The Last Covid-19 Megathread v. Hopefully...

[4DQSAR]

I'm uncertain if the current US formulation of Oxycontin differs from the UK formulation, but the UK formulation is designed to release 40% of the dose immediately and the remaining 60% over 8 hours. Hence peak plasma concentration arriving within 60 minutes. I looked at US research and it seems like the US formulation (or at least the original one) did the same as the UK formulation.

We also have a once-a-day formulation that DOES simply release a steady dose (in theory at least) for 24 hours. Peak plasma at 5 hours or so on day one, then more or less consistant.

 

[tryptakid]

Putting pharmaceuticals in a harder to reach place is NOT the same as forcibly injecting someone against their will. Not even close. And this doesn't even touch the point about the bodily sovereignty of the unborn human a women potentially wants to kill either.

You have it all backwards. You are the one who is happy for the state to forcibly violate the bodily sovereignty of an individual against their will, so don't talk to me about clouded judgement and propaganda.

And to talk about evolution of intelligence, self-reflection, openness, when you do not even respect another person at the most fundamental level shows a stunning lack of self-awareness.

As a caveat - you're suggesting that I believe in widespread forced vaccination. There has been no requirement to be vaccinated in the US or anywhere in the west that I'm aware of. The only people I know that were forced to take CoVID-19 vaccinations were those of us who worked in health centers/hospitals during the early days of the pandemic (2020+2021). I have not received a covid vaccine since late 2021/early 2022 and have not been required to do so for my job since then. For most people, vaccination was not a requirement.

Mask mandates were mostly enforced by private businesses and agencies/services that allowed the general public to access them.

I'm much more comfortable with the state suggesting vaccination against a disease that was killing people at a high rate, highly contagious, and leaving many with long-lasting cardiovascular and neurological disorders. I think that anyone who had any regular contact with large groups of people (such as using public transportation, attending university in person, working in close proximity with other people over prolonged periods of time, had children who were attending school in person, or were otherwise unable to remain at a distance from vectors of infection - and who chose to remain unvaccinated - were willfully ignorant of the clear and present danger that we were being exposed to, and were subsequently culpable in passing on to others.

It was easy for those who spent most of their time working remotely during the pandemic, with limited contact with the general public, who lived outside of a city, and who didn't witness the death and widespread illness that spread at an incredibly fast rate unlikely anything I've ever witnessed in my 42 years on this planet, and 25 years working in health care, to sit there and spread their opinions around as if they're facts - to promote dangerous alternative treatments for personal gain - and to antagonize those people who were doing their part to prevent the spread and keep themselves safe. People like that who are on this board and all over reddit, let alone in my health center, in my family, and continue to yell about 'The Jab' have bought into a narrative that is so unbelievably false that it defies explanation.

The only kernel of understanding and openness to any of this comes from two things:

A) Most of you didn't see what myself and those who worked on the front lines saw. We put ourselves at risk to protect you all, even after we continued to get shit from the least informed voices in the room - we care about you anyway.

B) There are plenty of people who have lived through very real medical traumas at the hands of public health programs, vaccination campaigns, and patriarchal medicine that has lead to generational suffering. People whose families were impacted by forced sterilization programs through the 1970s due to mental health and cognitive disorder, people whose race made them a target of forced infection by the US Government to study things like Syphilis (tuskegee experiments, as well as experiments conducted in the south pacific in the 1950s/60s).

I worked in a largely poor community that was mostly afro-caribbean through 2021. I had a large number of patients that I'd worked with for 5 or 6 years, and who trusted me as I was their clinician and someone who made sure to earn their trust and maintain it. When the vaccines began to roll out, I made sure to let my patients know that I was taking it, and that I would let them know how it went. Many of my patients were wary of it as they'd experienced racist medical treatment over the years, had read about the conspiracy theories online, and who already held false conspiracy theories about health care (One particularly common one was that if you're black and go to the ER they will let you die to harvest your organs - and may even try to kill you to accomplish this). I wanted them to know that I would take that step so that they could make an informed decision about getting vaccinated, and I respected those who chose not to.

Your conclusions @-=SS=- are so wrapped up in some preconceived notion of who you think I must be, because that's what you've been told to think. I've given you no reason over the time we've known one another, to think that I would support forced medical procedure and the invasion of basic human autonomy.

Do I support efforts to make treatments available? Of course I do. Do I think that misinformation spread by a toxic social media culture, at the expense of medical experts, is destructive? Of course I do. Do I find anti-vaxxers views to be offensive? Absolutely, and I respect people's rights to their views. I just think they should take a hard look at the measles outbreaks that are needlessly occuring in America, decades after we'd become measles free due to MMR vaccinations. I wish they would study the origins of the autism myth, as they'd see that it stems from a grifter who wanted to sell his own version of a preventive tonic against measles, that was not effective at all (similar to the promotion of ivermectin to cure covid). Same grift, same sheep who throw their money and lives away chasing it - except they put us all at risk in the process.

 

[thujone]

There has been no requirement to be vaccinated in the US or anywhere in the west that I'm aware of. The only people I know that were forced to take CoVID-19 vaccinations were those of us who worked in health centers/hospitals during the early days of the pandemic (2020+2021).

Not true.

All my U.S. colleagues were required to provide proof of vaccination (at least two shots) due to Biden admin deciding all government contractors must be vaccinated. I didn't even know my company was a U.S. government contractor up til that point.

A few people I knew personally were fired because they held on as long as possible hoping that decision would get reversed in time. They were probably lucky that happened because the company was doing layoffs that year anyway. Imagine getting fucking Epstein-Barr to save your job and then getting let go anyway!

Here in Canada, I remember thousands of healthcare workers and municipal employees (including those WORKING FROM HOME) being fired. A few were reinstated later, but many had already moved on to other jobs or sold their shit and left the country altogether.

In the U.S. and Canada, most post-secondary schools also required PROOF of full vaccination (two shots, even if you had severe reaction to the first and your doctor said not to take the second) or they wouldn't let you attend.

In my neck of the woods, proof of vaccination was required to enter private establishments. So, for quite a long time, the only place I was permitted to go was parks and supermarkets. There was a significant spike in youth suicide during this time because of the social isolation that seemed like it would never end.

I guess it's easy to forget if you didn't bother to fight it and therefore weren't negatively affected, but please don't act like it never happened.

 

[tryptakid]

Not true.

All my U.S. colleagues were required to provide proof of vaccination (at least two shots) due to Biden admin deciding all government contractors must be vaccinated. I didn't even know my company was a U.S. government contractor up til that point.

You literally are supporting what I put in my comment - that people were required by their employers. There was no public rquirement.

A few people I knew personally were fired because they held on as long as possible hoping that decision would get reversed in time. They were probably lucky that happened because the company was doing layoffs that year anyway. Imagine getting fucking Epstein-Barr to save your job and then getting let go anyway!

It was more likely that you'd trigger dormant EBV by a covid infection than from vaccination. While still possible, this is an incredibly rare outcome.

Here in Canada, I remember thousands of healthcarne workers and municipal employees (including those WORKING FROM HOME) being fired. A few were reinstated later, but many had already moved on to other jobs or sold their shit and left the country altogether.

These are examples of how this stuff got out of hand - I agree that there are examples of people being terminated or pushed to do something they weren't comfortable with in a way that wasn't great. On the flip side of this is the refusal to get vaccinated leading to the continued spread of a virus that was causing ongoing strain on health care, burning out workers, costing the public enormous amounts of money, leading to long-covid syndromes which we are still dealing with, and eroding trust in the expertise of clinicians who earn that through their commitment to education and practice.

In the U.S. and Canada, most post-secondary schools also required PROOF of full vaccination (two shots, even if you had severe reaction to the first and your doctor said not to take the second) or they wouldn't let you attend.

Yes, vaccination has been a requirement of public school since I was a kid. It wasn't controversial until people without medical licenses "just started asking questions" and "doing their own research". Once that started happening, they couldn't be convinced that their questions weren't in good faith, and their ability to do research was mediocre at best.

In my neck of the woods, proof of vaccination was required to enter private establishments. So, for quite a long time, the only place I was permitted to go was parks and supermarkets. There was a significant spike in youth suicide during this time because of the social isolation that seemed like it would never end.

I guess it's easy to forget if you didn't bother to fight it and therefore weren't negatively affected, but please don't act like it never happened.

I had to provide proof of vaccination to go to concerts, to travel - yeah I didn't fight it. Of course I took the vaccine if it meant I was less likely to get sick, and less likely to pass it on to you. I've done it every year with the flu shot, I've done it to prevent Hep B and Hep C, I've been vaccinated my whole life. I've seen what happens when people refuse vaccination. At first, it seems like nothing bad happens - because we live in a time where modern medicine and vaccination have kept us safe from things like measles, polio, and other virulent, lethal diseases. Most unvaccinated people notice see no negative impact from their choice because everyone around them is vaccinated. But then they encounter someone else who isn't, and who has traveled somewhere and contracted measles. They bring it back with them and because of it's rarity, they don't recognize the symptoms - and they don't recognize how fucking contagious it is. Measles can linger in the air for 2 hours after an infected person is in the room. It stick to walls, and it's incredibly resilient to environmental prevention. That means that if you attend a school that is lax about vaccination, and there are other kids who are vulnerable - they're getting sick, and many are dying or suffering with long term neurological disabilities.

All for what? So they can not get a shot that has prevented countless cases like that with no known major issue?

CoVID vaccines started with mRNA research that came out of the 2003 SARS outbreak which occured when I was in college. There was a subsequent outbreak of MERS in the mid 2010s which further incentivized research into the prevention of these kinds of diseases. The fact that our medical science has become that adept at designing safe and effective vaccine treatments should be celebrated. Instead, people make youtube videos and sew fear of incredibly rare and unlikely outcomes, like your "EBV risk". It's irresponsible and causes much more harm than good.

What was the alternative? Eugenics influenced disease response? Do what RFK wants with bird flu and let the flock get sick, and let most die so that the strong can survive and we can clone them? It's insane.

 

[thujone]

These are examples of how this stuff got out of hand - I agree that there are examples of people being terminated or pushed to do something they weren't comfortable with in a way that wasn't great. On the flip side of this is the refusal to get vaccinated leading to the continued spread of a virus that was causing ongoing strain on health care, burning out workers, costing the public enormous amounts of money, leading to long-covid syndromes which we are still dealing with, and eroding trust in the expertise of clinicians who earn that through their commitment to education and practice.

This is why I don't really bother responding to this thread anymore.

I believe very strongly that it's unacceptable to do unethical shit no matter what the justification.

History has shown that following 'greater good' mentality is a slippery slope that leads to horrific tragedies.

There seems to be as little point in me trying to convince you of this as there is of you trying to convince me to believe the opposite.

 

[tryptakid]

This is why I don't really bother responding to this thread anymore.

I believe very strongly that it's unacceptable to do unethical shit no matter what the justification.

What would you have done in 2020? If it were up to you, how would you have intervened?

History has shown that following 'greater good' mentality is a slippery slope that leads to horrific tragedies

History has also shown time and time again that vaccines are safe and effective at preventing horrific diseases - paralysis from polio, cognitive impairment from measles, cancer from HPV in women.

There seems to be as little point in me trying to convince you of this as there is of you trying to convince me to believe the opposite.

I'm being honest - I just don't know what the alternative should have been. Society needed to restart and vaccines provided a means to accomplish that while reducing spread and death. Did you spend much time in hospitals during the pandemic? Have you asked medical professionals about their experiences during that time?

Can I ask what you do for a living and what your experiences during the pandemic were?

 

[thujone]

What would you have done in 2020? If it were up to you, how would you have intervened?

Nothing. People still mask if they want to, and I support their right to decide their own acceptable level of risk.

No disrespect but I don't want to answer the rest of your questions because I don't know if getting deeper in would be helpful for either of us.

Simply, it's all just a matter of being respectful of people's dignity and their right to choose their own fate, not have it chosen for them by others.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

Oxycodone was classified initially as schedule 2

Schedule 2 means the drugs is highly addictive


It is that simple @tryptakid

 

[sHR00m]

Oxycodone was classified initially as schedule 2

Schedule 2 means the drugs is highly addictive


It is that simple @tryptakid

This only proves that prior to purdue oxycodone was correctly perceived as schedule 2 narcotic. There was no grand conspiracy to make oxycodone appear less addictive than it was by the authorities. That only started with purdues "studies" of oxycontin and with their marketing in the mid 90s. I believe I also gave you plenty of evidence to back that up before.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

This only proves that prior to purdue oxycodone was correctly perceived as schedule 2 narcotic. There was no grand conspiracy to make oxycodone appear less addictive than it was by the authorities. That only started with purdues "studies" of oxycontin and with their marketing in the mid 90s. I believe I also gave you plenty of evidence to back that up before.

And after the alleged studies it remained classified as schedule 2: highly addictive.

It was not downgraded to a less addictive schedule as a result of some studies.

The doctors in the clinic and end consumer saw it still classified as schedule 2: highly addictive.

 

[sHR00m]

And after the alleged studies it remained classified as schedule 2: highly addictive.

It was not downgraded to a less addictive schedule as a result of some studies.

The doctors in the clinic and end consumer saw it still classified as schedule 2: highly addictive

What do you mean alleged studies? I gave you a link with detailed internal messages including about studies.

Since you didn't read:

"June 15, 1993 to April 15, 1994: Purdue conducted a clinical trial in elderly patients with osteoarthritis to test the safety and efficacy of OxyContin. It enrolled 133 patients, but only 63 completed the trial. About 82% of the patients had some sort of adverse event related to the treatment. Yet Purdue concluded that the study “demonstrated that [controlled-release] Oxycodone is a safe and effective analgesic for the control of osteoarthritis-related pain.”"

That is how they systematically distorted the awareness about the addiction potential of oxycontin. Horrible studies, conclusions optimized for marketing.

"“Our current MS Contin business has created ‘a franchise’ with certain physicians who routinely write prescriptions for the drug,” Friedman wrote. These family physicians, general physicians, and internists “may be the bridge that we can use to expand the use of OxyContin beyond Cancer patients to chronic non-malignant pain” — a market that he noted accounted for 68.7 million prescriptions a year."

You claimed purdue didn't misrepresent oxycontins addiction potential. That is demonstrably false.

May 30, 1999: One way that Purdue encouraged prescriptions of OxyContin was to cultivate pain professionals and position the drug as helping to solve an “epidemic” of chronic pain in the U.S. In one email, Sackler referenced his strong relationship with pain doctors. “It is also soo encouraging to see and experience how happy the key pain specialists are for me,” he wrote, referring to his untiring efforts to “make OxyContin a huge success.” He added, “I intend to invite the President of the Pain Society to our Gala night at the end of the kick off meeting. It is unusual to have customers at company functions. But we have such good relationship with them.”

(...)

Nov. 30, 1999: A sales representative emailed Dr. J. David Haddox, a Purdue executive, about the growing concern among physicians about news reports of the diversion and abuse of OxyContin, including people extracting the oxycodone in the tablet for “mainlining” illegally. “While many sales people have sold controlled release opioids as having less abuse potential, the current situation has put us in an awkward situation,” the sales rep wrote. “I feel like we have a credibility issue with our product. Many physicians now think, OxyContin is obviously the street drug all the drug addicts are seeking.”

(...)

March 13, 2000: Purdue sent its sales force 50 copies each of the 1999 American Pain Society treatment guidelines to use in promoting OxyContin to physicians. That’s the same group whose president Sackler planned to invite to the gala because of their “good relationship.” “The guidelines can be an effective tool for selling our products,” the memo said.

You seem to completely ignore that purdue invested an insane amount of money to change the awareness about pain in general. They funded "pain associations" and shit like that that looked reputable and parroted their propaganda in order to convince doctors and authorities for the need to treat lesser forms of pain with oxycontin.

July 2014: Dr. William T. Fannin, a licensed physician in Kentucky, swears an affidavit as part of Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma. Fannin stated: “I was advised by the manufacturer of Oxycontin, through its employees and marketing materials, that Oxycontin was less addictive, less prone to tolerance, and less prone to abuse than other opiates.” As a result of these representations, he added, “I prescribed Oxycontin to patients who suffered adverse health consequences. ”He further said: “It is my belief … the marketing of Oxycontin in the above-stated manner resulted in numerous health consequences to patients and other individuals in Kentucky, especially those in Eastern Kentucky.”

They misrepresented studies. They created aggressive marketing campaigns around it. They were informed about rampant abuse. They derived strategies to combat being perceived as part of the problem but as part of the solution instead. Honestly, if Purdue would be innocent in this their lawyers could have presented your case at the court in order to avoid paying billions of dollars.

I found one flaw in my reasoning. Purdue referred to 1% of pain patients of all opioid analgesics. Not just for oxycontin. So they were pretty much attacking the paradigm of schedule 2 narcotics in general.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

What do you mean alleged studies? I gave you a link with detailed internal messages including about studies.

Since you didn't read:


That is how they systematically distorted the awareness about the addiction potential of oxycontin. Horrible studies, conclusions optimized for marketing.


You claimed purdue didn't misrepresent oxycontins addiction potential. That is demonstrably false.


(...)

(...)

You seem to completely ignore that purdue invested an insane amount of money to change the awareness about pain in general. They funded "pain associations" and shit like that that looked reputable and parroted their propaganda in order to convince doctors and authorities for the need to treat lesser forms of pain with oxycontin.


They misrepresented studies. They created aggressive marketing campaigns around it. They were informed about rampant abuse. They derived strategies to combat being perceived as part of the problem but as part of the solution instead. Honestly, if Purdue would be innocent in this their lawyers could have presented your case at the court in order to avoid paying billions of dollars.

I found one flaw in my reasoning. Purdue referred to 1% of pain patients of all opioid analgesics. Not just for oxycontin. So they were pretty much attacking the paradigm of schedule 2 narcotics in general.

You see how you’re having to write essays to rebut the concise 3 lines below? Ever heard of Occam’s razor?

Oxy was classified as schedule 2
Schedule 2 means the drug is highly addictive
Oxy was classified to be highly addictive


See how simple that is?

Write me another essay now about what the sales reps cherry picked from studies and how that overrides a drug being literally classified as highly addictive

 

[sHR00m]

You see how you’re having to write essays to rebut the concise 3 lines below? Ever heard of Occam’s razor?

Oxy was classified as schedule 2
Schedule 2 means the drug is highly addictive
Oxy was classified to be highly addictive


See how simple that is?

Write me another essay now about what the sales reps cherry picked from studies and how that overrides a drug being literally classified as highly addictive

The only thing necessary to refute you was my last paragraph. Not that my other points wouldn't be enough. And since you are spreading revisionist misinformation and are defending purdue of all companies, I think an essay was warranted. It's too bad that apparently you didn't read my post either since you keep repeating your points like a broken record. Thats a manipulation technique btw. Just keep repeating what you say until your opponent gives up.

Write me another essay now about what the sales reps cherry picked from studies and how that overrides a drug being literally classified as highly addictive

Again, I already presented that to you. Which you probably didn't read either. Its useless to have a discussion with you because you don't debate in an honest way.

 

[-=SS=-]

As a caveat - you're suggesting that I believe in widespread forced vaccination. There has been no requirement to be vaccinated in the US or anywhere in the west that I'm aware of.

You directly implied you were fine with the state violating the bodily sovereignty of the individual in regards to medical procedure (for vaccination). The "no requirement" part is disingenuous; mandatory vaccination where one may lose their job, during a time of economic pause in the pandemic, could for some people be akin to a death sentence if they have no safety net.

Forced vaccination has occurred in the West, during smallpox, particularly in the UK. This is where the "anti-vax" movement began, because people saw with their own eyes what the vaccination was doing to people. The media and education system are keen to downplay this episode because it showed up the entire process for what a total farce it is i.e. Leicester.

Your conclusions @-=SS=- are so wrapped up in some preconceived notion of who you think I must be, because that's what you've been told to think. I've given you no reason over the time we've known one another, to think that I would support forced medical procedure and the invasion of basic human autonomy.

The irony. The fact you would project that back on to me right after trotting out the line about 'conspiracy theories' shows you to be disingenuous and insincere, because right there you've assumed that I'm an unthinking paranoid automaton incapable of reaching his own critical thought and evaluation. Or have you forgotten the praise you afforded me before.. when it was convenient for you to want me on the team. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure where you're going with the second part of that quote, when you stated the following which clearly implies you are happy for the state to override the bodily sovereignty of the individual on 'emergency health grounds'.

The state has every right -it's part of the social contract. The fabric of society is based on the rights of the state over the individual in matters such as these. It's the same reason the state compels you to wear a seat belt, not speed, and to take classes before driving an automobile.

I'm not really interested in your personal anecdotal experiences as a health professional. To me you just sound like a medieval priest trying to convince people that your perspective is the truth, that's all. I'm sure it seems real to you, you're a paid up member of the church so it has to be, and all the power and theology behind your paradigm has convinced you that the opposite possibility is simply an impossibility.. that the theology, the medical paradigm, can't possibly be wrong.

 

[-=SS=-]

Mask mandates were mostly enforced by private businesses and agencies/services that allowed the general public to access them

You literally are supporting what I put in my comment - that people were required by their employers. There was no public rquirement.

I'd just like to pick out these quotes for another point by the way.

This 'private business' logic is bullshit for the simple reason that the entire landscape is basically your tiny domicile, a few patches of public space (usually just manicured grass), and everything else is 'private'. If you want to able to not starve to death then you can not avoid needing to go onto 'private' land (business), given that the system has built over and claimed all the land for itself. So when your food supply (supermarket) says "mask mandate" and you say "well, it's a private business, they can do what they want".. you have to be pretty blind to not see the inherent force behind that requirement. Or if your workplace says "vaccine mandate".. oh sure, brb, I'll just go find another job during an economic shutdown and not just fall behind on my bills, get evicted, and then starve to death.

The only exception to this is voluntary military service, because when you sign on the dotted line you are willingly giving up the right to your body and life to the state by choice - which is why the inverse, conscription, will always be morally repugnant because it violates bodily sovereignty by default.

This 'private' thing is sneaky fucking bullshit, because what it amounts to is a passive-aggressive statement of "well, if you don't like it, then don't go there / you are free to leave".. as if there is anywhere else to go or any alternative to this monolithic system that dominates the entire global landscape. It is forced health measures masquerading as merely mandatory. It's duplicitous, evil shit, and the way people just accept and parrot that line of logic shows how pervasive this system is.

EDIT: Just thinking about it, the mandatory school vaccination schedule fits under this argument as well. Firstly, the child can not consent in any substantial way.. they barely know their arsehole from their elbow, they simply do not have the weight of knowledge and life experience to make a truly informed decision, and by default placing that choice in the hands of the adult is really fucking sneaky for two reasons: the adult is now obligated through force, just like above, because if it's either home school or face a penalty.. so basically you either have the financial ability or you're forced to comply by default, and the second reason is that schooling is basically the privatized method of even getting a foothold in this perverse game we call society.. if the child is not schooled, not credentialed, then good fucking luck getting a job and not starving to death. So it's a dual bind, for both the parent and the child.

Naturally you won't see it that way. But if the system cared so damn much about the health of the children there's a million other things they would do that cost far less than pumping billions of tax payers money towards vaccine manufacturers. The state doesn't fucking care about our wellbeing, let alone the wellbeing of children. Once you divest yourself of the medical paradigm belief system the whole thing takes on a completely different weight.

What was the alternative? Eugenics influenced disease response? Do what RFK wants with bird flu and let the flock get sick, and let most die so that the strong can survive and we can clone them? It's insane.

You could try not shoving thousands of birds into windowless concrete floored warehouses first, see if they don't stop getting ill in the first place. This situation is exactly parallel to the state of urban life back in the 18th/19th century where we lived on top of each other, shit ankle deep in the streets, poor food quality and quantity, poor water, etc.

The virus concept is just the excuse the ruling class have conjured out of nothing to disguise the fact that they are directly responsibly for the mass death and suffering, through their greed and lust for power by shoving the masses into false toxic living environments. Just like the battery chickens.

But of course that little experiment will never be done, we won't pay the extra nickel to ensure chickens are not treated like scum and see if that doesn't change the nature of the game. Not that we need too of course, because it's exactly what we did at the turn of the 20th century when we fixed all the toxic environmental factors and all the major diseases receded away to nothing.

It's an illusion. A total illusion.

 

[4DQSAR]

I am in no way wishing to complicate the matter, but I just checked and in both the US and the UK, patients can, without their condent, be given certain classes of medication. One catagory is people displaying psychotic symptoms who are classified as prestnting 'an immediate danger to themselves or to others'.

I'm less certain of how a more genral 'lack of capacity' is dealt with in the US. But if someone is taken seriously ill or suffers a serious injury where medication is vital and time-sensitive then, as I understand it, appropriate medical professionals can and will provide that medication in the absence of the patient's ability to give consent by virtue of that lack of capacity.

I would be genuinely interested to know if, in a similar manner to citizens registers as DNR (do not resusitate), they can also register for DNM (do not medicate). Because I honeslty don't know how that would be dealt with.

I think I mentioned before that there have been a handful of cases in the UK where a person diagnosed as suffering with a highly transmissible disease actually ending up in court for refusing to isolate or undergo treatment. Clearly this infringes their personal freedom.

 

[-=SS=-]

I am in no way wishing to complicate the matter, but I just checked and in both the US and the UK, patients can, without their condent, be given certain classes of medication. One catagory is people displaying psychotic symptoms who are classified as prestnting 'an immediate danger to themselves or to others'.

I'm less certain of how a more genral 'lack of capacity' is dealt with in the US. But if someone is taken seriously ill or suffers a serious injury where medication is vital and time-sensitive then, as I understand it, appropriate medical professionals can and will provide that medication in the absence of the patient's ability to give consent by virtue of that lack of capacity.

I was waiting for someone to bring up these examples, but I'm glad you didn't frame it as evidence to the contrary as it were.

The psychiatric enforcement of medication is evil and just a continuation on from the madhouses of the past, where society itself has no answers to the problem and doesn't know what to do with these people, so it just bungs them into what is effectively a prison through chemical means. These people are the remainders of an unbalanced equation, our societal model; they are the products of it. It's not all that different from the workhouses of the past either, where again more products of a failed system are deemed too hazardous to the 'harmony of the society' that created them and then forced into a prison like scenario.

The emergency treatment scenario where a person is unconsciousness and can't consent, and otherwise has no documentation on them saying "do not give me XYZ", and no immediate family to make a decision on their behalf in extreme scenarios. That is fair, given 99% of people would probably chance any means in order to continue existing. If a person is conscious they are well within their rights to refuse treatment of course.

The DNR thing is relevant to Covid. I read and heard many testimonies, particularly from American's, that DNR's were sneaked onto their relatives without consent during Covid. And before any smartass says tHaT cOnSpiRAcy: Covid-19: Concern over 'do not resuscitate' decisions during pandemic

The DNR, in conjunction with plying elderly people with Midazolam and morphine in care homes, lead to the 'first wave' of the March/April 2020 time period. Along with forced ventilation in hospital settings. That's how they did it, how they manufactured the statistical base for the pandemic and justifying the existence of it. It was state sanctioned genocide, directed from the top of the respective health authorities who dictated that response. Step 0 was the false hysteria out of China and Italy, areas dominated by air pollution and known high pneumonia incidence rates, then step 1 was generating a real fatality spike as outlined above.. then you have the ball rolling and a 'pandemic' that you can point to bEcAUsE muH stAtisTics.

 

[4DQSAR]

I noted that in the US, people suspected of a crime but considered 'unfit to stand trial' due to mental illness were forcably being medicated. That has now been successfully challanged.

In the UK it's also become much more restricted and generally only applicable if a person is considered lacking capacity by means if severe psychosis. But once they are out of crisis (I don't know what that means in legal terms) then they can refuse further medication. But it's often the case that a person will only be discharged if they agree to participate in a CTO (community treatment order). They can refuse but if they are still considered an immediate danger to themselves or others, they are unlikely to be discharged.

I know of a couple of cases in which people were arrested, judged to fulfil the M'Naughton rules and be medicated for a short period only to then make it clear they did not wish to be given further medication. I haven't seen either of those people since their arrest and don't know what then took place.

I also mentioned highly transmissible diseases. To take the extreme example of a disease that is rare but still encountered, bubonic plague still kills around 600 people per year. If given an appropriate antibiotic while asymptomatic, the survival rate is almost 100% and even when symptomatic, around 90% of people survive. Without treatment it's only about 10%. But a person could at least in theory be tested and shown infected and then refuse treatment. Even while asymptomatic, they are able to transmit said disease. So is it appropriate to insist on quarentine if not on forcable medication?

BTW transmission of bubonic plague is not limited to a zoonotic vector. Bodily fluids of an infected person provides for direct person-to-person infection.

 

[-=SS=-]

They can refuse but if they are still considered an immediate danger to themselves or others, they are unlikely to be discharged.

The whole setup is so dangerous though. It's like police saying "you're breaching the peace" when you aren't doing anything and using that as justification for arresting you. All it takes is you being designated as 'mentally unstable' and then you're fair game in the eyes of the law, and once you get mind altering medication into your system you can potentially be kept in a state where you're deemed not fit to consent (or re-enter society).. and also open to abuse behind closed doors in the institutions.

Who defines what is sane or not? It's so arbitrary. Once you scratch the surface you see the whole psychological system that it's based on is largely circular reasoning and no real tangible definitions at all. We can't even accurately define what a thought is for christ sake lmao.. but the state has granted itself the right to forcibly medicate a person into 'better thoughts'.. and off the back of not even being able to determine what caused the irregular thought patterns in the first place. It's really fucked up when you think about it.

We're approaching the point (or reverting back?) to where holding views deemed contrary to the prevailing paradigm is not just subversive but deemed a mental pathology. They're trying desperately hard right now, especially in the UK, to pathologize the behaviour of young white men who are acting out because of the constricting nature of this system. As just one example. I mean we already give children ADHD medication because they don't fit into some preconceived pattern that we "think" they should be, it's not a massive jump to go from that to something more sinister.

But a person could at least in theory refuse treatment and even while asymptomatic, they are able to transmit said disease. So is it appropriate to insist on quarentine if not on forcable medication?

I'll leave aside the nonsense of 'asymptomatic', a term that only came into prominence during covid, but if a person is clearly exhibiting signs of severe illness then quarantining is the sensible thing to do. I mean if a person is that ill in the first place they wouldn't be wanting to go anywhere anyway, quarantine is just a natural consequence when you're that ill.. you want to be away from everyone and everything.

Forcible medication? Still no. I stand by my assertion that the medical paradigm is wrong, but regardless we can not tolerate the "well, we strongly believe that germs are contagious therefore we're in the right here [to override your bodily sovereignty]".. because as soon as you allow that foot in the door, you are allowing a doorway for tremendous evil to take place. It has to be a fundamental, irrevocable principle that can not be transgressed, that the sovereignty of persons body is sacred.

I mean do people not imagine hypothetical scenarios when engaging in actions that might affect others? Say you are on board with violating bodily sovereignty under 'public health crisis'. Say you personally are involved in putting a concoction into people. Then say 50 years down the line it is discovered that, actually yes, the medical theory we thought was correct actually turns out to be incorrect. What then? Not only were you wrong on an intellectual level which can be rectified, but on a moral level you have failed and that can not be undone (or the potential harm to others). I couldn't personally live with that guilt, and for the same reason this is why philosophically I would refuse jury duty.. because I'm not God, I don't know all, and I can not therefore cast that sort of life altering judgement on another person knowing there's a probability I may be wrong.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We like to think we're at the forefront of human thinking, that science has got it pretty much figured out, that this time we're definitely probably right.. but that is nothing but ego talking.

 

[4DQSAR]

Actually, the term asymptomatic has been used for a long time. Given that it's taken from the Latin, it turned up in French literature in the 1690s but was formally adopted into the English language during the 1930s. Maybe it wasn't commonly used outside specific scientific disciplines until decades later, but no, it isn't a recently adopted term.

Typhoid is one example of a disease in which certain people may themselves be asymptomatic but still be able to transmit said disease to others. 'Typhoid Mary' was the example most cited but in fact there were a few similar cases. Of course in that era there was no treatment and when all other legal remedies failed, it resulted in the individuals being isolated.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, one of the first experiments supporting germ theory was that fluids taken from an infected individual were shown to reliably infect animal models. Models isolated from envoronmental factors. Later studies were able to more accurately isolate and culture a specific bacteria or virus and demonstrate it's ability to infect animal models. The point being to exclude other factors and then to have others repeat the same experiments.

I also stated that science is constantly evolving and even provided what I thought a good example in that Newtonian Gravitational Theory was considered accurate until instrumentation was developed that showed deviation and thus Einstein's Gravitational Theory was adopted. Science is in constant flux but is based on a weight of evidence. Skepticism is the basis of science.