vaxedtothemax

ALPA was in favor of vaccine mandates, and we all know how effective those mandates were. Really got everything back to normal, except the part where everyone catching Covid and calling out sick part happened all winter long.

Remember when Round-Up was safe? Thanks for that one FDA.

ThumbsUp

The video was hosted on the FAA’s site as early as Aug 2020. This is not new.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200806.../?mediaId=1942

rickair7777

Stop lying and putting words in my mouth or you're going to take a break.

I did not say .200 was "normal".

I said the FAA does always require you to be "normal" in every regard. Obvious example (again): Blood pressure. If we had to have "normal" blood pressure, literally half of us possibly including me would be grounded.

The FAA allows you to be above "normal" but you need to be below "marked". If you didn't go to college, "marked" means "significant".

1. It was a reasonable change to allow you to be above normal but below significant. Just like blood pressure and many other things.
2. I suspect the timing was coincidental (looks like this all started before covid) but I am open to any reputable information indicating that the FAA was failing some huge % of pilots on ECGs, and subsequently decided to change the standards. I discussed the vaccine/heart issue with my union guys and my union has not seen any sort of increase. Some folks from other airlines have said they have, but only on anonymous internet forums.
3. "Normal" for FAA certification is not necessarily the same as medical normal. Again, blood pressure.

And no we are not going with Reptilian Illuminati in coordination with hillary knew that covid was going to be released by their pals in china and the vaccines would cause ECG problems for pilots, so they decided to get ahead of the problem to start the process to loosen the standards back in 2018. I know some people just so desperately want to BELIEVE but we're not quite there yet with this one. Keep looking.

rickair7777

I don't know what you're talking about with alpa, it's all confused with the illuminati and hillary.

If you describe succinctly what your issue with alpa is I'll take a look. Seriously.

Thedude86

The video does not load but it looks to be the same link as the one provided in the ALPA email. That link takes you to an article that was originally published in 2018. The article does not give any detail about anything. The video was uploaded 5 months ago. If the FAA’s own guide for aviation medical examiners listed .2 as the upper limit up until May 25, 2022. How could they have produced a video that contradicts that before then? The official revision per the FAA is listed as October 26, 2022

Thedude86

The article ALPA posted a link to proves nothing. All it proves is that a paragraph without any specifics was posted in 2018. The video that does have the specifics was posted 5 months ago. Again, before the official October revision, the FAA’s own guide for AMEs states that .2 was the limit. If the video was posted any earlier then the FAA would be directly contradicting themselves.

I understand what marked means. What I’m saying is… someone with an ecg pr interval of .21 or greater would be treated differently October 25th or earlier compared to someone who had their ecg since October 26th.

and yes, marked doesn’t necessarily mean anything is wrong. It could be benign. But I point to the wingnuts at Harvard University as posted in my original post…

“a prolonged PR interval is most commonly seen in generally healthy, middle-aged to older adults and has been thought to reflect normal age-related changes. But previous investigations of the impact of PR prolongation were limited to younger, healthy participants, such as members of the military.”

“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.”
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...diac-problems/

Someone above 200ms would not have been marked before October 26, 2022.

ThumbsUp

The video was not uploaded 5 months ago. The link I sent you is from a web archive in Aug 2020.

CBreezy

You are not a doctor. People in this article are. I'll defer to them.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-faa-pilots-heart-covid-373861551871

Thedude86

Yes and as I pointed out in the Harvard link, a lot of the data that we know about PR intervals is based on young healthy adults. Harvard agreed that intervals over 200ms are commonly thought to be insignificant just as your article points out as well. That is not what the data suggests though when they studied it further. I trust an actual medical school to be more thorough than an agency who mostly oversees air travel and commerce.

I know I’m not a doctor. Did any data I posted come from me? No. That’s why I posted the FAA’s own medical guide and data from Harvard. Did you read what I posted? Your argument is that your article from the FAA and the AP is more reliable than one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country (Harvard). Every medical establishment and university considers the upper limit of 200ms as normal. The FAA is the outlier here. We both probably agree that anything over 200ms can be insignificant or benign. But look at the data from Harvard. I didn’t collect that data, because im not a doctor. That’s why I trust data from an actual medical school over the FAA.

Thedude86

The link works other than the video. The link gives no data about anything. You can upload or change a video to an article and the “published” date will remain the same. I’m not saying your video is wrong. The title of the video is the exact same as the one sent out by ALPA so thats why im assuming its the same video uploaded 5 months ago.

The video could not have been made much earlier, as the 2020, 2021, and up until May 25, 2022 the official FAA “Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners” ALL show the upper limit still as 200ms. I posted the links to these in the original post. If the video actually was made in 2020, then the FAA would be directly contradicting their own guides for AMEs. Even in the AP article that Cbreezy posted, twice, it says the change was made in October. The FAA’s own doctors in the article do not dispute that. They only dispute that it was due to vaccines. The official revision is dated October 26, 2022.

“The FAA in October loosened its medical certification guidelines for pilots with heart block, also known as AV block, based on recommendations from the agency’s cardiology consultants.”