The Playground

    I would agree with half of what you say there.


    I use the word antivaxxer as it is commonly used.


    antivaxxer
    1. someone who does not agree with vaccinating people (= giving them injections…
    dictionary.cambridge.org


    someone who does not agree with vaccinating people (= giving them injections to prevent disease) and spreads and encourages opinions against vaccines:

    One antivaxxer changed her position when three of her children contracted whooping cough.
    Anti-vaxxers see COVID-19 as an opportunity to rapidly create widespread hesitancy for vaccines against COVID-19 and, indeed, for all vaccines.

    More examples She is a fanatical antivaxxer who is often referred to as a "research scientist", but her field was studying fossils.Some have proposed criminalizing anti-vaxxers who deliberately spread dangerous misinformation.Anti-vaxxers have gone into overdrive, saying COVID vaccines will change our DNA, implant microchips or sterilize us all.He is an anti vaxxer (although he dislikes the term) who believes the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt, and that it’s attempting to spin up a coronavirus vaccine too quickly.

    I am a bit more specific than that: I use it here for agenda-driven spreading of non-science antivaxxer (sic) memes.


    And you can detect this by looking at someone's history. Suppose a non-scientist (or scientist way out of their field of expertise) starts low-quality publishing (and going to conferences) on the topic of vaccines, and the research they discuss (not actually do, of course) covers diverse areas of medical science. The only unifying theme being that in each case it is taking up some argument that could possibly indicate vaccines are less safe than commonly believed.


    That is agenda-driven.


    Whereas a scientist who has concerns about vaccine safety, believing that some risks may be underestimated, will have a reason based on their own research (a specific area that they understand very well indeed). They can argue their reason and will do so giving the other side (as you say these are judgement calls - very few things are black and white). And they will hjuts be saying - "hey, look, we need to do further research in this are to check whether this might happen more than is expected".


    I, personally, have never said that vaccines are safe. No medical treatment is that. And a vaccine needed very quickly for Covid can be less safe.


    The issue is all the people who think they, or antivaxxer (sic) opinion, know better than the many scientists who look really carefully at vaccine safety and are cautious. That is the arrogance.

    Whereas a scientist who has concerns about vaccine safety, believing that some risks may be underestimated, will have a reason based on their own research (a specific area that they understand very well indeed). They can argue their reason and will do so giving the other side (as you say these are judgement calls - very few things are black and white). And they will hjuts be saying - "hey, look, we need to do further research in this are to check whether this might happen more than is expected".


    I posted those studies from experts in the field but because they were reported by trial site news , you completely disregard. Talk about arrogance!!! And stupidity!

    Long Covid symptoms mirror those of the after affects of alcohol withdrawal. It's a vitamin deficency!


    Complications of Alcohol Withdrawal

    Complications of Alcohol Withdrawal: Pathophysiological Insights
    Disease processes or events that accompany acute alcohol withdrawal (AW) can cause significant illness and death. Some patients experience seizures, which may…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    Long COVID Treatment – Vitamin B12, Vitamin D and other vital nutrients

    Long COVID Treatment – Vitamin B12, Vitamin D and other vital nutrients - B12 Deficiency
    Long COVID and COVID Long Haulers COVID has gripped many lives for more than a year now and in some countries, people with Long COVID are lucky enough to be…
    www.b12deficiency.info

    Quote from Fm1

    I posted those studies from experts in the field but because they were reported by trial site news , you completely disregard. Talk about arrogance!!! And stupidity!

    FM1 - your ability not to look carefully at what people say is legendary.


    (1) TSN is an antivaxxer publication

    (2) Not every article TSN publishes links to antivaxxer source content, though they sometimes do this.

    (3) I dismiss TSN journalistic comment. They are not scientists - do not claim to be a science publication - and have a strong bias. It is just no longer me worth my while reading anything they write. However they often post useful papers, and I do not a priori dismiss research papers they publish.

    (4) Sometimes TSN links antivaxxer non-science. Even then I do not dismiss it, I give my specific reasons for thinking it highly unreliable (that is a polite way of saying it).

    (5) In the most recent example: I was commenting on the headline in the paper itself, saying that they incorrectly (I thought) summarised the paper content, for the reasons I said. Now I might have been wrong (I did say I was not 100% sure) but I quoted the paragraph that appeared to be wrong, said why it was wrong, and you or anyone else here can disagree with that. I'd welcome it. (I should point out I spent quite a while reading back and forward checking before I posted, because of the lack of info in most of the paper - I was expecting to find a more precise definition somewhere. What I posted was the best I could find).


    So I did not dismiss what you linked. I bothered to read it, found rather quickly that the data they were using did not quite justify the headline (which is often the case).


    How is that disregarding or dismissing? It is actually reading and trying to understand - the opposite of disregarding.


    I'd point out that with all science reading just headlines or summaries without checking content is pointless (except as a way of eliminating things not useful) and will get you into big trouble.


    That is the most recent example. If you would like to refer me back to others, where you say I am disregarding things, we could check those as well. I'd bet more often it is that I am reading more than just the headline or abstract, whereas others do not bother.


    THH

    Neutralization Escape by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5


    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2206576


    These data show that the BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 subvariants substantially escape neutralizing antibodies induced by both vaccination and infection. Moreover, neutralizing antibody titers against the BA.4 or BA.5 subvariant and (to a lesser extent) against the BA.2.12.1 subvariant were lower than titers against the BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants, which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant has continued to evolve with increasing neutralization escape. These findings provide immunologic context for the current surges caused by the BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 subvariants in populations with high frequencies of vaccination and BA.1 or BA.2 infection.


    Nicole P. Hachmann, B.S.

    Jessica Miller, B.S.

    Ai-ris Y. Collier, M.D.

    John D. Ventura, Ph.D.

    Jingyou Yu, Ph.D.

    Marjorie Rowe, B.S.

    Esther A. Bondzie, M.S.N.

    Olivia Powers, B.S.

    Nehalee Surve, M.S.

    Kevin Hall, B.S.

    Dan H. Barouch, M.D., Ph.D.

    Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA

    [email protected]

    1. your biased opinion

    2. Word salad

    3 Dr. Ron brown, School of Public Health Sciences at University of Waterloo | Ontario (Opinions expressed are not those of University of Waterloo)

    Dr. Ron Brown's research synthesizes novel theories and insights from the latest research findings on the causes and prevention of disease. Unlike traditional medical research that focuses on diagnoses and symptomatic treatments, Dr. Brown's research is intended to educate the public about how to avoid the determinants of disease and recover health

    joelshirschhorn, medical researcher, analyst at Joel S. Hirschhorn | Telling the truth with good data

    Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles and podcasts on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades, and his Pandemic Blunder Newsletter is on Substack. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings.

    Paul Alexander, PhD, Evidence-based medicine researcher, a professor university at The UNITY Project, C19 collaborator, consultant

    Dr Paul Alexander holds a PhD in evidence-based medicine. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching of clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. He is a core member of GRADE and research methods groups out of McMaster's, Canada. Dr Alexander is a former Assistant Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine and research methods; former COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC (A Secretary)

    Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD, General Manager at Voice for Science and Solidarity | The biggest challenge in vaccinology: Countering immune evasion

    For Geert's bio and detailed curriculum vitae, please consult his website:http://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org

    Sonia Elijah, 422

    Author at Trial Site News | Investigative journalist and broadcaster

    Sonia Elijah is an investigative journalist. She has a background in Economics and was a former BBC researcher. She has written dozens of in-depth investigative reports and interviewed leading experts. Her reports have uncovered major conflicts of interest and malfeasance. Her analysis of the Pfizer Covid vaccine safety report, received worldwide attention. Australia’s Kalkine Media interview of Sonia regarding her investigative report attained over million views before YouTube brought it down. Sonia's passion is to deep-dive into public interest stories, which the mainstream media avoids.

    4. Word salad

    5. I gave you love brother


    So overall, I find you a know-it-all without knowing it all.

    .

    In the label ‘adult failure to thrive,’ medicine reveals its own failures


    In the label 'adult failure to thrive,' medicine reveals its own failures
    “When an older adult is called ‘failure to thrive,’ we see a lot of ageism come in, and we see the health care system start to ignore their problems.”
    www.statnews.com


    Failure to thrive, at least, had a clinical ring to it, if only because clinicians were writing about it as early as 1915. Medical papers have linked it to all kinds of issues in infants, including neglect, poverty, and diseases as varied as cerebral palsy, cleft palate, cystic fibrosis, and gastroesophageal reflux. For babies, too, it isn’t a diagnosis per se, but more of a descriptor, a way of saying that something’s not right and needs figuring out. And for pediatricians, too, it’s been a source of controversy, most memorably summarized in the title of a 2007 paper: “Failure to think about failure to thrive.” Some have suggested replacing it with something more specific.

    The James Webb telescope works.

    Bob explains the Big Big Picture

    from the first released photos.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Do not forget to add Ivermectin for re-muelization. By teh way I like curry!

    Microbiome-Based Hypothesis on Ivermectin’s Mechanism in COVID-19: Ivermectin Feeds Bifidobacteria to Boost Immunity


    Microbiome-Based Hypothesis on Ivermectin’s Mechanism in COVID-19: Ivermectin Feeds Bifidobacteria to Boost Immunity
    Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic agent that has gained attention as a potential COVID-19 therapeutic. It is a compound of the type Avermectin, which is a…
    www.frontiersin.org


    Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic agent that has gained attention as a potential COVID-19 therapeutic. It is a compound of the type Avermectin, which is a fermented by-product of Streptomyces avermitilis. Bifidobacterium is a member of the same phylum as Streptomyces spp., suggesting it may have a symbiotic relation with Streptomyces. Decreased Bifidobacterium levels are observed in COVID-19 susceptibility states, including old age, autoimmune disorder, and obesity. We hypothesize that Ivermectin, as a by-product of Streptomyces fermentation, is capable of feeding Bifidobacterium, thereby possibly preventing against COVID-19 susceptibilities. Moreover, Bifidobacterium may be capable of boosting natural immunity, offering more direct COVID-19 protection. These data concord with our study, as well as others, that show Ivermectin protects against COVID-19.

    Ivermectin and COVID-19: the answer goes beyond being effective or not.


    Ivermectin and COVID-19: the answer goes beyond being effective or not.
    As a person that has been following COVID-19 closely, has conducted multiple studies including trials on COVID-19, and has treated literally thousands of…
    www.trialsitenews.com


    Flávio Cadegiani

    Endocrinologist at Corpometria Institute

    Jul. 13, 2022


    As a person that has been following COVID-19 closely, has conducted multiple studies including trials on COVID-19, and has treated literally thousands of patients, working as what we have said before, a 'medical-scientist', there is an intriguing phenomenon that I am yet to find answers for: why are we failing to truly understand COVID-19?


    Let me give a solid example of how we are getting COVID-19 wrong: the case of ivermectin.


    Among multiple aspects, COVID-19 has three characteristics that must be observed thoroughly:


    First, COVID-19 is a complex disease. Its virus, SARS-CoV-2, acts on different targets to cause its resulting disease, COVID-19. This means that targeting one site only will unlikely lead to a substantial response.


    Second, another characteristic, peculiar to COVID-19, is that, unlike the vast majority of the infections, the severity of the infection varies widely, from asymptomatic to life-threatening, even within the same SARS-CoV-2 variant. The message this particularity of COVID-19 conveys is clear: the level of pathogenicity, or the amount of harm caused by SARS-CoV-2 depends more on the host (in this case, humans) than on the virus itself.


    Said this, it is expected that responses to pharmacological approaches will also vary significantly between patients.


    Third, another aspect that very few seemed to have realized is that every time SARS-CoV-2 mutates, resulting in a new variant, meaningful changes happen on how SARS-CoV-2 enters the cells and causes the disease. Even when changes are minor, leading to sub-variants, important changes may occur - such as the BA5, a new Omicron subvariant, that 'restarted' to affect lung cells again, unlike its previous subvariants. From this, the understanding of a drug's efficacy for COVID-19 does not allow other interpretations: its efficacy changes according to the mechanisms the virus uses to cause COVID-19, it is, the efficacy of a drug is inherently highly variant-dependent.


    Usually, a response to whether a drug is effective for a certain disease or not is more complex than a 'yes' or 'no'. There are levels of efficacy, it can present a certain level of efficacy but not sufficient if used alone, it may depend on the timing of the initiation of the treatment, on the characteristics of the person and on characteristics of the disease in that specific person, among other factors.


    Considering that COVID-19 may require multi-target approaches due to its complex pathophysiology, that responses may be quite different between patients, and that the level of efficacy should not be 'established' for COVID-19, but for every variant instead, giving an answer that 'ivermectin is ineffective for COVID-19' is broadly incorrect. I'm not saying that ivermectin would save the world as well. My point is not that.


    First, a misinterpretation of the results of clinical trials and meta-analyses has systematically occurred. Improvements in multiple parameters have been observed. However, these improvements may not have been statistically sufficient to allow conclusions regarding ivermectin efficacy. But they did not allow to conclude that ivermectin is ineffective either. That's the point.


    From all the trials, it is clear that levels of ivermectin efficacy vary from small to moderate-large efficacy and are highly dependent on a few characteristics, including when ivermectin is started. The earlier, the better, just like other drugs, including Paxlovid. Paxlovid wouldn't show efficacy if given after day 4, for example, while the vast majority of the trials on ivermectin started treatment on up to 7 days, on a median of 5 to 6 days.


    Ivermectin could work much better if combined with other drugs, in a type of effect called synergism, when 1+1 is not 2, but 3 or 4 instead. Interestingly, Paxlovid is not a one-molecule only drug, but a combination. We learned from other viruses, such as HIV, that combining drugs tends to present dramatically increased response, as the historical 'HIV cocktail'. There is no reason why this would be different in COVID-19.


    Why haven't we had trials on multidrug combinations having ivermectin as part of the combo? That's intriguing.


    The strongest evidence we have from multiple meta-analyses are obtained by their numbers, not their conclusions, and show that ivermectin does work for COVID-19, but not that much, if given alone and later in the disease, in smaller doses for shorter periods of treatment.


    The conclusion of organizations, societies and scientists regarding ivermectin efficacy is imprecise, if not incorrect, and resulted from a generalized misinterpretation of the data. It may seem pretentious to be here contesting a notorious conclusion, but we find multiple parallels in history that I may not be that wrong.


    I do not fully understand the phenomenon of why scientists are searching for a binary answer for the efficacy of a drug, in particular for COVID-19, when we know that it goes much beyond. It is time to wake up and reassess the methods and how we are looking at the data.


    Please, stop giving over-simplistic answers of whether ivermectin is effective or not.


    Well, unless there are external reasons for that, but I am not here to speculate, and I believe in the benefit of the doubt.


    Let's move on. But move forward advancing science and at the same time rescuing real science. The example of ivermectin tells by itself what I mean.

    Ignoring the non-content replies: you quote these bios as evidence that TSN has scientific credentials.


    (1) No - look at its remit - it is agenda-driven journalism - not science

    (2) Try doing some independent research into the credentials of these people? rather than what they say about themselves?


    I will summarise - detailed evidence with links below.


    Hirschhorn: ex-Material Engineering Prof. from Wisconsin, no medical, biology, or related training, turned enviromental avctivist and author - very prominent in political action

    Not a scientist now (does not even call himself a scientist)


    Geert Vanden Bossche: entrepeneur not scientist. Most people think he is crackpot - based on his own extreme views that the covid vaccines will result in viral escape that dooms humanity.

    Most people think you get viral escape from vaccines - but you equally get viral escape from natural immunity. Experience with omicron has agreed with that.,


    Dr. Ron Brown.

    His PhD comes from NorthCentral Uni, Arizona (have you heard of it?) and is a business topic: Organizational Behavior (Business)

    He is still at U Waterloo doing a 2nd doctoral degree in public health https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9473-2274

    He sort of is a scientist, of unknown quality, a very junior one whose qualifications before signing up for a PhD that appears never to end were business not medicine or biology.

    However what he is good at - is opinionated journalism

    He is now working - wait for it - for Hirschhorn's crackpot thinktank


    Dr Paul Alexander Has views which are very extreme and is highly political. It seems he like political activism more than science.

    ‘We want them infected’: Trump appointee demanded ‘herd immunity’ strategy, emails reveal
    Then-HHS science adviser Paul Alexander called for millions of Americans to be infected as means of fighting Covid-19.
    www.politico.com

    Paul E. Alexander - Wikipedia


    But is he a scientist? He did get a PhD in health research methods - so better than Ron Brown. He has never been what you would call a real Professor:

    Alexander had a contract role as a part-time, unpaid assistant professor at McMaster,[1][2][5] a post "given to scholars working primarily outside the university."[1] He was not employed by the university at the time he worked in the Trump administration.[2][5] From 2017 until December 2019, Alexander was employed by the Washington, D.C.-based Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), where he specialized in systematic reviews.[1] At IDSA, Alexander worked on several clinical practice guidelines.[7]


    After leaving HHS Alexander became an "independent academic scientist and COVID-19 consultant researcher", according to his website.[18] He is a participant in the Freedom Convoy 2022 protest against vaccine mandates in Ottawa.[19] He is a "board advisor" for "Taking Back our Freedoms", a group whose stated goal is "to bring a quick end to the so-called ‘C-19 health emergencies’ along with their unlawful ‘mandates’".[20][21]




    Sonja Elijah - an investigative journalist. Fine. Not a scientist



    -----------------------------------------------------------------



    Hirschhorn: a very public proponent of the political debate in the US. He is an environmental activist and author, he has no expertise relating to vaccines, molecular biology, medicine, except as a journalist.


    Joel S. Hirschhorn is a writer focusing on health issues, especially the COVID pandemic, as well as US politics, government, and culture. He was formerly a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, a senior official for the U.S. Congress (Office of Technology Assessment), head of an environmental consulting company, and Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources at the National Governors Association. His latest book is Pandemic Blunder - Fauci and Public Health Blocked Early Home COVID Treatment. He writes regularly for many websites.


    He was a Prof at Wisconsin in materials engineering:


    TECHNICAL TESTIMONY OF Dr. JOEL S. HIRSCHHORN; March 15, 1999.


    Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn received a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering, Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, 1965; a M.S. in Metallurgical Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, 1962; and a B.S. in Metallurgical Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, 1961. Dr. Hirschhorn has published more than 150 papers, articles, guest editorials, and chapters in books on environmental science and technology. He has worked at Hirschhorn & Associates since 1990. Hirschhorn & Associates is an environmental consulting firm.

    Previously, Dr. Hirschhorn worked at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment from 1978 to 1990 on such matters as hazardous waste management under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund and cleanup technology, and pollution prevention and waste reduction. Dr. Hirschhorn participated in the drafting of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act (HSWA) (1984) and he testified 50 to 60 times before congressional committees. Dr. Hirschhorn was a professor of Metallurgical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison from 1965 to 1978, and he provided management consulting to many small and large domestic and foreign companies. Dr. Hirschhorn has been a consultant to industrial and chemical companies, DOE laboratories, state governments, and public interest organizations.

    The waste characterization system used by the DOE is inadequate (meaning that its conclusions would not be accurate and reliable), especially when defining waste as hazardous waste under RCRA or prohibited items under the draft Permit.

    Some here may think profs are all-round experts. As somone who has known very many Profs (some famous and illustrious) that is not true. They have expertise in their fields. Occaionally you get somone like Feynman who has genuine intellectual curiosity over a wide range and bredth of knowledge. But Feynman would not pontificate on medicine - it was far outside his area.



    Vanden Bossche - he had strongly stated outlying views that covid-19 vaccines will doom humanity which have been proven wrong


    His stance is that of an entrepeneur. If you believe him, the only way to prevent global catastrophe is to invest in his own products:

    Geert Vanden Bossche Stokes Fear of COVID-19 Vaccine To Promote His Own Flawed ‘Solution’
    A veterinarian suspiciously says the only way to prevent a COVID-19 vaccine-related calamity is through a product he claims to have invented.
    www.snopes.com


    But his thesis - that vaccines will lead to out-of-control covid variants - was dismissed by experts and has been proven wrong:

    delta - evades natural immunity

    omicron - escapes natural immunity


    You get immune-evading variants anyway - the ones we know have come from non-vaccinated populations. The mots dangerous one, delta, came from unvaccinated India as a natural immunity escape variant. Vaccination merely makes them less dangerous. Omicron has not doomed humanity - nor is tehre any evidence vaccination has made it worse or more likely





    Quote from Fm1

    Ivermectin and COVID-19: the answer goes beyond being effective or not.

    Translated:


    Ummm - we thought ivermectin should be backed based on flawed preprints that have proven 100% wrong. So let ius muddy the water by claiming that it might still work as part of a multi-drug therapy.


    You can claim that of any drug - and of course difficult problems - like HIV - are cracked by multi-drug therapies.


    it is wise though to start with drugs that appear to have at least some effect in RCTs... Ivermectin is a possible, but it would be very low down on my list because in vitro effectiveness is so very low at possible doses. There are many better candidate drugs.

    PS - when you look in detail at the people behind TSN you can see why on COVID at least it will be antivaxxer (Hirshhorn believes covid vaccines will doom mankind) and extreme (Vanden Bossche advocated "mass natural immunity" as initial strategy - before vaccines - strategy for dealing with covid - omicron 4 & 5 subvariants show how poor natural immunity is at protecting us from continued infection). Ron Brown - most prolific author, has a business PhD and no relevant science qualifications I can see. (A PhD that you do not finish is not a qualification...)


    THH

    Science topic

    Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - Science


    Publications (3,568)


    Cold fusion is a proposed[1] type of nuclear reaction which would occur at relatively low temperatures compared to hot fusion. As a new type of nuclear reaction, it was proposed to explain reports by experimenters of anomalously high energy generation under certain specific laboratory conditions. It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no generally accepted theoretical explanation that accounts for the lack of nuclear byproducts.


    Reverse Mössbauer effect

    Feb 2022

    Ettore Ruberti

    In 1989 two electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, published an article in which they hypothesized anomalous nuclear effects in condensed matter, in particular neutron emissions from a super-saturated hydrogen palladium crystal lattice. This made them speculate that it was a new phenomenon of nuclear fusion, a phenomenon that a repor...



    Anomalies in Nuclear Physic

    Jan 2022

    Péter Kálmán

    Tamás Keszthelyi

    It is shown that seemingly diverse problems, such as the riddles in astrophysics and cosmology (a star that formed shortly after the Big Bang), anomalous internal pair creation and the problem of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) may have common origin that needs refinement in the quantum mechanical description of interacting nuclei that can be m...


    Formation of Rhenium and Tantalum During Electrolysis of Distilled Water Using Tungsten Electrodes and the Expected Isotope Ratio


    Jan 2022

    Mikhail Petrovich Kashchenko

    Pechorsky Vi

    Kashchenko Nm[...]

    Pushin Vg

    Go to The original installation for plasma electrolysis of water demonstrated, according to [1], an example of the implementation of low-energy nuclear reactions of the synthesis of chemical elements with low erosion of electrodes. That is, the initial material for the formation of chemical elements was water, and the product was a solid fraction i...


    CFRL News No.115

    Jan 2022

    Hideo Kozima

    This issue contains the following items: 1. Season’s Greetings to All Researchers in the Cold Fusion Research Field 2. My paper “A Sketch of the Solid State-Nuclear Sciences,” was presented at the 23rd International Conference on the Cold Fusion. 3. Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Workshop by ARPAE, DOE, USA



    Etc etc etc...

    Source

    https://www.researchgate.net/topic/Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactions/publications

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.