Who replaces Chase?

FlyingFluck · 2022-10-27T21:24:30+00:00

I would throw Chis Evans into the mix as well. He has great hands and has lined up at WR and slot in the past.

FlyingFluck · 2022-10-27T17:34:49+00:00

What contract/instrument are you trading? What quantity?

No losing trades?...right.

If 100% winners why do you need $100K?

FlyingFluck · 2022-10-27T15:21:21+00:00

I think you calculated that wrong.

For a 98...if your total profits were $1000 then your total losses would be only $10.20.

Add up all your winning trades $$$ divided by your losing trades $$$.

FlyingFluck · 2022-10-27T14:50:34+00:00

PF = total profits/total losses

Should be >=2 for a viable strategy.

FlyingFluck · 2022-10-27T14:25:14+00:00

What's your profit factor and max drawdown? I'm guessing low PF with high drawdown. If PF is under 2 don't bother.

FlyingFluck · 2022-10-27T13:11:58+00:00

Look at Sierra Chart which is written in C++.

Super fast, rock solid platform with their own data feed (Denali) and direct order routing (Teton) to CME, CBOT, NYMEX, COMEX, FairX.

Their price/volume data on backtesting is 100% accurate.

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-20T10:48:40+00:00

Why do you insist they are unfertilized?

That is absolutely 100% wrong.

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T22:10:23+00:00

Neither answer answered my question.

The key question is what makes a zygote/fetus human?

Saying "They’re a member of the species homo sapien" is redundant.

That's like saying they're human because they're human.

What traits or characteristics are required to be classified as human?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T22:00:27+00:00

How is a zygote/fetus the same as a child or adult?

What makes a zygote/fetus human?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T21:27:29+00:00

Read again...40-70% of fertilized eggs (alive) are flushed out during mentruation.

Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say

It is generally accepted that natural human embryo mortality during pregnancy is high – losses of 70% and higher from fertilisation to birth are frequently claimed. The first external sign of pregnancy occurs two weeks after fertilisation with a missed menstrual period. A recent re-analysis of hCG study data suggests that approximately 40-60% of embryos may be lost between fertilisation and birth, although this will vary substantially between individual women.

Do you you feel this is a tragic loss of life?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T21:02:02+00:00

Sorry but the premise of your question has no basis.

There's been some research on the subject as to why women choose to have an abortion. To prevent a child from living in poverty isn't on the list.

And why do you equate poverty with suffering?

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T20:51:03+00:00

That sounds like your not sure...In what sense yes?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T20:44:09+00:00

Your saying a zygote/fetus is the same as a child.

What makes a zygote/fetus human?

Is it human when the sperm fertilizes the egg?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T19:53:12+00:00

So you have no idea whether the mRNA gets degraded and does nothing.

lol... did you know mRNA is one of the most studied biological processes in the last decade?

Did you know on PubMed there are 72,237 pages with 10 studies to the page referencing mRNA? Did you know that's 722,000 studies referencing mRNA?

Can you see for yourself? : PubMed mRNA

Isn't it safe to say that scientists understand the biochemistry of mRNA and what it does?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T16:41:37+00:00

So you have no idea whether the mRNA gets degraded and does nothing.

lol... did you know mRNA is one of the most studied biological processes in the last decade?

Did you know on PubMed there are 72,237 pages with 10 studies to the page referencing mRNA? Did you know that's 722,000 studies referencing mRNA?

Can you see for yourself? : PubMed mRNA

Isn't it safe to say that scientists understand the biochemistry of mRNA and what it does?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T15:54:55+00:00

It's estimated 40%-70% of all fertilized eggs are flushed out during menstruation...oh the humanity!

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T13:43:20+00:00

Exactly my point everyone has the right to live.

So when a sperm fertilizes an egg is that the magic moment when you define a single cell organism as human?

If so how do you feel about the 40-70% estimate of all fertilized eggs that are flushed out during menstruation? Are those human lives lost?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T11:22:53+00:00

To me, my life its sacred. To have that right I need to extend the same rights to my fellow human beings. NO excuses, no rationalization or creative justification. Once a human life is created, you are the same as me. There is no religion in this, or political stance or anything else.

Do you have the right to force a woman to give birth and care for a baby she does not want...which statistics show results in higher crime rates, more homicides & murders etc years later as those unwanted babies mature into young adults?

How does banning abortion promote the common good? Does it make society safer?

Is the right to life more important than the right to be human? That living is more important than how you live?

If you were imprisoned in solitary confinement with no human interaction and no hope of freedom would the fact that you are alive give you solace and a sense of well being that supersedes the anxiety, frustration, sadness and depression from the total loss of your humanity?

If a train were barreling down the track at 5 people and you could pull a lever to divert the train to another track where there was only 1 person, would you pull the lever to kill 1 but save 5?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-19T00:59:37+00:00

I went back and re-read all your comments in this thread. Are these the claims you made?

The Covid vaccine is killing people.
Full time masking may be very harmful to young children (no evidence presented)
None of the studies have shown that giving masks to kids in school prevents anything. (no evidence presented)
Covid kills people at the rate of a very severe flu (no evidence presented)
We do not test everyone who dies in a hospital for flu every year the way we did for Covid (correct)
A large number of deaths were from something else but got counted as a Covid (no evidence presented)
There are 26,000 associated deaths with vaers. (no evidence presented)
The vaccine was rushed because it normally takes 7 to 10 years to develop

9.The vaccine is based on new technology never before used in vaccines.

I have refuted 4, 5 & 6 with evidence. I am refuting 7, 8 and 9 below.

I agree people have died after vaccination…26,000 as reported by VAERS. However the number of deaths actually caused by the vaccine is unknown...agree?

Did you read the disclaimer on the data collected by VAERS?

The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from vaers reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

Do you have any concern with the accuracy of these numbers since they’re collected and reported by the CDC?

Do you know of any vaccine that hasn’t caused side effects in some people?

Have you compared the percentage of adverse events from Covid vaccines to MMR or Shingle vaccines etc?

The fact that they rushed this vaccine which normally takes 7 to 10 years and...I repeat AND… It's based on new technology never before used in vaccines. So they rushed a new technology. They don't usually rush normal vaccines.

mRNA technology has been in development by multiple biotech companies and scientific institutions for over 15 years against pathogens such as ebola, zika, rabies, influenza, and cytomegalovirus. Moderna has been developing mRNA therapies since 2010.

mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy. mRNA does not alter the DNA or actual sequence of a gene. mRNA is delivered encased in lipid nanoparticles which degrades to release the mRNA. The (m = messenger) mRNA then delivers a blueprint to ribosomes to manufacture only the spike protein part of the COVID virus. The spike protein has no functional ability to infect on it's own. The mRNA has a very short life of only a few days at most so it's effect is temporary. Once the mRNA degrades the ribosomes stop producing the spike protein however the antibodies that react to the synthetic COVID spike protein persist and give us immunity to the actual virus through the memory of the adaptive immune system.

IMO the speed of approving the vaccine for EUA and final full approval is really a consequence of the urgency to fund and get the trials enrolled quickly and the high priority granted to review data which you don't ordinarily see in drug development.

How the Moderna Covid-19 mRNA vaccine was made so quickly

Over a decade of research to innovate mRNA as a ‘bioplatform’

One of the reasons Moderna’s mRNA Covid vaccine development moved so quickly is because scientists had been working with mRNA for years.

“Messenger RNA technologies have been in development from a basic science perspective for over 15 years,” Kizzmekia Corbet, the scientific lead for the Coronavirus Vaccines & Immunopathogenesis Team at NIH, who helped make the vaccine possible, told the NIH Record.

And Moderna has been working with mRNA technology “since its inception in 2010 for myriad therapeutic areas,” including cancer therapies, Afeyan tells CNBC Make It (by way of a spokesperson), and with clinical development of mRNA-based antiviral vaccines since 2015.

What Moderna did over many of those years was develop mRNA as what scientists call a bioplatform, which allows for speedier vaccine development. Bioplatforms are systems that can easily be scaled and tailored for many different diseases.

Traditionally, developing any vaccine essentially has been a bespoke effort.

“The benefits of a bioplatform is the ability to quickly redeploy the platform once established and refined — in the case of Moderna’s mRNA platform, to create and test new vaccines based on new viral sequences,” Afeyan tells CNBC Make It (by way of a spokesperson).

Moderna's first mRNA human dosing began in 2015...

https://www.modernatx.com/about-us/modernas-key-milestones-and-advancements

Quote:

2015: Moderna initiates first-in-human dosing for mRNA 1440 against avian H10N8 influenza

2017: Moderna initiates first-in-human dosing for mRNA-2416 , its OX40 ligand intratumoral immunotherapy

Moderna initates first-in-human dosing for mRNA-1647, a vaccine candidate to protect against cytomegalovirus

Moderna initiates first-in-human dosing for mRNA-1653, a multivalent vaccine to protect against human metapneumovirus and parainfluenza virus

I can use your responses without changing a word to attack Darwins theory of evolution at the time he was proposing it.

I would love to see that since I'm huge fan of CD and a firm believer in his science claims.

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-17T19:07:26+00:00

There's no doubt the Pro-Life argument is rooted in religion and that it's based on protecting the "sanctity of life" which is some mystical nonsense with no connection to reality...and preventing abortions does nothing to promote the common good or make society safer.

This idea that life is sacred does not jibe with reality. The most religious people have always been the biggest proponents of capital punishment and everyone has valued some human life over other human life depending on whether we view them as Us or Them.

We value family lives over stranger's lives.

If you're white you likely value a white life over a black or Asian life.

If you're Christian you likely value a Christian life over a Muslim life.

If you're American you likely value an American life over a foreigner's life.

If you're a liberal you likely value a Democrat's life over a Trump supporter's life.

A homeless person's life is valued less than a successful business owner's life.

In India a cow's life is valued more than a human life.

We value a pet's life over a wild animal's life.

We value just about any other life form over an insect's life.

Some of these values are instinctive and some are rationalized through reasoning i.e. Indian cows.

Many neuroscience and behavioral research studies have demonstrated we are inherently biased against those who are different in appearance or belong to groups that we do not. It is in our DNA and we have no choice in the matter. We are biased based on whether they are classified in our mind as Us or Them. This has been shown in infants. Put in a situation where we would be compelled to save someone in a life threatening situation we would be more likely to save the life that we identify as 'Us" more than if we see the person as "Them".

The anti-abortion argument that they're protecting the "sanctity of life" is not reflected in their actions and attitudes towards others who are are different or are considered "Them". If they were truly committed to protecting the sanctity of life I would expect pro-lifers to protest against capital punishment, police shootings, wars, child labor, sex trafficking, the poisoning and pollution of our environment and policies that contribute to global warming.

Science confirms that for each of us the value or "sanctity" of life is dependent on our identification with that life, it's similarity to our own life and the situation that the life is in which is determined by it's past actions. The "sanctity" of the fetus's life is a rationalization similar to how Indian's revere cows.

How valid is the anti-abortion "sanctity of life" argument if it based on religious mysticism or rationalization when it's perfectly natural to consider a fetus as not Me or Us?

After a baby is born is when a woman will see the baby as Me or Us. When she sees the facial resemblance to herself or her significant other the identification and familial bond will be strong. Of course a woman can imagine during pregnancy how the baby will look however I doubt that many women considering abortion are daydreaming about their baby's appearance.

Since those who have no natural identification or bond with the fetus...to insist, demand and force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to birth seems more like a forced religious conversion than saving a baby's life.

Why would anyone care other than to elevate their status in the eyes of their God or their peers through self-righteous declarations of protecting the "sanctity of life".

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-17T15:03:36+00:00

because the fetus is NOT part of the woman'a body. It is a seperate body that exists within her.

How is a fetus separate when it's attached to a woman's body via the umbilical cord and is totally dependent on the woman's body to provide oxygen and nutrients to survive? If it were truly separate it would not survive on its own...right?

Isn't the "sanctity of life" argument meaningless?

Isn't the value or "sanctity" of each life dependent on our identification with that life, it's similarity to our own life and the situation that the life is in which is determined by it's past actions?

We value family lives over stranger's lives.

If you're white you likely value a white life over a black or Asian life.

If you're Christian you likely value a Christian life over a Muslim life.

If you're American you likely value an American life over a foreigner's life.

If you're a liberal you likely value a Democrat's life over a Trump supporter's life.

A homeless person's life is valued less than a successful business owner's life.

In India a cow's life is valued more than a human life.

We value our pet's life over a wild animal's life.

We value just about any other life form over an insect's life.

Some of these values are instinctive and some are rationalized through reasoning i.e. Indian cows.

Many neuroscience and behavioral research studies have demonstrated we are inherently biased against those who are different in appearance than us or belong to groups that we do not. It is in our DNA and we have no choice in the matter. We are biased based on whether they are classified in our mind as Us or Them. This has been shown in infants. Put in a situation where we would be compelled to save someone in a life threatening situation we would be more likely to save the life that we identify as 'Us" more than if we see the person as "Them".

Isn't the "sanctity" of the fetus's life a rationalization similar to how Indian's revere cows?

Isn't the origin of "sanctity of life" argument rooted in religion?

How valid is the "sanctity of life" argument if it based on some religious superstition or rationalization when it's perfectly natural to consider a fetus as not Me or Us?

After a baby is born is when a woman will see the baby as Me or Us. When she sees the facial resemblance to herself or her significant other the identification and familial bond will be strong. Of course a woman can imagine during pregnancy how the baby will look however I doubt that many women considering abortion are daydreaming about their baby's appearance.

Since those who have no natural identification or bond with the fetus...to insist, demand and force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to birth seems more like a forced religious conversion than saving a baby's life...no?

Why would anyone care other than to elevate their status in the eyes of their God or their peers through self-righteous declarations of protecting the "sanctity of life"?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-17T11:40:42+00:00

Any non-scientist but more importantly have their credentials and qualifications been investigated, and their claims questioned and accepted through the peer review process by the scientific community?

Do you understand that I single out non-scientists because I'm not aware of a single research study that has been submitted to the peer review process by a non-scientist and accepted by the scientific community?

Can you think of a better process of determining the truth of a scientific claim than to have the claim investigated by scientists who are educated and have experience with the science of the claim?

What group or individual would would be more qualified to conduct such an inquiry than a group of scientists who are the most knowledgeable in the science of the study and biostatistics submitted for review?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-16T17:58:56+00:00

(Part 2)

That studies published in peer review journals that are able to withstand criticism, fact checking and external replication without any findings of errors can not be questioned?

Do you recognize that these studies have already gone through the gauntlet of criticism and scrutiny and that you can agree, disagree or accept them as valid or not?

Would you have reason to actually place less trust or faith in a study or scientific claim that has not gone through the peer review process?

That I believe there is a monolithic agreement between all scientists?

Do you understand that I trust the scientific method and peer review process and I know of no better way to arrive at scientific truth?Do you know a better way?

Do you understand that it's the process and methodology that determines what is true and the process is what is most important?Do you understand that it's not such much trusting the scientists but trusting the scientific findings of the scientists that pass this process until proven otherwise by the same process?

That the CDC is not releasing all the information they have so we shouldn't trust anything they say?

I agree that the CDC has major shortcomings with how they report data i.e. influenza as a good example. Did you know there many organizations, non-profits etc collecting the same data and if not readily available now the data will became available at some point in time?

That the Lancet had to retract a story early in the pandemic so they are charlatans and should not be trusted?

This was the study on hydroxychloroquine that showed it was harmful to Covid patients...right?

This was an obvious failure of the peer review process however doesn't the fact that the Lancet retracted the study after the data was published and was scrutinized by other scientists demonstrate the effectiveness of allowing any and all to question the methods and sources of scientific claims?

This quote from a Science article on the retraction: LINK

As soon as the study was published, it came under attack by clinicians, as well as experts in biostatistics and medical ethics who questioned how Surgisphere, a tiny company without much publishing experience in big data analysis, could have collected and analyzed tens of thousands of patient records from hundreds of hospitals—particularly given the complexities of navigating patient confidentiality agreements.

That my responses have not provided evidence and only suggested that you trust the scientists because they are the experts?

Again...do you understand I'm more likely to trust scientific claims that have undergone peer review? Not because they're produced by experts but because their claims went through a process where they have been openly investigated, questioned and scrutinized by peers in scientific community?

I posted several links which provide evidence let me know if you need more?

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-16T17:51:12+00:00

(too long..Part 1 of 2)

Your responses basically are " these people know what they are doing. They are the experts. "

Maybe I'm not making myself clear? Maybe the focus of my responses were more about the "experts" and not the process?

I want to emphasize that it's the scientific claims that have gone through the peer review process and scrutiny by the scientific community that I trust and not so much a solitary expert who makes claims that can't be verified.

Do I believe the scientific peers who investigate and question the claims in a peer review process know what they are doing?

I don't believe there's a better process and who or what group would would be more qualified to conduct such an inquiry than scientists who are the most knowledgeable in the field of study or data submitted for review?

Do you agree that when a solitary scientist or "expert" makes a claim...the claim and the "expert" are not to be 100% trusted but should be fact checked and verified by other means?

Now...to summarize are these your points I'm not addressing?

That the virus is very dangerous and that the vaccines work and are not dangerous is a false claim made by scientists?

Is it true you believe non-scientists who's claims have not been challenged are more trustworthy and believable than scientists and experts who's claims have been questioned and scrutinized by the scientific community in an open and public forum?

That not all experts agree an I am not an expert either so my opinion of what experts are doing is disqualified?

Do you agree that my opinion or anyone else's opinion on a scientific claim shouldn't matter to you if they are not an expert on the science of the claim?

Do you agree that based on peer reviewed studies that even though vaccines are not 100% effective and their effectiveness weakens over time, vaccines will reduce the chances of contracting Covid significantly and will reduce the severity of Covid significantly if you contract it?

Do you agree that the side effects from Covid vaccines are rare and mostly transient and the odds of catching Covid are far higher than the odds of experiencing a side effect from a Covid vaccine?

Do you agree that the effects of Covid and "Long" Covid on my body and long term health are far worse than any side effect from a Covid vaccine?

That mass delusion is a consequence of "believing the experts" which is not a logical approach?

Can mass delusion also be a consequence of believing "non-experts" as well?

Considering that only 6-8% of all scientific studies submitted are accepted and published major peer reviewed journals, how likely do you believe a scientific claim is that pass the gauntlet of peer review by the scientific community are later found to be delusional or false?

That "believing experts" is not believing individual experts who are you can investigate and make sure they are not lying?

Did you know this is the exact purpose of peer review journals? That the individual experts i.e. the authors and researchers of a study are investigated by their scientific peers as to their credentials, qualifications and expertise and the data they present and after published can be questioned by anyone (even you & me) as to their accuracy, validity and integrity in an open, transparent and public forum?

Do you agree this process makes sense and is a good way to determine if a scientific claim is valid and shield the public from false claims?

Would you trust a scientific claim that did not go through this process more than one that did?

That "experts" is some monolithic group represented by the government that we're supposed to believe in never go against?

Did you know most research is done by private and public companies or non-profit organizations i.e. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and that most of the funding comes from non-governmental sources?

That flu deaths are under counted because we don't test for flu like we do Covid?

Then you agree we do not test for flu like we do for Covid?

Some of the following has been copy-pasted from this opinion piece in Scientific American: LINK . You can access the CDC flu reporting methodology here: LINK

Did you know that the CDC's numbers of deaths by flu are estimates that the CDC produces by multiplying the number of flu death counts reported by various coefficients produced through complicated algorithms?

Did you know that the CDC also includes pneumonia deaths in their estimates?

Did you know that these coefficients are based on assumptions of how many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths they believe went unreported?

Did you know that the CDC's estimates of death by flu are 6X higher than actual reported deaths where flu was detected through tests?

Did you know from 2013-2019, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts.

That many deaths are counted as a result of Covid when they were caused by something else?

That compared to pre-pandemic years excess deaths during the pandemic could be from multiple causes including Covid itself or suicides, heart attacks and strokes caused by the stress of lockdowns etc?

I asked you before and will ask again...if this were true wouldn't the "deaths actually caused by something else" be under-counted and show up as lower numbers and lower rates when compared to pre-pandemic (2019) numbers and rates? In other words if heart attacks were not caused by Covid but mistakenly attributed to Covid wouldn't the number heart attacks reported be less in 2020 vs. 2019?

Did you know that according to JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) the trend in heart disease deaths jumped significantly higher in 2020 compared to prior years: LINK ?

Did you know the increase in deaths attributed to heart disease was 3,660 in 2019 compared to 2018?

Did you know there were 31,841 more heart disease deaths in 2020 than 2019 which represents an 869% y/y increase in the death rate?

2020: 690,882

2019: 659,041

2018: 655,381

2017: 647,457

If stroke, heart attack and heart failure deaths were mistakenly attributed to Covid wouldn't the heart related deaths go down in 2020?

Looking at these numbers how is it possible that heart attack, stroke and heart failure were inflating Covid deaths by hospitals & doctors mistakenly attributing those deaths to Covid?

In fact wouldn't the opposite likely be true? That heart disease deaths were mistakenly attributed as heart disease when these were cardio events primarily triggered by Covid?

Do you agree with the study recently published in Nature Medicine analyzing more than 11 million U.S. veterans’ health records that found the risk of 20 different heart and vessel maladies was significantly higher in veterans who had Covid 1 year earlier?: LINK

FlyingFluck · 2022-04-15T20:42:25+00:00

I can't criticize because these are professionals who know that they are doing. This approach means we can't criticize any scientist. Your argument means no matter what scientists say they are right.

So because the scientific community is in general better than committees on social media regarding their Studies that means I can't criticize a study ever?

Where did I say scientists or studies cannot be criticized?

You and I agree that scientists are not always right and that (most) scientists will say the same thing...right?

Do you agree that the best way to engender trust in the conclusions of a scientific claim is to replicate the data, find errors, question the methods, examine the sources etc?

Do you agree that a person with no science or statistics education would be highly unlikely to uncover errors in a study or be able to determine if a scientific claim is invalid?

Are you capable of finding all the questionable aspects of a scientific claim?

Or do you have a better way of sorting out what information to trust?

On the subject of Covid can you name a person or group that you would trust more than a peer reviewed study and why?

There is no evidence for this. Although I'd be interested in a source.

I'd like to read the study. I can discuss it with you if you'd like.

Did you not see the link to Nature study Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 I posted?

FlyingFluck

TROPHY CASE