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
No significant difference is a NEGATIVE study. The studies are comparing HCQ to “control”. Since we typically lacked any effective therapy in the 1st year or so – no difference means it didn’t work. Some of the HCQ studies in China did compare it to therapy with anti-HIV drugs- which further studies show DON’T work either. No difference from another ineffective therapy is still ineffective. I agree we should assess the evidence and when one does the typical conclusion is HCQ isn’t effective.
look at other meta analysis articles:
“The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine”
[ note the I squared is 0! I squared isn’t a definitive stat but it helps ones confidence that the meta analysis isn’t comparing apples to oranges- that there aren’t big differences in participants, uncontrolled interventions or bias or study design that the authors didn’t account for]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z
“In conclusion, this meta-analysis clearly shows that hydroxychloroquine alone is not effective for the treatment of people with COVID-19 and that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increases the risk of mortality.”
In the body of the article:”There was a significant higher heterogeneity among non-randomized studies compared with RCT (I 2 = 84%, Pheterogeneity within < 0.01). In fact, heterogeneity was null for RCT. Egger’s test (p 0.68) and Begg’s test (p 0.13) were not significant for asymmetry of the funnel plot, indicating that there was no major publication bias for non-randomized studies (see Supplementary material, Fig. S6).” [NB- they did further stats when faced with a high I squared in the non randomized studies]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449662/
Conclusions
No benefit on viral clearance but a significant increase in mortality was observed with HCQ compared to control in patients with COVID-19.
[ for fun look at the I sqd reported:]
“meta-analysis of 3 studies (n = 474) showed a significant increase in death with HCQ, compared to the control (RR, 2.17; 95% 1.32 to 3.57; p = 0.002), without any heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.43).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215156/
Data- or just internet rumor?
Oh, ok. If that’s what the technical terminology means.
Then can you go back to # 104 and tell me which studies look at the evidence that Risch and his ilk are mistaken?
Or are you only interested in studies that investigate other propositions?
Put differently, exactly what proposition are you interested in looking at the evidence for?
Get your head out of the data banks and go talk to actual people. Doctors have been successfully treating Covid using an HCQ regimen since the beginning in 2020. You act like this is a new revelation.
I wish a lot of people would stop acting like it’s March 2020 and we still don’t know anything. The fact that places are still requiring masks for entry is a good sign that true facts (like “Masks don’t work!”) don’t filter down to the masses very well.
It has always been thus:
Again- Any proof or just internet testimonials? Which are just as valid as the paper they are printed on- & in this case there isn’t any paper. With you standard of evidence we’d be treating COVID with blood letting – ala Theodoric of York
Call em up. Like I said, this isn’t new information unless you’re living in the Covid cult MSM bubble. My standard of evidence is what real people are doing and experiencing. I care almost nothing about what a few academic in overpriced office chairs have come up with to protect their boom line and pad their disintegrating narratives this week. I listen to the people with hands-on knowledge of the issues. Here are a few sources you can interview if you’re serious about the subject of its effectiveness.
Dr. Miguel Antonatos (IVM) (855) 767-8559 https://text2md.com
(States: AL, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KS, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, ND, NE, NJ, NV, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV) Secure Your Wellness: (561) 418 6421, support@secureyourwellness.comhttps://secureyourwellness.com/ (Treatment is available only via online)States: AZ, AR, CO, DC, FL, ID, IA, IL, MA, ME, MD, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, UT, WA, WV, WY
Dr. Alan F. Bain (IVM+HCQ) (312) 236-7010 https://docintheloop.com (all states except IN, LA, MN, NY, PA, WI)www.onedaymd.comMy Free Doctor (IVM+HCQ) (850) 750-1321 (Text Only) https://myfreedoctor.com (all 50 states)Robert Apter, MD in Sedona, AZ. He can prescribe in all 50 states.
Dr. Syed Haider (IVM+HCQ) (281) 219-7367 Text or better yet sign up: http://www.drsyedhaider.com/Charges a flat $115 for the consultation/prescription and all follow-up and does not take insurance. He’s only licensed in these states: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South, Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Dr. Eder Hernández DMSc, PA-C (IVM) (956) 546-2000; (956) 518-7444; (956) 731-6699http://www.valleymedcovid19.com
Dr. Richard Herrscher (IVM) , (972) 473-7544 , http://www.aircaremd.com
Dr. Joseph N. Holmes (IVM+HCQ) , (980) 264-9020 , Text preferred
Dr. Rob Karas (IVM) (479) 966-5088; (479) 770-4343 https://karashealthcare.com/ Dr. Clifford F. Porter (IVM+HCQ) (512) 553-1501 http://www.txmedicalcare.com
Dr. Lisbeth W. Roy (IVM + HCQ) (561) 444-7751 specialist@doctorsstudio.com
Brian Weinstein MS APN NPC (IVM+HCQ) http://www.synergyhealthdpc.com (all 50 states)
Dr. Anna Yoder-Olson, DNP (IVM+HCQ) , (720) 397-8203 , no texts Download app at https://www.medici.md/get-medici code: OLSOLOV404
(States: AZ, CA, CO, CT, HI, ID, KS, MD, ME, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, WA, WI, WV) Prophylaxis $50; Positive $75.
iCareVIP (IVM) (888) 447-7902 https://icarevip.com
Or find a doctor in your state and ask them. Need me to help you find one, or can you do your own research from here?
If you have the time, sure, go for it. But as with every issue – and especially ones where absurd amounts of money are on the table for one side – you need a high level of discernment to evaluate their worth.
“All studies either confirm common sense, or they’re wrong,” Dennis Prager.
so just internet rumors then…..
You’re not serious person about this.
Start at the 1:00:00 mark for details about HCQ but the entire thing is worth your time when you get serious.
A discussion of the politically motivated Remdesivir study manipulation around the 1:40:00 mark.
https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html
A systematic review & meta-analysis starts with a literature review to find possibly relevant studies and then winnows out those with flaws before performing statistical analysis to avoid GIGO. The Nature article I linked CLEARLY lays out their criteria- and articles by Risch and Zelenko won’t make the cut because they are not randomized controlled trials. The other meta-analysis articles I listed will similarly list their exclusion criteria- and most will not include case series or lack of randomization or of a control arm in a study. The problem for HCQ (as I have repeatedly said) is the better, larger randomized controlled trials have been negative. Many of the early supportive reports where a series of cases – not blinded, not randomized, no real controls. Such series are very prone to problems that bias the result and are generally superseded when randomized controlled studies become available.
on Risch: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/190/4/491/5898696
for a less charitable review of Risch and Zelenko you can look at the Respectful Insolence Blog fisking of their work.
I hope you’re not among those people who think vaccines need to be tested against a control population before being authorized for emergency use.
No, because I’m anti-vaccine in general and not afraid to say so.
I’m not anti-vaccine-in-general, but you can bet that the last two years will have caused many to view all vaccines with skepticism now. Good job throwing the public’s trust on a bonfire, CDC, FDA, NIH, . . . etc.
This is sarcasm, right?
Well, my default position is, “Explain to me in detail why I actually need ___ before I agree to ___.” It works great with mechanics too, and salespeople, which is what the vaccine pushers have become at this point.
Well, they’ll just tell you “safe and effective” as COVID continues to spread through the vaxxed population. But go ahead and get your 47th booster, because this one will stop it for sure!
And really, if the monoclonal antibody treatment didn’t work, why were they preventing white people from getting it in New York?
All over. There was hidden camera video from Texas.
And the only conclusion is either “It works, and we need more dead white people,” or “It doesn’t work and we need more dead black people.”
Think about it.
Do you happen to know if most of them are recommending what I understand to be the usual ch. treatment–early-use, zinc, antibiotic?
Rudimentary logic. High level of quality, low level of difficulty.
How very almost interesting!
Now why not answer my questions before you change the subject again?
For flu, gardasil, and covid, I take it.
Also for polio?
Amen.
Humility and honesty are what do the most to support the greater good, because they support trust and demonstrate trustworthiness.
Squander trust in the long term to do some short-term greater good as you perceive it, and you’ve botched the greater good.
I think they’re deliberately doing evil now. They now know these vaccines don’t work and that they’re causing great harm. They know that COVID is now spreading more among the vaxxed than the unvaxxed.
Anyone who questions the efficacy or safety of these vaccines is now declared a kook and silenced. Censorship is not how you do science.
It’s from a site designed for being denied these treatments. My guess is that most doctors who haven’t succumbed to the cult are now are using a variation of the zinc, Ivermectin, HCQ, vitamin D, aspirin etc…regimen depending on local pharmacy availability or state red tape.
I can’t say what any of these physicians specifically are doing, which is why I suggested calling them to find out.
She said there’s no evidence of HCQ success in action. It’s clear these folks are using it.
I didn’t think I was changing the subject- your question did not really make sense from the perspective of a medical professional:”I don’t know about conspirators, but I have my suspicions there’s more straw-man fallacy in there. That Nature study has no original information; it’s drawn from 29 other studies.”. It was only after I sat back & tried to understand what you were asking from more of a layman’s perspective that the question made sense. From a scientific perspective YOUR question was fallacious- b/c a well done systematic review & meta analysis is a HIGHER level of evidence than a single study- it NEVER has “original information” in the sense you seemed to be asking. In medicine a good systematic review/meta analysis >randomized control study>> case series>>>case report.
Does that response make sense?
Addendum: Actually, I am not a fan of many meta-analysis articles b/c I am not convinced they are selective enough. A poorly done meta-analysis, one that fails to filter out bad studies does a real disservice- a large well designed randomized controlled trial is very hard to beat. And therein lies more of the problems for HCQ and ivermectin- b/c the better & bigger trials have not been positive.
Well, yes, but it only shows you missed the point. You should have kept reading.
You’re looking at the wrong question, a question I never even asked. Try reading the questions I asked.