Most Published Studies Exaggerated the Effects of Ocean Acidification – and Covid, Etc.

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog

February 20, 2022 By jennifer

The concept of ocean acidification, and human-caused global warming more generally, could be described as containing a grain of truth embedded in a mountain of nonsense. Indeed, the projected large increase in atmospheric CO2 will at most cause a small reduction in pH – it will not turn the ocean acidic. Yet this is what is implied by the term ocean acidification. True acidification would require average pH to be reduced below 7.0, at which point seashells would indeed begin to dissolve. This is an impossible scenario, however, because of the ocean’s effectively limitless buffering capacity.

There is a newly published study by Jeff Clements and team that concludes many of the published studies on ocean acidification, especially those studies published in high impact journals and accompanied by sensational media reporting, have turned-out to be wrong, or at least exaggerated.

My colleague Peter Ridd describes the situation:

This problem with exaggeration of threats applies to many areas of science and has a name: The Decline Effect.

The Decline Effect goes like this: an early report, usually attracting huge media interest, predicts some sort of catastrophe. But when follow up work is done, usually with far better experimental procedure and far greater numbers of samples, the original report turns out to be wrong.

Jeff Clements’ team included Timothy Clark, Josefin Sundin and Frederik Jutfelt who were involved in a study last year proving that numerous reports by James Cook University’s coral reef centres on reef fish was totally wrong.

I co-authored a book chapter with John Abbot some years ago that explained:

Initial concerns about ocean acidification focused on organisms that construct their shells or skeletons from calcium carbonate. Such organisms are referred to as marine calcifiers and include not only corals, but also crabs, clams and conchs (sea snails).

Theoretically, and according to popular science magazines, all corals are already severely and negatively affected by ocean acidification. But this is not evident from methodologically sound studies undertaken at the Great Barrier Reef. A review of the growth rates of six, hard coral species at Lord Howe Island (Anderson et al. 2015) found marked variation in the growth rates of branching coral, while growth rates of the massive Porites coral were unchanged. The researchers suggested that a decline in the growth rates of the branching species could be attributable to a reduction in the calcium carbonate saturation state as a consequence of higher summer temperatures. A study measuring calcification rates for 41 long-lived Porites corals from seven reefs from the central Great Barrier Reef (D’Olivio et al. 2009), showed good recovery from the major 1998 bleaching event, with no significant trend in calcification rates for the inner reefs. Corals from the mid-shelf central Great Barrier Reef, however, did show a decline of 3.3%.

While most ocean acidification research has been focused on physiological processes, in particular calcification, there have also been studies on three common hard corals to look at their fertilisation, embryonic development, larval survivorship, and metamorphosis (Chua et al. 2013a; Chua et al. 2013b). These studies have found the early life-history stages were unaffected by reduced pH; there was no consistent effect of elevated CO2 alone, nor in combination with temperature.

Studies of the effect of very high CO2 levels (up to 2,850 ppm) on molluscs – including oysters, clams, scallops and conchs – have shown that these species will generally build their shells more slowly as CO2 levels increase (Ries et al. 2009). This same study showed that crabs and lobsters respond quite differently to the same elevated CO2 levels, showing a general increase in calcification rates.

This chart, from my chapter with John Abbot, shows how quickly scientists could meet the demand for commentary in the new area of ocean acidification, including to support the theory of human-caused global warming.

The varied responses among different organisms reflect their differing abilities to regulate pH at the site of calcification, and:

  • the extent to which their outer shell layer is protected by an organic covering
  • the solubility of their shell, or skeletal mineral
  • the extent to which they use photosynthesis (Ries et al. 2009).

Of course, many marine organisms are not calcifiers, and some of these organisms have also been tested for a response to ocean acidification.

When seagrasses collected from three locations in the Great Barrier Reef region – Cockle Bay, Magnetic Island, and Green Island – were exposed to four different CO2 concentration levels for two weeks – with water temperature and salinity in the experimental tanks near-constant throughout – all three seagrass species exhibited enhanced photosynthetic responses (Ow et al. 2015). That is growth rates, observed after two weeks of exposure to an enriched CO2 environment in an indoor aquarium, were higher. This suggests that ocean acidification could mean more seagrass, which would be good for large marine mammals like dugongs (dugongs are vulnerable to extinction because of issues unrelated to changing ocean chemistry).

Also, contrary to expectations, laboratory investigations into the effects of three different CO2 treatments on anemonefish (commonly known as the clownfish) found that higher CO2 levels stimulated breeding activity (Miller et al. 2013). The breeding pairs from the fringing reefs of Orpheus Island on the Great Barrier Reef, where they are exposed to the highest CO2 levels, produced double the number of clutches per breeding pair, and 67% more eggs per clutch than the control. However, young anemonefish that were bred in high CO2 levels and high temperatures showed decreases in their length, weight, condition, and survival (Miller et al. 2012). Though these effects were absent or reversed when their parents also experienced the higher concentrations (Miller et al. 2013).

We concluded:

Most studies have been on single species in contrived laboratory conditions. They have been of short duration, and they have not considered the potential for adaptation. In the few instances where adaptation has been considered, it has been shown to significantly modify the impact of varying pH as a consequence of elevated levels of CO2.

All of this needs to be assessed against the reality that along the length and breadth of the Great Barrier Reef there are naturally occurring large daily fluctuations in pH, and that it is unclear as to what extent the current trends of apparent pH decline are part of existing natural cycles.

Most of the articles describe the effects of changes of pH on biological organisms; many of the claims are based exclusively on laboratory experiments (Riebesell & Gattuso 2015). However, a problem with laboratory experiments is that they cannot capture the complexities of the real world, not even the tremendous natural variability in ocean pH – which is a measure of ocean acidification.

Statistician John P.A. Ioannidis published a review of medical research back in 2005 entitled ‘Why most published research findings are false’ (Plos Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 ).   It included comment that:

The majority of modern biomedical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and post-study probability for true findings.

The review by John Ioannidis is a devastating critic of the sad state of biomedical research.  It is this same profession, biomedical research, that concluded we should fear Covid-19 and get vaccinated – with the results from the Pfizer trials withheld while emergency approvals were granted for the mass vaccination of citizens across the world against Covid-19.

We will no doubt have better insights, when studies like those by Jeff Clements into ocean acidification, are undertaken into the recent Covid-19 vaccine research.  We may then be in a position to judge whether the apparent ineffectiveness of these particular Covid-19 vaccines, despite all the promises, can be best explained by corporate greed and mendacity, or simply flaws in the scientific method.  Certainly there was pressure on medical researchers to find a quick cure, that could be administered as part of a global public health response, to what appeared in the beginning to be a deadly new virus much worse than the seasonal flu.

The British Medical Journal in an editorial dated 19thJanuary includes commentary that we don’t know enough about Covid-19 vaccines.

‘Today, despite the global rollout of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymised participant-level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come,’ the editorial states. ‘This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions.’

The editorial also accuses pharmaceutical companies of ‘reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims,’ pointing to Pfizer, whose Covid vaccine trial was ‘funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees’.

Of course, Peter Ridd lost his job at James Cook University for speaking truth to power.  Those who continue to publish studies on ocean acidification, especially those studies published in high impact journals and accompanied by sensational media reporting, have most recently been rewarded by the Australian government with an additional $1billion in funding.  Some of this money will end-up funding more nonsense ocean acidification projects at James Cook University. It is unlikely that any of this grant money will be used to ensure that there is some quality assurance of the same research.

********************************************

The feature image, at the very top of this blog post, shows me getting back onto a small boat off Noosa following a free diving session.

Scientists once decreed that free divers – men and women who train to dive as deep as they possibly can into the ocean on a single breathe of air – would not be able to dive beyond a depth of about 30 metres.   According to these experts there was not only the issue of how long a diver could reasonably hold their breath, but more importantly the effects of pressure on the lungs. Dive to just 10 meters deep and the pressure is doubled relative to sea level – because water is much denser than air, it exerts a much greater compressive force on your body.  So how much pressure will be exerted at 131 metres?

The free divers defied the science.  Just a few years ago Russian Alexey Molchanov broke the record for free diving when he dove to a depth of 131 meters on a single breath of air.

Scientists often get things wrong when they fail to consider the complexity of the real world, and real people.

Free diving relies on a series of involuntary physiological changes that take place in the body.  The mammalian dive response causes a reduction in the heart rate, the narrowing of blood vessels, and the shunting of blood from the extremities into the vital organs and chest resulting in a higher percentage of blood volume in the lungs.   This is how fit young men and women manage to dive beyond 40 metres, even beyond 100 metres, on a single breathe without their lungs being crushed.

4.7 19 votes
Article Rating
80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 19, 2022 10:19 pm

Large numbers of Published (and Pal reviewed) Studies that exaggerated the effects of both Ocean Acidification, Global Warming, Ocean Rise and various Covid-19 aspects have been a very notable feature of ‘Science’ recently.

Scissor
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
February 20, 2022 6:06 am

The following paper describes many logistical and experimental errors made with regard to ocean “acidification” research. Like some Covid-19 research, the biggest problem is researchers designing experiments to give a predetermined answer. Sometimes a control is omitted or deliberately nullified.

ICES Journal of Marine Science (2016), 73(3), 572–581. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv118 

Last edited 3 months ago by Scissor
H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Scissor
February 20, 2022 8:22 am

I researched the “ocean acidification” question some years ago. First, the terminology is not technically correct, which seems to be true in all of these ‘modeled’ crises, others include dead zones, wetland loss, etc. Second, these all seem to be based on simplistic, if not erroneous statistics as in ‘event attribution.’ Third, the amount of modeled/statistical effort expended has increased, in some cases exponentially (compare with Fig.2.1 above). Fourth, the historical data needed is often inadequate and effort not expended anyway to the extent necessary. The best correlation is with the increase in funded effort. Some examples.

   Ishimatsu, A., et al.., 2004. Effects of CO2 on marine fish larvae and adults. Journal of Oceanography. 60:731-741 .

   Hendriks, I. E., et al. 2015. Biological mechanisms supporting adaptation to ocean acidification in coastal ecosystems. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science. 152(5): A1-A8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2014.07.019   No surprise, pH daily/seasonal change larger than simulated predictions.

   Hu, X. and W-J. Cai. 2013. Estuarine acidification and minimum buffer zone–A conceptual study. Geophysical Research Letters.40:5176-5181. Biochemical influences.

   Davenport, J. and M. D. J. Sayer. 1993. Physiological determinants of distribution in fish. Journal of Fish Biology..43(sA):121-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1993.tb01183.x  
Fish exist in waters with a pH between 4 and 10, not always to their liking.

Conclusion, much new valuable research, but how much removal from interest in real problems.

Mr.
February 19, 2022 10:41 pm

Thanks Jennifer.
You sure packed a lot of information into this post.

From what I’m reading, we can’t blame Pfizer or Moderna for the claims that their “vaccines” would prevent catching or passing on COVID – all they claimed was that their products could moderate the worst effects of the Wuflu for healthy folk who caught it.

It was Fauci et al and complicit media and politicians who ran the lie that the jabs would prevent infection and spread.

But as with AGW, it only takes a few high media presence “experts”and an unquestioning media to capture politicians and spread the propaganda widely and relentlessly.

BCBill
Reply to  Mr.
February 20, 2022 1:22 am

The narrative changed as the vaccines effectiveness waned. The original studies claimed 94% reduction in the number of people getting the disease (a preposterous claim). When the ability to stop transmission was found to rapidly wane, the narrative was changed to the vaccine reduces the severity of the disease. As hospitals began to fill up with the vaccinated severely ill, many jurisdictions such as Canada, Scotland and many others, stopped collecting data to avoid the embarrassment that occurred with the similar H1N1 fraud. What we are seeing is the rise of the new world order which is the same as the old world order, namely Kleptocracy. The current situation in Canada should be a warning to the world. The Government and Legacy media have given up all pretense of interest in the truth as masked, nameless, badgeless mercenaries beat and arrest peaceful demonstrators. New World order indeed.

commieBob
Reply to  BCBill
February 20, 2022 4:31 am

The other thing was the suppression of anything that looked like it would cure the disease because, if such a thing existed, the vaccines could not get emergency approval.

A lot of people are complicit in the suppression of information about possible covid treatments. A section of this video, starting about 6:47 is titled The Medical Journal’s War on “Inconvenient Science”.

The big drug companies use exactly the same tactics that were pioneered by the tobacco industry.

BCBill
Reply to  commieBob
February 20, 2022 8:13 am

Yes, Fauci, Tam, Bonnie Henry and the other minions of Big Pharma have blood on their hands. Good, solid data suggest that a multi faceted treatment of chloroquine, ivermectin, vitamins D, C and a few others, could have prevented 85% of the deaths. Meanwhile, new data supports pre pandemic data that masks and lockdowns are not significantly different than nothing. Anybody who watched the speed with which omicron spread is delusional if they still think lockdowns lengthened the curves. Telling the vulnerable to use masks while denying them basic prophylactic treatment should result in murder charges if there is any justice left in this world.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  BCBill
February 20, 2022 4:18 pm

I held that view BC for a long time but there is a problem.
Out of the 6 million dead or so, probably 60% were on the way out and the use of some or all of the very good treatments listed above would not have helped so my number ended at probably saving 2 million relatively healthy folk. One or two comorbidity such as high blood pressure etc.

But the point is yes, a disgrace pure and simple.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  BCBill
February 20, 2022 4:33 am

“The current situation in Canada should be a warning to the world.”

Yes, it just goes to show that given a little power, creeps like Justin Trudeau are more than willing to be the dictator. Vote that smug, self-righteous face out of office.

BCBill
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 20, 2022 8:18 am

Sadly the incessant lying by the legacy media has an effect on a significant number of voters. As somebody with an interest in global warming you surely understand hof frustrating it can be when people have no interest in verifying their sources. I suspect that possibly one Canadian in 100 has ever read a scientific publication and understood it. That number is much lower among politicians.

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  Mr.
February 20, 2022 6:53 am

The concept of ocean acidification, and human-caused global warming more generally, could be described as containing a grain of truth embedded in a mountain of nonsense.”

The two authors I like the most are Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton, There is a reason that “The Andromeda Strain made Michael Crichton a household name. Same for Tom Clancy’s “Hunt for Red October.” The majority of those reading these authors books would think that it was an exposé of a government secret because the reader had heard of many of the “Facts” on the News, TV, or in the paper. Thus, the claims in the “exposé” had to be true. All of the Climate Change Propaganda uses this same technique to Sell the “Climate Change Phishing Program” that is used to earn Government Grants for Universities and sell Wind Turbines and Solar Farms.

I heard many years ago “The best lie is one that is 99% truthful”

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Rich Lentz
February 20, 2022 1:38 pm

Possibly Alec Baldwin’s best movie. (Having Connery definitely helped) And I’d argue the one that made him famous. Didn’t have a problem using guns in movies.
My favorite book of his was Without Remorse, too bad they had to go politically correct on the movie.

Izaak Walton
February 19, 2022 10:51 pm

What is the “ apparent ineffectiveness of these particular Covid-19 vaccines”? All studies show that unvaccinated people are much more likely to die than fully vaccinated. Have a look at
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination
for example. There are plenty of other studies showing your risk of death decreases by between 50 and 100 depending on you age. All of which seems very effective to me.

Derg
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 20, 2022 1:05 am

Just one more booster ought to do it Izaak 😉

Tom
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 20, 2022 4:40 am

If the vaccines ‘work’ so well, why don’t they ‘work’?

Scissor
Reply to  Tom
February 20, 2022 8:08 am

It’s like finding something the last place you look. Your last booster will work for sure.

Being the skeptic that I have become, I’m slowly being convinced that the motivation is less greed and more malevolence.

n.n
Reply to  Tom
February 20, 2022 10:54 am

Yes, the experimental, non-sterilizing vaccine(s) prevent neither infection nor progression nor transmission. Not even excess adverse events on a forward-looking basis. The masks are on, follow the cargo cult, not the science.

commieBob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 20, 2022 4:46 am

All true, as far as I can tell. The problem is the efficacy wanes. For each extra shot, the efficacy wanes faster.

Dr. John Campbell (a PhD nurse educator) has been presenting covid statistics in daily podcasts. He regularly uses ourworldindata.org.

In one of his many podcasts (so I’m not going to try finding it) he expressed the hope that he would be exposed to Omicron before the efficacy of his vaccinations waned too much.

Bottom line: There is no excuse for vaccine mandates. The vaccines don’t prevent infection and they don’t prevent transmission especially now that we have Omicron.

On a personal basis, you’re probably better off with the vaccinations, but that should be a personal choice.

Scissor
Reply to  commieBob
February 20, 2022 6:19 am

The original trials did not include appropriate proportions of older patients.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8413602/

Mr.
Reply to  commieBob
February 20, 2022 6:47 am

In their FDA filings for approval as emergency drugs, both Pfizer and Moderna studiously avoided any claims of preventing contraction or transmission of COVID.

Those bullshit claims were touted by Fauci and the fawning media.

Reply to  Mr.
February 20, 2022 2:39 pm

Maybe, but that didn’t prevent the Pfizer CEO from echoing Fauci and his doubling down on the prevention and less suffering claims.

n.n
Reply to  commieBob
February 20, 2022 11:32 am

Efficacy wanes and waned (e.g. dysfunctional), which justified the high antibody titers and subsequent boosters. The dearth of safety data and excess adverse events was rationalized as a wicked solution to a hard problem a la planned parent/hood.

Wade
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 20, 2022 4:55 am

1) It is not a vaccine; it is experimental gene-therapy. Just because the US Center for Disease Control changed the definition of a vaccine for political purposes does not make it so. (See the legally FOIA obtained emails from the CDC where the justification for changing the definition had nothing to do with science. Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/536749738/CDC-Emails#download)

2) The shots compromise your immune system for 2 weeks while also requiring 2 weeks to work. People are considered “unvaccinated” until those 2 weeks end. Therefore, if you die due a compromised immune system in that 2 week window, you are considered an unvaccinated death.

3) If this was any other drug, it would have been pulled from the market a long time ago because of the number of adverse reactions it can cause.

4) Since it has become undeniable that the shots can neither prevent you from getting or spreading COVID-19, what is the point for the healthy people? Almost everyone under 18 has a far greater chance of serious health problems from the shots than death from COVID-19.

5) Why is Pfizer only giving the shots to countries that grant them legal immunity?

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Wade
February 20, 2022 12:44 pm

 https://www.scribd.com/document/536749738/CDC-Emails#download)”

“To download, please signup.”

I wonder if .jpg images can be downloaded?

PCman999
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
February 21, 2022 3:14 pm

Right-click on the picture, and pick “save image as” or wording to that effect.

PCman999
Reply to  PCman999
February 21, 2022 3:17 pm

On a touchscreen, touch and hold your finger on the image and the menu with the “save image” option should come up.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  PCman999
February 21, 2022 4:42 pm

Thanks PCman999 for the instructions. I probably should have added /sarc to the comment, but it didn’t really fit. More like a suggestion to others. Those pages make interesting reading.

Downloading pages as “Webpage Complete” rather than “Single File” or “HTML Only” and extracting .jpg’s from the folder is another possibility.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Wade
February 20, 2022 1:42 pm

Even people older than 75 have over a 97% chance of surviving covid. I’d say in general people over 75 have less than a 97% of chance of surviving any year.

Reply to  Wade
February 20, 2022 2:43 pm

Just because the US Center for Disease Control changed the definition of a vaccine for political purposes”

They also changed the definition of “vaccinated”.
Otherwise their gene snippet vaccinations failed to meet the definition.

Scissor
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 20, 2022 6:14 am

That’s only if one does not count the vaccine injured.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 20, 2022 6:28 am

What’s your view on the trial data for the vaccines being withheld from public scrutiny? Why the skullduggery?

Mr.
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
February 20, 2022 6:53 am

Because these documents are the smoking gun that even Inspector Closeau could not misunderstand.

John
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 20, 2022 8:38 am

They are hiding the alarming increase in cases, hospitalizations and deaths in fully vaccinated persons by using flawed statistics. 10-15% of all Covid deaths are in fully vaccinated people now. Let that sink in! It is only recently that vaccinated percentages are high. The death rates in vaccinated are soaring and this fact is obfuscated by comparing breakthrough deaths to overall deaths. What matters is what is happening now, and in the past 90-120 days. In my State, 500 fully vaccinated people died in the past few weeks out of a total 11,600. Furthermore, 13% of total deaths are now in fully vaccinated. The CFR has gone down from 6% to below .8% as a comparison. This is a trend worldwide yet is not reported in MSM. That 500 equates to 40% of recent deaths. Not exactly the 17 times less likely narratives we here in MSM and Govt agencies.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 20, 2022 12:29 pm

Of course most deaths were unvaccinated people – because the majority of the deaths occurred before the vaccines were widely available! If you look at the deaths only for the last 6 months or so, you will see a very different picture. Just another example of how to lie with statistics.

Derg
Reply to  Paul Penrose
February 20, 2022 12:38 pm

Izaak knows this.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Derg
February 20, 2022 1:43 pm

If you refuse knowledge, do you every really know something?

Peta of Newark
February 20, 2022 12:08 am

Exaggeration is lying – it is the business, and it is A Business, of cracking something up to be what it is not

People calling themselves scientists are The Very Last People on this Earth who should be doing any such thing – they betray the very first principle of their vocation

Never mind Climate, Obesity, Diabetes, Dementia, Boris Johnson – they are NOT the problem on this planet right now.

Mendacity is

Einstein Careless Truth.JPG
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 20, 2022 1:21 am

Wrong placement.
See below

Last edited 3 months ago by Philip Mulholland
meiggs
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 20, 2022 7:13 am

The song remains the same

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 20, 2022 1:44 pm

You best post Peta

Graemethecat
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 21, 2022 3:18 am

Einstein’s quote is right on the nail.

February 20, 2022 12:53 am

The free divers defied the science. Just a few years ago Russian Alexey Molchanov broke the record for free diving when he dove to a depth of 131 meters on a single breath of air.

Jennifer,
I believe that the free diving record of 160m was set in 2002 by Tanya Streeter.

A new Freediving World Record has been set today in the waters of Club Med Turkoise in Providenciales, Turks and Caicos. World Champion Freediver, Tanya Streeter, reached her goal depth of 160m/525ft in a total dive time of 3 minutes and 26 seconds.

I have swum in the warm shallow waters of the Caicos Lagoon in June 1991, and have personally experienced the shocking change in water temperature while swimming over the reef on the west side of West Caicos Island. The Caicos Lagoon acts as a giant solar energy collector and combined with the drying action of the trade winds that blow across the archipelago creates warm saline dense water that when, driven by wind and tide, this dense surface water reaches the reef drop off it descends below the colder, but less saline open waters of the Atlantic Ocean.

It is in a similar descending current on the west side of Providenciales that Tanya Streeter achieved her free diving record. It is a combination of pressure, temperature water density and water flow that are all contributory factors to be considered when studying this astonishing feat of female human endurance.

Last edited 3 months ago by Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
February 20, 2022 1:23 am

Jernnifer,

Here is a legitimate open access link to the New York Times Article you linked to on your blog:
Alenka Artnik of Slovenia recently set a record in free diving.

This is one of the benefits of the WayBack Machine
(Rud Istvan please note).

Last edited 3 months ago by Philip Mulholland
Jennifer Marohasy
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
February 20, 2022 3:44 am

Hi Philip,

You are correct! Tanya Streeter holds the record for the deepest, in a category referred to as ‘no limits’ with her dive at 160 metres! That is according to Wikipedia. And it is a truly amazing feat. Alexey Mochanov holds the record in a different category of free diving called ‘constant weight’.

RMoore
Reply to  Jennifer Marohasy
February 21, 2022 12:24 am

Diving can be dangerous.

https://gue.com/blog/is-freediving-safe/

Scissor
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
February 20, 2022 6:30 am

Florian Gagoury, a record holder for static breath-hold freediving relates the following:

“Myocarditis, Pericarditis and Trivial Mitral regurgitation! Thank you Pfizer.

Just want to share my annoying experience after vaccination and perhaps have some testimonials and similar stories around Freedivers. Did you get better? After my 2nd dose I noticed that my heart rate was way higher than normal and my breath hold capacities went down significantly. During sleep, I’m at 65-70bpm instead of 37-45bpm. During the day I’m now always over 100bpm instead of 65bpm, even when I sit down and relax. I once even reached 177bpm while having dinner with friends !!!!

10 days after my 2nd jab, I went to see a cardiologist and he told me it’s a common side effect of Pfizer vaccin, nothing to worry about, just rest it will pass. 40days after 2nd jab, I had no progress so I went to see another cardiologist and got diagnosed with Myocarditis, Pericarditis and Trivial Mitral regurgitation! Which is basically an inflammation of the heart muscles caused by the immune system and some tiny leaks of blood from the valves that no longer close properly. I’m now struggling to reach 8min breath hold, 150m dyn and I even have a strong urge to breathe doing 40m dives. 30% decrease on my diving performance roughly.”

Reply to  Scissor
February 20, 2022 8:11 am

Natto

Organic nattokinase powder is commonly used against cardiovascular diseases, to lower blood pressure, reduce high cholesterol, improve poor blood circulation and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Nattokinase naturally contains vitamin K2 (Menaquinone-7 or MK7), which essential for bone formation and to alleviate osteoporosis. Kinase also supports the body’s production of plasmin, which helps the body to break down the blood clotting causing fibrin.

richard
February 20, 2022 3:24 am

“Table 3 shows the different range of pH some countries are implementing. Generally, all countries use an average range of between 5.0 and 9.0 in freshwater, and 6.5 and 9.0 for marine, all of which are within the limits of optimum fish production”

http://www.aquaculture.asia/files/PMNQ%20WQ%20standard%202.pdf

Tom Abbott
February 20, 2022 4:26 am

From the article: “The concept of ocean acidification, and human-caused global warming more generally, could be described as containing a grain of truth embedded in a mountain of nonsense. Indeed, the projected large increase in atmospheric CO2 will at most cause a small reduction in pH – it will not turn the ocean acidic. Yet this is what is implied by the term ocean acidification.”

So why use this term?

Every time this term “ocean acidification” is used, it is given legitimacy.

How about using “less alkaline” as a description?

meiggs
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 20, 2022 7:17 am

Ditto that, but just goes to show that wuwt is also msm

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  meiggs
February 20, 2022 10:36 am

Pointing out the fallacy behind the term acidification makes this the msm?

PCman999
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 21, 2022 3:26 pm

How about “less caustic” ?

Duane
February 20, 2022 4:48 am

Ok you lost most readers with your descent into mindless anti vaxxer bullshit.

Fact- to date nearly a million Americans have died of COVID 19, the greatest pandemic catastrophe in American history, and virtually all of them who died and were not already afflicted with immune system deficiency, were the unvaccinated.

If that is not valid data in your lights, then your lights are effed up.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Duane
February 20, 2022 6:35 am

The 1918 pandemic was much worse when normalizing to population and years of life lost.

This pandemic’s data has been tainted by the ministers of “science” which have created an environment where for profit hospitals profit more by putting the covid code as a cause of death regardless of whether covid-19 was the actual cause of death or not.

Furthermore, accuracy of vaccine related illness, efficacy, and death is in serious question when there is so much effort to conceal any side-effects whatsoever. Perhaps we’ll know more when the cause of a large increase in “natural deaths” over the past year can be ascertained.

Scissor
Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 20, 2022 7:27 am

After a generation or so, perhaps HHS will even recommend vitamin D supplementation, and weight loss to reduce risk factors.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Duane
February 20, 2022 6:55 am

The large death rate for the US isn’t because of anti-vaxxers it is because WHO, CDC, FDA, Big Pharma & the hospital corporations blocked treatment for COVId patients until they were sick enough for ventilators.

Scissor
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
February 20, 2022 7:30 am

And, why so much kidney failure? It couldn’t be tied to Remdesivir use could it?

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  Duane
February 20, 2022 7:06 am

Then why is CDC hiding the data on teenage Male heart related deaths and problems after taking the shot/booster? Strange, Very Strange.
Also, it seems “Obvious to the most casual observer” that the same “Propaganda” technique is being used in both cases. The use of doctors on TV pushing the propaganda that know nothing about virology or epidemiology. The fact that it was easy to find the fact that the “Vaccine” was NOT a vaccine and more like a prophylactic which did NOT create immunity. Fauci recently admitted as much. Actual exposure provided ACTUAL IMUNITY.

Last edited 3 months ago by usurbrain
H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Duane
February 20, 2022 7:21 am

The question is “with” or “from.” We have been long building up what is now a large cohort of older susceptibles, myself included, which have been proven to be most at risk. Is there any vaccine, if that is the correct word for this, that has been proven to be free of some percentage of side effects?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
February 20, 2022 10:40 am

The fact that some people are allergic to such things as peanuts shows that there is extreme variability in human sensitivity to both natural and artificial environmental conditions. It is an unreasonable expectation that any drug will be completely without risk to everyone or anyone. The reason that the toxicity of any chemical is defined as Lethal Dose for 50% (LD50) of the test subjects is because everyone has a different ability to tolerate the undesirable effects of a toxin. People can and do even die from drinking too much water.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 20, 2022 11:16 am

“People can and do even die from drinking too much water.” Yep, or inhaling too much carbon dioxide, oxygen a whole lot more toxic. Even extrapolation from LD50s ain’t perfect as life is amazing.

Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  Duane
February 20, 2022 7:26 am

As for the CDC, Why did they block the use of Ivermectin considering it effectiveness as shown from this data?
https://www.unz.com/proberts/ivermectin-in-africa-blocks-covid/

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Rich Lentz
February 20, 2022 10:47 am

Because, for example, the following meta-study shows an improvement in death rate from 78 per thousand to 30 per thousand. From your viewpoint this is a 60% improvement. From the CDC viewpoint a difference of 48 per thousand= .048 is not significantly different from zero success. They need a very high success rate to call anything a viable treatment that an entire health care industry should expend effort on.

An analogy, if 78 of 1000 wounded soldiers die of bullet wounds, yet only 30 die of shrapnel wounds, it really doesn’t help you assess whether your new body armour is the successful factor.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

Last edited 3 months ago by DMacKenzie
Rich Lentz(@usurbrain)
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 23, 2022 11:51 am

You left out a few zeros numbers on linked chart are per100K i.e. 100,000.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Duane
February 20, 2022 12:19 pm

Curious that “most readers” seem to be down-voting your comment Duane.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 20, 2022 1:57 pm

Probably because Duane is typically on the side of griff, Izaak, et all. So I imagine some give down votes anytime they see him, just on principal. Plus , as usual, he only prevents about 30 % of the info.

2hotel9
February 20, 2022 4:56 am

Disaster porn generates revenue for these so called “scientists”. They have all been 100% wrong and yet they continue to receive tax dollars by the barrel full. And that is all it has ever been about, stealing our money. According to these liars all life on Earth died 22 years ago. It is all a scam to steal our money.

meiggs
Reply to  2hotel9
February 20, 2022 7:29 am

It’s their money not your money. If you don’t believe me go try to print some of your own. Or for that matter “save” it in a bank and watch how fast it disappears.

2hotel9
Reply to  meiggs
February 20, 2022 10:56 am

Pseudoscientists don’t own the money supply, they just steal as much tax money as they can.

BallBounces
February 20, 2022 5:01 am

Decline Effect is too kind; Fizzle is more like it.

Scissor
Reply to  BallBounces
February 20, 2022 7:34 am

And negative efficacy in many cases, in addition to driving evolution to resistant variants.

fretslider
February 20, 2022 5:36 am

I do not take any claims of ocean acidification seriously, especially when the pH of the oceans is undeniably alkaline. They appear to take no account of the relationship of water hardness and how that is in turn affected by location.

The only hardness NOAA considers is the effect of ‘ocean acidification’ on shells.

Talk about half the picture.

As for covid:

For the outbreak follow the Fauci money into the French built laboratories with Australian trained Chinese scientists.

For the rest, follow the money and the power grab by the techno-health experterati

Everything is a matter of public health now – ask the Canadians.

Scissor
Reply to  fretslider
February 20, 2022 7:38 am

Two weeks to flatten the protesters.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Scissor
February 20, 2022 11:04 am

We were told 2 weeks to flatten the curve….Two years later it is taking 2 weeks to flatten the protesters….The loss of freedoms the protesters predicted are self-evident and getting more blatant. Yesterday in Calgary 20,000 people marched in protest….mainstream media….crickets…only a couple of twitter posts snuck through the blackout….takeover of the media by the bureau of Consumer Propaganda is nearly complete in Canada.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 20, 2022 11:16 am

here’s proof…msm CTV only did a local article today that locals are fed up of the protesters blocking traffic and scaring their children…national press, still nothing….
https://twitter.com/SydFizzard/status/1495172674724655107

ferdberple(@ferdberple)
February 20, 2022 9:45 am

I was unaware that vaccine trial data has not been released. This scandal needs to be publicised until it cannot be ignored.

Alba
February 20, 2022 11:07 am

Time to hide the Decline Effect?

Jon Scott
February 21, 2022 8:51 am

What truly fascinates is the lack of reference to real data which is available in abundance to the climate hustling industry preferring as they always do to modelled data. If I am correct the claims about “acidification of the oceans” go back to a truly awful piece of at best 8th grade level science experimentation promoted for money by people who should have known better. What they did was to add HCL to sea water in increasing quantities as an absurd proxy for increased CO2 levels until…oh no! Look the shells are dissolving.

The question is, why would anyone need to even bother with taking money under false pretences to perform an unnecessary experiment? How do I know it was unnecessary? Because we have statistically significant empirical data in abundance from Geological History which demonstrates that NEVER EVER in Earth History, even during the Cambria when atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were around 7000ppm did the oceans become acidic.

Of course as Peter Ridd correctly points out “becoming potentially slightly less alkaline” is what is meant but the use of the emotive and shocking term “acidification” is deliberate.

The use of the word Acidic speaks volumes of what we are really up against and how empty their cupboard is of hard evidence to support their claims against CO2.

Carbon500
February 22, 2022 6:59 am

If CO2 lowers the pH of seawater, where is the simple laboratoty bench experiment to demonstrate this?
Take for example a filtered sample of sea water to remove possible metabolic products of micro-organisms. In a sealed container under standardised conditions of temperature and pressure, add defined increasing concentrations of CO2 to the air above the water, mix with seawater and measure the pH.
The much-hyped changes in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere have been in parts per million (ppm), increasing from 280 to the present 411. That’s an increase of 131ppm. Sea water has a buffering effect.
Would there even be any measurable effect?

%d bloggers like this: