John Clauser, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, is apparently the latest target of a cancel campaign. According to a group called the Co2 Coalition, Clauser was scheduled to speak to a group at the International Monetary Fund on climate change when critics spotted a serious problem: he does not support the accepted view on the subject. The response was all-too-familiar (even if less expected by Nobel laureates): Clauser had to be barred from sharing his scientific views or being heard by others at the IMF.
During the pandemic, dissenting scientists were regularly banned or canceled for questioning the efficacy of masks, suggesting a lab theory on the origins of Covid, raising natural immunity defenses, and other viewpoints. They have been largely vindicated. Yet, censorship remains commonplace even at universities and organizations like the IMF.
Clauser was reportedly guilty of questioning the reliability of the predictions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So an organization of economists based on objective data and research decided to bar others from hearing countervailing views.
Clauser reportedly received an email from the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, who had seen a flyer for the zoom talk. It was immediately postponed. The natural default at the IMF and other organizations was to stop speech as potentially harmful when it does not comport with official viewpoints. It appears that Moreno and the IMF could not even tolerate a simple Zoom discussion that offered an alternative viewpoint.
Clauser has earned the ire of climate change advocates by calling the underlying scientific claims “dangerous misinformation” based on shoddy research. I can certainly see why that is not welcomed. However, rather than simply refute his views with their own data, these groups want to prevent others from hearing him.
The IMF has said little in the aftermath of the indefinite postponement. Why should it? The silence is precisely what it sought to achieve.
John Clauser studies quantum mechanics, not climate science. Why should his opinions be placed on the same level as hundreds of actual climate scientists? There is not much overlap between quantum mechanics and climate science.
Except for the atmospheric radiative transfer stuff, upon which climate science is based.
LOL. Of course that’s what climate science is based on, but not what “Climate Science” is based on.
Excellent distinction, thanks!
Clauser does not have any peer reviewed papers on anything related to climate science.
Everything about climate science is at its core Physics.
Stephan Boltzmann is PHYSICS., Arrhenius is PHYSICS,. Planks is PHYSICS,
Chaos Theory is PHYSICS. Fluid Dynamics is PHYSICS. The interation of Photons and molecules is not just Phsyics it is QUANTUM physics.
This claim that some idiot who failed at university physics and has a cereal box degree in climate can hold a candle to A noble prize whining phsyicist in ANY area of science is ludicrously stupid.
All science rests on Physics and mathematics.
I would like to his published work in climate. Or even his mere science basis why the majority of the world’s scientists are wrong and he is right. This guy is a martyr on here and there is no science discussion of what his points are.
I would like to his published work in climate. Or even his mere science basis why the majority of the world’s scientists are wrong and he is right.
So 340+ comments later, you have argued Clausen was rightfully censored because he is either wrong on the science or unqualified to be right on it. And yet you have not read any of his work regarding climate science to know he is either right or wrong. You have no idea that you are arguing a position completely ignorant of competing facts. That’s how censorship works. It’s the antithesis of enlightenment.
This guy is a martyr on here and there is no science discussion of what his points are.
Real scientists everywhere should be appalled at censoring any scientist…period. If the majority on this blog view Clausen as a martyr, it’s not because of his scientific theories, it’s because we oppose censorship at its core.
He wan’t censored in the least. He can talk anywhere someone will listen to him. They don’t want to hear him. Annnnnd the imf isn’t a body to really discuss climate. They are about monetary policy. Learn to know where you aren’t welcome.
Real scientists? LOL. If I got this right the economists canceled him. His point of view really isn’t good for anybody’s economy. The long view is get off FF and prepare for climate change.
His point of view really isn’t good for anybody’s economy.
And that comes from an individual that has admitted he has never read Clauser’s work.
Now why would the IMF have scheduled Clauser to address their body in the first place? They’re economists, what were they thinking? 🤔 Perhaps this is why:
According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/07/22/report-nobel-prize-winning-scientist-dr-john-clauser-who-recently-declared-climate-science-a-pseudoscience-has-his-imf-talk-abruptly-canceled/
And this: In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.
https://www.newsweek.com/nobel-prize-winner-who-doesnt-believe-climate-crisis-has-speech-canceled-1815020
Apparently it’s unacceptable to allow an invited scientist to talk science to a group of economists. Not because they lacked the ability to understand his new climate model. No, it would be unacceptable because a body interested in the global economies might begin to question the RoI of green energy policies given their “subprime credit rating” earned by their previous failures at predicting climate catastrophes.
HE basically prostituted himself for Fossil Fuels. No climate scientist would dare hook up with co2 coalition and make those statements. No apparent science and no foundation for what he just stated. The poor stand the most to lose in this game without help. Deniers believer in every man for himself. People will die in this.
Olly: Amen.l Good for you.
Sammy says:
August 3, 2023 at 9:50 AM
John Clauser studies quantum mechanics, not climate science. Why should his opinions be placed on the same level as hundreds of actual climate scientists? There is not much overlap between quantum mechanics and climate science.
lin says:
August 3, 2023 at 10:03 AM
Sammy: Did you miss the part about the fact that it was economists, -not climate science experts, who were responsible for canceling him?
Please read the third paragraph, supra. The good professor notes, “So an organization of economists based on objective data and research decided to bar others from hearing countervailing views.”
Olly, apparently economists can assess cumulative metadata and draw definitive conclusions, but another scientist in a related discipline cannot.
lin,
It’s difficult to tell if the broader IMF group of economists were responsible at all for canceling his lecture. This from Clauser:
According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was “postponed.”
I find it a stretch to believe Moreno’s decision was made merely by reading a flyer. What is more likely is pressure was put on him by the “scientists” whose own models (and financial futures) would be threatened if Clauser’s modeling proved to have scientific validity.
Olly: True, but Moreno is also an economist and heading the group of other IMF economists who “feed” the” Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund” https://www.imf.org/en/About/senior-officials/Bios/pablo-moreno
Interestingly, the title to Clauser’s proposed presentation is/was “Let’s talk – How much can we trust IPCC climate predictions?” https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/23/cancellations-start-for-john-clauser-after-nobel-physics-laureate-speaks-out-about-corruption-of-climate-science/
(these were the sites identified by JT in his opening paragraph, in the red “According to..”)
What a wonderful opportunity was missed in having a “Let’s talk” open, Socratic Q&A session with the speaker, who was obviously prepared to address challenges from the audience, or else I presume he would not have invited such “Let’s talk.”
So little ole non-scientist me agrees with you and others in asking, “What were they afraid of?”
This is not even about economics – because the economics of Climate change are STRONGLY in favor of – Let it happen.
Today we are produceing 4 times as much food on half as much land as we did in 1965 – that is why the “Population bomb” proved to be just another in a long string of malthusian failures.
Oddly at the same time – in addition to all the human inginutiy increasing agricultural production, More CO2 has helped, more rainful has helped, a warmer planet has helped. Despite the fact that we are using LESS farmland today than in 1965 – Globally
MORE land is productively farmable.
And that is ONLY the land use related issues of Climate change – globally FEWER people are dying of extreme cold – which kills 8 times as many people as extreme heat. For every single allegedly bad thing that a warmer planet MIGHT bring about – there are two or three GOOD ones.
The economics of global warming should have us begging for warming. Global Cooling would be an actual economic disaster.
Clausen is only a ‘martyr’ based on your own personal, persecution of his ideas and associations *you* brought up on this message board – not because others here ‘believe’ in him or his ideas.
Please consider putting the shovel down. You’re only deepening your own ideological pit.
You guys can’t defend his science. Interesting. I haven’t found it yet and maybe martyrdom is all you need right now. Martyrdom is not enough in the science world. As a matter of fact, it is nothing.
Sammy, remember Al Gore? That quack who got a Nobel prize for climate change?? Everyone is qualified to comment, now.
Diogenes,
Didnt Gore make the claim that NYC would be underwater by now?
Then again, didnt a bunch of people say back in the 1970s we would be in a new ice age by the mid-80s?
Sure did, Upstate. Made millions grifting it, too. P.T. Barnum was right: there’s a Democrat born every minute.
In fact, Pedo Bill was their thesis advisor. That would scar anybody for life.
1. Apparently he did study climate science.
2. Please describe the overlap between the two fields.
3. Most importantly, please tell us where this non-climate scientist’s analyses are wrong.
4. Most importantly, perhaps he identifies as a climate scientist, bigot.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, btw. Studying ‘climate science’ will show you many other fallacies as well.
“Why should his opinions . . .”
Why not debate his ideas and arguments, rather than attack his credentials?
BTW: What, exactly, do Gore and Kerry “study?”
They double-majored in grifting and grooming.
In fact, Pedo Bill was their thesis advisor. That would scar anybody for life.
Why shouldn’t people be able to listen to what he says and then judge for themselves?
Because he’s an esteemed scientist and he’s commenting on the science behind stated conditions.
He is a physicist who happens to also be an expert at quantum mechanics.
As a scientist, he can look at studies, see where they may be flawed and point them out.
If they had any faith in their own studies they would of welcomed his opinions.
Only people who have something to hide employ censorship or denial of debate.
Holy crap. I bet you believe in science(c) and have a sign telling others of this, eh?
Dealing with climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our times. The slow political progress of climate action has put an increasing focus on technological solutions to combat climate change. Nature is, as Feynman stated, quantum mechanical. Therefore, we should try to solve the problem of climate change quantum mechanically. One of the potential solutions is quantum computing. Quantum computing is an area of study where computer technologies are developed based on the principles of quantum mechanics. Broadly, quantum computing harnesses quantum mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement (a phenomenon where the quantum states of two or more objects seem to be linked over a large distance), to perform complex computations much faster than classical computers [8]. Quantum computers have the potential to solve problems far beyond the reach of today’s computers. The most intriguing part is that while in a classical computer, a bit (also known as a binary digit; the smallest unit of any information stored electronically) has two states (0 and 1), in quantum computers, a qubit (quantum bit) has three states including a superposition state. A superposition state means that the state of a qubit can be one and zero simultaneously.
You are an excellent example of whom the left preys upon (you and the morons hooked on government). You know just enough to take the bias-confirming bait they dangle, without having the intelligence/experience/education necessary to debate the issue. Are you a suburban white woman? The left loves to sucker those gals. just like that.
Oh, grow up. I earned a Master of Science in THIS field, and understand somewhat quantum entanglement.
It is you, uneducated in this or that field who thinks what he wants to believe.
Believe what? Believe that a physicist can debate climate change? Not only do I believe it, it has been verified.
That second paragraph is from some BS propaganda site, but it does show that quantum mechanics can describe the proper inputs, perhaps (likely) better than classical physics.
My degree is in molecular biology w/minor in chemistry. I studied environmental science, P-chem, oceanography…so what? I learned that science is rarely settled and debate is at its core.
What is it you believe? That any distinguished professor that doesn’t goose-step like the rest of the lemmings should be shunned? You should be ashamed.
That’s right: Attack the truth-teller. It is age-old.
Let him tell me about the causes of the slowing of the AMOC, Ocean Acidification, deoxygenation of the seas, spread of tropical diseases, simultaneous wildfires and floods unlike anything before.
George, if you would, please explain why we didn’t have runaway warming and ocean acidification when the atmospheric carbon content and temperature were both much higher than now (for hundreds of millions of years, in fact)? Why did the biosphere continue to sequester carbon instead of melting the ice caps and destroying life? Why did life flourish during the Cambrian explosion when atmospheric carbon content was astronomically higher? If you know the answers, this is your chance. I, for one, am watching. If you don’t know, I would submit the science is not settled.
There were no humans when those CO2 levels were that high.
Specifically, do you believe there is a catastrophic level of carbon content to the biosphere, humans or not?
The reason I ask is because some claim that warmer temperatures kill less and more CO2 increases vegetation.
Do you know that there is a level that is, on-net, harmful to the environment. What would that level be?
By biosphere I really meant atmosphere. Is there a CO2 level to the atmosphere that mostly harms the biosphere? That’s what I think is the relevant question, unless you’re just taking about harm to civilization.
Yew, we have it now: Simultaneous mass fires and floods and the spread of tropical diseases, the acidification of the oceans, the slowing of the AMOC, the melting of Greenland, and loss of arctic and antarctic sea ice.
Much more.
George K., your arguments do not represent the scientific process. They represent hysteria.
“Simultaneous mass fires . . .”
I’ll bet you have no idea (or wish to evade) that a large percentage of those fires were *arsons*. And that climate alarmists make those fires far worse by banning forestry management.
It’s almost as if you and your fellow destroyers want massive fires.
More denier tripe. Drought combined with dry lightning starts a lot fires.
“Attack the truth-teller. “
What has the truth teller told us beyond “I earned a Master of Science in THIS field”?
Nothing. Scientists look for differences in opinion. That is what propels science forward.
I suggest you read “What is science” a lecture by Richard Feynman. He taught people how to think and not act like parrots. Too bad you never took his classes.
http://www.feynman.com/science/what-is-science/
If you have to resort to personal attacks, you have already lost the discussion.
GJK,
I have read through this series of comments.
Some have asked honest questions, to which you do not respond or do with snarky comments.
Any scientist who has studied the scientific method should be able to look at any study and say, “That is not quite right.”
Or recognize flawed methodology.
What is your technical education?
This post is about a scientist being personally attacked…instead dealing with his science.
You are attacking any comment here, without actually engaging the topic. In short your a common troll
How do we save the dungeness crabs? Does he know?
I have an idea.
Stop eating them.
Ever been to China? They are very popular in dim sum.
I know. I have been there.
Same goes for shark fin soup.
In Japan, whale meat. Been there too. If I had the option, I would put two torpedoes into that whale “study” ship they send every year.
Not an intelligent reply to questions of climate change.
Upstate, “How do we save the dungeness crabs?” I remember, years ago, we had a bigger problem than Dungeness crabs. There was a giant flood, so Noah placed two of every animal and seven of every kosher animal into a very large ark. Perhaps we wouldn’t need such a large ark for just Dungeness crabs.
I’ve been in many different climates. In one, I almost froze to death. In the other, I sweated. I prefer sweating to dying.
I am sure my reply to you will not be an “intelligent reply to questions of climate change”. However, living in the dark while manipulating data, and refusing to recognize basic mathematics and physics isn’t an intelligent reply to that question either.
If you had a track record of being right about anything, or if you perhaps provided just one piece of empirical evidence to support your opinion, then just maybe you might begin to be taken seriously. Here’s something you might have missed regarding this Nobel Prize winning physicist’s qualified climate model contribution to this debate. It’s laughable you consider him to be unqualified to have an opinion about anything, especially science.
Dr. Clauser has developed a climate model that adds a new significant dominant process to existing models. The process involves the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds that cover, on average, half of the Earth. Existing models greatly underestimate this cloud feedback, which provides a very powerful, dominant thermostatic control of the Earth’s temperature.
Dr. Clauser received a Bachelor of Science in physics in 1964 from Caltech. In 1966, he earned a Master of Arts in physics as well as a Doctor of Philosophy in 1969 from Columbia University. From 1969 to 1996 he worked at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley. He was awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics in 2010. Additional details can be found at https://www.johnclauser.com/
https://co2coalition.org/teammember/john-clauser/
Because physics is the foundation of all science – including climate.
What part of Climate science do you think does not rest on fundamental physics ?
The Climate Cult has 3 huge problems.
The first is that most “climate scientists” are people who tried to become physicists, but could not cope with the math.
The second is that the foundation for climate science IS physics.
How is it you think Greenhouse Gasses actually work ? All of that is Quantum Physics. ALL! ABSOLUTELY ALL!
The third is that ALL Malthusian prognostications EVER have been WRONG – there is actually very good reasons for that.
Regardless Climate is not exempt.
And did I mention above that Climate science is PHYSICS and MATH – both of which so called Climate Scientists SUCK at.
There are very very very few areas of Science where I would not trust a Nobel Prize winning Physicist over a purported domain specific expert.
And the vast majority of “climate scientists” are not qualified to teach high school Physics.
Where is Dr. Clausers published material? A valid climate scientist does not join the co2 coalition and take money from them to toe their line That is a huge science no no.
See near endless lies of Climategate exposed over the years.
https://www.youtube.com/@TonyHeller/videos
Their charts “that show” their position pulled apart with simple observable facts.
Don’t worry, Professor. We already know the IMF is just a collection of Eurowimps and flacks sent by third-world despots, just like the UN, the Nobel committee, NATO, and half a dozen other Epstein Island country clubs I can think of. They’re not fooling us anymore.
The IMF is another unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy that we should get rid of, and save us some money.
Dear Diary:
2 August 2028
I am looking back on the U.S. history, and marveling at the cleverness of its sequential downfall and takeover.
It was so very clever for institutions to disallow, discredit, and censor equally-educated and reputable speakers (on climate change, infectious disease origin, and other issues), from dissenting or expressing their views for open debate, –Debate and argument just cause tension and argument. Keeping the peace by maintaining One View, One Path, One Road is the Only way!
How clever for one party to weave its way into academia, -then censor, silence, or remove opposing arguments, theses, debate, academic topics, different views! They simply cause dissension and polarity, so damaging to One Way! How exquisitely clever it was to partner with social and large media conglomerates to control the information going to the public!
How clever it was to infiltrate surveillance equipment into U.S. military hardware and operations!
And that Chinese weather balloon! OMG, how clever! –And how sneakily clever to run Biological collections, mutations, and resistant strain gains-of-function right under their noses, in a warehouse lab in California! Clever! Clever! Clever!
Marvelously clever to prod and provoke various minorities to make them feel “victimized” and deserving of special reparation/reward/advanced placement/promotion, —as though they—(no longer disparate minority groups,–but now known as the Collective Minority Group, “the victims”) represent the MAJORITY in America in a new Powerful voting bloc! Clever, Clever!
How clever for Mr. Soros to finance candidates and one party for election!
How meaningfully clever to distract, distort, and deflect! The three Ds are So. Very. Clever!
Sooo clever to discredit and ridicule religion and morals—sooooo old-world! Sooo damaging to moving forward in unison! Clever, clever, clever! –And Soooo clever of mass media networks to portray America as hateful, racist, “far-right extremist!”
Congratulations on the New One, the Clever Clever, New successful America!
Yours truly, a believer.
Lin,
You missed your calling as a novelist!
🙂
Wonderful.
Do you hear the crying from the left?
Science should always be debated.
It forces people to examine, examine, and examine again. New technology produces new evidence that has to be analyzed and then new theories brought forth to be debated again.
As others have noted, the earths climate is not static. It is always changing. At one time, where I am sitting was under tons of ice. Today, it is supposed to get into the low 80s.
How much of this is man made? That is where we need more debate. More scientific evidence. Just pointing at one data point and screaming “The Science is Settled!” is not science.
Nullius in verba!
Allow me to throw some science into the fray, and what these climate heralds never mention:
Evolution. Today we breathe oxygen from the atmosphere. The atmosphere today is composed of 71% Nitrogen, 28% Oxygen, 1% is Argon, CO2, and other gases. However, as I stated earlier, homo sapiens have been on the planet for less than 300,000 years, while oxygen has been in our planet far longer. We evolved 300,000 years ago to live with the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere. Prior to that homo sapiens could not live. In time, as is always the case in all living organisms (bacteria, fungi, plants, etc) evolutionary pressures force organisms to adapt. Our predecessors evolved to homo sapiens precisely because of evolutionary pressures, environmental cues, outward stressors, and so forth.
Organisms conform to whatever stress is placed on them. Our immune system is a great example of how we adapt to exogenous pathogens and endogenous damage (self-injury). We go with the flow, our body, at a molecular level, flexes so as to cope with the outward and inner perturbations (that is a medical term). People who live in high mountainous regions, where oxygen concentration is dangerously low, live fine. Their physiology at the molecular level, e.g. hemoglobin, adapted to the low Oxygen. You and I likely could not live there but people in the Andes, for example, have evolved given their environmental stressors.
Windsor JS, Rodway GW. Heights and haematology: the story of haemoglobin at altitude. Postgrad Med J. 2007 Mar;83(977):148-51. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2006.049734.
Whatever perturbations confront organisms, they will adapt. or not. Epigenetics rules. The “climate scientists” are grifters. All scientific theories are peddled by individuals who need $$$. These “scientists” do not live on oxygen alone (pun intended). They need angel investors, governments and corporations to fund their shtick. There is always a sucker who is willing to pay for someones shtick. They eventually run out of suckers to fund them once they recognize them as being full of hot air. 😉
This is for David Benson, who still uses his fingers and toes to do basic math
that is my comment
Estovir, I don’t insult you. Kindly stick with the Civility Rule here. Thank you.
Wait, what!? There may be financial incentives driving climate scientists? Seems to me that that should be included in any analysis of climate models.
When calculating the financial incentives of said scientists, do not use Benson’s fingers and toes. No telling what is growing there
Olly, if when I age I get pissy and grumpy like Benson, please throw me off an ocean cliff so that I get can fresh oxygen between my ears.
😉
Benson wants, once again, to torment his students, especially those who know more than he.
😄 According to the current pissy and grumpy contributors, there won’t be any cliff to be thrown off, just walk right in.
I literally LOL’d on that one, Olly! I needed that today, so thank you!
🤙
As I understand his position, Clauser argues that climate models fail adequately to account for the thermostatic effect of increasing cloud cover as the earth warms due to a higher concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere or other factors. He says that as the oceans warm there is more evaporation and thus greater cloud cover which reflects more sunlight and reduces the warming effect. This is a type of negative feedback. In Unsettled, Steven Koonin also noted that the climate models make assumptions about cloud cover, and otherwise engage in retrospective (though not prospective) tuning to match outcomes the models failed to predict, generally because they forecast excessive heating compared to what actually was observed. Since the projections of climate models can influence the policy debate, views like Clauser’s need to be heard and considered.
Maybe Clauser is a crank, but maybe he has a valid point. It is appalling that contrarian views are stifled in establishment settings.
Daniel,
I graduated in 91 with a B.S. in Geology. Back then, when you could still have debates, we used to discuss a hypothesis that as the Earth warms it would cause the equatorial regions to produce more evaporation. That area has a convection cell (Hadley Cell) that rises, heads north and south and then falls. There are three of these cells in both northern and southern hemispheres. It ends up causing a migration of moisture northward and southward eventually causing more snow load at the polls. This added snow would cause a reflection of the sun (albedo effect) causing more cooling. So, the thought was, warming could result in an actual cooling trend.
This is onlty one variable set of one possibility. This is why I think the alarmists are full of …. when they tell you they predict a degree or two in a hundred years.
Estivor, Daniel, Jim22,
This is what debate and honest conversations look like.
Then contrast this line of discussion with our resident trolls and we can see the difference.
Also the same mindset into those who canceled Clauser.
Thank you for your interesting comments and POV.
One of the most respected academic Cardiology researchers in the world is Dr Peter Libby at Harvard. He writes like a renaissance man and with scientific data that is bullet proof, for over 40 years. He has recently blown up just about every prevailing paradigm in Cardiology when it comes to atherosclerosis. His bomb throwing is marvelous, and it is stunning to see and read how many global academic Cardiologists are hyperventilating because everything they have written is being pissed upon by Libby…because he is right. Science changes every ten years in medicine. To be that rigid is to say youre not really a scientist but a dogmatist. Run away from them.
Libby P. The changing landscape of atherosclerosis. Nature. 2021 Apr;592(7855):524-533. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03392-8.
Table 1 | Changing views on atherosclerosis
Past
Atherosclerosis predominantly affects developed countries
Coronary thrombosis affects primarily middle-aged white men
Atherosclerosis is a lipid storage disease
Oxidized LDL drives atherosclerosis
HDL cholesterol protects against atherosclerosis
Thin-capped fibroatheromata are vulnerable plaques
Atherosclerosis is an inevitable, steady and degenerative accompaniment to ageing
Present
Developing countries now bear the greatest burden of atherosclerosis
Women, younger individuals, individuals from a range of ethnic backgrounds and the very old suffer increasingly from acute coronary syndromes
Inflammation links dyslipidaemia and other risk factors to atherogenesis
Native or aggregated LDL drives atherogenesis
TGRL participate causally in atherosclerosis
The ‘vulnerable plaque’ is a misnomer; superficial erosion is an increasing cause of arterial thrombosis
Atherosclerosis evolves episodically, can regress, and lifestyle and medical measures can modulate the process
“The ‘vulnerable plaque’ is a misnomer”
Estovir, I am not sure what the misnomer is. My understanding is that plaque separating from the wall of the vessel is one of the major causes of myocardial infarctions.
Plaque is an accumulation of smooth muscle cells, immune cells, fibroblasts, collagen, platelets, minerals like calcium but not always, and LDL but not always. It all depends on what prompted the atherosclerosis of the vessel(s)
my area of focus, due to HIV, is superficial erosion. Superficial erosion is where atherosclerosis begins. People with HIV (PWH) have twice the rate of atherosclerosis compared to people without HIV. PWH have atherosclerosis without calcification of plaques, without LDL accumulation, without rupture plaques. HIV causes endothelial dysfunction which results in atherosclerosis.
About one-third of MIs (myocardial infarction) do not involve unstable plaque. Plaque can recede, shift, move. They are not static. Additionally not everyone who has elevated LDL results in atherosclerosis. That was the previous paradigm but now we know it is multifactorial, e.g. cigarette smoking, hypertension, etc. Plaque destabilization does not account for all MI. Yet all MI start with superficial erosion. That is what Dr Libby means.
The article is behind a paywall. Here is the quote that explains further:
Autopsy studies have implicated rupture of the fibrous cap as the cause of the majority of fatal acute coronary syndromes, stimulating focus on the thin-capped fibroatheroma as a possible culprit. Yet, post-mortem studies such as these lack a denominator for how many lesions with the characteristics attributed to vulnerability do not cause acute thrombotic complications. Recent in vivo imaging studies in humans have furnished this missing information, and have shown that plaques that thin-capped plaques seldom cause clinical events. Thus, current evidence shows that ‘vulnerable plaque’ is a misnomer. In an era of intense lipid lowering, plaques of the classical vulnerable morphology are on the wane. Another mechanism of plaque disruption (known as superficial erosion) currently appears to be on the rise and probably has a distinct pathophysiology. This trigger to coronary artery stenosis does not involve fissure or rupture of the fibrous cap of the plaque, but rather a discontinuity in the intimal endothelial lining.
in essence, science fixates over a paradigm that they believe at the time explains most things but upon further investigations, they learn they were missing the forrest for the trees. Hubris, over exuberance, facile thinking, impatience, lack of critical thinking…all of these can lead to grave mistakes in the physical sciences like the current climate change fiasco. Those of us from the Caribbean have heard these arguments for decades. They explained in the 1990s (Hurricane Andrew, 1992) that hurricanes were increasing over the years and in intensity. Fast forward to today: nope. All bunk. Just like Benson’s climate change obsession.
In cardiology research we wasted decades of precious time focusing on “lipid storage disorder” when in fact many classes of atherosclerosis have nothing to do with lipids. Many causes of perturbations at the endothelium interface can cause endothelial dysfunction, which leads to atherosclerosis. Hypertension (stress/strain/flow dynamics on endothelium due to elevated pressure in vessel), diabetes (high glycemic index promotes endothelial dysfunction which leads to atherosclerosis), bacteria, viruses, periodontal disease all lead to atherosclerosis
Atherosclerosis is a super complex process that involves epigenetics, biochemistry, physics, physiology, protein chemistry and more. Calling it a lipid storage disease as we did back in the 80s when Merck launched the first statin (Mevacor), made all of medicine miss the bigger picture. Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process which entails a host of cellular and molecular dynamics. There is no “one size fits all”. Better now than never
Search for Peter Libby on PubMed, and read anything he has written or co-authored in the past 4 years. Huge paradigm shifts and very much in touch with humility
Sanz M, et al. Periodontitis and cardiovascular diseases: Consensus report. J Clin Periodontol. 2020 Mar;47(3):268-288. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13189.
Drummond GR, et al. Immune mechanisms of hypertension. Nat Rev Immunol. 2019 Aug;19(8):517-532. doi: 10.1038/s41577-019-0160-5.
“About one-third of MIs (myocardial infarction) do not involve unstable plaque. Plaque can recede, shift, move. They are not static.”
Erosion is a fundamental issue, but the question for many is why we are given Statins as a primary preventative for myocardial infarctions. Early on, it was to lower cholesterol, which correlated to heart disease. A deeper look into the types of cholesterol led us to recognize that LDL was responsible and HDL was preventative. Further fractionation occurred, but the numbers didn’t match the progressive fashion looked for. That is when recognition of plaque stabilization provided another reason to prescribe Statins. Unstable plaque can kill a person without much arteriosclerosis and with lower cholesterol readings. This addition solved part of the statistical deviation and provided a rationale for low doses of Statins in those without high cholesterol.
Your brief section of the article explains what he means by ‘vulnerable’. Without such an explanation, there is difficulty in understanding the use of the word.
The statement, “Another mechanism of plaque disruption (known as superficial erosion) currently appears to be on the rise “ Is that because the percentage of the other morphologies decreases with Statin use, and therefore this lesser understood mechanism is rising percentage-wise?
” Calling it a lipid storage disease as we did back in the 80s when Merck launched the first statin (Mevacor), made all of medicine miss the bigger picture.”
One has to start somewhere to progress. We link things to causes because it makes it easier to converse as the research process continues looking for even better results. But we must remember that the Statins, even without today’s added knowledge, dramatically reduced the death rate.
For most, the important thing to do is take the Statin and follow the advice, which for the most part, has been promoted for decades. I’ll let the researchers focus on the rest. Though I am glad we have people like you that look into biochemistry (etc.), my interest is simpler, how do we save lives?
High intensity statins have anti-inflammatory properties but not older statins. This is another example how scientists are forced to reject previous paradigms and adopt new ones upon further investigations.
Scientists egos must be checked at the door upon entering the research lab and patient clinic. Otherwise they become the problem in science
Jain MK, Ridker PM. Anti-inflammatory effects of statins: clinical evidence and basic mechanisms. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005 Dec;4(12):977-87. doi: 10.1038/nrd1901.
“High intensity statins have anti-inflammatory properties but not older statins.”
Thank you, Estovir. What are the older statins commonly used today that do not have anti-inflammatory properties? Are they advocating changing Statins based on this research?
[“Recent evidence has shown that the statins, a class of drugs originally designed to manage cardiovascular disorders by lowering cholesterol ***might*** , in part, mediate their protective effects by reducing inflammation”]
Should testing of lipids be combined with testing for CRP?
Are there studies that show the newest statins are better than the others excluding the oldest statins?
“The role of inflammation in atherogenesis, combined with the observation that statins show benefit in conditions that are not strongly associated with hyperlipidaemia, led to studies into the additional effects of statins.”
I was interested in the stability of plaque when I mentioned what is said above. Statins increasing the stability of plaque was a big factor. It explained part of the deviation between the expected results from statins and what the researchers saw. How much of an additional effect might be offered by this effect?
Allan, I was at Duke all day, 3 hours drive one way. Sorry, I am beat. The following is an excellent article, free link, by 2 luminaries in the areas of biochemistry, medicine, cholesterol research, and their history in developing Statins. They are Nobel prize winners in Physiology and Medicine.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1985/summary/
Their article will address most of your very good questions. Please read it. Olly, JAFO, and others should as well.
Goldstein JL, Brown MS. A century of cholesterol and coronaries: from plaques to genes to statins. Cell. 2015 Mar 26;161(1):161-172. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.036.
Thanks Estovir, I don’t think it answered the questions I was asking but it answered an unasked one that was quite enlightening. Thanks.
Thanks Estovir, I don’t think it answered the questions I was asking but it answered an unasked one that was quite enlightening. Thanks.
You are welcome.
See Table 3, List of High-Intensity Statins vs Non-High-Intensity Statins in the following article:
Grundy SM, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ ADA/ AGS/APhA/ ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019 Jun 18;139(25):e1082-e1143. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625. Epub 2018 Nov 10. Erratum in: Circulation. 2019 Jun 18;139(25):e1182-e1186.
I am of the opinion that all patients should get involved in the decision making of their medical treatment. That requires they do their homework and read recent evidenced based data. So I applaud you for doing so. However as to which statin you should be taking, that is a conversation between you and your Cardiologist.
This conversation demonstrates that science is an ongoing process. The initial paradigm that explained atherosclerosis was over 100 years ago:
Hanes FM. LIPOID METABOLISM IN THE DEVELOPING CHICK AND ITS RELATION TO CALCIFICATION. J Exp Med. 1912 Oct 1;16(4):512-26. doi: 10.1084/jem.16.4.512.
free link:
https://rupress.org/jem/article/16/4/512/23206/LIPOID-METABOLISM-IN-THE-DEVELOPING-CHICK-AND-ITS
That paradigm was replaced by another. Yet, that newer paradigm was replaced by another, replaced by another, replaced by another, and will likely be replaced by another. These took place because of vigorous disagreement amongst highly trained experts in biochemistry, genetics, physiology, histology, molecular biology, pathology and other hard core scientific fields. No one was excluded from showing their data. They likely were not embraced initially. However, 10+ years later they may have been proven to be correct. Science is like that
cheers
Thanks again, Estovir. I wasn’t asking about high vs. low intensity, but rather the comment that I thought indicated that some Statins did not have an anti-inflammatory effect. I thought that was the nature of all, but not the preceding non-statin drugs used to treat high cholesterol.
I don’t like pills, but I read a bit, and there is no way I would go without a statin. A friend was a well-respected and known cardiac cath guy who I was talking to. He told me decades ago that after doing cardiac catheterization on so many people and observing the films, even though the protocols didn’t include him needing a statin, he took a statin anyway.
The answer as to statins having anti-inflammatory properties is not a facile one, in part because inflammation at the molecular level is a complex process. There are a host of molecular mechanisms involved and differ from tissue to tissue, e.g. endothelium, intima, media, adventitia, foam cells, plaque, and other atherosclerotic related tissues and cells. Also as a rule I do not give medical advice. I prefer providing data and letting others decide after review. So here is the answer
See:
Diamantis E, Kyriakos G, Quiles-Sanchez LV, Farmaki P, Troupis T. The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Statins on Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Review of the Literature. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2017;13(3):209-216. doi: 10.2174/1573403X13666170426104611.
However that link requires a subscription to access it. You and others like Darren might want to know that paywalled scientific pdf articles are often accessible via “google scholar” or “semantic scholar”.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e2a5/ed31962cbc73bfa1cde816ceb8ba3a8ce72a.pdf
The JUPITER study was pivotal in getting cardiologists to see the statins do more than just lower LDL
Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, Genest J, Gotto AM Jr, Kastelein JJ, Koenig W, Libby P, Lorenzatti AJ, MacFadyen JG, Nordestgaard BG, Shepherd J, Willerson JT, Glynn RJ; JUPITER Study Group. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med. 2008 Nov 20;359(21):2195-207. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807646.
In brief, Pitavastatin, Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin are the more popular high-intensity (anti-inflammatory) statins prescribed by cardiologists in the US. The mechanism of action in how these statins reduce inflammation differ among drugs, and the metric for measuring reduction also differs, most of which can not be ordered in hospital or clinics. They are used only in research. See the linked article to understand how the statins differ
Talk to your cardiologist for further discussion / questions.
This information is meant strictly for educational purposes.
“The answer as to statins having anti-inflammatory properties is not a facile one, in part because inflammation at the molecular level is a complex process. ”
Yes, that is true, but all Statins are supposed to have anti-inflammatory features, and high or low intensity might not correlate with their inflammatory qualities.
I apologize for making you think I was asking for medical advice. I am not, but interested in the anti-inflammatory process because it is likely an answer to why Statins work better than initially expected based on cholesterol and then LDL levels.
I know some use indirect measurements of anti-inflammatory properties, though not a substitute for those measurements used on a clinical level, one wonders if on a gross level, they correlate with those people where the anti-inflammatory properties are failing. I don’t know that proper studies have been done on the clinical level to show that inexpensive and indirect tests for inflammation wouldn’t help. ie; use of those tests before treatment, and after with comparison to those who demonstrate with illness a failure in treatment.
Estovir,
You’ve post many times over the months & I haven’t kept up. If you’ve time to post I’d like to know briefly your current position on mRNA tech or has your position remained the same as it’s been in recent years reco’ing that people still take the shot, even children?
Science should always be debated.
Absolutely UpstateFarmer! Anyone, including the most credentialed scientists in the world, that says the science is settled, should be immediately “peer reviewed” again over anything they’ve ever published.
July was the hottest world temperature ever recorded.
Stop trying to pretend it isn’t global climate change.
“July was the hottest world temperature ever recorded.”
That all depends on how the temperatures were obtained and weighted. My oven was much hotter than of those recorded temperatures.
Identify anyone on this blog that denies our global climate changes.
If July saw the highest average worldwide temperature ever recorded, is that normal or abnormal in an interglacial period? Scientific data shows the Earth has had 5 Ice Ages. Our most recent Ice Age began 2.6 million years ago. And we are technically still in it. Yup, it’s called the interglacial period and right now we are in this Ice Age’s warm interglacial period. That began about 11,000 years ago. I suspect that if you had been around 11,000 years ago, you would have been roasted over the open (carbon footprint) fires they need to survive. Prove them wrong.
https://theconversation.com/how-many-ice-ages-has-the-earth-had-and-could-humans-live-through-one-179360
So yes, climate changes.
“July was the hottest world temperature ever recorded.”
You’re lying by omission.
What was omitted?
Hunga Tonga
When everything is a crisis, nothing is. At least nothing is a real crisis. The climate crisis is just another mass manipulation device to destabilize a stable society and soften it up for change and ultimate sugjugation. It’s a recipe as old as time – kill the social order (king, emperor, etc.), win the population.
In all of these debates, the climate Chicken Littles evade two fundamental facts:
1) Climate caused injuries and deaths have *plummeted* over the last century. Why? Because of man-made industrialization and energy production.
2) *Cold* weather kills far more people than does hot weather. If the Chicken Littles were motivated by a concern for human life, they’d applaud global warming.
Scientific models are always flawed — we saw that during Covid, where different governors used different models and based their differing policies on those models. The entire climate rationale is based on flawed models that the “powers that be” are using to push through their new economic agenda. The WEF is leading the climate mob, and the Democratic party is doing its bidding. They’re not kidding when they say we will all eat bugs, drive EVs, live in restricted areas … and be happy (or else).
The West is entering a new Dark Ages, where ideological dogma is replacing science. Gender ideology is “science”; flawed climate models are “science”; and race-based medicine is “science.” Once the new DEI school curricula become entrenched, western science will be dead for several generations. But, as in the past, so now — the momentum is shifting to Asia and the global South, where science will survive.
@GioCon
Entering? I’d say we are already firmly entrenched. When was the last time you talked to a 15 year-old of no relation to you? Science is now about feelings and comfort levels, not data and facts. The climate grift is a doozy – lies on too of lies; quite literally zero truth comes from the left at this point – every damn thing they say, every single thing, is tainted by mistruth.
It’s gruesome and unkind, but at the least, people like the young staunch leftists we see today who are so beholden to false notions will not live to a ripe old age, and it may be stopped in its tracks that way. Everything they espouse is a playtime fantasy, right down to the video games they play with their ‘predictive’ software models. Real life, has never touched these people, but they can’t run from it forever. Eventually a fight with reality will be lost, and nature doesn’t give a toss about our feelings about nature! 😉
James,
Did you see now exercise and eating healthy is “racist?”
Yep. With luck woke leftists will stroke out or have a heart attack in their 30s or 40s. All by their own doing.
Ever heard of Hunga Tunga? Of course you haven’t since just like Hunter’s laptop, the press and global warming extremists are hiding this inconvenient fact from the general public. Amazing how in one day 1/15/2022, the Earth can wipe out all of what we have supposedly caused by emitting a trace gas called CO2.
“NASA satellite Aura detected the eruption using its microwave limb sounder. It measures ozone, water vapor and other atmospheric gases, and can penetrate obstacles such as ash clouds.[57] The underwater explosion also sent 146 million tons of water from the South Pacific Ocean into the stratosphere.[58] The amount of water vapor ejected was 10 per cent of the stratosphere’s typical stock.[59] It was enough to temporarily warm the surface of Earth. It is estimated that an excess of water vapour should remain for 5–10 years.”
“When Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai (HTHH) erupted in January 2022, it shot the standard volcanic cocktail of ash, gas, and pulverized rock into the sky. But the eruption included one extra ingredient that’s now causing climate concerns: a significant splash of ocean water. The underwater caldera shot 146 metric megatons of water into the stratosphere like a geyser, potentially contributing to atmospheric warming over the next 5 years, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.”
the press and global warming extremists are hiding this inconvenient fact from the general public.
Fun facts. The Earth is approximately ~ 5 Billion years old, Oxygen has been present ~ 2.5 Billion years, and human beings Homo sapiens have been trolling the Earth ~ 300,000 years.
TL;DR: nothing is forever, snowflake. Carpe diem
“Ever heard of Hunga Tunga?”
I had not. Thank you for that.
Reminds me of the devasting climate change (c. 536 AD), a bit before fossil fuels. It’s been dubbed the “worst year ever to be alive.” The cause? — volcanic eruptions.
Jim22,
Is Tonga’s Volcano Eruption Set To Warm Earth?
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/tonga-volcano-eruption-set-warm-earth
“Large volcanic eruptions cause the climate to cool because sulfur dioxide is typically emitted into the atmosphere. But Tonga is different because the underwater caldera shot 146 metric megatons of water into the stratosphere, potentially contributing to atmospheric warming over the next five years. ”
That, is a lot of water.
You are writing your own epitaph IMF. The world expects objective analysis from the IMF but instead you display the ‘censored and imbalanced’ behavior of a politically motivated organization incapable of addressing the world’s problems. ‘Experts’ that censor are not ‘experts’, they are puppets.
Well said Ex Dem. Well said…..
anyone know why NYC was under a mile of ice 15000 years ago…and now it is 90 degrees? 14900 of those years…not man made?
@Guyventner,
You forgot that the earth’s climate is cyclical.
You have the ice cores that prove this and we can ascertain the temps over time.
You also have the shifting of the earths magnetic poles which also flip. Yet no one seems to try and understand that impact on climate. (It does impact the climate)
You also have the fact of the weather in the 1930’s. Of course that data is ignored because we didn’t have a set of global satellites taking measurements.
Want to sequester carbon? Plant trees. Want to reduce the impact of forest fires? Better forestry management. Land management. Water Management.
No magic here or BS.
-G
If facts on climate change bother the IMF, we are supposed to accept their ideas on economics?
the march to fascism is littered with casualties…Globalists are winning
We’ve been experiencing “climate change” forever it’s called Weather. Follow the money.
Even more to the point, we’ve been experiencing climate change forever and it’s called climate change. At no time has the Earth’s climate ever been static. There have been ice ages and periods of no polar ice. There have been supercontinents (thanks to plate tectonics) that have had much hotter interiors than we have today. There have been celebrated vineyards in England and native settlements now deep underwater off the US west coast. For God’s sake, humans got to the western hemisphere by walking across a land bridge.
All of these things, not extant today, pre-date the Industrial Age. We are now supposed to believe that climate can be held on exactly this pinpoint where it is now, through our actions. It’s a time of unparalleled arrogance, and that’s saying something, considering that we used to believe the sun revolved around the Earth.
[Anthropogenic climate change’s] reality is equal to that of gravity in terms of the strength of proof behind it.
Not even close..
To take one example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is
F=G((m1*m2)/r^2)
(That’s hard on a phone screen!)
It governs every particle in the universe of atomic size or larger. One’s prediction of how much gravitational force an object will experience depending on its proximity to another object will be borne out every time in practice, in the real world – you may need to consider other forces if you’re not working in a vacuum or if there are other objects nearby too, but you can predict whether an object will move toward another object or not. Every time.
No climate model in existence can deliver that level of confidence, in the one measure that science – as distinguished from The Science – cares about: ability to predict what is going to happen. No climate model in existence has successfully predicted anything.
How can you even say the theoretical underpinnings of ACC are on the same level as gravity with a straight face? By the standards of science – again as distinguished from The Science – ACC is, or should be, still on the level of hypothesis:
“We think this is happening, so we’ve designed an experiment or model to test it. Welp, that didn’t work; does that mean our hypothesis is wrong or needs tweaking, or that our experiment or model was badly designed?”
The difference between the above and what you describe is that real scientists would really ask themselves that question, and go back to the drawing board one way or the other. Climate The-Scientists say to themselves, every single time, “It MUST be that we need to tweak the MODEL; we CAN’T be wrong about the hypothesis!”
Lefty cancelling on steroids https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/evil-core-portland-hospital-denies-woman-cancer-treatment/
“… rather than simply refute his views with their own data, these groups want to prevent others from hearing him.”
Kinda like being shadow-banned by Murdoch Media websites — Fox and the NY Post — who will allow someone to “post” comments with which they disagree — such as about Ron DeSantis being a globalist FRAUD paid by Murdoch to split the republican vote and help democrats in the 2024 election — while not allowing anyone else to SEE those comments because Murdoch and a cabal of globalist billionaires want to decide FOR voters who the republican 2024 presidential nominee will be.
Is the earth getting warmer? OK fine.
But it hard to ignore all the ice ages.
The debate becomes, what evidence exists to support the mitigation being pushed?
It is so clear this is nothing but another vehicle for massive transfer of wealth. From the working class to the John Kerry class. On a global basis, with the United States providing most of the cash
“. . . the mitigation being pushed?”
And there’s the rub.
Environmentalism began some 60 years ago with an alleged value, e.g., to clean the rivers. Now it is a nihilistic movement. (Watch as its little destroyers deface works of art and disrupt sporting events.)
That “mitigation” is human deprivation, pain, suffering — the willful destruction of any technology or product that makes human life easier and more pleasant.
And if you don’t voluntarily embrace that deprivation, it will be forced on you by the government’s police powers.
I do not know of an ideology or movement in human history based on the premise: Let’s destroy wealth and impoverish our own citizens.
I’m right, you’re wrong and that’s that.