#Download articles from issuu free
Many atoms and molecules in air capture free electrons. The electrons should also be affecting every susceptible particle they encounter once they are emitted – not just the coronaviruses in the air. The electrons emanated by the Shycocan and due to this opposite polarity they attach themselves to the Coronavirus in real time thereby neutralizing or attenuating it.”īy this logic, ‘most bacteria’ should not be able to affect human cells, so this part of the statement is likely incomplete. The Coronavirus is a positive sense virus. The statement responded thus: “Most bacteria are negatively charged. Electrons cannot distinguish between viruses or bacteria or any other thing.”
#Download articles from issuu plus
I refused to publish it because I had no obligation to do so – plus it seemed to me to contain unclear science.įor example, Umesh Kadhane, the head of the physics department at the Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, had told The Wire Science that the maker’s “claims that the electrons produced by their device will only kill the coronavirus is completely bogus. The maker’s representatives responded to our article on ‘Shycocan’ with a detailed statement sent to me seven weeks after the article was published, even though both the reporter and I had asked them many of the same questions during reporting (with many days to reply). Some claims had simply spun these loopholes in the maker’s favour. The truth comes in two parts: that the FDA found the device to fall in a category that could be distributed in the US without complying with certain regulatory requirements, and that according to ‘Shycocan’’s maker, the device belongs in the category of ‘sterilisers and disinfectants’, not ‘medical devices’ per se, meaning it doesn’t need clinical trials to prove its merit. One particularly important, but easily refuted, claim made by the company was that the device has the approval of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The report cast doubt on ‘Shycocan’ as well as its maker’s claims. Why would the complainant take this route to resolving an allegation of copyright infringement? The article in question could provide the answer: it is an investigative report by science writer Anusha Krishnan (April 3, 2021) about a device called ‘Shycocan’, whose makers have claimed it can “attenuate” particles of the novel coronavirus by simply emitting photons into the air of a room. Their principal issue appears to be that the charge implies The Wire Science has violated AWS’s terms of service and could therefore have to be removed from its servers. We have written back but I am not sure if the members of the abuse team are equipped to understand the editorial issues involved. The AWS abuse team, in turn, has written to me and my colleagues multiple times asking us to specify what steps we have taken or will be taking to resolve the issue. (My email ID is on The Wire Science homepage our ombudsperson’s email ID is available on the ‘About’ page.) But in this case, the complaint was lodged with AWS, with a link to the corresponding article on The Wire Science. It has been my experience, and that of every other editor, I imagine, that honest complaints of copyright infringment are addressed to the editor and the reporter in question – and not the website’s host. In the first week of October, an individual with an address in Thane, Maharashtra, lodged a complaint with Amazon Web Services (AWS), which hosts The Wire websites, including The Wire Science, alleging that one of the latter’s articles contained ‘unlicensed copyright protected content’. But it now seems private parties have also discovered the utility of using alleged copyright infringement to target media coverage. We know that repressive governments have started using the US’s infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA) as a new means to censor content they do not like. There’s a new way to harass editors – or perhaps it’s an old way that we’re just finding out about, first-hand.