- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "I Went to the Hospital with chest pains. The reality in the ER was interesting..."
Posted on 1/18/23 at 3:48 pm to jimmy the leg
Posted on 1/18/23 at 3:48 pm to jimmy the leg
as signaling to lead people to infer dangers that the evidence doesn't support.
2
Posted on 1/18/23 at 3:50 pm to TigerDoc
quote:The larger (actually FAR larger) reason people are suspicious is because covidian propaganda has been both stupid and provably duplicitous.
Part of the reason people are suspicious is because anti-vaccine propaganda is lucrative an common.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 3:51 pm to NC_Tigah
It's more related to how the media covers science and health reporting IMO.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 3:54 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
It's more related to how the media covers science and health reporting IMO.
You mean:
Those that believe in natural immunity are terrorists killing more people than ISIS?
Posted on 1/18/23 at 3:54 pm to Sev09
quote:
(seemingly connected to stress levels during flare ups).
yup. i have had it before. one time my doctor called it bursitis of the breastbone. stress makes it flare up. either taking anti-inflammatory pills or drinking alcohol can lower it.
quote:
I’m not sure it normally radiates down the arm though?
no. mainly you can feel it in chest area
Posted on 1/18/23 at 3:58 pm to TigerDoc
quote:Like cloth masks?
evidence doesn't support
Bat soup?
The Chinese didn't deliberately release CV19 to Italy?
CV19 is a zoonosis?
Two weeks to stop the spread?
GOF research is worth the risk .... EVEN IF A PANDEMIC RESULTS?
Vax your baby?
Ivermectin is horse medicine?
Evidence?
Amongst Covidians?
You really went there?
Posted on 1/18/23 at 3:58 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
It's more related to how the media covers science and health reporting IMO.
You serious Clark? Holy shite.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 3:58 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
as signaling to lead people to infer dangers that the evidence doesn't support.
Sooooooo...
Why ask the question?
My take, there is no reason to ask the question based upon what was relayed to the general public concerning the safety of the vaccines.
Unless something has changed, there is no reason to ask the question.
It would be like me having a case of the trots, going to the ER, and them asking if I wiped my arse with Charmin, or Angel Soft.
The question is irrelevant.
There is no reason (based on what we have been told) to ask the question concerning vaccines, which begs:
Why ask the question?
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:00 pm to jimmy the leg
I'll agree with you that that wasn't helpful. What I mean is that topline results like "95% effective at preventing infection" got magnified and the caveats get missed and then along with the massive baseline success of vaccines, expectations were set so high, it opened the door for backlash, both righteous and opportunistic.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:01 pm to TigerDoc
quote:NO!
It's more related to how the media covers science and health reporting IMO.
Sorry!
I watched Anthony Fauci lie to Congress one too many times to blame his misinformation on ""bad reporting""
What Fauci claimed was accurately reported.
This post was edited on 1/18/23 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:03 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Why ask the question?
when there are multiple novel vaccines at the same time, shouldn't they be considered separately in case they have different risks and benefits?
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:06 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
when there are multiple novel vaccines at the same time, shouldn't they be considered separately in case they have different risks and benefits?
If there are potential issues from them - yes.
That isn’t what the public was told.
Dare say I can go back in threads early on and find you espousing the absolute and unadulterated safety of the vaccines.
Have things changed since then?
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:09 pm to TigerDoc
Serious question:
What is the "massive baseline success" of the covid vaccine?
Does not prevent infection. Does not prevent transmission. Vaccinated and boosted still are hospitalized and some die.
What is the "massive baseline success" of the covid vaccine?
Does not prevent infection. Does not prevent transmission. Vaccinated and boosted still are hospitalized and some die.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:09 pm to NC_Tigah
I think you have some fair points and others I'd dispute in that gish-gallop, but I don't fundamentally disagree. The public health response was mixed with a lot of very bad aspects, but worst part of all was that it got politicized in the context of impeachment I finishing up as the pandemic was starting up and it getting treated as politics from the jump. That didn't happen everywhere and in places it didn't happen you have less vaccine drama. In Canada, all 3 major parties supported public health recs that were similar to ours and there was and is less drama over it to this day.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:11 pm to Vandergriff
Sorry I wasn't clear there - I was referring to the massive baseline success of vaccination in the 20th century as a background for this. Multiple major scourges of humanity were eradicated or became so rare that trainees only see them in texts.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:16 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
doesn’t compute for a vaccine(s) with no side effects.
The language was simple and precise:
“Safe and effective.”
The claim isn't that vaccines have no side effects. They are expected to have side effects. Most vaccine side effects are acute and mild, those that are serious generally have their onset relatively shortly after vaccination (especially for non-live vaccines).
What they mean by safe and effective is that it lowers relative risk and is comparably safe to other vaccines which are marketed. If you want to dispute that that language should be different in an Emergency Use context, then I can understand that position. Maybe there should be more equivocation in that context.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:22 pm to Vandergriff
No problem, to address your other point about effectiveness, the vaccine's real but recently weak and temporary benefits in preventing infection are substantial and get a lot of play on this board, but the real benefits in relative-risk reduction of hospitalization and death are very well-evidenced at this point. The public got spoiled with some vaccines like polio and small pox that allowed for eradication and set us up for expectations that have led to this bitter backlash.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:22 pm to TigerDoc
What drug is most often prescribed for dementia patients? I’d like to see the list of side effects.
Posted on 1/18/23 at 4:24 pm to EKG
quote:
While that diagnosis certainly seems possible (rib cartilage injuries aren’t freakishly unusual) …. Think I’d be in a cardiologist’s office on Monday for a second opinion. Then in a different cardiologist’s office on Wednesday for a third on
I’d keep going until I found a doctor that agreed with the PT board.
Page 7 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News