Wow, just learned that masks can reduce your chance of Covid by more than 80%!!!
So masks are better than the vaccines, guess I shouldn't have bothered to get the Vax!!
Someone needs to fact check the CDC
Severe COVID in Adolescents and Adults is a Function of Being Overweight or Obese
I think that certain people should not be allowed into restaurants unless they have a low enough weight. Obese people are putting us all at risk !! 
We need to at weigh scales at the entrance of every indoor space.
I'm sorry if this has been posted before but I just came across this:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554
Remember when they were telling us the IFR is 1%, 10X that of the flu (.1%) ? Our hospitals will be overrun !!
Turns out:
"the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations."
I guess that means flu vaccine mandates are going to be around the corner because now they are almost the same ...
Where is it inconistent with what i've said?
Simple. You said:
The RCTs are negative
The link provided does not support this statement. The vast majority look positive.
You said:
one (Elgazaar) of which had so many obvious issues with its raw data it is generally considered to be fraudulent and was withdrawn. The other (Niaee) also eventually coughed up data after pressure, and the data was also found to be inconsistent.
Agreed but these are removed from this meta analysis.
and now you've said:
they are not entirely accurate, being a pro-ivermectin PR site
"Not entirely accurate" is a blanket statement you should really be specific. Which of the 66 studies are not entirely accurate and why. Or are there issues with the methodology of the meta analysis and why.
"Being a pro ivermectin PR site" is a dismissive statement based on opinion and emotion. PR for whom? Just as anti-vaxxers should not dismiss everything coming from a pharma company as pro-vax PR nor should you do the opposite. Apply the same burden of proof to things you believe in as things that you don't. If there are problems with the analysis I would sincerely like to know what they are.
Could you clarify please?
I'm simply looking at the information supplied here:
They have details of revisions, exclusions, links to papers as well as links to other studies or other drugs
The RCTs are negative, except for two big (extraordinarily poistive) ones which are very high risk of bias due to lack of transparency and clear methodology- one (Elgazaar) of which had so many obvious issues with its raw data it is generally considered to be fraudulent and was withdrawn. The other (Niaee) also eventually coughed up data after pressure, and the data was also found to be inconsistent
In reviewing that analysis I find a few discrepancies in your statement.
I see
"Version 135 - Removed Naiee"
and
"
Elgazzar. This study was withdrawn and was removed from this analysis on the same day. There was no significant change (excluding 1 of 66 studies has very little effect, and the exclusion actually improves the treatment delay-response relationship)."
and 44 peer reviewed studies 30 positive RCT
etc etc
Best we can hope for is a drug that reduces harm a bit. Ivermectin, based on the large RCTs we know about, does not prevent harm and death, nor make a large difference to probabilities, or multiple ongoing big trials would have picked it up by now.. It might help a little bit (e.g. prevent 10% of deaths etc).
You means like these on going trials?
| Studies | Prophylaxis | Early treatment | Late treatment | Patients | Authors | |
| All studies | 63 | 86% [75‑92%] | 66% [52‑76%] | 36% [21‑48%] | 47,461 | 625 |
| Peer-reviewed | 44 | 86% [74‑93%] | 71% [54‑82%] | 38% [16‑55%] | 17,126 | 466 |
| With GMK/BBC exclusions | 47 | 84% [69‑91%] | 73% [63‑80%] | 45% [22‑61%] | 37,558 | 518 |
| Randomized Controlled Trials | 30 | 84% [25‑96%] | 62% [43‑75%] | 20% [-6‑39%] | 6,368 | 357 |
| Percentage improvement with ivermectin treatment |
The full paragraph:: At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.
This effect now is worsening:: See again :: https://assets.publishing.serv…llance-report-week-41.pdf
As mentioned:: The damaging effect of spike antibodies accumulates over time!! See table 2 page 13.
Thanks for linking that. I do see what you you mean on table 2. I also notice on table 3 and 4 on the subsequent pages that there are more emergency room admissions and more deaths among the unvaccinated, in some cases as much as 4 or 5 times. This would seem to support the narrative that the vaccines do help reduce severity and death but not so much effective with regards to case counts and transmission would it not?
You do not know much about medicine. I suggest you do some homework before commenting
Thanks for the advice Doc.
"Recent or upcoming surgery is not a contraindication to vaccination. Vaccination is also not a contraindication to surgery."
Display MoreShane D: It seems to me you have an extreme double standard. One standard for COVID vaccines, and another for all other medical treatments. Consider this --
Weeks before a person goes in for eye surgery, he has to stop using contact lenses, and he has to apply various eyedrops several times a day. After surgery he has to continue with various drops for a month. Imagine that the patient refused to do these things. No surgeon would agree to perform the operation, even if it meant the patient would go blind. I am sure you would agree with the surgeon. So why would you object to a surgeon who demands the patient be vaccinated for COVID? The post-op condition after a serious operation leaves a person vulnerable to infectious disease. COVID might well kill the patient.
To take another example, if you have something like an infection or high blood pressure before an operation, they will delay for a few weeks while the problem is treated. (That happened to me once.) The patient may have to take medication to fix the problem. Surely you agree this is necessary. You would not dispute the doctors' judgment that the infection must be cleared with antibiotics before proceeding. So why would you dispute the doctors judgment that the patient must be protected against COVID before the operation? Would you object to any other vaccination, such as the one for pneumonia or tetanus? Why is the COVID vaccine any different from these others? The only difference I know is that it is far safer. If the patient does not want the newer mRNA technology, he can get a J&J adenovirus vaccine.
Suppose a patient was going to India for so-called medical tourism, for a hip replacement. Before people travel to India it is highly recommended they get hepatitis A and B shots. If the doctors in India and the US insisted the patient be vaccinated for hepatitis before boarding the airplane, would you say this interferes in the patient's rights? I am sure you would not! I am sure you would agree that the trip should be canceled if the patient does not follow the doctors' orders.
You seem to really love your analogies. Eye drops for eye surgery - makes sense!, Antibiotics for infections - also logical standard practice! vaccine for surgery - illogical, irrelevant.
Canadian schools mandate vaccinations for children
Not in Canada, I don't know about the USA:
Is Immunization Mandatory in Canada? | immunizecanada
"Immunizations are not mandatory in Canada"
The numbers have gone down by a factor of 30 because your vaccination stops other people from being infected, by reducing the transmission rate.
That is still inconclusive:
Not peer reviewed yet but even in Ontario at least they recognize that the evidence is still unclear.
"Infections in vaccinated individuals are less severe and more likely to be
asymptomatic, but the risk of onward transmission of infection from fully vaccinated individuals is unclear"
So again I say. I am pro-vax but I do not believe in making coercive, mandatory vaccination policies and infringing on peoples' rights based on unclear evidence
Your civil liberties?!? I get that you are vaccinated, but what if you were not? Are you saying people have a civil liberty to infect others when they could easily get vaccinated? Do people also have the right to fire pistols at random into crowds? Do they have the right to go into grocery stores and piss on the lettuce? Or run through red lights at 60 mph?
You talk about your civil liberties. What about mine? As the expression goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You have no right to make me sick or kill me. That is negligent homicide. If you don't want to be vaccinated, stay home.
I guess you miss my point. The vaccination status of a person is irrelevant to the "danger" they pose to others and the QR code is an invasion of privacy and a surveillance and control system that is being imposed without any scientific basis. To further your analogy I would liken the vax passport as being equivalent to allowing vaccinated individuals to drive through red lights at 60 mph or fire pistols into crowds. A two tiered society with different sets of rules for each tier.
In Canada we have an organization called the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. They have been sounding the warning bells about this as well as the blatant censorship that has been going on. I found this article to be well reasoned:
Happy Thanksgiving to all, from Canada.
So where is the level of risk below which you reckon individual freedom trumps public safety?
I too am from Ontario. I am double vaxxed but I will NOT be getting my QR code and will not participate in that program of coercion and surveillance. There is no science whatsoever to support a vaccine passport for "public safety". As we know the vaccinated can spread the virus just as much as the non-vaxxed so everyone is welcome to get their QR code and spread the virus to each other with the false sense of security of their passport. Never let a good crisis go to waste, it's a great opportunity to further the erosion of our civil liberties.
I started to wonder how different strains of viruses compete with each other and whether there was any truth to the statement that "the unvaccinated are a breeding ground for mutations". Sadly the opposite may be true. I sincerely hope that the mad rush to a vaccine centric solution is not making things worse.
There is little doubt evolution has played a major role in preventing the control of infectious disease through antibiotic and insecticide resistance, but recent theory suggests disease interventions such as vaccination may lead to evolution of more harmful parasites. A new study published in PLOS Biology by Andrew Read and colleagues shows empirically that vaccination against Marek’s disease has favored higher virulence; without intervention, the birds die too quickly for any transmission to occur, but vaccinated hosts can both stay alive longer and shed the virus. This is an elegant empirical demonstration of how evolutionary theory can predict potentially dangerous responses of infectious disease to human interventions.
Here's a little something more about light interacting with light.
"groups of three photons interacting and, in effect, sticking together to form a completely new kind of photonic matter"
"the researchers found that the bound photons actually acquired a fraction of an electron’s mass. These newly weighed-down light particles were also relatively sluggish, traveling about 100,000 times slower than normal noninteracting photons"
Here's the article:
http://news.mit.edu/2018/physi…reate-new-form-light-0215
and the corresponding paper
Display MoreNature is about the worst place for publishing. They recently allowed a publication that claimed an influence of solar spots on climate based on a simple primary school 10x calculation error...
It is not my problem if the SM church fails to understand their rotten models.
It is also not my problem that some people still think LENR is fake. I personally measured spectra that in classic fields would be a noble (for the team) - just not for LENR...
What I do: I write papers without citing any famous fringe model papers. This is heresy....
Hello Wyttenbach,
I apologize if this has been asked before but would you be able to provide some links to one or two of your papers. I would be very curious to read them.
Thanks,
This discussion reminded me of an article by Werner Hofer I read a while ago which you can find here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.00227.pdf
I revisit the Bohr-Einstein controversy of 1935. Bohr’s assertion that there are no causes in atomic
scale systems is, as a closer analysis reveals, not in line with the Copenhagen interpretation since it
would contain a statement about reality. What Bohr should have written is that there are no causes
in mathematics, which is universally acknowledged. The law of causality requires physical effects
to be due to physical causes. For this reason any theoretical model which replaces physical causes
by mathematical objects is creationism, that is, it creates physical objects out of mathematical
elements. I show that this is the case for most of quantum mechanics
I agree with you John. Space "remains the sole medium of reality" is an excellent qualitative way to state it but we still don't know how pair production actually works in an exact quantitative way. And yes mass is resistance to change in motion but that is a description of how mass behaves and how we measure it. Sort of like describing a car as thing that moves when you step on a pedal doesn't tell me anything about what a car is or how it works.
I have often thought that spacetime and mass are the yin-yang of energy. When it is said that a massive body conditions the surrounding space it is more likely the other way around, that the conditions of space create what we measure to be mass. In pair production mass-less energy is converted into mass and charge, likely by light being confined in a small space. It doesn't acquire mass and then start conditioning the surrounding space, it must be space itself that is modifying it own curvature in real time at the speed of light due to particular configuration of energy. It is that deeper connection between energy and the properties of spacetime that I think is missing.
I'm really enjoying this thread. Thanks everyone for your contributions. Looking back at the title of the thread I can only conclude that if anyone tells you what mass really is you can be sure that it is obviously false information.
