The standard response I get on asking any doc is they’re all equally effective as long as you get one. Knowing that their assertion is based on zero data makes me question all their other confident assertions as well
I knew journalists were hacks. This shit show exposed doctors as hacks too
My confidence in doctors, always tenuous, slipped to low ground when I found out “cholesterol” was BS.
This latest abomination has exposed them as not only charlatans but as crooks and moral cowards. A wholly execrable display of pusillanimous and venal chickenshittery that will shred the credibility of the profession for generations. The worst is yet to come. If the huge increase in death that the insurance companies are seeing turns out to be due to the vaccines, some of those who foisted it on us will be envious of how lightly the Ceaușescus got off.
'My confidence in doctors, always tenuous, slipped to low ground when I found out “cholesterol” was BS. '
To say nothing of statin drugs, nutrition in general, flu shots, the medical industries massive resistance to admitting they were wrong about ulcers, the fact they are STILL using ventilators on Covid patients (flat-out murder at this point), etc. etc.
I used to be a little cynical about the medical malpractice industry’s claim that the deaths of 9.5% of Americans involved medical malpractice.
Now I think that’s an understatement.
Doctors, by and large, are little more than salesmen for hospitals and pharma. Their livelihoods depend on your illness, not your health.
That they make a big deal of “evidence based medicine” is telling. “What else would be the basis of medicine?” Was always my question. Now I know the answer, and I will never un-see it. For me every doctor is now a quack until proven otherwise.
Well it's good and bad. I had a 30 year pre-run at this. A life-saving transplant in 1991 and then 30 years of post-op care that ranged from essential and good (the actual immunosuppressant medicines etc.) to ignorant (consultants recommending all sorts of unneccessary medications) to wilfully wrong (a surgeon wanting to operate on me in an emergency lying through his back teeth telling me my chances were 50/50 of making it through the night - I'd just read a paper on what I had secondary pulmonary embolism following biopsy and it was more like 99.95 - 0.05% so I told him to eff off back to med school and take a statistics module).
So none of this news to me since March 2020.
The real news was how everyone would take this crap fro two years (so far)
Ever since big pharma co-opted the medical training industry and changed the profession from Osteopath to Aliopaths. All an Aliopath can do is prescribe a medication, see how that works?
Don't forget the bone-density test nonsense. See book "Myth of Osteoporosis" book. Also mammography industry and all the false positives -- see book "Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy" by Peter Gotzche and the Cochrane Mammography Screening Leaflet (online).
That book every woman should read. The atrocity to push mammos annually on every woman starting at age 40 (only the USA does this) is revealed in that book. The data is out there but people listen to their doc and the doc listens to the industry as it’s quite profitable.
It happened to me when I was first pregnant and learned about appalling pseudo evidence based practices in the USA that make the worst maternity system in the first world. Moved on to cholesterol; vitamin d, low fat diet crap, meds for everything, mammography BS and now Covid shots. Medicine is now an assembly line of ‘evidence based guidelines’ and doctors aren’t allowed to operate outside of those guidelines even if they know it doesn’t benefit the patient. The system is broken and was before Covid. Destroying independent doctors and streamlining everyone into group practices owned by chains creates fast food medicine with one size fits all don’t ask questions leaving Americans and the world sicker. Many doctors mean well. Many are also brainwashed or just don’t know any better. Many try to help and are shut down.
I went to a new doctor about an ear infection. He said, without asking a single question or taking any kind of history, or even asking why I was there “You eat too much red meat”.
Fortunately it turned out that they had made a mistake and didn’t, after all, accept my insurance. I was very happy to leave without wasting my time on his “diagnosis”.
I went to a doctor who was examining me as a precondition of employment somewhere. He did an EKG and said “You have a right bundle branch block. You should take statins.” I thanked him politely but declined. Every EKG since, I ask “See any evidence of a right bundle branch block?” It’s always “no”.
I have a list of stories but suffice it to say I do my best to avoid doctors.
Although to be fair, some years ago I had a very bad hand injury and was half-resigned to never regaining full use of it. The surgeon I was fortunate enough to be referred to was without question a genius. My hand, despite being full of hardware, is pretty much 100%.
Yeah, they're largely good with the mechanical stuff, but not the physiological stuff. Although you do have to be aware that a surgeon almost always wants to cut as a solution. (When all you have is a hammer...)
Some time ago, probably in the 1980's, a very good doctor told me to take a decongestant for ear aches. That worked well for me for a long time. Ears, sinus's and eustachian tubes are all very connected. I now use a netti pot regularly, reduces ear problems too.
Second the neti pot suggestion. Been using one for years, chronic stuffy sinuses. In early 2020 I had a cold (not likely Covid, all symptoms pointed to cold). I had a lingering cough two weeks later. Saw my primary a few times. Led to an x-ray and an "uh oh", later a MRI. At first they thought a heart issue -- later proved wrong but now I'm on a statin and aspirin (I have borderline cholesterol -- sounds valid). Also a lung issue: apparently early Copd; still ok a year later. Anyway I got put on Flo-Nase and it's helped my sinuses. Although I'm on a crappy health plan, I give my current docs points for decent service and (so far) not pushing any experimental drugs on me. I'm now in my 60s so shit is starting to fall apart.😏 I do take care of myself, am (more) suspicious of the medical profession, but they are still a resource. It's just probably a good idea to be a intelligent customer these days.
With regards to neti pots: always use sterile water (boil it if in doubt) and follow directions, i.e., add salt. Tap water can contain some kind of germ that can go to your brain and kill you. Rare events, but it's easy to boil water so do it!. Sorry, I'm typing fast so not stating this properly but: boil that water!
One other comment: with regard to neti pots, I started using it because I've had a lifetime of sinus troubles including allergies. In around 2010 I read an article in the NYT where an Ear, Nose, Throat specialist said 'if everyone with sinus troubles used a netti pot, most people would have no more problems'. That dr. was 100% correct! It's great!
This was written in 2018: 'The corruption of evidence based medicine - killing for profit'. I reviewed the article with my GP and he agreed. Find it here:
Yes! "Dr. House" was rare in realworld medicine before those 'evidence based guidelines' and now decent diagnosticians just can't be found. There are knowledge silos. No one operates outside of their silo. It's really a horrible situation out there.
Many diseases involve more than one discipline and, I swear to gods, it seems like the plan is to just let those afflicted die. Or you have to diagnose yourself, but doctors get real pissy when you do that. Especially when you're right.
I was pregnant with my first son in 1995, living in Colorado. A 16-week test informed me that it was very likely I would have a down syndrome child. I remember vividly being lectured by unsympathetic genetic experts that the test was reliable, but I pressed for an amnio fluid test and luckily insurance covered it. That test determined that my baby was normal. Either way I was going to keep my child and not murder him. Today he is a loving, handsome, world traveled genius getting a Doctorate in Music. God is good all of the time. It is people that are lacking in love. Please share this story with any one you may know facing this situation. I had three more children after his birth, all wonderful blessings, and I refused to get those pesky 16-week blood tests.
Spot on. Had a friend who was feeling quite ill from Covid. Doc told her there was no treatment. I texted her to go get monoclonal Abs. Better nearly overnight. WTAF. When you listen to McCullough Kennedy et al talk about how treatments have been suppressed, you must realize that most Drs have been complicit. The ones who haven't been have been met with threats, deplatforming and delicensing.
My 2 friends had same result. They were both better in 24 hours, and one started covid 1 day ahead of the other but both improved at the same 24 hour mark.
Doctor tried to put me (was 25 at the time) on statins some years ago. I asked what was wrong with me. He said nothing but in 10-20 years something could be. No thanks doc.
If it makes you feel any better, gato, I have it on good authority that they're collecting excellent data on which vaccines are most profitable and who is resisting them.
Many months ago, when he was still on Twitter, Alex Berenson noted the J&J vaccine was slowly and subtly being marginalized. He expected the same to happen to Moderna at some point. I sometimes think Alex sticks his neck out a bit, but his predictions seem to pan out over the long haul.
Just another way of saying your comment, perhaps meant humorously, might just be right. Which means, of course, Pfizer is the most efficacious vaccine out there. At making money, of course. Also at getting talked about.
They did the same with AstraZeneca in Europe months ago. Mainstream media would report daily about issues with clotting and problems with manufacturing and impurity of the doses. They were framing AZ as the "bad vaccine" and Pfizer/Moderna as the good ones, until people were running to get the mRNA-crap. Yet, to this day no mainstream outlet has reported about issues with the latter. Unsurprisingly, considering Pfizer's long history of marketing their poisons (see: Lipitor).
That opens an interesting line of thought. What happens to Pfizer's vaccines if Paxlovid actually works, and how is it that Pfizer developed the drug? My understanding is that there can be no vaccine if there is a treatment. Did Pfizer know that vaccine didn't work for very long therefore they immediately developed a treatment?
As per the CFR, the justification for the EUA on the "vaccines" was due to the lack of a viable existing treatment. That conclusion was facilitated by the vilification of IVM, despite it being an excellent candidate, as per several early studies, and its 40-year history in humans. (There is a longer story here, but I am keeping this short.) Pfizer developed a treatment, Paxlovid, that has essentially the same MoA as IVM, and will likely market it at a startlingly higher price, and clean up again. So, in answer to "what happens to..." the answer is Pfizer is positioned to make another crap-ton of money on the back-end as well, regardless of what happens to their mRNA treatments after Paxlovid is in routine use.
In my academic medical center we use EPIC for our EMR, which is one of the most widely used software systems in the US. If I wanted to analyze a specific variable (i.e. vaccination status), I need to first identify the data entry field that "houses" this data point. This is not as straightforward as it may seem because the field label may differ depending on where the information is gathered for data entry.
For example, at my institution there is a data field for vaccination status labeled "COVID-19 Vaccine". The entries for this field include: "unknown", "vaccinated", "overdue for booster dose", and "overdue for dose 2"(see images below). This field is auto-populated from the immunization record. However, immunizations require manual entry into the immunization record. Therefore, the data field for COVID-19 vaccination status is dependent upon manual entry of the date/type of immunization into the immunization record.
Most of my vaccinated patients do not have an updated COVID-19 vaccination status because nobody has manually entered the immunization date/type into the immunization record. Instead, vaccination status is typically embedded within provider notes which are not extractable data fields for data analysis or for "feeding" data into other systems. I recently admitted several critically ill patients from outside hospitals for whom I could not ascertain vaccination status. I had to search through pages of notes and external records to find this information. In 2 of 3 records I found a note indicating the patients were vaccinated with the month but not date of vaccination. I cannot enter vaccination status into the immunization record without the specific date. Therefore, all 3 patients are listed as "unknown" vaccination status, which in our system is the same designation as "unvaccinated". This is problematic for both reporting vaccination status but also for tracking adverse events which could be associated with vaccination. Of the 3 patients mentioned above, all were being treated for thromboses of unknown origin.
To me, this suggests that any reporting on the number of vaccinated versus unvaccinated hospitalized patients is fraught with error on numerous levels. What I find concerning is that nobody seems motivated to improve the ability to extract this variable. It would be an easy build in EPIC to auto-populate date of immunization into the patient's immunization record. It is common for many other data fields (medications, infectious diseases such as MRSA, VRE) to auto-populate. For example, in the patient's "medication list" I can see every medication a patient has filled at a pharmacy along with the corresponding date of initiation of therapy and prescriber.
If this is common at the medical center where I work, is it not possible that this is also common at other major academic medical centers?
In the 1990s, I worked for a research foundation affiliated with a large medical school in the Midwest. We developed the very early technology that evolved into multi-site EHRs, and were active in establishing overall standards for the electronic transmission of health data, such as HL7. I actually wrote some of the code that is still used to transmit reports to VAERS. So I was around to see, and become alarmed at, the evolution of the commercial side of EHRs after Obamacare more or less crammed them down everyone's throats with their
"meaningful use" standard. Just like every other time the government has mandated the use of specific technologies, a wave of federal contracting companies with no expertise or history in the field rose up to suck up all the new money floating around. These companies have a terrible track record of designing impossibly frustrating user interfaces and failing to maintain, upgrade, or adequately document their products. Yet these are the systems that are being relied on the produce the data that we are supposedly relying on to monitor and assess health care metrics. It's a complete joke.
I now work on a contract that manages the entire data warehouse for Medicare and Medicaid on behalf of CMS. It's not any better.
I think it would be possible to get a cleaner cut of the US data if you confined it to aged 65+ and looked at Medicare billing. Providers should have sent a bill to Medicare even if they were not charging to patient; if coded properly as Part D data it should have service date and manufacturer. Medicare data for inpatient admissions is also quite clean, and we have good info on comorbidities in that population.
Unfortunately, this "need for data" is translating into a massively intrusive federal bill now in the Senate that authorizes and funds on the order of $billions a national database of individual vaccine status.
Based upon the behavior of our government in recent years, particularly through the covid thing, I do not trust any such additional power and money placed in the hands of agenda-driven unaccountable bureaucrats. They already have the power and the money.
As you say, it would be easy to add a field in EPIC to auto-populate date of immunization into the patient's immunization record, especially if the jab is listed as a medication. Can your institution make a local modification to your EPIC fields? If so, they should do it and you can write a paper suggesting it to other hospital systems. Bypass that whole grifter legislation and get it done locally.
It sounds Orwellian and it is -- to a degree. But there is some "hope" for freedom, or perhaps reason to despair, from the standpoint of those who design, would legitimately use or maintain such a database. As folks above have described, any big database or collection effort will always have a certain number of bugs. Sometimes it becomes an enormous cock-up. None of this is to say that data and databases aren't incredibly useful (for good, bad, or indifferent, as with any tool). Modern society couldn't function without them. But anyone who's ever worked in corporate or -- especially! -- government with big data would laugh until he "soiled himself" if it were ever suggested that these behemoth projects would improve matters, do away with errors, or even ease the data gathering, verifying and storage missions of various agencies.
His account shows the formidable obstacles any rigorous study would have. For example, consider the daunting task to actually establish two groups, lets call them never-vaxxed and vaxxed. Let's say some cherrry picking were allowed for the study. One of the criteria would be to (say) have in the vaxxed group subjects who took the Phizer or Moderna jabs optionally with a booster, and that precise date was required for each dose. This alone would likely require a lot of data-gathering and verification.
Now consider what at first sounds easy: the unvaxxed. Probably a first sorting mechanism would be a subject's self-reporting. But how would one audit or verify never having taken a jab? In a region with centralized records, a records check could be a partial test. But a more exacting test might require a blood test for absence of specific antibodies the jab(s) would generate. That also might be a metric for such a project: you'd want to know about pre-existing immunity due to infections.
There are probably many other issues I'm overlooking. I have no familiarity with such testing. My thought experiment here is merely to point out how difficult it is to find and verify something as seemingly simple as whether a patient has been vaccinated!
If EMH's figure (below) is representative, it means that 2/3 of the claimed "unvaccinated" patients, you know, people like us, who are overwhelming hospitals, camping out in the hallways and taking up intensive care beds, are actually vaccinated.
The ex-wife got her booster. She was expecting Pfizer but got moderna. What a mess in tracking adverse reactions or effectiveness if they're mix n matching. Wonder what% of all these shots are accurate?
Absolutely. I'm a 60-something old-timer in this field; the upper management of the company I work for is all in their 30s and early 40s and this is just "water is wet" stuff with that crowd. It's like an autonomic reflex. That and the embarrassing color/font choices for the corporate website.
I do not want to infer intent. I do want to point out that vaccination status is not a straightforward data field- or at least as easy to run big data searches/analyses as other routinely used variables. For instance, if I wanted to investigate the incidence of ICU admission among morbidly obese patients with diabetes, then I could search for all patients with BMI >40 with a diagnosis of diabetes or with a prescription for specific diabetic medications. ICD-10 and CPT codes are extractable variables within specific data fields. Medications prescribed/filled are an alternative means of identifying patients with a diagnosis. Compare this to COVID vaccination status for which there is no current universal corresponding code to identify an individual as meeting inclusion criteria. Unless the person administering the vaccine enters the vaccination administration into the individual’s immunization record, the vaccination status of the individual will not update. It is not routine practice for providers to access a patient’s medical record to update their immunization record when administering a vaccine. This is routine for pediatric patients, but not for adults. This is how this works in all of the EMR systems used by all surrounding hospitals in the area I live. This includes 2 major academic medical centers and multiple large community heath systems. I know this for certain because I see patients from all over the state. I ran a report last week just to assess what percentage of my patients are vaccinated- less than 30% met inclusion criteria yet >80% are actually fully vaccinated.
There's a clip of Julian Assange saying that the point of the War on Terror was simply to launder taxpayer money to the MIC. The parallels to our fight against covid are stunning. We again are engaged in a quixotic, unwinnable war against a stubborn, intractable enemy. Once again, corporations are gorging themselves on the public's dime, and many innocents are losing their lives and livelihoods.
It’s been known for decades that the MIC plays both sides and both ends of a war. They make a fortune selling arms to destroy a place then make a fortune “rebuilding” it. Ask Dick Cheney.
That the Medical Industrial Complex might be any different strains credulity.
And it’s hopelessly naïve to believe that there’s no Education Industrial Complex. Or “science” industrial complex. Or “intelligence” industrial complex. Or “justice”.
It’s not what we’ve been told it is, and if there’s a bright side to this whole “Covid” catastrophe, it will be the beginning of the awakening of the public that we’ve been had. For the better part of a century.
So true! I have never known as much in my entire life as I have learned this past year. They should have censored all media before taking such a leap. I'm pretty sure that will be number one on the agenda "next time."
I've always been aware that billions of our tax dollars have been funneled into covid but I never quite saw it as the war-money-laundering scheme that it must be. I do now!
They intentionally destroyed this data by recommending people get any vaccine and any booster. Just like they destroyed the control groups in the clinical trials by vaxxing everyone after six months (funny that six months happens to be the time frame when the vax loses efficacy - sheer coincidence, I'm sure). Israel is the only pure case study for Pfizer - and it isn't good.
none of them are approved, just under emergency use authorization... and they keep lying about everything ... the FDA / Pfizer want to keep the data quiet for 75 years.
Amazing isn't it? Legal immunity, experimental, don't have to produce data (among other things). I wouldn't even eat an apple under those "standards". It's amazing that people are still begging to have something with those "standards" literally shot right into their body. Good Grief!
Dr Anthony Fauci has sought to dispel lingering concerns about any of the Covid vaccines that are being rolled out across the country, urging Americans that all three types of approved jab are “highly efficacious”.
While many Americans have harped on the relatively lower nominal efficacy rate of the newly approved Johnson & Johnson vaccine – 66 per cent globally, compared to 94 per cent for the Moderna vaccine and 93 per cent for the Pfizer vaccine – doctors and scientists, including Dr Fauci, have said all three vaccines are extraordinarily effective at preventing serious illness and death.
The numbers Americans should be emphasising are that all three vaccines have proven 100 per cent effective at preventing deaths. The risk of hospitalisation also plummets to virtually zero for people who receive the vaccine.
Has anyone kept a chronicle of the ever-evolving claims that public health organs give? I'll give the mass media a pass; they are clearly incapable of reporting simple truths. But I'd expect at least the occasional science backed statement from a government or even quasi-government agency. My memory is fallible, but relevant to the "vaccines," I seem to recall that they'd give high protection against infection and the vaxxed could dispense with the mask, well no we were wrong, better use the masks after all. After less than a year was already the call for boosters. Israel is rolling out #4. Earlier in the year it was dubbed ok to mix and match manufacturers, based upon what research I'm not sure. Seems to me that the promises have evolved as the efficacy -- or lack thereof -- became too obvious to ignore. From one and done (or two, with a few of them) we now may need boosters every few months? Nobody knows? And from great protection, well they protect against serious illness and death. What'll they promise us next? "Reduces the severity of death"? If the above text is accurate from the cited news source, they are reporting not only likely false claims, but ones that are from the original vaxx studies that are at best ingenuous (relative risk reduction) and at worst outright lies.
Meanwhile, Omicron is chewing through highly- and recently- vaxxed and even boosted populations (e.g. universities) like a herd of guinea pigs in a lettuce patch; even the mass media can't completely ignore this. And the response! Urge everyone to get the vaxx, or get the booster if it's been more than few months since "fully vaccinated." This is supposed to inspire confidence in their products?
Major point: if these products had been researched with anything approaching traditional rigor, a lot of these questions would have been answered authoritatively before the mass roll-out beginning in December 2020.
Their behavior back then, and up to the present time, would almost make a skeptic think they had something to hide and were acting in bad faith. But perhaps I'm just a right-wing kook, who would surely be banned from any reputable social media if I broached such doubts.
I have been following this data analyst,Craig-Paardekooper. He researched thr VARES db along with others. He analyzes toxicity by Manufacturer and lot number.
This is the correct answer. The PH bureaucrats already collected all of the data: 100% effective. No more data is needed.
A number of the nationalized health systems do appear to be tracking some of the data. though. I'm sure I've seen data from the NHS, for example, as they were trying to figure out of marketing for the AstraZeneca vaccine.
But none of it matters. All of the vaccines are functionally the same and the researchers know this. If one fails, they all fail. If one is toxic, they are all toxic. They all deliver RNA to cells telling the cells to produce the same spike protein. The only difference is that the big money is behind the mRNA technology as a growing revenue stream for big pharma.
The Austrian government has for some time recommended people who received the J&J vaccine – along with those who were vaccinated with Astra Zeneca – to get an mRNA vaccine (either Moderna or Pfizer/Biontech) as a booster.
----------
Cause what's the worst that could happen, ya know?
Plenty of examples of such questions all throughout the pandemic. The classic is hospitalisations/deaths and “with” vs “of”. Gee, if I was in charge of public health, and controlled statistic-gathering policy, I would certainly want to know this information as a priority so I could be more effective. But that’s just me.
You only have an excuse for not doing these things for the first few weeks. After that it’s deliberate choice.
J Trudeau was asked early on "which vaccine should I take?" His answer was "the best one is the first one that you're offered." It couldn't have been a more political answer.
The standard response I get on asking any doc is they’re all equally effective as long as you get one. Knowing that their assertion is based on zero data makes me question all their other confident assertions as well
I knew journalists were hacks. This shit show exposed doctors as hacks too
My confidence in doctors, always tenuous, slipped to low ground when I found out “cholesterol” was BS.
This latest abomination has exposed them as not only charlatans but as crooks and moral cowards. A wholly execrable display of pusillanimous and venal chickenshittery that will shred the credibility of the profession for generations. The worst is yet to come. If the huge increase in death that the insurance companies are seeing turns out to be due to the vaccines, some of those who foisted it on us will be envious of how lightly the Ceaușescus got off.
'My confidence in doctors, always tenuous, slipped to low ground when I found out “cholesterol” was BS. '
To say nothing of statin drugs, nutrition in general, flu shots, the medical industries massive resistance to admitting they were wrong about ulcers, the fact they are STILL using ventilators on Covid patients (flat-out murder at this point), etc. etc.
Absolutely. It’s a very long list.
I used to be a little cynical about the medical malpractice industry’s claim that the deaths of 9.5% of Americans involved medical malpractice.
Now I think that’s an understatement.
Doctors, by and large, are little more than salesmen for hospitals and pharma. Their livelihoods depend on your illness, not your health.
That they make a big deal of “evidence based medicine” is telling. “What else would be the basis of medicine?” Was always my question. Now I know the answer, and I will never un-see it. For me every doctor is now a quack until proven otherwise.
Well it's good and bad. I had a 30 year pre-run at this. A life-saving transplant in 1991 and then 30 years of post-op care that ranged from essential and good (the actual immunosuppressant medicines etc.) to ignorant (consultants recommending all sorts of unneccessary medications) to wilfully wrong (a surgeon wanting to operate on me in an emergency lying through his back teeth telling me my chances were 50/50 of making it through the night - I'd just read a paper on what I had secondary pulmonary embolism following biopsy and it was more like 99.95 - 0.05% so I told him to eff off back to med school and take a statistics module).
So none of this news to me since March 2020.
The real news was how everyone would take this crap fro two years (so far)
Ever since big pharma co-opted the medical training industry and changed the profession from Osteopath to Aliopaths. All an Aliopath can do is prescribe a medication, see how that works?
Don't forget the bone-density test nonsense. See book "Myth of Osteoporosis" book. Also mammography industry and all the false positives -- see book "Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy" by Peter Gotzche and the Cochrane Mammography Screening Leaflet (online).
That book every woman should read. The atrocity to push mammos annually on every woman starting at age 40 (only the USA does this) is revealed in that book. The data is out there but people listen to their doc and the doc listens to the industry as it’s quite profitable.
It happened to me when I was first pregnant and learned about appalling pseudo evidence based practices in the USA that make the worst maternity system in the first world. Moved on to cholesterol; vitamin d, low fat diet crap, meds for everything, mammography BS and now Covid shots. Medicine is now an assembly line of ‘evidence based guidelines’ and doctors aren’t allowed to operate outside of those guidelines even if they know it doesn’t benefit the patient. The system is broken and was before Covid. Destroying independent doctors and streamlining everyone into group practices owned by chains creates fast food medicine with one size fits all don’t ask questions leaving Americans and the world sicker. Many doctors mean well. Many are also brainwashed or just don’t know any better. Many try to help and are shut down.
I went to a new doctor about an ear infection. He said, without asking a single question or taking any kind of history, or even asking why I was there “You eat too much red meat”.
Fortunately it turned out that they had made a mistake and didn’t, after all, accept my insurance. I was very happy to leave without wasting my time on his “diagnosis”.
I went to a doctor who was examining me as a precondition of employment somewhere. He did an EKG and said “You have a right bundle branch block. You should take statins.” I thanked him politely but declined. Every EKG since, I ask “See any evidence of a right bundle branch block?” It’s always “no”.
I have a list of stories but suffice it to say I do my best to avoid doctors.
Your ears eat too much red meat?
Although to be fair, some years ago I had a very bad hand injury and was half-resigned to never regaining full use of it. The surgeon I was fortunate enough to be referred to was without question a genius. My hand, despite being full of hardware, is pretty much 100%.
Yeah, they're largely good with the mechanical stuff, but not the physiological stuff. Although you do have to be aware that a surgeon almost always wants to cut as a solution. (When all you have is a hammer...)
Yes. I had a back problem. The doctor I went to was sure surgery was the solution before really even examining me. Glad I got a second opinion.
For the hand, there was no other alternative. Too many bone fractures.
Some time ago, probably in the 1980's, a very good doctor told me to take a decongestant for ear aches. That worked well for me for a long time. Ears, sinus's and eustachian tubes are all very connected. I now use a netti pot regularly, reduces ear problems too.
Second the neti pot suggestion. Been using one for years, chronic stuffy sinuses. In early 2020 I had a cold (not likely Covid, all symptoms pointed to cold). I had a lingering cough two weeks later. Saw my primary a few times. Led to an x-ray and an "uh oh", later a MRI. At first they thought a heart issue -- later proved wrong but now I'm on a statin and aspirin (I have borderline cholesterol -- sounds valid). Also a lung issue: apparently early Copd; still ok a year later. Anyway I got put on Flo-Nase and it's helped my sinuses. Although I'm on a crappy health plan, I give my current docs points for decent service and (so far) not pushing any experimental drugs on me. I'm now in my 60s so shit is starting to fall apart.😏 I do take care of myself, am (more) suspicious of the medical profession, but they are still a resource. It's just probably a good idea to be a intelligent customer these days.
You might want to study up on statins and cholesterol.
With regards to neti pots: always use sterile water (boil it if in doubt) and follow directions, i.e., add salt. Tap water can contain some kind of germ that can go to your brain and kill you. Rare events, but it's easy to boil water so do it!. Sorry, I'm typing fast so not stating this properly but: boil that water!
One other comment: with regard to neti pots, I started using it because I've had a lifetime of sinus troubles including allergies. In around 2010 I read an article in the NYT where an Ear, Nose, Throat specialist said 'if everyone with sinus troubles used a netti pot, most people would have no more problems'. That dr. was 100% correct! It's great!
This was written in 2018: 'The corruption of evidence based medicine - killing for profit'. I reviewed the article with my GP and he agreed. Find it here:
https://drjasonfung.medium.com/the-corruption-of-evidence-based-medicine-killing-for-profit-41f2812b8704
What's going on now is not new, just amped up a lot.
Wow sickening to read.
Not sickening...educational. Always remember that.
Yes! "Dr. House" was rare in realworld medicine before those 'evidence based guidelines' and now decent diagnosticians just can't be found. There are knowledge silos. No one operates outside of their silo. It's really a horrible situation out there.
Many diseases involve more than one discipline and, I swear to gods, it seems like the plan is to just let those afflicted die. Or you have to diagnose yourself, but doctors get real pissy when you do that. Especially when you're right.
Worst thing I ever saw is today, false positives in prenatal genetic testing leads to ABORTING HEALTHY BABIES in huge numbers. Sickening.😢 https://thepostmillennial.com/false-positives-rare-disorders-prenatal
I was pregnant with my first son in 1995, living in Colorado. A 16-week test informed me that it was very likely I would have a down syndrome child. I remember vividly being lectured by unsympathetic genetic experts that the test was reliable, but I pressed for an amnio fluid test and luckily insurance covered it. That test determined that my baby was normal. Either way I was going to keep my child and not murder him. Today he is a loving, handsome, world traveled genius getting a Doctorate in Music. God is good all of the time. It is people that are lacking in love. Please share this story with any one you may know facing this situation. I had three more children after his birth, all wonderful blessings, and I refused to get those pesky 16-week blood tests.
"Fast food medicine." Perfect!!
When Kaiser merges with Monsanto, it will be the end of civilization.
Maybe they already have?
It will really streamline the whole process. One stop killing shop.
Spot on. Had a friend who was feeling quite ill from Covid. Doc told her there was no treatment. I texted her to go get monoclonal Abs. Better nearly overnight. WTAF. When you listen to McCullough Kennedy et al talk about how treatments have been suppressed, you must realize that most Drs have been complicit. The ones who haven't been have been met with threats, deplatforming and delicensing.
They glibly blame their licensing boards as though the members have no control over the boards.
My 2 friends had same result. They were both better in 24 hours, and one started covid 1 day ahead of the other but both improved at the same 24 hour mark.
Doctor tried to put me (was 25 at the time) on statins some years ago. I asked what was wrong with me. He said nothing but in 10-20 years something could be. No thanks doc.
"venal chickenshittery"
Should we start a hashtag? Love this!
Did you see the mayor of the town in Brazil that got dragged out into the street and beaten up because he instituted vax passports?
How do we move to Brazil?
How do we move Brazil here?
No, didn’t see that. Link, please?
There is but one allowed narrative among big Pharma, big government, big medicine, and the MSM, "Safe and Effective".
Cruel, but fair
Doctors have been the worst villains in this panto. Well actually maybe not the worst. Big pharma still holds that part.
Worse than our elected officials and bureaucrats? What a dreadful race-to-the-bottom contest this is!
You know its hard to question and stand up to authority when that authority is paying for repeated jaunts to the Cayman Islands.
Even if 30-40% doctors are corrupt - and I hold doctors in no higher esteem than normal human beings..they crowd out the good guys
Bingo. Docs will whore themselves out for pay. And now that government has taken over healthcare, they'll dance to Washington's tune.
Of course, this means that they've taken what little cred they had and burned it to the ground.
But those lobsters in Cancun are so yummy...
And of course the high cost of entry, often done with loans, is a huge incentive to go along and get along. They've got 'em by the short hairs.
Calling the COVID Dumpster Fire™ a shit show is an insult to shows and shit.
So you're happy to insult dumpsters and fire? They're both very useful in their place.
Point taken!
I wonder how likely it is that 3 experimental vaccines all have roughly the same efficacy. Hmmmmmmmmm.
They all do after about 6 months less than 0 relative efficacy.
Touché!
Yes, this is the standard line. It doesn't matter, all that matter is you take one.
If it makes you feel any better, gato, I have it on good authority that they're collecting excellent data on which vaccines are most profitable and who is resisting them.
Many months ago, when he was still on Twitter, Alex Berenson noted the J&J vaccine was slowly and subtly being marginalized. He expected the same to happen to Moderna at some point. I sometimes think Alex sticks his neck out a bit, but his predictions seem to pan out over the long haul.
Just another way of saying your comment, perhaps meant humorously, might just be right. Which means, of course, Pfizer is the most efficacious vaccine out there. At making money, of course. Also at getting talked about.
They did the same with AstraZeneca in Europe months ago. Mainstream media would report daily about issues with clotting and problems with manufacturing and impurity of the doses. They were framing AZ as the "bad vaccine" and Pfizer/Moderna as the good ones, until people were running to get the mRNA-crap. Yet, to this day no mainstream outlet has reported about issues with the latter. Unsurprisingly, considering Pfizer's long history of marketing their poisons (see: Lipitor).
And that's because Pfizer has the most mafioso controlling governments.
That opens an interesting line of thought. What happens to Pfizer's vaccines if Paxlovid actually works, and how is it that Pfizer developed the drug? My understanding is that there can be no vaccine if there is a treatment. Did Pfizer know that vaccine didn't work for very long therefore they immediately developed a treatment?
As per the CFR, the justification for the EUA on the "vaccines" was due to the lack of a viable existing treatment. That conclusion was facilitated by the vilification of IVM, despite it being an excellent candidate, as per several early studies, and its 40-year history in humans. (There is a longer story here, but I am keeping this short.) Pfizer developed a treatment, Paxlovid, that has essentially the same MoA as IVM, and will likely market it at a startlingly higher price, and clean up again. So, in answer to "what happens to..." the answer is Pfizer is positioned to make another crap-ton of money on the back-end as well, regardless of what happens to their mRNA treatments after Paxlovid is in routine use.
In my academic medical center we use EPIC for our EMR, which is one of the most widely used software systems in the US. If I wanted to analyze a specific variable (i.e. vaccination status), I need to first identify the data entry field that "houses" this data point. This is not as straightforward as it may seem because the field label may differ depending on where the information is gathered for data entry.
For example, at my institution there is a data field for vaccination status labeled "COVID-19 Vaccine". The entries for this field include: "unknown", "vaccinated", "overdue for booster dose", and "overdue for dose 2"(see images below). This field is auto-populated from the immunization record. However, immunizations require manual entry into the immunization record. Therefore, the data field for COVID-19 vaccination status is dependent upon manual entry of the date/type of immunization into the immunization record.
Most of my vaccinated patients do not have an updated COVID-19 vaccination status because nobody has manually entered the immunization date/type into the immunization record. Instead, vaccination status is typically embedded within provider notes which are not extractable data fields for data analysis or for "feeding" data into other systems. I recently admitted several critically ill patients from outside hospitals for whom I could not ascertain vaccination status. I had to search through pages of notes and external records to find this information. In 2 of 3 records I found a note indicating the patients were vaccinated with the month but not date of vaccination. I cannot enter vaccination status into the immunization record without the specific date. Therefore, all 3 patients are listed as "unknown" vaccination status, which in our system is the same designation as "unvaccinated". This is problematic for both reporting vaccination status but also for tracking adverse events which could be associated with vaccination. Of the 3 patients mentioned above, all were being treated for thromboses of unknown origin.
To me, this suggests that any reporting on the number of vaccinated versus unvaccinated hospitalized patients is fraught with error on numerous levels. What I find concerning is that nobody seems motivated to improve the ability to extract this variable. It would be an easy build in EPIC to auto-populate date of immunization into the patient's immunization record. It is common for many other data fields (medications, infectious diseases such as MRSA, VRE) to auto-populate. For example, in the patient's "medication list" I can see every medication a patient has filled at a pharmacy along with the corresponding date of initiation of therapy and prescriber.
If this is common at the medical center where I work, is it not possible that this is also common at other major academic medical centers?
On the plus side, it errs on the side of calling hospitalized people unvaccinated, so everyone can be sure of what filthy bed-taking monsters we are.
In the 1990s, I worked for a research foundation affiliated with a large medical school in the Midwest. We developed the very early technology that evolved into multi-site EHRs, and were active in establishing overall standards for the electronic transmission of health data, such as HL7. I actually wrote some of the code that is still used to transmit reports to VAERS. So I was around to see, and become alarmed at, the evolution of the commercial side of EHRs after Obamacare more or less crammed them down everyone's throats with their
"meaningful use" standard. Just like every other time the government has mandated the use of specific technologies, a wave of federal contracting companies with no expertise or history in the field rose up to suck up all the new money floating around. These companies have a terrible track record of designing impossibly frustrating user interfaces and failing to maintain, upgrade, or adequately document their products. Yet these are the systems that are being relied on the produce the data that we are supposedly relying on to monitor and assess health care metrics. It's a complete joke.
I now work on a contract that manages the entire data warehouse for Medicare and Medicaid on behalf of CMS. It's not any better.
i have heard a number of stories about this in the US, but it seems to not be the case in most other health systems.
i think this is why the US "unvaxxed hospitalized" numbers fail to align with those of other countries.
I think it would be possible to get a cleaner cut of the US data if you confined it to aged 65+ and looked at Medicare billing. Providers should have sent a bill to Medicare even if they were not charging to patient; if coded properly as Part D data it should have service date and manufacturer. Medicare data for inpatient admissions is also quite clean, and we have good info on comorbidities in that population.
Thanks for explaining how the EPIC system works - or doesn't work, if data is not entered. Must be frustrating for you....
Unfortunately, this "need for data" is translating into a massively intrusive federal bill now in the Senate that authorizes and funds on the order of $billions a national database of individual vaccine status.
Based upon the behavior of our government in recent years, particularly through the covid thing, I do not trust any such additional power and money placed in the hands of agenda-driven unaccountable bureaucrats. They already have the power and the money.
As you say, it would be easy to add a field in EPIC to auto-populate date of immunization into the patient's immunization record, especially if the jab is listed as a medication. Can your institution make a local modification to your EPIC fields? If so, they should do it and you can write a paper suggesting it to other hospital systems. Bypass that whole grifter legislation and get it done locally.
It sounds Orwellian and it is -- to a degree. But there is some "hope" for freedom, or perhaps reason to despair, from the standpoint of those who design, would legitimately use or maintain such a database. As folks above have described, any big database or collection effort will always have a certain number of bugs. Sometimes it becomes an enormous cock-up. None of this is to say that data and databases aren't incredibly useful (for good, bad, or indifferent, as with any tool). Modern society couldn't function without them. But anyone who's ever worked in corporate or -- especially! -- government with big data would laugh until he "soiled himself" if it were ever suggested that these behemoth projects would improve matters, do away with errors, or even ease the data gathering, verifying and storage missions of various agencies.
His account shows the formidable obstacles any rigorous study would have. For example, consider the daunting task to actually establish two groups, lets call them never-vaxxed and vaxxed. Let's say some cherrry picking were allowed for the study. One of the criteria would be to (say) have in the vaxxed group subjects who took the Phizer or Moderna jabs optionally with a booster, and that precise date was required for each dose. This alone would likely require a lot of data-gathering and verification.
Now consider what at first sounds easy: the unvaxxed. Probably a first sorting mechanism would be a subject's self-reporting. But how would one audit or verify never having taken a jab? In a region with centralized records, a records check could be a partial test. But a more exacting test might require a blood test for absence of specific antibodies the jab(s) would generate. That also might be a metric for such a project: you'd want to know about pre-existing immunity due to infections.
There are probably many other issues I'm overlooking. I have no familiarity with such testing. My thought experiment here is merely to point out how difficult it is to find and verify something as seemingly simple as whether a patient has been vaccinated!
If EMH's figure (below) is representative, it means that 2/3 of the claimed "unvaccinated" patients, you know, people like us, who are overwhelming hospitals, camping out in the hallways and taking up intensive care beds, are actually vaccinated.
The ex-wife got her booster. She was expecting Pfizer but got moderna. What a mess in tracking adverse reactions or effectiveness if they're mix n matching. Wonder what% of all these shots are accurate?
Also, interesting article on EPIC's webpage. Maybe they have an agenda?
https://www.epicresearch.org/articles/getting-covid-19-twice-reinfections-44-more-likely-among-the-unvaccinated
EPIC is a tech company, and they are nearly all hopelessly woke. This is just corporate posturing. You see it all over.
Absolutely. I'm a 60-something old-timer in this field; the upper management of the company I work for is all in their 30s and early 40s and this is just "water is wet" stuff with that crowd. It's like an autonomic reflex. That and the embarrassing color/font choices for the corporate website.
Even if true (doubtful!), the article admits 275 need to be vaxxed to avoid ONE reinfection over twelve months.
I wonder how much EPIC is being funded by Big Pharma? Is this true of other software systems?
I do not want to infer intent. I do want to point out that vaccination status is not a straightforward data field- or at least as easy to run big data searches/analyses as other routinely used variables. For instance, if I wanted to investigate the incidence of ICU admission among morbidly obese patients with diabetes, then I could search for all patients with BMI >40 with a diagnosis of diabetes or with a prescription for specific diabetic medications. ICD-10 and CPT codes are extractable variables within specific data fields. Medications prescribed/filled are an alternative means of identifying patients with a diagnosis. Compare this to COVID vaccination status for which there is no current universal corresponding code to identify an individual as meeting inclusion criteria. Unless the person administering the vaccine enters the vaccination administration into the individual’s immunization record, the vaccination status of the individual will not update. It is not routine practice for providers to access a patient’s medical record to update their immunization record when administering a vaccine. This is routine for pediatric patients, but not for adults. This is how this works in all of the EMR systems used by all surrounding hospitals in the area I live. This includes 2 major academic medical centers and multiple large community heath systems. I know this for certain because I see patients from all over the state. I ran a report last week just to assess what percentage of my patients are vaccinated- less than 30% met inclusion criteria yet >80% are actually fully vaccinated.
What a mess. Unbelievable
"so why is no one studying this?"
First rule of toxic policy is never ask a question when the answer may show what you're hiding.
There's a clip of Julian Assange saying that the point of the War on Terror was simply to launder taxpayer money to the MIC. The parallels to our fight against covid are stunning. We again are engaged in a quixotic, unwinnable war against a stubborn, intractable enemy. Once again, corporations are gorging themselves on the public's dime, and many innocents are losing their lives and livelihoods.
It’s been known for decades that the MIC plays both sides and both ends of a war. They make a fortune selling arms to destroy a place then make a fortune “rebuilding” it. Ask Dick Cheney.
That the Medical Industrial Complex might be any different strains credulity.
And it’s hopelessly naïve to believe that there’s no Education Industrial Complex. Or “science” industrial complex. Or “intelligence” industrial complex. Or “justice”.
It’s not what we’ve been told it is, and if there’s a bright side to this whole “Covid” catastrophe, it will be the beginning of the awakening of the public that we’ve been had. For the better part of a century.
So true! I have never known as much in my entire life as I have learned this past year. They should have censored all media before taking such a leap. I'm pretty sure that will be number one on the agenda "next time."
I've always been aware that billions of our tax dollars have been funneled into covid but I never quite saw it as the war-money-laundering scheme that it must be. I do now!
They intentionally destroyed this data by recommending people get any vaccine and any booster. Just like they destroyed the control groups in the clinical trials by vaxxing everyone after six months (funny that six months happens to be the time frame when the vax loses efficacy - sheer coincidence, I'm sure). Israel is the only pure case study for Pfizer - and it isn't good.
They also aren’t in the least bit interested in discovering anything at all about natural immunity after infection.
Data useful for *what*?
If your goal is transparently serving public health, this makes no sense.
But if your goal is to obfuscate and obstruct, in a desperate attempt to cover tracks in the collapse, it makes *perfect* sense.
none of them are approved, just under emergency use authorization... and they keep lying about everything ... the FDA / Pfizer want to keep the data quiet for 75 years.
Amazing isn't it? Legal immunity, experimental, don't have to produce data (among other things). I wouldn't even eat an apple under those "standards". It's amazing that people are still begging to have something with those "standards" literally shot right into their body. Good Grief!
But the snake assures we will not die and that our eyes will be opened, knowing good and evil. 😈
Silly cat, all vaxxes are 100% effective!
-------------
Dr Anthony Fauci has sought to dispel lingering concerns about any of the Covid vaccines that are being rolled out across the country, urging Americans that all three types of approved jab are “highly efficacious”.
While many Americans have harped on the relatively lower nominal efficacy rate of the newly approved Johnson & Johnson vaccine – 66 per cent globally, compared to 94 per cent for the Moderna vaccine and 93 per cent for the Pfizer vaccine – doctors and scientists, including Dr Fauci, have said all three vaccines are extraordinarily effective at preventing serious illness and death.
The numbers Americans should be emphasising are that all three vaccines have proven 100 per cent effective at preventing deaths. The risk of hospitalisation also plummets to virtually zero for people who receive the vaccine.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/vaccine-covid-fauci-deaths-b1808878.html
Has anyone kept a chronicle of the ever-evolving claims that public health organs give? I'll give the mass media a pass; they are clearly incapable of reporting simple truths. But I'd expect at least the occasional science backed statement from a government or even quasi-government agency. My memory is fallible, but relevant to the "vaccines," I seem to recall that they'd give high protection against infection and the vaxxed could dispense with the mask, well no we were wrong, better use the masks after all. After less than a year was already the call for boosters. Israel is rolling out #4. Earlier in the year it was dubbed ok to mix and match manufacturers, based upon what research I'm not sure. Seems to me that the promises have evolved as the efficacy -- or lack thereof -- became too obvious to ignore. From one and done (or two, with a few of them) we now may need boosters every few months? Nobody knows? And from great protection, well they protect against serious illness and death. What'll they promise us next? "Reduces the severity of death"? If the above text is accurate from the cited news source, they are reporting not only likely false claims, but ones that are from the original vaxx studies that are at best ingenuous (relative risk reduction) and at worst outright lies.
Meanwhile, Omicron is chewing through highly- and recently- vaxxed and even boosted populations (e.g. universities) like a herd of guinea pigs in a lettuce patch; even the mass media can't completely ignore this. And the response! Urge everyone to get the vaxx, or get the booster if it's been more than few months since "fully vaccinated." This is supposed to inspire confidence in their products?
Major point: if these products had been researched with anything approaching traditional rigor, a lot of these questions would have been answered authoritatively before the mass roll-out beginning in December 2020.
Their behavior back then, and up to the present time, would almost make a skeptic think they had something to hide and were acting in bad faith. But perhaps I'm just a right-wing kook, who would surely be banned from any reputable social media if I broached such doubts.
I have been following this data analyst,Craig-Paardekooper. He researched thr VARES db along with others. He analyzes toxicity by Manufacturer and lot number.
Explanation
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7ceblBHfSXJD/?list=notifications&randomize=false
App
http://www.howbad.info/
Latest Info on toxic batches by Manufacturer
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WMUvLcmP1Wtk/?list=notifications&randomize=false
This is the correct answer. The PH bureaucrats already collected all of the data: 100% effective. No more data is needed.
A number of the nationalized health systems do appear to be tracking some of the data. though. I'm sure I've seen data from the NHS, for example, as they were trying to figure out of marketing for the AstraZeneca vaccine.
But none of it matters. All of the vaccines are functionally the same and the researchers know this. If one fails, they all fail. If one is toxic, they are all toxic. They all deliver RNA to cells telling the cells to produce the same spike protein. The only difference is that the big money is behind the mRNA technology as a growing revenue stream for big pharma.
Their shamelessness knows no bounds.
Somebody (Germany?) is declaring J&J recipients unvaxxed, and these people need to go get new shots from another manufacturer. 🤔
Pfizer's marketing team just earned their year end bonus.
Wow! J&J must not be killing as many ppl as the want.
Holy crap do you have a link for that?
It may be this change in Austria that YYR is remembering. https://www.thelocal.at/20211229/austria-johnson-and-johnson-vaccine-no-longer-valid-for-covid-pass/
The Austrian government has for some time recommended people who received the J&J vaccine – along with those who were vaccinated with Astra Zeneca – to get an mRNA vaccine (either Moderna or Pfizer/Biontech) as a booster.
----------
Cause what's the worst that could happen, ya know?
Plenty of examples of such questions all throughout the pandemic. The classic is hospitalisations/deaths and “with” vs “of”. Gee, if I was in charge of public health, and controlled statistic-gathering policy, I would certainly want to know this information as a priority so I could be more effective. But that’s just me.
You only have an excuse for not doing these things for the first few weeks. After that it’s deliberate choice.
J Trudeau was asked early on "which vaccine should I take?" His answer was "the best one is the first one that you're offered." It couldn't have been a more political answer.
All of the "vaccines" co-opt the cells to produce the spike or contain the spike.
The spike is the disease.
And the lipid nano particles.
Kitty… sometimes I get the impression you already know the answers to your questions.
Me-ow
1. They aren't vaccines
2. They aren't approved
"given all the other data they are collecting like an OCD ant farm, why are they not collecting the data that would actually be useful?"
As my libertarian friends like to put it, "FYTW." (Eff you, that's why)