5 ms·

You know we truly live in an insane world when Immunostimulants are not attempted for HIV despite being the obvious treatment.. The mediocrity goes beyond imagi

You know we truly live in an insane world when Immunostimulants are not attempted for HIV despite being the obvious treatment.. The mediocrity goes beyond imagination. Thymalin +- thymosin a1 +- thymosin b4 are extremely likely to be the best available cures, Thymalin increase naive T cell production by 680% and the thymosin strongly stimulate T helpers and the adaptativity of the immune system. The major component of HIV is an abrupt thymic involution but hey let's not give them the thymic hormone h o h o https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15078181/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15078181/ lol thymalin defficiency is even found to be the cause preceding AIDS so let's not use it h o h o > Abnormally low plasma thymulin levels preceded the development of peripheral blood T cell abnormalities. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3018210/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3018210/ I'm afraid no one cares for those people. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16940531/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16940531/

refurb 4y ago
Who knew I'd click on HN and come across the cure for HIV!
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  who knew people being in denial of actual potent research would maintain the ignorance of those treatments? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33237528/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33237528/
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sph 4y ago
I recently replied to a comment of yours where you went on a tirade against benzodiazepines saying there are safer compounds that mainstream medicine chooses to ignore, and here you are doing the same thing with HIV treatments. Anyone cares to chime in and explain why it is not so simple like OP implies it is? Again, I very much doubt mainstream science is completely ignoring the panacea and preferring suboptimal solutions. Smells too much like a conspiracy theory to me.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    There are forums that enable "collaborative super-intelligence" but those are limited to illicit drug manufacturing
    - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
      What are you talking about? Research chemicals communities? Nootropics frontline forums?
  - mthrowjlls 4y ago
    Hey made this just to answer I'm ignorant in the field and eager to learn, and yet I dismissed your comment as well This was not because 'humanity that simply don't care above the surface layer of attention nor care deeply about the human condition' but because you come across as a weird prick Be nicer maybe?
  - tux3 4y ago
    >The level of downvoting and non-engagement about my comments you can observe on HN is just a symptom of a humanity that simply don't care above the surface layer of attention nor care deeply about the human condition and is auto-persuaded, in a self-fulfiling prophethy manner that those topics are already well explored by the institutions More likely, it is the expected reaction to the fact that crackpottery takes an order of magnitude more effort to debunk than to write. It's okay to have non-mainstream ideas, but the post above is written in a way that's hard to distinguish from crackpottery. When someone engages with crackpottery and responds point-by-point, the result is likely to be a very long subthread where no one changes their mind. It is a tremendous waste of time, and so empirically this results in silent downvotes. >a much more efficient process for finding potent ignored research, which is the norm considering half of scientific papers have nearly zero external citations and are therefore a water droplet in the ocean An enormous amount of studies are bad. There exist a few hidden gems that have zero citations while being high quality, but if you focus only on the existence of the few hidden gems while ignoring the ocean of statistically dubious, p-hacked, or downright fraudulent papers with zero citations, this is terrible bias. I suspect you have a strong distrust of the mainstream, and you might put too much confidence in the significance of small ignored papers. It is easy to be very excited about breakthrough interventions that reduce all cause mortality by 410%. We all want those breakthrough to be real, and we want the little guy with zero citations to be right against the 'mediocrity'. But that's bias. The reality is that those papers are almost always wrong, and you do more harm by giving them indiscriminate attention, peddling cures that don't work to vulnerable people.
bayesian_horse 4y ago
- logicchains 4y ago
  > Someone smart enough to research a topic to insane details like this but totally failing to notice he is being a d*-head. I'd have thought the person who calls someone a dickhead just for having a different opinion is the real dickhead. People like you would have been cheering for Galileo being burned alive for daring to suggest the Earth revolves around the sun.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Not the same thing. Galileo went with evidence against dogma. OP is going with weak speculation against thousands of researchers honestly trying to solve HIV.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  Probably not so much "research a topic to insane details" as skim looking for something they expect and isn't there. They're expecting that this is an efficacy trial (it isn't) and so they've supposed that it must need to expose the subjects to HIV, which of course would be unethical and it isn't doing. So they've just decided it's a "Nod and a wink" situation. Because the alternative would be that they're just wrong, and most people find that very difficult to imagine even though it's usually the explanation. COVID probably made this a little worse, as "COVID exposure" in most countries just meant normal life, so you could ethically run A/B efficacy trials on the COVID vaccines and get excellent results in a short time because most countries were doing an absolutely appalling job of managing the pandemic.
- kbelder 4y ago
  >A more obvious example would be Mango Mussolini's famous suggestion to drink bleach against COVID. You realize that you've fallen into a similar trap thinking that statement is true? You've uncritically accepted a falsehood because it fit a bias.

refurb 4y ago

Who knew I'd click on HN and come across the cure for HIV!

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
who knew people being in denial of actual potent research would maintain the ignorance of those treatments? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33237528/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33237528/

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sph 4y ago

I recently replied to a comment of yours where you went on a tirade against benzodiazepines saying there are safer compounds that mainstream medicine chooses to ignore, and here you are doing the same thing with HIV treatments. Anyone cares to chime in and explain why it is not so simple like OP implies it is? Again, I very much doubt mainstream science is completely ignoring the panacea and preferring suboptimal solutions. Smells too much like a conspiracy theory to me.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
- orangepurple 4y ago
  There are forums that enable "collaborative super-intelligence" but those are limited to illicit drug manufacturing
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    What are you talking about? Research chemicals communities? Nootropics frontline forums?
- mthrowjlls 4y ago
  Hey made this just to answer I'm ignorant in the field and eager to learn, and yet I dismissed your comment as well This was not because 'humanity that simply don't care above the surface layer of attention nor care deeply about the human condition' but because you come across as a weird prick Be nicer maybe?
- tux3 4y ago
  >The level of downvoting and non-engagement about my comments you can observe on HN is just a symptom of a humanity that simply don't care above the surface layer of attention nor care deeply about the human condition and is auto-persuaded, in a self-fulfiling prophethy manner that those topics are already well explored by the institutions More likely, it is the expected reaction to the fact that crackpottery takes an order of magnitude more effort to debunk than to write. It's okay to have non-mainstream ideas, but the post above is written in a way that's hard to distinguish from crackpottery. When someone engages with crackpottery and responds point-by-point, the result is likely to be a very long subthread where no one changes their mind. It is a tremendous waste of time, and so empirically this results in silent downvotes. >a much more efficient process for finding potent ignored research, which is the norm considering half of scientific papers have nearly zero external citations and are therefore a water droplet in the ocean An enormous amount of studies are bad. There exist a few hidden gems that have zero citations while being high quality, but if you focus only on the existence of the few hidden gems while ignoring the ocean of statistically dubious, p-hacked, or downright fraudulent papers with zero citations, this is terrible bias. I suspect you have a strong distrust of the mainstream, and you might put too much confidence in the significance of small ignored papers. It is easy to be very excited about breakthrough interventions that reduce all cause mortality by 410%. We all want those breakthrough to be real, and we want the little guy with zero citations to be right against the 'mediocrity'. But that's bias. The reality is that those papers are almost always wrong, and you do more harm by giving them indiscriminate attention, peddling cures that don't work to vulnerable people.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

logicchains 4y ago
> Someone smart enough to research a topic to insane details like this but totally failing to notice he is being a d*-head. I'd have thought the person who calls someone a dickhead just for having a different opinion is the real dickhead. People like you would have been cheering for Galileo being burned alive for daring to suggest the Earth revolves around the sun.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Not the same thing. Galileo went with evidence against dogma. OP is going with weak speculation against thousands of researchers honestly trying to solve HIV.
tialaramex 4y ago
Probably not so much "research a topic to insane details" as skim looking for something they expect and isn't there. They're expecting that this is an efficacy trial (it isn't) and so they've supposed that it must need to expose the subjects to HIV, which of course would be unethical and it isn't doing. So they've just decided it's a "Nod and a wink" situation. Because the alternative would be that they're just wrong, and most people find that very difficult to imagine even though it's usually the explanation. COVID probably made this a little worse, as "COVID exposure" in most countries just meant normal life, so you could ethically run A/B efficacy trials on the COVID vaccines and get excellent results in a short time because most countries were doing an absolutely appalling job of managing the pandemic.
kbelder 4y ago
>A more obvious example would be Mango Mussolini's famous suggestion to drink bleach against COVID. You realize that you've fallen into a similar trap thinking that statement is true? You've uncritically accepted a falsehood because it fit a bias.