Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I think the original post has been misinterpreted here. Those taking part in the covid chim will have to clear such a high bar on fitness that their risk profile for any infection by covid would be negligible and delay around ethics here based on risk to participant is counter productive. Risk of adverse event is of course not zero but not the same as a 65yr copd patient with diabetes. Running chims in negligible risk patients to bring forward a successful vaccine or antiviral should mitigate as it leads to less adverse outcome in higher risk patients. Chims=saving lives and should be allowed to progress on this basis, one could argue it is unethical knowing a drug could be progress.more quickly by using a chim but not allowing it. The high quality of prescreening and high bar for acceptance into trial should mean from business point of view a high price point should be sought and maintained. These being run at 15million plus can be supported by government or charities to cover this. Small beans in scheme of things but high rewards for novel treatments translating to savings on patient care and lives preserved. Don't think the poster was intending to underplayed overall risk of covid on a total population scale.
The figures for excess deaths in England and Wales DESPITE the social distancing measures are pretty stark: more than 11000 a week at the height of the pandemic and consistently more than 1500 a week
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1131428/excess-deaths-in-england-and-wales/
Guys,
I'm not talking about the NHS ,or about how HMG has handled the pandemic, or about conspiracies. The clue is in the title.
You're both missing the point : these ONS statistics are specifically based on 'no underlying other causes'; ORPH's CHIMs are targeted at young healthy volunteers, for whom there is prima facie little risk ; my observation is that the CHIMs have been delayed because of agonising over the ethical risks of putting people in harm's way ...and that these concerns re potential harm have clearly FROM THIS LINK been overstated.
HTH
Those stats were quoted to me by a conspiracy theory friend. What I reminded him was that lockdowns were used world over to prevent the hospitals from collapsing due to the volumes. If you can't comprehend that then.......
"Only about 17,000 deaths attributable to covid,"
Obviously, this is a gross misinterpretation of the stats based on excluding all relevant context and narrowly fixating on an unrepresentative mortality group. It's like saying someone didn't die of cancer because they had diabetes too. Also, this false interpretation argues against your conclusion, not for it, which seems to indicate another layer of misunderstanding and confusion.
Should add that , of these, 'only' 3,774(22%) were in the 'under 65' age group. CHIMS are to be undertaken , we're told, on medically fit 18 - 30 year olds......
Here's an interesting stat from the ONS
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19withnootherunderlyingcauses
that appears to address the nuance between deaths FROM covid and deaths WITH covid, and cutting through all the guff about 'deaths within X days of a positive covid test' (which AIUI technically includes a completely unrelated cause of death eg a road traffic accident)....
Only about 17,000 deaths attributable to covid, in most cases it appears to have acted 'merely' as a contributor or accelerant to deaths from other underlying causes and pre-existing conditions.
Or, in the graphic but insensitive description out of Sweden, ' helps set fire to the tinder'.
Against this backdrop, the snail-like pace of ethical clearance for covid CHIMs is, on the face of it, particularly galling .
Ho hum