Science & Technology News

[Eigenvector]

In case anyone here is interested in: Antarctic Sea Ice and Ice Sheet Changes: Impact Beyond the Polar Regions



ASME San Antonio Section invites you to the
Antarctic Sea Ice and Ice Sheet Changes: Impact Beyond the Polar Regions
Presented by Stephen F. Ackley, Res Assoc Prof, NASA Center for Advanced Measurements in Extreme Environments, UTSA
Date: Tuesday, October 26th, 2021
Time: 6:30 – 8:00pm Central Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8975558222...JpRmwrOUJZQT09

Meeting ID: 897 5558 2227
Passcode: 084326

Professor Stephen Ackley was a sea ice geophysicist and branch chief, when he was at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) for 31 years. He joined the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at UTSA in 2006 as Research Associate Professor. He is presently also a Co-PI in the NASA Center for Advanced Measurements in Extreme Environment (CAMEE) at UTSA. He conducted research during twelve research cruises on several nations’ icebreakers into the sea ice zone surrounding Antarctica and on the first Antarctic sea ice drifting station, Ice Station Weddell (1992). He conducted four research expeditions to the Arctic on icebreakers and on drifting ice stations.

Professor Ackley will be discussing how the sea ice covering the Arctic and Southern Oceans during winter seasons influences climate and the ocean in several ways and the consequences of those ice formations changing.

[GordMay]

'Waning Immunity' from COVID-19 Vaccines may Not be as Bad as it Sounds

A new study [1], published in the journal Science, found "robust cellular immune memory" from B cells for at least six months after mRNA vaccination against all circulating strains of the virus — even the highly contagious delta variant.
The researchers found those memory cells, unlike the initial wave of antibodies, continue to learn how to fend off the virus, months after vaccination, and are actually getting better at it, over time.

[1] “mRNA vaccines induce durable immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern” ~ by Rishi R. Goel et al

“Abstract:
The durability of immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination remains unclear. Here, we longitudinally profiled vaccine responses in SARS-CoV-2 naïve and recovered individuals for 6 months after vaccination. Antibodies declined from peak levels but remained detectable in most subjects at 6 months. We found mRNA vaccines generated functional memory B cells that increased from 3-6 months post-vaccination, with the majority of these cells cross-binding the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants. mRNA vaccination further induced antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and early CD4+ T cell responses correlated with long-term humoral immunity. Recall responses to vaccination in individuals with pre-existing immunity primarily increased antibody levels without substantially altering antibody decay rates. Together, these findings demonstrate robust cellular immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 and variants for at least 6 months after mRNA vaccination. ...

... Concluding Remarks:
... Specifically, the continued increase in SARS-CoV-2-specific memory B cells between 3 and 6 months post-mRNA vaccination, even as antibody levels declined in the same individuals, suggests that prolonged germinal center reactions (14) continue to generate circulating memory B cells for at least several months following vaccination. ...
... ogether, these data identify durable cellular immunity for at least 6 months after mRNA vaccination with persistence of high-quality memory B cells and strong CD4+ T cell memory in most individuals. ...
... these data provide evidence for durable immune memory at 6 months after mRNA vaccination and are relevant for interpreting epidemiological data on rates of infections in vaccinated populations and the implementation of booster vaccine strategies. ...”

Full paper ➥ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0829

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Do you still say there is no smear campaign on Ivermectin. Right wing figures? (that is framing). Ivermectin is not a political issue. The propaganda piece that you posted is part of that smear campaign. And as evidenced in the article that I posted above this statement is false:

The most often quoted anti Ivermectin study is this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33662102/
Which should be retracted for a plethora of reasons.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/ivermectin-research-problems/620473/

[Thumbs Up]

The Guardian did a smear story based on this claiming:

“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hical-concerns

That article was countered with:

Contrary to the voices quoted in the article, there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would "reverse results.! Worryingly, this article!s insinuation is reported as if
it is fact. According to the most recent analyses by BIRD, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited metaanalyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still
clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment.
This article raise questions of journalistic integrity and we invite the Guardian to make appropriate corrections to the reporting and properly check the veracity of their claims. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-c...dy-FINAL-1.pdf

And:

Recently, the study conducted by Elgazzar et al has come under scrutiny with accusations of scientific misconduct. His paper was apparently retracted without his knowledge and without giving him the opportunity to defend these serious claims. This situation is most unfortunate. While this issue is being resolved, we decided to redo the original meta-analyses excluding this study. The summary point estimates were largely unaffected when the study by Elgazzar et al was removed.
https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...he_Data.9.aspx

And while on the subject:
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opin...4d8993caf.html

The Elgazzar case is supposedly under investigation. The data that was analyzed was supposedly hacked. Elgazzar stated that it wasn't his data. Nonetheless, the retraction of a few of these studies hasn't affected the overall analysis. The NIH doesn't recommend against ivermectin and in the US it remains perfectly legal for doctors to prescribe it for covid. Yet the smear continues.

[GordMay]

Wooden Knives & Nails

Scientists have developed a process that allows them to manipulate wood, to make it denser and harder, than the natural product. They used the resulting material to make items, like wooden knives, and nails, that rival traditional steel.
Their findings were published this month in the journal Matter. [1]
The process uses chemicals to partially remove lignin, and then pressure, to reduce its thickness to around 20 per cent of the original natural wood, and 23 times harder.

[1] “Hardened wood as a renewable alternative to steel and plastic” ~ by Bo Chen et al
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...90238521004653

Video ➥ https://youtu.be/tPj7h3SiIbg
And ➥ https://youtu.be/GIPb8ZxdWT4

[GordMay]

How these sea-loving mangroves ended up far from the coast
Warming, more than 100,000 years ago, raised sea levels, and displaced the plants far inland.

Nearly 200 kilometers from the sea, red mangroves thrive in the rainforests along the San Pedro Mártir River on the Yucatán Peninsula. But how did these tangled trees that typically grow in salty water along coasts end up trapped so far inland and in freshwater?

Genetic analyses, surveys of vegetation and sediments, and simulations of shifts in sea levels, show that the red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) are part of a “relict ecosystem”, that has existed for more than 100,000 years.

When warming, during the last interglacial period, which peaked about 130,000 years ago, raised sea levels, approximately 9 meters above present-day levels, the lowlands, of what’s now the Yucatán Peninsula flooded.
As a result, the mangrove forest was displaced, and started to grow inland, by today’s standards, Ezcurra (corresponding author) and colleagues report [1], in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

When sea levels dropped, as the world cooled again, the trees were left far from the coast.

In addition to the mangroves, the team found various plant species in the inland area that also have a coastal heritage. More than 30 percent, or 112 species, of the total flora growing along the river, including orchids and legumes, are typically found in coastal lagoons or along shorelines, the researchers say.

Those findings, along with simulations of past sea levels, confirm that, at some point during the last interglacial period, the ocean must have merged with the lower basin of the San Pedro River, pushing the red mangroves, and other coastal species, inland, the researchers conclude.

Discovering this relict ecosystem highlights the widespread impact past changes in the climate have had on the world’s coastlines, and it provides a chance to better understand how future sea level rise may affect these ecosystems.

[1] “Relict inland mangrove ecosystem reveals Last Interglacial sea levels” ~ by Exequiel Ezcurra et al

“With geological sea-level fluctuations driven by climate change, the distribution of mangrove forests has expanded and contracted through time. We studied an inland, isolated mangrove forest located 170 km away from the nearest coastline in the interior of the rainforests of the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico). Combining multiple lines of evidence, we demonstrate that this extant forest is a relict from a past, warmer world when relative sea levels were 6 to 9 m higher than at the present. Our finding highlights the extensive landscape impacts of past climate change on the world’s coastline and opens opportunities to better understand future scenarios of relative sea level rise. ...”

➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/118/41/e2024518118

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

The Guardian did a smear story based on this claiming:

That article was countered with:

And:

And while on the subject:
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opin...4d8993caf.html

The Elgazzar case is supposedly under investigation. The data that was analyzed was supposedly hacked. Elgazzar stated that it wasn't his data. Nonetheless, the retraction of a few of these studies hasn't affected the overall analysis. The NIH doesn't recommend against ivermectin and in the US it remains perfectly legal for doctors to prescribe it for covid. Yet the smear continues.

And the dangerous, cherry-picked, pseudoscientific BS continues unabated.

There is no 'smear campaign' against Ivermectin.

The well-written article in the Guardian is a fine example of why they're a respected journal. They report facts. (unlike 'The Desert Review' whose primary purpose appears to be to distort facts and report shallow opinion.)

The cherry-picked Guardian statement

“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”

which failed to include this key statement

“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” .

was actually made by Gideon Meyerowitz-Katzan, an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, which simply notes that removing the plagerized and faked data from the Elgazzar study from the two meta-analyses* regarding Ivermectin and covid-19 renders those analyses, essentially, null and void, since the large, false numbers in the Elgazzar 'study' skew the meta-analyses toward positive Ivermectin results.

As 'they' say "garbage in, garbage out"...

Of course this is just one more nail in the lid of Thumbs Upian a-logical 'scientificky discussion's' coffin. Further to the 'funny' business surrounding the Elgasser (as in gaslighter) 'study',


"A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction. He first became aware of the Elgazzar preprint when it was assigned to him by one of his lecturers for an assignment that formed part of his master’s degree. He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised."

"It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said."

"The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions."

“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18, Lawrence said."

“The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”

“In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”


As for using proven sources of disinformation as citations supporting such disinformation, as is done in the two 'rebuttals' given, that clearly reveals the caliber of the 'argument' being made. Anyone ever hear of 'conflicts of interest'?


Here's a good article describing the issues and the FLCCC more broadly.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/90552


*https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...ment_of.7.aspx

[CatNewBee]

If you refer to an Nobel price winnig drug, used safely for over 5 billion patients around the world for treatment of various diseases as "horse dewormer", where horse treatments make a infinitissimal small portion of the use cases, it is a smear campain.

Same applies to Hydroxy chloroquine, and framing it as bleach. It is an very effective anti-viral malaria drug.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

If you refer to an Nobel price winnig drug, used safely for over 5 billion patients around the world for treatment of various diseases as "horse dewormer", where horse treatments make a infinitissimal small portion of the use cases, it is a smear campain.

Same applies to Hydroxy chloroquine, and framing it as bleach. It is an very effective anti-viral malaria drug.

Both of which were extensively studied by the WHO in 2015 and were shown to be effective against all known coronavirus as well as many bacterial infective at the time . So it can be extrapolated that it should and has been shown to be an effective treatment for the current iteration of man manipulated coronavirus.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

And the dangerous, cherry-picked, pseudoscientific BS continues unabated.
There is no 'smear campaign' against Ivermectin.......blah blah blah....

.......Here's a good article describing the issues and the FLCCC more broadly.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infecti.../covid19/90552
*https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...ment_of.7.aspx

I don't know what more to say to you Jim. The medpagetoday article that you linked to is from last January and doesn't mention a single negative thing about Ivermectin nor the FLCCC. Since then there have been dozens of studies on ivermectin. The drug was responsible for the incredible delta strain turnaround in the states in India that used it. Your argument:?
There is no 'smear campaign' against Ivermectin.
Is demonstrably false and not even worth my time.
proven sources of disinformation
Such as ??
'conflicts of interest'?
I see plenty of those on the other side but not from those advocating ivermectin.
We've been down this road before Jim. If you want to persist, you need to actually present an argument, in which case I would be happy to spend the time refuting. But of course, you just want to skip to the insults which only serve make you look bad. I did, however, enjoy some of the priceless comments from the article that you posted:

JAMES NICHOLS • 4 months ago
the few patients I have treated with IVM have all improved within 24-48 hrs, some with no sx at all after a day. It's small, maybe anecdotal but the metanalyses I've seen are quite convincing and the fact it's an incredibly safe drug (in fact, it's an essential drug for WHO) made it an easy decision to treat. Of course I told the patients it's not proven but there is strong evidence to support its use in Covid and they made educated decisions. If I had covid dx today, I would take it, no doubt. I had a very mild but documented case in September 2020 and still have antibodies going on 10 mos. I will not get a vaccine, but I would take IVM if I did get another infection. I'm firmly convinced my natural immunity is as good if not superior to the mRNA vaccine, not to mention my T cells are probably pretty well primed also. It's unbelievable and unconscionable that this has become a profit and pride issue and is being censored widely when it's without doubt effective. Thanks to all who are fighting the good fight and not on a witch hunt to save their own asses.

Joseph Canepa • 6 months ago
RTCs are not the answer. Open trials are the pragmatic solution. The place is India. There should cohorts of 10,000 people. One could be those near death. Another could be those who just contacted COVID 19. As treatment ivermectin's efficacy should be readily apparent, with no risk of the lives of placebo patients as collateral damage.

Arthur Hlavac • 7 months ago
I took ivermectin within 12 hours I broke out in a cold sweat. Got up the next morning. No more body aches no fever. It worked all I can say. It is malpractice in my view to not at least try... Doctors with their noses in the air need to remember why they got into medicine to start with. I am thankful that I have a doctor that is willing to investigate and try!

Joe • 8 months ago
Is ivermectin safe? The inventors received a Nobel Prize in 2015 for ivermectin's ability to cure river blindness. The Gates and Carter foundations sent 250 million doses to Africa to treat humans. While horses are not people, every performance horse in the world is routinely dosed with ivermectin for worms. Cattle, goats, dogs and cats are routinely doses with ivermectin. Cattle and goats end up in the food chain. I took ivermectin the first day I suffered chills, fever and extreme fatigue. Three days later, I was back to normal. Tested negative on day 4. Coincidence? Perhaps but I have never felt that kind of fatigue in my life--all I could do was lay down and feel horrible. I know others who tested positive, took ivermectin, recovered in days and tested negative on day four. The key to quick recovery is to take it on the first symptoms.

Katherine Bragdon • 8 months ago
County health dept in MS is prescribing Ivermectin to all its new Covid patients with 100% success symptoms gone within 48 hours at the most some within 24 hours. So my doctor was cured Covid free within 48 hours of her first dose of which she only took two 24 hours apart and have 4 personal friends that had similar results

Jim Schwaiger • 9 months ago
Note: for those of you who prefer the current NIH recommendations for early treatment of COVID (essentially isolation and prayer), I can say that a lot of those who "survive" COVID with this approach have nasty permanent damage to their lungs, not to mention a subset who also have clotting related complications which are often permanent. Don't take my word for it - check online for sample chest CTs from COVID "survivors".
Just to be clear, I am entitled to take the COVID vaccine as a physician in my state, and have done so. I have also personally taken 6 doses of ivermectin at varying times for prophylaxis or early treatment of suspected symptoms. My hospital department was on the front line during the pandemic - 5 of 10 people in my department went down with COVID. All of them did well with early treatment, and we are grateful for that. Would they have done well by simply following the NIH recommendations for early treatment? Maybe. But I have seen an awful lot of people who have not.
Jim Schwaiger • 9 months ago
I am a physician in the US and have been involved in early treatment of COVID with ivermectin in 18 different people. One of them was my best friend from high school (our valedictorian) who is an emergency room physician. He thanked me for the tip on ivermectin - he and his daughter were both asymptomatic within 48 hours of first dose.A number of my physician colleagues always carry their supply of ivermectin so they can treat at first symptoms. My experience with 18 people (treated on first recognition of COVID symptoms) is that all have been significantly improved 24 hours after first dose, and all were virtually asymptomatic at 48 hours after first dose. Four people in their 50s and 60s had some residual loss of taste/smell beyond 48 hours, but no fever, cough, difficulty breathing, muscle weakness, fatigue, clotting, etc.
Early treatment is very helpful as the virus generally only replicates for about a week after symptoms present. After that you are dealing with the post viral inflammatory phase, which is proportional to the amount of viral debris left from the replication phase. Keep in mind that the potential side benefit of reducing viral replication is that you should be less infectious for the people around you - and if they get infected, they should have significantly less severe illness.

Hectot Carvallo • 9 months ago
Science MUST be subordinated to ethics, and NOT the other way around. Initially, IVM was a "must not do" AIII statement.
Isn' t that an oximoron?
A means "strong"
III means "a Specialist's opinion"
So, 53 trials around the World become invalid by someone's opinion, someone surely related to big pharma...
I won't let my patients die because of "someone's opinion".
What is the average death rate obtained by all those who disregard IVM?
It is easier to paste, instead of thinking.
Yet, thinking is good for the brain, and it shouldn't become an out of fashion habit...

• 9 months ago
"So a patient comes in with scabies, which causes an unpleasant itchy rash, and I prescribe ivermectin, and it's ok. The same patient comes in with CoVid, which might kill them, and I prescribe ivermectin - along with all the other 'standard-of-care' treatment, and all of a sudden I'm a bad doctor...???"
Andrew - your scabies patient - did you also treat them with Dexamethasone, Oxygen, Heparin, bamlanivimab, convalescent serum...etc. etc.Recommended reading - Google "The Right Drug for The Right Bug"
Many of us learned in medical school, not every medication is indicated for treatment of every condition. It's called pharmacology. References available on request.

[Eigenvector]

Wouldn't Merck's position as the maker of Ivermectin trump all?


https://www.merck.com/news/merck-sta...d-19-pandemic/

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

Wouldn't Merck's position as the maker of Ivermectin trump all?


https://www.merck.com/news/merck-sta...d-19-pandemic/

Hardly. Merck is marketing Mulnopiravir at $700. per treatment. This is what you could call a conflict of interest.

These three claims about ivermectin are lies:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

[Eigenvector]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Hardly. Merck is marketing Mulnopiravir at $700. per treatment. This is what you could call a conflict of interest.

These three claims about ivermectin are lies:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

Ok, I'll be the pig and wrestle with you.


A) Explain any form of conflict with a product not for use.


B) Why would they post not for use for the treatment of Covid. Maybe the should have consulted you before doing so.


Rule #1: Answer these in order without circular references between answers A & B.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

Ok, I'll be the pig and wrestle with you.


A) Explain any form of conflict with a product not for use.


B) Why would they post not for use for the treatment of Covid. Maybe the should have consulted you before doing so.


Rule #1: Answer these in order without circular references between answers A & B.

Your questions are about as clear as mud.
If you have a point, make it.
If you have a problem, state it.
If you have a question ask it.

[newhaul]

One thing to consider. Wrt the covid vaccines.
This is the first time in history ( that I am aware of) that a medications lack of effectiveness is blamed on those that haven't taken it