Is it ok to ask about the ramping up of vaccine side effects stories?

[SparklingJam]

I’m generally pro vaccines, but I’m starting to question the effects of the covid jab, and wonder if it’s possible to have a discussion about it. Apologies if this has been done to death, or isn’t an accepted topic.

I’ve been seeing more information about deaths of young men, how the vaccine isn’t very effective against covid, and hearing all about dreadful side effects, to the point where some people won’t have the jab because they “know” they’ll die.

I can fully accept that there are side effects, but the talk of increased deaths (apparently 1300 excess deaths per week, coupled with videos of supposed undertakers saying they are 50-100% busier now) is making me question things and worry.

Having said that, in my extended circle of friends, family and colleagues, I know many people who are mostly vaccinated, and apart from a day or 5 of feeling fluey they all have no side effects and haven’t died.
At the same time through the same extended group, I know a couple who have died of covid and several who still have long covid which has disabled them to varying degrees.

It would be logical to think that the excess deaths are a catch up to lock down and lack of hospital treatment, plus the current issues many have with seeing a gp or calling an ambulance, but I am assured by certain people that the excess deaths are solely due to the vaccine.

Surely you'd want the data assessed by virologists and epidemiologists rather than cardiologists? Malhorta has no special expertise in that field. My DH went to the most famous heart hospital in the world for his cardiac problem, and they were brilliant, but his cardiologist completely stuffed up his renal care because they weren't experts in that field…

That's not to deny the relevance of the Pfizer data, merely to emphasise the need for an expert, unbiased view.

I also don't really understand what people think Pfizer could be hiding in their trial data - it would be irrelevant at this point (specifically in terms of trying to cover things up, obviously they would need to be held accountable).

Billions of doses have been given out - if they had hidden the fact that people in their trial had developed "an MS type illness" it would be blown wide open by now.

well in that case the dismissal of Maholtra et al so decisively is perhaps premature

I have an open mind but for personal reasons due to a family member am following the issue. And it seems when concern is raised about the quality and conclusions made from Pfizer’s own data they are now releasing (and it’s available online but very hard to decipher) then I read various dismissals due to personal character or that said person is a member if HART

I haven’t found anyone who can counter the claims by Maholtra (and Claire Craig for that matter) based on the actual data. This interests me.

my friend died of a rare kind of stroke and I remain personally interested. I’m not saying it was due to her recent vaccine - I know it’s not as simple as that - but neither do we know it wasn’t and there wasn’t an autopsy

So for example, with current excess deaths remaining up, I would like to see some rigour around these cases and to why. And of course it could be covid itself. But Ed need people to retain confidence in the vaccines and in people I known it is slipping because the dissenters are brushed off.

So you're not going to link the Pfizer data @BeethovenNinth ?

As I said, I can't give you an answer unless you actually share what it is you're referring to.

I am really sorry! I have no idea how. There is pages and pages of it and it’s gradually released

this is the crux of Maholtra’s issue I think - if you watch his video - he says the data itself is troublesome.

it’s interesting as he is vaccinated himself and has changed his mind.

I haven’t found anyone who can counter the claims by Maholtra

I mean you seem to be ignoring all posts from people who have read his article (both parts) & have provided some examples of problems with it.

Here's another - he claims that vaccines are causing an epidemic of coronary atherosclerosis and this is what killed his father.

This is impossible. It takes years for deposits to build up in the enothelium and narrow arteries - this is not something that a vaccine (or anything else including COVID) could magically cause.

Anyone with an ounce of medical knowledge knows this, and the sad thing is he knows it too!

@BeethovenNinth

I don't really understand how it is that you are looking at the data, are using it to base an argument that the vaccines are dangerous, but can't link to it?!

So anyone just needs to agree based on heresay?

@foliageeverywhere I didn't say Pfizer had hidden data about trial participants dropping out because they developed an MS type illness. This information was published as part of research disclosure.
Also as I said I can't even remember if it was Pfizer, although I think it was, because it was ages ago.
It just sticks in my mind because autoimmune disease is my specialist subject.

@EcoTourist

Your posts never make any sense! I answer your questions, and then I get an unrelated reply.

I presume you haven't actually read the paper you've linked - it isn't about coronary atherosclerosis - what they are studying is not the same phenotype as what Malhorta is claiming.

They also conclude:

The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 induces a moderate and transient short-term dysfunction of the endothelium that is almost entirely reversed in 48 h.

@EcoTourist

As I have previously posted, the authors were not looking at coronary atherosclerosis.

We know the vaccines can cause cardiac issues which will emerge in the short term. This is not what Malhorta is claiming.

www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1731/rapid-responses

I have no idea how to link to the actual Pfizer data as it is now very hard to find again and has been released very gradually. But the above rapid response to am
article on the issue generally covers many concerns nicely

i cannot dismiss Maholtra’s concerns until there is much greater transparency on data, full analysis and a proper discussion. And I want to know what is going on with excess deaths!

as I said, I am keeping an open mind either way. I have concerns it’s covid itself causing issues. But it’s imperative we discuss the data and we see it. And I’m afraid being told a regulator has approved it all isn’t enough for me. Not with the amount of pushing, coercing and money involved

And I’m afraid being told a regulator has approved it all isn’t enough for me.

Yes, I completely agree.

The thing I was trying to get at earlier is that we are not beholden to Pfizer (or another drug company) when it comes to evaluation of the vaccines, given the current context.

The concerns about Pfizer "withholding" trial data is presumably that either they are hiding the fact they don't work, or that they are not safe.

But we are well beyond trial of relatively small sample sizes - with billions of doses given. There must be now 100+ publications by independent research bodies, evaluating how well the vaccines work, safety, and various aspects of side effects. Pfizer have no control over this work.

If they have done dodgy dealings or cut corners or whatever, of course they need to be held accountable, but their data of 40,000 people over a relatively short time period is pretty irrelevant given we have far greater and far richer data out in the open, if you see what I mean.

Maybe. I hope so. But the access to the data hasn’t been granted yet (I don’t think) - at least not in a way to fully analyse. And maholtra etc have taken time to pour through some it and have raised concerns

interestingly, none of this is ever discussed in the media so I think most people live in blissful ignorance.

For example I didn’t see much reporting at all on the paper a few weeks ago finding small amounts of mRNA in breast milk (which we had been told couldn’t happen). The message was “oh it’s a tiny amount so it’s probably fine”. This astonished me. I was astonished this didn’t receive greater coverage. Perhaps no one cares?

But the access to the data hasn’t been granted yet (I don’t think) - at least not in a way to fully analyse. And maholtra etc have taken time to pour through some it and have raised concerns

This is what confuses me - is the concern that Pfizer haven't released data, or that Malhotra has analysed their data and found issues? It can't be both right?

Many many people with expertise in analysing epidemiologic data (of which Malhotra is not one) have reviewed what Pfizer have released. It was reassuring.

All Malhotra has done is publish a commentary piece, rehashing false claims about Pfizer's data that have already been commented on.

Put it this way - thousands of experts have poured over this data and not found an issue - versus one cardiologist with a history of a making a career against going against the scientific views.

@BeethovenNinth If there was genuine, robust evidence that the vaccines had caused more harm than benefit, I would listen. But I've read Malhotra's piece, as a scientist myself, and there genuinely is nothing in it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it's tricky when you have people like him who are very clever at misleading.

I don’t know but I want to and not by shrill claims of “anti vaxx”.

I understand enough of the data has been released to cause concerns but they need the full access to fully undertake the risks. That’s my take on the BMJ link I posted.

But when I read studies quietly coming out (eg the breast milk one) and see nothing in the media that alarms me too. Why isn’t it being discussed?

i don’t know what you expect me to say here other than I want a proper dissection of the data and the studies and the data before people like Maholtra and Claire Craig are d missed. They have effecting ruined their careers as they don’t much money to make. The same can’t be said for the companies making these products

Good God, if you are going to sign up to his fan club, at least learn how to spell Malhotra's name.

Maybe you're right. My concern is that no one is investigating what are clearly worrying excess death figures. We need to know surely if the vaccines are dangerous. We also need to know if lockdowns did more harm than good

Isn't the issue that the trials were the only opportunity for RCT data? And there is strong evidence that we can't trust those data (plus they've made long term follow up impossible by also now jabbing the control group, haven't they?). Population based data has huge numbers of confounds, and also relies on official bodies like the ONS recording and releasing it transparently and accurately. There are also ongoing concerns about this (e.g. as noted by Prof Norman Fenton).

plus they've made long term follow up impossible by also now jabbing the control group, haven't they?

This is said as if it's been done deliberately in attempt to cover their tracks!

It would be completely unethical to insist individuals remain unvaccinated against a novel virus, once it was proven to be effective.

I'm interested as to why the focus on Pfizer - every comment I see like this references them. Why not Moderna/J&J/AZ etc?

Population based data has huge numbers of confounds,

Yes it does, but epidemiologists are more than a little aware of confounding. Various statistical methods are employed & then triangulated in order to try and minimise risk of bias. This is true for any drug or vaccine post-marketing. You cannot insist people who would benefit do not take it, purely so that long term RCTs can be used to collect data for several years. (And would also be completely impossible, given how rare some of the side effects are - you would need millions)

and also relies on official bodies like the ONS recording and releasing it transparently and accurately
These statements aren't just based on the ONS though? Hundreds of publications now, dozens of research bodies, all using different data sets collected by various surveillance systems globally. You're suggesting a huge, orchestrated cover up that would involve thousands of people.