[quote]My family doc retired early in 2012 because of obamacare. Now it’s like you. Who knows who I’ll get. And that’s scary considering 275,000 Americans die every year because of medical malpractice.
 
^^^^^^^^^
You have had ten years to find a replacment. Get a physician 20 years younger than yourself and check his reputation and credentials. I had to wait one year to see my current internist. It was worth the wait. If you have few health issues and are young, I guess Doc in a Box is ok.

quote:

If you do not trust that your physician has your best interest at heart you need to get a new physician

Any doctor that tells you to get the vaccine if you are not in a high risk category does not have your best interests at heart. They only THINK they do.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
[quote]My family doc retired early in 2012 because of obamacare. Now it’s like you. Who knows who I’ll get. And that’s scary considering 275,000 Americans die every year because of medical malpractice.
 
^^^^^^^^^
You have had ten years to find a replacment. Get a physician 20 years younger than yourself and check his reputation and credentials. I had to wait one year to see my current internist. It was worth the wait. If you have few health issues and are young, I guess Doc in a Box is ok.

I’ve gone to several. A lot easier said than done. Especially around here.

^^^^^
Sad to hear. Some of us live in healthcare deserts.

If you ever wonder why Dr's so readily prescribe drugs...

My ex-wife is a lab tech and worked at several places, from clinics, to internists, to hospitals. Back in the day the drug reps showed up en masse with food and goodies all the time. Oh, and samples of their wares, of course... A different rep every day bringing lunch for everyone in the office.

Dr's have to do a little work to stay current with treatments, unless drug reps deliver it to them, ya know.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
How about ask your family doctor.

Yeah right . They're no more of an expert on this vaccine than I am. I can look at the numbers and figure out the truth around this hyped up virus apparently better than most medical people.

Any doctor recommending a person at extremely low risk of this virus to get the shot has zero credibility with me.

ETA:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

Any doctor that tells you to get the vaccine if you are not in a high risk category does not have your best interests at heart. They only THINK they do.

Exactly.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
[quote]My family doc retired early in 2012 because of obamacare. Now it’s like you. Who knows who I’ll get. And that’s scary considering 275,000 Americans die every year because of medical malpractice.
 
I have read the same statics on how many people die from preventable medical malpractice (275,000) however most think it is more around 400,000.
I read several articles stating that a good number of deaths go unreported as malpractice because the family suspects nothing was done wrong, or the family decides it does not want to pursue a malpractice case.

quote:

If you ever wonder why Dr's so readily prescribe drugs...

My ex-wife is a lab tech and worked at several places, from clinics, to internists, to hospitals. Back in the day the drug reps showed up en masse with food and goodies all the time. Oh, and samples of their wares, of course... A different rep every day bringing lunch for everyone in the office.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is old news man. Kaiser does not permit pharmaceutical reps and they are now limited by law as to the freebies. Most physicians I know will not see them and prefer to do their own research. A physician in NOLA spoke freely to the WSJ quite some time ago about the various incentives. Sen. Grassley and others got involved and the practice was greatly curtailed. Besides you are off topic. I have never heard of financial incentives for vaccine administration. Besides that is a money losing proposition.

Retraction of paper on vaccine deaths spurs call for more scrutiny of COVID-19 death reports

https://justthenews.com/politi..._campaign=newsletter

Should public health authorities scrutinize deaths attributed to COVID-19 as closely as they scrutinize deaths attributed to COVID-19 vaccines?

Defenders of a controversial study on the risk-benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccines are calling hypocrisy on a medical journal for retracting the paper a week after publishing it, following the resignations of several journal editors in protest.

In a Friday retraction notice in the journal Vaccines, the editor in chief and "several" editorial board members said the paper's authors were not able to "satisfactorily" answer claims that they conflated correlation with causation.

Analyzing data from the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre, known as LAREB, the paper's authors estimated COVID-19 vaccines take two lives for every three they save. The country leads Europe in vaccine adverse-reaction reporting.

Authors Harald Walach, Rainer Klement and Wouter Aukema challenged criticism from Eugene van Puijenbroek, who leads LAREB's scientific department, that they had misused its data.

"This starts a long-overdue debate on how to gauge the safety of COVID-19 vaccines," they wrote in a statement provided to Retraction Watch Thursday.

"Currently we only have association, we agree, and we never said anything else. But the same is true with fatalities as consequences of SARS-CoV2-infections [sic]," which are "rarely vetted by autopsy or second opinion" to confirm they were caused by the novel coronavirus, rather than incidental to infection.

Brown University epidemiologist Andrew Bostom wasn't impressed by the journal's "baloney" explanation for the retraction, either. "The [vaccine] deaths are as causally related as C19 deaths which allow for any positive test within 30-60 days of a death from any cause to be tallied as a C19 death," he wrote in a Twitter message to Just the News.

Bostom pointed to a June study, not yet peer-reviewed, of a sample of deaths in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System reported through April. The sample was limited to people who got early vaccinations, primarily elderly or those with "significant health conditions."

Researchers at the University of London and New Zealand's Massey University found that they could rule out "vaccine reaction" as a contributing factor in just 14% of deaths. "Contrary to claims that most of these reports are made by lay-people and are hence clinically unreliable, we identified health service employees as the reporter in at least 67%," they wrote

Correlation versus causation is also an ongoing issue in research on the effectiveness of masks in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Commenters immediately challenged a Thursday report in MedPage Today on a study that purported to find masks effective in stopping in-school transmission, but had no control group of mask-optional schools.

'Largest vaccination experiment in history of medicine'

The journal Vaccines was under internal pressure to retract the paper almost immediately. Two of its editors, virologist Florian Krammer and immunologist Katie Ewer, publicly announced their resignations on Twitter within three days of publication.

Science magazine reported four more resignations from Vaccines by July 1, including the journal's founding editor in chief. Ewer made the same correlation-versus-causation argument and complained that the paper was "being used by anti-vaxxers and COVID-19-deniers as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are not safe."

Only one of the three peer reviewers was identified by name, Anne Ulrich, chair of biochemistry at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany.

Her review said the authors made "plausible and convincing arguments" for why they chose the Dutch adverse-reaction data, and their analysis was "performed responsibly ... without methodological flaws" and with "necessary caveats."

After controversy, Ulrich told Science the analysis was done "responsibly and without flaws." (One of the anonymous reviewers was confused why the authors compared the Dutch adverse-reaction data with "number needed to vaccinate" data from a large Israeli field study.)

The journal's retraction said the paper's authors reached "incorrect and distorted conclusions" by ignoring the caveats in LAREB, the Dutch reporting system.

Both "healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination," but "a causal relation" is not needed. It also said the paper falsely claimed "fatal cases were certified by medical specialists."

After the journal announced the investigation, Aukema, one of the authors, tweeted that the Dutch reporting system was unlike most in the EU by "timely reporting" adverse reactions to the European Medicines Agency, "so theirs is the best data available."

According to Science, LAREB official van Puijenbroek wrote to Vaccines the day after the paper's publication, making the same arguments that appeared in the retraction. He did not respond to an email from Just the News asking for that message, which does not appear to be posted anywhere.

In the statement the paper's authors gave Retraction Watch, they challenged van Puijenbroek's characterization of the register's data.

Just this spring, the LAREB official told the journal Regulatory Science that the Dutch register received more than half of its 34,000 adverse-reaction drug reports in 2019 from "marketing authorisation holders." The rest came from "healthcare professionals and patients."

The majority of reports came from parties who "by law, are required to report," and LAREB says it checks all submissions for "completeness and possible ambiguities," requesting additional information if necessary. If it's treating COVID-19 vaccine reports differently, it should say so, the authors wrote.

Treating all deaths following COVID-19 infection as virus-caused deaths, which created a staggering official death toll, has given rise to "an unprecedented sloppy regulation process" that allowed the novel mRNA vaccine technology to be widely tested in humans for the first time, they wrote.

Van Puijenbroek is tacitly arguing that "the largest vaccination experiment in the history of medicine cannot be assessed for safety and unforeseeable toxicities," but the authors believe "it is mandatory" to use existing "imperfect data" to gauge vaccine safety.

To conclusively end this debate, governments or "university consortia" should set up a transparent "systematic observational post-marketing surveillance study" across a large group of vaccinated people, they said.

Meanwhile in France…

French Government Considers Making COVID Vaccine Mandatory For Everyone Aged 24-59

I can’t see THAT ending well

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Meanwhile in France…

French Government Considers Making COVID Vaccine Mandatory For Everyone Aged 24-59

I can’t see THAT ending well

If this doesn't make the French remember their torch and pitchfork genes, nothing will.

The French....Says it all right there. Why no mandatory vaccine for the HIGHEST risk group over 65??

Well, I'll let y'all know the sense of things there when I visit next month.

By the way, the chance of this actually happening in France...well, it isn't high.

I can't believe how much y'all are worried about adverse effects from the vaccine. Approximately 2/3 of the population has gotten a shot. If it was as deadly as the disease at half a percent chance of dying then I'd be concerned. 200m x .005 = 1m. The vaccines haven't killed a million people. That would be nearly the double COVID deaths itself.

The fact they are administering it to healthy people under 40 is insane, but it's very unlikely to kill you.

I agree with ZS, consult your *trusted* doctor. I've had the same for 25 years, I trust him, and follow what he says. If I didn't trust him he'd be fired.

ETA, I didn't trust it, and didn't want to be a guinea pig, so I waited as long as possible until over 100m people acted as guinea pigs. That was enough of a sample size for me to weigh the risks of the shot.

No one knows about the possible long-term effects.

When you take the vaccine, you're doing something which cannot be undone. If you trust the "authorities" then take your shot. Their word is always reliable. They're never wrong, they never mislead.

Three years from now. Five. Ten. What are the possible long-term effects? You're playing with fire.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
I can't believe how much y'all are worried about adverse effects from the vaccine. Approximately 2/3 of the population has gotten a shot. If it was as deadly as the disease at half a percent chance of dying then I'd be concerned. 200m x .005 = 1m. The vaccines haven't killed a million people. That would be nearly the double COVID deaths itself.

The fact they are administering it to healthy people under 40 is insane, but it's very unlikely to kill you.

I agree with ZS, consult your *trusted* doctor. I've had the same for 25 years, I trust him, and follow what he says. If I didn't trust him he'd be fired.

ETA, I didn't trust it, and didn't want to be a guinea pig, so I waited as long as possible until over 100m people acted as guinea pigs. That was enough of a sample size for me to weigh the risks of the shot.

Because the disease itself is about as deadly as a strong seasonal flu. Death numbers are extremely falsified. Notice how they changed the death certificates? Hows about those COVID payouts per case? No chance of slimy hospital managers pushing to get that extra payout for every patient "presumed to have Covid"

Nothing wrong with cause of death being COVID because it "may have been a contributing factor".
No proof of actual COVID required, just if you coughed before dying. Have a motor cycle crash after a positive test, COVID.

The vaccine is about as effective at stopping a person from catching and spread of the disease as a placebo. (0.63%- 3.0%)

All it does is "may reduce the symptoms of the disease", So is about as effective as Tylenol Flu medicine.

You want to risk any of the side affects of a "Vaccine" that is causing clotting issues in healthy people (strokes, heart attacks, pulmonary embolism etc), knock yourself out.

Oh and can you list any other medicine/vaccine that has killed or associated with killing > 5k people and is still on the market?
Any other product that the manufacturers are immune from lawsuits, when their product is used as directed?

Nope nothing to see here.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Three years from now. Five. Ten. What are the possible long-term effects? You're playing with fire.

^^^This. Nothing angers me more than a liar, and there are hundreds if not thousands of liars lying to us right now claiming the vaccines are safe. There is no data to speak of thus far to prove definitely one way or the other their safety for all subsets of the population. And the most absurd and dishonest requirement for people who have had the virus and were either asymptomatic or recovered from it to be vaccinated, or for children to be vaccinated that the threat to their health is statistically incalculable, tells me all I need to know personally about the underlying motivations of this vaccine nonsense (i.e. money and power).

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
I can't believe how much y'all are worried about adverse effects from the vaccine.

Shitting me? Besides the actual OFFICIAL data that shows this vaccine is completely incongruous with all other previous vaccines in regards to what is considered safe and an acceptable risk, my own personal anecdotal evidence tells me without any doubt in my mind that this vaccine is dangerous, and you're frankly a fool to trust anyone who tells you it's safe at this point in the game

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
I can't believe how much y'all are worried about adverse effects from the vaccine.

Shitting me? Besides the actual OFFICIAL data that shows this vaccine is completely incongruous with all other previous vaccines in regards to what is considered safe and an acceptable risk, my own personal anecdotal evidence tells me without any doubt in my mind that this vaccine is dangerous, and you're frankly a fool to trust anyone who tells you it's safe at this point in the game

Balze I know where you're going, but to be fair, there really isn't adequate data available to draw any real solid conclusions yet, even though there are some indications that certain groups may be at risk. That in and of itself should be more than enough reason to cause people pause. And I feel for those folks here that are being mandated by their employer to take the poke or potentially lose their source of income.

My biggest concern is that the data that would tell us definitely how effective and/or safe these vaccines are over the long haul is either not being collected/compiled/analyzed/released, or is actively being altered and/or buried to support the current agenda. Regardless, I personally don't trust government on any level at this point, so they can shove their fabulous vaccines up their azzes.

Fauci changes tune again, says vaccinated should wear masks in parts of US

https://nypost.com/2021/07/04/...asks-in-parts-of-us/

White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci said Sunday that fully vaccinated Americans should “go the extra step” and wear masks when traveling to parts of the country with low vaccination rates.

Fauci, who is also the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “there would be good reason” to wear masks in those areas “because, as we’ve said so often, vaccines are not, even as good as they are and highly effective, 100 percent.

“And if you put yourself in an environment in which you have a high level of viral dynamics and a very low level of vaccine, you might want to go the extra step and say, ‘When I’m in that area where there’s a considerable degree of viral circulation, I might want to go the extra mile to be cautious enough to make sure that I get the extra added level of protection’, even though the vaccines themselves are highly effective,” he added.

“Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd had asked Fauci, who was fully vaccinated in January, whether he would wear a mask if he traveled to Mississippi, the state currently with the lowest vaccination rate.

Fauci’s comments were at odds with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who told NBC’s “Today” show June 30 that fully vaccinated Americans are “safe from the variants that are circulating here in the United States.”

Walensky also reiterated that the CDC’s stance remains that fully vaccinated Americans are not obligated to wear masks and added that “masking policies are not to protect the vaccinated, they’re to protect the unvaccinated.”

Fauci himself has a history of inconsistency when it comes to mask-wearing. Emails obtained by Buzzfeed News last month showed Fauci told former Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell in February 2020 that “[t]he typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”

The NIAID director later changed his tune and mask recommendations and mandates were in effect in many states by the middle of last spring.

In May of this year, Fauci told CBS News that vaccinated Americans don’t need to wear masks outside.

“If you were going into a completely crowded situation where people are essentially falling all over each other, then you wear a mask,” he said at the time. “But any other time, if you’re vaccinated and you’re outside, put aside your mask. You don’t have to wear it.”