Advanced Mediterranean Diet

I know it’s a little early to be asking that question. Within a year, an unknown number of you will be asking. Where do you go for satisfaction? The “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.” Forget about suing the vaccine manufacturer, distributor, or medical practitioner who jabbed you. They got the federal government to absolve them of liability in most cases.

As far as I know, this program only applies to U.S. residents. Perhaps only U.S. citizens.

The following is verbatim from the NVICP web page, not my words:

Vaccines save lives by preventing disease.

Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. Vaccines, like any medicines, can cause side effects, but most are very rare and very mild. Some health problems that follow vaccinations are not caused by vaccines.

In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction.  

In these instances, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) may provide financial compensation to individuals who file a petition and are found to have been injured by a VICP-covered vaccine. Even in cases in which such a finding is not made, petitioners may receive compensation through a settlement. 

How does the VICP work?

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury petitions.

It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases.

Any individual, of any age, who received a covered vaccine and believes he or she was injured as a result, can file a petition. Parents, legal guardians and legal representatives can file on behalf of children, disabled adults, and individuals who are deceased.

What is the process?

1. An individual files a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
2. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services medical staff reviews the petition, determines if it meets the medical criteria for compensation and makes a preliminary recommendation.
3. The U.S. Department of Justice develops a report that includes the medical recommendation and legal analysis and submits it to the Court.
4. The report is presented to a court-appointed special master, who decides whether the petitioner should be compensated, often after holding a hearing in which both parties can present evidence. If compensation is awarded, the special master determines the amount and type of compensation.
5. The Court orders the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to award compensation. Even if the petition is dismissed, if certain requirements are met, the Court may order the Department to pay attorneys’ fees and costs. 

The special master’s decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine.

Parker here again. I’d never heard of a “special master” before. Makes me think you’re a slave when you enter the system. I searched the “covered vaccines” but didn’t see the COVID-19 vaccines. But I bet they’re covered.

Don’t label me as anti-vaccine in general. I am not. As a child I got the vaccines for polio, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, and probably diphtheria, maybe others. I took the hepatitis B vaccine as an adult because I’m exposed to blood from my patients. I’m due for another tetanus booster and will take it without reservation.

I’ve got risk factors for more serious COVID-19 disease: age 66 and hypertension. After reviewing what little data are available from the Warp Speed vaccine trials, I’m not convinced the vaccines are safe enough for me. I’ll take my chances with the virus rather than the vaccine. I’m not afraid of dying from COVID-19; if that happens I’ll be in heaven with Jesus. I’ve lived a full and lucky life, blessed by a wonderful wife, fantastic children, good health, missed Viet Nam by a few years, no major economic upheaval. My biggest concern about catching the virus is the burden it would lay on my co-workers if I’m off-duty for 1 to 3 weeks.

That said, if I were older and had other co-morbidities, I might take the vaccine now. When we have more long-term data on vaccine safety, I might take the vaccine. It could take up to a couple years before we have that data.

Steve Parker, M.D.

PS: I’m doing everything I can to optimize my health and immune system, including weight management and regular exercise.

Update on Dec 11, 2020:

Pharmacist Scott Gavura at Science Based Medicine provides a table comparing vaccination vs catching the virus vs hydroxychloroquine treatment. He implies my odds of death from COVID-19 infection are two out of a hundred (2%). I don’t think it’s nearly that high.

Update on Dec 17, 2020:

I’m wrong about the NVICP compensating you financially if injured but the current COVID-19 vaccines. The correct program seems to be the CICP: Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. File your claim within a year of vaccination.

Click for an interesting article on CICP at the Centre for Research on Globalization. I have no idea of its accuracy.

<p class="has-drop-cap" value="<amp-fit-text layout="fixed-height" min-font-size="6" max-font-size="72" height="80">I work with and respect,many Filipino hospital nurses in Arizona. I wonder what % of California hospital nurses are Filipino. I figure there are federal government programs that facilitate immigration of Filipino nurses to the U.S.I work with and respect,many Filipino hospital nurses in Arizona. I wonder what % of California hospital nurses are Filipino. I figure there are federal government programs that facilitate immigration of Filipino nurses to the U.S.

Filipino nurses in particular were found, as of September, to represent a third of the nursing population’s COVID-19 deaths, despite only making up 4% of all nurses in the United States. National Nurses United believes the death count has gone up since then.

A report release in September by National Nurses United, the country’s largest nurses union, found that California is leading in COVID-19 infection rates amongst health care workers nationwide. The Golden State reported 35,525 infection cases, followed by Georgia at 17,317, then Florida at 16,380. California ranks third in overall health care worker deaths, behind New York and New Jersey.

“A lot of Filipino nurses hold bedside positions,” explained Elizabeth West, a Sacramento registered nurse of Filipino decent who became infected with COVID-19. “We are right next to the patient when they get intubated… when they go into cardiac arrest… we are the first ones there.”

Source: Study: California leads in health care worker COVID-19 infections

Steve Parker, M.D.

Here’s an excerpt from the recent Danish study that questions the efficacy of facemarks in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Note that there were ~3,000 folks in both the experimental and control groups. The experimental group wore surgical masks, so this study says nothing about cloth masks, N95s, or bandanas. Also note this study was done at at time early in the pandemic when mask-wearing by the public was not at all common, quite a bit different from today’s world in many places. The investigators suggest that for face masks to prevent transmission of the virus, the masks need to be worn by already-infected, viral-shedding people.

In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation. We designed the study to detect a reduction in infection rate from 2% to 1%. Although no statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 incidence was observed, the 95% CIs are compatible with a possible 46% reduction to 23% increase in infection among mask wearers. These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect. The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings. This means that study participants’ exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.

Source: Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 0, No 0

Steve Parker, M.D.

Investigators in the UK reviewed the literature of evidence on how long someone with COVID-19 remains infectious. Their answer: No longer than eight days after symptom onset. Source:

Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment – a systematic review (Update 4) 

This is important to know because the PCR test for diagnosis of cases can remain positive for up to 83 days. Transmission of infection requires whole live virus – the more the better – not just the fragments of RNA that the PCR tests detect.

The best evidence for ongoing infectiousness is when virus from body fluids can be seen to grow in tissue cultures. Perhaps second best is when tissues or cell cultures are exposed to virus, and microscopic examination shows cell damage.

The commonly used clinical test of COVID-19 infection is called PCR (more accurately, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction to RT-PCR). This test detects fragments of viral RNA, and amplifies them to make them easier to detect. The amount of amplification required for detection is called “cycle threshold” or Ct. If a lot of viral RNA is present, it doesn’t require much amplification. There are many different coronavirus tests on the market. If a test requires too much amplification (i.e., Ct is over 25-35), then it’s probably not a true positive test for SARS-CoV-2; it may be detecting RNA from some other coronavirus, or contamination. Interestingly, my patients have probably been tested with at least three or four different PCR tests over the last six months: the test reports I see never report their cycle threshold.

A false positive PCR test is one where the test is positive but the patient isn’t really infected. If you’re a government who wants a high “case” number, choose a test with a high Ct, over 30-35. (Again, it depends on the particular fragment of RNA being looked for, and other esoteric factors.)

The authors cited a couple cases of COVID-19 in which viral RNA was found in secretions at 78 and 83 days after initial diagnosis. They fully expect, however, that the RNA detected was viral debris, not whole infectious virus.

Remember, this is just one study. It hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet. We’re learning more as each month passes. Stay tuned.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Peter Doshi, an associate editor at British Medical Journal, is not favorably impressed with the recent vaccine trial announcements. “90% effective.” “95% effective!”

Coronavirus guru Anthony Fauci assures us that a coronavirus vaccine will only be FDA-approved if it’s “safe and effective.”

From Doshi:

But what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”? To the public this seems fairly obvious. “The primary goal of a covid-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,” a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly.

Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”

Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.

Will COVID-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us.

Switching gears to the flu vaccine for a minute. The flu vaccine’s been a godsend in preventing influenza death among the frail elderly, right? Not so fast there, pardner. Doshi again:

But the truth is that the science remains far from clear cut, even for influenza vaccines that have been used for decades. Although randomised trials have shown an effect in reducing the risk of symptomatic influenza, such trials have never been conducted in elderly people living in the community to see whether they save lives.

Only two placebo controlled trials in this population have ever been conducted, and neither was designed to detect any difference in hospital admissions or deaths.

Moreover, dramatic increases in use of influenza vaccines has not been associated with a decline in mortality.

The Moderna and Pfizer trials enrolled 30,000 and 44,000 participants, respectively. That sounds like a lot of people to be vaccinated. But they only vaccinate half the folks. The other have serve as a control group. Next, the investigators track the occurrence of coronavirus events over time, then compare the two groups. An “event” may be anything from a cough plus positive COVID-19 PCR test, to hospitalization or death. Of course, they also look at potential adverse effect of vaccination, comparing the two groups.

The trials aren’t going to give us good information on COVID-19 hospitalizations and death rates because those outcomes are so infrequent. Most people with symptomatic COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms; there are relatively few cases of serious disease in a general population of 30,000.

Who needs a safe and effective vaccine the most?

• Those over 60-65
• Anybody seriously immunocompromised (i.e., a poor immune system too weak to fight infection).

Immunocompromised people are excluded from the seven ongoing trials. So these trials focus on those over 60, right? Wrong. The Moderna trial eligibility started at age 18. Pfizer’s accepted 12-year-olds.

Surely the vaccine trials will have some participants over 60-years-old. There just may not be enough to generate clinically meaningful data on serious disease outcomes and adverse effects in the elderly.

Who’s paying the millions of dollars for these studies?

Steve Parker, M.D.

PS: I am not generally anti-vaccination.

Update on Nov 18, 2020:

Steven Novella says Moderna developed their vaccine with a grant from the U.S. government. Pfizer funded themselves. Each vaccine has cost over two billion dollars to develop. They will be the first ever mRNA vaccines approved by the FDA. Our other vaccines are based on different technology. Both vaccines require two shots, 28 days apart.

New York Post has an article written by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a physician and epidemiologist at Stanford University calling for a different approach to dealing with the novel coronavirus than the lockdown model:

As infectious-disease epidemiologists and public-health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental-health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short- and long-term public health.The results (to name a few) include lower childhood-vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular-disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health — leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Source: Medical experts: Lockdowns do more harm than good

The article ultimately links to the Great Barrington Declaration. The current number of medical practitioner signatories is 34,663. I signed on a couple weeks ago. It’s very similar to my proposal of early April 2020.

<p value="<amp-fit-text layout="fixed-height" min-font-size="6" max-font-size="72" height="80">Few of you will remember the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1957-1958-pandemic.html">1957-1958 Asian flu (H2N2) pandemi</a>c. The estimated number of deaths was 1.1 million worldwide and <strong>116,000 in the United States</strong>. (U.S. population in 1957 was 172 million, half what it is now.) We didn't lockdown the population then. And we shouldn't now.Few of you will remember the 1957-1958 Asian flu (H2N2) pandemic. The estimated number of deaths was 1.1 million worldwide and 116,000 in the United States. (U.S. population in 1957 was 172 million, half what it is now.) We didn’t lockdown the population then. And we shouldn’t now.

Steve Parker, M.D.