Thanks for all you are doing. I lost a friend eight months ago to a very aggresive pneumonia. She had four Covid tests, the last on the tissue from her vent when she died. All were negative but all her providers swore it was Covid. Now my son has pneumonia. He is improving a little, and has had two Covid tests, one rapid and one PCR. Both were negative. Do these sound like Covid to you? He has moved into our house so mom and I can take care of him. I'm doing the math and assuming I need to quarantine as if he is positive. Thoughts?
The recommendation currently is to get the vaccine on the opposite side of the primary cancer (breast or upper extremity) if possible. Anecdotal but I haven't seen vaccine associated adenopathy just yet although some of my colleagues have.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thanks for all you are doing. I lost a friend eight months ago to a very aggresive pneumonia. She had four Covid tests, the last on the tissue from her vent when she died. All were negative but all her providers swore it was Covid. Now my son has pneumonia. He is improving a little, and has had two Covid tests, one rapid and one PCR. Both were negative. Do these sound like Covid to you? He has moved into our house so mom and I can take care of him. I'm doing the math and assuming I need to quarantine as if he is positive. Thoughts?
Need more information, we are still seeing bacterial and other viral pneumonia's. So not all pneumonia is Covid related. Does he have loss of taste or smell, diarrhea, fever, chills, body aches etc.? While it is possible to be Covid with two negative tests it is more likely to be another form of pneumonia. Is he on antibiotics and what is oxygen saturation level? Those would be important at this point. I would definitely isolate either way as other forms of pneumonia are contagious too.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thanks for all you are doing. I lost a friend eight months ago to a very aggresive pneumonia. She had four Covid tests, the last on the tissue from her vent when she died. All were negative but all her providers swore it was Covid. Now my son has pneumonia. He is improving a little, and has had two Covid tests, one rapid and one PCR. Both were negative. Do these sound like Covid to you? He has moved into our house so mom and I can take care of him. I'm doing the math and assuming I need to quarantine as if he is positive. Thoughts?
Need more information, we are still seeing bacterial and other viral pneumonia's. So not all pneumonia is Covid related. Does he have loss of taste or smell, diarrhea, fever, chills, body aches etc.? While it is possible to be Covid with two negative tests it is more likely to be another form of pneumonia. Is he on antibiotics and what is oxygen saturation level? Those would be important at this point. I would definitely isolate either way as other forms of pneumonia are contagious too.
No loss of smell or taste, but he has had fever, chills, diarrhea. He got some IV antibiotics and fluid on Monday and sent home with us. Augmentin, prednisone, z-pac, inhaler, zofran, acetominephin etc. O2 has been as low as 92/93 but better now. Doctor says lungs are clear as of this morning but he really has no stamina / breath.
Thanks for all you are doing. I lost a friend eight months ago to a very aggresive pneumonia. She had four Covid tests, the last on the tissue from her vent when she died. All were negative but all her providers swore it was Covid. Now my son has pneumonia. He is improving a little, and has had two Covid tests, one rapid and one PCR. Both were negative. Do these sound like Covid to you? He has moved into our house so mom and I can take care of him. I'm doing the math and assuming I need to quarantine as if he is positive. Thoughts?
Need more information, we are still seeing bacterial and other viral pneumonia's. So not all pneumonia is Covid related. Does he have loss of taste or smell, diarrhea, fever, chills, body aches etc.? While it is possible to be Covid with two negative tests it is more likely to be another form of pneumonia. Is he on antibiotics and what is oxygen saturation level? Those would be important at this point. I would definitely isolate either way as other forms of pneumonia are contagious too.
No loss of smell or taste, but he has had fever, chills, diarrhea. He got some IV antibiotics and fluid on Monday and sent home with us. Augmentin, prednisone, z-pac, inhaler, zofran, acetominephin etc. O2 has been as low as 92/93 but better now. Doctor says lungs are clear as of this morning but he really has no stamina / breath.
Sounds like a probable bacterial pneumonia and is being well treated. It is not unusual to have fatigue and shortness of breath for a month or so after a significant bacterial pneumonia. Now it will just take time to slowly recover.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Hi Doc - I posted this elsewhere but wanted your opinion.
My wife is pregnant and her OB is adamant that no one who is pregnant (OR PLANNING TO GET PREGNANT IN THE FUTURE) should get the vaccine until they have more answers, as the protein the vaccine attacks is very similar to an important protein that keeps the uterus attached (i dont remember the exact role of the protein, but he was very very adamant)... What are your thoughts?
I am not the doc you are looking for but I am a RN. I have read quite a few stories of post vaccine uterine bleeding. If your doc is that adamant about it, I would listen to him.
Hi Doc - I posted this elsewhere but wanted your opinion.
My wife is pregnant and her OB is adamant that no one who is pregnant (OR PLANNING TO GET PREGNANT IN THE FUTURE) should get the vaccine until they have more answers, as the protein the vaccine attacks is very similar to an important protein that keeps the uterus attached (i dont remember the exact role of the protein, but he was very very adamant)... What are your thoughts?
Not a doctor, but this from Johns Hopkins is relevant:
Quote:
Confusion around this issue arose when a false report surfaced on social media, saying that the spike protein on this coronavirus was the same as another spike protein called syncitin-1 that is involved in the growth and attachment of the placenta during pregnancy. The false report said that getting the COVID-19 vaccine would cause a woman's body to fight this different spike protein and affect her fertility. The two spike proteins are completely different, and getting the COVID-19 vaccine will not affect the fertility of women who are seeking to become pregnant, including through in vitro fertilization methods. During the Pfizer vaccine tests, 23 women volunteers involved in the study became pregnant, and the only one in the trial who suffered a pregnancy loss had not received the actual vaccine, but a placebo.
Edit: All of that said, your doctor knows the most about your specific situation and is likely the best source of information for your decision. There will be true and valid opinions and anecdotes from both sides of a decision.
Hi Doc - I posted this elsewhere but wanted your opinion.
My wife is pregnant and her OB is adamant that no one who is pregnant (OR PLANNING TO GET PREGNANT IN THE FUTURE) should get the vaccine until they have more answers, as the protein the vaccine attacks is very similar to an important protein that keeps the uterus attached (i dont remember the exact role of the protein, but he was very very adamant)... What are your thoughts?
Not a doctor, but this from Johns Hopkins is relevant:
Quote:
Confusion around this issue arose when a false report surfaced on social media, saying that the spike protein on this coronavirus was the same as another spike protein called syncitin-1 that is involved in the growth and attachment of the placenta during pregnancy. The false report said that getting the COVID-19 vaccine would cause a woman's body to fight this different spike protein and affect her fertility. The two spike proteins are completely different, and getting the COVID-19 vaccine will not affect the fertility of women who are seeking to become pregnant, including through in vitro fertilization methods. During the Pfizer vaccine tests, 23 women volunteers involved in the study became pregnant, and the only one in the trial who suffered a pregnancy loss had not received the actual vaccine, but a placebo.
Edit: All of that said, your doctor knows the most about your specific situation and is likely the best source of information for your decision. There will be true and valid opinions and anecdotes from both sides of a decision.
Thank you. I think his main point was just that he does not have enough information yet. He also said that, although very anecdotal, the last few months he has seen more miscarriages than any time in his 40 year career. and its not close.
Hi Doc - I posted this elsewhere but wanted your opinion.
My wife is pregnant and her OB is adamant that no one who is pregnant (OR PLANNING TO GET PREGNANT IN THE FUTURE) should get the vaccine until they have more answers, as the protein the vaccine attacks is very similar to an important protein that keeps the uterus attached (i dont remember the exact role of the protein, but he was very very adamant)... What are your thoughts?
Not a doctor, but this from Johns Hopkins is relevant:
Quote:
Confusion around this issue arose when a false report surfaced on social media, saying that the spike protein on this coronavirus was the same as another spike protein called syncitin-1 that is involved in the growth and attachment of the placenta during pregnancy. The false report said that getting the COVID-19 vaccine would cause a woman's body to fight this different spike protein and affect her fertility. The two spike proteins are completely different, and getting the COVID-19 vaccine will not affect the fertility of women who are seeking to become pregnant, including through in vitro fertilization methods. During the Pfizer vaccine tests, 23 women volunteers involved in the study became pregnant, and the only one in the trial who suffered a pregnancy loss had not received the actual vaccine, but a placebo.
Edit: All of that said, your doctor knows the most about your specific situation and is likely the best source of information for your decision. There will be true and valid opinions and anecdotes from both sides of a decision.
Thank you. I think his main point was just that he does not have enough information yet. He also said that, although very anecdotal, the last few months he has seen more miscarriages than any time in his 40 year career. and its not close.
They haven't really done a study on pregnant women. 23 became pregnant, but that is a small sample. I believe there are studies underway around the world looking at the vaccine in pregnant women. Doctor may be wanting to see those results.
Hi Doc - I posted this elsewhere but wanted your opinion.
My wife is pregnant and her OB is adamant that no one who is pregnant (OR PLANNING TO GET PREGNANT IN THE FUTURE) should get the vaccine until they have more answers, as the protein the vaccine attacks is very similar to an important protein that keeps the uterus attached (i dont remember the exact role of the protein, but he was very very adamant)... What are your thoughts?
Not a doctor, but this from Johns Hopkins is relevant:
Quote:
Confusion around this issue arose when a false report surfaced on social media, saying that the spike protein on this coronavirus was the same as another spike protein called syncitin-1 that is involved in the growth and attachment of the placenta during pregnancy. The false report said that getting the COVID-19 vaccine would cause a woman's body to fight this different spike protein and affect her fertility. The two spike proteins are completely different, and getting the COVID-19 vaccine will not affect the fertility of women who are seeking to become pregnant, including through in vitro fertilization methods. During the Pfizer vaccine tests, 23 women volunteers involved in the study became pregnant, and the only one in the trial who suffered a pregnancy loss had not received the actual vaccine, but a placebo.
Edit: All of that said, your doctor knows the most about your specific situation and is likely the best source of information for your decision. There will be true and valid opinions and anecdotes from both sides of a decision.
Thank you. I think his main point was just that he does not have enough information yet. He also said that, although very anecdotal, the last few months he has seen more miscarriages than any time in his 40 year career. and its not close.
Not a doctor. Considering most shots haven't been available until the last month that anecdotal information of miscarriages would tend to suggest that it would be wise to get the vaccine. However, I personally would probably sit tight if my wife was the one pregnant and try to get everyone else in the family vaccinated.
Hi Doc - I posted this elsewhere but wanted your opinion.
My wife is pregnant and her OB is adamant that no one who is pregnant (OR PLANNING TO GET PREGNANT IN THE FUTURE) should get the vaccine until they have more answers, as the protein the vaccine attacks is very similar to an important protein that keeps the uterus attached (i dont remember the exact role of the protein, but he was very very adamant)... What are your thoughts?
Pregnant wife here as well and we had this discussion with her doc last week.
His general thought is that it's probably reasonably safe but we don't have the data yet, and he recommended waiting unless we had a situational need.
His anecdote was that his wife is a pediatrician so she's around patients, parents, nurses, and sick kiddos all day, and if she were pregnant he'd advise her to get it. Since my wife is working remotely and generally avoiding going out, not seeing many people, etc., there isn't an urgent need for her to be vaccinated and it makes sense just to wait it out till after the pregnancy.
I would like to update you on three things for this Monday:
[ol]
The Department of Diagnostic and Health Sciences is proud to announce that it will host a virtual site visit for review of the proposed BS degree in Biomedical Human Health Sciences by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission on Friday March 12th. The site visit team is scheduled to meet with campus leadership, department faculty, community partners and prospective students. The reviewers will submit their report to UTHSC within 30 days after site visit. This is an exciting time for the College to add new and innovative academic programs to its portfolio. Thank you to everyone who has worked so hard to shape this new degree.
[/ol] [ol]
The South African variant, the United Kingdom (UK) variant B.1.1.7 and the Brazilian COVID-19 variants have all been identified and sequenced at UTHSC. These variants were taken from samples of medical staff and Memphis residents. To this point, the variant that has been identified most frequently through UTHSC labs is the UK variant. However, there is currently insufficient data to know if these variants will affect the ramp back to campus. Clearly vigilance, safe distancing, and masking will be continuing for quite some time.
[/ol] [ol]
Chancellor, Dr. Steve J. Schwab was one of 5 Memphis leaders awarded the Business CEO of the Year 2021 by Inside Memphis last week. Chancellor Schwab was acknowledged for the work that UTHSC has done in leading the efforts in the COVID-19 pandemic for our city and region.
[/ol] Have a great week.
Stephen E. Alway, PhD., FACSM
Quote:
Dean, College of Health Professions Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Professions Joint Professor, Department of Physiology, College of Medicine Director Center for Muscle, Metabolism and Neuropathology, Division of Rehabilitation Sciences Associate Editor-In-Chief, Exercise and Sports Science Reviews Associate Editor, PLOS One The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Office of the Dean, College of Health Professions, 930 Madison Avenue, Suite 648 Laboratory of Muscle Biology and Sarcopenia, B215 Coleman Building, 956 Court Avenue Memphis, TN 38163
Question for you Doc...why does a 300lb person get the same amount of vaccine that an 80lb person gets? I noticed this in the vaccination line at our local hub the other day.
Question for you Doc...why does a 300lb person get the same amount of vaccine that an 80lb person gets? I noticed this in the vaccination line at our local hub the other day.
thx siap
Good question - same goes for most medicines. Why is a dose of two 200 mg Advil the same for a 110 lb girl and for a 250 lb man. Europe does a lot of dosing by body weight but the US doesn't.
Question for you Doc...why does a 300lb person get the same amount of vaccine that an 80lb person gets? I noticed this in the vaccination line at our local hub the other day.
thx siap
It isn't a medication that you are trying to get a mg/kg concentration on. Vaccines need to provoke an immune response to teach your body how to fight off the infection. The amount needed to provoke an immune response isn't size dependent.
It can be age dependent as elderly dose of flu vaccine is more than regular adult dose.
Question for you Doc...why does a 300lb person get the same amount of vaccine that an 80lb person gets? I noticed this in the vaccination line at our local hub the other day.
thx siap
Good question - same goes for most medicines. Why is a dose of two 200 mg Advil the same for a 110 lb girl and for a 250 lb man. Europe does a lot of dosing by body weight but the US doesn't.
The good stuff is dose dependent. The OTC stuff has such a broad range between effective and too much that OTC doses are usually listed as 1-2, not to exceed x in y hrs.
Question for you Doc...why does a 300lb person get the same amount of vaccine that an 80lb person gets? I noticed this in the vaccination line at our local hub the other day.
Animal doc here. A common question in veterinary medicine is why does a chihuahua receive the same volume rabies vaccine as a Great Dane. Unlike pharmaceuticals (ie: antibiotics) where the dose of which is usually based on weight, a vaccine dose is not based on volume per body mass (size), but rather on the minimum immunizing dose to trigger the animal's immune system to kick into gear to fight a harmful substance that it is being exposed to.
Question for you Doc...why does a 300lb person get the same amount of vaccine that an 80lb person gets? I noticed this in the vaccination line at our local hub the other day.
Animal doc here. A common question in veterinary medicine is why does a chihuahua receive the same volume rabies vaccine as a Great Dane. Unlike pharmaceuticals (ie: antibiotics) where the dose of which is usually based on weight, a vaccine dose is not based on volume per body mass (size), but rather on the minimum immunizing dose to trigger the animal's immune system to kick into gear to fight a harmful substance that it is being exposed to.
It was one year ago today when I made the original post in the premium forum to help those that questions about the pandemic. I was just trying to help some fellow Aggies I never dreamed of the tremendous response that would follow. I was overwhelmed with questions. I was trying to answer them between seeing patients and reading studies/articles on the virus. I want to take a minute and thank all of the other physicians who joined in and helped me answer all of the questions. Here we are a year later with over a million views and an entire forum dedicated to the pandemic.
In addition I want to thank Texags for creating this dedicated forum. It has given Aggie doctors a place to educate the public in addition to sharing our personal experience and treatments with other Aggies. I think we can all agree that there is no doubt we have become better doctors and learned a lot from each other. This has undoubtedly resulted in saving many other lives.
In an age where everything seems to be driven solely by money it's nice to see Texags step up and put the general good of society as a priority. I hope everyone can give a blue star or a Thumbs up for Texags generosity. Thanks and Gig'em!
I have T cell lymphoma and have been getting chemo for several months. I asked my Oncologist if I should get the vaccine and he said no so I haven't. I had to go into the hospital this past week and get a transfusion for anemia and the nurse was just chatting with me and asked if I had had the vaccine yet and I said no that my Oncologist said no. She said that it was odd because the oncologists at the hospital were recommending that their patients get it. Is this different Dr. opinion or what?
All organizations are perfectly aligned for the results they get.
I have T cell lymphoma and have been getting chemo for several months. I asked my Oncologist if I should get the vaccine and he said no so I haven't. I had to go into the hospital this past week and get a transfusion for anemia and the nurse was just chatting with me and asked if I had had the vaccine yet and I said no that my Oncologist said no. She said that it was odd because the oncologists at the hospital were recommending that their patients get it. Is this different Dr. opinion or what?
This is a complicated question because depending on treatment and degree of immunosuppression each patient might be different. I would defer to your own oncologist as he is much more familiar with all of your risks. Here is an article from a consensus of UK oncologist discussing this.
I have T cell lymphoma and have been getting chemo for several months. I asked my Oncologist if I should get the vaccine and he said no so I haven't. I had to go into the hospital this past week and get a transfusion for anemia and the nurse was just chatting with me and asked if I had had the vaccine yet and I said no that my Oncologist said no. She said that it was odd because the oncologists at the hospital were recommending that their patients get it. Is this different Dr. opinion or what?
Getting all of your close contacts might be more important than immunizing yourself and certainly a safer option.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Rev, I read this article that was first posted by OPAG. I don't know enough immunology to evaluate the theory that is presented. Do you have any thoughts?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Can't comment on the theory presented, but that forum you linked seems, at first glance, like doomsday preppers all panicking together. It's an interesting theory, but isn't a general thought on viral mutation that viruses become less "deadly" as they become more infective? I could be totally off base with that..
It doesn't seem drastically different than polio, smallpox, etc. where vaccines were rolled out on a mass scale, although on a slower timeline.
Edit to clarify that more infective = more overall mortality due to more infected, but less severe on an individual basis.
Here's a 40 minute interview with vanden Bossche. He seems apolitical and is not an anti-vaxxer.
I watched this yesterday didn't have time to respond though.
Here is my small summary. He has worked in the vaccine development industry for some time. He is not an anti-vaxxer. I agree with his statements on keeping schools and universities open as young kids have a strong innate immunity and little to no risk.
His theory is that prophylaxis use of vaccine in the heat of a pandemic could cause the virus to mutate and this make the vaccine ineffective. In addition the antibodies caused by use of the vaccine then could out compete your innate immune response making you more susceptible to severe disease. His theory is based on the fact that with these vaccines do not create immunity until 2 weeks after the second shot. Thus, many people will get the first dose and they have a potentially suboptimal immune response. So if these people become exposed to the virus, the virus will see the suboptimal immune response and the virus will be able to escape alive and mutate to avoid this type of antibody response in the future.
He equates this to using a partial dose of antibiotics creating bacterial resistance to antibiotics. If you don't kill all of the bacteria they see the way that particular antibiotic works and they ones that survive mutate around that mechanism so not be killed that way again.
So this theory is dependent on many variables. First is that many people get exposed after the first dose of the vaccine and before 2 weeks after the second dose. So with the Moderna vaccine you have a 6 week window of exposure and Pfzier 5 week window. The J&J vaccine less than a 2 week window. Now I will say in my clinic I have seen 3 people that tested positive after the first vaccine. However, with cases declining now this will decrease the risk of this exposure. As he says in the beginning use of vaccine prophylaxis prior to outbreak gives you time to build an immune response prior to exposure and prevents this mutation from happening.
In addition mutation in the spike proteins typically makes the virus less contagious as it needs use of the spike protein to infect our cells. While we have seen the variants recently become more infectious this is not typical and both the Moderna and Pfzier vaccine have shown to have significant effectiveness against those mutations. He states himself that current vaccines are protective against all the variants now. However, in his defense those mutations likely happened prior to mass use of vaccines.
Now the last huge variant is he states that use of the vaccine could potentially suppress our innate immunity or be outcompeted by the vaccine derived specific antibodies. Now, as he correctly states you can simply erase it. These antibodies will be recalled every time they come in contact with a virus containing a spike protein. Now, we need to be clear that there is no current evidence that this will inactivate or outcompete your innate immune response. This is just his theory.
So to summarize someone gets vaccinated. They must get exposed to the virus, the immune system has to be too weak to kill all of them. The virus must then mutate in the spike protein enough so the antibodies in the future will not recognize it without making the virus less virulent. Finally, the innate immune system must inactivated or be out competed by the new ineffective antibodies. While possible seems very like a very unlikely scenario.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Counter to all that is the more people the virus infects, the more chance for a mutation that creates a new variant. Absent the vaccine, we would need lots and lots of people to get the virus to get to herd immunity. Even with a several week suboptimal adaptive immunity from the vaccine, it is better than no immunity from no vaccine. The vaccine will results in a significant reduction in the number of people who become infected and therefore a significant reduction in the number of opportunities for the virus to mutate.
The alternative is relying on innate immunity (rather than adapative immunity from exposure or vaccination). Any individual with sufficient innate immunity to fight off the virus would still have that innate immunity during the suboptimal adaptive immunity phase. It isn't like the adaptive immunity turns off the innate immunity. The two processes actually work together. The entire point of the innate immunity is that it is always there. It is hard coded in the DNA, and either works agaisnt the virus or it doesn't. The point of the adaptive immunity is to augment the innate immunity (rather than replace it) such that the immune system can learn to respond to new threats.
His theory assumes a weak immune response after the first dose. We are using 2 doses for Moderna and Pfizer because that is what was tested because that gave Moderna and Pfizer the highest chance for success. There has been arguement that a single dose provides sufficient immunity after the 2 weeks. If a single dose really does provide a reasonably robust immune response, then the entire concern about partial immunity essentially goes away.
I think there is also an issue confusing population statistics with an individual response. The phase 3 data show a reducing in the number of cases after the second dose compared to the control group. This results in a calculation of effectiveness. A similar calculation can be done for the time between the first and second dose to get an effectiveness of single dose. Effectiveness is a population statistic and not an individual statistic. If, say the vaccine was 80% effective after the first dose and 95% effective after the second dose, it doesn't mean that the immune system of person A is 80% effective agaisnt the virus after the first dose and 95% effective after the second dose. This may make more sense if you look at the phase 1/2 data where they tested people for antibodies after the 1st dose and after the second dose. These data showed how many people had antibodies at each time point. At an individual level, you either have antibodies that bind to spike protein or you don't, you have immunity or you don't.
Counter to all that is the more people the virus infects, the more chance for a mutation that creates a new variant. Absent the vaccine, we would need lots and lots of people to get the virus to get to herd immunity. Even with a several week suboptimal adaptive immunity from the vaccine, it is better than no immunity from no vaccine. The vaccine will results in a significant reduction in the number of people who become infected and therefore a significant reduction in the number of opportunities for the virus to mutate.
The alternative is relying on innate immunity (rather than adapative immunity from exposure or vaccination). Any individual with sufficient innate immunity to fight off the virus would still have that innate immunity during the suboptimal adaptive immunity phase. It isn't like the adaptive immunity turns off the innate immunity. The two processes actually work together. The entire point of the innate immunity is that it is always there. It is hard coded in the DNA, and either works agaisnt the virus or it doesn't. The point of the adaptive immunity is to augment the innate immunity (rather than replace it) such that the immune system can learn to respond to new threats.
His theory assumes a weak immune response after the first dose. We are using 2 doses for Moderna and Pfizer because that is what was tested because that gave Moderna and Pfizer the highest chance for success. There has been arguement that a single dose provides sufficient immunity after the 2 weeks. If a single dose really does provide a reasonably robust immune response, then the entire concern about partial immunity essentially goes away.
I think there is also an issue confusing population statistics with an individual response. The phase 3 data show a reducing in the number of cases after the second dose compared to the control group. This results in a calculation of effectiveness. A similar calculation can be done for the time between the first and second dose to get an effectiveness of single dose. Effectiveness is a population statistic and not an individual statistic. If, say the vaccine was 80% effective after the first dose and 95% effective after the second dose, it doesn't mean that the immune system of person A is 80% effective agaisnt the virus after the first dose and 95% effective after the second dose. This may make more sense if you look at the phase 1/2 data where they tested people for antibodies after the 1st dose and after the second dose. These data showed how many people had antibodies at each time point. At an individual level, you either have antibodies that bind to spike protein or you don't, you have immunity or you don't.
Thank you for your detailed response!
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Could any of your recommended supplements be the cause of heart palpitations? I have been on the supplement regimen for several months and recently starting having PACs or PVCs and I can't figure out why. Thoughts? All of my labs, ECG, and chest X-ray were normal.
Could any of your recommended supplements be the cause of heart palpitations? I have been on the supplement regimen for several months and recently starting having PACs or PVCs and I can't figure out why. Thoughts? All of my labs, ECG, and chest X-ray were normal.
Not very likely, but excessive vitamin D can potentially raise calcium level leading to possible PVC's. Wouldn't hut to check a vitamin D level and make sure it is not over 100. However, PVC's are usually caused by stimulants such as caffeine, nicotine or stress. Don't forget about chocolate it contains caffeine and it is known to cause issues like tachycardia, palpitations, atrial fibrillation and tachyarrhythmias (abnormal, rapid heart rate).
Anemia is another common cause of PVC's so checking a CBC would be a good idea.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
"The alternative is relying on innate immunity (rather than adapative immunity from exposure or vaccination). Any individual with sufficient innate immunity to fight off the virus would still have that innate immunity during the suboptimal adaptive immunity phase. It isn't like the adaptive immunity turns off the innate immunity. The two processes actually work together. The entire point of the innate immunity is that it is always there. It is hard coded in the DNA, and either works agaisnt the virus or it doesn't. The point of the adaptive immunity is to augment the innate immunity (rather than replace it) such that the immune system can learn to respond to new threats."
I may have misheard Dr.Bossche, but I thought he was saying that the adaptive immunity would dominate the innate immunity, thus rendering your innate immunity ineffective going forward.
