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
ST A- Do you have an RCT showing HCQ+ Zinc works -I can’t find any. Heck I have trouble finding any decent RCTs that show HCQ works (except for one by Chen-remember the name). At this stage an observational series is a poor substitute for an RCT. But there are such RCTs showing that HCQ+Zinc doesn’t work:
“Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19
A Randomized Trial……
Conclusion:Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19……..
Additional post hoc analyses showed that self-reported use of zinc or vitamin C in addition to hydroxychloroquine did not improve symptoms over use of hydroxychloroquine alone..”
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207
“Do Zinc Supplements Enhance the Clinical Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine?: a Randomized, Multicenter Trial
………….There are a lot of questions now about the efficacy of CQ or HCQ in the treatment of COVID 19 patients. A recent randomized study found that adding HCQ to standard care did not add significant benefit, did not decrease the need for ventilation, and did not reduce mortality rates in COVID-19 patients [11]. A recent meta-analysis found that hydroxychloroquine alone did not reduce mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and even when added to azithromycin, this was significantly associated with increased mortality [28]……This study’s major strength is that being the first randomized study to evaluate the effect of combining hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and zinc in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.
In conclusion, zinc supplements did not add value or enhance the clinical efficacy of HCQ. Zinc supplementation may be studied further with other drug regimens for COVID 19, but it did not add any clinical values when added to HCQ.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7695238/
Now none the above studies are without limitations- but the limitations of the observational reports advocating HCQ +/- Zinc are even more serious [from your perspective the 2nd study did not have many early COVID patients it]. Observational studies/case reports mainly serve to alert researchers to possible worthwhile therapies to investigate. But they are fraught with significant potential of bias and one typically awaits confirmations by well done RCTs before advocating for changes in patient care. Since we are 2 years in, we should be using higher quality data than case series reports.
Now Chen had a RCT that provided preliminary evidence for the efficacy of HCQ-but it only followed hospitalized patients for 6 days and therefore was limited (it was very early in COVID but it is still a preprint) and Chen is not a big booster of HCQ/chloroquine:
“neither lab-based studies nor clinical trials have provided consistent and convincing evidence to support the therapeutic value of HCQ/CQ in the treatment of COVID-19….. Despite the long history of clinical application of HCQ and CQ in various human diseases, with advantages of inexpensive and easily accessible, their therapeutic value in treatment of COVID-19 remains questionable.” [a more recent review of the issues by Chen]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8071775/
Almost no one is pushing for HCQ+ AZT since there are several RCTs showing worse outcome if they are given together.
Your response is hilarious. It would really be a stretch for the legitimacy and credentials of any of those public health officials to compare with the panel participants. You know, being a Ricochet member, that most of our members hold strongly to the view that Leftists really hate open public debate with those possessing opposing views. We know why they didn’t show.
St A an added data point on HCQ’s lack of effectiveness do not take my word for it- look at Dr Marik (who is a darling of those claiming cheap drugs are being suppressed along with the doctors advocating them) – he doesn’t believe HCQ works either :
if you look at the “low dose” HCQ studies he reviews- the RCTs are all negative and have a low I squared- while you will note the heterogeneity score is high for the nonRCTS or if he pools the results.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Meta-analysis-of-COVID-19-therapeutics-Dr-Paul-Marik-FLCCC-Alliance-v7.pdf
BTW-the reason to add this is that b/c some the studies that show no benefit from zinc often compare it to HCQ+ Zinc. Therefore, one must be confident that HCQ doesn’t work to be confident that HCQ+Zinc doesn’t work.
@mimac Have you commented at all on the fact that hospitals, including ICU’s, on the issue of using anti-viral drugs, Remdesivir, to treat severe inflammatory medical conditions or trying to do a randomized controlled trial of HCQ, recognized by some as effective against Covid in the viral attack stage (early and before hospitalization), on patients in hospitals suffering from severe inflammation? What is the purpose behind using drugs to treat the wrong medical condition? Are hospital doctors doing this because they have been prevented from using effective measures?
The inflammatory condition you are talking about is a viral pneumonia– typically treated by treating the underlying cause & supportive therapy. Since for COVID the underlying cause is a virus, that is treated best with anti-viral medications-one of which is remdesivir. They clearly are NOT treating the wrong underlying condition since they are using an anti-viral to try to treat a virus. Severe pneumonia can progress to ARDS (adult respiratory distress syndrome) often accompanied by MSOF (multi-system organ failure). That is also treated by treating the underlying cause & supportive therapy-in this case an anti-viral would be given. Obviously, the big issue with COVID is our lack of good anti-viral medications. Hopefully, drugs like paxlovid will change this situation. There are attempts to treat the systemic inflammation that causes much of the damage in ARDS/MSOF- it is like an innocent bystander situation-inflammatory mediators that attempt to limit the viral infection can damage normal tissue. That is why dexamethazone is given to “sick” COVID patients-it is an anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant. But the attempts to modulate the immune response/inflammatory response are in their infancy and fraught with dangers-b/c decreasing the immune response can be dangerous in the face of an ongoing infection. Many drugs are in trial that attempt to modulate the inflammatory state. We do not have a good grasp of how to treat the excessive inflammatory state-ARDS/MSOF has been a big killer for many years & has eluded our attempts to understand & modulate the inflammatory state.
for remdesivir- it has conflicting data on it-the best evidence for it is for patients who are seriously ill but not on a ventilator. The one take away is that it is not a really good anti-viral for COVID. That is not a surprise- it is repurposed anti-viral. Repurposed drugs typically have a low success rate. It was initially developed for Hepatitis-C and has been trying to find a home for years (Hep C-Ebola-COVID). It will likely fade away as paxlovid and other new drugs come on board. But the data for it is far superior to the data for HCQ.
best case for remdesivir; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.22.22269545v1
others are unimpressed: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014962/full
as for HCQ- it is not recognized as effective against COVID by the VAST majority of physicians with expertise in the matter. There are at least 50 systemic reviews/meta analysis articles out there that conclude that HCQ doesn’t help. A randomized controlled study that shows HCQ is effective is a rarity.
https://www.cochrane.org/CD013587/INFECTN_chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine-useful-treating-people-covid-19-or-preventing-infection-people-who
Alas I no longer believe in studies that are have published and cherry picked.
There’s already been a crisis of replication. Yet the medical establishment has told us that carbs are good and then carbs are bad and drinking wine is good and drinking wine is bad. We’ve been shown studies that prove masks work when in fact it’s very clear that the evidence in the field that they don’t. Power line has a link to a study that demonstrates there is an elevated risk of myocardidus and teenage boys. I’ve been told there was no risk at all and yet thegoodwill.
The efforts to supress studies tells you all you need to know.
Lie upon lie upon lie. Nothing coming from the experts can be trusted. They have burned up goodwiil.
I got here a long time ago with government “nutrition experts” ruining my favorite meal of bacon/sausage and eggs for breakfast. I don’t listen anymore.
As I think I have explained inside this topic, Maddie was eliminated from technically ever being considered a member of the clinical trials.
How was this accomplished? Because when the vax company set up the clinical trials, the definition of “participant of the trial” was defined as being someone who completed the trial by receiving two injections that were offered.
Since she received only one injection, and did not get injection two as she had been made so very ill that doing a second one would be ill advised, she is not considered a participant.
On top of that, the vax company’s “doctor” stated her ailment is not related to the one injection she received but is from a “pre-existing” condition. (One which I guess just coincidentally occurred right after her injection.)
Anyway you should consider something when you so blithely minimized this horror show of vaccine injuries, and corrupted data collection by the vax companies that our Congress critters trusted so much in 1986 that they were given blanket immunity from liability no matter what the injury and death toll of a vaccine — supporting our inane, preposterous vaccine programs does not mean you will not suffer from your next injection.
The Right Nurse herself was an ardent proponent of the vaccine programs. Until this happened.
Celebrities right and left have proclaimed their pride in their patriotic fervor in getting the jab only to be pushing up daisies a week or ten days later.
It is sad that so many people uncritically have signed on to giving 100% support of vaccine programs, and not only that, they laugh and giggle at people who are injured, because “they are not victims, they are attention seekers.” But as more and more of these dangerous jabs are mandated, despite no benefits and totally riskiness, more and people discover for themselves the truth about these programs the hard way.
I get it, because I was brainwashed too. (In fact for 21 years after being vax injured, I thought my situation was a fluke, only to find out that it was not.)
As far as Vaccine Benefits for COVID: in Israel, where almost 99% of the populace has been jabbed:
I’ve been saying the same thing for nearly two years now, occasionally directly to you:
The evidence presented from the medical treatments of pro-chloroquine doctors counts as evidence, and it goes a long way in an emergency when it’s also a safe and well-known drug, but it’s not the best kind of scientific evidence.
The best kind would be that gold standard RCT. An RCT that tests their actual claims about chloroquine.
Someone should do a study like that someday, don’t you think?
I’m not aware that we have any. Now your citations of studies that do chl. and zinc: Are they looking at chl. and zinc as an early treatment?
If not, it looks like you got another straw man fallacy there.
Show me they aren’t fallacies. Tell me what specific proposition about chloroquine they were testing.
We’ve changed Docs also. JY has been for a physical. Said the doc spent most of the time talking about Taiwan. I haven’t met him yet, but I think I’ll like him.
We have had many discussions about the public health approach to doctors going off-label to use proven safe, off-patent, cheap drugs. I suspect this has possibly happened in the past but never have seen anything treated the way we are seeing here. After going through the first 3 Trump years uncovering corruption in the intelligence and law enforcement functions of the federal government we now have had a similar experience for the last 2 years with the public health function. Somethings has a bad odor.
They are testing symptom resolution, avoidance of ventilation, deaths etc- I am certain you can google at least as well as me & read at least as well- There is 1 (ONE) RCT that supports the use of anti-malarials for COVID- it has never been published- its author now believes that “their therapeutic value in treatment of COVID-19 remains questionable”. There are a number of RCTs that conclude that HCQ/CQ are ineffective. The burden of proof is on those who want to believe that HCQ/CQ are effective- the vast majority of RCTs show them to be ineffective-if not worse. Posts #241 & #243 have a trove of information about the status of anti-malarial at present- the vast majority of RCTs show them to be ineffective-if not worse. For more examples [note these are all systematic reviews & meta analysis articles-not case series]:
“The available evidence suggests that CQ or HCQ does not improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32885373/
“Hydroxychloroquine alone was not associated with reduced mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients but the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin significantly increased mortality.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7449662/
No benefit on viral clearance but a significant increase in mortality was observed with HCQ compared to control in patients with COVID-19.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7215156/
Evidence from currently published RCTs do not demonstrate any added benefit for the use of CQ or HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33815925/
There is conclusive evidence that CQ and HCQ, with or without Azithromycin are not effective in treating COVID-19 or its exacerbation.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34265436/
HCQ therapy for COVID-19 is associated with an increase in mortality and other adverse events. The negative effects are more pronounced in hospitalized patients. Therefore, with the available evidence, HCQ should not be used in prophylaxis or treatment of patients with COVID-19.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624299/
HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624299/
Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2019014
most clinical trials failed to prove the efficacy of HCQ/CQ on COVID-19 patients but discover obvious cardiovascular toxicity and gastrointestinal responses from various clinical trials.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8071775/
You’re not answering my question.
Had I world enough and time, perhaps.
Again the following would be hysterically funny if only so many Americans had not died due to this phenomena, but: “How is it that HCQ works splendidly in over 200 clinical trials conducted anywhere but inside an American health agency-directed clinical trial. But yet HCQ can’t get a passing grade when done by an American-agency directed trial?”
My East Coast friend, retired for years, has been apoplectic over the deliberate trashing of chloroquine and HCQ. She has degrees in several fields, one from Columbia, one from Duke, and she was a practicing pharmacist for decades in NY state before reaching age 65.
Like Tom Renz stated in his testimony before Sen Ron Johnson’s recent hearing, there is something very wrong with the health agencies now totally captured by the very industries these agencies were chartered to oversee. And that wrongness can be described in one word “Corruption.”
I tend to think there is some reason for the blinders you have on so tightly, MiMac. Whether you have had a propensity to invest in pharmaceuticals or simply your friends are all inside that corrupt industry, I can’t for the life of me figure out.
@mimac
Here is a summary of Tom Renz testimony before “R” Sen Ron Johnson’s recent hearings on COV and COV vaccines, regarding the change in statistics of various ailments after the COV vaccines were distributed and mandated:
Tom Renz
Attorney
“All three of them have given me their declarations – this is under penalty of perjury. We intend to submit this to court:
“Miscarriages increased over 300% over the 5 yr average. (Almost)
“We saw an almost 300% increase in cancers over the 5 yr average. This is not being talked about. Except by Dr Ryan Cole Thank you doctor!
“This one is amazing – neurological issues – which would affect our pilots – a 1,000% increase.”
Sen Johnson stated that is ten times the increase in neurological ailments.
“So 82,000 per year. Then the number jumps to 863,000 in one year. Our soldiers are being experimented upon, injured and possibly killed.”
SNIP
Then Renz starts to discuss the SALUS report of 9-28-2021:
“SALUS and their weekly report is a Defense Dept initiative project that collects the data – that doesn’t exist supposedly –
and assemble it and then offer it in reports to the to The DOD.
“71% of the new COVID cases are in the fully vaxxed, 60% of hospitalizations are in the fully vaxxed.”
Then Renz concludes his remarks with his observation that this situation is proof of how corrupted the agencies in this county are, and that what is needed is a complete investigation of the CDC and the NIH.
######
Three of the most obvious situations indicating that these agencies are corrupt are these, and involve of course, Dr Fauci:
1: Fauci’s entire pretense that he did not know about any remedies other than vaccines for COVID. Of course, during the COV crisis’ initial days, Fauci bragged that he kept careful oversight of any and every thing that was published under PubMed or NIH or NIAID auspices. So he definitely knew about the published study on the efficacy of HCQ in 2005. Further proof of his knowledge of HCQ efficacy was how he looked punched in the gut when Trump said, at a presser, that HCQ could obliterate COVID. Why would Fauci find it so necessary to pretend that HCQ did not exist, or did not have the ability to throttle COVID? Because according to the very wise US rules & regulations that determined the main condition that a vaccine had to deal with was this: if any remedies exist that are safe, efficacious, and available, then the vaccine for the infection cannot be offered emergency use authorization.
1 of 2 posts
2 of 2
2. The spring 2020 concocted news release, carried by almost all of the major news networks, that the ivermectin clinical trial authorized by a US agency had to be discontinued, due to how risky ivermectin was. This entire affair regarding ivermectin’s failure was created to divert the public from remdesivir’s failures in its clinical trials. Of course, remdesivir was a pet project of Fauci’s. So despite the fact it killed people during one of the two clinical studies, it went on to be approved. Once approved, the CDC/NIH published “guidelines” insisting that remdesivir was the only “approved” remedy for COVID. Very few physicians in the USA possess the type of critical thinking that had them actually go to the websites that delineated the clinical trials, and find out how remdesivir did not ace these trials but flunked them.
3. Meanwhile in 2020, 2021 the vaccines are being put though the paces of clinical trials. These trials used questionable data collections – including by selecting an inappropriate definition of how people who died after one of the two required jabs, or who were injured after one of the two jabs were then eliminated from the data base of cases that were supposed to accurately portray the statistics on whether the vaccines did or did not injure or kill people. The teenager Maddie, as discussed before, did not have her injuries included in the data base. The clinical trials did not use a benign product for the placebo, but instead used the meningitis vax, a dangerous vaccine in its own right. This diverting from the established traditional medical method of using a benign substance means the entirety of all the vax trials need to be investigated, line by line as far as the design of the trials, definition of participants, placebo products being risky by themselves etc.
There are probably a dozen other corrupt practices regarding the COVID and vaccine programs and protocols. I think the amount of spinning Jonas Salk has experienced while in his grave during this debacle would probably have powered up half of California for a decade.
For instance, since I have harped on it so much in prior posts, I will only mention in passing the primary science concept of Risk vs Benefit means the actual remedies should have been approved of, and the vaccines nixxed etc.
Front Line Doctors have treated over 150,000 Covid patients with early treatment protocols. Here is an excerpt from an article published in The Epoch Time:
“Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonologist and the President at the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, says that the public is not aware that there are doctors across the country who will provide telehealth and early treatment for COVID-19.
“On our website, we have a button, which says find a provider. We’ve tried to collect as many telehealth providers that treat all states in the country,” Kory said.
“We are trying to let that message be known because that message is being suppressed that this disease is treatable,” he added.
Kory also claims that there is corruption at the federal level in suppressing early treatment with repurposed cheap drugs and their availability and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been “captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”
“The corruption is because they don’t want you to use off-label, repurposed generic medicines. It does not provide profit to the system,” Kory said, adding that, “you know what’s going on in this country right now, is that the CDC has been captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”
“They sent out a memo in August of 2021, they sent out a similar memo back in the spring 2020, telling the nation’s physicians and pharmacists not to use generic medicines.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to the CDC for comment.”
And yet here you are.
This response is HI larious. Are you implying that our public health figures HAVE legitimacy ? They lost that all on their own; they have none to lose
@therightnurse, I believe you live in California? You probably have seen this about doctors being threatened for writing exemptions, but in case you haven’t:
No. I didn’t. But I don’t have to. Doctors (at least three) have paraphrased the letter they got from the medical board: write an exemption and we will discipline you.
It wasn’t an official Senate hearing-in fact it was advertised as an alternative perspective to the U.S. government’s response to COVID-19-therefore there is no reason for public health officials to attend. The panel made numerous factual misstatements-you can read more about it here:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/96888?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2022-01-28&eun=g1809615d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Top%20Cat%20HeC%20%202022-01-28&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition
a few did bits of other fisking:
CLAIM: “The (COVID) virus is not spread from an asymptomatic person to another asymptomatic person,” said Dr. Peter McCullough….
FACT: “More than half of transmissions that occur in our communities are occurring by people who have no symptoms,” said Ajay Sethi, associate professor of population health sciences and faculty director of the Public Health master’s program at UW-Madison.
CLAIM: Dr. Aaron Kheriarty, a former professor in the University of California-Irvine School of Medicine (psychiatry BTW)….., said people with “natural immunity,” meaning people who have developed antibodies after contracting a virus, cannot be reinfected with COVID-19 or transmit the virus to others.
FACT: While it is true that people may develop antibodies to a virus like COVID-19, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released in September found that 36% of those with prior COVID infection did not produce any antibodies.
I’m not sure you have an understanding of how much trust has been forfeited by these public health institutions that most of your “facts” come from.
No antibodies? I’ll have to check that one out.
Trust, but verify. There are all kinds of ways such results could have come about, depending on how the study was done. Gotta read the paper before jumping to any conclusions about what it means for “natural” immunity.
Well, sure. What was the method of establishing prior Covid infection?
How does someone like me “verify” anything? I research info I read on the Internet by reading more … on the Internet.
JY and I have been working on personal observations since early 2020. After about a month into the Los Angeles lock down, he looked at me, shrugged and said “I’m not tripping over dead bodies, so not worried” Since then we’ve lived our lives as normal as society would allow. He hasn’t missed a day of work, nor have I save 10 days in November 2020 when I tested negative for Covid but had classic symptoms.
He runs a factory with 100+ employees. Between various groups and associations, I’d count our acquaintance list at about 300 (including the noted employees). To date, we know many, many people who have tested positive. A lot fewer who have suffered. We know one person who was hospitalized (age around 60, several underlying conditions). And we know OF one person who has passed from Covid (60+, numerous underlying conditions)
Son #3 has tested positive twice, with a runny nose for a day each time. Many college-aged nieces and nephews who have suffered the same for a couple of days.
I have been morbidly keeping what I call a “ghoul list” since early 2021. We know 12 people who died in the calendar year – not one from Covid. Two of those deaths were age-appropriate. Several from undiagnosed cancers. Two suicides. Four who simply … died (age range 29-60)
The “sick” list is not as long, but includes two strokes (one hospitalized for months; the other two months and counting), one guillian barr syndrome, three hospitalized due to blood clots
There’s probably something I should be worried about, but it sure ain’t Covid.
PS I assume someone getting Covid twice is based upon highly inaccurate testing.
It therefore follows that we should be quarantining everyone who doesn’t have symptoms.
Exactly. And what sort of time intervals are we talking about. And so on.