The Playground

Did they ever let the glass tube fractal in the recreations ?

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

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...

Kalman explains the "common origin" of LENR as well as anyone I have read. Wish we would hear more from him.

Quote from Shane D.

Kalman explains the "common origin" of LENR as well as anyone I have read.

CleanHME expert interviews – CleanHME

Desk top pic..

Fire and Ice

The omicron pandemic is far from over, survival depends on new vaccines and new tried-and-tested antiviral compounds, from Nature today:

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

https://www.politico.com/news/…-immunity-strategy-446408

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Alexander

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:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/03/26/geert-vanden-bossche/

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

Display More

I Love it you are a narcissist and a clown!

character assassination is an intentional attempt, usually by a narcissist and/or his or her codependents, to influence the portrayal or reputation of someone in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative or unappealing perception of them. It typically involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts, the spreading of rumours and deliberate misinformation to present an untrue picture of the targeted person, and unwarranted and excessive criticism.[4]

Quote from Fm1

I Love it you are a narcissist and a clown!

Quote from Fm1

character assassination is an intentional attempt, usually by a narcissist and/or his or her codependents

Pot kettle?

In any case - while your comments about me do fall under that definition, mine of the TSN antivaxxers (or antivaxxers-lite) don't. You will notice I said nothing about their character - I only commented on their professional qualifications, career, and whether their views were eccentric.

And that was only in reply to your claim that they were a scientific (rather than a journalistic) organisation whose scientific views should be given equal weight to the very many mainstream scientists who have different views.

Reading here you might think that 50% of the scientists in the world who have looked at it think the mRNA covid vaccines are a bad idea (on balance of risks). That is not true. For every vaccine risk there is a similar but larger risk from covid infection, and there is strong evidence that even with omicron mRNA vaccinated people have lower risks than those unvaccinated. That statement is based on the studies, and nearly all of the scientists who look carefully at the data think that.

So unless you think you are better than the scientists who are looking at this stuff, when there is disagreeement, the only sane way is to look at the expertise of the people who are making these "I know better than the other scientists" claims. It needs to be pretty good for you to trust the views of a few outliers over everyone else.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Pot kettle?

In any case - while your comments about me do fall under that definition, mine of the TSN antivaxxers (or antivaxxers-lite) don't. You will notice I said nothing about their character - I only commented on their professional qualifications, career, and whether their views were eccentric.

And that was only in reply to your claim that they were a scientific (rather than a journalistic) organisation whose scientific views should be given equal weight to the very many mainstream scientists who have different views.

Reading here you might think that 50% of the scientists in the world who have looked at it think the mRNA covid vaccines are a bad idea (on balance of risks). That is not true. For every vaccine risk there is a similar but larger risk from covid infection, and there is strong evidence that even with omicron mRNA vaccinated people have lower risks than those unvaccinated. That statement is based on the studies, and nearly all of the scientists who look carefully at the data think that.

So unless you think you are better than the scientists who are looking at this stuff, when there is disagreeement, the only sane way is to look at the expertise of the people who are making these "I know better than the other scientists" claims. It needs to be pretty good for you to trust the views of a few outliers over everyone else.

THH

Display More

Pot kettle, good one

Now , I am not an expert, but I am an expert of my body and the things that are good for it and bad. A primary care doctor is nothing more than MY diagnostic tool. I would rather use a holistic approach than pharmacy. I have had all my vaccinations including Covid. I have never had a flu vaccine. I believe nutrition as well as supplementation is the key to a long healthy life. Chemicals have no place in my life. I post concerns over Covid vaccines because I worry that my hard work could be for nothing. If you recall back in August of 20 I was thrilled with the advancement of mRNA tech and posted cancer studies using the tech. I argued with w over it as my only concern at the time was how they stabilized the spike. Because I post my concerns you feel the right to label me as well as others anti Vaxers. Robert Kennedy is an anti Vaxer and you sir, well you know what I think of your opinions.

Quote from Fm1

Robert Kennedy is an anti Vaxer

Small correction - I just finished reading the book "The Real Anthony Fauci". I can assure you that RFK is not an anti-vaxxer. He simply digs deep into regulatory capture, poor quality clinical trials and safety issue cover ups, MSM takeover, Pharma's lack of accountability and the entire Pharma-Military Industrial Complex. Given the amount that he travels I would assume that he is vaccinated. In one of his recent speeches he explicitly states he is not an anti-vaxxer and at the the end of the book he states that he is against "some vaccines". Overall the book is not filled with his opinions but with very detailed references to real information from reputable sources. I highly recommend this book

Quote from Fm1

Now , I am not an expert, but I am an expert of my body and the things that are good for it and bad. A primary care doctor is nothing more than MY diagnostic tool. I would rather use a holistic approach than pharmacy. I have had all my vaccinations including Covid. I have never had a flu vaccine. I believe nutrition as well as supplementation is the key to a long healthy life.

Everyone is entitled to bodily autonomy, and to having whatever beliefs they like about themselves. Also to be vaccinated or no - although it would be fair for example for medical insurance to take into account vaccination status (including flu jab status) when determining costs. I would never seek to impose my personal views on anyone else about what it is best for them to do.

However we are debating here public health policy, and (which matters to many people) how vaccines, or boosters, affect risks of different kinds, so that people can make their own informed choices. The science is not certain (well - it is never certain, but in this case some of the uncertainties are quite high). That makes this more difficult to communicate, because you maybe have to give people risks + uncertainty in risks. I know of no country whose public health communication is able to do that accurately.

Arguing from one person, not matter how much they have reflected on their own body and how it works, would be grossly irresponsible when making these broader decisions. And the "antivaxxers" are evaluating risks in a way so far from what is scientifically justified - as determined not be me or you but by most scientists working in the area - that affording them "equal platform" to less extreme views will grossly mislead people. In the case of antivaxxers and covid 19 it is known that their memes have increased vaccine hesitancy and that this has led directly to unnecessary deaths in groups suspicious of the State - minority communities and right-wing groups - particularly in the US. Vaccine hesitancy in China (along with, and caused by, Xi's political imperative to push zero Covid) have greatly disrupted the Chinese economy. Hesitancy has costs because when nearly everyone is vaccinated the political cost of "business as usual" is much lower, because deaths and hospital admissions are much lower.

There is then the matter of how much the state has a right to mandate individually restrictive measures (masks, vaccines, "go away if you are coughing" or whatever) within shared public spaces or workplaces in the interests of general public health. This is a fascinating question with many aspects - including the fact that from an economic point of view things like masks can be helpful (even if they do not overall increase safety) if they help people to feel safer, or unhelpful if the reverse. Also the fact that in an immunity evading covid spike like Omicron BA 4 & 5 you can be sure the spike will continue until most people have been re-infected. Therefore slowing that down as about managing limited hospital space (a big deal in the UK - not so much in the US).

The antivaxxers generally gang up with people who are on the individual freedom side of this issue, and who ignore all of the complexity seeing it as black and white "state control" vs "individual freedom". It is a lot easier to do this if you distort the science and argue that vaccines do not make people safer (that statement itself is ambiguous, because there are different ways in which vaccination will change individual safety).

However, in principle (and for me) the two questions are entirely separate. I do not have any prejudgement "vaccines safe" or "vaccines dangerous". Obviously I hope they are safer - as we all do.

Given best info about any intervention politicians can then balance societal risk and safety. The best guess data on risks needs to be found impartially, not by people with a political axe to grind on one side (interventions must be high) or the other (interventions must be low) of this political issue. I am pretty sure the UK scientists looking at vaccine regulation or neutral politically on this (that is they will have varying political views, will try not to let those affect findings, and overall the consensus will be fairly neutral). I am less sure about the US - it seems a more politicised place.

Anyway - I am certain these TSN antivaxxers have views which are mostly far outside any normal evaluation of the evidence, and that a lot of the reposted "science" from them linked here is clearly not correct (for example obvious statistical misinterpretations of real-world data).

I don't think anyone has to be arrogant, or think themselves better than others, to come to that conclusion. I post here because it seems many other posters on this thread are arguing that these antivaxxers should be believed over more conventional (and better argued) views which people do not even bother to post here.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Everyone is entitled to bodily autonomy, and to having whatever beliefs they like about themselves. Also to be vaccinated or no - although it would be fair for example for medical insurance to take into account vaccination status (including flu jab status) when determining costs. I would never seek to impose my personal views on anyone else about what it is best for them to do.

However we are debating here public health policy, and (which matters to many people) how vaccines, or boosters, affect risks of different kinds, so that people can make their own informed choices. The science is not certain (well - it is never certain, but in this case some of the uncertainties are quite high). That makes this more difficult to communicate, because you maybe have to give people risks + uncertainty in risks. I know of no country whose public health communication is able to do that accurately.

Arguing from one person, not matter how much they have reflected on their own body and how it works, would be grossly irresponsible when making these broader decisions. And the "antivaxxers" are evaluating risks in a way so far from what is scientifically justified - as determined not be me or you but by most scientists working in the area - that affording them "equal platform" to less extreme views will grossly mislead people. In the case of antivaxxers and covid 19 it is known that their memes have increased vaccine hesitancy and that this has led directly to unnecessary deaths in groups suspicious of the State - minority communities and right-wing groups - particularly in the US. Vaccine hesitancy in China (along with, and caused by, Xi's political imperative to push zero Covid) have greatly disrupted the Chinese economy. Hesitancy has costs because when nearly everyone is vaccinated the political cost of "business as usual" is much lower, because deaths and hospital admissions are much lower.

There is then the matter of how much the state has a right to mandate individually restrictive measures (masks, vaccines, "go away if you are coughing" or whatever) within shared public spaces or workplaces in the interests of general public health. This is a fascinating question with many aspects - including the fact that from an economic point of view things like masks can be helpful (even if they do not overall increase safety) if they help people to feel safer, or unhelpful if the reverse. Also the fact that in an immunity evading covid spike like Omicron BA 4 & 5 you can be sure the spike will continue until most people have been re-infected. Therefore slowing that down as about managing limited hospital space (a big deal in the UK - not so much in the US).

The antivaxxers generally gang up with people who are on the individual freedom side of this issue, and who ignore all of the complexity seeing it as black and white "state control" vs "individual freedom". It is a lot easier to do this if you distort the science and argue that vaccines do not make people safer (that statement itself is ambiguous, because there are different ways in which vaccination will change individual safety).

However, in principle (and for me) the two questions are entirely separate. I do not have any prejudgement "vaccines safe" or "vaccines dangerous". Obviously I hope they are safer - as we all do.

Given best info about any intervention politicians can then balance societal risk and safety. The best guess data on risks needs to be found impartially, not by people with a political axe to grind on one side (interventions must be high) or the other (interventions must be low) of this political issue. I am pretty sure the UK scientists looking at vaccine regulation or neutral politically on this (that is they will have varying political views, will try not to let those affect findings, and overall the consensus will be fairly neutral). I am less sure about the US - it seems a more politicised place.

Anyway - I am certain these TSN antivaxxers have views which are mostly far outside any normal evaluation of the evidence, and that a lot of the reposted "science" from them linked here is clearly not correct (for example obvious statistical misinterpretations of real-world data).

I don't think anyone has to be arrogant, or think themselves better than others, to come to that conclusion. I post here because it seems many other posters on this thread are arguing that these antivaxxers should be believed over more conventional (and better argued) views which people do not even bother to post here.

THH

Display More

Thomas, this is why you don't get it. They are not asking to be believed but for their concerns heard, by you, me and the experts. Science is about debate of the evidence. You seem to have forgotten that since you wound yourself up with uncertainty

Quote from Seatrout

Desk top pic..

I like the grill and chrome trim...

Quote from Fm1

Thomas, this is why you don't get it. They are not asking to be believed but for their concerns heard, by you, me and the experts. Science is about debate of the evidence. You seem to have forgotten that since you wound yourself up with uncertainty

I would agree with you were we providing therapy for these guys.

In that case we would be tactful, point out faults gently and only inasfar as they themselves could understand them, and do lots of listening.

But this is science, not therapy. Wrong science can kill (other) people. All these ideas have been heard, debated, and answered. I have posted many of the detailed discussions from multiple scientists with better training in the relevant areas.

They can submit papers for per review to high quality on topic publications (e.g. ones with knowledgable reviewers) and they will get a lot of useful (negative) feedback.

In any case that is not what many of them are saying. They are claiming that everyone else is either incompetent or evil.

Since these guys write popular books on their pet theories which are heavily marketed, hold conferences with other antivaxxers, have well developed social network propaganda outlets - it is just untrue to say they are not being heard.

Equally, on this thread were it not for me they would drown out all other voices and leave a very one-sided (and erroneous) impression.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I would agree with you were we providing therapy for these guys.

Simplest therapy for Cov19 you can do: V-D3 . Newest antivaxxer study from antivaxxer country Israel https://journals.plos.org/plos…ne.0263069&type=printable

or :: https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0263069

14x less death....with just a vitamin....

Patients with vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/mL) were 14 times more likely to have severe or critical disease than patients with 25(OH)D ≥40 ng/mL (odds ratio [OR], 14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 51; p < 0.001).

A message for the fear monger folks.

Switzerland cases did multiply (9x) over the last 8 weeks but:

ICU sees no increase. More people unaware of CoV-19 enter a hospital and get tested on entry --> positive

covid_19/COVID19_Fallzahlen_Kanton_ZH_total.csv at master · openZH/covid_19

COVID19 case numbers of Cantons of Switzerland and Principality of Liechtenstein (FL). The data is updated at best once a day (times of collection and update…

github.com

Zurich the largest ICU in CH. As said earlier the older vaxxers now flood the hospital with 6:1. So we are now deep in the vaxxer CoV-19 wave.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Zurich the largest ICU in CH. As said earlier the older vaxxers now flood the hospital

Obviously we have a large excess mortality in age > 65 that cannot be explained by CoV-19 (just 4 of some 186 for week 25) ::

https://dam-api.bfs.admin.ch/hub/api/dam/assets/22987460/master

absolute deaths are here :: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/d…ogic/death?epiRelDemo=abs

The excess mortality did speed up in week 25. (no heat wave!!) .

There is only one explanation the RNA fans (clowns) wont like to hear...

Quote from THHuxleynew

I would agree with you were we providing therapy for these guys.

In that case we would be tactful, point out faults gently and only inasfar as they themselves could understand them, and do lots of listening.

But this is science, not therapy. Wrong science can kill (other) people. All these ideas have been heard, debated, and answered. I have posted many of the detailed discussions from multiple scientists with better training in the relevant areas.

They can submit papers for per review to high quality on topic publications (e.g. ones with knowledgable reviewers) and they will get a lot of useful (negative) feedback.

In any case that is not what many of them are saying. They are claiming that everyone else is either incompetent or evil.

Since these guys write popular books on their pet theories which are heavily marketed, hold conferences with other antivaxxers, have well developed social network propaganda outlets - it is just untrue to say they are not being heard.

Equally, on this thread were it not for me they would drown out all other voices and leave a very one-sided (and erroneous) impression.

THH

Display More

Ah yes similar to you claiming the incompetence of cold fusion experimenters and their results. Maybe the forum should ban your opinions on cold fusion threads

Quote from Fm1

Maybe the forum should ban your opinions on cold fusion threads

We need a token skeptic around so other skeptics can't accuse us of being intolerant of opposing views.

Health experts are quitting the NIH and CDC in droves because they are embarrassed by 'bad science' | Daily Mail Online

Quote from Seatrout

Did they ever let the glass tube fractal in the recreations ?

Why