|
That GP needs to lose their license to practice, if so required.
He/She apparently doesn't understand the virus has much more serious side effects, like blood clots, lung damage, and, oh, I don't know, death.
Makes you wonder what else he/she don't accept that everyone else in the profession does.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like the a-hole pharmacist who early in the vaccination program deliberately left an entire batch outside of refrigeration overnight, thereby ruining it. Fortunately a technician came into work early the next day and discovered it before the vaccine could be used. He claimed afterward that he believed the vaccine was unsafe.
While he ruined a batch of the vaccine, he also ruined his life. His pharmacist's license was at first suspended and then after a review, revoked for life. The last I heard the state government and the Feds were fighting over who got to charge him criminally first.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, let's just cancel everyone who disagrees with the prevailing wisdom.
|
|
|
|
|
Medicinal treatments falls in the realm of managing risk. Some treatments are better than others, depending on the patient. Side effects of treatments are weighed against the benefits of those treatments.
Vaccines are no different. But, grossly mismanaging risk, such as thinking the possible side effects of COVID-19, like death or "long haulers" issues, are less than the risks of the vaccine is just insane, as both are very well documented and we continue to build more of that documentation as time goes on.
Ignoring, or mistrust, of that documentation shows a glaring misunderstanding of the basics of both disease, vaccines, and the medical community as a whole, putting people at even more risk. At that point, you are no longer part of the solution, but an active contributor to the problem.
So yeah, if you're going to completely ignore all the data we have to date on this, you don't deserve to keep your license.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure it's easy to find a doctor who'll give you a vaccine if this one won't.
COVID-19 has primarily been a risk to the elderly and those with serious health issues. Now vaccines with new technologies have been rushed to market. Maybe this doctor decided that, at this point, it's not worth it for many people. We don't know the details, so it's unfortunate that you're ready to condemn someone who has evidently practiced medicine to this point under whatever requirements are in place.
I don't even know what to make of this whole situation. It often approaches religious fervor, and opinions of professionals who disagree with the efficacy of various mandates, including lockdowns, social distancing, and masks, have been routinely suppressed and censored.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: COVID-19 has primarily been a risk to the elderly and those with serious health issues
Not any more.
Greg Utas wrote: Now vaccines with new technologies have been rushed to market.
Wrong. mRNA vaccine technology has been in the works for almost 20 years now. "Rushed" is a right-wing bullshit talking point born of ignorance and fear of what they consider "unknown".
Greg Utas wrote: Maybe this doctor decided that, at this point, it's not worth it for many people.
Then said doctor needs to write up his research and present his evidence of updated risk factors to a major accepted medical publication for review before making that decision for "many people".
Greg Utas wrote: We don't know the details, so it's unfortunate that you're ready to condemn someone who has evidently practiced medicine to this point under whatever requirements are in place.
You are correct. We don't know all the details of that GP's position. That's why writing it up for peer review is so damn important.
Greg Utas wrote: I don't even know what to make of this whole situation. It often approaches religious fervor, and opinions of professionals who disagree
The opinions of merit in this case of those of epidemiologists and virologists. GP's don't have the experience or the research behind their disconnected opinions that the people who specialize in these fields do. If a GP has doubts about the virus or vaccines, these are the people they go consult with for advice, complete with their documentation to back up what they say.
Greg Utas wrote: opinions of professionals who disagree with the efficacy of various mandates, including lockdowns, social distancing, and masks, have been routinely suppressed and censored.
It's the "top doctor" in your government who aggregates all of the papers and research on the subject and is the one with the job of presenting that consensus and recommendations for mitigation on a national level.
Doctors and nurses on social media are NOT a valid source of medical advice. At this point, a single GP's opinion does NOT override the opinion of your "top doc" in the government. Think about it. Who has more data and research behind their statements? Hint: It ain't your GP.
Why do I have to explain this?
|
|
|
|
|
The "top doctor" is a bureaucrat beholden to politics, and there's a lot of that when it comes to this, far more than "right-wing bullshit". I'm not talking about anecdotal stuff from nurses or GPs being suppressed, but the opinions of the types of professionals you mention. There's an unwillingness to debate or answer criticism, not to mention intolerance--to put it mildly--for those who question what others deem "settled science". I'm aware that mRNA vaccines have been in the works for many years, and even got a Nobel Prize I believe. But this is the first deployment, and FDA approval was for emergency use. It has yet to receive normal approval. That's just more bureaucracy to me, but it might have import for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: The "top doctor" is a bureaucrat beholden to politics
No, he's not. He was put into that political position by an idiot. That position was never politicized until Cheeto-Tweetalini decided to publicly contradict him, thinking he knows better than everyone else.
Greg Utas wrote: when it comes to this, far more than "right-wing bullshit"
No, it's entirely right-wing bullshit. The right ALWAYS wraps everything they say, or policy they come up with, with fear. Hell, you're doing it right now. "I fear (or have doubts about) the vaccine because it's new and doesn't have full FDA approval."
Normal approval still has to go through human trials, like it did last year, and all the data that's generated has to be submitted for "full approval", which takes another year. So, with the virus still running around, still killing people, AND STILL GENERATING MUTATIONS, do you really want to wait another year?
|
|
|
|
|
Given your political diatribe, I'm signing off. We're sailing near the edge as it is. Just so you know, I have no use for either left-wing or right-wing bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: I have no use for either left-wing or right-wing bullshit.
Neither do I.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: , and FDA approval was for emergency use. It has yet to receive normal approval.
The only difference between the requirements for emergency and permanent approval is that the latter requires several years of followup so we know how long the shot will provide protection for.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Our top doctor became a multi millionaire in the "service" of his country.
Worked for decades on an AIDS vaccine, which has not yet arrived, but will soon. He just needs more time and money.
His current occuptation is politician where he travels with The Great Reset crowd. A firm believer that government and more government is the solution, with edicts enforced with the full power of the burocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12924312 wrote: Worked for decades on an AIDS vaccine, which has not yet arrived, but will soon
So, immunology expert, tell me how easy it is to come up with a vaccine that attacks the very mechanism that a vaccine needs to work to defeat HIV.
He's not the only one that is working on this. There's tens of thousands of people working that problem, but yeah, put it all on just him.
"As a physician with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has served the American public health sector in various capacities for more than 50 years, and has acted as an advisor to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan.[1] He became director of the NIAID in 1984 and has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immunodeficiency diseases, both as a research scientist and as the head of the NIAID.[2] From 1983 to 2002, Fauci was one of the world's most frequently-cited scientists across all scientific journals.[2] In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Fauci the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, for his work on the AIDS relief program PEPFAR.[3]"
Name the only president in the last 50 years to sh*t on Fauci and his reputation.
As for net worth, who gives a sh*t? You think his only source of income is a government job? You mean you don't have multiple sources of income? I do.
How much money are you going to be sitting on at 80 years old?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why it needs explaining either, Dave. Thanks for making the points. I'm a "right-winger" but not a zealot, BTW.
It is an irony to me that the gov't is asking the citizens to do something to help the common good and yet many who scream loudly that they are "patriots" are the ones refusing to heed the call to action and hide behind poor logic and conspiracy. What are they really afraid of, needles?
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. In my experience, you are one of the rare ones on the right.
|
|
|
|
|
He is a government worker turned celebrity, protecting the interests of big Pharma.
HCQ treatment was very effective in the third world countries where it was widely used. Many scientific papers were available and the results were amazing.
It didn't see the light of day in the US, because who would want a cheap and effective remedy that was available right then and there? All of them were working to suppress news about HCQ, and the usefull idiots chanted right along.
Lot of people died because of it.
That is on Fauci, and his fellow travelers.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12924312 wrote: HCQ treatment was very effective in the third world countries where it was widely used. Many scientific papers were available and the results were amazing.
That is not true at all. SOME studies showed SOME effectiveness, not could not be reliably duplicated. The only point where HCQ was shown to have an impact was in outpatient settings with early detection of COVID.
Member 12924312 wrote: Lot of people died because of it.
And a lot of people died using it. If you were bad enough to be in the hospital with COVID, it did little to nothing at all.
On top of that, treating everyone for COVID with HCQ would have exhausted the world supply of it, putting far more patients WITHOUT COVID in much greater danger, like people with lupus, RA, malaria, and more. There are plenty of patients like these that have to take it every day or suffer things like permanent organ damage.
There's far more to it than your conspiracy theory bullshit will allow for. I suggest you drop that crap, because it makes you look like a whining child who cannot see the world beyond your conspiracies.
|
|
|
|
|
It was a political effort in the US to suppress the news surrounding HCQ treatment protocol. The effectiveness of early stage treatment was pretty good.
The usefull idiots were primed to chant "but it is not tested on Covid", and they did. A study was done here in the US strangely mostly on patients who were late stage. The study got a lot of news in the media, but the context of what patients had been treated was not headlined. The general public knew nothing more.
Some doctors in the US had treated over 600 patients with none dying. They tried to get the news out, and were largely ignored, except for efforts to pressure their employers to fire them.
Here is the thing, there was nothing in the hands of doctors except ventillators (well so they said at least). But there was a 40 year history of HCQ use all over the world. The stuff is dirt cheap. Ivermectin another component in the treatment protocol also dirt cheap, it would have been easy to divert production for human applications as it is used as a dewormer in animals (no subscription).
And the beauty of it is, the everyone can make it, and it was mostly produced in 3rd world countries. It would have been easy to ramp up production in weeks, maybe months. But that didn't happen.
It was made unavailable by all means necessary. It it still isn't today, not in the US at least.
People died because of politics.
|
|
|
|
|
The scientific community disagrees with you.
The published papers on the topic disagree with you.
The metadata analysis' of the papers disagrees with you.
The GLOBAL scientific community has nothing to do with U.S. politics, nor is it subjugated by U.S. politics, or anyone's politics for that matter.
Where your argument fails is if it's produced in 3rd world countries so easily, why not just ignore politics and start producing the stuff en masse and start distributing it to everyone who wants it?
Because the effectiveness is not there.
Go ahead and start producing it yourself. Lay out all that money to build up your production and inventory. When the world actually starts using your version and then fails to re-order because the results just are not there, what are you going to do with your equipment and all that inventory?
Oh, and Trump said he was taking HCQ, STILL GOT COVID, and was still hospitalized and treated for it, and then got vaccinated. How did he get COVID if HCQ was so effective? How did it spread into the Republican community so easily if they were all taking HCQ like they believed Trump did?
Effective? No.
|
|
|
|
|
To play the devils advocate - maybe they're not kitted out to handle the more potentially lethal side effects. If they have one of the severe but treatable reactions and someone dies who could have been saved with appropriate medical treatment, well I could understand someone wanting to avoid putting themselves in that situation.
Actually last time I cut myself while gardening I went to a GP to get a Tetanus shot, and the first GP I stopped in at didn't even do Tetanus vaccines because they weren't properly equipped to handle severe allergic reactions.
|
|
|
|
|
The handling requirements for some of the new vaccines could be contributory.
I received my shots at a large drug store chain. From the online signup, scheduling logistics, etc. I could see where a practice with a single or just a few physicians might not have the capacity to deliver the new vaccines in a timely fashion. Even good olde flu vaccines have just a few weeks of shelf life.
|
|
|
|
|
Wishing you both the best. We are still in hiding.
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I not trying to get into the "it's a bad cold" / "it's a killer" or the "have the jab" / "the jab tracks you" debate, just thought I'd let you know the view from a year after catching it.
Thanks for the update.
You were a few months ahead of my mom; so no debate here. Just happy that you still posting 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad to hear the both of you are recovering Griff. I knew it had become pretty awful for the two of you (I know, understatement of the decade). Take care.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I hope it will only get better and better... Longer hair for you and easy breathe for her...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
