The Playground

    Quebec Changes Course for Elderly in Nursing Homes–COVID-19 Booster Not Required Due to Pervasive Side Effects


    Quebec Changes Course for Elderly in Nursing Homes--COVID-19 Booster Not Required Due to Pervasive Side Effects
    Did the Quebec government stop administering COVID-19 vaccine boosters to the elderly in long-term care (e.g., nursing homes) who had already received two
    trialsitenews.com



    Did the Quebec government stop administering COVID-19 vaccine boosters to the elderly in long-term care (e.g., nursing homes) who had already received two doses, and already were infected with COVID-19? According to a left-leaning Quebec publication, that’s exactly what just happened. Titled ‘A third dose too much for seniors who had COVID-19,’ the article reported those individuals residing in the Canadian province aged 70 and above who have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 won’t be recommended to take a third booster dose. Apparently, the Quebec Immunization Committee (CIQ) changed the direction based on feedback from a number of seniors who experienced severe side effects from the boost. The effort to turnaround the policy was led by Dr. Sophie Zhang, deputy co-head at CIUSSS du Center-Sud Montreal, who alerted the CIQ and the provincial Ministry of Health and Social Services to the concern.


    Initially, the provincial government sought to offer the booster dose to the elderly, as reported in September.


    Apparently, Dr. Zhang communicates and collaborates with many provincial physicians in the residential and long -term care centers (CHSLDs) she oversees in her role. With mounting reports of severe side effects, this was of particular concern among those who had both doses and a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.


    Reported by Marie-Eve Cousineau, the media online reports that the third booster mission commenced October 18 with heavy dependence on the Moderna mRNA-based vaccine (mRNA-1273 or Spikevax). Thereafter, reports of side effects grew from high fever, weakness, fatigue, loss of appetite and more. Others had more severe reactions such as difficulty with breathing with lowering levels of oxygen and even bouts of delirium.



    In fact, there were so many adverse side effects reported so fast that the CIUSSS du Center-Sud-de-Montreal opted to stop the booster administration process in seniors who already had COVID-19 plus their two doses.


    This news comes from Le Devoir or “Duty” a French-language media published in Montreal and distributed in Quebec and throughout Canada. One of the few independent large-circulation newspapers in this French-speaking province, it was traditionally considered Canada’s “Francophone newspaper of record but now faces growing competition from La Presse.


    Few media have reported on this news. One is Canadian Westphalian Times, Canadian province stops giving boosters to elders who have had COVID in the past due to severe, life-threatening side effects (westphaliantimes.com) an independent online media touting independence. According to their senior editor and journalist Samuel Rz, he reached out to Dr. Zhang who didn’t offer a truly transparent answer, shared the editor, rather she stated, “it’s a really tricky question. When a senior in a nursing home dies, how do you say it was the vaccine or not the vaccine [that caused the death]?”


    Review of Existing CIQ Vaccination Policy for Long-Term Care Residences

    TrialSite reviewed the Quebec CIQ website for clarity (in addition to reaching out to Dr. Sophie Zhang). The last declaration was posted last month. The website declares the following:


    People 80 and up are recommended to get boosted with an mRNA vaccine, respecting an interval of at least six months since the administration of the second dose.

    For those 70-79 “the need and usefulness of a booster dose is less obvious at this time, but the CIQ considers it acceptable that these people can take advantage of this booster dose if they do so desire.”

    For people under the age of 70 the “the administration of a booster dose does not appear to be necessary at this time.”

    Of note, a different than in the USA when it comes to the elderly “Given the high protection conferred by the primary vaccination, it appears desirable that all the persons having benefited from it be considered as adequately protected, even if a booster dose is made available to certain precise groups of the population.”

    Call to Action: The underlying source can be read here. TrialSite has reached out to Dr. Sophie Zhang for more details ongoing


    Une troisième dose de trop pour les aînés ayant eu la COVID-19
    Le Comité sur l’immunisation du Québec change d’avis après que des effets secondaires ont été rapportés.
    www.ledevoir.com

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If you reckon that any doctor should be free to prescribe quack medicine because they think it works, there is a good case for allowing ivermectin

    I think any doctor should be free to prescribe quack medicine, as long as the medicine is FDA approved. That is what U.S. law allows: off-label use at the doctor's discretion. By the same token, I think any doctor should be free not to use a medicine. If, in the doctor's best judgement, ivermectin does not work, no one should force the doctor to use it. Lawsuits by patients demanding that a doctor use ivermectin should be dismissed by the judges. Such lawsuits have no place in U.S. courts. If patients want to use ivermectin, they should either find a doctor who agrees with them, or they should use it themselves, at home. If they are in a hospital they can sign an AMA (against medical advice) form, go home, and self medicate.


    A patient should not be in charge of medical treatment. That is not how informed consent works. A patient is free to refuse treatment, shop around for another doctor, or go home on an AMA, but he or she has no right to dictate to the doctors. That would similar to telling a mechanic how you want your brakes repaired. Mechanics have a professional responsibility to fix brakes according the manufacturer's manual. Mechanics are licensed and held liable. A mechanic who does things the wrong way could easily cause an accident and kill people. No one has any right to overrule the laws and force a mechanic to do something the mechanic thinks is against approved procedures. (Mechanics have less leeway than doctors. They cannot do the equivalent of prescribing off-label use, which I suppose would be something like substituting the brakes from one model to another.)

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    the most recent one showed a positive correlation between Vit D active component in blood and cancer...

    For several years I was a guinea pig patient in a large study of the effects of vitamin D and calcium as a cancer preventative, mainly colorectal cancer, I think. (Vitamin D, calcium, both together, or a placebo.) There were thousands of middle-aged people enrolled, in many U.S. cities. They paid me $50 once or twice a year to undergo some rather painful tests at Emory U. Hosp. The doctor came in one day, started putting on her surgical gloves and said: "Okay, the biggest risk factor in today's procedure is that we may accidentally bill you for it. Call me anytime day or night if they try to bill you." Anyway, it went on for years. I read that it was one of the biggest studies of this nature. After about 10 years it was finally published. They found no significant effect.


    That's all I know about it. I have not read any other studies.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I think any doctor should be free to prescribe quack medicine, as long as the medicine is FDA approved. That is what U.S. law allows: off-label use at the doctor's discretion. By the same token, I think any doctor should be free not to use a medicine. If, in the doctor's best judgement, ivermectin does not work, no one should force the doctor to use it. Lawsuits by patients demanding that a doctor use ivermectin should be dismissed by the judges. Such lawsuits have no place in U.S. courts. If patients want to use ivermectin, they should either find a doctor who agrees with them, or they should use it themselves, at home. If they are in a hospital they can sign an AMA (against medical advice) form, go home, and self medicate.


    A patient should not be in charge of medical treatment. That is not how informed consent works. A patient is free to refuse treatment, shop around for another doctor, or go home on an AMA, but he or she has no right to dictate to the doctors. That would similar to telling a mechanic how you want your brakes repaired. Mechanics have a professional responsibility to fix brakes according the manufacturer's manual. Mechanics are licensed and held liable. A mechanic who does things the wrong way could easily cause an accident and kill people. No one has any right to overrule the laws and force a mechanic to do something the mechanic thinks is against approved procedures. (Mechanics have less leeway than doctors. They cannot do the equivalent of prescribing off-label use, which I suppose would be something like substituting the brakes from one model to another.)

    Doctors are willing to prescribe ivermectin, it's the hospital administrators who refuse it to be administered. And for your ama good luck with a ventilated patient. Mechanics and doctors, you crack me up

    Quote from Fm1

    yet with all the ivermectin used around the world no deaths reported.

    That is completely wrong. Thousands of people who took ivermectin died from COVID. All of the evidence shows that it has no preventive or curative effect whatever, except perhaps for patients with worms or other parasites. It is extremely dangerous to take drug for deadly disease when that drug does not work. Many people are taking ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated. Over a thousand people a day are dying in the U.S. because they refuse to be vaccinated. This is the worst public health disaster in U.S. history not least because it is 100% preventable at practically no cost with no risk to anyone. Misplaced trust in ivermectin is a major contributing factor to this disaster.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is completely wrong. Thousands of people who took ivermectin died from COVID. All of the evidence shows that it has no preventive or curative effect whatever, except perhaps for patients with worms or other parasites. It is extremely dangerous to take drug for deadly disease when that drug does not work. Many people are taking ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated. Over a thousand people a day are dying in the U.S. because they refuse to be vaccinated. This is the worst public health disaster in U.S. history not least because it is 100% preventable at practically no cost with no risk to anyone. Misplaced trust in ivermectin is a major contributing factor to this disaster.

    my mistake, I meant no overdose deaths from ivermectin. That is the main argument, you would need to use a larger dose to be effective, is it not?

    Quote from Fm1

    Doctors are willing to prescribe ivermectin, it's the hospital administrators who refuse it to be administered.

    Let me amend my statement. Hospital administrators are doctors. If the doctors in charge of a hospital do not want to use a drug, because in their best judgement the drug will not work or it will cause harm, no one should be allowed to overrule those administrators. If a doctor working at the hospital disagrees with the administration, he should go to some other hospital. There are plenty of open jobs in hospitals. Or he can go into private practice. We cannot have doctors setting their own rules in a hospital, or violating hospital policies. That would be chaos. The hospital might be held liable for a patient's death. Especially with ivermectin, which manifestly does not work.


    Any doctor willing to prescribe ivermectin who is in private practice or at a hospital that agrees with him should be free to use it. There should be no interference by the legal system or by patients. Naturally, the patient must sign a release agreeing not to sue when ivermectin inevitably fails. (All patients have to sign that kind of release for any treatment these days, even when everyone is confident the drug will work.)

    Quote from Fm1

    That is the main argument, you would need to use a larger dose to be effective, is it not?

    As I understand it, you would need about 10 to 100 times more ivermectin than a human body can tolerate to achieve the in vitro concentration that supposedly had an antiviral effect. All doses that a human can tolerate are much too low. See, for example:


    The Approved Dose of Ivermectin Alone is not the Ideal Dose for the Treatment of COVID-19 - PubMed
    Caly et al.<sup>1</sup> reported that ivermectin inhibited severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro for up to 48 hours using…
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    There were not many in vitro tests, so who knows if the stuff really has antiviral effects. Anyway, the double blind tests have been done with tens of thousands of people, and they conclusively show no effect. Also, tens of thousands of people have self-medicated with the stuff, and become seriously ill with COVID, or died. Anyone who uses it instead of getting vaccinated is suicidal. It is like driving on a highway blindfolded. People who get vaccinated and also use ivermectin are not suicidal, but they are stupid. It would be better to use a vaccine plus Hershey's chocolate. Chocolate has no effect on COVID, but neither does ivermectin, and chocolate is safer. Ivermectin can cause serious problems when overused. Chocolate is safer and tastier!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As I understand it, you would need about 10 to 100 times more ivermectin than a human body can tolerate to achieve the in vitro concentration that supposedly had an antiviral effect. All doses that a human can tolerate are much too low. See, for example:


    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32378737/


    There were not many in vitro tests, so who knows if the stuff really has antiviral effects. Anyway, the double blind tests have been done with tens of thousands of people, and they conclusively show no effect. Also, tens of thousands of people have self-medicated with the stuff, and become seriously ill with COVID, or died. Anyone who uses it instead of getting vaccinated is suicidal. It is like driving on a highway blindfolded. People who get vaccinated and also use ivermectin are not suicidal, but they are stupid. It would be better to use a vaccine plus Hershey's chocolate. Chocolate has no effect on COVID, but neither does ivermectin, and chocolate is safer. Ivermectin can cause serious problems when overused. Chocolate is safer and tastier!

    Tell that to the millions of people who took it in India and ended a pandemic, except the state that refused. Chocolate will kill you only eat dark chocolate sugar is the true enemy!

    Quote from Fm1

    Yes by government approval, they force their citizens to sell there souls for treatment, very telling of our society!

    What on earth does that mean?!? Sell their souls in what sense? Whose soul is being sold?


    Do you mean firing doctors and nurses who violate hospital procedures? Or nurses who refuse to get vaccinated? We have been firing doctors who violate the rules since hospitals began. We fire any professional who violates rules -- doctors, mechanics, architects, HVAC engineers . . . In 1790 people who built barns in Pennsylvania were fired and their license revoked when they did a poor job. (The guy who repaired my barn told me about that, in detail.) We close down any restaurant or grocery store that fails inspection. Any nurse who is not vaccinated is a direct threat to the health of the patients. Like a nurse who refuses to wash her hands or use sterile bandages. OF COURSE she should be fired!!! Keeping her on the job would be like employing a cook that you know regularly mixes in feces with the meat. Nurses have been required to be vaccinated since vaccinations were invented, 200 years ago.


    Do you mean the Europeans sell people's souls by not letting them onto onto airplanes when they refuse to get vaccinated??? How about when we arrest them for urinating on the counter at a fast food store (as someone did the other day when told to put on a mask)? Is that also a violation of their rights? Does that take away their soul?


    You seem to be objecting to minimum standards of public health and behavior that have been enforced by laws for thousands of years.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As I understand it, you would need about 10 to 100 times more ivermectin than a human body can tolerate to achieve the in vitro concentration that supposedly had an antiviral effect.

    You possibly know how to brew a coffee but you have no glimpse of a medical understanding like your FM mafia friend THH. Where did you get all the nonsense you write here??

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Hospital administrators are doctors

    Being a doctor is not a prerequisite to become a Hospital Administrator (the boss). Sure, there are some that are doctors who worked their way up, but they do not act in a medical capacity. The Medical Staff, Credential Board, Department Head, composed of selected and elected doctors affiliated with the hospital do that. The Administrator though is allowed to have 1 representative of his/her sit on the Medical Staff, so they do have some influence there.


    At least that was how it was when I was involved.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Just death promotion FUD!

    The only precise FUD leading to (very many) preventable deaths are the scare stories circulated in many places including this thread about vaccines. Those have contributed to vaccine hesitancy and the hospitalisation and deaths of those who did not get vaccinated.


    The overall effect of vaccine hesitancy (higher COVID rates) is not easy to judge, but also a factor.


    It is the height of hippocracy for you to accuse others of promoting dangerous FUD one you (and, to some extent) FM1 verifiably spread scare stories about vaccines. There the connection with the unvaccinated dying in large numbers from COVID is very direct.


    THH

    No jed having no recourse when administered poison, invented by big pharma

    Quote from Fm1

    Tell that to the millions of people who took it in India and ended a pandemic, except the state that refused.

    It did no good at all, except for patients who had worms. Worldwide, 150 million people have worms and other parasites. Many millions of them are in India, and many cases are not diagnosed. So it may well have had a positive effect there. It has had no effect in any country where parasites are rare. That's what the double blind data shows. You have to believe test data. Not propaganda, rumors, or wishful thinking.


    It might have had some effect in India. but that would be impossible to sort out, because public health data from India is highly inaccurate. As I and others noted, in some districts with millions of people, no deaths from any causes have been reported for months at a time. During the height of the recent COVID surge, there were far more cremations visible on the streets than the number of reported deaths. Indian public health data and COVID data is a fantasy.


    Any Indian patient diagnosed with worms will be given ivermectin for sure. The state will not refuse that. Given the high prevalence of worms, all patients should be checked for that.

    I do notice that if I pay attention to the false antivaxxer stuff posted here I get quite strongly attacked. It is the playground so I no longer feel compelled to pay attention.


    Anyway - I'll not rise to the bait and continue a war. My only reservation is that people might feel that I was giving up because convinced by contrary arguments. As I and many others have repeatedly shown the contrary arguments do not stand up: they are politics or poor (in fact appalling) analysis of data at best. Total lies at worst. Bad science.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Being a doctor is not a prerequisite to become a Hospital Administrator (the boss).

    The people who make administrative decisions in hospitals about treatment options, such as the use of ivermectin, must be licensed doctors. It would violate a dozen times ten rules and regs to allow anyone else to make such decisions. It would be like letting me set the rules for electric wires and breaker boxes. (Which my house was very much in violation of until last year! It nearly burned down.) Hospital administrators who are not doctors can handle financial matters and decide salaries, but they have no say in setting medical procedures.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The people who make administrative decisions in hospitals about treatment options, such as the use of ivermectin, must be licensed doctors. It would violate a dozen times ten rules and regs to allow anyone else to make such decisions. It would be like letting me set the rules for electric wires and breaker boxes. (Which my house was very much in violation of until last year! It nearly burned down.) Hospital administrators who are not doctors can handle financial matters and decide salaries, but they have no say in setting medical procedures.

    Those admins, non docs, use the NIH recommendation that ivermectin be used only in a trial. That's how hacks play the game. Don't screw with funding!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.