Shane D. Moderator
  • Male
  • from Pensacola Beach, Fl.
  • Member since Jan 26th 2015
  • Last Activity:
  • Portal

Posts by Shane D.

    How many negative studies are there? How many patients were enrolled in both?

    I can't judge. I would have to look at the 253 studies and see if they have merit, and I am not qualified. There is a great deal of junk science in this world, so it is plausible these are all wrong.

    We have been through this before. Look back and you will find that you backed off when presented with those 253 HCQ studies. It was only a short time ago.

    No, there are not. Approved vaccines are safe. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe. Anti-vaccination people are a lunatic death cult

    You knew I meant specifically the "COVID vaccine", but that said, thanks for quoting me out of context.

    You are being ridiculous. Get a hold of yourself. There are legitimate opinions on both sides of this vaccine debate. Having an opposing opinion does not make him, or me, guilty of whatever bad outcome results, no more than giving them credit for a good outcome. It is all with the best of intention. No one wants to kill people. Even the big pharma mafia ( :P )

    You have an IQ off the charts. You should not need me to explain all this. Now please be nice, or I am going to unleash our holy terror Fm1 on both you and Jed.

    Thanks Rob Woudenberg . Another good Kalman paper. Nagel spoke highly of him at ICCF22, and good to see they teamed up afterwards.

    I am not good with the details of all the various theories, but enjoyed reading this nonetheless. Very comprehensive. Especially the sections explaining how plasmas are related to LENR. That always baffled me, but too afraid to ask. Now I know.

    Jed. Your an utmost stupid or ruthless person:

    Okay, Jed has insulted you all day, so now you are even. How about trying to be a little more respectful of each other from now on? If not, we will have to send you two to a marriage counselor.

    If the consensus of experts is correct, and HCQ does not work, there is not much point to using it, is there? Are you quite sure you know better than the experts? The history of cold fusion show how dangerous that assumption can be.

    The consensus about ivermectin is less settled, I believe.

    Lots of experts say it does work. Should we ignore their consensus...especially when they have 253 positive studies to back them up?

    Whatever side of the issue one is on, all seem now to agree now that HCQ is safe to use. I don't know about you, but IMO when a drug is safe, a large percentage of studies show it effective, and the world is experiencing a deadly pandemic with no other official early treatment available, the medical establishment/government health care bureaucracies should give their blessing and step aside.

    That said...Ivermectin looks to be more effective, so everyone is rallying behind it now to get it approved.

    US sees five deadliest days since Covid-19 pandemic's start in last two weeks

    This morning headline, it should now be apparent to the NIH and the FDA that without early outpatient treatment we in the US are going to see the number of deaths begin to and rival the number of deaths in the 1918 second wave. 4000 yesterday and those numbers will go up. Treat the infected before it's to late!

    You would think under these dire circumstances, the US FDA's "Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program" would have authorized Ivermectin, and HCQ by now. Until they do, we won't see any widespread use unfortunately.

    Yes, that does not prevent a doctor from prescribing off-label, but by doing so they put themselves at legal/professional risk, and few doctors will do that. To minimize the risk, they would need the full backing of the hospital they affiliate with, or are employed by, Department Head, and the Medical Committee, which is not likely to happen.

    Single physician practices not affiliated with any hospital (rare), are more flexible. I would think that as long as they educate their patients on off label treatments, show them the FDA's warnings against, then get their express permission...they will be fairly well protected from lawsuits.

    In fact, I know of one locally doing just that, and has been prescribing HCQ. Not sure how he is getting prescriptions filled, as local Pharmacists still have orders not to fill those intended for COVID.

    Interesting paper, thanks for finding it Ahlfors , (and thanks to the he person that moved it from clearance to this much more appropriate thread). Too bad that the AI google translation works awfully with PDFs, but I will try to sharpen a bit some key paragraphs. Thus far I am impressed that, if I understood correctly, the SR seems to have been recorded as emitted in clusters even for a year after the NIH reactor had been kept at room temperature.

    The second download looks to be the rough English translation of the first. As you said, it could use some improvement.

    Good find. Ahlfors comes through for us again.

    Yes. Right. But as Mark U points out above (while putting himself in the shoes of the researcher) "If I feel not enough people are taking my work seriously I will step up my game". That is what I hope for. In the meantime I remark on the difference in standards between the two branches of your research. You seem hard-nosed and scientifically solid on the conventional side and much less so for LENR results.

    I always thought you were tough, but for the better good of your pro-LENR agenda. Lately though, I have come to wonder if I was wrong?

    Hard to distinguish you from Ascoli now, who as we all know is an avowed anti-LENR crusader. He recently upped his public assault on the field both here on the forum, and elsewhere by tattling to Sylvie Coyaud (another LENR hater) about the HERMES, and CleannHME programs in a fruitless attempt to defund the programs, and shame the researchers.

    So where do you stand? No problem either way you answer. It should be noted that skeptics like Ascoli have been welcome here alongside us believers.

    it would be interesting to know what percentage of posts at the LENR Forum this year were actually related to LENR.

    I'm afraid to venture a guess! It would probably not reflect well on the forum to find out. Will keep it at that.

    It's not for lack of LENR related topics (other than Rossi) to talk about. Curbina and Alan have tried to stir up conversation about them, but not getting much traction.

    You have so many good points, but the way you say it I can't endorse them with a :thumbup:unfortunately.

    Although, when it comes to the vaccine industry, I do disagree, and trust they have good intention, and want to make lots of money in the process. Nothing wrong with that IMO. In their shoes, I would not promote a cheap drug like Ivermectin. It is not their job to put themselves out of business.

    That is the task of science, and obviously it has been somewhat corrupted by politics, and social conformity for this pandemic, therefore negligent in their duty to be objective.

    That is nonsense. Three major tests of HCQ were performed. It is the most extensively tested therapeutic in the COVID-19 pandemic. The results were described in great detail in the leading journals. The results were negative. It is possible the methodology was wrong. Perhaps the drug was administered at the wrong stage of the disease. Perhaps future research will show that it works after all, under different conditions. But for now, the most informed conclusion is that HCQ does not have a significant positive effect. If this were not a medical emergency and the researchers could spend years looking into this perhaps they would come up with a more nuanced answer, showing it works in some ways but not others.

    Ivermectin was also given a fair trial.

    There were many more than "three major tests":

    Hard to look at that list of 216 studies (153 peer reviewed) and conclude "the results were negative". BTW; 100% of the early treatment studies, and 77% of the late reported positive effects of HCQ treatment.

    With so much going for it, HCQ should have been in wide use here in the US and Europe, but it is not. That is because those good results were buried under an avalanche of politically motivated negativity. Instead of being heralded, it was panned as dangerous, ineffective, and unproven by the tech giants, left, and the media (including some on Fox News).

    Doctors and hospital systems wanting to incorporate it into their standard of care, were cast as irresponsible... causing almost all to quietly withdraw their requests.

    Had you been following all the posts here, you would also know that Ivermectin has proven itself eve more effective than HCQ.

    Here the same happens orchestrated by the FM/R/J mafia.

    - Is there and early HCQ treatment protocol in place ?

    - Did you read about Ivermectin treatment in a mainstream journal - hear of it in a main-stream TV channel?

    If you didn't notice so it far: We - our state mafia - works the same as China, except that underground channels still can work! But how long??

    Except for calling it "mafia", I have to agree with you. With the social media giants joining forces with the lib media, multinational corporations, government bureaucracies, and the left, we now have in place a system of suppression, and censorship very similar to communism.

    Ivermectin, HCQ are just two examples of how it works in the health care sciences to snuff out any dissension of the accepted narrative. Same thing is happening socially, but on a much greater scale.

    Strange, and scary new world we live in...if you are on the wrong side.

    I still do take them at their word. "Them" being the medical establishment and Chinese CDC. I do not take the rest of the government at their word.

    Can they be independent from the government in a communist country?

    I doubt it, but anyway...Russia has started to bleed out their true casualties also:…l-numbers-intl/index.html

    Seems that when there are too may bodies to hide, oppressive regimes have a change of heart and only then begin the slow process of filtering out the real numbers.

    All that is true, but as I just wrote, the Chinese CDC reported that the initial number of infections was 10 times greater than originally thought. Therefore it is not covering up the information you just quoted. Not now, anyway. There is no doubt the Chinese government is good at covering things up. But as I have said before, no government can do this completely. Even Stalin's government was not able to completely suppress the truth.

    Sure, in today's world a complete cover-up for eternity is nearly impossible, but still very effective in the short term. In this case the Chinese propaganda machine was able to create a very favorable, but untrue narrative that served their purpose well in the early stages of the virus....a period I recall you claimed to take them at their word.

    Now, well after the fact, as the real story is slowly bled out, it is much less damaging. That is what propaganda is meant to do, and they did it well. Humans are suckers for this stuff, and why it has been done for centuries.

    Now that we know they have this army of online disinformation soldiers, can we ever trust them again? Not that I ever did.

    Nearly half a million people may have had Covid-19 in Wuhan, study shows. That's almost 10 times the official figure…ed-censor-the-coronavirus

    Amazing what you can accomplish with an online army of commentators:

    “China has a politically weaponized system of censorship; it is refined, organized, coordinated and supported by the state’s resources,” said Xiao Qiang, a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley, and the founder of China Digital Times. “It’s not just for deleting something. They also have a powerful apparatus to construct a narrative and aim it at any target with huge scale.”

    “This is a huge thing,” he added. “No other country has that.”