Dangerous Side Effects from Vaccine

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:25 pm

amother [ Silver ] wrote:

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

Totally not what I said at all, why are you misconstruing?

amother

Silver

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:30 pm

You literally said that he cares too much about saving lives to do proper research.
“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.”

naturalmom5

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:32 pm

amother [ Lime ] wrote:

I grew a tail from the vaccine. It is long, pink, and shimmery, like a My Little Pony.

Post a picture please

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:35 pm

double post

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:39 pm

amother [ Silver ] 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.

Fda warning is based on reports to Faers and poison control, not studies.

Btw here's the FDA warning for similar concerns with azithromycin. Yet never did the AMA issue guidance prohibiting clinicians from prescribing it off label or requiring it only be administered in a hospital setting. The concerns regarding azizthromycin, in fact, are probably more reliable as they were based on a peer reviewed study rather than reports to Faers.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug.....heart

amother

Silver

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:43 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

Fda warning is based on reports to Faers and poison control, not studies.

A study looking at the data that was reported. And here’s even more for you:
https://www.sciencemag.org/new.....id-19

Im done here. It’s like talking to a wall.

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:51 pm

amother [ Silver ] wrote:

How does that become, all randomized trials are unethical?? It depends on the situation.

Nor did I suggest that non randomized trials constitute improper research. Many drug trials were initially non randomized, including azythromycin for instance.

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:53 pm

amother [ Silver ] wrote:

A study looking at the data that was reported. And here’s even more for you:
https://www.sciencemag.org/new.....id-19

Im done here. It’s like talking to a wall.

Yup.

The link again is showing studies where hcq was used in hospitalized patients.

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 9:59 pm

amother [ Blonde ] 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.

You're right. He treated several hundred but apparently many of them were disqualified from the study.

amother

Crimson

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 10:02 pm

Anyway hcq is a rabbit hole. There are other early treatments doctors are finding to be safe and effective.

amother

Blonde

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 10:57 pm

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

You're right. He treated several hundred but apparently many of them were disqualified from the study.

And his outcomes in terms of deaths were not statistically significant. Again, his research was published. Any respectable research will be published. The ones who are making the most noise about hcq are either not actually treating patients, or for some reason won't publish their results. There's nothing strange or suspicious about the FDA relying on verifiable data rather than say-so when it comes to their recommendations. This is not limited to the US either.

amother

Violet

Tue, Feb 02 2021, 11:04 pm

My perspective on the matter. Just like covid, the vaccine is something that treads on uncharted territory. There's alot of questions and lack of clear black and white understanding.
One thing I think we can agree on, is to agree to disagree. And to respect others positions. From a spiritual standpoint I feel we can all grow in our midos of treating each other with respect and giving space for each to do what each feels is right for them. It's really an opportunity for increasing achdus abd beh moshiach will come soon!

amother

Babyblue

Wed, Feb 03 2021, 2:19 am

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

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.

Zelenko used undiagnosed patients who may or may not have had clinical covid. He says explicitly that he did not bother testing because of how long it took to get the results back. And in his study he does not say how many came back negative or which ones came back negative. In other words, maybe his study is valid and maybe hcg just works well on the common cold or flu (when it is not necessary), but not on covid patients.

amother

Babyblue

Wed, Feb 03 2021, 2:26 am

elsily wrote:

She was saying that the doctors knew you shouldn’t get the vaccine if you’ve had anaphylaxis before, and she didn’t know that it was an issue. This isn’t really true though. Talk to your allergist if this applies, but where I live you can get the vaccine as long as you aren’t allergic to it’s components. History of anaphylaxis to other things isn’t an issue.

Where I live the only allergy that matters, other than allergies to components of the vaccine, is anaphylaxis after a previous vaccine. Every other allergy you can get the vaccine but you need to wait in the clinic for half an hour afterwards, instead of 15 minutes.

amother

Crimson

Wed, Feb 03 2021, 8:20 am

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

Just reread the study. Everyone included in the study had a positive covid test, which is probably why he was left with only 141 patients in the treatment group. He treated many more patients but without the nasal swab test so they were excluded from the study. This was also a problem caused by the situation. Back in the early days of his treatment, the covid test took several days to get results. The key point to his treatment was not to wait, but to start treatment right away. He wasn't going to jeapordize a patient's health for the sake of a positive test.

The number of patients who did not need to be hospitalized due to his treatment WAS statistically significant. However, the number of patients who died, was not statistically significant because of the sample size; only 13 out of 377 died in the control group died (and just one in his treatment group, who had a history of cancer and did not comply properly with his treatment).

This doesn't mean the results are useless, it means they're very promising and warrant more study.

Something else to keep in mind is that many clinicians are not necessarily equipped to publish. They don't have experience and might not be interested, they want to focus on treating patients. And there's nothing wrong with that, that's exactly why it's accepted for physicians to be able to prescribe drugs off label. The AMA's step of not allowing hcq to be used off label was reprehensible, as was the PR campaign against it.

wrote:

In the treatment group, 4 (2.8%) of 141 patients were hospitalised, which was significantly fewer than the 58 (15.4%) of 377 patients in the untreated group (Fig. 2) [OR = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06–0.5; P < 0.001] (Table 7; Fig. 3). Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.

Of the 141 patients, 1 (0.7%) in treatment group A died after being hospitalised. This patient had a history of cancer and only took one daily dose of the triple therapy before hospital admission. More patients (13/377; 3.4%) died in the untreated group (Fig. 4) (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03–1.5) (Table 7; Fig. 3). Although the odds of all-cause death of treated patients was 80% less than in the untreated group, this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.12).

Fig. 4. Odds ratios (ORs). The odds of hospitalisation in the treated patient group was 84% less than in the untreated patient group and was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The odds of all-cause death in the treated patient group was 80% less than in the untreated patient group but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.12). COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; CI, confidence interval.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/.....Dihub

amother

Crimson

Wed, Feb 03 2021, 8:21 am

amother [ Babyblue ] wrote:

No, everyone included in the published study received a positive covid test.

amother

Blonde

Wed, Feb 03 2021, 9:02 am

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258?via%3Dihub

I don't understand how you expect hcq to be widely used without adequate research supporting the claim that it's effective and safe in treating covid. You're making lots of excuses for why no one is publishing their research, but this is the protocol in the medical world. We would be in a very different (and more dangerous) place today without this system, as imperfect as it is. Large studies were published, looking at hcq use in hospitals, and the overall results were simply not supportive of its use. If there is reason to believe that hcq is highly effective but must be implemented shortly after diagnosis then those studies must be published.

amother

Jade

Wed, Feb 03 2021, 9:12 am

amother [ Crimson ] wrote:

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..

Huh? and huh again? It's most definitely NOT disregarded when prescribing for other uses. The patient's medical history and the drug's side effects are always considered before prescribing hcq - (and any other medication for that matter).

penguin

Wed, Feb 03 2021, 1:00 pm

Quote:

We know that. It's just that the chance of being harmed by the vaccine is much much smaller than the chance of being harmed by covid.

That's if you look at the overall population.

Nobody has studied the risks of getting Covid or of severe symptoms to those who choose to avoid large gatherings, take their supplements, eat healthy etc.

amother

Blonde

Wed, Feb 03 2021, 1:06 pm

penguin wrote:

Quote:

We know that. It's just that the chance of being harmed by the vaccine is much much smaller than the chance of being harmed by covid.

There you go, you have a new project! I don't know anyone who is interested in avoiding large gatherings as a long term plan though. Do you?