No. It's a description of the pharmacokinetics of the vaccine (AVD, metabolism, excretion, tissue penetration, etc.). It does not address anything clinical at all. Looks like it might be information that Pfizer pharmacists and molecular geneticists put out as part of their bid to get full FDA approval (although I doubt the radioimmunoflourescence study in 6 rats will pass the committee

Just sharing another pre-peer reviewed (limited) data point - information only.

COVID affects nearly all organs
A pre-peer reviewed study examined tissue samples from autopsies of patients who passed away from COVID, and found that SARS-CoV-2 was present in nearly all organs.

This helps explain how multiple organ systems are affected in severe COVID. Read at medRxiv.

Multisystemic cellular tropism of SARS-CoV-2 in autopsies of COVID-19 patients | medRxiv

Not really.

First of all, there is a big difference between "present" and "affected" In fact, the following quote from the article states that clearly:

"Interpretation: SARS-CoV-2 could be observed in virtually all organs, colocalizing with ACE2 and TMPRSS2 mainly in epithelial but also in mesenchymal and endothelial cells, and viral replication was found across all organ systems. Apart from the respiratory tract, no specific (histo-)morphologic alterations could be assigned to the SARS-CoV-2 infection."

There is a big difference between the epithelial and endothelial cells of an organ vs. the parenchymal cells

Second, this was an autopsy study on a small number of individuals, and represented the sickest of the sick. (But I doubt anyone who tested positive without any symptoms would volunteer to have their organs cut up for comparison:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:)

Jury selection
 

If you ever get selected for jury duty please tell the judge how you feel about these cases and they will give you a free rid home….

Here is a quote from the article (Link to entire article posted below)...

"Inpatient novel coronavirus (COVID-19) claims will require a positive viral test result to be eligible for the 20% increase in the MS-DRG weighting factor, effective for admissions on or after September 1. The test must be performed within 14 days of admission, and the results must be documented in the patient’s medical record."

Notice they said ON or AFTER September 1... Before that, no positive test was required. Only an assumption of Covid...

CMS Will Require Positive COVID-19 Test Results for Increased Inpatient Payment | HealthLeaders Media

For someone who does not know...

Long haul effects
 

It would be interesting to know the deaths and adverse effects of the “vaccine” as well. I understand that some of that information is being censored, so I’m not sure we can get the true answers. It may be to early determine any long term effects too?

Did prescribe a salve for that burn? :bigbow:

Of course it's too early...

It hasn't been around "long term" yet...

I certainly hope so. But as a medical expert, neither attorney would ever fail to exclude me during voir dire

To be fair, I think he loves his daughter and is unhappy that she has some symptomatology regardless of cause. Unfortunately, he rushed to his keyboard without realizing that he was so far out of my league that he wasn't even playing the same game.
It's OK, I can understand that. He was coming from a very narrow perspective and can't see the big picture.

Don't believe everything you read. It's like reading this forum. If you believed everything on this forum, you'd be a an idiot. I take everything I hear and read with a "grain of salt".

When was it ever expected - thru the history of humankind - that people in their 50s, 60s, 70s+++ were expected to live lives free of physical discomfort and health issues? Goodness - every cold, bout of the flu, cancer diagnosis, stiff joints, cataracts, heart attack, stroke, etc……- will in many cases - now be blamed on Covid….. goodness - what caused all these things pre-covid?

Never said it was expected.

What a stupid post.

Unfortunately I've fallen victim to a common and measurable disease....
CRAFT's disease. It's by no way caused by Covid-19, simply too many years of fun! BTW, CRAFT's disease is an acronym for Can't Remember A F*****g Thing.....lol

I don't think his post was "stupid"

I think it fits better into the category of "Captain Obvious says...":1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Yes, but there are those, even some on this site, that will blame your symptoms on the "brain fog" of "long haul" COVID-19

And we also have teens having heart problems AFTER getting the shot (not a vaccine). So, it is reasonable for someone to make the decision to steer clear of the shot.

From your article: "However, organizations should prepare to comply with the new requirement by September 1. Organizations must ensure processes are in place to obtain accurate test results for all COVID-19 admissions. Clinical, HIM, CDI, and billing staff should be informed of the change, and coders and CDI specialists should query for missing test results. Organizations may need to review processes for obtaining test results from outside entities and should consider processes for holding inpatient COVID-19 claims that are pending test results. Organizations should reach out to their MACs to discuss operational and technical questions." Or are you suggesting hospital administration should not seek out permissible payments? No way, I don't think that's what you meant, you'd never pass up the same opportunity within your business (i.e. private practice).

...

I've not read a single thing regarding "post-payment review" of covid payments...

And yes, I was referring to the first 6 months of the outbreak, where everything was deemed to be covid...

No related symptoms here post covid.

Yes, and so deemed by physicians! So what are you blaming hospital admins and billing clerks for? Your original post suggested questionable activity on their parts, and it just ain't so. I do understand the hospital/physician politics, always a love/hate relationship. But I bristle that your followers believe that administrators and billing clerks are responsible for everyone being diagnosed w covid. And they will believe what you wrote, you are a respected voice on this forum. I think I've made my point, we can drop this line of discussion. It's been fun though, thank you for your always respectful responses.

I'm respected? Well, shame on you! ;)

But yes, administrators/billing depts are most definitely trying to find ways to maximize charges, including changing diagnoses...

I've seen it in person... And I've seen the arguments that ensued...

It says a lot about someone when all they can say about your post is that it was “stupid” hahhahaha

Well, keep in mind that after the human trials (on most of the US population and much of the world) are finished, you can always decide to get the shot if that's what you want. However, if you get the shot now and find out later (when the trials are done) that there is a major downside, you can't "un-get" it.
.
By the way, it has been determined now that I had COVID-19 in February 2020 (anti-body test). My experience was a short flu-like event; fever for 2-3 days. Did not lose smell / taste. No lasting effects of any kind. Apparently, my wife was also infected but had no symptoms then or later. So, while the FDA / CDC / NIH / blah blah blah will not say that survivors continue to have immunity, I think the fact that I have been around many infected people over the last 16 months speaks for itself. Spent 6 hours in a car with my wife's sister (who we later learned was infected at the time) and did not get re-infected ourselves. I'm quite sure we are immune. I'm 64, wife is 60.

And, I don't give any weight to the "asymptomatic spreader" message. The common flu and common cold can also be acquired from someone without symptoms; and, yes, the common flu can and does KILL every year. I never got the annual flu shot and never ever got the flu. I also don't remember anyone ever pressuring me to get a flu shot or trying to guilt me into doing so "for others"; or calling me selfish for not getting a flu shot. It's just nonsense. Look around at all the people who got the shot and still think they are at risk from this thing - they wear masks while alone in the car; they insist others get the shot when they themselves are theoretically protected; they worry about wearing a mask (themselves & others); they won't get on a cruise ship unless every plays by their rules; they are indoctrinated. I refuse to be indoctrinated.

To paraphrase one of my favorite people: "If you are vaccinated, act like it".

No, I don't think it says anything about her. It MAY speak volumes for the post:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Sometimes, less is more...

I think the fact that the FDA/CDC/NIH/blah blah blah decides based on well designed medical studies involving thousands of people and that you have decided, for yourself, based on a "study" of two that you are immune SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

I do , however, agree that getting vaccinated and then driving around in your car alone with a mask is idiotic. Of course, it was just as idiotic before that person got vaccinated as well.

Maximizing payments is a must and you know it. Changing a diagnosis is absolutely fine IF the medical record documentation supports that change. And that's the bottom line. Do you know how frequently the coder has to chase down a doc that picked the wrong diagnosis in the electronic system? Or left out a supported dx? Picking the wrong dx is so easy to do too but it's the hospital, and just as often, the patient that loses because of a wrong key stroke entry. Now I would never say there isn't greed out there, all you need to do for proof of that is take a gander at the OIG's Fraud&Abuse Enforcement page. Those providers are not only greedy, they're incredibly arrogant to think they can scam the system and keep getting away with it. But it's not generally hospital administrators or billing clerks being prosecuted and convicted of fraud, can you guess which profession is the usual culprit? Have a look, it's actually quite interesting Enforcement Actions | Office of Inspector General | Government Oversight | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Perhaps. But, I am not stating that my "study of two" should be evidence for anyone to follow suit. I am justifying my own decision to forego the shot. I consider myself protected enough and further consider the shot to be a higher risk than not getting it. The person I replied to was "on the fence" and I gave him/her my take on the matter. And I was explaining that you can't go back in time and not get it later. That's all. Studies or not, I'm not obligated to base my decisions to get the shot on how well it will protect others.

Yeah, they go for the low hanging fruit...

The docs are always on the hook... For everything...

And as I said before, I've served on multiple hospital committees. I've seen, first hand, the arguments over "correct" diagnoses...

I realize you must have worked in medical billing/coding at a hospital and therefore tend to blame all coding irregularities on the physicians. However, with a 20% premium on the DRG cohort at stake, if you don't think the word went out to medical staffs at every hospital in the country to add COVID as a diagnosis, even if only suspected, then you are living in Fantasyland.

Actually, the word you are looking for is "rationalizing". I wouldn't recommend getting the vaccine for others----you should do it for yourself. And you are right---with any new vaccine/drug/treatment there is a SMALL risk of the unknown----but right now the risk of COVID is greater. I probably had COVID early this year. My fiancee, her sister and husband were staying with us and they all became symptomatic and tested positive. I didn't have any symptoms, and didn't get tested because a positive result wouldn't have changed anything I was doing, and I was going to get the vaccine regardless (and I did)

PS: love the picture, and there is some truth in it

Going back to the over diagnosis of covid deaths, please view this short video...

Dr. Ngozi Ezike | How COVID Deaths are Classified - YouTube

Might I ask in what capacity????

Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) Information
 

Go to The COVID Blog - Official blog of COVID Legal USA. Vaccines are the leading cause of coincidences. Stay Vigilant. Some don't do so well!

No, not records/coding. Risk & Compliance. We weren't talking about all coding irregularities though, we were discussing specifically a covid dx. Exaggerations only muddy the waters. I'm sure word did go out to the medical staff reminding them to include the dx when supported, 20% x the several hundred covid + patients treated at my little 300 bed hospital is a freaking significant amount of money. But if you're asking me to believe that in general, administrators expected the medical staff to add a covid dx, deserved or not, to realize that 20%, afraid I'll have to pass. But let's just say that did happen, it is entirely up to the physician to "obey". It is entirely up to the physician to enter documentation to support that covid dx. If the dx is undeserved but the support is documented anyhow, that's fraud on behalf of the documenting physician. If the dx is added but not supported by documentation it won't be billed for. And here I thought this was a respectful conversation, I'm sorry you felt the need to attempt to belittle me with your "Fantasyland" comment. Too bad.

As one of the docs on staff at the hospital...

I was on the OR Committee, Credentials Committee, Dept of Surgery Committee, (I'm sure I'm missing one...) over my 33+ year tenure...

Now, I just tend to my own practice and leave all of that to the younger docs... I'm preparing my exit strategy, so I can move to TV full time...

Not "belittling" you at all. It was a conditional statement (preceded by if). And we agreed, that the word went out, if only as a reminder, not to encourage fraud. Very respectful intent