Kaiser Permanente Refuses to Follow CDC Science on COVID Isolation

UPDATE: Kaiser decided to get in line behind the CDC as of yesterday, they are going to the 5 day isolation.  

"For everyone who tests positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status

• Stay home for 5 days
• If you have no symptoms or your symptoms are resolving after 5 days, you can leave your home
• Continue to wear a mask anytime around others for at least 5 additional days
• If you have a fever, continue to stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever resolves without the need for fever-reducing medications"

 

However, they are still requiring sick and non-sick to stand in the same testing line

--------

Kaiser Permanente (KP) joins the ranks of those who do not believe in following CDC recommendations.

The CDC recently changed its COVID protocol to:

"Given what we currently know about COVID-19 and the Omicron variant, CDC is shortening the recommended time for isolation for the public. People with COVID-19 should isolate for 5 days and if they are asymptomatic or their symptoms are resolving (without fever for 24 hours), follow that by 5 days of wearing a mask when around others to minimize the risk of infecting people they encounter. The change is motivated by science demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after."

My sister-in-law recently got COVID and was told by a KP doctor that KP is not following the CDC's 5 day isolation recommendation. KP's recommendation remains 10 days of isolation:

"If you test positive, stay home and isolate for 10 days and until your symptoms have improved."

KP apparently does not believe in following the CDC's "science". Sounds like KP and the anti-vaxxers are on the same page in distrusting CDC science, even though KP has persecuted and fired employees who did not follow CDC science about the need to be vaccinated even if one has developed truly effective anti-bodies by having survived COVID.

Personally, on this issue, I think the CDC has far superior information than KP which seems stuck on old variants and habits rather than science and testing. 

KP certainly does not carry its hypersensitive view of isolation to its testing procedures. KP does not separate people who have COVID symptoms from those who need a test in order to travel. Sick and well are all forced to stand in the same line and be tested at the same area. My sister-in-law who was clearly sick was standing in line with a lady waiting for a negative test so she could take a cruise. The KP testing line is a great place to contract COVID since the sick and the well are forced into a single line.

Snopes Unreliable In Its Vetting of Internet Claims

After discovering a falsehood published by Washington Post opinion writer Dana Milbank on NIAID/NIH experiments on beagle puppies, I decided to see if Snopes had picked up on the problem.

Milbank claimed that the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) recommended cutting dogs' vocal cords when experimenting on them. AAALAC published a sharp refutation saying that was "not" in their standards and their organization "has not made this recommendation." [emphasis in the original text]

Snopes has an extremely long analysis done by Madison Dapcevich of the charges against Fauci and NIAID/NIH. Snopes links to well over a thousand pages of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documentation given to it by the White Coat Waste (WCW) group that uncovered details about the government funded test on beagle puppies. But Snopes takes at face value a mere statement with no backing documentation on the NIH website that:

“'All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare,' notes the agency on its website."

Even though Snopes verified that the puppies did have their vocal cords removed and were killed at the end of the experiment, Snopes required no evidence that such procedures were either necessary or humane. A mere government assertion was sufficient validation for them. Snopes:

"It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs. 

"It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were 'cut out.' In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for 'preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services' was conducted 'as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent.'

“'Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present,' the statement said. 'This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss.'

"The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare. 

“'Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study,' read the document." [emphasis added]

Snopes didn't even do the due diligence of checking with the AAALAC or even reading their website declaration that they do not recommend cordectomies. Snopes also didn't think to ask the Study Director about use of sedatives and pain killers rather than cutting the puppies' vocal cords. Cordectomies are not widely used in human or animal hospitals for reducing stress or sparing the hearing of the medical staff treating patients in pain. Why they should be used in "humane" medical experiments is a question any serious investigator should ask.

Snopes did not carry out a serious fact check on this issue. It only asked for verifiable evidence from one party, and then slid over the implications of documents verifying those claims while taking the other party's mere assertions as sufficient proof that they did no wrong. From this poorly done fact check one can only draw the conclusion that Snopes is now an unreliable source in vetting internet claims.

 

 

 

Dana Milbank Gave False Information about American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care Recommending Cordectomies

 

Dana Milbank, 2016 (Wikipedia)

Update: I'm changing the word "lied" to "gave false information". I feel sorry for Milbank who obviously does not have an inner moral compass that would raise a red flag that cutting an animal's (or maybe even a person's) vocal cords is a cruel action if not required because of some grave illness. I went to the AAALAC site because I couldn't believe such an agency would really say that. Dana Milbank did not check his source because he thinks such treatment is reasonable. I'm relieved that the AAALAC doesn't agree.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank gave false information about cordectomies being recommended by the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. He also got their name wrong. Who knows what other "facts" he made up. Below is a statement by the AAALAC refuting Milbank's assertion that they recommend cordectomies.

"October 2021

"Correction to an October 25, 2021, Washington Post opinion piece

"AAALAC International would like to note an important correction to the October 25, 2021, Washington Post opinion piece, 'Why is Anthony Fauci trying to kill my puppy?' For more than 50 years, AAALAC International has promoted the humane and responsible care, treatment, and use of animals needed to advance medical and scientific discoveries. As rightly noted in the article, this research saves lives and improves the health and well-being of both people and animals. However, the article states, 'And it is recommended by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care [sic] that the dogs undergo cordectomies to reduce anxiety (in dogs) and hearing loss (in humans) from barking.' Such a recommendation is not contained in our standards and thus AAALAC International has not made this recommendation." [emphasis in the original statement]

A Hospital to Skip If You Are at Death's Door: Edward Hospital, in Naperville, Illinois

According to The Epoch Times, Edward Hospital in Naperville, Illinois for over a week resisted court orders to give treatment that eventually saved his life to a man described by a doctor as having only a 10-15% chance of survival from COVID-19.

"An elderly COVID-19 patient has recovered after a court order allowed him to be treated with ivermectin, despite objections from the hospital in which he was staying, according to the family’s attorney.

"After an Illinois hospital insisted on administering expensive remdesivir to the patient and the treatment failed, his life was saved after a court ordered that an outside medical doctor be allowed to use the inexpensive ivermectin to treat him, over the hospital’s strenuous objections."

Sun Ng, 71, from Hong Kong was visiting his daughter, when he was infected with COVID-19 and within days was critically ill. He was hospitalized on Oct 14. He was intubated and placed on a ventilator a few days later. His daughter, Man Kwan Ng, asked that he be given invermectin after the hospital's remdesivir treatment failed. The hospital refused.

On November 1st, the daughter took the issue to Judge Paul M. Fullerton of the Circuit Court of DuPage County. He ruled that the hospital had to allow invermectin to be given to Sun Ng. The hospital refused to let Dr. Alan Bain enter the hospital to administer the invermectin. At another hearing November 5, the judge again ruled that the hospital “'immediately allow … temporary emergency privileges'” to Ng’s physician, Dr. Alan Bain, “'solely to administer Ivermectin to this patient.'” The hospital again refused to let Dr. Bain enter on November 6th and 7th. 

Finally, the case was again brought to Judge Fullerton on November 8th, and he ruled again that the hospital had to allow Dr. Bain admittance for 15 days to treat his patient. The hospital finally relented.

Ng recovered and was discharged from the hospital on November 27th.

“'My father’s recovery is amazing,' his daughter, Man Kwan Ng, said in a statement.

“'My father is a tough man. He was working so hard to survive, and of course, with God’s holding hands. He weaned off oxygen about three days after moving out of the ICU. He started oral feeding before hospital discharge. He returned home without carrying a bottle of oxygen and a feeding tube installed to his stomach. He can now stand with a walker at the bedside and practice stepping. After being sedated for a month on a ventilator in ICU, his performance is beyond our expectations. Praise the Lord.'”

Why the judge didn't heavily fine the hospital for ignoring his first order is anyone's guess. Why he didn't send to jail those disobeying his second order is incomprehensible. Because fines and jail time are what would have happened to you or me for disobeying court orders. No wonder hospitals act like they are above the law and are masters over their patients. It makes me think that the end of life directives they constantly talk about are so much waste paper. They may well do what they want no matter what you have authorized.

Unfortunately, this is what modern business-oriented healthcare is like. The patient is not first priority the corporation is.