Quote from RobertBryant

Ardern did communications science / political science... Merkel did physics..

both probably should defer to medical/epidemiological experts for Covid strategy/policy..

definitely Ardern did..

I’m well into my 60’s now and I still cannot determine what is scientific about politics.

“Political Science”? Really.

How did that area of study get its name?

Buncha politicians trying “tech up” their degrees donating $$ to colleges to influence the incorporation of “Science” into the Major

Quote from Toffoli

Coronavirus: Are Our Scientists Lying To Us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZUJhKUbd0k

Toffoli

Chris Martenson is as I'm sure you know a futurist and fringe economist holding a number of iconoclastic views and conspiracy theories.

In this case he is PRing the well known "COVID is not natural due to that cleavage site" conspiracy theory.

He claims scientific credentials but I can find no independent evidence for this.

His key argument (summarising is that the nearest bat virus to SARS-CoV-2 does not have a Furin cleavage site which SARS-CoV-2 has, and it is this cleavage that makes it so infectious. The nearest known natural virus with Furin cleavage is quite far away genetically.

He claims therefore that the Furin cleavage is a 4 base insert (not a mutation). Not contentious, though not proven, there is a 1 in 256 chance of this sequence appearing randomly.

He speculates that because many people have been inserting short base sequences into virusses therefore this 4 base sequence could have been so inserted.

Let us go to the literature on this (rather than the blogosphere):

It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2.

Then Martenson goes on to a whole load of "scientists are all lying to us" conspiracy.

Martenson's points seem to be:

(1) the 4 base insert would be highly unlikely to come naturally because it is only seen in distant cousins of the nearest natural ancestor to SARS-CoV-2. That is silly, he is not considering recombination.

(2) the 4 base insert must be an insert, not a mutation. That is not true, 1 in 256 random sequences are this sequence - it is not a once in a million characteristic sequence! But from (1) it does not matter if it is true. For example, inserting one of the 81 4 base similar sequences, followed by a point mutation, would give you this. Fully 1/4 of all random sequences are just one point mutation away from the inserted 4 base sequence.

(3) the evidence this is not genetically engineered is bad because it is possible to engineer whole genomes complete. We need independent experts to tell us how likely it would be that anyone experimenting with viruses would do such an insertion without leaving markers.

The point of (3) is that unless you are going for way out conspiracy this was somone trying to bioengineer a version of flu that is really deadly (highly unlikely - it would make a v poor weapon!), people investigating what small modifications will do for benign motives will not seek to hide the change they make. Therefore any insert will be done in whatever is a (relatively) easy way. Not brute force construction of a whole precise genome.

Given that Martenson is a loner conspiracy theorist and the many other scientists who have looked at this don't agree with him - and I'm not a conspiracy theorist thinking they have all been paid by US deep state to keep quiet, why does anyone seriously advance his PR as proper debate?

More to the point, since at the moment we do not have a clue what is the exact origin of Sars-CoV-2, surely any decent scientist interested in this would look at all of the relevant literature? I took citations from the early Nature article and searched them for "origin" - list here.

Fascinating looking at the various evidence and speculation. Just one example:

https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.04.12.038554v1.abstract

SUMMARY In contrast to adaptive evolution previously reported for SARS-CoV in its brief epidemic, our analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes shows signs of relaxation of selection. The sequence similarity of the spike receptor binding domain between SARS-CoV-2 and a sequence from pangolin is probably due to an ancient intergenomic introgression. Therefore, SARS-CoV-2 might have cryptically circulated within humans for years before being recently noticed. Data from the early outbreak and hospital archives are needed to trace its evolutionary path and reveal critical steps required for effective spreading. Two mutations, 84S in orf8 protein and 251V in orf3 protein, occurred coincidentally with human intervention. The 84S first appeared on 1/5/2020 and reached a plateau around 1/23/2020, the lockdown of Wuhan. 251V emerged on 1/21/2020 and rapidly increased its frequency. Thus, the roles of these mutations on infectivity need to be elucidated.

This BTW is exactly contrary to Martenson who claims (no evidence) that low mutation rates imply SARS-CoV-2 has not just made a zoonotic jump. This detailed and sophisticated analysis - looking at how rates of mutation have changed over time - contradicts that. To come to a proper answer (if you don't trust the experts) you need to read and make sense of all this stuff and I have zero confidence Martenson is either able or interested in doing this.

It is a bind. Trust the experts, no problem, on this one they agree. SARS-CoV-2 is natural in origin (though no answer for whether from wet market or accident in bat lab originally). You would think wet market offers more possibilities.

It you don't trust the experts, then you must even more not trust the pseudo-experts like Martenson. And if you reckon you can judge this for yourself without doing a long long LS you are not a good scientist and basically a typical arrogant know-it-all.

THH

Quote from oldguy

5-fluorouracil

in vitro against SARS

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984655/

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro3125

https://mbio.asm.org/content/9/2/e00221-18

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0306987720305788

5-Fluorouracil in combination with deoxyribonucleosides and deoxyribose as possible therapeutic options for the Coronavirus, COVID-19 infection ….the CoVs lacking exoN activity (ExonN2) were up to three hundred fold more sensitive to 5-FU [12], [13]..... it may be possible that when 5-fluorodeoxyuridine (5-FU-dRib) is inserted in the RNA and it may escape proof-reading and lead to lethality and/or lethal mutagenesis in the virus.

interesting oscillations.

I look at them like a stock market chart. I notice that the peaks are going lower and the valleys are getting lower, so I say the over all "trend" is down.

but why that oscillation?

THHuxleynew It is a tautology that not everyone can do everything. Your botched interpretation of the FASB study - which was a hit piece - shows that you don't work well in the realm of the intuition. Or maybe you don't work hard enough to isolate the facts (one example: that paper would knock studies with actual clinical success, on the basis that they had no viral clearance - do you realize that PCR tests are not to be used as a measure of diagnostic disease. Do you have knowledge of the flaws of these tests. It doesn't matter that everyone is using them. So negating clinical facts on the basis of a tests is comical, but that is what FASB did in their hit piece). I've gone through it line by line and seen what they did and will share my results to teach you if you like.

Many analysts (even world class economists) suffer the same problem. I suggest a focus on something you know well and not opinine about things you don't and then claim others that do are "know it alls." You drive yourself into a ditch with statements like "And if you reckon you can judge this for yourself without doing a long long LS you are not a good scientist and basically a typical arrogant know-it-all. experts"

A great inventor dies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…-oximeter-dies-at-84.html

https://thewirecutter.com/blog/coronavirus-pulse-oximeter/

If you want to know how they manipulate their mind - research Bernays - the inventor of PR.

Rockefeller was told to reform his image he had to be seen in a positive light. The deep state is cranking up support for Fauci. See photo of today's article.

The Hague on the other hand would be a place for him to visit.

Many of you get confused by these images, and they affect your logic and you don't know it because you are ill educated on the effects of the media storm on the human mind.

What’s your typical day like?

...my day job—trying to develop a vaccine and drugs and running a $6 billion institution.

If anyone has time I think we could use research & understanding about Moderna's approach of vaccines (clearly what Gates & co want) - it could be a disaster for mankind if we dont understand what they are doing and we inject every human being with something on the "rush" to save the world. You can't make a comic book story that has the potential to be so evil.

Quote from Alan Smith

This may be new to you- Chinese (preprint) study of CQ published 4th May.

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.04.26.20081059v1

Preliminary evidence from a multicenter prospective observational study of the safety and efficacy of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19.

Abstract

Background Effective therapies are urgently needed for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Chloroquine has been proved to have antiviral effect against coronavirus in vitro. In this study, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of chloroquine with different doses in COVID-19. Method In this multicenter prospective observational study, we enrolled patients older than 18 years old with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection excluding critical cases from 12 hospitals in Guangdong and Hubei Provinces. Eligible patients received chloroquine phosphate 500mg, orally, once (half dose) or twice (full dose) daily. Patients treated with non-chloroquine therapy were included as historical controls. The primary endpoint is the time to undetectable viral RNA. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with undetectable viral RNA by day 10 and 14, hospitalization time, duration of fever, and adverse events. Results A total of 197 patients completed chloroquine treatment, and 176 patients were included as historical controls. The median time to achieve an undetectable viral RNA was shorter in chloroquine than in non-chloroquine (absolute difference in medians -6.0 days; 95% CI -6.0 to -4.0). The duration of fever is shorter in chloroquine (geometric mean ratio 0.6; 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8). No serious adverse events were observed in the chloroquine group. Patients treated with half dose experienced lower rate of adverse events than with full dose. Conclusions Although randomised trials are needed for further evaluation, this study provides evidence for safety and efficacy of chloroquine in COVID-19 and suggests that chloroquine can be a cost-effective therapy for combating the COVID-19 pandemic.

Display More

That at least says that at levels which cause less than 0.5% severe adverse events CQ has some clinical effect - though whether faster reduction in viral load improves prognosis is sort of complex with this disease where the bad part happens as a cytokine storm after the virus as done its bit.

Also note that HCQ and CQ are different, so although they may have similar effects which is better or worse as COVID treatment remains unclear.

Many analysts (even world class economists) suffer the same problem. I suggest a focus on something you know well and not opinine about things you don't and then claim others that do are "know it alls." You drive yourself into a ditch with statements like "And if you reckon you can judge this for yourself without doing a long long LS you are not a good scientist and basically a typical arrogant know-it-all. experts"

I accept that criticism here if I've made strong statements that I know the answer to any of these questions.

I don't accept criticism pointing out than in absence of knowledge preferring the opinion of fringe cooks over that of 99% of the experts who have looked at something, with the view that those 99% of experts are somehow conspiring or deluded, is weird.

I also don't accept criticism that to be qualified to judge complex science you need to look at what has previously been said about the topic (true or false) and that takes a long time. At the end of that probably 95% of what you read is false, overblown, or irrelevant but you need to think about it all in a sophisticated way checking relevance before you come to that conclusion.

Now, I know this site has opinions favouring minority views on LENR. To be fair however, those who do that (1) show lots of published and heavily debated evidence from multiple sources (2) they are no contradicting mainstream science, since mainstream science has lost interest. So I don't think such views are so weird (though I also think personally they are wrong).

Quote from Toffoli

"And if you reckon you can judge this for yourself without doing a long long LS you are not a good scientist and basically a typical arrogant know-it-all."

I'm just only asking questions!

https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/04/20/coronavirus-created-in-an-attempt-to-find-aids-vaccine-nobel-laureate-claims/

"French virologist and medicine Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier sparked controversy Sunday when he claimed that the virus – officially called SARS-CoV-2 – was not only man-made but is the result of a Chinese attempt to produce a vaccine against AIDS."

"US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last week that, "we're doing a full investigation of everything we can to learn how it is the case that this virus got away, got out into the world and now has created so much tragedy – so much death – here in the US and all around the world."

"He said the US knew that the Wuhan lab "contained highly contagious materials."

https://www.mail-archive.com/v…eskimo.com/msg118988.html

We look to experts and we expect them to

know so we push them know. "Answer the question. Tell me what is going to

happen in September What is going to happen in December ?" Sometimes the

answer is "I don't know." Sometimes that is the honest answer. ...

I speak to the best minds around this country, around the globe and they

don't know. If you don't know, say you don't know. It doesn't mean you are

not smart. No reason to get defensive. When you know what you don't know

and admit it, it will actually keep you safe. ... Know when you don't know

what the future holds - you can be safe because then you can prepare for

different possibilities. And that's where we are...>>

-- Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the Sate of New York, May 4th.

Display More

Right, but the published view on this is: "can't be sure, but highly unlikely man-made for <long list of detailed reasons>"

Whereas Martenson is saying he is pretty sure, without detailed reasons, and adding a whole load of conspiracy stuff.

It is like in the UK the way that mainstream media (the BBC) present science debate on subjects like climate change where the basics (AGW happens and most of the observed warming is due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels) are settled science even though the details (how large precisely is climate sensitivity) are still quite uncertain. They show a scientist, a non-quite-scientist with strong well argued (normally they are better at presenting their points on air than real scientists) views, and the end result is "don't know - could be anything". That attitude seems fair-minded, but of course it is far from that in such cases.

Quote from Navid

do you realize that PCR tests are not to be used as a measure of diagnostic disease.

That's why the Japanese folks did count virus numbers in the serum to show how effective Ivermectin is.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I don't accept criticism pointing out than in absence of knowledge preferring the opinion of fringe cooks over that of 99% of the experts who have looked at something, with the view that those 99% of experts are somehow conspiring or deluded, is weird.

What about the standard model where still 99.9% of the folks do believe in fantasy postulates (strong/weak force only viral field condition) nobody ever could experimentally verify ??

99% of the doctors go to big pharma paid education events. 1 week free food, drinks, party, golf etc.. Do know know how clear their mind is after ten year pharma party ?? Especially after selling 100'000 worth of income statins ?

Quote from rubycarat

Yes, there is no cure. I should say at the first signs of feeling symptoms, mega-dose Vitamin C. It will reduce the symptoms (hopefully) but not cure it.

Mega-dose Vitamin C is only good for prevention. For an active treatment you need intravenous doses between 20..70g/day. But even then some studies do show only a little help.

Of course there is a covid-19 cure, but not the one CDC-Gillead,.. buddies do like to see.

Quote from Wyttenbach

What about the standard model where still 99.9% of the folks do believe in fantasy postulates (strong/weak force only viral field condition) nobody ever could experimentally verify ??

99% of the doctors go to big pharma paid education events. 1 week free food, drinks, party, golf etc.. Do know know how clear their mind is after ten year pharma party ?? Especially after selling 100'000 worth of income statins ?

If you restrict physics to that which is "real" you are lost. There is too much experiment that can only be explained with theories. Anyway what is reality?

Whether experiment verifies a theory is a complex and expert question...

As far bias of doctors towards big pharma. I only know that in UK I am completely sure that the motivation to find better ways to treat COVID patients, whatever they are, is much much higher than any liking of pharma-paid golf. I'd guess that is true of ER doctors in the US too? It is very very insulting towards those working with great commitment under horrifyingly difficult conditions to say they are not more motivated by patient good than anything else. I'd go so far as to say that those with any other motivation would get out.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I only know that in UK I am completely sure that the motivation to find better ways to treat COVID patients, whatever they are, is much much higher than any liking of pharma-paid golf.

The problem are not the front doctors. Hospital managers (leading doctors) usually (90% in Switzerland) are members of Rotary/ free masons and they are not allowed to contradict the internal rules.

I know that the free doctors in UK can prescribe anything they want and thus just one advise: Do not go to a hospital as long as you can think and are able to weakly breath.

Quote from rubycarat

I am citing things I can do myself - I don't have intravenous equiptment. If it gets that bad, I go to the hospital and have them contact LENR-forum for my treatment!

Ivermectin you even can get from a skin doctor. It's a paste called Soolantra. Just tell him you have a Demodex rosacea diagnoses and need one more tube.

Of course first ask your doctor to give you an oral version of Ivermectin if you have the clear symptoms ...

Intravenous application only is for Remsdesivir and similars but only a fool will try this first.