If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Thank goodness, we have Sid, right here on a chess forum, to overturn years of science, as he rails against big pharma and tells us that doctors want people to wear masks to take away their individuality. And there is no need to worry about the virus as it is easily treated. Forget that thousands each day die. Sid knows best. Forget the people who work their entire life on these issues. Sid knows best.
I think you should take your crap over to Parler or 8chan. You will find lots of people there who will eat your crap up.
Brian, please continue posting, I appreciate your apparent sense of ethics, morality, etc.
According to Worldometers.info, another 12,684 souls were lost worldwide just yesterday.
Brian, please continue posting, I appreciate your apparent sense of ethics, morality, etc.
According to Worldometers.info, another 12,684 souls were lost worldwide just yesterday.
Yes and early intervention even if it is for a flu or cold virus would reduce mortality. If Flu vaccines worked we would not have hundreds of thousands of deaths every year nor we need
a new flu vaccine every year. These early intervention treatments have been known for decades but have not been encouraged as it would canibolize big pharma's business model.
By the way, since when was Brian Profit appointed the one who gets to judge what posters view points have to be on chesstalk?
...
By the way, since when was Brian Profit appointed the one who gets to judge what posters view points have to be on chesstalk?
I appointed Brian, on September 23, 2008, to judge ChessTalk posters and their viewpoints harshly. Very harshly. In fact, the position description I drew up for Brian lists one duty: "Judge harshly." What sold me on Brian, versus the other 31 applicants, was his business card:
BRIAN PROFIT
have laptop - will travel
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I appointed Brian, on September 23, 2008, to judge ChessTalk posters and their viewpoints harshly. Very harshly. In fact, the position description I drew up for Brian lists one duty: "Judge harshly." What sold me on Brian, versus the other 31 applicants, was his business card:
BRIAN PROFIT
have laptop - will travel
Now that explains everything and why you messaged me to stop commenting ... you're actually Lord Peter McKillop, LOOL!!!
I appointed Brian, on September 23, 2008, to judge ChessTalk posters and their viewpoints harshly. Very harshly. In fact, the position description I drew up for Brian lists one duty: "Judge harshly." What sold me on Brian, versus the other 31 applicants, was his business card:
BRIAN PROFIT
have laptop - will travel
If we had "early intervention" of new posts on ChessTalk, members would not have to smoke weed before they could handle reading posts here! :)
Yes and early intervention even if it is for a flu or cold virus would reduce mortality. If Flu vaccines worked we would not have hundreds of thousands of deaths every year nor we need
a new flu vaccine every year. These early intervention treatments have been known for decades but have not been encouraged as it would canibolize big pharma's business model.
By the way, since when was Brian Profit appointed the one who gets to judge what posters view points have to be on chesstalk?
Sid, you are taking a lot of abuse here, and I think it's only natural. You are attempting to talk with some authority on the subject, yet as far as we all know, you are not doing the same in the public media nor as any kind of "advisor", for example a counterpoint to Dr. Fauci and advising Trump.
I just don't get what you are trying to accomplish by posting to a small group of chess enthusiasts about this totally non-chess topic. And I think that's why you are getting the cold shoulder, because no one else can make sense of it either and your views go against the prevailing scientific views (at least the majority of them).
The recent papers you put forward are pseudoscience and by the many important papers do not say "more research needed" as you have asserted that this is boiler plate language in all scientific papers. Papers with conclusive results do not state this, this is the jargon for 2020 pseudoscience papers.
I took a look at this C19study website. Here are some quotes from some of the first positive non-preprint studies I looked at on there:
Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these preliminary findings.
The possible beneficial, harmful or neutral role of ACEI or ARB remains a matter of debate, and larger studies are probably needed
https://portlandpress.com/bioscirep/...-of-outcome-in
(The site claims that this study shows "lower mortality with HCQ treatment," but I can't find this anywhere in the study. The only mention of HCQ that I can find is that all the patients in the study were given it, and that some people at their Division of Medicine could not be given antiviral or antimalarial agents because of a lack of supply. No where does it seem to compare people who were and were not given the drug.)
A possible drawback of HCQ prophylaxis is the risk for selecting resistant microorganisms, as has been described for Plasmodium spp. However, at present we do not have any data about SARS-CoV-2 resistance to HCQ
The main limitations of the study are its small sample size and nonrandomized retrospective observational design, due to which a definite cause and effect relation cannot be established. Moreover, it is possible that the study results may have been influenced by several confounding factors which could not be measured. A large-scale multicentric prophylactic randomized trial is required to establish the role of HCQ prophylaxis.
So yes, it would seem that studies with conclusive results do say that more research is required. This is simply how science works. One study does not provide definitive proof; it contributes to the body of research. The authors so frequently state at the end that further research is required because they are recommending to other researchers what they can do to further contribute. It's very bizarre to claim that this is "jargon for 2020 pseudoscience papers" when this has been standard practice for decades. Of course, you don't need to believe me. I looked up some older studies on hydroxychloroquine:
There is only sparse evidence for its role in combination with other such drugs and further studies need to be carried out in this area.
Further prospective studies are needed to determine whether this treatment option should be considered a standard component of rheumatoid arthritis combination therapy in the future, and to evaluate the potential role of hydroxychloroquine as a preventive agent for diabetes among high-risk individuals in the general population.
https://portlandpress.com/bioscirep/...-of-outcome-in
(The site claims that this study shows "lower mortality with HCQ treatment," but I can't find this anywhere in the study. The only mention of HCQ that I can find is that all the patients in the study were given it, and that some people at their Division of Medicine could not be given antiviral or antimalarial agents because of a lack of supply. No where does it seem to compare people who were and were not given the drug.)
So yes, it would seem that studies with conclusive results do say that more research is required. This is simply how science works. One study does not provide definitive proof; it contributes to the body of research. The authors so frequently state at the end that further research is required because they are recommending to other researchers what they can do to further contribute. It's very bizarre to claim that this is "jargon for 2020 pseudoscience papers" when this has been standard practice for decades. Of course, you don't need to believe me. I looked up some older studies on hydroxychloroquine:
So keeping these in view a multicentre study with large number of subjects can be carried out or a large pooled prospective datasets can be collected to re-assess the result and will generate more robust conclusions.
Here are the two most IMPORTANT definitively conclusive papers on the c19study.com website. Read them careful and hopefully it will open
your mind to the idea that early treatment negates the need for masks, lockdowns, and rushed therefore very dangerous vaccines. I can
hardly believe that in 2020 the concept of treating a disease early is considered controversial,very sad.
Sid, you are taking a lot of abuse here, and I think it's only natural. You are attempting to talk with some authority on the subject, yet as far as we all know, you are not doing the same in the public media nor as any kind of "advisor", for example a counterpoint to Dr. Fauci and advising Trump.
I just don't get what you are trying to accomplish by posting to a small group of chess enthusiasts about this totally non-chess topic. And I think that's why you are getting the cold shoulder, because no one else can make sense of it either and your views go against the prevailing scientific views (at least the majority of them).
nor as any kind of "advisor", for example a counterpoint to Dr. Fauci and advising Trump.
I in fact only have a Bsc molecular Biology and did work in a virology lab for a few years. However, I am a voracious reader on the subject and have been for many years.
Sometimes on this forum I get interesting responses from those that are more knowledgeable then me on certain subjects and have learned a great deal over the years by investigating other points of view. For example one year we had a discussion about the "standard model" of quantum physics and a knowledgeable poster introduced me to an opposite idea the pilot wave theory that I found fascinating.
In the area under discussion one of the posters here is a medical Dr who "personally is not opposed to early treatment of the disease." I would hope people consider the information carefully and some do. We all can learn from each other and many do chose to intelligently consider the actual data presented.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 5th December, 2020, 09:06 PM.
I in fact only have a Bsc molecular Biology and did work in a virology lab for a few years. However, I am a voracious reader on the subject and have been for many years.
Sometimes on this forum I get interesting responses from those that are more knowledgeable then me on certain subjects and have learned a great deal over the years by investigating other points of view. For example one yer we had a discussion about the "standard model" of quantum physics and a knowledgeable poster introduced me to an opposite idea the pilot wave theory that I found fascinating.
In the area under discussion one of the posters here is a medical Dr who "personally is not opposed to early treatment of the disease." I would hope people consider the information carefully and some do. We all can learn from each other and many do chose to intelligently the actual data presented.
Early treatment of any disease is clearly something that is desirable. What is happening in the real world (it seems) is that there isn't enough or any early treatment for COVID and since the case numbers and deaths are rising nearly everywhere it seems that early treatment was not started and still isn't being employed. If you are suggesting a conspiracy to avoid proper treatment that is
propagated by "big Pharma" then that strikes me as a stretch. I cannot believe that hundreds and thousands of doctors, nurses and other front line workers are oblivious to such a scheme.
In fact, that whole scenario reminds me a LOT of the case that Trump and his close sycophants are making for the stealing of the election by an amazing Democrat cabal that conspired to rig voting machines, turn away only Trump voters etc.
One question for Sid: when an approved vaccine is available will YOU take it or are you already self-administering some early treatment for yourself?
Another question (asked before but never answered AFAIK): do you wear a mask in public places or other places where it is mandated or are you an anti-masker?
(unless you answer those two questions, please don't bother replying)
Here are the two most IMPORTANT definitively conclusive papers on the c19study.com website. Read them careful and hopefully it will open
your mind to the idea that early treatment negates the need for masks, lockdowns, and rushed therefore very dangerous vaccines. I can
hardly believe that in 2020 the concept of treating a disease early is considered controversial,very sad.
I never argued against early treatment. My arguments have been that masks are effective at mitigating the spread of COVID, and that research papers commonly say something at the end about more research being required.
To be honest, I find your views to be difficult to understand. You seem to say that the case numbers and the death numbers are fake and you previously said that the pandemic is actually over, but you simultaneously espouse the need for this early treatment. If the pandemic's over, what are these studies on hydroxychloroquine even looking at? What do they need to treat if it's all fake?
Early treatment of any disease is clearly something that is desirable. What is happening in the real world (it seems) is that there isn't enough or any early treatment for COVID and since the case numbers and deaths are rising nearly everywhere it seems that early treatment was not started and still isn't being employed. If you are suggesting a conspiracy to avoid proper treatment that is propagated by "big Pharma" then that strikes me as a stretch. I cannot believe that hundreds and thousands of doctors, nurses and other front line workers are oblivious to such a scheme.
In fact, that whole scenario reminds me a LOT of the case that Trump and his close sycophants are making for the stealing of the election by an amazing Democrat cabal that conspired to rig voting machines, turn away only Trump voters etc.
One question for Sid: when an approved vaccine is available will YOU take it or are you already self-administering some early treatment for yourself?
Another question (asked before but never answered AFAIK): do you wear a mask in public places or other places where it is mandated or are you an anti-masker?
(unless you answer those two questions, please don't bother replying)
I cannot believe that hundreds and thousands of doctors, nurses and other front line workers are oblivious to such a scheme.
I don't believe that either. I do believe that most Dr's and nurses are being misled by health authorities in charge and that for the first time in history govts have
took it on themselves to interfere in a Dr Patient relationship by banning off label use of commonly approved drugs normally used for early treatment. I believe health authorities have been corrupted by big pharma's agenda to sell expensive therapeutics as well as vaccines and this has been the case for many years. Here is a 2010 article from Forbes magazine that curiously was redacted by Forbes only a few months ago.
In fact, that whole scenario reminds me a LOT of the case that Trump and his close sycophants are making for the stealing of the election by an amazing Democrat cabal that conspired to rig voting machines, turn away only Trump voters etc.
The problem with this statement is that you are assuming no evidence exists. Lets look at an election of candiate A and Candidate B where polls indicate roughly a 50 50 split with a few million voters. If suddenly candidate A gets 100000 consecutive votes all in his favor the probability of that happening is roughly 1 in 2 to the power of 100000. The probability of winnning loto Canada is roughly 1 in 14 million or roughly 1 in 2 to the power of 24. Therefore in this scenario if someone won loto Canada 4500 times in a row would you not think something is wrong with this lottery?
Some cases have previously been argued in the Supreme court where statistical evidence is accepted. So only now are some of these cases from various States working their way thorough the State court systems with one of the cases now at the Supreme courts doorstep for them to decide if they will hear the case. They will be the ultimate umpire, not you or I.
One question for Sid: when an approved vaccine is available will YOU take it or are you already self-administering some early treatment for yourself?
I work very closely on a volunteer basis with the Frontline Dr's of America and have assisted them with research. They are strong advocates of early treatment. In consultation with them I have successfully used Quercetin D3 C and Zn when I felt like I had flu like symptoms as did my wife and as expected and supported by research it worked fine.I am close with several elderly friends with comorbidites with at least one with severe symptoms who are very thankful I put them in touch with these people and their lives were saved.I would never willingly take an improperly tested rushed vaccine. Here is why
"Covid vax has similar parts to human proteins. When one receives the vaccine, Covid exposure may cause massive cytokine storm. Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity - ScienceDirect"
Another question (asked before but never answered AFAIK): do you wear a mask in public places or other places where it is mandated or are you an anti-masker?
I wear masks where it is required ie stores, on the bus etc out of respect to the proprietors/employees simply trying to make a living. I do not agree with mask mandates for reasons already discussed.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 5th December, 2020, 09:07 PM.
I never argued against early treatment. My arguments have been that masks are effective at mitigating the spread of COVID, and that research papers commonly say something at the end about more research being required.
To be honest, I find your views to be difficult to understand. You seem to say that the case numbers and the death numbers are fake and you previously said that the pandemic is actually over, but you simultaneously espouse the need for this early treatment. If the pandemic's over, what are these studies on hydroxychloroquine even looking at? What do they need to treat if it's all fake?
My arguments have been that masks are effective at mitigating the spread of COVID,
No conclusive scientific research proves this and in fact up until 2020 the vast majority of research indicated the opposite with respect to RNA virues.
To be honest, I find your views to be difficult to understand. You seem to say that the case numbers and the death numbers are fake and you previously said that the pandemic is actually over, but you simultaneously espouse the need for this early treatment. If the pandemic's over, what are these studies on hydroxychloroquine even looking at? What do they need to treat if it's all fake?
"
Yes the case numbers indicate that show that 90%+ of PCR "cases are false positives The death numbers are fake insofar as they are lumping many desths from other causes as COVID.
The good news about early treatments is that they are good for many RNA virues, not just COVID. Big pharma does not want to see flu treated early as it ruins their flu vaccine business that works so poorly that they have a new flu vaccine every yearr and yet we still see hundreds of thousands dying from the flu every year.
Tweet
Comment