Bartonella Found in Ticks, Biting Midges, and Moose

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32757355/. 2020 Aug 5.

doi: 10.1111/tbed.13762. Online ahead of print.

Bartonella spp. detection in ticks, Culicoides biting midges and wild cervids from Norway

Carlos Sacristán 1Carlos G das Neves 1Faisal Suhel 1Irene Sacristán 2Torstein Tengs 3Inger S Hamnes 1Knut Madslien 1Affiliations expand

Abstract

Bartonella spp. are fastidious, gram-negative, aerobic, facultative intracellular bacteria that infect humans, and domestic and wild animals. In Norway, Bartonella spp. have been detected in cervids, mainly within the distribution area of the arthropod vector deer ked (Lipoptena cervi). We used PCR to survey the prevalence of Bartonella spp. in blood samples from 141 cervids living outside the deer ked distribution area (moose [Alces alces, n = 65], red deer [Cervus elaphus, n = 41] and reindeer [Rangifer tarandus, n = 35]), in 44 pool samples of sheep tick (Ixodes ricinus, 27 pools collected from 74 red deer and 17 from 45 moose) and in biting midges of the genus Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae, 120 pools of 6,710 specimens). Bartonella DNA was amplified in moose (75.4%, 49/65) and in red deer (4.9%, 2/41) blood samples. All reindeer were negative. There were significant differences in Bartonella prevalence among the cervid species.

Additionally, Bartonella was amplified in two of 17 tick pools collected from moose and in 3 of 120 biting midge pool samples. The Bartonella sequences amplified in moose, red deer and ticks were highly similar to B. bovis, previously identified in cervids. The sequence obtained from biting midges was only 81.7% similar to the closest Bartonella spp.

We demonstrate that Bartonella is present in moose across Norway and present the first data on northern Norway specimens. The high prevalence of Bartonella infection suggests that moose could be the reservoir for this bacterium.

This is the first report of bacteria from the Bartonella genus in ticks from Fennoscandia and in Culicoides biting midges worldwide.

___________________

**Comment**

Many Lyme patients also have Bartonella.  It is an under-appreciated pathogen:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/04/24/human-bartonellosis-an-underappreciated-public-health-problem/

It can cause schizophrenia-like symptoms:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/03/21/bartonella-sudden-onset-adolescent-schizophrenia-a-case-study/

Again, our ‚authorities‘ have pigeon-holed Lyme into a singular illness when for many there are numerous pathogens at play, not to mention other important issues like MCAS and mold that need to be dealt with. Also, most doctors are taught that Bartonella is not a big deal and the immune system will just deal with it.  I’ve lost count of how many articles have crossed my desk showing just the opposite to be true.  Bartonella can kill.

September 2, 2020

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/

Challenging IChemE climate scaremongering

By David Wojick |September 2nd, 2020|

The Institution for Chemical Engineers (IChemE) is a prestigious international group of scientists and professionals with over 35,000 members in about 100 countries. IChemE has been conducting what it calls a consultation on its draft Position Statement on Climate Change. This basically means that the members are invited to submit comments. Given that many engineers are skeptical of the climate scare, it will be interesting to see if all of these comments are made public.

Originally posted at CFACT

The draft statement itself is pure alarmism. They say the science is settled, per the IPCC, and catastrophe looms. Here is the opening paragraph:

“Climate science is established – global climate change is upon us, exacerbated by human activities. IChemE accepts the veracity of the science and its conclusions published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To avoid irreparable social, economic and environmental damage, it is essential that we accelerate our efforts to decarbonize our economic systems and stabilize the levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, if we are to have any chance of limiting the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, beyond which catastrophic consequences are more likely. Action needs to be global and fair, recognizing the relative differences between regions, both in terms of historic contributions to emissions and vulnerability to the consequences of a warming planet.

Chemical engineers are uniquely placed to take action in the industries that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions to arrest and reverse the damage we humans are doing to the life support systems of our single, shared planet .” (Emphasis added).

Not only do they simply sing the IPCC song, they even get it wrong. Nowhere does the IPCC suggest that 1.5 degrees of warming (with one degree already on their books) is a threshold to catastrophe. In fact the Paris Accord target is still 2.0 degrees. The last sentence may explain IChemE’s fervent catastrophism. Its members are positioned to make huge sums of money doing the engineering to decarbonize the world. After all, CO2 emissions are typically the product of chemical reactions (including combustion).

In fact most of the four page draft position statement is nothing but a strategic plan for cashing in on the unwarranted fear of human caused catastrophic climate change.

The CLINTEL letter challenges IChemE to actually do the scientific and engineering analysis needed to back up a reasonable climate statement. That this analysis has not done so makes the present draft what CLINTEL calls an embarrassing “me-too” position statement.

Here is how CLINTEL puts it: “With all respect, the Institution’s draft statement on climate change is an unquestioning, me-too, statement, political in character and lacking in scientific argument, justification or rationale. The document is unworthy of your prestigious Institution. Uniformed ‘me-too’ climate statements do not bring us closer to thermodynamic reality.”

According to CLINTEL, the draft needs to be completely rewritten:

“The Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) is an international scientific society representing almost 1000 scientists and engineers in climate and related fields. As CLINTEL’s President, I am writing to you to invite the Institution of Chemical Engineers to seriously consider a redraft in toto of its position statement on climate change.”

Moreover, this rewrite should be based on a careful analysis of climate change science and engineering. To that end CLINTEL provides the following succinct checklist of six analytical considerations, including sorely needed engineering cost-benefit analysis.”

— How much – or how little – global warming does mankind really cause?

— Have the benefits as well as the disbenefits of more CO2 in the air been properly accounted for?

— Why does projected past global warming exceed observationally-derived warming by more than 200%?

— Does the cost and benefit of attempting to abate global warming exceed that of adapting to it?

— What of the millions who die every year because they cannot afford expensive “renewable” electricity and are denied affordable, reliable alternatives?

— Has history not shown us over and over again that adaptation to change presents a powerful evolutionary strategy?”

The open letter is signed by Professor Guus Berkhout, CLINTEL President, and their UK Ambassador, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. IChemE is headquartered in the UK. It has been sent to Professor Stephen Richardson, President, Institution of Chemical Engineers.

Clearly this challenge applies to all “me-too” organizations that mislead their members by endorsing the baseless scare of climate catastrophe.

Author

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see

http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html

For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see

http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d

Available for confidential research and consulting.

The Democrat Climate Tax

My column at RealClearMarkets.com.

The Democratic Party has made it clear that they would rather pursue their destructive green agenda which further sets back America’s economy than give Americans the lifeline they need to get back on their feet. And if they flip the Senate this November, their climate tax will prove it.

Last week, Senate Democrats unveiled a climate plan that they say will cost $400 billion per year. But for a nation in recovery – one that is exhausted under the coronavirus pandemic, rebuilding after a deadly hurricane in Louisiana, and restoring businesses run into the ground from the recent shutdowns and lootings – it’s important to note what this climate plan really means for the average American household, and further, what it says about Democrats.

To estimate costs, there are about 120 million households in America. So, $400 billion per year divided by 120 million households means the Democrat climate spending plan is about $3,300 per year or about $280 per month — after taxes — for the average household per year.

And of course, actual costs are likely to be higher. They always are.

Under a Democrat-controlled America, citizens would be forced to pay more for gasoline and electricity, and higher energy prices would ripple throughout the economy forcing businesses to raise prices on all goods and services.

Average household income in the US was about $63,000 pre-COVID. The after-tax take home pay for the average household is then about $40,000 per year or 3,300 per month – once again, that’s pre-COVID.

So the Democrat climate plan is roughly an 8.5% tax increase on the average household on take home pay.

But maybe it’s worth it to save the planet? Well, let’s see.

Keeping in mind that the Democrat climate plan wouldn’t zero-out CO2 emissions until 2050, let’s pretend that we zeroed out US emissions today and forever.

Global manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are about 56 billion tons per year. The US share of that is approximately 7.5 billion tons – only 13% of total global emissions – which continues to shrink as Asia and Africa develop. The math shows that if America stopped emitting today, and never emitted again, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) would only be slightly reduced – possibly 545 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 vs. 529 ppm by the year 2100 (link sources for CO2 ppm).

There is no existing climate model that shows there will be any discernible difference in climate or weather due to that small change in atmospheric CO2.

So what the does the average household get for the Senate Democrats’ 8.5% take-home pay climate surtax? Absolutely nothing. No change in climate. No change in weather. Just higher prices and less money to spend.

You might be thinking, who in the world thinks this is good policy? That’s a great question.

A recent Harris poll placed climate as one of the lowest priorities for American adults — 23rd out of 24, to be exact. But it gets worse.

About a year ago, the Washington Post and Kaiser Foundation did a climate poll that included willingness-to-pay questions. When asked if they were willing to pay $2 more per month on their electric bill for climate, 51% of respondents said ‘No.’ When asked if they were willing to pay $10 more per month on their electric bill for climate, 71% of respondents said ‘No.’

And those questions and responses were not prefaced with the warning that the extra money you would pay would not accomplish anything even noticeable, let alone of value.

Had the pollsters asked about spending $3,300 per year on climate for nothing, you can well imagine what the response would be.

Democrats don’t usually discuss the details of their climate plans and it’s obvious why. No one wants to pay their hard-earned money for painful policies that won’t accomplish anything.

Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, served on the Trump EPA transition team and is the author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA” (Bench Press, 2016).

via JunkScience.com

https://ift.tt/3lGqyW1

September 2, 2020 at 02:07PM

Heavy snow for the Rockies

Windy shows snow from northern Alberta all the way down to New Mexico next 10 days, says reader Oly.

https://www.windy.com/-Show—add-more-layers/overlays?snowAccu,2020-09-08-18,40.196,-105.293,5,m:eHyaddC

“30 inches in Colorado, first week of September? That’s crazy talk.”


Image taken from windy.com

The post Heavy snow for the Rockies appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/3lFC8ki

September 2, 2020 at 01:52PM

Deaths in Sweden (NEVER locked down) far greater than New York State, which DID lock down

“In Sweden, daily corona deaths are now close to zero. The overall mortality rate is in the range of earlier strong flu waves. Even the monthly peak mortality (in April 2020) remained below the strong flu waves of the 1990s.” https://swprs.org/facts-about-covid-19/

“So the graph shows the cumulative deaths in Sweden since March 11?” says reader Penelope. (She’s referring to the graph here.)

“I admit to a preference for graphs showing the daily deaths, as it shows nearly zero.”

“This site contains a graph comparing deaths per million in New York State and Sweden:
New York State 1670 deaths per million, Sweden 540.”

“45% of US corona deaths occurred in nursing homes,” says Penelope. “Over 50% occurred in the six states that actively placed Covid patients in nursing homes.”

Facts about Covid-19

Did you get that?

A locked down state with triple the number of deaths as an entire country that did not lock down!

New York State,  1670 deaths per million, Sweden 540.

Can anyone tell me what good the lockdown is doing?

The post Deaths in Sweden (NEVER locked down) far greater than New York State, which DID lock down appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/3i62kCF

September 2, 2020 at 11:38AM