UK approves Pfizer jab for use in 12-15-year-olds
Discussion
GMT13 said:
AZ linked to 695k adverse reactions and 831 deaths so far in UK - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Pfizer - linked to 183k adverse reaction and 396 deaths in UK so far - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Correlation is not causation. These are deaths following a vaccination, not necessariily becuase of the vaccination. We've vaccinatted 75% of the population to some degree. It's quite likely that some will die following a vaccination just due to the shear numbersPfizer - linked to 183k adverse reaction and 396 deaths in UK so far - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
We've been adminitersing close to 3 million doses a week. That's 4% of the popluation being given an injection a week. Last week 9.5k people died from all causes in the UK, which is lower than the 5 year average. You could reasonably expect that 450 of those people might have died following a vaccination in the previous week. A large number of these would be from cardiovascular conditions, such as heart attacks and strokes as these are the biggest killers in the UK.
Due to desire to manage risk in the health care system as much as possible, many of these deaths are recorded in the documents you link to. They don't necessarily show an increased risk of death following a vaccination, but provide data for later study. In fact the documents state the following.
"A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily
mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion
it may have. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination
can also be factors in such reports. The relative number and nature of reports
should therefore not be used to compare the safety of the different vaccines.
All reports are kept under continual review in order to identify possible new risks. "
Edited by jimothyc on Friday 4th June 20:47
Gweeds said:
Because by removing the well of potential hosts, you reduce the chance of mutations/variants which may be vaccine resistant and which could then affect those who could die?
There have been no mutations of SARS Cov-2 and many thousand variations - only the media and the politicians don’t seem to have seen nextstrain.org. Re vaccine resistant variants, one of those super clever microbiology types, who won an elusive award for people who do such research takes the opposite view and thinks that the problem is the injections (deliberate non use of the term vaccine)
https://rairfoundation.com/bombshell-nobel-prize-w...
amgmcqueen said:
The vaccine is still in it's trial phase, the long term effects are unknown.
Why would anyone allow their child to take an experimental vaccine....?
Can you define the timeframe where you’d be happy for it to move out of this “trial phase” and the time frame where you’d be happy to take it?Why would anyone allow their child to take an experimental vaccine....?
tangerine_sedge said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
What, this guy that Snopes seems to think is full of s
t?link to snopes
or this one, calling him a grifter...
linky
And “fact checking”. Give me strength.
Snopes and medium articles. Same league as citing Wikipedia in your PhD thesis. I’ll stick to reading actual papers thanks and make my own mind up in time.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th June 21:40
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th June 21:42
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th June 21:57
robuk said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th June 17:58
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th June 18:00
Why do you think your bloke is worth listening to over this other bloke ?
DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium
PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany
Worked for several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development.
Worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer.
Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness.
Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office.
Now a consultant for biotech and vaccine research.
I don’t want to appeal to authority, and I will go do some more digging on this guy because I’ve only recently come across him. But, on the face of it at least, it seems like his opinion might be at least worth a few minutes.
Maybe I didn’t make it clear, I wasn’t saying what this guy is saying is right, merely that it firstly seems to be quite different to what else is being said and it got me curious. Checked him out and thought his background added some weight to it. Needs more research I am certain.
Am I wrong? Am I being unreasonable to not dismiss him out of hand?
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 4th June 22:00
Ntv said:
The adverse health consequences of AZ are very rare, but can be very serious.
Can any of the HMG shills here tell me how man of those adverse consequences were identified in the AZ trials?
You don't have to be an "HMG shill" to realise that Can any of the HMG shills here tell me how man of those adverse consequences were identified in the AZ trials?
(1) there has been some urgency to design safe and effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus, given the devastating impact both the virus and its necessary control measures have put upon societies around the world, and testing on millions of people and waiting for several years before offering them to wider society in case a 1 in a million side effect that would take a few years to emerge came to light is neither feasible nor necessary;
(2) a phase 3 RCT with something in the order of 20,000 or more participants receiving a vaccine to compare its efficacy against a placebo is already an enormous sample size for a clinical trial, and each of the vaccines currently licensed were given to tens of thousands of participants in the respective trials without any signal of increased rates of unusual clots in participants who received the active vaccine;
(3) nevertheless a trial of 20,000 participants is unlikely to detect an adverse reaction like vaccine induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (VITT, the blood clots associated with the AZ vaccine) which only occurs in around 1 in 100,000 people receiving that vaccine;
(4) having identified through routine surveillance following approval of the vaccines that younger people were more likely (though still only a very small risk at 1 in 50,000) to experience this after receiving the AZ vaccine, advice is that under 40s to be offered the Pfizer vaccine which is not associated with this risk, so an already tiny risk has effectively been eliminated from those still waiting to be vaccinated.
Bottom line is that the vaccines in use are safe and effective and before vaccination people are assessed to ensure they can safely be vaccinated with the appropriate vaccine. If you really want to know what it feels like to suffer a blood clot, catch COVID since most people have a much greater risk of blood clots from COVID than they will from any of the vaccines against COVID.
Chromegrill said:
Bottom line is that the vaccines in use are safe and effective
Less than 2000 dead & logged via yellow card in the time shortly after receipt. Reasonably safe yes, unless you're unlucky.No data available on health effects over a 5 year period. These are not 'normal' vaccines.
Scolmore said:
Less than 2000 dead & logged via yellow card in the time shortly after receipt. Reasonably safe yes, unless you're unlucky.
No data available on health effects over a 5 year period. These are not 'normal' vaccines.
If you have head of the yellow scheme card you may know that it makes clear that it encourages reporting of adverse events soon after vaccination regardless of whether the vaccine caused the adverse event:No data available on health effects over a 5 year period. These are not 'normal' vaccines.
The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when most vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness....
It is important to note that Yellow Card data cannot be used to derive side effect rates or compare the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccinations as many factors can influence ADR reporting....
Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time. The reports are continually reviewed to detect possible new side effects that may require regulatory action, and to differentiate these from things that would have happened regardless of the vaccine or medicine being administered, for instance due to underlying or undiagnosed illness.
A newly published review of internationally published data confirms an overall rate of 1 in 100,000 of the severe clots from the Astra-Zeneca vaccine (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.04.21256613v1.full.pdf), which is the principle cause of severe reactions to the vaccine. It is clear from the reports that the vast majority of people - mostly very elderly and many frail - who have died within a short time of having been vaccinated would have been expected to die then anyway and the link in time is entirely coincidental and spurious. Indeed, if there weren't lots of frail old people dying at the same rate in the period after their vaccination we would have to conclude that the vaccinations didn't only protect people against COVID but also stopped people dying from heart attacks, strokes and other serious conditions. Whilst I'm very glad that scientists have developed these vaccines, I'm not naive enough to think they offer people everlasting life.
But seriously, after developing them and finding that they greatly reduce the risk of serious illness, hospital admission and death, could you on your conscience refuse to authorise them for five years to wait and see if those in the original RCTs developed a second head or improved mobile phone reception or something?
grumbledoak said:
andy ted said:
Who is ‘they’ and what is their motivation?
The pharmaceutical companies and billions of dollars.They have been paid to trial their new technology delivery platforms and they might even get a mandatory annual cold jab off the back of it straight away. Ka f
king Ching.Chromegrill said:
But seriously, after developing them and finding that they greatly reduce the risk of serious illness, hospital admission and death, could you on your conscience refuse to authorise them for five years to wait and see if those in the original RCTs developed a second head or improved mobile phone reception or something?
My conscience would tell me to vaccinate those at risk (the elderly). This gives protection against the virus and minimises risk of unknown long term consequences. A 12 year old, with hopefully at least 80 years in front of them, is a totally different proposition.
Interestingly the rest of your post (which I rudely snipped) can be easily translated to show that deaths within 28 days of a positive test do not a pandemic make.
grumbledoak said:
andy ted said:
It’s not the pharmaceutical companies decision to keep vaccinating or not?
Cui bono? Of course it's the pharmaceutical companies pushing this. It's a liability free mass trial. They've never had such an open goal.Otispunkmeyer said:
If there's any element of truth in that document, it's very worrying.Short terms gain (for some) resulting in long term devastation (for many)..
grumbledoak said:
andy ted said:
It’s not how the system works, and there is no ‘mass trial’
Of course it is a mass trial. It is the first time these delivery platforms have been used on whole populations. Including children if they get their way.andy ted said:
And the benefit of your ‘mass trial’ to the pharma companies (or anyone) is what? They won’t get any meaningful data and it’s already allowed to be given to people which is the general point of a trial - So I am struggling to think of what your theory behind this is? You are sounding very much like you think pharma companies are similar to James Bond villains tbh
Big Data is not fashionable because of the clothes everyone wears.As for what you think I think...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff