Forum Replies Created

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
    • Fri, Jul 30, 2021 - 12:19am

      #2
      Micawber

      Micawber

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 21 2020

      Posts: 6

      count placeholder2

      Which telemed group should I use to get Rx for Covid?

    Used myfreedoctor.com and it was a simple process. Difficult part was paying for the prescription at the pharmacy.

    • Thu, Jun 24, 2021 - 08:01pm   (Reply to #9)

      #10
      Micawber

      Micawber

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 21 2020

      Posts: 6

      count placeholder0

      It’s Reasonable To Be Skeptical

    Genius_Level_IQ – Very much looking forward to seeing your posts.

    • Wed, Jun 23, 2021 - 12:30am   (Reply to #2)

      #6
      Micawber

      Micawber

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Mar 21 2020

      Posts: 6

      count placeholder4

      It’s Reasonable To Be Skeptical

    Genius_Level_IQ,

    Thank you so much for the engagement and push back. Here are my thoughts and clarifications based on your comments.

    1. My main argument in point one is regarding profit vs liability. Allowing profit with no liability risk creates a difficult moral hazard IMO. The long-term effects of the vaccine are being, and will continue to be, revealed over time. Since this data was not discovered during a normal two-year trial, the vaccine IS research and all who have received the vaccine ARE de facto research subjects. Principle 15 does apply in an ethical sense, but I think I should remove it since it obviously distracts from the main point.

    2. I would appreciate seeing the data and method used to calculate “very low probability of harm”. This obviously cannot include any data on long-term effects. Is this an extrapolation based on short-term data? Is it based on past experience that most harmful side effects are found during the first few months of a trial? I can be convinced on this point, but I need an explanation of how the probability of harm has been determined to be very low.

    3. I apologize, but I don’t have a genius level IQ, and I have failed to grasp your point here. Can you please clarify?

    4. I think the data supporting a conclusion that the vaccines are effective at counteracting the virus is solid. And my points are not intended to be taken as a conclusive argument that there are absolutely no circumstances, such as high-risk groups, under which it would make sense in a risk benefit calculation to take a vaccine. This is a good point for me to clarify. And remember, my argument is for skepticism, not blind denial. The examples of suppression I see may be the result of excellent intentions and aren’t necessarily a “cover-up”. My point is that skepticism (not denial) is reasonable since distinguishing intentions requires the ability to read minds which I can’t do.

    5. We have reached different conclusions here. Although the doses recommended for prophylactic use of ivermectin for Covid 19 are higher than those for use as an anti-parasitic, there is a 40-year history of safety  evidence even at higher doses. On the other hand, mRNA vaccine technology was invented over 30 years ago and nonetheless has but a 6 month history of safety data. I’ll go with ivermectin. And I agree that ivermectin is a drug with associated risks of its own.

    6. The EUA itself is not evidence at all in my argument, which obviously needs clarification. What I’m referring to here is that a common argument against ivermectin is that there are no 2-year, $20M, gold standard, randomized, double blind trials supporting its use against C19. And there are no such trials for the vaccines either. There is an apparent double standard here that needs explanation for me to not see it as a reason for skepticism.

    7. It would be reasonable to listen, without an intervening layer of skepticism, to the advice of my doctors or physician or quorum of doctors, or physicians, against whom there is no evidence of deception or conflicts of interest, as long as they are not simply regurgitating information originating from those against whom there is such evidence. In any case, I would not simply “accept” their advice, but I would listen with the goal of reaching informed agreement.

    8. This is a point that I think I need to research further and understand more completely before I can make my argument. Thank you for the push back.

    9. I hear your argument. However, I think the circumstances of this vaccine campaign are different than the remunerations associated with other studies which are very limited in scope. This campaign on the other hand is limited only by the population of the planet. More, not less, care should be taken to guide people to make reasonably informed decisions about their health rather than under the influence of baked goods. The fact that some people will go for the donut is beside the point. I’d like to hear others weigh in on this one.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)