zosima

20 ms·

1.
by zosima 5mo ago
This is ridiculous. Your meta review has like 80%-90% of the studies on semaglutide and liraglutide. When finding random effect per drug, they even say this: > Hence, the drugs eligible for meta-regression were semaglutide (subcutaneous
2.
by zosima 5mo ago
But has only weak/moderate effect on weight loss compared to semaglutide, tirzepatide and retatrutide. Alzheimer is a lot more difficult to measure than weight and amyloid-beta in the brain obviously significantly harder to target than
3.
by zosima 5mo ago
Yes, the new anti-amyloids are not a revolutionary therapy. But they do have a small but definite effect on disease-progression. (something which in a highly noisy indication like Alzheimer's may actually mean a lot more to the patient
4.
by zosima 5mo ago
I wonder. Because if that was the question, why would they include anti-amyloid treatments that were never approved and are not part of any current treatment regimen and dilute the real effect of the approved antibodies? (Not that the appro
5.
by zosima 5mo ago
That systematic review is unfortunately severely flawed. They pooled the old anti-amyloid antibodies (which everybody agrees are inefficacious) and were never used outside clinical trials, with the new anti-amyloid antibodies, that does sho
6.
by zosima 5mo ago
The genetic evidence that amyloid-beta is in some way causative of at least a subset of Alzheimer's disease is still extremely strong. The fact that amyloid-beta binding drugs like Lecanemab and Donanemab decrease progression is also v
7.
by zosima 9mo ago
What has closing a government agency to do with free speech? Did you interpret the calls for the end of censoring and cancellations that all government agencies must continue to exist forever? And if so is there any resemblance of logic beh
8.
by zosima 10mo ago
I wouldn't bother commenting if I were hallucinating figures. There is no figure 4a. If you look at figure 4 in the supplemental material you also see, per your expertise, that covid vaccine protects against traumatic injury. However e
9.
by zosima 10mo ago
This is rather weird. Mortality in immediate connection with the vaccine (index time) would not have been captured here. I would hesitate to draw any conclusion from this paper. > For all individuals, vaccinated or not, follow-up time ze
10.
by zosima 10mo ago
I am speaking about what the paper shows. There are other sources of evidence for efficacy. This paper is not a very strong source of evidence for efficacy due to some obvious uncontrolled difference between groups.
11.
by zosima 10mo ago
The reduction in all-cause mortality was independent of covid deaths. Which seems to suggest that there was big differences between the groups other than the vaccination. This of course does not change that the vaccine seems mostly safe, bu
12.
by zosima 1y ago
Maybe those you call extremists are now the only sane people.
13.
by zosima 1y ago
People who are poorer and have worse health are predisposed to live in cheaper dwellings, many of which are closer to roads and thus more noisy and with more air pollution. People who are poorer and have worse health, also have an increased
14.
by zosima 1y ago
This is not "everyone". I'd hope we'd fire anyone incompetent that's in a position to control the interest rate.
15.
by zosima 1y ago
Yes, and so is big parts of Russia. Attacking one country is not the same as attacking a continent.
16.
by zosima 1y ago
No, it's not. Social media is massively censored in many EU countries (and UK).
17.
by zosima 1y ago
Russia has attacked Ukraine. Not Europe. Neither Ukraine nor Israel is part of EU or NATO.
18.
by zosima 1y ago
Copyright is not censorship. Censorship is state/company mandated retraction or blockage of certain information. Copyright is state/company mandated blocking of certain forms of expression. Copyright permits you to publish any ide
19.
by zosima 1y ago
The vast majority of known blocks are missing on that list. It's in fact worse than no list as it gives the impression of transparency, where there isn't any.
20.
by zosima 1y ago
That sounds really easy and straightforward. And yeah, committee decisions are well known for their technical excellence and far-sightedness.
21.
by zosima 1y ago
Most of these are bad for most people. They do something superficially useful, but ultimately blocks innovation and small companies and so leads to large companies being protected from competition.
22.
by zosima 1y ago
Blocked by court or state. Private ISPs can't block sites. And this is true for almost all these legislations. They remove power from individuals and companies, while avoiding to limit EU and state power in any meaningful way.
23.
by zosima 1y ago
Yes, this is the narrative, supported by the funding agencies. Also, I'd like to add that it's almost always humans of European descent who are committing the dastardly deeds.
24.
by zosima 1y ago
Different stories, same funding agencies. Or at least same global goals for the funding agencies.
25.
by zosima 1y ago
I think tolerance builds up fast enough for that to be a rather boring experiment.
26.
by zosima 1y ago
The beautifully named 32024R1689, aka AI Act, prohibits a lot of random stuff. It definitely makes many AI efforts into a legal minefield. It does not just cover live facial recognition in public spaces, which I personally could live withou
27.
by zosima 1y ago
I don't get this attitude. Private parties are me and you. I have many interests and ideas, and now many of those have been forbidden for no discernible reason, while the government is still allowed to spy on us to their hearts content
28.
by zosima 1y ago
I edited mine after you edited yours. Here is an article about live/post facial recognition: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-ai-facial-recognition-tec...
29.
by zosima 1y ago
What is non-factual? We have another token legislation from EU forbidding private parties to most anything, and carefully inserting loopholes for authorities and government to do as they please. True, the restrictions on live facial recogni
30.
by zosima 1y ago
They have outlawed _live_ facial recognition in public places. And with exemptions such as e.g. terrorism, which I'm guessing is what UK is going to go for with protesters.

More ›