How to deal with liars

[troverman]

...Let me ask this, who do you want telling you how to build a rocket to fly to Mars…a rocket scientist or a medical doctor? Of course it’s rhetorical, but the same goes for trusting medical professionals.

In 1930, Britain believed airships would be the way people traveled in the future. Many people thought this way. The Empire State building was constructed with a mooring mast for an airship on its roof. This was all pre-Hindenburg.

Britain wanted to lead the world in airship development and production. The government subsidized a team to build an airship using some of the top experts at the time...it was called the R101. The Minister of Air Travel in Britain, a politician, wanted the ship done in record time (see any parallels here?) because he wanted to take the airship on a trip to India and back for a conference. He pushed the team hard. During testing, the team found numerous problems from the ship not having enough lift from the hydrogen gas bags to the fabric skin tearing. They cut the ship on half, added a gas bag, stitched it all back together, patched the external fabric skin, and removed as much unnecessary weight as possible. Another test flight revealed the changes had helped but were not really sufficient. However, the team was under immense pressure from the Minister and they kept him in the dark of the potential problems. The trip to India was embarked upon. Right away, it was obvious the airship was not gaining enough altitude. Lots of ballast was removed. The ship unexpected nose-dived, low to the ground, but the crew recovered it. Then, the hastily added center gas bag broke apart. The sudden loss of hydrogen caused the airship to dive again, and the crew was unable to recover. The ship hit the ground, and one of the motors went through the side of the ship into a bag of hydrogen gas and exploded. Nearly everyone on board, including the Minister of Air Travel, perished.

My point is simply that when things are rushed, and reputation and money are at stake, risks are taken that are likely unseen by the general public, with the danger not coming to fruition until a later point, when it is too late. Frankly, even if the manufacturer(s) of the vaccine discovered a dangerous problem, they would likely cover it up. Even if they reported it to government, the government would likely cover it up. Telling tens of millions of people the vaccine they were persuaded or even mandated to take would likely cause them cancer down the road would likely generate a mutiny amongst the people, and government and big pharma is well aware of that.

 

[troverman]

You are free to go unmasked if you so choose. And others are free to refuse service, or prohibit your entry if they so choose. You are free to decide not to get vaccinated if you so choose. And others are free to consider your unvaccinated self a pariah if they so choose. Don't complain about losing your freedoms just because someone else exercises theirs.

Interesting point. There are "equal opportunity" laws in place, though. For example, if I own a business I cannot legally hang a sign on the door that says, for example, "Jews not allowed." So this is a sticky point, where the Supreme Court will likely have to decide if it is legal to refuse service to someone who is not masked or indeed not vaccinated. Right now, it is simply happening. Many people believe it is unconstitutional. Of course, modern politics seem to no longer care what the Supreme Court says, either, and simply override it since there is no enforcement mechanism for the court.

 

[troverman]

NHSleddog, great story. I find the same exact thing with most people from the liberal side. And yes, I bemoan when license plates from those certain areas appear in my neck of the woods. Many people despise the politics of their state, so they migrate to a freer state, only to become active in politics in their new home, and slowly turn their new state into their old state.

lugbolt, great analogy. I think you are exactly right.

 

[Jchonline]

In 1930, Britain believed airships would be the way people traveled in the future. Many people thought this way. The Empire State building was constructed with a mooring mast for an airship on its roof. This was all pre-Hindenburg.

Britain wanted to lead the world in airship development and production. The government subsidized a team to build an airship using some of the top experts at the time...it was called the R101. The Minister of Air Travel in Britain, a politician, wanted the ship done in record time (see any parallels here?) because he wanted to take the airship on a trip to India and back for a conference. He pushed the team hard. During testing, the team found numerous problems from the ship not having enough lift from the hydrogen gas bags to the fabric skin tearing. They cut the ship on half, added a gas bag, stitched it all back together, patched the external fabric skin, and removed as much unnecessary weight as possible. Another test flight revealed the changes had helped but were not really sufficient. However, the team was under immense pressure from the Minister and they kept him in the dark of the potential problems. The trip to India was embarked upon. Right away, it was obvious the airship was not gaining enough altitude. Lots of ballast was removed. The ship unexpected nose-dived, low to the ground, but the crew recovered it. Then, the hastily added center gas bag broke apart. The sudden loss of hydrogen caused the airship to dive again, and the crew was unable to recover. The ship hit the ground, and one of the motors went through the side of the ship into a bag of hydrogen gas and exploded. Nearly everyone on board, including the Minister of Air Travel, perished.

My point is simply that when things are rushed, and reputation and money are at stake, risks are taken that are likely unseen by the general public, with the danger not coming to fruition until a later point, when it is too late. Frankly, even if the manufacturer(s) of the vaccine discovered a dangerous problem, they would likely cover it up. Even if they reported it to government, the government would likely cover it up. Telling tens of millions of people the vaccine they were persuaded or even mandated to take would likely cause them cancer down the road would likely generate a mutiny amongst the people, and government and big pharma is well aware of that.

There are systems in place to prevent the cover up of phase 1, 2, 3 and 4 trial data. Of course a company can try to do this, but with so many eyes on the COVID vaccines I find it incredibly hard to believe no one would have noticed it. Big drug companies are no friends of the medical community. They take advantage of patient health for profit. In our industry this is a necessary evil in the US, because without some competitive notion we loose innovation.

What your are simply saying is the government is controlling it so its bad. I totally get that I am no friend of the government. 2nd amendment, freedom of speech, the affront to our constitutional rights by people in power goes on and on. However in this unique case I am a professional in the industry in which the government is working closely. I’m not saying they are getting it right. I am saying the medical community is getting it right. We can look at those as 2 independent things.

The irony in your statement is you have likely unknowingly put many medications in your body over the years without having any idea of the potential safety hazards. In all likelihood thats because you were told to do so by someone you trust (who might still have no inkling of the real data behind the scenes). I’m just saying this vaccine is no different. You have had many vaccines over the years, none of which you had any idea about the development history behind them. Now all of the sudden this vaccine is a terrible thing. Like most other modern things, it has just been politicized.

 

[Jchonline]

You are free to go unmasked if you so choose. And others are free to refuse service, or prohibit your entry if they so choose. You are free to decide not to get vaccinated if you so choose. And others are free to consider your unvaccinated self a pariah if they so choose. Don't complain about losing your freedoms just because someone else exercises theirs.

Good point, the challenge with healthcare is as a hospital we CANNOT refuse care to someone sick…we dont have the freedom to do so. We are bound by laws to treat every patient that comes in the door. It’s too bad we cannot selectively refuse service…that would make it truly free on both sides.

 

[Shanester]

This is a good discussion and so far no one is being too nasty. (maybe the bad posts are being deleted?) A few things I want to point out. One is that on this "off topic" section we DON'T talk about tractors. The other is that just about every subject seems to be a political issue these days when most of them should not be.

 

[troverman]

There are systems in place to prevent the cover up of phase 1, 2, 3 and 4 trial data. Of course a company can try to do this, but with so many eyes on the COVID vaccines I find it incredibly hard to believe no one would have noticed it. Big drug companies are no friends of the medical community. They take advantage of patient health for profit. In our industry this is a necessary evil in the US, because without some competitive notion we loose innovation.

What your are simply saying is the government is controlling it so its bad. I totally get that I am no friend of the government. 2nd amendment, freedom of speech, the affront to our constitutional rights by people in power goes on and on. However in this unique case I am a professional in the industry in which the government is working closely. I’m not saying they are getting it right. I am saying the medical community is getting it right. We can look at those as 2 independent things.

The hypocrisy in your statement is you have likely unknowingly put many medications in your body over the years without having any idea of the potential safety hazards. In all likelihood thats because you were told to do so by someone you trust (who might still have no inkling of the real data behind the scenes). I’m just saying this vaccine is no different. You have had many vaccines over the years, none of which you had any idea about the development history behind them. Now all of the sudden this vaccine is a terrible thing. Like most other modern things, it has just been politicized.

I take it you work in the medical industry? I think you might be naive to how corrupt things have become. However, you might be aware that Google has launched a total censorship on youtube of vaccine "misinformation." Fact checkers censored the obituary of a woman who died of vaccine complications, only to be rebuffed by the medical examiner. If my own child takes the vaccine, then gets a reaction that permanently injures him, I'm not allowed to claim "the vaccine caused it" even if I believe that. This is insane! I should be allowed to make videos claiming the Earth is flat, the moon is made of real cheese, not butter, etc, etc if I so desire. Who decides what is "misinformation" and what is not? There are powerful lobbies in place that seem to.

You don't know me or what medications I may have taken or not. I'm one who shies away from meds as much as possible. The number of times I've taken Advil could be counted on one hand - and for reference I'm on the old end of the Millenial age group. Yes, I have taken prescription medication before a few times in my life as prescribed by a doctor for specific maladies I wasn't getting over myself. I've thought of that, and your point is valid. However, there was nothing "political" in nature about those prescriptions. I think its fair to say medical doctors have a lot of pressure to not say anything negative about the vaccines, whether they think it or not. It's also fair to say that your PCP is really as in the dark about the vaccines as you are. They were not involved in the development of the product, nor the trials, nor the manufacture. They can only go based upon what they read, same as me.

Surely, I think it is reasonable to say that someone whom has already had covid and survived it does not need a vaccine. For some reason, the government finds that belief highly objectionable.

 

[shelkol]

State:

" My opinion is different from yours. I appreciate your opinion and I hope you appreciate mine. This is still a free country and I am allowed my opinion. Since we don't agree lets change the subject. Nice weather we're having!"

 

[shelkol]

BTW, calling people liars is counterproductive. In 30 or 40 years we find out who really was right. It takes a long time to gather data and determine what the right course of action should have been. The 'science' that people are following has been interpreted by humans and may be slanted to their way of thinking.

I think a great book to read is 'State of Fear' by Chrichton.

I also think that the 24 hours news stations are going to do this country in. They feed the flames and I don't always agree with their interpretation of the facts. I watched some of the hearings and then the reports of what happened at those hearings and wondered if the reporters actually listened to what was said.

That being said, I don't use the word liars. Just my $0.02

 

[Jchonline]

I take it you work in the medical industry? I think you might be naive to how corrupt things have become. However, you might be aware that Google has launched a total censorship on youtube of vaccine "misinformation." Fact checkers censored the obituary of a woman who died of vaccine complications, only to be rebuffed by the medical examiner. If my own child takes the vaccine, then gets a reaction that permanently injures him, I'm not allowed to claim "the vaccine caused it" even if I believe that. This is insane! I should be allowed to make videos claiming the Earth is flat, the moon is made of real cheese, not butter, etc, etc if I so desire. Who decides what is "misinformation" and what is not? There are powerful lobbies in place that seem to.

You don't know me or what medications I may have taken or not. I'm one who shies away from meds as much as possible. The number of times I've taken Advil could be counted on one hand - and for reference I'm on the old end of the Millenial age group. Yes, I have taken prescription medication before a few times in my life as prescribed by a doctor for specific maladies I wasn't getting over myself. I've thought of that, and your point is valid. However, there was nothing "political" in nature about those prescriptions. I think its fair to say medical doctors have a lot of pressure to not say anything negative about the vaccines, whether they think it or not. It's also fair to say that your PCP is really as in the dark about the vaccines as you are. They were not involved in the development of the product, nor the trials, nor the manufacture. They can only go based upon what they read, same as me.

Surely, I think it is reasonable to say that someone whom has already had covid and survived it does not need a vaccine. For some reason, the government finds that belief highly objectionable.

I’m not naive. You are just seeing isolated cases and extrapolating to the whole. The vast majority of the medical community isn’t in on a conspiracy. Adverse event reporting for the vaccine by the FDA is exactly the same as it has been For every drug on the market. It’s publically available for every drug including vaccines. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/questions...event-reporting-system-faers-public-dashboard
Now there is surely corruption out there as with every other industry and government. But folks need to separate medical professionals from politicians. We aren’t Fauci, he doesn’t speak for us. He speaks for the Biden administration.


Good points and I agree. Removing all politics and accurately reporting everything is always best. However 1 person, or even a hundred people dying from a vaccine is just going to happen when giving a billion doses. It doesn’t mean it’s unsafe. It’s medicine, and a minute percentage of any population will react negatively. Just as they have with every single drug on the US market in the past century. The vaccine is no different.

 

[troverman]

Good points and I agree. Removing all politics and accurately reporting everything is always best. However 1 person, or even a hundred people dying from a vaccine is just going to happen when giving a billion doses. It doesn’t mean it’s unsafe. It’s medicine, and a minute percentage of any population will react negatively. Just as they have with every single drug on the US market in the past century. The vaccine is no different.

I see Pfizer is applying for an EUA for their vaccine for kids age 5-11. How many people in that age group are dying of C19? To use your words, a pretty "minute" amount. Seems to be no justification for an EUA other than to make a bit more money, but why not when you have no liability concerns?

 

[JLS]

I went to the Eagles concert in Omaha the other night. I haven't been vaccinated so I had to get tested before I could go in.

If you had a Vaccine card you were good-ta-go.

That seems odd to me, given that even folks that have the shot can and do get Covid and pass it along. Seems to me if they were serious about ensuring everyone in attendance were Covid free, that they'd make everyone get tested whether they had a card or not.

I was running some numbers this morning for my state (Iowa) and here are the latest:

Our population is 3.2M.

We've had 462,000 cases of Covid.

We've had 6,654 Deaths attributed to Covid.

That pencils out to 1.44% of the cases called Covid, resulting in a death..., called Covid.

So if 462,000 people in Iowa got Covid, that's 14.39% of the state that got Covid. (or 85.61% that didn't)

Now if I take the total death figure of 6,654 and divide it by the total population of 3.2M I come up with 0.2072% of the states population dying from what they deem Covid as the cause.

I'm still on the fence on the shot, but it sorta looks like if a guy gets Covid, there's a really, really high chance you don't get admited to the hospital let alone die.

 

[Jchonline]

You have the opinion that there was adequate testing before FDA approval. I'm sure you're aware of the length of time to get a new drug on the market. You can say the appropriate phase 1 and phase 2 trials were performed. Just so folks can see here's a link to drug approval by the FDA. It takes years to get it done correctly. You can shorten the process and declare it's great, but we won't know for a couple of years at the soonest. https://www.fda.gov/media/82381/download

Here's a link to show the process: Pre-clinical trials, clinical trials, Phase 1, phase2, phase 3, then Review. This does not happen in months. https://www.crbgroup.com/insights/pharmaceuticals/drug-approval-process

You also state ivermectin and other therapies are "far, far less studied than the vaccine". The vaccine is being studied as it's injected into people, not before it's usage. Those who receive the vaccine are taking the place of the animal studies normally required.

Here's a reputable doctor detailing the use of ivermectin and states it is "the most studied repurposed medication globally.

These vaccines were used in animal trials, just as we do with every other drug requesting approval in the US. As I stated these were accelerated but it does not mean they are unsafe. Accellerated doesn't mean they didn't follow procedure. It means they threw more resources at it and cut through red tape to help balance delivery.

The anecdote of 1 physician, even 20 physicians is exactly why we have clinical trials. Experience in treating 100 patients in no way compares to treating 10,000,000 (ie adding all patients treated in a given trial or group of trials). We do trials to specifically remove physician treatment bias by double blinding them so the physician doesn't know if the patient is getting the real drug or placebo. Any doctor that claims efficacy/experience and doesn't have the peer reviewed publications to back it up is not worth listening to.

There are over 11000 publications on the COVID vaccine (many in peer reviewed journals). There are only 13 publications on REGEN-COV, and there are 295 on Ivermectin and COVID. Don't take my word for it, look for yourself. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=ivermectin+covid-19

You can do the same search for other drugs and COVID. I think we can easily see which has been studied/scrutinized the most by the world's medical community. While Ivermectin has been around for decades, it has nowhere near the body of research in treating COVID patients that the vaccine does...not even close. Of course a physician can use a drug off label (for an unapproved use) if they think it best for the patient. If I was vaccinated and still got hospitalized with COVID, you can bet I would be clambering for it. However it doesn't mean it is safer for a COVID patient. Just because Ivermectin is given to people with Disease A doesn't mean it will be safe for someone with Disease B. Disease B could cause other changes to that persons body that make Ivermectin unsafe (say for instance Disease B raises blood sugar, and so does Ivermectin...this would be bad). So we study each drug/disease combination and only approve drugs for that disease. Again not that it can't be used for a different indication.

To your point about long term side effects, yes as with any drug (even drugs that go through a 5 year FDA approval, etc) the medical community constantly monitors for adverse effects. We call this Phase 4 surveillance. There have been drugs pulled from the market or prescribing changed (estrogen for treating menopause in some cases) a number of times over the years, this is nothing new. We have even pulled OTC medications from the market (which were given to hundreds of millions and millions of people). Its part of medicine. Often times we pull drugs for less than a percent of the population having a common effect....the tolerances are very low. The vaccine is no different.

 

[PaulR]

Admins please don't delete yet, I've got a few hours of reading to catch up, thanks!!!

 

[Jchonline]

I see Pfizer is applying for an EUA for their vaccine for kids age 5-11. How many people in that age group are dying of C19? To use your words, a pretty "minute" amount. Seems to be no justification for an EUA other than to make a bit more money, but why not when you have no liability concerns?

Just because Pfizer applies doesn't mean it will be granted. Perhaps it should be used only in kids that have a high risk of severe illness (immunocompromised, etc) or if they are around family members that have a high risk of death (grandma with cancer, etc). Would I give it to my kids if they were high risk? Yes.

What we are seeing from a public health perspective (at least in CO) is the vast majority of positive cases are in elementary schools. What we aren't seeing is severe illness, which is a great thing. Personally I don't agree with giving every kid 5-11 the vaccine, not yet.

 

[Jchonline]

I went to the Eagles concert in Omaha the other night. I haven't been vaccinated so I had to get tested before I could go in.

If you had a Vaccine card you were good-ta-go.

That seems odd to me, given that even folks that have the shot can and do get Covid and pass it along. Seems to me if they were serious about ensuring everyone in attendance were Covid free, that they'd make everyone get tested whether they had a card or not.

I was running some numbers this morning for my state (Iowa) and here are the latest:

Our population is 3.2M.

We've had 462,000 cases of Covid.

We've had 6,654 Deaths attributed to Covid.

That pencils out to 1.44% of the cases called Covid, resulting in a death..., called Covid.

So if 462,000 people in Iowa got Covid, that's 14.39% of the state that got Covid. (or 85.61% that didn't)

Now if I take the total death figure of 6,654 and divide it by the total population of 3.2M I come up with 0.2072% of the states population dying from what they deem Covid as the case.

I'm still on the fence on the shot, but it sorta looks like if a guy gets it, there's a really, really high chance you don't get admited to the hospital let alone die.

I think this double standard by governments is ridiculous.

What it really boils down to is the stress on the healthcare system. I think if you are unvaccinated you should be able to go or do anything you want. However if you get sick with COVID and come to the hospital, the hospital should be able to reprioritize your care for other equally ill non-COVID patients. So if a cancer patient needs a tumor removed and an unvaccinated COVID patient also needs a bed, the cancer patients gets it (which likely means the COVID patient will die or be transported to another facility). Its a hard choice, but that "freedom" goes both ways. An individual gets to choose to be vaccinated, the hospital gets to choose who to treat. Of course this is never going to actually happen as law requires we treat/stabilize everyone that comes through the door. So in reality that cancer patient's surgery gets put off, the tumor grows because we are treating the COVID patient.

Right now we are starting to trend down with hospital capacities again thank goodness, so this really isn't an issue at present. But what we can't keep doing if flooding the hospitals with severely ill non vaccinated COVID patients at the expense of every other ill patient. When COVID started, the rest of the diseases and illnesses didn't stop. We still have those going on, people are still in the ICU and hospital for a plethora of conditions. The main issue with a surge is the most resources are being put towards very sick COVID patients, and everyone else gets put on a wait list. We had tons of surgeries cancelled over the past 2 months simply because we didn't have the staff. They were all refocused on severely ill COVID patients. Critical care clinicians don't grow on trees...they are hard to come by and can only work so many hours a week for months at a time. Anesthesiologists that would normally assist on a surgical case now have to monitor ventilated COVID patients...you get the idea. The surges aren't normal for hospital systems. They are damaging to the staff, and all of the patients the staff have the responsibility to treat.

So if we have another wave....then that issue comes up again. I sure hope we don't.

 

[Henro]

Now a thread is evolving to replace the "Let 'em die" thread... LOL

I learned enough from the other thread to stop reading this one...I do think discussion is healthy though. Just reached my personal limit. Actually skipped the last page or so of posts, before posting this.

 

[troverman]

...I think if you are unvaccinated you should be able to go or do anything you want. However if you get sick with COVID and come to the hospital, the hospital should be able to reprioritize your care for other equally ill non-COVID patients. So if a cancer patient needs a tumor removed and an unvaccinated COVID patient also needs a bed, the cancer patients gets it (which likely means the COVID patient will die or be transported to another facility). Its a hard choice, but that "freedom" goes both ways.

I'm totally fine with this as someone who is unvaccinated. But if we are going to play it that way, we should also not give priority to people who end up needing medical attention for a variety of bad choices they've made in life, such as tobacco, alcohol, drugs, eating habits, exercise habits, etc. This would present a big problem for a lot of people and for hospitals. But fair is fair.

I hope the vaccines are tremendously successful with minimal long term side effects. I wish no ill will on people who chose to get it. But this nonsense of "protecting the vaccinated from the unvaccinated" is exactly that. If the vaccine works, you need no "protection." If anything, given that studies show vaccinated people can carry higher viral loads than unvaccinated people, its those who haven't taken the shot that should be protected. And finally, setting up mandates, restrictions, and rules which are clearly designed to be punitive rather than protective is flat out wrong.

I fully accept whatever risks there are from not getting the shot. But I surely shouldn't be punished for it.

 

[Jchonline]

I'm totally fine with this as someone who is unvaccinated. But if we are going to play it that way, we should also not give priority to people who end up needing medical attention for a variety of bad choices they've made in life, such as tobacco, alcohol, drugs, eating habits, exercise habits, etc. This would present a big problem for a lot of people and for hospitals. But fair is fair.

I hope the vaccines are tremendously successful with minimal long term side effects. I wish no ill will on people who chose to get it. But this nonsense of "protecting the vaccinated from the unvaccinated" is exactly that. If the vaccine works, you need no "protection." If anything, given that studies show vaccinated people can carry higher viral loads than unvaccinated people, its those who haven't taken the shot that should be protected. And finally, setting up mandates, restrictions, and rules which are clearly designed to be punitive rather than protective is flat out wrong.

I fully accept whatever risks there are from not getting the shot. But I surely shouldn't be punished for it.

Yes I thought about bringing up smoking as an example. Certainly folks who smoked prior to society knowing it was terrible we can't blame, but folks that make the choice after we all know the risks are different. Again none of these other conditions are an issue because we don't strain the healthcare system with them. Smokers aren't showing up in droves to the hospitals, its a manageable number...perhaps over the decades the healthcare system has been designed/staffed to accommodate. The problem with COVID severe illness is the acuity of the illness. ICU care is very expensive, very complex, and very resource intensive. There just aren't any other illnesses in the past century that have strained the system like COVID. This is really my only reason for the analogy.

If smoking, alcoholism was surging and causing major issues, then we would be discussing it. One could argue they create an unnecessary financial burden on us all. Healthy folks pay higher premiums to balance out risk pools for those that are sick (and in some case make bad health choices). Boy isn't that a can of worms!

Also again I do agree governments telling us what we can and can't do is just wrong. Especially this vaccinated vs unvaccinated double standard.

 

[jimh406]

As noted previously by many, the rules that require vaccines are BS just like testing is.

Vaccinated people get and spread Covid. Covid is usually not much worse than a flu.

Finally, testing is a moment in time. You could be false negative or false positive. But, even if right, you could have the opposite result just after.

Science is not considered, it's all about coercion to get the vaccine. Natural immunity, even though that's the best, isn't even considered.