Zeus46 Member
  • Member since Sep 22nd 2016

Posts by Zeus46

    I have never been into pointing fingers at people getting infected, and shaming them because they happen to live in a blue state, or red state. Most of those dying are old and feeble, and under the care of others.They could not help it. So it has nothing to do with red/blue, or politics...but all about the virus to me.


    I was only trying to make that point to Zeus.


    The 'fools' I referred to are the politicians, not the people in nursing homes, although that was unclear in my post.


    But if you want to argue that "it has nothing to do with red/blue, or politics", you need to come up with a good alternative explanation for these two charts:


    15181-5fcd9e83-d5ce-4c7b-ad0c-38963aafa4ba-png

    15182-d3ee18da-acc5-4c7b-b1e3-db0f9f179b70-png


    ...As they seem to me to be incontrovertible proof that it has almost everything to do with politics.

    Learn to counter with facts (thread related!!) not question/calling out people...


    Well I'll forgive people for not noticing this, but the rule I live by is to only respond to a personal attack with like, and never to start one.


    And I fully agree it's off-topic. Perhaps a new thread would would be best? Maybe a general thread about investing in LENR, rather than being wholly focused on Navid's offering?

    Edited once, last by Shane D.: Unsubstantiated accusations not allowed.


    Fair enough. Some substantiation...


    re. the majority of profits being withheld from investors: https://endofpetroleum.com/new-energy/


    re. being unlicensed: https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/I…eck_before_you_invest.htm


    Now would you mind replacing my post please? I think I've covered everything controversial. Yes, I made up the part about being nervous to cross the borders, as, as far as I can tell, everything is legal (as long as they only sell to accredited investors). I'm just not convinced by the risk reward ratio on offer, or that they will find many punters.

    Ah the old paternalistic strategy. This isn't a debate, but a high school punk fest. You've shown your true colors and want to play hall monitor on the internet. Get a real job.


    Insults and ad-homs rather than providing evidence? Classic Navid.


    And, "Get a real job", eh? Good one! XXXXXXXXXXXXXX


    XXXXXXXXX.....


    Tell them I want to work from home though - a trans-atlantic commute is a bit of a stretch, after all. (Also, I'm a little nervous about having to continually cross borders when involved in such a scheme).

    The fact is you don't know anything about the disease from these statistics. You are in a simulation with bad data.


    For example, with PCR set to 37-40 you don't know a false positive from a true positive. We have good data that at 37 only 3% of tests have a live virus (meaning could be cultured). Of the 849 people in South Dakota who died so far from Covid -- what percentage tested positive and died, vs actually had a live virus. People do die.


    All discussions that try to peer beyond the veil aren't going to work. The foundation is broken and fraudlent.


    Settle down Don Junior. You are essentially arguing that all statistical research is invalid, because of some other statistics that you are unable to provide a link to? 😂 Get a grip lad.

    The majority of those dying in the red states now are in nursing homes, or under the care of their families who bring the virus home. Are they "foolish"?


    Misleading chart BTW. It is from June 1 until 24 Nov. Had we done a chart earlier in the pandemic, it would have colored blue. Then we could have mocked them.


    The majority of people dying everywhere on the planet, are the elderly and those in nursing homes.

    Are they and their families particularly foolish? Unlikely.

    In the US, are these deaths predominantly happening in red states? Absolutely.

    Is it foolish to sacrifice people to appease a political 'ideology'? I think 'foolish' is overly generous.


    Regarding that chart there is a brilliant animated version that shows the whole timeline, although its format prevents reposting it. Link here: https://dangoodspeed.com/covid/total-deaths-since-july

    Yes the earlier stages show a different pattern, but they don't have international airports in Nebraska et al, and again, IMO its hard to argue with how the cookie is currently crumbled.


    Quote from Shane D.

    Same "old" people are dying everywhere,, only thing that matters is what color their state is on the map.


    Well yes, that's the point i'm trying to make. Roseland claimed politics has nothing to do with covid outcomes... But the statistics suggest otherwise.

    An open letter from the appalled colleagues of Dr Harvey Risch:



    We write with grave concern that too many are being distracted by the ardent advocacy of our Yale colleague, Dr. Harvey Risch, to promote the assertion that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when given with antibiotics is effective in treating COVID-19, in particular as an early therapeutic intervention for the disease.

    As his colleagues, we defend the right of Dr. Risch, a respected cancer epidemiologist, to voice his opinions. But he is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments.

    Over the last few weeks, all of us have spent considerable time explaining the evidence behind HCQ research, as it applies to early and late stage COVID-19 patients to the scientific community and general public, and now are compelled to detail the evidence in this open letter.

    We are seriously alarmed for the safety of patients and the coherence and effectiveness of our national COVID-19 emergency response when misinformation about HCQ is spread and when rigorous scientific evidence and consensus produced by the community of expert researchers in infectious diseases, federal agencies and national and global health organizations are not heeded. Let us be clear: we are unanimous in our desire to see the development of therapies to treat COVID-19 and to prevent the transmission or acquisition of SARS-CoV-2. If HCQ was shown to be effective, even among subgroups of patients with COVID-19 in ongoing high quality trials, we would join our colleagues in promoting access to it for all who need it. However, the evidence thus far has been unambiguous in refuting the premise that HCQ is a potentially effective early therapy for COVID-19.

    HCQ is used for the treatment of rheumatological diseases, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. However, this does not ensure that the drug will be safe in patients with COVID-19 or in widespread use to treat early illness. In fact, rigorously-conducted clinical trials have found that HCQ is not effective as an early prophylactic therapy in preventing illness due to COVID-19 in people exposed to the virus. Furthermore, HCQ, alone or together with the antibiotic, azithromycin, has not been shown to be effective in improving the clinical status of patients with COVID-19. Moreover, clinical trials have found that treatment with HCQ may be associated with increased risk of adverse reactions. Taken together, the scientific evidence does not support the widespread use of this drug, alone or in combination with an antibiotic, as advocated by Dr. Risch and others, unless rigorous evidence from clinical trials demonstrates otherwise.

    Finally, we point to the recent memorandum from the US Food and Drug Administration revoking the Emergency Use Authorization for HCQ that has assembled the data on the drug as of June 2020 (Food and Drug Administration Memorandum Explaining Basis for Revocation of Emergency Use Authorization for Emergency Use of Chloroquine Phosphate and Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate). The Infectious Diseases Society of America now advises against the drug alone or in combination with azithromycin in the setting of COVID-19 except in the context of ongoing clinical studies. If these trials do show a clinical benefit for HCQ, we would revise our views on its use in the management of COVID-19.

    The disproportionate focus on treatment with HCQ, in addition to the lack of a strong scientific rationale for its use and the risk of its potentially harmful effects, has major opportunity costs. In a recent analysis of COVID-19 clinical trials, one in every six studies of treatments against SARSCoV-2 was designed to study HCQ or chloroquine. We understand the desperation of many to see an effective treatment for COVID-19 emerge that will stop the pandemic in its tracks or slow its relentless spread in the US. But investing our resources in HCQ after multiple studies have not shown it to be effective for COVID-19 has serious implications for more than just individual patients. The continuing advocacy on behalf of HCQ distracts us from advancing the science on COVID-19 and seeking more effective interventions in a time when more than 1000 people are dying per day of this disease. There are multiple approaches to expedite the evaluation and approval of drugs for serious and life-threatening diseases in the US that have existed for decades now, but they all still rely on data from rigorous, well-conducted clinical trials to guide us. In addition, this ongoing promotion of HCQ has global implications as well, as many countries in the global South only have access to HCQ and use of HCQ is still common in this setting despite the lack of evidence and potential risks.

    It is critical that we follow the science and where the evidence leads us on a quest to treat and prevent COVID-19. In this climate, it’s important to rely on the data above all else when making clinical or regulatory decisions. Making these kinds of choices guided by personal endorsements outside of the context of the existing scientific evidence is medicine by testimonial and risks people’s lives. Randomized controlled trials are how we keep from fooling ourselves, test our assumptions about new drugs and new uses for old ones. For instance, flecainide was initially proposed as a drug to treat those at risk of severe arrhythmias after sudden myocardial infarction. However, the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial showed for the first time that mortality was actually three times higher among persons receiving the drug for this purpose. Even though the drug was known to be effective in those experiencing severe arrhythmia, it ended up increasing mortality in those simply at risk. And no one noticed because sudden death after myocardial infarction was not a rare event and this tripling of the risk was not detected until a randomized, controlled trial was done. The FDA has rescinded the EUA for HCQ for a reason: the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the drug is without merit in clinical care for COVID-19 and presents real dangers to patients by its continued use.

    In 1987, University of California at Berkeley Professor Peter Duesberg gained notoriety by expounding on his belief that AIDS was not caused by the human immunodeficiency virus, but by antiretroviral agents like azidothymidine (AZT) and recreational drugs. However, the data on antiretroviral therapy was clear: these drugs extended life and health and turned around the course of the AIDS epidemic worldwide. But Professor Duesberg persisted in his quest. Professor Duesberg’s thesis dissuaded many from taking antiretroviral therapy, and after the President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki endorsed these views, it led to delays in the roll-out of these life-saving drugs costing hundreds of thousands of lives in that country. While minority opinions, anecdotal evidence, novel interpretations and challenges to orthodoxies in a field can be important, at some point, the application of the scientific method generating evidence from multiple, well-designed clinical trials and observational studies does matter and should be heard over the noise of conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots.


    Signed,

    Jason Abaluck, PhD

    Associate Professor of Economics

    Yale School of Management

    Amy Bei, PhD

    Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Theodore Cohen, MD, DPH

    Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Co-director, Public Health Modeling Concentration

    Yale School of Public Health

    Gary V. Desir, MD

    Paul B. Beeson Professor of Medicine

    Vice Provost, Faculty Development and Diversity

    Chair, Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine

    Chief, Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital

    Gail D’Onofrio MD

    Professor & Chair, Emergency Medicine

    Yale School of Medicine

    Yale School of Public Health

    Howard P. Forman, MD, MBA

    Professor of Radiology & Public Health (Health Policy)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Yale School of Medicine

    Professor in the Practice of Management

    Yale School of Management

    Alison Galvani, PhD

    Burnett and Stender Families Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis (CIDMA)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Gregg Gonsalves, PhD

    Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Associate Professor (Adjunct) and Research Scholar

    Yale Law School

    Nathan D. Grubaugh, PhD

    Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Roberta Hines, MD

    Nicholas M. Greene Professor & Chair of Anesthesiology

    Yale School of Medicine

    Valerie Horsley, PhD

    Associate Professor of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology

    Yale University

    Akiko Iwasaki, PhD

    Waldemar Von Zedtwitz Professor of Immunobiology and Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology

    Yale School of Medicine

    Professor of Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology

    Yale University

    Amy Kapczynski, JD

    Professor of Law

    Yale Law School

    Trace Kershaw, PhD

    Department Chair and Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of Public Health (Social and Behavioral Sciences)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Albert I. Ko, MD

    Professor of Epidemiology and Medicine and Chair of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases

    Yale School of Public Health

    Stephen R. Latham, JD, PhD

    Director, Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics

    Yale University

    Brett Lindenbach, PhD

    Associate Professor, Microbial Pathogenesis

    Yale School of Medicine

    Fiona Scott Morton, PhD

    Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics

    Yale School of Management

    Ruslan Medzhitov, PhD

    Sterling Professor of Immunobiology

    Yale School of Medicine

    Saad B. Omer, MBBS MPH PhD FIDSA

    Professor of Medicine (Infectious Diseases),Yale School of Medicine

    Adjunct Professor, Yale School of Nursing

    Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health

    A. David Paltiel, PhD

    Professor of Health Policy & Management

    Yale School of Public Health

    Yale School of Management

    Sunil Parikh, MD, MPH

    Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Medicine

    Yale School of Public Health

    Yale School of Medicine

    Karen Santucci, MD

    Professor & Chief, Pediatric Emergency Medicine

    Yale School of Medicine

    Marcella Nunez Smith, MD, MHS

    Associate Professor, General Internal Medicine, Public Health, and Management

    Yale School of Medicine

    Yale School of Public Health

    Yale School of Management

    Director, Equity Research and Innovation Center

    Daniel Weinberger, PhD

    Associate Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Yale School of Public Health



    https://medium.com/@gregggonsa…-in-covid-19-47d0dee7b2b0

    Fair enough Wyttenbach, not only will “it not hurt” but likely has some benefits as well. But the study you linked to is hardly the most persuasive of evidence, the authors discussing at best “mixed but promising” results.


    FM1, re VitD RCTs, I guess due to being on the wrong side of the balance between available funding, the likelyhood of demonstrating a decent effect, other competing compounds, and the fact that yes, it does make sense to hand out vitamin D to every patient without all the fuss.


    But let us try not to elevate it to the status of magic bullet without the proper evidence. After all, if we’re all necking vitamin D, we must be safe!!! Why bother with masks, isolation, vaccines, voting out the incompetent, etc etc.

    the WHO has for years issued vitamin d deficenccy as a world pandemic.


    Hence why, you cannot just look at covid patients and assume that only they have low vitamin D levels. Surely you understand the necessity of control groups when trying to study any effect? If you don’t, its really not worth discusiing things further. Or are you Andre Rossi in disguise? Jk.


    What do I (and presumably other) skeptics want? Isn't it obvious by now? RCTs! ...As opposed to flippant statements like “save the rct crap”.


    Although I can understand why believers don’t like RCTs, after all they do have the annoying habit of disproving their beliefs with some finality - for example, see every HCQ RCT ever done: No positive effect has been shown, so believers have to resort to emotive statements such as “doctors are murderers” or “scientists hate Trump so much they ignore ‘evidence’ that it works”.


    When really they are the only people ignoring (not only) the evidence, but the scientific method as well.


    But yeah, if you’re not blessed with (/evolved enough to have) the ginger gene. By all means, take vitamin D. Its not gonna hurt.

    Did you actually try this, or did you just make up that bullshit and post it here? You should realize there is no point to posting outrageous nonsense when anyone can see it nonsense in 0.56 seconds.


    Calm down Jed... it was only a Wyttenfact!


    Best to just take a deep breath and think happy thoughts, rather than get yourself into an eternal game of whack-a-mole, where your sanity is the mallet, and the only prizes on offer are insults.

    Modification Of Endogenous RNA


    Is a Twitter buzzphrase used by the undereducated, which has no relationship to moderna's technology, or to how an mRNA vaccine actually works.


    Temporarily Introducing Exogenous RNA would be a more truthful version.