2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'd honestly say that the general idea this person is explaining is probably 100% spot on, regardless of whether they actually were a fed or not.

The media has 100% lost control of not only the narrative itself but their control and ability to push narratives. Just look at the events of the past few years. They tried to take this control back through censorship on social media. They're not only not able to keep up with that censorship and are being called out on a regular basis but places like gab are popping up where there is no censorship.

It's hard to control a narrative when you have an endless number of other places for information to be shared and spread. It also used to be difficult to aggregate data or videos or pics or whatever and now you can download 100gb of video posted to twitter on the capital attacks and then post them in one spot for 50,000 people to all watch and analyze in a single go.

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

"Serial monitoring of some patients has shown that the levels of the monocytes carrying the SARS-CoV-2 protein are declining. He believes eventually these cells will get cleared, and when they do, the disease is apparently over. (One doctor did refer to possible blood vessel damage if the condition is present for too long)."

That's literally what I just typed out, in a super watered down way. Illness, to most people is the acute phase of being ill where symptoms initially happen and are generally the most severe which would be "having covid." The "long haul" is all the residual after effects, whether that be damage to organs like an AKI, inflammation in the lungs/airway causing exercise intolerance or a chronic cough, etc, etc, etc. Those same types of white blood cell monitoring shows similar things happening in a whole slew of infections including bacterial and fungal infections and we measure them all the time.

It's well known that being sick opens one up to a whole host of other infections because the body is already suffering from a current or recent infection, and due to a whole slew of things way more complicated than I care to spend time going over, this can last for a while.

We literally have an entire host of infections called opportunistic infections that literally thrive on the body going under some type of stress because it allows them to cause a flare-up, breakthrough infection, or new infection depending on the disease/organism.

This chronic portion does not necessitate medication to clear up. The body will do it's own thing but this depends on a bunch of things like resiliency of the immune system, baseline health, age, genetics, and a bunch of other stuff.

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

I can't say fersure as I don't have a whole lot of information, but in general your body becomes "compromised" to a degree after major or minor illness and injury. Anything that disrupts your homeostasis to any major degree actually.

It's FAR more complex, but for the sake of discussion just think of your body in terms of a gauge measuring stress on your body going from 0-100%. Lack of sleep, poor diet, no exercise, and being slightly dehydrated disrupts your homeostasis and increases that stress gauge to say 20%. This would put you at risk of being susceptible to a mild, symptomatic cold. Had you been healthy and taking care of your body that same cold would probably be asymptomatic.

Now add that cold on top of your already poor body treatment and say that gauge is now up to 35%.

You're realistically fine and only need minor R&R to get that gauge from 35% back down to 0. However, if you don't take care of yourself to address those first needs, your body is going to suffer even more during that cold and getting that gauge back down is going to take a longer time.

This is the concept of "long covid" and what people prior to covid would describe as "I had the xyz 3 months ago and it kicked my ass and I still haven't been at 100% since."

"Long covid" is the minor cough, fatigue, whatever that lasts a few weeks or months depending on severity, underlying illness and health, and a slew of other things. Just had a family member get kidney stones removed and they're still not feeling 100% almost 6 weeks later. This isn't "long kidney stones" it's just the natural, and totally normal, way the body works after disease and injury. The only difference is covid has been fear mongered to hell and back in order to sell products and ideologies.

I've been in healthcare for 10 years now. If a patient with any major illness ever said "I'm still not feeling 100% 6 months later" literally every single provider would respond with some version of "well obviously what did you expect, you went through a pretty big illness, it's going to take a while for your body to feel better."

25
icuNurse 25 points ago +27 / -2

Long covid is just the time period your body is recovering from being ill. It happens with literally any illness and isn't something specific to covid. Happens all the time with colds and flu, stomach issues, etc.

The only difference between that and other stuff is the weird obsession everyone has with how "dangerous" covid is in people who aren't at all an at risk population.

10
icuNurse 10 points ago +10 / -0

Yeah, why the fuck are these people all chronically I'll. They're way too fucking young to have actual chronic illness that would require a specialty doc on speed dial.

6
icuNurse 6 points ago +6 / -0

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2022/01/10/spike-in-autoimmune-diseases-blamed-on-fast-food-scientists/amp/

This article is looking at trends going back 30 and 40 years and is absolutely something that has been talked about as a potential cause for autoimmune issues well before covid.

Eating processed garbage all day every day is, unsurprisingly, not good for the human body.

5
icuNurse 5 points ago +5 / -0

This is exactly what happens.

A majority of the data that is in that vaccine submission is likely medical record style information on each individual who participated in the trial. These companies submit a report on the cumulative data, then submit that report as well as the complete data set when they apply for approval.

So essentially Pfizer submitted 300k documents with a summary and data compilation of 150 pages. The FDA only looks at the data compilation and goes based on that.

The FDA didn't actually look at shit and that's why they're caught with their pants down.

5
icuNurse 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yeah I don't think most people realize that they're realistically getting the exact same experience as everyone else that isn't jabbed lmao.

I'm almost positive I got it like 2 weeks ago. Woke up and started having some major chills, felt literally fine otherwise. Girlfriend rook my temp after I put a sweatshirt and pants on as well as my blanket and I popped up at 102. Went back and forth between hot and cold the rest of the day, tried to sleep but couldn't. Next day had a stuffy nose and intermittent fevers, but nothing debilitating. 3rd day fevers gone for the most part, slightly stuffy nose, then I lose my sense of taste. Day 4 I was back to normal, just a slightly off sense of taste and smell.

If my girlfriend wouldn't have checked my temp I wouldn't have realized I was sick till my taste went away.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's been a looooong time, but I'm almost positive the rational was essentially that in most places you give IM, as long as you're anatomically in the correct spot the actual risk of ending up in a vessel large enough to make it an IV injection is basically zero.

Think gluteal is the only one you're still supposed to aspirate.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

As far as I know, aspiration with IM injections hasn't been recommended as best practice in a long time now.

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530

Depending on what you consider right or not he may not even be right lol. The NIH is doing a study with 15,000 participants that includes ivermectin. Been going since June 2021.

Only problem is the study completion isn't until March 2023 which basically makes this all a useless point.

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530

On top of that, there is a major study being conducted by the NIH which includes 4 drugs, ivermectin being one of them.

The problem is the study isn't expected to be completed until 2023 so it will realistically end up being a "well how were we supposed to know it worked" when the study finally results in 2023.

3
icuNurse 3 points ago +3 / -0

You actually don't need gloves if giving routine injections (correctly) where there is no anticipation of contact with blood or body fluids because, if done correctly, your hands aren't anywhere near the site. If done correctly, washing hands, keeping hands away from site, and then injecting correctly is all that is needed for infection/contact prevention.

Per OSHA guidelines, which I know doesn't mean much, the requirement comes down to the employer based on risk etc.

Best practice generally says you should always wear your best PPE option but does not require it and I'm also not going to put a gown, gloves, mask, and face shield (which are the "best practice" options) on to empty a Foley bag when gloves are more than enough 99.9% of the time.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're totally right, but I think the jist is more along the lines of tangible ownership compared to virtual ownership and the attached value.

In the event any major disaster wipes out or even just severely damages network, financial, or any other infrastructure tangible assets like land, food, water, guns and ammo, fuel, etc are all going to maintain their value where those intangible assets instantly become worth nothing.

Realistically, everyone should be playing the game and investing in a diverse range of assets to benefit everywhere. I've got stock market things, crypto, land, physical gold and silver, guns and ammo, my house, etc.

8
icuNurse 8 points ago +9 / -1

Yes and no. I've been posting the same few comments every single time this type of thing comes up.

Ventilators "kill" people because of barotrauma to brittle lungs which basically means the lungs end up popping like a brittle balloon. By the time a patient hits the point of needing a ventilator, their lungs are already realistically damaged to the point of irreversible repair.

By the time a patient gets to the point of intubation, the inflammation and damage to the lungs has progressed too far.

Realistically, if you get to the hospital and get admitted, unless your body figures it out before you start requiring the higher O2 devices like optiflow and BIPAP, you aren't leaving. There's a reason there was no benefit in all these meds waaaay back at the beginning of all this, they were given far to late. They are prophylaxis or very early treatment meds, not normal treatment meds.

I've been doing this for the entire 2 years now. The ventilators aren't the primary problem. The primary problem is a complete and total lack of early prevention and treatment and I'm saying as early as being responsible enough to take vitamin D, C, zinc, and everything else that supports your immune system, eating a healthy diet, being a healthy weight, etc. The only population that is regularly and consistently dying are overweight and unhealthy people, as well as the old timers.

The government definitely has the majority of the blame here, but there is also a significant amount of blame to be placed on these massively unhealthy people who just don't take responsibility for their health. I'd place hefty bets on ivermectin and friends having minimal benefit even if taken prophylactically in the unhealthy population that we regularly see. These same groups of people don't even do well with normal illness, let alone severe and critical illness.

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oof yeah I got nothing when it comes to scenarios like that. I come from a field where the assumption is always that the person has zero knowledge or experience with whatever I am telling them and then working up from there so that's probably just my norm.

I'm never condescending or speaking in a ways that's belittling, but assuming someone understands that "take your metoprolol 3 times a day" means take it evenly spaced out 3 times a day is how you end up with that person taking their BP meds 3 times before noon.

I've currently got someone commented on my others posts telling me I don't know how what I'm talking about and math is wrong even though I've typed out exactly how I've done the math and why while also putting it into 3 different online calculators. So 🤷

0
icuNurse 0 points ago +1 / -1

I've just put them into an investment calculator 3 separate times on 3 different sites. You're more then welcome to tell me what you got doing your math.

$1,000 initial investment + $400/month at 7% over 10 years is $68,338.

$1,000 initial investment + $800/month at 7% over 6 years is $70,251.

How is that math bad?

4
icuNurse 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yeah, I absolutely agree with everything you've said I just really dislike the misleading idea that this is something anyone can do and everyone should be doing.

Most people can't even understand why they shouldn't be trading in their car and financing a new car as soon as their payments end lol.

3
icuNurse 3 points ago +3 / -0

I understand all that, but the thing that I'm focusing on that not many other people seem to even acknowledge is the monthly payments loans typically have with them and all that other stuff and the only thing ends up being visible is a top comment saying you're stupid if you're not taking advantage of hyperinflation etc.

The entire top comment and all it's discussion here is ONLY about whether the returns on investment are mathematically correct, and don't take into consideration baseline financial security or ability, payoff timelines etc.

This is an excellent idea if you're financially secure ( in which case realistically you do not even need this type of thing and are only doing it to preserve or grow wealth) but a majority of the population is not in this boat.

These are concepts and investment strategies that are used by already wealthy people, or people who have job security and can afford the principal during the "off time" when an asset isn't growing at a rate that matches the payoff amounts.

Your audience isn't a whole bunch of mostly well off people. Your audience is a bunch of people who haven't even grasped the concept of debt risk management and basic financial security.

That's the reason I absolutely hate reading this type of thing because people rarely ever expand onto that and you have people who work for $18/hour trying to figure out how they're able to make bank trying to manage a $100k loan after they invest it into commodities or whatever. Or they're working for $18/hour at a job that doesn't even give raises for inflation and they're putting off debt payments or whatever thinking they're making their money work for them when realistically, they're ending worse off because the cost of living increases are going to destroy whatever "gains" they make from inflation and their debt.

0
icuNurse 0 points ago +1 / -1

Uh it's not bad. Plug it into a compound interest interest calculator.

The normal payoff person is going to add $400/month for 10 years into that investment account with an initial $1,000 because they're paying $400 a month minimum for the full 10 years for the student loan.

$1,000+$400/month x 10 years.

The early payoff person would be $800/month, which is the $400 minimum payment + $400 extra for 4 years when the loan is paid off. Then they begin their $1,000 + $800/month investment, which is the $400 student loan payment that's now freed up + $400 extra, for 6 years.

$1,000 + $800 for 6 years.

At the end of the 10 year time frame, 10 years total for the normal payer and 6 years (starting late because the early payer didn't add anything extra), the total amounts are there.

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'd start with getting yourself secured and paying off any misc debts like credit cards, student loans, and cars while simultaneously setting yourself up for success in the event shit goes down.

If you don't have basics like shelf stable food, water and/or water filtration, safety from the elements (housing and heater if you live in the cold etc), protection, and such then I would work on those.

Otherwise, ride the stock market and such until the wheels fall off. It won't go to 0 overnight, and if it does then the chances of even being concerned about things like that are 0 since it'll be end times style survival.

3
icuNurse 3 points ago +3 / -0

This only works if you have income that keeps up with or outpaces Inflation, for a large portion of people working shitty jobs, this is not the case and realistically, they shouldn't even be taking out loans/monthly payments on things like new phones or cars. Instead they should be using the phones they have until they literally die and then driving the car without a payment until the wheels fall off and saving that monthly payment for other things.

3
icuNurse 3 points ago +3 / -0

You gotta remember that you're not talking about people with tens of thousands of dollars to park in a short term vehicle for a decent return. You're talking about people with a few hundred a month, month to month that are benefitting here.

The 0% student loan rates have been a thing for about a year and 6 months, and have been extended multiple times so the length of sure thing 0% hasn't been consistent.

Anyone who's really benefiting from parking money into an investment instead of that 0% loan, realistically isn't concerned about the interest rate on the loan to begin with. Anyone who is paying these off understands the value of a 4% return on that money while they can get it in the short term.

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is not always true and I think there's a lot more to factor in than just straight interest/return rates that a lot of people forget about or don't consider like how quickly those debts are paid off, the interest rates, the real return rates, the financial stability/opportunities at the time etc.

As an example of returns, using a 10 year period and two different payoff examples. You have 2 people with student loans. Each need to pay $400/month minimum.

One person has paid the $400 minimum, plus $400 extra and paid off that loan in 4 years. Then they invest $1,000 initial + $800/month @ 7% for 6 years. At the end of the 6 years the total investment is worth $70,172.32.

The person paying the $400 and then investing $1000 + $400/month @ 7% over 10 years. At the end of the 10 years the total investment is worth 68,28610, but you also have to factor in the extra 6 years worth of interest being paid on those loans which drops that investment "profit."

If you continued those 2 accounts at $800/month and 7% for 10 more years, they come at at $266,966 for the on track payoff and $270,677.47 for the early payoff.

The only way this concept really ends up being a benefit is if you have a 0% rate plus a zero dollar monthly minimum where you're able to put $1,000 plus $800/month for the entire 10 years and then after 10 years take a lump sum out of that investment total.

In this example, paying the loan off early actually works out better because compounding returns work better when you have large initial investments or large contributions early on. If they had paid off the loan in 6 years instead of 4, they would be behind, but only until you factor in the interest paid by the minimum payment person.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +2 / -1

This is not always true and I think there's a lot more to factor in than just straight interest/return rates that a lot of people forget about or don't consider like how quickly those debts are paid off, the interest rates, the real return rates, the financial stability/opportunities at the time etc.

As an example of returns, using a 10 year period and two different payoff examples. You have 2 people with student loans. Each need to pay $400/month minimum.

One person has paid the $400 minimum, plus $400 extra and paid off that loan in 4 years. Then they invest $1,000 initial + $800/month @ 7% for 6 years. At the end of the 6 years the total investment is worth $70,172.32.

The person paying the $400 and then investing $1000 + $400/month @ 7% over 10 years. At the end of the 10 years the total investment is worth 68,28610, but you also have to factor in the extra 6 years worth of interest being paid on those loans which drops that investment "profit."

If you continued those 2 accounts at $800/month and 7% for 10 more years, they come at at $266,966 for the on track payoff and $270,677.47 for the early payoff.

The only way this concept really ends up being a benefit is if you have a 0% rate plus a zero dollar monthly minimum where you're able to put $1,000 plus $800/month for the entire 10 years and then after 10 years take a lump sum out of that investment total.

In this example, paying the loan off early actually works out better because compounding returns work better when you have large initial investments or large contributions early on. If they had paid off the loan in 6 years instead of 4, they would be behind, but only until you factor in the interest paid by the minimum payment person.

On top of all that, the financial stability aspect of this can't exactly be measured in a dollar amounts. I had an opportunity to work a contract in addition to my normal job where I earned an extra $30k gross. I used a chunk of that to pay off my car and snowballed that car payment into my student loans. My monthly budget is now $300 lighter, and in roughly 6 months my student loans will be gone. God forbid something were to happen to my job, instead of having a $1600 mortgage, $300 car payment, and $250 in student loans I'd have $1600 for my mortgage as my only minimum monthly payment.

view more: Next ›