Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
When Politics and Healthcare Meet No One Wins
When politics and healthcare meet, no one wins. Certainly not me, anyway.
As a practicing nurse in California, I am mandated by law to comply with a two-dose mRNA vaccine with booster. Regardless of masking and a downward trend, the California Department of Public Health has instituted guidelines that pressure all medical staff (and medically adjacent) to get a booster if they’ve already been vaccinated. Religious exemptions will only be tolerated if they were previously known, documented, and thoroughly supported. No “new” exemptions will be allowed.
This means that a convert to fundamental Christianity who discovers that the mRNA vaccines were created with descendent lines of cells taken from aborted fetal tissue will not be allowed an exemption for their newfound religiosity.
For those of us who love freedom, this alone is concerning.
But for me, personally, what is more concerning is the following CDPH guidance about medical exemptions:
To determine qualifying medical reasons, the physician, nurse practitioner, or other licensed medical professional practicing under the license of a physician should refer to Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines from the CDC, specifically, clinical considerations, as well as contraindications and precautions. The identified contraindications include:
- Documented history of severe allergic reaction to one or more components of all the COVID-19 vaccines available in the U.S.
- Documented history of severe or immediate-type hypersensitivity allergic reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine, along with a reason why you cannot be vaccinated with one of the other available formulations.
It is not enough that my doctor indicates that I had a severe reaction to my Covid vaccine; I have to convince my doctor to justify why I cannot take another vaccine that is available. Additionally, guidance states that only severe anaphylaxis is a reason to exempt employees. When referred to the CDC website, it makes it very clear what it considers to be a severe enough reaction:
For the purposes of this guidance, regarding severity of allergic reactions:
Severe allergic reactions include:
- Possible anaphylaxis, a progressive life-threatening reaction that typically includes urticaria but also with other symptoms such as wheezing, difficulty breathing, or low blood pressure (see Appendix D)
- Any angioedema affecting the airway (i.e., tongue, uvula, or larynx)
- Diffuse rash which also involves mucosal surfaces (e.g., Stevens-Johnson Syndrome)
Non-severe allergic reactions may include:
- Urticaria (hives) beyond the injection site
- Angioedema (visible swelling) involving lips, facial skin, or skin in other locations. NOTE: Any angioedema affecting the airway (i.e., tongue, uvula, or larynx) is considered a severe allergic reaction (see above).
Additionally, people who have had myocarditis following their Covid vaccination with a mRNA vaccine are still somehow recommended to get a booster once they have recovered.
Ultimately, the CDC decides to cover itself by indicating that if these guidelines aren’t specific enough (vaccinate everyone, all the time!), you can have one of their special scientists look at your patient’s case to determine if they should or should not get a vaccine or booster. I’m sure, given the above guidance, that they will be completely circumspect and immune to any sort of government pressure to impose vaccinations for all but the most immediate life-threatening of reactions.
At the end of the day, for me, it has emerged like most bureaucratic decrees; though everyone agrees that I should not get another vaccine because of the severity of the reaction, no one wants to be the one to sign the letter. Filing this letter with my institution leaves it open to CDPH, which leaves it open to the CDC. Both of these entities could have a negative impact on my physicians (yes, plural) who do not want to be the one to formally make the call; one could lose a practice, one could lose a research grant, one could lose a prestigious place on a medical board. If it came out that they helped someone avoid guidelines, it could be perceived as anti-vax behaviors and a lack of confidence in science. It could be perceived as defiance of common-sense medical guidelines put in place by the CDC. It could also impact their licensing from the state board (rumor has it).
It could be very, very negative for them.
Additionally, and perhaps more pedestrian, no one wants to sit down and take the time to write a letter that justifies to CDPH exactly how it is that I should be exempt from both types of vaccines (because guidance is that if you’re allergic to one type, you get the other). Time is, after all, money. Particularly in healthcare, the time taken to write a letter of this magnitude requires research, finesse, and an iron-clad line of argument. This is time that would or could be better spent in rooms with patients, teaching medical students, writing research papers, or cutting down the mountain of digital charting that depresses every practitioner in every state.
At the end of the day, these policies are not good for anyone individually and probably not even good for society as a whole, as Covid peters out into a milder, friendlier version of SARS.
But most importantly to me, this policy endangers not only my livelihood, but realistically, also my life as getting another vaccine could potentially be deadly. It is one thing to insist that we are vaccinated for patient care. It is another to disregard thrombocytopenia, coagulopathies, allergies, and even myocarditis in a push for political correctness.
At the end of the day, my job is not worth my death, even if it means leaving patient care.
Published in General
If, in your post, you meant that cells derived from a fetal cell line (long ago) were used ONCE as a safety test- then I agree with your verbiage. You said they were “CREATED” using such cell line- I believe a “lay” person reading your post would not believe that is what you meant. Most would read your post and think that such cell lines were used in an ongoing manner & probably in the manufacturing process- both are decidedly untrue- but both are frequently FALSELY alleged in an attempt to malign the vaccines. Therefore I added what I felt was a proper addendum to your post. If people did not draw that mistaken inference, then my addition was unnecessary.
British Medical Journal Demands Immediate Release of All COVID-19 Vaccine, Treatment Data
Can’t wait to hear how the BMJ is run by a bunch of kooks.
Still more . . .
You will not like the BMJ very much when the battle turns to global warming.
None of the vaccine issues would be problems were it not for the mandates.
The hill we need to take back is the mandate hill.
Pfizer and Moderna have the right to exist and the right to develop vaccines. The government does not have the right to force people to accept the vaccines.
As businesses, their biggest mistake over the past year has been not coming out swinging hard and loudly against the mandates. They are very good companies, filled with really good people, and I hope they succeed. I wish they had not retreated from the politics but rather engaged with them head on.
It was interesting following the lawsuit against Roundup. Bayer bought Roundup in the midst of the lawsuit because Bayer thought Roundup wouldn’t lose. The science was clearly on the side of Roundup. In a very surprising court case result, Roundup lost. I was sorry about that partly because the case against the company was very weak, I thought. I was sorry also because we live in a yard surrounded by vines with sharp thorns on them and the only way to defeat them is to use Roundup. Nothing else even comes close to killing off these horrible invasive vines. For environmentalists, the plaintiffs missed the good that Roundup does in many natural settings, especially in killing off invasive species. Last spring my husband got his usual supply of Roundup, and I was surprised to see it. He said they changed the formula very slightly to appease the lawsuit plaintiffs and it’s still for sale.
I see the same future for this family of vaccines. How patients weigh the risk of the vaccines will be related to how they perceive the risk of the disease. And that’s exactly as it should be. These decisions are between doctors and their patients.
They aren’t just coloring outside of the lines. They’re coloring in someone else’s coloring book.
Oh, I’m not a big fan, but I know the vax-lickers are. (Yes, I have a good friend who hangs on their every word.) But here’s even the BMJ demanding to see some data.
Your addition was largely unnecessary anyway as it didn’t have anything to do with the point of the post.
I will not make any difference to you- data is immaterial- if it shows the vax is safe you will claim “they are suppressing the truth”. You prefer case reports from biased sources to any study. If you love case reports here are some for you:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/278603/
might sound familiar…..
transparency is good- I doubt Big Pharma is hiding much b/c the cost would be enormous- remember Pfizer was the ones who insisted on more safety data before release (so now they are accused of undermining public safety-if not Trump).
Read it- it started ” small point but….” b/c antivaxxers take small bits of truth & run with them…..
You misread the post and made a point that was irrelevant to it. I guess I can congratulate you for a successful thread hijacking, but it’s not the sort of thing I would take pride in.
She wrote”the mRNA vaccines were created…”
Merriam-Webster: create:to make or produce–
So a reasonable read of her statement is that cells derived from a fetal cell line were used in the PRODUCTION of the vaxxes -that would be an erroneous but easily made interpretation of her sentence. I acted to prevent the error.
YMMV
Dr Roberts, you have Vanden Bossche of Belgium, Montagnier of France, a Nobel Peace prize winner, and many acolytes whose careers are based on those two men’s research saying as you are: what has happened by forcing these leaky faulty vaccines on entire societies around the world is allowing for variants to sprout up.
This is quite possibly by design, as the wealthy individual and world’s greatest philanthropist who with the Rockefeller Institute and his buddy Fauci carefully brought about this entire plandemic knew this cycle would prolong the average person’s enslavement and the asset-stripping of their health:
Yes it doesn’t work in the USA. Even though the use of HCQ worked tremendously well in other nations.
And for some other puzzling reasons, although supposedly HCQ will kill you outright if you use it for COVID, my ex-husband used it successfully for years to defeat malaria, as well as countless other Americans who have done that. Also as well as all the people who somehow survived the dread HCQ – as again, in puzzling manner, it does not harm you if you use it for lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.
It is a pretty amazingly smart remedy, that murderous, injurious dastardly HCQ!
Yeah, you’re a real hero, but you’re still missing the point of the post.
I was going to reprise but @fullsizetabby did it better than I probably could at #76:
You’re so busy trying to prove your point that you’re missing the actual point of the post, and doing a good job of sounding like you could be one of the people it’s being written about in the first place.
She is. I think that’s been demonstrated sufficiently across this site for two years.
Beautifully stated.
However, the statistical evaluation of COVID being treated by vaccines failed to include pregnant women in the vax trials. So the stats are offered up to the public, without any emphasis of how the clinical trials offered up zero inclusion of pregnant women in the them.
Also, the trials involving adolescents were seriously flawed from the get go. The definition of an adolescent’s inclusion in the clinical trial was defined by the vax companies as inclusion in the trial was only offered to those participants who completed the trial by getting both jabs.
So when an individual like Maddie was forced out of the trial as her injuries were too severe to continue and to go on to receive her 2nd jab, her injury is eliminated from any consideration of the injury she had. Hw valid are stats after that? And after only one jab – not two!
Then most people – probably 95% – have no idea that the traditional selection of a placebo for the control group involved having the placebo be an item that was benign in and of itself. So most people think the placebo was something like a saline solution.
In reality, as critics discovered of Moderna’s clinical trials in Brazil, the placebo was a meningitis vaccine. Which is one of the riskiest vaxxes out there.
But by choosing that as the placebo, it was much easier for the Moderna-hired researchers to show that the mRNA vax compared favorably to the placebo-receiving trial participants in the control group.
Just stop. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The mother, Tucker, her advocates…everyone with a soul acknowledges the official diagnosis was absurd. She’s a victim of the very politics interfering with medical care TRN is writing about.
Vince Guerra (View Comment):
Any proof? The linked to segment on Tucker’s show presented no other medical opinion- perhaps there was more to the show than the link included-but by what was on the link one could not conclude that. At this point the only professional evaluation stands- unless there is more evidence out there. Perhaps, you are claiming her local MDs are part of the conspiracy-so we should disregard (based on no data). The diagnosis has been made before in other people post vaccine, so it would not be unprecedented.
In truth it would be better for her if the diagnosis is correct- much more likely we have a therapy that will correct the problem and anybody with a soul wants the child cured.
Other than her wheelchair, her 1.2 months in the hospital intensive care, 9 trips to the ER, all of the evidence of medical malpractice as described in numerous interviews with Tucker, Joe Rogan, Stew Peters – you know, the ones you’ve never watched – or the Senate testimony that started it off. The mom has been interviewed about it repeatedly about it, including last week.
The hospitals, and the study have an agenda and a bottom line to look out for. They’ve washed their hand of her, and many others, and so have you. Stop denigrating people you have no clue about.
I only watched the Carlson segment- did the Rogan show present any data? The trips to the ER etc do NOT rule out the diagnosis of a conversion d/o- they are entirely consistent with it. To rule it out you need either radiology/lab tests &/or expert physical and psychological exams. Did they provide any on the Rogan show?
I have seen conversion reactions scare the hell out of experienced practioners- they occur and can initially be very scary & baffling.
addendum- PS: admitting a kid to the ICU and then diagnosing them as a conversion d/o is often a BIG money loser for the hospital. Hospitals are often paid on the diagnosis and a conversion d/o payment will not typically cover the cost of the ICU.
Did I miss the part where you explained what was wrong with Gundry’s reasoning in the article behind that abstract?
The abstract only showed that some lab values were increased after a vaccine. His PULS cardiac test has never been validated by outcomes studies. If you read the modified conclusion it reads:
“the mRNA vacs numerically increase (but not statistically tested) …”
who runs a study and doesn’t look to see if his results are significant? Why bother?
So a) he doesn’t know if the changes he saw were significant statistically and b) his PULS cardiac test has never been shown to be of any prognostic use
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/12/22/aha-journal-tones-down-abstract-linking-covid-19-vaccines-to-risk-of-heart-problems/
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/24/how-antivaxxers-weaponized-an-abstract-by-a-goop-doctor-against-covid-19-vaccines/
Thank you. Will note for the future if–inshallah–I ever have time to try to sort through this stuff.
In the meantime, https://hcqmeta.com/ suggests that the studies that look at early-use chloroquine have found only good results.
St A- I wouldn’t bother not only MUST you have more important things to do, the whole poster discussion is pretty worthless. Dr Gundry is a supplement peddler- he doesn’t publish in this field. Furthermore, no sane person doesn’t think that you can find elevations in inflammatory markers after a vaccine. If you didn’t it would mean the vax was worthless- after all the purpose IS to generate an immune response. The only point about this poster is anti-vaxxers were trumpeting it as evidence of a problem. The truth is anti-vaxxers should dump him- they can find better articles on changes in inflammatory markers after vaccination.
A flawless argument, if your conclusion is that I’m not likely to find anything worth spending a lot of time on.
An ad hominem fallacy, if this is an objection to his conclusions. I thought his argument seems pretty good, actually.
Now that is a great argument against his conclusions. As far as I know. But I know medicine only slightly better than I know 1600s Russian literature.
that is definitely not true:
“the role of HCQ earlier in the clinical course of COVID-19……placebo-controlled study ….423 symptomatic non-hospitalized, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients failed to detect a significant change in symptom severity over 14 days between patients receiving HCQ or placebo within 5 days …. the trial reported more medication-adverse effects in the HCQ group [50]. A similar multi-center, open-label study in Catalonia enrolled and randomized 293 patients to either treatment with HCQ for 1 week or no antiviral treatment. Results showed that there was no difference between the two groups “
For sicker patients-“The excitement over CQ/HCQ was ultimately quenched after three large randomized clinical trials, the COALITION-I trial in Brazil, the RECOVERY trial in the United Kingdom (UK), and the SOLIDARITY trial from World Health Organization (WHO) consistently reported no beneficial effects for CQ/HCQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8142615/
plus look at the confidence intervals in the early studies on hcqmeta: they are all over the place:
the CIs (confidence intervals) are listed on the pic
While the RECOVERY Trial:
“Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P=0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine.”
note the CI isn’t .2 to 1.9 like the trials on hcqmeta- ie weak studies. Many of the supportive trials for HCQ are very weak- and adding up a bunch of weak studies in a meta analysis just makes a large pile of garbage-not a strong study. That is why MDs aren’t using HCQ- the quality studies do not support it & the supportive studies are of poor quality.
I don’t even know what “confidence interval” means. But I do know what a straw-man fallacy is, and so should you, so let’s start there if we’re going to talk at all. Please go back to # 104 and let me know if you have something.