Unemployed due to SCOTUS

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
gasdoc77 said:
Don't waste your time, as you are largely arguing against the faithless. They view themselves as a (if not THE) supreme being, all knowing, when in actuality their venom is merely a desperate attempt to defend their fragile ego and precious world view. Forgive their ignorance and extend them the grace that they refuse to extend others.
Click to expand...
Extend grace for what!

We have a healthcare infrastructure crumbling because of some people who refuse to get vaccinated for no credible reasons. You cannot be f... serious!
 
There are a lot of parallels here to the conversations that pop-up every year or two regarding what constitutes a catch in the NFL. A byzantine rule book and overly complex debate that could be simplified and settled by just asking some 8 year old kids what makes sense. Have those kids watch some video replays and they will tell you which ones were a catch without turning it into a 10,000 word treatise. I wonder how they would react to the conversation about the vaccine.
 
LaryngoSpazz said:
That is a fair point - ill will cuts both ways as vaccinated can’t tolerate unvaccinated. But as has been said many times before if you are vaccinated it does not prevent you from spreading the disease so treating the unvaccinated like a leper doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Click to expand...
The thing is, there's not a single person with this position now in the age of omicron who wasn't saying the exact same thing back in the age of alpha and delta when vaccination reduced infection and transmission at meaningfully higher rates. It makes the entire "well, the vaccinated can still get omicron" line hollow because we know it's coming from a camp that didn't actually care how good the vaccine was at preventing infection.
 
Splenda88 said:
Extend grace for what!

We have a healthcare infrastructure crumbling because of some people who refuse to get vaccinated for no credible reasons. You cannot be f... serious!
Click to expand...
They are though. These are the same people who think that the sheer number of people who hold an opinion somehow gives it validity despite facts contradicting it. Fake moon landing flat earther mentality has gone mainstream.
 
LaryngoSpazz said:
I don’t understand the absolute hatred towards the unvaccinated. I agree that in some cases they are making a bad choice to remain unvaccinated and we can agree to disagree on this but I would argue it is their choice to make given the current risk/benefit of the deadliness of Covid currently and the vaccine we have today. I personally would much rather work alongside unvaccinated docs than alcoholic surgeons and drug addicted anesthesiologists and I think if you are being honest with yourself in a health emergency you’d rather have the unvaccinated take care of you than an alcoholic surgeon and drug addicted anesthesiologist. I have seen those conditions as you describe them and it is not pretty.

I think ignoring that there is another side to the argument is partly why a lot of people are remaining unvaccinated. They can’t trust the advice of someone who sees them as insurmountably ignorant and worse than a drug addict. If you can’t find it in you to try and understand their point of view it’s hard to convince them. Which is why we have resorted to mandates, shouting down and censorship of alternative viewpoints.
Click to expand...


Glad you’re making the correct comparisons. They all increase risk to their patients. I’d rather not work next to any of the above.
 
vector2 said:
The thing is, there's not a single person with this position now in the age of omicron who wasn't saying the exact same thing back in the age of alpha and delta when vaccination reduced infection and transmission at meaningfully higher rates. It makes the entire "well, the vaccinated can still get omicron" line hollow because we know it's coming from a camp that didn't actually care how good the vaccine was at preventing infection.
Click to expand...
It's the same strategy as:
1. Break and dismantle something
2. Tell everyone "Look! It doesn't work at all. Just like I said (before I broke it.)"
 
vector2 said:
The second post, in which you wrote:

"That said my understanding of the Pfizer vaccine at least is that for 7-14 days following the initial dose it actually INCREASES your risk of infection (by up to 140% in one European study.)"

....is the one supposed to make us think your posts aren't a stream of BS?

Lmao.
Click to expand...
That was my post specifically addressing the negative efficacy you were incessantly bleating on about. But since you now change the subject.

-40% efficacy amongst nursing home residents, -104% efficacy amongst HCWs in first 14 days after first dose. Likely explained by transient lymphopenia which was demonstrated in Pfizer's own vaccine trial.


1642888217803.png


I'm sure you'll "LMAO" and hurl an insult because it is a preprint trial, yada yada. Real world corollary below in data that WAS available from Alberta. Spikes in cases, hospitalizations, deaths after first dose. Not after 2nd.

1642888900318.png

1642888972313.png

1642889006362.png
 
STLINI said:
That was my post specifically addressing the negative efficacy you were incessantly bleating on about. But since you now change the subject.

-40% efficacy amongst nursing home residents, -104% efficacy amongst HCWs in first 14 days after first dose. Likely explained by transient lymphopenia which was demonstrated in Pfizer's own vaccine trial.


View attachment 348788

I'm sure you'll "LMAO" and hurl an insult because it is a preprint trial, yada yada. Real world corollary below in data that WAS available from Alberta. Spikes in cases, hospitalizations, deaths after first dose. Not after 2nd.

View attachment 348789
View attachment 348790
View attachment 348791
Click to expand...


Another plausible explanation could be that people let down their guard after they are vaxxed. Maybe they become more relaxed about masking or start going to crowded bars and restaurants. So it may be behavioral. I’m happy to admit that vaccination is not a complete solution to the pandemic.
 
STLINI said:
That was my post specifically addressing the negative efficacy you were incessantly bleating on about. But since you now change the subject.
Click to expand...
Right. After you went on how many times erroneously pretending your first post contained some clarification of your Canadian and Danish negative efficacy concern trolling?
STLINI said:
-40% efficacy amongst nursing home residents, -104% efficacy amongst HCWs in first 14 days after first dose. Likely explained by transient lymphopenia which was demonstrated in Pfizer's own vaccine trial.


View attachment 348788

I'm sure you'll "LMAO" and hurl an insult because it is a preprint trial, yada yada. Real world corollary below in data that WAS available from Alberta. Spikes in cases, hospitalizations, deaths after first dose. Not after 2nd.

View attachment 348789
View attachment 348790
View attachment 348791
Click to expand...
Clearly, your MO is desperately latching on to cherry picked, non-peer reviewed, mostly retrospective preprint studies that support your biased point of view. And then you post a "corollary" showing a temporal spike after the first shot as if that is some kind of supporting evidence of clinically relevant immune suppression? Nah, that's not how science works.

Again, lmao. It's embarrassing that you keep spewing studies like these off medrxiv and you don't even understand the most basic tenet that correlation =/ causation. And naturally I'm sure you ignored that the decrease in lymphocyte count in the phase I/II trial was transient and clinically irrelevant.

And I'm positive you don't give two shts that in the prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial with 40,000 patients, there was no time point, including at 0-14 days on the days after dose 1 graph, where the placebo group had fewer infections. Why don't you care? Because you're an antivax-adjacent clown.

Screenshot_20220122-184441_Chrome Beta.jpg
 
Last edited:
LaryngoSpazz said:
That is a fair point - ill will cuts both ways as vaccinated can’t tolerate unvaccinated. But as has been said many times before if you are vaccinated it does not prevent you from spreading the disease so treating the unvaccinated like a leper doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Click to expand...
It doesn't guarantee you won't get newer variants when you are vaccinated. Our couple of outbreaks involved two unvaccinated individuals spreading the illness to several of the nurses and techs on their respective shifts, all of whom were vaccinated. First outbreak was during delta, second was right before we fired people during the start of omicron. While none of the people infected got particularly ill, none of us wants to be out and feeling miserable for 5-10 days because people around us don't have the sense to be vaccinated
 
I think many of you fail to grasp the point of this thread. The ruling by CMS isn’t based on science but rather politics and SCOTUS went along with it. I strongly oppose the CMS mandate based on science because if you are going to mandate something it needs to make sense.

1. Omicron is easily transmissible from person to person. CMS only requires 2 shots to keep your job when the science clearly shows you need a booster to possibly decrease transmission from person to person. So, in order to protect patients which is the entire legal basis of the mandate CMS should be requiring 3 shots of an mRNA based vaccine.

2. Those providers recently infected with Omicron should be eligible for a medical exemption from the mandate. If the provider can show proof of Infection or antibody levels that should qualify as sufficient.
‘
3. Once the Omicron wave passes through the USA CMS should rescind the mandate for unvaccinated providers. This is only logical as Omicron will infect about 3/4 of the USA by late Spring or early summer.
 
BLADEMDA said:
I think many of you fail to grasp the point of this thread. The ruling by CMS isn’t based on science but rather politics and SCOTUS went along with it. I strongly oppose the CMS mandate based on science because if you are going to mandate something it needs to make sense.

1. Omicron is easily transmissible from person to person. CMS only requires 2 shots to keep your job when the science clearly shows you need a booster to possibly decrease transmission from person to person. So, in order to protect patients which is the entire legal basis of the mandate CMS should be requiring 3 shots of an mRNA based vaccine.

2. Those providers recently infected with Omicron should be eligible for a medical exemption from the mandate. If the provider can show proof of Infection or antibody levels that should qualify as sufficient.
‘
3. Once the Omicron wave passes through the USA CMS should rescind the mandate for unvaccinated providers. This is only logical as Omicron will infect about 3/4 of the USA by late Spring or early summer.
Click to expand...
Failure to vaccinate strongly correlates with failure to boost. Likely that there will be a change in the definition of fully vaccinated that makes it require fully boosted. As to Omicron passing and CMS rescinding the mandate, we'll see. We could end up with a new, weird strain that requires a different vaccine based on Omicron.
 
vector2 said:
Right. After you went on how many times erroneously pretending your first post contained some clarification of your Canadian and Danish negative efficacy concern trolling?

Clearly, your MO is desperately latching on to cherry picked, non-peer reviewed, mostly retrospective preprint studies that support your biased point of view. And then you post a "corollary" showing a temporal spike after the first shot as if that is some kind of supporting evidence of clinically relevant immune suppression? Nah, that's not how science works.

Again, lmao. It's embarrassing that you keep spewing studies like these off medrxiv and you don't even understand the most basic tenet that correlation =/ causation. And naturally I'm sure you ignored that the decrease in lymphocyte count in the phase I/II trial was transient and clinically irrelevant.

And I'm positive you don't give two shts that in the prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial with 40,000 patients, there was no time point, including at 0-14 days on the days after dose 1 graph, where the placebo group had fewer infections. Why don't you care? Because you're an antivax-adjacent clown.

View attachment 348798
Click to expand...

Classy. Below is the rest of the Pfizer chart, 95% CI for Day 1-11 (-26% - 47%.) While there may have been 40k people in the study their surveillance in the 1-11 day interval post dose 1 was only 677 person-years. The Danish study included far more at about 3400 person-years in HCW group and 1300 in nursing home pt group. The Pfizer trial used a more strict definition of case, requiring PCR + and symptoms, while the Danish trial required only PCR+. Finally, the Pfizer trial was primarily conducted in the summer of 2020 when overall COVID prevalence was rather low. Comparatively, the Danish trial was conducted December 2020-February 2021 when the prevalence was far higher. Any potential transient immunosuppression is going to be far more relevant at times of high transmission. The Danish trial size and timing make it far more likely to detect this transient immunosuppression should it actually exist post dose 1.

I don't understand your rush to denigrate any data that disagrees with your base assumptions. Not every data set is going to end up in the NEJM given the sheer magnitude of papers people are trying to publish on COVID. Furthermore, what compels you to be so arrogant, condescending, and rude to random strangers on the internet who disagree with you? Anyways, this has long since ceased being productive. Be well.
1642906610389.png
 
STLINI said:
. Not every data set is going to end up in the NEJM given the sheer magnitude of papers people are trying to publish on COVID.
Click to expand...
I love how the implication here is that we're both posting studies which have an equal chance of containing data which can speak to truth, i.e. causation, when in reality only one of them can.

This isn't about prestige, and bringing up Pfizer's phase 3 being in NEJM is a canard. It doesn't matter where your study was published, because fact remains it was, according to their methods, "designed as a retrospective registry- and population-based observational cohort study."

Do you understand what these bolded words mean? I'm guessing not, so let me help you.

---
"
The goal of much observational research is to establish causal effects and quantify their magnitude in the context of risk factors and their impact on health and social outcomes. To establish whether a specific exposure has a causal effect on an outcome of interest we need to know what would happen if a person were exposed, and what would happen if they were not exposed. If these outcomes differ, then we can conclude that the exposure is causally related to the outcome. However, individual causal effects cannot be identified with confidence in observational data because we can only observe the outcome that occurred for a certain individual under one possible value of the exposure (Hernan, 2004). In a statistical model using observational data, we can only compare the risk of the outcome in those exposed, to the risk of the outcome in those unexposed (two subsets of the population determined by an individuals’ actual exposure value); however, inferring causation implies a comparison of the risk of the outcome if all individuals were exposed and if all were unexposed (the same population under two different exposure values) (Hernán & Robins, 2020). Inferring population causal effects from observed associations between variables can therefore be viewed as a missing data problem, where several untestable assumptions need to be made regarding bias due to confounding, selection and measurement (Edwards, Cole, & Westreich, 2015).

The findings of observational research can therefore be inconsistent, or consistent but unlikely to reflect true cause and effect relationships

Causal inference with observational data: the need for triangulation of evidence - PMC

The goal of much observational research is to identify risk factors that have a causal effect on health and social outcomes. However, observational data are subject to biases from confounding, selection and measurement, which can result in an ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
---

And beyond the inherent weakness of that paper being observational, I'm guessing you understand that the fact that it's a retrospective registry cohort makes its quirkier findings even more suspect? And to top it off - again - it's a freaking non-peer reviewed preprint in medrxiv, which appears to be your favorite kind of study.

It doesn't matter if the paper had 1,000,000 person-years and the tightest confidence intervals in a century- that type of study can't be used to make the causal inferences which you're making. At best it's a jumping off point for a hypothesis, one which you apparently (and conspiratorially) think every reputable vaccine scientist on planet earth failed to consider, investigate, and then share their findings with the public.
 
BLADEMDA said:
I think many of you fail to grasp the point of this thread. The ruling by CMS isn’t based on science but rather politics and SCOTUS went along with it. I strongly oppose the CMS mandate based on science because if you are going to mandate something it needs to make sense.

1. Omicron is easily transmissible from person to person. CMS only requires 2 shots to keep your job when the science clearly shows you need a booster to possibly decrease transmission from person to person. So, in order to protect patients which is the entire legal basis of the mandate CMS should be requiring 3 shots of an mRNA based vaccine.
Click to expand...
Indeed, you're making an argument to change the mandate to 3 shots, not eliminate it altogether. In the meantime, there will certainly be some benefit for initiation of the first two shots to those who have received zero shots thus far.
BLADEMDA said:
2. Those providers recently infected with Omicron should be eligible for a medical exemption from the mandate. If the provider can show proof of Infection or antibody levels that should qualify as sufficient.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's a bad, non-science based precedent to make a medical waiver on those grounds (beyond the typical time delay between infection and vaccination). We know that both vaccine and naturally mediated immunity wane over time. Even those with a prior omicron infection may (will?) need a booster this fall. .

Also, just because there are a lot of omicron breakthroughs, it's a good idea to stop speaking as if vaccination provides zero protection against infection until we know more:

Screenshot_20220122-232302_Chrome Beta.jpg

Zoe covid tracker / Tim Spector
 
LaryngoSpazz said:
I don’t understand the absolute hatred towards the unvaccinated.
Click to expand...
I don't hate the proudly unvaccinated who show up needing admission for COVID. I hold them in contempt. The distinction is important.

IV drug user needing a valve replacement for endocarditis? I feel sympathy and understanding for them. I did one of these cases last week and he was a kind, grateful patient. I hope he's able to stay away from the heroin.

A couple days ago I was forwarded a Facebook post by a relative of mine, a vocal antivax clown, who was bragging about "beating covid" after 11 days in the hospital. She was so proud that she was so sick she couldn't even remember driving herself the hospital with an O2 sat of 70. Discharged home on oxygen.

My God, I'm nauseated to think I share any DNA with this *****.


Imagine, if you will, a world that had an anti-foot-fetish cult. Members of this cult like to smash their own toes with hammers. They're only hurting themselves, right? But wait, they bring their hammers with them to restaurants and the hospital and smash the occasional random diner's or nurse's toe, too. And so many of them do it, that when they go to the ER, that other people can't get in.

I'd have more respect for their deeply held anti-ambulatory religious beliefs, thou shalt not suffer a metatarsal to live, ah-men, than any of this antivax bull****.

Fatigue, contempt, dwindling hope, not hatred.
 
Mad Jack said:
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the fact that a guy who played a guy who was duped into joining a dangerous movement resulting in his death for no good reason due to misplaced ideals died of contracting an illness because he believed in a dangerous movement with misplaced ideals?

His name is Robert Paulson.
Click to expand...
I wish I could like this post twice.
 
pgg said:
Imagine, if you will, a world that had an anti-foot-fetish cult. Members of this cult like to smash their own toes with hammers. They're only hurting themselves, right? But wait, they bring their hammers with them to restaurants and the hospital and smash the occasional random diner's or nurse's toe, too. And so many of them do it, that when they go to the ER, that other people can't get in.

I'd have more respect for their deeply held anti-ambulatory religious beliefs, thou shalt not suffer a metatarsal to live, ah-men, than any of this antivax bull****.

Fatigue, contempt, dwindling hope, not hatred.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion and really enjoyed you analogy.
Serious question. Do you have contempt for all non vaccinated or just the obnoxiously proud non vaxers? I understand you can have frustration and fatigue for those who are vaccine hesitant but not obnoxious about it without having the contempt, or I would think you could because you have always been a pretty reasonable guy since I joined this forum years ago. I guess that this would be how I would imagine that you would be.
 
Gern Blansten said:
I respect your opinion and really enjoyed you analogy.
Serious question. Do you have contempt for all non vaccinated or just the obnoxiously proud non vaxers? I understand you can have frustration and fatigue for those who are vaccine hesitant but not obnoxious about it without having the contempt, or I would think you could because you have always been a pretty reasonable guy since I joined this forum years ago. I guess that this would be how I would imagine that you would be.
Click to expand...
For the most part, just the evangelical antivaxxers, and the ones like my relative who just took such pride in "beating" COVID after driving herself in a hypoxic fugue state to the hospital.

Most of the rest, it's just kind of a sad disappointment, mostly. I'm tired of interacting with them. I know some personally and they're not bad people, but I don't even talk to them about COVID any more. As time goes by it takes more and more effort to remind myself that they're just being foolish. To be honest I still really struggle with how I feel about them, and it goes high and low from day to day. I'm just so, so tired of the damage they're doing. No raindrop is responsible for the flood, but I'm sick of all the rain.
 
Hello guys, new to the forum. I googled and this thread came up. Lively colorful discussion I see.


Here primarily as I want to ask a question on behalf of my kids who plan to attend med school next year... and yep, its about exemptions 🙂 ...

Let me introduce myself. IM doc for 20+ years, Northwestern Med School educated, tons of awards for quality of care, patient satisfaction, top performance on Boards, was on a hospital board, prior Dept Chairman at large institution, etc... I only mention this as I am trying to ward off silly comments about being uneducated...

For those of you that are vehemently for vaccination, great for you! Folks have legitimate concerns, and I have seen plenty of patients who had serious side effects from the vaccine. The vax has greater benefit as you age and have co-morbidity, less benefit and higher risk in the young. Many docs/nurses/providers I know ARE NOT vaccinating their young kids.

The vaccine, in MY OPINION, is a good thing. I did take the vax (pfizer - got a reaction) BUT adverse reactions are being under reported/under disclosed. In our huge health organization only 60% of providers got the vaccine voluntarily, until coerced. My mother had the vax, got cardiomyopathy and ended up in the hospital (clean angio).

So, thats my humble point of view.

So heres my question... have two young sons going to med school. Based on medical and religious concerns, they do not wish to be vaxxed. Medschools are accepting waivers, and its done routinely. Odd thing is, you don't apply for the waiver until AFTER you are accepted. Which is somewhat conflicting. Some med schools dont even ask for vaccinations until clinicals 3rd/4th year (Florida, Texas).

How does one pick a school consistent with your beliefs, if you don't know if they will be honored until AFTER you accept admission?

Thoughts?
 
Some further random thoughts...

At one point I was fervently with the posters on here that thought "anti-vaxxers" were idiots.

Then I did something silly, and started reading the literature and scientific postings from the "other" side. Looked at the data. Listened to the doc's who had concerns.

And would you believe it, they had a lot of good points.

This isn't black and white, inability to see shades of gray impedes rational thought...

Most folks that are concerned aren't delusional antivaxxers. Rather, well educated concerned folks.
 
Last edited:
bpu said:
Hello guys, new to the forum. I googled and this thread came up. Lively colorful discussion I see.


Here primarily as I want to ask a question on behalf of my kids who plan to attend med school next year... and yep, its about exemptions 🙂 ...

Let me introduce myself. IM doc for 20+ years, Northwestern Med School educated, tons of awards for quality of care, patient satisfaction, top performance on Boards, was on a hospital board, prior Dept Chairman at large institution, etc... I only mention this as I am trying to ward off silly comments about being uneducated...

For those of you that are vehemently for vaccination, great for you! Folks have legitimate concerns, and I have seen plenty of patients who had serious side effects from the vaccine. The vax has greater benefit as you age and have co-morbidity, less benefit and higher risk in the young. Many docs/nurses/providers I know ARE NOT vaccinating their young kids.

The vaccine, in MY OPINION, is a good thing. I did take the vax (pfizer - got a reaction) BUT adverse reactions are being under reported/under disclosed. In our huge health organization only 60% of providers got the vaccine voluntarily, until coerced. My mother had the vax, got cardiomyopathy and ended up in the hospital (clean angio).

So, thats my humble point of view.

So heres my question... have two young sons going to med school. Based on medical and religious concerns, they do not wish to be vaxxed. Medschools are accepting waivers, and its done routinely. Odd thing is, you don't apply for the waiver until AFTER you are accepted. Which is somewhat conflicting. Some med schools dont even ask for vaccinations until clinicals 3rd/4th year (Florida, Texas).

How does one pick a school consistent with your beliefs, if you don't know if they will be honored until AFTER you accept admission?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...



Why can’t they simply ask the school if their waiver would be accepted before applying? Don’t waste money applying to schools that wouldn’t accept their specific exemption. All the schools have published their exemption policies. They probably wouldn’t want to attend a school where they fundamentally disagree anyway. If they want to die on that sword, that is their right. We all make choices in life and it may limit the number of schools they’d want to attend.
 
Last edited:
nimbus said:
They can ask the school if their waiver would be accepted before applying. Don’t waste money applying to schools that don’t accept waivers. They probably wouldn’t want to attend a school where they fundamentally disagree anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what I figured. I called a couple schools and they advised the waiver has nothing to do with the admissions process, and is done by human resources right before they start. Waivers are reviewed by "panels" much like all hospitals do.

But its a catch 22, they need to know if it will be accepted before applying and committing to a school.

I have seen hospitals where EVERY waiver was accepted (likely due to litigation risk). And some where EVERY waiver was declined. Interestingly, in the latter case, they lost a lot of staff and 6 months later starting calling everyone back and showed a willingness to accept the waiver...

This seems to a certain degree politically motivated. Certain states simply don't require it for med school from what I understand... but is required (or waiver) for clinicals... which makes sense.
 
bpu said:
Well, that's what I figured. I called a couple schools and they advised the waiver has nothing to do with the admissions process, and is done by human resources right before they start. Waivers are reviewed by "panels" much like all hospitals do.
Click to expand...
bpu said:
But its a catch 22, they need to know if it will be accepted before applying and committing to a school.

I have seen hospitals where EVERY waiver was accepted (likely due to litigation risk). And some where EVERY waiver was declined. Interestingly, in the latter case, they lost a lot of staff and 6 months later starting calling everyone back and showed a willingness to accept the waiver...

This seems to a certain degree politically motivated. Certain states simply don't require it for med school from what I understand... but is required (or waiver) for clinicals... which makes sense.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you’ve already done a lot of research and you know what’s up. I don’t see a catch 22. If it’s that important to them, they should only apply to places that are lenient in granting exemptions.
 
bpu said:
So heres my question... have two young sons going to med school. Based on medical and religious concerns, they do not wish to be vaxxed.
Click to expand...
Having two (2) "young sons" applying to medical school at the same time is pretty extraordinary. Twins? Different-aged siblings whose academic paths are converging?

Also, "young sons" is a rather odd way to describe university graduates or almost-graduates. Are they actually applying now, or are they kids in the K-12 range who said "I want to be a doctor someday" and you're running with it?

I'm not trying to be unfriendly.
 
bpu said:
Hello guys, new to the forum. I googled and this thread came up. Lively colorful discussion I see.


Here primarily as I want to ask a question on behalf of my kids who plan to attend med school next year... and yep, its about exemptions 🙂 ...

Let me introduce myself. IM doc for 20+ years, Northwestern Med School educated, tons of awards for quality of care, patient satisfaction, top performance on Boards, was on a hospital board, prior Dept Chairman at large institution, etc... I only mention this as I am trying to ward off silly comments about being uneducated...

For those of you that are vehemently for vaccination, great for you! Folks have legitimate concerns, and I have seen plenty of patients who had serious side effects from the vaccine. The vax has greater benefit as you age and have co-morbidity, less benefit and higher risk in the young. Many docs/nurses/providers I know ARE NOT vaccinating their young kids.

The vaccine, in MY OPINION, is a good thing. I did take the vax (pfizer - got a reaction) BUT adverse reactions are being under reported/under disclosed. In our huge health organization only 60% of providers got the vaccine voluntarily, until coerced. My mother had the vax, got cardiomyopathy and ended up in the hospital (clean angio).

So, thats my humble point of view.

So heres my question... have two young sons going to med school. Based on medical and religious concerns, they do not wish to be vaxxed. Medschools are accepting waivers, and its done routinely. Odd thing is, you don't apply for the waiver until AFTER you are accepted. Which is somewhat conflicting. Some med schools dont even ask for vaccinations until clinicals 3rd/4th year (Florida, Texas).

How does one pick a school consistent with your beliefs, if you don't know if they will be honored until AFTER you accept admission?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


To me, your tell is using the word “vax.” Anytime I see someone write vaccine as “vax” or use the term “vaxxer,” I automatically assume the person spends way too much time on social media and is now in the ministry of trying to spread the gospel of an unvaccinated world. Maybe it’s a personal prejudice of mine, but a physician who is the chair of a department at a large institution is not likely to use the terms “vax” and “vaxxer.”

I believe the anti-vaccine movement gained traction by understanding certain marketing principles. One of those principles is that the letter X gets people’s attention. This is something the Doritos marketers understood very well.

24675F8C-64B6-4185-90C2-4E7BF40EF44B.png
 
Hey, BPU. Medical school and post-graduate training are really hard. As one father to another, you've got to let your sons navigate this one for themselves. If they are mature enough to go to medical school, then step back and let them make their own path. Getting in is so hard, why are you actively trying to make it harder by creating another hoop for the boys to jump through? This is one vaccine. They are going to confront so many other difficult challenges, why is this the hill that you are choosing to die on?

But if you must make your stand, then you should find a way (probably not too hard using social media) to identify and contact some current 3/4 year medical students at the schools your boys are interested in. They are dealing with this issue actively right now and might be more helpful in explaining the process than some bored administrative assistant who answers the phone in the admissions office. Check your source, sounds like you need to find a more informed one, just my two cents.
 
bpu said:
Hello guys, new to the forum. I googled and this thread came up. Lively colorful discussion I see.


Here primarily as I want to ask a question on behalf of my kids who plan to attend med school next year... and yep, its about exemptions 🙂 ...

Let me introduce myself. IM doc for 20+ years, Northwestern Med School educated, tons of awards for quality of care, patient satisfaction, top performance on Boards, was on a hospital board, prior Dept Chairman at large institution, etc... I only mention this as I am trying to ward off silly comments about being uneducated...

For those of you that are vehemently for vaccination, great for you! Folks have legitimate concerns, and I have seen plenty of patients who had serious side effects from the vaccine. The vax has greater benefit as you age and have co-morbidity, less benefit and higher risk in the young. Many docs/nurses/providers I know ARE NOT vaccinating their young kids.

The vaccine, in MY OPINION, is a good thing. I did take the vax (pfizer - got a reaction) BUT adverse reactions are being under reported/under disclosed. In our huge health organization only 60% of providers got the vaccine voluntarily, until coerced. My mother had the vax, got cardiomyopathy and ended up in the hospital (clean angio).

So, thats my humble point of view.

So heres my question... have two young sons going to med school. Based on medical and religious concerns, they do not wish to be vaxxed. Medschools are accepting waivers, and its done routinely. Odd thing is, you don't apply for the waiver until AFTER you are accepted. Which is somewhat conflicting. Some med schools dont even ask for vaccinations until clinicals 3rd/4th year (Florida, Texas).

How does one pick a school consistent with your beliefs, if you don't know if they will be honored until AFTER you accept admission?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
You should 100% encourage your children to be vaccinated. No question. Serious disease with bad consequences. Same as measles in my opinion.
 
nimbus said:
It’s funny because all the right wing, Trump supporting, Foxnews lovers I know at work were the first ones in line to get vaxxed and boosted. It’s the same way Ron Desantis won’t say whether he’s vaccinated or not. He’ll get fewer idiots to vote for him in the next election if he admits he’s vaxxed and boosted.
Click to expand...

And cos a lot of them will be dead …
 
RadOncDoc21 said:
MAGA folks will blame Biden for not having the virus under control.
Click to expand...

That’s always the Republican game plan.
Set up roadblocks (like not mandating vaccines, masks etc), let the issue worsen, then simultaneously blame the Dem president for not doing enough, while also bit**ing about their “free-dumbs” being “trampled on”.

Get the people who need help the most (usually poor labourers, farmers etc) by scaring them about Socialism, get into office and then keep cutting taxes for the richest of the rich, while cutting as much of the safety net as they can….
 
rakotomazoto said:
Hey, BPU. Medical school and post-graduate training are really hard. As one father to another, you've got to let your sons navigate this one for themselves. If they are mature enough to go to medical school, then step back and let them make their own path. Getting in is so hard, why are you actively trying to make it harder by creating another hoop for the boys to jump through? This is one vaccine. They are going to confront so many other difficult challenges, why is this the hill that you are choosing to die on?

But if you must make your stand, then you should find a way (probably not too hard using social media) to identify and contact some current 3/4 year medical students at the schools your boys are interested in. They are dealing with this issue actively right now and might be more helpful in explaining the process than some bored administrative assistant who answers the phone in the admissions office. Check your source, sounds like you need to find a more informed one, just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Of his sons, he said “they do not wish to be vaxxed”. Sounds like they decided for themselves.

As a former chairman of medicine at a large institution, @bpu is obviously very well connected and should have no problem getting the inside scoop on the vaccine policy at the various schools. Also his sons will have access to all the best mentoring, research, and clinical experiences that dad can muster so they should have a choice of schools.
 
Last edited:
bpu said:
Some further random thoughts...

At one point I was fervently with the posters on here that thought "anti-vaxxers" were idiots.

Then I did something silly, and started reading the literature and scientific postings from the "other" side. Looked at the data. Listened to the doc's who had concerns.

And would you believe it, they had a lot of good points.

This isn't black and white, inability to see shades of gray impedes rational thought...

Most folks that are concerned aren't delusional antivaxxers. Rather, well educated concerned folks.
Click to expand...
Please do share these sources that convinced you that their perspective is well educated and 'makes good points.' You have an entire audience of your peers at your disposal to critique your sources, if they are legit and can withstand scrutiny produce them.

Also I can only assume you don't practice inpatient medicine, otherwise there is no way on this planet you could describe any vaccine reaction as remotely as severe as the horrible ****ing crippling virus has been. I am assuming your mother didn't die of her myocarditis or COVID 19--seems like a win to me. I have lost track of how many times I have written severe covid 19 pneumonia on the top of a death certificate since this all started.
 
lucid_leprechaun said:
You should 100% encourage your children to be vaccinated. No question. Serious disease with bad consequences. Same as measles in my opinion.
Click to expand...
BPU is vaccinated but states his sons object for religious reasons. Do you expect them to listen to their father, the dirty infidel that he is lol
 
pgg said:
The entire story sounds fabricated.
Click to expand...
Older former chairs of academic departments at high powered institutions don't get on SDN asking these kind of questions.

They directly call the current section head of ID at their former institution to ask about COVID and vaccines and they call the current dean of the affiliated medical school to ask about student vaccine policies.
 
pgg said:
The entire story sounds fabricated.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I don’t think it is.. I can picture a lot of our older colleagues in the lounge watching tucker on Fox News while complaining of “da jab.” It’s always the same demographic.. rich, older white male, sometimes ignorantly racist, usually out of touch with common people..
 
secretasianman said:
Sadly, I don’t think it is.. I can picture a lot of our older colleagues in the lounge watching tucker on Fox News while complaining of “da jab.” It’s always the same demographic.. rich, older white male, sometimes ignorantly racist, usually out of touch with common people..
Click to expand...
I know the demographic you're talking about but having twin young boys applying to medical school, and being a helicopter parent, and finding this thread via Google, and spitting out antivax did-his-own-research nonsense, and sprinkling a religious objection on top, it's just too many flags to take seriously.

Maybe he'll come back and double down and maybe he'll just disappear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BLADEMDA
Scotus 2023
2 3 4 5
Replies
244
Views
11K
pgg
pgg
D
  • Poll Poll
ASA/AANA dues
Replies
1
Views
696
aneftp
A
nimbus
Other SCOTUS news
Replies
1
Views
706
deleted875186
D
siednarb
Vasc. Surgeon filed Federal lawsuit for fraudulent billing due to computer/phone use in OR
2
Replies
95
Views
10K
repititionition
R
A
proposed legislation to allow CRNA’s to supervise AA’s ?
Replies
44
Views
4K
jwk
jwk
Top