The Playground

Quote from Zeus46

They show a result, albeit weakly in favour of ivermectin, but that does not rise above significance.

Or other words… A null result.

Exactly! The chances of getting precisely zero are low. Biology always produce a wide range of results. It is unpredictable. If the drug has no effect, random effects from other, unknown sources are likely made the results slightly positive or slightly negative. There is no reason to think the researchers are being dishonest for reporting a marginally positive result.

Quote from Shane D.

It seems so sensible on the face of it that they should stop a pandemic in it's tracks, as long as everyone used them.

That's absurd. Masks are not magic. In 2021, doctors and nurses used FAR better masks than the throw away ones, and they put on full body plastic suits, with pressurized helmets. Despite this, hundreds of doctors and nurses were infected, and hundreds died. 115,000 died worldwide. Obviously, masks reduce infection, but they do not always prevent it.

Furthermore, from the earliest day of the pandemic, masks were widely used in Asia, but cases spread rapidly in Korea and elsewhere. Anyone could see that masks were not "stopping the pandemic in its tracks."

Quote from Shane D.

But we are learning a great deal from study after study brought on by COVID, and it appears that masks may not be so effective as we thought.

That is incorrect. There is no indication whatever that masks are less effective than experts estimated they would be. The effectiveness of masks -- and their limitations -- have been well understood for over a century. Doctors have been using them for over 150 years. All doctors and nurses know that despite their best efforts and most careful use of masks, they are sometimes infected by contagious patients.

While we are on the topic of, erm, dubious websites that people here like to quote from… I was looking at some old posts linking to http://www.globalresearch.ca , which was/is an anti-vax propaganda site, and also a website that has been theorised by many to be a kremlin-funded disinformation outlet.

A couple of days ago I thought it would be amusing to find what their hot take on the Ukraine situation is. I wasn’t disappointed. But during the writing of this post I found out some sad news:

The forum members most suckered in by their nonsense were ‘Toffoli’ (now banned, for being too kooky for even this thread), followed by ‘Lou Pagnucco’, then Wyttenbach, then FM1.

Lou and I even had a brief discussion where he sarcastically denied the obvious Russian influence behind the antivax propaganda he was posting, following up with several links to Robert Kennedy Jr’s anti-vax propaganda site over the next few months, before ultimately going quiet.

So… The sad news is that I found Lou’s obituary online. He died aged 73. On the 30th of September, at the peak of the delta variant death toll in the USA… Which potentially means nothing at all, beyond the coincidence.

Lou P. - Rest in Peace

Quote from Zeus46

The sad news is that I found Lou’s obituary online. He died aged 73

That is so sad. Lou played a big role here keeping us informed, and I had wondered what happened to him. Will try to find an appropriate thread to put this on so everyone knows he is not around anymore to keep us up on LENR related patents.

Thanks for sharing this.

After reading a bunch of Lou's posts just now I appreciate more than ever that he was a guy after the truth, the mainstream be damned. I learned a lot from him and his links!

His last post was July 2021, and interestingly his last ten posts had to do with LENR, not Covid issues. His last post on Covid was in February 2021, and before that almost all his many posts were Covid related back to March of 2020.

Now I wonder about members like Oldguy and SevenofTwenty and how they're doing.

@ Sam 12 - can you find any other references to 'Rodger's' ground-breaking work which seems to agree totally with Leif Holmlid's YAG or green laser work? Or has it all, as he says, been hijacked by Harvard University academics?

Quote from Mark U

Now I wonder about members like Oldguy and SevenofTwenty and how they're doing.

Oldguy is alive and kicking, and apparently working in his lab, according a post he made under a new username.

SevenOfTwenty seems to be OK, despite a rumour to the contrary. He’s still fit to practise medicine, at least.

I believe he left in disgust at the obstinate behaviour of several people in this thread, who appear to think they know more the entire medical establishment, thanks to their medical degrees obtained from the hallowed University of Google.

Quote from Zeus46

SevenOfTwenty seems to be OK, despite a rumour to the contrary. He’s still fit to practise medicine, at least.

I have been wondering where he was also. Those who are not familiar, SevenOfTwenty is the old, infamous, our own beloved Mary Yugo.

Quote from Zeus46

I believe he left in disgust at the obstinate behaviour of several people in this thread, who appear to think they know more the entire medical establishment, thanks to their medical degrees obtained from the hallowed University of Google.

Speculation on your part. 7of20 dished it out much more so than he was the target of. And while you may know something we do not, we never really knew his real professional background. That said, he was still a valuable member of LF, and the old ECN's before, so it would be nice to see him come back.

And IMO, your comment does not do the dignity to LF it deserves. We have a lot of gravitas here with deep thinkers crossing many spectrums. Not all to your or my liking, but as a whole we have a lot to offer.

Quote from Zeus46

They show a result, albeit weakly in favour of ivermectin, but that does not rise above significance.

Or other words… A null result.

Presumably you have repeated their Baysian credible interval calculations and found an error?

288 completed the trial on the placebo side not 679. The effect of ivermectin looks a lot better with accurate numbers!

Quote from JedRothwell

Several. Most notably:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

The conclusion is fraud. did you bother to look at endpoints. Only 288 completed the trial on the placebo side not 679.

The BMJ: Evidence Based Medicine has Been Corrupted by “Corporate Interests, Failed Regulation, and the Commercialization of Academia”

The BMJ: Evidence Based Medicine has Been Corrupted by “Corporate Interests, Failed Regulation, and the Commercialization of Academia”

www.trialsitenews.com

A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”

Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach

Knowledge and data ownership hamper progress in science due to the fact that the pharma industry tends to suppress negative trial outcomes, not report adverse events, and not share their raw data with the research community. To quote The BMJ, “Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.” And duty to shareholders’ “hierarchical power structures” prioritizes both product loyalty and public relations over integrity. Further, while our fancier universities face influence from their endowments, “they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society.” And facing reduced government funding, these schools have taken the, “neo-liberal market approach,” seeking out pharma funding, with strings attached.

Doctors as “Product Champions”

And thus, science departments at a broad swath of our universities can be seen as “instruments of industry.” When you combine firm-level control of the research agenda and the “ghosting writing of medical journal articles and continuing medical education,” scholars can transform into promotors of commercial products. Further, media reports of “industry-academe partnerships[s]” add to a general mistrust of our academic institutions that betrays the very vision of an open society. And what The BMJ calls the “corporate university” itself undermines the idea of academic leadership. Where once deans were folks with “distinguished contributions to their disciplines,” now they are more of fundraisers/academic managers who must show their “profitability” and ability to attract corporate sponsorship. And medical academia’s stars, who tend to be opinion leaders, advance their careers via industry opportunities. These folks are hired based largely on their influence on the “prescribing habits” of other doctors. The opinion leaders are also often well-paid by pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus in the context of presenting results of pharma industry trials. And instead of being “independent, disinterested scientists,” they can become “product champions,” in the parlance of marketing executives.

Reforms Called For

Proposals for reform can include, “liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymized individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results.” For readers seeking more information, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.1.4 sets out that organization’s policies on conflicts of interest in industry-funded research

Quote from Zeus46

Oldguy is alive and kicking, and apparently working in his lab, according a post he made under a new username.

SevenOfTwenty seems to be OK, despite a rumour to the contrary. He’s still fit to practise medicine, at least.

I believe he left in disgust at the obstinate behaviour of several people in this thread, who appear to think they know more the entire medical establishment, thanks to their medical degrees obtained from the hallowed University of Google.

If I remember correctly SOT was stocking up on hydrozychloroquine vitamin D and C for his family and friends

Thanks for the members update

Quote from Fm1

The conclusion is fraud. did you bother to look at endpoints.

The NEJM is not known for publishing fraud. This could be a first, or perhaps you misunderstand. You do not seem to have much of grasp of statistics, causality, the base rate fallacy, and related issues.

Quote from Shane D.

Speculation on your part.

For sure… Thats why I prefaced it with “I believe”. Also, you claim to not know his professional background, which is somewhat surprising:

Quote from seven_of_twenty

OK Shane. I'll go this far. I have an M.D. from a major US University. I did one year of internal medicine residency at a large city university medical center and a two year postdoctoral fellowship also at a major center. I also have varied experience with basic and applied research in medicine and biophysics. I was an assistant professor of medicine and assistant dean at a US medical school.

I happen to think my speculation probably accurate: Imagine… He was finally in his element, instead of floundering around and being mocked for his weak grasp of physics, he got to explain - even show off a bit - his core competency. He worked in a medical school FFS! His wanting to share knowledge, and try to improve others’ understanding is basically a given.

But… if you read the last posts of his, you just see a man frustrated at being ignored. People here had access to a real doctor who could explain complex stuff to them, but instead chose to bombard him with their own dangerous ideas about wholly unproven treatments, even after he explained why they were talking nonsense!

Quote from Fm1

If I remember correctly SOT was stocking up on hydrozychloroquine

Well it would seem that you are blessed with a selective memory.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

This pretty well ends the bullsh*t about hydroxychloroquine with or without a macrolide antibiotic like azithromycin being effective. 96,000 patients reviewed. Across several levels of severity. vs non-treated controls. Results suggest the drugs may make things worse and have no overall benefit.

Having invested almost $1000 to obtain plenty of HCQ and Azi from the US, Canada and India, I am not happy to see this.

Quote from Fm1

288 completed the trial on the placebo side not 679. The effect of ivermectin looks a lot better with accurate numbers

Such a dumb comment shows that you haven’t bothered to properly read, let alone understand, the paper that you attempt to criticise. I wonder which website mislead you into thinking this?

…From the per-protocol group: 82 out of 624 ivermectin recipients (13.1%) ended up in hospital. In the placebo group 40 out of 288 patients (13.9%) ended up in hospital.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Quote from Shane D.

Not all to your or my liking, but as a whole we have a lot to offer.

You’re right. There is lots to offer, for sure! My favourite bit was the ‘the graphene in vaccines makes you magnetic and gives you a MAC address’ part. Closely followed by pretty much anything Navid says.

FM1 claiming a vaccine injury and vaccine related clotting…12 months after getting his shot, (and a month after having covid) was also a highlight. an interesting insight into the mind of an anti-vaxxer. Pardon me.

Quote from Dr Richard*

@ Sam 12 - can you find any other references to 'Rodger's' ground-breaking work which seems to agree totally with Leif Holmlid's YAG or green laser work? Or has it all, as he says, been hijacked by Harvard University academics?

Rodger only has an idea as far as I can tell and looks for someone to work on it.

I posted this on his blog asking him

if it relates to his idea.

Quote from Zeus46

I happen to think my speculation probably accurate: Imagine… He was finally in his element, instead of floundering around and being mocked for his weak grasp of physics, he got to explain - even show off a bit - his core competency. He worked in a medical school FFS! His wanting to share knowledge, and try to improve others’ understanding is basically a given.

Thanks for digging up SOT's post where he says he is an MD. I had forgotten that. My memory is photographic, but very short.

Early on in the Rossi years I believe he claimed to know calorimetry, and had offered (with Rothwell I believe) to test an Ecat. Whatever he was, it was always fun debating him. Maybe one day we will see him here again.

Quote from Zeus46

…From the per-protocol group: 82 out of 624 ivermectin recipients (13.1%) ended up in hospital. In the placebo group 40 out of 288 patients (13.9%) ended up in hospital.

Given this, it should be a huge red flag that for the 679 people starting in each group, only 288 remained in the placebo arm.

Perhaps if you read the paper, you would understand why they also reported the results from a subset of the placebo group.

(It’s almost like having SOT back with us!)

Quote from Zeus46

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

We already had discussed this silly - designed to fail - study with 1 day treatments or 3 days. No other drugs added not following any reasonable protocol.