Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (739665)	2/1/2021 3:18:13 PM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Recommended By alanrs frankw1900 pheilman_ Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Where is the actual science that would establish the chemical actions in some old people that determine the outcome for some people? It's not science to count dead people and compare outcomes. That was established a year ago by people who could count. " Boomer remover" is about a year old expression. They could count. An epidemiologist should have been able to show graphs of blood levels of nutrients and other things that determine the outcomes and enunciate the chemistry of bad outcomes of infection. They would be able to predict the outcome for individuals and what they could do to improve their defences. I guess the missing things are vitamin C, D, zinc, iron, A, maybe some oils, lipids, maybe other things. "Old" is a useless macro description about which we can't do anything other than hide them. Being old reduces intake of food and therefore chemicals needed. Absorption might be worse, such as dried up skin producing less oil which can be turned into vitamin D. Black people need more light to get vitamin D from sun so they might need it in food or supplements for example. Black people get worse covid infections for some reason, suggesting vitamin D. Old people hide more from sun having learned to avoid skin cancer. There is no magic. Chemistry is deterministic. Vaccinations are a bad way to improve health. There are millions of diseases. Robust immune systems are better. Science is available to maximise immune responses. Over decades I have improved my immune system. I'm having to guess at what to do to defend against kung flu. I'd prefer science. I hope I've got enough right to have it bounce off me but I have no certainty. I like science not bullshit. CO2 "science" is also bullshit not science. Yes, there's now a better level of CO2 in air (up from tragedy of the commons starvation level for chlorophyll life) but how much is too much is environmental religion not science, or economics. Mqurice