User Controls
STICK IT, Damn It!
-
2021-10-03 at 5:44 PM UTCTell it to the judge at your sentencing.
She'll love being told she has no authority. -
2021-10-03 at 5:48 PM UTC
-
2021-10-03 at 5:52 PM UTCWhen was the last time you had anything positive to say about anything?
Good God, it must be miserable to be you. -
2021-10-03 at 5:53 PM UTC
-
2021-10-03 at 6:11 PM UTCMake 'em
All
Get
A jab before they get a card
Business Insider
A Connecticut doctor who gave patients blank, signed COVID-19 exemption forms has surrendered her medical license
ydzhanova@businessinsider.com (Yelena Dzhanova)
Sue McIntosh, a former Connecticut physician, has surrendered her medical degree after an investigation found she gave blank exemption waivers to patients.
Patients who wanted a waiver had to mail her a self-addressed and stamped envelope to receive one.
These waivers gave people a reason to avoid wearing masks or getting vaccinated.
A Connecticut doctor voluntarily surrendered her medical license on Friday, after officials learned she was giving patients blank, signed COVID-19 exemption waivers.
An anonymous tip to the Connecticut Medical Examining Board prompted an investigation into retired physician Sue McIntosh.
She had been "providing fraudulent vaccine exemption forms through the mail related to COVID-19 vaccines, general vaccines, COVID testing, and medical opposition to wearing facial masks," the investigation said. Patients, when they received these forms, only had to fill out their name and date and then select a reason for a mask exemption, records show.
She sent out these forms without ever having physically examined the patients, the board said. Patients who wanted an exemption waiver had to mail her a self-addressed and stamped envelope to receive one.
Supplemental documents provided by the state's health department said McIntosh also instructed patients to "copy and distribute as many forms as they wish."
Her license was suspended on September 24. About a week later, McIntosh surrendered her license, according to a release from the state's health department.
"Let freedom ring!" McIntosh wrote on an instruction form accompanying the waiver.
Each waiver was signed by McIntosh. The mask exemption form said that the patient knows "to practice hygiene, including sneezing or coughing into an elbow, handkerchief or clothing."
And the vaccine exemption form says that McIntosh certified that the patient has anaphylaxis to polyethylene glycol and "cannot be vaccinated."
"These actions by Dr. McIntosh are irresponsible and unacceptable," Connecticut Department of Public Health Commissioner Manisha Juthani, said in a statement. "Her practice of medicine represents a clear and immediate danger to the public health and safety of our communities. The suspension of her license should serve as a warning to other practitioners that this conduct deviates from the standard of care and is subject to serious discipline." -
2021-10-03 at 6:13 PM UTC
-
2021-10-03 at 6:15 PM UTC
-
2021-10-03 at 7:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Just because the dictionary claims something does not make it so. For a law to be valid, it must first have the authority. In turn, the authority derives from the people, not the decriers, mandators or compulsories. Therefore, valid laws must first be demonstrated to be necessary for the common good, they must be put through the lawful channels, and they must receive the approval and authority of the people, to be considered a valid law. Did you actually think invalid laws do not exist, or have never existed? Decrees, mandates, compulsions, requirements, requests and ordinances without due process and without lawful authority are invalid on their face and can be justly ignored.
That’s right St1. Every thing has changed, even the meaning of words😂
Remember what you see and hear are not real also.
My gawd there are some real idiots out there. -
2021-10-03 at 7:32 PM UTCMaybe I'm going to wait
A while until I'm
Going to know that the vaccine is
A safe one (400,000,000 doses later)
Reuters
U.S. administers nearly 396 mln doses of COVID-19 vaccines - CDC
Oct 3 (Reuters) - The United States had administered 395,934,825 doses of COVID-19 vaccines in the country as of Sunday and distributed 478,410,525 doses, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said.
Those figures are up from the 394,690,283 vaccine doses that the CDC said had gone into arms by Saturday out of 478,362,045 doses delivered.
The agency said 215,233,625 people had received at least one dose while 185,492,579 people had been fully vaccinated as of 6:00 a.m. ET on Sunday.
The CDC tally includes two-dose vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech , as well as Johnson & Johnson's one-shot vaccine.
About 5.3 million people have received an additional dose of either Pfizer or Moderna's vaccine since Aug. 13, when the U.S. authorized a third dose of the vaccines for people with compromised immune systems who are likely to have weaker protection from the two-dose regimens. (Reporting by Maria Ponnezhath in Bengaluru; Editing by Aurora Ellis) -
2021-10-03 at 7:34 PM UTC
-
2021-10-03 at 7:42 PM UTC
-
2021-10-03 at 7:43 PM UTC
-
2021-10-04 at 1:04 AM UTC
-
2021-10-04 at 5:23 AM UTCMaybe
A vampire is
Gonna go
And bite you
Your Tango
Wife Of Man On Ventilator With COVID-19 Refuses To Allow Him To Be Given Vaccinated Blood
Isaac Serna-Diez
A woman’s 52-year-old unvaccinated husband landed in the hospital from severe Covid symptoms last month and needed to be placed in the ICU with a ventilator and ECMO.
Her tweets about the tragic situation reveal her refusal to let doctors administer provided much-needed care, for fear he would receive vaccinated blood.
The woman refused her husband a vaccinated blood transfusion before he died from COVID-19.
After a month-long fight, her husband passed away from the virus, she claims this wasn’t because he was unvaccinated.
The woman’s original tweet claimed that she was starting her own personal blood drive for her husband because blood banks weren’t separating vaccinated blood from the unvaccinated blood.
“Blood Banks DO NOT separate blood as vaxed/unvaxxed,” she tweeted, “do your research!!!!! We should have a choice!”
Vaccines do not circulate in the blood.
After a growing amount of reports that unvaccinated patients are refusing blood transfusions, the American Red Cross has had to answer questions regarding how the Covid-19 vaccines work and how they affect your blood.
Officials said they’ve had to reassure clients that a Covid-19 vaccine, which is injected into a muscle or the layer of skin below, doesn’t circulate in the blood.
“While the antibodies that are produced by the stimulated immune system in response to vaccination are found throughout the bloodstream, the actual vaccine components are not,” Jessa Merrill, the Red Cross director of biomedical communications, said in an email.
To combat Covid-19 vaccine misinformation, the CDC has released an article on their website that clarifies how vaccines work.
Put simply, when the vaccine is administered to the cells in your muscle, they are given instructions to create a protein that your immune system will learn to identify and attack with the antibodies mentioned by Merrill.
Even though some of these antibodies may be transferred during the transfusion, they do not contain any of the vaccine components nor do they give any protection against the virus.
The FDA, which has approved the Covid-19 vaccine, has deemed it safe for blood establishments to continue transfusing blood from those who have taken the vaccine.
“It is imperative that healthy individuals continue to donate blood and blood components, including Source Plasma,” they said in their article.
The research that does matter, is the research that proves the Covid vaccine is reliable for preventing hospitalizations and deaths among those who show symptoms.
According to multiple studies done by the CDC, those who are not fully vaccinated are more than 10x more likely to be hospitalized and 11 times more likely to die of the virus.
The woman claims her husband was denied Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.
A follow-up tweet from the woman claimed that her husband had been “denied early treatment with drugs that ACTUALLY WORK like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine!!!”
The CDC and FDA have not approved either ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine as potential treatments for the Covid-19 virus and have actually warned against using them to treat it.
Misinformation on the Covid vaccine approved by the FDA has been spreading since its conception, but this is one of the cases where it truly becomes harmful and led to someone’s death.
Experts have said that up to 70% of the country's blood supply is now coming from donors who have either already received the vaccine or have had the virus.
The FDA also assures the public that “respiratory viruses, in general, are not known to be transmitted by blood transfusion,” and that there are no reports of blood-transfusion transmitted cases of Covid. -
2021-10-04 at 5:32 AM UTCmRNA
And
Getting
A Nobel
Covid vaccines a shoo-in? Medicine opens Nobel season
AFP
The Nobel season opens on Monday with the pioneers of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines and immune system research tipped for the medicine prize, which kicks off a week of awards against the backdrop of the pandemic.
Discoveries on mRNA vaccines, published in 2005, paved the way for the development of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines© Osvaldo Silva Discoveries on mRNA vaccines, published in 2005, paved the way for the development of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines
Breakthroughs in breast cancer, new approaches to rheumatology treatments, as well as research into epigenetics, cell adhesion and antibiotic resistance are also believed to have good chances of winning, experts polled by AFP said.
Two names stand out in particular this year, given the ongoing pandemic: Hungary's Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman of the United States, pioneers of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and professors at the University of Pennsylvania.
Their discoveries, published in 2005, paved the way for the development of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, which have already been injected into more than a billion people worldwide.
The technology has also shown promising results for use against other diseases.
The creator of the prizes, Swedish dynamite inventor Alfred Nobel, laid out in his will that the awards should go to those who have conferred the "greatest benefit to humankind" -- making the pair an obvious choice to some.
"It would be a mistake for the Nobel committee not to give the prize to the mRNA vaccine this year, even if it is a bit risky," said Ulrika Bjorksten, head of Swedish public radio's science section.
She noted the pair's work could also be worthy of the Nobel Chemistry Prize, to be announced on Wednesday.
However, many believe the duo -- who hold senior positions at German laboratory BioNTech -- may have to wait for the accolade.
The various committees tasked with selecting winners for the science prizes are known for allowing years or even decades to pass so that a discovery's true impact can be evaluated before the Nobel is bestowed.
In theory, Nobel's will also specified the prizes should go to work done in the past year, but this has rarely been heeded.
"I don't think it will happen. I just think of the conservatism of the committee's choice. Certainly they would be considered in future years but I'm doubtful for this year," David Pendlebury of Clarivate Analytics, which publishes a list of likely laureates.
Pendlebury said he instead believed the prize would likely go to American Max Cooper, 88, and French-Australian Jacques Miller, 90, for their discovery that white blood cells essential to the human immune system were divided into two categories, B and T lymphocytes.
T-cells have also played a role in understanding immunity to Covid-19.
In 2019, the two received the prestigious Lasker Prize -- often seen as a precursor to the Nobel.
But the fact that they have yet to receive a Nobel is widely seen as an anomaly.
"For these two, there must be something we don't know," Pendlebury said.
Other researchers believed to be worthy of a Nobel include pioneers in the field of cell adhesion, such as Japan's Masatoshi Takeichi, US-Finnish scientist Erkki Ruoslahti and British biologist Richard Hynes.
The study of how behaviour and environment can cause changes that affect how genes work -- a field known as epigenetics -- is also seen as a possibility, with American David Allis and American-Romanian Michael Grunstein mentioned.
- In the midst of Covid-19 -
In the fight against breast cancer, Americans Dennis Slamon and Mary-Claire King could win for identifying risk genes, which has paved the way for treatments.
Another gene specialist, Lebanese-American Huda Zoghbi who discovered the gene responsible for Rett syndrome, is also among potential recipients.
Australian-British Marc Feldmann and Briton Ravinder Maini have also been mentioned for years for having identified the role of a cytokine in rheumatoid arthritis.
The UK's Julian Davies could see also his research into antibiotic resistance, a serious public health issue, given the nod.
While the 2020 award was handed out in the midst of the pandemic, this is the first time the entire selection process has taken place under the shadow of Covid-19.
Nominations closed at the end of January, and at that time last year the novel coronavirus was still largely confined to China.
The 2020 prize did end up going to virus research, albeit the discovery of the Hepatitis C virus.
The Nobel season continues on Tuesday with the award for physics and Wednesday with chemistry, followed by the much-anticipated prizes for literature on Thursday and peace on Friday.
The economics prize winds up the season on Monday, October 11.
This year's Nobels come with a cheque for 10 million Swedish kronor ($1.1 million, one million euros). -
2021-10-04 at 8:49 AM UTCmaybe
nobody
cares -
2021-10-04 at 10:52 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-10-04 at 10:55 AM UTC
Where's my fucking nobel prize? -
2021-10-04 at 10:56 AM UTC
-
2021-10-04 at 1:16 PM UTCSWALLOW IT, damn it!
HealthDay
Powerful New Antivirals for COVID Are Coming
Dennis Thompson
MONDAY, Oct. 4, 2021 (HealthDay News) -- People newly infected with COVID-19 might soon have access to what essentially is Tamiflu for the novel coronavirus, a breakthrough that experts say would drastically alter the course of the ongoing pandemic.
At least three contenders are vying to become the first antiviral pill that specifically targets COVID-19, according to reports from drug manufacturers.
Such a pill could be prescribed by your doctor and taken while you recuperate at home, potentially limiting the impact of a COVID infection on your body.
Merck & Co.'s antiviral drug molnupiravir leapt into the lead on Friday. That's when the company announced it will ask for quick U.S. approval for emergency use of their pill, after clinical trials showed it halved patients' risk of hospitalization or death from COVID.
But two other candidates also are well along in clinical trials: one from Pfizer Inc. and another from Roche and Atea Pharmaceuticals.
If they prove safe and effective, these drug candidates could keep people infected with COVID out of the hospital and prevent those around them from contracting the coronavirus, experts said.
"These are all drugs that in one way or another interfere with the multiplication of the virus," said Dr. William Schaffner, medical director of the Bethesda, Md.-based National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.
"If you were exposed and the virus is already in your body starting to multiply, if we could get in there early with these drugs that inhibit their multiplication, obviously the virus can't spread to other parts of your body -- thus sparing you developing illness or getting a milder illness," Schaffner said. "It also would make you less contagious to others."
People living with a COVID patient also might be able to get a prescription for one of these antivirals, Schaffner said.
"It might well be that we could give these drugs to family members who are exposed and never have them develop any infection at all," Schaffner said.
Existing treatments are flawed
There are already antiviral treatments available for people in the early throes of COVID, but they each have flaws that limit their usefulness.
Doctors have been using remdesivir -- a drug developed to treat Ebola -- to curb the damage done by a COVID infection, but its effectiveness is limited, said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
"What we've seen so far, drugs like remdesivir are not really knockout punches because they are kind of repurposed" from the viruses they originally targeted, Adalja said.
Monoclonal antibodies also can attack the virus in early infection, but "as you know they're in short supply and they're pretty darned expensive," Schaffner said. "They have to be given either intravenously or through a series of multiple injections under the skin, all of which makes things even more expensive, and you have to go to designated locations for treatment."
Adalja said, "What we've always needed is a Tamiflu equivalent to keep people out of the hospital, to decrease complications, but it takes time for antiviral drugs to be made because they're so specific to the viruses that are causing disease." Prescribed for flu, Tamiflu (oseltamivir) reduces flu symptoms and shortens recovery time.
Merck's announcement was electrifying, in part because the clinical trial results from molnupiravir were so positive that an independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping the study early so the company could pursue an emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Early results from phase 3 trials showed that molnupiravir cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 50%.
Around 7% of COVID patients treated with molnupiravir were either hospitalized or died within a month of taking the drug, compared with 14% of patients who received a placebo. The analysis was based on data from 775 patients who'd enrolled early in the trial.
Keeping people at home is a priority
"We always believed antivirals, especially an oral antiviral, would be an important contribution to the pandemic," Daria Hazuda, vice president of infectious diseases and vaccine discovery at Merck, told the Washington Post. "Keeping people out of the hospital is incredibly important, given the emergence of variants and the continued evolution of the virus."
Merck's news comes on the heels of Pfizer's announcement early last week that it had entered phase 2/3 clinical trials for a COVID antiviral it calls PF-07321332.
Pfizer's drug candidate would be taken in combination with the antiretroviral HIV drug ritonavir to see if it could keep COVID from spreading to healthy trial participants living in the same household as someone with a confirmed infection, the company said in a statement.
The trial plans to enroll up to 2,660 people who will be randomly assigned to receive either the pill or a placebo twice daily for 5 to 10 days.
Meanwhile, Roche and Atea Pharmaceuticals announced positive early results for its own experimental antiviral, AT-527, in late June.
Early data from phase 2 trials showed that in two days the pill reduced the viral load of COVID patients by 80% on average compared to placebo. However, the early analysis only involved data from 62 hospitalized, high-risk patients.
The Roche-Atea pill wound up clearing about 47% of patients within two weeks, making them completely COVID-free. By comparison, 22% of people taking a placebo were cleared of COVID in the same time frame.
Roche and Atea expect to announce more results from phase 2 and 3 trials later this year, the companies said.
The prospect of curbing COVID at home with a pill is cause for cautious celebration, Schaffner said.
"Isn't it great that we have at least three different firms working on three different drugs?" Schaffner said. "It's like the Olympics. We want to see who gets there first, but we would like to see all three of them be successful."
