rickair7777

So ALPA was in on the conspiracy too?

Thedude86

I knew you’d be the one to move this thread.

I don’t know if ALPA was in on it, but they definitely didn’t do their due diligence when pretty much every government agency has proven to fabricate or out right lie over the past 2-3 years. FAA proved their incompetence with the 737 MAX fiasco. Everything they put out, no matter the subject, should be scrutinized with a fine toothed comb. ALPA at best… dropped the ball. At worst… they were approached by the FAA to help play cover.

rickair7777

First degree AV block exists >200msec

It is considered "marked" >300msec

The FAA didn't just pull the number out of their butts, looks like they just set the threshold to the medically defined level where it's considered significant:

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/161829-overview


Kind of like blood pressure, normal is 120/80, but they don't yank your ticket for 130/90... you need to be significantly above normal. Diabetes is >125 blood sugar, but the AME urine test only flags something around 200.

The FAA has liberalized many medical standards in recent years (ex SSRI's), this may have just been another of those.

Thedude86

So when every institution says up to 200ms is normal… can you explain why the FAA changed “normal” to 300ms? Also, did you read my Harvard document? I know you view Harvard, John’s Hopkins, and every reputable medical establishment as wingnuts but can you explain why the FAA is the outlier on viewing up to 300ms as normal?

per the wingnuts at Harvard… “A PR interval of less than 200 milliseconds is considered normal, and participants whose interval was longer than 200 milliseconds had twice the overall risk of developing atrial fibrillation, three times the risk of needing a pacemaker, and almost one and a half times the risk of early death. Further prolongation of the PR interval led to even greater risk.”

Rick… please explain why the FAA knows better than Harvard that 300ms is the new “normal” and why is it the new normal?

Rick… are you saying someone who’s ECG records a PR interval of 300ms has the same health, healthy heart, and life expentancy as someone with a PR interval of 200ms?

rickair7777

You obviously didn't read my post or the link I posted. 200msec is normal, 300msec is "marked" which is another word for "significant". Here's the article again...

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/161829-overview

The FAA does not require that you be "normal" in all respects to hold a medical. See my above references to blood pressure and blood sugar (to say nothing of BMI or folks flying on SSRI's).

If we can't have a rational discussion about this, without you putting words in mouth then so be it. This topic is already on the absolute fringe to begin with. I'm allowing it because there was an apparently coincidental change to ECG standards, and one of the covid vaccines had adverse affects related to the heart (although that was inflammation, not electro-cardio stuff). The FAA can't do anything quickly, I'm assuming based on past history that this change has been in the works since before covid.

Also my union hasn't seen any increase in STD/LTD for 2022. Unless you suggest the guys I drink beer with are all in on it too?

Thedude86

i don’t know what youre looking at, but normal per the FAA and any medical institutions were considered less than .21 before October 2022. As of October 26, 2022 the FAA now considers “normal” up to .3.

So youre saying that the FAA did not change the upper limit from .2 to .3? In my original post I provided the link to both the 2021 and the current guide to aviation medical examiners. You’re saying nothing was changed Rick? Per the ALPA email… the FAA claimed the change was made in 2018 even though the 2021 guide still shows less than .21. I don’t understand your argument. It sounds like youre saying the change was never made so there’s nothing to worry about. Look at the links I provided. 2021 shows less than .21 is normal. The current version with the FAA’s own revision of October 26, 2022 in the specific section im referring to shows .3 as normal? The only way your argument is valid is if the change was never made when would make the ALPA email completely useless. Every medical institution shows that .2 or less is what is considered normal.

Rick, if your argument is valid, then what is the point of the most recent ALPA email? Did they send out an email for a change that was never made? I’m confused.

JohnBurke

Just the conspiracy fruitcakes, who think they know why.

vaxedtothemax

I tend to trust all the medical professionals in my family. What they say and have been saying for the last 2 yrs relegates CBreezy to the perfect candidate for media propaganda campaign testing. Unless my family hasn't seen a very noticeable increase in patients with heart issues amongst teens and young adults. Which they have, so... Sorry Breezy, eventually MSNBC and CNN will have to report on it.

vaxedtothemax

Still waiting for the cause of Damar's very public heart failure on MNF. Guess MSNBC isn't asking about it.

Researching heart related deaths as of late, it almost seems like old people stopped having heart attacks, and God passed them along to the under 45 crowd.

vaxedtothemax

How about that J & J safe and effective jab. Curiously no longer recommended by the FDA many months ago.