The Playground

    Quote from JedRothwell

    However, by the same token, we should beware of you when it comes to cold fusion, because as far as I know you have never given a reason to doubt the major experiments from people such as McKubre, Miles, Storms or Fleischmann. You have evaded the issue with vague assertions about no one in particular. I think you are unwilling or incapable of being reasonable with regard to cold fusion. Clearly, you are reasonable about other subjects. I suppose you have some sort of mental block.

    Not OT now this is the Playground.


    my problem (if it is a problem) here is the opposite of W. W is (presumably) sure he is right, and incapable of hearing contrary arguments


    I, OTOH, am never sure I am right. I can be sure others are wrong (like W) when they make definite mistakes and refuse to correct them.


    My judgement on LENR is "unproven and unlikely". The unlikely bit many would agree with - it is just so convenient that all the sure fire ways of delivering proof remain tantalisingly unavailable to the so many modern experiments, and also tantalisingly difficult to prove. Nuclear reactions would normally be the easiest possible thing to proven, even at low rates. In addition the hypothesised mechanisms (the best of teh NAE stuff seems plausible) are complex, and have no scaffolding. What I mean by that is that we make sense of science through a web of interrelated and supporting bits of theory and empirical evidence. The theory has merit when it is strongly predictive. But even non-predictive theory has merit when it has independent strands of evidence to back it up. So, for example, I continue to be interested in all the "higher than expected levels of electron shielding in metal lattices" stuff. I continue to be interested in the "high energy quasiparticles could exist in very high Q resonant cavities in NAEs" stuff. If (any of) that started to pan out at the quantitative level needed to do fusion I am interested: if it then links up coherently with the fusion evidence I am very interested.


    The only difference between you and me on this that I can see that that you put more faith in single (or small numbers) of experts than me. I don't. The LENR community is small and self-selected as people who have all come to the same judgement. Only a few (you mention them) are experts. On any scientific issue there are outliers (take the rogue scientists who support antivaxxer views). You could argue that everyone who has looked seriously at LENR has broadly the same view. So not outliers. Or you could argue that only those who continue to see it as probable continue beyond an initial flirtation, so the "look seriously" people are self-selected outliers. I saw the google effort as exactly what was needed - I still hope they will come up with something - they have found tantalising hints - but I also think had the evidence been stronger they would have found more than they currently have.


    So: I can't know, I don't trust the experts here enough to take their judgement - when it is at this stage of non-easy-replicability of experiment and lack joined up theory I need a lot of trust to do that. I am not preferring my judgement over theirs. I am saying theirs is not enough, so I fall back to unlikely and unproven. I trust my arguments about it being unlikely - equally in science many unlikely things have ended up to be true.


    Would I change my mind if stronger new evidence came up? Absolutely. Do I remain interested in those weird phenomena in metal lattices? Absolutely: they are still not understood and interesting. Do I see LENR is now mostly chasing ghosts? Absolutely - it has expanded from metal lattices where undoubtedly complex and not fully understood things happen to gaseous phase reactions where there is much less mystery (easier to model, and they have been more studied). And there are the charlatans jumping on a free energy meme. I (now) have little time for the companies claiming LENR on poor evidence. For example BLP, where every iteration of their ideas is completely different, and more difficult to measure accurately than the previous iteration.


    You have always shown yourself to be more definite than me when your each an opinion. I am slow to be sure. I, like anyone, jump on things that seem like easy solutions (HCQ for COVID or whatever) but I don't stay on them when the evidence is against and when in favour of them I go on looking at the evidence. It took me a long while with COVID to understand how flaky the preprint trials often are. But when I did not understand that, I was looking for evidence and willing to change my mind. Vit D is a classic case - I stay interested - it is just frustrating the big well-conducted RCTs are so negative. The non-RCT evidence is provably not reliable.



    THH

    W - here you are just showing naivetee and lack of undestanding of real data. Have you read Mr. Covid Data Science's analysis - which is complex.


    You can disagree with him, but you can't get out of the complexity in this data which has many anomalies - not least of which is that the numbers of unvaccinated people (and hence rates) are not known in the UK - they are estimated from a census 10 years ago, during a period of high and atypical (Brexit) emigration and immigration.


    This is less mathematically incompetent, because artifacts in data are complex and you are not an expert data scientist. Perhaps not an expert anything.


    For otehrs, I strongly recommend the detail in the Covid DataScience analyses - it shows how careful you need to be with even the best (UK is one of the best) data sets.


    Oh - and neither am I an expert - the difference is I am not saying I know better than all the experts and I am giving detail and reasons when I say W or some other antivaxxer is wrong.


    I have not the inclination to argue your individual points in that data - but I have linked somone more expert than me by far in data science - and AFAIK with no axe to grind pro or anti vaccine - who has considered them. I have linked it before.


    There are now 4 or 5 blog posts looking at many different aspects of the UK - including what you highlight.


    Go read.


    The arguments from him (which make sense to me as a non-expert who can often detect BS) show your conclusions wrong.


    I've no arguments from you - smiley faces or laughy faces are not the same :)

    A Quarter of U.S. Military and 75% of Defense Contractors Defy COVID Vaccine Mandate


    A Quarter of U.S. Sevicemembers and 75% of Defense Contractors Defy COVID Vaccine Mandate
    Nearly a quarter of United States military personnel and 71 percent of Department of Defense contractors are defying President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate
    trialsitenews.com


    Nearly a quarter of United States military personnel and 71 percent of Department of Defense contractors are defying President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for all service members, civilian Pentagon workers, and defense contractors, a workforce in excess of 740,000 people.


    The revelation was included in a Department of Defense COVID-19 Vaccine Operations Update slide deck. The report was current as of January 10.


    Continued Military Defiance of Biden’s Vaccine Mandate

    The defiance of Pentagon workers and service members against Biden’s order continues amid a pause in enforcement as a result of a federal court injunction.


    Court of Appeals Allows Federal Mandate Injunction to Stand

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a week ago, rejected the Biden administration’s attempt to reinstate the mandate.


    In the meantime, faced with widespread refusal to take the vaccines, government to ease enforcement.


    A Quarter of U.S. Service Members Partially Vaccinated or Unvaccinated

    According to the DoD deck 339,883 of all U.S. service members, or 16 percent of the force, are only partially vaccinated and 179,952, or 8.4 percent of the force, have received no vaccine doses at all.


    Table Description automatically generated

    Three-Quarters of DoD Contractors Partially or Not Vaccinated

    In addition, more than 75 percent of U.S. defense contractors – more than 3.3 million people – have defied the vaccination mandate.


    According to the slide deck, 79,218 Pentagon contractors, or 4.4 percent of that group, are partially vaccinated, and 1,300,111, or 71.4 percent are not known to have taken any COVID vaccine.


    The news of continued defiance to Biden’s vaccine mandates for the military comes amid increased tensions with Russia over Ukraine.

    Quote from Fm1

    According to the DoD deck 339,883 of all U.S. service members, or 16 percent of the force, are only partially vaccinated and 179,952, or 8.4 percent of the force, have received no vaccine doses at all.

    Prior Gulf War II some 100'000 front soldiers have been forced to take > 20 different "vaccines" within a few weeks, most of them experimental. Some e.g. for being able to fight under nervous gas conditions...

    >20'000 of these folks have been registered as disabled after war. The origin of the problem was communicated as the well known "Gulf war syndrome". Same as Big burger syndrome or public lie. One problem was the adjuvant used, but just one...


    Why should these soldiers make the same mistake once more? Playing guinea pig for untested genetic chemo?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    For otehrs, I strongly recommend the detail in the Covid DataScience analyses

    These FM/R/J/B crackpots for sure also can explain why Brillouin has a LENR COP of 2.7 100% reproducible.


    Thus I strongly urge to just laugh after reading these clown posts...

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    My judgement on LENR is "unproven and unlikely".

    But may be after 10 beers he could be quite a nice guy...

    South Dakota Advances Legislation Protecting Ivermectin Prescriptions


    South Dakota Advances Legislation Protecting Ivermectin Prescriptions
    In a growing trend among states, South Dakota’s House of Representatives approved a proposal, 40-28, Monday to endorse ivermectin as an alternative
    trialsitenews.com


    In a growing trend among states, South Dakota’s House of Representatives approved a proposal, 40-28, Monday to endorse ivermectin as an alternative therapy to COVID-19 vaccines.


    The lower state legislative chamber voted to advance House Bill 1267, which would allow medical practitioners to prescribe ivermectin, to the state senate.


    S.D. Bill Allows Doctors To Prescribe Ivermectin

    “A practitioner may, in accordance with accepted medical standards, prescribe ivermectin to a person,” reads the simple three-sentence legislative bill.


    States Moving to Protect Doctors’ Authority To Prescribe

    South Dakota is the latest state to propose protecting doctors’ ability to prescribe ivermectin as an alternative: Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee and, Oklahoma have all proposed similar laws. A Pennsylvania state House committee has also advanced a bill protecting doctors who prescribe the Nobel Prize-winning drug.



    Legislative bills are a reaction to a surge in prescriptions for ivermectin as awareness of the drug’s potential effects on COVID infection increased, as hospitals and pharmacies denied ivermectin prescriptions and hospital administrations and medical boards penalized clinicians who attempted to deploy the medicine to patients.


    Federal Health Officials Warn Against Ivermectin’s Minimal Hazards

    Federal and state public health officials have also issued sternly worded warnings about the hazards of the drug, despite its exceptional safety profile.


    The South Dakota bill was proposed by Republican Governor Kristi Noem, who has been strident in her defiance of national trends on masking and vaccine mandates. Noem’s bill permits employees to get exemptions from their employer’s vaccine mandates.


    The legislation is now before the South Dakota Senate.


    Governor Noem’s Moderate COVID Response

    Noem has taken a measured approach to the coronavirus response, abbreviating shutdowns, rejecting sweeping mandates, and promoting vaccination by choice in her high plains state.


    Her office claimed Noem takes “a middle ground between health experts urging vaccines and those opposed to mandates altogether.”


    Fifty-nine percent of South Dakotans are fully vaccinated, which is below the national average of 64 percent. As of Monday, South Dakota reported 259 people hospitalized with Covid-19, down from 400 last month

    2022-02-16 12:49 Weleda 

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

    Immense congratulations for the presentastion of the Ecat SKLep I watched linked in

    E-cat world.com

    and its theoretical explication in

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_Iong_range_particle_interactions


    Weleda


    2022-02-16 14:02 Andrea Rossi 

    Weleda:

    Thank you for your attention to the work of our Team,

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.


    ……..


    2021-01-31 07:12 Weleda 

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

    at the presentation which loads will be put at work by the Ecat SKL ?

    Cheers,

    Weleda


    2021-01-31 09:24 Andrea Rossi 

    Weleda:

    lights and heaters,

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    My judgement on LENR is "unproven and unlikely".

    Yes, so you say, but you have no rational or scientific basis for saying that.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The unlikely bit many would agree with - it is just so convenient that all the sure fire ways of delivering proof remain tantalisingly unavailable to the so many modern experiments, and also tantalisingly difficult to prove.

    On the contrary, cold fusion is proved by calorimetry, tritium detection and helium detection. The calorimetry proves beyond any doubt that the effect produces thousands of times more energy than any chemical reaction, without any chemical changes. Therefore the effect is real and it is not chemical. The tritium proves it is a nuclear reaction.


    To say it is "difficult" to prove is absurd. The first modern calorimeters made by Lavoisier in the 1780s could have detected many cold fusion reactions, and Lavoisier's discoveries about the nature of chemistry showed the effect cannot be chemical. J.P. Joule's calorimeters circa 1840 could have detected nearly any cold fusion reaction. Dozens of reactions produced 10 W or more, in some cases with no input energy, in reactions lasting for weeks. To call these "difficult" or "tantalizing" is beyond absurd. If you actually believe that, you are as deluded about cold fusion as Wyttenbach is about covid.


    The proof of cold fusion -- and calorimetry -- is rooted the laws of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy. This is rigorous science going back to the 1860s. You are saying, in effect, that you don't believe it. You doubt that professional scientists can measure, say 10 W input and 13 W output. If you really believe they cannot do this, you have no idea what you are talking about. Granted, some experiments have lower output, typically 0.1 to 0.3 W of excess heat. This is more challenging. If these were the only cold fusion experiments, there would be room to doubt them. Although as I said Joule could have measured that level of heat with confidence. However, in addition to these low level results, there are many others at much higher power levels. (See the graph "Peak heat from 124 tests," https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618) There is also tritium at such high levels that if it were contamination, it would kill everyone in the room.

    Diametrically opposite efficiency..Covid vaccines +/- age 50

    Feb2022 Amrit Sorli Slovenia

    Abstract
    A rigorous mathematical evaluation of statistical data is showing that

    in the population under 50 years Covid vaccines are increasing mortality by 22,3%

    in the population above 50 years Covid vaccines are decreasing mortality by 23,2%.


    This indicates an unusual, unknown working
    of vaccines that needs clarification.


    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358501451_Diametrically_opposite_efficiency_of_covid_vaccination_below_50_years_and_above_50_years


    error in preprint

    "

    According to the official statistics of England, covid vaccines are saving life the population
    under above 50 years and shortening the life of the population above under 50 years    .

    And it's when I started spending more time actually looking at scientific publications, looking at what is at the edge of research that might actually become useful and thinking about, for example, the nuclear fusion, right?

    People make annoying jokes about it always being on the horizon, but the reality is that it's an engineering problem. It's a difficult one, but there are people that are working on it really hard. And if I could crisp it down to this one kind of notion, it's like we have these people that are really trying to make something work.

    How could Google accelerate their progress in order to create a better future? And that's really how my mind was framing it. And then it was like... The problem became two separate problems. One was, how could I get resources within Google to make that happen? And other is what could those efforts look like?

    Jason Jacobs: So what was the initial theory of change? And then how did you solve that chicken and egg of needing to show evidence of, of it working to get the resources, but needing to have resources to show evidence of it working?

    Ross Koningstein: Oh, that's a great question. I think that that kind of chicken and egg problem is, you don't have it when there is an alignment of vision between some key decision makers. So if you've got a couple of people, let's say, if there's a mandate in a part of the org to make a difference in energy for the future, then you've already got a hook, right? And then it's the case of every company has something like this.

    It's like, if we're gonna spend time and money on this, then why should we do it? Why should it be done at all? And why should we do it now? You know, 'cause it sort of figures out this fit. If it needs to be done, but there's no way for a company to do it well at all, then it, it really doesn't make any sense. So it's this little Venn Diagram intersection of things.

    And I think that's part of what makes the whole climate thing interesting is that what Google could do, for example, to partner with this fusion company to help them is what was in Google's wheelhouse, but there's other companies working on other neat things that have problems that might actually fit into other tech companies' wheelhouse.

    So it would be fun for people in general to say, "Oh, you know, if there's a company doing some form of fusion that they like, are they experiencing a type of problem because of the way that they are approaching it, that maybe somebody who's doing large scale CFD, Computational Fluid Dynamics, or somebody who's doing really sophisticated high speed control systems, maybe that is their avenue to accelerating that type of energy."

    Jason Jacobs: And as you thought about the initial resourcing required and the initial entry point of things that you would try, what did you come up with as a starting point and maybe take us through that entry point and key learnings and then maybe some of the highlights over the last few years of how your thinking and resourcing and problem solving has evolved.

    Ross Koningstein: Sure. I guess the initial concept behind starting a nuclear energy R&D group at Google is that Google itself is not gonna build a nuclear lab. It's, you know, like [laughs] specialized groups of people, specialized facilities, all that have to go into it. And furthermore nuclear actually has a lot more dimensions to it, I think than most people think.

    Like people hear the word nuclear and they think the Simpsons or they, they think Chernobyl or whatever, and it's all bad. But Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imagery, NMRI, the name got shortened to MRI because people didn't like putting nuclear in there, there are many nuclear technologies that might offer a path. And so the concept was pitched as, "We've already done a bunch of things in renewable energy and we're starting to understand what the limitations are of that."

    If we want to really have carbon-free energy that scales in a number of different situations like in the north, for example, where it's dark and maybe not windy all that often, or in really humid areas in Asia, for example, where you don't have enough land area to do a lot of renewables, then we need other forms of energy. And if people don't like the pressurized water technology from the 1960s, okay, I, I can kind of get that for a number of reasons, but technology doesn't stand still.

    If you make it move forward then these are the things that could happen. And so we identified a couple of different areas where we saw that Google could help move the needle. One of them was in a fusion collaboration which was based on a project pitch that one of our engineers had, and it was a beautiful pitch, but we had to have a group it with resources in order to host that project. So starting the nuclear energy R&D group actually made that possible.

    Then we wanted to allow for Federal Government policy to enable a lot more innovative R&D 'cause that part of the budget was very small. So we worked with some groups in Washington DC, NGOs who were putting together a campaign to increase the ability of federal policy to support innovation in various types of nuclear technologies. And you know, those folks have been quite successful.

    And lastly, at the time there was an interest in things going on in cold fusion. Now, I'm not like a cold fusion believer, but I do know in the scientific area, if you completely shut off an area of science to any investigation, then that withers and it, you know, you can destroy people's careers.

    So the stuff that we saw in cold fusion was really bad science as opposed to bad topic area. And so we wanted to see if you had a bunch of really smart scientists say, what would they look for in that area in which cold fusion was reputed to be? And we funded them for a couple of years to actually examine those set of conditions, which turned out to be really, really difficult to create and sometimes observe.

    Jason Jacobs: And what was the motivation from Google at the time of supporting these efforts? Was it purely for the collective good or was there any self interest involved and if so, what did that look like?

    Ross Koningstein: I think in any situation where you have people making decisions, they're gonna be doing it both because they have a long term view that there might be something good that comes out of it for society, and often it's because there is a personal interest component.

    And like I was saying at the intersection of why different companies do what, in our case, the plasma fusion partnership was a very clear fit for why Google could move that needle forward. And so once we had landed in that topic area, that one seemed like a really positive way to move forward. So I think, to answer your question, it's a bit of both and I'm sure it varies all over the place.

    Jason Jacobs: Are there particular problems that the department is focused on now? And if you can't say, then maybe talk about particular problems that you're personally quite interested in, in thinking through solutions for.

    Ross Koningstein: If I speak to my own interests, I think that what I've been trying to identify in the last couple of years is a way to communicate that. There are several different ways our future could play out.

    And if you think about achieving, what is a goal? A goal is, for example, solving climate change, or even halting the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere like Project Drawdown wants to do. Then there are many different plans or approaches one could take to achieving that. And you can't really say, "We're gonna put all our money on one plan and force it to work." That's not a great strategy to achieving a goal.

    And I would liken people saying, "Oh, you know, we have to, for example, cover California's deserts with solar panels and put wind on all the shores and, and then hope somehow we can still make our airplanes fly and, and grid work." So that's a plan, but it's best if you have other plans that can fill in the gaps or take cover in case things don't work out.

    And so I like to think of what are the probabilities of different scenarios happening and then maximizing the probability that we achieve our goals. And so I've used that kind of framework and talking with people to uncover, I guess, what you would call the obvious, which is, we need to have a, a large scale energy transition, but what might seem less obvious to people is, we can't just will that to happen in 20 years, you know.

    Energy is, is a system that takes decades for industrial scale changes to happen. And I think expecting it to change, you know, including electricity as well as fuels and stuff, expecting that to change in 20 years, I think is being way too optimistic. If you give it a probability scale, then you'd say, "Oh, maybe there's a 5% chance it could happen in 20 years," but you know, the 50% chance is really more like decades.

    So then you say, "Well, given that what other things are true?

    Just to continue this a little bit.


    You leave out what makes CF "difficult".


    I agree, a consistent easily replicated 30% on 10W output would be very easy to prove. Or, even a consistent 5% on 10W, if it always happened and could be tested in multiple setups.


    What we have is inconsistent and non-replicable. A 30% increase turns into a 5% increase or less when measured more accurately. We do not have a setup that delivers clearly above possible errors results - unless Mizuno's systems do that. I will agree with you about that as a modern example breaking my statement only if we have those systems measuring well above error increase from different calorimetry setups in different labs run before professional calorimetrists.


    And although mainstream science will be skeptical, I think a Black Box system guaranteed to deliver long-term (well above chemical) energy excess would interest many calorimetrists.


    And I do not even require this to be perfect: as long as it is not so fickle that good results invariable disappear when tested carefully by experts with their own calorimeters.


    So if Mizuno's impressive claims are correct CF is close to general recognition. And i will be there cheering it on.


    THH

    I a sorry Gregory Byron Goble but this is mixing past knowledge with the present. Unless you possess a tardis well known in time travel as Dr WHO, there exists only the present and the future to build your theory on. The simpler theory the better, with no obfuscation E=mc^n where n varies between the present n=0 to the future where n=infinity with all possible positive integers on the nano-or femto scale to the gigo scale of nuclear reactions within our Sun (SOL). Other stars can be neutron stars of course or red giants and the same gravitational wave theory applies throughout the known and unknown UNIVERSE! :) :) :)

    Lawsuit Claims French Official and UK Academic Committed a “Scientific Crime,” Smeared Ivermectin


    Lawsuit Claims French Official and UK Academic Committed a “Scientific Crime,” Smeared Ivermectin
    A patient’s rights group in Montpellier, France is pursuing a lawsuit against France’s National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products, or
    trialsitenews.com


    A patient’s rights group in Montpellier, France is pursuing a lawsuit against France’s National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products, or ANSM, for allegedly colluding with foreign influences to quash research into early treatment options for COVID-19, including ivermectin.


    Jean-Charles Teissedre, a lawyer with the group filed the confidential lawsuit last March against the nation’s regulatory counterpart to the United States Food and Drug Administration, and an official at the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France’s counterpart to the United States National Institutes of Health.


    Bon Sens’ Lawsuit Against French Public Health Authorities

    The suit, which was filed in the Occitania region in the south of France, recently came to light as French gendarmerie investigators gathered evidence and questioned interested parties about the allegations.


    In an interview with TrialSite News, Xavier Azalbert, the director of publication of FranceSoir, described how the group learned about a conversation that Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician, and proponent of COVID early treatments, had with Andrew Hill, a research fellow in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the University of Liverpool.



    Ivermectin Meta-Analysis Researcher Allegedly Acknowledged Outside Influence

    During that conversation, Lawrie voiced concerns to Hill about his study’s alleged misrepresentation of ivermectin’s efficacy. Lawrie and others argued that Hill’s study only looked at examples that underdosed ivermectin and thus muted its efficacy.


    Publisher Retracts Study That Misrepresented Ivermectin’s Efficacy

    Hill’s paper, which was sponsored by the global health agency and COVID vaccine proponent Unitaid and appeared under Oxford Academic’s Open Forum Infections Diseases journal, was retracted in August after a letter of concern was submitted to the publication.


    “Subsequently, we and the authors have learned that one of the studies on which this analysis was based has been withdrawn due to fraudulent data,” the publisher wrote. “The authors will be submitting a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted.”


    Lawrie video recorded her conversation with Hill and asked him if his study was biased by outside interference. A transcript of the conversation is included in Robert F. Kennedy’s bestselling book “The Real Anthony Fauci.”


    Lawrie told Hill that she didn’t understand why he would publish a study misrepresenting ivermectin’s efficacy after his initial findings found it to be overwhelmingly effective at treating COVID.


    Hill, an advisor to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation, responded that he was in a “tricky situation” because his sponsors had pressured him.


    Dr. Tess Lawrie Confronts University of Liverpool Researcher Andrew Hill

    Lawrie told Hill bluntly that his obfuscation of facts about ivermectin was resulting in deaths.


    “I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can… Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do,” Lawrie said.


    “Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through [the World Health Organization],” she asked.


    Hill said that Unitaid paid him.


    Lawrie: “Who Is Not Listed As An Author?”; Hill: “Unitaid”

    “Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?” Lawrie demanded.


    “Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it … Unitaid…” Hill stammered.


    “I think that … It needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged. Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?”


    “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper,” Hill confessed. “Yeah.”


    Lawrie pressed Hill to name names, but after he continued to equivocate, she unloads: “You’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.”


    “You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position,” Hill replied. “I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.”


    “Yeah. Middleground,” Lawrie scoffed. “The middleground is not a middleground… you’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out and you will be culpable.”


    French Health Official Allegedly Colluded With British Researcher

    Hill eventually indicated that he had been contacted by Dominique Costagliola, an epidemiologist and former researcher at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research, which fulfills a role similar to the U.S. National Institutes of Health.


    French Gendarmerie Financial Investigators Pursue a “Scientific Crime”

    Azalbert said that the Bons Sens lawsuit alleges that Hill and Costagliola colluded to commit “a scientific crime,” against those seeking authorization of early treatment options in France.


    Azalbert said that Lawrie’s video has been submitted as evidence in their case. Azalbert said he also aware that investigators with France’s National Prosecutor’s office are seeking access to Costagliola’s email correspondence and other documents related to the case.


    “They are very interested,” Azalbert said of French authorities. “The lives of a lot of people are at stake and the police investigators don’t want to be the ones who miss the boat, just as they don’t want to be the one who accuses without grounds – it is a complicated situation.”


    Azalbert said that Bons Sens also complained about Hill’s ethics to the University of Liverpool, but that the institution has taken no corrective action.


    In lieu of a final investigation, the plaintiff’s lawyer Teissedre demanded a temporary recommendation for the use of ivermectin despite ANSM’s April 2021 ruling against the anti-parasitic drug’s off-label use for COVID.


    “I do not argue for the far right and it is not a question here of idiotic conspiratorial suspicions,” said Teissedre, who has also represented Dr. Denis Agret, an infamous opponent of vaccine mandates

    Autopsy: Post-Vaccination Myocarditis “Primary Cause” of Death of Two Teens


    Autopsy: Post-Vaccination Myocarditis “Primary Cause” of Two Teens' Deaths
    Two teenage boys who, separately, were found dead in their beds three and four days after taking their second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
    trialsitenews.com


    Two teenage boys who, separately, were found dead in their beds three and four days after taking their second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine likely died from toxic myocarditis, according to a February 15 clinical and autopsy early release study in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine of the College of American Pathologists.


    Two Teens Dead Days After Vaccination

    One of the boys, who had a history of attention hyperactivity deficit disorder (ADHD), died after initially complaining about gastric distress and headaches. Shortly after reporting that he felt better, he was found dead in his bed. The other boy, who was reported to be obese, reported no symptoms before he was found dead in his bed.


    Neither boy was known to be infected by the coronavirus.


    Autopsies Determine Myocarditis Involved in Deaths

    Autopsies were conducted by the Connecticut Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), and the Michigan Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine, which investigate suspected unnatural deaths in their respective jurisdictions.


    Dr. James R. Gill, Chief Medical Examiner of the (OCME) determined that both boys suffered from toxic myocarditis. In addition, microscopic examination of tissue samples revealed findings that “are not the alterations seen with typical myocarditis.”


    Connecticut Chief Examiner Speaks to TrialSite About Autopsy Findings

    Gill, who is also an associate professor of clinical pathology at Yale School of Medicine, explained that the first boy had suffered a previously undiagnosed myocardial fibrosis, or heart tissue scarring, which may have led to his heart failure and death. This victim was known to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder but was believed to be otherwise healthy. Gill reported that he was unable to definitively determine what caused the scarring. One theory is that it may have started with the initial vaccine dose and healed over time. Then the second dose may have worsened the condition.


    The autopsy report also noted that the second boy, who was obese, had suffered from a previously undiagnosed cardiac hypertrophy, an adaptive response to pressure or volume stress that accompanies many forms of heart disease.


    While hypertrophy and fibrosis were considered secondary contributors in their deaths, Gill is confident that acute myocardial injury was the primary factor.


    Boys Suffered Heart Inflammation Not Found in Typical Myocarditis

    Ultimately, Gill determined that toxic myocarditis was a factor in both deaths. His report stated that microscopic examination of tissue samples from the young victims “revealed features resembling a catecholamine-induced injury, not typical myocarditis pathology.”


    Catecholamines such as adrenaline, norepinephrine, and dopamine help the body respond to fight-or-flight situations. But when there is a problematic relationship between catecholamines and cytokines they can result in “a feedback loop,” Gill said during an interview with TrialSite.


    This loop can generate cytokine storms that cause excessive adrenal responses and, ultimately, damaging inflammation.


    “The big thing is, you are seeing that area of heart muscle injury, which is separate from where the inflammation is,” Gill said of the victims. “Typically, with (viral) myocarditis, the inflammation is driving the damage to the muscle cells. In this case, we are seeing the damaged muscle cells driving some of the inflammation.”


    Myocarditis is described by the United States Centers for Disease Control as inflammation of the heart muscle that is the result of an infection or “some other trigger.”


    When triggered by COVID-19 vaccination, symptoms typically begin within a week of the second dose. These include chest pain, shortness of breath, and feelings of a fast-beating or pounding heart. According to the CDC, most patients with post-vaccine myocarditis “responded well to medicine and rest, and felt better quickly.”


    The CDC recommends that children 5 and older receive the vaccine to avoid contracting SARS-CoV-2 and possibly severe complications including hospitalization and death from COVID-19. However, some doctors find cardiac complications in teens – which is normally an exceedingly rare occurrence – to be concerning when they are associated with COVID vaccinations.


    Young people have a relatively low risk for severe COVID-19 illness and yet post-vaccination heart complications can be deadly. On the other hand, health authorities have claimed that long-term cases of COVID pose a considerable risk as well.


    Gill’s co-authors included Dr. Randy Tashjian of the Wayne County Medical Examiners’ Office in Detroit and the Department of Pathology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Emily Duncanson of the Jesse E. Edwards Registry of Cardiovascular Disease in St. Paul, Minnesota.


    Gill: Doctors Should Track At-Risk Groups More Closely After Vaccination

    Gill said he hopes his study will prompt clinicians to track post-vaccination periods in children more closely.


    “At this point, it’s kind of now in the clinicians’ hands to see, would this change any of their thought-processes?” Gill said. He suggested that doctors could order different types of blood tests and monitor changes more closely following vaccination for this at-risk group.


    Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose

    Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose - PubMed
    - The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a…
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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.