Jump to content

Menu

At what point would you lock down again?


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Ugh. I don't know if we should move in that direction. We have kids signed up for outdoor camps in August, too. We've started going to playgrounds. I don't know who I can find who'd be willing to meet only in empty fields or something 😕 . 

It is SO hard to reopen things and then take them away. Much more psychologically taxing than knowing that you're in this for the long haul and setting up structures that make it work. 

I'm going to keep hoping that playgrounds with masks on are OK. Please let them be OK 😕 . 

This is why our family has pretty much stayed locked down. 

We let our kids (the ones still at home) choose one activity each for the summer.  We knew ahead of time that they would likely be exposed and that anyone not vaccinated and that we would be locked down at home except for those few activities.

Some of my girls went to camp, got sick with *something* (and shared it with the rest of us).  Now that I know more vaccinated people are getting the new Delta variant, I wish we had tested.   I decided not to test based on the fact that it seemed unlikely that four vaccinated people would get COVID.

Dd10 chose Vacation Bible School which was shut down early because of some positive COVID cases.  500+ kids, indoors, no social distancing, and she was one of only about 5 kids with masks.  I mean, what did they think was going to happen?  I truly believe that they shouldn't have even had VBS now, but I also knew that my individual child's probability of catching COVID and having a bad outcome is low.  She was fully quarantined from last March until this May (430 days!) and this was the *one thing* that she asked to do.

It's exactly what I expected and a risk that I was willing to take now while the numbers are low (but climbing).  I have a feeling that things are going to get worse again, so I'm not really comfortable with doing more things right now.  *Maybe* after dd10 is vaccinated.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the listed ivermectin side effects/ adverse reactions are a result of the drug interacting with the parasitic infection it's used to treat.  Those specific side effects wouldn't be relevant for covid treatment.  That said, we don't know if there are covid disease specific side-effects, and won't know until we have good, large trials and real world experience.

I think that TPTB are correct to advise against ivermectin use at this time.  It will never get approved for prevention, I don't think, because we already have a very safe and effective prevention measure (vaccine!).  Drugs for prevention have to be very very, safe because, when taken by large numbers of people over long periods of time, even the rare adverse events are going to happen again and again (which we see with vaccines and allergic reactions and myocarditis and VITT, the former at a rate that we accept, the later at a rate that we currently don't; we've paused AZ use in Canada). With vaccines, we accept these adverse events because we have extremely robust evidence to show that vaccines work, and that the benefit far, far exceeds the risk.  

I think that for ivermectin,  used for prevention on a population scale, 1) The adverse event rate will be too high to be acceptable, and 2) we do not have robust evidence to show that it actually works.

 I think the same argument is valid against treatment with ivermectin at this time. We generally accept more adverse event risk for treatment, but in order to accept the risk on a population level, we have to have robust evidence that the treatment works (that the benefit outweighs the risk).  At this time, we do not have robust evidence to show that ivermectin doesn't do more harm than good.

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, wathe said:

Look for monographs.  They usually have lists of side-effects, with frequencies, and often quote sources. Ie Merck monograph for Ivermectin

Question: how does one interpret these numbers? I know that for the vaccine trials, some things were reported with equal likelihood for placebo and treatment, lol. How are these numbers being separated out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Junie said:

It's exactly what I expected and a risk that I was willing to take now while the numbers are low (but climbing).  I have a feeling that things are going to get worse again, so I'm not really comfortable with doing more things right now.  *Maybe* after dd10 is vaccinated.

I've tried to kind of split the difference and increased social time but only to outdoor stuff. It has worked quite well so far... I hope it keeps working well enough. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, wathe said:

Some of the listed ivermectin side effects/ adverse reactions are a result of the drug interacting with the parasitic infection it's used to treat.  Those specific side effects wouldn't be relevant for covid treatment.  That said, we don't know if there are covid disease specific side-effects, and won't know until we have good, large trials and real world experience.

I think that TPTB are correct to advise against ivermectin use at this time.  It will never get approved for prevention, I don't think, because we already have a very safe and effective prevention measure (vaccine!).  Drugs for prevention have to be very very, safe because, when taken by large numbers of people over long periods of time, even the rare adverse events are going to happen again and again (which we see with vaccines and allergic reactions and myocarditis and VITT, the former at a rate that we accept, the later at a rate that we currently don't; we've paused AZ use in Canada). With vaccines, we accept these adverse events because we have extremely robust evidence to show that vaccines work, and that the benefit far, far exceeds the risk.  

I think that for ivermectin,  used for prevention on a population scale, 1) The adverse event rate will be too high to be acceptable, and 2) we do not have robust evidence to show that it actually works.

 I think the same argument is valid against treatment with ivermectin at this time. We generally accept more adverse event risk for treatment, but in order to accept the risk on a population level, we have to have robust evidence that the treatment works (that the benefit outweighs the risk).  At this time, we do not have robust evidence to show that ivermectin doesn't do more harm than good.

 

I agree that the side effects I had could have been due to parasites (which is why I was prescribed it to begin with). 

I was just reading a JAMA abstract (which is behind a paywall for medical professionals and I don't think would help to link) of a randomized clinical study (476 randomized patients in Columbia).  The conclusion:  there was no significant difference between those getting Ivermectin and those getting the placebo.  This is why I personally don't think that the Ivermectin bandwagon is one to climb on. 

Don't pin your hopes on something that won't help.  We know that masks and vaccination help (esp. in combination with something like Delta).    Someone else in some thread(s) recommended Ozone treatment.  I know people on it.  They are spending a LOT of money on it and it really isn't a miracle cure.  I don't know why the disdain (can't remember if it was in this thread or another one) for monoclonal antibodies but if the virus gets past my mask and vaccine, that is definitely what I am going to request.

Re. small children.  I would do nature hikes if possible, go at off times (though I realize that that might not be as possible in NYC), do challenges like homemade obstacle courses (even set up in a park - we had a lot of neighbor kids who enjoyed doing our courses), set up games like kick-ball or hop-scotch or 4-square where you aren't in close contact etc.  It does take more effort but that sort of thing counted for PE when my kids were young and for me, it was worth the effort (and of course we didn't have Covid to think about so it really was for the benefit of games, outdoors and organized play skills). 

Edited by Jean in Newcastle
changed the word "article" to "abstract"
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Question: how does one interpret these numbers? I know that for the vaccine trials, some things were reported with equal likelihood for placebo and treatment, lol. How are these numbers being separated out?

With many, many grains of salt*.

 It's an old drug, developed in the 70's and 80's.  (*** removed***) The burden of disease that this drug was developed to treat was/is huge, and the drug was developed for the developing world - I suspect that the trials might not meet modern standards.  The sociological and economic threads in the story of the drug are interesting, to say the least.

For interest, a fascinating article about the history of the ivermectin.

*ETA: Maybe a dumptruck load of salt.  Or an entire salt mine....

***nevermind, they stated how many were in the trial.  I am a goof.

Edited by wathe
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wathe said:

With many, many grains of salt*.

 It's an old drug, developed in the 70's and 80's.  The adverse reaction numbers tell you that the trials they are quoting must have been small (all multiples of 0.9). The burden of disease that this drug was developed to treat was/is huge, and the drug was developed for the developing world - I suspect that the trials might not meet modern standards.  The sociological and economic threads in the story of the drug are interesting, to say the least.

For interest, a fascinating article about the history of the ivermectin.

*ETA: Maybe a dumptruck load of salt.  Or an entire salt mine....

I always like saying "a boulder of salt," lol. 

I do wonder how much of a sense of adverse reactions to things mostly used in the developing world we have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I agree that the side effects I had could have been due to parasites (which is why I was prescribed it to begin with). 

I was just reading a JAMA abstract (which is behind a paywall for medical professionals and I don't think would help to link) of a randomized clinical study (476 randomized patients in Columbia).  The conclusion:  there was no significant difference between those getting Ivermectin and those getting the placebo.  This is why I personally don't think that the Ivermectin bandwagon is one to climb on. 

Don't pin your hopes on something that won't help.  We know that masks and vaccination help (esp. in combination with something like Delta).    Someone else in some thread(s) recommended Ozone treatment.  I know people on it.  They are spending a LOT of money on it and it really isn't a miracle cure.  I don't know why the disdain (can't remember if it was in this thread or another one) for monoclonal antibodies but if the virus gets past my mask and vaccine, that is definitely what I am going to request.

Re. small children.  I would do nature hikes if possible, go at off times (though I realize that that might not be as possible in NYC), do challenges like homemade obstacle courses (even set up in a park - we had a lot of neighbor kids who enjoyed doing our courses), set up games like kick-ball or hop-scotch or 4-square where you aren't in close contact etc.  It does take more effort but that sort of thing counted for PE when my kids were young and for me, it was worth the effort (and of course we didn't have Covid to think about so it really was for the benefit of games, outdoors and organized play skills). 


I think monoclonal antibodies or cocktail of monoclonal antibodies have shown great promise!

Have you checked to see that your doctor would give that to you if needed? 
 

It may be a local issue, or individual doctor issue, of whether people can or can’t get it.  My understanding is that while they seem promising, they are very hard to actually get for many people. Also expense is a barrier for many people. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Re. small children.  I would do nature hikes if possible, go at off times (though I realize that that might not be as possible in NYC), do challenges like homemade obstacle courses (even set up in a park - we had a lot of neighbor kids who enjoyed doing our courses), set up games like kick-ball or hop-scotch or 4-square where you aren't in close contact etc.  It does take more effort but that sort of thing counted for PE when my kids were young and for me, it was worth the effort (and of course we didn't have Covid to think about so it really was for the benefit of games, outdoors and organized play skills). 

Yes, if we decide to tighten things, we'll go that route. But we haven't done playgrounds for a year and they've been really enjoying going 😕 . I'm really hoping we won't pay for going for another few weeks... 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pen said:


I think monoclonal antibodies or cocktail of monoclonal antibodies have shown great promise!

Have you checked to see that your doctor would give that to you if needed? 
 

It may be a local issue, or individual doctor issue, of whether people can or can’t get it.  My understanding is that while they seem promising, they are very hard to actually get for many people. Also expense is a barrier for many people. 
 

 

My insurance company sent out an article praising the use of monoclonal antibodies so while I don't know 100%, I am fairly confident that I would get it if I asked. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I'm still trying to understand why vaccine was put in quotes. They are vaccines. You may or may not decide to get one, but that doesn't make it not a vaccine. So confused...


for myself -

2 standard reasons:

first because they seem to be “leaky” —(I assume as a vet tech you will understand that, but if not look up “leaky vaccines”)  This doesn’t necessarily mean they are not “vaccines” but does mean they won’t work the way most people expect — especially not when used *during* an apparent pandemic.  Issues of driving mutations to become more dangerous are significant with a leaky vaccine

rather than as with normal illness following its own course, it tending to become less dangerous as host and pathogen adapt to each other over time 

 

 

second they are very much not the way standard “vaccines” have worked over a long period 

(They don’t actually *prevent* infection, for example, and the system of getting body to produce spike is very different than introducing a small set amount of an antigen...) 

third until recently Moderna’s own papers did speak of “gene therapy” - I saw those but didn’t think to take screen shots and they seem gone now

 

Reasons you may likely dismiss as “conspiracy theory” and I want to clarify that I am trying to genuinely answer your question about why at least I have put the quotes... it ends up a catch 22 if u then complain that I have said words that fit your idea of a “conspiracy theory” ...  both of the following seem credible though not proved afaik

1 prior attempts at patents with similar products as “vaccines” had apparently been dismissed  as not meeting standard concepts with regard to patenting a “vaccine”  (I can’t verify this. But of interest related to it are David Martin’s files.) 

2 Possibility that some vials analyzed were found to contain significant amounts of something different than what was indicated to be in them - and that is toxic and possibly with adverse consequences like blood clumping/thrombi— such as graphene oxide.  (I have seen more info that looks credible though not yet fully verified from what I have seen —but am unable to do links or photos etc at this time.)   I am looking for the original papers from Spain. If anyone finds them, I’d appreciate a link. 

so for some vials - if that turns out to be true- seems a very high percent of what’s in there is something that isn’t needed for a genuine old fashioned vaccine and can cause harm 
 

3) a reason I have already mentioned before and it seemed to cause you to go into an angry dismissive huff, so I won’t repeat it here (eta, but if you are interested look up what Vera Sharav has had to say about it as an example) 

Edited by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

My insurance company sent out an article praising the use of monoclonal antibodies so while I don't know 100%, I am fairly confident that I would get it if I asked. 

That’s good!

 I think many people are not so fortunate as that unless it’s a recent change 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Pen said:


for myself -

2 standard reasons:

first because they seem to be “leaky” —(I assume as a vet tech you will understand that, but if not look up “leaky vaccines”)  This doesn’t necessarily mean they are not “vaccines” but does mean they won’t work the way most people expect — especially not when used *during* an apparent pandemic.  Issues of driving mutations to become more dangerous are significant with a leaky vaccine

rather than as with normal illness following its own course, it tending to become less dangerous as host and pathogen adapt to each other over time 

 

 

second they are very much not the way standard “vaccines” have worked over a long period 

(They don’t actually *prevent* infection, for example

 

 

NONE OF THAT IS TRUE

Sorry for the caps, but for crying out loud, this information has been around, has been posted here many time, etc. 

They do prevent infection in a significant number of people (more or less depending on vaccine and variant), are not more leaky some other vaccines, etc etc. 

They are freaking vaccines. There is NO reason to imply they are not, or that they are some subclass of vaccines. 

Not to mention not all of them are even mRNA if that is your point. And heck, we have all sorts of vaccines, with different levels of efficacy, different modes of action, etc. They are all vaccines. So are these. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re Delta transmission

 

Yes.  I'm with my UWS sister-in-law at the moment, who has a zip code tracker on her watch (!).  The % of total cases that have been confirmed as Delta range from 50-80%.

 

This is where we were in CT a week ago, but as of yesterday the Delta/total cases %  hit 50%. Yale-New Haven is now messaging around the tagline "you have two paths ahead of you: get vaccinated or get COVID"

 

We always knew we were in a race, vaccinate to herd immunity around the whole globe, or watch helplessly as new variants arose that beat the vaccines.  *At this moment* the existing vaccines seem to be holding *reasonably well* againt *this* variant.

But unless/until we get to herd across the globe... there will be another variant.

We're now at a reprieve, not yet "over."

While that may seem high, it represents just 51 cases statewide. 

ETA: I'm speaking about CT specifically. 

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

15 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Asking everyone, has Delta taken hold in your state/county yet?   The latest data I have is from 7-8 so not super up to date, but we had 83 confirmed cases of Delta in our State so far.  I am wondering what that number of Delta is this week? 

County data lags state data. Even state data will not be real time due to time needed for sequencing. Below is from state so 48.8% is due to Delta.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COVID-Variants.aspx

 

A4D29EC5-BD79-46A3-8F8A-0874D7D453C9.jpeg

Edited by Arcadia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delta is spreading in my state, our numbers just went way up, there is a cluster (I think there is a cluster at the intersection of Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas) that is getting bad….

I would definitely have my kids back in masks and avoid indoors, if they were too young to be vaccinated.  That is — with no extenuating circumstances (like if that would be really disliked or constraining — it would not be a big deal right now in the summer).  
 

The state-level Facebook group I follow is concerned about the newly released numbers, and they are worse than they had been since February.  Our state had been doing really good for a long time, up until just now.

 

Edit:  the state-level Facebook group I follow has more explanation but basically I just have a good impression of them, and they are concerned Delta is spreading here, and it’s new that there was a big increase over the past week. 

 

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

1 hour ago, Pen said:

first because they seem to be “leaky” —(I assume as a vet tech you will understand that, but if not look up “leaky vaccines”)  This doesn’t necessarily mean they are not “vaccines” but does mean they won’t work the way most people expect — especially not when used *during* an apparent pandemic.  Issues of driving mutations to become more dangerous are significant with a leaky vaccine

rather than as with normal illness following its own course, it tending to become less dangerous as host and pathogen adapt to each other over time 

From what I understand (and I could definitely be wrong!) leaky vaccines are those that can still be transmissible by a vaccinated person. Do we have proof that this is the case? I don't think it's been proven that it can't be transmitted, but I wasn't sure if we've seen proof that it can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

From what I understand (and I could definitely be wrong!) leaky vaccines are those that can still be transmissible by a vaccinated person. Do we have proof that this is the case? I don't think it's been proven that it can't be transmitted, but I wasn't sure if we've seen proof that it can. 

With the original virus, the pfizer vaccine seemed to prevent even asymptomatic infection over 90 percent of the time. If you are not infected, you can't spread it. That other small percentage you possibly could. 

With Delta, it seems to prevent even asymptomatic infection about 60% of the time, so that other 40% that does get infected, even if asymptomatic, could and in some cases seems have spread it. But that's 60% less people spreading it! So that's still good! And those vaccinated that do have an asymptomatic or mild infection MAY have a lower viral load so less infectious than unvaccinated..but that's still just theoretical as far as I know. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole "leaky vaccine" nonsense came from a Belgian veterinarian, Geert Vanden Bossche, who claims that the covid vaccines will work just like a vaccine that is used against a specific herpes virus in chickens, which blocked symptoms but did not block infection, thereby leading to the evolution of even more dangerous viruses. Vanden Bossche, who is currently unemployed, claims to be developing a new super secret vaccine that will solve these issues and wants the world to stop using the existing covid vaccines and wait for the one that he is apparently developing in his garage. There is ZERO connection between the covid vaccines and the stupid chicken vaccine he's talking about, and this guy's "theory" has been thoroughly debunked by many many reputable scientists, but continues to be spread by antivax nuts. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oooh. Where did she get it? I could use such a thing. 

Are you on the UWS or is she in CT, by the way? (Or neither?) 

She says it's "just the NYT tracker app."  (I don't have an Apple watch so dunno beyond that, lol)

She's Upper West Side, I'm Fairfield County CT. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GPs in the UK will see people with URIs, provided they've had symptoms for 3 weeks, they've had a negative COVID test at some point since the onset of symptoms (and no COVID positive tests or COVID contacts) and a telephone/online assessment has not identified the reason for the URI. It's a narrow set of requirements, but since GPs won't see anyone who is suspected of having COVID or doesn't have a telephone/online assessment regardless of the patient's actual complaint, the URI requirement isn't that much more onerous than for anything else.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whitestavern said:

From what I understand (and I could definitely be wrong!) leaky vaccines are those that can still be transmissible by a vaccinated person. Do we have proof that this is the case? I don't think it's been proven that it can't be transmitted, but I wasn't sure if we've seen proof that it can. 


I saw some bubble graphics showing known spread clusters (South Korea? Singapore? I don’t recall now somewhere with I guess very good contact tracing) where some vaccinated people had spread it to other people .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ktgrok said:

NONE OF THAT IS TRUE

Sorry for the caps, but for crying out loud, this information has been around, has been posted here many time, etc. 

They do prevent infection in a significant number of people (more or less depending on vaccine and variant), are not more leaky some other vaccines, etc etc. 

They are freaking vaccines. There is NO reason to imply they are not, or that they are some subclass of vaccines. 

Not to mention not all of them are even mRNA if that is your point. And heck, we have all sorts of vaccines, with different levels of efficacy, different modes of action, etc. They are all vaccines. So are these. 


Probably eventually we will see one way or the other

 

not all that long ago any suggestion that SARS2 came from a laboratory was met by similar Strident ALL CAPS type Denials 


now, a few people who were formerly absolutely sure of it being from wet market are starting to admit that it could have come from a lab

 

perhaps some of what I wrote will turn out similar 

or not

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pen said:


Probably eventually we will see one way or the other

 

not all that long ago any suggestion that SARS2 came from a laboratory was met by similar Strident ALL CAPS type Denials 


now, a few people who were formerly absolutely sure of it being from wet market are starting to admit that it could have come from a lab

 

perhaps some of what I wrote will turn out similar 

or not

 

 

And maybe giant green bugs from planet Zeroximus will show up and tap dance in my kitchen, or not. 

Seriously, on the one hand we have actual evidence regarding how well various vaccines protect against various variants, including asymptomatic infections as well as transmission. 

On the other hand we have....random speculation not based in fact. 

so yeah...maybe those aliens will sing about how that evidence was falsified by their enemy the fish floaties from the marshmallow city....or maybe not. Or maybe we should make decisions based on the actual info we have and not random speculation that "might" happen. 

  • Thanks 5
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ktgrok said:

Or maybe we should make decisions based on the actual info we have and not random speculation that "might" happen. 

Yes, and maybe we ought to do that real quick before tens of thousands more people die of this vaccine preventable disease.  Because that is definitely going to happen if people don't get vaccinated, and 99% of those people will not die if they get vaccinated. That is very clear from the data based on the current variant/vaccine mix. I don't know how anyone can defend continuing to stoke baseless suspicion and fear of the vaccine given how many people will die as a result that would otherwise live. Apparently feeling like one is part of the elite class of the only people who really know what's happening is more important than the life of each one of those people that is going to die. Seriously, I recommend looking at profiles of people as their deaths from covid are reported and consider that for every 100 of those people you read about, 99 of them would still be alive had they been vaccinated.

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

5 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Don't pin your hopes on something that won't help.  We know that masks and vaccination help (esp. in combination with something like Delta).    Someone else in some thread(s) recommended Ozone treatment.  I know people on it.  They are spending a LOT of money on it and it really isn't a miracle cure.  I don't know why the disdain (can't remember if it was in this thread or another one) for monoclonal antibodies but if the virus gets past my mask and vaccine, that is definitely what I am going to request.

After the pandemic began, I bought my own medical-grade set up for less than $1,000, about $800. That is a lot of money but I can administer it to myself and my family for many years now. I will be able to make and administer whatever we need for a long time and it's very easy to do.

I agree that some places are charging too much. For example, usually a 10-pass ozone treatment costs about $750 for the initial treatment and then $500 for subsequent treatments. (10-passes are often used by athletes.) Comparatively, a hospital admission will cost more for many people and may not resolve the issue very well, if at all. Some places that offer ozone autohemotherapy are offering it at reduced rates, even free for EMTs and other health care workers. A saline solution with ozone mixed in costs about $200. Regardless, MD's who offer ozone autohemotherapy as a treatment for their patients who have tested positive for Covid and have symptoms are seeing very good results. This is what MDs are reporting and at least one MD is videotaping his patients before and after treatment.

I don't suggest that it's a miracle cure; however, it has shown a lot of promise in Italy as a treatment. It is so promising that in 2020 at least 17 hospitals were offering it there as a treatment. Italy also bought and sent equipment to poor countries in Africa, something we don't hear much about in the US. India also set up at least one study during their second, much worse onslaught of cases and had similar results as Italy. Other countries are using it as well. Yet we hear very little about it in the US.

My point in putting this info out there is so that individuals can see that other treatments are available than what they're led to believe. The US is massively influenced by industry and the health industry is no exception. (I am not talking about MDs here.) Many of our federal agencies are captured and tow the line for those with deep pockets.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, Jean, but I do believe very much that ozone therapy is far too underutilized here in the US. Individuals should do what they feel is best, but I want to put this information out there as something to consider.

For anyone interested, here is an interview Dr. Mark Hyman did with Dr. Paolo Tordiglione, an Italian MD who uses ozone therapy and the results of using it to treat Covid in Italy. (Mark Hyman is an MD whose patients include Bill Clinton.)

https://drhyman.com/blog/2020/12/09/podcast-ep148/

Quote

Ozone therapy has a lot of therapeutic benefits to offer: it’s germicidal and can kill viruses, inhibits inflammatory pathways and boosts anti-inflammatory ones, regulates the immune system throughout multiple pathways, activates antioxidant defenses, and improves our tissue’s ability to utilize oxygen, among many other attributes. Dr. Tordiglione has found when using ozone therapy in COVID patients, those patients recover more quickly and effectively. 

And just to clarify, I am very much in favor of vaccines and other treatments provided they work with few adverse effects and are ideally not going to bankrupt an individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whitestavern said:

From what I understand (and I could definitely be wrong!) leaky vaccines are those that can still be transmissible by a vaccinated person. Do we have proof that this is the case? I don't think it's been proven that it can't be transmitted, but I wasn't sure if we've seen proof that it can. 

Yeah there’s mapping from Singapore that shows transmission by vaccinated to vaccinated people that @Arcadia posted on the big thread last week.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pen said:

third until recently Moderna’s own papers did speak of “gene therapy” - I saw those but didn’t think to take screen shots and they seem gone now

Covid mRNA vaccines have nothing to do with gene therapy, no matter what youtube videos and social media posts are claiming. This is a Myth propagated to aid some people's agendas. There is no truth to it at all. mRNA from the vaccine does not modify the DNA of our cells. Gene therapy involves intentionally modifying the DNA of a patient. mRNA therapies have been in clinical trials for years, but they decided to use it for the Covid vaccine only recently due to the humanitarian crisis we have. We will soon have mRNA treatments available for many conditions including cures for some cancers and the flu vaccine.

https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/

As for Moderna's paper on "gene therapy": Many companies are working on gene therapy technologies today to bring us cures for many genetic conditions. Moderna is one such company that is working on bringing us gene therapy options, but it has nothing to do with their mRNA vaccine, it is something else that is totally different from the COVID vaccine.

Edited by mathnerd
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

After the pandemic began, I bought my own medical-grade set up for less than $1,000, about $800. That is a lot of money but I can administer it to myself and my family for many years now. I will be able to make and administer whatever we need for a long time and it's very easy to do.

I agree that some places are charging too much. For example, usually a 10-pass ozone treatment costs about $750 for the initial treatment and then $500 for subsequent treatments. (10-passes are often used by athletes.) Comparatively, a hospital admission will cost more for many people and may not resolve the issue very well, if at all. Some places that offer ozone autohemotherapy are offering it at reduced rates, even free for EMTs and other health care workers. A saline solution with ozone mixed in costs about $200. Regardless, MD's who offer ozone autohemotherapy as a treatment for their patients who have tested positive for Covid and have symptoms are seeing very good results. This is what MDs are reporting and at least one MD is videotaping his patients before and after treatment.

I don't suggest that it's a miracle cure; however, it has shown a lot of promise in Italy as a treatment. It is so promising that in 2020 at least 17 hospitals were offering it there as a treatment. Italy also bought and sent equipment to poor countries in Africa, something we don't hear much about in the US. India also set up at least one study during their second, much worse onslaught of cases and had similar results as Italy. Other countries are using it as well. Yet we hear very little about it in the US.

My point in putting this info out there is so that individuals can see that other treatments are available than what they're led to believe. The US is massively influenced by industry and the health industry is no exception. (I am not talking about MDs here.) Many of our federal agencies are captured and tow the line for those with deep pockets.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, Jean, but I do believe very much that ozone therapy is far too underutilized here in the US. Individuals should do what they feel is best, but I want to put this information out there as something to consider.

For anyone interested, here is an interview Dr. Mark Hyman did with Dr. Paolo Tordiglione, an Italian MD who uses ozone therapy and the results of using it to treat Covid in Italy. (Mark Hyman is an MD whose patients include Bill Clinton.)

https://drhyman.com/blog/2020/12/09/podcast-ep148/

And just to clarify, I am very much in favor of vaccines and other treatments provided they work with few adverse effects and are ideally not going to bankrupt an individual.

It may very well be something that should be used more. I don’t know much about it. The people I know who are on it have Long Covid. Other people I know with Long Covid have looked into it but since they are poor college students, can’t even begin to be able to afford it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yeah there’s mapping from Singapore that shows transmission by vaccinated to vaccinated people that @Arcadia posted on the big thread last week.

My understanding is that the transmission from vaccinated people to vaccinated people is the actual Covid Delta variant that was contracted despite vaccination. (That’s an awkward sentence. ). In other words, the vaccine efficacy is not as high with that variant and some vaccinated people can still contract it and transmit it. 
 

The leaky vaccine myth says that people can get Covid from the vaccine “leaking” or “shedding “ the virus. Which doesn’t even make sense since none of the vaccines are live vaccines. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Variant of Concern we have so far has evolved in unvaccinated populations, not vaccinated people. So we can base public policy on what we already know — that unchecked spread in unvaccinated populations leads to millions of deaths and still gives us more dangerous variants — or we can halt vaccinations based on hypothetical "warnings" from people like Vanden Bossche, who seems to think we're better off letting millions die just in case vaccines lead to worse variants than we're already getting in unvaccinated populations.

The alternative to vaccines for extremely virulent chicken viruses is... culling. Not an option for humans. 

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

The leaky vaccine myth says that people can get Covid from the vaccine “leaking” or “shedding “ the virus. Which doesn’t even make sense since none of the vaccines are live vaccines. 

Yeah, the chicken vaccine Vanden Bossche compares to covid vaccines contains live herpes virus, which vaccinated chickens apparently shed at much higher rates than unvaccinated-but-infected chickens do. Which has absolutely nothing to do with mRNA vaccines.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yeah there’s mapping from Singapore that shows transmission by vaccinated to vaccinated people that @Arcadia posted on the big thread last week.

That was discouraging, but that's because sometimes a vaccine doesn't work for an individual. Which doesn't negate that most of the time, it does. Delta has more vaccine breakthrough, but there's FAR, FAR more transmission from unvaccinated people, clearly, so I don't know why the vaccine not being 100% would be a reasonable argument for not using it when it is so effective at preventing death and hospitalization.

47 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

It may very well be something that should be used more. I don’t know much about it. The people I know who are on it have Long Covid. Other people I know with Long Covid have looked into it but since they are poor college students, can’t even begin to be able to afford it. 

I am not following the train of thought that doctors aren't recommending ozone therapy because  of the money. If that was the case, wouldn't that be exactly why they would be selling ozone therapy? It's not like it's cheap. I have no idea if it works. I have wondered how it's safe, because I know that ozone generators are not recommended because it's bad to breathe ozone. That's why I haven't looked into it--because the main thing I know about it has related to learning about ozone air cleaners and seeing from the harmful health effects that I definitely don't want one of those. We're pretty cautious whenever possible about what we expose ourselves to in our house. From the EPA health effects of ozone:

https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners#harmful-ozone

Quote

When inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs. Relatively low amounts can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath and throat irritation. Ozone may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections. People vary widely in their susceptibility to ozone. Healthy people, as well as those with respiratory difficulty, can experience breathing problems when exposed to ozone. Exercise during exposure to ozone causes a greater amount of ozone to be inhaled, and increases the risk of harmful respiratory effects. Recovery from the harmful effects can occur following short-term exposure to low levels of ozone, but health effects may become more damaging and recovery less certain at higher levels or from longer exposures (US EPA, 1996a, 1996b).

 

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

40 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

It may very well be something that should be used more. I don’t know much about it. The people I know who are on it have Long Covid. Other people I know with Long Covid have looked into it but since they are poor college students, can’t even begin to be able to afford it. 

Oh, I see. IMO, that is a real shame. Medical personnel who offer ozone therapy should make it very affordable if they genuinely want to help others. If it is expensive, then patients can't afford it. Your point has been argued by many who would like to try it -- especially the 10 passes -- but find they are too expensive. I do know some MDs who are offering cheaper methods but unfortunately greed seems to rule. smh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, KSera said:

I am not following the train of thought that doctors aren't recommending ozone therapy because  of the money. If that was the case, wouldn't that be exactly why they would be selling ozone therapy? It's not like it's cheap. I have no idea if it works. I have wondered how it's safe, because I know that ozone generators are not recommended because it's bad to breathe ozone. That's why I haven't looked into it--because the main thing I know about it has related to learning about ozone air cleaners and seeing from the harmful health effects that I definitely don't want one of those. We're pretty cautious whenever possible about what we expose ourselves to in our house. From the EPA health effects of ozone:

https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners#harmful-ozone

 

The devices you are mentioning are not medical grade devices. Medical grade ozone generators are specially designed using material that is not affected by ozone and that are sealed and prevent users from breathing it in -- they are totally contained. Unfortunately, what most people are familiar with are the shoddy devices sold by places like Hammacher Schlemmer which actually can be used to decontaminate but that is another story.

Only a few places that I know of in the US sell medical grade ozone generators that use pure oxygen to create ozone (unlike, for example, the Hammacher Schlemmer do-hickies).

In the beginning of the pandemic, around March 2020, we began using a medical-grade ozone generator and oxygen to create ozone which we then self administered. No one was harmed in the least. We used it about every other day initially.

Used as a therapy, ozone is never breathed in (with one exception that I know of which I'm not going to bother explaining here). The ozone is created in a special container that does not react with the ozone and does not allow it to release into the air. You then hook up tubing to move the ozone into another ozone safe container or vessel and then administer it or mix it in with something like blood or saline. Any excess ozone can be broken back down to oxygen using a special device called a deconstructor but ozone breaks down quickly to oxygen anyway.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation about how ozone is created and administered.

 

Edited by BeachGal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

You then hook up tubing to move the ozone into another ozone safe container or vessel and then administer it or mix it in with something like blood or saline.

So you administer it via IV into the bloodstream? And you do it at home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, KSera said:

That was discouraging, but that's because sometimes a vaccine doesn't work for an individual. Which doesn't negate that most of the time, it does. Delta has more vaccine breakthrough, but there's FAR, FAR more transmission from unvaccinated people, clearly, so I don't know why the vaccine not being 100% would be a reasonable argument for not using it when it is so effective at preventing death and hospitalization.

I am not following the train of thought that doctors aren't recommending ozone therapy because  of the money. If that was the case, wouldn't that be exactly why they would be selling ozone therapy? It's not like it's cheap. I have no idea if it works. I have wondered how it's safe, because I know that ozone generators are not recommended because it's bad to breathe ozone. That's why I haven't looked into it--because the main thing I know about it has related to learning about ozone air cleaners and seeing from the harmful health effects that I definitely don't want one of those. We're pretty cautious whenever possible about what we expose ourselves to in our house. From the EPA health effects of ozone:

https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners#harmful-ozone

 

Yeah I’m not arguing against using them at all although with limited vaccine like we have here it changes the argument around who should get it first.  If it prevents transmission we want the connector people quarantine and aged care workers prioritised whereas if it prevents symptoms we want the vulnerable first so they don’t get it from an asymptomatic vaccinated carrier.  That’s obviously way less relevant in US where hesitancy is the issue than in Aus where supply is the issue.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, KSera said:

That was discouraging, but that's because sometimes a vaccine doesn't work for an individual. Which doesn't negate that most of the time, it does. Delta has more vaccine breakthrough, but there's FAR, FAR more transmission from unvaccinated people, clearly, so I don't know why the vaccine not being 100% would be a reasonable argument for not using it when it is so effective at preventing death and hospitalization.

I am not following the train of thought that doctors aren't recommending ozone therapy because  of the money. If that was the case, wouldn't that be exactly why they would be selling ozone therapy? It's not like it's cheap. I have no idea if it works. I have wondered how it's safe, because I know that ozone generators are not recommended because it's bad to breathe ozone. That's why I haven't looked into it--because the main thing I know about it has related to learning about ozone air cleaners and seeing from the harmful health effects that I definitely don't want one of those. We're pretty cautious whenever possible about what we expose ourselves to in our house. From the EPA health effects of ozone:

https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/ozone-generators-are-sold-air-cleaners#harmful-ozone

 

 

38 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

Oh, I see. IMO, that is a real shame. Medical personnel who offer ozone therapy should make it very affordable if they genuinely want to help others. If it is expensive, then patients can't afford it. Your point has been argued by many who would like to try it -- especially the 10 passes -- but find they are too expensive. I do know some MDs who are offering cheaper methods but unfortunately greed seems to rule. smh

I don’t know details of people’s interactions with their doctor and/or insurance. I mean, I listen to and know what they tell me but I am not asking for personal details.   But I was curious because of this exchange about Ozone therapy and my insurance doesn’t list it as something that they cover. (Though as I noted earlier, they do cover monoclonal antibody treatments.). My doctor tries not to prescribe therapies that are not covered by insurance. Unless we had no other choice, I suppose. But therapies that aren’t covered would have to be paid entirely by me. (This is assuming that my doctor even thinks that Ozone therapy is helpful. Since I have never asked him, I don’t know his thoughts.). 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, KSera said:

So you administer it via IV into the bloodstream? And you do it at home?

Yes, that's one way and is called DIV, direct intravenous, but that must be adminstered very slowly and carefully.

For ozone autohemotherapy, the ozone gas is bubbled into a small amount of blood and then reinfused back into the patient. This is what they are using most of the time when it's used for Covid. This is also what athletes use.

EBOO is another method that could possibly work but I don't know of anyone using it for Covid. It's very specialized and the equipment is expensive. EBOO stands for extracorporeal blood oxygenation and ozonation therapy. It is truly fascinating. Should be studied for plaque build ups in arteries.

Ozone can also be administered directly as a small amount of gas through most orifices. When it is, it is a combination of ozone and oxygen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I don’t know details of people’s interactions with their doctor and/or insurance. I mean, I listen to and know what they tell me but I am not asking for personal details.   But I was curious because of this exchange about Ozone therapy and my insurance doesn’t list it as something that they cover. (Though as I noted earlier, they do cover monoclonal antibody treatments.). My doctor tries not to prescribe therapies that are not covered by insurance. Unless we had no other choice, I suppose. But therapies that aren’t covered would have to be paid entirely by me. (This is assuming that my doctor even thinks that Ozone therapy is helpful. Since I have never asked him, I don’t know his thoughts.). 

Insurance won't pay for it in the US.

Few doctors offer it in the US as well and those who do are brave individuals. For example, they are not allowed to say they are treating a Covid patient with ozone. They may sat they are treating someone with all the symptoms of Covid who happened to test positive for Covid but that is about as far as they can go.

Other countries have more freedom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeachGal said:

Insurance won't pay for it in the US.

Few doctors offer it in the US as well and those who do are brave individuals. For example, they are not allowed to say they are treating a Covid patient with ozone. They may sat they are treating someone with all the symptoms of Covid who happened to test positive for Covid but that is about as far as they can go.

Other countries have more freedom.

Since it’s not FDA approved, I’m thinking in many/most states, doctors could be in trouble for using it, couldn’t they? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CA numbers are soaring again. 😞

meanwhile my kid is headed to the overnight camp for a week with 100 other kids. He is vaccinated. 
I honestly feel this virus will never go away, so I am going to push our luck and let kids do what they would do in normal times. 🤞 🤞🤞all ends well. 

 

meanwhile do we need to run studies and file for separate authorization every time companies tweak these vaccines? I was hoping the changes were minor enough not to warrant that. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just got back from.visiting friends in Indiana.  We have all pretty much settled on anything outdoors is fine with our younger unvaxxed kiddos.  I probably won't pull back on those unless we get to real hospital overwhelm.. Which will still more.about the ability to get care than worry over outdoor transmission.  Our area is doing bad but that's no.surprise with our low vax rate.  Our positivity rate is up from 8%  to 15%, hospital rate from 25-36 in a week almost 10% of beds.

 

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2021 at 4:25 PM, Not_a_Number said:

DD8's birthday party is in 1.5 weeks, and I really hope the situation doesn't change rapidly enough that I have to do something different for it -- we were going to have it at a playground, and she's very excited about it. (The most we'd change is having it at a park that's not a playground. But I don't expect that to happen. Fingers crossed.) 

You'll find out 2 weeks after her birthday.

  • Like 3
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...