Friam

Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Classic

List

Threaded

32 messages Options

thompnickson2

Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

Covid-Lancet-PART-2.doc (162K) Download Attachment

gepr

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

In reply to this post by gepr

Yes, of course, and, thank you. I wait with 'bated breath.

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:49 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Not hearing back is not the equivalent of being ignored. I got as far as the 1st few paragraphs, then checking Pavlovic's credentials. I decided I'd read it. Then completely forgot about it. We have to check our American tendencies. "I want it all! I want it NOW!" 8^D I'll respond after I've read it, *if* and only if I have something that might be interesting to say.

On 5/6/21 10:32 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Dear Phellow Phriammers,
>
>
>
> I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been
> ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.
>
>
>
> But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dragan-Pavlovic-4> paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.
>
>
>
> So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you
> are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper <https://1drv.ms/w/s!AptIKbsAd7gjllccpq9yXXQ4hb2N?e=HCzjaV> (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.
>
>
>
> I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact
> thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.
>
>
>
> Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>
>
>
> *From:* [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> <[hidden email]>
> *Cc:* 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
> *Subject:* Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I attach a paper
> <https://1drv.ms/w/s!AptIKbsAd7gjllccpq9yXXQ4hb2N?e=HCzjaV> written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

I'm not particularly fond of Donald Trump, but the elephant in the room is that Hydroxychloroquine became well-known after Trump advocated it. At the time I followed and researched it a bit and I came to the conclusion that both the mainstream media and the medical industry were against Hydroxychloroquine mainly because Trump actively advocated it. The Lancet saga certainly did not influence me to change that conclusion.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 19:52, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

In reply to this post by gepr

You Nailed it, Glen

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:09 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

For the Frank's among us, it's important to note that this paper is unrelated to hydroxychlorquine and its applicability to COVID-19. That's a troll baiting the reader into some rhetoric about postmodernism and the relationship between [in]formal methods.

But regardless of the trip down the rabbithole w.r.t. Popper and fallacious reasoning, I think he lands on the *correct* conclusion:

"A better approach may be a clear pathophysiological method where we would rely on basic science and look for mechanisms of the diseases and the mechanisms of action of the agents. The method that we need should be the method that corresponds more to the subject of the investigation that belongs somewhere in between pure science, medical science and social science. We need to know the mechanisms of actions, cause-effect relations, and the patients

in all their sophistication. And before all, we need morally fully justified methods, and we, certainly, need Reason."

I say *correct* because I *AM* a mechanistic simulant and I regularly, religiously, antagonize my phenomenal modeler colleagues (which is why I love the Gisin and 't Hooft points about the ontological status of real numbers, even if I don't really grok it).

As for dialogue with Pavlovic on a forum like FriAM, it would be fantastic to have him here. In particular, questioning his questionable assertions on [in]formal logics would be a lot of fun if he's got a thick skin. And it's always helpful to get more criticism of clinical trial methodology. It's too easy to strawman work being done authentically and earnestly. It's quite another thing to be constructive and design better trials.

So there, Nick. Is that what you're looking for? Or are you actually concerned with some super-specialized medical advice some few doctors might give their patients?

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

In reply to this post by Pieter Steenekamp

Thanks, Pieter,

Interesting. As somebody who has followed the research, is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

Nick

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 19:52, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

I just don't know.

I speculated that the topic was just way too politicized to get to the bottom of it without spending serious time and effort on it and I chose not to do that.

On a personal note, we don't yet have vaccinations in South Africa, my wife and I are each having daily doses of Quercetin, a natural over-the-counter version of Hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D and Zinc and a couple of other immune boosters too.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 21:46, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks, Pieter,

Interesting. As somebody who has followed the research, is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

I'm not particularly fond of Donald Trump, but the elephant in the room is that Hydroxychloroquine became well-known after Trump advocated it. At the time I followed and researched it a bit and I came to the conclusion that both the mainstream media and the medical industry were against Hydroxychloroquine mainly because Trump actively advocated it. The Lancet saga certainly did not influence me to change that conclusion.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 19:52, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Here is one reason to be interested: much of the world is still months, maybe years, away from getting access to vaccines. My adopted country of Ecuador as a case in point.

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:52 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

In reply to this post by Pieter Steenekamp

Thanks, Peiter,

At 83, we are fully vaccinated, and although we have changed our behavior very little, we breath easier. You have that to look forward to.

Nic

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 2:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 21:46, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks, Pieter,

Interesting. As somebody who has followed the research, is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

I'm not particularly fond of Donald Trump, but the elephant in the room is that Hydroxychloroquine became well-known after Trump advocated it. At the time I followed and researched it a bit and I came to the conclusion that both the mainstream media and the medical industry were against Hydroxychloroquine mainly because Trump actively advocated it. The Lancet saga certainly did not influence me to change that conclusion.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 19:52, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

I know I run the risk of responses like "it's Pollyanna, oh sorry I mean Pieter, again", but I'll take the risk and share the link with the speculation about technological progress with mRNA vaccines that will end pandemics like covid.
https://reason.com/video/2021/05/06/why-covid-19-may-be-the-last-pandemic/

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 22:34, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks, Peiter,

At 83, we are fully vaccinated, and although we have changed our behavior very little, we breath easier. You have that to look forward to.

Nic

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 2:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

I just don't know.

I speculated that the topic was just way too politicized to get to the bottom of it without spending serious time and effort on it and I chose not to do that.

On a personal note, we don't yet have vaccinations in South Africa, my wife and I are each having daily doses of Quercetin, a natural over-the-counter version of Hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D and Zinc and a couple of other immune boosters too.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 21:46, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks, Pieter,

Interesting. As somebody who has followed the research, is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

I'm not particularly fond of Donald Trump, but the elephant in the room is that Hydroxychloroquine became well-known after Trump advocated it. At the time I followed and researched it a bit and I came to the conclusion that both the mainstream media and the medical industry were against Hydroxychloroquine mainly because Trump actively advocated it. The Lancet saga certainly did not influence me to change that conclusion.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 19:52, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

David Eric Smith

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Pieter, there is a good conversation to have here, but these bastards who seem committed to doing _everything_ in bad faith irritate me to the point where I spend time writing FRIAM posts instead of doing anything that will _ever_ benefit anyone or accomplish anything.

Yes, the mRNA platform is great, and should be a geme-changer. Let’s pursue that topic. I’m fully with you on that.

And?

Oh, human challenge trials are an “innovative technique”. They also explicitly violate the Hippocratic oath. Do we fail to do them for no particular reason, or has someone thought about whether the Hippocratic oath is an important consideration? Dunno, hmmmm. How would one decide?

Oh, public health people admonished Americans away from buying medical masks early on. Clearly just because those bureaucrats are so dead set against efficiency. We haven’t had that conversation ad nauseam on this channel already? We know why they did it; they are communicating to Americans, which is like communicating to a troupe of Tasmanian devils surrounding a roadkill. They know their words have consequences, and they feel the weight of that responsibility. Then, sometimes they also make mistakes. Do we criticize to correct, or exploit to destroy?

And, just by the bye of things not mentioned. Let’s do a ballpark of what the best-case scenario might have been with very proactive response and people really trying to work together, like maybe some events in US society in WWII. Instead of having spent maybe USD5Tn by the end of the trump term, with — what was it at the time — something like 450k people dead, I could imagine that with a scaled-up S. Korea like response, the economic support could have been maybe USD 1Tn to 1.5Tn to achieve a similar backstop, and maybe 100k people dead. That would have been _really hard_ to pull off, but it is the kind of hard that good countries aspire to and sometimes achieve. And the fact that _all_ that didn’t happen is clearly to the fault of some public health people who didn’t know early how much transmission was fomites and how much respiratory droplets? Or trying to redirect masks to hospitals? The public health people were _against_ testing? I believe that last claim is flatly false, and overwhelmingly documented to be so. There was nothing else going on at the time? Hmm, can’t recall. Or since? Or still, even worse? How would one tell? And Americans have a great record of really being supportive of each other, and using great reasoning based on all the best evidence, but were just thwarted again and again by the public health officials and agencies?

And the vaccines were developed so rapidly, this time only because the agencies removed obstacles that they could have removed any time. Well, for the adenovirus vaccines (a largely established technology) there is a claim to that effect that can be made fairly. But of course the article puts up the mRNA vaccines as evidence of how, because the agencies got out of the way (is implied), BioNTech and Moderna had vaccines in a few days. That is deliberate BS, and I doubt the writer is such an idiot that he doesn’t know it. (cf. the very useful article in NYT a couple of weeks ago on Kariko and a little about the history of mRNA update and expression research.) They were done in a few days because of 30 years of work, much of it publicly funded, that was waiting in the wings, and had been postponed earlier, and only pushed through now, only because there hadn’t been a disease structure that enabled the (non-human-challenge) trial at a price the companies were willing to pay. The disinformation on that simple matter of fact has been wonderfully employed by those who will now ensure that we have an endemic, no longer just a pandemic.

And now there is a fight on about suspending patent limits on vaccine production to open to more operators, and the companies argue that it wouldn’t make any difference because it is current capacity saturation that limits us (Jon’s DW news articles yesterday, which the Canadians say is false even now), deliberately bypassing the obvious intent of the suspension that capacity can be built by more actors in parallel, going forward from now. The company objection is that it would not be capacity _they own_, cf my rant from yesterday. But sure, now that the technology _exists_, clearly everyone will be fine. I find that foreshortening of the conversation harmful, because it is again anti-empirical. We are not distributing the technology we have well enough to evade an endemic — the needed and productive conversation is in large part WHY that is occurring, and what we want to change. These guys will tie themselves in any knot to distract from a real version of that discussion.

So I don’t object to all the good points you raise about mRNA vaccines and their potential. I feel obliged to notice, however, the specific strategy by this klatch of writers, of using the techno-points to obstruct the conversation about human cooperation, which is immediately actionable, and responsible for a large part of the shortfall. Because the empirical discussion is in large part a discussion about the restraint of POWER. They live to prevent that discussion, and they will take us all down with them if they succeed.

There is a thing we do, that they exploit. If they include a few statements that aren’t false in an overall framework that is deliberately distorted, we all bend over backward to grant them standing because a few things they say overlap with the truth. Maybe at first, a little. But conversations have a pragmatics and it is relevant.

So, onward…

Eric

On May 7, 2021, at 6:02 AM, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

I know I run the risk of responses like "it's Pollyanna, oh sorry I mean Pieter, again", but I'll take the risk and share the link with the speculation about technological progress with mRNA vaccines that will end pandemics like covid.
https://reason.com/video/2021/05/06/why-covid-19-may-be-the-last-pandemic/

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 22:34, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks, Peiter,

At 83, we are fully vaccinated, and although we have changed our behavior very little, we breath easier. You have that to look forward to.

Nic

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 2:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

I just don't know.

I speculated that the topic was just way too politicized to get to the bottom of it without spending serious time and effort on it and I chose not to do that.

On a personal note, we don't yet have vaccinations in South Africa, my wife and I are each having daily doses of Quercetin, a natural over-the-counter version of Hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D and Zinc and a couple of other immune boosters too.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 21:46, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks, Pieter,

Interesting. As somebody who has followed the research, is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

I'm not particularly fond of Donald Trump, but the elephant in the room is that Hydroxychloroquine became well-known after Trump advocated it. At the time I followed and researched it a bit and I came to the conclusion that both the mainstream media and the medical industry were against Hydroxychloroquine mainly because Trump actively advocated it. The Lancet saga certainly did not influence me to change that conclusion.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 19:52, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,4HxuGEjhtA9zeWaVGkHJL3OxkDrtwT_tZMiYOtIEwdnVfAk_OXxvVtWVIXG6JcIWWovlzIyVt19H_CydLD1cA1mYEkiAHjL3QPM9I6VlJhIE3GQk5YnVae5zH3o,&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,sbL4b7qP7Kh-p9KJ7qEikJ0HyfnfFi_gkTlZ-FYZoGHDGBP87aMPd5BUe08Hg9aJ7Jj1WvzSUb1nitrFB7KBb0CtZ_y83XZu1mO-xG5Y7ky9&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

In reply to this post by Gary Schiltz-4

My friends in Mexico say the same. As my grandmother ( and all the other grandmas) used to say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why do we have excesses while poorer countries have shortages. I know that there are limits to the capacity to manufacture the vaccines but is a more equitable distribution not possible?

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 2:33 PM Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:

Here is one reason to be interested: much of the world is still months, maybe years, away from getting access to vaccines. My adopted country of Ecuador as a case in point.

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:52 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

This post was updated on .

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

Eric,

Oftentimes I trust somebody and/or organisations until there is evidence of for example deliberate BS.

I trust the organisation reason.com and the narrator Nick Gillespie. If there is evidence of deliberate BS, then I'm going to change to not trusting them. I don't alway agree with them, but I've never found evidence of deliberate BS.

So please help me, I don't understand how you get from, I quote from the transcript (my underlining) :

"Safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines were produced far faster than any expert expected. Yet almost all of the time that it took to bring the vaccines to market was due to safety testing and other governmental mandates that could have been sped up without endangering anyone. By January 13, 2020—only two days after the Chinese researchers shared the genetic sequence of the COVID-19 virus and before most Americans had heard of the disease—the biotech company Moderna had devised the formula for its vaccine. BioNTech launched its COVID-19 vaccine program in January and had partnered with Pfizer to manufacture it by mid-March of last year. The first volunteer was injected with Moderna's vaccine on March 16, 2020, yet it was only approved by the FDA last December 17th, a week after Pfizer's vaccine met the agency's approval. Had the agency been faster off the mark and used human-challenge trials and other innovative testing techniques, the vaccines could have been brought to market months earlier with no compromise in safety. That would have conceivably saved hundreds of thousands of lives globally."

to your comment? I quote from your email (my underlining):

But of course the article puts up the mRNA vaccines as evidence of how, because the agencies got out of the way (is implied), BioNTech and Moderna had vaccines in a few days. That is deliberate BS, and I doubt the writer is such an idiot that he doesn’t know it.

Do I miss something? I don't read in the transcript that they said or implied that BioNTech and Moderna had vaccines in a few days? Maybe I'm such an idiot that I don't see it?

Pieter

On Fri, 7 May 2021 at 00:38, David Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pieter, there is a good conversation to have here, but these bastards who seem committed to doing _everything_ in bad faith irritate me to the point where I spend time writing FRIAM posts instead of doing anything that will _ever_ benefit anyone or accomplish anything.

Yes, the mRNA platform is great, and should be a geme-changer. Let’s pursue that topic. I’m fully with you on that.

And?

Oh, human challenge trials are an “innovative technique”. They also explicitly violate the Hippocratic oath. Do we fail to do them for no particular reason, or has someone thought about whether the Hippocratic oath is an important consideration? Dunno, hmmmm. How would one decide?

Oh, public health people admonished Americans away from buying medical masks early on. Clearly just because those bureaucrats are so dead set against efficiency. We haven’t had that conversation ad nauseam on this channel already? We know why they did it; they are communicating to Americans, which is like communicating to a troupe of Tasmanian devils surrounding a roadkill. They know their words have consequences, and they feel the weight of that responsibility. Then, sometimes they also make mistakes. Do we criticize to correct, or exploit to destroy?

And, just by the bye of things not mentioned. Let’s do a ballpark of what the best-case scenario might have been with very proactive response and people really trying to work together, like maybe some events in US society in WWII. Instead of having spent maybe USD5Tn by the end of the trump term, with — what was it at the time — something like 450k people dead, I could imagine that with a scaled-up S. Korea like response, the economic support could have been maybe USD 1Tn to 1.5Tn to achieve a similar backstop, and maybe 100k people dead. That would have been _really hard_ to pull off, but it is the kind of hard that good countries aspire to and sometimes achieve. And the fact that _all_ that didn’t happen is clearly to the fault of some public health people who didn’t know early how much transmission was fomites and how much respiratory droplets? Or trying to redirect masks to hospitals? The public health people were _against_ testing? I believe that last claim is flatly false, and overwhelmingly documented to be so. There was nothing else going on at the time? Hmm, can’t recall. Or since? Or still, even worse? How would one tell? And Americans have a great record of really being supportive of each other, and using great reasoning based on all the best evidence, but were just thwarted again and again by the public health officials and agencies?

And the vaccines were developed so rapidly, this time only because the agencies removed obstacles that they could have removed any time. Well, for the adenovirus vaccines (a largely established technology) there is a claim to that effect that can be made fairly. But of course the article puts up the mRNA vaccines as evidence of how, because the agencies got out of the way (is implied), BioNTech and Moderna had vaccines in a few days. That is deliberate BS, and I doubt the writer is such an idiot that he doesn’t know it. (cf. the very useful article in NYT a couple of weeks ago on Kariko and a little about the history of mRNA update and expression research.) They were done in a few days because of 30 years of work, much of it publicly funded, that was waiting in the wings, and had been postponed earlier, and only pushed through now, only because there hadn’t been a disease structure that enabled the (non-human-challenge) trial at a price the companies were willing to pay. The disinformation on that simple matter of fact has been wonderfully employed by those who will now ensure that we have an endemic, no longer just a pandemic.

And now there is a fight on about suspending patent limits on vaccine production to open to more operators, and the companies argue that it wouldn’t make any difference because it is current capacity saturation that limits us (Jon’s DW news articles yesterday, which the Canadians say is false even now), deliberately bypassing the obvious intent of the suspension that capacity can be built by more actors in parallel, going forward from now. The company objection is that it would not be capacity _they own_, cf my rant from yesterday. But sure, now that the technology _exists_, clearly everyone will be fine. I find that foreshortening of the conversation harmful, because it is again anti-empirical. We are not distributing the technology we have well enough to evade an endemic — the needed and productive conversation is in large part WHY that is occurring, and what we want to change. These guys will tie themselves in any knot to distract from a real version of that discussion.

So I don’t object to all the good points you raise about mRNA vaccines and their potential. I feel obliged to notice, however, the specific strategy by this klatch of writers, of using the techno-points to obstruct the conversation about human cooperation, which is immediately actionable, and responsible for a large part of the shortfall. Because the empirical discussion is in large part a discussion about the restraint of POWER. They live to prevent that discussion, and they will take us all down with them if they succeed.

There is a thing we do, that they exploit. If they include a few statements that aren’t false in an overall framework that is deliberately distorted, we all bend over backward to grant them standing because a few things they say overlap with the truth. Maybe at first, a little. But conversations have a pragmatics and it is relevant.

So, onward…

Eric

On May 7, 2021, at 6:02 AM, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

I know I run the risk of responses like "it's Pollyanna, oh sorry I mean Pieter, again", but I'll take the risk and share the link with the speculation about technological progress with mRNA vaccines that will end pandemics like covid.
https://reason.com/video/2021/05/06/why-covid-19-may-be-the-last-pandemic/

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 22:34, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks, Peiter,

At 83, we are fully vaccinated, and although we have changed our behavior very little, we breath easier. You have that to look forward to.

Nic

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 2:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

I just don't know.

I speculated that the topic was just way too politicized to get to the bottom of it without spending serious time and effort on it and I chose not to do that.

On a personal note, we don't yet have vaccinations in South Africa, my wife and I are each having daily doses of Quercetin, a natural over-the-counter version of Hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D and Zinc and a couple of other immune boosters too.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 21:46, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks, Pieter,

Interesting. As somebody who has followed the research, is it true that the matter simply stands with the Hah-vud studies retracted, and nothing more said? That doesn’t seem right.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

I'm not particularly fond of Donald Trump, but the elephant in the room is that Hydroxychloroquine became well-known after Trump advocated it. At the time I followed and researched it a bit and I came to the conclusion that both the mainstream media and the medical industry were against Hydroxychloroquine mainly because Trump actively advocated it. The Lancet saga certainly did not influence me to change that conclusion.

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 19:52, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
This does not seem interesting to me. The vaccines have been demonstrated to be effective and safe to very large degrees based on many millions of inoculations. Why should I care about some suspect studies with small n.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:33 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I have noted that most of what I have written here of late has been ignored, and that’s ok, actually. Usually, it is the possibility that you MIGHT read what I write that keeps me writing and, behaviorist to the last, writing is what I need to do in order to think.

But this situation is different. I really don’t know what to think about Pavlovic’s paper. There may have been some trouble with the cloud version, so I have attached it to this message.

So, this is a case where I really need some help. I realize that you are all engaged in this excellent correspondence about UBI, which has revealed all sorts of “-ists” that I never thought were alive and well in the world, let alone in this group. I would not interfere with that for a second. But, could a few of you take a look at his paper (very short, a commentary, actually). I think he is actually a candidate for this group. He is an MD, Phd, anaesthesiologist, retired in Paris, who has participated in hundreds of scientific papers, who is passionate ( I worry, perhaps sometimes a bit too passionate) about dozens of different things and suspicious of everything. He wants, for instance, to dig a gigantic tunnel to bring large ships directly from the danube to the Mediterranean.

I, of course, live in a bubble, but I don’t like to have that fact thrust in my face as powerfully as when he reveals to me that the two HAAA=VUD papers denouncing Chloquoroquine were retracted a year ago, and I never found out. I can’t get any sense of whether there has been any attempt to revive them or to redo the original clinical study that suggested HCQ’s efficacy against CoVid.

Any little bit of help you could give me would be great.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Dear Colleagues,

I attach a paper written by an internet acquaintance I made some years back, Dragan Pavlovic. I am sending it along for two reasons. First, it reveals (to me, at least) that the two negative studies on Hydroxychloroquine use in SARS-CoVid-19 treatment were based on unverified data and were withdrawn by their authors almost immediately. (Have the rest of you known this for the last year and not told me? I cannot believe, after we pilloried poor Dave for advocating for it, that he has not gloated about it. ) Second, Pavlovic raises the intension/extension distinction in the context of the interpretation of scientific results and also questions Randomized Control Trials as the "Gold Standard" for discovery. Thus, I think he is a kindred spirit, being a bit of a grumpy contrarian like many of us here. I have promised to forward any comments you make to him, so be polite but speak truth.

Thanks,

Nick Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,4HxuGEjhtA9zeWaVGkHJL3OxkDrtwT_tZMiYOtIEwdnVfAk_OXxvVtWVIXG6JcIWWovlzIyVt19H_CydLD1cA1mYEkiAHjL3QPM9I6VlJhIE3GQk5YnVae5zH3o,&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,sbL4b7qP7Kh-p9KJ7qEikJ0HyfnfFi_gkTlZ-FYZoGHDGBP87aMPd5BUe08Hg9aJ7Jj1WvzSUb1nitrFB7KBb0CtZ_y83XZu1mO-xG5Y7ky9&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

Glen,

I like the letterstoayounglibrarian's 5W's: Who? Who wrote this? , What? What kind of resource is this? , When? How up-to-date is the information? , Where? Country of origin? , Why? What's the purpose of the source? There are so many conspiracy theories out there and it's sometimes difficult to distinguish BS from valid points and applying the 5W's will certainly help.

It's of course not the "all and everything". There are many other tools for the job too for example asking whether there is a good explanation for a point. Sometimes I'll accept a point even if I don't have a clue where it comes from provided I can independently apply my mind and conclude that there is a good explanation for what is asserted.

But I think we are digressing a bit. I'm still interested in whether the statement "But of course the article puts up the mRNA vaccines as evidence of how, because the agencies got out of the way (is implied), BioNTech and Moderna had vaccines in a few days. That is deliberate BS, and I doubt the writer is such an idiot that he doesn’t know it." is a good argument against Reason.com's article? Even if Reason.com fails on all the 5W's, at least be fair and don't accuse them of something they did not say or implied.

For me that is important. You don't necessarily trust Reason.com as a good source of information, that's not the point. I trust them and if evidence is provided that they write "deliberate BS" then I'll change my mind.

Pieter

On Fri, 7 May 2021 at 17:04, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

The article says directly, as you quote, "almost all of the time that it took to bring the vaccines to market was due to safety testing and other governmental mandates THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SPED UP WITHOUT ENDANGERING ANYONE." All caps are my emphasis.

Reason is an anti-government magazine associated with an anti-government organization, with mostly anti-government contributors. It's sole purpose is to cherry pick places, issues, and times where rhetoric against the government can be effective and persuasive. The rhetoric that none of the safety testing and none of the "other governmental mandates" matter at all, serve no purpose, are a complete waste of time and effort, is the BS.

Now, you could argue that, if those words had been said by different people, in a different magazine, etc., then you couldn't claim it was *deliberate* BS. But coming from that source, with that funding, and that anti-government focus, one has to infer that it's deliberate. Were Gillespie pro-government, he would not be working for Reason.

And I say that as an avid reader of Reason, in particular, the Volokh Conspiracy: https://reason.com/volokh/ Again, the Five W's are ancient but still work. Understanding who Gillespie is, what Reason is, etc. is standard application of the Five W's: https://letterstoayounglibrarian.blogspot.com/2016/12/information-literacy-as-liberation.html

On 5/7/21 5:35 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Oftentimes I trust somebody and/or organisations until there is evidence of for example deliberate BS.
>
> I trust the organisation reason.com <http://reason.com> and the narrator Nick Gillespie. If there is evidence of deliberate BS, then I'm going to change to not trusting them. I don't alway agree with them, but I've never found evidence of deliberate BS.
>
> So please help me, I don't understand how you get from, I quote from the transcript (my underlining) :
> /"Safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines were produced far faster than any expert expected. Yet almost all of the time that it took to bring the vaccines to market was due to safety testing and other governmental mandates that could have been sped up without endangering anyone. By January 13, 2020—only two days after the Chinese researchers shared the genetic sequence of the COVID-19 virus and before most Americans had heard of the disease—the biotech company Moderna had devised the formula for its vaccine. BioNTech launched its COVID-19 vaccine program in January and had _partnered with Pfizer to manufacture it by mid-March of last year._ The first volunteer was injected with Moderna's vaccine on March 16, 2020, yet it was only approved by the FDA last December 17th, a week after Pfizer's vaccine met the agency's approval. Had the agency been faster off the mark and used human-challenge trials and other innovative testing techniques, the vaccines could have been brought to
> market months earlier with no compromise in safety. That would have conceivably saved hundreds of thousands of lives globally/./"/
>
> to your comment? I quote from your email (my underlining):
> /But of course the article puts up the mRNA vaccines as evidence of how, because the agencies got out of the way (is implied), _BioNTech and Moderna had vaccines in a few days_. That is deliberate BS, and I doubt the writer is such an idiot that he doesn’t know it.
> /
> /
> /
> Do I miss something? I don't read in the transcript that they said or implied that BioNTech and Moderna had vaccines in a few days? Maybe I'm such an idiot that I don't see it?
>
> Pieter
>
> On Fri, 7 May 2021 at 00:38, David Eric Smith <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Pieter, there is a good conversation to have here, but these bastards who seem committed to doing _everything_ in bad faith irritate me to the point where I spend time writing FRIAM posts instead of doing anything that will _ever_ benefit anyone or accomplish anything.
>
> Yes, the mRNA platform is great, and should be a geme-changer. Let’s pursue that topic. I’m fully with you on that.
>
> And?
>
> Oh, human challenge trials are an “innovative technique”. They also explicitly violate the Hippocratic oath. Do we fail to do them for no particular reason, or has someone thought about whether the Hippocratic oath is an important consideration? Dunno, hmmmm. How would one decide?
>
> Oh, public health people admonished Americans away from buying medical masks early on. Clearly just because those bureaucrats are so dead set against efficiency. We haven’t had that conversation ad nauseam on this channel already? We know why they did it; they are communicating to Americans, which is like communicating to a troupe of Tasmanian devils surrounding a roadkill. They know their words have consequences, and they feel the weight of that responsibility. Then, sometimes they also make mistakes. Do we criticize to correct, or exploit to destroy?
>
> And, just by the bye of things not mentioned. Let’s do a ballpark of what the best-case scenario might have been with very proactive response and people really trying to work together, like maybe some events in US society in WWII. Instead of having spent maybe USD5Tn by the end of the trump term, with — what was it at the time — something like 450k people dead, I could imagine that with a scaled-up S. Korea like response, the economic support could have been maybe USD 1Tn to 1.5Tn to achieve a similar backstop, and maybe 100k people dead. That would have been _really hard_ to pull off, but it is the kind of hard that good countries aspire to and sometimes achieve. And the fact that _all_ that didn’t happen is clearly to the fault of some public health people who didn’t know early how much transmission was fomites and how much respiratory droplets? Or trying to redirect masks to hospitals? The public health people were _against_ testing? I believe that last claim is
> flatly false, and overwhelmingly documented to be so. There was nothing else going on at the time? Hmm, can’t recall. Or since? Or still, even worse? How would one tell? And Americans have a great record of really being supportive of each other, and using great reasoning based on all the best evidence, but were just thwarted again and again by the public health officials and agencies?
>
> And the vaccines were developed so rapidly, this time only because the agencies removed obstacles that they could have removed any time. Well, for the adenovirus vaccines (a largely established technology) there is a claim to that effect that can be made fairly. But of course the article puts up the mRNA vaccines as evidence of how, because the agencies got out of the way (is implied), BioNTech and Moderna had vaccines in a few days. That is deliberate BS, and I doubt the writer is such an idiot that he doesn’t know it. (cf. the very useful article in NYT a couple of weeks ago on Kariko and a little about the history of mRNA update and expression research.) They were done in a few days because of 30 years of work, much of it publicly funded, that was waiting in the wings, and had been postponed earlier, and only pushed through now, only because there hadn’t been a disease structure that enabled the (non-human-challenge) trial at a price the companies were willing to
> pay. The disinformation on that simple matter of fact has been wonderfully employed by those who will now ensure that we have an endemic, no longer just a pandemic.
>
> And now there is a fight on about suspending patent limits on vaccine production to open to more operators, and the companies argue that it wouldn’t make any difference because it is current capacity saturation that limits us (Jon’s DW news articles yesterday, which the Canadians say is false even now), deliberately bypassing the obvious intent of the suspension that capacity can be built by more actors in parallel, going forward from now. The company objection is that it would not be capacity _they own_, cf my rant from yesterday. But sure, now that the technology _exists_, clearly everyone will be fine. I find that foreshortening of the conversation harmful, because it is again anti-empirical. We are not distributing the technology we have well enough to evade an endemic — the needed and productive conversation is in large part WHY that is occurring, and what we want to change. These guys will tie themselves in any knot to distract from a real version of that
> discussion.
>
> So I don’t object to all the good points you raise about mRNA vaccines and their potential. I feel obliged to notice, however, the specific strategy by this klatch of writers, of using the techno-points to obstruct the conversation about human cooperation, which is immediately actionable, and responsible for a large part of the shortfall. Because the empirical discussion is in large part a discussion about the restraint of POWER. They live to prevent that discussion, and they will take us all down with them if they succeed.
>
> There is a thing we do, that they exploit. If they include a few statements that aren’t false in an overall framework that is deliberately distorted, we all bend over backward to grant them standing because a few things they say overlap with the truth. Maybe at first, a little. But conversations have a pragmatics and it is relevant.
>
> So, onward…
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>> On May 7, 2021, at 6:02 AM, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> I know I run the risk of responses like "it's Pollyanna, oh sorry I mean Pieter, again", but I'll take the risk and share the link with the speculation about technological progress with mRNA vaccines that will end pandemics like covid.
>> https://reason.com/video/2021/05/06/why-covid-19-may-be-the-last-pandemic/ <https://reason.com/video/2021/05/06/why-covid-19-may-be-the-last-pandemic/>
>>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: FW: Covid-Lancet-PART-2 (002).doc

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen