nonbel

7 ms·

1.
by nonbel 6y ago
This is the second study showing vitamin C is depleted in covid patients: https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-02...
2.
Serum levels of vitamin C and Vitamin D in critically ill Covid-19 patients(sciencedirect.com)
2 points by nonbel 6y ago|1 comments
3.
Gravitational Waves: Silent Fiasco(translate.google.com)
3 points by nonbel 6y ago|0 comments
4.
by nonbel 6y ago
Obviously I am saying the standard explanation is the one with the causality backwards.
5.
by nonbel 6y ago
> Figure3 shows plasma levels following a 36g dose of liposomal vitamin C, for both subjects. This resulted in peak plasma levels, in the region of 400mML21. A 95% interfractile range (34–114), which contains 95% of the distribution with
6.
by nonbel 6y ago
It's interesting that a side effect of pretty much every treatment for cancer is nausea, weight loss, etc. Almost like reduced nutrient absorption is the main mechanism by which the treatments work.
7.
by nonbel 6y ago
You could say that about every preclinical or clinical trial. If no one good at promotion had an interest in the treatment it would never get funded. Most treatments studied are patented drugs, I never see these types of comments about thos
8.
by nonbel 6y ago
Thanks, not what I was thinking it sounds like.
9.
by nonbel 6y ago
> Regarding quantum states as degrees of belief implies that the event of a quantum state changing when a measurement occurs—the "collapse of the wave function"—is simply the agent updating her beliefs in response to a new expe
10.
by nonbel 6y ago
From my reading, they would say some particles are just much more energetic than usual (for some reason we are ignorant of). See the post above about flipping a coin. According to the statistical model we use for coin flips, it is really un
11.
by nonbel 6y ago
Sounds like the wave model describes the statistical properties of a population of photons. Eg, a coin flip is deterministic if you know all the forces involved (airflow, force of flip, exact distribution of mass of the coin, etc). But sinc
12.
New York hospitals treating coronavirus patients with vitamin C(nypost.com)
1 points by nonbel 6y ago|0 comments
13.
by nonbel 6y ago
But who is going to go to a doctor/hospital for the flu when they are scared of catching sars2 there?
14.
“Missing Smokers” in SARS and Covid-19 patient data(reddit.com)
11 points by nonbel 7y ago|0 comments
15.
by nonbel 7y ago
Makes some sense, but that got me wondering if medical guidelines are going to start getting updates every few weeks like web browsers do.
16.
by nonbel 7y ago
First, check the warburg hypothesis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis Cancer cells rely much more on glycolysis than oxidative phosphorylation (respiration, basically breaking down sugar with oxygen).
17.
by nonbel 7y ago
I met someone who went for a checkup and they convinced him to get a screening colonoscopy. It was clear but a few months later he started having problems and went back. Then they told him he had colon cancer caused by damage to the tissue
18.
by nonbel 7y ago
> You keep attaching a lot of Pubmed links, but frankly, in this case at least, they aren't all that compelling and don't even begin to approach a scientific consensus. Which of these statements do you find controversial? 1) Sk
19.
by nonbel 7y ago
2017 is a bit dated?
20.
by nonbel 7y ago
You think there is no consensus that skin cancer rates are skyrocketing?
21.
by nonbel 7y ago
There was no confusion of correlation and causation in my post. It is a clearly stated correlation. Broad spectrum sunblock may be less than perfect, but until recently all sunblock was transparent to UVA. It blocked UVB which prevented the
22.
by nonbel 7y ago
If I'm reading this right it looks like 3 yr survival was 30-50% in high risk melanoma patients in the late 1960s to early 1970s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1344342/ That is pretty much
23.
by nonbel 7y ago
Thanks, do you have one for melanoma in mind for comparison to that study when you say "used to be lethal".
24.
by nonbel 7y ago
I see, it should have been written "screening-detected" to be as clear as possible. Yes, the latter is more likely to be comparable over time but it will still have issues with changes in how likely someone is to report it to thei
25.
by nonbel 7y ago
Please provide sources so we can see where these numbers are coming from.
26.
by nonbel 7y ago
I don't understand what you mean by "detected cancer" and "symptomatic cancer". Eg if a cancer is already detected then by definition it is impossible to screen for it.
27.
by nonbel 7y ago
There is a skin cancer pandemic since health authorities started warning people to avoid the sun. It is found mostly in people who avoid/block the sun and not eg people who work outside everyday. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
28.
by nonbel 7y ago
The people who don't know what they are talking about (or are maliciously feigning ignorance) are those who look at 5 yr survival without considering the effect of increased surveillance/screening. https://en.m.wikipedi
29.
by nonbel 7y ago
Nice link, thanks.
30.
by nonbel 7y ago
Can you point out one that was inconsistent with the foundations of physics? I suppose it is possible some were that radical.

More ›