Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

Non-covid example of judgement:  I think recreational sky-diving is stupid.  That's a judgement.  I still provide excellent care to sky-diving trauma patients.  And my internal thoughts stay internal.  Easy to maintain compassion.  But, we haven't been overwhelmed with sky-divers filling up hospitals and ICUs - just the one guy yesterday.  If we were suddenly overwhelmed with sky-divers who all took up skydiving en-masse based on conspiracy theories and mis-information, then my anti-skydiving bias might start to show.....

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wathe said:

Non-covid example of judgement:  I think recreational sky-diving is stupid.  That's a judgement.  I still provide excellent care to sky-diving trauma patients.  And my internal thoughts stay internal.  Easy to maintain compassion.  But, we haven't been overwhelmed with sky-divers filling up hospitals and ICUs - just the one guy yesterday.  If we were suddenly overwhelmed with sky-divers who all took up skydiving en-masse based on conspiracy theories and mis-information, then my anti-skydiving bias might start to show.....

And also, sky-diving injuries aren't putting you at risk. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

I have.   I worked as a CNA at a nursing home.  I had to show proof of the usual childhood vaccinations, an updated tetanus, and a TB test.   Same when I worked at a daycare center very briefly, had to show that I had the usual childhood vaccinations.

And when I worked at the Lutheran K8, I had to provide my vaccine record, and my tetanus was out of date, which I had completely forgotten about, and so it was off to the health department for that shot before the first day of class. I also had to submit to TB test.

Ds had to provide his shot record for college. When he interned for an engineering firm, he had to show proof of tetanus. Mark worked at a seminary once and had to provide proof of MMR because they worked with a lot of international students who were coming over without vaccinations, and he also had to take a TB test every year.

My nephew who joined the National Guard had to provide full medical records, and have any vaxes that were out of date done, plus take a bunch more, plus TB test, plus....

When my sister worked as a social worker, she was required to provide her vaccine record. They made her test for measles titers, she was low, and so she got that plus a couple of others that she didn't have because she was working with a high risk community where vax rates were quite low.

I have traveled to countries that required a shot record to enter.

There are a lot of adults who do have to provide it. And some of it linked to regional or state culture. It is just that since many business, office jobs as well as low paid essential workers jobs do not, so people assume it isn't a thing except for HCW's. But, actually there are quite a number of adults who do have to be vaxed but do not work in healthcare.

The pandemic has highlighted the breaks in the system, and one is that we don't have a good mechanism for keeping adults up to date, nor any kind of decent public health messaging about it. If you see the doctor annually, they may say get the flu shot, get the shingles shot. They might notice your tetanus it running out or they might not. If you are college age, not pregnant, and not having health problems so therefore not paying out of pocket expenses for annual physicals and a lot of twenty and thirty something folks fall into that, then there is pretty much no one looking at it. Out of sight out of mind. The pandemic is a reminder that this is a huge gap in our system. We are a global community. Measles, Mumps, Diphtheria, Polio, they could make a comeback. Just a few unvaxed folks on a plane to Disneyland from a country with an outbreak, and whammo given how low our own vax rates have become in some parts of the country. Men never get tested for measles titres. How many could be in danger of taking it home to their kids if exposed elsewhere? Basically the only people who know in adulthood if their immunity has waned or not are pregnant women accepting routine prenatal care which means, NOT MY NIECE! 😠

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

For that the mother has to have HepB though, yes?  

I'll have to admit that I thought giving my 4-week preemie twins a HepB shot was a bit much (I did not have it, and when I asked what their risks to contract it were, the only thing the doctor could come up with was someday they might have sex or use intravenous drugs...)

Yes, but you wrote that children aren't susceptible.  Children as a whole are far more susceptible to HepB than they are to many of the childhood illnesses they are vaccinated for.  Hepatitis B also spreads in congregate care settings, such as daycare, where an employee might go from child to child, changing diapers, without proper hand hygiene.  It is a hardier virus than HIV.

I'm not saying that an individual parent, who knows that they are negative because of a recent test, and plans to get the vaccine soon after at the pediatrician, can't delay the vaccine, but I can't let the statement that children aren't susceptible to HBV be out there on the internet unqualified.

I also think it's weird that people reject the HBV, HPV, flu and covid vaccines, all of them illnesses that regularly kill people in our country, and then say they aren't antivax because their kid gets shots for polio and diptheria. Not saying those vaccines aren't also important, but it is an interesting risk assessment.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BaseballandHockey said:

Yes, but you wrote that children aren't susceptible.  Children as a whole are far more susceptible to HepB than they are to many of the childhood illnesses they are vaccinated for.  Hepatitis B also spreads in congregate care settings, such as daycare, where an employee might go from child to child, changing diapers, without proper hand hygiene.  It is a hardier virus than HIV.

I'm not saying that an individual parent, who knows that they are negative because of a recent test, and plans to get the vaccine soon after at the pediatrician, can't delay the vaccine, but I can't let the statement that children aren't susceptible to HBV be out there on the internet unqualified.

I also think it's weird that people reject the HBV, HPV, flu and covid vaccines, all of them illnesses that regularly kill people in our country, and then say they aren't antivax because their kid gets shots for polio and diptheria. Not saying those vaccines aren't also important, but it is an interesting risk assessment.

I agree with that. People are crazy bad a risk assessment a lot of the time!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

 

I also think it's weird that people reject the HBV, HPV, flu and covid vaccines, all of them illnesses that regularly kill people in our country, and then say they aren't antivax because their kid gets shots for polio and diptheria. Not saying those vaccines aren't also important, but it is an interesting risk assessment.

Quoting myself to say that I didn't mean to imply that @Matryoshka is weird, since it sounds like you did the testing, and did get your kids the vaccine eventually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

 

I also think it's weird that people reject the HBV, HPV, flu and covid vaccines, all of them illnesses that regularly kill people in our country, and then say they aren't antivax because their kid gets shots for polio and diptheria. Not saying those vaccines aren't also important, but it is an interesting risk assessment.

I don't think anyone said they rejected HBV, just didn't go along with standard timing of it. I had been tested, I knew I didn't have it, and my kids were not in daycare, so were not at risk of that illness. I prioritized other vaccines first, that's all. (and my kids do get flu and HPV vaccines)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

I think their policies are smart. Unvaxxed staff must mask and get tested weekly, pay a higher fee for company health insurance (just like smokers do), and if they test positive and have to stay home they do not get the pay protection offered to fully vaxxed employees. They said the average covid hospital stay costs them $40,000 so its only fair to pass those costs on to the employees who are most likely to incur them. They also offer a paid day off and $50 to employees who get vaxxed. I'd love to see many more employers follow suit.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wathe said:

I was going to post exactly this.

I can't imagine that anyone will refuse emergency care to the unvaccinated.  We don'r refuse emergency care to anyone in my ED.  I can see, though,  how unvaccinated status might become one of the prognostic criteria used to determine allocation of limited resources  - if there is one ICU bed, and two otherwise prognostically identical patients who need it, the vaxed patient might get the bed because their vaxed status improves their prognosis over that of the unvaxed patient.

Primary care is completely different.  

It’s an EMTALA violation in the states for an ER to refuse service.  I actually kind of wish they could, because once you were seen for constipation 211 times in a year you need to just stop going to the ER(true story, but the number of times is probably more).

But I also understand why.

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

38 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I don't think anyone said they rejected HBV, just didn't go along with standard timing of it. I had been tested, I knew I didn't have it, and my kids were not in daycare, so were not at risk of that illness. I prioritized other vaccines first, that's all. (and my kids do get flu and HPV vaccines)

I didn’t mean people here, but in my the wild so to speak I know plenty of people whose kids have all their vaccines except on or two, and the ones they object to are usually HPV, HBV, Flu or Covid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

True but it was very unusual for parents to opt out of standard childhood vaccinations in the USA until recently outside of certain religious communities. 

Maybe not opt out as much as "delay" and selectively choose.

My mom did that back in the 1960s-80s, and I did it with my kids long before Covid.  And we aren't exactly hippie types.

I did leave a pediatrician's practice over his attitude about my choice to discuss and wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

I have.   I worked as a CNA at a nursing home.  I had to show proof of the usual childhood vaccinations, an updated tetanus, and a TB test.   Same when I worked at a daycare center very briefly, had to show that I had the usual childhood vaccinations.

Interesting.  I worked at a nursing home and was never asked about this.  But that was about 35 years ago.

I don't know that I'd be able to find my childhood vax records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hshibley said:

The pediatric practice I take my children to refuses to treat patients who are not vaccinated against childhood diseases (yes there are exceptions for the extremely rare cases where children can’t be vaccinated).  This policy was put in place about 5 years ago with the explanation that if you are not going to take the doctors’ medical advice you should not be a patient. This has become common practice for the majority of pediatric practices in my area. 
 

Why are the people who refuse to take the covid vaccination entitled to special treatment? (With the obvious exception of the less than 1% who have medical reasons not to be vaccinated) If a doctor doesn’t want to treat patients who ignore medical advice that’s their choice. Does there need to be a special exemption for those who refuse the covid vaccine? Hospitals are stuck treating the unvaccinated but a doctor in private practice is not. 

What about patients who refuse to lose weight or take their medications or quit smoking? I mean I guess it's the doctor's right - their business and all - but if that's the reasoning, why not be consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

What about patients who refuse to lose weight or take their medications or quit smoking? I mean I guess it's the doctor's right - their business and all - but if that's the reasoning, why not be consistent.

I see the logic there, but addictions and weight difficulties are medical and mental health issues themselves. They are most often not a simple thing for people to change.  Except for people with needle phobias holding them back, getting a vaccine is just a matter of making a decision and doing it. It would maybe be a closer analogy if a doctor had a policy that if any of their non smoking patients decides to start smoking, they will need to find a different doctor? Still not the same, but closer. I can’t think of an exact analogy. Particularly not in the context of a pandemic disease. 
 

eta: they not taking their medication‘s one is actually a pretty good analogy. And that’s something that some doctors do. If someone won’t take their medication, I don’t know what more a doctor can do for them if that medication is the primary way to treat their ailment.

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

13 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

What about patients who refuse to lose weight or take their medications or quit smoking? I mean I guess it's the doctor's right - their business and all - but if that's the reasoning, why not be consistent.

I don't get how these things are comparable. Getting a vaccine is easy. Like super, super easy. Losing weight and quitting smoking are far from easy. Nicotine can be an addiction, and excess weight can be due to many underlying issues that are beyond the patient's ability to control.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pediatrician won't see a child whose parents refused MMR because of fears about autism.  She had no qualms about seeing my kid who couldn't get the second dose because of immunosuppression.  She has no qualms about seeing internationally adopted kids who need time to catch up on their shots.  In reality, what she won't do is see a kid whose parents won't partner with her, and take her advice on medical issues.  

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

My pediatrician won't see a child whose parents refused MMR because of fears about autism.  She had no qualms about seeing my kid who couldn't get the second dose because of immunosuppression.  She has no qualms about seeing internationally adopted kids who need time to catch up on their shots.  In reality, what she won't do is see a kid whose parents won't partner with her, and take her advice on medical issues.  

And the feeling is probably mutual.

My view of "partnering with the doctor" looks different from "shut up and do what the doctor says."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

Horrifying video

 

 

I can't imagine what it does to those nurses, having to listen to those sounds all night and day, knowing that at least half those patients are just waiting to die and there's nothing they can do about it, because the patient refused to do the one simple, effective thing that could have prevented it. And then those beds will just fill up again with a new set of patients who assumed covid would only kill other people.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I can't imagine what it does to those nurses, having to listen to those sounds all night and day, knowing that at least half those patients are just waiting to die and there's nothing they can do about, because the patient refused to do the one simple, effective thing that could have prevented it. And then those beds will just fill up again with a new set of patients who assumed covid would only kill other people.

Got to be pure hell. 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BaseballandHockey said:

I didn’t mean people here, but in my the wild so to speak I know plenty of people whose kids have all their vaccines except on or two, and the ones they object to are usually HPV, HBV, Flu or Covid.

We waited on HPV because my kids were at the low end of the range when it came out but both have it now.  We also don't always get flu, but generally on the advice of their pediatrician when there are shortages because my kids are low risk, both medically and because they are homeschooled instead of going to school.  

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Anyone else find ironic the name of this company?

It actually confused me for a minute, trying to figure out what that headline was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whitestavern said:

What about patients who refuse to lose weight or take their medications or quit smoking? I mean I guess it's the doctor's right - their business and all - but if that's the reasoning, why not be consistent.

Because a person who is overweight or a smoker or not taking their insulin is not a danger to the doctor, staff or the other patients in the waiting room. 

 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Large study on safety of the Pfizer vaccine, comparing risks of various adverse events for those who get the vaccine vs those who contract Covid. The take home is a drastically better safety profile for the vaccine vs infection. The vaccine increases the risk of swollen lymph nodes considerably and shingles by a little. Every other adverse event is higher for infection, with many of the worst ones dramatically higher.

Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting

 

BE3631C0-DB73-4823-B854-90BD59814C6D.jpeg

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s anyone in the Health Care field hearing about this medicine being used for Covid?   It was first studied and written about over a year ago, when they saw phenomenal results, but I never heard of it before.  It’s a common medicine that’s been around since 1975 that they say looks promising to treat Covid inflammation.

https://jewishjournal.com/news/339948/common-drug-a-silver-bullet-for-severe-covid-19-patients-israeli-scientists-find/

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/fenofibrate-could-reduce-covid-19-infection-by-70/116973/

Edited by matrips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, matrips said:

What’s anyone in the Health Care field hearing about this medicine being used for Covid?   It was first studied and written about over a year ago, when they saw phenomenal results, but I never heard of it before.  It’s a common medicine that’s been around since 1975 that they say looks promising to treat Covid inflammation.

https://jewishjournal.com/news/339948/common-drug-a-silver-bullet-for-severe-covid-19-patients-israeli-scientists-find/

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/fenofibrate-could-reduce-covid-19-infection-by-70/116973/

So far it looks like there's just in vitro research and this one tiny (n=15) open-label Israeli study, which was apparently designed as a precursor to a slightly larger randomized study (n=50) that will end December 1st.

U Penn is doing a much larger RCT (n=700), using the same dose for the same period (10 days), which will conclude December 31st: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04517396?term=fenofibrate&cond=Covid19&draw=2&rank=1

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

44 minutes ago, matrips said:

What’s anyone in the Health Care field hearing about this medicine being used for Covid?   It was first studied and written about over a year ago, when they saw phenomenal results, but I never heard of it before.  It’s a common medicine that’s been around since 1975 that they say looks promising to treat Covid inflammation.

https://jewishjournal.com/news/339948/common-drug-a-silver-bullet-for-severe-covid-19-patients-israeli-scientists-find/

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/fenofibrate-could-reduce-covid-19-infection-by-70/116973/

Looks very interesting. I see at least one larger trial was recruiting. Hopefully there will be a big enough trial to see if this is replicable. The study is promising, but with only 15 patients, could also be a fluke. Will be awesome if it's not. (I thought the "silver bullet" headline was misleading. What is it with headlines anyway? I see so much of that.")

 

ETA: Or, also, what @Corralenosaid 😂.

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

1 hour ago, KSera said:

Large study on safety of the Pfizer vaccine, comparing risks of various adverse events for those who get the vaccine vs those who contract Covid. The take home is a drastically better safety profile for the vaccine vs infection. The vaccine increases the risk of swollen lymph nodes considerably and shingles by a little. Every other adverse event is higher for infection, with many of the worst ones dramatically higher.

Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting

 

BE3631C0-DB73-4823-B854-90BD59814C6D.jpeg

Not surprised about the shingles ones, I have to say. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KSera said:

Looks very interesting. I see at least one larger trial was recruiting. Hopefully there will be a big enough trial to see if this is replicable. The study is promising, but with only 15 patients, could also be a fluke. Will be awesome if it's not. (I thought the "silver bullet" headline was misleading. What is it with headlines anyway? I see so much of that.")

 

ETA: Or, also, what @Corralenosaid 😂.

So wondering.  While I’m glad they have studies going, if it worked that well on hospitalized patients a year ago, wouldn’t it have been worth using for people that were dying or for dire situations like India had?  How do you not try something just because you’re waiting for a study?  Do patients or families get an option to try off-label FDA approved medicines before they need a ventilator? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matrips said:

What’s anyone in the Health Care field hearing about this medicine being used for Covid?   It was first studied and written about over a year ago, when they saw phenomenal results, but I never heard of it before.  It’s a common medicine that’s been around since 1975 that they say looks promising to treat Covid inflammation.

https://jewishjournal.com/news/339948/common-drug-a-silver-bullet-for-severe-covid-19-patients-israeli-scientists-find/

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/fenofibrate-could-reduce-covid-19-infection-by-70/116973/

Early days.

I looks like there have been studies in tissue cultures that look promising

In December, a team reviewed the med taken by 1500 patients who had covid, and the 13 who happened to take fenofibrate (I assume as part of their regular meds, not specifically prescribed for covid) did better.  The news reports state that this was presented at a conference.  I haven't seen it formally published (if anyone's found it, will they please link?) Very interesting, but absolutely insufficient evidence on which to change practice.

The more recent 15 patient study was open label, and used historical controls.  Also very interesting, but insufficient evidence upon which to base a change in practice.  (I also haven't found the formal publication of this study, just news reports). Absolutely merits further study with a properly blinded controlled trial.  Which, as PP's have mentioned, are I progress.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, matrips said:

So wondering.  While I’m glad they have studies going, if it worked that well on hospitalized patients a year ago, wouldn’t it have been worth using for people that were dying or for dire situations like India had?  How do you not try something just because you’re waiting for a study?  Do patients or families get an option to try off-label FDA approved medicines before they need a ventilator? 

Because the study doesn't actually show that.  Is shows an interesting correlation between a very small number of patients (13 of 1500, based on news reports) between patients who happened to be taking fenofibrate and their covid outcome.  Statistically, that outcome could be caused by any number of unrelated reasons, or simply by chance.

I haven't the actual study (but would really like to if anyone can find it!). I suspect the researchers took the med lists of 1500 patients, ran them all through a computer, and picked out the ones that correlated with good outcomes.  If you run enough of these analyses, a few will correlate, just by chance.

Statistically, if you run enough tests even random data sets, you will get some patterns.  that have nothing to do with causation.  As an aside, that's one of the reasons against a "shotgun" approach to medical diagnostic tests (throwing many tests at patients hoping to find something, without strong clinical reasoning), because for every 20 tests or so, one is going to have a false positive, just by chance.

Edited by wathe
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, wathe said:

Because the study doesn't actually show that.  Is shows an interesting correlation between a very small number of patients (13 of 1500, based on news reports) between patients who happened to be taking fenofibrate and their covid outcome.  Statistically, that outcome could be caused by any number of unrelated reasons, or simply by chance.

I haven't the actual study (but would really like to if anyone can find it!). I suspect the researchers took the med lists of 1500 patients, ran them all through a computer, and picked out the ones that correlated with good outcomes.  If you run enough of these analyses, a few will correlate, just by chance.

Statistically, if you run enough tests even random data sets, you will get some patterns.  that have nothing to do with causation.  As an aside, that's one of the reasons against a "shotgun" approach to medical diagnostic tests (throwing many tests at patients hoping to find something, without strong clinical reasoning), because for every 20 tests or so, one is going to have a false positive, just by chance.

Ah, thanks.  For some reason I read they gave it to 15 people and 14 had a quick around.  Off to re-read! 🙂
 

okay.  I re-read.  The 13 out of 1500 study was different from the one where they deliberately gave the med to covid patients and saw a huge benefit.  So I still don’t get, why even if it’s just a small study/sample, that they don’t try more of it if people are getting so sick and dying and they had such good results?  🤷‍♀️ 

Edited by matrips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, matrips said:

Ah, thanks.  For some reason I read they gave it to 15 people and 14 had a quick around.  Off to re-read! 🙂

Different study.  

the 1500 person data-review one was presented at a conference  in December 2020, as per news reports.

The 15 person, with 144 historical controls one, where 15 patients were treated with fenofibrate prospectively,  seems new - I see lots of news reports quoting it from Aug 23, 2021.  I haven't seen the actual study published anywhere.  

Both by the same investigator, it would appear.

ETA:

What I'm trying to say as that there isn't a study that  shows that it "worked that well on hospitalized patients a year ago". There is a study from December 2020 that appears to be a data-crunch showing a correlation in a very small number patients who happened to be taking fenofibrate, that's likely statistically very weak, and a different, much more recent study where fenofibrate appears to have been used prospectively.

I really would need to see the actual studies to know how meaningful any of this data is.  And I can't find them published anywhere.  Just mentioned in news reports.

ETA again - and I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time looking for them, because there is very high probability that what I'm going to find (if I find them) is exactly what I'm guessing - a statistically very weak data-crunch-fishing-expedition, and a tiny, methodogically weak (but interesting) prospective open label trial with historical controls.  Enough to know that there is not nearly enough evidence upon which to base a change in practice.

Edited by wathe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that al lot of drugs that look promising in early studies (tissue culture studies, retrospective data-crunch, small methodologically weak prospective open label trials) turn out not to work, or turn out to cause more harm than good.  

The fenofibrate evidence is super interesting, and exactly the sort of studies we need to decide which drugs we should bother going through all of the expense and effort of a RCT for.  But it's not nearly good enough to make any kind of efficacy statement about, or change practice over, never mind "silver bullet" hyperbole.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matrips said:

Ah, thanks.  For some reason I read they gave it to 15 people and 14 had a quick around.  Off to re-read! 🙂
 

okay.  I re-read.  The 13 out of 1500 study was different from the one where they deliberately gave the med to covid patients and saw a huge benefit.  So I still don’t get, why even if it’s just a small study/sample, that they don’t try more of it if people are getting so sick and dying and they had such good results?  🤷‍♀️ 

That's exactly what the ongoing RCT is - trying more of it to see if it actually works.

The 15 person study was too small and too weak to conclude that it will actually give good results.  Promising, but not conclusive.  It very well may do more harm than good.  We need a RTC to know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Not surprised about the shingles ones, I have to say. 

Same. I have expected that one.  That’s a good one for people to be aware of, so they can get antivirals at the first sign, since that’s when they work best. It’s still a rare adverse effect, but good to be aware of.

3 minutes ago, wathe said:

That's exactly what the ongoing RCT is - trying more of it to see if it actually works.

The 15 person study was too small and too weak to conclude that it will actually give good results.  Promising, but not conclusive.  It very well may do more harm than good.  We need a RTC to know.

Which is a good example of one of the reasons they don’t just try it in more people outside of a study, since it could very well turn out to be more harmful than beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I'm irritated about the "silver bullet" tone of the reporting I'm seeing. It's irresponsible.   IIRC, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine also looked promising in smalll, weak early studies that were widely reported in the media, then didn't pan out when tested more rigorously.  Look how that turned out.

Edited by wathe
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wathe said:

What I'm trying to say as that there isn't a study that  shows that it "worked that well on hospitalized patients a year ago".

I can’t find it again either!  I could have sworn I was reading something tonight that listed that study as July 2020.  🤦‍♀️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, matrips said:

I can’t find it again either!  I could have sworn I was reading something tonight that listed that study as July 2020.  🤦‍♀️

there are tissue culture studies from July 2020.  I think some of the reporting is a little sloppy and they are getting conflated.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, wathe said:

You know, I'm irritated about the "silver bullet" tone of the reporting I'm seeing. It's irresponsible.   IIRC, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine also looked promising in smalll, weak early studies that were widely reported in the media, then didn't pan out when tested more rigorously.  Look how that turned out.

I’m getting the same vibe with this, and expecting that it’s suddenly going to be all over social media with people saying that this is the cure and doctors are just keeping it a secret because all they care about is making money and not saving lives 🙄😡. The 15 person study is intriguing, and I will certainly be curious to see the results of the larger trials, but I also find the tone irresponsible, particularly given how we’ve seen people take that and run and won’t give up on it if it’s found to be unhelpful.

(And I still can’t get over the way many people latch on to these drugs with next to no evidence and toute them as the cure, yet usually scorn the vaccine, with its mountains of evidence and now proven track record in preventing severe disease and death.)

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

I’m getting the same vibe with this, and expecting that it’s suddenly going to be all over social media with people saying that this is the cure and doctors are just keeping it a secret because all they care about is making money and not saving lives 🙄😡. The 15 person study is intriguing, and I will certainly be curious to see the results of the larger trials, but I also find the tone irresponsible, particularly given how we’ve seen people take that and run and won’t give up on it if it’s found to be unhelpful.

(And I still can’t get over the way many people latch on to these drugs with next to no evidence and toute them as the cure, yet usually scorn the vaccine, with its mountains of evidence and now proven track record in preventing severe disease and death.)

Cue drug shortages and poison control centre calls, I guess.  It even comes in a convenient veterinary version.  The beef/liver flavour sounds delish.....

Ok, that was some snark slipping in there.  I'm very tired of this pandemic.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KSera said:

Hmmm, maybe I’ll stick with the horse paste then. It comes in Apple 🍎

You're in luck! It comes in Apple too!  

Also Triple Fish/Marshmallow!

 

Available Flavors:
Anchovy; Apple; Apple/Banana; Apple/Marshmallow; Apple/Molasses; Bacon; Bacon/Beef; Bacon/Cheddar Cheese; Bacon/Chicken; Bacon/Fish; Bacon/Marshmallow; Banana/Marshmallow; Banana/Strawberry; Beef/Cheddar Cheese; Beef/Chicken; Beef/Liver; Beef/Marshmallow; Cheddar Cheese/Marshmallow; Chicken & Liver; Chicken/Cheddar Cheese; Chicken/Fish; Chicken-Marshmallow; Chili Pepper; Cricket; Double Bacon; Double Banana; Double Beef; Double Chicken; Double Chicken-Marshmallow; Double Fish; Double Liver; Double Marshmallow; Duck; Duck/Marshmallow; Fish/Liver; Fish/Marshmallow; Half Bacon; Half Chicken; Peanut Butter; Peppermint; Shrimp; Strawberry/Marshmallow; Triple Chicken; Triple Fish/Marshmallow; Triple-Fish; Turkey; Tutti Fruitti and Tutti Fruitti-Marshmallow.
 

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, KSera said:

Large study on safety of the Pfizer vaccine, comparing risks of various adverse events for those who get the vaccine vs those who contract Covid. The take home is a drastically better safety profile for the vaccine vs infection. The vaccine increases the risk of swollen lymph nodes considerably and shingles by a little. Every other adverse event is higher for infection, with many of the worst ones dramatically higher.

Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting

 

BE3631C0-DB73-4823-B854-90BD59814C6D.jpeg

Interesting.  My sister who is battling shingles was advised not to get the vax at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wathe said:

You're in luck! It comes in Apple too!  

Also Triple Fish/Marshmallow!

 

Available Flavors:
Anchovy; Apple; Apple/Banana; Apple/Marshmallow; Apple/Molasses; Bacon; Bacon/Beef; Bacon/Cheddar Cheese; Bacon/Chicken; Bacon/Fish; Bacon/Marshmallow; Banana/Marshmallow; Banana/Strawberry; Beef/Cheddar Cheese; Beef/Chicken; Beef/Liver; Beef/Marshmallow; Cheddar Cheese/Marshmallow; Chicken & Liver; Chicken/Cheddar Cheese; Chicken/Fish; Chicken-Marshmallow; Chili Pepper; Cricket; Double Bacon; Double Banana; Double Beef; Double Chicken; Double Chicken-Marshmallow; Double Fish; Double Liver; Double Marshmallow; Duck; Duck/Marshmallow; Fish/Liver; Fish/Marshmallow; Half Bacon; Half Chicken; Peanut Butter; Peppermint; Shrimp; Strawberry/Marshmallow; Triple Chicken; Triple Fish/Marshmallow; Triple-Fish; Turkey; Tutti Fruitti and Tutti Fruitti-Marshmallow.
 

Yuck.

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...