The ‘science’ behind the coronavirus and COVID-19
First, assume a pandemic and then assume that people are getting sick and dying (starting point).
Then “confirm” the pandemic spread based on random evaluation of hospital visits, mostly one (indicator) patient per hospital/country.
If most “indicator” patients evaluated were successfully treated with common and standard treatments under the situation and recovered without serious illness or deaths, still assume that countries are in the midst of a deadly pandemic.
Next, assume that infection is virus-based and assume the virus is novel, call it SARS-CoV-2, “confirmed” by a PCR test.
Understandably, the test has never been shown to work for the virus or its illness (because it cannot test them) but still assume that the test works for the novel virus.
It is unnecessary to validate the test against the reference (gold) standard but assume it is validated.
To provide “scientific” proof of the novel virus existence, conduct isolation of the “isolate” and assume that isolate/lysate is the virus.
Once labeled with the virus infection (i.e., PCR positive), isolate the patients from others and assume they will recover.
If not recovered, then assume that they died of virus illness or CVID-19.
Further, assume that the only effective treatment has to be a vaccine and assume it has to be a new one.
Assume no current medicine or therapy is workable.
Conduct clinical trials in healthy volunteers (not patients sick with the virus).
However, assume that with the PCR-test negative results, subjects got protected from the virus, which was assumed to be present.
Calculate the RVE (Relative Vaccine Efficacy) not real or absolute Vaccine Efficacy to assume that the vaccines have been highly successful.
Oh, sorry, assume the word assume as “science” and shout out repeatedly.
Voila, you have been working with science or following the science – “the medical/pharmaceutical science”!
See more here: bioanalyticx.com
Header image: News.eu
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
very old white guy
| #
What’s that old saying. Assume, makes an ass out of u and me.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Great Saeed,
One could always add: “Assume” that the most absurd and outright irrational “non-pharma responses” to this C19 Plandemic (BTW conceived under dubya) are working well and discard / chastise all those disputing / criticizing this, whether health officials or just concerned citizens, “assuming” (as all those “assumptions” and fear mongering have been vital ingredients of the planned Mass Formation control) that most people would not translate these “NPI’s and fact checking” as what these really represent —
Tyranny and Censorship.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JaKo, Saeed, and PSI Readers,
I certainly agree with JaKo about what Saeed had written..PSI Reader, do you see that if you ASSUME anything you cannot be accused of being WRONG!!! Hence, we read about Herb’s physics without actual, reproducible observation to support his assumptions. The same could be said about James McGinn’s (a self proclaimed Genius) assumption that the Earth’s atmosphere does not contain individual water molecules when there are all kinds of reproducible observations which support an assumption that it does.
It is very important that we all recognize that which Saeed brought to our detentions. All IDEAS (THEORIES) of SCIENCE are totally based upon assumptions,. Which assumptions are sometimes supported by many, many reproducible observation about which there can be NO QUESTION (DEBATE).
And I know assume I have discovered how it is that my articles and comments about actual reproducible observation have generated so few (generally) comments. ONE CANNOT DEBATE OBSERVED FACTS, ONE CAN ONLY DEBATE ASSUMPTIONS!!!
Have a.good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hence, we read about Herb’s physics without actual, reproducible observation to support his assumptions.
Jerry, Herb is like five times less likely to make this intellectual error as are you. You make his mistake over and fricking over again. Like a frickin robot. You even do it right here in this same post.
The same could be said about James McGinn’s (a self proclaimed genius) assumption that the Earth’s atmosphere does not contain individual water molecules
Right. Specifically, I myself (a self proclaimed genius) am saying that it is plainly and verifiably evident that it is impossible for H2O to exist as a genuine gas (individual water molecules rather than invisibly small micro and nano droplets). And I’m saying that there are millions and millions of nitwits (yourself included, Jerry) who delusionally choose to believe that we can just ignore the evidence in the H2O phase diagram (a resource that everybody–including yourself, Jerry–has access to through a simple internet search)–evidence that plainly refutes the nitwit-based delusion that water magically defies its known phase change, thermal requirement to become genuinely gaseous at temperatures far below it’s known boiling temperature/pressure.
The vast majority of people on this planet have an excuse, but not you Jerry. They don’t know about any of this and they were misinformed by deluded educators. You no longer have this excuse, Jerry. I myself (a self proclaimed genius) informed you of this ASSUMPTI0N. You believe it because you are not bright enough to recognize that it is just an ASSUMPTION!!!
So, Jerry, you are in no position to be whining to us about adherence to scientific methods of which you refuse to abide.
It is very important that we all recognize that which Saeed brought to our attentions. All IDEAS (THEORIES) of SCIENCE are totally based upon assumptions. Which assumptions are sometimes supported by many, many reproducible observation about which there can be NO QUESTION (DEBATE).
You are delusional, cowboy. Show us one reproducible experiment that demostrates the existence of your magical “cold steam”. You’ve already proven that you can’t fulfill this request.
ONE CANNOT DEBATE OBSERVED FACTS, ONE CAN ONLY DEBATE ASSUMPTIONS!!!
Put up or shut up. Nobody needs a lecture from a fraud who refuses to admit his own assumptions smell like crap.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I have looked at the phase diagram ow water. And I believe remembering that I have asked you once or twice: What is the line between the gaseous phase between the gaseous phase??? What is the line between the liquid phase and the solid phase??? What is the line between gaseous phase and the solid phase???
And you once or twice have failed to write any answer to to each of these specific questions.
I certainly do not claim to a be genius, but if you are an example of a genius; I would never want to be one.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
I have looked at the phase diagram on water. And I believe remembering that I have asked you once or twice: What is the line between the gaseous phase between the gaseous phase???
James:
Read the fucking diagram, moron. What is on the x axis. write that down, explicitly. What is on the Y axis. Write that down, explicitly. Now read what you fucking wrote. There’s your fucking answer, moron.
Okay, I know you are slow, so I will explain:
If you follow my instructions you will now have noticed something that you did not notice previously. One of the coordinates (I forget at the moment whether it is the x or the y). Involves air pressure. Now, taking into account that the air pressure in the troposphere is relatively constant around 1 ATM (and only veers moderately with height) we can look at the part of the chart that involves 1ATM (and thereabouts) AND WE CAN FUCKING IGNORE THE REST OF THE FUCKING DIAGRAM, INCLUDING YOUR DUMBASS “LINE” WHICH IS NOW A POINT.
Jerry:
What is the line between the liquid phase and the solid phase???
James:
If the pressure is constant (and/or if we temporarily allow ourselves to assume that it is) we can see that your line IS NOT A LINE BUT A POINT.
Jerry:
What is the line between gaseous phase and the solid phase???
James:
Dumb question. It is what it says it is. It shows the phase change characteristics AT DIIFFERENT PRESSURES!!! Moreover, and despite your delusions, the line does not tell us anything useful about water that is applicable in general BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE CAN ONLY BE AT ONE PRESSURE AT ANY POINT IN TIME/PLACE!!!
Jerry:
And you once or twice have failed to write any answer to to each of these specific questions.
James:
That’s because I gave you the benefit of the doubt (big mistake on my part) that you realized the phase diagram involved different pressures WHICH DON’T ACTUALLY EXIST AT ANY POINT IN LOCATION AND TIME, YOU STUPID SOB.
Jerry:
I certainly do not claim to a be genius, but if you are an example of a genius; I would never want to be one.
James:
Rest assured, Jerry. There is no chance of that.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
Thank you James for not pointing one of my common, actual errors: “What is the line between the gaseous phase between the gaseous phase”. But maybe you didn’t notice it because the line is not a line; it is a point.
Now a fact about water’s phase diagram is that it does have a point where the three lines intersect and it is termed the Triple Point. The temperature and the atmospheric pressure at which all three phases are in equilibrium with each other.
Readers, you might wonder why I respond to what James writes about his unique Genius Understandings.
The title of this article to which we are commenting is: “The ‘Science’ Behind The Coronavirus And COVID-19”. Seemingly Two different topics with ONE common relationship.
This common relationship is the Belief of INTELLIGENT PEOPLE that their assumptions become FACT (Truth). Galileo illustrated for us the critical importance of observed (measured data). However. Galileo believed that a CIRCLE was a more perfect ‘figure’ than an ELLIPSE so he did not accept the validity of Tycho Brahe’s quite precise astronomical measurements0 and Johannes Kepler’s careful mathematical analysis of Brahe’s data which forced the mathematical conclusion that the planets’ orbits about the sun were better approximate ellipses than approximate circles.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
Thank you James for not pointing one of my common, actual errors: “What is the line between the gaseous phase between the gaseous phase”. But maybe you didn’t notice it because the line is not a line; it is a point.
Now a fact about water’s phase diagram is that it does have a point where the three lines intersect and it is termed the Triple Point. The temperature and the atmospheric pressure at which all three phases are in equilibrium with each other.
Readers, you might wonder why I respond to what James writes about his unique Genius Understandings.
The title of this article to which we are commenting is: “The ‘Science’ Behind The Coronavirus And COVID-19”. Seemingly Two different topics with ONE common relationship.
This common relationship is the Belief of INTELLIGENT PEOPLE that their assumptions become FACT (Truth). Galileo illustrated for us the critical importance of observed (measured data). However. Galileo believed that a CIRCLE was a more perfect ‘figure’ than an ELLIPSE so he did not accept the validity of Tycho Brahe’s quite precise astronomical measurements0 and Johannes Kepler’s careful mathematical analysis of Brahe’s data which forced the mathematical conclusion that the planets’ orbits about the sun were better approximate ellipses than approximate circles.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Thank you James for not pointing one of my common, actual errors: “What is the line between the gaseous phase between the gaseous phase”. But maybe you didn’t notice it because the line is not a line; it is a point.
James:
I didn’t notice it but I am sure that I correctly interpreted that you intended it to be the line between gaseous and liquid phases. And, yes, it is a point. Moreover that point at 1 ATM is 100C (212 F) and since the temperature of troposphere is always considerably cooler we can assume that there is never any gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere–in contrast to what millions and millions of people believe/assume.. Do you now accept this truth or are you going to continue being an asshole?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and James,
Another reason I continue to comment upon his comments is that he is honest (“I didn’t notice it“) and has spent years and years pondering VIOLENT ATMOSPHERIC BEHAVIOR (for lack of a better word). And I agree with him that many atmospheric scientists do not consider the factor (hydrogen bonding) which produce the large latent heats of water’s phase transitions.
And there is one critical factor upon James, most academic atmospheric scientists and I agree (a triple point)!!! Which is the role of atmospheric jet streams in violent storms such as localized tornadoes and large storm systems like hurricanes (typhoons). And I know realize I have not too big a deal about our controversy about the atmosphere’s water molecules content because the temperatures of jet stream are usually, if not always below negative 40C or F. Temperatures at which any water molecules could not likely play a significant role. Another observed fact is that in the Northern Hemisphere the jet stream are most numerous and strongest during the coldest late fall and winter season.
And I have experienced the frustration that no one seems to consider my ideas either. So in a way James and I are soul mates.
Will submit this comment to see what James’ response might be.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Explain why you won’t answer my question.
Heat engine in the Sky
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Heat-engine-in-the-Sky-e1dqb5s
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Hi James,
I listened to your link. My problem is I do not know what the question is that you want me to answer. I expected, when I began listening, that you would conclude with a clear question. But you did not.
You are critical of the term: atmospheric heat engine. You point out there are not literal parts in the atmosphere like those in the ‘heat engine’ which powers our cars, tractors, etc. The jet stream you describe (define) have no surface. The vortices you describe (define) have no surface. But they are entities of the atmosphere which I accept and I cannot speak for any other atmospheric SCIENTIST. I do accept that many of these Atmospheric SCIENTISTS are not actual SCIENTISTS because they do observe the atmosphere which we both know exists. I see little evidence that they actually consider the data of their automated weather stations and more critically important: the data of the atmospheric sounding projects which were begun after WWII.
I need to go a dictionary for the definition of the word—entity—I previously introduced and then moved on as if it was not a CRITICAL WORD. “ENTITY; n. A being; esp., a thing which has reality and distinctness of being either in fact or thought; as, to view the state as an entity.”
You mentioned a very critical word—mechanism. “MECHANISM; n. 2b. The doctrine that natural processes are mechanically determined and capable of explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry.”
I stop here to ask: Do you accept this definition of MECHANISM???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I answered your question. You introduced the term (word) into our discussion. So will you now answer my question: “Do you accept this definition of MECHANISM???”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
I listened to your link. My problem is I do not know what the question is that you want me to answer.
James:
The question was in the previous post. If you don’t get this question right there is zero chance that you will/can comprehend the true nature of the physics of storms and atmospheric flow. And, therefore there would be no reason to continue this discussion.
Here is the question one last time:
Since the temperature of troposphere (or any part thereof) is always considerably cooler than the boiling temperature/pressure of the H2O therein we can assume that there is never any gaseous H2O in the troposphere–in contrast to what millions and millions of people believe/assume.. Do you now accept this truth or are you going to continue being an asshole?
Take your time answering this question Jerry. It is pivotal.
Understanding Water is a Prerequisite to Understanding Storms
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Understanding-Water-is-a-Prerequisite-to-Understanding-Storms-eou2cg
James McGinn / Super Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James.
You ask: “Do you now accept this truth or are you going to continue being an asshole?” My answer is: NO!!!. I have more than 60 years of experience as studying and learning how to be a good SCIENTIST and I accept the Truth that SCIENTISTS with significant SCIENTIFIC ACHEIVEMENTS have stated the following, beginning with Galileo. “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” (Einstein)
“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty–some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.” (Richard Feynman)
I have learned that SCIENTISTS only do experiments to prove that which (hypothesis) is not the TRUTH. I have learned that to qualify as being a SCIENTISTIC hypothesis, a hypothesis must predict some observation not yet observed (known).
Hence, I cannot ignore what I have learned from 60 years of experiences. “The only source of knowledge is experience.” (Einstein again)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
The correct answer is “Yes!’.
I have no interest in discussing your pseudoscience.
Proper Role of Water in the Atmosphere
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Proper-Role-of-Water-in-the-Atmosphere-e1cs87g/a-a77ovj3
Traditional meteorology tells us that the role of water in the atmosphere is that it provides the energy for flow. This is mistaken. As is explained here, the proper role of water in the atmosphere is as the basis for the structure that focusses the flow to achieve streaming.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
You have learned that Jerry’s mind is like the movie Ground Hog Day”. You may try repeatedly to make a change but it always reverts back to its original position with the same repeated quotes to give it security from “experts”.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
It’s crazy that people that are able to be skeptical of novel pseudoscience like global warming can’t bring themselves to also be skeptical of traditional pseudo science:
Meteorology’s Achilles Heal
https://youtu.be/HeCMcVhoqi8
James McGinn
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Since James did not let our discussion terminate as he wrote: “Traditional meteorology tells us that the role of water in the atmosphere is that it provides the energy for flow. This is mistaken.”, I must remind you, PSI readers, that James has not cited ONE REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVATION (REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTAL RESULT) that the role of water vapor in the atmosphere as it condenses to liquid water or solid water, does not provide some energy to power atmospheric flow (circulation).
Have a good day, Jerryy
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Does he expect you or me to accept the lines of water phase diagram magically become points because he states they do. The ‘Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 40th Ed. pp 2290, 2291 provide a Table of Celsius temperatures at atmospheric pressures from 700mm of Mercury to 800mm Mercury by increasing units of 1mm Mercury. The boiling temperatures of water range from 97.7C to 101.4C; a range of 3.3C Not exactly a point of 100.0C.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Does he expect you or me to accept the lines of water phase diagram magically become points because he states they do.
James:
Shouldn’t we expect a former chemistry teacher to know how to read a phase diagram?
How did you ever become so confused. For the lines to be relevant there would have to be multiple pressures at a point at the same time, which is plainly ludicrous. How did you fail to comprehend this?
And now you are mad at me because I relieved you of your confusion–beause i explained away your imagination?
You should be thanking me.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
James has not cited ONE REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVATION (REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTAL RESULT) that the role of water vapor in the atmosphere as it condenses to liquid water or solid water, does not provide some energy to power atmospheric flow (circulation).
James:
One peculiarity about hydrogen bonds between H2O molecules is that there exists an inverse relationship between comprehensiveness of connectedness and strength of connectedness. This causes an elastic electrodynamic relationship between H2O molecules and their neighbors (up to 4). This relationship causes them to collectively have properties that facilitate energy. But they do no produce energy, as in combustion. Likewise H2O molecules collectively have structural properties that (for the same or similar reasons traceable to the QM of H2O) emerge under shear conditions, such as wind shear. These strucrtural properties allow it facilitate and focus flow, manifested in vortices (tornadoes). But water is not the source of the energy of vortices. The source of the energy for vortices is the difference in air pressure of the air entering a vortice (lower altitude and higher pressure) and the air exiting it (higher altitude [shooting into the jetstream] and lower pressure.
When it comes to the physics of storms meteorology’s approach is 100% superstition. It’s no different from a religion. You can and should dismiss everything you’ve ever considered from meteorology.
Meteorology is Inundated with Superstition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMQAhTc0hYk&t=729s&ab_channel=SolvingTornadoes
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Where in ‘your collection of words’ do you even try to describe a reproducible observation or experimental measurement that the latent energy of the condensation of the water molecules in the atmosphere to liquid droplets, or ice particles, does not contribute to the circulation of the atmosphere???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Where in ‘your collection of words’ do you even try to describe a reproducible observation or experimental measurement that the latent energy of the condensation of the water molecules in the atmosphere to liquid droplets, or ice particles, does not contribute to the circulation of the atmosphere???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
So, Jerry, you want a reproducible experiment to demonstrate that something that has never been observed couldn’t be true. Really? Did you think this through?
This is like asking somebody to prove that ghosts don’t exist.
It might be possible to test your beliefs, but we would first want to establish that there is even a phase transition going on. I know for a fact that there isn’t (consult H2O phase disgram for details) but maybe I’m wrong. Either way it doesn’t matter because you do not possess the slightest awareness of why you believe what you believe. You believe because that is what believers do.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
James McGinn
| #
There is no such thing as “latent heat of condensation.” The phrase refers to a thermal process that does not actually exist. It’s kinda like CO2 Forcing. It’s meaningless. Marketing. Propaganda. Nobody can define it. Nobody has ever measured/detected it. Nobody has ever tested for it. It is perfectly meaninglesss pseudoscience.
It was imagined into existence by meteorologists who were desperate to find an explanation for the gusty winds in earth’s atmosphere. But now gusty winds can be explained by vortice activity.
Given that there is no actual evidence for it’s existence why do you believe in it?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
Your question: “Given that there is no actual evidence for it’s existence why do you believe in it?”, catalyzed my brain cells and I believe both you (James and PSI Readers) could preform with only a little effort.
You need a tea kettle and a heat source with which to boil water and a cooking thermometer with the ability to measure temperatures near 212F (100C) and hair dryer capable of boiling air hotter than 212F (100C). Place the thermometer near the outlet of the hair dryer and measure its temperature at full power and do the same by holding the thermometer a couple of inches from the spout of the tea kettle in which the water is ‘gently boiling. I will predict that the temperature will be about 212F (100C). Now place you hand in hot air from the hair dryer. Then place your hand a couple of inches above the spout of the tea kettle with its boiling water. Notice any difference??? I predict you will very quickly notice the difference. So, explain this difference!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: So, explain this difference!!!
James: Present your explanation then I will explain how you got it wrong.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Do the experiment and describe the difference which you observe. For I have done the reproducible experiment I know what I have observed and what you would observe when you do the experiment. You seem to be lazy and I will not do your work for you.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
I will not do your work for you.
James:
It’s not my work, Jerry. Do your own fucking experiment.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply