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

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

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, thompnickson2 at gmail.com 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
> 
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
> 
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* thompnickson2 at gmail.com <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:48 PM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
> *Cc:* 'Prof David West' <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> *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