John Cuthber

I suspect it's the spores of the fungus that killed the fly.

20 hours ago, KrallSpace29 said:

Can someone give me some up votes, came off to a rocky start. 

You earned the downvotes.
What do you propose to do to earn the upvotes?

Just now, exchemist said:

Seems strange behaviour for a person  sign up to a club - and then immediately start complaining about the rules they've just agreed to. 

Stranger still when they start telling everyone that they are the only  one who understands logic...

On 8/4/2023 at 12:15 AM, disobey said:

Come and seek me out at a forum where...

This bit reminds me of something.
About 30 years ago I used to live in London and, from time to time, in the pubs I would meet American tourists who explained to me at  length how much better America was than the UK. To be fair, it wasn't only Americans- some of the Aussies were just as bad. And, of course, it was only ever a small minority.

I'd wait for them to finish their rant and then politely offer to pay for their ticket to the airport so they could go back.

They never took me up on it.

Here's your ticket back to your forum where you are happy. Would you like directions and/ or help with your packing?

17 hours ago, disobey said:

I will tell you one of the things that your masters probably won't allow me to say to you. 

Ooh!
I have a "master".
That's remarkable.

 

17 hours ago, disobey said:

From what I see, this forum is as much about censorship as most other forums out there are. 

So... "as much about censorship ..."
That's probably true.
This form is, to a vanishingly small degree, about censorship, and I imagine that's true of lots of other fora which also have other topics to focus on.
You are not being censored here.
We don't have any authority to do so.
Much as we may wish to, we can not stop you spouting nonsense on the web (or in your local high street if you wish).

But we can stop you wasting our time and bandwidth.
 

18 hours ago, KrallSpace29 said:

I have come to this conclusion based on time dilation which has occurred in my awareness in the last year or two. I've been reading a lot of Riemannian and Tensor Calculus in the last year, and am still becoming more aware of what each and anveryone's human mind can do. We're more powerful than you think, a lot of people have succumbed to the media and other. 

Since I did this Antarctica went from melting to freezing, a deep freeze actually. The North pole can be fixed once the Southern one is, this can't happen at the same time.

 

Without wishing to appear offensive, if you aren't trolling, I suggest that you seek medical help.
 

17 hours ago, disobey said:

Also, the very act of being corrupt by itself shows incompetence.  

No.
That's my point.
It shows that they are competent criminals.

How did you come to the conclusion that you had " a dramatic effect on correcting the layers of the atmosphere."

1 hour ago, KrallSpace29 said:

I have found that if you are to orient a nice LED light bulb in a lamp, (I used a GE LED), it instantly and definitely has a dramatic effect on correcting the layers of the atmosphere.

How did you "find" this?

8 hours ago, disobey said:

I have never read them.  But then again, I don't need to.  Because I know...

LOL

8 hours ago, disobey said:

  It is a Plutocracy.  Which is rule by the rich.  But to put it more precisely, our system of government is a Kakistocracy.  Which is rule by the incompetent and corrupt.

It's an interesting point.
Almost any government decision is good from someone's point of view.
The current UK government is clearly plutocratic.
But within that context, the politicians arevery competent.
They are doing a fine job of making sure the rich get richer.

They aren't " incompetent and corrupt"; they are very competent in their corruption. They get away with it.

 

Why are you torturing worms?

https://xkcd.com/1020/

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

The cheapest non-alcoholic drink to produce is arguably bottled water. Everything else is an additive.

That's a good order of magnitude or two more expensive than tap water.
A friend of mine who used to work in a  pub was always pleased to see people drinking cola in his bar.
It had a mark-up of essentially 100 %.
The brewery supplied CO2 for dispensing beer, so he didn't pay for that. The price of tap water is quoted in pennies per ton.
The flavouring syrup  cost a few pence. He sold the drink for a few pounds.
I think he worked out the most expensive bit was paying someone to wash the glass afterwards.
 

The difference between pharmacology and toxicology is intent.

It would be an exceptionally safe drug.

Even placebos have about a 5% risk of adverse effects.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/harmful-placebos

3 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

We don't need to know exactly how large it is, knowing that it is smaller than 1 in 100 000 would probably be sufficient.

OK

Let's start there because we agree about it.
If the risk is low enough, it's not worth worrying about.

Why?
Do you accept that essentially, it's "too small to worry about" because it's "too small to make any (noticeable) difference"?

Well, we have been using the stuff for over half a century.

And nobody noticed the difference.
Even though we have systems in place to check, nobody noticed.


 

11 hours ago, Z.10.46 said:

But instead of discussing the infinity that is absurd in physics, we reduce its complexity to a finite thing M(c-1) or E=-M(c-1)^c^2 where the 1 in c-1 is dimensionless

Choosing to get the wrong answer is also absurd.

1 hour ago, Z.10.46 said:

"Could you define what 'infinite energy' or 'infinite mass' means in physics😁?

No, and that's the point.
It's clearly absurd.

"Is it permissible to use infinity, which is not defined in physics, to assume the impossibility of traveling at the speed of light?!"
Yes, particularly if you use a reductio ad absurdum argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It is absurd to imagine that something with a non-zero rest-mass  could get to the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.

30 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

I don't understand what statistical power has to do with what I said.

I'm sorry; I thought I had made it clear.
For any set of experiments, statistical power is finite.
 

31 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

But don't you understand that you don't have to find it? If you have 100,000 subjects and you don't find an increase in cancer risk then you can say that, if an effect exists, it is smaller than 1 in 100,000 getting cancer.

I understand that.
How did you come to the conclusion that such a test has not been done?
You are the one saying we need more testing; You are also the one saying that we don't need to find the problem

Come back when you have finished arguing with yourself.
 

32 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

. It would not be expensive because it would not be a trial, but an observational study.

As I said, are you offering to pay for it?
But. more importantly, what do you think this is?

On 7/14/2023 at 8:38 AM, John Cuthber said:

The carcinogenicity (and other  risks) of metronidazole are still under investigation- as are those with any other drugs in medical use.

https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/

34 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

OMG, of course it would change clinical practice. If we found out that the risk was higher than the cancer risk conferred by H pylori we would use a different antibiotic to treat the infection. That's the whole point. Again, I've already explained this at least twice.

AFAICT you have yet to explain why you think we do not already know that the risk from H pylori is greater than that from the drug.
Do you realise that neither estimate of probability needs to be very precise?

 

37 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

- we don't know what the cancer risk associated with metronidazole is.

We know that it is small. (Because, if it was high, it would be noticeable- e.g via the yellow card scheme or through American ambulance chasing lawyers As wiki points out "In 2020, it was the 222nd most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 2 million prescriptions.^".)

And that's all we actually ned to know.

This is exactly what statistical power has to do with it.
We did tests. They were not powerful enough to be sure of the outcome; they never can be.
But they were good enough to know that the cure was better than the disease.

 

Reminds me of this.

30 minutes ago, netzao said:

How do you determine the purity of Sodium Hypochlorite ?

Iodometric titration, but I can't see how that's relevant.
 

31 minutes ago, netzao said:

Is there something to look for or is all Sodium Hypochlorite the same ?

It's a chemical.
It is always the same.



Fundamentally, the material you posted the data for is just bleach.
I think the amine oxide is there as a surfactant/ thickener.
The other alkalies are there because hypochlorite is more stable in alkaline solution.

What are you trying to achieve?
 

On 3/23/2023 at 11:07 PM, Michael McMahon said:

Thin people can overcome the cold by hyperfocusing on body tone.

Really?
This whole thread seems to be full of speculations and errors.

I don't think you can get high purity sodium hypochlorite as a solid powder- it usually decomposes a bit when you remove the water.

12 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

I guess we would need to do a systematic review of the literature to really know which direction the evidence is pointing to.

There are two problems with that.
The first is that's not how testing works.
If you are lucky, it goes like this:
A study of a hundred patients would probably tell you about an effect that happened in 10% of them, but might miss an effect that happened in 1% of them.
If you raise the sample size to a million, you will almost certainly spot any side effect that happens in 0.01% of teh population.

So, at best, if you have a big enough cohort, you can detect an adverse effect that is very rare.
But if the effect is rare enough, you may never be able to get a large enough test pool.

If you are unlucky, you find something like this; the drug raises the lifetime cancer risk from about 30% (or whatever it is) to 30.1%.
You need a huge, well designed study to find an effect like that. Such trials are expensive

And here's the big problem with your suggestion.

What do you do with the result?

The people prescribing metronidazole know it's associated with a small risk of harm from cancer.
But they are  using it to treat a condition with a relatively large risk of harm.

Actually putting a number on the first risk- say it's a 0.1234% higher relative risk- does not change clinical practice.

So you would end up spending a lot of money to confirm something which the doctors already know, and already act on.

Now, if you personally are a billionaire and want to waste your money on such a programme, that's your choice.
But I suspect the rest of us would prefer the healthcare industry to spend its limited resources on things where the outcome will actually make a difference.

Don't you agree?