Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The idea that the president can voice disagreement with a jury’s verdict is a chutzpah.”
– While we might not like it, it basically shows we live in a free country.When one sneezes it causes an increase to the intrathoracic pressure that may decrease cardiac output and decrease coronary circulation for a very short while.
So while we do not know the mechanism that caused people to die from a sneeze (Sternutation), it can probably be explained.
However, in general this is meant to be understood that people didn’t have diseases or medical conditions that progressed over time, rather they died much quicker. So maybe the sneezing was not meant to be literal rather as an expression, or maybe it is literal.
Health,
“What if they ask?
You should lie?”
– Or simply refuse to disclose any of their personal health information.
Either way, the executive order has expired, and even if not, is not relevant to the overall discussion.“I’m not investigating every State to prove to you that DemonCrats Rule all over is violating people’s Rights!”
– But you still continue to make accusations against them. Without reason.“So you can consider my Post as Opinion.”
– Finally!Health,
“Now what can patients do with the script for HCQ – chew on the paper?!?”
– a. They do not need to disclose to the pharmacy the condition for the script. b. Can go to a neighboring state.
However, you have not answered the question. What are you trying to prove with this limited executive order, which the NY governer has ordered at the time, with your overall accusing the government with interfering elsewhere?
(Personally, I agree that Governor Cuomo acted inappropriately, but that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand).“So when hospitals hear the recommendations from the government and it doesn’t include those drugs, they stay far away.”
– Are you able to substantiate this statement of yours?Health,
“ That’s an outright Lie. You obviously didn’t read that article on YWN News.
The State Board of Pharmacy restricted HCQ for Covid!
Probably a lot pharmacies don’t even know it.
You’re the one with Agenda, pretending that the Government has nothing to do with the Treatment of this Pandemic!”
– Thats exactly what I wrote. The state (NY) limited pharmacies, providers in the state and elsewhere had no restrictions to practice and prescribe as they saw fit.“ Stop Lying!
In one case against the Hospital, that the family requested Ivermectin, the patient died.
So what the Hospital did couldn’t be any Worse, by giving Ivermectin.”
– Lying means saying something that is factually not true. All you have is an assumption based on a question that is easy to answer. Not the typical definition of a lie.“ A Fascist Government says – My way or You DIE!“
– Now be so kind and reveal to us where the government is actively interfering with treatments for covid. Ivermectin and hydroxy are listed in the USP, no further action required on their part. So now what?Health,
“Who cares?
Me and whoever put the C19early.com on the Web don’t care what the FLCCC says!
Why would you bring in FLCCC into this Conversation?”
– First, they are the only group of providers that officially promote the usage of Ivermectin for Covid patients. Second, the C19 website actually refers to the FLCCC for official guidance. For the above two reasons, you should care, or expected to care.“It doesn’t. It was just a Rant.”
– Thanks for explaining.“Now why is that?
I theorized that this is because of our government.”
– You are free to voice your personal opinions, yet these groups are very clear as to why they refuse to accept the data, simply because the quality of the data is poor.“I asked this before – why did some hospitals fought against families that wanted Ivermectin – that it ended in a court case?!?”
– Because they demanded a treatment that the hospitalist didn’t approve, and the hospital didn’t believe would be of benefit to the patient. You can just read about some potential treatment on YWN and expect the hospital doctors to give it based on that article.“So the only reason I can think of – is the Government is becoming more & more Fascist!”
– Nah, for the above-mentioned reasons. But then again, you are entitled to your own theories, despite them being inexplicable and unsubstantiated.“I already proved it in NYS that they refused to allow a Script for HCQ.”
– What is your point, does this now prove that there is a broader federal mandate against Ivermectin or any other treatments?
Also, NYS’s mandate was for pharmacies to limit dispensing Hydroxychloroquine for Covid related illnesses, providers were never restricted and were able to prescribe what they felt was appropriate.Health,
“But when they did many Studies that proved effectiveness,”
– Actually no, even the FLCCC that is behind the Ivermectin push came out against HQC.
“I saw an article from NYU, from a guy named Caplan, but he was published in Medscape.
A lot of real docs put comments on his article that was against HCQ & Ivermectin.
Why in the world would Medscape publish this guy?
Simply because the Covid therapies are guided by the Genocidal Government!”– I am having a hard time following your train of thought. What does an article with comments have anything to do with the Government?
It seems that you have set your mind already, based on studies posted on the website you keep on mentioning. However, despite the data posted being acceptable to you, it is not to the people that call the shots.
I am not pro-government or siding with any political group, but I find it hard to follow your logic and blame the government for something that they don’t even involve themselves.Health,
“ I don’t care if some people don’t acknowledge the Info.
You call them Medical Institutions.
Name them.”
– It doesn’t matter if you care or not, but your not making sense when your accusing the government when the deciding medical bodies refuse to consider this data.Re naming institutions, the vast majority, nearly all of them. Any community or university hospital that comes to mimd or established medical association that you can think of.
The government is not the deciding factor here.
Health,
“That’s Exactly My Point!
If you’re Not too lazy, you’ll go to C19early.com, and you’ll See that Data.
The fact that they approved Remedsivir and Not HCQ & Ivermectin is More than Negligence, it’s Simply Corruption from the Genocidal Government!!!”Understood that this is your point. However, why are you directing me to a website when almost all (if not all) medical institutions refuse to acknowledge the data posted on that site. I am still confused as to why you keep labeling the government when it is the doctors and hospitals that refuse to acknowledge the data as acceptable.
Remdesivir has been addressed just a couple of posts ago.
The treatments you are advocating for have been approved years ago for use and are part of the USP, any provider may prescribe it as they see fit, there is no need for any government agency to issue any approvals for those therapies.
I am not one to give advice on these matters, but I wouldnt worry about statistics to determine your future.
Health,
Because they believe the data isnt there at this point to support the usage of those drugs. Apparently these doctors are not in agreement with you.
Health,
2scents -“There are no government regulations against prescribing these medications.”
“We know that already. I discussed this previously.”
– Correct, but you have not adequately addressed this.
Below was your response.
“The only thing that I can think of – is the hospital is afraid of the government.”
– You established the premise by stating that the government is interfering with how to treat Covid patients and not allowing doctors to practice as they see fit. But unable to connect the dots. Instead, you make an assumption about the hospital being afraid of the government, despite there not being any mandate against doctors or hospitals treating patients one way or another.
“Some do & some don’t.
A lot of them don’t know how to treat Covid.”– So it seems your implying that some medical providers suck, what does that have to do with the government?
I am just trying to understand the logic behind your arguments and the negative labeling of the government.
There are no government regulations against prescribing these medications.
Even if it were true that some people only seek care at the point when they are doing so bad that they require admission to a hospital, what about the people that do seek care when they have the sniffles, are their doctors prescribing any if these medications?
Philospher,
“2cents, I did not ask for a list of scientists from AAQ.”
– Correct, no one said you did ask.However, you did write the following:
“AAQ, you never mention which articles you read and by which doctors they are written. And I honestly don’t care.”– I just pointed out the hypocrisy of your posts, making accusations while being guilty of the same.
philosopher,
” the way I communicate, whether you like it or not, has nothing to do with the topic at hand”
– It has to do with your posts. Your extended posts with little actual substance making a poor attempt at dismissing the position of the vast majority is what I was referring to.Phil
“I find your posts lacking of any EVIDENCE proving my position wrong”
Correct, I have not tried to present any arguments, all I did was ask some questions, something you call “shtech and point fingers in my direction”.
“If you get your info from other sources than mainstream news media and official political channels then you’d know that there’s no such thing as the “majority of doctors” supporting the so-called vaccine.”
– The above is something you established, but not factual.“especially when doctors cannot freely voice their opinions on this issue.”
– Any of your personal doctors voice being suppressed?“About cherry picking I say the same about you.”
– At least your being honest, cherry-pick the people that seemed to be aligned with your position, don’t care about the rest of the data or scientists.“If that’s called cherry picking in your book it’s simply because of WHAT conclusion I’ve arrived to which doesn’t sit well with you…”
– Cherry picking: is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.Health,
What does the government have to do with this?
If hospitals refuse to use it, that is a decision made by the administration or the group of doctors managing the care of the patient.
If individual providers believe that a drug is effective against the Covid virus, they can prescribe it.
If the patients only seek care once they are at the point that they need to be admitted and are at the mercy of the hospitalists or doctors employed by the hospital, that refuse Ivermectin, why should the government get involved?
I am just trying to understand the logic behind your arguments.
Phil,
Very lengthy posts with very little substance. Effective communication is saying the most using the least amount words.
I will respond to this:
“However it seems as the only ones you listen to are those who speak on the liberal mainstream media news or through political channels.”
You don’t know what from where I contain whatever information it is that I possess.
However, you dismiss the fact that the vast majority of scientists are not in agreement with your position. Rather, you pick out a few only because they seem to be in agreement with your position.
This is a very biased approach, seems like you made up your mind, you just need to cherry-pick a few people that happen to support part of what you believe in.
Philosopher,
Interesting to see how you accuse another poster for not posting a detailed list of articles or doctors but proceed to do the same.
“ There are many, many prominent virologists and doctors who are against the so-called vaccines. Again, I’m not interested in listing all of them or even a few of them. They are there I’d you are interested in finding them.”
What makes you chose which accept something from any one scientist vs another one, or rather vs the vast majority of scientists?
Furthermore, even Dr. Malone doesn’t consider himself THE pioneer of the new vaccine. The fact that he is contracted by the US army is that supposed to give him additional credibility, more than the vast majority of his colleagues?
Health,
If the drugs that you are promoting are effective as you claim them to be, they should be prescribed to patients prior to them being hospitalized, Why blame the hospitals, when these patients could have avoided the hospital, per your claim?
Health,
I am not really sure what your point is, the medications that are used, either anti-inflammatory, anticoagulants, or other trial medications are to limit the adverse effect of the virus, they are not viralcidal or viralstatic as are the new drugs that will hopefully be approved shortly.
With regards to some stories that you read online, the fact of the matter is that there are no restrictions placed on Ivermectin that would prevent providers from prescribing them or pharmacies from dispensing these drugs.
Health,
Most of the drugs that are currently being used to treat Covid patients are repurposed. You specifically are pushing/advocating for 2 drugs that in normal times would require rigorous quality trials for them to be recommended.
Your questioning as to why Remdesivir was approved, I assume this was because this was early on and people were grasping at straws. Hospitals needed options to treat dying patients, so this was used.
Furthermore, who is in the way of providers writing scripts for the drugs that you are promoting? And if the patient’s local pharmacy is refusing to fill the script for some odd reason, they can always go to another pharmacy. Being that these are repurposed drugs, the pharmacies should already be carrying these drugs, so there really is no issue there.
Reb E,
It is unfortunate that Covid has become political, on both sides of the political spectrum. However, who is to decide if lockdowns are pro-life as lockdowns change life as we know it.
The republican states have not done that bad compared to the states with strict lockdowns.
lowerourtuition11210
“Heard many years ago.most minyanum are matza minyanim. 20 minutes and done.”
Those are 18-minute minyanim.
So the children use the both names? If they work professionally and want to keep their name, together with their spouses already hyphenated name, it may turn out to be one long name!
Abba_S
“undoubedtly they are both at fault to some extent”
Why do you say so?
Yabia,
Does the secular year 2021 have any significance that would limit the topics that you feel jews should busy themselves?
Is it so that yemenites didnt change much from the times of the Beis Hamikdush? If so, can we assume that at the times of the churban jews had peyos like the yemenites have?
It really depends on what metrics or capabilities we would be looking at.
If it is GDP spend, total or ratio of insured vs the uninsured, available resources?
For those with very complicated health problems, I don’t think we find many Americans going to Israel for more advanced care, vs Israelis that come to the USA for advanced treatments.
If we were to compare flying to sailing, one might have to board the airplane at least 3 days prior to the flight.
Reb E,
Thanks for explaining.
philosopher,
If you say so…
ubiq,
Apparently, the increased fuel consumption is bishul, but as I wrote, I do not think there is an increase in fuel consumption with commercial airliners caused by an individual.
NonImpeditiRationeCogitationis
These halachos are brought down in Shulchan Aruch,
Reb E,
“I think a ship is different as you don’t feel its movement.”
Why would that matter?
philosopher
Everything you wrote is your own assumption. Assumptions can be fabricated to support one’s own biases.
Most insurance companies would rather settle even when they believe the facts are on their side, they prefer to make it quick and clean so they can move on.
This is especially true in medical-related cases.
Even with a civil case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Being that the videos are the videos and the alleged victim has already testified under oath, there would be little to go with should someone want to prosecute a civil case. So the likelihood of there being a civil case is small.
Claiming miscarriage of justice is a political thing, the DOJ has no office that investigates any miscarriage of justice.
There also is no civil rights claim, as Rittenhouse did not deny anyone of their civil rights.
GH
“As a practical matter, I agree that short of being detained or arrested, these individuals had no choice.”
That in its own is a choice, either being detained or flying on shabbos.ubiq,
“No techum in the air, though if takes off on shabbos is a problem on the runway. Even if argue that are 10 tefachuim off the ground, if plane sitting on ground may be a problem”
The actual flying might not be a techum issue. However, they do have a tchum issue once they arrive, as they are coming from out of the tchum and may need to remain in place.
“Causing the plane to burn more fuel?”
This would be “marbe B’shiurim”. However, its unlikely that any one person would cause a commercial airliner to burn more fuel.ujm,
It is not like people are using these letters as evidence to prosecute this sect/cult. However, based on many reports, including people that have not left the group, all these claims and reports seem to be pretty consistent.
Besides, it’s not like these governments that are involved fear these groups, it’s basic humanity to try whatever is possible to save the children and those that are unfortunately caught up in this cult.
People thought that Helbrans was a fanatic cult leader. When compared to the current leader(s), he actually seems so liberal.
We (as a community and society) intervene when there seems to be abuse and neglect involving children and elderly people. We should also be concerned about the alleged and apparent abuse that involving young children.
n0mesorah
You should find more people.
Syag,
“ It may be as you say that the person who has such a record will most likely be more menacing, I just see that more as a court defense issue than a shaas maisa consideration.”
I did not follow this case that closely, but in general the court would only allow characterizations or personal information that the defendant had at the time of the incident.
Yserbius123
““Not guilty” just means “Kyle Rittenhouse did not commit intentional homicide”
Correct, and we can argue all day on how virtuous Rittenhouse was or not. However, the narrative from a political standpoint was that he was a murder and some politicians publically stated that this is a miscarriage of justice, which this was not.
Just trying to imagine if he were not to exercise his ability to defend himself from the individuals that had intent and took action to kill him. What would have been the political response?
Rosenbaum, huber and that other guy would be prosecuted for manslaughter?
If not, why not?
If yes, why then was it not Ok for him to defend himself using an equal force to the threat?
Jackk,
“ A 17 year old with an AR-15 style rifle kills a man who didn’t have a weapon and he should not have been prosecuted?”
While he is no hero and did something stupid by putting himself in this position. Your dismissing the fact that he was assaulted with a deadly weapon and an attempt to kill him was initiated by others. At that moment, there is the doctrine of self defense.
it’s unacceptable to dismiss the fact that he was acting in self defense and accuse him of being a murderer. I hope no one is judged by this standard.
The people that he shot, are not innocent. While any human loss is tragic and should be avoided, the doctrine of self defense at the expense of the would-be murderer, is accepted.
At least from an apolitical viewpoint.
“ I’m curious about this specific course of action, if you have already caught Covid is there any benefit to vaccinate afterwards?”
Yes, there definitely is benefit. The serum testing showed that natural antibodies together with the vaccine had the strongest immunity.
That said, it may be reasonable for you to chose to defer the vaccine for now.
Just give in, live life and let the new world order do their thing.
AAQ,
This is from the UK Government press release.
“Molnupiravir has been authorised for use in people who have mild to moderate COVID-19 and at least one risk factor for developing severe illness. Such risk factors include obesity, older age (>60 years), diabetes mellitus, or heart disease.”
So apparently they are also initially reserving it for those with at least one risk factor. I assume that with time, the recommendations will be adjusted based on the data.
AAQ,
I assume the reason for being cautious about the new drug is because the side effects are unknown. Some believe there is potential concern that it may play with peoples DNA, the same way it does with the virus. Others argue that the few doses people will be taking is not concerning.
Which is why initially it may only be approved for high risks patients, where the benefits outweigh the potential concerns.