Proprietary COVID-19 and Vaccine thread
- Thread starter FresnoGator
- Start date
Oh you want a modern equivalent to help you understand?Makes sense, I frequently equate the rise of Nazi Germany and the Jewish Holocaust as being roughly equivalent to getting Saints football tickets for a dollar.
This is the dems trying to institute China's social credit system.
Wait, you thought this was about protecting people from covid?
A virus with the same survival rate as the seasonal flu?
Bless your heart.
Go get your shot, 2 free Krispy Kreme donuts, and a Saints ticket for a dollar.
I'm sure what you end up giving up for it will be worth it.
Potential death from COVID? Yup, well worth it.
Well first you have to catch it. Based on cases (some people have caught it more than once), you have a roughly 10% chance of getting covid.
If you are part of the unlucky 10% that get covid, then you have roughly a 1% chance of dying.
So let's see......600k covid deaths in a country with 325M people.
10% of 325M is 35M
1% of 325M is 3.5M
0.5% of 325M is 1.75M
0.25% of 325M is 875k
0.20% of 325M is 650kish.
So your chance for 'potential death' from covid is potentially 0.2%. About the same as the seasonal flu.
But I suspect those chances are raised by wearing a heavy cape, so you probably did the right thing in getting that free shot, and wolfing down those free Krispy Kremes.
IOW you're surprised that @fatman76 and @jfegaly can still think for themselves when it comes to the shot, AFTER getting the shot?
Yeah, I think you just insulted the hell out of @goldmom and @Uniformed_ReRe LOL
I got you boo-boo, you love me, you’re obsessed with me, I’m ready to consummate our love when you are.
Last edited:
Until he says yes you can always practice on a midget blow up doll.
Thought some of y'all might get a kick out of this.......................because I wrote it. I do try and be consistent with the ethical application of the scientific method at all times. This does not make me an Ivermectin advocate, per say, but I am a huge advocate for consistency and against bias.
Gentleman,
Let me start by saying that vaccination and monoclonal antibody therapy remains the mainstays in the prevention and treatment of COVID followed by IV steroids for inpatient COVID. Zithromax is controversial at best, Rocephin should be stopped by day 3 if procalcitonin remains normal in my opinion. Vitamins C and D and Zinc are almost universally harmless so their use despite clear evidence of effect is reasonable. Actemera I would give based on current data if we had it.
That said, I was speaking to a few other Pulmonary Physicians and we are agreed that there seems to be some ethical inconsistencies in the general approach taken for the therapy of COVID 19 inpatients at our hospital. We seem ready to continue therapy with Remdesivir despite growing evidence that it not only is ineffective against COVID, but that it's use risk renal failure and actually prolongs the length of stay of COVID patients by 2 days in a time when we need beds more than ever. In addition, I still see convalescent plasma given at our hospital despite clear medical evidence that it has no benefit in covid patients with risk for side effects.
Reason most commonly given for why we continue to give these therapies, "..well, we have to try something."
Yet when our patients, and even some of our doctors, want to try Ivermectin, we have a policy telling them, and I paraphrase, "due to lack of clinical evidence that Ivermectin works and due to risk of side effects, a decision was made not use Ivermectin at our hospital." I have personally struggled with this for over 2 weeks now.
How can we morally and ethically justify giving Remdesivir and convalescent plasma because we "have to try something", when both have clear medical evidence that they don't work and have side effects, yet refuse families and doctors the opportunity to try Ivermectin, which at the very least has a growing body of developing evidence that it might work through the suppression of IL6? I mean, the evidence for Ivermectin was at least compelling enough to start a multi-center US trial that is ongoing with results expected in December 2021 or January 2022.
I'm trying to come to grips with the inconsistency here. Please understand, I am not an advocate of Ivermectin per say, but if we are going to adopt the philosophy of "we have to try something" and families are willing to sign off on any potential risk, why would we not try it? At the very least, should it not be made available to licensed board certified Pulmonary doctors and/or ID doctors to use for the treatment of severe refractory COVID at the discretion of the physician and the family under the same premise we use for Remdesivir and C. Plasma. Or, conversely, if we are to stick to the standard of there being no clear medical evidence that Ivermectin works, and are therefore not going to allow it's use, why do we then allow the use of two therapies proven to be ineffective, one with proven increase in length of stay and risk of renal failure?
Can we consider revisiting this topic both at P&T and on the COVID task force. I know several of us would be more than happy to sit in on both meetings to discuss all the evidence and review the literature with everyone.
Gentleman,
Let me start by saying that vaccination and monoclonal antibody therapy remains the mainstays in the prevention and treatment of COVID followed by IV steroids for inpatient COVID. Zithromax is controversial at best, Rocephin should be stopped by day 3 if procalcitonin remains normal in my opinion. Vitamins C and D and Zinc are almost universally harmless so their use despite clear evidence of effect is reasonable. Actemera I would give based on current data if we had it.
That said, I was speaking to a few other Pulmonary Physicians and we are agreed that there seems to be some ethical inconsistencies in the general approach taken for the therapy of COVID 19 inpatients at our hospital. We seem ready to continue therapy with Remdesivir despite growing evidence that it not only is ineffective against COVID, but that it's use risk renal failure and actually prolongs the length of stay of COVID patients by 2 days in a time when we need beds more than ever. In addition, I still see convalescent plasma given at our hospital despite clear medical evidence that it has no benefit in covid patients with risk for side effects.
Reason most commonly given for why we continue to give these therapies, "..well, we have to try something."
Yet when our patients, and even some of our doctors, want to try Ivermectin, we have a policy telling them, and I paraphrase, "due to lack of clinical evidence that Ivermectin works and due to risk of side effects, a decision was made not use Ivermectin at our hospital." I have personally struggled with this for over 2 weeks now.
How can we morally and ethically justify giving Remdesivir and convalescent plasma because we "have to try something", when both have clear medical evidence that they don't work and have side effects, yet refuse families and doctors the opportunity to try Ivermectin, which at the very least has a growing body of developing evidence that it might work through the suppression of IL6? I mean, the evidence for Ivermectin was at least compelling enough to start a multi-center US trial that is ongoing with results expected in December 2021 or January 2022.
I'm trying to come to grips with the inconsistency here. Please understand, I am not an advocate of Ivermectin per say, but if we are going to adopt the philosophy of "we have to try something" and families are willing to sign off on any potential risk, why would we not try it? At the very least, should it not be made available to licensed board certified Pulmonary doctors and/or ID doctors to use for the treatment of severe refractory COVID at the discretion of the physician and the family under the same premise we use for Remdesivir and C. Plasma. Or, conversely, if we are to stick to the standard of there being no clear medical evidence that Ivermectin works, and are therefore not going to allow it's use, why do we then allow the use of two therapies proven to be ineffective, one with proven increase in length of stay and risk of renal failure?
Can we consider revisiting this topic both at P&T and on the COVID task force. I know several of us would be more than happy to sit in on both meetings to discuss all the evidence and review the literature with everyone.
Here’s what I like….
A “dr” I know once said there was a vaccine for RSV, that they have been using on children for years, and is remarkably safe for kids.
He then says that vaccines name is… palivizumab
He then is corrected by a poster on a message board that palivizumab is a monoclonal treatment not a vaccine
That dr begins losing his mind because a message board poster knows more than him on the subject
The dr begins tagging his buddies and unwittingly one of his dr buddies mentions monoclonal treatments are dangerous. You know, not safe. Ruh roh
Now the dr googles frantically because his pride is too great to admit fault. He posts a link to a vaccine and says “ this is the vaccine I was talking about”. Again, the poster on the message board says…wait, that vaccine just began phase 1 trials a little over a week ago. The dr, now furious he has been shown up twice googles frantically again.
Now, the dr. posts a link to a vaccine in phase 3 trials and says…”this is the vaccine I was talking about”. The poster once again calls him out. Uh, doc…that vaccine is in trials for the elderly, how are you using that on children? Now, what does the dr do next? He contacts circle back psaki…
His final attempt at saving face…”I was actually talking about palivizumab the whole time, it’s just semantics”. I am a dr, don’t question me over semantics.
That’s 3 strikes, you’re out. Lest we not forget your own dr buddy said monoclonal treatments are not safe. Yet this was your “circle back” safe monoclonal, errrr….vaccine for kids.
Pride comes before the fall, and unfortunately the states your hospitals operate in, have fallen. 50 out of 50. Keep up the good work.
It’s just semantics afterall.
I fvcking hate that I got vaccinated. But I did it for a host of reasons, all while hoping it’s the last time I have to ever do it.
I’m also not going to participate in anything that requires a vaccine passport. That’s not why I made the call.
That last question is the question.
Why, after we’ve seen such little success with expensive and approved treatments, do we have to reject alternatives that at the very least don’t seem to do additional harm.
Hospitals aren’t in the business of providing worthless drugs in the attempt to generate hope, but we’re in the middle of a pandemic. Let’s just make 100% that decisions on what is approved are not being made for financial reasons. If it doesn’t work it’s not like you let some miracle cure sit on the shelf while patients died.
If someday we learn that the approved hospital protocols handed down from above led to unnecessary death it will be difficult to retain that lost trust.
That’s a little too conspiracy theory for me. I’m part of the team that makes his decision sometimes and nobody really has any vested interest in these expensive drugs that work at the bedside. And we are the ones that choose what to order. But I do think there’s a lot of desperation involved in trying these different things and doctors are prone to sacred cows and falling in love with their theories just as much as anybody else. And I think the medical community embraced the antiviral thinking it would work and now they’re having a hard time letting it go. But I don’t think it’s financially motivated guys. Hospitals are not making tons of money off of Covid anymore, most of the government subsidies are gone.
It Taste Like Daddy’s Rod, because it is.
It went in deep.
FWIW. I don’t blame you for not responding. You were depantsed.
Ok. Back on topic
Here’s what I like….
A “dr” I know once said there was a vaccine for RSV, that they have been using on children for years, and is remarkably safe for kids.
He then says that vaccines name is… palivizumab
He then is corrected by a poster on a message board that palivizumab is a monoclonal treatment not a vaccine
That dr begins losing his mind because a message board poster knows more than him on the subject
The dr begins tagging his buddies and unwittingly one of his dr buddies mentions monoclonal treatments are dangerous. You know, not safe. Ruh roh
Now the dr googles frantically because his pride is too great to admit fault. He posts a link to a vaccine and says “ this is the vaccine I was talking about”. Again, the poster on the message board says…wait, that vaccine just began phase 1 trials a little over a week ago. The dr, now furious he has been shown up twice googles frantically again.
Now, the dr. posts a link to a vaccine in phase 3 trials and says…”this is the vaccine I was talking about”. The poster once again calls him out. Uh, doc…that vaccine is in trials for the elderly, how are you using that on children? Now, what does the dr do next? He contacts circle back psaki…
His final attempt at saving face…”I was actually talking about palivizumab the whole time, it’s just semantics”. I am a dr, don’t question me over semantics.
That’s 3 strikes, you’re out. Lest we not forget your own dr buddy said monoclonal treatments are not safe. Yet this was your “circle back” safe monoclonal, errrr….vaccine for kids.
Pride comes before the fall, and unfortunately the states your hospitals operate in, have fallen. 50 out of 50. Keep up the good work.
It’s just semantics afterall
Here’s what I like….
A “dr” I know once said there was a vaccine for RSV, that they have been using on children for years, and is remarkably safe for kids.
He then says that vaccines name is… palivizumab
He then is corrected by a poster on a message board that palivizumab is a monoclonal treatment not a vaccine
That dr begins losing his mind because a message board poster knows more than him on the subject
The dr begins tagging his buddies and unwittingly one of his dr buddies mentions monoclonal treatments are dangerous. You know, not safe. Ruh roh
Now the dr googles frantically because his pride is too great to admit fault. He posts a link to a vaccine and says “ this is the vaccine I was talking about”. Again, the poster on the message board says…wait, that vaccine just began phase 1 trials a little over a week ago. The dr, now furious he has been shown up twice googles frantically again.
Now, the dr. posts a link to a vaccine in phase 3 trials and says…”this is the vaccine I was talking about”. The poster once again calls him out. Uh, doc…that vaccine is in trials for the elderly, how are you using that on children? Now, what does the dr do next? He contacts circle back psaki…
His final attempt at saving face…”I was actually talking about palivizumab the whole time, it’s just semantics”. I am a dr, don’t question me over semantics.
That’s 3 strikes, you’re out. Lest we not forget your own dr buddy said monoclonal treatments are not safe. Yet this was your “circle back” safe monoclonal, errrr….vaccine for kids.
Pride comes before the fall, and unfortunately the states your hospitals operate in, have fallen. 50 out of 50. Keep up the good work.
It’s just semantics afterall
I’m glad you got vaccinated, sincerely. I don’t want to lose any of you chuckleheads.
Famous mcstuffins gaffes
1. “I never trust the NIH”. 2 weeks later, here is my link to support my vaccine stance. Site: NIH
2. I never said folks are quitting in our hospitals. 2 weeks prior….medical personnel are walking out on the job from the stress
3. Theres a vaccine for children for RSV. 4 lies later, the final excuse is….”semantics”
4. There are no treatments for covid. 1 month later, there is one treatment for covid. A few days later, there are multiple treatments we are using fir covid.
You can’t make this up. Mcstuffins has earned whatever reputation he has. It’s alot like fauci, those following his advice at this point, should be rewarded in kind. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
1. “I never trust the NIH”. 2 weeks later, here is my link to support my vaccine stance. Site: NIH
2. I never said folks are quitting in our hospitals. 2 weeks prior….medical personnel are walking out on the job from the stress
3. Theres a vaccine for children for RSV. 4 lies later, the final excuse is….”semantics”
4. There are no treatments for covid. 1 month later, there is one treatment for covid. A few days later, there are multiple treatments we are using fir covid.
You can’t make this up. Mcstuffins has earned whatever reputation he has. It’s alot like fauci, those following his advice at this point, should be rewarded in kind. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Then again if you want to go with the premise that certain members of the medical society and government and in the upper echelon‘s may have a vested interest in Remdesivir been pushed strongly has been effective for Covid even though the research shows that it’s not, I can actually see that one. At that level you may have a pretty damn good point.
How I picture @jfegaly right now….
It’s predictable though, I knew when I called him out on liking a post even after he already got vaccinated it would be a bit more than he could handle.
It’s predictable though, I knew when I called him out on liking a post even after he already got vaccinated it would be a bit more than he could handle.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/its-n...rH7WL6MMQjexlYFy2falQN6HHEa-jCrWxZvFtNq8Yt89M My son is involved in this research.
Very cool man. I think their spot on. I have long believe the same thing.
How I picture @jfegaly right now….
It’s predictable though, I knew when I called him out on liking a post even after he already got vaccinated it would be a bit more than he could handle.
There it is. The goto mcstuffins move. When depantsed, Deflect and act like you triggered someone. You do realize the EVERYONE knows you’re trolling, and you literally trigger no one don’t you?
Only thing missing….quick, tag some people, pm some folks.
Man. It must suck to have such little self esteem. Covid era broke you.
Ok. Back on topic
Famous mcstuffins gaffes
1. “I never trust the NIH”. 2 weeks later, here is my link to support my vaccine stance. Site: NIH
2. I never said folks are quitting in our hospitals. 2 weeks prior….medical personnel are walking out on the job from the stress
3. Theres a vaccine for children for RSV. 4 lies later, the final excuse is….”semantics”
4. There are no treatments for covid. 1 month later, there is one treatment for covid. A few days later, there are multiple treatments we are using fir covid.
You can’t make this up. Mcstuffins has earned whatever reputation he has. It’s alot like fauci, those following his advice at this point, should be rewarded in kind. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Famous mcstuffins gaffes
1. “I never trust the NIH”. 2 weeks later, here is my link to support my vaccine stance. Site: NIH
2. I never said folks are quitting in our hospitals. 2 weeks prior….medical personnel are walking out on the job from the stress
3. Theres a vaccine for children for RSV. 4 lies later, the final excuse is….”semantics”
4. There are no treatments for covid. 1 month later, there is one treatment for covid. A few days later, there are multiple treatments we are using fir covid.
You can’t make this up. Mcstuffins has earned whatever reputation he has. It’s alot like fauci, those following his advice at this point, should be rewarded in kind. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Rush called it 18 months ago on why the dems and medical community was irrationaly demonizing HCQ as a killer: Cause no one could make money off it.
Plus as we would later learn, if it was accepted and used as a treatment for covid, the current round of vaccines cant' win EUA status.
It's all a scam. Hell Hiden's press secretary even called it a plandemic the other day.
I’d hope my alma mater donates all proceeds to either Tulane AD or hurricane relief
The SEC just announced that any program unable to field a team for a game this season will be given a loss as a forfeit with the opposing team given a win. If both programs cannot field teams, both will be given forfeits.
Florida is over 90% vaccinated on the team so they do not have to do the standard testing protocol but Mullen said last week that the unvaccinated players are still being tested. Vaccinated players do not have to undergo COVID testing.
Florida is over 90% vaccinated on the team so they do not have to do the standard testing protocol but Mullen said last week that the unvaccinated players are still being tested. Vaccinated players do not have to undergo COVID testing.
Similar threads
