Time to rethink ethanol mandates for gasoline.

I just checked the price of corn. On May 7, the May 21, 2021 contract closed at $ 7.72 a bushel. A year ago, the price was a little over three dollars per bushel.
One bushel of corn makes 2.5 gallon of ethanol
That makes the feedstock price to make ethanol $3.08 a gallon. Add to that 50 cents to make the stuff and distribute it and the price per gallon is $ 3.58.
Since the heat content of ethanol is 67% of regular gasoline (no ethanol), the gasoline equivalent price of ethanol is $ 5.34 per gallon.
Over five bucks a gallon for ethanol! And that is before profit, blending, selling and taxes!
That’s the good news.
For the people that are worried about CO2 the bad news is:
To make corn you have to use 150 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre. It takes the equivalent of 0.15 gallons of gasoline to produce one pound of nitrogen fertilizer. That comes to the equivalent of 22.5 gallons of gasoline to fertilize one acre. One acre of corn yields about 150 bushels of corn.
The fuel spent to produce one bushel of corn is therefore more than 0.15 gallons of gasoline. Since it also involves sowing, preparing the soil, cultivating, pesticides, phosphate fertilizer and harvesting it takes 0.25 gallons of fuel to produce one bushel of corn.
Here comes the kicker: When you ferment sugar into alcohol half the weight disappears as CO2! Let us examine the formula: C6H12O6 + Zymase → 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
The molecule weight of C2H5OH is 46 and the molecule weight of CO2 is 44.
Well almost half anyway.
Let us assume you have a car that gets 25 miles to the gallon and you drive 100 mile on pure gasoline. You have used 4 gallons of gasoline.
Now take the same car and drive 100 miles with a 10% ethanol mix, mandated by the EPA. Remember, they are concerned about CO2.
The ethanol has only 67% of the heat content of gasoline so the gas mileage will be lower. It will be consuming 0.04 x 0.9 +0.1 x 1.5 x 0.04 = 0.042 gallons per mile, 5% more or a total of 4.2 gallons for the 100 mile trip.
So you consumed 3.78 gallons of gasoline and 0.42 gallons of ethanol, for a total of 4.2 gallons. We have all experienced this increase in gas consumption. And this is best case.
What about CO2 up in the air? In the pure gasoline case we produced 4 gallons worth of CO2.
In the ethanol mix case we produced 4.2 gallons worth of CO2.
Add to that another .4 gallons equivalence of CO2 from the fermentation, and another .04 gallons worth of CO2 to produce the corn in the first place.
The sum total is 4.64 gallons worth of CO2, or about 16% more than in the gasoline only case.
But corn does absorb CO2 when it grows! Doesn’t that count?
Corn is one of the worst crops for soil erosion and uses up other nourishments that will not be used if you make ethanol from it. Granted the cattle are happy for the cakes that are left when the sugar and oil is removed.
In this age of looming food shortages nearly any other use of available tillable soil is to be preferred over ethanol production.
Oh, and one more thing. Assume that pure gasoline is 3 dollars a gallon at the pump, which includes 50 cents in taxes.
Unsubsidized ethanol blend should be $5.34 a gallon, before taxes
But we subsidize the ethanol production so the price is still 3 dollars a gallon at the pump.
If we used pure gasoline the hundred mile trip would cost twelve dollars.
If we paid full price for the ethanol blend we would pay $ 13.79 for the trip and produce 16% more CO2.
We are really paying $ 13.79 for the trip, produce 16% more CO2 and leave a bill of $1.79 for our grandchildren to pay, the subsidy of 0.42 gallons of ethanol.
This is EPA legislation at work, trying to combat the coming “climate catastrophe.”

There is a better way. remove ethanol subsidy guarantees and let the corn be used to produce more chicken and pork, and use some of the acreage to produce grain for a hungry world. This will help to prevent food prices inflation.

Earth day 2021. A Limerick.

It’s time for the annual Earth Day

to celebrate Lenin’s old birthday.

Population control

is their ultimate goal;

Choose life, not this bad Marxist way!

The theme for this earth day is still, sustainability, we must reduce the world population to about 700 million from present 7,6 billion, or the planet will be uninhabitable in 9 years.

Sherlock Holmes: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts”. From: “Scandal in Bohemia” A. Conan Doyle.

The first Earth Day in Philadelphia 1970, April 22 (the 100 year anniversary of Lenin’s Birth) featured Ira Einhorn (The Unicorn Killer) as master of Ceremonies. The big environmental scare of the day was the threat of a new Ice Age. The clarion call was: “In the year 2000 temperatures will have fallen 10 degrees”, the culprit was air pollution, especially acid rain. The acid rain was so bad in the Adirondacks, Canada, Norway and Sweden that the Rainbow Trout died in droves, and even the oceans were in danger of getting too acid. The stench from dead fish washing up the shores of lake Ontario was overwhelming. Regulations were enacted to add scrubbers to power stations, waste water was purified, and – wouldn’t you know it, the cooling trend reversed itself and was followed by warming. Since the cooling trend was “obviously man-made” they had to find a reason for the sudden warming. Never mind that around the year 1200 there was at least one farm on South West Greenland that exported, among other things, cheese. How do we know that? They have excavated the ruins of a farm, “Gården under Sanden”, buried under permafrost for six centuries.  During these six centuries the Northern Hemisphere experienced what is called “the little ice age” a time when the winters could be so cold that in 1658 the Swedish army, cavalry and artillery crossed the Great Belts in the southern Baltic over ice and sacked Copenhagen.

Picture left: Gården under sanden excavation.

Picture belowt: The crossing of the Great Belt 1658.

To predict future climate changes many computer models have been developed dealing with how the earth responds to changes in atmospheric conditions, especially how it responds to changes in CO2 levels.  Most were developed in the 1970 to 2000 time frame, a time of rapid temperature rise and as such they were all given a large factor for the influence of rising CO2. Since 2005 we have had a cooling trend, so the models cooperate less and less and are given more and more unreliable predictions. It is no wonder then that they all have failed to model the past. None of them have reproduced the medieval warm period or the little ice age. If they cannot agree with the past there is no reason to believe they have any ability to predict the future. The models are particularly bad when it comes to predict cloud cover and what time of day clouds appear and disappear. Below is a chart of a number of climate models and their prediction of cloud cover versus observed data. Note especially to the right where most models completely fail to notice the clear skies over Antarctica.

Is there a better way to predict future temperature trends? When you go to the doctor for a physical, at some point and without warning he hits you under the knee with a hammer and watches your reaction. He is observing your impulse response. Can we observe impulse responses for the earth? We can do even better. In the 51 years since the first Earth Day we have collected satellite data, not only temperature, but also cloud data, and the result differs quite a lot from the predicted model results.

Old Lenin stands tall in Seattle. It was the only statue safe in Seattle during the riots of 2020.

Quote from Alexandria Occasio-Cortez in January 2019: “Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ” she said.

I beg to differ.

We live in only one world. As a concerned citizen I realize we have immense environmental challenges before us, with water pollution; from plastics in the ocean, excess fertilizer in the rivers, poison from all kinds of chemicals, including antibiotics, birth control and other medicines flushed down the toilet after going through our bodies, animals that are fed antibiotics, pest control, weed control and so on. Increasing CO2 is not one of the problems, it will in fact help with erosion control, and allow us to feed more people on less agricultural land with proper management, and require less fertilizer and water to do so. In fact, proper water management is a larger problem, with some rivers no longer even reaching the ocean. All water is already spoken for, especially in much of the 10 to 40 degrees latitude, where most people live.

In the atmosphere the two most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and CO2 with methane a distant third. Water vapor is much more of a greenhouse gas everywhere except near the tropopause, high above the high clouds and over the polar regions, when the temperature is below 0 F, way below freezing. If the temperature is above freezing, CO2 is of almost no importance. A chart shows the relationship between CO2 and water vapor:

Image result for h20 and co2 as greenhouse gases

Source: http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/31/new-paper-co2-has-negligible-influence-on-earths-temperature/

Even in Barrow, Alaska water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Only at the South Pole (And North Pole) does CO2 dominate (but only in the winter).

All Climate models take this into account, and that is why they all predict that the major temperature increase will occur in the polar regions with melting icecaps and other dire consequences. But they also predict a uniform temperature rise from the increased forcing from CO2 and the additional water vapor resulting from the increased temperature.

This is wrong on two accounts. First, CO2 and H2O gas are nor orthogonal, that means they both absorb in the same frequency bands. There are three bands where CO2 absorbs more than H2O in the far infrared band, but other than that H2O is the main absorber. If H2O is 80 times as common as CO2 as it is around the equator, water vapor is still the dominant absorber, and the amount of CO2 is irrelevant.

Secondly gases cannot absorb more than 100% of the energy available in any given energy wavelength! So if H2O did absorb 80% of the energy and CO2 absorbed 50%, the sum is not 130%, only 90%. (0.8 + 0.5×0,2 or 0.5 + 0.8×0.5). In this example CO2 only adds one quarter of what the models predict.

How do I know this is true? Lucky for us we can measure what increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has already accomplished. For a model to have credibility it must be tested with measurements, and pass the test. There is important evidence suggesting the basic story is wrong. All greenhouse gases work by affecting the lapse rate in the tropics. They thus create a “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere. The theorized “hot spot” is shown in the early IPCC publications. (Fig A)

Fig. B shows observations. The hotspot is not there. If the hotspot is not there, the models must be wrong. So what is wrong with the models? This was reported in 2008 and the models still assume the additive nature of greenhouse gases, even to the point when more than 100% of the energy in a given band is absorbed.

How about Methane? Do not worry, it absorbs nearly exclusively in the same bands as water vapor and has no measurable influence on the climate.

But it will get warmer at the poles. That will cause melting of the ice-caps? Not so fast. When temperature rises the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, so it will snow more at higher latitudes. While winter temperatures will be higher with more snowfall, this will lower the summer temperatures until the extra snow has melted. And that is what is happening in the Arctics

As we can see from this picture, the winters were about 5 degrees warmer, but starting from late May through early August temperatures were lower. It takes time to melt all the extra snow that fell because of the less cold air, able to contain more water vapor.

These are my suggestions

  1. Do not worry about increasing CO2 levels. The major temperature stabilizer is clouds, and they will keep the earth from overheating by reflecting back into space a large amount of incoming solar radiation. Always did, and always will, even when the CO2 concentration was more than 10000 ppm, millions of years ago. Ice ages will still come, and this is the next major climate change, maybe 5000 years from now, probably less.
  2. Clean up rivers, lakes and oceans from pollution. This is a priority.
  3. Limit Wind turbine electric energy to areas not populated by large birds to save the birds. Already over 1.3 million birds a year are killed by wind turbines, including the bald and Golden Eagles that like to build their aeries on top of wind turbines.
  4. Do not build large solar concentration farms. They too kill birds.
  5. Solar panels are o.k. not in large farms, but distributed on roofs to provide backup power.
  6. Exploit geothermal energy in geologically stable areas.
  7. Where ever possible add peak power generation and storage capacity to existing hydroelectric power plants by pumping back water into the dams during excess capacity.
  8. Add peak power storage dams, even in wildlife preserves. The birds and animals don’t mind.
  9. Develop Thorium based Nuclear Power. Russia, China, Australia and India are ahead of us in this. Streamline permit processes. Prioritize research. This should be our priority, for when the next ice age starts we will need all the CO2 possible.
  10. Put fusion power as important for the future but do not rush it, let the research and development be scientifically determined. However, hybrid Fusion -Thorium power generation should be developed.
  11. When Thorium power is built up and has replaced coal and gas fired power plants, then is the time to switch to electric cars, not before.
  12. Standard Nuclear Power plants should be replaced by Thorium powered nuclear plants, since they have only 0,01% of the really bad long term nuclear waste.
  13. Start thinking about recovering CO2 directly from the air and produce aviation fuel. This should be done as Thorium power has replaced coal and gas fired power plants.
  14. This is but a start, but the future is not as bleak as all fearmongers state.

And here are the major advantages of developing Thorium Nuclear Power.

 1. A million year supply of Thorium available worldwide.

 2. Thorium already mined, ready to be extracted.

 3. Thorium based nuclear power produces 0.012 percent as much TRansUranium waste products as traditional nuclear power.

 4. Thorium based nuclear power will produce Plutonium-238, needed for space exploration.

 5. Thorium nuclear power is only realistic solution to power space colonies.

 6. Radioactive waste from an Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor decays down to background radiation in 300 years compared to a million years for U-235 based reactors. A Limerick.

 7. Thorium based nuclear power is not suited for making nuclear bombs.

 8. Produces isotopes that helps treat and maybe cure certain cancers.

 9. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are earthquake safe, only gravity needed for safe shutdown.

10. Molten Salt Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors cannot have a meltdown, the fuel is already molten, and it is a continuous process. No need for refueling shutdowns.

11. Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors have a very high negative temperature coefficient leading to a safe and stable control.

12. Atmospheric pressure operating conditions, no risk for explosions. Much safer and simpler design.

13. Virtually no spent fuel problem, very little on site storage or transport.

14. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Nuclear reactors scale beautifully from small portable generators to full size power plants.

15. No need for evacuation zones, Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactors can be placed near urban areas.

16. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors will work both as Base Load and Load Following power plants.

17. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors will lessen the need for an expanded national grid.

18. Russia has an active Thorium program.

19. India is having an ambitious Thorium program, planning to meet 30% of its electricity demand via Thorium based reactors by 2050.

 20. China is having a massive Thorium program.

21. United States used to be the leader in Thorium usage. What happened?

22. With a Molten Salt Reactor, accidents like the Three Mile Island disaster will not happen.

23. With a Molten Salt Reactor, accidents like Chernobyl are impossible.

24. With Molten Salt Reactors, a catastrophe like Fukushima cannot happen.

25. Will produce electrical energy at about 4 cents per kWh.

26. Can deplete most of the existing radioactive waste and nuclear weapons stockpiles.

27. With electric cars and trucks replacing combustion engine cars, only Thorium Nuclear power is the rational solution to provide the extra electric power needed.

28. The race for space colonies is on. Only Molten Salt Thorium Nuclear reactors can fit the bill.

29. President Donald J. Trump on Jan.12 issued an Executive Order on Promoting Small Modular Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration. Only Liquid fluoride thorium reactors can meet all the need

Mask mandate or not. Are masks even helpful?

I am a believer in science, and as such I want to get as much information as possible before making a judgement regarding masks. So I took the official statistics of coronavirus 19 cases and deaths for the 50 states and some territories for the seven day period between March 22 thru March 28, divided them up into states with mask mandates and states with no current mask mandates, totaled them up, and this is what I found:

The total death rate for states with mask mandates: 1.46%. The total death rate for states with no mask mandates: 2.02%. This seems to indicate that wearing masks reduce deaths by 28%.

The counter argument to this is that the State of California, one of the most restrictive state in the union had a death rate of 7.63%, while South Dakota, a state that never had a lockdown, nor a mask mandate had a death rate of 0.5%. This seems to indicate that not having a mask mandate is 15 times better.

Obviously the truth is somewhere in between, wearing masks may or may not improve the situation.

These are the U.S. states and territories with mask mandates:

State                          Cases    Deaths Death rate

                                      Last seven days

California                  2635     201   7.63%

Kentucky                     600       29   4.83%

Arkansas                      182        8   4.40%

Louisiana                     349       14   4.01%           

Alabama                       419      16   3.82%

Nevada                          281       9   3.20%

New Mexico                191       5   2.62%

Kansas                          188        4   2.13%

Massachusetts           2123       36   1.70%               

Utah                             424        7    1.65%

North Carolina          1819       26|   1.43%

Indiana                         848       11   1.30%

Ohio                            1703       22   1.29%

New York                   8171     102   1.25%             

 Hawaii                           91         1    1.10%

Maryland                   1146       12|   1.05%

Illinois                        2281      23    1.01%

West Virginia              412         4   0.97%

New Hampshire          339         3    0.88%

Virginia                     1506       12|   0.80%

Delaware                      253        2    0.79%

Pennsylvania             4019       30   0.75%

District of Columbia    135       1     0.74%

New Jersey                4462       31   0.69%

Wisconsin                    468         3   0.64%

Vermont                       167        1   0.60%

Washington               1022         6   0.59%

Oregon                        351          2   0.57%

Colorado                    1132        6    0.53%

Maine                           197        1   0.51%|

Michigan                    4662      21   0.45%

Minnesota                  1405         6   0.43%    

Connecticut               1217         5    0.41%

 American Samoa           0         0   0.00%

Total 45201 660 1.46%

These are the states and territories without mask mandates:

State                   Cases/day  Deaths Death rate

                                      Last seven days

Georgia                       1434     58   4.04%

Arizona                        547      20   3.66%

Texas                           3359   100   2.98%

Montana                        152       4   2.63%

Oklahoma                      343      9   2.62%

Mississippi                   252        6   2.38%

Nebraska                       315       5   1.59%

Florida                         5137     69   1.34%

South Carolina           1108    14   1.26%

Missouri                       699        8   1.14%

Iowa                              607       8   1.32%

Alaska                          102        1   0.98%

Tennessee                  1149      9   0.78%     

North Dakota               134       1   0.75%

Idaho                             287       2   0.70%

Wyoming                        62      0.4 0.62%

South Dakota                200       1   0.50%   

Total 15877 320 2.02%   

The Constitution; a most fascinating document. Is it still relevant?

Maybe not, but who am I to judge. I am not a natural born citizen, not even a native born citizen or a native citizen, just a naturalized citizen.

When me and my wife immigrated to America many years ago as resident Aliens from day one, we were told we could do everything as Americans except vote, get called to Jury duty, and we and our future children could never be elected president of our new country, being not naturally born citizens. This was well understood at that time.

I still remember my arrival at Kennedy Airport. The lines were long, but were progressing fast. When it was my turn the inspector looked at my passport and sighed, Immigrant. Then he asked for my complete papers. I had the roll with me, as instructed, and he opened it all and read the documents, including the results of my Wasserman test, all vaccinations and medical history. Then he took out my chest rays and held them up to the light. It seemed like he took a long time looking, the line after me grew longer and longer. He scribbled down something, and then turned to me, smiled broadly and said “Welcome to the United States.”
My naturalization service was held in Valley Forge, and we were 140 people from more than 75 countries, one or two from each country. The only exception was 4 adopted Chinese girls, given up for adoption so their parents could apply for permission to get another child and not be subject to forced abortion (it was not a requirement, it was only necessary if you wanted to keep your Chinese government job). It was quite stirring: A Canadian teacher, selected among the inductees spoke well about the freedom and liberty enjoyed by all U.S. Citizens. Ah well, those were the days.
It was with great interest that I watched President Obama’s inauguration in 2009. It was quite stirring to watch the sea of people wishing him well.
When it came to the swearing in ceremony Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts managed to reverse the order of a few words in the oath. The oath was taken on a Bible, once used by Abraham Lincoln, who, even though Lincoln was a Republican and Obama is a Democrat, Obama, as had Lincoln risen to great prominence from humble beginnings in Illinois. There was great symbolism there.
The fact that the word order of the oath had been reversed bothered some, so the next day the oath was repeated in the oval office, this time without a Bible.
The election had been unusual in many ways. One of them was that there was a question of John McCain’s eligibility to be president. He was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (1912 – 2020). At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control. However, the small hospital where he was born was located in the civilian part of the Canal Zone, not under US control until 1941. John McCain is therefore not a native born citizen but a native Citizen.
Is he a natural born Citizen? This question was important enough for Congress to take up and decide before the election. Being born outside of U.S. this would automatically eliminate him from natural born status. But there is an out. Every child born on U.S. soil is a native born citizen with the exception of children born to parents in diplomatic service. They retain the citizenship of their parents. Since John McCain Jr. was under the command of the Commander in Chief (FDR) he therefore qualified as diplomatic emissary, and though his wife gave birth outside US soil, the exception did apply. Being legally married is important, because
“they twain shall be one flesh?
Matt 19: 4-6 (KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

This is important because this is how marriage is legally defined. There is no better to illustrate the importance of this legal definition than in the case of Terri Schiavo. Her husband was the executor of her life, never mind that he for many years had lived with another woman and fathered two children with her. The legal document of marriage defined them as one flesh, and therefore the will of her father and siblings was of no legal consequence. It is ironic, that in this case the pro-life movement took the more liberal view of marriage that prolonged, unrepented and unreconciled adultery is a disqualifier, and the reproductive rights side held fast to the definition of marriage being one flesh so they must be treated as one unit.
After reading up on the amendments to the constitution and finding that the 27th amendment took 202 years to ratify, the next area of constitutional interest was the election of 2000. Gore won the national popular vote, and it came down to Florida, where there seemed to be a tie. The State Government, being Republican tried to certify Bush as the winner, and Gore sued, After the Florida Supreme Court, having Democrat majority had overturned the lower courts decisions which had been in favor of Bush, the U S Supreme court stepped in and declared Bush the winner by a 5 to 4 vote. The interesting point in this case is that Bush argued that Federal law took precedent, since the election is national, while Gore argued States’ rights. After all, we have the electoral system and that favors States’ rights. When it comes to matters of the Constitution it is not always the way you think it should be at first glance. Gore has come a long way from States’ Rights to Global Governance, but that is another story.
The US Senate decided in 2008 in their unanimous resolution proclaiming John McCain a “natural born citizen” of the Unites States of America, based upon the well-known fact that BOTH of his parents were indeed legal citizens of the United States at the time of John’s birth. In other words, by “divine power” and the “laws of growth,” “produced by nature” of the fact that his parents were US citizens, so was John McCain, by birth right via natural ancestry.
This ruling is remarkable, since this would automatically disqualify Obama, since his father was a British subject, Bobby_Jindal, Marco Rubio and maybe even Rick Santorum since their parents were not citizens but here as legal immigrants or on student visas visa at the time of their birth.
There was a noticeable lack of interest by the Senate to do for Obama what they had done for McCain. Yet one could argue that the Obama story is even more intriguing than McCain’s.
Let us see what we know about Obama.
The Obama team has released a Certification of birth registration on the web, not in hard copy form, that states the date of birth, the names of the parents, the address of permanent residence and the state of Hawaii.
Originally the birth hospital was Queen’s Hospital in Honolulu, but that got changed to Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. They have yet to officially confirm that Obama was born there. So we have four possibilities for his birthplace
1. Queen’s Hospital, Honolulu, HI. Not Confirmed.
2. Kapiolani Medical Center, Honolulu, HI. Not Confirmed
3. Born in Hawaii, but not in a hospital.
4. Born elsewhere, but registered in Hawaii by his grandmother by virtue of his mother being a US citizen.
The long form Birth Certificate would clear up which of the four alternatives it is. It is a simple procedure to obtain a copy of the Long form Birth Certificate, but the Obama team has hitherto spent upwards of two millions prevent its release.

Then out of the blue, after Donald Trump started hounding him about the real birth certificate they produced a layered image with composites from at least three separate documents overlaid with a separate State Seal image and signature (The signature has a happy face in it just to vex you). This document would not have standing in any court since is an obvious generated document from multiple sources.
There is one more thing. We do not know if Obama’s parents were ever legally married. No marriage certificate has been produced. So we do not know if Obama’s father has legal standing. If he had, Obama would be disqualified on the ground that Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of his birth. Kenya was in the process of becoming a part of the Commonwealth rather than a Colony, so his status is unclear. In any way he was not a US Citizen, and Obama would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen no matter where he was born. If they were never legally married it makes it easier; all we have to prove is that he was born in Hawaii. There is just one thing. Obama’s mother was not of age to claim him alone as a US Citizen at that time, so we still do not know how it would have turned out if Congress had acted to certify Obama eligible for the presidency.
All of this is moot however. No real journalist showed any interest in the case. There were WND, CNN’s Lou Dobbs and an occasional Fox news reporter that mentioned the case, but they are not “real news organizations” (Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod 10/17/2009).
Then a retired entrepreneur from Canada, J.B. Williams discovered something remarkable: Obama was never certified eligible to be president! He published this in
Canada Free Press.
At the Democratic National Convention Obama was elected their presidential candidate and a letter was sent to all 50 states and the District of Columbia stating that it was so. The letters were signed by Nancy Pelosi and the DNC Secretary, properly notarized, 51 originals in all. They were of two kinds. One went to the State of Hawaii and it contained the language:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The other 50 originals contained the wording:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:
Did you catch the typo, the same typo on all 51 originals?
So for the 49 States and the District of Columbia the certification step was never made.
The Electoral College duties are: First to certify themselves eligible to cast the ballots for their candidate, then to certify the candidates eligible to serve. After these two steps it is time to vote for President, mostly by winner takes all for their State, except Nebraska and Maine, where the vote is by congressional district and the two senatorial votes by State.
The certification step was never made, not at the Convention and not by the Electoral College.
So they made the effort to make sure the oath was perfect by repeating the taking of it so every letter of the Constitution could be fulfilled, but the certification step that would have made the oath binding in the first place was never made.
The conclusion: We have a president elect that has never taken a valid oath, because he was never certified eligible to take the oath.
Why are so few people interested in this? Is it because the constitution is no longer relevant?
Or is it because it is becoming a moot point anyway after the President signed the Copenhagen treaty in December 2009, and after the Senate ratifies it the Constitution will be no more?
And why was this missing certification step discovered by a Canadian (J.B. Williams), and the warning that ratifying the Copenhagen Treaty would sign away our sovereignty and Constitution to an unelected international body was discovered by a British subject, Lord Monckton ?
Is the press so in love with internationalism that it is forbidden to search into these matters? If so, this explains the treatment of Sarah Palin. She is a dangerous woman to internationalists, because she really loves the USA, its Constitution and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This woman had to be stopped using all means of smear known to man. It all stars to make sense.

Fast forward to the 2020 election and another vice presidential candidate. Kamala Harris was born in the U.S, thus being a native born citizen, but none of her parents were citizens at the time of her birth. They were both students at the time, and probably had F-1 or H-1b visas, or possibly green cards, but in any case they were not citizens at the time of her birth. When I immigrated to the U.s I was told that my future children could not be president. At that time this was simple truth, nobody questioned it.

Weather and climate forecasting, a difficult science to master.

An old British saying used to be: “Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” We may not be able to do much about the weather, but at least we can try to save the world from the “Climate Crisis”. The term used to be Climate Change, but with the new administration the term has been upgraded.

When I grew up a long time ago in Sweden the old folks used to say “If you make it through February, you will make it another year.” This was of course before electricity and central heating”.

There is a saying in Norway: “There is no bad weather, only bad clothes.” Here is an example, the souwester” It works well in freezing rain.

The long term weather forecast for February, issued January 21 by the weather channel looked like this:

Great, no need to buy that extra sweater, and Texans can go another season with thin t-shirts and designer pre-torn jeans.

But the weather forecast three weeks later looked like this:

But the windmills don’t work in freezing rain, so the electric grid was challenged when over half of the windmills froze just as the demand spiked. Normally coal and natural gas electrical plants would have kicked in, but many of the coal plants had been shut down due to environmental regulations, and the emergency request to restart them were denied due to environmental concerns. The natural gas plants ran full bore until the natural gas pressure in the pipelines started dropping below safe levels. This lead to rotating power-outs to preserve gas line pressure. But in the wisdom of the authorities the gas line pressure compressors had been switched from natural gas to electricity (environmental concerns), so if the compressors were in an area of electric blackout, there went the gas pressure, causing a chain reaction, and the whole power grid came within hours of a total collapse. Only nuclear power hummed along as if nothing had happened, but nuclear power is a base load and cannot increase the power above a certain level. Back in 2017, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry proposed paying Coal and Nuclear Power Stations to keep at least 90 days worth of coal  onsite, for disaster resilience. At the time the resilience proposal was widely criticized as being a thinly disguised Trump scheme to pump government money into the coal and nuclear industries. So the plan was rejected by the bureaucracy. But in hindsight, a bit more resilience might have saved Texas from days of painful electricity blackouts, and even deaths.

The bill for these monumental miscalculations is yet to be paid. The cost of electricity for these 2 weeks off horror is yet to be paid. The Texans who were fortunate enough to have power have to pay the bill for intermittent electricity at a cost of two dollars per kilowatt-hour. A retired veteran on social security got a bill for over 16,000 dollars for part of February.

Since weather is so hard to predict, do we have any hope of being able to predict future climate? People keep trying. And they keep developing climate models. Here is a chart of most of them:

Not much has changed since this chart was first published. While the IPCC confidence in their climate models keep increasing, so does the difference between model prediction and actual temperature.

Climate finance continues to be the central issue in how the global community proposes to follow through with implementation of the Paris Agreement, which Joe Biden has decided to rejoin by executive fiat. This is in the opinion of his advisors, such as John Kerry appropriate in the context of the last IPCC report showing a USD 1.6-3.8 trillion energy system investment requirement to keep warming within a 1.5 degree Celsius scenario to avoid the most harmful effects of climate change (IPCC, 2018).

Does this still make sense?

Anyone?

 

 

Clouds, water vapor and CO2 – why nearly all climate models fail. – and a Limerick.

 

Fear spreads up on Capitol Hill

The Climate change will break their will.

AOC: In Ten years

our world disappears!

She acts as a New Green Deal shill.

Quote from Alexandria Occasio-Cortez in January 2019: “Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ” she said.

I beg to differ.

We live in only one world. As a concerned citizen I realize we have immense environmental challenges before us, with water pollution; from plastics in the ocean, excess fertilizer in the rivers, poison from all kinds of chemicals, including antibiotics, birth control and other medicines flushed down the toilet after going through our bodies, animals fed antibiotics, pest control, weed control and so on. Increasing CO2 is not one of the problems, it will in fact help with erosion control, and allow us to feed more people on less agricultural land with proper management, and require less fertilizer and water to do so. In fact, proper water management is a larger problem, with some rivers no longer even reaching the ocean. All water is already spoken for, especially in the 10 to 40 degrees latitude, where most people live.

Allow me to be somewhat technical and give the background to why I know we will never experience the thermal runaway they are so afraid of.

Many years ago I worked at Hewlett Packard on an Atomic Absorption Detector. It was a huge technical success but a commercial failure, as it was too expensive to use for routine applications. However it found a niche and became the detector of choice when dismantling the huge nerve gas stockpiles remaining from the cold war. I was charged with doing the spectrum analysis and produce the final data from the elements. One day two salesmen came and tried to sell us  a patented device that could identify up to 21 different elements with one analysis. They had a detector that divided the visual band into 21 parts, and bingo, with proper, not yet “fully developed” software you could now analyze up to 21 elements with one gas chromath analysis. What could be better? We could only analyze correctly four or five elements simultaneously. It turns out the elements are absorbing in the same wavelength bands, scientifically speaking they are not orthogonal, so software massaging can only go so far. It turned out that the promised new detector was inferior to what we already had and could only quantify three or 4 elements at the most.

In the atmosphere the two most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and CO2 with methane a distant third. Water vapor is much more of a greenhouse gas everywhere except near the tropopause high above the high clouds and near the poles when the temperature is below 0 F, way below freezing. A chart shows the relationship between CO2 and water vapor:

Image result for h20 and co2 as greenhouse gases

Source: http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/31/new-paper-co2-has-negligible-influence-on-earths-temperature/

Even in Barrow, Alaska water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Only at the South Pole (And North Pole) does CO2 dominate (but only in the winter).

All Climate models take this into account, and that is why they all predict that the major temperature increase will occur in the polar regions with melting icecaps and other dire consequences. But they also predict a uniform temperature rise from the increased forcing from CO2 and the additional water vapor resulting from the increased temperature.

This is wrong on two accounts. First, CO2 and H2O gas are nor orthogonal, that means they both absorb in the same frequency bands. There are three bands where CO2 absorbs more than H2O in the far infrared band, but other than that H2O is the main absorber. If H2O is 80 times as common as CO2 as it is around the equator, water vapor is still the dominant absorber, and the amount of CO2 is irrelevant.

Secondly gases cannot absorb more than 100% of the energy available in any given energy wavelength! So if H2O did absorb 80% of the energy and CO2 absorbed 50%, the sum is not 130%, only 90%. (0.8 + 0.5×0,2 or 0.5 + 0.8×0.5). In this example CO2 only adds one quarter of what the models predict.

How do I know this is true? Lucky for us we can measure what increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has already accomplished. For a model to have credibility it must be tested with measurements, and pass the test. There is important evidence suggesting the basic story is wrong. All greenhouse gases work by affecting the lapse rate in the tropics. They thus create a “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere. The theorized “hot spot” is shown in the early IPCC publications. (Fig A)

Fig. B shows observations. The hotspot is not there. If the hotspot is not there, the models must be wrong. So what is wrong with the models? This was reported in 2008 and the models still assume the additive nature of greenhouse gases, even to the point when more than 100% of the energy in a given band is absorbed.

How about Methane? Do not worry, it absorbs nearly exclusively in the same bands as water vapor and has no measurable influence on the climate.

But it will get warmer at the poles. That will cause melting of the ice-caps? Not so fast. When temperature rises the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, so it will snow more at higher latitudes. While winter temperatures will be higher with more snowfall, this will lower the summer temperatures until the extra snow has melted. And that is what is happening in the Arctics

As we can see from this picture, the winters were about 5 degrees warmer, but starting from late May through early August temperatures were lower. It takes time to melt all the extra snow that fell because of the less cold air, able to contain more water vapor.

These are my suggestions

  1. Do not worry about increasing CO2 levels. The major temperature stabilizer is clouds, and they will keep the earth from overheating by reflecting back into space a large amount of incoming solar radiation. Always did, and always will, even when the CO2 concentration was more than 10000 ppm millions of years ago. Ice ages will still come, and this is the next major climate change, maybe 10000 years from now, probably less.
  2. Clean up rivers, lakes and oceans from pollution. This is a priority.
  3. Limit Wind turbine electric energy to areas not populated by large birds to save the birds. Already over 1.3 million birds a year are killed by wind turbines, including the bald and Golden Eagles that like to build their aeries on top of wind turbines.
  4. Do not build large solar concentration farms. They too kill birds.
  5. Solar panels are o.k. not in large farms, but distributed on roofs to provide backup power.
  6. Exploit geothermal energy in geologically stable areas.
  7. Where ever possible add peak power generation and storage capacity to existing hydroelectric power plants by pumping back water into the dams during excess capacity.
  8. Add peak power storage dams, even in wildlife preserves. The birds and animals don’t mind.
  9. Develop Thorium based Nuclear Power. Russia, China, Australia and India are ahead of us in this. Streamline permit processes. Prioritize research. This should be our priority, for when the next ice age starts we will need all the CO2 possible.
  10. Put fusion power as important for the future but do not rush it, let the research and development be scientifically determined. However, hybrid Fusion -Thorium power generation should be developed.
  11. When Thorium power is built up and has replaced coal and gas fired power plants, then is the time to switch to electric cars, not before.
  12. Standard Nuclear Power plants should be replaced by Thorium powered nuclear plants, since they have only 0,01% of the really bad long term nuclear waste.
  13. Start thinking about recovering CO2 directly from the air and produce aviation fuel. This should be done as Thorium power has replaced coal and gas fired power plants.
  14. This is but a start, but the future is not as bleak as all fearmongers state.

Hydroxychloroquine + Zinc + Azithromycine + maybe vitamin D still the best treatment if administered early, not experimental vaccine still under medical trial (you will be tracked for 2 years).

This is getting interesting. I have been following the Hydroxychloroquine saga since President Trump started promoting it, and I heard from a medical receptionist how dangerous it was. Even Neil Cavuto of FOX news interviewed a doctor that stated it was very dangerous and Cavuto summarized ‘If you take this YOU WILL DIE”. Then on July 27 a group of medical personnel  gathered outside the Supreme Court for an impromptu press conference touting the benefits of Hydroxychloroquine. It was viewed 20 million times in a few hours and then promptly taken down by you-tube, Facebook, Instagram and twitter, among others.

There was a “Riot” on December 6 on the Capitol grounds, and a lot of people were basically invited to demonstrate in the Rotunda. One of the people that went in to the rotunda after being more or less ushered in was Dr. Simone Gold. (seen below). She used a bull horn for a short while , not to incite violence, but to try to inform people of the benefits of early treatments of the Wuhan virus and the unknowns consequences of the experimental vaccines available.

By being in the Rotunda on January 6 she is now a designated domestic terrorist according to most of the mainstream media.

Here is Dr. Simone Gould holding a seminar about the Wuhan virus and what we can do about it.

I ask you to see the whole video and draw your own conclusions. Does she seem to you to be a domestic terrorist as most of the media and prominent politicians assert, or is she trying to help bring forth the truth?

If you agree with her, you can sign this petition https://stopmedicaldiscrimination.org/

Biden stops Keystone XL construction at great environmental cost.

Newly elected Joe Biden has decided to stop building the Keystone XL pipeline, thus satisfying the environmentalists that want to wean us off our dependency on carbon based products, such as fuel, food and fertilizer. The arguments for denying the decision are nearly exclusively political, while the arguments to build the pipeline are concerns for our national security, economy and the environment.

Here is the deal:

Canada has the tar-sands and is extracting the oil. This was not our decision. If we don’t buy the oil, China will.

We export refined products to the Caribbean islands, which by the way have a larger carbon footprint per person than the U.S. This is good business, since the islands are too small to have a refinery of their own.

It takes more energy to run a refinery up north in a cold climate than in hot, humid Baytown, Texas.

The last time a major oil refinery was built in the U.S was 1976. A small refinery was built in 1993, in Valdez, Alaska. The  US. regulatory climate is hostile to refineries. Warren Buffett bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad in February 2010 and paid 44 Billion dollars for it. The railroad paid Berkshire Hathaway 2.25 Billion in dividends during the first 13 months. Warren Buffet bought the railroad after President Obama took office, since he nixed the pipeline the first time.

Right now the crude oil is transported from the Athabasca tar sands to Houston mostly by Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC railroad. It is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that did stand to benefit from the decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.
https://lenbilen.com/2012/01/25/warren-buffet-profiting-from-working-on-the-railroad/
The cost of transporting the oil is about #14 dollars per barrel, much of it the cost of burning diesel fuel, generating CO2. The pipe-line can do the job for about seven dollars per barrel, much of it capital costs, some of it already spent.
We can see what happens when transporting crude oil: https://lenbilen.com/2013/07/07/ttain-derailment-in-quebec-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-a-limerick/

Warren Buffet is a major Democratic political player; he will again have frequent access to the White House. Last year the Warren Buffet organizations donated 58 million dollars to the Biden presidential campaign.

Sarah Palin once succinctly coined the phrase: “This is Crony Capitalism.”

By not importing oil from Canada the total carbon footprint will increase. We lose, and Canada loses. (I am not concerned that the CO2 is increasing, but that a valuable natural resource is unnecessary depleted.) Now it turns out that Canada has left the Kyoto Protocol but has joined the Paris accord, so they have to export the crude oil to countries that still can expand their fossil fuel burning, such as China, but they would rather export to the U.S.

So why is Joe Biden against the Keystone XL pipeline? Here are seven possibilities:

1. Like Obama, Joe Biden is a true believer that ”this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”.

2. Joe wants to deliberately wreck our economy to create a more fair society of shared sacrifices, refuses to have an energy policy that will create jobs, but will support protest movements and foment unrest.

3. Joe is acting on orders from Global Governance people that do want U.S. to be totally dependent on international law and U.N. mandates.

4. Joe wants to show leadership in implementing the Paris Climate Conference 2015, and its associated treaty.

5. Joe Biden wants to show leadership on something, like touting the “breakthrough” agreement with China, where China is allowed to emit six times as much CO2 as the U.S. by the year 2030.

6. The real reason? Like Obama, Joe is fully bought and paid for, this time by China. The old reason: https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/14/the-real-reason-obama-wont-approve-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/

7. Joe is half insane and surrounded by bad advisors.

This is the best I can do to explain the reasons for this decision.

Vitamin D as COVID-19 fighter, a most important virus fighter!

The organization Grassroots health put out the results of 212 people that had the COVID-19 virus, roughly 50 each having a critical or severe or normal or mild outcome. The results were stunning. Nearly all with a high level of vitamin D level in the blood had a mild outcome, as opposed to those with a vitamin D deficiency.

Up to now vitamin D deficiency has mostly been a concern for the people with the following risk factors, but not as a virus fighter.

  • Osteoporosis or other bone disorder
  • Previous gastric bypass surgery
  • Age; vitamin D deficiency is more common in older adults.
  • Obesity
  • Lack of exposure to sunlight
  • Having a darker complexion
  • Difficulty absorbing fat in your diet

It should be fairly simple and fast to expand this analysis to a larger sample of people that also include people with antibodies to COVID-19 but never showed any symptoms.

If this holds true, we did the exact wrong thing by keeping people indoors in hope to slow the spread. Instead we should have encouraged people to be outdoors as much as possible, still practicing hygiene and social distance, give vitamin D to all over 65 (4000 IU), to all obese and people of dark complexion.

This is by no means the only suggestion, but it is one more weapon in the arsenal to combat this virus.

An Indonesian study indicates the link between Vitamin D Deficiency and death is even stronger:

 

It is correct special attention should be given African Americans and Native Americans, since they have a much higher rate of Vitamin D deficiency.

Conclusion: The AMA should start paying attention to food supplements and issue recommendations for Vitamin D that it is an  important therapeutic and prophylactic against COVID-19.

This also means that forbidding outdoor dining, forcing people to eat indoors in their own homes makes matters worse. This is also confirmed by the statistics of lockdown states, they do worse after lockdown than before. In contrast, states with less confinement are nearly all well past their peak.

 

 

Hydroxychloroquine should be sold over the counter in limited quantities, It is safer than Aspirin, Tylenol and Benadryl. Sign the petition

We are making great strides in the fight against the corona-virus. In the beginning the disease had an 8,67% death rate. It is now down to 2.19%.

The corresponding numbers for U.S.A :  7.02%  death rate at the beginning of the disease. Ir is now down to 1.53%, a 78% decrease. With unrestricted availability to take HCQ+ we can reduce the death rate even further.

These are the numbers for every state.

State      Death rate max   7 day death rate now

Connecticut          9.62%     3.22%

New Hampshire  9.33%     5.2%

Missouri                8.96%     0.86% Prescribing hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin for COVID-19 prophylactic is discouraged and not recommended. Prescribers include the diagnosis code or diagnosis with the prescription. Prescribers should consider limiting the amount prescribed.

Pennsylvania       8.81%     1.63%

Indiana                 8.77%     1.39%

New Jersey           8.73%     4.23%

New York State    8.64%     1.79%    Positive COVID-19 test result must be documented as part of the prescription.•Prohibits use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for experimental or prophylactic use.

Michigan               8.58%     0.92%

South Carolina     8.52%     3.09%

Kansas                   7.69%     1.30% Strongly encourages vigilance in processing new prescriptions for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine •Recommends that if used, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine should be restricted to patients who are admitted to hospitals with COVID-19 infections.•Urges pharmacists to consider that patients currently taking hydroxychloroquine for FDA-approved indications (lupus, rheumatoid arthritis) could be affectedby increased prescribing and that supplies should be monitored by pharmacists for medication availability.•Recommends reaching out to prescribers to verify COVID-19 diagnosis.

West Virginia       7.68%     1.1%

Arizona                 7.62%     3.08%

Nevada                  7.53%     1.55% Restricts the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. The patient must have a diagnosis of COVID-19 and the diagnosis is indicated on the prescription;

D.C.                         7.45%     0.86%

Oklahoma             7.29%     0.65%

Massachusetts     7.24%     4.55%

New Mexico         7.14%     1.97%

Maine                    7%           2%

Mississippi           7.06%     1.62%

Wisconsin            6.97%      0.93%

Colorado               6.96%     1.28%

Rhode Island       6.92%      0.88%

Alabama               6.61%     1.21%

Delaware              6.55%      2%

Maryland              6.16%     1.10%

Washington          5.69%     1.10%

Georgia                 5.24%     1.23%

Kentucky              5.02%     0.93% Prescriptions for chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, mefloquine, and azithromycin may only be dispensed if: The prescription bears a written diagnosis from the prescriber consistent with its use;

Ohio                       4.97%     1.93% Prescriptions for either presumptive positive patients or prophylactic use of chloroquineor hydroxychloroquine related to COVID-19 is strictly prohibited unless the drugs are for use as part of a documented institutional review board-approved clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the drugs to treat COVID-19

California             4.82%     1.47%

Arkansas              4.70%     1.20%

Oregon                  4.66%    1.76%

Illinois                  4,66%    1.12%

North Carolina   4.47%     1.27% Rule applies to hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, ribavirin, darunavir, and azithromycin;•For above drugs, a pharmacist can only fill or refill a prescription if that prescription bears a written diagnosis from the prescriber consistent with its evidence for use;•If a patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, any prescription of a drug listed above for the treatment of COVID-19 must: Indicate on the prescription that the patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19

Louisiana             4.18%     1.85% The boardoriginally issued an emergency rule to limit the dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to address shortages,but rescinded the rule after it received information about a significant donation and distribution of the drugs from the manufacturer, along with the removal of the drug from FDA’s drug shortage list.•It now encourages each pharmacy to exercise professional discretion to dispense limited quantities of the drug as appropriate

Florida                  4.02%     1.75%

Montana               4%          1.4%

Idaho                     3.70%     1.21%  No prescription for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine may be dispensed except if the following apply: The prescription bears a written diagnosis from the prescriber consistent with evidence for its use;

Vermont                3.6%       1%

Texas                     3.60%     2.56% No prescription or medication order for chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, mefloquine or azithromycin may be dispensed or distributed unless all the following apply:oThe prescription or medication order bears a written diagnosis from the prescriber consistent with the evidence for its use; The prescription or medication order is limited to no more than a 14-day supply unless the patient was previously established on the medication; and no refills may be permitted unless a new prescription or medication order is furnished

North Dakota       3.6%       0.8%

Minnesota            3.55%     0.70%

Tennessee            3.50%      0,71%

Alaska                   3.5%        1%

Iowa                      2.95%      1.27%

Hawaii                  2.8%        0.5%

Virginia                2.76%      1.40%

Utah                      1.66%      0.97%

South Dakota       1.1%       1.25%

Wyoming              1%           0.5%

Nebraska              0.82%     0.72%

For all states, June 15, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be used to treat certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19 when a clinical trial was unavailable, or participation in a clinical trial was not feasible. The agency determined that the legal criteria for issuing an EUA are no longer met. Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA.

By the time the patient is hospitalized it may be too late to have any benefit of HCQ+ treatment. It works best as a prophylactic or taken as soon as the telltale sign occurs, loss of taste and smell, shortness of breath, etc. Then is the time to start the HCQ + Zn + Zmax treatment, even before a positive diagnosis is established.

Release HCQ to be sold as over the counter medication. For LUPUS and rheumatorial arthritis patients it is even prescribed to pregnant women and nursing mothers. It is that safe.

Here is the petition to the WhiteHouse to release it to over the counter dispensation. (19287 signed so far)