now imagine something that does all of this but MAKES COPIES OF ITSELF. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES.
congrats, you just discovered COVID. One day you will give the virus the same melodramatic narration as you do the vaccine.
Lol, the viral replication cycle is 7 days max, and we’ve always had treatments to deal with the virus, subsequent inflammation and thrombotic risk.
What? 7 days? Even if that were true: 7 days days of exponential growth in an immune naive patient is bad. 1 million Americans, unfortunately, agree with me.
You have ceases making points, just desperately flailing around to support your inane speculations.
The point is, Makary’ op-ed undermines the narrative that we absolutely know this vaccine is safe and effective for young children. The CDC official statement is disingenuous at best. Also, you do know the vast majority of these kids who develop serious illness and die have significant comorbidity, right? I mean, you assert you work around them?
If that was the point, then why did you claim I was focused on antibody counts?
Do you know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about? Because you make claims, and when I challenge them, you don't defend them, you just move on to the next one. You've made dozens of claims in this discussion and haven't held strong on any of them. The rural physician thing was ridiculous. Do you even have a source for that?
~66% of pediatric covid deaths had associated comorbidities. That is a majority for sure. How many perfectly healthy kids do you think died of chickenpox? Where do you even get these half-baked arguments?
Makary has a lot of op-eds, which one would you like me to tackle? The one where his argument is that "The vaccines are so good at protecting against death from COVID-19 that those who are immune can feel good about living life without having to worry about becoming severely ill. Vaccines downgrade the infection to a mild seasonal virus – one we must learn to live with for years to come." Strong argument.
There are plenty of reasons not to get vaccinated, and there are certainly plenty of reasons not to put blanket requirements in place. Again, you'll never find a post where I argued for mandates outside of healthcare. I support an organizations right to impose them, but I'm not really a proponent of blanket government mandates. That said, you haven't touched on any of them. You just jump around from talking point to talking point without ever getting to the meat of the issue. You don't have a deep enough understanding of any of them to even have a discussion, let alone defend them.
I've bolded the key point. This is the new MO of too-online anti-vaxxers. It's a never ending retreat back to fantasy land.
If only the medical orthodoxy would allow “polypharmacy” treatment with mostly FDA approved drugs, not just steroids.
"I want to give myself high doses of random drugs that have high side-effect profiles, and have failed every RCT to prevent or treat COVID"
Here's my peeve. If I want to use a prescription drug for off-label use that has been recommended by doctors who have used it successfully with their patients, why shouldn't my doctor, if he agrees, be allowed to prescribe that drug to me?
Why do you care what early treatment I use? Why should it matter to you?
"I want to give myself high doses of random drugs that have high side-effect profiles, and have failed every RCT to prevent or treat COVID"
Here's my peeve. If I want to use a prescription drug for off-label use that has been recommended by doctors who have used it successfully with their patients, why shouldn't my doctor, if he agrees, be allowed to prescribe that drug to me?
Why do you care what early treatment I use? Why should it matter to you?
Oh, don't worry, I agree. You can put whatever you want into your body.
It's the claiming that "cures" are being "suppressed" and that others should do X, Y, or Z that is problem.
Most people, doctors, etc. do not have the time or knowledge to independently review all data and make off-label prescribing decisions, so relying on FDA advice is almost always correct. Furthermore making such decisions is risky, since dosing and toxicity are likely not well understand in the off-label context, so naturally the off-label user should assume the risk (and payment) here.
"I want to give myself high doses of random drugs that have high side-effect profiles, and have failed every RCT to prevent or treat COVID"
Here's my peeve. If I want to use a prescription drug for off-label use that has been recommended by doctors who have used it successfully with their patients, why shouldn't my doctor, if he agrees, be allowed to prescribe that drug to me?
Why do you care what early treatment I use? Why should it matter to you?
Because its not what the establishment is pushing and this guy has wholly accepted.
"I want to give myself high doses of random drugs that have high side-effect profiles, and have failed every RCT to prevent or treat COVID"
Here's my peeve. If I want to use a prescription drug for off-label use that has been recommended by doctors who have used it successfully with their patients, why shouldn't my doctor, if he agrees, be allowed to prescribe that drug to me?
Why do you care what early treatment I use? Why should it matter to you?
I personally do not care what you do as long as it doesn't put the safety of others in jeopardy. If you're not driving a vehicle while impaired or similar, have fun. Eat a Tide Pod, what do I care?
I also personally do not care if a physician prescribes anything for off-label use. It's their license, their conscience, and their patient's health.
Here's my peeve: Claiming that because a drug is FDA approved that it must be effective against everything. (Especially when those same people question FDA approval of other drugs). For example, ivermectin must be safe and effective for the treatment of COVID because it's FDA approved.
My other peeve: When it's pointed out that the above assumption isn't correct, people claim that "they" are suppressing the truth about COVID treatments.
Here's my peeve. If I want to use a prescription drug for off-label use that has been recommended by doctors who have used it successfully with their patients, why shouldn't my doctor, if he agrees, be allowed to prescribe that drug to me?
Why do you care what early treatment I use? Why should it matter to you?
I personally do not care what you do as long as it doesn't put the safety of others in jeopardy. If you're not driving a vehicle while impaired or similar, have fun. Eat a Tide Pod, what do I care?
I also personally do not care if a physician prescribes anything for off-label use. It's their license, their conscience, and their patient's health.
Here's my peeve: Claiming that because a drug is FDA approved that it must be effective against everything. (Especially when those same people question FDA approval of other drugs). For example, ivermectin must be safe and effective for the treatment of COVID because it's FDA approved.
My other peeve: When it's pointed out that the above assumption isn't correct, people claim that "they" are suppressing the truth about COVID treatments.
I will add it's not just efficacy they assume. The assume many compounds can be dosed with no safety concerns, especially if there is prior approval for a different use.
Some drugs are safe (or we tolerate their safety profiles) in some contexts but would seem insane in others. If Methotrexate showed a efficacy signal against COVID, it would certainly not be distributed en masse simply because it is FDA approved in other contexts and therefore "safe."