Japan Urges WHO Change Name to Chinese Health Org.

Report from Gateway Pundit Japanese Vice President Says WHO Should Be Renamed the CHO or the “Chinese Health Organization” .  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Japanese Deputy Vice President Aso Taro told reporters the World Health Organization should change its name to the Chinese Health Organization.

So far 500,000 people have signed the petition for the name switch.

Pro-Taiwan Japanese politician Aso Taro blasted the World Health Organization for bowing to China and excluding Taiwan as a member state. Speaking to Japanese lawmakers, Aso Taro, the deputy prime minister, said the WHO should change its name to the “CHO,” or China Health Organization.

Taro said being excluded from the global health body, Taiwan was driven to become a world leader in combating the coronavirus. The coronavirus pandemic has led to the postponement of the 2020 Olympics in Japan.

Speaking in Japan’s parliament, the country’s deputy prime minister leveled fresh criticism against China. Although the details are murky, the WHO’s previous director-general was a Chinese national and at the time, there were complaints all around. The current petition has gathered 500,000 signatures. People think the World Health Organization should change its name. It shouldn’t be called the WHO. It should be renamed the CHO. This appeal is truly resonating with the people.

Climatist Insurrection Enters New Phase

Previously the insurrection by climate anti-fossil fuel acitvists took the form of sabotaging oil and gas infrastructure, led notably by the “valve turners”, who were arrested and mostly let off the hook in a series of high profile trials.  This phase broke down after numerous states enacted serious penalties for attacks on energy projects and infrastructure. Also, with the Biden administration climatists hoped for swift federal action to shut down oil and gas production and supply. See Securing Pipelines Against Disrupters

Disappointed with lack of progress on their “leave it in the ground” agenda, activists are now attempting to occupy federal buildings to intimidate public officials into action.  This could be a precursor of more insurrection events far more serious than anything happening on Jan.6, 2021.

Michael Austin reports at The Western Journal  ‘Insurrection’? Climate Change Protesters Attempt to Storm Interior Department Building.  H/T John Ray.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Jan. 6 Capitol incursion was not an insurrection, as many left-wing politicians and pundits have claimed.  Sure, some of those present during the incursion were rioters who broke the law. They should be punished accordingly.

 On Thursday, Oct. 14,  a large group of climate change protesters tried to enter the Department of the Interior, according to Ellie Silverman, a reporter for The Washington Post.

“Climate protesters are now rallying outside the Department of the Interior. They’re trying to get inside but police are blocking the entrance. I can see a few Indigenous women through the doorway who are sitting on the floor inside the building and linking arms,” Silverman tweeted.

She further noted that “protesters are remaining on the steps and won’t move out of the doorway where several police are blocking passage into the building.”

If these activists happened to be conservatives protesting against vaccine mandates or Bidenflation, the media would be covering it ad nauseam.

Panicky headlines declaring the return of the Jan. 6 “insurrectionists” would spread like wildfire across social media.

But instead, since the protesters happen to be supporting a cause backed by the establishment elite, the media has remained largely silent.

P.S. I don’t think of these protesters or those at the capital 6/1/21 as “insurrectionists.” But if that is the term used to imprison 6/1/21 participants and remove their civil rights, then it should also be applied here. We do not know whether these disturbances will evolve into riots like those in Portland where the Federal Courthouse was vandalized by insurrectionists, never held accountable.

Glasgow COP Has Fleet of Teslas To Be Diesel-Charged

Tyler Durden reports at zerohedge  UN Climate Change Conference Reportedly Using Diesel Generators To Charge Teslas Being Used As Shuttles. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

We’re not sure we can think of a better analogue for the lunacy behind the climate change hysteria that what is reportedly going on in Glasgow.

As many people know, the Conference of the Parties (COP) Climate Change Conference, hosted by the UK in partnership with Italy, is taking place in Glasgow from October 31 to November 12.

One blogger from Brighton wrote this week that attendees from the conference will be staying at Gleneagles Hotel.

He wrote that there’s 20 Teslas at the hotel to shuttle people back and forth to and from the convention, which is about 75km.

Then, the kicker. Since the hotel only has one Tesla charging station, diesel generators were contracted to help recharge the Teslas overnight.

The stated purpose of the conference is, among other things, “to review the implementation of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.”

The climate change conferences now count themselves, according to the UNFCCC’s website, as “among the largest international meetings in the world.”

“The intergovernmental negotiations have likewise become increasingly complex and involve an ever-increasing number of officials from governments all over the world, at all levels, as well as huge numbers of representatives from civil society and the global news media,” the conference’s website says.

Maybe since we’re gathered to talk about the negative effect on the climate, we could at least start by finding a carbon neutral way to shuttle yourself back and forth to the event.

It’s almost like these meetings aren’t really about climate change after all…

 

David Hay Explains “Greenflation”

A two part series at Evergreen financial advisers analyses the market effects of the intensified push for “green” energy.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.  The two posts are:

Green energy: A bubble in unrealistic expectations?
David Hay / October 8, 2021
As I have written in past EVAs, it amazes me how little of the intense inflation debate in 2021 centered on the inflationary implications of the Green Energy transition. Perhaps it is because there is a built-in assumption that using more renewables should lower energy costs since the sun and the wind provide “free power”.

Green Energy: A Bubble in Unrealistic Expectations, Part II
David Hay / October 15, 2021
This is part two of our discourse regarding green energy and its profound – and somewhat misunderstood – impact on the global economy. In this issue, we specifically home in on China and how that country’s immense power needs are affecting the energy ecosystem at large.

Part I Green Bubble Summary:
  • BlackRock’s CEO recently admitted that, despite what many are opining, the green energy transition is nearly certain to be inflationary.
  • Even though it’s early in the year, energy prices are already experiencing unprecedented spikes in Europe and Asia, but most Americans are unaware of the severity.
  • To that point, many British residents being faced with the fact that they may need to ration heat and could be faced with the chilling reality that lives could be lost if this winter is as cold as forecasters are predicting.
  • Because of the huge increase in energy prices, inflation in the eurozone recently hit a 13-year high, heavily driven by natural gas prices on the Continent that are the equivalent of $200 oil.
  • It used to be that the cure for extreme prices was extreme prices, but these days I’m not so sure. Oil and gas producers are very wary of making long-term investments to develop new resources given the hostility to their industry and shareholder pressure to minimize outlays.
  • I expect global supply to peak sometime next year and a major supply deficit looks inevitable as global demand returns to normal.
  • In Norway, almost 2/3 of all new vehicle sales are of the electric variety (EVs) – a huge increase in just over a decade. Meanwhile, in the US, it’s only about 2%. Still, given Norway’s penchant for the plug-in auto, the demand for oil has not declined.
  • China, despite being the largest market by far for electric vehicles, is still projected to consume an enormous and rising amount of oil in the future.

In fact, despite oil prices pushing toward $80, total US crude output now projected to actually decline this year. This is an unprecedented development. However, as the very pro-renewables Financial Times (the UK’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) explained in an August 11th, 2021, article: “Energy companies are in a bind. The old solution would be to invest more in raising gas production. But with most developed countries adopting plans to be ‘net zero’ on carbon emissions by 2050 or earlier, the appetite for throwing billions at long-term gas projects is diminished.”

Thus, if he’s right about rising demand, as I believe he is, there is quite a collision looming between that reality and the high probability of long-term constrained supplies. One of the most relevant and fascinating Wall Street research reports I read as I was researching the topic of what I have been referring to as “Greenflation” is from Morgan Stanley. Its title asked the provocative question: “With 64% of New Cars Now Electric, Why is Norway Still Using so Much Oil?”

Coincidentally, that’s been the experience of the overall developed world over the past 10 years, as well; petroleum consumption has largely flatlined. Where demand hasn’t gone horizontal is in the developing world which includes China. As you can see from the following Cornerstone Analytics chart, China’s oil demand has vaulted by about 6 million barrels per day (bpd) since 2010 while its domestic crude output has, if anything, slightly contracted.

Here’s a similar factoid that I ran in our December 4th EVA, “Totally Toxic”, in which I made a strong bullish case for energy stocks (the main energy ETF is up 35% from then, by the way): “(There was) a study by the UN and the US government based on the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gasses Induced Climate Change (MAGICC). The model predicted that ‘the complete elimination of all fossil fuels in the US immediately would only restrict any increase in world temperature by less than one tenth of one degree Celsius by 2050, and by less than one fifth of one degree Celsius by 2100.’ Say again? If the world’s biggest carbon emitter on a per capita basis causes minimal improvement by going cold turkey on fossil fuels, are we making the right moves by allocating tens of trillions of dollars that we don’t have toward the currently in-vogue green energy solutions?”

Part II Green Bubble Summary:
  • About 70% of China’s electricity is generated by coal, which has major environmental ramifications in regards to electric vehicles.
  • Because of enormous energy demand in China this year, coal prices have experienced a massive boom. Its usage was up 15% in the first half of this year, and the Chinese government has instructed power providers to obtain all baseload energy sources, regardless of cost.
  • The massive migration to electric vehicles – and the fact that they use six times the amount of critical minerals as their gasoline-powered counterparts –means demand for these precious resources is expected to skyrocket.
  • This extreme need for rare minerals, combined with rapid demand growth, is a recipe for a major spike in prices.
  • Massively expanding the US electrical grid has several daunting challenges– chief among them the fact that the American public is extremely reluctant to have new transmission lines installed in their area.
  • The state of California continues to blaze the trail for green energy in terms of both scope and speed. How the rest of the country responds to their aggressive take on renewables remains to be seen.
  • It appears we are entering a very odd reality: governments are expending resources they do not have on weakly concentrated energy. And the result may be very detrimental for today’s modern economy.
  • If the trend in energy continues, what looks nearly certain to be the Third Energy crisis of the last half-century may linger for years.

Lest you think I’m being hyperbolic, please be aware the IEA (International Energy Agency) has estimated it will cost the planet $5 trillion per year to achieve Net Zero emissions. This is compared to global GDP of roughly $85 trillion. According to BloombergNEF, the price tag over 30 years, could be as high as $173 trillion. Frankly, based on the history of gigantic cost overruns on most government-sponsored major infrastructure projects, I’m inclined to take the over—way over—on these estimates.

Moreover, energy consulting firm T2 and Associates, has guesstimated electrifying just the US to the extent necessary to eliminate the direct consumption of fuel (i.e., gasoline, natural gas, coal, etc.) would cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion. Again, taking into account how these ambitious efforts have played out in the past, I suspect $29 trillion is light. Regardless, even $18 trillion is a stunner, despite the reality we have all gotten numb to numbers with trillions attached to them. For perspective, the total, already terrifying, level of US federal debt is $28 trillion.

Regardless, as noted last week, the probabilities of the Great Green Energy Transition happening are extremely high. Relatedly, I believe the likelihood of the Great Greenflation is right up there with them.

Further, one of my other big fears is that the West is engaging in unilateral energy disarmament. Russia and China are likely the major beneficiaries of this dangerous scenario. Per my earlier comment about a stealth combatant in the war on fossil fuels, it may surprise you that a past NATO Secretary General* has accused Russian intelligence of avidly supporting the anti-fracking movements in Western Europe. Russian TV has railed against fracking for years, even comparing it to pedophilia (certainly, a most bizarre analogy!).

Solutions include fast-tracking small modular nuclear plants; encouraging the further switch from burning coal to natural gas (a trend that is, unfortunately, going the other way now, as noted above); utilizing and enhancing carbon and methane capture at the point of emission (including improving tail pipe effluent-reduction technology); enhancing pipeline integrity to inhibit methane leaks; among many other mitigation techniques that recognize the reality the global economy will be reliant on fossil fuels for many years, if not decades, to come.

If the climate change movement fails to recognize the essential nature of fossil fuels, it will almost certainly trigger a backlash that will undermine the positive change it is trying to bring about. This is similar to what it did via its relentless assault on nuclear power which produced a frenzy of coal plant construction in the 1980s and 1990s. On this point, it’s interesting to see how quickly Europe is re-embracing coal power to alleviate the energy poverty and rationing occurring over there right now—even before winter sets in.

When the choice is between supporting climate change initiatives on one hand and being able to heat your home and provide for your family on the other, is there really any doubt about which option the majority of voters will select?

 

Nebraska AG Frees Doctors and Patients to Use HCQ and IVM


Jim Hoft reports at Gateway Pundit Nebraska AG Issues Opinion on Doctors Prescribing HCQ and Ivermectin for COVID Treatment Will Not Face Punishment. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Office of the Attorney General in Nebraska issued an opinion Friday in response to the request of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services that states there’s no “clear and convincing evidence that a physician who first obtains informed consent and then utilizes Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 violates the UCA (Nebraska’s Uniform Credential Act).”

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson together with his Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General issued their opinion in response to a request by Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services CEO, Dannette Smith. She wanted the AG’s office to examine carefully whether doctors could face legal action or be subject to discipline if they prescribed the meds for COVID treatment.

“Allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital, and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system,” AG Doug Peterson wrote.

The Office of AG pointed to multiple medical journal articles, research, and case studies. They mentioned the study from Lancet that was later on retracted because of its flawed statistics regarding the use of HCQ. 

After receiving your question and conducting our investigation, we have found significant controversy and suspect information about potential COVID-19 treatments. A striking example features one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals–the Lancet. In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Lancet published a paper denouncing hydroxychloroquine as dangerous. Yet the reported statistics were so flawed that journalists and outside researchers immediately began raising concerns. Then after one of the authors refused to provide the analyzed data, the paper was retracted, but not before many countries stopped using hydroxychloroquine and trials were cancelled or interrupted. The Lancet’s own editor in chief admitted that the paper was a “fabrication, “a monumental fraud,” and “a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.

Because of conflicting data on the treatments by the principal authors, “We find that the available data does not justify filing disciplinary actions against physicians simply because they prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19,” the opinion said.

Office of AG also used the study from the Mahmud and Niaee research team and many more about Ivermectin’s role as prophylaxis.

Moving beyond ivermectin’s role as a prophylaxis, other studies have demonstrated its potential as a COVID-19 treatment. The Mahmud study–a CT that explored ivermectin as an early treatment for 363 individuals–concluded that “patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative on day 14. And Niaee’s research team found that ivermectin can help even hospitalized patients. That group conducted a “randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial” with 180 hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. They concluded that ivermectin “reduces the rate of mortality and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID-19 patients,” and the improvement of other clinical parameters showed that the ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19.”

HCQ or IVM + nutritional supplements fill the need for early home treatment whether people are vaccinated or not.

The office of AG even attacked the company, Merck, on their agenda.

Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons. First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to “conductI] clinical trials” on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.

Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. “[The U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.”

That treatment, known a “molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease.” On October 1, 2021, Merck announced that preliminary studies indicate that molnupiravir “reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half,” and that same day its stock price “jumped as much as 12.3%.” Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than–or even the same as-molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars.

Footnote: To appreciate the significance of this ruling, you need to understand how the medical bureaucracy takes away doctor and patient freedoms.  Dr. Ted Noel explained how it works in the post How Medical Technocrats Subvert Medical Practice Excerpt pertaining to this issue.

So let us suppose that you use ivermectin to treat a COVID patient as he arrives in the hospital. Ivermectin isn’t on the Medicare/Medicaid approved list of medications for COVID. Your hospital pharmacy will call you up and give you grief. After wasting a lot of time getting them to finally let you have it, you’ve had to cancel half of your office day. The next day, you’ll get a visit from a coder, who will tell you that you didn’t use the approved treatment protocol and put the hospital in jeopardy because you flunked P-f-P. By the way, that “coder” is the person who “helps” you use the proper ICD (billing) code for whatever the patient has in order for the hospital to make the most money. But that’s not the worst of it.

Because you flunked P-f-P (Pay-for-Performance), that waves a red flag in front of the CMMS bulls, and you’re about to get gored. They will wonder what other bad things you’ve done. As soon as they find one, it gets flagged as “Medicare fraud,” and they will bill you for twice what you got paid as a penalty. Can you guess how many other instances of fraud they’ll find if they look hard? Do you have to ask why my partners would get upset if I published while I was still in practice? By the way, CMMS can go two years back as they look for your crimes. They can ultimately take your house, your car, and your wife’s poodle while they’re at it.

You can read the rest of the opinion here:

 

Subversive Humor: USA and USSR

Fox News: A young boy went viral over the weekend after shouting “Let’s Go Brandon” when asked to announce the start of a NAPA Super DIRT race.

“Drivers, start your engines,” three children shouted into the microphone when asked by the announcer to “help kick this thing off” at the race at New York’s Oswego Speedway Sunday.

“Let’s go Brandon!” the boy standing in the middle added.

The girl next to the boy began to laugh after the three words were spoken and the announcer appeared surprised.

The three-word chant has become an internet sensation after an NBC reporter at a NASCAR Xfinity Series race incorrectly reported that fans in the stands were chanting “Let’s Go Brandon” following a victory by driver Brandon Brown, when in fact they were shouting, “F*** Joe Biden!”

So in front of that incendiary mass rebellion, an NBC TV Interviewer was interviewing a NASCAR Driver called Brandon. Anyone with eyes and ears knew exactly what was happening in the background, but she tried to pass off the “F*** Joe Biden” chant as “Let’s Go Brandon”. It was a form of brazen but desperate media gaslighting, and the non-left have picked it up as a slogan against both Biden and the media. “Let’s go Brandon” is the epitome of fake news.

The “F*** Joe Biden!” chants have become popular at large sporting events across the country as his poll numbers have sagged due to inflation and several other issues including his handling of Afghanistan, and have now been replaced in some venues with “Let’s Go Brandon” chants.

Memes, jokes, and comments immediately began to spread across the internet posted by users mocking NBC’s coverage during the interview. T-shirts, caps and signs are now available, and maybe soon some flags inspired by my creation above (modified Iowa state flag).

USA Subversive Humor: Jokes and Cartoons

What’s the best thing about being Joe Biden?
Waking up every day and learning that you’re the president.

It’s 2021, and President Joe Biden is told he needs to assemble a cabinet
Coming back from IKEA, he realizes he’s greatly misunderstood the task.

My conservative grandmother used to be a big Trump supporter, but this year her mail-in ballot was cast for Joe Biden.
No way would she have done that if she were still alive.

What’s the most progressive thing about Joe Biden?
His dementia

Joe Biden had a meeting with the cabinet today
He also spoke to the bookcase and argued with the desk.

The White House said that not sending a senior official to the pre-Glasgow climate talks was a mistake. Joe Biden was supposed to fly there, but he’s not allowed on a plane unless he’s accompanied by an adult.

Joe Biden is concerned about forest fires and said we should listen to Smokey Robinson.

What do Joe Biden and Russia have in common?
Neither of them respect boundaries.

Why is Joe Biden like the Coronavirus?
They are both sweeping through the states, taking the elderly’s breath away.

Joe Biden says he’s going to restore the “soul” of our nation…
…the McRib will now be available nationwide for the first time since 2012.

Hispanic Word of the Day: Bodywash
Joe Biden was on TV today, but no bodywash him.

Why is Joe Biden not behind Greta Thunberg?
Because her security detail is doing their job right.

Joe Biden announced his plan for housing developments, and cited Sherlock Holmes as a model.

Joe Biden’s neurosurgeon, Dr. Neal Kassell, said he has seen no signs of brain damage in the 76-year-old. “He is every bit as sharp as he was 31 years ago. I haven’t seen any change,” he said in in an interview with Politico.

USSR Humor from previous post Soviet Jokes About Living Under Oppression

The Soviet people lived under a regime where private life, ideas and opinions were banished from public expression by state media.  Now the USA has state media rivaling the USSR, only difference is ambiguity whether the media runs the state or vice-versa as in Soviet days.  In any case, Russians and others under that regime voiced their resistance by sharing jokes at the expense of the autocrats.  Wikipedia provides some instructive examples for Americans in the days ahead.

A judge walks out of his chambers laughing his head off. A colleague approaches him and asks why he is laughing. “I just heard the funniest joke in the world!”
“Well, go ahead, tell me!” says the other judge.
“I can’t – I just gave someone ten years for it!”

Q: “Who built the White Sea Canal?”
A: “The left bank was built by those who told the jokes, and the right bank by those who listened.”

Q: Will there be KGB in communism?
A: As you know, under communism, the state will be abolished, together with its means of suppression. People will know how to self-arrest themselves.

Q: How do you deal with mice in the Kremlin?
A: Put up a sign saying “collective farm”. Then half the mice will starve, and the rest will run away.

“Lubyanka (KGB headquarters) is the tallest building in Moscow. You can see Siberia from its basement.”

A new arrival to Gulag is asked: “What were you given 10 years for?”
– “For nothing!”
– “Don’t lie to us here, now! Everybody knows ‘for nothing’ is 3 years.”

Q: What’s the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?
A: A capitalist fairy tale begins, “Once upon a time, there was….”. A Marxist fairy tale begins, “Some day, there will be….”

A Soviet history professor addressed his university students: “Regarding the final exam, I have good news and bad news.  The good news: All the questions are the same as last year.  The bad news:  Some of the answers are different.”

Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the US and USSR? Both of them guarantee freedom of speech.
A: Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.

Q: Is it true that the Soviet Union is the most progressive country in the world?
A: Of course! Life was already better yesterday than it’s going to be tomorrow!

Khrushchev visited a pig farm and was photographed there. In the newspaper office, a discussion is underway about how to caption the picture. “Comrade Khrushchev among pigs,” “Comrade Khrushchev and pigs,” and “Pigs surround comrade Khrushchev” are all rejected as politically offensive. Finally, the editor announces his decision: “Third from left – comrade Khrushchev.”

Q: “What is the main difference between succession under the tsarist regime and under socialism?”
A: “Under the tsarist regime, power was transferred from father to son, and under socialism – from grandfather to grandfather.”

Q: What are the new requirements for joining the Politburo?
A: You must now be able to walk six steps without the assistance of a cane, and say three words without the assistance of paper.

Our Soviet industry system is simple and works very well.  Our bosses pretend to pay and we pretend to work.

An old woman asks her granddaughter: “Granddaughter, please explain Communism to me. How will people live under it? They probably teach you all about it in school.”
“Of course they do, Granny. When we reach Communism, the shops will be full–there’ll be butter, and meat, and sausage. You’ll be able to go and buy anything you want…”
“Ah!” exclaimed the old woman joyfully. “Just like it was under the Tsar!”

A man walks into a shop and asks, “You wouldn’t happen to have any fish, would you?”. The shop assistant replies, “You’ve got it wrong – ours is a butcher’s shop. We don’t have any meat. You’re looking for the fish shop across the road. There they don’t have any fish!”

Q: “What happens if Soviet socialism comes to Saudi Arabia?
A: First five years, nothing; then a shortage of oil.”

Stalin appears to Putin in a dream and says: “I have two bits of advice for you: kill off all your opponents and paint the Kremlin blue.” Putin asks, “Why blue?” Stalin: “I knew you would not object to the first one.”

 

 

Economic Freedom is the Way Forward, Reject Woke ESG Corporatism

Anthony B. Kim and Patrick Tyrrell write at Daily Signal Economic Freedom Is the Path to Healthy Environments, Social Progress, and Good Governance—Not Woke Corporatism.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The left is trying to refashion how policy makers and private-sector leaders understand their roles by insisting that their actions must have an “environmental, social, and governance” focus. This agenda is frequently abbreviated to “ESG”—a buzzword that is now being heavily circulated online and in D.C. It’s also completely misguided.

The environmental, social, and governance agenda insists that policy makers and private-sector leaders see themselves as the stewards of a newly “woke” planet. In actuality, it is a way to force companies to take positions in the political arena on issues that may have nothing to do with the company’s actual business activities.

Economic freedom, not the environmental, social, and governance agenda, makes the world cleaner, safer, and better governed. It is not hard to find the economic damage that is inflicted by heavy-handed and misguided government policies, which result in lingering uncertainty, deteriorating entrepreneurial environments, and lower employment growth.

The true path to ensuring environmental, social, governance improvements lies in focusing on policies that enhance economic freedom. As documented in The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Economic Freedom, the linkage between economic freedom, individual liberty, and prosperity around the world is unambiguous.

This prosperity is not just an end in itself. As the index catalogues, preserving and advancing economic freedom enables individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies to better care for the poor and their environments, create better health care and education systems, ensure an abundance of food and clean water, and solve many of the other societal problems that makes life better for a greater number people.

In countries around the world, economic freedom has been shown to increase the capacity for environmentally friendly innovation. The positive link between economic freedom and higher levels of innovation ensures greater capacity to cope with environmental challenges, and the most remarkable improvements in clean energy use and energy efficiency over the past decades have occurred not as a result of government regulation, but rather because of advances in economic freedom and freer trade.

Equally notable is that countries that provide an environment that is conducive to social progress also largely embrace economic freedom. Countries that allow private-sector competitiveness to thrive free from government interference and open their societies to new ideas, products, and innovations have largely achieved the high levels of social progress that their citizens demand.

It is not massive redistributions of wealth or government dictates on income level that produce the most positive social outcomes.

Greater economic freedom can also provide more fertile ground for effective and democratic governance. Undoubtedly, the achievement of political freedom through a well-functioning democratic system is a messy and often excruciating process, but the positive relationship between economic freedom and democratic governance is undeniable.

By empowering people to exercise greater control of their daily lives, economic freedom ultimately nurtures political reform by making it possible for individuals to gain the economic resources that they can use to challenge entrenched interests or compete for political power, thereby encouraging the creation of more pluralistic societies.

By building on what works, we can accelerate our progress in the face of even the most difficult challenges and chart ever greater success. The key to that is to advance the four pillars of economic freedom—the rule of law, limited government, efficient regulation, and market openness.

Real-world trends already reveal how to advance environmental, social, and responsible governance principles and results. Twenty-seven years of the annual Index of Economic Freedom provide compelling evidence that the pathway to such improvements is not with infringing on people’s economic freedom, but through allowing their economic freedom to flourish.

That responsibility is to advance free people and free markets.

 

2021 Evidence Confirming Cosmoclimatology theory

David Whitehouse writes at NetZeroWatch New study confirms Sun/Cosmic-Ray climate connection. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A new study published in Nature Scientific Reports by researchers at the Danish National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem suggests that the Sun’s activity in screening cosmic rays affects clouds and, ultimately, the Earth’s energy budget with concomitant climatic effects.

Eruptions on the Sun screen the Earth from galactic cosmic rays – energetic particles raining down on our planet from exploded stars. “The Sun carries out fantastic natural experiments that allow us to test our ideas about cosmic ray effects on the atmosphere,” professor Henrik Svensmark, lead author of the study told the GWPF.

Solar explosions produce magnetised gas that sweeps past the Earth reducing the cosmic ray flux reaching us. These events are called Forbush decreases taking their name from the American physicist Scott E. Forbush, who first noticed them more than 80 years ago. They lead to a temporarily lower production of small aerosols – molecular clusters in the air – that normally grow to seed the water droplets of low-level clouds. This, in turn, reduces the cloud cover which is known to affect climate.

CC Theory1

The recent breakthrough is that the effect on the Earth’s energy budget has been quantified using satellite observations from the CERES instrument on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.

The observational data indicate that the Earth absorbs almost 2 Watts per square metre additional energy within 4 to 6 days of the cosmic-ray minimum. Such a large effect is a major surprise since the general consensus of the climate community, recently expressed in the 2021 released IPCC report AR6 (chapter 7.3.4.5), is that, “… the GCR [galactic cosmic rays] effect on CCN [cloud condensation nuclei] is too weak to have any detectable effect on climate and no robust association was found between GCR and cloudiness. … There is high confidence that GCRs contribute a negligible ERF [effective radiative forcing] over the period 1750 to 2019.”

These new results show the IPCC’s conclusion will need to be reassessed. Two Watts per square metre can be compared with the IPCC report’s estimate of solar effective radiative forcing over the period 1750 to 2019 of only 0.01 Watts per square metre (obtained by only considering solar irradiance changes).

“We now have simultaneous observations of decreases cosmic rays, aerosols, clouds, and the energy budget” says professor Nir Shaviv.

Background from previous post The Cosmoclimatology theory 

An article at GWPF provides a concise description linking solar activity to earth’s climate. It pulls together several strands of observations and thought presented in recent posts, which are referenced at the end.

The GWPF article (here) is from Deepak Lal and focuses on why India should follow the US out of the Paris accord, but I am more interested in the scientific rationale. The author nicely summarizes an alternative explanation for climate fluctuations to that of IPCC “consensus” scientists. Excerpts below with my bolds.

Propounded by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and his associates, the cosmoclimatology theory states that climate is controlled by low cloud cover, which when widespread has a cooling effect by reflecting solar energy back into space and vice versa. These low clouds, in turn, are formed when sub-atomic particles called cosmic rays, emitted by exploding stars, combine with water vapour rising from the oceans.

The constant bombardment of the planet by cosmic rays is modulated by the solar wind, which when it is blowing prevents cosmic rays from reaching the earth and creating low clouds. The solar wind in turn is caused by the varying sunspot activity of the sun.

When, as recently, sunspot activity decreases we get the global ‘cooling’ observed during the recent ‘pause’ in global warming. Furthermore, as noted by the Princeton physicist William Happer (see my column “Clouds of Climate Change”, September 2011), the millennial ‘ice core’ records of the correlation between CO2 and temperature show “that changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 levels, so that CO2 levels were an effect of temperature changes.

Much of this was probably due to outgassing of CO2 from the warming oceans or the reverse in cooling” (“The truth about greenhouse gasses”). For the oceans are the primary sinks as well as emitters of CO2. Given their vastness relative to the earth’s surface, it takes a long time for the ocean to warm from rises in terrestrial temperatures (and vice versa), hence the lag between temperature and CO2 levels.

cern-cloud

The CLOUD experiment is studying whether cosmic rays play a role in cloud formation. Maximilien Brice / CERN

The missing piece in the cosmoclimatology theory was the physical link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. The first confirmation of the basic hypothesis that “ions [cosmic rays] are fundamental for the nucleation of aerosols [tiny liquid or solid particles that provide a nucleus around which droplets can form from water vapour in the air]” was confirmed by the CLOUD experiment at CERN — the particle physics laboratory in 2011. (See Kirby et al, Nature, (2011), 476, 429-433: Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays  Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere.

But there was still a problem with the hypothesis. It was that, even if as the CLOUD experiment showed ions helped aerosols to form and become stable against evaporation — a process called nucleation — these small aerosols “need to grow nearly a million times in mass in order to have an effect on cloud formation.”

The latest research by Svensmark and his associates (reported in H Svensmark et al. “Increased ionisation supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei” Nature Communications 2017;8(1) shows“ both theoretically and empirically and experimentally, how interactions between ions and aerosols can accelerate the growth by adding material to the small aerosols and thereby help them survive to become cloud condensation nuclei” (David Whitehouse: “Cosmic Rays Climate Link Found”). This implies, Prof Svensmark argues, that the effect of the sun on climate could be “5-7 times stronger than that estimated due to changes in the radiant output of the sun alone.”

It also explains why over geological time, there have been much larger variations in climate correlated with changes in cosmic rays. He adds that “it also negates the idea that carbon dioxide has been controlling the climate on the se timescales. ”Thus, the Medieval Warm period around 1000 AD and the subsequent Little Ice Age between 1300AD and 1900AD fit with changes in solar activity.

It also explains climate change observed over the 20th century. Similarly, coolings and warmings around 2 degrees Celsius have occurred repeatedly over the last 10,000 years with variations in the Sun’s activity and cosmic ray influx. While over longer time periods there are much larger variations of up to 10 degrees Celsius as “the Sun and Earth travel through the Galaxy visiting regions with varying numbers of exploding stars”. Svensmark concludes that ‘finally we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth. It gives an understanding of how changes caused by solar activity or by supernova activity can change climate”.

Surely with this confirmation of the cosmo-climatology theory a Nobel Prize in physics for Svensmark and his associates cannot be far off, and with that the end of the hubristic theory of anthropogenic CO2 generated climate change.

CC Theory1

Last word to Svensmark from his December 2017 publication

The missing link between exploding stars, clouds, and climate on Earth  Breakthrough in understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth’s cloud cover and thereby climate

Summary: The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei — the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere.

screenshot-2017-12-19-09.20.33

Cosmic rays interacting with the Earth’s atmosphere producing ions that helps turn small aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei — seeds on which liquid water droplets form to make clouds. A proton with energy of 100 GeV interact at the top of the atmosphere and produces a cascade of secondary particles who ionize molecules when traveling through the air. One 100 GeV proton hits every m2 at the top of the atmosphere every second.

The hypothesis in a nutshell

  • Cosmic rays, high-energy particles raining down from exploded stars, knock electrons out of air molecules. This produces ions, that is, positive and negative molecules in the atmosphere.
  • The ions help aerosols — clusters of mainly sulphuric acid and water molecules — to form and become stable against evaporation. This process is called nucleation. The small aerosols need to grow nearly a million times in mass in order to have an effect on clouds.
  • The second role of ions is that they accelerate the growth of the small aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei — seeds on which liquid water droplets form to make clouds. The more ions the more aerosols become cloud condensation nuclei. It is this second property of ions which is the new result published in Nature Communications.
  • Low clouds made with liquid water droplets cool the Earth’s surface.
  • Variations in the Sun’s magnetic activity alter the influx of cosmic rays to the Earth.
  • When the Sun is lazy, magnetically speaking, there are more cosmic rays and more low clouds, and the world is cooler.
  • When the Sun is active fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth and, with fewer low clouds, the world warms up.

Figure 2 It is crucial to look at the baseline closely that in 2009 actually touched zero for months on end. This is not normal for the low point of the cycle. Figure 3 shows how cycle 24 was feeble compared with recent cycles. And it looks like it will have a duration of ~10 years (2009-2019) which as the low end of the normal range which is 9 to 14 years with mean of 11 years. Chart adapted from SIDC is dated 1 January 2018.

Update October 2021

Additional Resources:

Nature’s Sunscreen

Magnetic Pole Swapping and Cooling

Autumnal Climate Change

Why The Left Cancels Any Climate Questioning

(KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP via Getty Images)

Daniel Turner writes at The Spectator Big Tech is censoring the climate change debate.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922

Wittgenstein wrote that as an ontological and epistemological foundation for his larger belief in freedom of speech. He who controls the language also controls reality, something that today’s left understands brilliantly, even devilishly. America historically has not limited freedom of thought and speech, and the resulting clash of ideas has improved our national discourse. The language police makes us weaker intellectually by limiting the world in which we live.

The language around climate change and the green movement is one more area the left wants to control, especially given that trillions of dollars in spending are on the line. Big tech is now doing its part to protect the Green New Deal and radical green ideology from dissenting views.

Google and YouTube’s recent announcement that they now prohibit “climate deniers” to monetize their platforms would have caused Wittgenstein to ask a clarifying question: what is a climate denier?

“This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam,” the announcement answers. And surely there is no hoax about the climate: data shows that since the 1880s the global temperature has risen one degree Fahrenheit. But what else can we measure? In that same period, the world population increased sevenfold and food production increased even more. Remarkably the number of people not living in extreme poverty increased at the same rate. The infant mortality rate decreased from 165 per 100,000 to 7. In 1880, more than 80 percent of the global population was illiterate. Today, that number is around 13 percent.

The question is: why? The answer is simple: fossil fuels. Inexpensive, abundant, reliable fossil fuels have turned 10,000 years of stagnant human existence into flourishing and prosperity. Illnesses that took the lives of kings and peasants alike are nearly eradicated thanks to medicine and refrigeration and electricity.

All of this growth for one degree of temperature increase. That’s quite the bargain.

Without fossil fuels humanity would still be mired in misery and darkness. Do we really want to ban that miracle? Do we want to “keep it in the ground” as the green movements cry? That’s a conversation we need to have.

The reader might argue that I’m wrong. My claims are just conjecture, he might say, and not based on science or data. Yet what if thousands of thinkers and philosophers agree with me? Is that enough to engage in this debate? It is thus curious that Google in its announcement calls denying the “scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change” reason enough to get deplatformed. The evidence of the causes of climate change are far weaker than the evidence of fossil fuels causing the past 200 years of human flourishing, but neither is scientific fact. Could there be any intellectual framework less scientific than “consensus”?

This discussion now cannot take place on the platforms of the big tech thought police, and we are all worse for it.

Google also says that “claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming” will not be allowed. Who is making that claim? The data once again show that the earth’s temperature indeed warming, but Wittgenstein might ask for a clarification on “long-term.” One hundred years is not a very long time, not even for America which is one of the world’s youngest nations. If you look at the last 500 million years, the current trend still has us in a very cool period. The earth spent millions of years 30 to 40 degrees warmer than the current average temperature, and that doesn’t come close to covering the earth’s entire 4.5 billion years of age.

The question is: why? Why did the earth heat and cool so dramatically when there were no humans to cause the warming? After all, the tech language police tell of “unequivocal” evidence showing that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Because Google cannot answer that question, they have shown they have no idea what the word “unequivocal” means in philosophical or even philological discourse.

Darn. Now I’m the language police.

Stifling speech does not make us a better nation. It does not make any truths truer or any falsehoods falser. It does eliminate competing or unwanted ideas from the conversation, which is the real goal here.

The current administration is looking to spend nearly $5 trillion to combat “climate change.” Some are going to benefit immensely from that spending. Yet before we open up the nation’s wallet (who am I kidding, before we put the nation’s grandchildren further into debt), there are some larger questions we should be asking. Eliminating those questions from our national conversation doesn’t make the conversation stronger.

Those afraid of language are not looking for a better world. Wittgenstein understood that. Let’s hope America does, too, before the left and the big tech thought police determine the world they want us to live in.

Daniel Turner is the founder and executive director of Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs.

Footnote: 

A positive development: Injunction Ruling Against YouTube/Google Censorship! Removal Of Lockdown-Critical Videos “Illegal”.  Excerpt in italics with my bolds.

Yesterday we reported here how YouTube had removed videos posted by prominent German actors who criticized the German government in what appeared to targeted censorship of legitimate views. But the prominent group of actors and artists refused to stand silent and took legal action against YouTube, a platform owned by mighty Google.

“The Cologne Regional Court issued an injunction, ruling that YouTube’s deletion of the videos was illegal,” reported Bild, which has a copy of the court order. “According to the court, the deletion of the videos in which the artists interviewed Leipzig mathematics professor Stephan Luckhaus (68) and neurobiologist Gerald Hüther (70) was ‘unjustified’.”

The court found that YouTube citing the content “violate our guidelines on medical misinformation” is an adequate basis for deletion and that the platform must be more specific.

See also:  Why the Leftist Backlash Against Ivermectin

Liberals have no monopoly on gullibility or lazy journalism, but the biased coverage of ivermectin springs from one of the worst pathologies of liberal discourse in particular: conflation of respect for science with fealty to established scientific institutions. A “pro-science” disposition has long been integral to American liberals’ self-conception (a ubiquitous yard sign reads, in part, “In this house, we believe science is real”); it grew especially strong during the George W. Bush years as a reaction to the administration’s stance on global warming and alliance with the religious Right.

But most Americans are scientists neither by training nor by temperament, and “pro-science” politics usually calcifies into blind trust in a few politically congenial authorities—such as universities and government health agencies, which have enjoyed high levels of liberal confidence throughout the pandemic despite such actions as reversing longstanding advice on face masks based on a dubious judgment call.

Ivermectin is safe and effective, Merck’s New Pill is Dangerous

A previous post discussed how Merck debunked its own drug Ivermectin as a Covid fighter to clear the way for a new Merck patent pill costing 40 times the generic Ivermectin.  Now comes a revelation that the PR about the new drug Molnupiravir’s trial being cut short, was not because it was so successful, but because it didn’t work on moderate Covid cases, and is capable of dangerous long-term side effects (which won’t appear for months or years, long after the trial period). See Why Merck Dissed Its Own Invention Ivermectin

Leo Goldstein provides the analytics in his essay Merck Ignores Molnupiravir’s Cytotoxicity,  His report was also referenced at Trial Site News Is Molnupiravir a Global Catastrophic Threat? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview from Trial Site News:

Merck’s Molnupiravir (also known as EIDD-2801 and MK-4482) is a mutagenic nucleotide analogue [1]. It introduces errors in the SARS-COV-2 RNA at the time of replication after proofreading, and causes lethal mutagenesis [2]. This threatens to accelerate the evolution of the coronavirus.

Any major variant of the coronavirus represents local optimum (in mutations space), maximizing coronavirus’ fitness. One- or two-point mutations cannot accomplish this. A new variant can only rise through the change of the virus-host-conditions systems, or through larger mutations set. Even a moderate increase in the point mutations frequency causes a big increase in the frequency of multi-point mutations and dangerous recombinations. Such events are too rare to be caught in small trials, but inevitable in large populations, and might lead to catastrophic consequences.

The authorization and broad use of Molnupiravir is likely to breed very dangerous SARS-COV-2 variants.

Leo Goldstein:

Merck has just applied to the FDA for an emergency use authorization of Molnupiravir for early treatment of COVID-19. Molnupiravir is a mutagenic nucleotide analogue. It increases the rate of mutations in the coronavirus’ RNA and in human DNA.

The application is based on alleged interim results of an unfinished trial, where this drug was given to 385 patients in 173 sites all over the world, and the patients were then observed for 29 days since recruitment and randomization.

Molnupiravir is mutagenic and toxic for human cells. Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics have flatly denied this and proceeded with human trials. The consequences of Molnupiravir’s DNA mutagenesis, such as cancer or birth defects, take months or years to develop. The 24 days of patient observation after 5 days treatment is obviously not enough to detect anything.

The broad use of Molnupiravir is a global catastrophic risk because the increased rate of coronavirus mutations is likely to create more dangerous variants.

All Molnupiravir trials were conducted by Merck or its partners. No results have been published in peer reviewed journals. Nevertheless, Dr. Fauci gave it a nod of approval. The US government has already purchased 1.7 million “treatment courses” from Merck, and it is on the course to manufacture and ship 10 million of them by the end of 2021. The relevant parties act as if the EUA approval is just a formality and are proceeding as if it were already granted.

Cytotoxicity

Molnupiravir is a mutagenic [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] nucleotide analogue, and its potential cytotoxicity and genotoxicity are not in doubt [7]. Its use for some categories of patients could be justified if benefits were exceeding harm and risk. Instead, Merck elected to deny existence of these risks. Molnupiravir’s metabolites cause mutations in human DNA [4], just like they do in viral RNA. This is not in question. If the rate of mutations at therapeutic doses were sufficiently low, Merck should have shown that. Merck’s researchers dismissed this danger by alleging that they had conducted tests showing an absence of cytotoxicity [8], without showing any data. Their response was rebutted [7 [9] and laughed at by other scientists [9]
.
The therapeutic dosage — 800 mg, twice daily, for 5 days — is at the upper limit of the investigated range 50 – 800 mg [10], suggesting it is higher than what was initially expected.  Molnupiravir was initially developed to treat Equine Encephalitis virus diseases, and its most valuable property was its ability to cross brain-body barrier and achieve high concentration in the brain and very high concentrations in spleen [11] . Its concentration in the spleen is higher than in lungs [3]
.
[3]showed that meaningful inhibition of SARS-COV-2 without cytotoxicity is impossible in Vero cells (Fig.1B) . The data for human epithelial cells is inconsistent but does suggest cytotoxicity (Supplementary Materials, the data for Fig. S1).

More Mercky Business

[9] Merck researchers admitted to the necessity of in-vivo mutagenicity studies for this drug before proceeding to human trials. They therefore claimed that such studies (Pig-a and the Big Blue® (cII Locus)) have been conducted and that no danger of mutagenicity was found even at higher doses [12]. This is highly unlikely. Moreover, other scientists argued that these studies had significant limitations and do not allow Merck to make such claims [9]. To make matters worse, Merck failed to publish any data from these studies, making it impossible to peer review or replicate them.

This raises suspicions not only about the toxicity of Molnupiravir, but also about Merck’s conduct before and during clinical trials.

No data about concentrations and effects of Molnupiravir’s metabolites in the most vulnerable tissues, such as bone marrow, can be found.

Dubious Results from Animal Trials

Animal trials also failed to provide evidence of Molnupiravir’s effectiveness, at the manufacturer’s recommended dose – 800 mg (equivalent of 10 mg/kg or 370 mg/m2) twice daily. The mass of the drug per body area of the human or animal is the preferred quick approximation for comparison between human and animal doses [13].

The “Phase 3” Trial

In this trial, Merck gave patients in the treatment group 800 mg x 2/day x 5 days. After observing 775 participants (including 385 in the treatment group) for 24 (= 29-5) days after that, Merck published a press release [17] claiming that the trial was successful.

It is not true. A formally registered clinical trial should be conducted according to the plan until the end to provide statistically valid results. It was registered to enroll, randomize, and observe 1550 participants, and Merck had to spend another month to do that. Its October 1 press-release stated that the recruitment was more than 90% complete at the time it was stopped, between September 5 and September 30.

After 20 months of the pandemic, making decisions one month before completion of the single Phase 3 trial looks fishy.

If we combine this trial with a few dozen patients who received the same dose of Molnupiravir in other trials, there are less than 500 patients in total, who were treated with this drug and observed for 29 days. Should a drug be authorized for tens of millions of people, based on a trial involving less than 500 patients?

This trial was conducted in 173 sites all over the world. Such a wide range of sites cannot be properly controlled. This trial looks like a reality show, in which the organizers control the outcome. Gilead used a similar methodology to push Remdesivir, with deadly results. Merck’s Molnupiravir gambit is even more dangerous, because it can be administered to millions, with catastrophic global risks [18]
.
Finally, no study plan or protocol of the trial has been published and of course, no results. The only morsels of information to be found on this trial comes from Merck’s press release and ClinicalTrials.gov [16], which does not contain even the protocol ID.

Two Indian companies also started clinical trials for Molnupiravir but decided to stop, apparently because of futility [19], but another Indian company Hetero applied for an EUA in India.  See Aurobindo Pharma, MSN Seek CDSCO Panel Nod To Cease Molnupiravir Trial On Moderate COVID Patients

Conflicts of Interest and Hidden Motives

The conflict of interest is unusually high. Merck has been manufacturing Molnupiravir at risk [17] Payment is conditional on EUA:

“In anticipation of the results from MOVe-OUT, Merck has been producing molnupiravir at risk. Merck expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of 2021, with more doses expected to be produced in 2022.”

The US and other governments, who ordered Molnupiravir [20], carry an even bigger risk. They have created expectations that would go unfulfilled if Molnupiravir is properly rejected. Such an evident alignment of interests between government bureaucracies and Merck is very dangerous and requires extreme scrutiny.

Conclusion

With the current limited information about Molnupiravir, one might compare its effects, at the “therapeutic dosage”, to a medium dose of radiation. There might be acute sickness, temporary immune-suppression, and long-term consequences including cancer and birth defects. The specific dosage may have been selected to be just below the threshold of acute sickness. We will not know until the results are published.

Footnote: In a separate article, another researcher drew this analogy.  Suppose that your body has four doors by which SARS-CV2 can enter.  Molnupiravir can close one door, while Ivermectin closes them all. There is no reason for this new Merck pill except for obscene profits to be gained.

For Ivermectin Background, see Ivermectin Invictus: The Unsung Covid Victor