Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:27 am
"Adverse reactions" is, I suspect without any further information, just like the warnings for any over the counter medicine which range from, 1 in 250 "Mild headache or slight nausea" to 1 in a million "Your testicles catch fire and roll down the street."
In the study it refers to
“Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults”
So that presumably is not simply headaches.
You're not 50 yet are you? So you don't have to make a decision on whether to have a booster?
No, that’s right, I’m 48. I presumed the offer was coming soon, but then again it was a long time since it was for the 50+’s Being offered.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:18 am
by dpedin
Interesting data using CDC info from the states. Increase in cardiac deaths in <45 year olds in US was driven by covid infection prior to roll out of vaccine. Since vaccination roll out deaths have fallen back to previous levels. There is a more on the associated thread.
The author also suggests that many are suffering from the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon when increased awareness of something creates the illusion that it is appearing more often ie there have always been sudden deaths but now we know that we think there are lots more because we notice them!
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:20 am
by Ymx
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 9:57 am
There's a study in the Lancet based on 299 million US doses of mRNA vaccine that processed well over three hundred and forty thousand reports of adverse reactions.
92.% were non-serious. 6.6% were serious (non-death) and 1.3% were deaths. it doesn't really give any further information on the circumstances surrounding the deaths and whether or not these people were in an at-risk group from heart attacks or whatever.
Well that’s saying that about 0.9 in 10,000 were serious.
Compared to the study I quoted which was 12.5 in 10,000
That’s quite a difference.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2023 1:55 pm
by Ymx
There certainly does seem to be all of a sudden a lot of noise about mRNA vaccines.
This guy was talking about recent cardiac issues and statins. Was this yesterday on the beeb news?
Forwarded it to the bit on mRNA.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:14 pm
by Grandpa
Dr Malhota who changed his mind because his dad died... funny what emotion does... his evidence was pretty flimsy. Was discussed indepth on PR... too many pages back to find now.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:43 pm
by Ymx
Grandpa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:14 pm
Dr Malhota who changed his mind because his dad died... funny what emotion does... his evidence was pretty flimsy. Was discussed indepth on PR... too many pages back to find now.
You shame me. Compared to PR.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:47 pm
by dpedin
Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 1:55 pm
There certainly does seem to be all of a sudden a lot of noise about mRNA vaccines.
This guy was talking about recent cardiac issues and statins. Was this yesterday on the beeb news?
Forwarded it to the bit on mRNA.
Professor Marc Dweck, chair of clinical cardiology at the University of Edinburgh, also spoke to the Guardian: "I think that Dr Malhotra's opinions on both statins and Covid vaccines are misguided and in fact dangerous. The vast majority of cardiologists do not agree with his views and they are not based upon robust science. I would strongly urge patients to disregard his comments, which seem to be more concerned with furthering his profile (he does not have a cardiology career to speak of) rather than the wellbeing of the public. The BBC should not provide a platform for his views and should go to much greater lengths to research the people they invite to comment."
I know who I believe!
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:51 pm
by JM2K6
There's also zero evidence the vaccine had anything to do with his dad's death. Malhotra's been a grifter for a very long time, long before covid.
Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 1:55 pm
There certainly does seem to be all of a sudden a lot of noise about mRNA vaccines.
This guy was talking about recent cardiac issues and statins. Was this yesterday on the beeb news?
Forwarded it to the bit on mRNA.
Professor Marc Dweck, chair of clinical cardiology at the University of Edinburgh, also spoke to the Guardian: "I think that Dr Malhotra's opinions on both statins and Covid vaccines are misguided and in fact dangerous. The vast majority of cardiologists do not agree with his views and they are not based upon robust science. I would strongly urge patients to disregard his comments, which seem to be more concerned with furthering his profile (he does not have a cardiology career to speak of) rather than the wellbeing of the public. The BBC should not provide a platform for his views and should go to much greater lengths to research the people they invite to comment."
I know who I believe!
He also went on to talk about something different, changed the subject and squeezed in a few lines about the vaccine then went straight to social media to declare “at last, it’s gone mainstream!” The guy is a dick
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:26 am
by Calculon
Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 10:36 am
So, myocarditis… Well, vaccine injury …
What does the boreds mega-jabbers say about this?
To add, I’m not talking about the past where dangerous variants were circulating, but from here on in. Which cohorts of people do we feel the current benefits of the vaccine are outweighed by risk? Young and healthy for example.
For the UK I suppose the vast majority of young people already had two jabs and been exposed/infected with SARS-CoV-2, even if they've been asymptomatic. If these people are fairly healthy I doubt a booster is necessary, and I don't think is an option anyway.
For unvaccinated young healthy people, if they've already been previously infected, again I don't think there's, probably, much benefit to getting vaccinated. But I also think the risk of serious adverse effects from the vaccine is so small that they should have the option to get vaccinated if it's their choice.
Giving the over 50's the option of a bivalent booster sounds sensible to me.
On a personal level, I am a few years younger than you, had 4 shots, been exposed to/ infected with SARS-CoV-2 (lived with someone who had omicron COVID), but I've never tested positive or have had any symptoms. Despite their socialable natures, neither my elderly parents, or my sister and her family have ever had any symptoms. My brother in the States however did get COVID.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:31 am
by mat the expat
Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 6:06 pm
That’s what I was trying to figure out, badly.
But also how is it for those already had covid and jabbed.
I’ve had covid twice and three jabs. I suspect I only stand to gain a vaccine injury by getting another jab.
Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:27 am
"Adverse reactions" is, I suspect without any further information, just like the warnings for any over the counter medicine which range from, 1 in 250 "Mild headache or slight nausea" to 1 in a million "Your testicles catch fire and roll down the street."
In the study it refers to
“Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults”
Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:27 am
"Adverse reactions" is, I suspect without any further information, just like the warnings for any over the counter medicine which range from, 1 in 250 "Mild headache or slight nausea" to 1 in a million "Your testicles catch fire and roll down the street."
In the study it refers to
“Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults”
So that presumably is not simply headaches.
I take it you don't take any serious medicine?
I do - standard to have risk of adverse affects
It states “serious adverse events”.
No need to drag this in to PR levels - between this and your previous post, thanks.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 7:11 am
by Ymx
Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:11 am
'vaccine injury'
fucksake
What’s your issue with the phrase? It’s a fairly standard term no?? Or are you just looking for a pile on?
A serious adverse event (SAE) in human drug trials is defined as any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose
- Results in death
- Is life-threatening
- Requires inpatient hospitalization or causes prolongation of existing hospitalization
- Results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity
- May have caused a congenital anomaly/birth defect
- Requires intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage[1]
The term "life-threatening" in the definition of "serious" refers to an event in which the patient was at risk of death at the time of the event; it does not refer to an event which hypothetically might have caused death if it were more severe.
It's a phrase from the whole anti vax / conspiracy movement. You could have an adverse reaction of some sort to any sort of medication... but a vaccine isn't going to injure you.
It's a ridiculous, hyperbolic chunk of misinformed ignorance.
It's a phrase from the whole anti vax / conspiracy movement. You could have an adverse reaction of some sort to any sort of medication... but a vaccine isn't going to injure you.
It's a ridiculous, hyperbolic chunk of misinformed ignorance.
Are you actually denying vaccines can cause injuries? Or serious adverse events?
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 7:42 am
by Guy Smiley
If you actually read what I wrote, you’ll see me specifically mention adverse reactions.
Either you’re struggling with basic comprehension or you’ve got some sort of reflexive shitfight dynamic going on. You do this sort of misinterpretation routine frequently.
It's a phrase from the whole anti vax / conspiracy movement. You could have an adverse reaction of some sort to any sort of medication... but a vaccine isn't going to injure you.
It's a ridiculous, hyperbolic chunk of misinformed ignorance.
Are you actually denying vaccines can cause injuries? Or serious adverse events?
To be fair, it's a stupid fucking phrase and I suspect you know exactly where it comes from and why it is used
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:43 am
by GogLais
Some of the myths out there are shocking. Somebody I was with yesterday reckoned that GPs got £25 extra for putting Covid on a death certificate instead of something else.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:45 am
by Tichtheid
That Wakefield character has a lot to answer for.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:28 am
by JM2K6
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:45 am
That Wakefield character has a lot to answer for.
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:45 am
That Wakefield character has a lot to answer for.
You can see how people fall for that shit though!
Agreed and coupled with the current anti vax twats has created a problem that vaccine uptake for lots of other diseases is now lower than they need to be ie measles, and we are dropping below the levels required to maintain herd immunity.
Many folk have forgotten, because of just how effective the vaccines have been, just how nasty and dangerous something like measles is amongst an unvaccinated patient group. Like covid, measles has a number of wider health risks ie sight loss, swelling of the brain and brain damage, severe diarrhoea, pneumonia, etc.
Ignore the twats and get jabbed and get your kids jabbed!
Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 7:17 am
It's a phrase from the whole anti vax / conspiracy movement. You could have an adverse reaction of some sort to any sort of medication... but a vaccine isn't going to injure you.
It's a ridiculous, hyperbolic chunk of misinformed ignorance.
Are you actually denying vaccines can cause injuries? Or serious adverse events?
To be fair, it's a stupid fucking phrase and I suspect you know exactly where it comes from and why it is used
Whilst I’m aware of anti vax nutters using it a lot, I kind of thought it was an officially used phrase tbh.
I mean here it is …
I certainly didn’t expect a serious adverse reaction to posting it.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 6:52 pm
by Ymx
Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 7:42 am
If you actually read what I wrote, you’ll see me specifically mention adverse reactions.
Either you’re struggling with basic comprehension or you’ve got some sort of reflexive shitfight dynamic going on. You do this sort of misinterpretation routine frequently.
You actually said vaccinations don’t actually cause injuries, so I was taking that at face value. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying which was abuse of the term injury ???
No need to drag this in to PR levels - between this and your previous post, thanks.
Don't try and wriggle out of it.
I'm on several medications that entail calling an ambulance if you experience certain symptoms
Your argument is facile and designed to be Bimbotesque.
For the record, do you support Vaccines or not?
I’m not trying to wriggle out of anything.
Firstly, as I clearly pointed out to you, it was serious adverse events, that the study was looking at. You seemed to miss that.
Then I posted the medical definition of it, for gods sake, which you perhaps didn’t read. I’ve posted it again below for you.
My thoughts on vaccines. I have had 3 shots. I certainly supported them when more dangerous variants were around and when people had no antibodies.
Right now, I am trying to objectively figure out the benefits vs risks (in number terms) of subsequent boosters for different cohorts of our populations.
But I get the feeling you’re not here to help, except to get in a shit fight with your lazy contributions.
A serious adverse event (SAE) in human drug trials is defined as any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose
- Results in death
- Is life-threatening
- Requires inpatient hospitalization or causes prolongation of existing hospitalization
- Results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity
- May have caused a congenital anomaly/birth defect
- Requires intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage[1]
The term "life-threatening" in the definition of "serious" refers to an event in which the patient was at risk of death at the time of the event; it does not refer to an event which hypothetically might have caused death if it were more severe.
Right now, I am trying to objectively figure out the benefits vs risks (in number terms) of subsequent boosters for different cohorts of our populations.
But I get the feeling you’re not here to help, except to get in a shit fight with your lazy contributions.
Why though? You're not a medical professional - what skillset do you bring to this analysis?
Calling out anti-vaxxers, which you claim not to be, is not shit-fighting
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:59 am
by Ymx
Yeah, because it’s completely crazy to discuss stats. I’m not a medical professional, but I and my family would be the recipients of an optional treatment which has benefits and risks. So I don’t think it unreasonable to want to be informed about it. I’m a data and stats nerd by career.
What are the odds of a serious adverse event of having a vaccine. It appears to be 1 in 800
And what are the odds of ending up hospitalised getting covid now with antibodies (no new jabs), over each age group/cohort? Vs hospitalisations having had a booster.
Where is the break even point, which cohort, if there is one?
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:18 am
by dpedin
Ymx wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:59 am
Yeah, because it’s completely crazy to discuss stats. I’m not a medical professional, but I and my family would be the recipients of an optional treatment which has benefits and risks. So I don’t think it unreasonable to want to be informed about it. I’m a data and stats nerd by career.
What are the odds of a serious adverse event of having a vaccine. It appears to be 1 in 800
And what are the odds of ending up hospitalised getting covid now with antibodies (no new jabs), over each age group/cohort? Vs hospitalisations having had a booster.
Where is the break even point, which cohort, if there is one?
Ymx wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:59 am
Yeah, because it’s completely crazy to discuss stats. I’m not a medical professional, but I and my family would be the recipients of an optional treatment which has benefits and risks. So I don’t think it unreasonable to want to be informed about it. I’m a data and stats nerd by career.
What are the odds of a serious adverse event of having a vaccine. It appears to be 1 in 800
And what are the odds of ending up hospitalised getting covid now with antibodies (no new jabs), over each age group/cohort? Vs hospitalisations having had a booster.
Where is the break even point, which cohort, if there is one?
Here in Australia, Therapeutic Goods Adminsitration monitors reported adverse events (side effects).
The reporting rate equates to 1 in every 476 doses.
Deaths likely to be associated with a vaccine lie at the extreme end of the reported adverse events spectrum, and these equate to 1 in every 4.61 million doses.
Given that, it's difficult to credit a reporting rate of 1 in 800 doses for 'serious adverse events' as per your definition, especially as TGS has stated: The most frequently reported [side effects / adverse events] include injection-site reactions (such as a sore arm) and more general symptoms, like headache, muscle pain, fever and chills.
To be fair, it's a stupid fucking phrase and I suspect you know exactly where it comes from and why it is used
Whilst I’m aware of anti vax nutters using it a lot, I kind of thought it was an officially used phrase tbh.
I mean here it is …
I certainly didn’t expect a serious adverse reaction to posting it.
I hope you meant that little gag
YMX - it may be an officially used phrase (I have no idea) but on that page it's literally only there because it's the phrasing of the request they are responding to. Presumably if there was a FOIA request for "Sheep-shagging Disingenuists" that might crop up on an official page somewhere ;-)
Whilst I’m aware of anti vax nutters using it a lot, I kind of thought it was an officially used phrase tbh.
I mean here it is …
I certainly didn’t expect a serious adverse reaction to posting it.
I hope you meant that little gag
YMX - it may be an officially used phrase (I have no idea) but on that page it's literally only there because it's the phrasing of the request they are responding to. Presumably if there was a FOIA request for "Sheep-shagging Disingenuists" that might crop up on an official page somewhere ;-)
You cheeky bitch !!
I also posted an article from bmj in case.
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:14 pm
by JM2K6
Did you? I can't see it.
edit: Oh, I see the screenshot. That's a news headline rather than any kind of official usage. It's fair to say "vaccine damage" is officially used, mind, given the VDPS itself!
And what are the odds of ending up hospitalised getting covid now with antibodies (no new jabs), over each age group/cohort? Vs hospitalisations having had a booster.
Where is the break even point, which cohort, if there is one?
Lol, I'm on 4 doses and immuno-compromised.
I'd be in hospital before you, but still weigh up the risks after medical advice
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2023 2:29 am
by Guy Smiley
"just asking the question...."
Re: So, coronavirus...
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:30 am
by dpedin
Immensa scandal just getting worse and worse ... You have to wonder which Tory donor is being protected here!
was hoping to lighten the mood
