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

Thu May 6 15:11:54 EDT 2021

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 <wimberly3 at gmail.com> 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 <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
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick Nicholas Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>>
>> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210506/0432a76b/attachment.html>