I have some misgivings about calling the mRNA vaccines 'near miraculous' for elderly patients.
Have looked everywhere for serious data on this question and have come up with nada.
Meanwhile it is clear that many elderly, double-vaccinated patients are dying in many countries - from the UK to the Netherlands to Italy - where hospital and nursing home staff sometimes take the risk of speaking out.
The standard mantra is that 'these are old people, and of course many are going to die regardless.'
Quite true. But where is the data that mRNA vaccines have truly and significantly reduced all-cause mortality in the elderly?
As I've said, have looked hard, but am still hopeful of finding it.
Retrospectively, I’d like to hear a factual discussion, free of politics, explaining the rationale in the early days of COVID treatment. In hind sight, hundreds of thousands of deaths could have been avoided by early treatment (first few days) with two off-label medications with long safety records, but because they were demonized by some leaders and the media, doctors were threatened by governing boards should they choose to prescribe. All the while, many, many immunologists at prestigious medical schools urged their safe use and their efficacy.
This is an unconscionable black stain on our world leading medical system and hopefully will become an example of how NOT to use logic and deductive reasoning in medical schools of the future.
I personally know of several newly diagnosed patients who were sent home to treat as a cold, became sicker by the day,and succumbed with out ANY treatment while these drugs were available. I also know physicians who were forbidden by their hospital system to use these drugs while approving newly designed treatments with questionable efficacy. Never has this kind of pressure been placed on physicians to refrain from the freedom of off-label use. The FDA and governing bodies should be examined for complicity.
Nice piece, John. Only one minor quibble— a study that looks back at data is called “retrospective”, not “observational”. Often, these 2 occur together, but not always.
I appreciate this especially given your background. I would like to hear your thoughts about the effectiveness of various medicines (supplements also?) as treatment for C19 vs possible long term risks of serious side effects from the vaccine. Thank you.
"The mRNA vaccines are so good, that any adult can simply take the free shots, and boom, they are protected from severe COVID-19." Yes, until this Delta variant came along. Now the MRNA vaccine effectiveness seems to be around 65% or less against Delta. Not enough information yet. That also needs to be incorporated into people's decision to get the vaccines. And how do we know myocarditis is rare in the vaccinated? Have large groups of vaccinated people of all ages been given heart scans before and after vaccination over months to look for any amount of inflammatory changes? Or only the ones who have developed symptoms, like young Army guys who do rigorous physical training all day and so would likely be the first to get symptoms caused by inflammation? Also, young people in general are more active than older folks. Can one have some heart inflammation without experiencing symptoms? Is anyone in the medical field asking these questions?
Thank you John. I believe there should be accountability for those journals who authorized such low quality articles. I am sure they were knowledgeable of the flaws and yet decided to continue with the fear mongering. This is completely irresponsible, dangerous and destructive. So much people have suffered because of these lies. Among other things they fed the government with lies that further fueled the restrictive measurements that so much harm has caused to small businesses and schools.
With no accountability these people will feel more empowered to continue such behaviour.
Many unanswered questions remain. What or who were the sources of the decision to choose early intubation as a treatment for COVID-19? Should those people be held accountable? Why? Why not?
I have some misgivings about calling the mRNA vaccines 'near miraculous' for elderly patients.
Have looked everywhere for serious data on this question and have come up with nada.
Meanwhile it is clear that many elderly, double-vaccinated patients are dying in many countries - from the UK to the Netherlands to Italy - where hospital and nursing home staff sometimes take the risk of speaking out.
The standard mantra is that 'these are old people, and of course many are going to die regardless.'
Quite true. But where is the data that mRNA vaccines have truly and significantly reduced all-cause mortality in the elderly?
As I've said, have looked hard, but am still hopeful of finding it.
Thanks for this. How about the repeated hyping of each new variant as being uniquely devastating, only for time to show these claims were overblown?
Retrospectively, I’d like to hear a factual discussion, free of politics, explaining the rationale in the early days of COVID treatment. In hind sight, hundreds of thousands of deaths could have been avoided by early treatment (first few days) with two off-label medications with long safety records, but because they were demonized by some leaders and the media, doctors were threatened by governing boards should they choose to prescribe. All the while, many, many immunologists at prestigious medical schools urged their safe use and their efficacy.
This is an unconscionable black stain on our world leading medical system and hopefully will become an example of how NOT to use logic and deductive reasoning in medical schools of the future.
I personally know of several newly diagnosed patients who were sent home to treat as a cold, became sicker by the day,and succumbed with out ANY treatment while these drugs were available. I also know physicians who were forbidden by their hospital system to use these drugs while approving newly designed treatments with questionable efficacy. Never has this kind of pressure been placed on physicians to refrain from the freedom of off-label use. The FDA and governing bodies should be examined for complicity.
Nice piece, John. Only one minor quibble— a study that looks back at data is called “retrospective”, not “observational”. Often, these 2 occur together, but not always.
I appreciate this especially given your background. I would like to hear your thoughts about the effectiveness of various medicines (supplements also?) as treatment for C19 vs possible long term risks of serious side effects from the vaccine. Thank you.
"The mRNA vaccines are so good, that any adult can simply take the free shots, and boom, they are protected from severe COVID-19." Yes, until this Delta variant came along. Now the MRNA vaccine effectiveness seems to be around 65% or less against Delta. Not enough information yet. That also needs to be incorporated into people's decision to get the vaccines. And how do we know myocarditis is rare in the vaccinated? Have large groups of vaccinated people of all ages been given heart scans before and after vaccination over months to look for any amount of inflammatory changes? Or only the ones who have developed symptoms, like young Army guys who do rigorous physical training all day and so would likely be the first to get symptoms caused by inflammation? Also, young people in general are more active than older folks. Can one have some heart inflammation without experiencing symptoms? Is anyone in the medical field asking these questions?
Can you comment on this article please?
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/covid-and-the-heart-it-spares-no-one
Thank you John. I believe there should be accountability for those journals who authorized such low quality articles. I am sure they were knowledgeable of the flaws and yet decided to continue with the fear mongering. This is completely irresponsible, dangerous and destructive. So much people have suffered because of these lies. Among other things they fed the government with lies that further fueled the restrictive measurements that so much harm has caused to small businesses and schools.
With no accountability these people will feel more empowered to continue such behaviour.
Many unanswered questions remain. What or who were the sources of the decision to choose early intubation as a treatment for COVID-19? Should those people be held accountable? Why? Why not?
"It short, it too, was a mess." Perhaps that should be "In short,"?
Thank you Dr M.