Investor20

It can be true because in real terms wages and investments are down this year From October 2021 to October 2022a 2.9-percent decrease in real average weekly earnings over this period Real Earnings News Release - 2022 M10 Results (bls.gov) https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/global-markets-flows-urgent-2022-10-14/ "60/40" portfolios are facing worst returns in 100 years: BofA" Global Wage Report: Rising inflation brings striking fall in real wages, ILO report finds estimates that global monthly wages fell in real terms to minus 0.9 per cent in the first half of 2022 – the first time this century that real global wage growth has been negative. From Real (inflation adjusted) Annualized S&P 500 Return (Dividends Reinvested): -20.048% for 2022 (screen shot attached) Warren Buffet on inflation: Inflation swindles almost everybody. To me a big drop in investments and negative wages is a recession...whatever official definition may be and we are already in one.

The problem is the excess mortality today for younger people is more than in 2020. 2020 has least excess deaths of 2020, 2021 and 2022. Below data given for 0-24 for similar trend for 24-44 years too. From USmortality.com For 0-24 year olds: United States reported 64,467 deaths, for the 52 weeks of year 2020 (0-24 years of age). Expected deaths were 60,263. That is an increase of +4,204 deaths (+7.0%). United States reported 68,264 deaths for the 52 weeks of year 2021 (0-24 years of age). Expected deaths were 59,022. That is an increase of +9,242 deaths (+15.7%). Year to date, United States reported 56,075 deaths for the 45 weeks of year 2022 (0-24 years of age). Expected deaths were 50,429. That is an increase of +5,646 deaths (+11.2%).

"From Sept. 1, public buildings - with the exception of social institutions like hospitals - are to be heated to a maximum 19 degrees Celsius, and the heating could be turned off entirely in corridors and foyers." Emphasis in bold added https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-government-approves-energy-saving-measures-rein-gas-usage-2022-08-24/

From August 2021 to August 2022, .... resulted in a 3.2-percent decrease in real average weekly earnings over this period. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.htm There is no Pay Increase. The workers are only asking for raises to keep up with inflation for their ends to meet. Emphasis in bold added

I am not clear why many here feel job market is strong. Just because people are asking for a raise in high inflationary situation doesn't mean the job market is strong. It could as well mean they cannot have ends meet with present income. Looking at real weekly earnings (inflation adjusted) there is a steady drop of median from Q2 2020 at 393 to present 358$. That is a whopping 8.9% real earnings drop in last two years. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q# If you were to look at civilian labor force participation, it was at 63.4% in Feb 2020 to present 62.4%. That is a loss of 1%, or over 3 milion employees lost. Loss of 3 million employees lost from pre-Covid (Jan 2020) and negative 8.9% median real wages hardly show a strong job market. If people want a raise, it only means their expenses went up and need more to have their ends meet. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

I am not sure why this is moved to General Discussion. This is an investment idea in a start up company. Investments in start ups are different in process and one has to be accredited investor. Yet this is investment idea than General discussion. Please move it back to investment forum. Thanks

I have an investment in Novuson surgical. Their website is http://novuson.com The short story is that traditional cauterization techniques are electricity and heat based that cause smoke and charring. Novuson is developing Ultrasound based Cauterization and in the process of doing testing for FDA filing. Please see two videos that show the technology. From their PR "Novuson Surgical's patented technology delivers Direct Therapeutic Ultrasound (DTU) energy for cauterization and hemostatic control without transmission of electricity through the patient, and provides safety and predictability in the most critical surgical applications." My investment was based on my discussion with a few surgeons who did say the traditional cauterization do have problems such as referred smoke and charring. Additionally, as per CDC smoke plume during surgery is a problem and smoke should be minimized. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/healthcarehsps/smoke.html Surgical smoke is produced by the thermal destruction of tissue by use of lasers or electrosurgical devices. Not only is surgical smoke a nuisance because it has a repulsive odor and can obstruct the surgeon’s view of the surgical site,..... Acute health effects of exposure to surgical smoke include: Eye, nose and throat irritation Headache Cough Nasal congestion Asthma and asthma-like symptom CDC recommends minimizing such surgical smoke. I believe this is a huge advantage for this technology, because once it is approved, this could be a driver to have hospitals switch to smoke less cauterization. The terms they gave for a convertible note " (i) Notes will convert at a pre-money valuation equal to the lesser of (i) 80% of the pre-money valuation of such offering, or (ii) $11,800,000. I am only an investor at Novuson and if you want more details, I can get you to talk to their CEO. If there is sufficient interest from enough people, they could do a webinar. Below are two videos of their technology. Videos of technology: https://app.box.com/s/y1ij7j2ip9mkkx3i001u5bahaif0xjqc https://app.box.com/s/affknz9e5hl30fpfjol87kv1c7b19j7r

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00160-0/fulltext April 09, 2021 Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial "....indicating a relative risk reduction of 91% for budesonide." Interpretation Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19. Note: Please consult a physician for any treatment. Any medication has contraindications. Only for discussion.

This article had selective citations. I have written before about Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. But let us look at Convalescent plasma. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2033700 Early High-Titer Plasma Therapy to Prevent Severe Covid-19 in Older Adults Conclusions Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 to mildly ill infected older adults reduced the progression of Covid-19. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2031304 A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo. ......... So medicines work better when patient is treated early...hardly a noble laureate level finding.

One area that has shown potential for reduced transmission is Ivermectin. If you look at the meta-analysis of four RCTs with Ivermectin in below link (Page 14), they have Moderate certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin prophylaxis among health care workers and COVID-19 contacts probably reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by about 88% (4 studies, 851 participants; RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.18; 4.3% vs 34.5% contracted COVID-19). https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4eeb59304c7f.filesusr.com/ugd/593c4f_1b1399cb64514dc4bdcbef0cd15f7878.pdf 88% reduction is more than 50% given by AstraZeneca. However, the push back is these are not well done studies and are not large studies. Ofcourse no one does large studies as Ivermectin is so cheap, it is practically free. There is also one more study not included in the above meta-analysis: AIIMS find ivermectin prophylaxis reduces infection in Covid-19 patients https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/aiims-study-covid-19/ A study by All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)-Bhubaneswar in the Indian state of Odisha found that two doses of potential drug ivermectin prophylaxis resulted in a 73% reduction in Covid-19 infection. Note: Only for discussion. Not a suggestion to take any medication. Please follow your physicians advise.

The real question is can vaccines take us to herd immunity. There are doubts about that. Please read below article: Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 The key to herd immunity is that, even if a person becomes infected, there are too few susceptible hosts around to maintain transmission — those who have been vaccinated or have already had the infection cannot contract and spread the virus. The COVID-19 vaccines developed by Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech, for example, are extremely effective at preventing symptomatic disease, but it is still unclear whether they protect people from becoming infected, or from spreading the virus to others. That poses a problem for herd immunity. “Herd immunity is only relevant if we have a transmission-blocking vaccine. If we don’t, then the only way to get herd immunity in the population is to give everyone the vaccine,” says Shweta Bansal, a mathematical biologist at Georgetown University in Washington DC Even though the discussion is about Pfizer and Moderna which they are starting studies of infection and transmission, AstraZeneca released some data about infection. In below study they showed... "The data showed that PCR positive readings were reduced by 67% (CI: 49%, 78%) after a single dose, and 50% (CI: 38% to 59%) after the two dose regimen, supporting a substantial impact on transmission of the virus." https://covid19.astrazeneca.com/latest-news/primary-analysis-trial-data.html It could be as low as 38%, which considering mutations and reduction in mitigation such as distancing could cancel out. I am being fair, waiting for full data to make a judgement.

But they are not claiming that with this vaccine - atleast not yet. Read the Fauci comments given in the link. They are claiming even if someone gets infected after vaccination, they will get less symptoms. But that person could still transmit to others. Whether they get less infected and less transmission after vaccination is still being studied. Making unproven claims will make people question genuine claims.

If you get vaccinated, it helps you is the claim for vaccine. But even Fauci is not saying it helps others. It is far easier to convince people to take a vaccine because its good for them rather than make up that it reduces transmission to others which is still being studied and raises suspicions about other claims of vaccine.

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210326/covid-vaccine-spread-study March 26, 2021 "Fauci: Study Will Tell if COVID Vaccine Stops Spread" “We hope that within the next 5 or so months, we’ll be able answer the very important question about whether vaccinated people get infected asymptomatically,” he said, “and if they do, do they transmit the infection to others.” Why do they ask fully vaccinated people to wear masks. Socially distance. My friend in NY westchester county who is fully vaccinated was asked for a one week quarantine and PCR test to have some tests done at a hospital. Now, clarifying this information, why do you think it matters to you whether others are vaccinated as long as you are vaccinated?

Explain to me how you taking vaccine helps others? Is it not easier always to convince people it is in their interest - in this case to take the vaccine than these statements? Would it be not more polite to just say, I got vaccine...I am protected.

NY Vaccine passport. How to use it: "......you may be asked to show a photo ID that shows your name and birth date to verify that the Pass belongs to you. " So you would need a photo ID to buy groceries! Excelsior Pass: What You Need to Know | COVID-19 Vaccine (ny.gov)

The discussion seems to be like everyone has same access to same vaccine. For Astra Zeneca shot: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2021/03/30/canada-Canada-suspends-use-AstraZeneca-coronavirus-vaccine/6901617075289/ Canada suspends use of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine for people under 55 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56580728 Covid: Germany limits use of AstraZeneca Covid jab for under-60s https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/world/france-resumes-use-of-astrazenecas-vaccine-for-those-over-55-and-the-prime-minister-gets-the-shot.html France resumes use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine for those over 55, and the prime minister gets the shot. In the main coronavirus thread, we had a discussion about not studying Vitamin D, Ivermectin, HCQ+Zinc, Budenoside, Colchicine, etc which have at least small studies to support.  Particularly studying VItamin D in large randomized clinical trials. The pushback was now there are vaccines, there is no need for all these studies.  I strongly disagree.  Like in a war, one would depend on all the modes (marines, military, airforce), one needs to have multipronged approach against Covid too, especially when above are supplements or medicines that are cheap and widely available.

Some have questioned the need for vaccination for already infected and recovered.  Below Dr. Kulldorf is one of them https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1376292359718248452 Look at re-infection rates: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/study-covid-19-reinfection_l_60533d0dc5b6f93a1d04a8d4 Overall, they found that a very small percentage of the population — 0.65% — experienced reinfection. Look at side effects https://www.kfyrtv.com/2021/03/15/health-experts-say-those-previously-infected-with-covid-19-may-have-worse-side-effects-from-the-vaccine/ Health experts say those previously infected with COVID-19 may have worse side effects from the vaccine If you check the exclusion criteria of the vaccine trials: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 Key exclusion criteria included a medical history of Covid-19, .....

Some have questioned the need for vaccination for already infected and recovered. Below Dr. Kulldorf is one of them Look at re-infection rates: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/study-covid-19-reinfection_l_60533d0dc5b6f93a1d04a8d4 Overall, they found that a very small percentage of the population — 0.65% — experienced reinfection. Look at side effects https://www.kfyrtv.com/2021/03/15/health-experts-say-those-previously-infected-with-covid-19-may-have-worse-side-effects-from-the-vaccine/ Health experts say those previously infected with COVID-19 may have worse side effects from the vaccine If you check the exclusion criteria of the vaccine trials: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 Key exclusion criteria included a medical history of Covid-19, .....

I dont think you read the full article. The article says "hospitalizations increasing by just 37% for adults 80 or older, of which 44% of the population are fully vaccinated in the state." It increased less for older people, but it still increased.

You're absolutely correct! Go down to the "Provisional Death Counts For Covid" on the link you selected. Go through deaths for each age group...you'll see spikes in all categories, especially younger ages, into December (15-24). And then you see the massive drop in deaths as people began to get vaccinated from January. I'm glad you selected that link, since it's about as clear as I can get about the matter! One can act smart without taking the vaccine, but your own data shows that taking the vaccine has a much more dramatic effect than just "acting smarter". Cheers! That makes zero sense. The CDC link was interesting - younger age groups had their peak deaths the weeks of January 9 to 23. That usually means they were infected in the second half of December or the beginning of January. At that time only 0.1-1% of the U.S. population had been vaccinated, practically all of them care providers or risk groups (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). So you are saying that vaccinating this tiny fraction of people, somehow was miraculously the cause for a fall-of-a-cliff type drop in contagion and subsequent death rate of younger cohorts? Not to mention that the vaccines only protect the vaccinated from severe outcomes, but not from getting infected and potentially spreading the virus - or so we are told. No, vaccination dropped death rates for all categories...you can see the stats for yourself from January to present day. As the number of vaccinated people increased, the transmission rates dropped...the number of pneumonia cases dropped...the number of deaths dropped. Is it any wonder the number of influenza cases was so low in North America this year? That is due to social distancing, lockdowns, masks, increased disinfection...and you also see a decrease in Covid cases as inoculations occur. This is common sense and would be expected. Do vaccines carry risk...yes...but at extremely low levels as we've seen globally as inoculation results are studied more and more. Cheers! Alternative explanation: Peak transmission was Christmas and New Years, peak death rate 2-3 weeks later. With a finite population you can only have exponential growth for so long, and then you have a decline. Good example is South Dakota. No lockdowns, business closures etc., thus the curve was moved forward in time, and slightly higher (in terms of death per million). It peaked at the end of November, and dropped steeply the whole month of December with no vaccines yet. I'm not against vaccines at all, the start of vaccines probably steepened the drop in death rates, and, more importantly, will hopefully keep the curve down forever. I'm on the fence if people under 24 or 35 should be vaccinated. There maybe be an argument that children's organisms should get the chance to develop natural immunity, which I think may be broader than just immunity against a specific spike protein of a mutating virus, but I'm not a doctor. They are not falling everywhere vaccine is given. For example, for Mchigan cases and hospitalizations increasing https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/michigan-reports-highest-daily-covid-19-count-this-year-as-younger-adult-hospitalizations-spike-sharply/ar-BB1eVE8i the highest single-day total for new cases since Dec. 15, 2020.

I think you can equally use this argument against gun control. Guns have been around for even longer than a year. And in 2015, about 13,286 died as a result of being shot, so certainly not more than 13,286 people died of being shot in the head. And there are about 330M people in the USA. Therefore, if you're shot in the head, you have less than a 0.004% chance of dying. There's basically almost no chance of dying if you're shot in the head. Thanks! I need that! Cheers! The way I understood the comment is following way: 10 million per year die of cancer deaths every year 2.6 million died of Covid since its start. Yet the policies are such that we reduced cancer screenings by order of 80% "During California’s stay-at-home order, cervical cancer screening rates among approximately 1.5 million women in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) network decreased approximately 80% compared with baseline. " https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004a1.htm According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, we will be paying this price for decades to come, not just cancer screenings but diabetes, hypertension, reduced vaccination of children, etc. https://www.newsweek.com/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-says-reversing-covid-lockdown-damage-will-take-generation-1575522 Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Doctor, Says Reversing COVID Lockdown Damage Will 'Take a Generation' About 607K people die of cancer every year in the U.S. out of the total population...not sure if your number is U.S. or global. 560K+ have died already from Covid with 30M+ cases to date in the U.S. Theoretically, with a generous conservative estimate that a third of the U.S. has already been exposed and recovered...you would still have over 1.6M deaths from Covid based on the total population of the U.S...conservatively estimated. Cheers! I am not sure how you went from 560K to 1.6M in an year for Covid. My numbers were global. And Dr. Bhattacharya is not talking about only Cancer. He is talking about reduced vaccination of children, Diabetes care, Blood pressure care, delayed care for heart patents, stroke patients. Overall for a policy of lockdowns very questionable if they worked to begin with as Florida had with more older people same or less Covid deaths than California. https://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-america/infographics/missing-vaccinations-during-covid-19-puts-our-children-and-communities-at-risk 40% of parents say their children missed vaccination due to Covid. 9 Million missed vaccinations. New CDC Study Says 25% Of Young People Have Considered Suicide During Pandemic https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/08/20/new-cdc-study-young-people-suicide-coronavirus-pandemic/ Overall there is no doubt that lockdowns created more harm than they solved. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/10/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-lockdowns-single-/ Stanford University doctor: Lockdowns 'single worst public health mistake' in last 100 years

I think you can equally use this argument against gun control. Guns have been around for even longer than a year. And in 2015, about 13,286 died as a result of being shot, so certainly not more than 13,286 people died of being shot in the head. And there are about 330M people in the USA. Therefore, if you're shot in the head, you have less than a 0.004% chance of dying. There's basically almost no chance of dying if you're shot in the head. Thanks! I need that! Cheers! The way I understood the comment is following way: 10 million per year die of cancer deaths every year 2.6 million died of Covid since its start. Yet the policies are such that we reduced cancer screenings by order of 80% "During California’s stay-at-home order, cervical cancer screening rates among approximately 1.5 million women in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) network decreased approximately 80% compared with baseline. " https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004a1.htm According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, we will be paying this price for decades to come, not just cancer screenings but diabetes, hypertension, reduced vaccination of children, etc. https://www.newsweek.com/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-says-reversing-covid-lockdown-damage-will-take-generation-1575522 Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Doctor, Says Reversing COVID Lockdown Damage Will 'Take a Generation'

‘Leaky’ Vaccines Can Produce Stronger Versions of Viruses https://www.healthline.com/health-news/leaky-vaccines-can-produce-stronger-versions-of-viruses-072715 Updated on April 5, 2019 By studying chickens, researchers say they have proven the theory that more virulent viruses can evolve from so-called “leaky” vaccines. “When a vaccine works perfectly, as do the childhood vaccines for smallpox, polio, mumps, rubella and measles, it prevents vaccinated individuals from being sickened by the disease, and it also prevents them from transmitting the virus to others,” ...... 'Leaky' Vaccines May Fuel Evolution of Deadlier Viruses https://www.livescience.com/51682-vaccines-evolve-deadlier-viruses.html July 29, 2015

Just like when building an investment case, one should aim to build on previously established foundations. Occasionally, the process is a leap forward but often it is incremental but you need strong foundations. If you start with poor foundations, the likelihood of going in the wrong direction is high. The calcifediol study (IMO) has little or no value and it is hard to justify to build upon this work. Also, why would you want to 'mimic' a study with such poor foundations? The idea of 'replication' of a study is not simply to repeat the study. The most cost-effective conceptual way to go about this is to try to repeat the study with the aim to disprove the conclusions, in a way. That's why this Board is so interesting for investment thoughts when ideas get confronted and opposed in a constructive way. This is part fundamental analysis and part looking at incentives and incentives in those studies can be significant which is why independent replication is so important. The 'hormonal' study (and general line of thought) starts with a much stronger foundation even if it's about repurposed drugs. There is a clear and plausible mechanism of action through the ACE receptor. The study appears to be very well done and is a clear signal for replication to be done as soon as possible. Results appear solid but it's a sponsored study and, very often, the rate of favorable replication of sponsored studies is disappointing. All in all, there has to be a way to optimize the process (balance alternatives with established practices etc) but the Covid episode has shown that a huge amount of resources have been wasted because of poor foundations to start with and a poor process to follow. You must realize that an incredibly high number of 'researchers' are about to look for the next popular target. First of all everyone has their own style of investing. I like to study something that interests me and even if I dont find anything that is investible, I learnt something and that is enough of ROI for me. Regarding your issues with Calcifediol trial you said "From reported peer review, the study you mention has the following weaknesses: small number of patients, ICU admission as a subjective outcome, and the unusual dosing regimen. There are also many more that are easy to spot. From a proprietary review (just complemented with short review and and an investment parallel): In the study you mention, they report a comparison of some variables after randomization, but before actual 'blind' intervention: D-Dimer (ng/mL) (mean +/-SD) 'treated' group: 650.92 +/- 405.61 control group: 1333.54 +/- 2570.50" Note: Emphasis in underline added Your concern seems to be it is a small study. The authors called it a "Pilot" study. You are saying the intervention and placebo group are not matched well. That could be because of the small study. I am not clear about your concern about subjective nature of ICU admission because the authors said the trial is a "double-masked clinical trial." What I am hoping for is a randomized double blinded clinical trial which involves giving same dosage of Calcifediol, to same set of patients (at admission like in the pilot trial), but larger number of volunteers, using a randomized blinded study. The blinding portion is to take care of the subjective part you were concerned about - which authors said they already used. This is what I mean by mimicking the "Pilot" study with a larger study to confirm the results. What I am asking is why was this not done long time back? Note: Only for discussion. Not a suggestion for treatment. Please consult a physician for any treatment.