UpperDeck

19 hours ago, A330PilotCanada said:

Good Evening All:

A rather informative clip on Ivermectin in which all should be interested in.

 https://youtu.be/HLtCBvKI_Mc

 

See what happens, A330? You post something from the Lincoln Project and you get folks like Vsplat confused and concerned!

5 hours ago, Vsplat said:

I'm pretty old and was never all that smart to begin with, so maybe someone here can help answer this.

Why is it that the same crowd that opposes COVID vaccines as insufficiently proven to be safe embraces a medication in a form that has never been tested on humans?   

Vs

Which medication is being embraced that has never been "tested" on humans? Whatever that medication may be, how did you discern that its promoters are anti-vaxxers?

I assume Innuendo, Deicer and DH know and I may stand alone in my ignorance but I have no idea what medication you're referencing.

58 minutes ago, conehead said:

Sildenafil, the active ingredient in Viagra, was originally developed to treat cardiovascular problems. It was meant to dilate the heart's blood vessels by blocking a particular protein called PDE-5.

And look at all the problems ( and "raised" expectations) THAT has caused!!

Lawyers can't use Viagra. It makes them taller.

31 minutes ago, deicer said:

While I will agree with you that no one should take ANY medication without first consulting with and being guided by their physician, I would not be using a physician who would be directing me to take a drug that is not for the condition that I have.

It is also confusing to hear you say: "it offends me that for reasons unknown, people are using the fact that a drug is misused to support an argument that it has no place in the arsenal used to fight Covid."

The reasons are known.  It isn't approved for that use, and they haven't done the research to say it is effective.

So if you are so passionate that ivermectin is a miracle cure/tool/weapon in the fight against covid, where did you get the information that has led you to such a strong belief.

Especially when all legitimate medical practitioners are against it?

Deicer....come on....be fair in this "discussion". I'm not passionately advocating for the use of Ivermectin. And I'm reasonably certain you know that.

With little on my plate, I looked at the use of anti-virals in this battle. I noted that in one study of cyclovir use in 48 "in viro" applications, there were 39 positive results ; 9 neutral and no negatives.

The only approved anti-viral is remdesivir but other drugs are being used in an effort by front-line physicians to save their patients. Their use continues to be "studied" by the FDA.

You can say that these drugs are not approved for anything other than fighting herpes or shingles but I suggest that if they save one life from Covid without costing any.....approval be damned!

"Legitimate medical practitioners...". Really? I expect more of you than that!

I defer to Seeker.

30 minutes ago, deicer said:

 

To compare it to vaccines is disingenuous at best.

Ivermectin is just the latest in 'alternatives' that the fringe have been pushing.  

 

Deicer.....where did you get the idea that Ivermectin is being compared to a vaccine? Clearly, they are not at all the same thing.

Creating a "great divide"; characterizing opposing opinions as harbored by "fringe elements" is, in my opinion, not very conducive to an upward trajectory of the learning curve.

I hold no brief for any side and the only fringe with which I am familiar is the one around my carpet.

However....it offends me that for reasons unknown, people are using the fact that a drug is misused to support an argument that it has no place in the arsenal used to fight Covid.

Surely there must be a consensus that the deaths and serious illnesses caused by Covid infections must be stopped. Any and all reasonable means to achieve that goal must be pursued. 

I say again...no one should take ANY medication for any purpose without first consulting with and being guided by their physician.

Don't you agree?

27 minutes ago, deicer said:

Reading the article you provided, the main thing that keeps popping up is 'in vitro'.  It is not proven at this time to be effective against covid.

It is approved for human use for parasitic infections.  Nothing else.

To draw a simple analogy, bleach is also shown to be effective against covid 'in vitro'.

 

Repetition is not correlated with persuasion. Bleach is to Ivermectin what a bucket of water is to a fire extinguisher.

Deicer...Ivermectin is currently being used by numerous physicians to treat Covid. That is simply a fact.

Why is that so bothersome? Is there a fear that if an effective treatment is found (proven) then there will be greater resistance to vaccination?

A drug-related story that may be of general interest.

Many years ago, a frequent contributor to this forum was diagnosed with a particularly lethal form of cancer.

While I began working on his eulogy, he began his research. This fellow has always been keen on the acquisition of knowledge and unrelenting in his search for answers. 

Very quickly, he became very knowledgeable about our immune system and how it could be protected and even enhanced to resist the spread of his cancer.

He essentially became a drug expert and bio-chemist as he fought against both the disease and the medical establishment.

Eventually, he devised a "drug cocktail"; a combination of drugs for an "off label" use that he was certain would prolong his life. And then began the hard slog to "sell" his idea to the doctors who could prescribe the medications.

It was at times almost over-whelmingly frustrating trying to convince doctors to push the envelope....to test the limits....and it was HIS body he was putting at risk.

Eventually but in time...he got the emergency authorizations required and took that cocktail.

He prevailed.

When I last saw him a few years ago, he was still pedalling as hard as he could and revising drugs as needed to re-build or reinforce the dams he had constructed.

That was almost 20 years after I did a first draft of that eulogy.....one I never had to finish.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

Deicer.....I 'm not pasting the whole article but this is a report of the results (preliminary) from initial clinical trials published over a year ago.

Like the CDC consumer ( emphasis!) release you quoted, there is a similar release by the FDA. Both are focussed on human consumption of a drug manufactured for animals. Both urge prior consultation with a physician and strict compliance with dosage directions before taking Ivermectin.

Personally...I think that's a reasonable course of action before taking ANY drug.

• Do not swallow ivermectin products that should be used on skin (e.g., lotions and creams) or are not meant for human use, such as veterinary ivermectin products.

Pretty sure that reflects what I said above.....people have to be told not to ingest body lotions and drugs intended for animals. Ivermectin has not been PROVEN to prevent Covid or as an effective treatment. Testing continues.

3 minutes ago, Seeker said:

I'm not going to post anything - don't want to be accused of spreading misinformation.  

Fox News: Rolling Stone forced to issue an 'update' after viral hospital ivermectin story turns out to be false.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rolling-stone-forced-issue-update-after-viral-hospital-ivermectin-story-false

This is crazy!! The forum is intended for the honest exchange of opinion and any attempt to muzzle the expression of honestly and reasonably held opinions is offensive.

Do your own research, for God's sake. Don't just parrot what others say!

When hydroxychloroquine was touted, fools began to ingest chlorine. Public announcements about guidances are designed to be consumed and understood by the masses; to prevent confusion and protect people from the consequences of their own ignorance.

Ivermectin has potential benefits. The extent of those benefits are unproven but there is "reasonable confidence" that in PROPER dosages, Ivermectin MAY have significant therepeutic benefits.

SO SAYS THE CDC!!

The "problem" arose because fools began hunting down and ingesting dosages intended for livestock.

DH...you "preach" safety. Do a little research on the negative impact on humans of ingestion of Ivermectin in appropriate dosages and for a restricted time.

How do I know? Some years ago, I took Ivermectin as a preventative measure suspecting the possibility of a tapeworm infection.

Apart from that extra finger...there were no side effects.

The developers of Ivermectin received the Nobel Prize in 2015 because of the innovative treatment of roundworm.

Of course, you all knew that because you're computer literate and familiar with Google.

I for one agree with Seeker. I would consult with my doctors first but having done so I know; I would take Ivermectin in controlled amounts and in dosages appropriate for humans if I contracted Covid.

I wonder about "cause and effect"; do we contribute to mutations by reason of targeted vaccines?

I thought the vaccines delivered the "message" to the immune system to develop antigens to recognize the Covid virus, "assisting" those whose own immune system would not otherwise react quickly enough.

If you require a vaccine for every variant and we decide everyone has to be vaccinated and not just the "immune deficient", we'll be pin cushions!

HIV mutates rapidly but I understand it's the transfer process itself that generates "errors" which result in the mutations. In the case of Covid, mutations seems "designed" by the virus itself to increase transmissibility.

To my mind, the focus should perhaps be on identifying the "weakness" in the immune systems of those in the population who are vulnerable.

It was of interest to learn that the black and latino populations were more susceptible to hiv just as they are more susceptible to covid. Very different viruses and yet there is a common path somewhere that affords those viruses access.

22 hours ago, IFG said:

Yikes! Citing alternative statistics with a lowest estimate of 22000 deaths due to error hardly seems to me to trivialize the problem, but discrepancies orders of magnitude apart aren't trivial either, and could be counter-productive. So just to be clear, even the lowest of that range of estimates absolutely warrants serious consideration and effort. FWIW, my own experience with this involved my father - fortunately he weathered it, but the Doc's brought up DNR's as he lay in hospital. I do think these testimonials do more inflaming than informing, but (again FWIW) I'm neither bamboozled by MD's, nor heartless about tragedies caused.

You are of course correct that all 'trades' suffer from the group self-protection for error.

Nonetheless, and imperfect as pilots may be, we can take a little pride in ongoing efforts like improving SOP's, SMS, careful investigation etc. I believe the medical profession has already learned a bit from the aviation world about techniques for adherence to procedure during surgery (checklists etc.) Perhaps another direction to go would be a change of focus on error toward recognition and correction rather than blame and retribution, encouraging more open reporting etc.

Of course, as there is in the flying business, there would be some tension with the more litigious stake-holders. 

Cheers, IFG 

Hmm! Seems as though you and I once again passed each other without effective communication; ie..our meanings were misunderstood.

I was ( as usual) ONLY remarking upon your reference to medical malpractice practitIoners which I interpreted as a suggestion that lawyers might see greater numbers of culprits than actually existed. I would not presume ( nay, never) to comment upon your statistical analyses. Some might...but never me.

Regardless, my very limited comment resulted in your recitation of safety practices. I just KNEW that DH would positively respond to the implicit suggestion that litigation ( or the threat thereof) was incompatible with incident-based learning; the promotion of disclosure as a prophylactic.

I'm not sure that the use of checklists in medicine can be attributed to pilot practices. Some might believe that the use of checklists in medicine AND aviation was an indirect result of those pestilent litigators. Having a recorded memo or independent log of compliance with protocol aids in the defence. For the same reason, grocery stores maintain an hourly log ( or more frequent) of " floor inspections" etc to establish the exercise of reasonable care. There are a LOT of " slip and fall" cases.

"Stake-holders"? We're ALL interested in aviation safety; and automobile safety; and boating safety; and....etc

However, we do not all agree on how that common goal is best-achieved. I am sure you know that but for civil litigation, many of the safeguards we now take for granted in transportation would not exist.

At the end of the day, commercial pilots and others similarly situated are "mere" employees. They operate the equipment they are given. Decisions on whether or not innovative techniques are adopted to enhance pax safety are oft-times solely based upon a cost and risk assessment by "management". Lawyers ....good lawyers....by staying at the forefront of change tend to ensure that the cost of NOT making the "right" choice is cost prohibitive.

No....not for altruistic reasons....no one works willingly for free unless it's in their best interests. Their incentive is compensation but the end result (hopefully) is enhanced public safety.

11 hours ago, IFG said:

That quarter mill number does not seem to lie in the centre of estimates for caused-by-error (except perhaps for malpractice lawyers). One is open to be convinced, but as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence .

Cheers, IFG 

Now then.....just a sec.

May I first say that medical malpractice lawyers are few and far between. It requires a LOT of work and study to have any functional idea of the relationship between what occurred and the reasonable expectation of what SHOULD have occurred.

May I add that I have no clue as to the meaning of the first quoted sentence.

Continuing....I had maybe 10 medical malpractice cases. They were all defended out of one firm in Toronto. One of the defence lawyers I encountered was an MD as well as an LL.B 

One of my cases involved a lady who died of a heart attack. She was diagnosed by the emergency physician with indigestion. He conducted no blood tests and mis-read the ECG.

In another, my client was admitted for a tubal ligation. She almost died. The gynecologist cut a blood vessel during the operation that wasn't anywhere near the operative field. To get an expert for the plaintiff, I had to bring in a fellow from Chicago. No one local was prepared to testify though there were a number who were ready to help with one hand over their mouth.

Bottom line....as in every "trade", mistakes are made. Doctors tend to be a tad more protective of each other. Like some pilots....individually, they never err; but others do.

2 hours ago, Jaydee said:

And there in lies the crux of the problem. 

Speaking of problems....I have two questions;

1) how come you never see anything about the thousands of Canadians who have CDC cards to establish their vaccination status;

2) anyone else here ( vaccinated) who are experiencing an exaggerated response to insect bites?

12 hours ago, boestar said:

The issue with Ivermectin is that it treats the symptoms NOT the cause.  It is theraputic in that the dying patient is more comfortable.  Moraphine would work too 

Exactly what IS "Moraphine"?

Sometimes these forums and the exchanges therein become......less than informative. Boestar....I know you were referring to morphine...tongue-in-cheek.

Ivermectin in combination with other drugs has been shown to reduce the severity of Covid infections and the need for hospitalization. There were a number of studies done about a year ago that indicated "high confidence".

What is now claimed about the Pfizer vaccine and others? They reduce the severity of infection.

Deicer and others deride the use of Ivermectin. What inanity!! Do I know anything about the drug other than what I have read? Of course not but at least I "read" rather than scanned social media for humourous memes.

Just over a year ago, a pilot I know was infected with Covid as was his wife whose mother died as a result of infection. His wife became a "long-timer". He decided, after some research, to take this ivermectin combo. He quickly recovered. Was that due to the drug? Who knows.

He forwarded the research paper to me and I sent it on to a physician acquaintance who in turn circulated it among a medical group of which he was a participant.

The results were mixed but it was generally accepted that there was a reasonable degree of confidence that Ivermectin might significantly reduce symptoms without adverse effects.

Personally, were I to be infected, I'd welcome any medication likely to reduce symptoms.

The elimination of tapeworms would be a bonus! Lol

Guys...

Please...question EVERYTHING!! 

This recent blowup about Ivermectin comes about because people were buying the product at livestock suppliers. Obviously, the dosages were a LOT higher for livestock so people became ill.

Ivermectin is a widely used medication for parasitic infections like ringworm. Taken at a dosage appropriate for humans, it's harmless.

It is "off label" for treatment of a viral infection but there are many very capable physicians who believe it is therapeutic.

9 hours ago, GDR said:

 

If you think that young children being exposed to porn is harmless then so be it, but would you really want your 6 year old to experience it? 

I had a lengthy response typed but it disappeared. The Covid discussion is more important but let me say this:

1) I don't recall EVER suggesting " porn" was suitable for 6 year-old children. Really??

2) If I had young children who were within my control, I could restrict their access to internet content I believed to be inappropriate. You know one can do that, right?

3) there are some who believe that depictions of the naked body constitute "porn". I would not prevent my child from viewing an unadorned human. Would you?

Enough. I apologize. I only intended to make the point that one man's porn is another man's art but at some point, their perceptions coincide.

16 hours ago, GDR said:

Hi IFG

Of course I agree that when the info changes we have to adjust, but the information that was given to us, such as the optimum time between vaccines, was not expressed as an opinion but as fact. Of course they want to change that view with new info, but at least when we were told 3 weeks, they should have said that was the best advice available based on what they knew at the time. The same holds true in regards to the mixing of vaccines.

I agree that there is a great deal of abuse of our freedoms when it comes to what's on the internet but I don't agree that we should shut down those that question the wisdom of being vaccinated. We are putting a foreign substance into our body that is adjusting our whole immune system. I came to the conclusion that I was better off doing it that to not doing it, but I did that only after looking at both sides of the discussion. The one side has now been shut down. I'd rather have seen them shutting down porn sites which are doing tremendous damage to our kids today.

I think that's a bit of a stretch to compare this to the "blitz". I'm not so sure that is all that much different than the treatment of lepers in the not to distant past. There is an island about 3 kilometres from where I live that was a leper colony less than 100 years ago. (All of those assigned there were Chinese but that is a separate and even more ugly issue.)

Thanks for the response. We really aren't that far apart. 

Cheers

Greg

 

GDR.....I'm not trying to be a smartass but on what do you base the assertion that "porn sites" are doing "tremendous damage" to our kids today? What constitutes "porn"; nudity; simulated sexual activity? What type of damage is suffered and how does it become "tremendous"?

This isn't "thread drift" per se. As with Covid vaccine comments, sometimes a very large net is cast for a few very small fish.

12 hours ago, FA@AC said:

I don't think one can calculate it that way.  If more people in the community are vaccinated, less Covid circulates.  If the virus circulates less, exposures and thus breakthrough infections should be less frequent I'd think. 

I think that makes sense and I have confessed my susceptibility to confusion engendered by statistics and reportage.

I followed the link from Vsplat and again suggest that the intent/bias of the reporter must always be considered.

For example....within that Snopes-type article, reference is made to Alabama and the low rate of vaccination. It is indicated that 509 unvaccinated people died from Covid-related causes and only 20 vaccinated people died. Only 30% of the population is vaccinated. Clearly there is a reduction in the mortality rate if we had a "zero" date....but if the total of deaths is from the beginning and the vaccinated number is calculated 8 months later, the number of "post-vaccination" deaths will be significantly less regardless.

Look at it another way. The US hit 500,000 Covid-related deaths on Feb.21st, 2021. It now sits at 650,000 deaths. In 6 months, the number of deaths is 150,000; a death rate that is about 40% less ( per 6 months) than the preceding 12 months. Is that a result of vaccinations? It might be given that there was a high vaccination rate beginning in January, 2021. But I don't know.

I was vaccinated early this year in Florida. I continue to have questions/issues with mRNA but every day brings a new revelation.

I continue to be confounded by the numbers notwithstanding the valiant effort of IHG ( whom I owe a beer) to "right my ship".

Assume the Pfizer vaccine had 90% efficacy...now diminishing. In other words, it had limited benefit to 10% of receipients. 

The first response to that observation will understandably be; "But it reduces severe symptoms, hospitalization and death to less than 1%".

Aren't those the same numbers we heard originally...before the vaccines were developed?

And as more people are vaccinated, 1% becomes an ever- increasing number. If everyone in the US was vaccinated, almost 4 million...4 million...would have breakthrough infections that resulted in severe and life-threatening illness.

One thing of which I am sure; one cannot reasonably compare this pandemic to the consequences of annual influenza infections.

This type of proceeding is a LOT more complicated than is conveyed by the news story. The Code prescribes the amount of severance pay to which an employee not dismissed for cause is entitled. A number of cases have established that this is a minimum and can be increased by reference to a number of factors including age, position, length of employment etc.

Where a bonus was so routine an element of compensation, it is normalized and will be considered in calculating proper compensation.

I don't know about travel passes.....haven't we already had the discussion about the " right" to passes....and priority?

3 hours ago, IFG said:

You're way to kind Mitch, but the thought is mutual - & reciprocal!

I think that lawyers have thick skin - and have behind me decades of dependence upon the goodwill of 'friendly' AME's

Cheers - IFG 

But...but.....You'd feign goodwill to ensure mechanical fitness? Surely you jest

The premise was that pilots and lawyers shared a characteristic with "journos"; they were innumerate...lacking in fluency in the maths.

Thin or thick.....that HAS to cut the skin of many pilots who take pride in their calculation of many flight factors including how much per hour for each piece of equipment in which seat and what can be held.

As for lawyers....well, one might reasonably be deceived given the propensity of some to persist in the belief that between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm, there are 12 billable hours.!

Forgive me but yet another editorial comment...

Within a thread called; "Travel in the pandemic", wouldn't it make sense to focus on the travails of travel? What is required of one to travel NOW to France or the Maldives or Dubai? Let's keep it updated-- a useful resource created by people who have gone through the process.

I may want to go to CDG in August. I know I can't get on the crew bus to the hotel....but what should I know about clearing in....what docs are required?

I already know that travellers will attempt to avoid restrictions....it's a common theme in the press ( damn typesetters)....but collectively as travellers, we are better-served by knowing what are those restrictions.

2 hours ago, Specs said:

 

I went through the Canadian Governments website today try to find out what we need to leave for Ireland on Sunday and return on Monday August 9.

I'm still working on it 8 hrs later.  (I'm actually it leaving for another go tomorrow.)

Our government is insane.

Don't rely on the Canadian govn't website. The biggest issue is the EMU standard for full vaccination. If you're a hybrid....research that closely.  My understanding is that for entry to Ireland, you need 1) proof of full vaccination more than 14 days prior; or 2) negative 72 hour PCR....possible quarantine; or 3) evidence of recovery from  infection within 180 days.

Coming home...vaccination. At the least. I can't figure out whether you also ( still) need a 72 hour PCR if you're a citizen.

Great fun, no?

Doesn't matter what I've posted. Obviously, you will independently confirm but I do emphasize....go to the website of Ireland Tourism to get entry info; don't rely on Canada. After all...they told you that mixed vaccines were just fine...4 months apart!!