Don't worry about Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, it's nothing to do with.... ahem

[Scott777]

You're missing the point. You told John the data he showed can't be correct cause the person that produced it has a conflict of interests, and I'm saying that isn't correct. If 2 of my daughters have an argument, I can rule on which one of them is correct, even though I have a conflict of interest.

No, I didn't tell John the 'data' is wrong.  (And it's not data, it's a guide).  I don't trust people with a conflict of interest.  We don't need to rule on this guide.  I'm just curious to know why there is an interest in 'sudden death' now.  Was there an interest before 2021?  And given that I don't trust the NIH, the MDPI, or a lot of 'experts', I have to wonder whether money is behind it, or alternatively, whether there is a medical cause that began in 2021.

[Nick]

No, I don't assume any such thing.  There's a reason why people have to declare a conflict of interest under certain circumstances.  Why do you think that us, Nick?  Just for fun?  Or is it, just maybe, because we don't know if people might lie, or if people may be unconsciously influenced by money.  They might have a moral compass..... or not, so your assessment is flawed, and very naive.

You're missing the point. You told John the data he showed can't be correct cause the person that produced it has a conflict of interests, and I'm saying that isn't correct. If 2 of my daughters have an argument, I can rule on which one of them is correct, even though I have a conflict of interest. 

[Scott777]

You just do not get it do you

YOU are the one whose life requires there to be something "strange" about a bloke in roughly the same academic position as my dad's best mate from school and one of my former clients in my old job taking it upon himself to lay down criteria for his fellow professionals to follow.

There is about as much wierdness, strangeness and interestingness in that chap's decision to publish a document "now" as my boss telling me last year to write a coding standard based on proven practice of the last decade so our team have it available ...

or indeed dad's best mate from school deciding he was SO pissed off with the inappropriate or inadequate training in applicants for his laboratory he took the decision to go to the royal society of chemistry and get them to accredit a training syllabus of his own making

Thats it.

Writing guides like this is what people in that chaps position DO.

It is part of their job just as much as it was part of mine to define precisely how I set up my experiments so all the people who wanted to use our techniques in their own work could do so without wasting a year repeating how we went wrong.

There is absolutely f**k all of "note", "interest" or anything else about it.

Or it's timing.

Find something else to blame the wormhole aliens for.

When did I say there's something strange going on?  I said, it's interesting.  If "Writing guides like this is what people in that chaps position DO", then I assume there will be lot of such guides.  But you decided to post only a recent one.  Well, whatever.

[Scott777]

So you automatically assume that because there is a conflict of interest they're lying 🤥?
Someone can have a conflict of interests and also a moral compass, therefore your assessment is flawed.

No, I don't assume any such thing.  There's a reason why people have to declare a conflict of interest under certain circumstances.  Why do you think that us, Nick?  Just for fun?  Or is it, just maybe, because we don't know if people might lie, or if people may be unconsciously influenced by money.  They might have a moral compass..... or not, so your assessment is flawed, and very naive.

[johnofgwent]

I don't have an issue with whether it could have been published before it was written.  That's just something you created in your mind.  So if it was written in mid 2021, then why is that?  Did something stop the author from writing something earlier?  Was there anything to stop the NIH or MDPI publishing a different article about the same subject, before 2021?  That is what I meant by the interesting date, not there are time-travelling aliens, John.  Try using some lateral thinking.

You just do not get it do you

YOU are the one whose life requires there to be something "strange" about a bloke in roughly the same academic position as my dad's best mate from school and one of my former clients in my old job taking it upon himself to lay down criteria for his fellow professionals to follow.

There is about as much wierdness, strangeness and interestingness in that chap's decision to publish a document "now" as my boss telling me last year to write a coding standard based on proven practice of the last decade so our team have it available ...

or indeed dad's best mate from school deciding he was SO pissed off with the inappropriate or inadequate training in applicants for his laboratory he took the decision to go to the royal society of chemistry and get them to accredit a training syllabus of his own making

Thats it.

Writing guides like this is what people in that chaps position DO.

It is part of their job just as much as it was part of mine to define precisely how I set up my experiments so all the people who wanted to use our techniques in their own work could do so without wasting a year repeating how we went wrong.

There is absolutely f**k all of "note", "interest" or anything else about it.

Or it's timing.

Find something else to blame the wormhole aliens for.

[Nick]

Don't worry about it, John.  If you ignore what I just said, or maybe you struggle with terms like 'conflict of interest', then there's no point discussing it.

So you automatically assume that because there is a conflict of interest they're lying 🤥?
Someone can have a conflict of interests and also a moral compass, therefore your assessment is flawed.

[Scott777]

I'm not worried at all. As an author I am aware a publication rarely makes it to a convention or symposium until the author writes it. You seem to to be having problems understanding that.

I know most of the institutions listed in this guy's CV. Hell, my boss all those years ago shared CERN time with blokes from one. I have to say bending over and taking it up the shitter for the "it was aliens" arse holes isn't normally in their mindset

https://sciprofiles.com/profile/679744 

I don't have an issue with whether it could have been published before it was written.  That's just something you created in your mind.  So if it was written in mid 2021, then why is that?  Did something stop the author from writing something earlier?  Was there anything to stop the NIH or MDPI publishing a different article about the same subject, before 2021?  That is what I meant by the interesting date, not there are time-travelling aliens, John.  Try using some lateral thinking.

[johnofgwent]

Don't worry about it, John.  If you ignore what I just said, or maybe you struggle with terms like 'conflict of interest', then there's no point discussing it.

I'm not worried at all. As an author I am aware a publication rarely makes it to a convention or symposium until the author writes it. You seem to to be having problems understanding that.

I know most of the institutions listed in this guy's CV. Hell, my boss all those years ago shared CERN time with blokes from one. I have to say bending over and taking it up the shitter for the "it was aliens" arse holes isn't normally in their mindset 

https://sciprofiles.com/profile/679744  

[Scott777]

Care to tell me where the Italians fit in this conspiracy you are happily brewing ...

Don't worry about it, John.  If you ignore what I just said, or maybe you struggle with terms like 'conflict of interest', then there's no point discussing it.

[johnofgwent]

Come on, matey, you can do better than make silly comments about conspiracies; you're not a sheep. 

So just remind me, why did the MDPI only publish this research in 2021?

I don't know, maybe they published it in July 2021 because the senior author only submitted it four weeks earlier ...

Care to tell me where the Italians fit in this conspiracy you are happily brewing ...

Have the NIH threatened to drop agent orange on their sphagetti harvest perhaps ??

[Scott777]

Well, i suppose it would be if you were a conspiracy theorist seeking some spurious connection between the NIH and the article.

Those of us who wear or wore lab coats for a living know the NIH are merely a library resource for published material and a store for science citation index and pubmed.

The article was actually published in a journal made available by a Swiss Nonprofit Organisation called MDPI who you can read a bit about here
https://www.mdpi.com/about/history

The original article, which I admit was only recently submitted to this organisation, was published here

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/7/870

The article was authored by a group of academics in the field in question, and as it has been a while since I have been an active author myself, I am not sure if the senior author in this venture hails from Foggia, Italy, or elsewhere.

Different countries have different paradigms for addressing seniority, you see, so when my work was published as a collaboration between myself and two more senior authors, as per UK protocol the second to last senior authors are listed first, with the senior partner last.

In my case this caused my boss to be SLIGHTLY irked at American arse holes who presumed everyone listed authors with the most senior in the middle of the list, for when we were cited by two Nobel laureates for our materials and methods, DOZENS of respected US academics wrote to ME, not HIM asking for reprints of our article.

I believe Italy places the senior author first hence my view the article was produced in Foggia from a team led from there.

Either way, the ONLY connection to the NIH is that they are a citation index source and as such come up frequently when I use my Linux systems to search the pubmed and citation index databases for academic papers. They are in many ways the Google of science and academia and have about as much relationship to the authors of cited and stored works as The Pirate Bay might have to your latest piece of goat porn.

Sorry (well, no, not really but etiquette requires it)

Come on, matey, you can do better than make silly comments about conspiracies; you're not a sheep.  The NIH is heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  Therefore, they have an incentive to publish stuff which Bill Gates would like them to, and since Bill gets lots of money from the Covid vaccines, therefore he has an incentive to hide any possible link between vaccines and injuries.  If they publish stuff which Bill wants, they will continue to get lots of funding.  That's called (I have to explain this in really simple language for you, John) a conflict of interest, not a conspiracy, so please try to get your facts right.

Then, looking at the MDPI, I notice the Founder and Chairman of the Board is Dr. Shu-Kun Lin, who graduated with a BSc from Wuhan University, and one board member is Dr. Yu Lin, who graduated with a BSc from Wuhan University of Technology.  So just remind me, John, which US organisation funded that Wuhan Institute to work on bat viruses?  Oh yeah, it was the NIH.  So just remind me, why did the MDPI only publish this research in 2021?

[johnofgwent]

It's interesting that the NIH (the same people who funded the Wuhan Lab which unleashed Covid on us) decided to publish this only after the vaccination program began.

Well, i suppose it would be if you were a conspiracy theorist seeking some spurious connection between the NIH and the article.

Those of us who wear or wore lab coats for a living know the NIH are merely a library resource for published material and a store for science citation index and pubmed.

The article was actually published in a journal made available by a Swiss Nonprofit Organisation called MDPI who you can read a bit about here
https://www.mdpi.com/about/history

The original article, which I admit was only recently submitted to this organisation, was published here

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/7/870

The article was authored by a group of academics in the field in question, and as it has been a while since I have been an active author myself, I am not sure if the senior author in this venture hails from Foggia, Italy, or elsewhere.

Different countries have different paradigms for addressing seniority, you see, so when my work was published as a collaboration between myself and two more senior authors, as per UK protocol the second to last senior authors are listed first, with the senior partner last.

In my case this caused my boss to be SLIGHTLY irked at American arse holes who presumed everyone listed authors with the most senior in the middle of the list, for when we were cited by two Nobel laureates for our materials and methods, DOZENS of respected US academics wrote to ME, not HIM asking for reprints of our article.

I believe Italy places the senior author first hence my view the article was produced in Foggia from a team led from there.

Either way, the ONLY connection to the NIH is that they are a citation index source and as such come up frequently when I use my Linux systems to search the pubmed and citation index databases for academic papers. They are in many ways the Google of science and academia and have about as much relationship to the authors of cited and stored works as The Pirate Bay might have to your latest piece of goat porn.

Sorry (well, no, not really but etiquette requires it)

[johnofgwent]

I would think the onus is on the person claiming Covid is something more than, let's say flu, for example.  Or otherwise, do we ASSUME every new thing is an emergency?

Why not ? Labour do. It's their favourite word

[Scott777]

Please provide the findings of the LACC, BTW I will check it just in case you got it from one of your wacky sources.

I don't have the findings for you, Nick.  I quoted from CNN.  Of course, you can take that with a pinch of salt, however, do you have the findings to show it was something else that killed them, and what would that be?  As for 'wacky sources', is that just a derogatory remark, or can you give an example of one of my 'wacky' sources?

[Scott777]

But you do seem to have enough info to say Covid is nothing!

I would think the onus is on the person claiming Covid is something more than, let's say flu, for example.  Or otherwise, do we ASSUME every new thing is an emergency?