Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, rebot said:

I'll accept that. Here's the thing, I'm not even fighting for it to be a treatment. It seems like most people on this thread agrees that it shouldn't be used even though there have been numerous anecdotal studies completed and a few clinical trials waiting for peer review. Yet, they want people to receive a vaccine (Pfizer) that isn't set to complete phase III trials until the end of 2022.

How is it ok to not use the a treatment that hasn't been fully tested but it is ok to use a vaccine that hasn't been fully tested?

They are saying it is up to the expert in the room, the doctor, to decide whether or not it will be prescribed, just as is done for every other hospital treatment in the US. 

Whether you decide to take the vaccine or not, even after full approval, is your call. Just as it is the job of doctors to prescribe the drugs and treatments they deem most appropriate. Yes, at times their hands are tied by insurance companies or their particular healthcare system. But that is not what is going on in the case of your two favorite drugs. The majority of experts have concluded that there are currently other better treatments and some are working to develop new ones. And the majority of experts have determined that the vaccine is currently the best defense against ever being hospitalized or needing treatment for covid. And so far the data is supporting that for which I am very, very thankful.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Frances said:

It’s not according to me, it’s according to her doctors. They have ultimate responsibility for the patient, so it is their call as to whether or not to prescribe a drug. Do you think doctors should prescribe everything a family member or patient requests? Where does it end? Why even bother with doctors then and not instead just push for all drugs to be OTC?

 And what you said about shutting down exploration of treatments is simply not true. Not to mention the treatments that are already being used. How did they come about if all exploration of treatments was shut down?

I don’t call people names and I said nothing about your level of intelligence. I was merely pointing out that all of the “experts” you disagree with have years of education, training, research, and practice, including many with actual covid patients. So I simply don’t think that compares to a layperson reading a some journal articles and deciding they know the best course of treatment for covid. And it is insulting to them to insinuate they are purposely withholding a supposedly life saving drug for whatever nefarious reasons you think they are doing so.

I typically avoid any and all of these threads. I'm not going to change your opinion, you're not going to change mine. It's going to devolve into this. I'm allowed to believe that we (the common citizen) are not being given all of the data. I'm allowed to believe that although I'm not a doctor, I can make an educated decision about what is best for myself and my family. I'm allowed to believe that the government putting pressure on people to receive a vaccine that has not been approved is immoral if not illegal.

I just relocated to Mexico, where ivermectin is OTC. Yep, I picked some up and if I show symptoms of Covid you can bet that I will take the recommended dosage. Will it help? No clue, but based on previous studies it shouldn't hurt (I take no other medications). That is my only point, with a drug that has been around for a long-time with few known side effects why not try it if someone is going to die either way.

I definitely don't agree that a doctor should prescribe everything a patient wants. My MIL wants a pill to fix everything, it's ridiculous. I won't let my dog take ivermectin due to issues in the past with a reaction to another drug (ketoconazole) which allowed it to cross the blood brain barrier. I understand it is a possibility, but when someone is going to die either way then yes I do think it should be an option if the patient will sign that it is not the hospitals fault. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Of the vaccine? The Phase 3 trials are long since done.

I just had to look it up again. Although the primary study has been completed, the study completion date is set at July 30, 2023.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rebot said:

I typically avoid any and all of these threads. I'm not going to change your opinion, you're not going to change mine. It's going to devolve into this. I'm allowed to believe that we (the common citizen) are not being given all of the data. I'm allowed to believe that although I'm not a doctor, I can make an educated decision about what is best for myself and my family. I'm allowed to believe that the government putting pressure on people to receive a vaccine that has not been approved is immoral if not illegal.

I just relocated to Mexico, where ivermectin is OTC. Yep, I picked some up and if I show symptoms of Covid you can bet that I will take the recommended dosage. Will it help? No clue, but based on previous studies it shouldn't hurt (I take no other medications). That is my only point, with a drug that has been around for a long-time with few known side effects why not try it if someone is going to die either way.

I definitely don't agree that a doctor should prescribe everything a patient wants. My MIL wants a pill to fix everything, it's ridiculous. I won't let my dog take ivermectin due to issues in the past with a reaction to another drug (ketoconazole) which allowed it to cross the blood brain barrier. I understand it is a possibility, but when someone is going to die either way then yes I do think it should be an option if the patient will sign that it is not the hospitals fault. 

I’m not exactly sure what data you are referring to, but I don’t disagree that everyone does not have data on everything including proprietary and confidential data. Could data collection and access be improved in some areas, absolutely. Would you also agree that some people have far more expertise in analyzing particular data than others, hence some would be considered experts? 

I don’t disagree that you should be able to make medical decisions for you and your family. If people disagree with their doctors about which drugs or treatments to use, they should definitely feel free to find a different doctor or buy drugs and take them themselves, as you plan to do. But I also think it is the right of doctors to refuse to prescribe a drug simply because a patient or family member requests it. It is their livelihood, license, and reputation on the line.

And I think that the government not encouraging people to use a vaccine that has substantial data showing that it saves lives and reduces severity of illness would be immoral, even if it has only received emergency approval. Just as I think it’s immoral for individuals, but especially leaders, to knowingly spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about covid.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

The biggest study in support of it was withdrawn with suspicions of fraud. There are no RCTs showing effectiveness. That's why. 

This was an interesting read (you may need to be a subscriber, not sure) on the politicization around ivermectin. It really does seem like there’s something there and I know people who have recently been treated with it for Covid (outpatient, “normal dr”) so there are definitely drs using it.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-dirty-7bd

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm going to step away from this. I'll admit that I'm not eloquent at expressing my opinions. The only reason I even commented is because I saw over and over everyone questioning why people were still not taking the vaccine. I'll tell you for me it comes down to trust. I don't trust that the vaccine is safe and effective. 

46 minutes ago, KSera said:

Additionally, I’m not particularly concerned about the final, long term stage of the vaccine trials not being complete, because we have an absolutely unprecedented amount of data on it at this point, more than we usually ever have before a drug gets full approval, and we are in the middle of an acute crisis where we need treatments now, and there is no history of any vaccine having negative outcomes that don’t show up until a year later. So, I’m far more concerned about the immediate outcome of deaths from Covid than of some potential mystery outcome that we have never seen happen before.

See, I'm the opposite. I'm absolutely more concerned with the long terms effects of the vaccine. Although there may have never been negative vaccine outcomes that show up a year later this is the first time this technology has been used for a vaccine. Yes, we do have an unprecedented amount of short term data, but no long term data and I'm unwilling to put something in my body that has no long term studies. 

If nothing else, I'm pretty sure this thread made me come to the realization of the difference of those that are very pro-Covid vaccine and those that are hesitant. I would guess that it comes down to what a person fears more. Neither is right or wrong, just different fears.

 

44 minutes ago, Frances said:

Whether you decide to take the vaccine or not, even after full approval, is your call.

I agree it should be everyones right to make their own health decisions. I've read multiple posts where people want it mandated, and multiple posts where people don't believe the government shouldn't mandate and it should be up to individual companies. I agree, it should fall on the individual company. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, rebot said:

 

See, I'm the opposite. I'm absolutely more concerned with the long terms effects of the vaccine. Although there may have never been negative vaccine outcomes that show up a year later this is the first time this technology has been used for a vaccine. 

 

J&J is a traditional vaccine.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rebot said:

Agreed, but since my concern is the long term effects of the vaccine that year of observation is important to me.

I can understand that. In different circumstances, I would do the same. I just think it should be made clear that there’s no specific reason for people to be concerned long-term, and to acknowledge that by waiting for long-term information, many, many thousands of people will die due to not having taken the vaccine in the meantime. With many other illnesses, that I’m not actually concerned I’m going to have a high likelihood of contracting, I would wait, but Covid I am almost certain to get, so it’s either get the vaccine, or get Covid without the vaccine. Statistics and odds make even super cautious me see that as an easy decision. Otherwise I may not live long enough to see the long-term safety data come in and that’s not hyperbole. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rebot said:

I'm truly sorry if my wording implied that I don't respect and appreciate everything you have done. I was trying to show that part of the reason that I don't personally trust the vaccine is that it has only received emergency use approval and according to my understanding (which may be incorrect) an EUA won't be granted if there is a preventative or treatment. Numerous studies have now shown that ivermectin (again I keep using ivermectin as an example because I'm most familiar with those studies) can be successful, especially if used early. Yet, it is still not widely used. Why? This is a question for the medical establishment, not for individual healthcare workers.

1. No, that's not how it works. A vaccine won't get EUA IF there is a fully approved vaccine that does the same thing. But you can get EUA for a vaccine even if there is a treatment, or vice versa. 

2. One of the issues is that ivermectin can cause heart issues, and so can Covid. Using a product that can cause heart problems in patients already at risk of heart problems was riskier than many doctors are comfortable with, given there is a lack of evidence that it actually helps. It also causes nausea and GI problems in many people, as does Covid, so adding on more nausea and GI upset in people already having those symptoms isn't a great plan either, again given that we don't know it would even help. 

2 hours ago, rebot said:

I'll accept that. Here's the thing, I'm not even fighting for it to be a treatment. It seems like most people on this thread agrees that it shouldn't be used even though there have been numerous anecdotal studies completed and a few clinical trials waiting for peer review. Yet, they want people to receive a vaccine (Pfizer) that isn't set to complete phase III trials until the end of 2022.

How is it ok to not use the a treatment that hasn't been fully tested but it is ok to use a vaccine that hasn't been fully tested?

The vaccine HAS been tested...that extra time is for POST approval, post testing, observation. Ivermectin has not been tested and found to work. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wilrunner said:

It's not a won't, it's a can't. It's too dangerous if they do. If they want to enforce vaccine requirements  (or masks) the business needs a bouncer at the front door who will enforce their rules, which could be risking the lives of their employees. In TX, HEB (a very large grocery chain) required masks in part due to public pressure. However, when Abbott said any entity receiving state support couldn't require masks, it became too dangerous for the non governmental businesses to require them, so they suggested people wear masks. The police wouldn't back up the businesses who wanted to continue requiring masks. 

If they won't enforce no trespassing laws; they won't enforce gov't mandates either. We have so many laws to enforce cops must just pick and choose what to enforce. I doubt there are many places that had lots of anti maskers that enforced rules even when the gov't mandated them. They certainly didn't here. Those who flouted the businesses requests on their own private property also flouted the gov't rules and they were not fined or imprisoned or anything like that. 🤷

Edited by frogger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t read all of this but did see above someone mocking the idea that healthcare workers will withhold drugs to push an agenda but I am a firm believer that the virus and vaccine is being politicized on both sides and it is a crying shame! I would like to tell my recent story. 
 

I am obese, was before covid, and am working on losing weight but just as it easier to say that you should have had savings in case of emergency, like covid, it is easy to say you shouldn’t have let your health go. Covid hit our health and finances suddenly and neither can be changed overnight. I also have high blood pressure treated with medication and am prediabetic, not medically treated per doctors orders. I have had other health issues lately that pushed me over the edge toward vaccination. Both myself and my husband vaccinated in March fully. I quarantined nearly entirely for a full year and always wear a mask if I ever entered any business during 2020. 2021 opened up our area and all masks were dropped but I still limited contact far greater than most around. A few weeks ago my 20 year old visited us, without symptoms, and later that night became sick. She had covid. She gave it to me. She is unvaccinated and it took her a full week to recover or maybe more. She quarantined for 12 days total. As I said I caught covid from her and my younger children did as well. My youngest had mild symptoms, next in age slightly more symptoms, and 15 yr old asymptomatic. My husband never tested positive or had any symptoms. Again both he and I are fully vaccinated in March. Days 1-4 were bad for me but tolerable. Day 5 I ended up at ER. My Bp and insulin was highly elevated along with other covid issues but I didn’t have pneumonia. The doctor insisted that I return if I got worse because pneumonia could set in. He stated that was the only thing keeping me from getting iv antibodies treatment, the lack of pneumonia. By two days later I was begging my husband to call 911. I lost all body functions, passed out multiple times, Bp and insulin skyrocketed, and I couldn’t breathe. Back to ER we went. Chest XRay showed pneumonia. Blood was drawn and 6 of the tests had warning symbols beside them. I could not get the doctor to give me details about each test so I still don’t know what they meant. He said it was expected because I was the sickest he had seen with covid of vaccinated patients. BUT he said be encouraged because as of yet NO vaccinated person has had to have additional treatment. I was placed in a room with monitors where the alarms randomly sounded,6 or more times, and never had anyone enter the room to check on or explain to me anything. The last I saw them was when they drew blood and did the ekg. Oh and when I asked for a pillow but was told people steal them so they no longer give them. I was not given an iv and was told I could walk myself to bathroom anytime I wanted just unhook. I had one small water I brought with me and was only brought another when my husband called to complain that I had not been seen in hours nor had any water. There were no visitors allowed. The nurse came in and assured me they were watching the monitors from their desk and brought water. Shortly after I was asked to walk with nurse and then placed back on monitors. After she left I noticed the monitors were not working and tried multiple times to get them to work. They were not answering call button. 30 +minutes later I was told by nurse that I was being discharged as my stats were fine. I asked how she knew since I didn’t a working monitor and she looked and said the other nurse forgot to restart it. I asked if I would see a doctor at all or have the labs explained before going. She said he would be in shortly. She did tell me when I was admitted that this was the slowest day they have had all week. I didn’t see any patients in lobby when I entered and only 3 when I left. Monday, 2 days before,  was crazy full. An hour later a PA assistant came in and said the doctor said I was good to go and no treatment available for me. I asked why not considering that two days before I wasn’t as sick and didn’t have pneumonia and was told if it worsened I needed to come in immediately for IV medication. It worsened so I did. The PA said the same doctor was on call and doesn’t see any treatment for me and it wouldn’t make sense for him to have told me that on Monday. I asked about labs and he said they basically say I’m very sick with covid but some just have to fight it naturally at home. No questions I asked got further answers. The nurse came in to discharge me and told me to take mucinex and at night a cough medicine they prescribed. She gave me some tips on what to drink/eat but otherwise I was the same as before I came there hours before. Two days later I had a second opinion with another doctor as I was struggling with pulse ox dropping to 84 then rebounding to stay at 88 before slowly rising to 91 max. The new doctor was appalled that they didn’t treat me with IV antibodies and said I fit all the requirements, she had all the files and labs, after I had pneumonia. She said the only reason she can begin to think they didn’t is because I was vaccinated. She said they had to saving it for the unvaccinated thinking being vaccinated should help me. She said they are not in short supply of meds and they are giving them daily. She said at the very least I should have been given a portable oxygen to help if necessary. She said the last day I could get that treatment was the day I was in the hospital. I could go back and try to get them to admit me for more extreme medications if it became worse but otherwise nothing she could do. She went over when to worry about the oxygen numbers, etc. for two more days I struggled with low numbers, not being able to keep anything but liquids down, weakness, covid tongue, etc. fever was the only thing I didn’t have on those two days. Day 13 is my fist day where I can stand up and walk without support, eat, and basically function as normal. I am slower physically and mentally but finally better. I know this is long but I said all this to say, I and the second opinion doctor are pro vaccine. I know the vaccine can work for some as my husband never caught it even as caregiver. I don’t know if the vaccine helped me by keeping me from dying or it just didn’t work for me and covid almost killed me. Yes, I feel there were several times I was at deaths door.  I also know being vaccinated kept me from getting the treatment that a friend and her 3 older kids got within the first week of getting sick. I also know with my obesity and health issues there is no way that all 4 of those met the requirements better than I. But they chose to not vaccinate. So on one had the vaccine was ideal for my husband. On the other it possibly helped me (no way to know) but it definitely hurt my treatment. So where do I go from here? I am grateful that my kids are healthy again, husband covid free, and I am recovering but I am also beyond angry. I should be able to trust doctors to do what they can to help me. Instead I was told multiple times that “Good news: NO vaccinated person has needed additional help.” Yet makes me wonder did they not need help or was it withheld to pad the stats. If I had seen the doctor even once that day he could have explained why I was no longer a candidate but he chose not to enter my room. So I have to make my own best guess and it has left me jaded. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, KSera said:

I can understand that. In different circumstances, I would do the same. I just think it should be made clear that there’s no specific reason for people to be concerned long-term, and to acknowledge that by waiting for long-term information, many, many thousands of people will die due to not having taken the vaccine in the meantime. With many other illnesses, that I’m not actually concerned I’m going to have a high likelihood of contracting, I would wait, but Covid I am almost certain to get, so it’s either get the vaccine, or get Covid without the vaccine. Statistics and odds make even super cautious me see that as an easy decision. Otherwise I may not live long enough to see the long-term safety data come in and that’s not hyperbole. 

All those lives do not have to be lost if people continue wearing masks, avoiding crowds, and social distancing (at least the unvaxxed). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, LongRamblings said:

I haven’t read all of this but did see above someone mocking the idea that healthcare workers will withhold drugs to push an agenda but I am a firm believer that the virus and vaccine is being politicized on both sides and it is a crying shame! I would like to tell my recent story. 
 

I am obese, was before covid, and am working on losing weight but just as it easier to say that you should have had savings in case of emergency, like covid, it is easy to say you shouldn’t have let your health go. Covid hit our health and finances suddenly and neither can be changed overnight. I also have high blood pressure treated with medication and am prediabetic, not medically treated per doctors orders. I have had other health issues lately that pushed me over the edge toward vaccination. Both myself and my husband vaccinated in March fully. I quarantined nearly entirely for a full year and always wear a mask if I ever entered any business during 2020. 2021 opened up our area and all masks were dropped but I still limited contact far greater than most around. A few weeks ago my 20 year old visited us, without symptoms, and later that night became sick. She had covid. She gave it to me. She is unvaccinated and it took her a full week to recover or maybe more. She quarantined for 12 days total. As I said I caught covid from her and my younger children did as well. My youngest had mild symptoms, next in age slightly more symptoms, and 15 yr old asymptomatic. My husband never tested positive or had any symptoms. Again both he and I are fully vaccinated in March. Days 1-4 were bad for me but tolerable. Day 5 I ended up at ER. My Bp and insulin was highly elevated along with other covid issues but I didn’t have pneumonia. The doctor insisted that I return if I got worse because pneumonia could set in. He stated that was the only thing keeping me from getting iv antibodies treatment, the lack of pneumonia. By two days later I was begging my husband to call 911. I lost all body functions, passed out multiple times, Bp and insulin skyrocketed, and I couldn’t breathe. Back to ER we went. Chest XRay showed pneumonia. Blood was drawn and 6 of the tests had warning symbols beside them. I could not get the doctor to give me details about each test so I still don’t know what they meant. He said it was expected because I was the sickest he had seen with covid of vaccinated patients. BUT he said be encouraged because as of yet NO vaccinated person has had to have additional treatment. I was placed in a room with monitors where the alarms randomly sounded,6 or more times, and never had anyone enter the room to check on or explain to me anything. The last I saw them was when they drew blood and did the ekg. Oh and when I asked for a pillow but was told people steal them so they no longer give them. I was not given an iv and was told I could walk myself to bathroom anytime I wanted just unhook. I had one small water I brought with me and was only brought another when my husband called to complain that I had not been seen in hours nor had any water. There were no visitors allowed. The nurse came in and assured me they were watching the monitors from their desk and brought water. Shortly after I was asked to walk with nurse and then placed back on monitors. After she left I noticed the monitors were not working and tried multiple times to get them to work. They were not answering call button. 30 +minutes later I was told by nurse that I was being discharged as my stats were fine. I asked how she knew since I didn’t a working monitor and she looked and said the other nurse forgot to restart it. I asked if I would see a doctor at all or have the labs explained before going. She said he would be in shortly. She did tell me when I was admitted that this was the slowest day they have had all week. I didn’t see any patients in lobby when I entered and only 3 when I left. Monday, 2 days before,  was crazy full. An hour later a PA assistant came in and said the doctor said I was good to go and no treatment available for me. I asked why not considering that two days before I wasn’t as sick and didn’t have pneumonia and was told if it worsened I needed to come in immediately for IV medication. It worsened so I did. The PA said the same doctor was on call and doesn’t see any treatment for me and it wouldn’t make sense for him to have told me that on Monday. I asked about labs and he said they basically say I’m very sick with covid but some just have to fight it naturally at home. No questions I asked got further answers. The nurse came in to discharge me and told me to take mucinex and at night a cough medicine they prescribed. She gave me some tips on what to drink/eat but otherwise I was the same as before I came there hours before. Two days later I had a second opinion with another doctor as I was struggling with pulse ox dropping to 84 then rebounding to stay at 88 before slowly rising to 91 max. The new doctor was appalled that they didn’t treat me with IV antibodies and said I fit all the requirements, she had all the files and labs, after I had pneumonia. She said the only reason she can begin to think they didn’t is because I was vaccinated. She said they had to saving it for the unvaccinated thinking being vaccinated should help me. She said they are not in short supply of meds and they are giving them daily. She said at the very least I should have been given a portable oxygen to help if necessary. She said the last day I could get that treatment was the day I was in the hospital. I could go back and try to get them to admit me for more extreme medications if it became worse but otherwise nothing she could do. She went over when to worry about the oxygen numbers, etc. for two more days I struggled with low numbers, not being able to keep anything but liquids down, weakness, covid tongue, etc. fever was the only thing I didn’t have on those two days. Day 13 is my fist day where I can stand up and walk without support, eat, and basically function as normal. I am slower physically and mentally but finally better. I know this is long but I said all this to say, I and the second opinion doctor are pro vaccine. I know the vaccine can work for some as my husband never caught it even as caregiver. I don’t know if the vaccine helped me by keeping me from dying or it just didn’t work for me and covid almost killed me. Yes, I feel there were several times I was at deaths door.  I also know being vaccinated kept me from getting the treatment that a friend and her 3 older kids got within the first week of getting sick. I also know with my obesity and health issues there is no way that all 4 of those met the requirements better than I. But they chose to not vaccinate. So on one had the vaccine was ideal for my husband. On the other it possibly helped me (no way to know) but it definitely hurt my treatment. So where do I go from here? I am grateful that my kids are healthy again, husband covid free, and I am recovering but I am also beyond angry. I should be able to trust doctors to do what they can to help me. Instead I was told multiple times that “Good news: NO vaccinated person has needed additional help.” Yet makes me wonder did they not need help or was it withheld to pad the stats. If I had seen the doctor even once that day he could have explained why I was no longer a candidate but he chose not to enter my room. So I have to make my own best guess and it has left me jaded. 

Ugh, you were treated terribly! That said, of two doctors, one says he would treat you, even vaccinated, one said he would, then didn't. So I don't know if we can say that this is some plot to change numbers...and I don't think they even report on who does/doesn't get the antibody treatment. Just who is in ICU. So I think, sadly, you just had crappy treatment, from a crappy doctor. I hate that. I am so sorry you are so sick! 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, LongRamblings said:

I would like to tell my recent story. 

I'm so sorry that happened to you. Sounds like it was awful and you didn't get the treatment you should have. I initially thought maybe you were in a high covid rate area and they were just stretched too thin, but doesn't sound like that's it. I'm glad you are recovering.

30 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

All those lives do not have to be lost if people continue wearing masks, avoiding crowds, and social distancing (at least the unvaxxed). 

This would go a long way to helping a whole lot. Won't help people when something gets through and they get sick anyway, but it would reduce cases a lot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rebot said:

I'm truly sorry if my wording implied that I don't respect and appreciate everything you have done. I was trying to show that part of the reason that I don't personally trust the vaccine is that it has only received emergency use approval and according to my understanding (which may be incorrect) an EUA won't be granted if there is a preventative or treatment. Numerous studies have now shown that ivermectin (again I keep using ivermectin as an example because I'm most familiar with those studies) can be successful, especially if used early. Yet, it is still not widely used. Why? This is a question for the medical establishment, not for individual healthcare workers.

The EUA has already been granted.   An EUA will not be granted if an already approved treatment or vaccine is available since an EUA is only used in an emergency, which wouldn't exist if there was an acceptable treatment available.  But that's not the situation we're in, it's already been granted EUA.   Pfizer is also already going for full approval so the EUA is going to be a moot point soon anyway.  

But Ivermectin is not a threat because Ivermectin is no where near full approval as a treatment for Covid since the major study was found to have fraudulent data.  Other studies are being conducted but none of them are even close to reaching the necessary endpoint for approval.  Other studies for other treatments may be closer or farther away from submission for approval.

Pfizer will definitely make billions from Covid vaccines (I'm not aware of all the details of the deals they have with various governments but I'm sure they won't be losing money), but I would also suggest you follow the money when it comes to Ivermectin and some of the other treatments being pushed.  Who stands to gain if they get approval?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Ugh, you were treated terribly! That said, of two doctors, one says he would treat you, even vaccinated, one said he would, then didn't. So I don't know if we can say that this is some plot to change numbers...and I don't think they even report on who does/doesn't get the antibody treatment. Just who is in ICU. So I think, sadly, you just had crappy treatment, from a crappy doctor. I hate that. I am so sorry you are so sick! 

 Thank you. I understand how you can see it that way. I also know why it has  left me, a provaccinater, jaded. *%#  it should not be that way. We should be able to trust doctors and scientists and until we can we are stuck with this crappy covid! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Plum said:

Only those "who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization" qualify for treatment.  - from provided link. I could go to the medical research center and volunteer for a study and get treatment I wanted to. 

Well now they could get their medical license revoked. I'm sure some of you will cheer, but containing doctor's autonomy in this way is like revoking a teaching license for not teaching the "right" materials even when those materials are wrong.

Who defines misinformation and disinformation when the information is constantly changing? We've seen consensus-driven censorship on YT and FB and then the consensus changes and topics that were banned as misinformation are now acceptable. 

 

Physicians who post COVID-19 vaccine misinformation may lose license, medical panel says - Becker's Hospital Review

The Federation of State Medical Boards warned July 29 that physicians and other healthcare professionals could be at risk of losing their medical licenses if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on social media, online and in the media.

FSMB, a nonprofit that represents all U.S. state medical boards, said any clinicians who create or spread vaccine misinformation or disinformation risk disciplinary action by state medical boards, including suspension or revocation of their medical license, according to a statement emailed to Becker's Hospital Review.

"Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not," FSMB said. "They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health."

I was giving an example of a drug that could be used.  She said they weren't allowing any drugs in order to maintain the EUA. I was pointing out her error.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LongRamblings said:

 Thank you. I understand how you can see it that way. I also know why it has  left me, a provaccinater, jaded. *%#  it should not be that way. We should be able to trust doctors and scientists and until we can we are stuck with this crappy covid! 

I would definitely file a complaint with the hospital.  I'm sorry you had such a bad experience and I'm glad you're doing better.  ❤️  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Plum said:

Only those "who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization" qualify for treatment.  - from provided link. I could go to the medical research center and volunteer for a study and get treatment I wanted to. 

Well now they could get their medical license revoked. I'm sure some of you will cheer, but containing doctor's autonomy in this way is like revoking a teaching license for not teaching the "right" materials even when those materials are wrong.

Who defines misinformation and disinformation when the information is constantly changing? We've seen consensus-driven censorship on YT and FB and then the consensus changes and topics that were banned as misinformation are now acceptable. 

 

Physicians who post COVID-19 vaccine misinformation may lose license, medical panel says - Becker's Hospital Review

The Federation of State Medical Boards warned July 29 that physicians and other healthcare professionals could be at risk of losing their medical licenses if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on social media, online and in the media.

FSMB, a nonprofit that represents all U.S. state medical boards, said any clinicians who create or spread vaccine misinformation or disinformation risk disciplinary action by state medical boards, including suspension or revocation of their medical license, according to a statement emailed to Becker's Hospital Review.

"Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not," FSMB said. "They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health."

yes, disinformation/misinformation means factually wrong statements. If doctors are purposely spreading factually inaccurate information about medical matters, that has always been grounds for investigation. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait. So if Pfizer gets full approval before Novavax gets a EUA, y'all are saying, Novavax won't get a EUA at all & will have to wait for full approval before anyone (in the US) can receive it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RootAnn said:

Wait. So if Pfizer gets full approval before Novavax gets a EUA, y'all are saying, Novavax won't get a EUA at all & will have to wait for full approval before anyone (in the US) can receive it?

Maybe.  It depends if Novavax has a slightly different indication than the Pfizer vaccine.  If Novavax can be used in patients that for some reason can't get Pfizer, it could still get EUA.   But the likelihood definitely goes down if there are vaccines with full approval. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, frogger said:

If they won't enforce no trespassing laws; they won't enforce gov't mandates either. We have so many laws to enforce cops must just pick and choose what to enforce. I doubt there are many places that had lots of anti maskers that enforced rules even when the gov't mandated them. They certainly didn't here. Those who flouted the businesses requests on their own private property also flouted the gov't rules and they were not fined or imprisoned or anything like that. 🤷

The difference is that there are a lot of people who will follow a legal mandate without need for enforcement, but do not see a store as having the same level of authority.  When there was a mask mandate in my county I didn't have a single child show up for lessons without a mask. When it was dropped, I have averaged 2-3 a week. I can stop them at the door and hand them a mask,but I'm the one having to enforce-and it takes extra effort and expense. And, I've lost two families for fall due to continuing to require masking (and who knows how many chose to go elsewhere due to it being listed as required on the website and online course catalog). 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

Wait. So if Pfizer gets full approval before Novavax gets a EUA, y'all are saying, Novavax won't get a EUA at all & will have to wait for full approval before anyone (in the US) can receive it?

At this point, I feel kind of worried about Novavax... who even knows how it does with Delta?? 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Plum said:

Right. That's called medical malpractice which already exists. Why is this a new rule?

Here malpractice would apply within a doctor-patient relationship.  Dissemination of misinformation to the public is different.  There are other general professional misconduct rules that dissemination of misinformation might broadly fall under, but nothing specific here, I don't think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

At this point, I feel kind of worried about Novavax... who even knows how it does with Delta?? 

Well, to be fair, none of us knew how Pfizer would do with Delta before recently. Shouldn't Novavax get a chance? It will, I hope, in another country. Maybe it will be the one that doesn't cause horrible pains at the base of your skull for weeks after the second shot. Maybe it won't lose effectiveness as quickly. We don't know right now & I hope it gets a EUA because I do know people who are patiently waiting for it to become available. I don't know if it will be horrible or good. I just hope the people who are waiting to get vaccinated with Novavax get vaccinated. And they are waiting for it. More options are good, right?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RootAnn said:

Well, to be fair, none of us knew how Pfizer would do with Delta before recently. Shouldn't Novavax get a chance? It will, I hope, in another country. Maybe it will be the one that doesn't cause horrible pains at the base of your skull for weeks after the second shot. Maybe it won't lose effectiveness as quickly. We don't know right now & I hope it gets a EUA because I do know people who are patiently waiting for it to become available. I don't know if it will be horrible or good. I just hope the people who are waiting to get vaccinated with Novavax get vaccinated. And they are waiting for it. More options are good, right?

I was quite excited about Novavax, but I had the impression the non-mRNA vaccines weren't coping as well with the mutations. But hopefully I'm wrong about that! I just know that I'd want more data than they currently have -- they had SUCH promising results, but that was a long time ago. 

I'd also like something that doesn't give me stabbing pains at the back of the skull for weeks! We shared that lovely symptom, I believe. And I really did have it for 2 weeks (1 week on, 1 week off, and another week on.) 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LongRamblings said:

 Thank you. I understand how you can see it that way. I also know why it has  left me, a provaccinater, jaded. *%#  it should not be that way. We should be able to trust doctors and scientists and until we can we are stuck with this crappy covid! 

We do give the monoclonal antibody treatment to high risk vaccinated people who have come down with Covid, where I work. It has to be given at a very specific time in the disease process, though, before the person has started making their own antibodies I believe. I’m sorry that you may not have been given the opportunity when you should have. We give it mostly to unvaccinated people, as they are most at risk, but have had a few vaccinated people receive it also. I have heard of other places where it is not utilized properly and I wonder if there needs to be a real effort to educate to ensure appropriate use. There certainly needs to be better education to make sure people know to seek monoclonal therapy if they get sick, as we find that people don’t realize it is an option. We have quite a few people delaying testing until they are really sick, by which time it is too late for it to help them, and of course they haven’t been in contact with a medical provider who could tell them about it.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TCB said:

We do give the monoclonal antibody treatment to high risk vaccinated people who have come down with Covid, where I work. It has to be given at a very specific time in the disease process, though, before the person has started making their own antibodies I believe. I’m sorry that you may not have been given the opportunity when you should have. We give it mostly to unvaccinated people, as they are most at risk, but have had a few vaccinated people receive it also. I have heard of other places where it is not utilized properly and I wonder if there needs to be a real effort to educate to ensure appropriate use. There certainly needs to be better education to make sure people know to seek monoclonal therapy if they get sick, as we find that people don’t realize it is an option. We have quite a few people delaying testing until they are really sick, by which time it is too late for it to help them, and of course they haven’t been in contact with a medical provider who could tell them about it.

What is that time period? I have no idea myself, and would like to know for my mom, etc. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TCB said:

We have quite a few people delaying testing until they are really sick, by which time it is too late for it to help them, and of course they haven’t been in contact with a medical provider who could tell them about it.

I don't know where you are but standard advice in many many places seems to be to ride it out at home unless you get too sick to breathe. Maybe you get an inhaler or whatever but testing positive doesn't really matter because I don't know anyone who is routinely getting offered any kind of early treatment like you would for the flu if you get early tamiflu or xofluza. Maybe that's changing? Maybe people aren't getting tested or seeing dr's because they've been told there's no point unless they are sick enough to go to the hospital?

(sorry, lurker, weird thing to come out of lurking for, I know. I just have never heard that there is an early treatment option that people should seek out if they get a positive test)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One significant advantage that Novavax has over the mRNA vaccines it that is can be shipped and stored at normal refrigeration temperatures — which may be why the military wants to buy it. So that might be reasonable grounds for an EUA even if Pfizer is approved first. Also, they have been working on a combined flu/covid vax, which would also offer advantages over existing covid-only vaccines.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

One significant advantage that Novavax has over the mRNA vaccines it that is can be shipped and stored at normal refrigeration temperatures — which may be why the military wants to buy it. So that might be reasonable grounds for an EUA even if Pfizer is approved first. Also, they have been working on a combined flu/covid vax, which would also offer advantages over existing covid-only vaccines.

They could definitely try and get an EUA based on easier availability to rural areas or other places where the special handling for Pfizer would be a barrier.   But it could lead to them getting EUA only for the specific situations they applied for, so wouldn't be available for widespread use. 

Dh has been very involved in submitting paperwork to the FDA for various medications.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TCB said:

We do give the monoclonal antibody treatment to high risk vaccinated people who have come down with Covid, where I work. It has to be given at a very specific time in the disease process, though, before the person has started making their own antibodies I believe. I’m sorry that you may not have been given the opportunity when you should have. We give it mostly to unvaccinated people, as they are most at risk, but have had a few vaccinated people receive it also. I have heard of other places where it is not utilized properly and I wonder if there needs to be a real effort to educate to ensure appropriate use. There certainly needs to be better education to make sure people know to seek monoclonal therapy if they get sick, as we find that people don’t realize it is an option. We have quite a few people delaying testing until they are really sick, by which time it is too late for it to help them, and of course they haven’t been in contact with a medical provider who could tell them about it.

I don't think it's available everywhere.  The only MAB we use here is tocilizumab, for very sick hospitalized patients.  Monoclonal antibody cocktails aren't approved and aren't used outside of trials.  I see that bamlanivimab has had its FDA EAU withdrawn in April.  

ETA: MAB's certainly aren't used here for patients who aren't very, very ill.  Canada does tend to lag behind the US in approving drugs.  I think that our singe-payer, publicly funded health care system is part of the reason for slower uptake of new drugs, especially for vey expensive drugs like MABs.  If the state/tax-payer is going to be paying for it, then  efficacy had better be a certainty.

Edited by wathe
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

What is that time period? I have no idea myself, and would like to know for my mom, etc. 

I think it is within 10 days, although I think I heard on TWIV that it may be possible to test for antibodies and give it later if the patient hadn’t begun producing antibodies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I don't know where you are but standard advice in many many places seems to be to ride it out at home unless you get too sick to breathe. Maybe you get an inhaler or whatever but testing positive doesn't really matter because I don't know anyone who is routinely getting offered any kind of early treatment like you would for the flu if you get early tamiflu or xofluza. Maybe that's changing? Maybe people aren't getting tested or seeing dr's because they've been told there's no point unless they are sick enough to go to the hospital?

(sorry, lurker, weird thing to come out of lurking for, I know. I just have never heard that there is an early treatment option that people should seek out if they get a positive test)

I think it’s worth getting tested when you have symptoms and at least informing your dr so he can advise this treatment if it’s indicated. The criteria for eligibility for monoclonal antibody therapy is actually quite broad now, and lots of people qualify. I think it was the Mayo Clinic that did a pretty large study on it and found good efficacy with it. Bamlanivimab is not being used any more because it isn’t as effective against some of the more recent variants. 
What is happening around here with some people is they don’t get tested when they are first symptomatic because they don’t want to comply with quarantining etc., so unfortunately it is sometimes too late once they do.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, wathe said:

I don't think it's available everywhere.  The only MAB we use here is tocilizumab, for very sick hospitalized patients.  Monoclonal antibody cocktails aren't approved and aren't used outside of trials.  I see that bamlanivimab has had its FDA EAU withdrawn in April.  

ETA: MAB's certainly aren't used here for patients who aren't very, very ill.  Canada does tend to lag behind the US in approving drugs.  I think that our singe-payer, publicly funded health care system is part of the reason for slower uptake of new drugs, especially for vey expensive drugs like MABs.  If the state/tax-payer is going to be paying for it, then  efficacy had better be a certainty.

I think it is fairly widely available in the US but not necessarily widely known. It does seem very effective so I hope it becomes available where you are. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Plum said:

Right. That's called medical malpractice/medical negligence which already exists. Why is this a new rule?

It’s not new in my state here that doctors can be disciplined for 

 

6 hours ago, wathe said:

Here malpractice would apply within a doctor-patient relationship.  Dissemination of misinformation to the public is different.  There are other general professional misconduct rules that dissemination of misinformation might broadly fall under, but nothing specific here, I don't think.

In my state it might fall under violating standard medical practices. For instance, physicians here have had their licenses suspended or removed for doing so relating to childhood vaccines. One doctor who counseled against even tetanus vaccines with devastating results lost his license. He was found to pose an immediate threat to both the public and his patients.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I don't know where you are but standard advice in many many places seems to be to ride it out at home unless you get too sick to breathe. Maybe you get an inhaler or whatever but testing positive doesn't really matter because I don't know anyone who is routinely getting offered any kind of early treatment like you would for the flu if you get early tamiflu or xofluza. Maybe that's changing? Maybe people aren't getting tested or seeing dr's because they've been told there's no point unless they are sick enough to go to the hospital?

(sorry, lurker, weird thing to come out of lurking for, I know. I just have never heard that there is an early treatment option that people should seek out if they get a positive test)

I know that was true early on here, but it is different now. The major healthcare system here has special covid clinics now. They just took one of their regular clinics and repurposed it to be only for covid related stuff.
 

I know when my brother got sick last fall in another state, he was sent a home monitoring kit and mini iPad to record regular stats and communicate with his healthcare system.

I’m guessing this varies greatly from one location to the next.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe I'm the only one who'd never thought of it this way before, but this post on twitter last night was a lightbulb moment for me:

(I'll leave out the part where Nate Silver came along and got upset because apparently now he not only believes that he IS an epidemiologist, but that he invented epidemiology. I can't with him anymore). 

Edited by kokotg
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mommyoffive said:

IMO, Moderna's penchant for issuing press releases with "great news" but zero data is really sketchy. I think they purposely word things in a way they know the press will pick up, without providing data that might contradict the favorable but somewhat inaccurate "impression" that people get from the press release.

I'm afraid that all the headlines from this are likely to be that antibodies from Moderna don't wane over time, and that efficacy is still 93% against Delta. But that 93% figure is an average of the efficacy over a six month period (most likely at the beginning of the study) — it doesn't mean efficacy was still 93% at 6 months,  or that it's anything close to 93% against Delta. Pfizer just released data last week showing a similar six month efficacy of 91%, but I suspect what most people will erroneously take from this press release is "Moderna is 93% effective against Delta even if you got vaxxed a long time ago, but antibodies from Pfizer disappear after 6 months." Which is exactly what Moderna would like people (and investors) to think.

This is what doesn't add up: In the actual press release the only reference to Delta is a statement about boosters, in which they say "Neutralizing antibody levels following the boost approached those observed after primary vaccination with two doses of 100 µg of mRNA-1273." So the levels of antibodies after a booster were not even as high as those observed after the original shots? Then either the antibodies waned so significantly that even a booster barely got them back up to the level of the original shot, or the booster was useless because it didn't change the level of antibodies at all. IIRC, Pfizer's data showed a massive increase in antibodies following a booster, to levels that were significantly higher than after the original two-shot series. (If I can find a link to that, I'll come back and add it).

ETA: I can't find actual data from Pfizer, it may not have been published yet, but Reuters reported this statement from their CSO: "Dolsten said early data from the company's own studies shows that a third booster dose generates antibody levels that are five-to-10-fold higher than after the second dose, suggesting that a third dose will offer promising protection."

 

Edited by Corraleno
links
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kokotg said:

(I'll leave out the part where Nate Silver came along and got upset because apparently now he not only believes that he IS an epidemiologist, but that he invented epidemiology. I can't with him anymore). 

I almost shared that last night, but couldn’t think which thread or which other people had noted Nate’s embarrassing tweets throughout the pandemic. That one was hilarious though. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

I almost shared that last night, but couldn’t think which thread or which other people had noted Nate’s embarrassing tweets throughout the pandemic. That one was hilarious though. 

I used to be a total Nate Silver apologist. but, yeah--embarrassing is the right word for his covid takes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

This is exactly what I was talking about! From the article: 

"The company said its vaccine is 93% effective six months after the second dose. By comparison, Pfizer and BioNTech said their vaccine efficacy declined to around 84% after six months."

No, Moderna's efficacy rate is 93% across the first six months; it's calculated using ALL cases that occurred in that six month period, not just the cases that occurred in the last month.

Unlike Moderna, Pfizer released their actual data, which showed an efficacy of 96% at the beginning of the 6 month period and 84% at the end of the 6th month period, with an average efficacy of 91%. Moderna's average over six months is 93%; they have not released what the efficacy rate was at the end of 6 months.

 

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 2:14 PM, rebot said:

My being an idiot was a reference to my original post in this thread stating that anyone with opposing views is labeled that way. I'm not referring specifically to this thread but in general. 

I absolutely agree that experts are experts because they have more time and dedication to a topic. Here's the thing, I use to be able to read the opinions of multiple experts, compare and contrast their opinions and reference the data they provided. Since Covid, I have found that if an expert has a differing opinion they are discredited and their opinions/studies are extremely hard to find. I'm an engineer, not a doctor, so although I don't have a medical education, I do feel that I accurately understand a data set. My issue is that the numbers are not always provided. People want me to have blind faith in what an expert says without giving me access to the data that they determined their recommendations from.

Yes, getting to some of the numbers is difficult and some are held accountable for providing misleading or undocumented claims while other aren't.  

Fauci claims over 99% of deaths are in the unvaccinated   https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/07/04/more-than-99-us-covid-deaths-involve-unvaccinated-people/7856564002/

as does Walensky:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-coronavirus-deaths-nearly-all-among-unvaccinated-cdc-head-2021-7

But what is the source of those numbers??? The AP because the CDC claims not to be estimating the percentage?  

From this AP study: Nearly all COVID deaths in US are now among unvaccinated (apnews.com)

And only about 150 of the more than 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were in fully vaccinated people. That translates to about 0.8%, or five deaths per day on average.

The AP analyzed figures provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC itself has not estimated what percentage of hospitalizations and deaths are in fully vaccinated people, citing limitations in the data.

Among them: Only about 45 states report breakthrough infections, and some are more aggressive than others in looking for such cases. So the data probably understates such infections, CDC officials said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...