https://infocheckers.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Admin&feedformat=atomInfoCheckers - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T06:43:32ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.32.0https://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Where_did_the_new_corona_virus_originate,_and_how_could_it_happen%3F&diff=3269Blog:Where did the new corona virus originate, and how could it happen?2024-01-17T00:48:26Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
-----------------------------------<br />
Update January 2024: The evidence has stacked up in favour of the hypothesis that the virus not only escaped from a Wuhan research lab but was in fact created by [https://public.substack.com/p/first-people-sickened-by-covid-19 certain Wuhan researchers] in gain-of-function research as described in a 2018 proposal by EcoHealth Alliance led by Peter Daszak. Ironically it was titled [https://drasticresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/main-document-preempt-volume-1-no-ess-hr00118s0017-ecohealth-alliance.pdf "Project DEFUSE: Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses"]. The DARPA proposal included synthesizing bat spike proteins with human-specific furin cleavage sites and evalutate growth potential in human cell cultures (p.11). Recently obtained documents reveal that the intended work by the Wuhan Institute of Virology was downplayed and lax safety standards were concealed. See [https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/science-writers-hide-as-new-documents? this substack article] by Paul Thacker, based on [https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/american-scientists-misled-pentagon-on-wuhan-research/ this article] by Emily Kopp of U.S. Right To Know.<br />
------------------------------------<br />
<br />
It is generally believed that Covid-19 originates from bats; further, it is assumed that the outbreak in Wuhan did not directly come from bats, but by means of an intermediate host, that served as a "virus reservoir" in which the virus became better adapted to infecting humans.<br />
<br />
The Chinese government tried to put the blame on food sellers and categorically denied that one of the bio-research labs in Wuhan could have been involved in the outbreak. However, there is no evidence that the virus originated at a food market, and a [https://www.reddit.com/r/corovirusdata/comments/f5dyyt/the_possible_origins_of_2019ncov_coronavirus/ short paper] by Chinese scientists that provided circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of the bio-research labs, was suppressed. <br />
<br />
According to a [https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199 recent preprint by Piplani et al], Covid-19 seems best adapted to human cells - more than to any animal that was considered as intermediary hosts such as pangolins. "the data indicates that SARSCoV2 is uniquely adapted to infect humans". That's puzzling!<br />
<br />
And now an excellent discussion article has appeared, written by a virologist and a geneticist who came up with a detailed, well researched hypothesis about the possible origin of Covid-19. They discovered that long before the outbreak, at least one blood sample from pneumonia patients with an [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/new-killer-virus-china unknown illness] had been sent to Wuhan. Those patients, of which some died, had been in the copper mine with the virus that is closest related to Covid-19.<br />
<br />
Their hypothesis:<br><br />
- accounts for the fact that infections first of all target the lungs<br><br />
- the sudden appearance of a virus that is fully adapted to humans from the start<br><br />
- its transmission from bats in Yunnan to humans in Wuhan, almost 1000 km away.<br />
<br />
The article by Latham and Wilson, which is a follow-up of [https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/ another fine article], is linked [https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/ here].<br />
<br />
It's worth mentioning that while the above-mentioned hypothesis is basically that of a natural origin with merely passive laboratory involvement, several other virologists such as Sørensen hold that the virus has characteristics that can not be of natural origin. His paper (rejected by several journals on editorial grounds without review) can be read [https://www.minervanett.no/files/2020/07/13/TheEvidenceNoNaturalEvol.pdf here].<br />
A combination of those two hypotheses - a natural base with some artificial enhancement - can of course not be excluded. And even a natural cause without any lab involvement remains imaginable.<br />
<br />
The World Health Organization is now investigating the possible origin, but there's reason to suspect that some of the most likely and obvious possible causes will be ignored. If so, little to nothing can be expected from it.<br />
<br />
Comments are welcome! For anti-spam, anonymous comments (without site registration) cannot include web links. <br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:6 August 2020]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Where_did_the_new_corona_virus_originate,_and_how_could_it_happen%3F&diff=3268Blog:Where did the new corona virus originate, and how could it happen?2024-01-16T22:25:28Z<p>Admin: Add updated lab leak hypothesis on top</p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
-----------------------------------<br />
Update January 2024: The evidence has stacked up in favour of the hypothesis that the virus not only escaped from a Wuhan research lab but was in fact created by Wuhan researchers in gain-of-function research as described in a 2018 proposal by EcoHealth Alliance led by Peter Daszak. Ironically it was titled [https://drasticresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/main-document-preempt-volume-1-no-ess-hr00118s0017-ecohealth-alliance.pdf "Project DEFUSE: Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses"]. The DARPA proposal included synthesizing bat spike proteins with human-specific furin cleavage sites and evalutate growth potential in human cell cultures (p.11). Recently obtained documents reveal that the intended work by the Wuhan Institute of Virology was downplayed and lax safety standards were concealed. See [https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/science-writers-hide-as-new-documents? this substack article] by Paul Thacker, based on [https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/american-scientists-misled-pentagon-on-wuhan-research/ this article] by Emily Kopp of U.S. Right To Know.<br />
------------------------------------<br />
<br />
It is generally believed that Covid-19 originates from bats; further, it is assumed that the outbreak in Wuhan did not directly come from bats, but by means of an intermediate host, that served as a "virus reservoir" in which the virus became better adapted to infecting humans.<br />
<br />
The Chinese government tried to put the blame on food sellers and categorically denied that one of the bio-research labs in Wuhan could have been involved in the outbreak. However, there is no evidence that the virus originated at a food market, and a [https://www.reddit.com/r/corovirusdata/comments/f5dyyt/the_possible_origins_of_2019ncov_coronavirus/ short paper] by Chinese scientists that provided circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of the bio-research labs, was suppressed. <br />
<br />
According to a [https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199 recent preprint by Piplani et al], Covid-19 seems best adapted to human cells - more than to any animal that was considered as intermediary hosts such as pangolins. "the data indicates that SARSCoV2 is uniquely adapted to infect humans". That's puzzling!<br />
<br />
And now an excellent discussion article has appeared, written by a virologist and a geneticist who came up with a detailed, well researched hypothesis about the possible origin of Covid-19. They discovered that long before the outbreak, at least one blood sample from pneumonia patients with an [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/new-killer-virus-china unknown illness] had been sent to Wuhan. Those patients, of which some died, had been in the copper mine with the virus that is closest related to Covid-19.<br />
<br />
Their hypothesis:<br><br />
- accounts for the fact that infections first of all target the lungs<br><br />
- the sudden appearance of a virus that is fully adapted to humans from the start<br><br />
- its transmission from bats in Yunnan to humans in Wuhan, almost 1000 km away.<br />
<br />
The article by Latham and Wilson, which is a follow-up of [https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/ another fine article], is linked [https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/ here].<br />
<br />
It's worth mentioning that while the above-mentioned hypothesis is basically that of a natural origin with merely passive laboratory involvement, several other virologists such as Sørensen hold that the virus has characteristics that can not be of natural origin. His paper (rejected by several journals on editorial grounds without review) can be read [https://www.minervanett.no/files/2020/07/13/TheEvidenceNoNaturalEvol.pdf here].<br />
A combination of those two hypotheses - a natural base with some artificial enhancement - can of course not be excluded. And even a natural cause without any lab involvement remains imaginable.<br />
<br />
The World Health Organization is now investigating the possible origin, but there's reason to suspect that some of the most likely and obvious possible causes will be ignored. If so, little to nothing can be expected from it.<br />
<br />
Comments are welcome! For anti-spam, anonymous comments (without site registration) cannot include web links. <br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:6 August 2020]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers&diff=3267InfoCheckers2023-12-09T17:30:25Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><seo title="InfoCheckers | a tool for a community of information checkers" metak="fact checking websites, Wikipedia check" metad="blog, wiki, forum" /> <br />
'''[[Special:ArticlesHome|Blog topics]]''' . . . . '''[[Wiki|Wiki topics]]''' . . . . <br />
'''[[Special:WikiForum|Forum topics]]''' <br> ''Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.<br />
- [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text Thomas Jefferson, 1807] ''<br />
--------------------------------<br />
Latest blog post: [[Blog:pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death|Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death]]<br><br />
Latest wiki: [[Orwell:_The_Freedom_of_the_Press|George Orwell's never published original introduction to Animal Farm]] <br><br />
Latest Fact Checking: [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]] <br> <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
When searching for information on Internet, how do we discern what is fair and well researched information? For an individual it is not doable to sort it all out. <br />
<br />
Search engines serve links to Wikipedia articles near the top of their results, and while the great majority is fine, some of those articles are extremely unreliable or [https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ badly biased]. And when we look for better information, the choice is often between two extremes: unquestioned "mainstream" dogma or "alternative" sites of doubtful and often very poor reliability.<br />
<br />
This website is meant to '''serve as a tool''' for a '''community''' of people who want to be well informed and who may want to contribute sometimes. It's now open for everyone to join. By contributing to a Wiki we can obtain much more while spending less time individually. <br />
<br />
* The focus is on our own '''research-based [[Wiki|wiki]]''', '''correcting''' selected '''Wikipedia articles'''. Categories:<br />
** '''[[Fact Checking websites]]''' - existing fact checking sites<br />
** '''Current affairs''' - debated topics that are in the news<br />
** '''Society''' - still relevant topics that have been in the news (or should have been)<br />
** '''Environment''' - air pollution, pesticides etc. - [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]]<br />
** '''Health''' - medicine, alternative medicine, food supplements etc.<br />
** '''Science''' - history of science, relativity, quantum mechanics etc.<br />
:: (Proposals for topics '''[[InfoCheckers:List_of_possible_topics|here]]''') <span style="color:#14866d"> <div style="text-align: right; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> ''Count: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages'' </div> </span><br />
* With a '''[[Special:ArticlesHome|blog]]''' of the administrator to present currently relevant topics <br />
<br />
* With a '''[[Special:WikiForum|discussion forum]]''' about contents creation based on Wikipedia articles and other technical issues of web site management. It has a different skin for an "under the hood" impression.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------<br />
* For updates you can add yourself to the '''[[InfoCheckers:About|mailinglist]]'''<br />
------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
We will introduce a '''new method''' to arrive at a reasonably objective and fair presentation of facts in our Wiki articles.<br><br />
See '''[[Project:Organization and operation]]''', <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''In The News''' (or hardly in the news, but should have been):<br />
<br />
Barry Young, a database administrator for New Zealand’s public health ministry, has been arrested for leaking secret government data on the death rates of people who received Covid mRNA shots. Even though the data has been anonymized, the New Zealand government health agency has been granted an injunction that “prevents any publication of the data” leaked by the whistleblower. Meanwhile, scientific journalists and statisticians have already started examining some of that data that is being scraped from the Internet.<br />
[https://slaynews.com/news/new-zealand-whistleblower-facing-7-years-prison-exposing-mass-vax-deaths/] <br />
[https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/man-accused-stealing-covid-vaccine-data-granted-bail] <br />
<br><br />
<br />
''Old "In The News" topics [[Talk:InfoCheckers | '''here''']]''<br />
-----------------------------<br />
This Intro page is '''[[Special:WikiForum/General_comments_here|open for comments]]'''<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<h3>Short manual [[Short manual|here]]</h3><br />
---------------<br />
<span style="color:#14866d"><div style="text-align: center;>''The Wiki and Forum use cookies for your personal convenience. No third-party cookies. No trackers. No adds.''<br><br />
''Blogs may contain Vimeo videos with their own Vimeo cookies only (no trackers).''</div></span></div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers&diff=3266InfoCheckers2023-12-08T13:23:09Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><seo title="InfoCheckers | a tool for a community of information checkers" metak="fact checking websites, Wikipedia check" metad="blog, wiki, forum" /> <br />
'''[[Special:ArticlesHome|Blog topics]]''' . . . . '''[[Wiki|Wiki topics]]''' . . . . <br />
'''[[Special:WikiForum|Forum topics]]''' <br> ''Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.<br />
- [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text Thomas Jefferson, 1807] ''<br />
--------------------------------<br />
Latest blog post: [[Blog:pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death|Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death]]<br><br />
Latest wiki: [[Orwell:_The_Freedom_of_the_Press|George Orwell's never published original introduction to Animal Farm]] <br><br />
Latest Fact Checking: [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]] <br> <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
When searching for information on Internet, how do we discern what is fair and well researched information? For an individual it is not doable to sort it all out. <br />
<br />
Search engines serve links to Wikipedia articles near the top of their results, and while the great majority is fine, some of those articles are extremely unreliable or [https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ badly biased]. And when we look for better information, the choice is often between two extremes: unquestioned "mainstream" dogma or "alternative" sites of doubtful and often very poor reliability.<br />
<br />
This website is meant to '''serve as a tool''' for a '''community''' of people who want to be well informed and who may want to contribute sometimes. It's now open for everyone to join. By contributing to a Wiki we can obtain much more while spending less time individually. <br />
<br />
* The focus is on our own '''research-based [[Wiki|wiki]]''', '''correcting''' selected '''Wikipedia articles'''. Categories:<br />
** '''[[Fact Checking websites]]''' - existing fact checking sites<br />
** '''Current affairs''' - debated topics that are in the news<br />
** '''Society''' - still relevant topics that have been in the news (or should have been)<br />
** '''Environment''' - air pollution, pesticides etc. - [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]]<br />
** '''Health''' - medicine, alternative medicine, food supplements etc.<br />
** '''Science''' - history of science, relativity, quantum mechanics etc.<br />
:: (Proposals for topics '''[[InfoCheckers:List_of_possible_topics|here]]''') <span style="color:#14866d"> <div style="text-align: right; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> ''Count: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages'' </div> </span><br />
* With a '''[[Special:ArticlesHome|blog]]''' of the administrator to present currently relevant topics <br />
<br />
* With a '''[[Special:WikiForum|discussion forum]]''' about contents creation based on Wikipedia articles and other technical issues of web site management. It has a different skin for an "under the hood" impression.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------<br />
* For updates you can add yourself to the '''[[InfoCheckers:About|mailinglist]]'''<br />
------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
We will introduce a '''new method''' to arrive at a reasonably objective and fair presentation of facts in our Wiki articles.<br><br />
See '''[[Project:Organization and operation]]''', <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''In The News''' (or hardly in the news, but should have been):<br />
<br />
Barry Young, a database administrator for New Zealand’s public health ministry, has been arrested for leaking secret government data on the death rates of people who received Covid mRNA shots. Even though the data has been anonymized, the New Zealand government health agency has been granted an injunction that “prevents any publication of the data” leaked by the whistleblower. Meanwhile, scientific journalists and statisticians have already started examining some of that data that is being scraped from the Internet.<br />
[https://slaynews.com/news/new-zealand-whistleblower-facing-7-years-prison-exposing-mass-vax-deaths/] <br />
[https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/man-accused-stealing-covid-vaccine-data-granted-bail] <br />
[https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/i-analyzed-the-leaked-nz-whistleblower?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
''Old "In The News" topics [[Talk:InfoCheckers | '''here''']]''<br />
-----------------------------<br />
This Intro page is '''[[Special:WikiForum/General_comments_here|open for comments]]'''<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<h3>Short manual [[Short manual|here]]</h3><br />
---------------<br />
<span style="color:#14866d"><div style="text-align: center;>''The Wiki and Forum use cookies for your personal convenience. No third-party cookies. No trackers. No adds.''<br><br />
''Blogs may contain Vimeo videos with their own Vimeo cookies only (no trackers).''</div></span></div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers&diff=3265InfoCheckers2023-12-08T13:22:23Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><seo title="InfoCheckers | a tool for a community of information checkers" metak="fact checking websites, Wikipedia check" metad="blog, wiki, forum" /> <br />
'''[[Special:ArticlesHome|Blog topics]]''' . . . . '''[[Wiki|Wiki topics]]''' . . . . <br />
'''[[Special:WikiForum|Forum topics]]''' <br> ''Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.<br />
- [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text Thomas Jefferson, 1807] ''<br />
--------------------------------<br />
Latest blog post: [[Blog:pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death|Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death]]<br><br />
Latest wiki: [[Orwell:_The_Freedom_of_the_Press|George Orwell's never published original introduction to Animal Farm]] <br><br />
Latest Fact Checking: [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]] <br> <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
When searching for information on Internet, how do we discern what is fair and well researched information? For an individual it is not doable to sort it all out. <br />
<br />
Search engines serve links to Wikipedia articles near the top of their results, and while the great majority is fine, some of those articles are extremely unreliable or [https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ badly biased]. And when we look for better information, the choice is often between two extremes: unquestioned "mainstream" dogma or "alternative" sites of doubtful and often very poor reliability.<br />
<br />
This website is meant to '''serve as a tool''' for a '''community''' of people who want to be well informed and who may want to contribute sometimes. It's now open for everyone to join. By contributing to a Wiki we can obtain much more while spending less time individually. <br />
<br />
* The focus is on our own '''research-based [[Wiki|wiki]]''', '''correcting''' selected '''Wikipedia articles'''. Categories:<br />
** '''[[Fact Checking websites]]''' - existing fact checking sites<br />
** '''Current affairs''' - debated topics that are in the news<br />
** '''Society''' - still relevant topics that have been in the news (or should have been)<br />
** '''Environment''' - air pollution, pesticides etc. - [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]]<br />
** '''Health''' - medicine, alternative medicine, food supplements etc.<br />
** '''Science''' - history of science, relativity, quantum mechanics etc.<br />
:: (Proposals for topics '''[[InfoCheckers:List_of_possible_topics|here]]''') <span style="color:#14866d"> <div style="text-align: right; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> ''Count: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages'' </div> </span><br />
* With a '''[[Special:ArticlesHome|blog]]''' of the administrator to present currently relevant topics <br />
<br />
* With a '''[[Special:WikiForum|discussion forum]]''' about contents creation based on Wikipedia articles and other technical issues of web site management. It has a different skin for an "under the hood" impression.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------<br />
* For updates you can add yourself to the '''[[InfoCheckers:About|mailinglist]]'''<br />
------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
We will introduce a '''new method''' to arrive at a reasonably objective and fair presentation of facts in our Wiki articles.<br><br />
See '''[[Project:Organization and operation]]''', <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''In The News''' (or hardly in the news, but should have been):<br />
<br />
Barry Young, a database administrator for New Zealand’s public health ministry, has been arrested for leaking secret government data on the death rates of people who received Covid mRNA shots. Even though the data has been anonymized, the New Zealand government health agency has been granted an injunction that “prevents any publication of the data” leaked by the whistleblower. Meanwhile, scientific journalists and statisticians have already started examining some of that data that is being scraped from the Internet.<br />
[https://slaynews.com/news/new-zealand-whistleblower-facing-7-years-prison-exposing-mass-vax-deaths/] <br><br />
[https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/man-accused-stealing-covid-vaccine-data-granted-bail] <br><br />
[https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/i-analyzed-the-leaked-nz-whistleblower?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
''Old "In The News" topics [[Talk:InfoCheckers | '''here''']]''<br />
-----------------------------<br />
This Intro page is '''[[Special:WikiForum/General_comments_here|open for comments]]'''<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<h3>Short manual [[Short manual|here]]</h3><br />
---------------<br />
<span style="color:#14866d"><div style="text-align: center;>''The Wiki and Forum use cookies for your personal convenience. No third-party cookies. No trackers. No adds.''<br><br />
''Blogs may contain Vimeo videos with their own Vimeo cookies only (no trackers).''</div></span></div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Talk:InfoCheckers&diff=3264Talk:InfoCheckers2023-12-08T12:50:44Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Old News Topics ==<br />
<br />
Florida court grants investigation of possible wrongdoings of vaccine manufacturers - <br />
https://news.yahoo.com/florida-court-grants-desantis-petition-020233388.html<br />
<br />
After an FOIA request and following litigation, ICAN has obtained a court order obliging the [https://expose-news.com/2022/09/19/ican-obtains-court-order-for-cdc-to-release-v-safe-data/ CDC to release COVID Vaccine Adverse Events Data] obtained in the ‘V-Safe’ Program, with a release start deadline of 30 September.<br />
<br />
Thailand has so far paid $45M over vaccine side-effects according to the [https://www.phnompenhpost.com/international/thailand-pay-45m-over-vaccine-side-effects Phnom Pen Post], as compensation to 12,714 people who developed side-effects after they received Covid-19 vaccines. <br />
<br />
[https://thepulse.one/2022/03/07/researchers-examine-autopsies-of-two-boys-who-died-days-after-covid-vaccine/ Researchers Examine Autopsies of Two Boys Who Died Days After COVID Vaccine]. ' According to the three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners,”The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis.” '<br />
<br />
The antidepressant '''fluvoxamine''' was found to be effective for preventing severe Covid-19 in the clinical "TOGETHER" trial, as [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext published] in the medical journal The Lancet on October 27, 2021. <br><br />
"Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population." Of those patients who followed the protocol, 1 out of 548 died while in the placebo group 12 out of 618 died. The study was stopped early because of its convincing success. This '''should''' have made the headlines.<br />
<br />
The parting government of the USA [https://web.archive.org/web/20210116001621/https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/ revealed that] the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. According to them, 'The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. [...] the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses [and ...] engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.'<br />
<br />
An [https://vitamindforall.org/letter.html open letter by over 100 scientists and doctors] appeared on Dec 7, 2020, demanding health authorities to start a campaign to increase vitamin D intakes. The benefit of vitamin D against COVID-19 and the lack of action by health authorities was discussed in Dutch newspaper AD, with English translation [[Blog:'Experts_angry_about_still_no_vitamin_D_advice'|here]].<br><br />
A number of breaking news reports have appeared in alternative media about clinical trials with ivermectin as anti-COVID-19 drug, while mainstream media almost exclusively touted trial results with new vaccines. More on this in [[Blog:Ivermectin_is_an_effective_COVID-19_drug,_doctors_attest |a recent blog post]].<br><br />
[...]<br><br />
Contrary to official sources, there is no evidence that the Wuhan coronavirus originated at the now closed food market. The first known infected person apparently had [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally no link to that market]. At least one scientific article that shifts suspicion from food markets to virus research facilities [https://www.reddit.com/r/corovirusdata/comments/f5dyyt/the_possible_origins_of_2019ncov_coronavirus/ has been suppressed]. That article presents a selection of referenced facts.<br />
<br />
On 13 January 2020 Julian Assange appeared in a London's court, after having been given [https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/13/m-supports-julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-appears-london-court-us-extradition-12049872/ only 2 hours to prepare his case]. In an earlier court appearance, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser apparently took direct instructions from US operatives in the courtroom, as described by eye witness [https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/ Craig Murray]. Meanwhile Assange's health is deteriorating further. See also this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLXzudMCyM4 video interview of John Pilger]. <br><br />
An international expert review report found that the internationally used COVID-19 test is based on an article that was published without possibly passing a proper peer review process. According to the critical review, the "Corman-Drosten" test is very unreliable; it is expected that many people are tested "positive" who are in fact not infected with the new corona virus - https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/<br><br />
The Assange extradition hearings [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/assange-extradition-hearing-to-resume-in-london/ar-BB18LSEK have resumed].<br><br />
However, for information about those hearings which threaten Western freedoms one has to [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/09/assa-s09.html consult alternative news media].<br><br />
<br />
The WHO recently declared the African continent free of the wild polio virus, '''but''' now there's an ongoing [https://apnews.com/619efb65b9eeec5650f011b960a152e9 vaccine-derived outbreak of polio] that is spreading.<br><br />
<br />
Swedish police pretends to have identified the killer of Olof Palme - ignoring leads that point elsewhere, including to itself -https://newrepublic.com/article/158122/killed-olof-palme <br>Compare https://svenanerpalmemordet.blogspot.com/2010/10/actor-gustafssons-unmasking-of-walkie.html and (in German) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FjVA49F7ow<br />
<br />
USA police and white thugs attack journalists during street protests<br />
https://theintercept.com/2020/06/04/journalists-attacked-police-george-floyd-protests/<br />
<br />
Investigative journalists verified the allegations that in March Greek border forces shot at migrants and refugees, wounding several and killing one. This was found to be true with a high degree of certainty. The Greek government pretended that those allegations were "fake news". In a strange twist of fate, it turned out that the man they killed was a resident of Greece.<br />
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2020/05/08/the-killing-of-muhammad-gulzar/<br />
<br />
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet in November 'expressed alarm at the continuing lack of transparency about casualties and the treatment of thousands of detainees' after the '''violent crackdown of the recent protests in Iran'''. “Verified video footage indicates severe violence was used against protesters [...]” Bachelet said. “We have also received footage which appears to show security forces shooting unarmed demonstrators from behind while they were running away, and shooting others directly in the face and vital organs – in other words shooting to kill. These are clear violations of international norms and standards on the use of force, and serious violations of human rights.” Further, the UN office could partially corroborate 'reports that Iranian security forces used machine guns against protesters in Jarahi Square in Mahshahr – including against people fleeing the area and people hiding in nearby reed-beds'.<br><br />
- https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25393&LangID=E<br />
<br />
Courage Foundation panel criticizes ‘Unacceptable Practices’ in the OPCW’s investigation of the Alleged Chemical Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th 2018. 'Key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.'<br><br />
- https://couragefound.org/2019/10/analytical-points-opcw-panel<br><br />
- 14 Dec update by Wikileaks [https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/releases/ here] with [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7793253/PETER-HITCHENS-reveals-evidence-watchdog-suppressed-report-casting-doubt-Assad-gas-attack.html summary] by Mail on Sunday<br />
<br />
World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency <br><br />
- https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806<br />
<br />
500 scientists signed letter to UN on climate change, claiming 'no climate emergency'<br><br />
- https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/no-climate-emergency-say-500-scientists-reports-physicians-for-civil-defense-300939058.html<br><br />
- https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/example-of-media-bias/500-experts-sign-letter-to-un-on-climate-change/<br />
<br />
'Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades. A weaker sun could reduce temperatures by half a degree.'<br><br />
- http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/newsroom/Pages/news-170327-press-release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx<br />
<br />
The definitive report (1 March 2019) on Syria gas attacks does not include one evidence analysis which now has been leaked.<br><br />
- https://www.juancole.com/2019/05/document-controversy-chemical.html<br><br />
Apparently that analysis was submitted at the last moment (or too late?) and the debate is starting if it should have affected the report's conclusions or not.<br><br />
<br />
Magnitsky wins Russian rights battle 10 years after his death<br />
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49481471 <br><br />
Describing Magnitsky as a "whistleblower", the BBC article suggests that he was put in prison for that. However, the article admits that "the court rejected a complaint that his arrest and detention were ill-founded". <br />
BLOG POST ON THE MAGNITSKY MYTH [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/Blog:Bill_Browder_and_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights HERE]<br />
<br />
== Comments on Intro page ==<br />
[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 11:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC) <br />
<br />
I now opened a forum topic for comments on this website's introduction page:<br />
https://infocheckers.org/wiki/Special:WikiForum/General_comments_here</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers&diff=3263InfoCheckers2023-12-08T12:50:18Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><seo title="InfoCheckers | a tool for a community of information checkers" metak="fact checking websites, Wikipedia check" metad="blog, wiki, forum" /> <br />
'''[[Special:ArticlesHome|Blog topics]]''' . . . . '''[[Wiki|Wiki topics]]''' . . . . <br />
'''[[Special:WikiForum|Forum topics]]''' <br> ''Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.<br />
- [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text Thomas Jefferson, 1807] ''<br />
--------------------------------<br />
Latest blog post: [[Blog:pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death|Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death]]<br><br />
Latest wiki: [[Orwell:_The_Freedom_of_the_Press|George Orwell's never published original introduction to Animal Farm]] <br><br />
Latest Fact Checking: [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]] <br> <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
When searching for information on Internet, how do we discern what is fair and well researched information? For an individual it is not doable to sort it all out. <br />
<br />
Search engines serve links to Wikipedia articles near the top of their results, and while the great majority is fine, some of those articles are extremely unreliable or [https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ badly biased]. And when we look for better information, the choice is often between two extremes: unquestioned "mainstream" dogma or "alternative" sites of doubtful and often very poor reliability.<br />
<br />
This website is meant to '''serve as a tool''' for a '''community''' of people who want to be well informed and who may want to contribute sometimes. It's now open for everyone to join. By contributing to a Wiki we can obtain much more while spending less time individually. <br />
<br />
* The focus is on our own '''research-based [[Wiki|wiki]]''', '''correcting''' selected '''Wikipedia articles'''. Categories:<br />
** '''[[Fact Checking websites]]''' - existing fact checking sites<br />
** '''Current affairs''' - debated topics that are in the news<br />
** '''Society''' - still relevant topics that have been in the news (or should have been)<br />
** '''Environment''' - air pollution, pesticides etc. - [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]]<br />
** '''Health''' - medicine, alternative medicine, food supplements etc.<br />
** '''Science''' - history of science, relativity, quantum mechanics etc.<br />
:: (Proposals for topics '''[[InfoCheckers:List_of_possible_topics|here]]''') <span style="color:#14866d"> <div style="text-align: right; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> ''Count: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages'' </div> </span><br />
* With a '''[[Special:ArticlesHome|blog]]''' of the administrator to present currently relevant topics <br />
<br />
* With a '''[[Special:WikiForum|discussion forum]]''' about contents creation based on Wikipedia articles and other technical issues of web site management. It has a different skin for an "under the hood" impression.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------<br />
* For updates you can add yourself to the '''[[InfoCheckers:About|mailinglist]]'''<br />
------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
We will introduce a '''new method''' to arrive at a reasonably objective and fair presentation of facts in our Wiki articles.<br><br />
See '''[[Project:Organization and operation]]''', <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''In The News''' (or hardly in the news, but should have been):<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
''Old "In The News" topics [[Talk:InfoCheckers | '''here''']]''<br />
-----------------------------<br />
This Intro page is '''[[Special:WikiForum/General_comments_here|open for comments]]'''<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<h3>Short manual [[Short manual|here]]</h3><br />
---------------<br />
<span style="color:#14866d"><div style="text-align: center;>''The Wiki and Forum use cookies for your personal convenience. No third-party cookies. No trackers. No adds.''<br><br />
''Blogs may contain Vimeo videos with their own Vimeo cookies only (no trackers).''</div></span></div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature&diff=3262Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature2023-08-12T11:08:42Z<p>Admin: additional link</p>
<hr />
<div>According to popular greenhouse radiation theory, the increased emission of greenhouse gasses, in particular carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) causes global warming as well as other environmental effects such as reducing the pH ("acidification") of the oceans. Estimations of the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration vary from ca. 0.5 to 5 °C. A popular so-called [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity consensus estimation] is ca. 3 °C equilibrium temperature increase. For the transient temperature increase (while it is happening), current estimations are around 1.5 °C. <br />
<br />
We will split up the different aspects into separate articles and summarize the combined evidence on this page. If the conclusions of sub topics are modified, this page will be adapted as needed. <br />
----------------------------<br />
'''1. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmospheric CO2]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: There is a reasonably good match; '''the current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase is almost certainly driven by man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''.<br />
-------------------------<br />
'''2. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on sea rise]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: '''The average sea rise during the last 150 years does not match atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase.''' It's unclear how much of recently increased sea rise is due to natural causes, and how much is due to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<br />
<br />
'''Reality check of predictions''':<br />
It's enlightening to compare published predictions with the reality. For example in 2014 the Dutch KNMI [https://www.milieuzaken.org/bewaarde%20artikelen/KNMI-WR2014-01.pdf gave their outlook (their report p.57)] based on IPCC predictions of local sea rise for two different emission scenarios, a high ("business as usual") and a low (strong CO2 reduction) scenario. Emissions in recent years until 2020 were around the high CO<sub>2</sub> scenario (see for example [https://web.archive.org/web/20200201005134/https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-00177-3/d41586-020-00177-3_17600472.jpg a figure] in the journal [https://web.archive.org/web/20200201005134/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3 Nature]). Thus, hereunder we compare KNMI's local sea rise projection for that scenario.<br />
<br />
[[File:KNMI-wrong.png|500px|thumb|center|''Updated sea level observations. Average of 6 tide gauge stations along the Dutch coast for the period 1901 – 2018, compared with expected sea rise after 2000 based on CO2 models.'']]<br />
<br />
It's now obvious that the foreseen increase of sea rise was hugely overestimated. The recent trend line of measurements is still not or hardly bent upwards.<br />
<br />
However, an insignificant increase in the rate of sea rise may be just a not-yet significant increase; and sea rise lags behind on temperature rise. Consequently we can't avoid making an assessment based on measured temperatures, despite the great difficulties involved. This is discussed next. <br />
---------------------------------------<br />
'''3. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: When accounting for possible effects on Northern hemisphere temperatures, '''a [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png rather good match] can be obtained when about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 is ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''. Notably in recent years the match is much better with CO<sub>2</sub> than [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png without it]. As no other man-made greenhouse gasses were accounted for, here "CO<sub>2</sub>" stands for [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ all man-made greenhouse gasses and aerosols]. <br />
<br />
Extrapolating, we can estimate an '''approximately 1°C transient temperature increase in the Northern hemisphere from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>'''. This estimation is similar to recent estimates by "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. However, that is without taking in account that in the Southern hemisphere the expected temperature increase should be less. In other words, based on this estimation the global average transient effect from a doubling in CO<sub>2</sub> may well be less than 1°C.<br />
<br />
'''Outlook'''<br />
<br />
From our two [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures|temperature simulations]] we can forecast a likely progression of temperatures in the coming years. (disclaimer: climate projections are speculative in nature!). The [https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html long term solar cooling trend] (which apparently already started) should significantly reduce CO<sub>2</sub> warming and possibly even stabilize the temperatures for decades to come. However, that is without accounting for the short term solar oscillation with a period of about 11 years: up to the year 2025 more temperature increase can be expected. And it is speculated that after 2050 or 2060, the long term solar cycle will again turn in phase with CO<sub>2</sub> warming. Future sea rise may be expected to follow those temperature trends.<br />
-------------------------------<br />
<br />
''[work in progress!]''<br />
<br />
<br />
Possible further aspects to check ('''you''' - yes you! - '''can help'''):<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmosphere: "atmospheric hotspot"<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on up going and down going infrared radiation<br />
<br />
- testing theories on ice ages and Eocene thermal maximum<br />
<br />
- testing competing climate theories on different planets<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on corals ("acidification")<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on plant growth ("greening"<br />
<br />
--------<br />
uploaded files: <br />
[[File:KNMI 6 tide gauge stations.ods|thumb|KNMI 6 tide gauge stations 1901-2018]]<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Discussion''': in the '''[[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]''' you can give comments, suggestions and criticism</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature&diff=3261Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature2023-08-12T11:07:05Z<p>Admin: improved link</p>
<hr />
<div>According to popular greenhouse radiation theory, the increased emission of greenhouse gasses, in particular carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) causes global warming as well as other environmental effects such as reducing the pH ("acidification") of the oceans. Estimations of the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration vary from ca. 0.5 to 5 °C. A popular so-called [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity consensus estimation] is ca. 3 °C equilibrium temperature increase. For the transient temperature increase (while it is happening), current estimations are around 1.5 °C. <br />
<br />
We will split up the different aspects into separate articles and summarize the combined evidence on this page. If the conclusions of sub topics are modified, this page will be adapted as needed. <br />
----------------------------<br />
'''1. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmospheric CO2]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: There is a reasonably good match; '''the current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase is almost certainly driven by man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''.<br />
-------------------------<br />
'''2. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on sea rise]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: '''The average sea rise during the last 150 years does not match atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase.''' It's unclear how much of recently increased sea rise is due to natural causes, and how much is due to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<br />
<br />
'''Reality check of predictions''':<br />
It's enlightening to compare published predictions with the reality. For example in 2014 the Dutch KNMI [https://www.milieuzaken.org/bewaarde%20artikelen/KNMI-WR2014-01.pdf gave their outlook (their report p.57)] based on IPCC predictions of local sea rise for two different emission scenarios, a high ("business as usual") and a low (strong CO2 reduction) scenario. Emissions in recent years until 2020 were around the high CO<sub>2</sub> scenario (see for example [https://web.archive.org/web/20200201005134/https://media.nature.com/lw800/magazine-assets/d41586-020-00177-3/d41586-020-00177-3_17600472.jpg a figure] in the journal Nature). Thus, hereunder we compare KNMI's local sea rise projection for that scenario.<br />
<br />
[[File:KNMI-wrong.png|500px|thumb|center|''Updated sea level observations. Average of 6 tide gauge stations along the Dutch coast for the period 1901 – 2018, compared with expected sea rise after 2000 based on CO2 models.'']]<br />
<br />
It's now obvious that the foreseen increase of sea rise was hugely overestimated. The recent trend line of measurements is still not or hardly bent upwards.<br />
<br />
However, an insignificant increase in the rate of sea rise may be just a not-yet significant increase; and sea rise lags behind on temperature rise. Consequently we can't avoid making an assessment based on measured temperatures, despite the great difficulties involved. This is discussed next. <br />
---------------------------------------<br />
'''3. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: When accounting for possible effects on Northern hemisphere temperatures, '''a [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png rather good match] can be obtained when about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 is ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''. Notably in recent years the match is much better with CO<sub>2</sub> than [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png without it]. As no other man-made greenhouse gasses were accounted for, here "CO<sub>2</sub>" stands for [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ all man-made greenhouse gasses and aerosols]. <br />
<br />
Extrapolating, we can estimate an '''approximately 1°C transient temperature increase in the Northern hemisphere from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>'''. This estimation is similar to recent estimates by "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. However, that is without taking in account that in the Southern hemisphere the expected temperature increase should be less. In other words, based on this estimation the global average transient effect from a doubling in CO<sub>2</sub> may well be less than 1°C.<br />
<br />
'''Outlook'''<br />
<br />
From our two [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures|temperature simulations]] we can forecast a likely progression of temperatures in the coming years. (disclaimer: climate projections are speculative in nature!). The [https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html long term solar cooling trend] (which apparently already started) should significantly reduce CO<sub>2</sub> warming and possibly even stabilize the temperatures for decades to come. However, that is without accounting for the short term solar oscillation with a period of about 11 years: up to the year 2025 more temperature increase can be expected. And it is speculated that after 2050 or 2060, the long term solar cycle will again turn in phase with CO<sub>2</sub> warming. Future sea rise may be expected to follow those temperature trends.<br />
-------------------------------<br />
<br />
''[work in progress!]''<br />
<br />
<br />
Possible further aspects to check ('''you''' - yes you! - '''can help'''):<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmosphere: "atmospheric hotspot"<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on up going and down going infrared radiation<br />
<br />
- testing theories on ice ages and Eocene thermal maximum<br />
<br />
- testing competing climate theories on different planets<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on corals ("acidification")<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on plant growth ("greening"<br />
<br />
--------<br />
uploaded files: <br />
[[File:KNMI 6 tide gauge stations.ods|thumb|KNMI 6 tide gauge stations 1901-2018]]<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Discussion''': in the '''[[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]''' you can give comments, suggestions and criticism</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature&diff=3260Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature2023-08-12T10:14:05Z<p>Admin: typo</p>
<hr />
<div>According to popular greenhouse radiation theory, the increased emission of greenhouse gasses, in particular carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) causes global warming as well as other environmental effects such as reducing the pH ("acidification") of the oceans. Estimations of the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration vary from ca. 0.5 to 5 °C. A popular so-called [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity consensus estimation] is ca. 3 °C equilibrium temperature increase. For the transient temperature increase (while it is happening), current estimations are around 1.5 °C. <br />
<br />
We will split up the different aspects into separate articles and summarize the combined evidence on this page. If the conclusions of sub topics are modified, this page will be adapted as needed. <br />
----------------------------<br />
'''1. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmospheric CO2]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: There is a reasonably good match; '''the current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase is almost certainly driven by man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''.<br />
-------------------------<br />
'''2. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on sea rise]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: '''The average sea rise during the last 150 years does not match atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase.''' It's unclear how much of recently increased sea rise is due to natural causes, and how much is due to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<br />
<br />
'''Reality check of predictions''':<br />
It's enlightening to compare published predictions with the reality. For example in 2014 the Dutch KNMI [https://www.milieuzaken.org/bewaarde%20artikelen/KNMI-WR2014-01.pdf gave their outlook (their report p.57)] based on IPCC predictions of local sea rise for two different emission scenarios, a high ("business as usual") and a low (strong CO2 reduction) scenario. Emissions in recent years until 2020 were around the high CO<sub>2</sub> scenario (see for example [https://web.archive.org/web/20200201005134/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3 a figure] in the journal Nature). Thus, hereunder we compare KNMI's local sea rise projection for that scenario.<br />
<br />
[[File:KNMI-wrong.png|500px|thumb|center|''Updated sea level observations. Average of 6 tide gauge stations along the Dutch coast for the period 1901 – 2018, compared with expected sea rise after 2000 based on CO2 models.'']]<br />
<br />
It's now obvious that the foreseen increase of sea rise was hugely overestimated. The recent trend line of measurements is still not or hardly bent upwards.<br />
<br />
However, an insignificant increase in the rate of sea rise may be just a not-yet significant increase; and sea rise lags behind on temperature rise. Consequently we can't avoid making an assessment based on measured temperatures, despite the great difficulties involved. This is discussed next. <br />
---------------------------------------<br />
'''3. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: When accounting for possible effects on Northern hemisphere temperatures, '''a [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png rather good match] can be obtained when about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 is ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''. Notably in recent years the match is much better with CO<sub>2</sub> than [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png without it]. As no other man-made greenhouse gasses were accounted for, here "CO<sub>2</sub>" stands for [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ all man-made greenhouse gasses and aerosols]. <br />
<br />
Extrapolating, we can estimate an '''approximately 1°C transient temperature increase in the Northern hemisphere from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>'''. This estimation is similar to recent estimates by "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. However, that is without taking in account that in the Southern hemisphere the expected temperature increase should be less. In other words, based on this estimation the global average transient effect from a doubling in CO<sub>2</sub> may well be less than 1°C.<br />
<br />
'''Outlook'''<br />
<br />
From our two [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures|temperature simulations]] we can forecast a likely progression of temperatures in the coming years. (disclaimer: climate projections are speculative in nature!). The [https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html long term solar cooling trend] (which apparently already started) should significantly reduce CO<sub>2</sub> warming and possibly even stabilize the temperatures for decades to come. However, that is without accounting for the short term solar oscillation with a period of about 11 years: up to the year 2025 more temperature increase can be expected. And it is speculated that after 2050 or 2060, the long term solar cycle will again turn in phase with CO<sub>2</sub> warming. Future sea rise may be expected to follow those temperature trends.<br />
-------------------------------<br />
<br />
''[work in progress!]''<br />
<br />
<br />
Possible further aspects to check ('''you''' - yes you! - '''can help'''):<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmosphere: "atmospheric hotspot"<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on up going and down going infrared radiation<br />
<br />
- testing theories on ice ages and Eocene thermal maximum<br />
<br />
- testing competing climate theories on different planets<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on corals ("acidification")<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on plant growth ("greening"<br />
<br />
--------<br />
uploaded files: <br />
[[File:KNMI 6 tide gauge stations.ods|thumb|KNMI 6 tide gauge stations 1901-2018]]<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Discussion''': in the '''[[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]''' you can give comments, suggestions and criticism</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature&diff=3259Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature2023-08-12T10:13:16Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>According to popular greenhouse radiation theory, the increased emission of greenhouse gasses, in particular carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) causes global warming as well as other environmental effects such as reducing the pH ("acidification") of the oceans. Estimations of the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration vary from ca. 0.5 to 5 °C. A popular so-called [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity consensus estimation] is ca. 3 °C equilibrium temperature increase. For the transient temperature increase (while it is happening), current estimations are around 1.5 °C. <br />
<br />
We will split up the different aspects into separate articles and summarize the combined evidence on this page. If the conclusions of sub topics are modified, this page will be adapted as needed. <br />
----------------------------<br />
'''1. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmospheric CO2]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: There is a reasonably good match; '''the current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase is almost certainly driven by man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''.<br />
-------------------------<br />
'''2. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on sea rise]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: '''The average sea rise during the last 150 years does not match atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase.''' It's unclear how much of recently increased sea rise is due to natural causes, and how much is due to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<br />
<br />
'''Reality check of predictions''':<br />
It's enlightening to compare published predictions with the reality. For example in 2014 the Dutch KNMI [https://www.milieuzaken.org/bewaarde%20artikelen/KNMI-WR2014-01.pdf gave their outlook (their report p.57)] based on IPCC predictions of local sea rise for two different emission scenarios, a high ("business as usual") and a low (strong CO2 reduction) scenario. Emissions in recent years until 1920 were around the high CO<sub>2</sub> scenario (see for example [https://web.archive.org/web/20200201005134/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3 a figure] in the journal Nature). Thus, hereunder we compare KNMI's local sea rise projection for that scenario.<br />
<br />
[[File:KNMI-wrong.png|500px|thumb|center|''Updated sea level observations. Average of 6 tide gauge stations along the Dutch coast for the period 1901 – 2018, compared with expected sea rise after 2000 based on CO2 models.'']]<br />
<br />
It's now obvious that the foreseen increase of sea rise was hugely overestimated. The recent trend line of measurements is still not or hardly bent upwards.<br />
<br />
However, an insignificant increase in the rate of sea rise may be just a not-yet significant increase; and sea rise lags behind on temperature rise. Consequently we can't avoid making an assessment based on measured temperatures, despite the great difficulties involved. This is discussed next. <br />
---------------------------------------<br />
'''3. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: When accounting for possible effects on Northern hemisphere temperatures, '''a [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png rather good match] can be obtained when about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 is ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''. Notably in recent years the match is much better with CO<sub>2</sub> than [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png without it]. As no other man-made greenhouse gasses were accounted for, here "CO<sub>2</sub>" stands for [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ all man-made greenhouse gasses and aerosols]. <br />
<br />
Extrapolating, we can estimate an '''approximately 1°C transient temperature increase in the Northern hemisphere from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>'''. This estimation is similar to recent estimates by "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. However, that is without taking in account that in the Southern hemisphere the expected temperature increase should be less. In other words, based on this estimation the global average transient effect from a doubling in CO<sub>2</sub> may well be less than 1°C.<br />
<br />
'''Outlook'''<br />
<br />
From our two [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures|temperature simulations]] we can forecast a likely progression of temperatures in the coming years. (disclaimer: climate projections are speculative in nature!). The [https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html long term solar cooling trend] (which apparently already started) should significantly reduce CO<sub>2</sub> warming and possibly even stabilize the temperatures for decades to come. However, that is without accounting for the short term solar oscillation with a period of about 11 years: up to the year 2025 more temperature increase can be expected. And it is speculated that after 2050 or 2060, the long term solar cycle will again turn in phase with CO<sub>2</sub> warming. Future sea rise may be expected to follow those temperature trends.<br />
-------------------------------<br />
<br />
''[work in progress!]''<br />
<br />
<br />
Possible further aspects to check ('''you''' - yes you! - '''can help'''):<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmosphere: "atmospheric hotspot"<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on up going and down going infrared radiation<br />
<br />
- testing theories on ice ages and Eocene thermal maximum<br />
<br />
- testing competing climate theories on different planets<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on corals ("acidification")<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on plant growth ("greening"<br />
<br />
--------<br />
uploaded files: <br />
[[File:KNMI 6 tide gauge stations.ods|thumb|KNMI 6 tide gauge stations 1901-2018]]<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Discussion''': in the '''[[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]''' you can give comments, suggestions and criticism</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature&diff=3258Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature2023-08-12T09:57:33Z<p>Admin: rearrange phrase</p>
<hr />
<div>According to popular greenhouse radiation theory, the increased emission of greenhouse gasses, in particular carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) causes global warming as well as other environmental effects such as reducing the pH ("acidification") of the oceans. Estimations of the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration vary from ca. 0.5 to 5 °C. A popular so-called [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity consensus estimation] is ca. 3 °C equilibrium temperature increase. For the transient temperature increase (while it is happening), current estimations are around 1.5 °C. <br />
<br />
We will split up the different aspects into separate articles and summarize the combined evidence on this page. If the conclusions of sub topics are modified, this page will be adapted as needed. <br />
----------------------------<br />
'''1. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmospheric CO2]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: There is a reasonably good match; '''the current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase is almost certainly driven by man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''.<br />
-------------------------<br />
'''2. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on sea rise]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: '''The average sea rise during the last 150 years does not match atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase.''' It's unclear how much of recently increased sea rise is due to natural causes, and how much is due to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<br />
<br />
'''Reality check of predictions''':<br />
It's enlightening to compare published predictions with the reality. For example in 2014 the Dutch KNMI [https://www.milieuzaken.org/bewaarde%20artikelen/KNMI-WR2014-01.pdf gave their outlook (their report p.57)] based on IPCC predictions of local sea rise for two different emission scenarios, a high ("business as usual") and a low (strong CO2 reduction) scenario. Emissions in recent years were around the high CO<sub>2</sub> scenario (see for example [https://web.archive.org/web/20200201005134/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3 a figure] in the journal Nature). Thus, hereunder we compare KNMI's local sea rise projection for that scenario.<br />
<br />
[[File:KNMI-wrong.png|500px|thumb|center|''Updated sea level observations. Average of 6 tide gauge stations along the Dutch coast for the period 1901 – 2018, compared with expected sea rise after 2000 based on CO2 models.'']]<br />
<br />
It's now obvious that the foreseen increase of sea rise was hugely overestimated. The recent trend line of measurements is still not or hardly bent upwards.<br />
<br />
However, an insignificant increase in the rate of sea rise may be just a not-yet significant increase; and sea rise lags behind on temperature rise. Consequently we can't avoid making an assessment based on measured temperatures, despite the great difficulties involved. This is discussed next. <br />
---------------------------------------<br />
'''3. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: When accounting for possible effects on Northern hemisphere temperatures, '''a [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png rather good match] can be obtained when about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 is ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''. Notably in recent years the match is much better with CO<sub>2</sub> than [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png without it]. As no other man-made greenhouse gasses were accounted for, here "CO<sub>2</sub>" stands for [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ all man-made greenhouse gasses and aerosols]. <br />
<br />
Extrapolating, we can estimate an '''approximately 1°C transient temperature increase in the Northern hemisphere from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>'''. This estimation is similar to recent estimates by "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. However, that is without taking in account that in the Southern hemisphere the expected temperature increase should be less. In other words, based on this estimation the global average transient effect from a doubling in CO<sub>2</sub> may well be less than 1°C.<br />
<br />
'''Outlook'''<br />
<br />
From our two [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures|temperature simulations]] we can forecast a likely progression of temperatures in the coming years. (disclaimer: climate projections are speculative in nature!). The [https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html long term solar cooling trend] (which apparently already started) should significantly reduce CO<sub>2</sub> warming and possibly even stabilize the temperatures for decades to come. However, that is without accounting for the short term solar oscillation with a period of about 11 years: up to the year 2025 more temperature increase can be expected. And it is speculated that after 2050 or 2060, the long term solar cycle will again turn in phase with CO<sub>2</sub> warming. Future sea rise may be expected to follow those temperature trends.<br />
-------------------------------<br />
<br />
''[work in progress!]''<br />
<br />
<br />
Possible further aspects to check ('''you''' - yes you! - '''can help'''):<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmosphere: "atmospheric hotspot"<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on up going and down going infrared radiation<br />
<br />
- testing theories on ice ages and Eocene thermal maximum<br />
<br />
- testing competing climate theories on different planets<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on corals ("acidification")<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on plant growth ("greening"<br />
<br />
--------<br />
uploaded files: <br />
[[File:KNMI 6 tide gauge stations.ods|thumb|KNMI 6 tide gauge stations 1901-2018]]<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Discussion''': in the '''[[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]''' you can give comments, suggestions and criticism</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature&diff=3257Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature2023-08-12T09:53:00Z<p>Admin: corrected link that stopped working</p>
<hr />
<div>According to popular greenhouse radiation theory, the increased emission of greenhouse gasses, in particular carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) causes global warming as well as other environmental effects such as reducing the pH ("acidification") of the oceans. Estimations of the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration vary from ca. 0.5 to 5 °C. A popular so-called [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity consensus estimation] is ca. 3 °C equilibrium temperature increase. For the transient temperature increase (while it is happening), current estimations are around 1.5 °C. <br />
<br />
We will split up the different aspects into separate articles and summarize the combined evidence on this page. If the conclusions of sub topics are modified, this page will be adapted as needed. <br />
----------------------------<br />
'''1. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmospheric CO2]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: There is a reasonably good match; '''the current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase is almost certainly driven by man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''.<br />
-------------------------<br />
'''2. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on sea rise]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: '''The average sea rise during the last 150 years does not match atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> increase.''' It's unclear how much of recently increased sea rise is due to natural causes, and how much is due to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.<br />
<br />
'''Reality check of predictions''':<br />
It's enlightening to compare published predictions with the reality. For example in 2014 the Dutch KNMI [https://www.milieuzaken.org/bewaarde%20artikelen/KNMI-WR2014-01.pdf gave their outlook (their report p.57)] based on IPCC predictions of local sea rise for two different emission scenarios, a high ("business as usual") and a low (strong CO2 reduction) scenario. Hereunder we compare their local sea rise projection for the high CO<sub>2</sub> scenario, as actual emissions in recent years were around that scenario (see for example [https://web.archive.org/web/20200201005134/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3 the figure] in the journal Nature).<br />
<br />
[[File:KNMI-wrong.png|500px|thumb|center|''Updated sea level observations. Average of 6 tide gauge stations along the Dutch coast for the period 1901 – 2018, compared with expected sea rise after 2000 based on CO2 models.'']]<br />
<br />
It's now obvious that the foreseen increase of sea rise was hugely overestimated. The recent trend line of measurements is still not or hardly bent upwards.<br />
<br />
However, an insignificant increase in the rate of sea rise may be just a not-yet significant increase; and sea rise lags behind on temperature rise. Consequently we can't avoid making an assessment based on measured temperatures, despite the great difficulties involved. This is discussed next. <br />
---------------------------------------<br />
'''3. Fact [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures]]'''<br />
<br />
Outcome: When accounting for possible effects on Northern hemisphere temperatures, '''a [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png rather good match] can be obtained when about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 is ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions'''. Notably in recent years the match is much better with CO<sub>2</sub> than [https://infocheckers.org/wiki/File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png without it]. As no other man-made greenhouse gasses were accounted for, here "CO<sub>2</sub>" stands for [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ all man-made greenhouse gasses and aerosols]. <br />
<br />
Extrapolating, we can estimate an '''approximately 1°C transient temperature increase in the Northern hemisphere from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>'''. This estimation is similar to recent estimates by "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. However, that is without taking in account that in the Southern hemisphere the expected temperature increase should be less. In other words, based on this estimation the global average transient effect from a doubling in CO<sub>2</sub> may well be less than 1°C.<br />
<br />
'''Outlook'''<br />
<br />
From our two [[Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures|temperature simulations]] we can forecast a likely progression of temperatures in the coming years. (disclaimer: climate projections are speculative in nature!). The [https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html long term solar cooling trend] (which apparently already started) should significantly reduce CO<sub>2</sub> warming and possibly even stabilize the temperatures for decades to come. However, that is without accounting for the short term solar oscillation with a period of about 11 years: up to the year 2025 more temperature increase can be expected. And it is speculated that after 2050 or 2060, the long term solar cycle will again turn in phase with CO<sub>2</sub> warming. Future sea rise may be expected to follow those temperature trends.<br />
-------------------------------<br />
<br />
''[work in progress!]''<br />
<br />
<br />
Possible further aspects to check ('''you''' - yes you! - '''can help'''):<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on atmosphere: "atmospheric hotspot"<br />
<br />
- CO2 emissions fingerprint on up going and down going infrared radiation<br />
<br />
- testing theories on ice ages and Eocene thermal maximum<br />
<br />
- testing competing climate theories on different planets<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on corals ("acidification")<br />
<br />
- CO2 effects on plant growth ("greening"<br />
<br />
--------<br />
uploaded files: <br />
[[File:KNMI 6 tide gauge stations.ods|thumb|KNMI 6 tide gauge stations 1901-2018]]<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Discussion''': in the '''[[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]''' you can give comments, suggestions and criticism</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_CO2_emissions_fingerprint_on_temperatures&diff=3256Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures2023-08-12T09:39:56Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Tim88 -'''v.1.2''' - Overview article: [[Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature]] -<br />
-----------------------------<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
It's hard to decide where the truth is between "climate deniers" who hold that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have practically no effect on climate, and "climate alarmists" who foresee the end of the world as all ice will melt in the near future. Here we make thankful use of a mostly rural temperature data set of the Northern hemisphere that served to estimate an average Northern hemisphere temperature history. That temperature estimate has been compared with simulated effects of varying solar irradiation and historical CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations. By performing an updated, revised simulation we obtain a reasonably good fit in which about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 can be ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Assuming that there are no other causes, the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions appears clearly and quite convincingly (please judge for yourself!). Extrapolated, an estimated 1°C temperature increase can be expected from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>. This result is consistent with recent findings of "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
'''Introduction'''<br />
<br />
Here we attempt to find evidence for an effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions on temperatures. In an [[Check:_CO2_emission_fingerprint_on_atmospheric_CO2|earlier analysis]] we found that very likely current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations are increasing due to man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Now we want to compare the theoretically possible temperature increase due to increasing CO<sub>2</sub> with the real temperature record over the last 100 years. Most people -including until recently this writer- rely on the officially presented historical temperature graphs such as [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ GISTEMP] (presented by NASA) and [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn GHCN] by NOAA. <br />
However, it has been argued rather convincingly that those data sets are [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf unreliable] (see also [https://web.archive.org/web/20191210070803/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/ here] and [https://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.XR13WqVT.dpbs here]). Not only historical land temperatures have issues, also ocean temperature records are [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/ inaccurate].<br />
<br />
----------<br />
'''Historical'''<br />
<br />
Estimations of historical temperatures going back to before the use of thermometers are much debated, with as most notorious example the "hockey stick" reconstruction by Mann, which yielded an almost straight temperature curve for the past thousand years, effectively leading to denial of the Medieval Warm Period. That in turn led to accusations related to the climate gate scandal and a defamation court case that was thrown out by the judge in 2019 as Mr. Mann refused to hand his data to the judge. <br />
<br />
Based on the [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/debunking-the-vikings-werent-victims-of-climate-myth/ available evidence] we may assume that the Medieval Warming Period was about as warm as temperatures at the start of the 21st century. <br />
<br />
https://web.archive.org/web/20150110072911if_/http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif<br />
<br />
Historically changing climates give context to a possibly significant influence of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in our time. It would be great if we could create a small data set based on a sample of high quality rural temperature stations. Regretfully, such information is hard to obtain.<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
'''Analysis'''<br />
<br />
In 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy John Christy] and Richard McNider published [https://web.archive.org/web/20171206145652/https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf a study] based on satellite temperature data of the lower troposphere. They found a transient climate response of 1.10 ± 0.26 °C - which is about half of the average of commonly used climate models. It should be noted that also satellite temperature data have [https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 issues].<br />
<br />
A good effort using again another approach was made by Willy Soon and co-authors in 2015, and their data is used for our own analysis here below. In their paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century"], they presented a weighed average of purified temperature records of the USA, China, Ireland and the arctic circle. Instead of trying to correct doubtful station records they weeded out such stations form the records in order to rely on mostly good, rural data. Their historical Northern hemisphere land temperature estimation yielded about 1/4 °C less temperature increase since 1880 than the GHCN reconstruction. From their land data record they made an estimated average Northern hemisphere temperature record by accounting for the reduced temperature variation of the oceans. It should be noted that while Willy Soon has been accused (apparently wrongly) of being a mouthpiece for oil industry, his co-authors Connolly and Connolly are beyond any doubt environmentalists and [https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ independent researchers], not acting for big oil. <br />
<br />
Soon and co-authors estimated the possible effect of varying solar irradiation as well as the possible effect of increasing CO<sub>2</sub> concentration on temperatures. The authors chose the same solar irradiation reconstruction as James Hansen in 1981, and it makes sense to agree with him for the same reason ("The improved fit provided by Hoyt's solar variability represents a posteriori selection, since other hypothesized solar variations that we examined [..] degrade the fit" - Hansen 1981). Nevertheless, there is a certain risk of confirmation bias as also discussed in the paper of Soon.<br />
<br />
After they found the best solar fit (freely adjusting the unknown amplification), they came to the conclusion that "it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution." <br />
<br />
However, there is a notable mismatch after the year 2000. And since their publication, five years have passed during which global warming as well as warming of the Northern hemisphere strongly increased, even though solar irradiation '''decreased''' to about the level of 2009 (according to Virgo and IRMB satellites). <br />
<br />
Further, their fitting method (with correlation r<sup>2</sup>=0.496) is debatable. Arguably, they should have tried to find the best combined fit of CO<sub>2</sub> and solar influence, but instead they followed an overly simple fitting method that left little room for adding a reasonable fit of the effect of CO<sub>2</sub>. Their simulations also approximate the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and solar irradiation on temperature as linear, which adds in theory small but unnecessary estimation errors.<br />
<br />
Taking those factors together, a better and more plausible fit may be obtained that acknowledges a much more significant role of CO<sub>2</sub> in recent warming. The CO<sub>2</sub>-induced average warming since the year 1880 may easily be as much as 0.5 °C. That is demonstrated by comparing the following two graphs: <br />
<br />
[[File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png|600 px|center|thumb|''Updated simulation of global temperature variation due to variations of solar irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Temperature [°C] as function of time; the last 5 years are approximate.<br> Grey: proxy of yearly global temperature anomaly based on rural measurements. Blue: 3 yr temp. average. Red: simulated temperature variation due to Total Solar Irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub>. <br> r<sup>2</sup>=0.499. With many thanks to Soon, Connolly and Connolly for the original spreadsheet.'']]<br />
<br />
In the figure here above a logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> on temperature was modeled, combined with a T<sup>4</sup> effect of total solar irradiation (TSI). The last five years were completed with approximate values as some data are not yet made available. Here the simulated overall warming until 2019 due to TSI was 0.31 °C while the simulated warming due to CO<sub>2</sub> was 0.50 °C (until 2014: TSI 0.42°C, CO<sub>2</sub> 0.45 °C). This was sought for, but the result appears to be not far from optimal (see Discussion for the deviation in the second half the 20th century). <br />
<br />
Since 1880 the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in air has increased from about 290 ppm to 413 ppm. The here above pictured simulation corresponds with a temperature increase of 0.95°C resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. Consequently, with this re-analysis we obtain a similar result as Christy (note however that this analysis is only for the Northern hemisphere), in significant disagreement with both Soon and the average of climate models.<br />
<br />
In comparison, here below is a fit with solar irradiation alone (not optimized):<br />
<br />
[[File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png|600px|thumb|center|''Simulated effect on temperatures due to variation of solar irradiation alone. r<sup>2</sup>=0.482'']]<br />
<br />
Telling is the increasing deviation during the last 20 years; increasing the amplification of the solar effect does not make much difference for that discrepancy. With the addition of a strong assumed effect from atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> as shown in the top graph, one obtains a much better match for the trend of temperature increase during the period 1980-2000 as well as the attained temperature and the recent temperature trend. <br />
--------------------------<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
A clear deviation occurs in the period 1960-1990, in which the simulated temperatures are too high. The simulated curves were aligned as such on purpose, because that period corresponds to the so-called period of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming global dimming]. Possibly most or all of the discrepancy can be explained by strongly increased airborne particles from air pollution, which was more and more reduced starting from around 1990. Note that the Northern hemisphere land temperature data (which served for the total Northern hemisphere temperature estimation) was likely most affected by that pollution. Also the big eruption of mount Agung in 1963 may have played a role. <br />
<br />
The fit with possible TSI is quite good if we take the global dimming period in account. Further, the simulated effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> is consistent with (debated) predictions based on radiation physics. Thus it looks plausible that a significant warming occurred in the Northern hemisphere due to greenhouse gas emissions. <br />
<br />
Note that CO<sub>2</sub> is only the main greenhouse gas, [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data other emitted gasses and aerosols] should also play a role but we did not account for their influence which largely was in tune with CO<sub>2</sub>. <br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Conclusion''' <br />
<br />
We have good reason to believe that significant man-made warming occurred due to greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO<sub>2</sub>). Our analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions since 1880 may have caused an average temperature increase of around 0.5°C in the Northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
Download: modified spreadsheet, originally from Soon, Connolly and Connolly<br />
[[File:Soon et al 2015 data-updated-Tim88.ods|thumb]]<br><br />
You can play with fitting yourself: modify the amplification factors of cells U2 and W2. Readjust the offset with cells U3 and W3.<br />
---------------<br />
Discussion via the [[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_CO2_emissions_fingerprint_on_temperatures&diff=3255Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures2023-08-12T09:37:39Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Tim88 -'''v.1.2''' - Overview article: [[Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature]] -<br />
-----------------------------<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
It's hard to decide where the truth is between "climate deniers" who hold that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have practically no effect on climate, and "climate alarmists" who foresee the end of the world as all ice will melt in the near future. Here we make thankful use of a mostly rural temperature data set of the Northern hemisphere that served to estimate an average Northern hemisphere temperature history. That temperature estimate has been compared with simulated effects of varying solar irradiation and historical CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations. By performing an updated, revised simulation we obtain a reasonably good fit in which about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 can be ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Assuming that there are no other causes, the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions appears clearly and quite convincingly (please judge for yourself!). Extrapolated, an estimated 1°C temperature increase can be expected from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>. This result is consistent with recent findings of "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
'''Introduction'''<br />
<br />
Here we attempt to find evidence for an effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions on temperatures. In an [[Check:_CO2_emission_fingerprint_on_atmospheric_CO2|earlier analysis]] we found that very likely current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations are increasing due to man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Now we want to compare the theoretically possible temperature increase due to increasing CO<sub>2</sub> with the real temperature record over the last 100 years. Most people -including until recently this writer- rely on the officially presented historical temperature graphs such as [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ GISTEMP] (presented by NASA) and [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn GHCN] by NOAA. <br />
However, it has been argued rather convincingly that those data sets are [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf unreliable] (see also [https://web.archive.org/web/20191210070803/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/ here] and [https://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.XR13WqVT.dpbs here]). Not only historical land temperatures have issues, also ocean temperature records are [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/ inaccurate].<br />
<br />
----------<br />
'''Historical'''<br />
<br />
Estimations of historical temperatures going back to before the use of thermometers are much debated, with as most notorious example the "hockey stick" reconstruction by Mann, which yielded an almost straight temperature curve for the past thousand years, effectively leading to denial of the Medieval Warm Period. That in turn led to accusations related to the climate gate scandal and a defamation court case that was thrown out by the judge in 2019 as Mr. Mann refused to hand his data to the judge. <br />
<br />
Based on the [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/debunking-the-vikings-werent-victims-of-climate-myth/ available evidence] we may assume that the Medieval Warming Period was about as warm as temperatures at the start of the 21st century. <br />
<br />
https://web.archive.org/web/20150110072911if_/http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif<br />
<br />
Historically changing climates give context to a possibly significant influence of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in our time. It would be great if we could create a small data set based on a sample of high quality rural temperature stations. Regretfully, such information is hard to obtain.<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
'''Analysis'''<br />
<br />
In 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy John Christy] and Richard McNider published [https://web.archive.org/web/20171206145652/https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf a study] based on satellite temperature data of the lower troposphere. They found a transient climate response of 1.10 ± 0.26 °C - which is about half of the average of commonly used climate models. It should be noted that also satellite temperature data have [https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 issues].<br />
<br />
A good effort using again another approach was made by Willy Soon and co-authors in 2015, and their data is used for our own analysis here below. In their paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century"], they presented a weighed average of purified temperature records of the USA, China, Ireland and the arctic circle. Instead of trying to correct doubtful station records they weeded out such stations form the records in order to rely on mostly good, rural data. Their historical Northern hemisphere land temperature estimation yielded about 1/4 °C less temperature increase since 1880 than the GHCN reconstruction. From their land data record they made an estimated average Northern hemisphere temperature record by accounting for the reduced temperature variation of the oceans. It should be noted that while Willy Soon has been accused (apparently wrongly) of being a mouthpiece for oil industry, his co-authors Connolly and Connolly are beyond any doubt environmentalists and [https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ independent researchers], not acting for big oil. <br />
<br />
Soon and co-authors estimated the possible effect of varying solar irradiation as well as the possible effect of increasing CO<sub>2</sub> concentration on temperatures. The authors chose the same solar irradiation reconstruction as James Hansen in 1981, and it makes sense to agree with him for the same reason ("The improved fit provided by Hoyt's solar variability represents a posteriori selection, since other hypothesized solar variations that we examined [..] degrade the fit" - Hansen 1981). Nevertheless, there is a certain risk of confirmation bias as also discussed in the paper of Soon.<br />
<br />
After they found the best solar fit (freely adjusting the unknown amplification), they came to the conclusion that "it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution." <br />
<br />
However, there is a notable mismatch after the year 2000. And since their publication, five years have passed during which global warming as well as warming of the Northern hemisphere strongly increased, even though solar irradiation '''decreased''' to about the level of 2009 (according to Virgo and IRMB satellites). <br />
<br />
Further, their fitting method (with correlation r<sup>2</sup>=0.496) is debatable. Arguably, they should have tried to find the best combined fit of CO<sub>2</sub> and solar influence, but instead they followed an overly simple fitting method that left little room for adding a reasonable fit of the effect of CO<sub>2</sub>. Their simulations also approximate the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and solar irradiation on temperature as linear, which adds in theory small but unnecessary estimation errors.<br />
<br />
Taking those factors together, a better and more plausible fit may be obtained that acknowledges a much more significant role of CO<sub>2</sub> in recent warming. The CO<sub>2</sub>-induced average warming since the year 1880 may easily be as much as 0.5 °C. That is demonstrated by comparing the following two graphs: <br />
<br />
[[File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png|600 px|center|thumb|''Updated simulation of global temperature variation due to variations of solar irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Temperature [°C] as function of time; the last 5 years are approximate.<br> Grey: proxy of yearly global temperature anomaly based on rural measurements. Blue: 3 yr temp. average. Red: simulated temperature variation due to Total Solar Irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub>. <br> r<sup>2</sup>=0.499. With many thanks to Soon, Connolly and Connolly for the original spreadsheet.'']]<br />
<br />
In the figure here above a logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> on temperature was modeled, combined with a T<sup>4</sup> effect of total solar irradiation (TSI). The last five years were completed with approximate values as some data are not yet made available. Here the simulated overall warming until 2019 due to TSI was 0.31 °C while the simulated warming due to CO<sub>2</sub> was 0.50 °C (until 2014: TSI 0.42°C, CO<sub>2</sub> 0.45 °C). This was sought for, but the result appears to be not far from optimal (see Discussion for the deviation in the second half the 20th century). <br />
<br />
Since 1880 the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in air has increased from about 290 ppm to 413 ppm. The here above pictured simulation corresponds with a temperature increase of 0.95°C resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. Consequently, with this re-analysis we obtain a similar result as Christy (note however that this analysis is only for the Northern hemisphere), in significant disagreement with both Soon and the average of climate models.<br />
<br />
In comparison, here below is a fit with solar irradiation alone (not optimized):<br />
<br />
[[File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png|600px|thumb|center|''Simulated effect on temperatures due to variation of solar irradiation alone. r<sup>2</sup>=0.482'']]<br />
<br />
Telling is the increasing deviation during the last 20 years; increasing the amplification of the solar effect does not make much difference for that discrepancy. With the addition of a strong assumed effect from atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> as shown in the top graph, one obtains a much better match for the trend of temperature increase during the period 1980-2000 as well as the attained temperature and the recent temperature trend. <br />
--------------------------<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
A clear deviation occurs in the period 1960-1990, in which the simulated temperatures are too high. The simulated curves were aligned as such on purpose, because that period corresponds to the so-called period of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming global dimming]. Possibly most or all of the discrepancy can be explained by strongly increased airborne particles from air pollution, which was more and more reduced starting from around 1990. Note that the Northern hemisphere land temperature data (which served for the total Northern hemisphere temperature estimation) was likely most affected by that pollution. Also the big eruption of mount Agung in 1963 may have played a role. <br />
<br />
The fit with possible TSI is quite good if we take the global dimming period in account. Further, the simulated effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> is consistent with (debated) predictions based on radiation physics. Thus it looks plausible that a significant warming occurred in the Northern hemisphere due to greenhouse gas emissions. <br />
<br />
Note that CO<sub>2</sub> is only the main greenhouse gas, [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data other emitted gasses and aerosols] should also play a role but we did not account for their influence. <br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Conclusion''' <br />
<br />
We have good reason to believe that significant man-made warming occurred due to greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO<sub>2</sub>). Our analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions since 1880 may have caused an average temperature increase of around 0.5°C in the Northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
Download: modified spreadsheet, originally from Soon, Connolly and Connolly<br />
[[File:Soon et al 2015 data-updated-Tim88.ods|thumb]]<br><br />
You can play with fitting yourself: modify the amplification factors of cells U2 and W2. Readjust the offset with cells U3 and W3.<br />
---------------<br />
Discussion via the [[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_CO2_emissions_fingerprint_on_temperatures&diff=3254Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures2023-08-12T09:34:08Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Tim88 -'''v.1.2''' - Overview article: [[Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature]] -<br />
-----------------------------<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
It's hard to decide where the truth is between "climate deniers" who hold that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have practically no effect on climate, and "climate alarmists" who foresee the end of the world as all ice will melt in the near future. Here we make thankful use of a mostly rural temperature data set of the Northern hemisphere that served to estimate an average Northern hemisphere temperature history. That temperature estimate has been compared with simulated effects of varying solar irradiation and historical CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations. By performing an updated, revised simulation we obtain a reasonably good fit in which about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 can be ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Assuming that there are no other causes, the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions appears clearly and quite convincingly (please judge for yourself!). Extrapolated, an estimated 1°C temperature increase can be expected from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>. This result is consistent with recent findings of "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
'''Introduction'''<br />
<br />
Here we attempt to find evidence for an effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions on temperatures. In an [[Check:_CO2_emission_fingerprint_on_atmospheric_CO2|earlier analysis]] we found that very likely current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations are increasing due to man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Now we want to compare the theoretically possible temperature increase due to increasing CO<sub>2</sub> with the real temperature record over the last 100 years. Most people -including until recently this writer- rely on the officially presented historical temperature graphs such as [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ GISTEMP] (presented by NASA) and [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn GHCN] by NOAA. <br />
However, it has been argued rather convincingly that those data sets are [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf unreliable] (see also [https://web.archive.org/web/20191210070803/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/ here] and [https://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.XR13WqVT.dpbs here]). Not only historical land temperatures have issues, also ocean temperature records are [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/ inaccurate].<br />
<br />
----------<br />
'''Historical'''<br />
<br />
Estimations of historical temperatures going back to before the use of thermometers are much debated, with as most notorious example the "hockey stick" reconstruction by Mann, which yielded an almost straight temperature curve for the past thousand years, effectively leading to denial of the Medieval Warm Period. That in turn led to accusations related to the climate gate scandal and a defamation court case that was thrown out by the judge in 2019 as Mr. Mann refused to hand his data to the judge. <br />
<br />
Based on the [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/debunking-the-vikings-werent-victims-of-climate-myth/ available evidence] we may assume that the Medieval Warming Period was about as warm as temperatures at the start of the 21st century. <br />
<br />
https://web.archive.org/web/20150110072911if_/http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif<br />
<br />
Historically changing climates give context to a possibly significant influence of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in our time. It would be great if we could create a small data set based on a sample of high quality rural temperature stations. Regretfully, such information is hard to obtain.<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
'''Analysis'''<br />
<br />
In 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy John Christy] and Richard McNider published [https://web.archive.org/web/20171206145652/https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf a study] based on satellite temperature data of the lower troposphere. They found a transient climate response of 1.10 ± 0.26 °C - which is about half of the average of commonly used climate models. It should be noted that also satellite temperature data have [https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 issues].<br />
<br />
A good effort using again another approach was made by Willy Soon and co-authors in 2015, and their data is used for our own analysis here below. In their paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century"], they presented a weighed average of purified temperature records of the USA, China, Ireland and the arctic circle. Instead of trying to correct doubtful station records they weeded out such stations form the records in order to rely on mostly good, rural data. Their historical Northern hemisphere land temperature estimation yielded about 1/4 °C less temperature increase since 1880 than the GHCN reconstruction. From their land data record they made an estimated average Northern hemisphere temperature record by accounting for the reduced temperature variation of the oceans. It should be noted that while Willy Soon has been accused (apparently wrongly) of being a mouthpiece for oil industry, his co-authors Connolly and Connolly are beyond any doubt environmentalists and [https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ independent researchers], not acting for big oil. <br />
<br />
Soon and co-authors estimated the possible effect of varying solar irradiation as well as the possible effect of increasing CO<sub>2</sub> concentration on temperatures. The authors chose the same solar irradiation reconstruction as James Hansen in 1981, and it makes sense to agree with him for the same reason ("The improved fit provided by Hoyt's solar variability represents a posteriori selection, since other hypothesized solar variations that we examined [..] degrade the fit" - Hansen 1981). Nevertheless, there is a certain risk of confirmation bias as also discussed in the paper of Soon.<br />
<br />
After they found the best solar fit (freely adjusting the unknown amplification), they came to the conclusion that "it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution." <br />
<br />
However, there is a notable mismatch after the year 2000. And since their publication, five years have passed during which global warming as well as warming of the Northern hemisphere strongly increased, even though solar irradiation '''decreased''' to about the level of 2009 (according to Virgo and IRMB satellites). <br />
<br />
Further, their fitting method (with correlation r<sup>2</sup>=0.496) is debatable. Arguably, they should have tried to find the best combined fit of CO<sub>2</sub> and solar influence, but instead they followed an overly simple fitting method that left little room for adding a reasonable fit of the effect of CO<sub>2</sub>. Their simulations also approximate the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and solar irradiation on temperature as linear, which adds in theory small but unnecessary estimation errors.<br />
<br />
Taking those factors together, a better and more plausible fit may be obtained that acknowledges a much more significant role of CO<sub>2</sub> in recent warming. The CO<sub>2</sub>-induced average warming since the year 1880 may easily be as much as 0.5 °C. That is demonstrated by comparing the following two graphs: <br />
<br />
[[File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png|600 px|center|thumb|''Updated simulation of global temperature variation due to variations of solar irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Temperature [°C] as function of time; the last 5 years are approximate.<br> Grey: proxy of yearly global temperature anomaly based on rural measurements. Blue: 3 yr temp. average. Red: simulated temperature variation due to Total Solar Irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub>. <br> r<sup>2</sup>=0.499. With many thanks to Soon, Connolly and Connolly for the original spreadsheet.'']]<br />
<br />
In the figure here above a logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> on temperature was modeled, combined with a T<sup>4</sup> effect of total solar irradiation (TSI). The last five years were completed with approximate values as some data are not yet made available. Here the simulated overall warming until 2019 due to TSI was 0.31 °C while the simulated warming due to CO<sub>2</sub> was 0.50 °C (until 2014: TSI 0.42°C, CO<sub>2</sub> 0.45 °C). This was sought for, but the result appears to be not far from optimal. <br />
<br />
Since 1880 the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in air has increased from about 290 ppm to 413 ppm. The here above pictured simulation corresponds with a temperature increase of 0.95°C resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. Consequently, with this re-analysis we obtain a similar result as Christy (note however that this analysis is only for the Northern hemisphere), in significant disagreement with both Soon and the average of climate models.<br />
<br />
In comparison, here below is a fit with solar irradiation alone (not optimized):<br />
<br />
[[File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png|600px|thumb|center|''Simulated effect on temperatures due to variation of solar irradiation alone. r<sup>2</sup>=0.482'']]<br />
<br />
Telling is the increasing deviation during the last 20 years; increasing the amplification of the solar effect does not make much difference for that discrepancy. With the addition of a strong assumed effect from atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> as shown in the top graph, one obtains a much better match for the trend of temperature increase during the period 1980-2000 as well as the attained temperature and the recent temperature trend. <br />
--------------------------<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
A clear deviation occurs in the period 1960-1990, in which the simulated temperatures are too high. The simulated curves are aligned as such on purpose, because that period corresponds to the so-called period of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming global dimming]. Possibly most or all of the discrepancy can be explained by strongly increased airborne particles from air pollution, which was more and more reduced starting from around 1990. Note that the Northern hemisphere land temperature data (which served for the total Northern hemisphere temperature estimation) was likely most affected by that pollution. Also the big eruption of mount Agung in 1963 may have played a role. <br />
<br />
The fit with possible TSI is quite good if we take the global dimming period in account. Further, the simulated effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> is consistent with (debated) predictions based on radiation physics. Thus it looks plausible that a significant warming occurred in the Northern hemisphere due to greenhouse gas emissions. <br />
<br />
Note that CO<sub>2</sub> is only the main greenhouse gas, [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data other emitted gasses and aerosols] should also play a role but we did not account for their influence. <br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Conclusion''' <br />
<br />
We have good reason to believe that significant man-made warming occurred due to greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO<sub>2</sub>). Our analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions since 1880 may have caused an average temperature increase of around 0.5°C in the Northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
Download: modified spreadsheet, originally from Soon, Connolly and Connolly<br />
[[File:Soon et al 2015 data-updated-Tim88.ods|thumb]]<br><br />
You can play with fitting yourself: modify the amplification factors of cells U2 and W2. Readjust the offset with cells U3 and W3.<br />
---------------<br />
Discussion via the [[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_CO2_emissions_fingerprint_on_temperatures&diff=3253Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures2023-08-12T09:31:29Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Tim88 -'''v.1.2''' - Overview article: [[Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature]] -<br />
-----------------------------<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
It's hard to decide where the truth is between "climate deniers" who hold that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have practically no effect on climate, and "climate alarmists" who foresee the end of the world as all ice will melt in the near future. Here we make thankful use of a mostly rural temperature data set of the Northern hemisphere that served to estimate an average Northern hemisphere temperature history. That temperature estimate has been compared with simulated effects of varying solar irradiation and historical CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations. By performing an updated, revised simulation we obtain a reasonably good fit in which about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 can be ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Assuming that there are no other causes, the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions appears clearly and quite convincingly (please judge for yourself!). Extrapolated, an estimated 1°C temperature increase can be expected from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>. This result is consistent with recent findings of "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
'''Introduction'''<br />
<br />
Here we attempt to find evidence for an effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions on temperatures. In an [[Check:_CO2_emission_fingerprint_on_atmospheric_CO2|earlier analysis]] we found that very likely current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations are increasing due to man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Now we want to compare the theoretically possible temperature increase due to increasing CO<sub>2</sub> with the real temperature record over the last 100 years. Most people -including until recently this writer- rely on the officially presented historical temperature graphs such as [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ GISTEMP] (presented by NASA) and [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn GHCN] by NOAA. <br />
However, it has been argued rather convincingly that those data sets are [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf unreliable] (see also [https://web.archive.org/web/20191210070803/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/ here] and [https://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.XR13WqVT.dpbs here]). Not only historical land temperatures have issues, also ocean temperature records are [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/ inaccurate].<br />
<br />
----------<br />
'''Historical'''<br />
<br />
Estimations of historical temperatures going back to before the use of thermometers are much debated, with as most notorious example the "hockey stick" reconstruction by Mann, which yielded an almost straight temperature curve for the past thousand years, effectively leading to denial of the Medieval Warm Period. That in turn led to accusations related to the climate gate scandal and a defamation court case that was thrown out by the judge in 2019 as Mr. Mann refused to hand his data to the judge. <br />
<br />
Based on the [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/debunking-the-vikings-werent-victims-of-climate-myth/ available evidence] we may assume that the Medieval Warming Period was about as warm as temperatures at the start of the 21st century. <br />
<br />
https://web.archive.org/web/20150110072911if_/http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif<br />
<br />
Historically changing climates give context to a possibly significant influence of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in our time. It would be great if we could create a small data set based on a sample of high quality rural temperature stations. Regretfully, such information is hard to obtain.<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
'''Analysis'''<br />
<br />
In 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy John Christy] and Richard McNider published [https://web.archive.org/web/20171206145652/https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf a study] based on satellite temperature data of the lower troposphere. They found a transient climate response of 1.10 ± 0.26 °C - which is about half of the average of commonly used climate models. It should be noted that also satellite temperature data have [https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 issues].<br />
<br />
A good effort using again another approach was made by Willy Soon and co-authors in 2015, and their data is used for our own analysis here below. In their paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century"], they presented a weighed average of purified temperature records of the USA, China, Ireland and the arctic circle. Instead of trying to correct doubtful station records they weeded out such stations form the records in order to rely on mostly good, rural data. Their historical Northern hemisphere land temperature estimation yielded about 1/4 °C less temperature increase since 1880 than the GHCN reconstruction. From their land data record they made an estimated average Northern hemisphere temperature record by accounting for the reduced temperature variation of the oceans. It should be noted that while Willy Soon has been accused (apparently wrongly) of being a mouthpiece for oil industry, his co-authors Connolly and Connolly are beyond any doubt environmentalists and [https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ independent researchers], not acting for big oil. <br />
<br />
Soon and co-authors estimated the possible effect of varying solar irradiation as well as the possible effect of increasing CO<sub>2</sub> concentration on temperatures. The authors chose the same solar irradiation reconstruction as James Hansen in 1981, and it makes sense to agree with him for the same reason ("The improved fit provided by Hoyt's solar variability represents a posteriori selection, since other hypothesized solar variations that we examined [..] degrade the fit" - Hansen 1981). Nevertheless, there is a certain risk of confirmation bias as also discussed in the paper of Soon.<br />
<br />
After they found the best solar fit (freely adjusting the unknown amplification), they came to the conclusion that "it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution." <br />
<br />
However, there is a notable mismatch after the year 2000. And since their publication, five years have passed during which global warming as well as warming of the Northern hemisphere strongly increased, even though solar irradiation '''decreased''' to about the level of 2009 (according to Virgo and IRMB satellites). <br />
<br />
Further, their fitting method (with correlation r<sup>2</sup>=0.496) is debatable. Arguably, they should have tried to find the best combined fit of CO<sub>2</sub> and solar influence, but instead they followed an overly simple fitting method that left little room for adding a reasonable fit of the effect of CO<sub>2</sub>. Their simulations also approximate the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and solar irradiation on temperature as linear, which adds in theory small but unnecessary estimation errors.<br />
<br />
Taking those factors together, a better and more plausible fit may be obtained that acknowledges a much more significant role of CO<sub>2</sub> in recent warming. The CO<sub>2</sub>-induced average warming since the year 1880 may easily be as much as 0.5 °C. That is demonstrated by comparing the following two graphs: <br />
<br />
[[File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png|600 px|center|thumb|''Updated simulation of global temperature variation due to variations of solar irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Temperature [°C] as function of time; the last 5 years are approximate.<br> Grey: proxy of yearly global temperature anomaly based on rural measurements. Blue: 3 yr temp. average. Red: simulated temperature variation due to Total Solar Irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub>. <br> r<sup>2</sup>=0.499. With many thanks to Soon, Connolly and Connolly for the original spreadsheet.'']]<br />
<br />
In the figure here above a logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> on temperature was modeled, combined with a T<sup>4</sup> effect of total solar irradiation (TSI). The last five years were completed with approximate values as some data are not yet made available. Here the simulated overall warming until 2019 due to TSI was 0.31 °C while the simulated warming due to CO<sub>2</sub> was 0.50 °C (until 2014: TSI 0.42°C, CO<sub>2</sub> 0.45 °C). This was sought for, but the result appears to be not far from optimal. <br />
<br />
Since 1880 the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in air has increased from about 290 ppm to 413 ppm. The here above pictured simulation corresponds with a temperature increase of 0.95°C resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. Consequently, with this re-analysis we obtain a similar result as Christy (note however that this analysis is only for the Northern hemisphere), in significant disagreement with both Soon and the average of climate models.<br />
<br />
In comparison, here below is a fit with solar irradiation alone (not optimized):<br />
<br />
[[File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png|600px|thumb|center|''Simulated effect on temperatures due to variation of solar irradiation alone. r<sup>2</sup>=0.482'']]<br />
<br />
Telling is the increasing deviation during the last 20 years; increasing the amplification of the solar effect does not make much difference for that discrepancy. With the addition of a strong assumed effect from atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, one obtains a much better match for the trend of temperature increase during the period 1980-2000 as well as the attained temperature and the recent temperature trend. <br />
--------------------------<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
A clear deviation occurs in the period 1960-1990, in which the simulated temperatures are too high. The simulated curves are aligned as such on purpose, because that period corresponds to the so-called period of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming global dimming]. Possibly most or all of the discrepancy can be explained by strongly increased airborne particles from air pollution, which was more and more reduced starting from around 1990. Note that the Northern hemisphere land temperature data (which served for the total Northern hemisphere temperature estimation) was likely most affected by that pollution. Also the big eruption of mount Agung in 1963 may have played a role. <br />
<br />
The fit with possible TSI is quite good if we take the global dimming period in account. Further, the simulated effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> is consistent with (debated) predictions based on radiation physics. Thus it looks plausible that a significant warming occurred in the Northern hemisphere due to greenhouse gas emissions. <br />
<br />
Note that CO<sub>2</sub> is only the main greenhouse gas, [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data other emitted gasses and aerosols] should also play a role but we did not account for their influence. <br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Conclusion''' <br />
<br />
We have good reason to believe that significant man-made warming occurred due to greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO<sub>2</sub>). Our analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions since 1880 may have caused an average temperature increase of around 0.5°C in the Northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
Download: modified spreadsheet, originally from Soon, Connolly and Connolly<br />
[[File:Soon et al 2015 data-updated-Tim88.ods|thumb]]<br><br />
You can play with fitting yourself: modify the amplification factors of cells U2 and W2. Readjust the offset with cells U3 and W3.<br />
---------------<br />
Discussion via the [[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_CO2_emissions_fingerprint_on_temperatures&diff=3252Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures2023-08-12T09:30:49Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Tim88 -'''v.1.2''' - Overview article: [[Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature]] -<br />
-----------------------------<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
It's hard to decide where the truth is between "climate deniers" who hold that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have practically no effect on climate, and "climate alarmists" who foresee the end of the world as all ice will melt in the near future. Here we make thankful use of a mostly rural temperature data set of the Northern hemisphere that served to estimate an average Northern hemisphere temperature history. That temperature estimate has been compared with simulated effects of varying solar irradiation and historical CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations. By performing an updated, revised simulation we obtain a reasonably good fit in which about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 can be ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Assuming that there are no other causes, the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions appears clearly and quite convincingly (please judge for yourself!). Extrapolated, an estimated 1°C temperature increase can be expected from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>. This result is consistent with recent findings of "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
'''Introduction'''<br />
<br />
Here we attempt to find evidence for an effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions on temperatures. In an [[Check:_CO2_emission_fingerprint_on_atmospheric_CO2|earlier analysis]] we found that very likely current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations are increasing due to man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Now we want to compare the theoretically possible temperature increase due to increasing CO<sub>2</sub> with the real temperature record over the last 100 years. Most people -including until recently this writer- rely on the officially presented historical temperature graphs such as [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ GISTEMP] (presented by NASA) and [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn GHCN] by NOAA. <br />
However, it has been argued rather convincingly that those data sets are [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf unreliable] (see also [https://web.archive.org/web/20191210070803/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/ here] and [https://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.XR13WqVT.dpbs here]). Not only historical land temperatures have issues, also ocean temperature records are [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/ inaccurate].<br />
<br />
----------<br />
'''Historical'''<br />
<br />
Estimations of historical temperatures going back to before the use of thermometers are much debated, with as most notorious example the "hockey stick" reconstruction by Mann, which yielded an almost straight temperature curve for the past thousand years, effectively leading to denial of the Medieval Warm Period. That in turn led to accusations related to the climate gate scandal and a defamation court case that was thrown out by the judge in 2019 as Mr. Mann refused to hand his data to the judge. <br />
<br />
Based on the [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/debunking-the-vikings-werent-victims-of-climate-myth/ available evidence] we may assume that the Medieval Warming Period was about as warm as temperatures at the start of the 21st century. <br />
<br />
https://web.archive.org/web/20150110072911if_/http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif<br />
<br />
Historically changing climates give context to a possibly significant influence of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in our time. It would be great if we could create a small data set based on a sample of high quality rural temperature stations. Regretfully, such information is hard to obtain.<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
'''Analysis'''<br />
<br />
In 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy John Christy] and Richard McNider published [https://web.archive.org/web/20171206145652/https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf a study] based on satellite temperature data of the lower troposphere. They found a transient climate response of 1.10 ± 0.26 °C - which is about half of the average of commonly used climate models. It should be noted that also satellite temperature data have [https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 issues].<br />
<br />
A good effort using again another approach was made by Willy Soon and co-authors in 2015, and their data is used for our own analysis here below. In their paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century"], they presented a weighed average of purified temperature records of the USA, China, Ireland and the arctic circle. Instead of trying to correct doubtful station records they weeded out such stations form the records in order to rely on mostly good, rural data. Their historical Northern hemisphere land temperature estimation yielded about 1/4 °C less temperature increase since 1880 than the GHCN reconstruction. From their land data record they made an estimated average Northern hemisphere temperature record by accounting for the reduced temperature variation of the oceans. It should be noted that while Willy Soon has been accused (apparently wrongly) of being a mouthpiece for oil industry, his co-authors Connolly and Connolly are beyond any doubt environmentalists and [https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ independent researchers], not acting for big oil. <br />
<br />
Soon and co-authors estimated the possible effect of varying solar irradiation as well as the possible effect of increasing CO<sub>2</sub> concentration on temperatures. The authors chose the same solar irradiation reconstruction as James Hansen in 1981, and it makes sense to agree with him for the same reason ("The improved fit provided by Hoyt's solar variability represents a posteriori selection, since other hypothesized solar variations that we examined [..] degrade the fit" - Hansen 1981). Nevertheless, there is a certain risk of confirmation bias as also discussed in the paper of Soon.<br />
<br />
After they found the best solar fit (freely adjusting the unknown amplification), they came to the conclusion that "it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution." <br />
<br />
However, there is a notable mismatch after the year 2000. And since their publication, five years have passed during which global warming as well as warming of the Northern hemisphere strongly increased, even though solar irradiation '''decreased''' to about the level of 2009 (according to Virgo and IRMB satellites). <br />
<br />
Further, their fitting method (with correlation r<sup>2</sup>=0.496) is debatable. Arguably, they should have tried to find the best combined fit of CO<sub>2</sub> and solar influence, but instead they followed an overly simple fitting method that left little room for adding a reasonable fit of the effect of CO<sub>2</sub>. Their simulations also approximate the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and solar irradiation on temperature as linear, which adds in theory small but unnecessary estimation errors.<br />
<br />
Taking those factors together, a better and more plausible fit may be obtained that acknowledges a much more significant role of CO<sub>2</sub> in recent warming. The CO<sub>2</sub>-induced average warming since the year 1880 may easily be as much as 0.5 °C. That is demonstrated by comparing the following two graphs: <br />
<br />
[[File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png|600 px|center|thumb|''Updated simulation of global temperature variation due to variations of solar irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Temperature [°C] as function of time; the last 5 years are approximate.<br> Grey: proxy of yearly global temperature anomaly based on rural measurements. Blue: 3 yr temp. average. Red: simulated temperature variation due to Total Solar Irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub>. <br> r<sup>2</sup>=0.499. With many thanks to Soon, Connolly and Connolly for the original spreadsheet.'']]<br />
<br />
In the updated figure above a logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> on temperature was modeled, combined with a T<sup>4</sup> effect of total solar irradiation (TSI). The last five years were completed with approximate values as some data are not yet made available. Here the simulated overall warming until 2019 due to TSI was 0.31 °C while the simulated warming due to CO<sub>2</sub> was 0.50 °C (until 2014: TSI 0.42°C, CO<sub>2</sub> 0.45 °C). This was sought for, but the result appears to be not far from optimal. <br />
<br />
Since 1880 the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in air has increased from about 290 ppm to 413 ppm. The here above pictured simulation corresponds with a temperature increase of 0.95°C resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. Consequently, with this re-analysis we obtain a similar result as Christy (note however that this analysis is only for the Northern hemisphere), in significant disagreement with both Soon and the average of climate models.<br />
<br />
In comparison, here below is a fit with solar irradiation alone (not optimized):<br />
<br />
[[File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png|600px|thumb|center|''Simulated effect on temperatures due to variation of solar irradiation alone. r<sup>2</sup>=0.482'']]<br />
<br />
Telling is the increasing deviation during the last 20 years; increasing the amplification of the solar effect does not make much difference for that discrepancy. With the addition of a strong assumed effect from atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, one obtains a much better match for the trend of temperature increase during the period 1980-2000 as well as the attained temperature and the recent temperature trend. <br />
--------------------------<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
A clear deviation occurs in the period 1960-1990, in which the simulated temperatures are too high. The simulated curves are aligned as such on purpose, because that period corresponds to the so-called period of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming global dimming]. Possibly most or all of the discrepancy can be explained by strongly increased airborne particles from air pollution, which was more and more reduced starting from around 1990. Note that the Northern hemisphere land temperature data (which served for the total Northern hemisphere temperature estimation) was likely most affected by that pollution. Also the big eruption of mount Agung in 1963 may have played a role. <br />
<br />
The fit with possible TSI is quite good if we take the global dimming period in account. Further, the simulated effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> is consistent with (debated) predictions based on radiation physics. Thus it looks plausible that a significant warming occurred in the Northern hemisphere due to greenhouse gas emissions. <br />
<br />
Note that CO<sub>2</sub> is only the main greenhouse gas, [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data other emitted gasses and aerosols] should also play a role but we did not account for their influence. <br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Conclusion''' <br />
<br />
We have good reason to believe that significant man-made warming occurred due to greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO<sub>2</sub>). Our analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions since 1880 may have caused an average temperature increase of around 0.5°C in the Northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
Download: modified spreadsheet, originally from Soon, Connolly and Connolly<br />
[[File:Soon et al 2015 data-updated-Tim88.ods|thumb]]<br><br />
You can play with fitting yourself: modify the amplification factors of cells U2 and W2. Readjust the offset with cells U3 and W3.<br />
---------------<br />
Discussion via the [[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_CO2_emissions_fingerprint_on_temperatures&diff=3251Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures2023-08-12T09:26:55Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Tim88 -'''v.1.2''' - Overview article: [[Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature]] -<br />
-----------------------------<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
It's hard to decide where the truth is between "climate deniers" who hold that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have practically no effect on climate, and "climate alarmists" who foresee the end of the world as all ice will melt in the near future. Here we make thankful use of a mostly rural temperature data set of the Northern hemisphere that served to estimate an average Northern hemisphere temperature history. That temperature estimate has been compared with simulated effects of varying solar irradiation and historical CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations. By performing an updated, revised simulation we obtain a reasonably good fit in which about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 can be ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Assuming that there are no other causes, the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions appears clearly and quite convincingly (please judge for yourself!). Extrapolated, an estimated 1°C temperature increase can be expected from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>. This result is consistent with recent findings of "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
'''Introduction'''<br />
<br />
Here we attempt to find evidence for an effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions on temperatures. In an [[Check:_CO2_emission_fingerprint_on_atmospheric_CO2|earlier analysis]] we found that very likely current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations are increasing due to man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Now we want to compare the theoretically possible temperature increase due to increasing CO<sub>2</sub> with the real temperature record over the last 100 years. Most people -including until recently this writer- rely on the officially presented historical temperature graphs such as [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ GISTEMP] (presented by NASA) and [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn GHCN] by NOAA. <br />
However, it has been argued rather convincingly that those data sets are [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf unreliable] (see also [https://web.archive.org/web/20191210070803/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/ here] and [https://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.XR13WqVT.dpbs here]). Not only historical land temperatures have issues, also ocean temperature records are [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/ inaccurate].<br />
<br />
----------<br />
'''Historical'''<br />
<br />
Estimations of historical temperatures going back to before the use of thermometers are much debated, with as most notorious example the "hockey stick" reconstruction by Mann, which yielded an almost straight temperature curve for the past thousand years, effectively leading to denial of the Medieval Warm Period. That in turn led to accusations related to the climate gate scandal and a defamation court case that was thrown out by the judge in 2019 as Mr. Mann refused to hand his data to the judge. <br />
<br />
Based on the [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/debunking-the-vikings-werent-victims-of-climate-myth/ available evidence] we may assume that the Medieval Warming Period was about as warm as temperatures at the start of the 21st century. <br />
<br />
https://web.archive.org/web/20150110072911if_/http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif<br />
<br />
Historically changing climates give context to a possibly significant influence of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in our time. It would be great if we could create a small data set based on a sample of high quality rural temperature stations. Regretfully, such information is hard to obtain.<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
'''Analysis'''<br />
<br />
In 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy John Christy] and Richard McNider published [https://web.archive.org/web/20171206145652/https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf a study] based on satellite temperature data of the lower troposphere. They found a transient climate response of 1.10 ± 0.26 °C - which is about half of the average of commonly used climate models. It should be noted that also satellite temperature data have [https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 issues].<br />
<br />
A good effort using again another approach was made by Willy Soon and co-authors in 2015, and their data is used for our own analysis here below. In their paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century"], they presented a weighed average of purified temperature records of the USA, China, Ireland and the arctic circle. Instead of trying to correct doubtful station records they weeded out such stations form the records in order to rely on mostly good, rural data. Their historical Northern hemisphere land temperature estimation yielded about 1/4 °C less temperature increase since 1880 than the GHCN reconstruction. From their land data record they made an estimated average Northern hemisphere temperature record by accounting for the reduced temperature variation of the oceans. It should be noted that while Willy Soon has been accused (apparently wrongly) of being a mouthpiece for oil industry, his co-authors Connolly and Connolly are beyond any doubt environmentalists and [https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ independent researchers], not acting for big oil. <br />
<br />
Soon and co-authors estimated the possible effect of varying solar irradiation as well as the possible effect of increasing CO<sub>2</sub> concentration on temperatures. The authors chose the same solar irradiation reconstruction as James Hansen in 1981, and it makes sense to agree with him for the same reason ("The improved fit provided by Hoyt's solar variability represents a posteriori selection, since other hypothesized solar variations that we examined [..] degrade the fit" - Hansen 1981). Nevertheless, there is a certain risk of confirmation bias as also discussed in the paper of Soon.<br />
<br />
After they found the best solar fit (freely adjusting the unknown amplification), they came to the conclusion that "it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution." <br />
<br />
However, there is a notable mismatch after the year 2000. And since their publication, five years have passed during which global warming as well as warming of the Northern hemisphere strongly increased, even though solar irradiation '''decreased''' to about the level of 2009 (according to Virgo and IRMB satellites). <br />
<br />
Further, their fitting method (with correlation r<sup>2</sup>=0.496) is debatable. Arguably, they should have tried to find the best combined fit of CO<sub>2</sub> and solar influence, but instead they followed an overly simple fitting method that left little room for adding a reasonable fit of the effect of CO<sub>2</sub>. Their simulations also approximate the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and solar irradiation on temperature as linear, which adds in theory small but unnecessary estimation errors.<br />
<br />
Taking those factors together, a better and more plausible fit may be obtained that acknowledges a much more significant role of CO<sub>2</sub> in recent warming. The CO<sub>2</sub>-induced average warming since the year 1880 may easily be as much as 0.5 °C. That is demonstrated in the following graph with a simulated 0.5 °C CO<sub>2</sub> effect: <br />
<br />
[[File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png|600 px|center|thumb|''Updated simulation of global temperature variation due to variations of solar irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Temperature [°C] as function of time; the last 5 years are approximate.<br> Grey: proxy of yearly global temperature anomaly based on rural measurements. Blue: 3 yr temp. average. Red: simulated temperature variation due to Total Solar Irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub>. <br> r<sup>2</sup>=0.499. With many thanks to Soon, Connolly and Connolly for the original spreadsheet.'']]<br />
<br />
In this updated figure a logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> on temperature was modeled, combined with a T<sup>4</sup> effect of total solar irradiation (TSI). The last five years were completed with approximate values as some data are not yet made available. Here the simulated overall warming until 2019 due to TSI was 0.31 °C while the simulated warming due to CO<sub>2</sub> was 0.50 °C (until 2014: TSI 0.42°C, CO<sub>2</sub> 0.45 °C). This was sought for, but the result appears to be not far from optimal. <br />
<br />
Since 1880 the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in air has increased from about 290 ppm to 413 ppm. The here above pictured simulation corresponds with a temperature increase of 0.95°C resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. Consequently, with this re-analysis we obtain a similar result as Christy (note however that this analysis is only for the Northern hemisphere), in significant disagreement with both Soon and the average of climate models.<br />
<br />
In comparison, here below is a fit with solar irradiation alone (not optimized):<br />
<br />
[[File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png|600px|thumb|center|''Simulated effect on temperatures due to variation of solar irradiation alone. r<sup>2</sup>=0.482'']]<br />
<br />
Telling is the increasing deviation during the last 20 years; increasing the amplification of the solar effect does not make much difference for that discrepancy. With the addition of a strong assumed effect from atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, one obtains a much better match for the trend of temperature increase during the period 1980-2000 as well as the attained temperature and the recent temperature trend. <br />
--------------------------<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
A clear deviation occurs in the period 1960-1990, in which the simulated temperatures are too high. The simulated curves are aligned as such on purpose, because that period corresponds to the so-called period of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming global dimming]. Possibly most or all of the discrepancy can be explained by strongly increased airborne particles from air pollution, which was more and more reduced starting from around 1990. Note that the Northern hemisphere land temperature data (which served for the total Northern hemisphere temperature estimation) was likely most affected by that pollution. Also the big eruption of mount Agung in 1963 may have played a role. <br />
<br />
The fit with possible TSI is quite good if we take the global dimming period in account. Further, the simulated effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> is consistent with (debated) predictions based on radiation physics. Thus it looks plausible that a significant warming occurred in the Northern hemisphere due to greenhouse gas emissions. <br />
<br />
Note that CO<sub>2</sub> is only the main greenhouse gas, [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data other emitted gasses and aerosols] should also play a role but we did not account for their influence. <br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Conclusion''' <br />
<br />
We have good reason to believe that significant man-made warming occurred due to greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO<sub>2</sub>). Our analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions since 1880 may have caused an average temperature increase of around 0.5°C in the Northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
Download: modified spreadsheet, originally from Soon, Connolly and Connolly<br />
[[File:Soon et al 2015 data-updated-Tim88.ods|thumb]]<br><br />
You can play with fitting yourself: modify the amplification factors of cells U2 and W2. Readjust the offset with cells U3 and W3.<br />
---------------<br />
Discussion via the [[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_CO2_emissions_fingerprint_on_temperatures&diff=3250Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures2023-08-12T09:25:43Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Tim88 -'''v.1.2''' - Overview article: [[Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature]] -<br />
-----------------------------<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
It's hard to decide where the truth is between "climate deniers" who hold that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have practically no effect on climate, and "climate alarmists" who foresee the end of the world as all ice will melt in the near future. Here we make thankful use of a mostly rural temperature data set of the Northern hemisphere that served to estimate an average Northern hemisphere temperature history. That temperature estimate has been compared with simulated effects of varying solar irradiation and historical CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations. By performing an updated, revised simulation we obtain a reasonably good fit in which about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 can be ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Assuming that there are no other causes, the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions appears clearly and quite convincingly (please judge for yourself!). Extrapolated, an estimated 1°C temperature increase can be expected from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>. This result is consistent with recent findings of "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
'''Introduction'''<br />
<br />
Here we attempt to find evidence for an effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions on temperatures. In an [[Check:_CO2_emission_fingerprint_on_atmospheric_CO2|earlier analysis]] we found that very likely current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations are increasing due to man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Now we want to compare the theoretically possible temperature increase due to increasing CO<sub>2</sub> with the real temperature record over the last 100 years. Most people -including until recently this writer- rely on the officially presented historical temperature graphs such as [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ GISTEMP] (presented by NASA) and [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn GHCN] by NOAA. <br />
However, it has been argued rather convincingly that those data sets are [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf unreliable] (see also [https://web.archive.org/web/20191210070803/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/ here] and [https://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.XR13WqVT.dpbs here]). Not only historical land temperatures have issues, also ocean temperature records are [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/ inaccurate].<br />
<br />
----------<br />
'''Historical'''<br />
<br />
Estimations of historical temperatures going back to before the use of thermometers are much debated, with as most notorious example the "hockey stick" reconstruction by Mann, which yielded an almost straight temperature curve for the past thousand years, effectively leading to denial of the Medieval Warm Period. That in turn led to accusations related to the climate gate scandal and a defamation court case that was thrown out by the judge in 2019 as Mr. Mann refused to hand his data to the judge. <br />
<br />
Based on the [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/debunking-the-vikings-werent-victims-of-climate-myth/ available evidence] we may assume that the Medieval Warming Period was about as warm as temperatures at the start of the 21st century. <br />
<br />
https://web.archive.org/web/20150110072911if_/http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif<br />
<br />
Historically changing climates give context to a possibly significant influence of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in our time. It would be great if we could create a small data set based on a sample of high quality rural temperature stations. Regretfully, such information is hard to obtain.<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
'''Analysis'''<br />
<br />
In 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy John Christy] and Richard McNider published [https://web.archive.org/web/20171206145652/https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf a study] based on satellite temperature data of the lower troposphere. They found a transient climate response of 1.10 ± 0.26 °C - which is about half of the average of commonly used climate models. It should be noted that also satellite temperature data have [https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 issues].<br />
<br />
A good effort using again another approach was made by Willy Soon and co-authors in 2015, and their data is used for our own analysis here below. In their paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century"], they presented a weighed average of purified temperature records of the USA, China, Ireland and the arctic circle. Instead of trying to correct doubtful station records they weeded out such stations form the records in order to rely on mostly good, rural data. Their historical Northern hemisphere land temperature estimation yielded about 1/4 °C less temperature increase since 1880 than the GHCN reconstruction. From their land data record they made an estimated average Northern hemisphere temperature record by accounting for the reduced temperature variation of the oceans. It should be noted that while Willy Soon has been accused (apparently wrongly) of being a mouthpiece for oil industry, his co-authors Connolly and Connolly are beyond any doubt environmentalists and [https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ independent researchers], not acting for big oil. <br />
<br />
Soon and co-authors estimated the possible effect of varying solar irradiation as well as the possible effect of increasing CO<sub>2</sub> concentration on temperatures. The authors chose the same solar irradiation reconstruction as James Hansen in 1981, and it makes sense to agree with him for the same reason ("The improved fit provided by Hoyt's solar variability represents a posteriori selection, since other hypothesized solar variations that we examined [..] degrade the fit" - Hansen 1981). Nevertheless, there is a certain risk of confirmation bias as also discussed in the paper of Soon.<br />
<br />
After they found the best solar fit (freely adjusting the unknown amplification), they came to the conclusion that "it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution." <br />
<br />
However, there is a notable mismatch after the year 2000. And since their publication, five years have passed during which global warming as well as warming of the Northern hemisphere strongly increased, even though solar irradiation '''decreased''' to about the level of 2009 (according to Virgo and IRMB satellites). <br />
<br />
Further, their fitting method (with correlation r<sup>2</sup>=0.496) is debatable. Arguably, they should have tried to find the best combined fit of CO<sub>2</sub> and solar influence, but instead they followed an overly simple fitting method that left little room for adding a reasonable fit of the effect of CO<sub>2</sub>. Their simulations also approximate the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and solar irradiation on temperature as linear, which adds in theory small but unnecessary estimation errors.<br />
<br />
Taking those factors together, a better and more plausible fit may be obtained that acknowledges a much more significant role of CO<sub>2</sub> in recent warming. The CO<sub>2</sub>-induced average warming since the year 1880 may easily be as much as 0.5 °C. That is demonstrated in the following graph for an assumed 0.5 °C CO<sub>2</sub> effect: <br />
<br />
[[File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png|600 px|center|thumb|''Updated simulation of global temperature variation due to variations of solar irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Temperature [°C] as function of time; the last 5 years are approximate.<br> Grey: proxy of yearly global temperature anomaly based on rural measurements. Blue: 3 yr temp. average. Red: simulated temperature variation due to Total Solar Irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub>. <br> r<sup>2</sup>=0.499. With many thanks to Soon, Connolly and Connolly for the original spreadsheet.'']]<br />
<br />
In this updated figure a logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> on temperature was modeled, combined with a T<sup>4</sup> effect of total solar irradiation (TSI). The last five years were completed with approximate values as some data are not yet made available. Here the simulated overall warming until 2019 due to TSI was 0.31 °C while the simulated warming due to CO<sub>2</sub> was 0.50 °C (until 2014: TSI 0.42°C, CO<sub>2</sub> 0.45 °C). This was sought for, but the result appears to be not far from optimal. <br />
<br />
Since 1880 the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in air has increased from about 290 ppm to 413 ppm. The here above pictured simulation corresponds with a temperature increase of 0.95°C resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. Consequently, with this re-analysis we obtain a similar result as Christy (note however that this analysis is only for the Northern hemisphere), in significant disagreement with both Soon and the average of climate models.<br />
<br />
In comparison, here below is a fit with solar irradiation alone (not optimized):<br />
<br />
[[File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png|600px|thumb|center|''Simulated effect on temperatures due to variation of solar irradiation alone. r<sup>2</sup>=0.482'']]<br />
<br />
Telling is the increasing deviation during the last 20 years; increasing the amplification of the solar effect does not make much difference for that discrepancy. With the addition of a strong assumed effect from atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, one obtains a much better match for the trend of temperature increase during the period 1980-2000 as well as the attained temperature and the recent temperature trend. <br />
--------------------------<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
A clear deviation occurs in the period 1960-1990, in which the simulated temperatures are too high. The simulated curves are aligned as such on purpose, because that period corresponds to the so-called period of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming global dimming]. Possibly most or all of the discrepancy can be explained by strongly increased airborne particles from air pollution, which was more and more reduced starting from around 1990. Note that the Northern hemisphere land temperature data (which served for the total Northern hemisphere temperature estimation) was likely most affected by that pollution. Also the big eruption of mount Agung in 1963 may have played a role. <br />
<br />
The fit with possible TSI is quite good if we take the global dimming period in account. Further, the simulated effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> is consistent with (debated) predictions based on radiation physics. Thus it looks plausible that a significant warming occurred in the Northern hemisphere due to greenhouse gas emissions. <br />
<br />
Note that CO<sub>2</sub> is only the main greenhouse gas, [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data other emitted gasses and aerosols] should also play a role but we did not account for their influence. <br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Conclusion''' <br />
<br />
We have good reason to believe that significant man-made warming occurred due to greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO<sub>2</sub>). Our analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions since 1880 may have caused an average temperature increase of around 0.5°C in the Northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
Download: modified spreadsheet, originally from Soon, Connolly and Connolly<br />
[[File:Soon et al 2015 data-updated-Tim88.ods|thumb]]<br><br />
You can play with fitting yourself: modify the amplification factors of cells U2 and W2. Readjust the offset with cells U3 and W3.<br />
---------------<br />
Discussion via the [[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Check:_CO2_emissions_fingerprint_on_temperatures&diff=3249Check: CO2 emissions fingerprint on temperatures2023-08-12T09:18:21Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>By Tim88 -'''v.1.2''' - Overview article: [[Check: Effects of CO2 emissions on nature]] -<br />
-----------------------------<br />
'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
It's hard to decide where the truth is between "climate deniers" who hold that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have practically no effect on climate, and "climate alarmists" who foresee the end of the world as all ice will melt in the near future. Here we make thankful use of a mostly rural temperature data set of the Northern hemisphere that served to estimate an average Northern hemisphere temperature history. That temperature estimate has been compared with simulated effects of varying solar irradiation and historical CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations. By performing an updated, revised simulation we obtain a reasonably good fit in which about 0.5 °C temperature increase since 1880 can be ascribed to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Assuming that there are no other causes, the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions appears clearly and quite convincingly (please judge for yourself!). Extrapolated, an estimated 1°C temperature increase can be expected from a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>. This result is consistent with recent findings of "moderate", non-alarmist climate scientists. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the bottom of this page.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
'''Introduction'''<br />
<br />
Here we attempt to find evidence for an effect of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions on temperatures. In an [[Check:_CO2_emission_fingerprint_on_atmospheric_CO2|earlier analysis]] we found that very likely current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations are increasing due to man-made CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Now we want to compare the theoretically possible temperature increase due to increasing CO<sub>2</sub> with the real temperature record over the last 100 years. Most people -including until recently this writer- rely on the officially presented historical temperature graphs such as [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ GISTEMP] (presented by NASA) and [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn GHCN] by NOAA. <br />
However, it has been argued rather convincingly that those data sets are [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf unreliable] (see also [https://web.archive.org/web/20191210070803/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/ here] and [https://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.XR13WqVT.dpbs here]). Not only historical land temperatures have issues, also ocean temperature records are [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/ inaccurate].<br />
<br />
----------<br />
'''Historical'''<br />
<br />
Estimations of historical temperatures going back to before the use of thermometers are much debated, with as most notorious example the "hockey stick" reconstruction by Mann, which yielded an almost straight temperature curve for the past thousand years, effectively leading to denial of the Medieval Warm Period. That in turn led to accusations related to the climate gate scandal and a defamation court case that was thrown out by the judge in 2019 as Mr. Mann refused to hand his data to the judge. <br />
<br />
Based on the [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/debunking-the-vikings-werent-victims-of-climate-myth/ available evidence] we may assume that the Medieval Warming Period was about as warm as temperatures at the start of the 21st century. <br />
<br />
https://web.archive.org/web/20150110072911if_/http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif<br />
<br />
Historically changing climates give context to a possibly significant influence of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in our time. It would be great if we could create a small data set based on a sample of high quality rural temperature stations. Regretfully, such information is hard to obtain.<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
'''Analysis'''<br />
<br />
In 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy John Christy] and Richard McNider published [https://web.archive.org/web/20171206145652/https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf a study] based on satellite temperature data of the lower troposphere. They found a transient climate response of 1.10 ± 0.26 °C - which is about half of the average of commonly used climate models. It should be noted that also satellite temperature data have [https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 issues].<br />
<br />
A good effort using again another approach was made by Willy Soon and co-authors in 2015, and their data is used for our own analysis here below. In their paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282389821_Re-evaluating_the_role_of_solar_variability_on_Northern_Hemisphere_temperature_trends_since_the_19th_century "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century"], they presented a weighed average of purified temperature records of the USA, China, Ireland and the arctic circle. Instead of trying to correct doubtful station records they weeded out such stations form the records in order to rely on mostly good, rural data. Their historical Northern hemisphere land temperature estimation yielded about 1/4 °C less temperature increase since 1880 than the GHCN reconstruction. From their land data record they made an estimated average Northern hemisphere temperature record by accounting for the reduced temperature variation of the oceans. It should be noted that while Willy Soon has been accused (apparently wrongly) of being a mouthpiece for oil industry, his co-authors Connolly and Connolly are beyond any doubt environmentalists and [https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ independent researchers], not acting for big oil. <br />
<br />
Soon and co-authors estimated the possible effect of varying solar irradiation as well as the possible effect of increasing CO<sub>2</sub> concentration on temperatures. The authors chose the same solar irradiation reconstruction as James Hansen in 1981, and it makes sense to agree with him for the same reason ("The improved fit provided by Hoyt's solar variability represents a posteriori selection, since other hypothesized solar variations that we examined [..] degrade the fit" - Hansen 1981). Nevertheless, there is a certain risk of confirmation bias as also discussed in the paper of Soon.<br />
<br />
After they found the best solar fit (freely adjusting the unknown amplification), they came to the conclusion that "it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution." <br />
<br />
However, there is a notable mismatch after the year 2000. And since their publication, five years have passed during which global warming as well as warming of the Northern hemisphere strongly increased, even though solar irradiation '''decreased''' to about the level of 2009 (according to Virgo and IRMB satellites). <br />
<br />
Further, their fitting method (with correlation r<sup>2</sup>=0.496) is debatable. Arguably, they should have tried to find the best combined fit of CO<sub>2</sub> and solar influence, but instead they followed an overly simple fitting method that left little room for adding a reasonable fit of the effect of CO<sub>2</sub>. Their simulations also approximate the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration and solar irradiation on temperature as linear, which adds in theory small but unnecessary estimation errors.<br />
<br />
Taking those factors together, a better and more plausible fit may be obtained that acknowledges a much more significant role of CO<sub>2</sub> in recent warming. The CO<sub>2</sub>-induced average warming since the year 1880 may easily be as much as 0.5 °C. That is demonstrated in the following graph: <br />
<br />
[[File:CO2-TSI-temperatures-simulation.png|600 px|center|thumb|''Updated simulation of global temperature variation due to variations of solar irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. Temperature [°C] as function of time; the last 5 years are approximate.<br> Grey: proxy of yearly global temperature anomaly based on rural measurements. Blue: 3 yr temp. average. Red: simulated temperature variation due to Total Solar Irradiation and CO<sub>2</sub>. <br> r<sup>2</sup>=0.499. With many thanks to Soon, Connolly and Connolly for the original spreadsheet.'']]<br />
<br />
In this updated figure a logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> on temperature was modeled, combined with a T<sup>4</sup> effect of total solar irradiation (TSI). The last five years were completed with approximate values as some data are not yet made available. Here the simulated overall warming until 2019 due to TSI was 0.31 °C while the simulated warming due to CO<sub>2</sub> was 0.50 °C (until 2014: TSI 0.42°C, CO<sub>2</sub> 0.45 °C). This was sought for, but the result appears to be not far from optimal. <br />
<br />
Since 1880 the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in air has increased from about 290 ppm to 413 ppm. The here above pictured simulation corresponds with a temperature increase of 0.95°C resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. Consequently, with this re-analysis we obtain a similar result as Christy (note however that this analysis is only for the Northern hemisphere), in significant disagreement with both Soon and the average of climate models.<br />
<br />
In comparison, here below is a fit with solar irradiation alone (not optimized):<br />
<br />
[[File:TSI-only-temperatures-simulation.png|600px|thumb|center|''Simulated effect on temperatures due to variation of solar irradiation alone. r<sup>2</sup>=0.482'']]<br />
<br />
Telling is the increasing deviation during the last 20 years; increasing the amplification of the solar effect does not make much difference for that discrepancy. With the addition of a strong assumed effect from atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, one obtains a much better match for the trend of temperature increase during the period 1980-2000 as well as the attained temperature and the recent temperature trend. <br />
--------------------------<br />
'''Discussion'''<br />
<br />
A clear deviation occurs in the period 1960-1990, in which the simulated temperatures are too high. The simulated curves are aligned as such on purpose, because that period corresponds to the so-called period of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming global dimming]. Possibly most or all of the discrepancy can be explained by strongly increased airborne particles from air pollution, which was more and more reduced starting from around 1990. Note that the Northern hemisphere land temperature data (which served for the total Northern hemisphere temperature estimation) was likely most affected by that pollution. Also the big eruption of mount Agung in 1963 may have played a role. <br />
<br />
The fit with possible TSI is quite good if we take the global dimming period in account. Further, the simulated effect of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> is consistent with (debated) predictions based on radiation physics. Thus it looks plausible that a significant warming occurred in the Northern hemisphere due to greenhouse gas emissions. <br />
<br />
Note that CO<sub>2</sub> is only the main greenhouse gas, [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data other emitted gasses and aerosols] should also play a role but we did not account for their influence. <br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
'''Conclusion''' <br />
<br />
We have good reason to believe that significant man-made warming occurred due to greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO<sub>2</sub>). Our analysis suggests that greenhouse gas emissions since 1880 may have caused an average temperature increase of around 0.5°C in the Northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
Download: modified spreadsheet, originally from Soon, Connolly and Connolly<br />
[[File:Soon et al 2015 data-updated-Tim88.ods|thumb]]<br><br />
You can play with fitting yourself: modify the amplification factors of cells U2 and W2. Readjust the offset with cells U3 and W3.<br />
---------------<br />
Discussion via the [[Special:WikiForum/Global_warming|Forum]]</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers&diff=3248InfoCheckers2022-12-31T08:51:37Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><seo title="InfoCheckers | a tool for a community of information checkers" metak="fact checking websites, Wikipedia check" metad="blog, wiki, forum" /> <br />
'''[[Special:ArticlesHome|Blog topics]]''' . . . . '''[[Wiki|Wiki topics]]''' . . . . <br />
'''[[Special:WikiForum|Forum topics]]''' <br> ''Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.<br />
- [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text Thomas Jefferson, 1807] ''<br />
--------------------------------<br />
Latest blog post: [[Blog:pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death|Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death]]<br><br />
Latest wiki: [[Orwell:_The_Freedom_of_the_Press|George Orwell's never published original introduction to Animal Farm]] <br><br />
Latest Fact Checking: [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]] <br> <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
When searching for information on Internet, how do we discern what is fair and well researched information? For an individual it is not doable to sort it all out. <br />
<br />
Search engines serve links to Wikipedia articles near the top of their results, and while the great majority is fine, some of those articles are extremely unreliable or [https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ badly biased]. And when we look for better information, the choice is often between two extremes: unquestioned "mainstream" dogma or "alternative" sites of doubtful and often very poor reliability.<br />
<br />
This website is meant to '''serve as a tool''' for a '''community''' of people who want to be well informed and who may want to contribute sometimes. It's now open for everyone to join. By contributing to a Wiki we can obtain much more while spending less time individually. <br />
<br />
* The focus is on our own '''research-based [[Wiki|wiki]]''', '''correcting''' selected '''Wikipedia articles'''. Categories:<br />
** '''[[Fact Checking websites]]''' - existing fact checking sites<br />
** '''Current affairs''' - debated topics that are in the news<br />
** '''Society''' - still relevant topics that have been in the news (or should have been)<br />
** '''Environment''' - air pollution, pesticides etc. - [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]]<br />
** '''Health''' - medicine, alternative medicine, food supplements etc.<br />
** '''Science''' - history of science, relativity, quantum mechanics etc.<br />
:: (Proposals for topics '''[[InfoCheckers:List_of_possible_topics|here]]''') <span style="color:#14866d"> <div style="text-align: right; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> ''Count: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages'' </div> </span><br />
* With a '''[[Special:ArticlesHome|blog]]''' of the administrator to present currently relevant topics <br />
<br />
* With a '''[[Special:WikiForum|discussion forum]]''' about contents creation based on Wikipedia articles and other technical issues of web site management. It has a different skin for an "under the hood" impression.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------<br />
* For updates you can add yourself to the '''[[InfoCheckers:About|mailinglist]]'''<br />
------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
We will introduce a '''new method''' to arrive at a reasonably objective and fair presentation of facts in our Wiki articles.<br><br />
See '''[[Project:Organization and operation]]''', <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''In The News''' (or hardly in the news, but should have been):<br />
<br />
Florida court grants investigation of possible wrongdoings of vaccine manufacturers - <br />
https://news.yahoo.com/florida-court-grants-desantis-petition-020233388.html<br />
<br />
After an FOIA request and following litigation, ICAN has obtained a court order obliging the [https://expose-news.com/2022/09/19/ican-obtains-court-order-for-cdc-to-release-v-safe-data/ CDC to release COVID Vaccine Adverse Events Data] obtained in the ‘V-Safe’ Program, with a release start deadline of 30 September.<br />
<br />
Thailand has so far paid $45M over vaccine side-effects according to the [https://www.phnompenhpost.com/international/thailand-pay-45m-over-vaccine-side-effects Phnom Pen Post], as compensation to 12,714 people who developed side-effects after they received Covid-19 vaccines. <br />
<br />
[https://thepulse.one/2022/03/07/researchers-examine-autopsies-of-two-boys-who-died-days-after-covid-vaccine/ Researchers Examine Autopsies of Two Boys Who Died Days After COVID Vaccine]. ' According to the three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners,”The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis.” '<br />
<br />
The antidepressant '''fluvoxamine''' was found to be effective for preventing severe Covid-19 in the clinical "TOGETHER" trial, as [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext published] in the medical journal The Lancet on October 27, 2021. <br><br />
"Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population." Of those patients who followed the protocol, 1 out of 548 died while in the placebo group 12 out of 618 died. The study was stopped early because of its convincing success. This '''should''' have made the headlines.<br />
<br />
The parting government of the USA [https://web.archive.org/web/20210116001621/https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/ revealed that] the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. According to them, 'The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. [...] the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses [and ...] engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.'<br />
<br />
<br />
''Old "In The News" topics [[Talk:InfoCheckers | '''here''']]''<br />
-----------------------------<br />
This Intro page is '''[[Special:WikiForum/General_comments_here|open for comments]]'''<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<h3>Short manual [[Short manual|here]]</h3><br />
---------------<br />
<span style="color:#14866d"><div style="text-align: center;>''The Wiki and Forum use cookies for your personal convenience. No third-party cookies. No trackers. No adds.''<br><br />
''Blogs may contain Vimeo videos with their own Vimeo cookies only (no trackers).''</div></span></div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers&diff=3247InfoCheckers2022-12-31T08:50:25Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><seo title="InfoCheckers | a tool for a community of information checkers" metak="fact checking websites, Wikipedia check" metad="blog, wiki, forum" /> <br />
'''[[Special:ArticlesHome|Blog topics]]''' . . . . '''[[Wiki|Wiki topics]]''' . . . . <br />
'''[[Special:WikiForum|Forum topics]]''' <br> ''Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.<br />
- [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text Thomas Jefferson, 1807] ''<br />
--------------------------------<br />
Latest blog post: [[Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death|Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death]]<br><br />
Latest wiki: [[Orwell:_The_Freedom_of_the_Press|George Orwell's never published original introduction to Animal Farm]] <br><br />
Latest Fact Checking: [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]] <br> <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
When searching for information on Internet, how do we discern what is fair and well researched information? For an individual it is not doable to sort it all out. <br />
<br />
Search engines serve links to Wikipedia articles near the top of their results, and while the great majority is fine, some of those articles are extremely unreliable or [https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ badly biased]. And when we look for better information, the choice is often between two extremes: unquestioned "mainstream" dogma or "alternative" sites of doubtful and often very poor reliability.<br />
<br />
This website is meant to '''serve as a tool''' for a '''community''' of people who want to be well informed and who may want to contribute sometimes. It's now open for everyone to join. By contributing to a Wiki we can obtain much more while spending less time individually. <br />
<br />
* The focus is on our own '''research-based [[Wiki|wiki]]''', '''correcting''' selected '''Wikipedia articles'''. Categories:<br />
** '''[[Fact Checking websites]]''' - existing fact checking sites<br />
** '''Current affairs''' - debated topics that are in the news<br />
** '''Society''' - still relevant topics that have been in the news (or should have been)<br />
** '''Environment''' - air pollution, pesticides etc. - [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]]<br />
** '''Health''' - medicine, alternative medicine, food supplements etc.<br />
** '''Science''' - history of science, relativity, quantum mechanics etc.<br />
:: (Proposals for topics '''[[InfoCheckers:List_of_possible_topics|here]]''') <span style="color:#14866d"> <div style="text-align: right; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> ''Count: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages'' </div> </span><br />
* With a '''[[Special:ArticlesHome|blog]]''' of the administrator to present currently relevant topics <br />
<br />
* With a '''[[Special:WikiForum|discussion forum]]''' about contents creation based on Wikipedia articles and other technical issues of web site management. It has a different skin for an "under the hood" impression.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------<br />
* For updates you can add yourself to the '''[[InfoCheckers:About|mailinglist]]'''<br />
------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
We will introduce a '''new method''' to arrive at a reasonably objective and fair presentation of facts in our Wiki articles.<br><br />
See '''[[Project:Organization and operation]]''', <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''In The News''' (or hardly in the news, but should have been):<br />
<br />
Florida court grants investigation of possible wrongdoings of vaccine manufacturers - <br />
https://news.yahoo.com/florida-court-grants-desantis-petition-020233388.html<br />
<br />
After an FOIA request and following litigation, ICAN has obtained a court order obliging the [https://expose-news.com/2022/09/19/ican-obtains-court-order-for-cdc-to-release-v-safe-data/ CDC to release COVID Vaccine Adverse Events Data] obtained in the ‘V-Safe’ Program, with a release start deadline of 30 September.<br />
<br />
Thailand has so far paid $45M over vaccine side-effects according to the [https://www.phnompenhpost.com/international/thailand-pay-45m-over-vaccine-side-effects Phnom Pen Post], as compensation to 12,714 people who developed side-effects after they received Covid-19 vaccines. <br />
<br />
[https://thepulse.one/2022/03/07/researchers-examine-autopsies-of-two-boys-who-died-days-after-covid-vaccine/ Researchers Examine Autopsies of Two Boys Who Died Days After COVID Vaccine]. ' According to the three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners,”The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis.” '<br />
<br />
The antidepressant '''fluvoxamine''' was found to be effective for preventing severe Covid-19 in the clinical "TOGETHER" trial, as [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext published] in the medical journal The Lancet on October 27, 2021. <br><br />
"Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population." Of those patients who followed the protocol, 1 out of 548 died while in the placebo group 12 out of 618 died. The study was stopped early because of its convincing success. This '''should''' have made the headlines.<br />
<br />
The parting government of the USA [https://web.archive.org/web/20210116001621/https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/ revealed that] the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. According to them, 'The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. [...] the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses [and ...] engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.'<br />
<br />
<br />
''Old "In The News" topics [[Talk:InfoCheckers | '''here''']]''<br />
-----------------------------<br />
This Intro page is '''[[Special:WikiForum/General_comments_here|open for comments]]'''<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<h3>Short manual [[Short manual|here]]</h3><br />
---------------<br />
<span style="color:#14866d"><div style="text-align: center;>''The Wiki and Forum use cookies for your personal convenience. No third-party cookies. No trackers. No adds.''<br><br />
''Blogs may contain Vimeo videos with their own Vimeo cookies only (no trackers).''</div></span></div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers&diff=3246InfoCheckers2022-12-31T08:48:41Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><seo title="InfoCheckers | a tool for a community of information checkers" metak="fact checking websites, Wikipedia check" metad="blog, wiki, forum" /> <br />
'''[[Special:ArticlesHome|Blog topics]]''' . . . . '''[[Wiki|Wiki topics]]''' . . . . <br />
'''[[Special:WikiForum|Forum topics]]''' <br> ''Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.<br />
- [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text Thomas Jefferson, 1807] ''<br />
--------------------------------<br />
Latest blog post: [[Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death|Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death]]<br><br />
Latest wiki: [[Orwell:_The_Freedom_of_the_Press|George Orwell's never published original introduction to Animal Farm]] <br><br />
Latest Fact Checking: [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]] <br> <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
When searching for information on Internet, how do we discern what is fair and well researched information? For an individual it is not doable to sort it all out. <br />
<br />
Search engines serve links to Wikipedia articles near the top of their results, and while the great majority is fine, some of those articles are extremely unreliable or [https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ badly biased]. And when we look for better information, the choice is often between two extremes: unquestioned "mainstream" dogma or "alternative" sites of doubtful and often very poor reliability.<br />
<br />
This website is meant to '''serve as a tool''' for a '''community''' of people who want to be well informed and who may want to contribute sometimes. It's now open for everyone to join. By contributing to a Wiki we can obtain much more while spending less time individually. <br />
<br />
* The focus is on our own '''research-based [[Wiki|wiki]]''', '''correcting''' selected '''Wikipedia articles'''. Categories:<br />
** '''[[Fact Checking websites]]''' - existing fact checking sites<br />
** '''Current affairs''' - debated topics that are in the news<br />
** '''Society''' - still relevant topics that have been in the news (or should have been)<br />
** '''Environment''' - air pollution, pesticides etc. - [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]]<br />
** '''Health''' - medicine, alternative medicine, food supplements etc.<br />
** '''Science''' - history of science, relativity, quantum mechanics etc.<br />
:: (Proposals for topics '''[[InfoCheckers:List_of_possible_topics|here]]''') <span style="color:#14866d"> <div style="text-align: right; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> ''Count: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages'' </div> </span><br />
* With a '''[[Special:ArticlesHome|blog]]''' of the administrator to present currently relevant topics <br />
<br />
* With a '''[[Special:WikiForum|discussion forum]]''' about contents creation based on Wikipedia articles and other technical issues of web site management. It has a different skin for an "under the hood" impression.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------<br />
* For updates you can add yourself to the '''[[InfoCheckers:About|mailinglist]]'''<br />
------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
We will introduce a '''new method''' to arrive at a reasonably objective and fair presentation of facts in our Wiki articles.<br><br />
See '''[[Project:Organization and operation]]''', <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''In The News''' (or hardly in the news, but should have been):<br />
<br />
Florida court grants investigation of possible wrongdoings of vaccine manufacturers - <br />
https://news.yahoo.com/florida-court-grants-desantis-petition-020233388.html<br />
<br />
After an FOIA request and following litigation, ICAN has obtained a court order obliging the [https://expose-news.com/2022/09/19/ican-obtains-court-order-for-cdc-to-release-v-safe-data/ CDC to release COVID Vaccine Adverse Events Data] obtained in the ‘V-Safe’ Program, with a release start deadline of 30 September.<br />
<br />
Thailand has so far paid $45M over vaccine side-effects according to the [https://www.phnompenhpost.com/international/thailand-pay-45m-over-vaccine-side-effects Phnom Pen Post], as compensation to 12,714 people who developed side-effects after they received Covid-19 vaccines. <br />
<br />
[https://thepulse.one/2022/03/07/researchers-examine-autopsies-of-two-boys-who-died-days-after-covid-vaccine/ Researchers Examine Autopsies of Two Boys Who Died Days After COVID Vaccine]. ' According to the three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners,”The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis.” '<br />
<br />
The antidepressant '''fluvoxamine''' was found to be effective for preventing severe Covid-19 in the clinical "TOGETHER" trial, as [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext published] in the medical journal The Lancet on October 27, 2021. <br><br />
"Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population." Of those patients who followed the protocol, 1 out of 548 died while in the placebo group 12 out of 618 died. The study was stopped early because of its convincing success. This '''should''' have made the headlines.<br />
<br />
The parting government of the USA [https://web.archive.org/web/20210116001621/https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/ revealed that] the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. According to them, 'The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. [...] the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses [and ...] engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.'<br />
<br />
<br />
''Old "In The News" topics [[Talk:InfoCheckers | '''here''']]''<br />
-----------------------------<br />
This Intro page is '''[[Special:WikiForum/General_comments_here|open for comments]]'''<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<h3>Short manual [[Short manual|here]]</h3><br />
---------------<br />
<span style="color:#14866d"><div style="text-align: center;>''The Wiki and Forum use cookies for your personal convenience. No third-party cookies. No trackers. No adds.''<br><br />
''Blogs may contain Vimeo videos with their own Vimeo cookies only (no trackers).''</div></span></div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3245Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T08:40:12Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.citizensjournal.us/fda-buries-data-on-seriously-injured-child-in-pfizers-covid-19-clinical-trial/ case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to the main text of [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 their publication] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip-up in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced true numbers. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death that was possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated, risking a restricted approval for only the elderly. Billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change my estimations but improves consisteny.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3244Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T08:38:51Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.citizensjournal.us/fda-buries-data-on-seriously-injured-child-in-pfizers-covid-19-clinical-trial/ case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to the main text of [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 their publication] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip-up in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced true numbers. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death that was possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated, risking a restricted approval for only the elderly. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change my estimations but improves consisteny.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3243Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T08:21:14Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.citizensjournal.us/fda-buries-data-on-seriously-injured-child-in-pfizers-covid-19-clinical-trial/ case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to the main text of [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 their publication] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced true numbers. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death that was possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated, risking a restricted approval for only the elderly. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change my estimations but improves consisteny.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3242Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T08:14:32Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to the main text of [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 their publication] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced true numbers. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death that was possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated, risking a restricted approval for only the elderly. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change my estimations but improves consisteny.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3241Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T08:12:14Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to the main text of [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 their publication] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death that was possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated, risking a restricted approval for only the elderly. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change my estimations but improves consisteny.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3240Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T08:11:28Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to the main text of [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 their publication] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death that was possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated, risking a restricted approval for only the elderly. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change my estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3239Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T08:09:55Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to the main text of [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 their publication] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death that was possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated, risking a restricted approval for only the elderly. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3238Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T08:06:10Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to the main text of [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 their publication] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3237Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T07:58:46Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to the main text of [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 their publication] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3236Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T07:56:05Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described [https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ here], <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3235Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T07:54:50Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that all Covid19 vaccines were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3234Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T07:52:04Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3233Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T07:50:13Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
<br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
the FDA was obliged to release a huge pile of documents. Buried inside that pile there's a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
In that document a death in the vaccination group is recorded that Pfizer failed to mention or even account for in its publication. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3232Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T07:41:30Z<p>Admin: created article</p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome! <br><br />
Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3231Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T07:39:46Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Constructive comments are welcome. Attention: anonymous comments can be made but can not contain web links, such comments are auto-deleted in their entirety (anti-spam).''<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=Blog:Pfizer_omitted_at_least_one_vaccine_trial_death&diff=3230Blog:Pfizer omitted at least one vaccine trial death2022-12-31T07:30:10Z<p>Admin: New blog post created.</p>
<hr />
<div><vote /><br />
<!--start text--><br />
mmm<br />
<br />
<comments /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles by user Admin]]<br />
[[Category:31 December 2022]]<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers&diff=3228InfoCheckers2022-12-31T06:39:01Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><seo title="InfoCheckers | a tool for a community of information checkers" metak="fact checking websites, Wikipedia check" metad="blog, wiki, forum" /> <br />
'''[[Special:ArticlesHome|Blog topics]]''' . . . . '''[[Wiki|Wiki topics]]''' . . . . <br />
'''[[Special:WikiForum|Forum topics]]''' <br> ''Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.<br />
- [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.038_0592_0594/?sp=2&st=text Thomas Jefferson, 1807] ''<br />
--------------------------------<br />
Latest blog posts: [[Blog:Excess deaths and the elephant in the room - Part 1|Excess deaths and the elephant in the room - Part 1]] <br><br />
and [[Blog:Excess_deaths_and_the_elephant_in_the_room_-_Part_2|Excess deaths and the elephant in the room - Part 2]]<br><br />
Latest wiki: [[Orwell:_The_Freedom_of_the_Press|George Orwell's never published original introduction to Animal Farm]] <br><br />
Latest Fact Checking: [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]] <br> <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
When searching for information on Internet, how do we discern what is fair and well researched information? For an individual it is not doable to sort it all out. <br />
<br />
Search engines serve links to Wikipedia articles near the top of their results, and while the great majority is fine, some of those articles are extremely unreliable or [https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ badly biased]. And when we look for better information, the choice is often between two extremes: unquestioned "mainstream" dogma or "alternative" sites of doubtful and often very poor reliability.<br />
<br />
This website is meant to '''serve as a tool''' for a '''community''' of people who want to be well informed and who may want to contribute sometimes. It's now open for everyone to join. By contributing to a Wiki we can obtain much more while spending less time individually. <br />
<br />
* The focus is on our own '''research-based [[Wiki|wiki]]''', '''correcting''' selected '''Wikipedia articles'''. Categories:<br />
** '''[[Fact Checking websites]]''' - existing fact checking sites<br />
** '''Current affairs''' - debated topics that are in the news<br />
** '''Society''' - still relevant topics that have been in the news (or should have been)<br />
** '''Environment''' - air pollution, pesticides etc. - [[Check:_Effects_of_CO2_emissions_on_nature|Man-made climate change]]<br />
** '''Health''' - medicine, alternative medicine, food supplements etc.<br />
** '''Science''' - history of science, relativity, quantum mechanics etc.<br />
:: (Proposals for topics '''[[InfoCheckers:List_of_possible_topics|here]]''') <span style="color:#14866d"> <div style="text-align: right; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> ''Count: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages'' </div> </span><br />
* With a '''[[Special:ArticlesHome|blog]]''' of the administrator to present currently relevant topics <br />
<br />
* With a '''[[Special:WikiForum|discussion forum]]''' about contents creation based on Wikipedia articles and other technical issues of web site management. It has a different skin for an "under the hood" impression.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------<br />
* For updates you can add yourself to the '''[[InfoCheckers:About|mailinglist]]'''<br />
------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
We will introduce a '''new method''' to arrive at a reasonably objective and fair presentation of facts in our Wiki articles.<br><br />
See '''[[Project:Organization and operation]]''', <br />
--------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''In The News''' (or hardly in the news, but should have been):<br />
<br />
Florida court grants investigation of possible wrongdoings of vaccine manufacturers - <br />
https://news.yahoo.com/florida-court-grants-desantis-petition-020233388.html<br />
<br />
After an FOIA request and following litigation, ICAN has obtained a court order obliging the [https://expose-news.com/2022/09/19/ican-obtains-court-order-for-cdc-to-release-v-safe-data/ CDC to release COVID Vaccine Adverse Events Data] obtained in the ‘V-Safe’ Program, with a release start deadline of 30 September.<br />
<br />
Thailand has so far paid $45M over vaccine side-effects according to the [https://www.phnompenhpost.com/international/thailand-pay-45m-over-vaccine-side-effects Phnom Pen Post], as compensation to 12,714 people who developed side-effects after they received Covid-19 vaccines. <br />
<br />
[https://thepulse.one/2022/03/07/researchers-examine-autopsies-of-two-boys-who-died-days-after-covid-vaccine/ Researchers Examine Autopsies of Two Boys Who Died Days After COVID Vaccine]. ' According to the three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners,”The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis.” '<br />
<br />
The antidepressant '''fluvoxamine''' was found to be effective for preventing severe Covid-19 in the clinical "TOGETHER" trial, as [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext published] in the medical journal The Lancet on October 27, 2021. <br><br />
"Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population." Of those patients who followed the protocol, 1 out of 548 died while in the placebo group 12 out of 618 died. The study was stopped early because of its convincing success. This '''should''' have made the headlines.<br />
<br />
The parting government of the USA [https://web.archive.org/web/20210116001621/https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/ revealed that] the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. According to them, 'The CCP has prevented independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who were ill in the fall of 2019. [...] the WIV altered and then removed online records of its work with RaTG13 and other viruses [and ...] engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.'<br />
<br />
<br />
''Old "In The News" topics [[Talk:InfoCheckers | '''here''']]''<br />
-----------------------------<br />
This Intro page is '''[[Special:WikiForum/General_comments_here|open for comments]]'''<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<h3>Short manual [[Short manual|here]]</h3><br />
---------------<br />
<span style="color:#14866d"><div style="text-align: center;>''The Wiki and Forum use cookies for your personal convenience. No third-party cookies. No trackers. No adds.''<br><br />
''Blogs may contain Vimeo videos with their own Vimeo cookies only (no trackers).''</div></span></div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers/sandbox&diff=3227InfoCheckers/sandbox2022-12-31T06:27:24Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]). I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers/sandbox&diff=3226InfoCheckers/sandbox2022-12-31T06:25:11Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220523133447/https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers/sandbox&diff=3225InfoCheckers/sandbox2022-12-31T06:21:51Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here]. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers/sandbox&diff=3224InfoCheckers/sandbox2022-12-31T06:19:05Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was ([https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/is-subject-12312982-the-key-to-proving?s=r here] and [ here]. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers/sandbox&diff=3223InfoCheckers/sandbox2022-12-31T06:06:38Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact - the possible unsafety of at least Pfizer's vaccine was already swept under the rug in the clinical trial.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers/sandbox&diff=3222InfoCheckers/sandbox2022-12-31T05:51:22Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning [[Blog:Covid_vaccinations:_risk-benefit_analysis| my risk/benefit estimations]], one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers/sandbox&diff=3221InfoCheckers/sandbox2022-12-31T05:43:19Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning my risk/benefit estimations, one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-woman-daughter-covid-vaccine-reaction-wheelchair case of a girl] who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers/sandbox&diff=3220InfoCheckers/sandbox2022-12-31T05:06:20Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning my risk/benefit estimations, one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the case of a girl who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was almost suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.</div>Adminhttps://infocheckers.org/index.php?title=InfoCheckers/sandbox&diff=3219InfoCheckers/sandbox2022-12-31T05:04:25Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Pfizer covered up at least one clinical trial death'''<br />
<br />
Concerning my risk/benefit estimations, one little thing that was bugging me was that there were apparently no vaccine related deaths in any of the clinical trials. I had no evidence of misreported deaths, although that would not be surprising in view of the criminal track records of companies like Pfizer. And we already found that Pfizer covered up the case of a girl who ended up in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. <br><br />
<br />
Another thing that remained in the back of my mind was a disagreement in the reported number of deaths in Pfizer's placebo group - according to [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 the main text] there were 4 deaths in the placebo group, but according to the supplementary data p.2607 there were 3 (note that there were zero Covid deaths in either group). It was puzzling to me how such a mistake could occur if they had not messed with the data. <br><br />
Since then, an accusation was made that in Argentina a vaccine death was covered up, but I have no idea how well founded that was. I had no hard evidence of anything. <br />
<br />
But recently it was found, thanks to a FOIA Request as described here:<br><br />
https://thevaultproject.org/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-more-deaths-injuries-ignored-during-covid-vaccine-clinical-trial/ <br><br />
that deep inside the huge pile of documents which the FDA was obliged to release, is a document called [https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf] <br><br />
That document proves that Pfizer concealed a death in the vaccination group. <br />
<br />
I made the following overview, reduced to what I deem data of interest.<br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1007 10071101 - heart attack after 2 months<br><br />
C4591001 1162 11621327 - died 3 days after dose 1, probably due to arteriosclerosis <br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521497 - died in hospital after fainting at home. RECORDED BY PFIZER AS SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL. UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH. NO AUTOPSY. Wrongly omitted from the published report!<br><br />
<br />
'''Reported deaths in Placebo group''' <br><br />
C4591001 1066 10661350 USA <br><br />
C4591001 1081 10811194 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1152 11521085 USA<br><br />
C4591001 1231 12313972 Argentina. History of hypertension. Hemorrhagic stroke 14 days after Dose 2. No autopsy. <br><br />
<br />
Following Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that I can think of is that the reported Argentina placebo group death was in reality in the vaccine group, and there was a slip in the falsification. If so, not one but two deaths were mislabeled.<br />
<br />
Now why would Pfizer cover up one or two deaths? It can't be because of the small and rather balanced numbers before falsification. As a matter of fact, the reported numbers in the main text of their published article (4 deaths in placebo group but only 2 in vaccine group, despite zero due to Covid) caught my attention, it was just not suspicious. <br><br />
The only reason I can think of is that the reporting of any death as possibly vaccine related but not investigated, could have made approval more difficult or complicated. Many billions of dollars were at stake. <br />
<br />
This is much worse than the Boeing 737Max scandal, which also involved a government agency. Among other things, the FDA either overlooked or closed their eyes to an unexplained death in the vaccine group of Pfizer's clinical trial. Note that they [https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine tried to stall] release of the documents by decades, but were [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ forced to deliver].<br />
<br />
So, governments were either lying or simply talking BS when assuring the public that "the vaccines" were safe and effective. Of course, we already knew that but now it's a hard fact.<br />
<br />
I now reckon with most likely one vaccine related death in Pfizer's vaccine trial. That doesn't really change the estimations but increases consisteny.</div>Admin