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.
And yet there are many doctors who swear by the drug and report great outcomes for their patients. I don't believe anything printed in the New York Times if it has even a peripheral involvement with Trump. Actually, I don't believe much written in any paper without independent verification. They always leave out inconvenient facts. ...
I like the NYT but I can understand why many people are skeptical about the paper's integrity. Here's a link to the FDA's announcement on hydroxy.../covid-19:
... The problem with these drug combinations is they are out of patent and thus cheap. Pennies versus thousands of dollars per month. Of course they are going to be discredited with the same intellectual vigour that climate science underlying data is doctored. ...
It wouldn't surprise me if this was true but do you have any credible info supporting your allegations?
... the statins which I decline to take because of their brain fog effect which might make me dumb enough to vote for someone senile like Joe Biden. ...
BUT!! Will not taking them make you smart enough to not vote for Trump? :)
"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
Vlad, I fully understand what you mean about big pharma, who have skillfully mesmerized clinicians and the public to hugely overuse 'still under patent' medications. The best way to deal with this is to have Universities do all the basic research for new drugs (actually they are doing most of the important portions of it even now, only to be stolen away by big pharma) and have clinicians do the clinical testing of these drugs. The manufacturing and selling (without patent rights, of course) can be left to the (thereby not so big) pharma... The end result will be that the prices of drugs will fall steeply, the overall use of drugs will be less without any reduction in the overall benefits, the quality of life of the patients will be better because of fewer side-effects as a result of fewer drugs, and the government and the public will save a fortune along the way...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Monday, 15th June, 2020, 08:05 PM.
And yet there are many doctors who swear by the drug and report great outcomes for their patients. I don't believe anything printed in the New York Times if it has even a peripheral involvement with Trump. Actually, I don't believe much written in any paper without independent verification. They always leave out inconvenient facts.
.
Your first statement could be more of an indictment of bad doctors than an endorsement of out-of-patent drugs. Who are these many doctors? Perhaps they are members of the David Suzuki Foundation and have been convicted of money laundering? You should do your research on them, because they aren't agreeing with the vast MAJORITY of doctors and their very valid, factual studies that prove no benefit and higher risk of this drug that Trump wanted to work to make him look like a genius.
The problem with these drug combinations is they are out of patent and thus cheap. Pennies versus thousands of dollars per month. Of course they are going to be discredited with the same intellectual vigour that climate science underlying data is doctored. Orange man bad.
Well, it seems that at least one of the studies linked to discrediting hydroxychloroquine has shown that another drug, dexamethasone, is effective. And dexamethasone is out of patent and is inexpensive. So there's that. See https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid...sone-1.5613706.
Well, it seems that at least one of the studies linked to discrediting hydroxychloroquine has shown that another drug, dexamethasone, is effective. And dexamethasone is out of patent and is inexpensive. So there's that. See https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid...sone-1.5613706.
Thanks Garland, that's a wonderful report. It's bright that they concurrently tested multiple theoretical treatments. UK governmental health care and the Gates Foundation deserve a tip of the hat.
'UK governmental health care and the Gates Foundation deserve a tip of the hat.'
Agree. The reason such a study was not done in North America is that we left it to big pharma to provide funding...why would they take the 'risk' of comparing good old dexamethasone to their fancy new agents?
And as for that 'figure' ... for some reason or another (...) I've been drawing legs and feet under most anything for decades ... yes, decades! My manager/agent finally found a way for me to get paid for this part of my graphic/illustration/creative 'style' ... ha!
Attached Files
Last edited by Neil Frarey; Wednesday, 17th June, 2020, 12:30 AM.
Your first statement could be more of an indictment of bad doctors than an endorsement of out-of-patent drugs. Who are these many doctors? Perhaps they are members of the David Suzuki Foundation and have been convicted of money laundering? You should do your research on them, because they aren't agreeing with the vast MAJORITY of doctors and their very valid, factual studies that prove no benefit and higher risk of this drug that Trump wanted to work to make him look like a genius.
I am confident that the doctors reporting good results with hydroxychloroquine, zinc and the antibiotic are legitimate doctors. The studies which panned the drug usually had limitations in that they did not use the full treatment course that was shown to be effective or they tried to compare results from groups that were on the verge of death to a healthy group of asymptomatic carriers. Whether the drug is effective or not will be judged by history but it is interesting that everything is tainted by ideology these days.
Vlad, I fully understand what you mean about big pharma, who have skillfully mesmerized clinicians and the public to hugely overuse 'still under patent' medications. The best way to deal with this is to have Universities do all the basic research for new drugs (actually they are doing most of the important portions of it even now, only to be stolen away by big pharma) and have clinicians do the clinical testing of these drugs. The manufacturing and selling (without patent rights, of course) can be left to the (thereby not so big) pharma... The end result will be that the prices of drugs will fall steeply, the overall use of drugs will be less without any reduction in the overall benefits, the quality of life of the patients will be better because of fewer side-effects as a result of fewer drugs, and the government and the public will save a fortune along the way...
There is definitely a problem when effective and inexpensive drugs are always supplanted by expensive new drugs. Your suggestions seem sensible but I doubt politicians who profit from the lobbyists will do much to change anything.
BUT!! Will not taking them make you smart enough to not vote for Trump? :)
I will not be voting for Trump unless the Democrats are in charge of absentee ballots in which case anything is possible. I am Canadian, living in Canada and should not have the opportunity to vote for Trump.
Tweet
Comment