Death by DeSantis

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Interesting considering that the CDC had revised their estimate and lowered their estimate of omnicron cases to less than half,

And WHEN do you think that happened ?

:tearsofjoy:

Hint: it occurred on 12/18/21 - which was more than a month ago (appears it was first reported around 12/28/21)

meaning delta is currently more prevalent and their antibodies work against that strain.

... WAS more prevalent ... more than a month ago:

CDC - COVID Data Tracker - Monitoring Variant Proportions

Screen Shot 2022-01-26 at 02.26.16.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATeam

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Assuming the CDC estimates aren’t wrong again…

I don't know the exact process by which the previous misestimation was arrived at so hard to comment.

Seems premature to ban antibodies that work effectively against delta.

Based on the information that I supplied, no it isn't.

The reason why it isn't, is because if they continue to allow therapeutics to be used to treat people who do not have a variant which they are effective on, they are depriving people of an effective treatment ... and are essentially giving them a "feel good" placebo.

It would be tantamount to medical malpractice ... and shows why such decisions are best left in the hands of medical professionals rather than politicians.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I don't know the exact process by which the previous misestimation was arrived at so hard to comment.



Based on the information that I supplied, no it isn't.

The reason why it isn't, is because if they continue to allow therapeutics to be used to treat people who do not have a variant which they are effective on, they are depriving people of an effective treatment ... and are essentially giving them a "feel good" placebo.

It would be tantamount to medical malpractice ... and shows why such decisions are best left in the hands of medical professionals rather than politicians.
How are they depriving them of “effective treatment”? There can more than one that is given to a patient.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I don't know the exact process by which the previous misestimation was arrived at so hard to comment.



Based on the information that I supplied, no it isn't.

The reason why it isn't, is because if they continue to allow therapeutics to be used to treat people who do not have a variant which they are effective on, they are depriving people of an effective treatment ... and are essentially giving them a "feel good" placebo.

It would be tantamount to medical malpractice ... and shows why such decisions are best left in the hands of medical professionals rather than politicians.
It also assumes that they definitively don’t work against Omicron AND that their estimation is correct and it’s 99% not Delta. But they were off by 50% before in their estimation so hopefully they have improved their methods.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
How are they depriving them of “effective treatment”?

Well, one way would be if someone took one of the ineffective therapeutics under the mistaken assumption and believing it would actually handle their condition.

There can more than one that is given to a patient.

Based on whose recommendation and guidance ?

... The Muttly School of Roll Yer Own Backyard Pharmacology's "Mix-N-Match" Protocol ?

Maybe toss in some hydroxy and ivermectin too ... just for good measure ?

:tearsofjoy:
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Vaccines are safe except for that myocarditis thingy.

:tearsofjoy:

Yeah, sure ... on the other hand, monoclonals are totes cool ... and totally safe:

5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
There are limited clinical data available for bamlanivimab and etesevimab. Serious and unexpected adverse events may occur that have not been previously reported with use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together.

5.1 Hypersensitivity Including Anaphylaxis and Infusion-Related Reactions
Serious hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been observed with administration of bamlanivimab and etesevimab. If signs and symptoms of a clinically significant hypersensitivity reaction or anaphylaxis occur, immediately discontinue administration and initiate appropriate medications and/or supportive care.

Infusion-related reactions, occurring during the infusion and up to 24 hours after the infusion, have been observed with administration of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together. These reactions may be severe or life threatening.
Signs and symptoms of infusion related reactions may include [see Overall Safety Summary (6.1)]:
fever, difficulty breathing, reduced oxygen saturation, chills, fatigue, arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, bradycardia), chest pain or discomfort, weakness, altered mental status, nausea, headache, bronchospasm, hypotension, hypertension, angioedema, throat irritation, rash including urticaria, pruritus, myalgia, vasovagal reactions (e.g., pre-syncope, syncope), dizziness and diaphoresis.

Consider slowing or stopping the infusion and administer appropriate medications and/or supportive care if an infusion-related reaction occurs.

Hypersensitivity reactions occurring more than 24 hours after the infusion have also been reported with the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab under Emergency Use Authorization.

5.2 Clinical Worsening After Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab Administration

Clinical worsening of COVID-19 after administration of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together has been reported and may include signs or symptoms of fever, hypoxia or increased respiratory difficulty, arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, bradycardia), fatigue, and altered mental status. Some of these events required hospitalization. It is not known if these events were related to bamlanivimab and etesevimab use or were due to progression of COVID-19.

5.3 Limitations of Benefit and Potential for Risk in Patients with Severe COVID-19
Treatment with bamlanivimab and etesevimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies, such bamlanivimab and etesevimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation.

FACT SHEET FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF BAMLANIVIMAB AND ETESEVIMAB
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline

Lessee ... who is more credible ?

Lying politician who appears to be fudging his own state's reporting COVID numbers and is trying to deflect from his own screw ups in order to save face ?

Or ... the FDA, the CDC, and the concurring makers of the products that are in dispute ?

For some folks, that's actually a tough question apparently ...

:tearsofjoy:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: danthewolf00

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Well, one way would be if someone took one of the ineffective therapeutics under the mistaken assumption and believing it would actually handle their condition.



Based on whose recommendation and guidance ?

... The Muttly School of Roll Yer Own Backyard Pharmacology's "Mix-N-Match" Protocol ?

Maybe toss in some hydroxy and ivermectin too ... just for good measure ?

:tearsofjoy:
You can be vaccinated and get monoclonals. You also can take hydroxy and ivermectin at the same time while vaccinated and also get the monoclonals. What treatment are you referring to that you can’t mix?
 
  • Like
Reactions: danthewolf00

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
It also assumes that they definitively don’t work against Omicron AND that their estimation is correct and it’s 99% not Delta.

I'll go with the makers of the products who say they are not.

You can go with DeSantis.

:tearsofjoy:

But they were off by 50% before in their estimation

Which they promptly revised.

so hopefully they have improved their methods.

Looks like they already have.

That's they way science works.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Lessee ... who is more credible ?

Lying politician who appears to be fudging his own state's reporting COVID numbers and is trying to deflect from his own screw ups in order to save face ?

Or ... the FDA, the CDC, and the concurring makers of the products that are in dispute ?

For some folks, that's actually a tough question apparently ...

:tearsofjoy:
Can you fact check whether the CDC and FDA has never been political? Thanks in advance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danthewolf00

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
You can be vaccinated and get monoclonals.

So what ?

:tearsofjoy:

You also can take hydroxy and ivermectin at the same time while vaccinated and also get the monoclonals.

As well as take hydrogen peroxide orally.

And drink your own urine ... if that sorta thing floats your boat.

:tearsofjoy:

What treatment are you referring to that you can’t mix?

I didn't say one couldn't do it ... I'm just not sure that it would necessarily be good medicine.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
:tearsofjoy:

Yeah, sure ... on the other hand, monoclonals are totes cool ... and totally safe:














FACT SHEET FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF BAMLANIVIMAB AND ETESEVIMAB
And so what? This isn’t about whataboutism. The lady wanted a yes or know answer if the vaccines were safe. Is myocarditis a serious and potentially dangerous condition to have? The vaccines can cause this condition predominantly in males under 30 years old. So if she wanted a yes or no answer whether the vaccines are safe, the answer would have to be NO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danthewolf00

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Offline
And so what? This isn’t about whataboutism.

Yes - it isn't.

It's about comparative risks vs beneficial outcomes.

The lady wanted a yes or know answer if the vaccines were safe.

No indication in that last tweet (with video) you posted that anyone asked a question, unless perhaps you are referring to the FL Senator who was questioning the Surgeon General Nominee.

Is that who you are referring to ?

If it is, apparently you didn't listen to the actual exchange.

Despite the tweet claiming that the Surgeon General was asked about vaccines being "safe and effective" he was actually only asked whether they were effective.

Is myocarditis a serious and potentially dangerous condition to have?

It certainly can be ... depending on the severity.

The vaccines can cause this condition predominantly in males under 30 years old.

COVID can cause it as well.

So if she wanted a yes or no answer whether the vaccines are safe,

No, she didn't.

Try actually listening for a change.

the answer would have to be NO.

I don't think so, given the preponderance of the evidence.

The more accurate answer would be YES.

The MOST ACCURATE ANSWER would be: yes, for the vast majority of the population, they are.

Nonetheless, the Surgeon General Nominee appeared to try and dance around and avoid giving that answer ... likely because he knew that it wasn't the answer his master wanted to be given.

Dr. Fauci would have stepped up and given the correct, most accurate answer.

That's the difference between between a (public health) professional ... and a clown ... who has his present job due solely to politics.

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Myocarditis
 
Top