Dangerous Side Effects from Vaccine

amother

Blonde

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 6:38 pm

amother [ Cerulean ] wrote:

Why is it ironic and why are you saying those against the vaccine are imagining things?
Can you understand that there is a difference in opinion and risks both ways? Some feel the risk is higher with the vax, some feel its higher without the vax.
I believe that I don't need to actually inject myself with something in order to be healthy and safe. I may get sick, anyone may get sick. No, I don't trust the science. I trust Hashem who gave me an immune system and intuition to know what's right for me.
Hopefully we will continue to have the freedom to choose.

There are many people who claim that covid is an exaggerated political scheme that uses fear to manipulate people. The real risk is not the disease, it's the outcome of the fear.

Along comes a vaccine that can alleviate the fear. What do you know, those same people are now trying to scare everyone into believing that the vaccine will harm or kill them.

You don't see the irony?

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 6:46 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

Because there are existing, safe, effective treatments.

Like, imagine if strep throat were hyped up as potentially deadly because it can cause rheumatic heart disease, at the same time that anyone advocating for simple antibiotics was shamed as a quack and conspiracy theorist. Then suddenly a new strep vaccine is pushed out.

amother

Blonde

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 7:00 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

Instead of screaming and yelling, why don't the doctors publish their research? Don't make up a story about them being silenced. Medical journals absolutely publish reliable and valid research no matter the "agenda."

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 7:41 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

Firstly, there are absolutely politics involved in getting published. The authors of the big mask study in Denmark, for example, said that it took them several months to find a journal willing to publish a study showing that masks have no effect on lowering the rate of spread. Yet, the fraudulent study with fabricated statistics about the dangers of using hcq to treat covid, was accepted immediately by the NEJM.

Second, any studies by doctors purporting to show the effectiveness of a particular treatment for covid will suffer from a fatal flaw. The study can't be double blind placebo, because the doctor performing the study will not withhold a treatment he believes to be effective, for the purpose of a study.

Zelenko published his study, which demonstrated statistically significant benefit to his protocol, but that study is dismissed because it's not double blind. Instead, he compares patients with similar co-morbidities who saw other doctors and did not receive his treatment, to his own patients who did. Ftr, there were other studies as well showing the effectiveness of hcq but again, not double blind.

amother

Silver

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 7:53 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

What do you mean they can’t be double blind studies? Two treatments can be compared to each other in a double blind study. Of course researchers won’t do a placebo study when we currently have some effective treatments. —No one is doing placebo studies for coronavirus treatment.— And yet we have research showing there are effective treatments. Please just give up the push for hcq. It is dangerous and ineffective compared to bamlanivimab etc.

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:15 pm

amother [ Silver ] wrote:

The problem with monoclonal antibodies is that you're not given it routinely for a new infection with mild symptoms. But mild symptoms can be prevented from turning serious with early treatment. I would love to see a critique backing up your claim, that hcq is not effective or safe, based on the published studies that exist showing its use in early treatment, including Zelenko's. There are other early treatments as well.

amother

Silver

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:27 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

Cardiac toxicity is quite dangerous and common with hcq: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov.....d.pdf

And no benefit: https://www.nih.gov/news-event.....quine

amother

Blonde

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:46 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

Zelenkos study was retrospective and had a very small sample size. And the difference in deaths between the two groups was NOT statistically significant. Where did you see otherwise?

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:47 pm

amother [ Silver ] wrote:

Cardiac toxicity is quite dangerous and common with hcq: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov.....d.pdf

Great, but there's no reasonable explanation as to why this warning was issued for hcq's use only in the treatment of covid, while disregarded when given for uses other than covid. The risk itself is similar to risks of cardiac events associated with other drugs for which no warnings were issued, such as azithromycin. And, the AMA reversed its warning despite no new evidence justifying the change. This is the type of thing that led people to believe the recommendations were guided by politics.

amother [ Silver ] wrote:

And no benefit: https://www.nih.gov/news-event.....quine

Study tested and found no benefit among IN PATIENTS. Zelenko and anyone promoting hcq have said repeatedly, the protocol only works if given initially. By the time you're at the in-patient stage, no one ever claimed it is an effective treatment.

amother

Silver

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:51 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

Did you actually read the entire FDA report? All the data is right there. It wasn’t taken out of emergency use “for no reason.”

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:51 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

Zelenkos study was retrospective and had a very small sample size. And the difference in deaths between the two groups was NOT statistically significant. Where did you see otherwise?

Exactly my point, it was retrospective. The fatal flaw. If you're Dr. Zelenko and believe you have an effective treatment for covid, but it only works if given to people who are newly sick but, if given then, it will save lives, how do you enroll your patients in a double blind placebo study? Perhaps ethically it would be permitted if you have them all sign consent forms, but assuming the doctor cares about saving lives, I can see him having serious issues of conscience with that.

Also, the results WERE statistically significant. The sample size was not tiny but it wasn't thousands. It was about 400 iirc. It wasn't the only study, either. There was one by Henry Ford that had a similar construction and yielded similar results, and possibly others.

amother

Silver

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:55 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

It doesn’t matter if you’re in patient or not. It is dangerous to take hcq in the setting of covid infection due to cardiac toxicity. This was shown in multiple studies. It’s not safe no matter where you are in the course of disease.

amother

Silver

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:57 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

Omg do you really believe this Dr is SO ETHICAL that he can’t conduct a proper double-blind research study? That makes literally no sense.

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:57 pm

amother [ Silver ] wrote:

Did you actually read the entire FDA report? All the data is right there. It wasn’t taken out of emergency use “for no reason.”

I did read it, and responded.

Similar adverse events occur with other drugs that are nevertheless considered safe and were given no similar warnings, such as azithromycin.

The warnings were not based on new information. The risks of the drug were known for decades and it was considered safe for outpatient use.

The warning for hcq was listed only if hcq was used for treating covid, not if it was used for treating anything else. This makes no sense.

And so on.

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 8:59 pm

amother [ Silver ] wrote:

Whether it is safe, or whether it is effective, are two separate issues.

You posted a study claiming it's not effective. I was responding to that. No one claimed it's effective when given to a patient sick enough to be hospitalized, so a study showing that it's not, doesn't prove much.

mig100

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:01 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

You know what's ironic? Everyone who claims that covid is exaggerated and the real danger is the fear... Those are the same people creating and following conspiracy and fear mongering websites. So in the end everyone is worried. Some of us are worried about actual concerns, and some of us are worried about imagined concerns!

Yep this.

amother

Silver

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:03 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

No, you don’t seem to understand. Is an anticoagulant safe to take for most people? Yes. Is it safe to take for people who are experiencing hypertension? No. The reason you’re taking the drug actually matters. Just because a drug like hcq is safe for someone with lupus does not mean it’s safe for someone with covid.

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:04 pm

amother [ Silver ] wrote:

Omg do you really believe this Dr is SO ETHICAL that he can’t conduct a proper double-blind research study? That makes literally no sense.

Umm...I don't even know how to respond to this. But I'll try.

Yes. I think that most doctors care about their patients.

I think many doctors will try to save lives if they can, as many as they can.

??

amother

Silver

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:06 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

So only unethical doctors do research? 😆 Do you know what it means to be in a fellowship?

amother

Blonde

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:18 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

It seems you're confusing zelenkos study with something else perhaps? He is very clear that the difference in deaths did not reach statistical significance. A total of 141 patients received the treatment.