Vaccine.. another sad story

[BountyIsUnderrated]

I've just read the below article, one little boy left without a mother and the poor father left alone to raise him.

There have been so many stories about this happening I don't know what to feel anymore.. I've been vaccinated myself but I can see why people are scared of the AZ.

It's rare yes but I don't think that would be very reassuring if someone I loved died... Is this the cost of protecting against covid?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9732583/Mother-three-47-dies-AstraZeneca-Covid-jab-caused-blood-clots-brain.html

@Justgettingbye

It's appalling. When vaccines started anyone who was concerned about side effects was told they were a stupid anti vaxxer then just weeks later the AZ was stopped for under 40s. Proof that they're just winging this whole thing

If 'they're' winging it what would you do instead?

Nothing different at all. But there are lots of people saying it's not in trial phase, it's not unknown etc. And mocking anyone who fears that potential risks are unknown.

I had the jab. But if someone is questioning it's safety then that's a fair way for them to feel

It’s disingenuous to proclaim definitive safety stats on the vaccines at this relatively early point in this evolving situation just as it would be to attribute as many deaths as possible going forward to possible Long Covid complications etc.

The fact is, we just don’t know. People are making these calls based on a snapshot in time ie the situation as it is right now, when there is clearly distance left to run.

Personally, I don’t think there is any right or wrong & wouldn’t criticise somebody for not having a vaccine at this stage. You do you & you only.

@MummyPop00

It’s disingenuous to proclaim definitive safety stats on the vaccines at this relatively early point in this evolving situation just as it would be to attribute as many deaths as possible going forward to possible Long Covid complications etc.

The fact is, we just don’t know. People are making these calls based on a snapshot in time ie the situation as it is right now, when there is clearly distance left to run.

Personally, I don’t think there is any right or wrong & wouldn’t criticise somebody for not having a vaccine at this stage. You do you & you only.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

I am 47 and waited 5 extra weeks to get the prizes jab. I just wasnt comfortable, no matter how much I pressured myself to go for it. I am not proud of stalling, and did keep a low profile during, but glad to have worked it out in the end.

During that time of waiting, when i asked for advice and info (both online and from the NHS), I was subject to mockery, insults and verbal abuse.

This concerned me far more than the fucking vaccine itself!

pfizer not prizes.

[quote ForeverAintEnough3]@Notthemessiah I presume you also wouldn’t give your children any antibiotics? After all they would have a 0.05% chance of anaphylactic shock from taking penicillin, much higher than the 0.0004% chance of myocarditis from vaccine? Surely an antibiotic is also an absolutely last resort for you given the risk to your children?

The whole issue here is people have decided the vaccine is way too risky while simultaneously ignoring the risk from things they take on a daily basis without even considering the risks.

Suddenly those risks are too great for the vaccine. I wonder if the difference is the massive online anti vaccine agenda scaring people, where one doesn’t exist for penicillin.[/quote]
That's not really a great example though because I'd only give my kids an antibiotic if they were actually sick.

Also saying that people aren't comparing it to other risks they would normally take is also a bit disingenuous. Just because I take big risks para-gliding doesn't suddenly mean I can ignore my risk of dying in a car crash. Risk is cumulative, not either\or. Also you tend to risk-assess the first few times you do something and it then becomes just second-nature, and most of them you can't avoid even if you wanted to. Vaccination is a one-off thing you're not that likely to repeat, especially when every vaccine is different.

As I've already said though, for those that might have cared to check previous posts to see I'm not some mad 5G conspiracy nut, I will make the decision on what to do or not do by trying to be as rational about it as I can, gathering all the facts and then looking at the relative risks.

That's why an hour ago I was sat in my car after my second jab, crying with the stress of it all (having originally cancelled it two weeks ago) but having forced myself through it despite my irrational anxieties (over which I have no control) because I'd worked out the risk and it was the best thing for me to do.

After that, I don't particularly care what anyone thinks about my posts or my reasons for being here. The rabid pro and anti vaxxers are fairly much indistinguishable to me and honestly deserve each other.

I am just personally v relieved I got Pfizer (under 30) since to be blunt my risk from COVID is so low (young, healthy, slim) that I wouldn't have traded that for the risk of blood clotting - and no you don't need to hound me about long Covid.

I see two anti-vax loadsabollocks threads have already been deleted today.
The cousin being rushed off in ambulance (mind you, that troll jumped the shark a bit in the OP by saying the cousin was going to get thrown out of university if unvaccinated) one, and the "want to wait for the jab because we're all going to die from it" one.

@Geamhradh

Nice. Why is that you people always have to insult rather than just making your point without being unpleasant? Is sounding smug and superior more important to you than trying to convince people ?

What exactly about me posting that link do you not like? That it's not from a proper source (it's from the BMJ so that should be OK)? That it's not accurate (but you're not arguing about that)? That it's giving people additional information to make a hopefully more informed decision? Of course it is - but in your mind anything that doesn't say vaccines are totally fine is scaremongering, because people are just too stupid to work these things out for themselves and need you to tell them what to do.

If only you ruled the world eh?

@MummyPop00

It’s disingenuous to proclaim definitive safety stats on the vaccines at this relatively early point in this evolving situation just as it would be to attribute as many deaths as possible going forward to possible Long Covid complications etc.

The fact is, we just don’t know. People are making these calls based on a snapshot in time ie the situation as it is right now, when there is clearly distance left to run.

Personally, I don’t think there is any right or wrong & wouldn’t criticise somebody for not having a vaccine at this stage. You do you & you only.

Exactly. Even people who say there's a long history of vaccines like the AZ vaccine are talking through their arses - the clotting complication of the AZ vaccine is a new problem, they have no idea how many people it'll affect long term and no clue how to stop it.

The Pfizer vaccine is experimental - mRNA vaccines have never before been tried on this scale. They have been tested in the treatment of cancer and in animal studies have had massive negative effects, including infertility, autoimmune reactions and death.

The Pfizer vaccine is experimental - mRNA vaccines have never before been tried on this scale. They have been tested in the treatment of cancer and in animal studies have had massive negative effects, including infertility, autoimmune reactions and death.

@TheDailyCarbunkle
Sigh

They are not experimental. They have been through the same testing as other vaccines available.

Trying to cause fear by comparing them to previous mRNA vaccines that caused adverse effects in animal models in nonsensical. This is why you run in vitro and animal studies first - to test for adverse effects. The pfizer and moderna vaccines did not cause problems in pre-clinical phases, hence why they were continued to human trials, and then rolled out to the general population.

Don't have the vaccine by all means, but do try and think before posting misinformation.

@Geamhradh

It is very sad. But 58 deaths out of 25 million isn't "so many". It's no more common than people in any specific year who would, out of the blue, develop and die from blood clots.

I've had double AZ, but had had both before the scare over clotting. Would I have been quite so blasé now? Probably not. Would I want close family members having it? Probably not.

But the absolute scientific fact remains that dying from a blood clot in the period following the vaccine is a) literally one in a million b) hard to prove the correlation between clot and AZ (or indeed other vaccines- let's not forget more people have died after Pfizer worldwide than AZ) would she have developed a blood clot anyway? Nobody will ever know.

It's extremely sad, but we need to contrast the 58 deaths out of 25 million for vaccines against the 128,000 deaths out of 15 million or so Covid infections in the U.K. (actual infections rather than "confirmed cases" which are lower).

[quote Notthemessiah]@Geamhradh

Nice. Why is that you people always have to insult rather than just making your point without being unpleasant? Is sounding smug and superior more important to you than trying to convince people ?

What exactly about me posting that link do you not like? That it's not from a proper source (it's from the BMJ so that should be OK)? That it's not accurate (but you're not arguing about that)? That it's giving people additional information to make a hopefully more informed decision? Of course it is - but in your mind anything that doesn't say vaccines are totally fine is scaremongering, because people are just too stupid to work these things out for themselves and need you to tell them what to do.

If only you ruled the world eh?[/quote]
Because as I, (and others) have said, reading the BMJ article, the conclusion reached in it prove the opposite of what you intended.
It's from the BMJ- reputable and reliable. And where I would go to find sources.
It's not scaremongering.
It gives facts.
It reaches conclusions.

The conclusions it reaches are the polar opposite of the point you were making, that's all.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. But I will continue to point out glaring miscomprehension like yours.

@ollyollyoxenfree

The Pfizer vaccine is experimental - mRNA vaccines have never before been tried on this scale. They have been tested in the treatment of cancer and in animal studies have had massive negative effects, including infertility, autoimmune reactions and death.

@TheDailyCarbunkle
Sigh

They are not experimental. They have been through the same testing as other vaccines available.

Trying to cause fear by comparing them to previous mRNA vaccines that caused adverse effects in animal models in nonsensical. This is why you run in vitro and animal studies first - to test for adverse effects. The pfizer and moderna vaccines did not cause problems in pre-clinical phases, hence why they were continued to human trials, and then rolled out to the general population.

Don't have the vaccine by all means, but do try and think before posting misinformation.

Everything I said is entirely true. mRNA vaccines are experimental - they have never before been tried in large-scale vaccination programmes and so whoever gets them this time around is part of an initial experimental introduction of the vaccine.

If you don't like the word 'experimental' then ignore it, the fact remains that this is the first time mRNA vaccines have been used large-scale. There's no 'misinformation' in that, it is just a fact.

I think it's funny you say I'm 'trying to cause fear' by stating facts about other uses of mRNA. The bizarre pussyfooting 'let's not scare people' attitude is so patronising and wrong-headed I don't know where to start, especially in the context of a world where some healthy people are so petrified of covid they've barely left their houses in 18 months.

Honest information about the vaccines would say

The AZ vaccine has killed people. It's hard to predict who it'll kill, though younger people are more at risk. The very strong likelihood is that you will be fine, but if you do have a clotting reaction you have between a 19 and 50% chance of dying.

There is no data whatsoever about the long term effects of the Pfizer vaccine. There is every chance that there are no long term effects, but there's no way to be sure of that.

What I'd like to know is, if the Pfizer vaccine has long term effects, how that'll be handled. Will they try to deny it? Will they issue some sort of lame apology? Will they compensate people? Will there be some huge class action lawsuit?

I think it's funny you say I'm 'trying to cause fear' by stating facts about other uses of mRNA.

but you weren't stating facts "about the other uses of mRNA" @TheDailyCarbunkle? You were listing adverse effects that mRNA vaccines had caused in animal models of cancer (without any sources linked).

As I said, it's nonsensical to try and compare the coronavirus vaccines to mRNA vaccines used in cancer models because a) adverse effects were not seen in the pre-clinical phases of pfizer and moderna, and b) a cancer model is completely different from a healthy model where a vaccine is being used prophylactically

It's like trying to claim we shouldn't be giving out statins because a random other drug caused adverse effects in animal models of cancer.

The Pfizer vaccine is experimental - mRNA vaccines have never before been tried on this scale. They have been tested in the treatment of cancer and in animal studies have had massive negative effects, including infertility, autoimmune reactions and death.

There is chat (from scientists) about how the spike protein is behaving in this vaccine. It was hypothesised the protein would only concentrate in one area of the body (shoulder) but it is actually transporting all over the body, actively, and this includes the ovaries

It is totally experimental at this phase. Like, literally.

Except we aren’t really controlling the experiment and monitoring the side effects or safety.

@Geamhradh

The conclusions it reaches are the polar opposite of the point you were making, that's all.

What point was I making? I literally posted the link and said it should maybe give people in that demographic (or their parents) pause for thought? I quoted the PP but that was just as a lead in because they were talking about vaccinating kids. It didn't mean I was telling everyone not to vaccinate their children at any cost, though it's clear now that that's what you assumed (and maybe that's partly my fault).

@hamstersarse

The Pfizer vaccine is experimental - mRNA vaccines have never before been tried on this scale. They have been tested in the treatment of cancer and in animal studies have had massive negative effects, including infertility, autoimmune reactions and death.

There is chat (from scientists) about how the spike protein is behaving in this vaccine. It was hypothesised the protein would only concentrate in one area of the body (shoulder) but it is actually transporting all over the body, actively, and this includes the ovaries

It is totally experimental at this phase. Like, literally.

Except we aren’t really controlling the experiment and monitoring the side effects or safety.

Incorrect on many counts @hamstersarse

Firstly in the study you're referring to, the spike protein was not found concentrated anywhere in the body. It was the lipid nanoparticle that were found, in trace amounts, in a rat model when given 30X the dose a human would receive.

Incidentally, the highest concentration was found in the liver (as you would expect) but the anti-vaxxers aren't promoting that as it's less scary than shouting about ovaries.

For anyone interested, this misinformation can all be traced back to Bryam Bridle, who has made a habit of spreading false claims about the pandemic and vaccines throughout the last 18 months.

From the following article:
www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

NOTE THE FIRST SENTENCE.

Safety
The requirement for safety in modern prophylactic vaccines is extremely stringent because the vaccines are administered to healthy individuals. Because the manufacturing process for mRNA does not require toxic chemicals or cell cultures that could be contaminated with adventitious viruses, mRNA production avoids the common risks associated with other vaccine platforms, including live virus, viral vectors, inactivated virus and subunit protein vaccines. Furthermore, the short manufacturing time for mRNA presents few opportunities to introduce contaminating microorganisms. In vaccinated people, the theoretical risks of infection or integration of the vector into host cell DNA are not a concern for mRNA. For the above reasons, mRNA vaccines have been considered a relatively safe vaccine format.

Several different mRNA vaccines have now been tested from phase I to IIb clinical studies and have been shown to be safe and reasonably well tolerated (Tables 2, 3). However, recent human trials have demonstrated moderate and in rare cases severe injection site or systemic reactions for different mRNA platforms22,91. Potential safety concerns that are likely to be evaluated in future preclinical and clinical studies include local and systemic inflammation, the biodistribution and persistence of expressed immunogen, stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and potential toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components. A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms54,166 induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity167,168. Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken. Another potential safety issue could derive from the presence of extracellular RNA during mRNA vaccination. Extracellular naked RNA has been shown to increase the permeability of tightly packed endothelial cells and may thus contribute to oedema169. Another study showed that extracellular RNA promoted blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation170. Safety will therefore need continued evaluation as different mRNA modalities and delivery systems are utilized for the first time in humans and are tested in larger patient populations.

@TheDailyCarbunkle

From the following article: www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

NOTE THE FIRST SENTENCE.

Safety
The requirement for safety in modern prophylactic vaccines is extremely stringent because the vaccines are administered to healthy individuals. Because the manufacturing process for mRNA does not require toxic chemicals or cell cultures that could be contaminated with adventitious viruses, mRNA production avoids the common risks associated with other vaccine platforms, including live virus, viral vectors, inactivated virus and subunit protein vaccines. Furthermore, the short manufacturing time for mRNA presents few opportunities to introduce contaminating microorganisms. In vaccinated people, the theoretical risks of infection or integration of the vector into host cell DNA are not a concern for mRNA. For the above reasons, mRNA vaccines have been considered a relatively safe vaccine format.

Several different mRNA vaccines have now been tested from phase I to IIb clinical studies and have been shown to be safe and reasonably well tolerated (Tables 2, 3). However, recent human trials have demonstrated moderate and in rare cases severe injection site or systemic reactions for different mRNA platforms22,91. Potential safety concerns that are likely to be evaluated in future preclinical and clinical studies include local and systemic inflammation, the biodistribution and persistence of expressed immunogen, stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and potential toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components. A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms54,166 induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity167,168. Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken. Another potential safety issue could derive from the presence of extracellular RNA during mRNA vaccination. Extracellular naked RNA has been shown to increase the permeability of tightly packed endothelial cells and may thus contribute to oedema169. Another study showed that extracellular RNA promoted blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation170. Safety will therefore need continued evaluation as different mRNA modalities and delivery systems are utilized for the first time in humans and are tested in larger patient populations.

i have no idea what point you're trying to make with this copy and paste @TheDailyCarbunkle?

since to be blunt my risk from COVID is so low (young, healthy, slim) that I wouldn't have traded that for the risk of blood clotting

The risk from COVID, even for young, healthy, slim people, is still greater than the risk from the vaccine.

For me I'm young and healthy and I might catch covid I might not and if I do and become seriously ill well thats just unfortunate and bad luck. However if I purposefully get a substance injected into my body that causes long term/short term issues or even death thats my fault and the blame lies on me.

You could argue that for seatbelts. Entirely prophylactic, they do cause injury and death, I might not be in an accident and even if I am, I might be fine. But they save more people than they kill, on a population level. I might be the unlucky person who would have lived if not for the seatbelt, and wearing it is a decision, but chances are, I'll be the person thrown through the windscreen so I wear one.

And you can also say it for almost every vaccine. Vaccine damage happens, it's just rare. Rarer than damage from the disease. It can still kill you though.

I wish people would give up on the comparison to seatbelts, its not the same in the slightest. I don’t want to take a vaccine that has no long term safety data. Thats quite simply the end of it and my decision.

@Geamhradh

Also you say that it reaches conclusions that are the polar opposite of what I intended, but if you presumably mean that what I intended was that we shouldn't vaccinate children (which wasn't the case, but whatever) then that's not how I read it.

The conclusion has the opinion of one of the members of sage saying

Overall the risk-benefit ratio is in favour of giving the vaccine

and then this from the CDC

in the US the CDC said it continued to recommend vaccination for everyone over 12 years of age.

So fair enough, they favour vaccination but then the final paragraph has this from Vinay Prasad, a haematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco:

He thinks that the US should suspend all vaccination in children under 18 and give only one dose of vaccine to men under 25.

With no comment as to which of those two opposing points of view are actually correct.

It seems that Prasad is coming at it from the point of view that this vaccination should overwhelmingly be a benefit for the individual first whereas the JCVI and the CDC necessarily come at it from a different angle in terms of the benefits to a society as a whole (which is what you expect).

Please - it seems sad to have to say this - but if you feel I'm wrong then by all means post here to say why and how I'm misinterpreting, but can I ask you to do so assuming that I'm actually here for no other reason that to gather and share info and not with some anti-vaxx agenda?