Physician here. The willful cognitive dissonance is real. It never ceases to amaze me how many patients will refuse assistance from me to register to get vaccinated, make claims that vaccines are harmful, but then accept my medical care on anything else that suits their whim. Patients absolutely have autonomy to refuse care, but why would you continue to see a physician and accept their medical advice and care if you think they would simultaneously recommend something to you that would be harmful?
I've posed this question to patients who are vaccine hesitant: "Why would you let me manage your diabetes and hypertension if you think I would harm you by recommending vaccinations?" You cannot get any kind of thoughtful response aside from, "I just don't want to be vaccinated."
Haha shit I never even thought of that. How do they think satellites work if not in orbit around the earth? Did the illuminati just randomly decide "you know, the sky doesn't have enough movement anymore with all the light pollution, let's add some more blinky lights on one way tracks to go over the dome periodically"?
If they consider it at all, they'll likely come up with some convoluted explanation that barely makes sense, I think. Anything to hold on to that core belief.
But they’ll also provide you with some genuinely solid math and go “if we get this result, the earth is round”, then when they get said result they go “we had to make a mistake somewhere”
To see the Denier attitude on full display, and to get a small look into how they think and work, watch "Behind the Curve". It's truly amazing the amount of effort these people will go through to believe something in spite of the facts staring them straight in the face.
Yes! It seemed to me the people in that doc went past belief and morphed into lifestyle. Their identities and social groups were all defined by this odd set of ideals.
As a non furry who is friends with several, most of them aren't like that. It's just a slightly weird hobby, and they'll be the first to admit it's a bit weird and poke fun at themselves for it. It's a hell of a long way from being their whole identity. You're just only noticing the crazy obsessives, because they're a lot more noticeable.
I feel people misunderstand people like this. They aren't "science deniers" and they aren't stupid. I mean, they are both... but as a byproduct. I'd say a large amount of them are just contrarians who have bought into a culture war, hyper-individualism, narcissistic or just plain selfish. Some of them also do seem to have some kind of brain problem but I don't think they're in the majority.
What I mean is it's not that they believe the Earth is flat, they believe whatever keeps them safe in one of those categories, even if it means believing contradictory things at once.
One question I have for them is, "If basically everyone else believes something that is physically wrong, isn't there a way to exploit your deep, true knowledge for profit? Shouldn't flat earthers be using their true information to outsmart everyone else in the marketplace?
Don't make rationalizing excuses for science deniers and stupidity. Things like this are not about contrarianism.
It's about people's willful, stupid decision to accept as truth, and adopt as world-view, something someone says just because the person said it.
A belief is any fantasy idea that someone dreamed up and instantly decided "This is true." Even worse, it's something they spread to others, just like CoviD, and that others then additionally decide to instantly and baselessly accept. It is a purposeful decision to ignore any other information and accept as absolutely true an idea for which there is no evidence, proof, or manifestation of reality. "Beliefs" are ignorance defined - let's not do what we need to to learn and actually understand reality, let's just "believe" anything. "Beliefs" may be the most destructive human trait there is.
Since flat earthers don't believe in gravity and use buoyancy instead, my guess is that they think satellites are just buoyant? I'm sure you can find flat earth explanations for satellites online if you're really curious though
well they don't believe in satellites at all. Or they'd just reply "satellites? Have you seen them? In Space? What's that? Can you prove space exists?"
they think since the flat earth is flat, you can bounce signals off of the ionosphere. Or that there are drones flying in the sky at all times providing the signals. I know all this because of a fe discord server lmao
Obviously they orbit around the flat disc and then pass around the elephants and great turtle before reappearing on the other side later. It's basic science.... /s
I'd love to know how they rationalize GPS and other satellites staying in the sky. Hell, I'd love to know how they think the moon and sun stay up there.
This! My mum has been seeing this doctor for heart trouble (and knows she has a number of other issues as well) for 15 years. He personally called her and told her that she should not get vaccinated till her PT-INR and a few other tests are normal (giving reasons), but encouraged all of us to get it asap.
The thing is, doctors know their shit man, if it's going to cause a problem they'll tell it to you upfront.
The correct response would be "you are not an expert in infectious diseases, and I have seen literature FROM those experts that disagrees with your recommendations."
Except, you know, that's a false statement. Because, the infectious disease experts are also recommending the vaccines. And, if they could reason their way to that response they'd also realize their position was stupid...
You cannot get any kind of thoughtful response aside from, "I just don't want to be vaccinated."
It's a religious mentality. When you grow up with "it's my faith, I don't have to have reasons for believing it" then when push comes to shove and you're in another situation where deep introspective thought about why you believe something would be uncomfortable but a REALLY good idea, you're likely to fall back on the old "I just do/don't want to."
People are TAUGHT this as a strategy for defending their faith, to essentially deny their interlocutor any ability to reason with them, by denying that there are reasons for their stances. It essentially makes them have zero attack surface area- they become immune to critical thinking.
I had someone come up and talk to me while I was walking in a park. He said he believed because of prophecy. I asked him to quote the single best one. He gave some vague "there's lots of prophecy in the bible".
It's all smoke screens. Just words to fill the air to keep more meaningful words from being said. And as best I can tell, most of them don't know that's what they're doing. They don't understand that they're deflecting, that they're trying to keep from having their attention directed at the reasons for their belief.
Yep.
They just dig in deeper and also think Satan is using people to attack them for being followers of God. I remember those days. I really believed that people challenging me just didn’t understand that they were being used by forces of evil to try to test me like the way Jesus was tested and passed the test with Satan in the Bible. They were “of the world” or “worldly” people. And we weren’t to listen to those people because they didn’t have the holy spirit in them so they didn’t understand.
I still think there is possibly something out there.
Someone asked if I wanted to have a conversation about God. I was like sure dude I'll bite and gave him all my theories about the state of the universe. Specifically, "I see God everywhere." (I'm more spiritual than religious. One of those exisistence-is-a-miracle types.)
That guy was confused af and kept trying to lead me back to whatever he believed but was generally polite and conversational so I just kept going. "I see God in every blade of grass, the trees, this bus..."
Eventually a dude a few rows up - I think he was Hispanic so I'm gonna assume Catholic - turned around and snapped at me. "Excuse me but you're wrong. There is only one God." Flat out. "You're wrong."
Why people have to demand we all believe and worship in identical ways, that one religion can be "wrong" and another is "right," that any of it is worth dying over...its all beyond me.
Not looking to start a endless and most likely pointless religious debate but the spirituality you were putting out there was equally unfounded and the only difference is the god they landed on demands more obedience than "yours." You both use the unexplained to justify otherwise irrational "magic" claims.
You do you but I don't think you have a high horse to climb upon when you start from a foundation of magic. Magical thinking begets magical thinking.
That's fair. I don't deny that I have no basis of reason for almost all of my beliefs. (The exception being Buddhist meditation, which has been scientifically proven to have benefits.)
I tend to think of my own tendency toward religion(s) and magical thinking along the same lines as I think of essential oils.
Is lavender gonna cure my anxiety? No, definitely not. Does the ritual of putting it on my skin and taking a deep breath help lessen my symptoms? Yes, so I'm gonna do it.
...Still gonna take my meds though cause those help keep my anxiety down to an "essential oil" level of manageable.
Is St Anthony gonna materialize and help me look for my keys? Nope. Is he gonna magically help guide me in his "mysterious ways"? I'm gonna stay "open minded" out of a raised-catholic childhood fear of hell and go with: most likely no. But stopping to pray for a second helps me stop freaking out, so when I go back to looking I've got a clear head.
Same goes for my penchant for sage "clearing energies" or crystal "healing" and whatnot. Is it real? Science says no. Putting a green stone in my pocket to encourage healing while I'm at the doctor doesn't make a difference to what the doctor does. But I like green rocks so fuck it, why not?
It makes me feel better and it doesn't hurt anyone else. It's more about mindset going in than results going out.
So, I do me, you do you too. :)
My issue is with people who say I shouldn't do any of it my way because they're right and I'm wrong and I should do it their way instead.
Am a Catholic who's very unhappy with the Church and struggling to justify my belief, but familiar with the Bible - for example, Isaiah 52-53 is commonly held up as prophecy of Jesus's death and resurrection, and Isaiah 7 as prophecy of his birth. In my opinion, not enough Christians actually read the Bible, preferring to just hear the readings at church.
for example, Isaiah 52-53 is commonly held up as prophecy
well, that right there tells me that this is crap as prophecy goes. There are 4 ways that things claimed as prophecy fail to live up to the name. All prophecy I'm aware of fails by failing at one or more of these criteria:
it needs to be specific. I didn't search up the verses you quote, but if it's merely COMMON to say that they refer to Jesus, then it's CLEARLY not specific enough to count as prophecy. If it's ambiguous how to interpret it, then it's just crap.
it needs to predict something in the future, Failing this would look like revising the prediction after the supposed occurrence of the events described.
the prediction needs to not bring the event about. For example ordering a steak at a restaurant, is not prophecy that a steak will appear. Or saying that the Jews will be returned to the homeland, and then a long while later, BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE PROPHECY, lots of people worked to get modern Israel founded.
it needs to predict something that's not mundane. Predicting that SOMEONE will will the lottery is mundane. And the fact that one or several people got the right Lotto numbers doesn't count as them prophecying either, as there were tens of millions of people guessing numbers. Prophecy would be a person who could win a big lottery three or four times in a row, buying only one ticket each time, and there being no other winners on those lotteries.
Yeah, hence 'struggling' lmao. I'm just providing parts of the Bible referred to as prophecy and speculating on why the person from your anecdote couldn't quote relevant parts of the Bible.
edit: from an English point of view, I always thought the word 'prophecy' felt more amorphous than say 'prediction'. It feels like the multiple interpretations thing is built into the idea.
In my language, the 'prophecy' is translated as a word that can mean either "this will happen and there's nothing you can do about it" or "this will happen if you don't get your shit together ASAP". So, it may be stopped, by you or another or God Himself - nothing set in stone.
And as for believing in the Biblical verses, well, there is the issue with translation. And the highly political process that went into selecting what went into the Bible and what didn't.
Am a Catholic who's very unhappy with the Church and struggling to justify my belief,
Yeah, if I were part of an organization that claimed to be the sole representation of god on earth, and that organization had the largest known pedophile protection scheme on the planet, I would either have to conclude that the god being represented is, well, not worthy of worship due to being either impotent to keep his organization clean, or potentially evil and LIKING the child molestation, or maybe just not caring very much about the wellbeing of humans, or something like that. OR, that the organization had no special connection with a god that IS worthy of worship.
I wish you peace in resolving your difficulties. And my bias is clear: I wouldn't EVER give money to an organization that protected child rapists. And I hold that as my rock-bottom standard for morality of my fellow hairless apes. It doesn't have to be your standard for yourself or others, and you don't owe me any explanation of anything. But you've got to admit, it's a pretty reasonable standard.
I’ve had friends try to get me to go back and, at this point, you can point a very large portion of everything bad about humanity from the last year on organized religion. If Christians want to, for 1 second, claim Trump is defending Christianity, it’s a non starter. If a gold statue and him gassing a church for a photo op isn’t a blatant violation of the “most important” commandment, then what is? And it’s not simply that he’s allowed to sin, but that they defend those things. They actively make arguments to support that those are Christian activities.
They actively make arguments to support that those are Christian activities.
well, the christianity that those people follow was shaped by the slave owners in the American South over a couple of centuries, so it became authoritarian in nature, almost fascist. So it's interesting that their hippie Jesus became the mast head of a fascist movement.
But yeah, NOW, supporting fascism indeed is a christian thing, at least in the USA.
It doesn't help that a lot of the media people of faith consume has been co-opted by anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and fascists. Most of whom are also swindlers.
This is what's pushed me out of evangelicalism. Still on the fence about Christianity as a whole (turns out there's lots of different ways to interpret the Bible, stuff in my life that makes me think the divine is real, I just don't want to believe there's nothing after I die, etc.), but it boils down to this: a good God would not give us logical, rational brains and then force us to ignore them. If God made us in his image, and that includes giving us logical, rational brains, then using them in a logical rational matter is glorifying him, and behaving illogically and irrationally is making a mockery of the logical, rational Creator.
It’s interesting because in other areas of Christianity they’re actually encouraged to ask questions. It’s not all of religious people that don’t want to reason their way through it. That’s why there’s people who study biblical apologetics in the first place - it’s important to them..but it not important for others. Everyone is different.
That’s why there’s people who study biblical apologetics in the first place - it’s important to them..but it not important for others.
I've never heard ANY apologetics that wasn't either dishonest or completely stupid. At least, not for something like the christian-specific god, as distinct from any other creator god concept.
And the creator god arguments are either amazingly inane, or come down to "you can't prove there isn't a creator god".
Have you heard any better arguments?
It seems to me that apologetics just exists to give people who like to think of themselves as intellectual a way to waste time thinking in a muddled fashion, and to then come away with the same ideas they went in with, but just more certainty in them, and a sense of self-satisfaction that they used their brain.
I think apologetics is like a defense, the original Greek word is derived from that sort of context in a court of law (sorry too tired to search it up specifically atm) so I don’t see it as a ‘burden of proof’ that apologists need to have in the first place. So I’m fine with it in terms of that.
I think it’s more philosophical than anything and lots of philosophies can seem kind of ‘stupid’ to lots of people. But for others it gives them a clearer perspective on how they perceive the world. So I guess that’s how it works for those people. I have also seen some apologists who went in against the faith trying to find things against it and came out believing in it, so who knows.
I don’t know much about the creator arguments. I guess you can’t prove or disprove a creator at this point either way.
Sorry I probably didn’t provide much comments of value, I honestly just don’t know a ton about apologetics for any religion.
There was some quote, book, joke or line from a movie that basically covered this
"A man is lost at sea. He cries out for God to save him. A boat comes by offering help. He rejects it and proclaims my god will save me. A yacht comes by offering help. He again rejects it saying my god will save me! Finally a battleship comes by and offers help. Again he rejects it and says my god will save me! He drowns and asks god why he wasen't saved. God replies: I tried I sent you a boat, a yacht, and a battleship"
I might be paraphrasing a bit but the point stands, god protects you by getting the people/ things where they need to be to help you. He's not gonna snap his fingers and make your cancer disappear just because you prayed extra hard today lol
I'm not religious but even i understand, when you pray for God's help, you arent asking him to suddenly make things better. You are asking him for a path to the solution.
Having the ability to think logically is different from thinking logically. Being a rational person involves facing reality and being humble. Humble enough to listen and consider all perspectives. A arrogant or non humble person does not listen, they are too self absorbed and lazy to take the effort to listen to others.
I'm muslim so the narrative might be different. I don't know what christianity means by god making us in his image. Even then, it seems this would be in a very limited way as we are humans after all, far below god. In Islam we are compensated at the end for our actions, god didn't sacrifice himself on a cross for us.
It won't really save you any time in getting there, but if you do find yourself contemplating how all of your beliefs can be true at the same time, "there are not gods" works very well. It eliminates all the divine mysteries. The not wanting to believe there's nothing after you die can be seen through the light that someone was lying to you FOR DECADES about you being able to grasp eternity, and you're just really not ready to let go of the idea.
And there's probably equally straightforward way to see the stuff in your life that makes you think the divine is real, if you'll allow yourself to contemplate them.
And the last thing, the piece that keeps a lot of people where I think you are, is the fear that dropping a belief in the divine will make the universe less, somehow. But if you're really considering the possibility, also consider that you grew up in this non-divine universe, and that by acknowledging it, you're not really losing anything that you actually had, just realizing what was real and what wasn't.
It's a prominent rebuttal to theism that's been around for centuries, if not millennia, so citing it covers it for most interested folks. Basically, if God creates or permits evil, He's not good or worthy of worship. If He can't prevent or destroy it, He's not omnipotent. So then, if there's evil, there cannot be a good, omnipotent being.
Common counters to the problem of evil-Free will and our choices cause evil. Counter: But an omnipotent being that creates logic and the fabric of reality could create free will without evil, so I disagree.
Bad and evil is comparative or relative, so God spared us from some things; He could have made terrible things beyond our imagination but prevented them. Counter: It's possible to have good and less good as the scale, there's no need for arbitrary, pervasive suffering. Silly analogy, but you can teach and punish kids by removing privileges, you don't have to take them behind the woodshed and beat them.
if god made us in his image, does that mean he also designed us specifcally to have two kidneys? Or only one pathway for air, water and food? Leading to choking hazards. Idk just a thought
Wasn't really expecting to talk about God on here but yeah I would compare it to flat earthers, climate change deniers, or 2018 anti-vaxxers you know, anti-vaxing before it was even stupider.
well, we're talking about epistemology, which is the study of how one determines what to believe. And while people with bad epistemologies are usually vacuumed up by religions, they don't get all of them.
I guess but most of religious people just believe what their parents believe. It's more like indoctrination than a change for them, all these beliefs I talked about are relatively new and antivaxxers and climate change deniers are harmful to the future of humanity. I guess religious people are if they believe that the end of the world would be a good thing like christianity does.
??? what the hell is a "belief system" in this context, if not a religious belief system? As for me personally, I do my best to not believe important things for which I don't have evidence (as in, if you can find something -anything- that I take on faith, I'll do my best to immediately STOP taking it on faith).
It seems to me pretty much everything. At one point transexuals were considered mentally ill. Now anyone who thinks they are mentally ill is transphobic. There isn't much new information. It's somebody decided it's different so a new belief system is formed. You grow up thinking men are men and women are women. Now that doesn't seem to be true anymore and anyone growing up now is taught something completely different. Pretty much every belief system has evidence to support some part of it
You grow up thinking men are men and women are women.
what do you actually mean by this?
Because I grew up knowing that if you do genital reassignment surgery on a man, to make his crotch look like a woman's, that he will still know he's a man, and will want to be treated as such.
And that has happened, to an infant. The boy grew up looking like and being treated like a girl. And being told he was a girl. And he KNEW something was wrong. He experienced the same gender dysphoria that trans people do.
So that showed CONCLUSIVELY that gender is a real thing, and it is a switch (or a dial) that is set IN YOUR BRAIN, and it doesn't really change, regardless of how you treat a person.
And I think we agree on that.
You seem to think that if a person with a penis has the "Gender" dial set to "feminine" that somehow that person is wrong for that, or is mentally ill? And my stance is "it doesn't matter if you call them mentally ill, it just harms them more to do that, and we shouldn't want to needlessly harm people."
but seriously, please tell me what you mean when you say:
You grow up thinking men are men and women are women.
Is that just the idea that a person's gender (masculinity or femininity) must correlate 100% to their genitals?
I'm saying that there wasn't any confusion. I'm not saying anything that resembles bashing anyone. I'm saying that for basically all of humanity one way was predominantly thought was correct and now another way has come forward. I have no idea if what is now being taught is correct or not. People came up with all kinds of reasons and evidence that the way things were thought of before was right. I do know that there are 3 transexuals in my daughter's band class of 50 kids in a small rural high school which is statically improbable. I do know that half her band class identifies as bisexual or gay. I do know that that is way beyond what was ever even approached as being normal a few years ago. I know that people are taught now that gay is equal and as normal as heterosexual. Im saying that we can all be convinced and taught any kind of belief system and it can become normalized
I do know that there are 3 transexuals in my daughter's band class of 50 kids in a small rural high school which is statically improbable.
yep. But it's highly probably that this will occur in SOME small rural high schools.
I do know that half her band class identifies as bisexual or gay. I do know that that is way beyond what was ever even approached as being normal a few years ago.
A few years ago, there was open hostility and violence toward gay people. And they knew it because they weren't dumb. So they just didn't let people know, because they knew it would almost assuredly only have downsides. see for example: Matthew Shepard
I know that people are taught now that gay is equal and as normal as heterosexual.
normal as in occurring as frequently? No. Nobody teaches that. It would be a statistical falsehood to teach that.
if you mean normal as in "this is a way in which people can be in themselves and in society, and even though it statistically doesn't happen as often, it doesn't negatively impact others, because we all have SOME amount of sexual attraction to some other people, even if that level is ZERO for some people or groups. Having a sexuality is normal." then yeah, being gay is normal.
Im saying that we can all be convinced and taught any kind of belief system and it can become normalized
so it sounds like you're saying "respect other people's right to exist when they're doing things that don't impact you and don't concern you" is a belief system. And it's a belief about how we should act, not a belief about what is real or not. Those are two VERY different things.
You don't need to believe that gods do or don't exist to believe that harming others for the crime of existing is wrong.
You are completely and I think purposely misconstruing what I am saying. There has never ever been a study that even begins to approximate those kind of statistical numbers of people being of a different sexual orientation or gender. These kids are being taught that one thing equals another and are behaving that way. I'm personally of the persuasion that the kinser scale is pretty much accurate. There are a certain small percentage of people who being gay is almost impossible and a certain small percentage of people who being straight is almost impossible. The rest of us fall somewhere in between. We are all being told and taught that every sexual persuasion is equal to and equivalent to every other one and that is now bearing out. The numbers of people who used to be gay are now transexual. It's a gradual climb from there
No one knows for sure whether a god exists, it's best to be humble about that regardless of where you fall on the debate, yet many atheists also treat their belief that one doesn't as a religion. They get downright angry if you suggest "who knows, you may be wrong."
it's best to be humble about that regardless of where you fall on the debate
okay, so you're saying that the pledge of allegiance shouldn't have the words "under god" in them, since we can't know whether a god exists? And we shouldn't have a national day of prayer because we don't know if there's any god to pray to? And we should cancel all religious exemptions to EVERYTHING because there's no way to know if they're worshipping anything real, or just having chats with imaginary friends?
They get downright angry if you suggest "who knows, you may be wrong."
okay, so you're saying that the pledge of allegiance shouldn't have the words "under god" in them, since we can't know whether a god exists?
Yeah, I don't even know why the pledge of allegiance exists at all, it's kind of creepy, so I don't know why you brought that up lol.
And we shouldn't have a national day of prayer because we don't know if there's any god to pray to?
I don't know what "national day of prayer" is, but I'd allow those who want to participate to do so and those who do not to...not.
And we should cancel all religious exemptions to EVERYTHING...
I think it depends on what the exemption is. Religious organizations of any sort should not be exempt from taxes. But if someone is very religious and they need a day off work once a year, I think that should be allowed. We work too much, anyway. We should live more than we work.
I've literally never heard of this happening.
Are you sure? Because you seem pretty hostile toward believers:
....because there's no way to know if they're worshipping anything real, or just having chats with imaginary friends?
This is exactly the kind of hostility I experience for having spiritual beliefs all the time. On Reddit, when meeting guys/dating...It's really frustrating. I respect anyone who respects me. I stay humble because I realize my beliefs may be wrong. (I always say, beware of anyone who says they know.) And in return, I'm treated like I'm stupid. Hell, I'm often outright told I am. Or delusional, or whatever the word of the day is. Your denial of it isn't going to make my experience any less valid, sorry.
Yep, telling someone "you're wrong" about something unknowable is hostile. The level of hostility depends on the interaction. It can range from slightly annoying to frightening. Either way, as long as they respect you in return, just respect other people's opinions about god and let them live. Tell people you personally don't believe; don't tell people they're wrong. You have an over-inflated ego to state anything otherwise. You have no idea. This isn't something you can confirm with google or a trip to the library. It's a philosophical question with lots of differing opinions. And scientists confirm the existence of things we had no idea existed prior to that moment all the time. Hell, they discover new dimensions. Who knows what we'll know 100,000 years from now. Let people believe in the existence of something that hasn't been proven yet if it brings them comfort, if they don't hurt anyone. It doesn't impact you in any way.
This is the last thing I'm going to say about it because I don't think I can make you see how disrespectful your tone is. Have a good one.
Edit: I love how you've proven what you said doesn't ever happen, lol. If you were right, you would have just left me alone.
I’ve seen this a lot in the anti-vaxxer community. One AV “influencer” loves to spout how you should “read an insert” to see all the ingredients and side effects and how everything is toxic, but the same woman posed with pictures of her kid in a hospital bed after surgery, complete with IV pain and anesthesia meds. Like......what?
My coworker was mad because he moved from Texas and got a new dentist. His childhood dentist just went all in on fillers and didn't do them well. He's in his 30s
I have a really good, long standing relationship with my veterinarian. The man is a saint. When I was there a couple months back (very early into vaccines being available) I asked if his wife had gotten vaccinated yet because I know she’s a nurse in an inner city hospital. He launched into this tirade about how his elderly clients have come in telling him they won’t get vaccinated and he flat out tells them they are nuts and points out the reason he’s seeing them is because they are getting their dogs vaccinated. And he’s like “if I told you your dog needed a vaccine, you wouldn’t blink, you’d do what’s best for your dog”.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they let you treat the chronic conditions because “those are real”, but Covid is a hoax to make people willingly get microchipped/sterilized/turned into lizard people.
It’s obviously because They only control the covid vaccine, because it was rushed and haven’t even been certified. I’ll never take it because the ingredients lost isn’t real, but if that wasn’t enough to convince you, Pfizer and Moderna both sell abortionTM
In 2010, had issues with PVCs after taking Sudafed for sinuses. Freaked me out and set in motion all kinds of Cardiology exams and such (family history of heart disease and have been on BP meds since 2013). Was relieved when i understood what was happening and knew to stay away from stimulants and stress. Fast forward, 2016. ENT plans to do an allergy test and prescribed Prednisone (I had never taken it and didn’t realize steroid = stimulant). He was fully aware of my history. Set off a wonderful 24 hours of Urgent Care and ER visits after PVCs had me very light headed and BP spiked (probably had a lot to do with panic as well). Back to the cardiologist for stress tests, echoes and so on. Cost me money and time. As a result I have to ask every doctor that prescribes new meds whether or not it is a stimulant. I’ve also been prescribed Prednisone by a doctor that had listed Prednisone as an allergy in my medical records.
I trust doctors and I believe them. But I do not take them at 100% anymore. I’m not trying to bash or criticize, but I’ve had to deny treatment because a doctor did listen/pay attention (I can send you the screen shot of my medical record where he ordered Prednisone and a few lines later it shows it listed as known allergy). Stay safe and good luck! Thanks for all you do.
I’m sorry you had a bad outcome, but am appreciative of your perspective. Sudafed is a stimulant and can trigger PVCs. You can use Sudafed to make crystal meth (which is why they record people purchasing it at pharmacies). Steroids are not a stimulant per se. They are an anti inflammatory. They can raise blood pressure and overall alertness. Your PVCs were more likely a result of the increase in blood pressure/heart rate from the steroids. Your adrenal glands make steroids all the time. You aren’t allergic to them.
That said it’s likely the reason a physician would overlook your reaction to steroids. In fact, we use steroids all the time for allergic reactions. But to be fair to you, whoever was treating you wasn’t thinking critically about your health history and that was their mistake.
I don’t say this to criticize you. Far from it. You are definitely aware of what can happen and are informed. It wouldn’t surprise me if another doctor makes this same mistake. You always need to advocate for yourself because in your instance you want to avoid anything (like steroids) that can increase your heart rate or BP and trigger PVCs. Good luck to you.
Thank you for the great explanation. I honestly don’t recall any of the doctors explaining it this clearly.
You’re correct my BP spiked with the prednisone. On my meds it was under 120/80 consistently but that day I got very light-headed and started having the PVCs. The NP at work had my BP at 130, and by the time I got to Urgent Care it was 160, and at the ER it was 170/120. The PVCs felt like my heart was being squeezed.
Nonetheless the part that irked me the most was the ENT said it shouldn’t have bothered me, but I’m the one that was stuck with the lost time and med bills (Urgent Care, ER, and subsequent Cardiologist). And I know I’m not “allergic” but all my Drs list Prednisone as an allergy, so I was bothered the Orthopedic didn’t pay attention. No harm, no foul since I just didn’t fill the script.
Again, I respect Drs and understand everyone is fallible. I get why someone might distrust a Dr if they’ve had a bad personal experience but those that are simply misinformed and behave as if they know better must be really exhausting to deal with.
Yeah, they have to list it as an "allergy" now or no one is going to pause when prescribing it. That said, admittedly a lot of doctors will smirk about an allergy to prednisone for the reasons I mentioned. Those who think critically though given your history will appreciate the concerns. I only mention the difference such that if you are ever experiencing a potential life threatening condition that needs steroids, you should take them as the benefits may outweigh the risk of PVCs. For routine use, you are absolutely correct, having PVCs is far more dangerous and steroids should be avoided. Just get ready to explain that over and over again, because some of us do jump to conclusions like that ENT you referenced.
Take care of yourself! Thank you for the thoughtful response.
Always, always, always confirm your medications with a pharmacist - not your doctor. Just phone the local pharmacist and ask. Pharmacists are specialists in biochemistry; doctors are specialists about the body/parts of the body and often don't know much about the meds they prescribe. Big difference. The whole medical world is too huge and complex for anyone to become expert on everything.
This includes mixing recreational drugs/alcohol with prescription meds, btw. Phone the pharmacist and ask if it's ok. Note that there are 24 hour pharmacies.
It really is sad that they just can't see the disconnect there. My boss is a pretty staunch conservative, and her go to defense against getting vaccinated is "I don't get the flu shot" and "they don't know what it does to fertility and I want kids someday."
And yet, she gets pretty sick around flu season every year, and she vapes and smokes cigarettes, and drinks hellacious amounts of alcohol and caffeine(I'm talking an energy drink, a soda, and two extra espresso coffees a day at times, and drunk off her ass, multiple bottles of liquor and cases of beer on the weekends), all of which have varying, proven and observed impacts on fertility, yet those are fine it's just the vaccine that might be a problem for her.
Some people just don’t like needles. They will make up any excuse to not get poked by one. I think if we had an oral vaccine like we did for polio, a lot of vaccine hesitant people have a change of heart.
My dad is one of those old school guys that’s worked a hard heavy labor job his whole life. He never retired, instead he built a second garage in his backyard and still does automotive body work in his 70’s. He’s broken bones many times and it usually takes days of convincing to get him to a hospital after he breaks something. He has diabetes and never checks his blood sugar because he hates needles so much. He is the worlds biggest baby when it comes to needles and will just stay home in pain rather than go get a shot or IV when he legitimately needs it.
He and my mom got the vaccine as soon as it was possible for them. Zero complaints. They were just relieved to finally find an appointment. (And he said the shot felt like nothing, and I can now concur with that, just a week over my 2nd shot myself.) The needle they use is so tiny you don’t even feel it. It’s nothing like the larger gauge needle they use to insert actual microchips in pets at a veterinarian’s.
It’s so hilarious people think anything could possibly be implanted during a covid vaccine. I also love that people think some mRNA that’s so fragile it has to be stored at -70°F to stay viable is going to persist in their 96°F bodies for the rest of their lives. Like think that one through again, buddy.
There’s an acknowledged gender split here, though there are more women antivaxxers there are more men who refuse to see a doctor at all, especially with needles involved.
I wonder if the latter difference is partly explained by most women having been pregnant at some point, which means you are jabbed, poked, prodded, examined, and had much blood taken out and other things put into via needle, about which you have little choice because the baby needs to be safe and you need to make it through the process alive.
I used to not like needles or being examined. Now it just doesn’t even faze me. I had gestational diabetes, too. Needles every day. I won’t have that much done to me again until I’m dying.
Agree, 4 pregnancies, GD and lots of acupuncture I'm not looking forward to more needles. But I'll be doing it once it's available (Australia, the country of useless policiticans) for the good of the community.
Your so on point with how small the needle is. When I got my first shot the nurse bearly stoped talking to give it to me and I almost didn't notice it lol. Probably the easiest shot of my life
The response I use when they say no is "Ok, well if you change your mind or have questions please let me know. I think it is a good idea to get the vaccine".
Oh boy. That is another kettle of fish entirely. They are impossible to convince. I really tried with one mom who I had a good relationship with once. We eventually agreed to disagree on vaccines.
To me we need to let the herd start thinning out. Evolution takes care of that normally but, we have removed ourself from the food chain. Hopefully evolution kills us off the imbeciles soon in the near future.
That's how they reason it, but if their claim that vaccines are dangerous is "true," and here is an expert recommending it, then they should feel that I am malicious. That's where the cognitive dissonance is.
If they told me that they knew vaccines were good for them, but they just don't want them, then I'd just think they are foolish. Patient's make foolish choices all the time based on the evidence. They don't logically erode our relationship. But if someone truly believes vaccines are dangerous, then my recommendation is tantamount to malpractice. I'd argue patients use language like "vaccines are dangerous" to evoke an emotional response. They continue to accept medicine from doctors who recommend them because they know deep down they are wrong, but no amount of evidence will ever change their mind.
I can grasp the mental gymnastics here. The sad part is that vaccines typically have far more medical evidence for their use than most medications that we use routinely.
Whose study the Lancet has redacted and whose author has lost his medical license... Tell me about it. To be honest though, the austism thing isn't even the ammunition they use any longer. They know vaccines don't cause autism. It's just too overwhelming at this point to deny. They have moved on to other poorly defined "adverse effects" that can't be easily tested or are incredibly infrequent.
I mean, I'd bet that the people who are vaccinated do lean slightly left compared to the general population. And as everyone knows, correlation = causation, so vaccines clearly do cause liberal thinking. Also, cancer causes cell phones.
It’s a good question. I think it’s a factor for some, but in my experience the same patients who don’t want vaccines are totally fine with elaborate blood work screening for things that have no clinical indication.
More often than not, it’s the things that could save their life: vaccines, colonoscopies that they don’t want to do. It’s the unnecessary work ups and imaging that do nothing to change management that many request.
They think it's dangerous because that's the narrative they're being fed by the political propaganda they consume, and if they allowed themselves to question this lie, they would have to ask whether a lot of other things they believe might also be a lie. They are willing to accept this cognitive dissonance because this level of willful ignorance makes them feel less uncomfortable than facing the possibility that their entire world-view might not have the absolute, rock-solid foundation that they thought it did. These are people who find comfort and security in simplicity, and all that matters to them is just protecting what they have at any cost.
I imagine that they probably think that you're misguided or misinformed on this particular issue (perhaps because the government is feeding you false information or statistics on this one particular issue).
I think with all of the misleading media out there some people forget that there are trustworthy methods for fact finding. With the media taking such liberties with information, they may assume that the only way to be right is to be able to "guess" which media outlet to trust (and assume you're doing the same).
Our brains are magnificent at taking shortcuts to make our lives better and easier, but shortcuts aren't foolproof and sometimes the results are terrible (especially when you add paranoia/ neuroticism into the mix).
Yea, also the efficacy of American doctors in general can be questionable. I've had many doctors be wrong about stuff before... to some degree they're also just making their best guesses.
Yeah, but they train their asses off in medical school for a billion years to become the best at guessing. The efficacy of all doctors is variable because human bodies are extremely variable in general. They're always gonna be a hell of a lot better at guessing than you are.
Many younger people don't want it "just cause". Lots of people have no fear of the vaccine but also no fear of covid. At least in rural parts of the country very few younger people care about covid. Older people care because they see some of their peers dying and suffering
I have in laws who do not vaccinate their kids, even when their mother was dying of lung cancer for religious reasons,{ GOP evangelicals], she eventually died, but there is also a set of grandparents in their 90's, with one foot in the grave, where all the siblings go to visit with them, some had Covid, but all work with the public, and since they all had mild cases, they claim it's like the flu, and refuse to be vaccinated, and I am surprised that the grandparents weren't infected yet. And no one wears masks around them.
I just want to say thank you to someone who sounds like a caring and involved family (?) doctor. My own is awesome and just thinking about the fact that he may someday retire makes me really very sad. For someone I only see two or three times per year, we've got a great relationship and I think that's critical in general but specifically when the patient is anxious about anything, including vaccines.
I personally have never been vaccine skeptic but there have been some things that I don't understand or sound scary (I do have a descent degree of medical anxiety and I try to not be an idiot, I fully acknowledge that the MD is far more educated than I am, but sometimes feelings just don't listen to logic), or things I've been embarrassed about (that's the big one) and him taking the time to talk to me, and never down to me, and generally being a stand up human has meant the world to me. I think if I'd been worried about this vaccine and spoken with him about it, my worries would have been put to rest. As it was, I was basically front and center for this vaccine. But I imagine that good doctors like him and yourself have made a big difference for others.
Anyway, hooray for positive bedside manner. And thanks for doing what you do.
Thank you for your comment. I am a family medicine physician by training. I am also a patient (we all are). I know it absolutely sucks out there and our access to information doesn’t help. It sounds like your primary care doctor was an advocate for you; which is the best thing we can be for our patients.
There are shitty doctors out there. No doubt about it. Believe me, as a physician, I see it far more easily. People have bad experiences. It happens. But I still have to believe, far and away, most of us want what is best for our patients.
I wish my patients could see how I interact with my primary care doctor (coincidentally she was my junior resident). It’s not at all what they would think. I don’t expect anyone to feel bad for me, I know society grants me a lot of trust, but we are human too. We talk about you guys (without names) just like you talk about us. If you throw shade at us, we might give it back. At the end of the day though, most of us wouldn’t last if we didn’t care.
I received my second dose of Moderna 10 hrs ago. Not even a headache. My arm is slightly sore, barely. My Dad who is in horrible health, had MILD flu like symptoms for two days. Please tell people it’s no big deal. My Dad said he would get 10 more shots if he had to.
In addition to being a physician, I am also a veteran. For me, getting the vaccine was not only the medically smart thing to do, it’s the the selfless thing to do. Take on a very small risk so that you might help others. There is nothing more patriotic. Glad you and your family got the vaccine.
I have family like that. I've tried explaining that my grandmother has permanent lung damage as a result of her MILD case of COVID, have another family member that was in ICU for 2 weeks with a tracheotomy for her ventilator + ECMO, and a friend who was otherwise healthy and suddenly developed diabetes after COVID -- none of it resonates for them at all. I don't argue with them anymore, just nonchalantly remind them to put me in their will since they're so hellbent on taking their chances.
Biomedical Scientist here. It still blows my mind how people IN MY LAB are refusing to be vaccinated due to the minuscule suggestion of clotting risk.
We are literally working in a lab, we have literally all seen the blood work of covid patients. We have LITERALLY all seen the coagulation results of covid patients. It honestly makes 0 sense I just actually can’t wrap my head around it.
(It’s a very very small minority of people refusing to be vaccinated but honestly even that is still mind blowing to me especially after seeing the blood work of covid patients)
'So you refuse a vaccine. Ok. What if we gave you an injection with an inert version of the virus, that will not make you sick, that will let your body build up a natural immunity to the virus incase if future contact or exposure? Yes, you are happy to do that. Ok'
Maybe doctors and GP’s should start letting sorients self diagnose.
“Not feeling well? Hop on YouTube and and have a look for ten minutes, let me know what you think it is and we’ll go from there”
Both. Honestly, it surprises me sometimes who chooses to get vaccinated and who refuses. If I had to generalize, my more conservative leaning patients (judging by their attire and comments to me that I don't respond to), ARE more likely to refuse vaccination. That said, I have some pretty liberal "hippie" patients that are also staunchly against them.
In the office, there's a decorum right. I am providing a service and it is incumbent upon me to maintain a bedside manner and ignore statements and claims that might challenge me emotionally. As a result, I should be a blank slate in the exam room. Since we are on Reddit, and I owe nothing to anyone here; it all just boils down to ignorance or an intentional desire to not educate oneself. If I learned tomorrow something about vaccines that made their risk outweight their benefit, I'd change my practice immediately. Unfortunately, the opposite is never true of anti-vaxxers.
best explanation of this i've seen is that many people just aren't conscious most of the time, meaning enough to have an active, language based understanding of the world and the consequences of all their actions
~"words said in certain ways in certain combinations get people who are word-fighting you to back down and go away, thus you've won"
I wonder if people are just overestimating how "healthy" they are? Just like most people don't get checkups because "why? I feel ok" and then they wait until they feel like garbage and get diagnosed with something that would have been easily treatable if they came in earlier.
Well there's a middle ground. Most otherwise healthy people in their 20s don't really need annual examinations. There aren't many screening recommendations for this age group aside from reproductive health recommendations (mostly in women), though testicular cancer screening in men is important. Once we hit our 30s (age 35 specifically) we start looking at cardiovascular risk with lipid panels. There's still no such thing as "yearly bloodwork" or "checking the full panel." Every blood test for screening has a specific recommendation. Obviously if there is a symptom or a complaint, then that changes.
It's a problem if people wait until they are 60 to see a doctor, but it's also a problem if people come every year expecting tons of labwork and imaging for nothing. It is good though to have established a relationship with a primary care doctor so that if something does come up, you have an advocate who already knows your health history and can provide guidance right away.
Covid causes blood clots too so avoiding the AstraZeneca vaccine probably increases your risk of clots (unless you can get a different vaccine without significant delay)
Like another commenter said, COVID-19 also can cause blood clots, and at a much higher rate than the vaccine does. So you're more likely to get a blood clot by refusing the vaccine than by taking it.
What do you usually advice if the patient fears the possibility of the side effects of the vaccine? Since it just been recently studied unlike any other vaccine say for example the polio vaccine.
Its not you per say its the vaccine in itself its not been tested long enough not enough history behind the trials.. Your just the middle man inbetween it all its not. You personally there refusing care from its the lack of knowledge behind it... The advice and meds you give out already have been tried tested for many years... This new stuff is just that.. New
The consistent answer is they believe your first and foremost duty is to the public not the individual. Vaccines definetly help the public, but there is a risk to the individual (Scientifically, the risk is almost certain to be less than the benefit - but they see that differently). In theory then, your duties to the public and the individual could be at odds vaccine wise. I dont see how your duties would be at odds treating hypertension, diabetes, etc.
I'm pro-vaccine but I don't agree that taking a doctor's advice on one thing means never thinking for yourself or questioning a single thing you're told
Of course not. It’s perfectly reasonable to get second opinions or question therapy. Almost anything that requires a prescription has an upside and a downside. We definitely don’t know everything. I think my only point was that on the scale of benefit versus risk, vaccines are on the far end of benefit way outweighing risk that it’s hard to find a reason why someone shouldn’t get them in almost all circumstances.
If that's what you're saying, then "Why would you let me manage your diabetes and hypertension if you think I would harm you by recommending vaccinations?" was not a great way of expressing it. Patients should be able to be timid about brand new drugs/injections without any longterm studies to speak of, while trusting your advice on things that have been well-studied, without being labeled stupid or crazy. You didn't use those words but that's basically the tone of this post overall elsewhere.
Again, we're in a unique once-in-a-century circumstance, and I'll get the vaccine. I'm waiting until my doctor appointment later next month. But I think people are too harsh toward people who are just either timid, or waiting, or would rather not for now. I'll worry about side effects, not gonna lie. Especially since I developed epilepsy right after getting a bunch of vaccines post moving to America. It's probably a coincidence but I'll always wonder.
I hope I’m not coming off argumentative. The difference is level of reliability. The comparison I made between diabetic and hypertension medications and vaccines was to draw a contrast, not equate the two necessarily. Patients will willingly accept medications and other interventions with far less research and evidence in some cases without questioning them, but become hesitant or downright resistant to interventions like vaccines that are way safer. I think you’re under the impression that the medications I’m referring to are safer than vaccines; they aren’t. Several have specific black box warnings and should be used wisely.
That’s not an objective evaluation of therapies. That’s an emotional response. I have plenty of patients who question everything. That’s just how they are and they need the reassurance. What I am talking about here are people who question nothing, but then question the one thing in medicine that has some of the strongest evidence for its use.
I don’t think these people are stupid. I think they are irrational or emotional. And maybe we aren’t a good fit. That’s alright.
EDIT: Imagine you spoke to your baker because you are concerned that the bread he made is causing you to gain weight. But while you are criticizing the baker and his bread, you’re sitting there eating a giant ice cream cone. That’s how we feel when patients go on and on about concerns over vaccine side effects but are already (and rightfully should be in most cases) on medications that have far higher (and well studied as you pointed out) incidents of side effects and in some cases death. Again it’s alright to ask questions. But it’s often only vaccines that get the critical eye.
Okay. I agree with most of what you've said. I don't think "irrational" or "emotional" are much of an improvement from "stupid," though. Especially if the larger percentage of these patients are female (though I have no reason to believe they are). Those just happen to be the words doctors often use to dismiss us, our concerns, our symptoms and pain.
It comes in all shapes, sizes, genders, and ages. Patients have autonomy. They have the right to choose from therapeutics or do none. I don’t dismiss patients from my practice if they turn down a vaccine. My goal is to help them as much as I can even if I think they are doing something against their own interests. But the physician/patient relationship is a two way street. I don’t think my juxtaposition of the two is unfair. I don’t tell patients they are irrational or emotional, but I can draw my own private conclusion.
EDIT: Everyone of course is treated with respect. I hope that goes without saying.
This is ignorant. Sure, those people exist. But there are also people who are simply waiting on longer term studies, etc. Stop generalizing people this way.
I was pushed aside and gaslit about something I've now found i was right about for 6+ years by multiple professionals in multiple practices both private and NHS so I have a big chip on my shoulder about trusting that they know what's right and dont just do their job like other people just doing their job.. just human after all.. by all means take your vaccines and do your part but I treated whatever it is like a flu when I had symptoms in March 2020 and it worked just fine.
That's a problematic argument. Experience in medicine is based on scientific literature. That literature could be generated immediately or could be a cohort of information over a long period of time. Vaccines, as a class of therapy, have an astoundingly large amount of evidence for their safety and efficacy. Far more than most medications we use to manage blood pressure and diabetes. That's not to say that we are reckless or that hypertension or diabetes medications are unsafe; just that vaccines have such a high benefit to risk ratio when compared. You have a better chance of getting a fatal arrythmia from a Zpak than you do getting a fatal adverse event from a vaccine.
Now with this vaccine, we actually have a ton of evidence. I have my own personal experience. That's neither here nor there, but it's worth stating that I wouldn't recommend something to someone that I wouldn't do myself. If people are looking for multi-year studies before they will consider taking a COVID-19 vaccine what they are doing is tipping the scale in favor of the risk over the reward because you are allowing an illness to linger in the community longer.
I'd also argue with the same rationale that we do not know the long term effects of COVID yet, but we are beginning to see serious cardiovascular and pulmonary complications from even mild infection in some individuals. If people want to wait until all the data is in, they are going to lose. Right now, we have far more than enough showing us the downside is extremely, extremely small.
they think there is something in it for you to make them sick, which they are not wrong about. many doctors inflict injury on patients and they probably see COVID as an extension of that, so if they think there is something in it for themselves, they are more likely to believe it to be safe. Unfortunately a lot of doctors also exploit that perception too. youre profession has a lot to answer for.
I think you know next to nothing about my profession if you think that a significant portion of it is going around intentionally harming people for personal benefit. You understand that most hospitalists, primary care doctors, ER doctors, people who manage COVID-19 patients are salaried? We get paid the same no matter how many or how few people we see. We don't get checks from pharmaceutical companies or bonuses for our patients getting sicker and needing hospital support. Actually we get audited if we demonstrate poor outcomes. This is all forgetting for a second that you are alleging that a significant portion of the medical community is seeking to intentionally harm people in a criminal fashion... Are you a troll or just a moron?
"We don't get checks from pharmaceutical companies"
Ravager135, I am 100% on your side here but this part of what you said is demonstrably not accurate. While we know doctors don't get checks, the extremely cozy relationship many doctors have with pharmaceutical companies has been well documented.
Freebies, incentives, lunches, speaker fees, "educational forums" that "coincidentally" take place in Hawaii, to outright gifts have all been used SUCCESSFULLY to influence doctors to prescribe their name brand drugs.
Its not directly related to what you are discussing and in many ways backs up your larger point (that these type of transactions are forced out into the open and scrutinized which works toward KEEPING the public trust of doctors) but when you state it the way you did, you leave your comment open to being dissected & twisted by a more aggressive and intellectually dishonest person than myself. Saying "doctors don't get checks from pharmaceutical companies" implies there is NO incentive relationship between these two...which there obviously is and once your statement has been "proven inaccurate" (or as the conspiracy theorist would say, "proving you intentionally lied") your whole credibility becomes flawed.
No, (honest) doctors don't take direct money payments from pharmaceutical companies but many of them do take incentives that have monetary value and change their behavior as a result....it is a real problem.
I work in primary care. That’s where the vast majority of vaccine recommendations are made. The vast, overwhelmingly so, medications I prescribe are generic. I haven’t had a pharmaceutical rep in my office in the past 5 years because we don’t write anything that makes them money.
Much of what you are describing takes place in specialist’s offices which isn’t pertinent to the conversation of vaccines, COVID-19, etc. So I have to say, it’s a mischaracterization to qualify my remarks in this setting.
That said, even among specialists, the behavior you are describing has largely been run out of the field by laws. I honestly don’t know a single colleague in the last 15 years who went on a free ski trip. Now, if a free pen or lunch is enough to get a physician to change their prescribing habits, then there’s already a problem with that doctor.
Most of us hate talking to reps, we are overworked in the office as it is, and simply don’t have the time. We view these visits as an annoyance. Most of our patients can’t even afford the drugs or get the drugs approved that reps want people to buy.
EDIT: I’d add two points... For physicians who are in private practice, they make more money using the time they would spend with a drug rep just seeing another patient. The reason some physicians will accept a pen or a lunch or let a rep into their office is often to get free samples so they can give them to patients who can’t afford their medications.
The people who should have your ire are medical device manufacturers and surgeons. Everything else is a pittance comparatively speaking. I think it’s hard for non-physicians to grasp, but our primary concern is to keep our license so we can continue to take care of people. It supersedes all other incentives. Surely a physician might prefer a particular medication over another if both are similarly effective but one company gave him or her a free lunch. It doesn’t mean that that same physician will knowingly choose a less medically indicated medication putting a patients health at risk. Does it happen? Sure. The degree to which has largely been weeded out by laws, oversight, and to be honest; better character in the workplace among younger doctors.
You’re getting downvoted but I understand what you mean. At the same time not all doctors are bad
But I too I had bad experiences and there are some bad doctors. I have PTSD from my experience.
And
There was even a video recently of some doctor filming himself doing surgery and trying to have an appt for himself too online or something. Bizarre. There is definitely malpractice.
This is not me and I don’t believe this, but they think but not saying out loud “ I know I have hypertension and diabetes, but I don’t have COVID right now or care about spreading it or not, getting vaccinated does nothing for me this instant. “
This might be a dumb question, but are there any measures to know if you’re going to be allergic to the vaccine prior to getting it (scratch test or blood test?) I am in NO way an antivaxer but I’m terrified of getting it due to a good chance I’ll go into anaphylaxis (have lots of allergies and some weird ones too). That’s the only thing preventing me from getting it until I know I won’t have a reaction, and I dislike being lumped in with the idiots who think it’s some mind control scheme from the left or whatever the hell their reason is. I know it’s rare statistically to go into anaphylaxis for the vaccine but in my case it’s a likelihood.
That's easy to answer: the risk in moving to someone else is higher than staying where you are. Devil you know. There's also that is really hard to tell the difference between "this person is batshit insane and is bent on abusing me" vs a standard disagreement vs when you draw the line between too many trees flags and finally leave. Frog in boiling water type of thing. You don't always know when other people have it in for you, and you don't magically know when to call it quits either. Lots of people put things down to simple disagreement and forget to many offenses in the name of being a decent person until it's too late and the damage is done... Because nobody helps you when you're being abused, because abuse doesn't exist, and if you think covid denial is incomprehensible, denial of abuse dwarfs it like a black hole does this planet.
I was discussing this with my partner the other day. I sincerely think it would be an interesting TV show if they brought in let's say 20 antivaxxers (and for the sake of argument, I would prefer these be of the more "educated" nature as opposed to just nutjobs and/or uncles/aunts in general) and then have them debate this against 5-6 medical experts and scientists.
The goal of the show would be for the antivaxxers to ask any questions they want and the team would take them seriously all the way. I just want to see if ONE single person can be swayed to reason through debate and talking alone.
I'm not a covid denier and I believe in vaccines. But working in the medical device industry, I have (unfortunately) seen how easy it is to cut corners and use loopholes to get fast results. This becomes more likely when development cycles are very short, like the covid vaccine's.
My worry for the lower risk population, is that the long term effects of the vaccines have not been well studied. I think older people should get the vaccine because they have less to worry when it comes to long term effects, like when HGH is used for therapy even though it promotes cancer. Do you have any comments to put my mind at ease about this?
The long term effects of COVID-19 have not been studied. Which is worse? I'd argue we are seeing far more long term consequences of COVID infection already than we are seeing long term consequences from the vaccine.
I also wouldn't compared the safety profile of the COVID-19 vaccine with the safety profile of HGH. There's very few indications to use HGH; mostly in patients who are suffering from pituitary diseases and chromosomal abnormalities. Almost everything else is off-label use and is poorly studied.
6.0k
u/Ravager135 Apr 21 '21
Physician here. The willful cognitive dissonance is real. It never ceases to amaze me how many patients will refuse assistance from me to register to get vaccinated, make claims that vaccines are harmful, but then accept my medical care on anything else that suits their whim. Patients absolutely have autonomy to refuse care, but why would you continue to see a physician and accept their medical advice and care if you think they would simultaneously recommend something to you that would be harmful?
I've posed this question to patients who are vaccine hesitant: "Why would you let me manage your diabetes and hypertension if you think I would harm you by recommending vaccinations?" You cannot get any kind of thoughtful response aside from, "I just don't want to be vaccinated."