Science

Alien life is out there, but our theories are probably steering us away from it May 22nd 2020

If we discovered evidence of alien life, would we even realise it? Life on other planets could be so different from what we’re used to that we might not recognise any biological signatures that it produces.

Recent years have seen changes to our theories about what counts as a biosignature and which planets might be habitable, and further turnarounds are inevitable. But the best we can really do is interpret the data we have with our current best theory, not with some future idea we haven’t had yet.

This is a big issue for those involved in the search for extraterrestrial life. As Scott Gaudi of Nasa’s Advisory Council has said: “One thing I am quite sure of, now having spent more than 20 years in this field of exoplanets … expect the unexpected.”

But is it really possible to “expect the unexpected”? Plenty of breakthroughs happen by accident, from the discovery of penicillin to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang. These often reflect a degree of luck on behalf of the researchers involved. When it comes to alien life, is it enough for scientists to assume “we’ll know it when we see it”?

Many results seem to tell us that expecting the unexpected is extraordinarily difficult. “We often miss what we don’t expect to see,” according to cognitive psychologist Daniel Simons, famous for his work on inattentional blindness. His experiments have shown how people can miss a gorilla banging its chest in front of their eyes. Similar experiments also show how blind we are to non-standard playing cards such as a black four of hearts. In the former case, we miss the gorilla if our attention is sufficiently occupied. In the latter, we miss the anomaly because we have strong prior expectations.

There are also plenty of relevant examples in the history of science. Philosophers describe this sort of phenomenon as “theory-ladenness of observation”. What we notice depends, quite heavily sometimes, on our theories, concepts, background beliefs and prior expectations. Even more commonly, what we take to be significant can be biased in this way.

For example, when scientists first found evidence of low amounts of ozone in the atmosphere above Antarctica, they initially dismissed it as bad data. With no prior theoretical reason to expect a hole, the scientists ruled it out in advance. Thankfully, they were minded to double check, and the discovery was made.

More than 200,000 stars captured in one small section of the sky by Nasa’s TESS mission. Nasa

Could a similar thing happen in the search for extraterrestrial life? Scientists studying planets in other solar systems (exoplanets) are overwhelmed by the abundance of possible observation targets competing for their attention. In the last 10 years scientists have identified more than 3,650 planets – more than one a day. And with missions such as NASA’s TESS exoplanet hunter this trend will continue.

Each and every new exoplanet is rich in physical and chemical complexity. It is all too easy to imagine a case where scientists do not double check a target that is flagged as “lacking significance”, but whose great significance would be recognised on closer analysis or with a non-standard theoretical approach.

The Müller-Lyer optical illusion. Fibonacci/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA

However, we shouldn’t exaggerate the theory-ladenness of observation. In the Müller-Lyer illusion, a line ending in arrowheads pointing outwards appears shorter than an equally long line with arrowheads pointing inwards. Yet even when we know for sure that the two lines are the same length, our perception is unaffected and the illusion remains. Similarly, a sharp-eyed scientist might notice something in her data that her theory tells her she should not be seeing. And if just one scientist sees something important, pretty soon every scientist in the field will know about it.

History also shows that scientists are able to notice surprising phenomena, even biased scientists who have a pet theory that doesn’t fit the phenomena. The 19th-century physicist David Brewster incorrectly believed that light is made up of particles travelling in a straight line. But this didn’t affect his observations of numerous phenomena related to light, such as what’s known as birefringence in bodies under stress. Sometimes observation is definitely not theory-laden, at least not in a way that seriously affects scientific discovery.

We need to be open-minded

Certainly, scientists can’t proceed by just observing. Scientific observation needs to be directed somehow. But at the same time, if we are to “expect the unexpected”, we can’t allow theory to heavily influence what we observe, and what counts as significant. We need to remain open-minded, encouraging exploration of the phenomena in the style of Brewster and similar scholars of the past.

Studying the universe largely unshackled from theory is not only a legitimate scientific endeavour – it’s a crucial one. The tendency to describe exploratory science disparagingly as “fishing expeditions” is likely to harm scientific progress. Under-explored areas need exploring, and we can’t know in advance what we will find.

In the search for extraterrestrial life, scientists must be thoroughly open-minded. And this means a certain amount of encouragement for non-mainstream ideas and techniques. Examples from past science (including very recent ones) show that non-mainstream ideas can sometimes be strongly held back. Space agencies such as NASA must learn from such cases if they truly believe that, in the search for alien life, we should “expect the unexpected”.

Could invisible aliens really exist among us? An astrobiologist explains . May 22nd 2020

Life is pretty easy to recognise. It moves, it grows, it eats, it excretes, it reproduces. Simple. In biology, researchers often use the acronym “MRSGREN” to describe it. It stands for movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition.

But Helen Sharman, Britain’s first astronaut and a chemist at Imperial College London, recently said that alien lifeforms that are impossible to spot may be living among us. How could that be possible?

While life may be easy to recognise, it’s actually notoriously difficult to define and has had scientists and philosophers in debate for centuries – if not millennia. For example, a 3D printer can reproduce itself, but we wouldn’t call it alive. On the other hand, a mule is famously sterile, but we would never say it doesn’t live.

As nobody can agree, there are more than 100 definitions of what life is. An alternative (but imperfect) approach is describing life as “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”, which works for many cases we want to describe.

The lack of definition is a huge problem when it comes to searching for life in space. Not being able to define life other than “we’ll know it when we see it” means we are truly limiting ourselves to geocentric, possibly even anthropocentric, ideas of what life looks like. When we think about aliens, we often picture a humanoid creature. But the intelligent life we are searching for doesn’t have to be humanoid.

Life, but not as we know it

Sharman says she believes aliens exist and “there’s no two ways about it”. Furthermore, she wonders: “Will they be like you and me, made up of carbon and nitrogen? Maybe not. It’s possible they’re here right now and we simply can’t see them.”

Such life would exist in a “shadow biosphere”. By that, I don’t mean a ghost realm, but undiscovered creatures probably with a different biochemistry. This means we can’t study or even notice them because they are outside of our comprehension. Assuming it exists, such a shadow biosphere would probably be microscopic.

So why haven’t we found it? We have limited ways of studying the microscopic world as only a small percentage of microbes can be cultured in a lab. This may mean that there could indeed be many lifeforms we haven’t yet spotted. We do now have the ability to sequence the DNA of unculturable strains of microbes, but this can only detect life as we know it – that contain DNA.

If we find such a biosphere, however, it is unclear whether we should call it alien. That depends on whether we mean “of extraterrestrial origin” or simply “unfamiliar”.

Silicon-based life

A popular suggestion for an alternative biochemistry is one based on silicon rather than carbon. It makes sense, even from a geocentric point of view. Around 90% of the Earth is made up of silicon, iron, magnesium and oxygen, which means there’s lots to go around for building potential life.

Artist’s impression of a silicon-based life form. Zita

Silicon is similar to carbon, it has four electrons available for creating bonds with other atoms. But silicon is heavier, with 14 protons (protons make up the atomic nucleus with neutrons) compared to the six in the carbon nucleus. While carbon can create strong double and triple bonds to form long chains useful for many functions, such as building cell walls, it is much harder for silicon. It struggles to create strong bonds, so long-chain molecules are much less stable.

What’s more, common silicon compounds, such as silicon dioxide (or silica), are generally solid at terrestrial temperatures and insoluble in water. Compare this to highly soluble carbon dioxide, for example, and we see that carbon is more flexible and provides many more molecular possibilities.

Life on Earth is fundamentally different from the bulk composition of the Earth. Another argument against a silicon-based shadow biosphere is that too much silicon is locked up in rocks. In fact, the chemical composition of life on Earth has an approximate correlation with the chemical composition of the sun, with 98% of atoms in biology consisting of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. So if there were viable silicon lifeforms here, they may have evolved elsewhere.

That said, there are arguments in favour of silicon-based life on Earth. Nature is adaptable. A few years ago, scientists at Caltech managed to breed a bacterial protein that created bonds with silicon – essentially bringing silicon to life. So even though silicon is inflexible compared with carbon, it could perhaps find ways to assemble into living organisms, potentially including carbon.

And when it comes to other places in space, such as Saturn’s moon Titan or planets orbiting other stars, we certainly can’t rule out the possibility of silicon-based life.

To find it, we have to somehow think outside of the terrestrial biology box and figure out ways of recognising lifeforms that are fundamentally different from the carbon-based form. There are plenty of experiments testing out these alternative biochemistries, such as the one from Caltech.

Regardless of the belief held by many that life exists elsewhere in the universe, we have no evidence for that. So it is important to consider all life as precious, no matter its size, quantity or location. The Earth supports the only known life in the universe. So no matter what form life elsewhere in the solar system or universe may take, we have to make sure we protect it from harmful contamination – whether it is terrestrial life or alien lifeforms.


Read more: Elon Musk’s Starship may be more moral catastrophe than bold step in space exploration


So could aliens be among us? I don’t believe that we have been visited by a life form with the technology to travel across the vast distances of space. But we do have evidence for life-forming, carbon-based molecules having arrived on Earth on meteorites, so the evidence certainly doesn’t rule out the same possibility for more unfamiliar life forms.

Project HAARP: Is The US Controlling The Weather? – YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=InoHOvYXJ0Q

23/07/2013 · Project HAARP: US Weather Control? A secretive government radio energy experiment in Alaska, with the potential to control the weather or a simple scientific experiment?

The Science of Corona Spread according to Neil Ferguson et al of Imperial College London Posted May 14th 2020

Note this report is about spread and guesswork as to the nature and structure OF Corona with particular regard to mutation and effects of the Corona Virus. It is about a maths model of predicted spread, and rate of spread, with R representing the reinfection rate. R at 1 means each person with Corona can be expected or predicted to infect one other person who will go on to infect one other etc.

What Ferguson does know for certain as a bassis for his modelling is is that the virtually privatised, asset stripped debt loaded poorly equiped run down and management top heavy NHS will fail massively especially in densely populated urban areas of high ethnic diversity, religious bigotry, poverty and squalor

He also knows that a privatised very expensive profit based care homes will fail hideously, so those already close to natural death, especially if they have previous health conditions will die sooner with corona, which given the squalor of the homes will make sure they get it.

So operation smokescreen needs the Ferguson maths to justify putting key at risk voters’ peace of mind above the wider national interest – to hell with the young, scare them to death, blind them with science like the following report which they won’t understand, upon which there will be further analysis and comment here soon.

On the wider scene, Britain has been a massively malign influence on Europe, the U.S and beyond, so Ferguson must factor in no limit to borders, air traffic or illegal immigrants. Though he clearly did not believe his own advice because he broke it at least twice for sexual contact with a married mother.

The maths of his assessment for his affair with a married woman here was simple : M + F = S where M represents male F represents female and S represents sex. But we do not need algebra to explain the obvious anymore than we need what is below, from Fergusoon’s 14 page report.

We might also consider that M + F , because of other human factors/variables, could equal D where D reresents divorce, or MB where MB represents Male Bankruptcy or a number of other possibilities.

But for Ferguson, operation smokescreen, blinding people with science, has only one possibility, LOCKDOWN because that is what the government wanted, the media wanted it and now a lot of workers want it, especially teachers who do not want to go back to work. Britain is ridiculing and patronising European countries for doing the sensible thing and easing out of lockdown. People with brains should fear the British elite more than Europe’s.

Public sector workers are paid to stay at home. Furloughed private sector workers are going to be bankrolled by the taxpaper the Chancellor said so. Lockdown is costing £14 billion a day. Imagine if all that money had been invested in an NHS fit to cope with all the illegal and legal mass of third world immigrants and an ageing population. But moron politicians are always economical with the truth, out to feed their own egos and winging it.

As an ex maths teacher, I could convert all of this into alegbra and probable outcomes. British people are more likely to belive what they can’t understand which is why so many still believe in God. So if God made everything, then God made ‘the science’ so it must be true

It is not is necessary to tell us that if someone catches a cold it is an airborne virus which will spread to anyone in its path, the poorly and old being vulnerable to a cold turning fatal. That is the reality of Corona.

Ferguson made his report on the basis of probability, some limits to the masses, regardless of the damage caused long term, because he got paid, would look good and enhance his and pompous Imperial College’s reputation.

Robert Cook

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 1 of 14

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 1 of 14 Report 4: Severity of 2019-novel coronavirus (nCoV) Ilaria Dorigatti+ , Lucy Okell+ , Anne Cori, Natsuko Imai , Marc Baguelin, Sangeeta Bhatia, Adhiratha Boonyasiri, Zulma Cucunubá, Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg, Rich FitzJohn, Han Fu, Katy Gaythorpe , Arran Hamlet, Wes Hinsley, Nan Hong , Min Kwun, Daniel Laydon, Gemma Nedjati-Gilani, Steven Riley, Sabine van Elsland, Erik Volz, Haowei Wang, Raymond Wang, Caroline Walters , Xiaoyue Xi, Christl Donnelly, Azra Ghani, Neil Ferguson*. With support from other volunteers from the MRC Centre.1 WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA) Imperial College London *Correspondence: neil.ferguson@imperial.ac.uk 1 See full list at end of document. +These two authors contributed equally. Summary We present case fatality ratio (CFR) estimates for three strata of 2019-nCoV infections. For cases detected in Hubei, we estimate the CFR to be 18% (95% credible interval: 11%-81%). For cases detected in travellers outside mainland China, we obtain central estimates of the CFR in the range 1.2- 5.6% depending on the statistical methods, with substantial uncertainty around these central values. Using estimates of underlying infection prevalence in Wuhan at the end of January derived from testing of passengers on repatriation flights to Japan and Germany, we adjusted the estimates of CFR from either the early epidemic in Hubei Province, or from cases reported outside mainland China, to obtain estimates of the overall CFR in all infections (asymptomatic or symptomatic) of approximately 1% (95% confidence interval 0.5%-4%). It is important to note that the differences in these estimates does not reflect underlying differences in disease severity between countries. CFRs seen in individual countries will vary depending on the sensitivity of different surveillance systems to detect cases of differing levels of severity and the clinical care offered to severely ill cases. All CFR estimates should be viewed cautiously at the current time as the sensitivity of surveillance of both deaths and cases in mainland China is unclear. Furthermore, all estimates rely on limited data on the typical time intervals from symptom onset to death or recovery which influences the CFR estimates.

Report 4: Severity of 2019-novel coronavirus (nCoV) 1

WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling

MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis

Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA)

Imperial College London

*

Correspondence: neil.ferguson@imperial.ac.uk

1 Summary

We present case fatality ratio (CFR) estimates for three strata of 2019-nCoV infections. For cases

detected in Hubei, we estimate the CFR to be 18% (95% credible interval: 11%-81%). For cases

detected in travellers outside mainland China, we obtain central estimates of the CFR in the range 1.2-

5.6% depending on the statistical methods, with substantial uncertainty around these central values.

Using estimates of underlying infection prevalence in Wuhan at the end of January derived from

testing of passengers on repatriation flights to Japan and Germany, we adjusted the estimates of CFR

from either the early epidemic in Hubei Province, or from cases reported outside mainland China, to

obtain estimates of the overall CFR in all infections (asymptomatic or symptomatic) of approximately

1% (95% confidence interval 0.5%-4%). It is important to note that the differences in these estimates

does not reflect underlying differences in disease severity between countries. CFRs seen in individual

countries will vary depending on the sensitivity of different surveillance systems to detect cases of

differing levels of severity and the clinical care offered to severely ill cases. All CFR estimates should

be viewed cautiously at the current time as the sensitivity of surveillance of both deaths and cases in

mainland China is unclear. Furthermore, all estimates rely on limited data on the typical time intervals

from symptom onset to death or recovery which influences the CFR estimates.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Ilaria Dorigatti, Lucy Okell, Anne Cori et al. Severity of 2019-novel coronavirus (nCoV). Imperial College London

(10-02-2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives

4.0 International License.10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 2 of 14

1. Introduction: Challenges in assessing the spectrum of severity

There are two main challenges in assessing the severity of clinical outcomes during an epidemic of a

newly emerging infection:

1. Surveillance is typically biased towards detecting clinically severe cases, particularly at the

start of an epidemic when diagnostic capacity is limited (Figure 1). Estimates of the proportion

of fatal cases (the case fatality ratio, CFR) may thus be biased upwards until the extent of

clinically milder disease is determined [1].

2. There can be a period of two to three weeks between a case developing symptoms,

subsequently being detected and reported and observing the final clinical outcome. During a

growing epidemic the final clinical outcome of the majority of the reported cases is typically

unknown. Dividing the cumulative reported deaths by reported cases will underestimate the

CFR among these cases early in an epidemic [1-3].

Figure 1 illustrates the first challenge. Published data from China suggest that the majority of detected

and reported cases have moderate or severe illness, with atypical pneumonia and/or acute respiratory

distress being used to define suspected cases eligible for testing. In these individuals, clinical outcomes

are likely to be more severe, and hence any estimates of the CFR are likely to be high.

Outside mainland China, countries alert to the risk of infection being imported via international travel

have instituted surveillance for 2019-nCoV infection with a broader set of clinical criteria for defining

a suspected case, typically including a combination of symptoms (e.g. cough + fever) combined with

recent travel history to the affected region (Wuhan and/or Hubei Province). Such surveillance is

therefore likely to pick up clinically milder cases as well as the more severe cases also being detected

in mainland China. However, by restricting testing to those with a travel history or link, it is also likely

to miss other symptomatic cases (and possibly hospitalised cases with atypical pneumonia) that have

occurred through local transmission or through travel to other affected areas of China.

Figure 1: Spectrum of cases for 2019-nCoV, illustrating imputed sensitivity of surveillance in

mainland China and in travellers arriving in other countries or territories from mainland China.10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 3 of 14

Finally, the bottom of the pyramid represents the likely largest population of those infected with

either mild, non-specific symptoms or who are asymptomatic. Quantifying the extent of infection

overall in the population requires random population surveys of infection prevalence. The only such

data at present for 2019-nCoV are the PCR infection prevalence surveys conducted in exposed

expatriates who have recently been repatriated to Japan, Germany and the USA from Wuhan city (see

below).

To obtain estimates of the severity of 2019-nCoV across the full severity range we examined aggregate

data from Hubei Province, China (representing the top two levels – deaths and hospitalised cases – in

Figure 1) and individual-level data from reports of cases outside mainland China (the top three levels

and perhaps part of the fourth level in Figure 1). We also analysed data on infections in repatriated

expatriates returning from Hubei Provence (representing all levels in Figure 1).

2. Current estimates of the case fatality ratio

The CFR is defined as the proportion of cases of a disease who will ultimately die from the disease. For

a given case definition, once all deaths and cases have been ascertained (for example at the end of an

epidemic), this is simply calculated as deaths/cases. However, at the start of the epidemic this ratio

underestimates the true CFR due to the time-lag between onset of symptoms and death [1-3]. We

adopted several approaches to account for this time-lag and to adjust for the unknown final clinical

outcome of the majority of cases reported both inside and outside China (cases reported in mainland

China and those reported outside mainland China) (see Methods section below). We present the range

of resulting CFR estimates in Table 1 for two parts of the case severity pyramid. Note that all estimates

have high uncertainty and therefore point estimates represent a snapshot at the current time and

may change as additional information becomes available. Furthermore, all data sources have inherent

potential biases due to the limits in testing capacity as outlined earlier. 10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 4 of 14

Table 1: Estimates of CFR for two severity ranges: cases reported in mainland China, and those

reported outside. All estimates quoted to two significant figures.

1Mode quoted for Bayesian estimates, given uncertainty in the tail of the onset-to-death distribution. 2Estimates made

without imputing onset dates in traveller cases for whom onset dates are unknown are slightly higher than when onset dates

are imputed. 3Maximum likelihood estimate. 4This estimate relies on information from just 2 deaths reported outside

mainland China thus far and therefore has wide uncertainty. Both of these deaths occurred a relatively short time after onset

compared with the typical pattern in China.

Use of data on those who have recovered among exported cases gives very similar point estimates to

just relying on death data, but a rather narrower uncertainty range. This highlights the value of case

follow-up data on both fatal and non-fatal cases.

Given that the estimates of CFR across all infections rely on a single point estimate of infection

prevalence, they should be treated cautiously. In particular, the sensitivity of the diagnostics used to

test repatriated passengers is not known, and it is unclear when infected people might test positive,

or how representative those passengers were of the general population of Wuhan (their infection risk

might have been higher or lower than the general population). Additional representative studies to

assess the extent of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic infection are therefore urgently needed.

Figure 2 shows projected expected numbers of deaths detected in cases detected up to 4

th

February

outside mainland China over the next few weeks for different values of the CFR. If no further deaths

are reported amongst this group (and indeed if many of those now in hospital recover and are

Severity range Method and data used Time to outcome

distributions used

CFR

China: Epidemic

currently in

Hubei

Parametric model fitted to publicly

reported number of cases and deaths

in Hubei as of 5

th

February, assuming

exponential growth at rate 0.14/day.

Onset-to-death estimated

from 26 deaths in China;

assume 5-day period from

onset to report and 1-day

period from death to report.

18%

1

(95% credible

interval: 11-81%)

Outside mainland

China: cases in

travellers from

mainland China

to other

countries or

territories

(showing a

broader

spectrum of

symptoms than

cases in Hubei,

including milder

disease)

Parametric model fitted to reported

traveller cases up to 8

th

February using

both death and recovery outcomes

and inferring latest possible dates of

onset in traveller cases

2

.

Onset-to-death estimated

from 26 deaths in China;

onset-to-recovery estimated

from 36 cases detected

outside mainland China

4

.

5.1%

3

(95% credible

interval: 1.1%-38%)

Parametric model fitted to reported

traveller cases up to 8

th

February using

only death outcome and inferring

latest possible unreported dates of

onset in traveller cases

2

.

Onset-to-death estimated

from 26 deaths in China.

5.6%

1

(95% credible

interval: 2.0%-85%)

Kaplan-Meier-like non-parametric

model (CASEFAT Stata module [4])

fitted to reported traveller cases up to

8

th

February using both death and

recovery outcomes

2

.

Hazards of death and

recovery estimated as part

of method.

1.2%

3,4

(95% confidence

interval: 0.9%-26%)

All infections

Scaling CFR estimate for Hubei for the

level of infection under-ascertainment

estimated from infection prevalence

detected in repatriation flights,

assuming infected individuals test

positive for 14 days

As first row 0.9%

(95% confidence

interval: 0.5%-4.0%)

As previous row, but assuming

infected individuals test positive for 7

days

As first row 0.8%

(95% confidence

interval: 0.4%-3.0%)0

2

4

6

8

10

12

21/01/2020 26/01/2020 31/01/2020 05/02/2020 10/02/2020 15/02/2020 20/02/2020

E

x

p

e

c

t

e

d

n

u

m

b

e

r

o

f

d

e

a

t

h

s

(

c

u

m

u

la

t

iv

e

)

Date of death

Case Fatality Ratio

1% 3% 5%

7% 9% 11%

Observed

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 5 of 14

discharged) in the next 5 to 10 days, then we expect the upper bound on estimates of the CFR in this

population to reduce. We note that the coming one to two weeks should allow CFR estimates to be

refined.

Figure 2: Projected numbers of deaths in cases detected outside China up to 8

th

February for

different values of the CFR in that population.

3. Methods

A) Intervals between onset of symptoms and outcome

During a growing epidemic, the reported cases are generally identified some time before knowing the

clinical outcome of each case. For example, during the 2003 SARS epidemic, the average time between

onset of symptoms and either death or discharge from hospital was approximately three weeks. To

interpret the relationship between reported cases and deaths, we therefore need to account for this

interval. Two factors need to be considered; a) that we have not observed the full distribution of

outcomes of the reported cases (i.e. censoring) and b) that our sample of cases is from a growing

epidemic and hence more reported cases have been infected recently compared to one to two weeks

ago. The latter effect is frequently ignored in analyses but leads to a downwards biased central

estimate of the CFR. dt t

0

( ) ( ) ( | )

( ‘) ( ‘) ‘

OD d

OD d

OD d

f o t g t

f o t d

t t t

t t t

¥ − =

− ò

ot()

0 ( )

rt

o t o e = 0 o

0

( ) ( | ) .

( ‘) ‘

r

OD

OD d

r

OD

f e g t

f e d

t

t

t t

t t

¥ =

ò

(.) OD g

(.) OD f

min

0

( ) ( | ) .

( ‘) ‘

d

r

OD

OD d t T

r

OD

f e g t

f e d

t

t

t t

t t

− =

ò

( ) OD f t

( | , ) OD f m s t

min

2

2

0

( | / (1 ), ) ( | , ‘, ‘) ,

( ‘ | / (1 ), ) ‘

d

OD

OD d t T

OD

f m rms s g t m s

f m rms s d

t t

t t

− + =

+ ò

2 ‘ , ‘ .

(1 )

m m s s

rms

= =

+

, ( , |{ , }) ( | , , ) ( , ), d OD i d i

i

P m s t g t m s P m s t t µÕ

{ , }d t t P m s ( , )

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 6 of 14

If fOD(.) denotes the probability density function (PDF) of time from symptom onset to death, then the

PDF that we observe a death at time with assumed onset days ago is

,

where denotes the observed number of onsets that occurred at time t. For an exponentially

growing epidemic, we assume that where is the initial number of onsets (at t=0) and

r is the epidemic growth rate. Substituting this, we get

We can therefore fit the distribution to the observed data and correct for the epidemic growth

rate to estimate parameters for , the true distribution for a given estimate of r.

If we additionally assume that onsets were poorly observed prior to time Tmin then we can include

censoring:

For the special case that we model as a gamma distribution parameterised in terms of its

mean m and the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean, s, namely , it can be shown

that

where the transformed mean and standard deviation-to-mean ratios are

Therefore, the Bayesian posterior distribution for m and s (up to a constant factor equal to the total

probability) is proportional to the likelihood (over all intervals):

where the product is over a dataset of observed intervals and times of death and is

the prior distribution for m and s. This is constant for a uniform prior distribution or can be derived,

for instance, by fitting this model to the complete dataset of observed onset-to-death intervals from

previous epidemics (e.g. in this case the 2003 SARS epidemic in Hong Kong). Note that for a fully (.) OR f

(.) OD f

(.) OR f

(.) OD f

(.) OR f

dt ot

( )

1

| , , ( ) .

d o

d o

t t

d d o OD OD OD

t t

p t t c m s c f d t t

− +

− = ò

rt ot

( )

1

| , , (1 ) ( ) .

d o

d o

t t

r r o OR OR OR

t t

p t t c m s c f d t t

− +

− = − ò

, m s OD OD

, m s OR OR

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 7 of 14

observed epidemic, it is not necessary to account for epidemic growth provided there was no change

in clinical management (and thus the interval distribution) over time.

We can infer other interval distributions such as the onset-to-recovery distribution, (but also

the serial interval distribution and incubation period distribution) in a similar manner, given relevant

data on the timing of events. It should be noted that inferring all such interval distributions needs to

take account of epidemic growth.

For the analyses presented here, we fitted to data from 26 deaths from 2019-nCoV reported

in mainland China early in the epidemic and we fitted to 29 cases detected outside mainland

China. Uninformative uniform prior distributions were used for both.

The estimates of key parameters are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Estimates of parameters for onset-to-death and onset-to-recovery distributions

Distribution Data Source mean (mode, 95%

credible interval)

SD/mean (mode, 95%

credible interval)

Onset-to-recovery 29 2019-CoV cases

detected outside

mainland China

22.2 days (18-83) 0.45 (0.35-0.62)

Onset-to-death 26 2019-nCoV deaths

from mainland China

22.3 days (18-82) 0.42 (0.33-0.6)

B) Estimates of the Case Fatality Ratio from individual case data

Parametric models

We can infer the CFR from individual data on dates of symptom onset, death and recovery. Continuing

our notation from above, let denote the distribution of times from symptom onset to death,

denote the distribution of times from onset to recovery, and c denote the CFR.

The probability that a patient dies on day given onset at time , conditional on survival to that

time is given by:

Similarly, the probability that a patient recovers on day , given onset at time ,is given by:

Here are the mean and standard deviation-to-mean ratio for the onset-to-death

distribution, and are those for the onset-to-recovery distribution.( | , , , , (1 ) ( ) ( ) . ) o o

h o OD OD OR OR OR OD

T t T t

p T t c m s m s c f d c f d t t t t

¥ ¥

− −

− = − + ò ò

( , , , , , ) ( ) ( ) {dead by } {recovered by } {hospitalised at }

( , , | , , , , , )

| , , , | , , , | , , , , ,

OD OD OR OR

d d i o i OD OD r r i o i OR OR h i o i OD OD OR OR

i T i T i T

P T c m s m s

p t t c m s p t t c m s p T t c m s m s

Î Î Î

=

Õ Õ Õ

d r o t t t

( , , , ) ( ) {dead by } {not dead at }

( , , | , , , ) | , , , | , , , , , OD OD d d i o i OD OD h o i OD OD OR OR

i T i T

P T c m s p t t c m s p T t c m s m s

Î Î

t t t d r o = Õ Õ

old old

( | , , , )

( , , | , , , , , ) ( , |{ , } ) ( , |{ , } ) ( ) d OD OD OR OR OR OR OD OD OD OD OR OR

P c T

P T c m s m s P m s P m s P c m ds dm ds t t

µ

ò

d r o

d r o d d

t t t

t t t t t

old ( , |{ , } ) P m s OD OD t dt

old { , } t dt

old ( , |{ , } ) P m s OR OR r t t

, , , , OD OD OR OR c m s m s

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 8 of 14

Finally, the probability that a patient remains in hospital at the last date for which data are available,

T, is

The overall likelihood of all observed deaths, recoveries and cases remaining in hospital is

It is also possible to infer c from data just on deaths and ‘non-deaths’, grouping the currently

hospitalised and recoveries together:

In a Bayesian context, the posterior distribution is given by

where is the prior distribution for the onset-to-death distribution obtained by

fitting to previous epidemics (e.g. in this case the 2003 SARS epidemic in Hong Kong) , and

is the comparable prior distribution for time from onset to recovery.

We assumed gamma-distributed onset-to-death and onset-to-recovery distributions (see above).

We fitted this model to the observed onset, recovery and death times in 290 international travellers

from mainland China reported up to 8

th

February. For approximately 50% of these travellers, the date

of onset was not reported. To allow us to fit the model to all cases, for those travellers we imputed an

estimate of the onset date as the first known contact with healthcare services – taken as the earliest

of the date of hospitalisation, date of report or date of confirmation. We note this is the latest possible

onset date and may therefore increase our estimates of CFR.

We also fitted a variant of this model where recoveries were ignored, given that they may be

systematically under-ascertained and hence introduce a bias in the estimate.

Posterior distributions were calculated numerically on a hypercube grid of the parameters to be

inferred ( ). Marginal distributions were computed for c.(.) OD f

Dt() Ct()

(.) OD f

0

( ) ( ) ( ) D t c C t f d OD t t t

¥

= − ò

0 C t C rt ( ) exp( ) =

0

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

r

D t cC t f e d czC t OD

t

t t

¥

= = ò

0

( )

r

OD z f e d

t

t t

¥

= ò

(.) OD f

( )

2

1/ 2

1 ( , , )

1

s z r m s

rms

=

+

Dt() Ct()

Ct()

c m, s

c

( )

( | ( ), ( ), , ) ( ( , , ) ( )) exp( ( , , ) ( )) ( , ) ( )

D t

P c C t D t m s cz r m s C t cz r m s C t P m s P c µ −

P c( ) c P m s ( , )

(.) OD f

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 9 of 14

Kaplan-Meier-like non-parametric model

We used a non-parametric Kaplan-Meier-like method originally developed and applied to the 2003

SARS epidemic in Hong Kong [2]. The analysis was implemented using the CASEFAT Stata Module [4].

C) Estimates of the Case Fatality Ratio from aggregated case data

With posterior estimates of derived from case data collected in the early epidemic in Wuhan,

it is possible to estimate the CFR from daily reports of confirmed cases and deaths in China, under the

assumption that the daily new incidence figures reported represent recent deaths and cases.

Let the incidence of deaths and onsets (newly symptomatic cases at time t be and ,

respectively. Given knowledge of the onset-to-death distribution, , the expected number of

deaths at time t is given by

Assuming cases are growing exponentially as , we have

where

Assuming a gamma distribution form for , and parameterising as above in terms of the mean

and the standard deviation-to-mean ratio, m and s, respectively, one can show that z is:

Thus we assumed the probability of observing deaths given at time t is a binomial draw

from with probability cz. The term z is a downscaling of the actual CFR, c, to reflect epidemic

growth. Heuristically, if the mean onset-to-death interval is 20 days, and the doubling time of the

epidemic is, say, 5 days, then deaths now correspond to onsets occurring when incidence of cases was

2

4

=16 fold smaller than today, meaning the crudely estimated CFR (cumulative deaths/ cumulative

cases) needs to be scaled up by the same factor.

Ignoring constant terms in the binomial probability not involving or , the posterior distribution

for is:

where is the prior distribution on (assumed uniform) and is the prior distribution

on the onset-to-death distribution, , which we took to be the posterior distribution obtained r = 0.14 / day

r

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 10 of 14

by fitting to observed onset-to-death distribution for 26 cases in the early epidemic in Wuhan, itself

fitted with a prior distribution based on SARS data (see above).

The official case reports do not give dates of symptom onset or death, so we assumed that deaths

were reported 4 days more promptly than onsets, given the delays in healthcare seeking and testing

involved in confirming new cases, versus the follow-up and recording of deaths of the cases already

in the database. Assuming this difference in reporting delays is longer than 4 days results in lower

estimates of the CFR, while assuming the difference is shorter than 4 days gives higher estimates.

Thus, we compared 45 new deaths reported on 1

st

February with 3156 new cases reported on 5

th

February.

In addition, while both cases and deaths were growing approximately exponentially in the 10 days

prior to 5

th

February, the numbers of cases have been growing faster than deaths. We assumed this

reflects improved surveillance of milder cases over time, and thus used an estimate of the growth

rate in deaths of , corresponding to a 5-day doubling time. Assuming a higher value of

gives a higher estimate of the CFR.

Resulting estimates of the CFR showed little variation if calculated for each of the 7 days prior to 5

th

February.

D) Translating prevalence to incidence and estimating a CFR for all infections

Translating the severity estimates in ( ) ( ) /

n l

l

y t C t d N t t

= − ò

0 C t C rt ( ) exp( ) =

y t C t l rn N ( ) ( ) 1 exp( ) / = + − − [ ]

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 11 of 14

Table 1 into estimates of CFR for all cases of infection with 2019-nCoV requires knowledge of the

proportion of all infections being detected in either China or overseas. To do so we use a single point

estimate of prevalence of infection from the testing of all passengers returning on four repatriation

flights to Japan and Germany in the period 29

th

January – 1

st

February. Infection was detected in

passengers from each flight. In total 10 infections were confirmed in approximately 750 passengers

(passenger numbers are known for 3 flights and were estimated to be ~200 for the fourth). This gives

an estimate of detectable infection prevalence of 1.3% (exact 95% binomial confidence interval: 0.7%-

2.4%).

Let us assume infected individuals test positive by PCR to 2019-nCoV infection from l days before onset

of clinical symptoms to n-l days after. Then the infection prevalence at time t, y(t) is related to the

incidence of new cases, C(t) by:

Here N is the population of the area sampled (here assumed to be Wuhan). Assuming incidence is

growing as , with r=0.14/day (5-day doubling time), this gives

Here we assume l=1 day and examine n=7 and 14 days.

Thus we estimated a daily incidence estimate of 220 (95% confidence interval: 120-400) case onsets

per day per 100,000 of population in Wuhan on 31

st

January assuming infections are detectable for 14

days, and 300 (95% confidence interval: 160-550) case onsets per day per 100,000 assuming infections

are detectable for 7 days. Taking the 11 million population of Wuhan city, this implied a total of 24,000

(95% confidence interval: 13,000-44,000) case onsets in the city on that date assuming infections are

detectable for 14 days, and 33,000 (95% confidence interval: 18,000-60,000) assuming infections are

detectable for 7 days. It should be noted that a number of the detected infections on the repatriation

flights were asymptomatic (at least at the time of testing), therefore these total estimates of incidence

might include a proportion of very mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic cases.

Assuming an average 4 days

1

between the onset of symptoms and case report in Wuhan City, the

above estimates can be compared with the 1242 reported confirmed cases on 3

rd

February in Wuhan

City [5]. This implies 19-fold (95% confidence interval: 11-35) under-ascertainment of infections in

Wuhan assuming infections are detectable for 14 days (including from 1 day prior to symptoms), and

26-fold (95% confidence interval: 15-48) assuming infections are detectable for 7 days (including 1 day

prior to symptoms).

Under the assumption that all 2019-nCoV deaths are being reported in Wuhan city, we can then divide

our estimates of CFR in China by these under-ascertainment factors. Taking our 18% CFR among cases

in Hubei (first row of Table 1), this implies a CFR among all infections of 0.9% (95% confidence interval:

0.5%-4.3%) assuming infections are detectable via PCR for 14 days, and 0.8% (95% confidence interval:

0.4%-3.1%) assuming infections are detectable for 7 days.

1

This value is plausible from publicly available case reports. Longer durations between onset of symptoms and

report will lead to higher estimates of the degree of under-ascertainment. ( ) travellers o t

max t T £ Tmax

( , , ) OD f m s t

Dt()

0

( ) ( ) ( ) D t c o t f d travellers OD t t t

¥

= − ò

10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 12 of 14

Similar estimates are obtained if one uses estimates of CFR in exported cases as the comparator: we

estimate that surveillance outside mainland China is approximately 4 to 5-fold more sensitive at

detecting cases than that in China.

E) Forward Projections of Expected Deaths in Travellers

Using our previous notation, let denote the onsets in travellers from mainland China at time

where is the most recent time (8

th

February in this analysis). Using our central estimate

of the onset-to-death interval obtained from the 26 deaths in mainland China, , we obtain

an estimate of the expected number of deaths occurring at time t, from:

where c is the CFR.

4. Data Sources

A) Data on early deaths from mainland China

Data on the characteristics of 39 cases who died from 2019-nCoV infection in Hubei Province were

collated from several websites. Of these, the date of onset of symptoms was not available for 5 cases.

We restricted our analysis to those who died up to 21

st

January leaving 26 deaths for analysis. These

data are available from website as hubei_early_deaths_2020_07_02.csv

B) Data on cases in international travellers

We collated data on 290 cases in international travellers from websites and media reports up to 8

th

February. These data are available from website as international_cases_2020_08_02.csv

C) Data on infection in repatriated international Wuhan residents

Data on infection prevalence in repatriated expatriates returning to their home countries were

obtained from media reports. These data are summarised in Table 3. Further data from a flight

returning to Malaysia reported two positive cases on 5

th

February – giving a prevalence at this time

point of 2% which remains consistent with our estimate.

Table 3: Data on confirmed infections in passengers on repatriation flights from Wuhan.

Country of

Destination

Number of

Passengers

Number

Confirmed

Number

Confirmed

who were

Symptomatic

Number

Confirmed

who were

Asymptomatic

1 Japan 206 4 2 2

2 Japan 210 2 0 2

3 Japan Not reported –

assume 200

2 1 1

4 Germany 124 2 – –

5* Malaysia 207 2 0 210 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 13 of 14

*Not used in our analysis but noted here for completeness.

5. Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the following hackathon participants from the MRC Centre for Global Infectious

Disease Analysis for their support in extracting data: Kylie Ainsile, Lorenzo Cattarino, Giovanni Charles,

Georgina Charnley, Paula Christen, Victoria Cox, Zulma Cucunubá, Joshua D’Aeth, Tamsin Dewé, Amy

Dighe, Lorna Dunning, Oliver Eales, Keith Fraser, Katy Gaythorpe, Lily Geidelberg, Will Green,

David Jørgensen, Mara Kont, Alice Ledda, Alessandra Lochen, Tara Mangal, Ruth McCabe, Kate

Mitchell, Andria Mousa, Rebecca Nash, Daniela Olivera, Saskia Ricks, Nora Schmit, Ellie Sherrard

Smith, Janetta Skarp, Isaac Stopard, Hayley Thompson, Juliette Unwin, Juan Vesga, Caroline Walters. 10 February 2020 Imperial College London COVID-19 Response Team

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77154 Page 14 of 14

6. References

1. Garske, T., et al., Assessing the severity of the novel influenza A/H1N1 pandemic. BMJ, 2009.

339: p. b2840.

2. Ghani, A.C., et al., Methods for estimating the case fatality ratio for a novel, emerging

infectious disease. Am J Epidemiol, 2005. 162(5): p. 479-86.

3. Lipsitch, M., et al., Potential Biases in Estimating Absolute and Relative Case-Fatality Risks

during Outbreaks. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 2015. 9(7): p. e0003846.

4. Griffin, J. and A. Ghani, CASEFAT: Stata module for estimating the case fatality ratio of a new

infectious disease. Statistical Software Components, 2005. S454601.

5. People’s Republic of China. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China.

39:27 Now playing The Future of Humanity | Michio Kaku | Talks at Google Talks at Google

Visit Ancieny Code Website /www.ancient-code.com

Ancient Code

Ancient Code Community Compose

Ancient Code
Ancient Code

NASA accidentally shows proof of Large-Scale Weather Manipulation in satellite…

Post Pagination

  1. Home
  2. Conspiracy
  3. NASA accidentally shows proof of Large-Scale Weather Manipulation in satellite images

3 years ago 2 years ago

Conspiracy, Unexplained

NASA accidentally shows proof of Large-Scale Weather Manipulation in satellite images


Janice Friedman

by Janice Friedman 10.2kviews

Is this a massive conspiracy? Or is it possible that NASA really is playing around with our weather on Earth?

Many people would most likely agree we are looking at a massive conspiracy, while others believe the evidence is right in front of us.

This year’s Caribbean hurricane season has turned ‘weather’ into a dominant subject in the world.

Catastrophic damage has been witnessed in the Caribbean, where entire Islands were swept away by the incredible power of mother nature. However, is this just mother nature’s work, or is there something ELSE going on?

For decades have ‘conspiracy theories’ about weather control circulated the internet, and rumors of weather control by the government have become ever so popular.

What was considered as an impossible feat, today is possible thanks to decade-long geoengineering efforts that have given us the ability to control the weather: resulting in a two-way street that can destroy our planet as much as it can help.

Climate engineering commonly referred to as geoengineering, also known as climate intervention, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of affecting adverse global warming.

So where is that EVIDENCE? Where can I see with my own eyes that our weather is actually being manipulated?

Well, see for yourself.

Located just off the coast of Africa. Changing the weather has become a reality fro humanity, but it seems that we arent really able to control it, are we?
Just off the coast of Australia, this images shows how bad it can get. The above image, perfectly explain what Dane Wigington, writing for Wakeup-World, and Davide Wolfe describes as “many variances of radio frequency cloud impacts”
This images shows the coast of California. Maybe its time to stop weather modification projects before we mess up Earth’s climate for good.
Off Africa’s west coast. Are we in danger to lose control?
Another image from Africa’s west coast.
Weather control off the coast of Spain. We are changing the weather, and its not for the good of the human population.
Here is another image off the African coast.

Africa’s coastal regions are a hot zone for weather geoengineering efforts even though they are referred to by mainstream media as nothing more than the result of “dust” in the air, notes Dane Wigington who quotes an excerpt from a Fox9 News article:

“Right now, much of the Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Caribbean have slightly warmer than normal ocean temperatures which would normally aid in tropical development.

“But there is so much dust and dry air in the atmosphere that storms are getting choked off before they even get started.”

Over One Million Plants and Animals Could Soon Be ExtinctNASA Simulation of Asteroid Hitting NY Predicts Mass DestructionFirst Image of a Blackhole Is Captured by AstronomersNow PlayingScientists Successfully 3D-Prints Heart From Human CellsElon Musk’s Starship Is Coming Together — And New Images Reveal What It Will Look Like1:33Russian Scientists Warn A Massive Asteroid Could Strike Earth In 20681:20AI Tech Can Identify Genetic Disorders From a Person’s Face1:02Green ‘Christmas Comet’ Is Visible This Month1:00Harvard Astronomer Still Believes ‘Oumuamua May Have Been An Alien Space Probe1:23NASA’s Spacecraft Beams Back Image Of Farthest Object Ever Visited By Mankind1:20Powered by

Dane indicates how radio frequency transmissions can alter cloud formations, and that its the result of the“spraying of toxic electrically conductive heavy metals”. Now take a wild guess and imagine everything we breathe.
Is HAARP really responsible for weather changes? In this next image, Dane clearly points out that the enigmatic set of clouds formed near a HAARP Station, which eventually generated the unique looking cloud patterns.

Comments are closed.

DON’T MISS

Advertise Here

© 2020 All Rights Reserved. Copyright Ancient Code.

Why a coronavirus vaccine could take years – and may not be possible at all

By Paul Nuki, Global Health Security Editor, London 5 May 2020 • 10:19am

An increasing number of scientists are warning that finding an effective jab may take much longer than 18 months

There was good news and bad news on the hunt for a vaccine on Monday.

The good news is that nations are coming together and starting to move forward as one, not just in the search for a vaccine, but across the full gamut of technological innovations – including treatment and diagnostics – that hold promise in the fight against the virus.

At a virtual conference, co-hosted by the UK, representatives from countries across the globe came together to pledge funds and agree in principle that the innovations which result should be shared “equitably” around the world.

A total of €7.5 billion was raised from over 40 countries. And – perhaps most significantly – China made a surprise appearance, pledging funds and saying it too would share its technology. 

“Panic and blame games are not useful at all”, said its ambassador to the EU. “It is our conviction that together we can rise to the challenge and prevail.”

Of the major world players, only America, India and Russia were missing in action at yesterday’s event. Russia probably has little to add. India, as a major manufacturer of vaccines, maybe keeping its powder dry for the negotiations ahead. And there were tentative signs America may yet join the global flight.

He is never easy to judge, but during a Fox News broadcast on Sunday evening, President Donald Trump seemed to have twigged that ‘vaccine nationalism’ may not be the most sensible game to play before you know what cards you have been dealt.

Asked if he thought another country could beat the US to finding a vaccine, he said: “I’m now going to say something that is not like me . . . I don’t care, I just want to get a vaccine that works. If it’s another country I’ll take my hat off to them . . . We’re working with other countries, we’re working with Australia, we’re working with UK.”

The bad news on the vaccine front is that an increasing number of scientists are warning that finding an effective jab may take much longer than the year to 18 months people have been talking about. You can call them kill-joys – and many have – but the truth is they have a point.

Similarly optimistic positions were taken in the early days of the HIV pandemic and now – more than 30 years later – there is still no vaccine. Even the jabs we have for influenza are seasonal and only partially effective. 

In fact, the mumps vaccine – considered to be the fastest ever approved in 1967 – took four years to go from collecting viral samples to licensing a working drug. 

David States, chief medical officer of the US health technology company Angstrom Bio, spelt out the challenges in a powerful thread on Twitter last week. 

If you’re hoping a vaccine is going to be a knight in shining armor saving the day, you may be in for a disappointment. SARSCOV2 is a highly contagious virus. A vaccine will need to induce durable high level immunity, but coronaviruses often don’t induce that kind of immunity 1/— David States (@statesdj) April 21, 2020

“If you’re hoping a vaccine is going to be a knight in shining armour saving the day, you may be in for a disappointment. Sars-Cov-2 is a highly contagious virus. A vaccine will need to induce durable high level immunity, but coronaviruses often don’t induce that kind of immunity,” he said.

Pointing to a UK study recently released by scientists in Oxford, he noted that the crucial IgG antibodies detected in the blood of British Covid-19 patients appear to fade noticeably after just two months. 

“This is consistent with the other human coronaviruses. They induce an immune response, but it tends to fade so the same virus can reinfect us a year or two later”, said Mr States.

Coronaviruses have for a long time caused pneumonia in farm animals including chicken, pigs and cattle but here too vaccines have proved largely ineffective to date.

“The problem is that Sars-Cov-2 is a highly contagious virus”, said Mr States. “That means a vaccine will need to be quite effective if it’s going to stop the spread.

“The polio, measles and smallpox vaccines are really remarkable medicines inducing high level long-lasting immunity, but not all vaccines work so well.”

On the positive side, Sars-Cov-2 is an RNA based virus and these are generally more stable than influenza or HIV viruses which are DNA based. This, hope researchers, means they will not have to aim at a constantly moving target. If a vaccine can be found, it may stick.

It may also be possible to create a vaccine that reduces the symptoms of Covid-19 even if it does not prevent the disease itself. As the chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty pointed out in a lecture last week, vaccines can be therapeutic as well as preventative.

The other big positive is the scale of the race. Never in history has so much human, financial and technical resource been dedicated to finding a vaccine for a single virus.

According to the World Health Organization, there are already 82 vaccine candidates being pursued for Sars-Cov-2 across the globe, six of which have already progressed to human trials.

A successful Chinese trial of a vaccine in monkeys was also reported at the weekend. Eight rhesus macaques were given the jab and none developed serious symptoms when the virus was later injected directly into their lungs. In contrast, four animals in a control group all developed pneumonia.

The results “give us a lot of confidence” that the vaccine will work in humans, one of the lead researchers told Science magazine.

Comment

This article is about blinding people with science. the reason why science teaching fails the masses. they are not meant to understand.

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is like a blueprint of biological guidelines that a living organism must follow to exist and remain functional. RNA, or ribonucleic acid, helps carry out this blueprint’s guidelines. Of the two, RNA is more versatile than DNA, capable of performing numerous, diverse tasks in an organism, but DNA is more stable and holds more complex information for longer periods of time.

DefinitionA nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all modern living organisms. DNA’s genes are expressed, or manifested, through the proteins that its nucleotides produce with the help of RNA.The information found in DNA determines which traits are to be created, activated, or deactivated, while the various forms of RNA do the work.

StructureDouble-stranded. It has two nucleotide strands which consist of its phosphate group, five-carbon sugar (the stable 2-deoxyribose), and four nitrogen-containing nucleobases: adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine.Single-stranded. Like DNA, RNA is composed of its phosphate group, five-carbon sugar (the less stable ribose), and 4 nitrogen-containing nucleobases: adenine, uracil (not thymine), guanine, and cytosine.

There is the science, most won’t understand. Basically the article is saying that the virus has no stable DNA structure, only the RNA operating system. It is like calling it a building without fondations, Always helps to visualise things in simple terms.

To attack a virus based on DNA would be impossible, but with RNA, if they press enough buttons, using computers, they might just find a weakness making it fall a apart. How on earth they know so much is another matter, Also why stop the world economy killing more people than are saved, while you are doing it ? Well that is about politics, rich people and power. Robert Cook

Where Did Corona Come From ? May 3rd 2020

How Covid-19 began has become increasingly contentious, with the US and other allies suggesting China has not been transparent about the origins of the outbreak.
Donald Trump, the US president, has given credence to the idea that intelligence exists suggesting the virus may have escaped from a lab in Wuhan, although the US intelligence community has pointedly declined to back this up. The scientific community says there is no current evidence for this claim.
This follows reports that the White House had been pressuring US intelligence community on the claim, recalling the Bush administration’s pressure to “stove pipe” the intelligence before the war in Iraq.
What’s the problem with the Chinese version?
A specific issue is that the official origin story doesn’t add up in terms of the initial epidemiology of the outbreak, not least the incidence of early cases with no apparent connection to the Wuhan seafood market, where Beijing says the outbreak began. If these people were not infected at the market, or via contacts who were infected at the market, critics ask, how do you explain these cases?
The Wuhan labs
Two laboratories in Wuhan studying bat coronaviruses have come under the spotlight. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is a biosecurity level 4 facility – the highest for biocontainment – and the level 2 Wuhan Centre for Disease Control, which is located not far from the fish market, had collected bat coronavirus specimens.
Several theories have been promoted. The first, and wildest, is that scientists at WIV were engaged in experiments with bat coronavirus, involving so-called gene splicing, and the virus then escaped and infected humans. A second version is that sloppy biosecurity among lab staff and in procedures, perhaps in the collection or disposal of animal specimens, released a wild virus.
Is there any evidence the virus was engineered?
The scientific consensus rejecting the virus being engineered is almost unanimous. In a letter to Nature in March, a team in California led by microbiology professor Kristian Andersen said “the genetic data irrefutably shows that [Covid-19] is not derived from any previously used virus backbone” – in other words spliced sections of another known virus.
Far more likely, they suggested, was that the virus emerged naturally and became stronger through natural selection. “We propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of Sars-CoV-2: natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic [animal to human] transfer; and natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.”
Peter Ben Embarek, an expert at the World Health Organization in animal to human transmission of diseases, and other specialists also explained to the Guardian that if there had been any manipulation of the virus you would expect to see evidence in both the gene sequences and also distortion in the data of the family tree of mutations – a so-called “reticulation” effect.
In a statement to the Guardian, James Le Duc, the head of the Galveston National Laboratory in the US, the biggest active biocontainment facility on a US academic campus, also poured cold water on the suggestion.
“There is convincing evidence that the new virus was not the result of intentional genetic engineering and that it almost certainly originated from nature, given its high similarity to other known bat-associated coronaviruses,” he said.”
What about an accidental escape of a wild sample because of poor lab safety practices?
The accidental release of a wild sample has been the focus of most attention, although the “evidence” offered is at best highly circumstantial.
The Washington Post has reported concerns in 2018 over security and management weakness from US embassy officials who visited the WIV several times, although the paper also conceded there was no conclusive proof the lab was the source of the outbreak.
Le Duc, however, paints a different picture of the WIV. “I have visited and toured the new BSL4 laboratory in Wuhan, prior to it starting operations in 2017- … It is of comparable quality and safety measures as any currently in operation in the US or Europe.”
He also described encounters with Shi Zhengli, the Chinese virologist at the WIV who has led research into bat coronaviruses, and discovered the link between bats and the Sars virus that caused disease worldwide in 2003, describing her as “fully engaged, very open and transparent about her work, and eager to collaborate”.
Maureen Miller, an epidemiologist who worked with Shi as part of a US-funded viral research programme, echoed Le Duc’s assessment. She said she believed the lab escape theory was an “absolute conspiracy theory” and referred to Shi as “brilliant”.
Problems with the timeline and map of the spread of the virus
While the experts who spoke to the Guardian made clear that understanding of the origins of the virus remained provisional, they added that the current state of knowledge of the initial spread also created problems for the lab escape theory.
When Peter Forster, a geneticist at Cambridge, compared sequences of the virus genome collected early in the Chines outbreak – and later globally – he identified three dominant strains.
Early in the outbreak, two strains appear to have been in circulation at roughly at the same time – strain A and strain B – with a C variant later developing from strain B.
But in a surprise finding, the version with the closest genetic similarity to bat coronavirus was not the one most prevalent early on in the central Chinese city of Wuhan but instead associated with a scattering of early cases in the southern Guangdong province.
Between 24 December 2019 and 17 January 2020, Forster explains, just three out of 23 cases in Wuhan were type A, while the rest were type B. In patients in Guangdong province, however, five out of nine were found to have type A of the virus.
“The very small numbers notwithstanding,” said Forster, “the early genome frequencies until 17 January do not favour Wuhan as an origin over other parts of China, for example five of nine Guangdong/Shenzhen patients who had A types.”
In other words, it still remains far from certain that Wuhan was even necessarily where the virus first emerged.
If there is no evidence of engineering and the origin is still so disputed, why are we still talking about the Wuhan labs theory?
The pandemic has exacerbated existing geopolitical struggles, prompting a disinformation war that has drawn in the US, China, Russia and others.
Journalists and scientists have been targeted by people with an apparent interest in pushing circumstantial evidence related to the virus’s origins, perhaps as part of this campaign and to distract from the fact that few governments have had a fault-free response.
What does this mean now?
The current state of knowledge about coronavirus and its origin suggest the most likely explanation remains the most prosaic. Like other coronaviruses before, it simply spread to humans via a natural event, the starting point for many in the scientific community including the World Health Organization.
Further testing in China in the months ahead may eventually establish the source of the outbreak. But for now it is too early.

Comment

The above article does not add up. On the one hand it was not man made, on the other the west does not believe China’s version. Add to that, they know exactly how it will mutate, how many phases of infection, that the heat won’t kill it and it will be back. They also know that social distancing and masks works, even though there is no evidence, we are all at risk even though we are not, and how many millions it is going to kill without social distancing and being forced to lose jobs and sell all we have to rich asset strippers.

I don’t know how anyone could believe official sources on this matter. The whole business is rather a puzzle and very much an outcome of global economics , conflict and free movement- which they never mention as anything to do with cause and rapid spread.

The cause is one thing, the consequences are many and officialdom will continue the propaganda to reinforce global elite greed at the expense of the ignorant terrified masses. Robert Cook

The “Black Goo” Conspiracy And The Falklands Cover-Up? May 1st 2020

Anyone who is a fan of The X-Files will be aware of a recurring theme about black oil. This is an alien substance and is central to the overall story that is interwoven into the series. Very plausible – for a sci-fi TV show, right?

However, there are conspiracies in reality that suggest a very similar material exists.

The Black Goo is said to be an alien life form of some kind, and was the reason the Falklands War raged as it did in 1982. The sinking of the Belgrano – already an affair covered in suspicion – and the apparently imminent threat to British citizens of the island was part of the deeper cover-up, and draw attention from the real reason the British military suddenly descended as it did upon the Falklands Isles.

​As far as conspiracies go, this is as outlandish a theory as you are ever likely to hear. Although that doesn’t mean that it might not be true, or at least elements of it. Regardless of “true” motives, the Falklands conflict itself was very real, and for many, very consequential or even fatal. Of that, there is no doubt. While we will not get into the specifics of the conflict – official or otherwise – but just to provide a backdrop, check out the video below that gives a brief outline to the gritty events of 1982.

The Real Reasons For The Falklands War?

It is not unusual at all for strange sightings to be witnessed and reported in times of conflict. Numerous accounts of “foo fighters” were reported in the battles over Europe in the Second World War for example. Similarly, as the Vietnam War raged, sightings of strange crafts exploded during this period in the area. It seems the Falklands conflict was to be no different.

For example, former soldier, Jeff Pearson, spoke of seeing a bright intense light hovering over the waters at the furtherst point of East Falkland, while on an R&R break. You can read about his experience in full here.

Another soldier spoke twenty-four years after the incident in 2006, about an “oval spacecraft with lights” that zipped across the sky at great speed. You can read his account in full here.

Of course, some believe the reason the UFO sightings were happening was due to the real reason the British military had been dispatched to the area in the first place. As outlandish as the claims are, the war was a distraction for them to obtain the mystery black goo, and bring it back to mainland Britain.  Does this picture show a UFO in the Falklands Islands? According to the conspiracy, this black goo substance made its way to the United Kingdom courtesy of Royal Navy ships. Deep in a hidden away lab, secret experiments and testing of the substance would take place. In short, things went wrong.

The Black Goo apparently found itself into the water supply and is now permeating every aspect of our lives. In the words of Miles Johnston, “it is in a state of learning!”

​The theory arguably seeped into the mainstream during the Channel 4 documentary by Dan Schreiber, The Great UFO Conspiracy from 2014. It was a tongue-in-check look at the general UFO community and their theories, but not something that mocked those who researched such things. Schreiber spoke on several occasions to Johnston, including in front of the MI6 building when he broke the news to him about the aforementioned black goo.

​The short video below is a snippet from that particular conversation between the two.

“Super Soldiers” And Top Secret Projects

One of the people that Schreiber also met during the aforementioned documentary was (then) little know conspiracy theorist and whistle-blower, Max Spiers. The two spoke under a bridge in a typical London location.

Spiers claimed he was a secret “super soldier” who had begun to recover his memories and had turned whistle-blower against the elite who oversee such programs as MK Ultra and Project Mannequin – both of which he claimed he had direct links to.

​The video below features Spiers speaking with Schreiber in the aforementioned Channel 4 documentary.

Spiers believed that due to his time in the Mannequin Project, that he was the subject of “programming” – so much so that he believed he could be “triggered” at any moment by unknown handlers. Indeed many people who associated with Spiers would later claim to have noticed strange, mysterious people appearing to shadow him.

In the months before his unfortunate death, he would speak of being subjected to “astral attacks” from those who didn’t wish him to convey the information he was slowly unlocking in his “honeycombed” mind. Although not everyone subscribed to his claims or theories, he was an interesting person and a charismatic speaker.

​The video below is worth checking out. It is Spiers’ final UK broadcast interview. 

Around two years after filming took place, Spiers would mysteriously die while in Poland. His death made the mainstream media platforms. Perhaps not surprising when details of him having text his mother before his death telling her to investigate if anything was to happen to him – or of him having vomited “two litres of black liquid” in the hours before his death.

It is interesting that a large voice behind the Black Goo conspiracy is Miles Johnston. Johnston is also a loud voice in the Project Mannequin conspiracy theories and the alleged secret base in Peasemore, Berkshire. He was also a close associate of the late Spiers – in fact, it is perhaps likely that it was Johnston who introduced Schreiber to Spiers during the making of the program.

Is it purely coincidence that “black liquid” was reported to have been vomited by Spiers in the hours before his death?

Check out the video below – the BBC documentary, Fractured, that was made several months following Spiers’ death in February 2017. 

“Death Ray” Technology?

​Dr David Clark even made claims that the British military wanted to test out their new “death ray”, and the conflict in the Falklands provided a perfect opportunity to do so.

A declassified document written by Michael Heseltine to (then) Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, appears to back up these claims. Written in 1983, shortly after the conflict, it states that they had conducted tests on “a naval laser weapon, designed to dazzle low flying Argentinian pilots attacking the ships!” He continues, “This weapon was not used in action, and knowledge of it has been kept to a very restricted circle!”

As the black goo conspiracy suggests, the “death ray” was not the only secret activity taking place during that time. And if there is any truth at all to the claims of Max Spiers, not to mention the truth behind his mysterious death, maybe these claims require another look. Regardless of how bizarre or outright crazy some of them are, perhaps we should look at some of them again, just to be sure!

​Check out the videos below for further viewing of this intriguing conspiracy theory. As always, make of them what you will.

[Marcus Lowth March 2017]

A scientist has a disturbing theory for why we haven’t met aliens yet April 29th 2020

Posted 1 hour ago by Louis Staples in discover

Right now, you’d understand if aliens didn’t want to pay Earth a visit, what with the potentially deadly Covid-19 pandemic and all.

But after 16 years of secrecy, the Pentagon has released footage of UFOs which has made many ask, for the zillionth time: are we really alone in the universe? Or are aliens already among us? 

For years, these questions have divided scientists, sci-fi fans and conspiracy theorists. Although many explanations have been put forward for why we haven’t met aliens yet, none have been completely convincing or universally accepted. 

In short, in a world where we’re obsessed with discovering every little thing, this is one big question we don’t really know.

But two years ago, when the world seemed like a very different place, Russian physicist Alexander Berezin, from the National Research University of Electronic Technology (MIET), had a theory. He suggested that once a civilisation reaches the capabilities of spreading across the stars, it will inevitably wipe out all other civilisations.

Just what we need to hear.

The grim solution doesn’t hypothesise a necessarily evil alien race (phew!) it’s more that they might not notice us and their exponential expansion across the galaxy might be more important to them than we are. Cheery indeed.

He wrote in 2018:

They simply won’t notice, the same way a construction crew demolishes an anthill to build real estate because they lack incentive to protect it.

So why haven’t we met them yet and been obliterated?

Well, it’s not all bad news, sort of. Berezin suggests that the reason humans are still here is that we are not likely to be the ants. In other words, we are the future destroyers of countless civilisations and we’re just not ready yet.

Assuming the hypothesis above is correct, what does it mean for our future? The only explanation is the invocation of the anthropic principle. We are the first to arrive at the [interstellar] stage. And, most likely, will be the last to leave.

He cites colonialism and capitalism are two historical example of the forces that will eventually prompt humans to destroy other cultures.

Berezin hopes that he’s wrong and, to be honest, so do we. 

So yeah, it seems like things could always be worse. If this theory is true, let’s hope that aliens steer clear of us for a little (a lot) longer and that it’s a very, very, very long time before we consider becomes the aliens who destroy other places.

HT: IFLScience

US Air Force Admit They Can Control the Weather

June 6, 2015Geopolitics101158 Comments

The US Air Force and DARPA would like us to believe that they have stopped using HAARP in Alaska for research and experiment. Even then, we all know that there are other HAARP systems out there in the form of radar communication and surveillance systems that are rigged on top of mobile platforms that are deployable in any international waters around the world.

All they need to do is twist a knob to change the frequency of the main wave to the microwave range for a modulated frequency [FM] broadcast, and increase the transmission power high enough to reach and heat up the atmosphere above the designated target.

The technology is covered under US Patent 4,686,605 on the “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or Magnetosphere.”

How does it work?

For those who have no technical appetite, just imagine the same frequency signal used in your microwave oven that cooks your breakfast…

microwave_diagram.png

… is directed towards the atmosphere from the tip of the antennas in the array shown below.

antennae_haarp
HAARP Array

Again, the same principle used in the TV, or cell site, broadcast is being used on these HAARP and radar platforms. The only difference in cooking up the sky, as opposed to your breakfast, is that the voltage needed to transmit the same microwave frequency signal is in the range of hundreds of million volts due to the amount of distance that the same signal must traverse between the antenna and the target.
While,

“A typical consumer microwave oven consumes 1,100 W AC and produces 700 W of microwave power, an efficiency of 64%. The other 400 W are dissipated as heat, mostly in the magnetron tube.”

… your government’s HAARP emitter may need 100 billion watts of sheer power, as the patent above has indicated, in order to achieve a specific outcome. There’s no theoretical limit, of course, as to how much ego will play into the process.

What could possibly happen to the preselected region in the atmosphere when enough power is fed to the transmission array?
Understand, that even an increase of just 1 Celsius in the atmospheric temperature is more than enough to initiate a significant weather perturbation. Bear in mind that all gases move from high to low pressure, and gas pressure is directly proportional to its temperature.

In short, if one heats up at least three specific locations in the atmosphere, the common center region having relatively lower pressure than those three heated points will become the eye of the storm. Three competing forces moving towards a common region can only be resolved through a downward spiral rotation, the cooler gases being heavier than the former. Depending on the amount of energy being used, the whole process could take days to develop.
Chemtrailing and cloud seeding could certainly enhance the process far beyond weather manipulation. Notoriously, these maniacs almost always have multiple goals for a single action.

For those who understand frequency modulation, they know that any low frequency signal can be piggybacked into the high frequency radio signal. In short, it is possible to alter human behavior by FM broadcasting brain wave frequencies, to wit:

  • Delta waves (below 4 hz) occur during sleep
  • Theta waves (4-7 hz) are associated with sleep, deep relaxation (like hypnotic relaxation), and visualization
  • Alpha waves (8-13 hz) occur when we are relaxed and calm
  • Beta waves (13-38 hz) occur when we are actively thinking, problem-solving, etc.
  • The Sensory motor rhythm (or SMR; around 14 hz) was originally discovered to prevent seizure activity in cats. SMR activity seems to link brain and body functions.
  • Gamma brain waves (39-100 hz) are involved in higher mental activity and consolidation of information. An interesting study has shown that advanced Tibetan meditators produce higher levels of gamma than non-meditators both before and during meditation.

Those are the “good waves”. But there is also a band of waves that could induce hallucinations, blindness, agitation, pain and despair.

In short, the possibilities are endless using this simple broadcast technology, prompting Tesla to release it to a number of countries after SS George Scherff, Jr., aka George W. Bush, smuggled the electrical plans from the wizard’s own laboratory, for the Deep State’s own benefit.

For initiating earthquakes, an extremely low frequency [ELF] of 2.5Hz, or thereabouts, must be modulated into the radio carrier frequency.

That is the same frequency used against Japan to initiate a 7.6 earthquake, in 2011. However, the quake itself was only implemented to provide a cover for the detonation of a suitcase nuke 4 kilometers into the sea from the Fukushima Nuclear Plants, to create the 30 meter tsunami that the whole world were all witness of.

Just like any other geoweapon attack, the whole operation will pay for itself:

Other Effects of Radio Transmission

In order to have an idea of how dangerous this technology really is when under the control of psychopaths controlling the government, we need to look at the World Health Organization article about a few of the possible effects of being exposed to radar [1 megawatt] and radio broadcasts [50 kilowatts]:
Possible health effects
Most studies conducted to date examined health effects other than cancer. They probed into physiological and thermoregulatory responses, behavioural changes and effects such as the induction of lens opacities (cataracts) and adverse reproductive outcome following acute exposure to relatively high levels of RF fields. There are also a number of studies that report non-thermal effects, where no appreciable rise in temperature can be measured.
Cancer-related studies: Many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links between exposure to RF and excess risk of cancer. However, because of differences in the design and execution of these studies, their results are difficult to interpret. A number of national and international peer review groups have concluded that there is no clear evidence of links between RF exposure and excess risk of cancer. WHO has also concluded that there is no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to RF shortens the life span of humans, or that RF is an inducer or promoter of cancer. However, further studies are necessary.
Thermal effects: RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. The earliest signs of an adverse health consequence, found in animals as the level of RF fields increased, include reduced endurance, aversion of the field and decreased ability to perform mental tasks. These studies also suggest adverse effects may occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized exposure to RF fields sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1°C. Possible effects include the induction of eye cataracts, and various physiological and thermoregulatory responses as body temperature increases. These effects are well established and form the scientific basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to RF fields.
Non-thermal effects: Exposure to RF levels too low to involve heating, (i.e., very low SARs), has been reported by several groups to alter calcium ion mobility, which is responsible for transmitting information in tissue cells. However, these effects are not sufficiently established to provide a basis for restricting human exposure.
Pulsed RF fields: Exposure to very intense pulsed RF fields, similar to those used by radar systems, has been reported to suppress the startle response and evoke body movements in conscious mice. In addition, people with normal hearing have perceived pulse RF fields with frequencies between about 200 MHz and 6.5 GHz. This is called the microwave hearing effect. The sound has been variously described as a buzzing, clicking, hissing or popping sound, depending on the RF pulsing characteristics. Prolonged or repeated exposure may be stressful and should be avoided where possible.
RF shocks and burns: At frequencies less than 100 MHz, RF burns or shock may result from charges induced on metallic objects situated near radars. Persons standing in RF fields can also have high local absorption of the fields in areas of their bodies with small cross sectional areas, such as the ankles. In general, because of the higher frequencies that most modern radar systems operate, combined with their small beam widths, the potential for such effects is very small.

HAARP Can Be A Tool for Progress

One must understand that HAARP itself is not evil — but the people who are using it at the moment are. All technologies are double-edged sword that can be put to work for everyone’s benefit, or destruction.
Here’s why according to the same patent:

haarp uses.png

In short, they could end their “climate change” stupidity right now by producing enough ozone to replenish that protective layer, reduce carbon monoxide and similar toxic oxides in the atmosphere, etc. and provide adequate rainfall in arid desert in Africa, at will.
They can also eliminate toxicity in the oceans to produce as much planktons as possible, and increase the fisherman’s catch. No more stranded mammals in sandy beaches everywhere.
However, the same people having the capability to control the weather are themselves promoting the “climate change”, or “global warming” hoaxes. So, how can we expect them to be the solution?
In short, those same people who are occupying the halls of power are themselves creating all of these nonsense, that obviously they too can solve with what is already in their hands, and are retarding our full potential as a civilization due to the misapplication of these scientific knowledge. That’s the crux of the problem.

Air Force Bombshell: Admits They Can Control the Weather – HAARP

haarp-28


While HAARP and weather control has been called a conspiracy theory by the mainstream media and government officials, during a Senate hearing on Wednesday, David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering, dropped a bombshell in answer to a question asked by Lisa Murkowski in relation to the dismantling of the $300 million High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program in Gakona this summer.
Walker said this is “not an area that we have any need for in the future” and it would not be a good use of Air Force research funds to keep HAARP going. “We’re moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do,” he said. “To inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed.

Many believe HAARP was created and has been used for weather control, with enough juice to trigger hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes and comments such as this bring about the question of whether conspiracy theorists are more on target than anyone has admitted to date.
We need to be the solution. We need to act. Otherwise, just three units of these mobile HAARP platforms, masquerading as radars, can make the hurricane steerable by a common method known as triangulation.

060109-N-3019M-012 Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (Jan. 9, 2006) – The heavy lift vessel MV Blue Marlin enters Pearl Harbor, Hawaii with the Sea Based X-Band Radar (SBX) aboard after completing a 15,000-mile journey from Corpus Christi, Texas. SBX is a combination of the world???s largest phased array X-band radar carried aboard a mobile, ocean-going semi-submersible oil platform. It will provide the nation with highly advanced ballistic missile detection and will be able to discriminate a hostile warhead from decoys and countermeasures. SBX will undergo minor modifications, post-transit maintenance and routine inspections in Pearl Harbor before completing its voyage to its homeport of Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. U.S. Navy photo by Journalist 2nd Class Ryan C. McGinley (RELEASED)

Have they really dismantled the Alaska-based HAARP?

Unnatural weather patterns suggest HAARP is still here. But granting that they did, we suspect that the system has only mutated.
They may not look like it, but Doopler radars provide the same set of useful and treacherous functions, when so desired.

Doopler Weather Surveillance Radar
Doopler Weather Surveillance Radar

Above is just one of 159 high-resolution WSR-88D S-band Doppler weather radars scattered in the US mainland that comprise the NEXRAD System, as shown below, and are supposedly to monitor the weather.

As stated above, the NEXRAD Doopler Weather Surveillance System operates under the S-Band frequency range of 2 – 4 GHz (or 2 – 4 billion pulses per second), which incidentally the same frequency by which our microwave ovens, and other common wireless devices operate.

The S band is a designation by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for a part of the microwave band of the electromagnetic spectrum covering frequencies from 2 to 4 gigahertz (GHz)… The S band also contains the 2.4–2.483 GHz ISM band, widely used for low power unlicensed microwave devices such as cordless phones, wireless headphones (Bluetooth), wireless networking (WiFi), garage door openers, keyless vehicle locks, baby monitors as well as for medical diathermy machines and microwave ovens (typically at 2.495GHz).

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_band

In short, we are not making this all up.  Cancer, euphoria in the midst of economic hardship, bad weather and global warming, are most of the time, artificially induced at this point of our existence.

This is not the first time that a public official has acknowledged that HAARP and weather control is not only possible, but has been and continues to be, used as a “super weapon,” as evidenced by a statement in 1997 by former U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen, where he said:

“Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our

efforts.”

Is it still just a conspiracy theory if public officials admit it is true?

The NEXRAD Doopler Weather Surveillance System cannot be installed along major thoroughfares without raising enough curiosity and concerns. Welcome to 5G wireless technology!

You can actually participate in the global efforts to cripple the Deep State organized criminal cabal’s ability for genocide, while enjoying healthcare freedom at the same time, by boycotting Big Pharma for good.

U.S. Attacked the Philippines with HAARP

February 4, 2014Geopolitics10153 Comments

Back in November 2013, we were knocked out of the Net after HAARP devastated much of Leyte and the entire Visayas, Philippines. Until now, people are still suffering the effects of that manmade disaster, e.g. homelessness, high food prices, epidemic, persistent live virus mass injections, etc.
We are also experiencing intermittent internet connections every now and then.
Just before the attack, we already knew it’s not going to be an “Act of God” but a deliberate attempt to pin us further down for reasons that we are also aware of already.
Before you continue reading the featured article below, understand that even the US Air Force officially admitted its ability to control the weather during a congressional budget hearing.

“The US Air Force and DARPA would like us to believe that they have stopped using HAARP in Alaska for research and experiment. Even then, we all know that there are other HAARP systems out there in the form of radar communication and surveillance systems that are rigged on top of mobile platforms that are deployable anywhere in the world.
All they need to do is twist a button to change the frequency to microwave range and increase transmission power enough to reach and heat up the atmosphere above the target.”

Here’s the US Air Force admitting the use of HAARP during a US congressional budgetary hearings…

A Weather Weapon is Just One Big Microwave Radio Transmitter

A weather weapon is not a strange technology that we can never have, or to say the least, ever understand.

The technology is composed of a wireless broadcast system, and the right microwave frequency to produce heat on any target, in this case, the atmosphere. To put it simply, it’s an FM broadcast system and a microwave oven in one device.

The only difference between your favorite FM radio station and a weather weapon is that the latter needs more power to push its signal to greater distances and reach the sky.

If its signals can reach the sky, all the more so with terrestrial targets to agitate long dormant volcanoes, or initiate an earthquake with extremely low frequency modulated into the usual radio carrier frequency through frequency modulation [FM] techniques.

Sex change hormonal treatments alter brain Chemistry

Sex change hormonal treatments alter brain chemistry

Date:

October 8, 2015

Source:

Elsevier

Summary:

Hormonal treatments administered as part of the procedures for sex reassignment have well-known and well-documented effects on the secondary sexual characteristics of the adult body, shifting a recipient’s physical appearance to that of the opposite sex. New research indicates that these hormonal treatments also alter brain chemistry.

FULL STORY

Hormonal treatments administered as part of the procedures for sex reassignment have well-known and well-documented effects on the secondary sexual characteristics of the adult body, shifting a recipient’s physical appearance to that of the opposite sex.

New research published in the current issue of Biological Psychiatry indicates that these hormonal treatments also alter brain chemistry.

Researchers at the Medical University of Vienna, led by senior authors Dr. Siegfried Kasper and Dr. Rupert Lanzenberger, show that administration of the male hormone testosterone in female-to-male transsexuals raises brain levels of SERT, the protein that transports the chemical messenger serotonin into nerve cells.

In contrast, male-to-female transsexuals who received a testosterone blocker and the female hormone estrogen showed decreased levels of this protein in the brain.

SERT plays an important role in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders, as many common antidepressants, such as Prozac, block its activity by inhibiting serotonin reuptake. In addition, some genetics studies have suggested that higher levels of serotonin transporter may increase resilience to stress and reduce risk for stress and mood disorders.

Because women are twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression as men, these changes in the levels of SERT are consistent with the increased risk for mood and anxiety disorders in females relative to males.

Lanzenberger added, “These results may explain why testosterone improves symptoms in some forms of depression. Our study also increases our knowledge on the role of sex hormones in sex differences of mood disorders.”

Overall, these findings suggest that when people switch from female to male, their biology changes in a way that is consistent with a reduced risk for mood and anxiety disorders, whereas the reverse happens when males switch to females.

“This study is the first to show changes in brain chemistry associated with the hormonal treatments administered in the sex change process,” said Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry. “It provides new insight into the ways that the hormonal differences between men and women influence mood and the risk for mood disorders.”

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Elsevier. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

Georg S. Kranz, Wolfgang Wadsak, Ulrike Kaufmann, Markus Savli, Pia Baldinger, Gregor Gryglewski, Daniela Haeusler, Marie Spies, Markus Mitterhauser, Siegfried Kasper, Rupert Lanzenberger. High-Dose Testosterone Treatment Increases Serotonin Transporter Binding in Transgender People. Biological Psychiatry, 2015; 78 (8): 525 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.09.010 

Elsevier. “Sex change hormonal treatments alter brain chemistry.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 8 October 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151008110522.htm>.

Georg S. Kranz, Wolfgang Wadsak, Ulrike Kaufmann, Markus Savli, Pia Baldinger, Gregor Gryglewski, Daniela Haeusler, Marie Spies, Markus Mitterhauser, Siegfried Kasper, Rupert Lanzenberger. High-Dose Testosterone Treatment Increases Serotonin Transporter Binding in Transgender People. Biological Psychiatry, 2015; 78 (8): 525 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.09.010

Sex change hormonal treatments alter brain chemistry

Date:

October 8, 2015

Source:

Elsevier

Summary:

Hormonal treatments administered as part of the procedures for sex reassignment have well-known and well-documented effects on the secondary sexual characteristics of the adult body, shifting a recipient’s physical appearance to that of the opposite sex. New research indicates that these hormonal treatments also alter brain chemistry.

FULL STORY

Hormonal treatments administered as part of the procedures for sex reassignment have well-known and well-documented effects on the secondary sexual characteristics of the adult body, shifting a recipient’s physical appearance to that of the opposite sex.

New research published in the current issue of Biological Psychiatry indicates that these hormonal treatments also alter brain chemistry.

Researchers at the Medical University of Vienna, led by senior authors Dr. Siegfried Kasper and Dr. Rupert Lanzenberger, show that administration of the male hormone testosterone in female-to-male transsexuals raises brain levels of SERT, the protein that transports the chemical messenger serotonin into nerve cells.

In contrast, male-to-female transsexuals who received a testosterone blocker and the female hormone estrogen showed decreased levels of this protein in the brain.

SERT plays an important role in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders, as many common antidepressants, such as Prozac, block its activity by inhibiting serotonin reuptake. In addition, some genetics studies have suggested that higher levels of serotonin transporter may increase resilience to stress and reduce risk for stress and mood disorders.

Because women are twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression as men, these changes in the levels of SERT are consistent with the increased risk for mood and anxiety disorders in females relative to males.

Lanzenberger added, “These results may explain why testosterone improves symptoms in some forms of depression. Our study also increases our knowledge on the role of sex hormones in sex differences of mood disorders.”

Overall, these findings suggest that when people switch from female to male, their biology changes in a way that is consistent with a reduced risk for mood and anxiety disorders, whereas the reverse happens when males switch to females.

“This study is the first to show changes in brain chemistry associated with the hormonal treatments administered in the sex change process,” said Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry. “It provides new insight into the ways that the hormonal differences between men and women influence mood and the risk for mood disorders.”

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Elsevier. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

Georg S. Kranz, Wolfgang Wadsak, Ulrike Kaufmann, Markus Savli, Pia Baldinger, Gregor Gryglewski, Daniela Haeusler, Marie Spies, Markus Mitterhauser, Siegfried Kasper, Rupert Lanzenberger. High-Dose Testosterone Treatment Increases Serotonin Transporter Binding in Transgender People. Biological Psychiatry, 2015; 78 (8): 525 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.09.010 

Elsevier. “Sex change hormonal treatments alter brain chemistry.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 8 October 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151008110522.htm>.

Georg S. Kranz, Wolfgang Wadsak, Ulrike Kaufmann, Markus Savli, Pia Baldinger, Gregor Gryglewski, Daniela Haeusler, Marie Spies, Markus Mitterhauser, Siegfried Kasper, Rupert Lanzenberger. High-Dose Testosterone Treatment Increases Serotonin Transporter Binding in Transgender People. Biological Psychiatry, 2015; 78 (8): 525 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.09.010

Sex change hormonal treatments alter brain chemistry

Date:

October 8, 2015

Source:

Elsevier

Summary:

Hormonal treatments administered as part of the procedures for sex reassignment have well-known and well-documented effects on the secondary sexual characteristics of the adult body, shifting a recipient’s physical appearance to that of the opposite sex. New research indicates that these hormonal treatments also alter brain chemistry.

FULL STORY

Hormonal treatments administered as part of the procedures for sex reassignment have well-known and well-documented effects on the secondary sexual characteristics of the adult body, shifting a recipient’s physical appearance to that of the opposite sex.

New research published in the current issue of Biological Psychiatry indicates that these hormonal treatments also alter brain chemistry.

Researchers at the Medical University of Vienna, led by senior authors Dr. Siegfried Kasper and Dr. Rupert Lanzenberger, show that administration of the male hormone testosterone in female-to-male transsexuals raises brain levels of SERT, the protein that transports the chemical messenger serotonin into nerve cells.

In contrast, male-to-female transsexuals who received a testosterone blocker and the female hormone estrogen showed decreased levels of this protein in the brain.

SERT plays an important role in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders, as many common antidepressants, such as Prozac, block its activity by inhibiting serotonin reuptake. In addition, some genetics studies have suggested that higher levels of serotonin transporter may increase resilience to stress and reduce risk for stress and mood disorders.

Because women are twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression as men, these changes in the levels of SERT are consistent with the increased risk for mood and anxiety disorders in females relative to males.

Lanzenberger added, “These results may explain why testosterone improves symptoms in some forms of depression. Our study also increases our knowledge on the role of sex hormones in sex differences of mood disorders.”

Overall, these findings suggest that when people switch from female to male, their biology changes in a way that is consistent with a reduced risk for mood and anxiety disorders, whereas the reverse happens when males switch to females.

“This study is the first to show changes in brain chemistry associated with the hormonal treatments administered in the sex change process,” said Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry. “It provides new insight into the ways that the hormonal differences between men and women influence mood and the risk for mood disorders.”

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Elsevier. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

Georg S. Kranz, Wolfgang Wadsak, Ulrike Kaufmann, Markus Savli, Pia Baldinger, Gregor Gryglewski, Daniela Haeusler, Marie Spies, Markus Mitterhauser, Siegfried Kasper, Rupert Lanzenberger. High-Dose Testosterone Treatment Increases Serotonin Transporter Binding in Transgender People. Biological Psychiatry, 2015; 78 (8): 525 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.09.010 

Elsevier. “Sex change hormonal treatments alter brain chemistry.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 8 October 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151008110522.htm>.

Georg S. Kranz, Wolfgang Wadsak, Ulrike Kaufmann, Markus Savli, Pia Baldinger, Gregor Gryglewski, Daniela Haeusler, Marie Spies, Markus Mitterhauser, Siegfried Kasper, Rupert Lanzenberger. High-Dose Testosterone Treatment Increases Serotonin Transporter Binding in Transgender People. Biological Psychiatry, 2015; 78 (8): 525 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.09.010

Coronavirus mutated into three distinct strains as it spread across the world April 11th 2020

Researchers who mapped some of the original spread of coronavirus in humans have discovered there are variants of the virus throughout the world. They reconstructed the early evolutionary paths of Covid-19 as infection spread from Wuhan, China, out to Europe and North America. By analysing the first 160 complete virus genomes to be sequenced from human patients, scientists found the variant closest to that discovered in bats was largely found in patients from the US and Australia, not Wuhan. Dr Peter Forster, geneticist and lead author from the University of Cambridge, said: ‘There are too many rapid mutations to neatly trace a Covid-19 family tree. We used a mathematical network algorithm to visualise all the plausible trees simultaneously. ‘These techniques are mostly known for mapping the movements of prehistoric human populations through DNA. We think this is one of the first times they have been used to trace the infection routes of a coronavirus like Covid-19.’

The team used data from samples taken from across the world between December 24, 2019 and March 4, 2020. They found three distinct, but closely related, variants of Covid-19, which they called A, B and C. For all the latest news and updates on Coronavirus, click here. For our Coronavirus live blog click here. Researchers found that the closest type of coronavirus to the one discovered in bats – type A, the original human virus genome – was present in Wuhan, but was not the city’s predominant virus type. Mutated versions of A were seen in Americans reported to have lived in Wuhan, and a large number of A-type viruses were found in patients from the US and Australia. Wuhan’s major virus type was B and was prevalent in patients from across east Asia, however it didn’t travel much beyond the region without further mutations.

The researchers say the C variant is the major European type, found in early patients from France, Italy, Sweden and England. The analysis also suggests one of the earliest introductions of the virus into Italy came via the first documented German infection on January 27, and that another early Italian infection route was related to a ‘Singapore cluster’. It is absent from the study’s Chinese mainland sample but seen in Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea. Scientists argue their methods could be applied to the very latest coronavirus genome sequencing to help predict future global hotspots of disease transmission and surge.

The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Variant A, most closely related to the virus found in both bats and pangolins, is described as the root of the outbreak by researchers. Type B is derived from A, separated by two mutations, then C is in turn a ‘daughter’ of B, the study suggests. The phylogenetic network methods used by researchers – which looks at evolutionary relationships among biological entities – allowed the visualisation of hundreds of evolutionary trees simultaneously in one simple graph. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/10/coronavirus-mutated-three-distinct-strains-spread-across-world-12536852/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Variant A, most closely related to the virus found in both bats and pangolins, is described as the root of the outbreak by researchers. Type B is derived from A, separated by two mutations, then C is in turn a ‘daughter’ of B, the study suggests. The phylogenetic network methods used by researchers – which looks at evolutionary relationships among biological entities – allowed the visualisation of hundreds of evolutionary trees simultaneously in one simple graph.

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/10/coronavirus-mutated-three-distinct-strains-spread-across-world-12536852/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/10/coronavirus-mutated-three-distinct-strains-spread-across-world-12536852/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/10/coronavirus-mutated-three-distinct-strains-spread-across-world-12536852/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/10/coronavirus-mutated-three-distinct-strains-spread-across-world-12536852/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/10/coronavirus-mutated-three-distinct-strains-spread-across-world-12536852/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

Search for new life forms Posted March 1st 2020

In the coming decades, new rovers will roam the sands of Mars. An orbiter will sample the seas of Jupiter’s moon Europa. A drone will grace the skies of Saturn’s moon Titan. Mission planners dream of equipping these mechanical scouts with instruments capable of scouring the unknown environments for signs of life, but the technology required to do so is deceptively complex.

Explorers seeking alien life must first grapple with questions of fundamental biology. What does it mean to be alive? What traits must all organisms share — even those that might inhabit methane lakes or ice-locked oceans? The burgeoning field of astrobiology seeks answers in the form of “biosignatures”— surefire signs of life that a simple experiment could identify, such as DNA or proteins.

DNA is like a toolkit that stores and transmits vital information passed from a living organism to its offspring. The molecule’s ingredients, called nucleotides, are four components coiled in a double helix called adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine.

But as researchers debate which molecules to look for, recent work suggests casting a broader net. In 2019, for instance, a team of synthetic biologists showed that the four-molecule genetic code that describes all known life on Earth isn’t the only group of molecules that could support evolution.
“You set these grand challenges to make a new Darwinian system,” says Steven Benner, founder of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution at the University of Florida and leader of the group. “That drags scientists kicking and screaming across uncharted terrain.”

The recent research, which was published in the journal Science, covered new ground regarding genetic information storage. Netflix represents digital movies as long strings of 0’s and 1’s, and all known Earth organisms follow a similar strategy. They store instructions for producing copies of themselves in their DNA — another long string, but one assembled from four molecules rather than two numbers. This system enables evolution by being reliable enough to safeguard those instructions between generations while maintaining the flexibility for occasional revisions.

But does the alphabet of life have to contain four letters? Some have argued yes — four elements strike the perfect balance between fitting in more information and a lower risk of typos. Up to 12 letters are possible on paper, though, and Benner has spent three decades (during two of which he received NASA funding totaling nearly $5 million) realizing some of them in the lab. In the new research, his group announced the construction of an eight-molecule system capable of storing, copying and editing information.

They dubbed it hachimoji DNA, meaning “eight letters” in Japanese.
The minor molecular tweak has major consequences for biotechnology. When it comes to manipulating biomolecules and microbes, modern techniques rely on a suite of tools that work only with the traditional four elements of DNA. For even the simplest tasks with hachimoji molecules, Benner’s group had to reinvent new biological equivalents of the wheel. “Everything that you take for granted in modern biotechnology, you have to do yourself,” he says. “You’re basically back to doing 1960s molecular biology.”

And hachimoji molecules represent just minor riffs on standard DNA, with a few oxygen and nitrogen atoms shuffled around here and there. Biologists would really struggle to get a handle on a truly alien system. Letting his imagination run wild, Benner speculates about exotic DNA molecules forming a flat sheet, as opposed to a linear strand. Good luck trying to fit that square peg into a round detector.

The universal search for life
In a recent proposal currently under review for funding by NASA, Benner’s team advocates for taking a more universal approach. They hope to build a device that searches for molecules with traits that are theoretically essential for any genetic molecule: traits determined by decades of experimentation with alternatives like hachimoji.

First, the molecule should be long. Short molecules can’t hold enough information to do anything useful. Second, the molecule should be complex enough that it isn’t mirror symmetric, for similar reasons. Third, its frame should feature repeating charges, either positive or negative. DNA keeps its stiff double helix shape because it has negatively charged edges that repel each other. Otherwise it could fold and get tangled. Alien DNA, the thinking goes, should fit this general archetype.

The group has designed a lunchbox-size “universal life detection” instrument that would take in water from Europa’s global ocean or Martian ice, attract long positively charged molecules to one plate and negatively charged ones to another, and use beams of light to gauge the complexity of the molecules.

This test should detect any life in the area, microbial or otherwise, as long as it has some sort of biological genetic code akin to DNA. “If you ran seawater through it, you could find DNA from shrimp,” says Nathan Bramall, CEO of Leiden Measurement Technology, the company that would build the prototype, “but not [computerized life like Apple’s assistant] Siri.”

And the lunchbox is just one of the life-detection projects aiming to catch a ride to another world. In 2018 NASA awarded Pennsylvania-based nanotechnology start-up Goeppert a $125,000 grant to develop a device that can analyze the size and shape of potential biomolecules as they pass through a nanometer-size pore. This type of “nanopore” experiment could complement Benner’s universal life-detection machine, according to Kathryn Bywaters, a SETI scientist working at NASA Ames. “I don’t think any one life-detection instrument will be the end all be all,” she says. “It’s going to be a suite of instruments looking for multiple different smoking guns.”

Development of any single device may stall, but these two projects represent small bets in NASA’s growing astrobiology portfolio, as the agency prepares for more ambitious missions to Mars and distant moons. And both Bywaters and Bramall feel optimistic about their devices, expecting that they’ll be ready to fly before the end of the decade.

Other researchers involved in the astrobiology community, however, wonder if even these out-of-the-box approaches don’t go far enough. Buried in Benner’s criteria for a genetic molecule lies an implicit definition of life: a structure that evolves. But Carol Cleland, a philosopher and the director of the Center for the Study of Origins at the University of Colorado Boulder, worries that any search based on checking rigid boxes is doomed to have blind spots. Must all life be Darwinian life?

She praises Benner’s work targeting long, charged molecules as a great starting point but urges an even more open-minded approach that focuses on more general anomalies — phenomena that resist simple physical or biological characterization. She points to the conflicting Viking experiments on Mars in the 1970s, when a lander found some support for metabolizing microbes but no evidence for organic molecules, as a prime example. Most researchers deemed the result negative because it failed to fit the prevailing definition of life, but Cleland suggests that such perplexing edge cases may be the most fruitful directions for discovering totally new biology.

Asking whether we are alone in the solar system may be simple, but teasing out the answer will take time and effort, she suggests, no matter what instruments NASA ends up sending to far-off worlds. “I don’t think you’re going to discover truly alien life in one mission,” she says. “You’re going to discover stuff that is provocative.”

UFO

Declassified CIA Files Reveal Encounter With ‘Green Circular’ UFO Over Soviet Union During Cold War

©

The area where the alleged UFO was spotted nearly five decades ago was apparently used by the USSR to test experimental missiles and laser weapon systems.

A recently declassified CIA report sheds light on an alleged UFO encounter that took place at the height of Cold War in Kazakhstan in 1973, back when it was part of the Soviet Union.

The document, whose redacted version was first released in 1978 and which has now been made available on The Black Vault, a website that publishes declassified government files, mentions how the witness, identified in the paper as “Source”, “stepped outside for some air” and spotted “an unidentified sharp (bright) green circular object or mass” hovering “above cloud level”.

“Within 10 to 15 seconds of observation, the green circle widened and within a brief period of time several green concentric circles formed around the mass. Within minutes the coloring disappeared. There was no sound, such as an explosion, associated with the phenomenon”, the document states citing the witness’ observations.

According to the website, the sighting took place in the vicinity of the Sary Shagan Weapons Testing Range that was allegedly used by the USSR back then to secretly launch “experimental missiles” and to test “laser weapon systems utilizing powerful antennas”.

During a telephone interview with Newsweek, The Black Vault’s founder John Greenewald compared the encounter with the so called USS Nimitz UFO incident which took place in 2004.

“This is very much simliar to the context we see today, with threats on military facilities,” he said. “The US Navy has gone on the record saying whatever this is, it’s a concern. They’re being encroached upon by this unidentified phenomena.”

Source Sputnik

‘Living robot’ developed by scientists using frog embryos

By Jamie Harris, PA Science Technology Reporter 2 hrs ago Australian PM Morrison admits regret over his response to fires The Queen’s statement ‘hints couple may lose royal titles’

Posted January 14th 2020

a close up of a bowl: Scientists create ‘living robot’ (Douglas Blackiston/Tufts University/PA)

© Provided by PA Media Scientists create ‘living robot’ (Douglas Blackiston/Tufts University/PA)

Scientists claim to have created the world’s first living robots using stem cells from frog embryos.

The tiny hybrids are “entirely new life-forms” known as xenobots – named after the African frog used in the research – and are able to move about.

It is hoped the millimetre-wide bots could one day be used to swim around human bodies to specific areas requiring medicine, or to gather microplastic in the oceans.

“We here present a method that designs completely biological machines from the ground up,” the team from the University of Vermont writes in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Unlike the metal robots we have become accustomed to, biological tissues present the potential advantage of being able to heal too, though it remains very much in the early stages.

These are the world’s first living robots.

Human Ancestors May Have Evolved the Physical Ability to Speak More Than 25 Million Years Ago Smithsonian.com Posted December 11th 2019 /www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/human-ancestors-may-have-evolved-physical-ability-

Though when primates developed the cognitive abilities for language remains a mystery

Skulls
A human skull on display with earlier ancestor skulls and a picture of a Neanderthal man at the Museum of Natural History of Toulouse. (Alain Pitton / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

By Brian Handwerk smithsonian.com
2 hours ago

Speech is part of what makes us uniquely human, but what if our ancestors had the ability to speak millions of years before Homo sapiens even existed?

Some scientists have theorized that it only became physically possible to speak a wide range of essential vowel sounds when our vocal anatomy changed with the rise of Homo sapiens some 300,000 years ago. This theoretical timeline means that language, where the brain associates words with objects or concepts and arranges them in complex sentences, would have been a relatively recent phenomenon, developing with or after our ability to speak a diverse array of sounds.

But a comprehensive study analyzing several decades of research, from primate vocalization to vocal tract acoustic modeling, suggests the idea that only Homo sapiens could physically talk may miss the mark when it comes to our ancestors’ first speech—by a staggering 27 million years or more.

Linguist Thomas Sawallis of the University of Alabama and colleagues stress that functional human speech is rooted in the ability to form contrasting vowel sounds. These critical sounds are all that differentiates entirely unrelated words like “bat,” “bought,” “but” and “bet.” Building a language without the variety of these contrasting vowel sounds would be nearly impossible. The research team’s new study in Science Advances concludes that early human ancestors, long before even the evolution of the genus Homo, actually did have the anatomical ability to make such sounds.

When, over all those millions of years, human ancestors developed the cognitive ability to use speech to converse with each other remains an open question.

“What we’re saying is not that anyone had language any earlier,” Sawallis says. ”We’re saying that the ability to make contrasting vowel qualities dates back at least to our last common ancestor with Old World monkeys like macaques and baboons. That means the speech system had at least 100 times longer to evolve than we thought.”

Baboon Screaming
A screaming guinea baboon. Studies that have found monkeys such as baboons and macaques can make contrasting vowel sounds suggest that the last common ancestor between these primates and modern humans could make the sounds too. ( Andyworks via Getty Images)

The study explores the origins and abilities of speech with an eye toward the physical processes that primates use to produce sounds. “Speech involves the biology of using your vocal tracts and your lips. Messing around with that as a muscular production, and getting a sound out that can get into somebody else’s ear that can identify what was intended as sounds—that’s speech,” Sawallis says.

A long-popular theory of the development of the larynx, first advanced in the 1960s, held that an evolutionary shift in throat structure was what enabled modern humans, and only modern humans, to begin speaking. The human larynx is much lower, relative to cervical vertebrae, than that of our ancestors and other primates. The descent of the larynx, the theory held, was what elongated our vocal tract and enabled modern humans to begin making the contrasting vowel sounds that were the early building blocks of language. “The question is whether that’s the key to allowing a full, usable set of contrasting vowels,” Sawallis says. “That’s what we have, we believe, definitely disproven with the research that’s led up to this article.”

The team reviewed several studies of primate vocalization and communication, and they used data from earlier research to model speech sounds. Several lines of research suggested the same conclusion—humans aren’t alone in their ability to make these sounds, so the idea that our unique anatomy enabled them doesn’t appear to hold water.

Cognitive scientist Tecumseh Fitch and colleagues in 2016 used X-ray videos to study the vocal tracts of living macaques and found that monkey vocal tracts are speech ready. “Our findings imply that the evolution of human speech capabilities required neural changes rather than modifications of vocal anatomy. Macaques have a speech-ready vocal tract but lack a speech-ready brain to control it,” the study authors wrote in Science Advances.

In a 2017 study, a team led by speech and cognition researcher Louis-Jean Boë of Université Grenoble Alpes in France, also lead author of the new study, came to the same conclusion as the macaque study. By analyzing over 1,300 naturally produced vocalizations from a baboon troop, they determined that the primates could make contrasting proto-vowel sounds.

Some animals, including birds and even elephants, can mimic human voice sounds by using an entirely different anatomy. These amazing mimics illustrate how cautious scientists must be in assigning sounds or speech to specific places in the evolutionary journey of human languages.

“Of course, vocalization involves vowel production and of course, vocalization is a vital evolutionary precursor to speech, “ says paleoanthropologist Rick Potts of Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, in an email. “The greatest danger is equating how other primates and mammals produce vowels as part of their vocalizations with the evolutionary basis for speech.”

While anatomy of the larynx and vocal tract help make speech physically possible, they aren’t all that’s required. The brain must also be capable of controlling the production and the hearing of human speech sounds. In fact, recent research suggests that while living primates can have a wide vocal range—at least 38 different calls in the case of the bonobo—they simply don’t have the brainpower to develop language.

“The fact that a monkey vocal tract could produce speech (with a human like brain in control) does not mean that they did. It just shows that the vocal tract is not the bottle-neck,” says University of Vienna biologist and cognitive scientist Tecumseh Fitch in an email.

Snow Monkey
A male Japanese macaque or snow monkey a making threatening expression in Jigokudani Yean-Koen National Park. ( Anup Shah)

Where, when, and in which human ancestor species a language-ready brain developed is a complicated and fascinating field for further research. By studying the way our primate relatives like chimpanzees use their hands naturally, and can learn human signs, some scientists suspect that language developed first through gestures and was later made much more efficient through speech.

Other researchers are searching backward in time for evidence of a cognitive leap forward which produced complex thought and, in turn, speech language abilities able to express those thoughts to others—perhaps with speech and language co-evolving at the same time.

Language doesn’t leave fossil evidence, but more enduring examples of how our ancestors used their brains, like tool-making techniques, might be used as proxies to better understand when ancient humans started using complex symbols—visual or vocal—to communicate with one another.

For example, some brain studies show that language uses similar parts of the brain as toolmaking, and suggest that by the time the earliest advanced stone tools emerged 2 million years ago, their makers might have had the ability to talk to each other. Some kind of cognitive advance in human prehistory could have launched both skills.

Sawallis says that the search for such advances in brain power can be greatly expanded, millions of years back in time, now that it’s been shown that the physical ability for speech has existed for so long. “You might think of the brain as a driver and the vocal tract as a vehicle,” he says. “There’s no amount of computing power that can make the Wright Flyer supersonic. The physics of the object define what that object can do in the world. So what we’re talking about is not the neurological component that drives the vocal tract, we’re just talking about the physics of the vocal tract.”

How long did it take for our ancestors to find the voices they were equipped with all along? The question is a fascinating one, but unfortunately their bones and stones remain silent. Like this article? SIGN UP for our newsletter

From Flat Earth to Flat Universe Posted November 5th 2019

Our understanding of the universe could be fundamentally wrong, scientists have said.
Newly released data from the Planck Telescope, which aimed to take very precise readings of the shape, size and ancient history of our universe, suggests that there could be something wrong in our physics, according to a new paper.

The issue could be an indication of a “crisis in cosmology” that may be as yet unrealised because of problems with our understanding of the shape of the universe, the authors of a new paper write.

At the moment, scientists generally believe that the universe is “flat”. That is in keeping with large amounts of data gathered from telescopes peering deep into space, including readings from the European Space Agency’s Planck Telescope.

But in a newly published paper, researchers note that the latest release of data from the same Planck telescope gave different readings than expected under our standard understanding of the universe. Those could be explained by the fact the universe is “closed”, the authors write – which would help explain issues with the readings.

That could mean that our assumption of a flat universe may actually be “mask[ing] a cosmological crisis where disparate observed properties of the Universe appear to be mutually inconsistent”, the authors write.

To resolve the problem, further research will be required to understand whether we have simply not detected another piece of the puzzle, or are simply a “statistical fluctuation”. But they could also suggest that we are lacking a “new physics” that is yet to be discovered, they write.

NHS to set up artificial intelligence lab September 13th 2019 

Stacy Liberatore For Dailymail.com Posted November 4th 2019 Trump: Farage and Johnson should ‘come together’ for general election Johnson and Corbyn in war of words as Labour to reveal Brexit strategy

a close up of a rock: Scientist recreated self-assembling cells in an environment similar to to underwater vents and found that the heat, alkalinity and salt did not hinder the protocell formation, but actively favored it

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Scientist recreated self-assembling cells in an environment similar to to underwater vents and found that the heat, alkalinity and salt did not hinder the protocell formation, but actively favored it

Scientist have long hypothesized that the first cells evolved in warm, shallow pools of water – until now.

A recent study has produced new evidence that life could have originated in deep-sea hydrothermal vents.

Scientist recreated self-assembling cells in an environment similar to to underwater vents and found that the heat, alkalinity and salt did not hinder synthetic cell formation, but actively favored it. 

Because similar vents are found on other planets, experts believe these findings will help lead us to life in the distant worlds. 

Charles Darwin was the first to suggest the ‘little warm pond’ theory for how the first primitive cells evolved.

He noted that that simple chemicals in small or shallow bodies of water might spontaneously form organic compounds in the presence of energy from heat, light, or electricity from lightning strikes.   

However, new evidence has come from the University College London (UCL) that may rewrite science books.

By creating protocells, synthetic chemical particles that possess cell-like structures, in hot, alkaline seawater, a UCL-led research team has added to evidence that the origin of life could have been in deep-sea hydrothermal vents rather than shallow pools.

‘There are multiple competing theories as to where and how life started,’ said the study’s lead author, Professor Nick Lane (UCL Genetics, Evolution & Environment).

‘Underwater hydrothermal vents are among most promising locations for life’s beginnings — our findings now add weight to that theory with solid experimental evidence.’

What is AI? August 19th 2019

From SIRI to self-driving cars, artificial intelligence (AI) is progressing rapidly. While science fiction often portrays AI as robots with human-like characteristics, AI can encompass anything from Google’s search algorithms to IBM’s Watson to autonomous weapons.

Artificial intelligence today is properly known as narrow AI (or weak AI), in that it is designed to perform a narrow task (e.g. only facial recognition or only internet searches or only driving a car). However, the long-term goal of many researchers is to create general AI (AGI or strong AI). While narrow AI may outperform humans at whatever its specific task is, like playing chess or solving equations, AGI would outperform humans at nearly every cognitive task.

Why research AI safety?

In the near term, the goal of keeping AI’s impact on society beneficial motivates research in many areas, from economics and law to technical topics such as verification, validity, security and control. Whereas it may be little more than a minor nuisance if your laptop crashes or gets hacked, it becomes all the more important that an AI system does what you want it to do if it controls your car, your airplane, your pacemaker, your automated trading system or your power grid. Another short-term challenge is preventing a devastating arms race in lethal autonomous weapons.

In the long term, an important question is what will happen if the quest for strong AI succeeds and an AI system becomes better than humans at all cognitive tasks. As pointed out by I.J. Good in 1965, designing smarter AI systems is itself a cognitive task. Such a system could potentially undergo recursive self-improvement, triggering an intelligence explosion leaving human intellect far behind. By inventing revolutionary new technologies, such a superintelligence might help us eradicate war, disease, and poverty, and so the creation of strong AI might be the biggest event in human history. Some experts have expressed concern, though, that it might also be the last, unless we learn to align the goals of the AI with ours before it becomes superintelligent.

There are some who question whether strong AI will ever be achieved, and others who insist that the creation of superintelligent AI is guaranteed to be beneficial. At FLI we recognize both of these possibilities, but also recognize the potential for an artificial intelligence system to intentionally or unintentionally cause great harm. We believe research today will help us better prepare for and prevent such potentially negative consequences in the future, thus enjoying the benefits of AI while avoiding pitfalls.

How can AI be dangerous?

Most researchers agree that a superintelligent AI is unlikely to exhibit human emotions like love or hate, and that there is no reason to expect AI to become intentionally benevolent or malevolent. Instead, when considering how AI might become a risk, experts think two scenarios most likely:

  1. The AI is programmed to do something devastating: Autonomous weapons are artificial intelligence systems that are programmed to kill. In the hands of the wrong person, these weapons could easily cause mass casualties. Moreover, an AI arms race could inadvertently lead to an AI war that also results in mass casualties. To avoid being thwarted by the enemy, these weapons would be designed to be extremely difficult to simply “turn off,” so humans could plausibly lose control of such a situation. This risk is one that’s present even with narrow AI, but grows as levels of AI intelligence and autonomy increase.
  2. The AI is programmed to do something beneficial, but it develops a destructive method for achieving its goal: This can happen whenever we fail to fully align the AI’s goals with ours, which is strikingly difficult. If you ask an obedient intelligent car to take you to the airport as fast as possible, it might get you there chased by helicopters and covered in vomit, doing not what you wanted but literally what you asked for. If a superintelligent system is tasked with a ambitious geoengineering project, it might wreak havoc with our ecosystem as a side effect, and view human attempts to stop it as a threat to be met.

As these examples illustrate, the concern about advanced AI isn’t malevolence but competence. A super-intelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals, and if those goals aren’t aligned with ours, we have a problem. You’re probably not an evil ant-hater who steps on ants out of malice, but if you’re in charge of a hydroelectric green energy project and there’s an anthill in the region to be flooded, too bad for the ants. A key goal of AI safety research is to never place humanity in the position of those ants.

Why the recent interest in AI safety

Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, and many other big names in science and technology have recently expressed concern in the media and via open letters about the risks posed by AI, joined by many leading AI researchers. Why is the subject suddenly in the headlines?

The idea that the quest for strong AI would ultimately succeed was long thought of as science fiction, centuries or more away. However, thanks to recent breakthroughs, many AI milestones, which experts viewed as decades away merely five years ago, have now been reached, making many experts take seriously the possibility of superintelligence in our lifetime. While some experts still guess that human-level AI is centuries away, most AI researches at the 2015 Puerto Rico Conference guessed that it would happen before 2060. Since it may take decades to complete the required safety research, it is prudent to start it now.

Because AI has the potential to become more intelligent than any human, we have no surefire way of predicting how it will behave. We can’t use past technological developments as much of a basis because we’ve never created anything that has the ability to, wittingly or unwittingly, outsmart us. The best example of what we could face may be our own evolution. People now control the planet, not because we’re the strongest, fastest or biggest, but because we’re the smartest. If we’re no longer the smartest, are we assured to remain in control?

FLI’s position is that our civilization will flourish as long as we win the race between the growing power of technology and the wisdom with which we manage it. In the case of AI technology, FLI’s position is that the best way to win that race is not to impede the former, but to accelerate the latter, by supporting AI safety research.

The Top Myths About Advanced AI

A captivating conversation is taking place about the future of artificial intelligence and what it will/should mean for humanity. There are fascinating controversies where the world’s leading experts disagree, such as: AI’s future impact on the job market; if/when human-level AI will be developed; whether this will lead to an intelligence explosion; and whether this is something we should welcome or fear. But there are also many examples of of boring pseudo-controversies caused by people misunderstanding and talking past each other. To help ourselves focus on the interesting controversies and open questions — and not on the misunderstandings — let’s  clear up some of the most common myths.

AI myths

Timeline Myths

The first myth regards the timeline: how long will it take until machines greatly supersede human-level intelligence? A common misconception is that we know the answer with great certainty.

One popular myth is that we know we’ll get superhuman AI this century. In fact, history is full of technological over-hyping. Where are those fusion power plants and flying cars we were promised we’d have by now? AI has also been repeatedly over-hyped in the past, even by some of the founders of the field. For example, John McCarthy (who coined the term “artificial intelligence”), Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester and Claude Shannon wrote this overly optimistic forecast about what could be accomplished during two months with stone-age computers: “We propose that a 2 month, 10 man study of artificial intelligence be carried out during the summer of 1956 at Dartmouth College […] An attempt will be made to find how to make machines use language, form abstractions and concepts, solve kinds of problems now reserved for humans, and improve themselves. We think that a significant advance can be made in one or more of these problems if a carefully selected group of scientists work on it together for a summer.”

On the other hand, a popular counter-myth is that we know we won’t get superhuman AI this century. Researchers have made a wide range of estimates for how far we are from superhuman AI, but we certainly can’t say with great confidence that the probability is zero this century, given the dismal track record of such techno-skeptic predictions. For example, Ernest Rutherford, arguably the greatest nuclear physicist of his time, said in 1933 — less than 24 hours before Szilard’s invention of the nuclear chain reaction — that nuclear energy was “moonshine.” And Astronomer Royal Richard Woolley called interplanetary travel “utter bilge” in 1956. The most extreme form of this myth is that superhuman AI will never arrive because it’s physically impossible. However, physicists know that a brain consists of quarks and electrons arranged to act as a powerful computer, and that there’s no law of physics preventing us from building even more intelligent quark blobs.

There have been a number of surveys asking AI researchers how many years from now they think we’ll have human-level AI with at least 50% probability. All these surveys have the same conclusion: the world’s leading experts disagree, so we simply don’t know. For example, in such a poll of the AI researchers at the 2015 Puerto Rico AI conference, the average (median) answer was by year 2045, but some researchers guessed hundreds of years or more.

There’s also a related myth that people who worry about AI think it’s only a few years away. In fact, most people on record worrying about superhuman AI guess it’s still at least decades away. But they argue that as long as we’re not 100% sure that it won’t happen this century, it’s smart to start safety research now to prepare for the eventuality. Many of the safety problems associated with human-level AI are so hard that they may take decades to solve. So it’s prudent to start researching them now rather than the night before some programmers drinking Red Bull decide to switch one on.

Controversy Myths

Another common misconception is that the only people harboring concerns about AI and advocating AI safety research are luddites who don’t know much about AI. When Stuart Russell, author of the standard AI textbook, mentioned this during his Puerto Rico talk, the audience laughed loudly. A related misconception is that supporting AI safety research is hugely controversial. In fact, to support a modest investment in AI safety research, people don’t need to be convinced that risks are high, merely non-negligible — just as a modest investment in home insurance is justified by a non-negligible probability of the home burning down.

It may be that media have made the AI safety debate seem more controversial than it really is. After all, fear sells, and articles using out-of-context quotes to proclaim imminent doom can generate more clicks than nuanced and balanced ones. As a result, two people who only know about each other’s positions from media quotes are likely to think they disagree more than they really do. For example, a techno-skeptic who only read about Bill Gates’s position in a British tabloid may mistakenly think Gates believes superintelligence to be imminent. Similarly, someone in the beneficial-AI movement who knows nothing about Andrew Ng’s position except his quote about overpopulation on Mars may mistakenly think he doesn’t care about AI safety, whereas in fact, he does. The crux is simply that because Ng’s timeline estimates are longer, he naturally tends to prioritize short-term AI challenges over long-term ones.

Myths About the Risks of Superhuman AI

Many AI researchers roll their eyes when seeing this headline: “Stephen Hawking warns that rise of robots may be disastrous for mankind.” And as many have lost count of how many similar articles they’ve seen. Typically, these articles are accompanied by an evil-looking robot carrying a weapon, and they suggest we should worry about robots rising up and killing us because they’ve become conscious and/or evil. On a lighter note, such articles are actually rather impressive, because they succinctly summarize the scenario that AI researchers don’t worry about. That scenario combines as many as three separate misconceptions: concern about consciousness, evil, and robots.

If you drive down the road, you have a subjective experience of colors, sounds, etc. But does a self-driving car have a subjective experience? Does it feel like anything at all to be a self-driving car? Although this mystery of consciousness is interesting in its own right, it’s irrelevant to AI risk. If you get struck by a driverless car, it makes no difference to you whether it subjectively feels conscious. In the same way, what will affect us humans is what superintelligent AI does, not how it subjectively feels.

The fear of machines turning evil is another red herring. The real worry isn’t malevolence, but competence. A superintelligent AI is by definition very good at attaining its goals, whatever they may be, so we need to ensure that its goals are aligned with ours. Humans don’t generally hate ants, but we’re more intelligent than they are – so if we want to build a hydroelectric dam and there’s an anthill there, too bad for the ants. The beneficial-AI movement wants to avoid placing humanity in the position of those ants.

The consciousness misconception is related to the myth that machines can’t have goals. Machines can obviously have goals in the narrow sense of exhibiting goal-oriented behavior: the behavior of a heat-seeking missile is most economically explained as a goal to hit a target. If you feel threatened by a machine whose goals are misaligned with yours, then it is precisely its goals in this narrow sense that troubles you, not whether the machine is conscious and experiences a sense of purpose. If that heat-seeking missile were chasing you, you probably wouldn’t exclaim: “I’m not worried, because machines can’t have goals!”

I sympathize with Rodney Brooks and other robotics pioneers who feel unfairly demonized by scaremongering tabloids, because some journalists seem obsessively fixated on robots and adorn many of their articles with evil-looking metal monsters with red shiny eyes. In fact, the main concern of the beneficial-AI movement isn’t with robots but with intelligence itself: specifically, intelligence whose goals are misaligned with ours. To cause us trouble, such misaligned superhuman intelligence needs no robotic body, merely an internet connection – this may enable outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand. Even if building robots were physically impossible, a super-intelligent and super-wealthy AI could easily pay or manipulate many humans to unwittingly do its bidding.

The robot misconception is related to the myth that machines can’t control humans. Intelligence enables control: humans control tigers not because we are stronger, but because we are smarter. This means that if we cede our position as smartest on our planet, it’s possible that we might also cede control.

The Interesting Controversies

Not wasting time on the above-mentioned misconceptions lets us focus on true and interesting controversies where even the experts disagree. What sort of future do you want? Should we develop lethal autonomous weapons? What would you like to happen with job automation? What career advice would you give today’s kids? Do you prefer new jobs replacing the old ones, or a jobless society where everyone enjoys a life of leisure and machine-produced wealth? Further down the road, would you like us to create superintelligent life and spread it through our cosmos? Will we control intelligent machines or will they control us? Will intelligent machines replace us, coexist with us, or merge with us? What will it mean to be human in the age of artificial intelligence? What would you like it to mean, and how can we make the future be that way? Please join the conversation!

Recommended References

Videos

Media Articles

Essays by AI Researchers

Research Articles

Research Collections

Case Studies

Blog posts and talks

Books

Organizations

Many of the organizations listed on this page and their descriptions are from a list compiled by the Global Catastrophic Risk institute; we are most grateful for the efforts that they have put into compiling it. These organizations above all work on computer technology issues, though many cover other topics as well. This list is undoubtedly incomplete; please contact us to suggest additions or corrections.

Avoiding the Issue August 5th 2019

It may be amazing what the armed forces and engineers can do in an emergency like Whaley Bridge, but I doubt that lessons will be learned as far as human environmental damage is concerned.

Interestingly, and understandably, many local people didn’t want to leave their homes, thinkingh it was a case of the authorities going mad with health and safety over a storm in a teacup rather than a storm in reservoir.

There is indeed a great deal of not exactly nonsense, but some rather distracting talk about the environment, most if not all of it avoiding the main issues, human overpopulation and elite greed.

The truth is hidden by an elite owned and operated media only intereted in finding scapegoats among those of us in the lower order masses.

Between 25 and 33% of carbon emissions are due to land use, including farming for an unsustainable and growing human population, most of it coming from what we used to call the ‘Third World’. The Holy Grail of economic growth is out of control so as to feed the masses and elite media cries for equality down at the borrom, while the elite monopolise teh profits of raping the earth, spinning us into more And more disasters and wars.

The following articles should be read with this in mind. The U.S.A, an empire in decline, is fighting to keep its annual consumption of the earth’s natural resources up at 52% of the world’s total, for a nation that comprises only 6% of the world’s population. Britain dominates European policy and is the U.S’s lackey- hence them confiscating the Iranian tanker.

Robert Cook August 5th 2019

Whaley Bridge latest: race to save dam and halt flood continues as emergency crews say they still need two more days

UP NEXT

UP NEXT

Emergency teams need at least two more days to pump water from a reservoir at risk of bursting its banks and flooding the town below, fire crews said today.

Hundreds of families evacuated from their homes of the Peak District town of Whaley Bridge on Thursday were forced to spend a fifth night away from home as the race-against-time continues.

Emergency crews, who have been working round-the-clock to shore up the Victorian structure which partially collapsed in torrential rain, today said it is now “relatively stable” as the threat of storms appeared to recede.

An RAF Chinook helicopter has been dropping sandbags on the crumbling wall while six rescue boats have been deployed in case the dam bursts.

© Provided by Independent Digital News & Media Limited

The reservoir is now just under half of its 300million gallon capcity, but water levels must drop to at least 25 per cent before the evacuees can return home. 

Derbyshire deputy chief fire officer Gavin Tomlinson said the operation would continue “for a few days yet”.

He said: “As soon as we get the water level down to a safe level, which is around 25 per cent of the contents of the dam, then the emergency phase is over and then the contractors can look at the repairing of the dam wall.”

RAF Wing Commander John Coles, who is in charge of the operation to shore up the wall, added: “I think the assessment is now that actually the dam is relatively stable.

“The military will stand by ready to come back up if required but I think the sense of the moment is very much we’ve got through the worst of it. We were fortunate with the weather.”

Derbyshire chief fire officer Terry McDermott said a seven-day estimate for how long people would be out of their homes was a “worst case scenario”.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was expected to visit the flood-struck Derbyshire town this morning after Friday’s visit by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Met Office spokesman Grahame Madge said the next 36 hours were looking “largely dry” and unlikely to affect the rescue operation.  © Provided by Independent Digital News & Media Limited Emergency workers are pumping water out of the reservoir to ease the pressure on the dam (PA)

However, he said a heavy band of rain was expected later Thursday and into Friday: “That may bring a heavier pulse of rain. We will keep an eye on the forecast and issue any warnings that may be relevant. 

© Provided by Independent Digital News & Media Limited The emergency crews say they need about two more days to pump water from the reservoir (PA)

Police allowed one resident from each of the 400 properties to return to the evacuation zone for 15-minutes to gather essentials on Saturday.

However, 31 people, including a “small number” who were initially evacuated but have since returned to their homes, remained in 22 properties last night.

Deputy chief constable Rachel Swann told a residents meeting they were not only putting their own lives at risk, but also those of emergency services staff.

She also said the force was using a drone to patrol the streets after one resident claimed she had been burgled.

Is There Evidence of Reincarnation?

Portrait of young boy (4-5) wearing traditional Indian outfit, holding present
ImagesBazaar/Riser/Getty Images

Table of Contents

by Stephen Wagner Updated May 22, 2019

Have you lived before? The idea that our souls live through many lifetimes over the centuries is known as reincarnation. It has been part of virtually every culture since ancient times. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Aztecs all believed in the “transmigration of souls” from one body to another after death. Reincarnation is also a fundamental concept of Hinduism.

Although it is not a part of official Christian doctrine, many Christians believe in reincarnation or at least accept its possibility. Jesus, it is believed, was resurrected three days after his crucifixion. The idea that we can live again after death as another person, as a member of the opposite sex or in a completely different station in life, is intriguing and, for many people, highly appealing.

But is reincarnation just an idea, or is there real evidence to support it? Many researchers have tackled this question—and their results are surprising.

Past Life Regression Hypnosis

The practice of reaching past lives through hypnosis is controversial, primarily because hypnosis is not a reliable tool. It can certainly help researchers access the unconscious mind, but the information found there should not be taken as truth. For example, it has been shown that hypnosis can create false memories. That doesn’t mean, however, that regression hypnosis should be dismissed out of hand. If information from a “past life” can be verified through research, then the case for reincarnation becomes more compelling.

The most famous case of past life regression through hypnosis is that of Ruth Simmons. In 1952, her therapist, Morey Bernstein, encouraged her to travel in her mind back to a time before her birth. Suddenly, Ruth began to speak with an Irish accent and claimed that her name was Bridey Murphy, who lived in 19th-century Belfast, Ireland. Ruth recalled many details of her life as Bridey, but attempts to find out if Ms. Murphy actually existed were unfortunately unsuccessful. There was, however, some indirect evidence for the truth of her story. Under hypnosis, Bridey mentioned the names of two grocers in Belfast from whom she had bought food, Mr. Farr and John Carrigan. A Belfast librarian found a city directory for 1865-1866 that listed both men as grocers. Simmons’ story was told both in a book by Bernstein and in a 1956 movie, “The Search for Bridey Murphy.”

Unusual Illnesses and Physical Ailments

Do you have a lifelong illness or physical pain that you cannot account for? It may be the result of some past life trauma, some researchers suggest.

In “Have We Really Lived Before?,” Dr. Michael C. Pollack describes his lower back pain, which grew steadily worse over the years and limited his activities. He believes he found a possible explanation for the pain during a series of past life therapy sessions: “I discovered that I had lived at least three prior lifetimes in which I had been killed by being knifed or speared in the low back. After processing and healing the past life experiences, my back began to heal.”

Research conducted by Nicola Dexter, a past life therapist, has discovered correlations between some of her patients’ illnesses and their past lives. She found, for example, a case of bulimia caused by swallowing salt water in a previous life; a persistent pain in the shoulder and arm caused by participating, in a past life, in a dangerous game of tug-of-war; and a fear of razors and shaving that was the result of the sufferer having had his hand cut off in a previous life.

Phobias and Nightmares

Where does seemingly irrational fear come from? Fear of heights, fear of water, fear of flying? Many of us have normal reservations about such things, but some people have fears so great that they become debilitating. And some fears are completely baffling—a fear of carpets, for example. Where do such fears come from? The answer, of course, can be psychologically complex, but researchers think that in some cases there might be a connection to experiences from previous lifetimes.

In “Healing Past Lives Through Dreams,” author J.D. writes about his claustrophobia, which includes a tendency to panic whenever his arms or legs are confined or restricted. He believes that a dream of a past life uncovered a trauma that explains his fear. “One night in the dream state I found myself hovering over a disturbing scene,” he writes. “It was a town in 15th-century Spain, and a frightened man was being hog-tied by a small jeering crowd. He had expressed beliefs contrary to the church. Some local ruffians, with the blessing of the church officials, were eager to administer justice. The men bound the heretic hand and foot, then wrapped him very tightly in a blanket. The crowd carried him to an abandoned stone building, shoved him into a dark corner under the floor, and left him to die. I realized with horror the man was me.”

Physical Resemblances

In his book ​”Someone Else’s Yesterday,” Jeffrey J. Keene theorizes that a person in this life may strongly resemble the person he or she was in a previous life. Keene, an Assistant Fire Chief who lives in Westport, Connecticut, believes he is the reincarnation of John B. Gordon, a Confederate General of the Army of Northern Virginia, who died on January 9, 1904. As evidence, he offers photos of himself and the general. There is a striking resemblance. Beyond sharing physical similarities, Keene says that individuals and their past incarnations often “think alike, look alike and even share facial scars. Their lives are so intertwined that they appear to be one.”

Another case of such resemblance is that of artist Peter Teekamp, who believes he may be the reincarnation of artist Paul Gauguin. Here, too, there is a physical resemblance, along with similarities between the two painters’ work.

Children’s Spontaneous Recall and Special Knowledge

Many small children who claim to recall past lives also express knowledge that could not have come from their own experiences. Such cases are documented in Carol Bowman’s “Children’s Past Lives“:

“Eighteen-month-old Elsbeth had never spoken a complete sentence. But one evening, as her mother was bathing her, Elsbeth spoke up and gave her mother a shock. ‘I’m going to take my vows,’ she told her mother. Taken aback, she questioned the baby girl about her queer statement. ‘I’m not Elsbeth now,’ the child replied. ‘I’m Rose, but I’m going to be Sister Teresa Gregory.'”

Identical Handwriting

Can proof of past lives be demonstrated by comparing the handwriting of a living person to that of the deceased person he or she claims to have been? Indian researcher Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan believes so. Chauhan’s findings have been received favorably at the National Conference of Forensic Scientists at Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.

A six-year-old boy named Taranjit Singh from the village of Alluna Miana, India, claimed since he was two that he had previously been a person named Satnam Singh. This other boy had lived in the village of Chakkchela, Taranjit insisted, and Taranjit even knew Satnam’s father’s name. Satnam had been killed while riding his bike home from school. An investigation verified the many details Taranjit knew about Satnam’s life. But the clincher was that their handwriting, a trait experts know is as distinct as a fingerprint, was virtually identical.

Matching Birthmarks and Birth Defects

Dr. Ian Stevenson, head of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, was one of the foremost researchers on the subject of reincarnation and past lives. In 1993, he wrote a paper entitled “Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons,” which described possible physical evidence for past lives. “Among 895 cases of children who claimed to remember a previous life (or were thought by adults to have had a previous life),” Stevenson writes, “birthmarks and/or birth defects attributed to the previous life were reported in 309 (35 percent) of the subjects. The birthmark or birth defect of the child was said to correspond to a wound (usually fatal) or other mark on the deceased person whose life the child said it remembered.”

But could any of these cases be verified?

In one fascinating case, an Indian boy claimed to remember the life of a man named Maha Ram, who was killed by a shotgun fired at close range. The boy had an array of birthmarks in the center of his chest that looked like they might correspond to a shotgun blast. So the story was investigated. Indeed, there was a man named Maha Ram who was killed by a shotgun blast to the chest. An autopsy report recorded the man’s chest wounds, which corresponded directly with the boy’s birthmarks.

In another case, a man from Thailand claimed that when he was a child he had distinct memories of a past life as his own paternal uncle. This man had a large scar-like birthmark on the back of his head. His uncle, it turned out, died from a severe knife wound to the same area.

Dr. Stevenson documented a number of cases like these, many of which he could verify through medical records.

Why did the US want to go to the Moon?

A space race developed between the US and the then Soviet Union, after the 1957 launch of the first Soviet Sputnik satellite.

When John F Kennedy became US President in 1961, many Americans believed they were losing the race for technological superiority to their Cold War enemy. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Missions by Soviet cosmonauts including Yuri Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space, worried the US

It was in that year that Soviet Union made the first ever manned spaceflight.

The US was determined to get a manned mission there first and in 1962 Kennedy made a now-famous speech announcing: “We choose to go to the Moon!”

The space race continued and in 1965 the Soviets successfully guided an unmanned craft to touch down on the Moon.

How did the US plan for its mission?

The US space agency, Nasa, committed huge amounts of resources to what became known as the Apollo programme.

About 400,000 people worked on the 17 Apollo missions, at a cost of $25bn. Image copyright NASA Image caption The Saturn V rocket lifts off

Three astronauts were chosen for the Apollo 11 mission: Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins.

A powerful rocket – the Saturn V – carried the Apollo command and service module and the attached lunar module that was to touch down on the Moon.

The plan was to use the Earth’s orbit to reach that of the Moon, after which Armstrong and Aldrin would get into the lunar module. They would descend to the Moon’s surface while Collins stayed behind in the command and service module.

Did anything go wrong?

The first crewed flight that was meant to test going into orbit was Apollo 1 in 1967. Image copyright NASA Image caption The lunar module as seen from the command and service module

But disaster struck during pre-flight routine checks, when fire swept through the command module and killed three astronauts.

Manned space flights were suspended for months.

During the Apollo 11 mission itself, there were communications issues with ground control. And an alarm message sounded on the computer which the crew had never heard before.

The lunar module also ended up touching down away from the original target area.

Walking on the Moon

Despite these problems, on 20 July – nearly 110 hours after leaving Earth, Neil Armstrong became the first person to step on to the surface of the Moon. He was followed 20 minutes later by Buzz Aldrin.

Armstrong’s words, beamed to the world by TV, entered history: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

The two men spent more than two hours outside the lunar module, collecting samples from the surface, taking pictures, and setting up a number of scientific experiments.

After completing their Moon exploration, the two men successfully docked with the command and service module. Image copyright NASA Image caption The three astronauts after being picked up in the Pacific

The return journey to Earth began and the crew splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on 24 July.

An estimated 650 million people worldwide had watched the first Moon landing. For the US, the achievement helped it demonstrate its power to a world audience.

It was also an important boost to national self-esteem at the end of a tumultuous decade. It had seen Kennedy assassinated, race riots in major cities and unease about its military involvement in Vietnam.

How do we know it really happened?

A total of six US missions had landed men on the lunar surface by the end of 1972, yet to this day there are conspiracy theories saying that the landings were staged.

But Nasa has had a reconnaissance craft orbiting the Moon since 2009. It sends back high-resolution images showing signs of exploration on the surface by the Apollo missions, such as footprints and wheel tracks. Image copyright NASA Image caption The moon landings became a cause for national celebration

There is also geological evidence from rocks brought back from the surface.

What’s the point of going to the Moon?

The US remains the only country to have put people on the Moon’s surface. Image copyright NASA Image caption Sally Ride (far left) the first female US astronaut to go to space – pictured with astronauts Judith Resnik, Anna Fisher, Kathryn Sullivan and Rhea Seddon

However, Russia, Japan, China, the European Space Agency and India have either sent probes to orbit the Moon, or landed vehicles on its surface.

For a country to be able to do so is a sign of its technological prowess, giving it membership of an elite club.

There are also more practical reasons such as the desire to exploit its resources.

Ice found at both poles may make it easier for craft to reach deeper into space, as it contains hydrogen and oxygen which can be used to fuel rockets.

There’s also interest in mining the moon for gold, platinum and rare earth metals, although it’s not yet clear how easy it would be to extract such resources.

All images subject to copyright BBC

Climate Emergency June 5th 2019

The University of East Anglia (UEA) is joining forces with other organisations around the world to declare a climate and biodiversity emergency.

UEA is one of the world’s pre-eminent climate change research institutions and the work of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and researchers in other UEA schools, has pioneered understanding of Earth’s changing climate.

The CRU at UEA is responsible for the global temperature record, which first brought global warming to the world’s attention. Researchers at UEA’s Tyndall Centre also help publish the annual Global Carbon Budget, the update for policy-makers on fossil fuel emissions.

UEA’s declaration comes on World Environment Day (Wednesday 5 June), the UN’s flagship awareness day on environmental issues from global warming to marine pollution and wildlife crime.

UEA has made the most substantive and sustained contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of any University in the world. UEA and the Tyndall Centre is a core partner of the new Climate and Social Transitions Centre.

Vice-Chancellor Professor David Richardson said: “Over the decades researchers from UEA have arguably done more to further our knowledge of humankind’s impact on Earth’s climate and eco-systems than from any other institution.

“As a University we have reduced our carbon emissions by five per cent since 1990 – despite the campus doubling in size. We also fully recognise that we need to move faster to deal with what is a climate and biodiversity emergency and that we all have a part to play in addressing this crisis.”

UEA has also signed up to the SDG Accord designed to inspire, celebrate and advance the critical role that education has in delivering the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the value it brings to our global society.

The Accord is a commitment learning institutions are making to do more to deliver the goals, to annually report on progress and to do so in ways which share the learning with each other nationally and internationally.

UEA absolutely recognises the indivisible and interconnected nature of the universal set of Goals – People, Prosperity, Planet, Partnership, Peace and that as educators we have a responsibility to play a central and transformational role in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals.

Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Professor Tim Osborn, said: “UEA has been monitoring climate change and researching its consequences for almost 50 years. We understand what is causing our climate to change and can assess the significant risks that it brings – for human society as well as for the natural world. 

“Together with other causes, especially continuing habitat loss in many parts of the world and overexploitation of marine species, climate change represents a huge challenge to biodiversity and places many species at risk.”

Professor of Evolutionary Biology and Science Engagement, Ben Garrod, said: “Global climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet today. If we are to have any chance of success in tackling the problem and reducing its effects then we need to act swiftly, decisively and collaboratively.

“It is estimated that a million species are facing the imminent threat of extinction and predictions as to the effects on the global human population are severe. By joining the growing number of institutions declaring a climate emergency, UEA can help by not only raising awareness but by contributing to solutions through our pioneering studies and leading researchers.

“Now we need every university, every council, government, school, business and every individual citizen to declare an environmental emergency and to work together to ensure we have a future where our food, health and homes are not all at stake.”

Dr Lynn Dicks, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Research Fellow at UEA, said: “Nature is under serious pressure all over the world. Roughly a quarter of all species are at risk of extinction in the groups of animals and plants that have been assessed. Nature is essential for human existence and good quality of life, and yet we are trashing it in exchange for economic wealth.

“Ongoing conversion of wilderness to agriculture, and direct exploitation of wild species through hunting, fishing and logging, are the biggest problems. Climate change is already driving species to extinction as well, and this will get much worse in the coming century.

“Researchers in the Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation at UEA are working with partners in Government, industry and the NGO sector to understand our impacts on nature and to develop strategies to protect and restore it.”

UEA operates a Sustainability Board, currently chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the Faculty of Medicine and Health, Professor Dylan Edwards, and with representation from staff, estates and the UEA Students’ Union. It meets quarterly and reviews the performance of the implementation teams that are charged with achieving the targets for the campus.

These teams address the university’s sustainability goals across eight areas: Sustainable Food; Transport; Purchasing; Engagement and Communications; Energy and Carbon Reduction; Sustainable Labs; Biodiversity; Water and Waste.

UEA has a 15 year £300m estate strategy to improve and modernise our buildings, which will include improvements to their energy usage. The 10 year programme to refurbish the Lasdun Wall is just one factor precluding reaching net zero by 2025 and the University supports the UK committee on Climate Change target of carbon neutrality by 2050.  

The decision to declare a climate and biodiversity emergency follows a motion tabled at UEA Assembly on 22 May by Dr Hannah Hoechner, on behalf of Extinction Rebellion UEA. The University’s response to the specifics of the Extinction Rebellion UEA request:

a.  “Formally declare a climate emergency”.  From the introductory paragraph it is clear that UEA detected and recognises that there is a global climate crisis.  We also feel there is a connected Biodiversity emergency.  Our preference would be to declare a “Climate and Biodiversity emergency”, which may help to appreciate their inter-relationships.  We support therefore that UEA should declare a climate and biodiversity emergency. Professor Sir Robert Watson, UEA and the Tyndall Centre, is co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

b. “Commit to the target of carbon neutrality by 2025, in accordance with the precautionary principle”.  The University’s view is that this target is unattainable.  It takes the position that UEA should commit to net carbon neutrality by 2050, in alignment and support of the recent recommendation from the independent UK Committee on Climate Change. It is important to note the impressive improvements that UEA Estates and the Sustainability Board have made, in particular this year we are on target for a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to the 1990 baseline data, despite the doubling in size of the university across the period. 

c.  “to appoint a senior staff member of the Executive Team with their sole responsibility being to achieve this carbon reduction target and to promote sustainability”  Two members of the Executive Team serve on the Sustainability Board (Professors Dylan Edwards and Mark Searcey) and they will be joined in future by Jenny Baxter, Chief Operating Officer.  The reporting process for Sustainability Board to ET will be enhanced, with quarterly reports of the Board’s activities. It was not felt that appointing one person was a sustainable way to promote sustainability.

d.  “create a consultative forum to harness the passion and expertise available among UEA staff and students to mount the necessary emergency response”. In essence, this is the function of the Sustainability Board.  At the May meeting there was extensive discussion about the need to enhance the visibility of the Board, ensure it is informed by the depth of research at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and build better engagement with its work to make a sustainable campus. We need to accelerate the pace of change and also communicate what we are doing.  We need also to cement our goals for sustainability into the next iteration of the UEA plan, with clear, explicit targets and ways to monitor our progress.  We recognise that there is much work to be done. 

For more information about UEA’s research into climate and the environment please visit www.uea.ac.uk/research/research-themes/understanding-human-and-natural-environments

Synchronicity

















From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search This article is about the philosophical concept. For other uses, see Synchronicity (disambiguation).

Carl Gustav Jung

Synchronicity (German: Synchronizität) is a concept, first introduced by analytical psychologist Carl Jung, which holds that events are “meaningful coincidences” if they occur with no causal relationship yet seem to be meaningfully related.[1] During his career, Jung furnished several different definitions of it.[2] Jung defined synchronicity as an “acausal connecting (togetherness) principle,” “meaningful coincidence”, and “acausal parallelism.” He introduced the concept as early as the 1920s but gave a full statement of it only in 1951 in an Eranos lecture.[3]

In 1952 Jung published a paper “Synchronizität als ein Prinzip akausaler Zusammenhänge” (Synchronicity – An Acausal Connecting Principle)[4] in a volume which also contained a related study by the physicist and Nobel laureate Wolfgang Pauli,[5] who was sometimes critical of Jung’s ideas.[6] Jung’s belief was that, just as events may be connected by causality, they may also be connected by meaning. Events connected by meaning need not have an explanation in terms of causality, which does not generally contradict the Axiom of Causality but in specific cases can lead to prematurely giving up causal explanation.

Jung used the concept in arguing for the existence of the paranormal.[7] A believer in the paranormal, Arthur Koestler wrote extensively on synchronicity in his 1972 book The Roots of Coincidence.[8]

Mainstream science explains synchronicities as mere coincidences that can be described by statistics laws – for instance law of truly large numbers.[9]

Description

Diagram illustrating Carl Jung’s concept of synchronicity

Jung coined the word “synchronicity” to describe “temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events.” In his book Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle, Jung wrote:[10]

How are we to recognize acausal combinations of events, since it is obviously impossible to examine all chance happenings for their causality? The answer to this is that acausal events may be expected most readily where, on closer reflection, a causal connection appears to be inconceivable.

In the introduction to his book, Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal, Roderick Main wrote:[11]

The culmination of Jung’s lifelong engagement with the paranormal is his theory of synchronicity, the view that the structure of reality includes a principle of acausal connection which manifests itself most conspicuously in the form of meaningful coincidences. Difficult, flawed, prone to misrepresentation, this theory none the less remains one of the most suggestive attempts yet made to bring the paranormal within the bounds of intelligibility. It has been found relevant by psychotherapists, parapsychologists, researchers of spiritual experience and a growing number of non-specialists. Indeed, Jung’s writings in this area form an excellent general introduction to the whole field of the paranormal.

In his book Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle, Jung wrote:[10]

…it is impossible, with our present resources, to explain ESP, or the fact of meaningful coincidence, as a phenomenon of energy. This makes an end of the causal explanation as well, for “effect” cannot be understood as anything except a phenomenon of energy. Therefore it cannot be a question of cause and effect, but of a falling together in time, a kind of simultaneity. Because of this quality of simultaneity, I have picked on the term “synchronicity” to designate a hypothetical factor equal in rank to causality as a principle of explanation.

Synchronicity was a principle which, Jung felt, gave conclusive evidence for his concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious.[12] It described a governing dynamic which underlies the whole of human experience and history — social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. The emergence of the synchronistic paradigm was a significant move away from Cartesian dualism towards an underlying philosophy of double-aspect theory. Some argue this shift was essential to bringing theoretical coherence to Jung’s earlier work.[13][14]

Even at Jung’s presentation of his work on synchronicity in 1951 at an Eranos lecture, his ideas on synchronicity were evolving. On Feb. 25, 1953, in a letter to Carl Seelig, the Swiss author and journalist who wrote a biography of Albert Einstein, Jung wrote, “Professor Einstein was my guest on several occasions at dinner. . . These were very early days when Einstein was developing his first theory of relativity [and] It was he who first started me on thinking about a possible relativity of time as well as space, and their psychic conditionality. More than 30 years later the stimulus led to my relation with the physicist professor W. Pauli and to my thesis of psychic synchronicity.”[4]

Following discussions with both Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli, Jung believed there were parallels between synchronicity and aspects of relativity theory and quantum mechanics.[15][better source needed]

Jung believed life was not a series of random events but rather an expression of a deeper order, which he and Pauli referred to as Unus mundus. This deeper order led to the insights that a person was both embedded in a universal wholeness and that the realisation of this was more than just an intellectual exercise, but also had elements of a spiritual awakening.[16] From the religious perspective, synchronicity shares similar characteristics of an “intervention of grace”. Jung also believed that in a person’s life, synchronicity served a role similar to that of dreams, with the purpose of shifting a person’s egocentric conscious thinking to greater wholeness.

Examples

Cetonia aurata

In his book Synchronicity Jung tells the following story as an example of a synchronistic event:

My example concerns a young woman patient who, in spite of efforts made on both sides, proved to be psychologically inaccessible. The difficulty lay in the fact that she always knew better about everything. Her excellent education had provided her with a weapon ideally suited to this purpose, namely a highly polished Cartesian rationalism with an impeccably “geometrical” idea of reality. After several fruitless attempts to sweeten her rationalism with a somewhat more human understanding, I had to confine myself to the hope that something unexpected and irrational would turn up, something that would burst the intellectual retort into which she had sealed herself. Well, I was sitting opposite her one day, with my back to the window, listening to her flow of rhetoric. She had an impressive dream the night before, in which someone had given her a golden scarab — a costly piece of jewellery. While she was still telling me this dream, I heard something behind me gently tapping on the window. I turned round and saw that it was a fairly large flying insect that was knocking against the window-pane from outside in the obvious effort to get into the dark room. This seemed to me very strange. I opened the window immediately and caught the insect in the air as it flew in. It was a scarabaeid beetle, or common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), whose gold-green colour most nearly resembles that of a golden scarab. I handed the beetle to my patient with the words, “Here is your scarab.” This experience punctured the desired hole in her rationalism and broke the ice of her intellectual resistance. The treatment could now be continued with satisfactory results.[17]

The French writer Émile Deschamps claims in his memoirs that, in 1805, he was treated to some plum pudding by a stranger named Monsieur de Fontgibu. Ten years later, the writer encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him that the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fontgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Deschamps was at a dinner and once again ordered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fontgibu was missing to make the setting complete – and in the same instant, the now-senile de Fontgibu entered the room, having got the wrong address.[18]

Jung wrote, after describing some examples, “When coincidences pile up in this way, one cannot help being impressed by them – for the greater the number of terms in such a series, or the more unusual its character, the more improbable it becomes.”[19]

Wolfgang Pauli

In his book Thirty Years That Shook Physics – The Story of Quantum Theory (1966), George Gamow writes about Wolfgang Pauli, who was apparently considered a person particularly associated with synchronicity events. Gamow whimsically refers to the “Pauli effect“, a mysterious phenomenon which is not understood on a purely materialistic basis, and probably never will be. The following anecdote is told:

It is well known that theoretical physicists cannot handle experimental equipment; it breaks whenever they touch it. Pauli was such a good theoretical physicist that something usually broke in the lab whenever he merely stepped across the threshold. A mysterious event that did not seem at first to be connected with Pauli’s presence once occurred in Professor J. Franck’s laboratory in Göttingen. Early one afternoon, without apparent cause, a complicated apparatus for the study of atomic phenomena collapsed. Franck wrote humorously about this to Pauli at his Zürich address and, after some delay, received an answer in an envelope with a Danish stamp. Pauli wrote that he had gone to visit Bohr and at the time of the mishap in Franck’s laboratory his train was stopped for a few minutes at the Göttingen railroad station. You may believe this anecdote or not, but there are many other observations concerning the reality of the Pauli Effect! [20]

Relationship with causality

Causality, when defined expansively (as for instance in the “mystic psychology” book The Kybalion, or in the platonic Kant-style Axiom of Causality), states that “nothing can happen without being caused.” Such an understanding of causality may be incompatible with synchronicity. Other definitions of causality (for example, the neo-Humean definition) are concerned only with the relation of cause to effect. As such, they are compatible with synchronicity. There are also opinions which hold that, where there is no external observable cause, the cause can be internal.[21]

It is also pointed out that, since Jung took into consideration only the narrow definition of causality – only the efficient cause – his notion of “acausality” is also narrow and so is not applicable to final and formal causes as understood in Aristotelian or Thomist systems.[22] The final causality is inherent[23] in synchronicity (because it leads to individuation) or synchronicity can be a kind of replacement for final causality; however, such finalism or teleology is considered to be outside the domain of modern science.

Explanations

Probability theory

Mainstream mathematics argues that statistics and probability theory (exemplified in, e.g., Littlewood’s law or the law of truly large numbers) suffice to explain any purported synchronistic events as mere coincidences.[9][24] The law of truly large numbers, for instance, states that in large enough populations, any strange event is arbitrarily likely to happen by mere chance. However, some proponents of synchronicity question whether it is even sensible in principle to try to evaluate synchronicity statistically. Jung himself and von Franz argued that statistics work precisely by ignoring what is unique about the individual case, whereas synchronicity tries to investigate that uniqueness.

Among some psychologists, Jung’s works, such as The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche, were received as problematic. Fritz Levi, in his 1952 review in Neue Schweizer Rundschau (New Swiss Observations), critiqued Jung’s theory of synchronicity as vague in determinability of synchronistic events, saying that Jung never specifically explained his rejection of “magic causality” to which such an acausal principle as synchronicity would be related. He also questioned the theory’s usefulness.[25]

Psychology

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, and avoids information and interpretations that contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or is a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study, or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis. Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence that challenges a preconceived idea, but not to evidence that supports it.[26]

Likewise, in psychology and sociology, the term apophenia is used for the mistaken detection of a pattern or meaning in random or meaningless data.[27] Skeptics, such as Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic’s Dictionary, argue that the perception of synchronicity is better explained as apophenia. Primates use pattern detection in their form of intelligence,[28] and this can lead to erroneous identification of non-existent patterns. A famous example of this is the fact that human face recognition is so robust, and based on such a basic archetype (essentially two dots and a line contained in a circle), that human beings are very prone to identify faces in random data all through their environment, like the “man in the moon”, or faces in wood grain, an example of the visual form of apophenia known as pareidolia.[29]

Charles Tart sees danger in synchronistic thinking: ‘This danger is the temptation to mental laziness. […] it would be very tempting to say, “Well, it’s synchronistic, it’s forever beyond my understanding,” and so (prematurely) give up trying to find a causal explanation.’[30]

Mathematics

Jung and his followers (e.g., Marie-Louise von Franz) share in common the belief that numbers are the archetypes of order, and the major participants in synchronicity creation.[31] This hypothesis has implications that are relevant to some of the “chaotic” phenomena in nonlinear dynamics. Dynamical systems theory has provided a new context from which to speculate about synchronicity because it gives predictions about the transitions between emergent states of order and nonlocality.[32] This view, however, is not part of mainstream mathematical thought.

Quantum Physics

According to a certain view, synchronicity serves as a way of making sense of or describing some aspects of quantum mechanics. It argues that quantum experiments demonstrate that, at least in the microworld of subatomic particles, there is an instantaneous connection between particles no matter how far away they are from one another. Known as quantum non-locality or entanglement, the proponents of this view argue that this points to a unified field that precedes physical reality.[33] As with archetypal reasoning, the proponents argue that two events can correspond to each other (e.g. particle with particle, or person with person) in a meaningful way.

F. David Peat saw parallels between Synchronicity and David Bohm‘s theory of implicate order. According to Bohm’s[34] theory, there are three major realms of existence: the explicate (unfolded) order, the implicate (enfolded) order, and a source or ground beyond both. The flowing movement of the whole can thus be understood as a process of continuous enfolding and unfolding of order or structure. From moment to moment there is a rhythmic pulse between implicate and explicate realities. Therefore, synchronicity would literally take place as the bridge between implicate and explicate orders, whose complementary nature define the undivided totality.

Religion

Many people believe that the Universe or God causes synchronicities. Among the general public, divine intervention is the most widely accepted explanation for meaningful coincidences.[7]

Publications