUpWithThat blog and a July 7th article titled:

      Hydroxychloroquine-based COVID-19 Treatment, A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence and Expert Opinion from Physicians’ Surveys

      and scroll down to a comment by A C Osborn July 7, 2020 at 1:47 pm

      You will find a link to an article in Jerusalem Post with this quote near the bottom:

      “Furthermore, Chiusolo told the Post, the Italian Society of Rheumatology interviewed 1,200 rheumatologists throughout Italy to collect statistics on contagions. Out of an audience of 65,000 chronic lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients who systematically take hydroxychloroquine, only 20 patients tested positive for the virus.”

      I would have put up a link for you but my comments here seem to be censored by some algorithm and I don’t know what it is so, no link and no html and just maybe I can get a comment published.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        steve…”I would have put up a link for you but my comments here seem to be censored by some algorithm…”

        Nothing in general is being censored. There are a few letter combinations that don’t work like d-c and p-t so you have to insert a hyphen, a dot, or something to get it to post.

        The other day I got caught with hard-core for example, and there are the old standby’s absorp-tion and Had-crut. Also, NCD-C.

        Play with the link till it posts, by inserting hyphens, dots, or asterisks between suspect letter combinations. Of course, it helps to begin with ‘Test’, to let us know what you are doing.

  3. Daniel says:

    Alternative explanation would be reduced access to healthcare system saved lifes…
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953608005066

  4. pochas94 says:

    Invites speculation on why the kids were safer during the lockdown than other years. Mine would be that instead of riding around in cars they were staying home and socializing via the internet.

  5. R Rancourt says:

    Nate, Schellenberger!

    • Nate says:

      So an environmental activist feels that Climate Change is now not the biggest environmental problem, and..

      -You guys think he is a climate scientist?? He is not.

      -You guys think his opinion has more validity than that of thousands of other environmentalists? Of course not.

      -You guys don’t tell us what his argument is, but simply appeal to his authority..

      -You guys connect this to Covid???

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”So an environmental activist feels that Climate Change is now not the biggest environmental problem, and..”

        Schellenberger considers himself an environmentalist and has converted from a Greenie alarmist to a skeptic. He now advocated nuclear energy as the cleanest form of energy and an energy with the highest density. By that, he means nuclear energy delivers much more energy per land usage.

        He pointed out that green energy initiatives in some countries would use up half the area of the countries in order to supply the power needs of the country. He is horrified by the current movement toward biofuels which cuts down trees to convert them to fuel, in lieu of coal. It has been estimated that all the trees in North America could only supply the energy needs for a year,

        Despite the dirty factor with coal, it’s energy density is much higher than wood, delivering more energy per volume. Green wood does not burn well and biofuel idiots have taken to adding rubber from old tires to make it burn better.

        Schellenberger is simply tired of the stupidity of extreme environmentalists who he sees as having got caught up in an atheist religious belief system in the Green movement.

        • Nate says:

          He’s right about biofuel IMO. Especially ethanol from corn.

          And Nuclear, though too expensive as an alternative at present.

  6. Perfecto says:

    Interesting data. Thanks. My moral of the story: Kids aren’t scared of paying the safety price to live life, i.e. attend school. The rest of society should be a little more brave, act like adults, and get over its COVID-19 fear. Interventions should focus on protecting the elderly and medically vulnerable. The Trillions in economic damage could have paid for a lot of protective gear. For the rest of us, it is a bump on the road of life.

    • Steve Case says:

      Perfecto,
      The lock down for COVID-19 has nothing to do with COVID-19
      Just my opinion (-:

      • donald penman says:

        We are told in the UK that we face having to wear face mask even though the weekly all cause mortality rate is negative. The computer models obviously claim that there will be millions of deaths in the UK if we do not wear face masks.

        • Rune Valaker says:

          No, I do not wear a mask, but if the trade off for going to the store was to wear a mask, I would have done so. The Donald seems to rather starve than wear a mask. No one wears a mask around here. We solved the problem in March and April, but still practices social distancing, disinfects, and tries to do what the health authorities recommend. That’s the only way to fight Covid – 19 for now.

          “Freedom” seeking rednecks and 3. world presidents is the greatest danger in any society when it comes to fighting the corona. Now people have started to travel abroad on holidays, so I fear a resurgence of new cases in the coming weeks, if the recommendation then is to wear a mask, I will do so. This has nothing to do with being an submissive and obedient citizen, but common sense and a willingness to suppress one’s psychopathic traits.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        steve…”The lock down for COVID-19 has nothing to do with COVID-19 Just my opinion (-:”

        I second your opinion. Politicians tend to take the worst case scenario projected by unvalidated computer models and theorists.

        I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories but sometimes I have to wonder at the suggestions that this covid thing was predicted by Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates. It’s too uncanny to have such people have this information ahead of time.

        Judy Mikovits, who tends to present an incoherent argument, worked for Fauci and was fired by him. She claims there is a connection between Fauci and the Wuhan lab from which covid is claimed to have originated. Apparently US interests are funding the lab and cooperating with them.

        I would not go so far as to claim the virus was planted intentionally but last night I watched a video of a French TV program in which Luc Montagnier took part in a panel. He’s the scientist credited with discovering HIV.

        Montagnier stated that covid seems to be a human manufactured virus. He made that claim based on a discovery of HIV evidence in the RNA of the virus. He thinks that maybe someone was trying to created a vaccine for HIV and it got out of control.

        Although the host pumped him, asking how it got out of the lab, Montagnier would not commit.

        Something smells fishy about the entire debacle.

    • Nate says:

      Wearing a mask seems much easier than wearing a ventilator tube, IMO.

      • donald penman says:

        I will not wear a mask when I go into a shop I will just stop going into shops. I will not be bullied into following the new world order. We have never had a high death rate where I live in fact the death rate for the whole of England is very small and not worth the actions that are being taken. We should stop illegal immigration that is a problem.

      • barry says:

        It’s not about new world order, you ass.

        It’s about being a responsible citizen – a good neighbour. It’s medical, not ideological. And you are being asked to do so very little.

        • donald penman says:

          Who are you tell me what to do you ass. I have told you I won’t be going into any shops so how is that being irresponsible , We do not have a high death rate where I live so you just clear off and keep your opinions to yourself.

        • barry says:

          But I didn’t tell you what to do. At all. You’re just a juvenile being asked to be a responsible citizen and flailing about saying whatever comes into an adolescent mind to assert your supreme egotistical rights.

      • barry says:

        Wait, what? UK death rate has always been low?

        Death rate to date is 15%.

        One of the highest in the world.

        Normally one’s opinions are harmless. But people who scoff at COVID and ignore the medical advice are actually a threat to the health and safety of others.

        Not caring about that is sociopathic. Putting your own opinion above that of medical professionals on what is literally a mtter of life and death is antisocial in the extreme, not to mention a wanton display of indifference to your fellow humans.

        All because you don’t want to cover your mouth. How juvenile.

        • donald penman says:

          huh. You don’t know what you are talking so just shut up. Were the hell do you get these figures we have had hardly any deaths where I live and few were without other factors involved. I am not going to wear a mask.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Death rate to date is 15%”.

          Never mind your obfuscated fudged statistical bs. The NUMBER of deaths is what we want per population, not the rate, which could be dependent on unreliable sources. In the UK, there have been 45,000 deaths out of a population of 66.65 million. That comes to 45,000/65,650,000 = 0.069%. No decimal point error, that’s 6.9 hundredths of a percent.

          The UK government is currently investigating the number due to discrepancies in reporting. The criterion for establishing a covid-related death is absolute bs.

          The UK was following Sweden’s model of minimal intervention till the idiots at the Royal Society released an unvalidated model PREDICTION that the number of deaths in the UK could be in the hundreds of thousands if social distancing, self-isolation, and wearing masks was not imposed.

          I capitalized PREDICTED because an unvalidated model can predict nothing. Here in BC, Canada, they predicted disaster if the social distancing and self-isolation were not imposed. That is a blatant lie with absolutely no scientific evidence to back it. Same applies to the UK. It’s all damned lies.

          Sweden currently has 5,697 deaths from a population of 10.23 million. That’s 5,697/10,230,000 = 0.056%. Sweden is even lower than the UK and they have not imposed self-isolation or killed jobs and/or business.

          We have 8,881 deaths in Canada, most by far on the Eastern part of the country, especially Quebec, out of a population of 37.59 million. That’s 8,881/37,590,000 = 0.0236% but we have completely screwed our economy, with millions losing their jobs and or businesses.

          Here in the province of BC, we only have 180 deaths out of a population of 5.071 million in the province. That’s a very low 180/5,071,000 = 0.00354% but we too have ruined our economy and cost many people their lives and businesses.

          To demonstrate the hysterical effect, we stopped all elective surgery to free up 1300 hospital beds. We have only used 50 beds, all in ICU.

          The province is currently being run by a bean-counting health professional who relies on unvalidated models and advice from so-called experts who have no precedent or evidence upon which to base their advice.

          • barry says:

            Not sure what point you’re trying to make, Gordon.

            One way of estimating deaths from COVID is to set a baseline for average mortality throughout the year in any country and then compare that with mortality in 2020. You don’t have to even establish cause just to find outr whether there is any unusual mortality statistics this year.

            https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/15/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries

            The UK mortality rate is 45% higher than average this year. For some countries the rate is more than twice as high this year coimpared the the mortality statistics of recent years.

            And this data is the most solid you can get for the issue. It’s based purely on the absolute number of deaths.

            UK excess mortality, by the way, is higher than the figure given by the UK heakth ministry for COVID deaths.

            https://tinyurl.com/ycejra7n

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”Wearing a mask seems much easier than wearing a ventilator tube…”

        Apparently, ventilators are now being criticized. Some doctors are advising that the patient be turned onto their stomachs rather than being put on a ventilator. One doctor was adamant about it claiming patients recovered after being re-positioned face-down.

    • Nate says:

      Perfecto,

      “Kids arent scared of paying the safety price to live life”

      Yes, and that is why it has so often been easy to get young people to go off and be cannon fodder in silly wars.

  7. barry says:

    In Australia, it took a few months for the loonies to come out call COVID a hoax. Haven’t had the religious angle here yet, where God is puinishing homosexuals or sinners or whatever, by killing them with the disease.

    • ClintR says:

      Covid is definitely a flu virus. People with weakened immune systems are in danger from any flu, and should take extra precautions. Even with a healthy immune system if you esperience a fever, you should take countermeasures, such as bed rest, extra water consumption, Vitamin C, etc. Beyond that, the thing to fear is the orchestrated panic.

      The panic is unnecessary, and brings in the “religions angle”. Too many people now worship government and bureaucracy, to the point of avoiding reality.

      • Nate says:

        I guess you didnt notice the data and the horizontal axis in fig. 2.

        • ClintR says:

          Sorry Nate, but you’re probably not really “guessing”. If you were really guessing, your percentage of being right would be closer to 50%. That’s the probability. You’re way below that.

          What you are doing is attempting to pervert reality with things like “Oh look, a squirrel”.

          You can’t responsibly address my comment, so you resort to your usual troll methods. That’s why I seldom waste time responding to your nonsense.

        • Nate says:

          “Thats why I seldom waste time responding..”

          Great, calling out your BS for what it is has the desired effect..

          • ClintR says:

            As usual Nate, you attempted to pervert reality. You misquoted me. Here’s the correct quote:

            “That’s why I seldom waste time responding to your nonsense.”

            Attempting to pervert reality is one of the reasons you’re an idiot.

      • barry says:

        Why are you talking about panic?

        COVID is a serious disease, worse than the flu. More conatagious and more deadly. What did Trump say? 50 000 deaths a year in the US from flu? Four months and the US has 130 000 deaths from SARS CoV2.

        It’s serious. No need to panic, but playing it down certainly doesn’t help. We’ve seen the results of that already.

        • ClintR says:

          barry now attempts to deny there is a panic!

          Yet he’s fully convinced Covid is much worse that an average flu. And with most hoaxes, he’s got the “data” to back up his false beliefs. He likely won’t mention that the death figures have been seriously manipulated, with examples of people dying in car wrecks considered Covid deaths!

          Covid testing is a joke. The accuracy is about 50%, at best. About half ot those testing “positive” are “asymptotic”, likely meaning the test result was wrong.

          barry will dismiss this as just being “anecdotal”, but it’s worth sharing: Joey Gallo plays for the Texas Rangers baseball team. He has now been “tested” 4 times for Covid. Twice he tested “positive”, and twice he tested “negative”. He has no symtoms.

          https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2899822-rangers-joey-gallo-unsure-he-had-covid-19-after-conflicting-test-results

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            You are wanting others to accept reality or science. Rather than asking others you should try to do this for yourself. You make false claims and peddle them as truth. You are a contrarian who will oppose things for the sake of opposing them. Not rational, not logical, not scientific not realistic. Just oppose to oppose. If you had a cloudy day you would tell everyone that there was not a cloud in the sky. It is what you are and it is what you do.

            You are not at all scientific. You have no interest in seeking truth or understanding anything. You just come here to oppose things. I guess it is your own form of entertainment.

            When you posted the totally false made up statement:
            YOU: “He likely won’t mention that the death figures have been seriously manipulated, with examples of people dying in car wrecks considered Covid deaths”

            If you were honestly seeking the truth you would have researched this false point and not posted it as if it were true.

            The reality you oppose is this. Something you will reject as real.

            https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/verify-conspiracy-that-covid-19-deaths-are-being-inflated-doesnt-add-up/507-41f555ea-c051-423d-8f06-209d34aa5636

          • ClintR says:

            Norman, are you claiming you can’t find the evidence I mentioned?

            “Can’t”, or “don’t want to”?

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            There is no evidence of your false claim. Someone made it up and posted it on Social Media and it went viral.

            You keep making stuff up, then when it is investigated you throw out a pointless comment.

            You are under the burden of proof with your deceptive comment. You stated it as a fact. You need to provide you facts. I provided evidence that your claim is bogus. Now it is up to you, Mr. Reality, to prove your claim.

            My claim is you are a contrarian that is not interested in the truth. You will oppose things just to do it. You will post bogus material and act as if it is factual if it satisfies your contrarian mind.

            I do not expect you to provide real evidence of your claim.

          • Norman says:

            ClintR

            Your Fox link does not even come close to supporting your false claim. If you think this supports your irrational claim (that car accident victims are counted as a Covid deaths) you are not very rational and lack critical thinking skills.

            Maybe you are clueless of what proof is. You would have to pull up an actual factual article showing that victims in a car crash were recorded as Covid deaths to be added to the statistics.

            If you read my article, it explained that Doctors and Coroners are using best judgement as to the cause of death based upon their experience and knowledge. The cases they get wrong would not be hugely exaggerated nor would any include car crash victims.

            Can you do better or is that all you have available and think this is “proof”.

          • ClintR says:

            I found 4 links but decided to only provide one to see if you were serious or not.

            You quickly dismissed it, indicating you’re not interested in reality. You’ll pick apart anything that conflicts with your false religion. You’ll type for a week to pervert reality, as you did with the Moon issue.

          • barry says:

            “Clint,”

            You have no idea what you are talking about.

            There is not a shadow of a doubt that the death rate from COVID19 exceeded the higher range death rate from flu in the US a couple of months ago.

            Mortality statistics are much more solid than the infection case numbers. No one who is marked as deceased from COVID does not have the disease, nor are people included who die from something clearly unrelated to the disease. Check the C.D.C for guidance.

            Antibody tests have a high failure rate – for false negatives.

            The vast majority of tests making up the case statistics are the swab tests. They have a mean fdailure rate of 15% false negatives, and rare false positives.

            Do you know what that means?

            It means the testing is undercounting actual infection rates.

            Get out of the blogs and the sensationalist media, out of the conspiracy wacko forums and read the original medical reports, and the news from medical sources.

            It will help you to stop spouting bullshit. Maybe.

          • ClintR says:

            “barry”, you are blinded by your false religion.

            Both the case rate and death rate have been exaggerated. The methodology of recording deaths is flawed, just by C-D-C guidelines. Testing is very inaccurate, with false positives exceeding false negatives. So when tests are increased thousandfold, guess what? False positives are increased thousandfold, hence the “spikes” we are seeing.

        • Nate says:

          “And with most hoaxes, hes got the ‘data’ to back up his false beliefs. ”

          You see Barry, when you have facts and data, Clint/JD/G the-almost-physics-minor and his ilk just declare it is fake.

          Thus his nutty ideas can never be falsified. They share that nice feature with religion.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate doesn’t have to make sense. Just as long as he can make some nonsense comment, he feels good.

          • Nate says:

            Its not nonsense because you actually are claiming the data that proves you wrong is fake, dimwit!

  8. Perfecto says:

    Even with the seasonal variation removed, there is a general negative correlation between adult and child mortality (Fig. 2). For COVID-19, reduced traffic-fatalities in kids are a plausible explanation. But what about the other years?

    Maybe the answer is in the seasonal graph (Fig. 1), which also has this negative correlation. More extreme seasons might cause a larger discrepancy between kids and adults. But why? Snow days are probably safe for kids but cause heart attack in adults who shovel. Is that a big effect?

    • barry says:

      Low mortality from pther causes is no suprise, seeins as lockdown and social distancing serves to minimise harm from other things aside from COVID. Regular flu incidence will also be way down for the same reason.

      • ClintR says:

        Translation, the lockdown prevented deaths except for those from Covid.

        (False religions are amazing. Devotees will claim anything to keep their beliefs going.)

      • Nate says:

        Not sure why Clint still hasnt learned what we’ve known for 500 y or more. That isolating people keeps infectious diseases from spreading and mortality lower.

      • Nate says:

        Clint is simply unable to manage the subtlety of Barrys points

        that COVID is quite deadly, AND that the lockdown has reduced its mortality.

        Both are quite valid.

  9. CM says:

    there was a study not too long ago that found that heart related deaths decreased when cardiologists were out of town at the national convention. it was possibly caused just by riskier procedures and high-risk patients delaying needed surgery until they got back, but interesting still.

  10. CM says:

    (I meant that comment to be a reply to Daniel above about reduced healthcare visits)

  11. donald penman says:

    We will never have “herd immunity” in the the UK because the number of cases are so low my best option is to stay away from everyone for the next six months while people are entering the UK without quarantine restrictions, masks are useless.

  12. Mike from Plymouth says:

    For those who watch the TV show Gold Rush in an interview with one of the cast members, Chris, he was asked why he cut a hole in his mask for his cigar. His answer was: If someone passes gas and you can smell it through a pair of underwear and jeans, do you really think a mask is going to protect others from you? Perhaps, he has a point.

    • Nate says:

      Funny, but I wonder how big a fart molecule is?

      I reckon about 100 x smaller than COVID virus.

      Best not to get science/medical advice from reality TV stars.

      Case in point DTrump.

      • Mike from Plymouth says:

        Ouch 🙁 Don’t be so negative, don’t be so political, maybe take the outlook of Chitetsu Watanbe recently passed away in Japan at 112. His advice for longevity “keep smiling”.

    • ClintR says:

      Cutting a hole in his mask for his cigar!

      Priceless!

      Love it.

  13. donald penman says:

    If there is no attempt my some to create a “new world order” then why do the UK police stand back and allow antifa and climate extinction to vandalise our city’s and help immigrants to cross the English channel. I don’t feel like I should wear a mask in Supermarkets or shops while all this is going on.

    • Nate says:

      Donald, connecting those things is quite a stretch.

    • Rune Valaker says:

      So you think punishing your older relatives and neighbors by exposing them to risk of corona infection is an adequate response to your dissatisfaction with the police’ priorities and efforts. The Donald emerges as a pioneering and great socio-political thinker.

      • ClintR says:

        Rune takes us on their usual guilt-trip.

        They believe opposing their nonsense is harming the elderly, or children, or destroying the planet.

        What actually does the harm is avoiding science and reality.

        • Rune Valaker says:

          Is it a pure coincidence that the countries that have climate “skeptics” as presidents (Trump and Bolsanero,) and ignore science regarding climate, also performs worst in the fight against Covid – 19

        • Rune Valaker says:

          An appropriate dose of guilt on the part of the citizen is exactly what is needed to establish a well-functioning society. The main characteristic of psychopaths is the inability to feel guilt.

          • ClintR says:

            And if they don’t have that “dose of guilt”, they are psychopaths and should be jailed?

            The Leftist dream….

          • Rune Valaker says:

            If you believe decent behavior between citizens is a leftist dream, and don’t know what science Trump and Bolsanero are ignoring, either it’s climate or Covid – 19, you are immune to advice.

          • ClintR says:

            You weren’t able to say what science is being ignored, but that’s okay. I didn’t expect you could.

            Here’s what’s going on:

            There is no definitive evidence that this is any worse than any other bad flu. It is being hyped so much by the media, that things are out of control. There are people that want it to remain out of control. The “spiking” is due to more testing. But, the testing is inaccurate. Positive results are reported way too often, where the person has zero symptoms. Yet, the person shows up in the statistics as a “case”, upping the numbers.

            About half the population, maybe more, is unable to figure it out for themselves. They are being led by the media. Many, including the rioters, don’t want truth. They’re happy with tearing everything down.

            Hold on to your hat. Things are likely to get worse before they get better.

          • Rune Valaker says:

            I have no need to hold on to my hat. I have the privilege of living in a first world country with a first world bureaucracy and a first world goverment where Covid 19 has not been politicized, with the exception of a small fringe of the regular gang, about the same clowns who believe that more CO2 does not heat the surface and that AGW is a hoax. Our politicians listened to the professionals and largely followed their advice and it has largely gone well. Here most things, including the economy, starts to get going again, and daily life is almost as normal. What is happening in the United States worries me for several reasons. It is deeply tragic that such a well-functioning country in such a short time seems to have become a banana republic where one even manages to politicize Covid 19 along party lines. There no longer seems to be a strong power able to defend Western fundamental democratic values and humanism. Trump has accelerated China’s takeover by 15-20 years.

          • ClintR says:

            Well Rune, you’re unable to say what science is being ignored, but you sure able to espouse your opinions.

            No science, all opinions.

          • Svante says:

            ClintR says:
            “Well Rune, you’re unable to say what science is being ignored”.

            Perhaps if you read it again:

            Rune Valaker says:
            “the same clowns who believe that more CO2 does not heat the surface and that AGW is a hoax.”

            That’s you ClintR.

          • ClintR says:

            Svante, we know you’re an idiot but surely you know the difference between opinions and science?

            Obviously not.

          • Svante says:

            You’re describing yourself again.

          • ClintR says:

            Svante’s false religion fails him again. So he resorts to lame, juvenile attempts to insult.

            When he reaches bottom, he will lash out with indecent profanities.

            Cultists are so predictable.

          • Bindidon says:

            I read somewhere above:

            ” There is no definitive evidence that this is any worse than any other bad flu. ”

            And such poor-minded, ignorant people speak about others’ “false religion”, naming them “idiots”.

            Wow.

            The main factor to compare viral effects is the ‘case fatality’, i.e. the ratio: total deaths / total cases.

            The seasonal flu has in the USA a case fatality of 0.1 %.

            Worldometers’ COVID-19 report for USA on July 13, 20:30 GMT+2:

            Cases: 3,454,906
            Deaths: 138,030

            This means a case fatality of 4 %, i.e. 40 times more than the seasonal flu.

            Basta ya!

            J.-P. D.

          • Svante says:

            Bindidon, you can’t use the Worldometer’s numbers like that.
            They are not homogenized.

            This German study puts the probable fatality rate at 0.24-0.26%.
            https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/

            There is also the question of T-cell immunity.

            I think we need to wait for the science.

            I’m near ClintR’s opinion.
            Oh dear!

          • barry says:

            We have enough statistics to see that COVID has a higher mortality rate than seasonal flu.

            Straight deceased statistics are much more solid than mortality by case number, because the number of infected is very uncertain (probably much more, which would drive the mortality/infected down).

            The estimated mortality for ordinary flu in the US is 50 000 per year in the high range.

            We already have nearly 3 times that number of COVID deaths in 4 months.

            And that is with the most severe measures taken since the Spanish flu to get that number down.

            Anyone who doesn’t recognize that COVID is much deadlier than regular flu is a witless fool.

          • Svante says:

            barry, you’re usually the most skeptical of all here.
            This time I think you are near the borderline.

            The mortality rate is deaths divided by infected, so measures taken might not change that (except for age asymmetry).

            But I agree it’s about three times as deadly as a normal flu.
            That’s enough to saturate the health care system, and if you do the death rates go up.

            Italy reported about 48% of all their Covid-19 fatalities, so you can be skeptical about “straight deceased” too.

          • Nate says:

            Its still difficult to figure out the mortality rate.

            The typical flu year mortality in US seems to be 35000. So 10/100,000.

            If you look at places with very high infection rate-perhaps as much as normal flu, like NYC,

            the death rate was 220/100,000.

            https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

            and 260/100,000 in Lombardy Province, Italy

            https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.20067074v3

            So 22 and 26 x normal flu rate.

          • barry says:

            Svante,

            “The mortality rate is deaths divided by infected”

            That’s one, popular way to measure it, and it is not terribly accurate at this stage (if ever it will be). It’s hard to pin down the lethality of the disease.

            You can also measure mortality rate per capita/per million population. On that measure, COVID is obviously more deadly than flu, irrespective of how contagious etc. A simple fact of far more poeple having died of it in a shorter amount of time than regular flu.

            The particulars of the disease are still very uncertain. For some, this makes them more cautious. For others, it makes them more confident.

            I’m far less cautious IRL than in discussions here. I’m actually quite gregarious. But not with this disease. Because the choices I make might have significant impact on others, I choose to give others some priority in the choices that I make.

          • Svante says:

            Yes Nate, excess mortality (2nd paper) is the way to go.
            Excess mortality during spring in Europe is double 2018, and four times 2019:
            https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/#excess-mortality

            Even if you survive you might never fully recover, so it’s good that you’re careful barry.

          • Nate says:

            “Excess mortality during spring in Europe is double 2018, and four times 2019”

            Ok, but given the unprecedented mandated lockdowns, can’t we assume the rates would have been much higher?

            Clearly the lockdowns worked well in some countries who implemented them early and successfully.

            I assume that the worst affected countries, Italy, Spain, Belgium, UK, had less effective social distancing and higher true infection rates. These countries had ~ 70/100,000 death rate. So 7 x normal flu.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, mortality rate as deaths divided by infected would go up if emergency wards are saturated.

            Lock downs have stopped that. It remains to be seen what the long term total will be.

            I think the main risk is indoors, especially where singing/shouting crowds generate “thermals” that keep droplets airborne, so it’s good to be outdoors.

  14. Bindidon says:

    What matters is not

    ‘ Do we have a decrease in daily deaths? ‘

    What matters is much more

    ‘ Do we have an increase in daily cases? ‘

    because that is the origin of hospital trashing where so many people come there in absolute urgency.

    And currently, if you observe what happens on the whole American continent, it looks like this:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tNObvYI-0GB73BvUNXgbTCPtkUamNj2w/view

    Such a dramatical increase of new cases we had in Europe, starting with mid February. Then lockdowns were stalled, with a few exceptions like Serbia or Sweden:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gu6QDmz4ttqFpqBFmWl_RzjrH0MrMn7C/view

    In the US, manifestly, the right man is missing all the time in the control room to do that, thus the country’s data looks a bit weird, exactly like in Brazil.

    Good luck, USA…

    J.-P. D.

    • Nate says:

      Thanks, hopefully we will soon be able to say ‘You’re fired’ from this reality horror show…

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Number of new cases is practically useless because it includes people with little or no symptoms. Besides, there are about 10 times as many cases as get reported. The meaningful data is number of hospitalizations and number of deaths both of which have been on fairly steady decline in the US since peaks in April.
      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/observed-decrease-in-u-s-child-mortality-during-the-covid-19-lockdown-of-2020/#comment-498036

      • Nate says:

        Neither of those are still declining. Hospitalizations and deaths are up in Florida, Texas, Arizona, and others where cases are spiking the most.

        It does seem that mortality RATE is lower, and there are various guesses as to why.

        -More younger people infected or tested.
        -Higher testing rates.
        -Better care after learning best practices and drugs.
        -Learned how to keep infection out of nursing homes.

        • Rune Valaker says:

          >>>

          -More younger people infected or tested.
          -Higher testing rates.
          -Better care after learning best practices and drugs.
          -Learned how to keep infection out of nursing homes.

          Agree, but some states in the US is now about to run out of available adequate hospital beds, that also happened in Spain and Italy, that was ugly. Many would have survived if they had succeeded in flattening the curve.

    • Bindidon says:

      Dan Pangburn

      Looks like your usual exaggeration about terrestrial irrigation vs. the Oceans…

      Here are the same plots, but for daily death toll instead of cases:

      America

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kBJ1LyZQWVbJYduqrRDP7FuZT_kPWb_Q/view

      Europe (excl. Belarus, Russia)

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jJwdly9-2JDikArTdDHOXlIg5FtKtryi/view

      The America plots show even better than than the European ones that no real decrease is visible there yet.

      But… most people look at case/death toll (either total or daily), and not at case/death toll per million.

      J.-P. D.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Bin,
        I do not exaggerate. If you weren’t too stubborn to look you might be able to follow the analysis that demonstrates that water vapor has been increasing faster than possible from feedback (temperature increase). All it takes is common sense to realize that the oceans haven’t changed much in centuries but irrigation has increased dramatically with the increase showing up in the measured TPW increase of 1.5% per decade. Apparently the ‘consensus’ hasn’t figured this out yet.

        I don’t know where you got your covid data from. Here are the latest from the CD.C:

        US Deaths thru 7 4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HTa7byWfiK-uyR_m-GcfnelMLeV5seoh/view?usp=sharing

        US covid hosp thru 7 4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KBsLdZCJ3_NSEF2Os6q-2Z5oDRkwZBsB/view?usp=sharing

        • Bindidon says:

          Pangburn

          1. I’m far, far less stubborn than you ever might imagine.

          Conversely, you are hopelessly fixated on personal ideas. That’s why you name others ‘stubborn’.

          2. https://tinyurl.com/rewn6ny

          J.-P. D.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Bin,
            I am in relentless pursuit of the truth.

            So what is your excuse for not looking?

          • Nate says:

            Dan,

            If true, then you need to be skeptical of your own theory, and critique it and test it relentlessly.

            I don’t see that happening. We have raised a number of issues about it.

            One is that the Earth surface is already covered by > 70% water. There is plenty of surface water available already to evaporate. Yet RH is not near 100%.

            For instance, there is plenty of evaporation from the ocean, but you still have low RH in deserts, because of the the general circulation of the Earth.

            The irrigation effect on RH could well be just a local phenomena that causes cooling at the surface (see previous article on midwest temp) and additional clouds, rain, or dew nearby, but has little influence on the rest of the Earth.

  15. WandaHardy says:

    Ab aa jao, mai btata hu tumheрџ‘Љрџ’Є

  16. Dan Pangburn says:

    It is prudent for everyone (especially those with limited sun exposure of bare skin and/or with dark skin tone) to take vitamin D. I understand that vitamin D boosts your immune system. I take 5000 IU/day. Extra zinc (maybe 40 mg a couple times a week) appears desirable to reduce the risk of getting serious virus symptoms. It is known to help with another corona virus, the common cold, and is commonly prescribed as part of treatment protocol for covid-19. Also, if I test positive I will start HCQ + zinc immediately (I’m old).

  17. Nate says:

    The current case mortality rate for US is 8%, but clearly that is too high relative to various other countries where it is 2 or 3%, like Germany.

    Worldometer

    Part of that must be as result of not enough testing 2 months ago, and actual rate of infection then was higher. I think most agree with that.

    Now, with more testing we could expect to get a more accurate measure of infection rate and mortality rate.

    • Bindidon says:

      Nate

      I apologise, but… I have to clearly disagree here.

      1. Worldometer never told us about a case mortality rate (CMR) of 8 % for the US: it is today 137730 / 3406209 = 4 %.

      2. Worldometer tells us for Europe a rate of… 8 %. But… Worldometer’s Europe (and ECD-C’s) include Russia (till Wladiwostok) which barely could be interpreted as belonging to it.

      Russia has a CMR of 2 %. If you extract it out of Europe, together with Belarus and Ukraina, Europe’s CMR becomes… 11 %.

      France has with 18 % the highest CMR worldwide, followed by UK and Belgium with 16 %.

      J.-P. D.

    • Nate says:

      8% is deaths/closed-cases for US.

      I think this is better thsn dividing by total cases, since many new cases will not have yet led to deaths.

      • Rune Valaker says:

        I suspect that it is not possible to find a common death rate, but that this will vary between country, health system and the population’s immunity. A contributing explanation for the high numbers in Spain and Italy is that the hospitals there, unlike in Northern Europe, have long had problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria which weakened patients further in addition to Covid – 19. Active research is now underway where the hypothesis is that many are more or less resistant to Covid – 19 because they have previously been infected with other coronaviruses that only caused mild illness, but which have nevertheless had significant protection against Corona – 19. This can vary greatly between people depending on geography, in parts where There has been widespread tourism to the Far East and other parts of the world that have previously had outbreaks of the older coronaviruses, the population will have a higher degree of immunity and vice versa.

  18. Svante says:

    Describing yourself again.

  19. Aaron S says:

    Donald,
    Total death graphs like this one really highlight the distinction between pre Covid deaths and the covid death rate spike. Covid clearly killed a bunch of people in the UK (and US). What I am looking for in the data next is did the spike in Covid-19 deaths reduce future death numbers by killing off people predominantly already near death or are some of these deaths also in addition to background rates. It’s just sad to think how many lives were impacted but the UK data probably holds the answer to understanding future outbreaks in other countries. I suspect there are groups of people more genetically or epigenetically susceptible to the virus as some genetic papers are suggesting- like a gene on chromosome 3 that causes susceptiblity and increases mortality.

  20. Aaron S says:

    Comments are placed at the bottom of section again.

    I will add that in general these death rates of more than 1% represent people that are believing unrealistically high and undefendable data. When antibody tests are used to include asymptomatic people in the equation the rates drop. There is a nature paper showing the 0.5 to 0.9 rate svante cites. So if you believe higher rates, I think you are seeking to confirm an existing belief rather than seeking objective truth. Perhaps this equates to views on global warming also? It would be an interesting survey study to evaluate if the same people see high rates of mortality and global warming.

  21. donald penman says:

    People are spitting out their favourite hypothesis as if they were accurate pictures of reality when they are not. Deaths from covid-19 are falling in the UK and are not rising and we have had the disadvantage compared to many European country’s that we have a high influx of people into this country both from freedom of movement and illegal immigration so we have really done as well as other country’s in controlling COVID-19. The graph that I showed earlier for weekly all cause mortality rates is a fair reflection of COVID-19 deaths and the spike shows the effect on mortality from covid-19 deaths. The negative mortality rate has nothing to do with fewer car accidents or any other thing people can dream up it is just down to fewer COVID-19 deaths OK!

    • Svante says:

      “just down to fewer COVID-19 deaths OK!”
      No, other infections went below normal due to measures taken.

    • Nate says:

      Donald,

      “People are spitting out their favourite hypothesis as if they were accurate pictures of reality when they are not.”

      Perhaps so.

      But then arent you do exactly that here?:

      “The negative mortality rate has nothing to do with fewer car accidents or any other thing people can dream up it is just down to fewer COVID-19 deaths OK!”

  22. Nasty Nate
    The US daily covid death rate was down about 75 percent from the April 2000 peak, the last time I looked. Your statements on a variety of subjects are consistently comfused.

    • Nate says:

      April 2000???

      And??

    • Bindidon says:

      Greene

      ” The US daily covid death rate was down about 75 percent from the April 20[2]0 peak, the last time I looked. ”

      Where, do you think, did it not happen? What a trivial statement.

      Here is a graph with daily DEATHS plots:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PuXJgEqIDzXJu6rQ2WBLfC07T7b-3aKa/view

      And here is a graph with, for the same context, daily CASES plots:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E182KllNved289ico-YjxjUGRTD-G2sR/view

      *
      Why, do you think, Mr Greene, did lots and lots of European hospitals move into trash mode because they suddenly lacked ICU beds, respirators, protective clothes, like in New York?

      Be happy when that doesn’t happen in Texas, Florida, California!

      J.-P. D.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Why, do you think, Mr Greene, did lots and lots of European hospitals move into trash mode because they suddenly lacked ICU beds, respirators, protective clothes, like in New York?”

        Why did we not hear about all this when 25,000 Italians died in the 2016/17 flu season? You did not hear about it because it was spread out over Italy rather than in the Milan area.

        Same with New York. The stats show that Latinos and Afro-Americans are 3 times as likely to test positive for covid and 2x as likely to die of it as Caucasians. NY is loaded with Latinos and Afro-Americans.

        This virus is dangerous to certain people but it has been hyped to death by bean-counters who have awaited the Big One. They are making it the Big One whether the rest of us like it or not.

        The science is disgusting.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Richard…”The US daily covid death rate was down about 75 percent from the April 2000 peak…”

      In April, the US death rate jumped alarmingly from about 500 to nearly 50,000 in a little over a week. There is something very wrong with the way deaths are reported and presumed to be covid-related.

  23. Guy says:

    I challenge the statement that auto accidents are the biggest cause of death in under 18 (1,900). When I checked the data, the majority of deaths are in early life and classified as congenital (5,500) or low birth weight (4,000). Other countries have seen a significant drops in SIDS which has been attributed to a drop in vaccinations in the 8, 12 and 16 week, as well as 1 year age group.

  24. Gordon Robertson says:

    As much as I appreciate Roy’s analysis, what if the data is wrong…completely wrong? What if the tests are wrong, which is more probable than it may seem?

    The CD-C has reported that 40% of all ages testing positive show no symptoms at all. Is that not an indictment that something is wrong with the testing?

  25. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”Worldometer never told us about a case mortality rate (CMR) of 8 % for the US: it is today 137730 / 3406209 = 4 %.”

    More statistical lies. The only true way to ascertain a death percentage per population is to divide the number of deaths by the actual population.

    According to Worldometer the current population of the US is 331,081,677. If your number of deaths is accurate, then the death percentage is 137730/331,081,677 = 0.0416%. That’s 4/100ths of 1%.

    Bs stats like CMR and CDR are misleading and make sense only to bean-counters. There is no need to break stats per population down into groups like 10,000 and 1000 unless who want to make something appear much worse than it is. The truth is that any population in the world has suffered deaths at a number which is a tiny fraction of 1%.

  26. Dan Pangburn says:

    For the week ending July 11, NYT reported 4903 deaths from covid in the US while CD-C reported 338. I wonder who is lying.

    • Norman says:

      Dan Pangburn

      Do you have a source for you post. When I looked up the CD-C information did not have data yet for Week 28th (which is July 6th-July 12th).

      The last listing is Week 27 and they show 905 deaths for that period. That may not be a complete total. CD-C may put out data slower than the paper do to some process.

      https://tinyurl.com/yxue3tdn

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Norman…” When I looked up the CD-C information did not have data yet for Week 28th (which is July 6th-July 12th)”.

        The White House has instructed the CD-C to send the data directly to them. They explain that as getting the data out faster (it took the CD-C a week to process it) but I think they are just tired of the bs numbers coming out of the CD-C.

        They should do the same with NOAA.

        • Svante says:

          Yeah, to see if the 250 year temperature trend turned around last week.

          • ClintR says:

            If all the assumptions, estimates, adjustments and homogenizations were removed, the “hockey stick” would go away.

          • Svante says:

            Not really, it’s confirmed in a hundred ways.
            By UAH for a start. From boreholes to AIRS.
            Even the oceans act like a thermometer.

          • ClintR says:

            UAH doesn’t go back 250 years, idiot.

          • Svante says:

            It’s like radiative heat transfer, it matches whenever you check it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Clint…”If all the assumptions, estimates, adjustments and homogenizations were removed, the hockey stick would go away.”

            Not to mention the bogus tree ring proxies they used. They used one kind of tree from the US, pine tree bristlecone, as a proxy for the 20th century. The National Academy of Science, after an investigation, told them they could not use bristlecone.

            As it stood, the bristlecone started showing cooling as real temps were rising so Mann and the gang snipped off the bristlecone proxy and spliced in real temps (hide the decline).

            Now that Mann got into NAS, thanks to his climate hooligans taking NAS over, he will be working feverishly to abolish the NAS study that essentially destroyed his hockey stick.

          • Svante says:

            His results have been reproduced over and over.
            By dozens of other proxies, e.g.:
            – Boreholes.
            – Chironomid transfer function.
            – Diatom MAT.
            – Foram MAT.
            – Foram transfer function.
            – Ice Core δ18O, δD
            – MBT.
            – Mg/Ca.
            – Pollen MAT.
            – Radiolaria.
            – TEX86.
            – UK’37.

          • ClintR says:

            How many of those sources would also claim that something that cannot possibly rotate about it axis is rotating about its axis?

            Idiots tend to all believe the same.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Nor,
        US Deaths per CD-C thru 7 4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HTa7byWfiK-uyR_m-GcfnelMLeV5seoh/view?usp=sharing (includes hot link to source, add the numbers to get the total per CD-C)

        NYT is from here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html (last day of the week is Sat, the 11th)

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          I can understand why NYT might lie but why would CD-C lie?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dan…”I can understand why NYT might lie but why would CD-C lie?”

            The CD-C have been lying since 1983 when the HIV/AIDS theory was proposed. I am not claiming they are lying maliciously or intentionally, I think the CD-C like many other government organizations are loaded with yes-men and paradigm junkies who have the inability to think through a problem clearly.

            Things they have mislead the public about:

            1)that HIV is a killer virus that destroys immune system cells. The data does not support that theory, even the data put out by the CD-C which shows AIDS deaths are over 90% from two high risk groups: homosexual males and IV drug users. The spread of HIV to the heterosexual community based on theories supported by the CD-C did not happen.

            The damning evidence comes from the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier. He now claims that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and that AIDS (immune system suppression) is due to lifestyle. Peter Duesberg, the youngest member of his time to be inducted into the National Academy of Science, said that in the beginning and as a result his career was ruined.

            BTW…Anthony Fauci of NIAID, who is leading the covid nonsense today, was in this up to his ying-yang. He supported the CD-C.

            2)The CD-C endorsed the tests for HIV which don’t test for a virus.

            3)The CD-C endorsed the use of toxic antivirals to treat people who tested positive for the aforementioned tests. The original antiviral, AZT, was so toxic they stopped using it for chemotherapy. The newer HAART antivirals are still very toxic. The drug companies offer a disclaimer that the drugs will not cure HIV. They list side effects as serious blood disorders, kidney and liver failure, and that the drugs actually cause AIDS opportunistic infections (IRS).

            4)The CD-C began separting AIDS deaths into two categories: deaths from HIV-induced AIDS, and deaths from drug-induced AIDS. That practice gave the impression that the number of AIDS deaths had been reduced by the HAART antivirals, which was a lie.

            5)The CD-C published a photo of the HIV virus which was revealed to be a hoax. No one has seen the HIV virus on an electron microscope and Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, admits he has never seen the virus. All photos of HIV on the Net are either an artists depiction or they are the cells in which HIV is thought to exist.

            In the early days of HIV research, even after redefining strands of RNA found in AIDS patients as being HIV, they could not find enough to work with. Therefore, they developed a method, called viral loading, in which they converted RNA to DNA and amplified it using the PCR method for DNA amplification. If the converted RNA reached a certain level, they proclaimed the infected person positive.

            The scientist who won a Nobel for inventing the PCR method was adamant that PCR could not be used to amplify a virus. That’s the inference with viral loading, even inferring that a virus is being amplified. There is no proof of that and the data since reveals the theory was wrong.

            I need to repeat, Luc Montagnier, who developed the RNA method for identifying HIV, now thinks HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. That means he was initially wrong about his theory that HIV was killing cells in a culture, hence killing immune system cells.

            The implications of this pseudo-science is mind-boggling. It is the basis of the current covid pseudo-science and if the HIV tests were wrong then the covid tests are wrong. The CD-C has already admitted that 40% of those testing positive show no symptoms.

            How likely is it that someone infected with a virus, based on a test, will show no symptoms? And how likely is it that the tests are valid?

            The CD-C continues to perpetuate this nonsense and to me, that is lying, whether it’s intentional or not.

          • Norman says:

            Dan Pangburn

            I went to your link of the graph from CD-C. On that same page they explain this:

            “NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Counts of death occurring before or after the reporting period are not included in the table.

            *Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death.”

          • Norman says:

            Dan Pangburn

            There is a huge delay time for the graph you linked to. Basically no one is lying at all. Just different sources. NYT may use John Hopkins data which is updated daily.

            https://preview.tinyurl.com/y6nkju2c

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nor,
            I had read all that and have started checking the ‘accounting delay’. It looks like it will only be a percent or so. Equally puzzling, a rough check of the areas under the curves (which would be the total count) for both were not inconsistent with the total reported elsewhere.

  27. Bindidon says:

    As usual, Robertson writes his pseudoskeptic trash:

    ” In April, the US death rate jumped alarmingly from about 500 to nearly 50,000 in a little over a week. There is something very wrong with the way deaths are reported and presumed to be covid-related. ”

    Here are the daily reports by ECD-C for the US (cases, deaths, cumul. cases, cumul. deaths), from March, 23 till April, 24:

    8459 131 35140 471
    11236 119 46376 590
    8789 211 55165 801
    13963 249 69128 1050
    16797 246 85925 1296
    18695 411 104620 1707
    19979 484 124599 2191
    18360 318 142959 2509
    21595 661 164554 3170
    24998 909 189552 4079
    27103 1059 216655 5138
    28819 915 245474 6053
    32425 1104 277899 7157
    34272 1344 312171 8501
    25398 1146 337569 9647
    30561 1342 368130 10989
    30613 1906 398743 12895
    33323 1922 432066 14817
    33901 1873 465967 16690
    35527 2087 501494 18777
    28391 1831 529885 20608
    27620 1500 557505 22108
    25023 1541 582528 23649
    26922 2408 609450 26057
    30148 4928 639598 30985
    31667 2299 671265 33284
    30833 3770 702098 37054
    32922 1856 735020 38910
    24601 1772 759621 40682
    28065 1857 787686 42539
    37289 2524 824975 45063
    17588 1721 842563 46784
    26543 3179 869106 49963

    That is the difference between real numbers and what ignorant boasters a la Robertson make of them.

    Who knows nothing doubts about everything.

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”That is the difference between real numbers and what ignorant boasters a la Robertson make of them”.

      You are becoming more of an idiot every day. Do you think you can post garbage numbers without explanation and claim it as fact?

  28. Gregory says:

    Kids have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than dying of covid-19.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/6171829059001/

  29. Gregory says:

    Fact: 80% – 85% of Texas ICU patients are NON-Covid patients. The news media is very misleading on TX.

    TEXAS hospital CEO: COVID inpatient count ‘misinterpreted,’ level of alarm ‘unwarranted:

    Health officials in Texas are logging every single COVID-19-positive hospital patient in the state as a COVID-19 hospitalization, even if the patients themselves are admitted seeking treatment for something other than the coronavirus.

    Part of that trend may be due to liberal coding policies by officials. (More positive cases means more money $ for hospitals)

    The state is categorizing EVERY inpatient in the state with a positive COVID-19 test as a COVID-19 hospitalization.

    The state does NOT keep track of the patients hospitalized with the coronavirus versus those hospitalized specifically because of it.

    The number of hospitalizations are “being misinterpreted,” said a CEO of a major Texas hospital, “and, quite frankly, were concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now.”

    “We do have the capacity to care for many more patients, and have lots of fluidity and ability to manage,” the CEO said.

    He pointed out that his hospital ONE YEAR AGO WAS AT 95% ICU capacity, similar to the numbers the hospital is seeing today. “It is completely normal for us to have ICU capacities that run in the 80s and 90s,” he said. “That’s how ALL hospitals operate.”

    • Nate says:

      “Fact: 80% 85% of Texas ICU patients are NON-Covid patients”

      Source for this ‘Fact’??

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”Source for this Fact??”

        plug this statement from post above into search engine:

        TEXAS hospital CEO: COVID inpatient count misinterpreted, level of alarm unwarranted:

        Do you understand that hospitals can get up to US $39,000 extra per bed for treating covid patients?

  30. Bindidon says:

    Usual nonsensical trash of the ignorant:

    ” Bs stats like CMR and CDR are misleading and make sense only to bean-counters. There is no need to break stats per population down into groups like 10,000 and 1000 unless who want to make something appear much worse than it is. ”

    According to

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#comparison

    the case mortality rate of the seasonal flu in the US (to which that of SARS-COV-2 was said to be equal some months ago) is: 0.1 %.

    USA’s current case mortality is about 4 %: that is about 40 times more than for the seasonal flu.

    Interestingly, the case mortality for the whole Globe is about 4 % as well (for the EU + Norway + Switzerland, it’s way higher).

    But what really counts much more than mortality (be it per case or per capita) is how cases develop.

    Here is a graph showing, since March 1, the weekly running means of the cases per million reported daily for a few European states, the EU, and the US:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E182KllNved289ico-YjxjUGRTD-G2sR/view

    Why it matters you understand pretty good when you compare the graph above with the same graph for daily death reports:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PuXJgEqIDzXJu6rQ2WBLfC07T7b-3aKa/view

    All the rest you can forget: that is what we learned from February till April in Europe…

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”the case mortality rate of the seasonal flu in the US ”

      Again, why are we using bean-counter terminology like case mortality rate? I don’t want to hear their jargon, I want to know how many people have died over the entire US population, which is a tiny fraction of 1%.

      Using CMR makes things look a whole lot worse than they are and I think that is intentional.

  31. Gordon Robertson says:

    svante…”What science?”

    The prevailing pseudo-science since 1983 related to changing the method of identifying a virus using standard means, which requires actually seeing the virus and applying it, to the current method of presuming a virus is there through indirect means.

    The HIV tests were claimed by some to be useless because they were not testing for a virus but for RNA presumed to be a virus (viral loading). That was based on Luc Montagnier’s (he is credited with discovering HIV) inference that something was killing cells in a cu.l.t.ure and he presumed it to be HIV. That theory was broadened to included immune system cells which HIV was claimed to destroy.

    Fast forward 35 years, and Montagnier has changed his mind. He now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and that the immune system has to be compromised by lifestyle before HIV can affect it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Well, guess what, we are still using the lame viral loading method to test for covid positivity. Viral loading depends on the PCR method for DNA amplification and it’s inventor, Kary Mullis, was adamant that his method could not be used to amplify a virus.

      If they were so wrong about HIV testing there is a darned good chance they are just as wrong about covid testing. In fact the US CD-C has admitted that 40% of those testing positive show no symptoms.

      Here’s why I call it trash science. A 40% failure rate would normally mean scientists needed to take a closer look at the test validity. Not the CD-C, they are claiming those testing positive and showing no symptoms are ‘silent carriers’.

      Come on, this is bush league science. When antiviral drugs were causing AIDS symptoms in HIV positives receiving the drug, they came up with the following cockamamey explanation. Since HIV had killed the immune system, AIDS opportunistic infections like hepatitis could not be detected through antibodies. When the antivirals killed off the HIV, the immune system could rebound and voila…we can find the AIDS again?

      Those people should be in jail.

    • Svante says:

      Yeah right, the FDA is fudging thousands of double-blind tests.

      • Swenson says:

        Are they really? Which double blind tests are you referring to?

        • Svante says:

          Not really, Gordon thinks thousands of scientists are conspiring against us.

          • Swenson says:

            Why are thousands of scientists conspiring against us? Are they all in the same field? Can you name one?

            Maybe you are letting your personal feelings divert you.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Gordon thinks thousands of scientists are conspiring against us”.

            I don’t regard it as a conspiracy I regard it as plain stupidity. The Climategate email scandal showed us how climatologists worked behind the scenes to prevent the general public receiving news it should have gotten.

            Perhaps it is a form of mental illness wherein people regard themselves as so important that they feel obliged to manipulate the rest of us into believing their pseudo-science.

            Whatever it is, people like you have been totally sucked into the belief system. Was that a trait acquired from your parents and peers, who encouraged you to follow authority figures without question rather than thinking for yourself?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…”Why are thousands of scientists conspiring against us? Are they all in the same field? Can you name one?”

            conspiracy…a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

            Don’t think it has to be a clandestine secret it’s simply unspoken.

            Check the Climategate emails. You’ll see prominent scientists, by name, conspiring to block and interfere with peer review, conspiring to block skeptic’s papers from IPCC reviews, conspiring to hide declining temperatures and bragging about it, and conspiring to prevent access to a freedom of information request aimed at getting the Had-crut data for independent audit.

            When Peter Duesberg stood up in the face of a massive misinformation campaign about HIV/AIDS and claimed HIV is a harmless virus that could not possibly cause AIDS, there was a massive conspiracy to blackball him. His career was ruined and although he had tenure at his university, he was reduced to taking lab classes.

            I did not see one scientist on the HIV/AIDS side stand up and defend Duesberg’s right to be a skeptic. That’s why I think the entire group are a load of butt-kissing losers, just like their climate alarmist brethern.

            Duesberg has been proved right by the data and by Luc Montagnier who is credited with discovering HIV. Montagnier announced recently that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. The data backs him.

            Forms of conspiracy are all around but not in the form you might think. Universities are governed by paradigms, some of which have long out-lived their usefulness. However, if a grad student does not shut up and questions the paradigm, he/she will be drummed out of that university by simply not being offered a mentor. That action is conspiracy, whether intentional or not.

            There are conspiracies in schools whereby students can be expelled for questioning global warming/climate change.

            You may have encountered it yourself in a group where you suddenly got the silent treatment. Or maybe you were like Svante, who would have butt-kissed himself into the group as a central figure, sniggering at anyone who did not fit in.

      • Nate says:

        Gordon is long-lost down the conspiracy rabbit hole with this one. He has never once been able to explain how deaths from AIDS dropped off a cliff with the development of anti-HIV drugs in the 1990s.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          nate…”He has never once been able to explain how deaths from AIDS dropped off a cliff with the development of anti-HIV drugs in the 1990s”.

          Where did you get that propaganda? Here is a video from David Rasnick who worked for the drug companies designing antiviral drugs. He shows clearly that antivirals do not cure HIV or AIDS and in fact create AIDS in people who did not have it before.

          The video starts slowly, you have to be patient to get at the facts.

          Since 1993, over 60% of the people testing positive for HIV showed no symptoms. Where have we heard that before. Oh, yeah, 40% of those testing positive for covid show no symptoms.

          At the time the antivirals were introduced, the number of deaths from AIDS was decreasing significantly, and when the antivirals were introduced, the reduction stopped. The numbers leveled off indicating that the antivirals were causing AIDS. not eradicating it.

          https://www.dropbox.com/s/akrmiwrv4kai3eo/Rasnick%20RA2009.mov?dl=0

        • Nate says:

          Gordon,

          You are extremely gullible. I got some equally compelling Earth is Flat videos for you to look at.

          These are some of the data Im talking about that you need to explain.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/AIDS_Deaths-US_1987-1997.png

          Note that the 3 drug cocktail treatment that dramatically suppressed the virus, was developed in 1996.

          https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199709113371102

          Unsubstantiated claims that the data are fake, will get you no credit.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”the FDA is fudging thousands of double-blind tests”.

        The US government and other governments are still preaching that 75 mg of vitamin C is adequate for humans.

        Linus Pauling saw it another way. He noted that a 150 pound billy goat made 12 grams (12,000 mg) of vitamin C for itself in a day and that a human made none. It appeared to Pauling that the billy goat knew more about vitamin C than the US government.

        Based on your appeal to authority, you seem to regard the FDA as being infallible. I regard them as more a nuisance factor than a scientific agency.

  32. Swenson says:

    Is the US doing the same as the UK? The UK has been intentionally inflating Covid19 deaths, but the data manipulators have been caught out.

    . . . this meant people who had tested positive for coronavirus and recovered would still be counted as dying from the virus even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.

    Back to drawing board.

    • Norman says:

      Swenson

      Do you have actual evidence to support the claim or does it come from Social Media or blogs? Does anyone have an actual death certificate of someone being hit by a bus that is listed as cause of death the Covid? I hear these rumors. I asked ClintR to provide actual evidence (not from blogs, but real material like a reproduction of a death certificate that shows this) but all he could do was “smoke and mirrors”. He said he had 4 links proving this but he did not post any of them. I am not sure your post is any better. Can you please supply real data, this blog is not Facebook. People will question unsupported claims.

      • ClintR says:

        There you go again, Norma — making up stuff to support your false beliefs.

        • Norman says:

          ClintR

          No I do not think your latest post is at all correct.

          Maybe look at your post:

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/observed-decrease-in-u-s-child-mortality-during-the-covid-19-lockdown-of-2020/#comment-498145

          Read and and point out what I am making up? Your own words? I really can’t follow someone as irrational as you are.

          • Swenson says:

            Norma,

            If you wont believe why the UK Govt has stopped issuing Covid fatality figures, who do you believe? Do you think the UK gov is a hotbed of denialist conspirators? Or maybe they realised the figures were misleading and stupid.

          • ClintR says:

            Norman wants me to point out what he is making up? Then, in the very same paragraph he accuses ME of being irrational!

            That’s why I don’t get in typing contests with idiots. Norman, refuses to accept reality, so he falsely claims I’m the one who is irrational!

            Fortuneately we have the “idiot test”. Once a person is tested and confirmed to be an idiot, there is not longer a need to waste time with him. Norman believes that an object that cannot possibly rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.

            He’s an idiot.

      • Swenson says:

        Norma,

        Read the UK gov. Website. Dept of Health and Social Care. Look at –

        On 17 July, the Secretary of State asked Public Health England (PHE) to urgently review the way daily death statistics are currently reported. Were pausing the publication of the daily figure while this review takes place.

        Read why. You might not be able to understand. Maybe you think you are smarter than the experts.

        • Norman says:

          Swenson

          I looked up some information on your point:

          YOU: “Is the US doing the same as the UK? The UK has been intentionally inflating Covid19 deaths, but the data manipulators have been caught out.”

          It is not what the sources actually stated.

          The reality:
          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-death-toll-nhs-phe-covid-19-government-england-scotland-a9626336.html

          It was an stopping of daily counts to investigate. It did not conclude your allegations, only suggested such was possible.

          From the article: “There have been claims that the lack of cut-off may distort the current daily deaths number. We are therefore pausing the publication of the daily figure while this is resolved.”

          Do you get this? There are claims the data could be distorted, there was not a solid example given of a person hit by a bus being recorded as a Covid Death. That is why they are looking into it, they want the data to be a accurate as possible. It does not mean there is intentional devious manipulation of data to inflate deaths for evil purposes. That is just what is made up, no evidence but I guess if you make the claim it must be true.

          • Swenson says:

            Norma,

            I tend to believe the UK government knows why it is stopping reporting. You can believe anything you read in a newspaper if you wish. Do you believe the UK government doesnt know how Covid deaths are calculated? Why do you think newspaper reporters know more about science than the scientists do?

          • Svante says:

            You can double check reported cases against excess mortality.
            “This will include people who died from covid-19 but were not tested”.
            Here are numbers for Northern Ireland, South West, Wales, Scotland, East Midlands, South East, Yorkshire and The Humber, North East, East, North West and the West Midlands:
            https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/15/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries

        • Swenson says:

          Svante,

          The Economist calls itself a newspaper, not a scientific journal. You show desperation. Heres a hint – anonymous journalists opinions are only worth what you pay for them.

  33. Norman says:

    Maybe this article can help people understand the Covid issue.

    Rather than go to conspiracy blogs for all the latest “proof” of a vast lie and cover-up designed to manipulate the “Sheeple” into docile obedience, maybe read what people on the front-lines dealing with it say.

    I think these people are a much more valid source of data than the Conspiracy blogs where making up things and creative imagination are the only requirement, support and evidence are not needed.

    https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=f185f8b6-a887-4ed2-b60b-d93097bff162

    • Swenson says:

      Norma,

      Rather than depending on opinions in Internet media, why not try science? Try researching scientific papers based on facts (rather than speculation or modelling).

      • Norman says:

        Swenson

        Emergency room stories of death are NOT speculation or modelling. I am not sure what your absurd point is about my post.

        You need to add more information as to your concern. Did you read the article at all or just look at the enewspaper heading and conclude this was modelling or speculation?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Norman…”I think these people are a much more valid source of data than the Conspiracy blogs where making up things and creative imagination are the only requirement, support and evidence are not needed”.

      In the article at your link they are describing a few thousand people worldwide who have reacted badly to whatever is causing this contagion. 99.9999% of population do not react as severely. Only about 5% of those tested in Canada test positive and only a fraction of those end up in ICU.

      Here is BC, Canada, we reserved 1200 beds for such extreme cases and only used about 50 beds for such people. Only 180 out of 5 million people died and unfortunately they were among the most fragile. New York went on a ventilator-buying spree only to have most of them sitting around unused.

      The severity of this contagion has been seriously overblown. The CD-C have admitted that 40% of those testing positive show no symptoms. The same is true of HIV/AIDS. There was a push on recently here in BC, Canada to have all people tested and a local so-called HIV expert behind the push admitted that if all 5 million British Columbians were tested, on a fraction of 1% would test positive.

      Why are we wasting our time with this pseudo-science? Having warned the vulnerable, let the damned contagion run its course and see what happens. I am willing to bet it won’t amount to anything more than a severe flu season.

      As it stands, our democracy is being held ransom because a trivial number of people have reacted badly. Some of them could not help it, like the frail elderly, and some with respiratory problems. However, there are those who have failed to look after their health and have become vulnerable as well.

      A study of covid admissions to New York hospitals, over 1000, revealed that 94% of the people admitted had serious underlying conditions not related to covid. Do we put life on hold for people who are is seriously poor health due to their own lifestyles?

  34. Gordon Robertson says:

    svante…”You’re a dangerous fool Gordon.”

    You are way behind the times, Svante, mired in an appeal to authority.

    Here’s who you are really calling dangerous fools, since I draw on them for my information:

    1)Luc Montganier…awarded a Nobel for discovering HIV. He never did claim that HIV alone could cause AIDS, he thought a co-factor was required. Some 35 years after the fact he now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. His co-factor is lifestyle, he claimed the immune system has to be destroyed before HIV can do anything.

    2)Peter Duesberg…youngest scientist of his time inducted into the National Academy of Science as a reward for discovering the first cancer gene. Also received among other awards, the California Scientist of the Year award.

    Duesberg claimed HIV could not possibly cause AIDS because:

    a)no other known virus could destroy an immune system and no one has ever explained how it could.
    b)no known virus could single out men from women. Initial AIDS research circa 1983 was prompted because in North America, most people dying of AIDS were homosexual males.

    3)Kary Mullis…another Nobelist, awarded the prize for discovering the PCR method for DNA amplification. He tried to find a paper for 10 years that would show how HIV causes AIDS. Could not find one even though he asked Luc Montagnier directly. The scientist who discovered HIV could not point him to a paper that explained how HIV causes AIDS.

    4)Stefan Lanka…a microbiologist who discovered the first virus in the ocean. He does not think HIV exists because no one has isolated it using the standard method, not even Montagnier. The latter admitted he has never seen HIV, a requirement of the standard method.

    The irony here is that covid19 has been identified using the same pseudo-science that was used to identify HIV. The tests for both covid and HIV are based on an inference, not on a virus that has been isolated and purified. Ergo, both tests are useless for testing what they are claimed to test.

    The CD-C has admitted 40% of those testing positive show no symptoms. Duh!!!

    5)David Rasnick…an expert on antiviral drugs. He helped design some of them. He claims it is a sin to give those poisons to HIV positives. He pointed out that if any cancer specialist had put a cancer patient on chemotherapy for life, using a drug designated for chemo such as AZT, the specialist would have been fired and/or charged in court. Yet the rocket scientists treating HIV positives were allowed to put the poor souls on AZT for life.

    Time to wake up Svante.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”Here’s some more names for you to cite:”

        I did not merely cite names, you goof, I cited names of scientists at the top of their fields. I even cited the name of the scientist who is credited with discovering HIV who now claims it is a harmless virus to a healthy immune system.

        To anyone interested in science, even one of those names would be enough to stimulate an interest. You have proved yourself to be a butt-kissing conformist, incapable of understanding even basic science, so it does not surprise me that you have buried your head the the sand of ignorance.

        • ClintR says:

          Gordon correctly characterizes Svante: “You have proved yourself to be a butt-kissing conformist, incapable of understanding even basic science, so it does not surprise me that you have buried your head in the sand of ignorance.”

          Yes Gordon, there appear to be 8-10 here with the same mental deficiencies as Svante. They run from reality. They want to change the laws of physics. They want to claim that something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis.

          People need to see how these types operate. It explains a lot about what is going on in the world.

        • Svante says:

          OK, ClintR and Gordon do not think HIV causes AIDS.
          Anyone else? DREMT is off work, but Gbaikie maybe?

          • ClintR says:

            Medical is not my field.

            But, here’s what I do know. You are an idiot. You believe you can pervert reality. You believe something that cannot rotate on its axis is rotating on its axis. Like Nate, Norman, Ball4, Swanson, bdgwx, and several others, you believe its okay to violate the laws of physics, if you can make up some nonsense.

          • Svante says:

            Well here’s Anthony Fauci’s account of it:
            https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1916753

          • Nate says:

            It seems that when it comes to trolling, Clint is happy to be a mercenary for causes he has no stake in. As long as he can irritatepeople he’s on-board.

          • Norman says:

            Nate

            Yes ClintR is a troll here to annoy and irrate people. They think it is funny. I am taking the advice of DNFTT and learn to ignore posts from this one. If ClintR does try to engage in an actual point I might attempt a comment response. Most the time just best to ignore a post from this one. Trolls move around. If they can’t find someone to annoy they will move to other blogs.

          • gbaikie says:

            I was never was very interested in AIDS.
            And have low opinion of medical field.
            I “respect” them as much as respect fireman and police- though
            tend to think firemen are better “experts” in their field.
            But don’t expect firemen save a house that has fire, more likely
            they save lives than the house and main benefit is they stop your house fire from spreading to other houses.
            I believe medical field kills about +100,000 people in US due to medical errors. One could say they have improved over the centuries, but they aren’t rocket scientists.
            The medical field has had a lot fraud since it’s beginning, and it’s not a science, rather it’s an art.
            I wish they were more outstanding artists.
            They suffer as all people do, from a poor educational system.
            The drug industry is very corrupt, the FDA, probably increases the corruption, rather than it’s job of reducing it.
            No government is doing a very good job, and government infests the medical field. NASA rated as one best run agency, and NASA not doing doing very good job. Their accounting is criminal, but maybe less criminal to most agencies and departments. The FBI should all be hanged for treason. Then just end the FBI and count it as a bad idea. But start by ending the Dept Education, though getting of EPA would be more appealing. The State Deptment is national disgrace- has been for decades, Obama managed somehow to make it even worse. Intelligence agencies, are not close to intelligent. The Chinese have tons of intelligent operation going on in US, not sure if they doing as much damage as US intelligence is doing to US {probably working together}.
            I find it unlikely AIDs will cured in less than 10 years, as doubt the Energy department is going to do anything useful in next 10 years.
            But what find “interesting” is are going to start commercially mining lunar water within 10 years.
            But before that possible have determine if there is any mineable lunar water in lunar poles. NASA for over 20 years has failed at this simple task, and see if they continue to fail by 2024.

            We not doing to all die from climate change within 10 years, but if get rid of the teacher unions within 10 years, that will save the world.

          • Svante says:

            OK, that’s Gordon, ClintR, and a definite maybe from gbaikie.
            A good rendition of the Russian message as well: do not trust your institutions.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    Norman…re your reality.

    A quote from your link:

    “Meanwhile, NHS England, which is separately reporting confirmed deaths in hospitals under its jurisdiction, said on Saturday that a further 13 people who tested positive for the coronavirus had died.

    This brings the total of confirmed deaths in hospitals to 29,173, the body said. The patients are understood to have been aged between 49 and 96 years old and all had known underlying conditions”.

    How many of the reported 29,173 deaths had underlying conditions and why is there such a rush to publish them as being due to covid? It’s the same in the States. The criterion for listing a death as covid-related is very poorly defined.

    And did I mention, in the US, hospitals get anywhere from $13,000 to $39,000 per bed if a patient tests positive for covid, no matter what else that person suffers from, or why that person is in hospital. So a person with a bullet in him with stage 4 lung cancer earns them that range of money per bed if they can show that person has anything related to covid. Of course, if that person dies, the death is marked down as covid-related.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Your posts would be better if you provided some supporting evidence for your claims. When I research your claims (like your HIV claims proven wrong by several thousand actual science studies) they are usually false. Something obtained from some blog unverified blog source.

      You complain NOAA does not use good science but you post unsupported claims all the time and verify very little. If you want to be scientific support your allegations.

      Demonstrate this corruption with some real facts. Provide evidence that Hospitals are so corrupt that they falsify claims to gain money.

      There is corruption in the system and it is certainly possible for wrongdoing but without evidence it is highly dangerous accusations you make.

      That is why Justice requires evidence. If you used your own flimsy evidence on yourself how would you like living in that world? Someone says you killed someone for money. No proof, no evidence but you must certainly done it because you are corrupt. Now because of the allegation you go to jail. Your system is NOT a good one.

      Provide evidence of anyone falsely making claims of Covid deaths that were clearly from other causes.

      Facts Gordon! Science. Unsupported allegations and opinions is a dangerous hobby. It is called rumor-mongering and gossip. It can destroy lives if left unchecked.

      • ClintR says:

        Norman, your posts would be better if you faced reality rather than making up stuff.

        Reality Norman! Claiming something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis is NOT science. Claiming that there is a way to violate the laws of physics is NOT science.

        Avoiding reality is a dangerous hobby.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Norman…”When I research your claims (like your HIV claims proven wrong by several thousand actual science studies) they are usually false. Something obtained from some blog unverified blog source”.

        Once again, the sources I quote are scientists who are recognized as tops in their fields.

        How can you go further up the HIV ladder than Luc Montagnier? He is credited with discovering HIV and has expertise in the field of retrovirology? Even after claiming to have discovered HIV, Montagnier did not claim HIV alone could cause AIDS. He claimed a cofactor was required.

        The problem was in the methodology created by Montagnier to identify HIV. Neither he nor Gallo could identify it using the standard method for identifying a virus which required isolating and purifying the viral particles using a sugar solution which had been pre-graded into diminishing density levels. The cell culture thought to contain the virus is injected into the solution then the mix is centrifuged.

        After the centrifuge process, any viral particles will appear as a dark band in the sugar solution at a specific density level. That material is removed and further processed before being viewed with an electron microscope. If there is a virus present, it will show up as particles of the same shape and size since only particles with the same density can do that.

        Neither Montagnier nor Gallo could reach that stage. There is evidence they both tried the centrifuge method but no evidence they saw anything on the microscope. Montagnier admitted in an interview a few years ago that he has never seen HIV. He admitted to inferring a virus based on strands of RNA found in a cell culture from a person with AIDS.

        Gallo’s lab was working with the Montagnier lab and Gallo was later convicted of scientific misconduct for stealing the virus material from Montagnier. He was pardoned by Clinton. How reliable is a scientist who steals from another scientists then claims that HIV alone causes AIDS?

        Everything known about HIV today in North America comes from the work of Gallo. He holds patents on both HIV tests and as punishment for stealing from Montagnier was forced to split the profits. You and all the others writing the papers to which you referred have been mislead by a scientist who could not find the virus on his own but had to steal it from another scientist.

        This summary at the following link gives some insight into how much scientists were working in the dark and making inferences about a virus that is now called HIV. There is a whole lot of speculation going on with no explanation as to why the virus could not be isolated and purified using the method established at the Louis Pasteur Institute.

        Right at the end, there is a reference to a Barre-Sinoussi. She sat on the LPI panel that defined the method, yet here she is using an unknown technique to infer the virus rather than using the method she helped formulate.

        Why?? Why did Montagnier et al have to infer this virus, why did they not simply isolate it using the standard method?

        https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-11-19-8903130823-story.html

        Stefan Lanka, a microbiologist who discovered the first virus in the ocean has claimed retroviruses don’t even exist. He claims a virus cannot be formed by converting RNA to DNA and that a mistake was made in biology decades a go that persists to this day. That may sound crazy, but it answers the question as to why Montagnier et al could not find HIV using the standard method.

        If Lanka is right, then the current covid virus has not been identified either since it relies on the inference method developed by Montagnier. The science is just plain bad and the tests for covid are as meaningless as the tests for HIV. The tests for both are measuring something but not what they are claimed to measure.

        If that’s true, then the global stats on covid are misleading in a big way. Something is killing a tiny fraction of 1% of populations and something is making people critically ill. However, we have no idea what is doing it.

        Essentially, we have virus-on-the-brain. Anything that cannot be explained medically is investigated as a virus. As it stands, the definition of AIDS now blames tuberculosis on HIV even though TB is known to be caused by a bacterium. Lung cancer is listed as an AIDS infection even though no one knows what causes cancer.

        Dementia is even listed as AIDS, for cripes sake. Have we all gone stark, raving mad? In Africa, wasting syndrome, or slim disease, was known long before AIDS to be caused by malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections. Now it’s claimed to be caused by HIV.

        At least Montagnier does not think so anymore. He is now claiming that HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system. That strongly suggests his original methodology for identifying a virus was wrong because it inferred something was killing cells in a culture. That inference was extended to mean HIV was killing immune system cells hence destroying the immune system.

        If he now thinks HIV is harmless to immune system cells that are healthy it has to mean as well that the original theory was wrong. That also means the basis of the covid theory is wrong.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          YOU: “Once again, the sources I quote are scientists who are recognized as tops in their fields.”

          Sorry you are wrong. Those people are no longer scientists at all, actually opposite of any resemblance to actual science. All those you post as experts are Contrarians. They do not examine evidence and are willing to change their false ideas (like horrible Duesberg).
          They are contrarians who maintain and opposing position just to do it and have people like you worship them as heroes.

          I get tired of wasting my time with a contrarian like you. But I will do it again. I could not care less what a couple of your false prophet teachers say. They are wrong and contrarians.

          Here is the reality that you deny. Why I don’t know. I have linked you to this more than once but you deny evidence on purpose to maintain your false contrarian religion.

          https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk02id0bEjr3sJ6gO88ndLVxi9UEY8A:1595384797724&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=electron+Microscope+images+of+HIV&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3uZfB59_qAhWTHc0KHVcxBOsQsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1024&bih=678

          You will ignore this link and the evidence. It is what you do. Your false prophets are not scientists at this time. They may have been scientists at one time but were taken in by the Contrarian false religion you belong to.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Sorry you are wrong. Those people are no longer scientists at all…”

            You claim the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, and who won a Nobel for his effort, is no longer a scientist? I have always regarded you as a bit of a nutjob, Norman, but this puts you right over the top.

            As far as Duesberg is concerned, it’s obvious that those who opposed him are also nutjobs. They are emotional twits like you who get angry with Duesberg but cannot refute him. Any scientists who get angry at an alternate hypothesis are not scientists. They have conflicts of interest and they get angry because someone is messing with their cash cows.

            I doubt if you’ll ever get enjoyment from science since you have no idea what it is.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You are wrong! Duesberg was proven wrong over and over by many lines of evidence! He has been refuted and proven wrong over and over. If he was still a scientist he would go by the evidence. He is no longer a scientist but a contrarian. He rejects any evidence that refutes his claims (as you do) and continues to oppose just to be a contrarian. It does not matter if someone won a Nobel Prize for an achievement. If they reject evidence they have lost their abilities as scientists.

            Again I linked you to numerous EM images of HIV and you can click on some images to read more.

            Again you are wrong and only support those couple Contrarians because that is what you are.

            No you don’t know science and never will. It is not just proposing alternate hypothesis. It is following the evidence. That is what you can’t do nor can any contrarian.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “As far as Duesberg is concerned …”

            https://tinyurl.com/y3algemq
            “… Scientists also note that HIV-negative drug users do not suffer from immune system collapse.”

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Norman…”Duesberg was proven wrong over and over by many lines of evidence! He has been refuted and proven wrong over and over. If he was still a scientist he would go by the evidence”.

            He did go by the evidence, one of the only scientists who did. He noted that most, by far, people developing AIDS were male homosexuals and he noted that no known virus could tell a female from a male. He also noted that no known virus could destroy an immune system or lay dormant for 15 years before doing so.

            You have not supplied any scientific evidence to show how he was proved wrong. In fact, the data proves him right and the ace in the hole is Montagniers recent admission that HIV is harmless to a healhty immune system.

            If you think Duesberg and Montagnier are wrong, produce the evidence to show that people with healthy immune systems have gotten AIDS. The death rate from AIDS in North America is a tiny fraction of 1% and 90% of those who have died came from high risk groups like male homosexuals and IV drug users.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…” Scientists also note that HIV-negative drug users do not suffer from immune system collapse.”

            We are not talking about the average drug user, we are talking about IV drug users…those who inject themselves. When you get to that level you are likely living in an alley, not eating or sleeping well, and reduced to someone without an immune system.

            This is a chicken and an egg situation, which came first. Did the HIV cause the immune system collapse, or as Montagnier now proposes, that the immune system collapsed allowing HIV an entry?

            If HIV was that dangerous it would surely have spread equally to the heterosexual community. It has not. The CD-C, when it was listing AIDS deaths, did not even list heterosexuals. The closest it came was bisexuals who messed with IV drugs.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            YOU: “You have not supplied any scientific evidence to show how he was proved wrong.”

            Actually I have. You ignore the scientific evidence. Why do you request information you have zero interest in? Odd fellow you are.

          • Svante says:

            And Gordon supplies no science on HIV-negative patients with immune system collapse.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    svante…”While the points that HIV denialists make are sometimes true…”

    Now there’s a mouthful of gibberish for you. And what is an HIV denialist? Is that like a climate denialist?

    So what do you call someone who bases a theory on a virus no one can identify using the standard method for identifying a virus? In the early days of the HIV/AIDS ‘HYPOTHESIS’, HIV was referred to as ‘the virus THOUGHT to cause AIDS’. With no further research the media made it the AIDS virus. More fake news that stuck.

    However, further research by the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, revealed HIV to be a harmless virus to a healthy immune system.

    Why did it take 35 years to discover that? Peter Duesberg pointed that truth out circa 1983 and he was ignored and had his career ruined.

    Does it puff you up with pride to back scientists who stab other scientists in the back for disagreeing with them? Not one HIV alarmist stepped forward in his defense and in the end, one scientist was right and most of the rest were wrong. Several hundred scientists did agree with Duesberg but they were ignored too.

    Your statement above goes on to claim the modern AVRs (antiviral drugs) are cocktails of several drugs. All of the ingredient drugs in the cocktail are extremely toxic and here are some side effects:

    -serious blood disorders
    -liver and kidney failure, the liver failure via hepatitis.
    -AIDS…that’s right, those wonderful cocktails produce AIDS, referred to as IRS. The drug companies admit it and so does the CD-C.

    You see, the rocket scientists are pumping people full of toxins that attack the DNA. How stupid is that?

    AZT was abandoned, but why was it ever used? It had already been abandoned for cancer chemotherapy because it was so toxic that the line between it killing the cancer and killing the patient was too narrow. Yet the HIV witch doctors thought nothing of putting people on it for life.

    And why are any of the AVRs used when they have such toxic side effects and the manufacturers claim there is no proof they can cure HIV?

    • Svante says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “what is an HIV denialist?”

      See description here:
      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism

    • theRealPlastic says:

      Gordon, I am not here to launch ad hominems.

      What you are stating about HIV therapy (and have stated for years, whenever you can) is so belligerently, obtusely untrue, and profoundly misinformed, that I can only assume you yourself are deeply mentally unwell.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        plastic…if I am deeply mentally unwell, it means Luc Montagnier (who discovered HIV) is deeply mentally unwell. When asked about ARVs in an interview he pretty well rolled his eyes. When asked how he would treat HIV/AIDS, he responded the first thing he’d do is stop the high risk behavior. Then he advised the person to start a course of antioxidants because he now thinks AIDS is related to oxidative stress produce by lifestyle.

        My question to you is why you are in such deep denial of the real science? Why have you failed to grasp what scientists like Montagnier, Mullis, and Duesberg are talking about. Why don’t you get what Rasnick, an expert on ARVs is trying to tell you?

        Of course, if the AIDS gets too far along you are done for anyway. The deeply ignorant on the subject confuse HIV with AIDS. When they talk about eradicating HIV with ARVs they are talking about eradicating advanced AIDS with the drugs. Does not happen. Once the immune system reaches a certain level of depletion, it’s over.

        The same basic errors have been made in climate science wherein infrared energy is mistaken for heat. All the time, I see alarmists using the two distinctly different forms of energy as one and the same, so they get seriously confused about the physics.

        This error leads to the 2nd law being contradicted, allowing heat to be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed GHGs in the atmosphere.

        It’s happening at a high level as well. The head of NASA GISS is unsure about the relationship between IR and heat and Eli Rabbett, aka Josh Halpern, a physicist who teaches chemistry classes, is so confused about it he made a startling statement in a debate with two experts in thermodynamics.

        When Gelrich and Tscheuscher claimed that heat can only be transferred from hot to cold, normally, Rabbett rebutted that would mean that one of two radiators in a 2 body system would not be radiating. That is a common error among alarmists, that electromagnetic radiation flows both ways between bodies of different temperatures. Based on that theory, they think heat must flow both ways as well, contradicting the 2nd law.

        That’s what is going on with the HIV/AIDS theory. They started out with the wrong facts and it got out of control to the point where they thought it would be OK to give sheer poisons to a healthy person in order to control a virus they believed was killing the immune system.

        Try to pay attention to this. Not asking you to believe it, just asking you to pay attention. HIV HAS NEVER BEEN ISOLATED OR PURIFIED USING THE STANDARD METHOD, BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

        No one has ever seen HIV, it is an inferred virus. Montagnier, who discovered HIV, freely admits that. He has never seen the virus therefore he has never isolated or purified it. Why else would the HIV/AIDS alarmist need to amplify the virus using the viral loading nonsense?

        THEY CANNOT FIND IT!!!

        The facts are out there for you to verify this for yourself. Why have you not fact checked what I have claimed? Of course, fact checking is not simply going to someone who disagrees, it means reading up on the methodology used by Montagnier to infer HIV.

        Montagnier’s expertise is in retrovirology and he was looking for a retrovirus. Damned if he didn’t find one. He could not see one with an electron microscope so he inferred that 1 in 1000 parts in a cell culture had to be HIV.

        He was looking for evidence of reverse transcriptase, a theoretical process in which RNA can be converted back to DNA. The suggestion is that a retrovirus is a virus formed by such a process but no one can explain how it works. Stefan Lanka, an expert with viruses, claims it can’t work.

        Since 1983, when that discovery was made, the standard method for identifying a virus positively, by actually seeing it, has been abandoned in favour of the inferred method based on strands of RNA.

        WHY CAN’T THEY FIND VIRUSES LIKE HIV AND COVID USING THE STANDARD METHOD FOR IDENTIYING A VIRUS? And if they can’t find it using the standard method, how valid is the inferred method?

        Here’s the problem. When Montagnier inferred HIV was killing cells in a culture, that theory was broadened to claim it was also killing cells in the immune system at such a rate as to render the immune system useless. Fast forward 35 years, and he has changed his mind. He now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system, ergo it could not have been killing healthy cells in the first place.

        There had to be another factor, which Montagnier claimed at the time in 1983. Since the original cell culture came from a person with AIDS, the cells must have been damaged in the first place. He had to have known that and it had to have bothered him. In the interim, after research, he now concluded the immune system has to be damaged first before HIV can act.

        The data supports that theory, 90% of people dying from AIDS in North America since 1983 have come from high risk groups like homosexual males and IV drug users.

        Why is that so hard to understand? What emotional issues do you have that prevent you listening?

  37. Dan Pangburn says:

    Nate,
    Apparently I am allowed 2 comments per day. This response to your comment at https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/observed-decrease-in-u-s-child-mortality-during-the-covid-19-lockdown-of-2020/#comment-499531 would not post yesterday.

    I relentlessly check my work by habit. It comes from a career where mistakes could cost lives.

    The temperature trend reported for Had.CRUT4 since Jan 1988 has been 0.173 K per decade. The temperature change in 3 decades is then 0.519 K. The increase in water vapor with this temperature rise is less than 7% so the increase in WV from this temperature rise is less than 0.519 * 7 = 3.63 %.
    Similar analysis using UAH temperature data gives 2.85% WV increase in 3 decades.

    The trend of WV increase measured by NASA/RSS for this time period is 4.35%. This demonstrates that WV has been increasing faster than possible from feedback (liquid water temperature increase). The data used at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com ends a bit sooner but the end result is about the same.

    The theory that burning fossil fuels causes warming requires that WV increase be caused by warming. That theory is therefore bogus. The WV increase results mostly from irrigation.

    To challenge this, I did the same thing for GISS, NOAA and RSS reported temperatures and even considered that some of them might have cooked the books. The conclusion holds.

    I also compared NASA/RSS TPW with NCEP R1 & R2. They get close enough to the same slope on a % basis. The conclusion still holds: The human contribution to warming is accounted for by TPW increase. The assessment of the cause of TPW increase points nearly all to irrigation.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Oops, the WV increase should be 0.4346/29 * 30 = 4.50%.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Dan…”…would not post yesterday”

      What you have to do in an extreme case of non-postitis, is to break the post down into smaller parts, even if it means starting with the first paragraph or even sentence. If a cursory check shows no d-c or absorp-tion, start breaking up the post into smaller sections and try posting.

      Break the post down till a part posts, then try another part. Eventually you will locate the bad part.

      However, I have noticed sometimes that when a post won’t post that breaking it into a couple of paragraphs and posting often solves the problem. When you post the remainder, for some magical reason the entire post appears…in two parts…even though it would not post as a unit.

    • Nate says:

      “Had.CRUT4 since Jan 1988 has been 0.173 K per decade. The temperature change in 3 decades is then 0.519 K. The increase in water vapor with this temperature rise is less than 7% so the increase in WV from this temperature rise is less than 0.519 * 7 = 3.63 %.
      Similar analysis using UAH temperature data gives 2.85% WV increase in 3 decades.

      The trend of WV increase measured by NASA/RSS for this time period is 4.35%. This demonstrates that WV has been increasing faster than possible from feedback (liquid water temperature increase). The data used at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com ends a bit sooner but the end result is about the same.

      The theory that burning fossil fuels causes warming requires that WV increase be caused by warming. That theory is therefore bogus.”

      No not at all, Dan. You calculate the expected rise in WV from the temperature using a MODEL, and get 3.6 from had*rut, 2.85 from UAH, (and RSS??), and the measured is 4.35.

      These numbers are not that different. The difference between UAH and Had*rut is as large as the difference from Had and MODEL.

      What are error bars on these numbers?

      Your MODEL is an attempt to represent the Theory using the Global average temp, likely too simple a model.

      No reputable scientist would come to your conclusion that these numbers show that the ‘theory is therefore bogus.’

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Nate,
        “You calculate the expected rise in WV from the temperature using a MODEL,” calling this a model is silly. The temperature change is simply multiplied by 7% per degree. The 7% is a conservative value for the rate of change of the measured vapor pressure vs temperature curve for liquid water.

        The different slopes of the two temperature trends reported by the two agencies is not relevant to this assessment.

        “These numbers are not that different”. Had* is 4.5/3.63 = 1.24 or 24% more and UAH is 4.5/2.85 = 1.58 or 58% more. The slopes are each the result of 160 individual assessments. They show no suggestion of anything other than a linear trend. Good enough.

        By my model, I assume you are referring to Equation (1) (actually any one of about 338 rows in an EX.CEL file) at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . It is only intended to be a GLOBAL average model to identify what causes GLOBAL warming. A simple model can do that. If by “too simple a model” you mean too simple to determine local climate, of course I agree. It would take a valid GCM to do that. Nothing they have done so far even comes close.

        The fact is that all of the reported average global temperatures come to the same conclusion.

        Some scientists, being aware that CO2 is a ghg, concluded that its increase has caused global warming. Most will eventually realize their mistake. Some, perhaps, as they begin to understand the analysis at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

        • Nate says:

          “slopes are each the result of 160 individual assessments. They show no suggestion of anything other than a linear trend. Good enough.”

          Measured slopes have uncertainty. All do.

          Without it you cannot say if there is a disagreenent with theory.

          The Earth temp and water vapor content is far from uniform. I dont think using global average in your model is good enough.

        • Nate says:

          Heres a paper thar shows agreement between WV and model predictions, as well as discussion of upper trop WV that is expected to grow faster- more complexity than your model.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Current GCMs are at best useless but often misleading. The WV at the tropopause is capped at about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature (~ -50 °C).

          • Nate says:

            “Current GCMs are at best useless but often misleading.”

            They are far better than a model assigning Earth a single temp and RH.

            Note the paper shows error bars on trends. This is the only legit way to do it.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nate,
            I had a look at the 15 year old full paper here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7554296_The_Radiative_Signature_of_Upper_Tropospheric_Moistening where a paywall is not encountered. I did not see any error bars. A word search revealed the following counts: model/GCM = 70, if = 40, simulat = 31, could/might = 6, and assume = 2 whereas the part word ‘measure’ occurred only 8 times. Given the brief 15 year period covered 15 years ago and that the GCMs are faulty, that old paper is of little value.

            Also, an error is revealed by the statement “expected under the assumption of constant relative humidity”. RH has actually increased in the 30 year period of warming. @ 15C (59F) and constant 70% RH a temperature increase of 0.519C would result in a WV increase of 4.04%. The measured TPW increase was 4.5%/

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Dan…”I did not see any error bars. A word search revealed the following counts: model/GCM = 70, if = 40, simulat = 31, could/might = 6, and assume = 2 whereas the part word ‘measure’ occurred only 8 times”.

            It’s the new science. Remember the new math, abandoned years ago? The new science has discarded the scientific method in favour of consensus and the conditional words you outlined above.

            The current covid theory is based on new science. They don’t even bother with conditional words they present blatant lies as fact.

            I was watching Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, on a French TV program on the Net. He claims that covid is a human manufactured virus that appears to have been an attempt to create a vaccine for HIV. He concluded that because the covid RNA template has an HIV gene spliced into it.

            In this discussion, Montagnier is claiming he knows the DNA sequence of HIV even though he admits to having never seen the virus. He has never properly isolated the virus, purified it, and seen it under an electron microscope. Yet he has somehow identified the HIV DNA sequence.

            This is an example of the new science. It is no longer necessary to follow the scientific method, you simply create a theory, find something close to corroborating evidence, and through time, turn your theory into fact. And get notoriety, wealth, and a Nobel while you’re at it.

          • Nate says:

            “0.519C would result in a WV increase of 4.04%. The measured TPW increase was 4.5”

            This perfectly illustrates the importance of error bars. Dan.

            These numbers probably agree, within error.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nate,
            “These numbers probably agree, within error.” That is faulty thinking. The numbers are most likely as stated. Given uncertainties in measurements, there is some low probability that they are not different.

          • Nate says:

            Dan,

            “The numbers are most likely as stated.”

            That makes no sense. You don’t seem to appreciate the importance of error.

            In science, there are no measurements ‘as stated’ without an error bar, because the error (uncertainty in a measurement) plays such a crucial role in testing hypotheses.

            If the uncertainty range of the measurement and prediction overlap then there is no disagreement of significance.

            Particularly for climate data, the error on trends can be quite large.

            In the paper I showed you, the total column water vapor trend measured by satellite over the period is stated as

            1.4 plus-minus 0.78 %/decade, and the GCM values were well within this range.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nate,
            You say “That makes no sense”.
            Your thinking is too rigid. Of course I appreciate the importance of uncertainty. It should be obvious to you that if you use all most likely values in a calculation you get the most likely answer. Formulae are available to propagate the uncertainty of each factor through the calculation to get the uncertainty in the answer. This is done in engineering when probability of failure of a system must be so low (e.g. 1 in a million) that it is impractical to determine it by test of the system.

            You say “GCM values were well within this range”. If you concluded from that that the GCMs were valid you made an egregious mistake. Key mistakes in the GCMs include failure to consider the increase in water vapor and that the warming was initiated by WV increase.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nate,
            That should have read “failure to consider the MEASURED increase in WV”. They erroneously assumed that WV increased only according to the temperature increase. WV has been increasing about 1.50% per decade at least since it has been accurately measured world wide. The WV increase due to temperature increase depends on which reported temperature data set you believe. If Had*rut4 is used the WV increase due to temperature increase is 1.35%.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Your thinking is too rigid. Of course I appreciate the importance of uncertainty.’

            ‘Formulae are available to propagate the uncertainty of each factor through the calculation ‘

            And yet, Dan, you are not doing it. Talk is cheap. You are still not showing an error bar on your trends, and including it in your analysis!

            Why not?

            Until you do, any conclusions you make about theory being falsified (or bogus) by the measurement is quite premature.

            “It should be obvious to you that if you use all most likely values in a calculation you get the most likely answer.”

            OMG this is quite naive.

  38. Gordon Robertson says:

    nate…”Unsubstantiated claims that the data are fake, will get you no credit”.

    Not concerned with your uninformed opinion, I am concerned with bad science.

    Any idiot who would pump a person full of toxic drugs for life simply because that person tested positive for HIV while showing no symptoms of infection, (i.e. otherwise healthy) should be barred from the medical field and thrown in jail. That’s especially true when the tests have never been validated.

    Even if the person is showing signs of AIDS, which means he/she is suffering an impaired immune system, why would you add to the burden of the immune system by introducing toxic chemicals into the system?

    It’s absolutely daft to even think of introducing toxic chemicals into the body when the immune system is depressed. However, just as many scientists think nothing of torturing animals in the name of science, the same cretins have no problem poisoning humans based on a cockamamey theory.

    Montagnier, who discovered HIV, and Duesberg, an expert in retrovirology, offer a safer and saner approach. Stop the high risk behavior which is making you sick and take antioxidants like high doses of vitamin C.

    In Africa, it is not possible for people in poverty to feed themselves, find clean water, and avoid parasites like mosquitoes. It is incumbent on those of us in the wealthier Western world to help them with these matters but what do we do? Rather than feed them, get them clean drinking water, and eradicate mosquitoes. we feed them toxic antivirals and ban DDT, the only chemical known to be effective against mosquitoes.

    • Nate says:

      “Even if the person is showing signs of AIDS, which means he/she is suffering an impaired immune system, why would you add to the burden of the immune system by introducing toxic chemicals into the system?”

      Because death is the alternative, obviously. AIDS was a death sentence prior to 1996.

      And the data I showed that you keep ignoring are very clear on that.

      How do you explain the sharp drop in deaths? Or are you going to say its all fake?

  39. Tom Burwell says:

    The covid-19 death rate dropped during the summer as vitamin D levels increased. Expect it to start going up again in January.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Tom,
      In Phoenix in the summer, it is too hot to be outside when the sun is high enough to do any good, especially for someone like me who is already past his use by date. To compensate, I take 5000 IU of vitamin D per day.

  40. Amanda says:

    This needs to be stratified further. Was the decrease mainly in driving age students? Elementary? Toddler? Infant? There has been a reduction in infant SIDS deaths by 30%. Interesting….. just as parents stopped taking their kids to well visits because they were non essential. Vaccination rates dropped and so did SIDS.

  41. Bindidon says:

    Tom Burwell

    ” The covid-19 death rate dropped during the summer as vitamin D levels increased. ”

    *
    Are you sure?

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L949nyoaGfH4D9LaAuTYvwTc-T3gvdJL/view

    And don#t expect the increase in July to stop so very soon,

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PTuRGSppV_9EryfBCVXWbp2w6dqi7sWB/view

    because such an increase in cases (largely bypassing the New York peak on April 26) inevitably will result in a lagged daily death toll increase.

    Vitamin D? Oh Noes…

    J.-P. D.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Bin,
      The increase is mostly from increase in testing and counting people with mild and even no symptoms.
      Yes, there is a bump in the death rate; it’s much smaller than the peak in April. Timing of the bump is consistent with more initial spreading during the protest marches augmented by decline in compliance with protective measures. It shouldn’t last long. Herd immunity appears to be spreading. Last guestimate I heard is that about 10 times as many are now immune as have tested positive. Duration of immunity should be similar to that for a vaccine.

      Ignore your vitamin D level at your peril. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276229/

      • Nate says:

        “Duration of immunity should be similar to that for a vaccine.”

        They have found that people who had mild or no symptoms have very short lasting immunity.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Nate,
          I wonder how that was determined. They were infected once, I assume, as determined by testing positive, but showed no symptoms. The second infection must have been by a different (mutant?) virus strain. If so, the same concern needs to be addressed in a vaccine. If their later immunity was determined using an antibody test, it is meaningless because some people are inherently immune and do not develop antibodies. Also, false positives are known. I question the conclusion. Please provide a link to your source.

        • Nate says:

          “have very short lasting immunity.”

          short lasting antibodies that is..

          Have to find it again.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nate,
            Thanks for the link. As I go thru it I will nitpick . . .
            It is a small study, 37 people with symp.toms compared to 37 people without symp.toms. IMO that ex.cuses the use of weasel words such as may (they really meant might), suggest, in as little as, can.

            People that showed no symp.toms the first time they tested positive would probably not show symp.toms on a later infection by the same strain of virus irrespective of the lack of antibodies or cytokines, both of which were absent on the first infection.

            They say “The data suggests that asymp.tomatic people had a weaker immune response to the virus …” Their bodies fought off the virus without even showing symp.toms. Calling an effective immune response weak is nonsensical.

            They say antibodies for SARS and MERS last for at least a year but they don’t say how long antibodies for SARS and MERS would last in people who showed no symp.toms so the comparison is not very meaningful.

            The rest is the usual CYA boiler.plate. Part, if not all, of this issue results because some people believe that it is in their financial and/or political interest to scare people.

            The only way that a population is protected from an epidemic is by herd immunity. Herd immunity always develops either the old fashioned way by getting the disease and recovering or by vaccination. I doubt that it matters much which way immunity is acquired. The best general defense against all diseases is to keep your vitamin D level high. I take 5000 IU/day but I am old. Low vitamin D is common in people with dark skin tone and/or low bare-skin exposure to sunlight. The hospitalization and death distribution corroborate this. Zinc works to reduce symp.toms and duration of another coronavirus, the one that causes the common cold.

          • Nate says:

            “The rest is the usual CYA boiler.plate. Part, if not all, of this issue results because some people believe that it is in their financial and/or political interest to scare people.”

            Riiiight.

            I see no need evidence for politicizing going on in this simple study.

            We need these studies to find out the facts about how herd immunity can happen and whether it will be effective.

  42. Bindidon says:

    Swenson

    ” The UK has been intentionally inflating Covid19 deaths, …

    *
    Where is the data confirming your distortions, Svenson?

    From

    https://tinyurl.com/y2ssbcp6

    I see nothing the like when looking at the daily death toll:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BEYDObi6NBHjI-owDJYYWsxBSqRt7S7U/view

    *
    ” … but the data manipulators have been caught out. ”

    Typical pseudoskeptic disingenuous claim, based on nothing real.

    If that namely had been as you pretend, Svenson, then the UK death toll plot based on the ECD-C data would have looked exactly like their case plot:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R10cX-_16VORp12TSnS9dEtTJToRe5g4/view

    On May 21 and July 3, case number correction sums were sent by UK to ECD-C:

    21/05/2020 21 5 2020 -525 363 United_Kingdom UK
    03/07/2020 3 7 2020 -29726 89 United_Kingdom UK

    *
    You seem to be a good fellow of the Robertson liar.

    J.-P. D.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      Direct quote from a UK Gov website –

      **On 17 July, the Secretary of State asked Public Health England (PHE) to urgently review the way daily death statistics are currently reported. Were pausing the publication of the daily figure while this review takes place.**

      Deny it if you wish. Are you claiming you know more than the UK gov scientific experts?

  43. Bindidon says:

    This blog’s dumbest, most brazen AND least educated ‘comment’ator

    – always posts lie over lie concerning viruses;
    – always discredits and denigrates scientific arguments with the stupid reply “That’s appeal to authority”.

    Using this method, all science you don’t like automatically becomes distorted down to an “appeal to authority”, e.g. this:

    https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/H/HIVAIDS/FAQ/Kritik_DistortionOfScience.html

    *
    How stupid is one allowed to be in life?

    Maybe Robertson gets infected by SARS-COV-2, and learns
    – what it really is to be, and
    – especially how funny you feel after ‘recovering’ from the disease.

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…the article at your link is blatant propaganda. It is an appeal to authority, the authorities have told them drug cocktails are suppressing HIV so they accept that bs without question. So do you.

      How do you suppress HIV when the virus has never been seen and no one has the proved DNA sequence for it. Don’t you understand that? The sequence on which they are operating is guessed at based on a presumption that a retrovirus is at work.

      However, that theory is water under the bridge. The scientist who discovered this inferred virus, Luc Montagnier, has come out and admitted that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. He is not advising the use of poisons to treat HIV, he is recommending that people stop the high risk behavior in which they are participating and taking antioxidants.

      Montagnier has written a book based on his experience and he now claims AIDS is a lifestyle problem created by oxidative stress. If the scientist who has worked so closely with HIV does not advocate antiviral poisons, why is everyone else?

      I’ll tell you why, they are all appealing to authority and cannot think for themselves. It’s blatantly obvious based on the data since 1983 that AIDS is a lifestyle issue.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Even the drug companies offer a disclaimer that the drugs cannot cure an HIV infection. What kind of virus cannot respond to medicine that is supposed to eradicate it? And if it can’t be eradicated, why not? Do you think there may be nothing to eradicate???

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Are you literally insane?

        I think I have linked you to EM images of HIV numerous times and yet you make the insane claim that “How do you suppress HIV when the virus has never been seen and no one has the proved DNA sequence for it. Don’t you understand that?”

        Only a true insane person would continue making a false claim like you do over and over despite proof it is a false claim.

        I really cannot figure out what path you are on. I think the road of madness for sure where reality is only a product of your own deluded thought and nothing else can penetrate this wall of make believe.

        Again for the UMPTEENTH time (you will lie again anyway, I am just curious if just once you might look at evidence).

        https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+microscope+images+of+hiv&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjh_9ak8OTqAhUP96wKHQatAAIQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=electr&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgQIIxAnMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDOgIIADoHCCMQ6gIQJzoFCAAQsQNQuVhYq3NgiIcBaAFwAHgCgAFqiAHpC5IBBDE3LjGYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ7ABCsABAQ&sclient=img&ei=KEwaX-HLIY_uswWG2oIQ&bih=937&biw=1920

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          They convert the RNA of HIV into DNA to determine the outcome. Not only do they have the HIV genome figured out they even have the function of the proteins worked out. Your posts are off the wall.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924471/#:~:text=The%20HIV%20genome%20consists%20of,the%20HIV%20provirus%20(see%201.1.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Not only do they have the HIV genome figured out they even have the function of the proteins worked out”.

            That’s a neat trick, Norman, considering that no one has isolated and purified HIV using the standard method for identifying a virus. The standard method requires purifying the virus by centrifuging a density graded sucrose solution with the cell mass in which the virus is thought to be located. If viral particles are present, they should show up in a dark band at a certain density level in the gradient.

            After that, the material forming the dark band is removed, processed, interred in a material to protect it from electron bombardment in an electron microscope, and shaved into a 100 nm thickness with a diamond shaver. It needs to be that thin to allow electrons to penetrate it. So, no one can see a full viral virion with an TEM, which penetrates the target, but maybe with a SEM (surface EM) they could make out the outlines of the virus. Any photo I have seen, like the one at NIAID looks nothing like a virus is described to be.

            The viral particles should show up under the EM as particles of the same size and shape. Neither Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV, or his US countepart, Gallo, were able to do that. They both got to the gradient/centrifuge part but obviously whatever they extracted did not look like a virus under the EM.

            Here’s my question, if they have not been able to see the virus, and Montagnier admitted he has never seen it, how can they be sure the RNA they are using is from a virus? How do they know they are sequencing the right RNA, how do they prove it?

            They can’t, and they have been dead wrong with HIV. Montagnier formulated the method described in your article. He deduced it based on a theory that a retrovirus was causing AIDS and he went looking for the RNA that could theoretically be converted back to DNA and amplified. He claimed to have found that evidence, that ‘something’ was killing cells from a person with AIDS and inferred it was a virus.

            The inference was extended to the presumption that HIV was killing immune system cells to the degree that the immune system was destroyed. However, it has been shown that even in terminal AIDS patients, the T-cells outnumber HIV 800 – 1. Not good odds for winning a fight with the immune system.

            Well, guess what. Thirty five years later he changed his mind. He no longer thinks HIV can harm a healthy immune system but he’s sticking to his original theory that HIV can damage infected cells in a person with AIDS. However, that knocks the piss out of the viral/AIDS hypothesis that HIV is killing immune systems.

            The theory in your article also applies to covid, a virus that has been inferred but never seen. The micrographs of covid 19 at the NIAID site are bogus. In fact, Lanka, an expert with viruses, claims that most photos of viruses are bogus, misinterpretations of other cell artifacts.

            This has huge implications for the tests which are testing for the RNA in your article. If the theory is wrong, and it is, then covid tests are useless for identifying a virus. They may be good for indicating the general health of a patient but they cannot indicate for sure that a person has died from the virus.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Basically your hero contrarians are just liars. Someone took the time to refute one of the contrarians. (They all have similar lies)

            https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00193/full#B17

            All the things you accept as true from your contrarian sources are lies and dishonest. You repeat the lies.

            HIV has been isolated from AIDS patients. EM images were taken.

            They have a long list of actual references to research and evidence.
            The contrarians lie about the evidence and just repeat the same lies over an over. Just a dishonest group of disgrunted people.

            You accept their intentional lies without question. Why?

      • Nate says:

        “Ill tell you why, they are all appealing to authority and cannot think for themselves. Its blatantly obvious based on the data since 1983 that AIDS is a lifestyle issue.”

        Why do you keep appealing to the authority of this one guy, whose opinion you think counts more than all others?

        What data? You never show us data.

        How exactly does ‘lifestyle’ wreck the immune systems of countless otherwise healthy young people?

  44. Gordon Robertson says:

    Nate…”How do you explain the sharp drop in deaths? Or are you going to say its all fake?”

    As I pointed out from Rasnick’s video, the AIDS death rate was dropping on its own before the Haart ARVs were introduced in the mid-90s. I put that down to education of the male homosexuals who have accounted for 60% of AIDS deaths since 1983.

    There was something like 1300 deaths reported in the male homosexual community alone circa 1983. Those deaths were focused on male homosexuals in New York and San Francisco, mainly those who congregated in steam baths and had orgies with multiple sex partners while doing up to 6 designer drugs.

    BTW, only 16% of male homosexuals get AIDS. Most are likely monogamous and have little fear of contracting AIDS, as pointed out by Duesberg. It’s the hard-core male homosexuals from lower socio-economic groups that get it. Rather than getting the hard-core group to smarten up, the homosexual community banded together and readily accepting the bs that the problem was HIV, something they could do little about.

    One of the drugs abused was amyl nitrate, a drug used initially for heart patients. It worked by dilating arteries to enhance blood flow but you can imagine what homosexuals were using it to dilate. They passed around open bottles of it in the steam bath and inhaled it by sniffing directly from the bottle. While they were forcefully inhaling, they were also inhaling fecal matter suspended in steam droplets, and any other bacteria that was present.

    When John Lauritsen, a homosexual himself, took that news to the homosexual community in San Francisco, they ignored him and told him to mind his own business. They were not about to change their lifestyles based on what they regarded as propaganda. The human mind excels at that, blocking out reality to pursue pleasure.

    http://www.virusmyth.org/aids/index/jlauritsen.htm

    Obviously some of them took heed and started protecting themselves, not against a virus, but against having unprotected sex with multiple partners and doing drugs.

    • Nate says:

      “Most are likely monogamous and have little fear of contracting AIDS”

      Indeed. What is it about monogamy? It also keeps people from getting Syphilis, Gonorrhea, etc.

      Hmmm, what is the connection between these different diseases? Could it be that they are all sexually transmitted germs???

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”Hmmm, what is the connection between these different diseases? Could it be that they are all sexually transmitted germs???”

        For syphylis and gono, yes. Both syph and gono are known to be transmitted by bacteria and they can be cured, if caught early enough, with antibiotics.

        There is no proof that HIV exists since it cannot be isolated using the standard method for identifying a virus. There is not one paper, according to Nobelist Kary Mullis, that demonstrates how HIV causes AIDS.

        Some common AIDS opportunistic infections:

        -Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, esophagus, or lungs …a fungus
        -Coccidioidomycosis…a fungus
        -Cryptococcosis…a fungus
        -Herpes simplex (HSV) – a virus
        -Histoplasmosis = a fungus
        -Tuberculosis (TB) – caused by a bacterium
        -Pneumocystis carinii – caused by a fungus
        -Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) – related to herpesvirus.

        Suppose your theory is right and that a virus can destroy the immune system. How do you suppose the average person gets the opportunistic infections listed above, by accident? Why do you suppose those infections are common in homosexual males?

        Come on, man, do the math.

        It is known that Pneumocystis carinii, a leading killer of gay men, is directly related to homosexual males sniffing poppers (amyl nitrate) in steam bath environments where they are also sniffing in steam droplets carry bacteria from anal sources and possibly from people infected with hepatitis and TB.

        Kaposi’s Sarcoma is also a leading killer of gay men but it is thought to be caused by the herpes virus. IV drug users also get AIDS but few of them get KS. Why the heck have they been looking for a virus as the overall cause of AIDS opportunistic infections when the symptoms are screaming out ‘lifestyle’?

        http://www.virusmyth.org/aids/hiv/tbkaposi.htm

        And why are gay men in such denial about the dangers of their lifestyles when those who have blatantly been having sex with multiple partners while stoned on drugs have also died of AIDS. Freddy Mercury of Queen was known to have been heavily into that scene. George Michael too. Elton John, who seems to have remained monogamous is still alive and well.

        Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, is now urging people in high risk lifestyles to stop what they are doing to prevent AIDS. Peter Duesberg urged male homosexuals to do that some 30 odd years ago. Many ignored him and now they are dead. Duesberg referred to ARVs as ‘AIDS by prescription’.

        An article about AZT but which has info pertinent to covid:

        http://www.virusmyth.org/aids/hiv/hkslahprotease.htm

        Despite what I write, I have nothing against male homosexuals. What they do is their business. My beef is that heterosexuals have been dragged into the AIDS debacle by the inference that a harmless virus is causing AIDS when it is abundantly obvious that it is lifestyle.

        It also annoys me that unsuspecting people who have tested HIV positive but who are otherwise healthy have been literally shamed into taking toxic drugs for life. Then we have to suffer through the propaganda that poisons are healing AIDS.

        Lunacy!!!

      • Nate says:

        Gordon,

        You still have not explained “What is it about monogamy?” that keeps one from getting a disease? What is the mechanism? Is it immorality that causes disease?

        All the infections you speak of are opportunistic. They only take hold in people with compromised immune systems.

        ‘There is not one paper, according to Nobelist Kary Mullis, that demonstrates how HIV causes AIDS.”

        BS. Appeal to the authority of a certifiable nut.

        Why don’t you read and quote the source papers?

  45. Gordon Robertson says:

    says this is a duplicate post but I can’t find the other.

    barry…”COVID is a serious disease, worse than the flu”.

    It’s certainly serious to a tiny fraction of 1% of populations. There is no evidence that it is serious to general populations. In fact, the US CD-C claims that 40% of those testing positive for covid show no symptoms. In Canada, last time I looked, only 5% of those tested were positive.

    How can that be possible unless the tests are faulty? Rather than investigate that likelihood, the CD-C and NIAID (infectious disease control) offer the unlikely observation that people showing no symptoms can be silent carriers.

    The local provincial government for BC, Canada, is braying that they have stopped the spread of the virus through social distancing and self-isolation, another unlikelihood. We were over a month into the announced contagion before they took any steps in that direction yet the death rate in the vulnerable period did not exceed 30 or 40 people. Far more people died after the practice of social distancing and self-isolation was imposed.

    That leads me to conclude that the deaths were not related to covid at all.

    And what are you on about in Australia, you have 139 deaths…that’s right 139 deaths…out of a population of 25,000,000. By population, that’s 0.00056% = 5.6 ten thousandths of 1%.

    How can you call that a serious disease? New Zealand has 22 deaths out of a population of 4.886 million = 0.00045%.

  46. Gordon Robertson says:

    Norman…here’s a direct contradiction of your reverse transcriptase method outlined in your wiki article. It is from Stefan Lanka who discovered the first virus in the oceans.

    http://www.virusmyth.org/aids/hiv/slartefact.htm

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Norman…I think it is necessary to keep an open mind when doing science. Recall the case of Australian researcher Barry Marshall, when he set the medical theory on it ear that duodenal ulcers were caused by stress and spicy foods. The guy could not get published for cripes sakes, the journal editor thought he was crazy and listed his paper as one of the worst ten he had ever received.

      Why did Marshall have to do an experiment on himself in which he swallowed the bacteria h.pylori, making him very ill, and curing it with antibiotics before anyone would take him seriously? That is utter arrogance and the same arrogance lies behind the retroviral theory as described by Lanka above.

      There is a tried and true method available for identifying a virus but it won’t identify HIV or covid. Why? The method used is a new one created by a retrovirologist, who claims their is evidence of reverse transcriptase, indicating viral activity.

      Fine, use your new method but you MUST be able to identify the virus as well using the standard method. They can’t do it and that has lead Lanka to claim there is no virus. Lanka is no lightweight, he has discovered the first virus in the ocean.

      They have tried this same theory in cancer and it has failed utterly. How much longer do we have to endure this pseudo-science before someone stands up and shouts, “Enough is enough”. Gallo tried the same viral theory on cancer and got booed out of the arena. He used the same theory with HIV.

      It has been presumed that reverse transcriptase activity, based on enzyme activity, is enough evidence to claim a virus. Lanka is claiming that reverse transcriptase is a common process in other bodily activity and it cannot be presumed the RT evidence points to a virus. It occurs in cell death, for example.

      Does it not make a bit of sense to you that if a virus cannot be identified using the standard method, there is no virus?

      The irony is that the scientist on Montagnier’s team, Barre Sinoussi, who is credited with discovering the RT activity also sat on the board at the Louis Pasteur Institute which defined the standard method for identifying a virus. Why did she not speak up and object to her method not being used?

      There is something seriously wrong with this science. The fact that scientists get emotional about scientists like Duesberg and Lanka and get away with their emotional rhetoric and ad homs against them suggests strongly that the science is not only wrong but corrupt as well.

      It goes on in climate science as well. Roy, John Christy, and Richard Lindzen have been targeted and had papers blocked by idiots who can supply no evidence to back their propaganda. It’s about hatred and emotional instability, not science.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Stefan Lanka is another unscientific Contrarian that appeals and is popular to people like you. He is totally wrong and was proven wrong in courts but you still idolize this antiscientist. Lanka is NOT at all interested in any evidence. He just rejects it and continues on with his absurd unproven ideas that appeal to a target audience of contrarians (like you).

      I could not care at all what these contrarians accomplished at some point. They are not scientists now, just false teacher to the ignorant like you are.

      https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-vaccine-denier-20150320-column.html

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Norman,

        Your logic flawed and plagued by unbridled belief in the conventional wisdom. I say that having no horse in this what-defines-a-virus race.

        The flawed logic is to assume that Lanka must be wrong about HIV because he was wrong about measles.

        What is worse is to then infer that Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen are false teachers because they don’t toe the party line on AGW.

        • Norman says:

          Chic Bowdrie

          There is not unbridled belief in “conventional wisdom”. Not sure how you logically formed that incorrect conclusion. I pointed out that Lanka is a Contrarian (a person who does not follow evidence but an agenda to be a contrarian). He is wrong about HIV because the evidence is there to prove he does not speak correctly on the topic.

          I do not know why you would think that a contrarian who will not accept evidence would assume Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen are false teachers.

          You have a failed premise to your logic so the conclusion will also be wrong. You assume that I am claiming Lanka is wrong only because he does not toe the “party line”. Not even close. He is wrong because many lines of evidence prove his points wrong.

          Maybe if you get your assumptions better your logical conclusions might apply. At this time it is poor reasoning on your part. Maybe you should read some links I have posted before making your points. It might help.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            What defines a virus?

            If Lanka defines a virus different than you or your consensus, does that make him wrong about what he calls a virus? My premise is not failed, because I did not claim Lanka wrong only because he is a contrarian. I did not claim anything about Lanka. I only claimed your logic wrong, based on my assumption that he may have a different definition than you about what defines a virus. I could be wrong about that as I’m no virus expert and don’t know that you are either.

            Maybe if you get my arguments correct, my logical conclusions might apply.

            Gordon said, “It goes on in climate science as well. Roy, John Christy, and Richard Lindzen have been targeted and had papers blocked by idiots who can supply no evidence to back their propaganda.”

            You said, “I could not care at all what these contrarians accomplished at some point. They are not scientists now, just false teacher to the ignorant like you are.”

            You may not have intended to equate Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen as contrarians and false teachers, but that is how it looked to me. It looks as though you lump all contrarians into the same pigeon hole. I apologize if that was not your intent.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “My premise is not failed, because I did not claim Lanka wrong only because he is a contrarian.”

            That should be “My premise is not failed, because I did not assume you claimed Lanka wrong only because he is a contrarian.”

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            I think your definition of a Contrarian and mine differ considerably. I think you may equate a Contrarian to a Skeptic. I think skeptics are useful. A contrarian is NOT a skeptic. They disagree with a position just to disagree. Evidence has no bearing on their view. Evidence will not change their view. A skeptic will challenge a point or position until evidence is supplied. If the evidence is good and rational they can change the position based upon that. A contrarian will not change. Evidence is not the issue.

            If Roy Spencer or the others rejected all positions of climate change just to disagree I would not respect that position at all.

            Bringing up skeptical points is valid science.

            I hope that clarifies it to you. If not I can try other routes.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            If Lanka defines a virus differently than the established concept the flaw would be his and no one else. In order for effective communication to take place one should use established definitions of words (at least if they are using the words outside a tight group that might use word meaning differently).

            Here:
            https://www.sciencealert.com/virus

            This is basically what I think the word virus means.

          • Nate says:

            “A contrarian is NOT a skeptic. They disagree with a position just to disagree. Evidence has no bearing on their view. Evidence will not change their view. A skeptic will challenge a point or position until evidence is supplied. If the evidence is good and rational they can change the position based upon that. A contrarian will not change. Evidence is not the issue.”

            Norman, you put your finger squarely on the issue with guys like Chic.

            This discussion is a good example of faux skepticism or lazy skepticism.

            Chic is ‘skeptical’ because he favors contrarians and hasnt bothered to get informed on the subject. If he did get informed, his skepticism should disappear.

            Then the problem becomes that he has already taken a position, and once that happens, he is no longer able to be led by the evidence to change his mind.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            The King of Obfuscation and hypocrisy rears his ugly head. No data, no models, just speculation, hand-waving, and opinions on people he knows nothing about.

            I would add butting in, but unfortunately that is what I did with Norman and Gordon. At least I don’t make a living out of it like Nate does.

            When is Nate going to get banned? There should be a restriction on paid trolls.

          • Nate says:

            “paid trolls”

            Hilarious. By who?

            The one suggesting it usually has first hand experience with it.

            The only source of carbon that you dismiss as a possible cause of rising CO2 are fossil fuels….why is that? Are they paying you?

            Yes, I couldnt help butting in when I saw that Norman so perfectly described what is wrong with your brand of ‘skepticism’, and in fact, caught you in the act of doing it.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “The only source of carbon that you dismiss as a possible cause of rising CO2 are fossil fuels….”

            Pure obfuscation. Both FF and natural sources contribute to rising CO2. All knowledgeable scientists are in agreement that FF are only 5% of all CO2 sources. Only the AGW alarmists ignore physics and likelihood that natural sources are responsible for 86% of the rise in CO2.

            People with no data and no models obfuscate. That’s what they do.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman..” A contrarian is NOT a skeptic. They disagree with a position just to disagree.”

            Why would a scholar like Duesberg or Lanka want to disagree for the sake of it? Duesberg could go against the grain of popular thought but he walked the walk by isolating the first cancer gene. I don’t think they would have inducted a sheer contrarian into the National Academy of Science, or given him a lucrative special science award.

            Same with Lanka. His agenda is to protect people from idiotic thought in government and in the scientific community. This guy knows his work, he discovered the first virus in the ocean. He has also made statements about antivtruses which hold true. Not one has been isolated using the standard method for identifying a virus. He has taken his theory to the German government and had it accepted.

          • Nate says:

            “Only the AGW alarmists ignore physics and likelihood that natural sources are responsible for 86% of the rise in CO2.”

            Thank you for this perfect example of you having ” already taken a position, and once that happens, he is no longer able to be led by the evidence to change his mind.”

            Such as the Revelle factor,

            and the complete lack of evidence for the required large increase in a natural source.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I’m having trouble replying. See my partial comment here:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/observed-decrease-in-u-s-child-mortality-during-the-covid-19-lockdown-of-2020/#comment-503945

            Hopefully I’ll figure out why the rest of the story is being rejected.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          chic…”The flawed logic is to assume that Lanka must be wrong about HIV because he was wrong about measles”.

          Norman supplied an old article, Lanka’s claim about measles is still intact. He appealed and the appeal court ruled that the complainant did not prove his case.

          Lanka is a smart dude. For one, he discovered the first virus in the ocean. If you read his explanation of viruses and their activity, it seems reasonable if not outstanding in places. At other times, however, I’ve got to scratch my head at his claims.

          He makes no bones about it that viruses like bird flu and swine flu are bs. This guy’s forte is researching medical history and he provides compelling arguments once you get past the shock of him calling scientists like Pasteur and Koch frauds.

          One of his most compelling arguments for me is that retroviruses don’t exist. He claims a mistake was made circa 1970 when the retrovirus theory was introduced. As he points out, the theory has been applied unsuccessfully in cancer research.

          The basis of retrovirus theory is that an enzyme, reverse transcriptase, can cause RNA to convert back to DNA creating a virus. Lanka claims that RT is a common process in other parts of the body, like cell death. As he points out, none of the retroviruses can be found using the standard method for identifying a virus. Therefore the entire theory is based on inference with no virus being produced.

          That was true about HIV, and now covid. Lanka has really opened a can of worms and I have a hunch he will eventually be proved right. The German government has already bought his idea that no proof exists to support HIV.

          • Nate says:

            “The German government has already bought his idea that no proof exists to support HIV.”

            Thats a lie.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Norman…”He is totally wrong and was proven wrong in courts but you still idolize this antiscientist”.

        That’s an old article. He appealed and won. He also supplied testimony in a German court about HIV that helped a doctor accused of infecting patients with HIV to get off.

        Lanka has convinced the German government there is no proof that HIV exists. It is only here in North America that we are still pursuing this lame theory. Of course, now we have lost our democratic rights due to the claims about a virus that has never been properly identified either. That means the tests are not based on an identified virus but based on a wild inference.

        Not claiming there is no virus, just claiming whatever it is, no one knows its genetic makeup and they have completely overblown its danger to most people in populations. Only a tiny percentage of populations have been seriously affected.

  47. Nate says:

    Now that ‘Make America Great Again’ has been thoroughly accomplished, the new campaign slogan will apparently be:

    ‘Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.’

    Though IMO, PWMCT doesnt quite have the same ring to it as MAGA.

  48. Bindidon says:

    How dumb, pretentious and ignorant the professional liar Robertson is

    1. That you can see when reading a web page of the German government, dated 31.03.2020:

    HIV und AIDS (HIV and AIDS)

    https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/service/begriffe-von-a-z/a/aidshiv.html

    This is all in German of course. A quick 1 to 1 translation of the first lines:

    HIV is an infection with the human immunodeficiency virus. … The HI virus damages or destroys certain cells of the immune system and makes the body susceptible to diseases that are usually unproblematic in non-infected people. The treatment options available today prevent the virus from multiplying in the blood, so that most people living with HIV live with the virus for a long time without developing AIDS. AIDS stands for “Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome”. … People with AIDS often develop pneumonia and fungal diseases. AIDS was first diagnosed in 1981.

    *
    At the end of the page, you see a link to Germany’s combined HIV/Hepatitis strategy:

    https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/5_Publikationen/Praevention/Broschueren/Strategy_HIV_HEP_STI.pdf

    *
    That gives you a good hint about this disingenuous anti-vaccine guy Dr Stefan Lanka having, so says liar Robertson, ‘convinced the German government’ about HIV not being a virus!

    *

    2. Moreover, Robertson lies again when pretending that Stefan Lanka won over David Bardens concerning the fact that measles is a virus-induced disease.

    Lanke appealed indeed concerning the decision of the first court against him, and won. Even the Federal Supreme Court confirmed this.

    BUT… the courts’ decisions both had to do with what Lanka appealed about, namely that Bardens’ proof hadn’t been sufficient enough for him to obtain the 100,000 euros promised by Lanka.

    The Supreme Court explicitly explained that its sentence was NOT about measles bein or not a virus.

    *
    Nearly all children who died due to measles were not vaccined.

    *
    Luckily, Robertson never will play any role in any disease prevention programme, let alone would he ever be involved in Moon landing operations!

    J.-P. D.

  49. Bindidon says:

    For those who are interested

    CRISPR–Cas12-based detection of SARS-CoV-2
    James P. Broughton & alii (2020)

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-020-0513-4.pdf

    It is absolutely evident to me that the dumb and ignorant boaster nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’ again will try to distort, discredit and denigrate this publication.

    Does that matter? I don’t care about the ignorance of contrarian denialists.

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”It is absolutely evident to me that the dumb and ignorant boaster nicknamed Gordon Robertson again will try to distort, discredit and denigrate this publication”.

      The entire premise of Lanka’s argument against retrovirus activity is that none of the viruses, HIV, H1N1, H5N1, SARS, including covid 19, can be identified using the standard method for identifying a virus. This article proves that in that they are detecting RNA BELIEVED to be from a virus.

      Why can they not find these viruses using the standard method? Do they have Klingon cloaking devices to hide themselves from an electron microscope that can see other viruses easily?

      Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, (actually, he inferred its presence indirectly), could not see HIV on an electron microscope. HE ADMITTED THAT!!! So he PRESUMED a retrovirus and went looking for evidence of reverse transcriptase, an enzyme involved in reversing RNA into DNA.

      The thing that really bugs me is that a member of Montagnier’s team, Barre-Sinoussi, helped write the standard method for identifying a virus. Why did she not speak up when the virus could not be isolated using her method? Instead, she butt-kissed, accepting the new method without apparently questioning why the virus could not be found using her method.

      Montagnier BELIEVED that he had found such evidence based on cells in a cell culture, taken from a lymph node of a person with AIDS, because SOMETHING was killing the cells. He PRESUMED that something was a retrovirus and that theory got extended into HIV killing cells in the immune system to the degree it was helpless.

      Fast forward 35 years and he has changed his mind. He now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. So which is it? Is HIV the dangerous virus claimed to be killing an immune system or the virus harmless to a healthy immune system? The dat of AIDS deaths since 1983 in North America proves conclusively that HIV is absolutely harmless to healthy immune system.

      So here we have Binny presenting a paper based on the failed method while claiming I am misrepresenting the truth.

      Lanka, who is at least equally qualified in the field pointed out the obvious. Reverse transcriptase is a common process in the body unrelated to viruses. There was no reason to presume that RNA found in the body of an infected person was reversing into DNA and forming a virus. The implication is huge, the current covid tests are not testing for a virus but something else. That’s why the CD-C are reporting that 40% of those testing positive show no symptoms.

      The virus itself is the genetic material in a virion, a protein package and the genetic material it encapsulates. Why would RNA become reversed into DNA and form a virus inside a protein coating? The RNA could just as easily be taken to be the marker of an infection or some other immune response related to cell death.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        correction: “The dat of AIDS deaths since 1983 in North America proves conclusively that HIV is absolutely harmless to healthy immune system”.

        Is obviously “The data of AIDS deaths since 1983 in North America proves conclusively that HIV is absolutely harmless to healthy immune system”.

        However, trillions of dollars have been invested in HIV/AIDS research, a ridiculous amount considering that only a trace minority of people in North America and Europe have suffered from AIDS. That is the crime, the money could have been far better spent on cancer research.

        The scientist who emotionally attack any theory that contradict the HIV/AIDS theory are akin to pigs at a trough. They are up to their ying-yangs in funding money and patents, unable to have a conscience and push their over-bloated bodies away from the trough.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Now they have a new cash-cow in covid19. Fauci is slobbering over the notion of his vaccine patents coming to fruition.

  50. Bindidon says:

    The boaster’s ignorance and endless will to distort and dissimulate (continued)

    Somewhere above, I read Robertson’s blah blah:

    ” And what are you on about in Australia, you have 139 deaths… that’s right 139 deaths… out of a population of 25,000,000. By population, that’s 0.00056% = 5.6 ten thousandths of 1%.

    How can you call that a serious disease? New Zealand has 22 deaths out of a population of 4.886 million = 0.00045%. ”

    *
    One hardly could write dumber, more ignorant.

    Simply because it makes absolutely no sense

    – to speak about two countries which have shown to belong to those least affected by the COVID-19 disease,
    and at the same time
    – to keep silent about the mortality in the US, which is about 100 times higher than that of the two DownUnders, let alone about the mortality in Belgium (850 deaths per mil) which is even two times higher than that in the US.

    Why not to speak about Uganda, which has even ten times less deaths per million than Australia or New Zealand?

    Completely stupid, typical for superficial pseudoskepticism.

    Here is a graph comparing COVID-19 mortality in different countries / regions (Globe, Western Europe, Germany, USA, Brazil) on a per million basis (avoiding totally redundant zeroes after the decimal point, ha ha):

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/13eL1MGfXANofwtqT7EwutNtkHkJf_nla/view

    It doesn’t matter to me, when I look at this graph, how relevant US’ COVID-19 mortality is comparede with other diseases or death causes.

    What matters here is the comparison with the rest. The mortality slope in the US and in Brazil (together with Chile, Pero, Ecuador, Mexico) is, for the last two months, a lot higher than that of nearly all European countries (Sweden excepted).

    Germany’s data shows how low mortality can be when
    – you are a rich country
    – you were prepared
    – you stalled a powerful lockdown.

    *
    Now, how relevant US’ COVID-19 mortality really is: that I can deduce from the comparison with the seasonal flu, a disease which was considered three months ago to be far more deadly in the US than COVID-19 and its associated SARS-COV-2.

    Between 2010 and 2019, the seasonal flu was, according to CD-C data, the cause for between 12000 and 61000 deaths per season in the US (a season is October-April).

    According to Worldometers and the European CD-C, the COVID-19 mortality in the US is until now about 150000 deaths – beginning with February 15.

    Many contrarian people nicely pretend that the COVID-19 death toll is highly overestimated; these persons should keep in mind that e.g. in the US and in Canada, the disease control institutions often put flu and pneumonia mortality together, what is not the case in Germany.

    Source for the graph:
    https://tinyurl.com/rewn6ny

    *
    Thanks Trumpy boy for being such a foresighted president!

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”to keep silent about the mortality in the US, which is about 100 times higher than that of the two DownUnders, let alone about the mortality in Belgium (850 deaths per mil) which is even two times higher than that in the US”.

      Although I have my differences with Barry on certain matters, I am happy to see he is not suffering from covid in Oz. None of the heated debates are personal to me, I could sit down with any one of you over a beer and have a laugh. It might take a while to get Binny laughing but I’m sure he’d come around.

      Belgium does seem a might high, 9821 deaths out of a population of 11.46 million = 0.0857%. Wow, nearly ten one-hundredths of 1%. Extremely dangerous virus.

      This is not intended as a shot at the poor souls in Belgium who have died, I feel for them. It’s a shot at the hysterical twits running countries in this world who have caved in to fear, to the bean-counters and theorist, who are obviously way off the mark.

      Sweden, with a population close to that of Belgium, has about half the deaths, yet Sweden has done nothing to curtail the day to day activities of its citizens. One of the leaders in Sweden, epidemiologist, Johan Geiseke, is on record as claiming that there is no scientific evidence to back the social distancing myth. He also predicted that covid contagion will be no worse than a severe flu season.

      Why are the rest so blatantly stupid that they cannot see the obvious?

      Please don’t use the US as an example. The death rate there is completely exaggerated due to the idiotic definitions of a covid-related death. And I doubt that hospitals in the rest of the world are profiting from diagnosing patients as being covid positive as they are in the States.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson

        1. I repeat for the ignorant boaster:

        ” Now, how relevant US’ COVID-19 mortality really is: that I can deduce from the comparison with the seasonal flu, a disease which was considered three months ago to be far more deadly in the US than COVID-19 and its associated SARS-COV-2.

        Between 2010 and 2019, the seasonal flu was, according to CD-C data, the cause for between 12000 and 61000 deaths per season in the US (a season is October-April).

        According to Worldometers and the European CD-C, the COVID-19 mortality in the US is until now about 150000 deaths – beginning with February 15.

        Many contrarian people nicely pretend that the COVID-19 death toll is highly overestimated; these persons should keep in mind that e.g. in the US and in Canada, the disease control institutions often put flu and pneumonia mortality together, what is not the case in Germany. ”

        *
        2. Case mortality for the seasonal flu in the US (including pneumonia, which causes in Germany much more deaths than the flu itself): 0.1 %.

        Case mortality for COVID19 in the US (including of course what was wrongly attributed to it): 4 %.

        If you think that a disease

        – causing 40 times more deaths per case than the flu;
        – having, as opposed to the flu, caused so many deaths among the doctors and nurses;

        is negligible, than feel free to do.

        *
        3. Again a completely stupid comparison.

        While Sweden has, with 10 million inhabs on 450000 km2, a population density of 23 inhabs / km2 (even less than the USA), Belgium has, with 11 million inhabs on 30000 km2, a population density of 375 inhabs / km2.

        It is evident that the higher the density, the more contacts will exist and have much higher consequences even before any lockdown can start.

        Maybe you would start thinking about that, Robertson, if you were willing to do.

        But you only want to write your egocentric, uneducated, contrarian nonsense.

        There is only one blatantly stupid person here, and that’s you, Robertson.

        J.-P. D.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”Many contrarian people nicely pretend that the COVID-19 death toll is highly overestimated; these persons should keep in mind that e.g. in the US and in Canada, the disease control institutions often put flu and pneumonia mortality together, what is not the case in Germany”.

          Here in Canada we quote the covid stats separately.

          https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19.html

          Note the number of cases versus the number of tests. Only about 3% tested positive. Much ado about nothing.

          The states is a different animal. Coroners have complained they don’t have the bodies to match the numbers in their districts and doctors have complained of interference in how they report deaths.

          The complaint is that higher powers are directing them to mark deaths as covid related even if the deceased has not tested covid positive. As lone as the deceased has been in contact with someone who has tested positive they are urged to mark the death as covid related.

          I don’t trust the people who run the US CD-C and NIAID. Fauci runs the latter and he has been revealed as a bs artist both with the way he has handled HIV/AIDS and covid. He predicted 400,000 deaths in the US based on an unvalidated model after claiming models are unreliable. Now he needs to save face, being the egtist he is, and I am sure he and his buddy at the CD-C are elevating the number of covid deaths nearer to the 400,000 he predicted.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Would it be so difficult for you to link to any supporting evidence. Without evidence it seems as if you are just making up a bunch of s**t!

            You say Doctors are complaining about interference in how they report deaths. Do you have any valid support for this or is it some made up blog crap?

            A news-station went into depth on the Conspiracy and found no evidence.

            https://www.cbs19.tv/article/news/health/verify-covid-19-reporting-and-death-certificates/501-cd4f1995-e342-4451-ae90-a814f1ace284

            (See Gordon, you should supply some evidence for your outrageous claims so people can see the unprofessional source of your opinions)

            Why do you accept blog unproven ideas as fact yet vehemently reject textbook physics.

            You are a very odd person. You believe any stupid lie as long as it is contrarian to established ideas but will reject established science (like Relativity that has been tested and verified numerous times by many people). Not sure how your twisted mind works. One thing is certain is that you are not able to change your twisted view of reality.

          • Nate says:

            “The complaint is that higher powers are directing them to mark deaths as covid related even if the deceased has not tested covid positive. As lone as the deceased has been in contact with someone who has tested positive they are urged to mark the death as covid related.”

            Uhhh, the higher powers in the red states with exploding rates would certainly not be doing that. In some cases, like Florida and Georgia, its the opposite tendency to try to under-report. Eg in Florida, the govt did not release hospitalization figures until the pressure to do so became unbearable.

  51. Swenson says:

    Still from http://www.gov.uk

    * On 17 July, the Secretary of State asked Public Health England (PHE) to urgently review the way daily death statistics are currently reported. Were pausing the publication of the daily figure while this review takes place.* 26 July 2020

    Hmmm. Binny wont like this.

  52. Svante says:

    Gordon Robertson says:

    Johan Geiseke, is on record as claiming that there is no scientific evidence to back the social distancing myth.

    That’s a lie:
    https://youtu.be/LAT66OjarGA?t=146

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      svante…”Thats a lie:” in reference to my claim that Johan Gieseke said there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing.

      Careful with your rush to judgement. In this video, just after the 3:03 remark, he states just that. Around the 3:14 mark he is claiming social distancing is not backed by scientific evidence.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

      It’s worth watching the entire video, He gets into the situation in Sweden.

      Having said this, it makes sense to me to keep your distance from someone who is sick or who is exhibiting sign of being sick, like a runny nose, sneezing, coughing, etc. My objection is to the installation of this unscientific method in general, with the suggestion that standing closer than 6 feet to anyone is dangerous.

      I think a far better solution would be to impose sanctions on anyone who is sick and gets caught out in public. Then again, people have to eat and they need groceries. If there is no plan in place to get people what they need, that doesn’t work the way a democracy should work.

      I think we have implemented it to the point of hysteria. Now we have many people wearing cloth masks which are absolutely useless for stopping the inhalation of a virus. A viral particle is in the order of size of a molecule and if you can breath air through a cloth mask there is nothing to stop a virus.

      The Canadian CD-C and the local BC CD-C (provincial) both advice that a cloth mask won’t stop a virus. They think the advantage is in stopping water droplets expelled inadvertently. You don’t want to stand that close to anyone when he/she is talking.

      The N95 mask has a 90% success rate because it can block particles down to 30 times larger than a virus. It uses a centre layer that is electrostatic and tends to attract particles, including viral particles to the layer. It is also treated with hydrogen peroxide, impregnated into the fibres.

  53. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Whatever influence the Revelle Factor has on the absorp.tion of CO2 is already included in the resulting e-time of about 4 years. That applies to both FF and natural emissions because the ocean treats them both the same.

    Evidence suggests that the growth in ocean heat content and population both influence the growth of natural emissions.

    https://tinyurl.com/y28fnk66

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      That was in response to Nate’s comment here:
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/observed-decrease-in-u-s-child-mortality-during-the-covid-19-lockdown-of-2020/#comment-503878

      I don’t have a third axis to show the ocean heat content numbers, but they are a linear function of the numbers given in Cheng et al., 2020.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      I am working on combining both population and ocean heat growth into my modified Dr. S model to show how Mauna Loa data is adequately modeled by FF and natural emissions using a single rate constant for absorp.tion of CO2 emissions. This is off topic here, but it will be coming soon to a post near you.

      • bdgwx says:

        Do you trust the Mauna Loa CO2 data? I ask because they use an NDIR instrument that exploits the same mechanism responsible for the GHE.

    • Nate says:

      “Whatever influence the Revelle Factor has on the absorp.tion of CO2 is already included in the resulting e-time of about 4 years.”

      Nope, that makes no sense. You will need to explain how that works. It is not sufficient to just appeal to authority of Berry or someone else.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Do we have to go through this ad nauseum? No one knowledgeable about this subject disagrees that CO2 emissions are around 100 ppm/year and just slightly less than that gets absorbed each year. That makes for an e-time of roughly 4 years. Emissions are increasing and absorp.tions are keeping up pretty well. The imbalance may be due to a slower rate of ocean uptake compared to outgassing meaning that the atmosphere is “supersaturated.” This may be related to the Revelle factor phenomenon, but it does not change the fact that the e-time is about 4 years.

        You are using the Revelle factor to obfuscate. Put up or shut up. Show evidence where the Revelle factor makes the e-time something other than 4 years.

        I never appealed to Berry or anyone else. The data is right there in front of you. It’s my data and my model. Stop obfuscating and try opening your mind to other possibilities than what the experts you keep appealing to are saying.

      • Swenson says:

        Maybe you need to explain how doubling the amount of CO2 in a room makes the temperature go up? No appeals to authority, of course. No computer models either.

      • Nate says:

        “The imbalance may be due to a slower rate of ocean uptake compared to outgassing meaning that the atmosphere is supersaturated. This may be related to the Revelle factor phenomenon,”

        Yes that is pretty much what the Revelle factor is doing.

        “but it does not change the fact that the e-time is about 4 years.”

        Sure the atm carbon gets exchanged with biosphere and ocean mixed layer in ~ 4 y.

      • Nate says:

        “I am working on combining both population and ocean heat growth into my modified Dr. S model to show how Mauna Loa data is adequately modeled by FF and natural emissions using a single rate constant for absorp.tion of CO2 emissions”

        Atm CO2 is correlated to population, and of course correlation is not causation.

        Population is a proxy for other variables that can be causally linked to atm CO2 growth, such as fossil fuel emissions and agricultural land production.

        The latter two are already factored into estimates of anthro carbon emissions.

        Thus counting population as an additional factor is incorrect. It is double counting.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          When I finish my model, I will have a good estimate of what fraction of the natural emissions are due to ocean outgassing and how much the land use contributions to human emissions are being under-counted.

          Meanwhile, no data and no models from you. Just hand-waving arguments, speculation and unsupported opinions. Knock yourself out obfuscating everyone’s comments on drroyspencer.com.

        • Nate says:

          “Meanwhile, no data and no models from you.”

          Even better, published ones from people who have a deep understanding of the subject, unlike you or me.

          “Just hand-waving arguments, speculation and unsupported opinions.”

          Oh riiight, the understanding of the carbon cycle and Revelle Factor are just MY speculations and opinions and unsupported.

          That would be most convenient, but not the case.

          You know very well by now that these ideas go back 60 years and have a thick body of literature and evidence to support them. The models and their required complexity are driven by the observations. Youve seen some of the papers that I have pointed out. Have you bothered to read and digest them??

          A reminder of one that explains in plain english Revelle’s discovery and its implications.

          https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm

        • Nate says:

          “When I finish my model, I will have a good estimate of what fraction of the natural emissions are due to ocean outgassing and how much the land use contributions to human emissions are being under-counted.”

          Not sure how you are doing that, but sounds like circular logic is used to obtain required emissions that make your model work.

          My suggestion, do what the professionals do.

          Find real analyses of historical carbon emitted from land and ocean, and make a rough calculation of the increase over the last 60 y.

          Or find papers that have done it.

          If that calculation, with reasonable assumptions, gives the right order of magnitude to what your model requires, than thats promising.

          If not, your model needs major revision.

        • Nate says:

          If you re referring to

          “Thus counting population as an additional factor is incorrect. It is double counting.”

          as hand waving, no it is just pointing out a simple logical flaw.

          And you dont seem to have a sensible answer for it.

  54. Dan Pangburn says:

    The measured TPW and the WV calculated from temperature go up and down somewhat together, i.e. they are not orthogonal. This is obvious as shown in the graph of the two at
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_F8ntWa5m3cOcSF9PI7aVi-CCN7hMBN2/view?usp=sharing also shown is the trend line thru May 2020 for each. AFAIK the usual methods that might be used to determine the probability that the slopes are the same assume orthogonality of the variables and therefore do not apply.

    The object is to determine the probability that the difference between the slopes of the trend lines might be zero. This is done by calculating the slope of each trend line as determined after several (47) different time periods from Jan 2009 thru May 2020 and then determine the distribution of the difference of slopes. The difference between the slopes has an average of 0.004336 mm, a s.d. of 0.002067 mm so there are about 2.098 s.d. from the average to zero. The probability that the two trends actually have the same slope is therefore about 1.8%.

  55. barry says:

    Why excess deaths is a good measuring stick for COVID mortality, and some results for the UK and Europe.

    https://ourworldindata.org/covid-excess-mortality#1-why-is-it-important-to-examine-excess-mortality-data

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Why excess deaths is a good measuring stick for COVID mortality…”

      In Italy, in the 2016/17 flu season, the excess death rate reached 25,000 people due to the flu alone. There is no reason to think covid is under-reported for the following reasons.

      1)The actual number of people testing positive in Canada out of 3.5 million tested is about 3%.

      2)the number of deaths in Canada is measured in a few hundredths of 1%.

      3)the US CD-C reports that 40% of those testing positive for covid show no symptoms at all.

      The 3% number for Canadians has actually dropped. A while back when only 450,000 tests had been performed, the rate was 6%. With 3.5 million tested, it is now about 3%.

      The numbers of positive tests and deaths are way too small to make any claims of under-reporting.

      The only reasonable conclusion to reach from such numbers is that covid is not a danger to the average population at large. It is not only over-counted, it is not even significant as far as contagions go.

      Then there is the validity of the tests. Covid has not been isolated using the standard method for identifying a virus. Neither was HIV, H1N1, H5N1, or the SARS outbreak circa 2003. This is an inferred virus based on strands of RNA found in any person, never mind an infected person.

      You need to zero in on that. Yes…every person will test positive for RNA if the level is high enough. That was a beef with one of the HIV tests, the cell culture had to be diluted 400 times, otherwise every human would test positive for HIV.

      It is plainly obvious the tests are not testing for a virus, so what do the results infer? The test for covid based on the PCR method detects RNA in everyone but if it exceeds a certain level, that person is declared positive. How can that possibly be the test for a virus? It infers everyone is infected with HIV or covid.

  56. Gordon Robertson says:

    Lost a post and don’t know if it posted.

    svanteThats a lie: in reference to my claim that Johan Gieseke said there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing.

    Careful with your rush to judgement. In this video, just after the 3:03 remark, he states just that. Around the 3:14 mark he is claiming social distancing is not backed by scientific evidence.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

    Its worth watching the entire video, He gets into the situation in Sweden.

    Having said this, it makes sense to me to keep your distance from someone who is sick or who is exhibiting sign of being sick, like a runny nose, sneezing, coughing, etc. My objection is to the installation of this unscientific method in general, with the suggestion that standing closer than 6 feet to anyone is dangerous.

    I think a far better solution would be to impose sanctions on anyone who is sick and gets caught out in public. Then again, people have to eat and they need groceries. If there is no plan in place to get people what they need, that doesnt work the way a democracy should work.

    I think we have implemented it to the point of hysteria. Now we have many people wearing cloth masks which are absolutely useless for stopping the inhalation of a virus. A viral particle is in the order of size of a molecule and if you can breath air through a cloth mask there is nothing to stop a virus.

    The Canadian CD-C and the local BC CD-C (provincial) both advice that a cloth mask wont stop a virus. They think the advantage is in stopping water droplets expelled inadvertently. You dont want to stand that close to anyone when he/she is talking.

    The N95 mask has a 90% success rate because it can block particles down to 30 times larger than a virus. It uses a centre layer that is electrostatic and tends to attract particles, including viral particles to the layer. It is also treated with hydrogen peroxide, impregnated into the fibres.

    • Nate says:

      ‘They think the advantage is in stopping water droplets expelled inadvertently.’

      And theres the answer to your objection to masks as being absolutely useless..

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Read what was written, again. He talked about inhalation. Water droplets stopped during exhalation evaporate, releasing active virus which passes through or around the mask.

        No gain there, either. Please use some critical thinking before you comment. Mindless alarmism achieves little.

      • Nate says:

        “Read what was written, again. He talked about inhalation. Water droplets stopped during exhalation evaporate, releasing active virus which passes through or around the mask.”

        Speculation is not science or critical thinking.

        Masks are already proven effective.

        • Swenson says:

          Nate,

          Appealing to your own authority is likely to be unconvincing. Maybe you could provide details of a recent scientific paper containing reproducible experiments?

        • Nate says:

          “Appealing to your own authority”

          Its ok for you to do so with your declarations about how a virus passes thru a mask?

          Google it.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            And now you appeal to the authority of a – web writer? Not even a journalist?

            Average diameter of covid19 virus around 125 nm. Now you see why people who work with deadly viruses use pressure suits, not masks.

            Wear a mask or a tinfoil hat if you wish. Garlic tied around the throat wards off vampires. Everybody knows it!

            You still cant find a single good scientific paper to support your belief, can you?

          • Nate says:

            “And now you appeal to the authority of a – web writer? ”

            So you ask for a cite but then dont bother to read it? Just here to troll it seems.

            The article refers to published work, which are linked. Go check it.

            “Average diameter of covid19 virus around 125 nm.”

            Yes, and?

            Lacking a drop of water, a virus will not be projected anywhere and likely adheres to mask surfaces, particularly with the right kind of fibers.

            But this focus on mask mandates as a significant infringement on liberty is utterly stupid, and leads to senseless spread of illness and death like Herman Cains, who proudly pushed this narrative, as he attended the Tulsa Trump rally unmasked.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            And anybody checking can see why you appealed to the authority of a web writer. You still cannot find an actual scientific paper to back up your assertions.

            Virus particles even not associated with water droplets may remain suspended indefinitely, due to Brownian motion.

            By the way, dont forget to wear your goggles. The virus can infect you via your eyes.

          • Nate says:

            “You still cannot find an actual scientific paper to back up your assertions.”

            False. Clearly facts dont matter to you.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Maybe you could produce this paper which you claim exists? Or does it exist only in your imagination?

          • Nate says:

            There are papers linked to the article.

            Here is another one for those with a multi-click disability.

            One click only.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

            Note that aerosols are fine droplets, < 5 micron, and may allow the virus to float around.

            But these are significantly blocked by cloth surgical masks.

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Only a dedicated alarmist would link to a paper that supports his opposition –

            “Our findings indicate that surgical masks can efficaciously reduce the emission of influenza virus particles into the environment in respiratory droplets, but not in aerosols.”

            Read your own reference, you fool.

          • Nate says:

            We are talking about Coronavirus dimwit-troll, remember?

            See fig 1.

            Mask was VERY effective at reducing Coronavirus as an aerosol or a droplet.

          • Nate says:

            “We also demonstrated the efficacy of surgical masks to reduce coronavirus detection and viral copies in large respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). This has important implications for control of COVID-19, suggesting that surgical face masks could be used by ill people to reduce onward transmission.”

  57. Gordon Robertson says:

    Barry mike like this video with a Nobelist in chemistry. He is also an expert with computers and statistics and feels we took the wrong approach with severe lock downs. He noticed that the spread of covid was not exponential, but that it peaked naturally and began to fall. He first noticed that in China.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl-sZdfLcEk

  58. Nate says:

    Interesting. Smart guy. But it doesnt add up.

    He says he noticed China’s exponential growth began slowing naturally on Feb 2. But there were already lockdown measures instituted and public awarenss of the disease spreading during much of January.

    “This large-scale quarantine and social distancing that locked millions of people and cost huge human and economic costs has never been applied to this extent before, which made epidemiologists skeptical of whether it would work or not. Yuan [18] assessed the effect of Wuhan lockdown during COVID-19 epidemic and reported that ‘cities lock-down’ combined with nationwide traffic restrictions and Stay At Home Movement are all public health interventions that changed the fast-rising curve of newly diagnosed cases and helped in controlling the epidemic.”

    https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/508448

    So ‘natural’ is not justified.

    He praises China’s lockdown and tracing efforts as being very effective, having stopped the spread from Hubei to other cities in its tracks, but later concludes lockdowns are a big mistake??

    • Nate says:

      Levitt appears to be another in a long line of smart people who did great work in one field when they were 30, and years later win the Nobel. Then when they are > 70, they get Nobel’s disease and think that they can now comment authoritatively in any other field, and confidently tell experts in that field that they have it all wrong.

      And unfortunately, because they are Nobelists, they get listened to.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”Levitt appears to be another in a long line of smart people who did great work in one field when they were 30, and years later win the Nobel. Then when they are > 70, they get Nobels disease and think that they can now comment authoritatively in any other field…”

        The thing I like about the guy is that he does think rather than fall in line like other sheeple. One thing he noted is that covid is not rising exponentially as it should to be a pandemic. It is simply not spreading to general populations even though it is disastrous to some.

        We need more people like Levitt to stick their noses in and offer comments.

  59. Bindidon says:

    A few charts comparing, from March 1 till July 30, COVID19 in the different continents (America from Canada till Chile, Europe + Russia including Siberia, Asia, Africa and the whole Globe)

    All plots are per million. Such a stat doesn’t mean much for a single continent; the comparison between them is of interest.

    1. Total cases

    https://tinyurl.com/y65k4nz4

    2. Total deaths

    https://tinyurl.com/y4t946k8

    3. Daily cases

    https://tinyurl.com/yxqetkup

    4. Daily deaths

    https://tinyurl.com/y26bvea6

    Source: European Centre for Disease Control

    https://tinyurl.com/rewn6ny

    J.-P. D.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      Your definition of interesting is obviously different to mine.

      • Bindidon says:

        Swenson

        1. No wonder: you are only interested in what confirms what you want to see.

        2. The post was therefore obviously intended for people thinking different than you do.

        J.-P. D.

  60. Bindidon says:

    We have more Cases because we do more Testing.
    It’s Lamestream Media Gold!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2020 ”

    *
    You hardly could write that dumber.

    UK tests per million more than US, but… has on the other hand only a third of the US cases per million!

    Who will save the United States from such an inept president?
    Even the Reps begin to think of dropping him away.

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Who will save the United States from such an inept president?”

      Trump looks like a genius compared to the politically-correct cretins in the Democratic Party. If they were in power, the US would be locked down for the foreseeable future, everyone would be forced to wear masks, and everyone would be required to be vaccinated by some antiviral poison.

      And I have yet to address their seriously dumb Green plan. By supporting the current rioting and violence as a protest, and after 4 years of sour grapes over losing in 2016, the Democrats have revealed themselves as incapable of running any country.

    • Bindidon says:

      I repeat for the dumbest among the dumbest:

      1. ” UK tests per million more than US, but has on the other hand only a third of the US cases per million! ”

      2. ” Even the Reps begin to think of dropping him away. ”

      J.-P. D.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Binny…I have tried to talk to you before about using statistics without a context. Obviously, you don’t understand. Numbers are useless unless they reference a valid context.

        What is the context for covid in the UK versus the US? In the US, NIAID (infectious disease control) is lead by Anthony Fauci, an obsessive dogmatist who is still mired in the belief that HIV is a dangerous virus that can destroy immune systems. The data has proved him wrong but he is so obsessive he cannot come to grips with the context and the reality.

        The scientist who is credited with discovering HIV has long since abandoned the notion that HIV is a dangerous virus, claiming it is harmless to a healthy immune system. Why are we still being fed propaganda that a virus like covid is so dramatically different than any other virus? People with healthy immune systems simply don’t succumb to run of the mill viruses.

        Fauci, claimed, without proof, that the US would have 400,000 deaths due to covid. They are not even close but he has egg on his face after his dumb prediction and he needs to ramp up the number of covid-related deaths to save face. Therefore he has helped implement definitions of ‘covid-related’ that are unrealistic.

        I gave an example. If a person dies of something unrelated, and that person does not test positive, his/her death is still listed as covid-related if that person had been in contact with someone who had tested positive.

        Also, Fauci has patents on vaccines and he stands to reap a windfall if this virus can be prolonged till one of his vaccines is produced. He is stalling the end of this virus on purpose.

        Furthermore, there is not a shred of evidence that the test used is testing for covid. They are using the same theory used for HIV where a virus is claimed by inference but cannot be identified by a standard test for identifying a virus. It was wrong for HIV and it is likely wrong for covid.

        Since the US CD-C admits that 40% of people testing positive show no symptoms, and only about 3% of those tested test positive, that is a very good indication that the 150,000 deaths claimed in the US as covid-related are bs as are the tests.

        I Know I am wasting my breath on someone like you who has a brain programmed for conformity and an appeal to authority. But I tired anyway.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          I am the one wasting my breath on a person as dishonest and phony as you are! You make all these unsupported claims all the time and act as if they are factually based.

          You spread gossip like an old lady: Here is an example: “Also, Fauci has patents on vaccines and he stands to reap a windfall if this virus can be prolonged till one of his vaccines is produced. He is stalling the end of this virus on purpose.”

          You malign Fauci with zero proof of your claims and you think this type of malicious rumor spreading is okay because you are doing it?

          You also lie about HIV over an over with zero shame. How can you lie so much and not care about it? You say HIV has never been identified yet I have linked you to hundreds of Electron Microscopic images of this virus. Do you just lie because you have to or it feels good to be a dishonest, rumor mongering, liar?

          Not sure what your mental malfunction is but lying and maligning people with bad intent seems to be your favorite sport.

          • Bindidon says:

            Thanks Norman

            I’m too tired today to reply to such a thoroughly lying nonsense.

            Robertson is a pretentious, ignorant and stubborn liar with no science let alone engineering knowledge and experience in any field, be it temperature measurement, energy equilibrium between Earth and outer space, Moon’s spin about its own center of mass, relativity, COVID19 or anything else.

            Robertson’s mental malfunction is similar to that of one of Rose’s uncles: 20 years ago he started being contrarian about everything, endlessly ignoring Rose when she told him he was wrong, and endlessly repeating the same nonsensical stuff.

            Today, Kurt still is ‘alive’ but he is now silent and definitely embraced by Alzheimer’s darkness.

            J.-P. D.

          • Norman says:

            Bindidon

            Thank you for sharing the condition of Rose’s uncle. It does sound a lot like Gordon’s condition. Therefore it would seem nothing will alter the nature of his posts. I guess maybe time to follow the Beatles advice: “Let it Be”.

            I was hoping confrontation could change this mental state but what you describe makes it seem a permanent change that cannot be altered.

            Even though he is a dishonest liar I guess it does not matter pointing it out. I guess this blog is a release for him and I should not get caught up in correcting lies that will never change or malicious gossip that he must post.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”How can you lie so much and not care about it? You say HIV has never been identified yet I have linked you to hundreds of Electron Microscopic images of this virus”.

            I don’t know how you can get any dumber, Norman, if you do you likely won’t be able to breath. I have cited the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, as claiming HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system, but you are too lazy or too stupid to check that fact. He also claimed in an hour-long interview that he has never seen HIV.

            Not one of those artist mock-ups of a virus have been HIV. Montagnier could not see it on an electron microscope, Gallo could not see it, yet there are hundreds of pictures of it on the Net. Someone is lying but it’s not me.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Robertson is a pretentious, ignorant and stubborn liar with no science let alone engineering knowledge and experience in any field…”

            And you cannot rebut anything I say without insults and ad homs. Your claims about the Moon were all based on an appeal to authority without having the slightest idea what libration means. I tried explaining it to you using orbital mechanics, but you, claiming to be an engineer, had no idea what I was talking about.

            Norman is no better. He reads a few text books, takes them literally as the gospel while totally misinterpreting what is being said, and regards himself as an authority on science. He may get away with that with people illiterate in science but when someone like myself comes along, with a strong background in science to reveal his bs., he reacts with insults and ad homs.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Your posts are a clear example of “appeal to authority” fallacy. it does not matter at all you post some expert (and I have not found evidence of your claims and you do not post any links to them) it matters what the evidence shows. It does not matter is some expert says they have never seen HIV. It would mean they are ignoring vast amounts of real evidence, like you do.

            I have linked you several times to many Electron Microscope images of HIV. That you ignore them just means you are a lying contrarian not interested in the truth. You cling to a couple contrarian scientists who intentionally lie and lead gullible people like you astray but will completely ignore mountains of evidence showing you and they are totally wrong.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Here is strong evidence for you lying posts. Not that this will stop your lying. It seems a passion with you.

            You claim that “Not one of those artist mock-ups of a virus have been HIV. Montagnier could not see it on an electron microscope, Gallo could not see it, yet there are hundreds of pictures of it on the Net. Someone is lying but it’s not me.”

            Then why do these scientists make this claim? “Electron micrographs of the new virus were different from those of HTLV-I and resembled those of a retrovirus of horses.”

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/aids-in-1988-gallo-montagnier/

            Look at the writers of this article. Why do you lie?

            Now you need to have a link where your claim can be verified. I found no such claim what is your source for: “Luc Montagnier, as claiming HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system,”

            Where does he say this. I will assume it is another of your many lies unless you supply a valid information source.

            Go on keep lying. I think lies make you feel good about yourself. Not sure why but you seem unable to slow down your lies even when they are exposed. You just keep right on lying as it is no big deal to you.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            If this is what you are twisting then it has nothing to do with what you are claiming. Luc Montagnier, as claiming HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system,

            Here is one article:
            https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-29-9202170885-story.html

            And this:
            https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/news/520/niaid-researchers-discover-why-some-hiv-infected-people-dont-develop-aids

            It was noticed a small number of HIV infected people did not develop AIDS. They were looking for the cause in hopes of maybe being able to stop the progression of the disease.

            This is not at all in agreement with your claim.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Look at the writers of this article. Why do you lie?”

            Another one of Norman’s appeal to authority falls flat on its face.

            Is that the best you can do, cite an article in which Gallo is a co-author? He was convicted of scientific misconduct for stealing HIV info from Montagnier and pardoned by Clinton, whose only claim to fame was having sex with an employee in the Oval Office.

            After the US and French governments came to an agreement on his misconduct, he was forced to give up half his profits to Montagnier from the two HIV tests, which he had patented.

            This is the same ass who claimed cancer was caused by a retrovirus and got himself laughed out of town. He brought exactly the same theory to HIV/AIDS and it was anointed by a desperate Reagan administration without peer review.

            https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/aids2002/pdfs/259-5092-168.pdf

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”If this is what you are twisting then it has nothing to do with what you are claiming”.

            Nope…that’s dated 1992, the interview I saw was circa 2015 or later. Montagnier definitely stated that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system.

            The interviewer was so astounded when Montagnier claimed HIV could not harm a healthy immune system that he had him repeat the claim. Montangier is an easy going professional as opposed to the anal type represented by Gallo. He giggled with amusement at the interviewer asking him to repeat the claim.

            In the same video interview, Montagnier states that he has never seen HIV.

            I still have the full interview somewhere but I am not up on how to post such a video. Do you know how to upload a video?

          • Svante says:

            “The dog ate my homework.”

          • Nate says:

            “Montagnier definitely stated that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system.”

            And so what?

            Why is this one outlier to be believed when it runs counter to so much very clear cut evidence?

            This is an appeal to authority of one contrarion who may very well be mad.

  61. Bindidon says:

    The best possible answer to Robertson’s ignorant, pretentious and denigrating blah blah about Fauci is to present a comparison of COVID data from the US with that of two other countries: Sweden and the UK.

    When you look at a comparison of the total cases

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s0Kz6zOwy6GHEg9d72zhzX26xO5T6xg1/view

    you indeed might suspect some case overhead in the US (which might, during the last 6 weeks, rather be due to excessively liberal behavior of people in Texas, Florida, California and Georgia).

    But a comparison of the total death tolls gives another picture:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aBedRymGPYDzwowlCjiHJ0uFtSwJYbqH/view

    Here you see the the US death toll not only is below UK’s, but is even below that of Sweden. No trace of any ‘obsessive dogmatism’.

    *
    Now focusing on the wrongly appraised Sweden, you can compare its minimal lockdown strategy with that, more severe, chosen by the other European Nordic states (Denmark, Finland, Norway).

    Again, a comparison of the total cases:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I7NZb13XVPkNmOOQMn2Q-RNmy-C0IL3O/view

    and of the total death tolls:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y1uau6ZBtcR9ZouUEZ0vZcYz9u4PcJw5/view

    Draw your own conclusions.

    J.-P. D.

  62. Bindidon says:

    From the rather serious Financial Times, a good web page allowing us to compare COVID data in all countries:

    – cases vs. deaths
    – new vs. cumulated
    – raw vs. per million
    – log vs. linear

    An example:

    https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=col&areas=per&areas=bra&areas=chl&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usfl&areasRegional=ustx&cumulative=0&logScale=0&perMillion=1&values=cases

    J.-P. D.

    • Swenson says:

      And this is of use because . . .?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…how’s things in the UK? I was born north of Hadrian’s wall, which was built by the Roman’s to keep my Pictish ancestors out, but I like to keep in touch.

        binny does not need a reason behind his claims all he needs to justify his existence is a chance to fire up his Excel app and torture the data till it says what he wants it to say, even if it is in complete contradiction with professional sources like UAH.

        When the debate won’t allow statistical fudging he turns to authority figures even though he has no idea whatsoever what the figures are talking about.

      • Bindidon says:

        Swenson

        A surprising question indeed. 10-year old children wouldn’t need to ask.

        J.-P. D.

  63. Bindidon says:

    Robertson

    Your eternal lies (1: HIV/AIDS)

    Firstly, I repeat for the umpteenth time that YOU, Robertson, are the one who started years ago with insults and adhoms against many persons presenting results you were (and still are) unable to understand, let alone to accept.

    And I also repeat: as long as you will continue to insult, discredit, denigrate, distort and lie, you will be subject to such name callings from my side. These are less injuries than, much more, findings.

    You are unable to present anything else than ridiculous claims about ‘buttkissing’ or ‘appeal to authority’, while you in fact are yourself permanently appealing to the unscientific pseudoauthority you pick up out of blogs like Goddard, Smith’s chiefio, virusmyth and the like.

    ***
    Though there is strong evidence that you will never give up your eternal lies about HIV-1 & AIDS, Montagnier and Gallo, I nonetheless want show to (interested) readers of Roy Spencer’s science blog what a brazen liar you are when claiming that neither Montagnier nor Gallo did ever see the HIV.

    *
    1. From a French science blog this picture:

    https://cdn.futura-sciences.com/buildsv6/images/mediumoriginal/c/2/9/c2951407d0_36956_46565-vih.jpg

    originating from a 1983 paper written by Barré-Sinoussi, Montagnier and others (unfortunately behind paywall, my simple A3S login wasn’t enough to obtain access):

    Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/220/4599/868/

    At that time, HIV was named ‘LAV’ (lymphadenopathy associated virus).

    *
    2. An article written in 2009 about Montagnier’s and Gallo’s discovery work and feud:

    Anders Vahlne

    A historical reflection on the discovery of human retroviruses

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686671/

    *
    3. A paper by Rainer Kühne (2019)

    The Contributions of the Gallo Team and the Montagnier Team to the Discovery of the AIDS Virus

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rainer_Kuehne/publication/333770720_The_Contributions_of_the_Gallo_Team_and_the_Montagnier_Team_to_the_Discovery_of_the_AIDS_Virus/links/5d11f04b299bf1547c7cacf2/The-Contributions-of-the-Gallo-Team-and-the-Montagnier-Team-to-the-Discovery-of-the-AIDS-Virus.pdf

    But… I guess that instead of searching in (2) or in (3) for ‘electron microscope’ or similar tags, you will discredit all the papers.

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny..from one of your links…”In fact, as narrated by Gallo in one of his reviews[7], when Gallo first submitted their report on HTLV-I to Journal of Virology it was rejected right away by the editor Robert Wagner “insisting that they should cease, and not continue to perpetuate the controversy, strongly implying that we all know human retroviruses do not exist”.

      Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean claims to this day that retroviruses don’t exist.

      You cited a paper with Barre-Sinoussi as a co-author. She sat on a panel at the Louis Pasteur Institute which created the modern method for identifying a virus. It involved isolating and purifying the virus from a cell culture using a sucrose solution density gradient which is centrifuged with the cell culture. If a virus is there it needs to show up at a certain density gradient in the centrifuged solution.

      If the density band is there, the material is removed and prepared to view it on an electron microscope. It MUST show only viral particles of the same size and shape. Barre-Sinuousi was also on the Montagnier team that claimed to discover HIV. Why was she unable to use her own method to SEE HIV? They tried but the outcome was blurry and they were unable to identify HIV on an electron microscope.

      If she had any class, she would have withdrawn from the team when they began looking for a virus using reverse transcriptase. It could not be found using the method she helped establish and the best they could do was infer that SOMETHING was killing cells in a sample from a person with AIDS.

      It appears Montagnier figured out the truth much later. Whatever was killing the cells, and they called it HIV, could only kill cells from an infected person who had AIDS. Montagnier reported circa 1992 that many people with AIDS did not have HIV.

      Here is an excellent description of the method Barre-Sinoussi helped to define. If you read it and understand it you well see why the micrograph you posted is not HIV.

      http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html

      This is why I argue so vehemently that is a virus cannot be isolated, purified, and seen using this method there is no virus there.

      Another excellent article by same authors which links to an explanation of reverse transcriptase. I think Stefan Lanka is onto something. Retroviruses were claimed to be discovered in the 1970s and Gallo is involved early on. I think Gallo is incompetent and that he and others have mislead the science world about retrovirus activity, especially HIV.

      It has gotten so bad that no direct proof of a virus like covid is required. All that is needed is to show proof of reverse transcriptase.

      An early pioneer in the field of retrovirology, who refused to call it reverse transcription, tried to point out in vain that reverse transcription is common in bodily processes that DO NOT involve a virus.

  64. Bindidon says:

    Robertson

    Your eternal lies (2: understanding of libration)

    ” Your claims about the Moon were all based on an appeal to authority without having the slightest idea what libration means. ”

    This is obviously wrong: YOU, Robertson, are the one who has no idea about what libration means, especially that there are two completely different kinds of it:
    – optical, apparent libration (which is a proof for Moon’s spin about its own center of mass, but has of course no influence on it);
    – physical, existing libration (forced or free) having very well influence on Moon’s spin.

    Even when being very tiny perturbations, physical librations were included into Moon’s ephemeris used for the computation of lunar and interplanetary spacecraft trajectories.

    J.-P. D.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”YOU, Robertson, are the one who has no idea about what libration means…”

      I explained it to you using orbital science. No need to claim I am wrong because you can’t follow my explanation.

      If the Moon’s orbit was purely circular, there would be no libration. Therefore, libration is a property of an elliptical orbit. I am talking here of the libration that allows us to peek around the corner of the Moon a few degrees, which far to many people take as proof that the Moon rotates.

      There are no tangential torques that permit even a few degrees of back and forth rotation. Libration is an illusion of rotation based on presumption. If you see a little further around the edge sometimes it must be rotating.

      Not so.

      In a circular orbit, a radial line from the Moon would always point at the centre of the Earth. In an elliptical orbit, that is not true because in an elliptical orbit, the radial line from the Moon to the Earth is determined by the tangent line to the elliptical curve at whatever point is being considered.

      That radial line is found by drawing lines from the two focal points of the ellipse to the Moon, and bisecting those lines. When you do that with the slight elliptical orbit of the Moon, there are times in the more eccentric parts of the orbit where the radial line points slightly away from the Earth’s centre. That allows us to peek around the edge of the Moon a few degrees.

      It does not mean the Moon has physically rotated. To the uninformed human mind, it appears to be a rotation but that mind is fooling himself/herself. In order to rotate even a few degrees, a tangential force would have to be applied.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson

        The more you write about this, the dumber you look.
        You are only interested in stupid, scienceless contradiction.

        The best is you talk with yourself.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”The best is you talk with yourself”.

          After talking to people like you the only way I can get an intelligent answer is talking to myself.

  65. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…here’s a link to the hour long interview with Montagnier. He does some major side-stepping about the final phase of seeing HIV on an electron microscope. He admits you cannot see it because it is surrounded by viral particles many of which are non-infectious. He ESTIMATED that 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 were HIV.

    That is totally obvious in the photo you posted.

    At 52:21 of the movie there is an admission by his lab technician that at no time did they ever see HIV.

    Montagnier admitted that HIV is found in very small quantities. How then does it defeat an immune system? No one has ever explained that. There is not one paper, according to Kary Mullis, who searched for ten years, to show how HIV does that.

    At another part, around 44 minutes, he pretty well admits he could not isolate HIV from the cell culture, They did it by inference based on the presumption that evidence of reverse transcriptase indicates a virus. That is bs according to several scientists like Lanka.

    Somewhere around 18 minutes he admits that if you have a healthy immune system, HIV won’t harm you.

    He also admitted that reverse transcriptase is not absolute evidence of viral activity. RT is the basis of covid tests and the CD-C have admitted that 40% of those testing positive show no symptoms of illness. Ergo, the tests are useless.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyPq-waF-h4

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Thank you for posting the video. I do not agree with your conclusion that “Somewhere around 18 minutes he admits that if you have a healthy immune system, HIV wont harm you.”

      The Interviewer: “If you have a good immune system then your body can naturally get rid of HIV”

      Montagnier: “Yes”

      You stretch his words to fit your narrative. He claims that a strong immune system can fight HIV but you can’t conclude that it will not cause an infection.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Montagnier basically gives a clear case that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

      The person who made the video also made a film that has been debunked

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Numbers:_Anatomy_of_an_Epidemic

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”Montagnier basically gives a clear case that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

        The person who made the video also made a film that has been debunked”

        What the heck does the producer of the film have to do with what Montagnier said? With regard to him saying HIV is the cause of AIDS he did not say that. From the beginning he claimed a co-factor was required. He went into a lengthy discussion in the movie about the difference in philosophy between the US way of doing things and the European way.

        He claimed US researchers seem programmed to find only one cause for an illness/disease whereas he thinks there are often multiple factors involved. He also stated in the movie that every human will encounter HIV at some time in his/her life and that if he/she has a healthy immune system the HIV will not harm them.

        I like Montagnier and I think he is trying to be honest. He is also under tremendous pressure since being awarded the Nobel not to get too far out of line.

        You have to understand that the theory of retroviruses was not developed till about 1974. One of the principle researchers urged anyone reading his work not to leap to conclusions about a virus being formed by a reverse process, from RNA to DNA. That process depends on an enzyme, reverse transcriptase, as evidence, and he claimed RT is also a common process in the human body unrelated to a virus.

        When Gallo submitted a paper on retroviruses to a medical journal, it was rejected by the editor who claimed there is no such thing as a retrovirus.

        Both Gallo and Montagnier were researchers in the field of retrovirology looking for a virus that caused cancer. Duesberg was one of the primary researchers in that field and he was a friend of Gallo, who spoke highly of him. None of these researchers have been able to prove that a retrovirus causes cancer and none of them can prove a retrovirus exists.

        This concerns me deeply because democracy is being held ransom by a virus (covid) that no one has seen. The science used to identify it has far too many ifs, and maybes, and nothing in the way if direct proof. There is no proof that covid testing is accurate.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”And then this one:”

        Norman, you’ll believe any lies as long as they are signed by an authority figure.

        The photo here is a tomographic projection, not the photo of a virus with an electron microscope. There is no way with such a projection that they can claim the blue spheres as being HIV.

        Montagnier has already told us this, with his experience, that HIV cannot be seen due to the contamination of other viral particles. They (him and Gallo) tried to find HIV using the EM and they both failed. So how did Caltech find the virus?

        Caltech extends their lie to claim that HIV has a conical core inside it, a unique marker. Cells have cores, called nucleii, in which it stores its DNA. If you look closely at the blue spheres to the right, about mid-page, you will see two spheres with the cores appearing to be outside the sphere and covering another sphere.

        A virion is not like a cell and has no core. These guys are seriously confused, but hey, with big bucks flooding in from government funding, why should they care about doing real science? They are telling everybody what they want to hear to keep the funds flowing.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Before you go off on a Conspiracy Rant about how corrupt scientists are (just in it for money).

          Here is the actual paper that was part of my link. You can read through it and point out false and corrupt science.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5338924/

          The scientists took mice with human tissue. They stained the HIV (they intentionally injected the mice with HIV and stained one of the viral proteins).

          The process is explained in great detail. This is real science. You can harp your Conspiracy nonsense but it is not valid at all.

          You make claims you cannot support.

          Your linked video clearly gives many lines of reason to accept HIV is the cause of AIDS.

          So far all you have is your “butt-kissing” love of contrarian authorities. (Even though they are proven wrong with solid evidence, sound logic and valid reasoning skills)

  66. Svante says:

    Hi Gordon, where do you find all your non-mainstream theories?

Leave a Reply