Free Republic

As a chemo patient with TEC, this is very welcome news!!! One thing to consider: in high enough doses, vitamin D can be toxic as it’s fat-soluble and excess doses are not excreted by the kidneys. This is definitely something to check with your doctor about and have a vitamin D level drawn before starting and after a few weeks of high doses. I will definitely be emailing my medical team asking about this...TEC and HFS are miserable. :(. Thanks for the info!

Respectfully disagree. In most cases, the rider is guiding the horse, but if the horse spooks at something, horses have no concept of “traffic isn’t safe” or “that’s a major roadway.” (Lifelong rider here). They are prey animals and will flee headlong without regard for anything except escaping whatever frightens them.

(WARNING: Graphic and very disturbing video of a horse hit by a car after the rider fell off) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkd3yMCuY3Y&t=205s

By definition, a phase II trial is a small number of people.

Pre-clinical is animal studies/lab studies. Phase I is determining how large a dose is SAFE in humans (not effective, just SAFE). Phase II is determining if it is EFFECTIVE at levels below the phase 1 safety margins.

There doesn’t need to be “another trial.” This (or any other dug with similar profiles) just continues on through the next phase of testing. If it is shown to be effective in Phase II trials, it moves to Phase III. Phase III is expanding to a much larger group. They don’t just look at a few monkeys or petri dishes and then release this or any other drug on a huge number of people.

There is value and relevance in results of EVERY phase of testing, including failure levels. This drug shows a lot of promise on a small, well-controlled group of people.

As a healthcare professional x nearly 30 years who is vaccinated, I just wanted to point out that Dr. Gundry's article has some credibility issues.

First, it wasn't peer-reviewed before publication. Peer review looks at the whole study (by a "jury" of your peers, or in this case, other research scientists) and its methods of data validation and abstraction, control selection, etc and basically forms a consensus about the validity of the conclusions: does the provided justification support the conclusions, basically. As this abstract stands right now, it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion. That his data lacks comparisons with control subjects is notable: if you're going to say that the vaccine causes heart disease, you'd best have comparison data in a similar demographic of unvaccinated people.

Second, Dr. Gundry himself is a bit of a questionable character, at least in terms of viable, evidence-based, scientific research. He has claimed that lectin, a protein in almost every organism in the world in some form, contributes to inflammation. Of course, this can be resolved by buying his book and then following his "Plant Paradox" diet AND by taking the anti-lectin supplements he sells. (You hear my eyes rolling in sarcasm, right? lol) FWIW, his nutritional guidance in the Plant Paradox book/diet goes against EVERY medically accepted standard: the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the American Diabetes Association and more others than I can remember have stated publically that the Plant Paradox diet is unhealthy and unsafe.

I'm not saying the vaccine is safe or is not safe, or that there is or isn't something going on at Ft. Bragg. But if the best evidence of this is an unreviewed abstract by Dr. Gundry, I wouldn't consider that a reliable source on which to form opinions or make decisions. Jm2C

Schumer is a POS.

Where, exactly, did he get his medical degree? Oh, yeah, that’s right.....NOWHERE. How much experience does he have in medical research? Oh, yeah, that’s right....NONE.

I truly need to stop reading EVERYTHING that mentions Schumer or Pelosi, or I am going to lose my mind.

Yep, every woman and "person of color" will turn out for the election if Wookie is on the ticket.

I, being a woman, can tell you that many of us will turn out if only to vote for whatever ticket she is not on. She is no more qualified to be a high-ranking elected official than Mickey Mouse is. Not that I am, mind you, but I have always said and believed that a woman does not belong as the President or a person in an immediate successorship to the President.

Rightly or wrongly, there are large and relevant parts of the world under Shari'a law that would not deal with integrity with a woman in power, even a U.S President. The United States does not operate within a microcosm, and while we can fight for women's rights here and in other places, the fact that they still need to be fought for makes its own statement.

I'm not saying that women aren't capable of being high ranking leaders, not at all. Maybe someday. But unless one plans to do away with Shari'a law at the same time, that day isn't today.

JM2C.

Gee whiz....

First . Missouri Girl is the one feeding the hysteria. Did she REALLY say flushing the toilet may explain the spread of COVID in households? I'll believe that when I read it in something other than mainstream media. (note to self: check Amazon for the availability of an outhouse or a camping bucket.../s)

Second I'll give you that the fomite is the surface, not the virus itself. I read the NIH article you referenced (thank you for that, btw!). The point of the NIH article is that fomite transmission is possible and is occurring, contrary to what Missouri Girl said in her post #8 about it being "pretty hard for that route to be successful." If that was true, why would hospitals need to clean rooms between patients, COVID or otherwise? Healthcare workers' hands are the single biggest mode of transmission of illness in hospitals and other settings where one person is caring for more than one person.

Interestingly, the NIH article discredits Missouri Girl's statements better than I ever could. Just as an aside, there is not consensus about exact times: the CDC says nothing more specific than "hours to days depending on the surface and the cleaning agent used."

Third. I think Datura's point about Lancet was to use peer-reviewed, scientific sources. Whether Datura is familiar with Lancet or not is basically irrelevant...How many here are intimately familiar with the New England Journal of Medicine? Yet how many would doubt its value as a reliable source? The premise of considering the source that you get your information from is what matters.

Fourth COVID is not spread just by coughing. Hundreds of thousands of epidemiologists and other healthcare workers in the US (myself included) would vehemently disagree with that idea. It is spread by ANYTHING that causes a forcible expulsion of respiratory matter: sneezing, loud singing, yelling, heavy breathing (such as after vigorous exercise or during an asthma attack), medical procedures like intubation, and remains suspended in the air for indeterminate # of hours after a cough/sneeze/etc occurs. Hence negative pressure rooms in hospitals. Take a look at some of the things respiratory therapists and ICU's are doing to protect themselves (intubation hoods, etc) during these kinds of medical procedures. I don't have time right now to find the original source video, but you may find this interesting. It is from the private group COVID -19 for healthcare workers FB page (I hope the link works): https://www.facebook.com/aaron.yanez.334/videos/2685240355020686/UzpfSTEwMDAwNjg0NjcwOTM2NDpWSzoyMTEwNzc3NjY4NTA4NTA/

Fifth MG is inaccurate to say that the virus needs entry into the lungs. While it is true that the lungs are a portal of entry, it has not been established yet that lungs are the ONLY portal of entry. It is known that it has not been found in breast milk or sexual fluids, but studies on other modes of infection are underway right now. One such study is about healthcare workers who had needlestick injuries with COVID patients since COVID is found in blood. Another is about mother-to-baby transmission in utero.

Think about it...why would washing one's hands matter if entry into the lungs was the only mode of infection? My hands haven't entered my lungs recently, a statement I think many Americans can say with reasonable certainty. If merely moving my hands liberates virus that may be on my hands, then she (and you) are even more wrong about not needing a mask unless you are around people who are coughing.

Last Using whether or not someone is symptomatic or coughing as a basis for how one decides to protect oneself is risky at best. (but to each his own...) MissouriGal's comment in post #6 about masks not being necessary if they don't have a cough is, IMO, not just wrong but also irresponsible. Asymptomatic transmission has occurred as often if not more so than symptomatic transmission, as has fomite transmission.

As an Infectious Diseases healthcare professional, it's very difficult for me to read posts like MMG's and others from "internet experts". I support Datura for pointing out the fallacies in MG's posts, just as I support your comments about inaccuracies in Datura's post. I just think MMG's posts had blatantly wrong information that could put others in harm's way if they took her info to heart. Datura's post had inaccuracies that do not change the overall message in the post: that MMG's statements are inaccurate.

There is a lot of information, misinformation, and disinformation out there, and each of us must decide, based on sources we trust, what is right for us and ours. I feel like in your heart your intentions are good. I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree on this one, dearest O2.

Love,

Starfish

In response to Omegatoo's post #13

As much as I have vowed to stay OUT of threads like these, CooperTop is sitting here reading out loud, TRYING to make me crazy. So here I am.

My background: I am an Infectious Diseases RN who works at one of the largest VA hospitals in the country. I have been a nurse for nearly 29 years with extensive critical care/trauma experience in addition to Infectious Diseases/Public Health/tropical medicine background. My hospital is affiliated with a very large teaching hospital that I can guaran-damn-tee you everyone on this board has heard of.

I guess I'm really not sure what "misinformation" there was in Datura's post?

Well, I think maybe "Lancelet" is supposed to be "The Lancet", which is a widely recognized, very highly regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal on Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

”...according to a new study from National Institutes of Health, CDC, UCLA and Princeton University scientists in The New England Journal of Medicine..."

Could you cite your source....a link to the actual article where you read this? I subscribe to NEJM and couldn't find an article with combined studies like that.

...You also might want to look up the definition of fomite....

Per Merriam-Webster: Definition of fomite: an object (such as a dish or a doorknob) that may be contaminated with infectious organisms and serve in their transmission. I don't see the "misinformation" in Datura's statements regarding fomites. What do you believe the definition of fomite to be?

I will concede a minor point that "detectable" does not necessarily mean "viable." However, I hope you realize that "viable" is different from person to person. An elderly person, someone with HIV/AIDS, someone on chemotherapy, etc could potentially be made ill by a much lower level of suspended virus than someone else. So the detectable vs viable point, while technically true, is splitting hairs.

I'm not trying to be argumentative...truly!!!! I know we are all being fed fine lines of BS from all sides, depending on the "agenda-du-jour." As a healthcare professional, I just don't see anything in what Datura said that was "feeding the hysteria...". I also don't see anything in your post that was trying to help poor misguided Missouri Girl.

I'm happy to hear your thoughts, though.

LOVE, Starfish :)

For the record, if you read the actual VA report, this was not a “study”, it was an analysis of data. A retrospective analysis is not “doomed to fail by design.” In fact, retrospective studies make up more than 2/3 of all medical research. Prospective studies take years to develop. Prior to prospective trials starting, there are huge amounts of ethical questions that need to be answered and Institutional Review Boards need to approve a prospective study. That’s why new drugs don’t come to market in 2 weeks: there are multiple phases of trials that have to occur: animal studies, healthy human subjects, human subjects with certain comorbidities, etc. There is a HUGE difference between a retrospective analysis of data and a “study.” Knowing when a drug doesn’t work and what its side effects are is medically more useful information than when it does. You don’t use Tylenol to treat diabetes, right? There is tremendous value in retrospective analysis of data.

Second, if you read the actual VA report, they specifically stated it was not peer-reviewed and was not to be considered definitive, it was merely an analysis after outcomes. They indicated that analysis is ongoing, with plans to correct for co-morbidities, stage of illness when the person first sought care, stage of illness when they first started Plaquenil (the other name for hydroxychloroquine), if other medications the person was taking could interfere with or enhance the effects of Plaquenil, age of the patient, the type of mechanical ventilation they received, whether or not Azithromycin was used, even the person’s blood type, etc.

FINALLY.... Bear in mind that currently, this drug is being used under the FDA’s “compassionate use” protocol: basically, it’s a shot in the dark for patients who have no other options. It is an off-label, non-approved use for the drug. It is not a known cure, or even known to not be harmful in these patients. Plaquenil may or may not be a wonder drug in some populations, but likely not all. It is not without side effects, and it is more than possible that in some cases Plaquenil actually worsened the person’s condition. Plaquenil is known to sometimes cause changes in heart rhythm, and can (infrequently) cause Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a really horrible, permanent, incurable skin condition that is often fatal. In fact, there is a COVID+ 18-year-old patient at a major teaching hospital not far from me who is on ECMO (heart-lung bypass) and has been for 13 days. He was not the healthiest person even before his COVID, and developed heart rhythm abnormalities while on the ventilator that necessitated ECMO. There’s no way to know if Plaquenil caused or even contributed to his heart rhythm problems, but considering that it is a known side effect of Plaquenil, it can’t be ruled out.

All I’m saying to you (and to all who have slammed the VA report) is to look at the VA report for what it is....a simple analysis of data in an attempt to gain information that might prove helpful in figuring out how to best help people stricken with COVID. There are no political motives in actual patient-care medicine. (I don’t mean what the media is saying about medicine, I mean about the actual interactions between patients and healthcare providers.) There is no harm in providing data-backed information, be it good or bad...every bit of information is a step closer to figuring out what works best. What did Thomas Edison say about the light bulb? “I have not failed, I just found 10,000 ways that didn’t work.”

Glad to hear that, because there is nothing in your post that suggests it was a sarcastic commentary. I took it at face value.

I saw red, and reacted accordingly, but I am glad I was wrong and am sorry for my outburst towards you. I think you will find that many healthcare workers who are directly impacted by COVID are feeling a bit prickly. There is a lot of unknown about what it takes to be safe, and even then, it is “the best option” not at all a guarantee, no matter what extent one goes to, and I think it is a bit scary for all of us.

Again, thanks for clarification and please accept my apology.

As a healthcare professional who works in Infectious Diseases, your post is infuriating.

First of all, there are many different types of masks. The mask a surgeon wears in the OR is not to protect the surgeon from what the patient has, it’s to protect the patient from the surgeon. Some masks are designed to contain exhaled droplets, and your “modicum of intelligence and logic” should tell you that something designed to contain exhaled droplets is not going to be a good thing for the person who is wearing it if they have COVID. Just in case your modicum of logic and intelligence don’t go quite that far, basically some masks are basically the equivalent of breathing into and out of a paper bag.

Secondly, dust maks, etc, have a filtration rate designed to catch particles of dust/etc which are likely 100-1000 times bigger than a COVID -19 particle, which is about 0.125 microns. Many OTC masks are about as effective as wearing swiss cheese on your face with respect to COVID-19. Not only not helpful, but can be harmful, especially with the sense of false security you’d have.

Third, let me know when you HAVE to go into work in a HEALTHCARE CENTER or other high-risk area that is screening 100% of people who enter. I’m sure your level of modicum and intelligence have educated you to know that COVID-19 can be shedding several days before symptoms are shown, so even people who do not know they are sick can pass the virus. How many people a day do you screen or come in close contact with?

Fourth, the N95 masks have to be properly fitted to be effective at protecting the wearer from external contamination. We have a class on them, have to be cleared medically to use it, and have to be fit tested every year, or every time your weight changes by more than 20 pounds. They have specific storage and/or reuse requirements. Have you been medically cleared? Trained? Fit-tested? Have proper storage? Have any idea how long you could wear the same mask? Know proper donning and doffing procedures?

Fifth, if you were so concerned about having a protective mask, why did you not address this 6 months ago to have it on hand and be ready for such a possibility? That’s why hospitals have masks....they are READY for the higher possibility problems they may face. If you chose not to prepare yourself for various things that might come, don’t begrudge others who have prepared themselves, personally or professionally. Preppers and other survivalists don’t look quite so silly now, do they?

YOU are the one who thinks highly of yourself and shows no concern for the healthcare workers and others who are on the front lines who DO need N95’s and other high-caliber masks. YOU have the option to practice social distancing and avoiding places where there are higher risks of infection. HEALTH CARE WORKERS DO NOT. If you would like healthcare workers to continue to come to work, kindly quit your selfish whining and begrudging us the tools we need to be safe.

As a healthcare professional who works in Infectious Diseases, I found your article interesting. However, I have just scoured every inch of the World Health Organization website and found no such statement or recommendation. That’s not to say it’s not accurate, just that if the WHO is the source, someone might want to let them know.

As a healthcare professional who works in Infectious Diseases, I found your article interesting. However, I have just scoured every inch of the World Health Organization website and found no such statement or recommendation, nor did I find it on the CDC website.

Just sayin’....

I do know enough to discuss the subject without researching it.

What I researched was the validity of the sources of your article. I deemed them outdated and therefore unreliable as support for the statements your article makes.

Show me RECENT studies on this same topic (like within 5 years) from peer-reviewed scientific journals and then maybe there might be something worth discussing.

Articles that start out with “Things about (fill in the blank) they don’t want you to know....” are generally (IMO) ridiculous. WHO wouldn’t want to share information about something that could cure 3+ million people of a deadly disease? Who is “they” referenced in your article’s title?

FWIW, I understand (and somewhat agree with) your opinion of the CDC. What I DON”T Agree with is someone posting an article based on 20+ year old information saying it will cure a disease and this is the magic secret that the mysterious “they” won’t share, and it will save the world from killer diseases. Please don’t put out false hope to the 3+ million people in the US and the 180+ million people worldwide suffering from Hepatitis C. It’s not helpful nor accurate information from a medical perspective, that’s all.

You commented, “Do your own research.” So I did.

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but the NEWEST reference cited in the article you linked to was 1999.

Let’s see.....in 1999, floppy disks were still in use.....Facebook barely existed...YouTube was still 5 years away from being launched.....and the Internet blowing up for Y2K was the major news story.

As the Advanced Liver Disease & Hepatitis C Coordinator for a major federal facility that serves over 100,000 people, I am here to tell you that Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C knowledge has expanded and grown 100-fold or more over the last 18 months. Nowhere in any current literature or accepted practice is BHT part of treatment for Hepatitis B or Hepatitis C, or prevention, or anything.

Believe what you want. But if BHT were the magic be-all, cure-all for Hepatitis C, I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t be 3.5 million people walking around with it in the U.S today. And THAT source is the CDC, 2020. :)

Total Care, a mental health facility in Georgia. The incident actually took place in 2013, but the video was just released by the family on May 9, 2019.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/investigations/the-reveal/video-shows-healthcare-staff-punching-beating-disabled-man-with-belt/85-bd25b5f9-1a4d-43ea-83f8-509b5d9e0c61

You know, I hadn’t thought of that, but can’t disagree with you at all.

Great screen name, BTW! ;)

I fully agree!

I started a longer post this morning about my personal interactions with AFGE, but wanted to percolate a bit on that before discussing on here. I'm still thinking it through.

Grey.....I’m sorry, but I’m still dumbfounded that you are neither a veteran nor a VA employee, and you threw an entire VA system under the bus based on the work ethics of your extended family members? Perhaps they are not the best example of the majority of very dedicated professionals in the VA system. Just sayin’.....

Wow, nice mouth.

For the record, Sir, I am (1) female.....so that's MS. JERK to you. (b) ALSO a vet (399th Combat Support Hospital, 1985-1998) who currently works at the VA and (c) perhaps somewhat more intelligent than you if the Sherman Tank analogy is above your comprehension.

Let me explain, using small words: A Sherman Tank and my Nissan Murano are both tools used to first move people to where they need to be while providing a degree of protection from their environment (whatever the "environment" may be) while doing so; and second, to carry out their specialized missions after their humans have arrived where they need to be, missions being artillery vs groceries. (In case it's not obvious, the Murano does the groceries, the Tank does the artillery /sarc ).

I would no more expect the Sherman Tank people to do an oil change on my Murano than I would expect a civilian general practitioner to have any expertise or comfort level with treating PTSD or Agent orange, combat illnesses or injuries, even things like tropical medicine illnesses not found in the US but brought back by some of our overseas deployed vets. Likewise, I would not want a cardiologist trying to operate on my broken ankle.

From the time frame you mentioned of 1972, I'm guessing you are a Vietnam era veteran who was not welcomed home warmly, something for which our country owes you and many others like you a huge apology. Your bitterness towards people who were ugly and hurtful to you back then is fully justified and appropriate. I never pass up a chance to say to a Vietnam vet, "welcome home, and thank you for your service and sacrifice." If I had the power to change just one thing in history, it would be that.

However, in 1972, I was 6 years old, and not one of the people who treated you so unkindly. You need to direct your bitterness and anger in the right direction. It is not me, and it is not the VA. If you don't believe the VA treats you in the way you deserve and have earned, you have other options for healthcare.....one of the greatest freedoms we have is freedom of choice. You can choose to not utilize VA healthcare if your experiences have been poor, or to go to a different VA or a different care team within your local VA, or involve your Patient Advocate or Congressman.....you have options even within VA to address any challenges you run into. Do they always work? No. Do they sometimes work? Yes. If you dislike your civilian doctor, you have one option: go elsewhere, even if "elsewhere" isn;t in your insurance network. But for you to suggest cutting VA off for all (many of whom on this very thread have posted about their extremely positive experiences) wouldn't be very good for those who don't live close to some other healthcare, or those who love their VA providers, or don't have any other insurance, etc.

I TRULY hope one day that you find someone at VA who will help you. It is its own maze of red tape, but many, many, many of us on the inside will bend over backwards to help a vet who is struggling with the system. As previously stated, "I made a difference for this one."

I wish you well and hope you are able to find happiness in the future. Thank you again for your service, and welcome home. You are one of our country's unsung heroes.