Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560810#Comment_119560810

It's pretty funny that he won't actually get out from behind his keyboard to do some actual investigation even when he believes that there's a conspiracy he's discovered that's killing millions and rendering the world infertile.

moonage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560810#Comment_119560810

The fact that you won't tell me the procedures (or lack of them) for reporting adverse reaction is very telling.

Perhaps the procedures are non-existent or totally inadequate with the result that a large number of adverse reactions are not being reported.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560904#Comment_119560904

No it’s not. Stop making crap up. It’s a bit childish. There is nothing stopping you learning first hand. You don’t even have to receive the vaccine.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560773#Comment_119560773

I was given several pages of information on my first jab, specific to that jab, and a separate leaflet about covid vaccinations in general. Second jab I think I just got a repeat of the manufacturer sheets. Don't think I was given anything for the third, but there were the same pages of documentation stacked up for people to help themselves to if they wanted.

Big Bag of Chips

@moonage When you book your vaccination you have to consent online to receive it. If you don't consent online you are asked on the day if you consent to receiving it. If you do consent online, you are asked to confirm that you consented. You can consent, or not at this point. The person giving the vaccination has access to your online application in front of them, and they go through your application and consent before giving the injection.

They also go through a list of questions asking about your medical history, any reactions in the past, any cardiac issues etc. You have to answer each question.

You are given a leaflet with information regarding the vaccine you are being given, and what to do if you have a reaction. You are also verbally advised on how you might feel afterwards and what to do if you have a reaction.

You are then given the injection along with an information card with the date and batch of vaccine you have been given and sent to sit in the observation area for 15 minutes.

I hope this answers your question.

moonage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119562878#Comment_119562878

"You are given a leaflet with information regarding the vaccine you are being given, and what to do if you have a reaction."

Do you have a link to a typical leaflet that outlines what to do if you have an adverse reaction? I'd be interested to see the exact information given, its prominence and the wording used.

If not, did it it contain a link to the "COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Reaction Report" on the Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA) website? Were older people who mightn't have internet access given paper copies that they could fill in and post off, if required.

Were there any follow up emails or texts reminding people of the importance of reporting any adverse reactions and how to go about it?

King Mob

But what adverse reactions are you concerned about?

You guys have claimed that the vaccine is killing millions of people.

The claim now seems to be that this is somehow being covered up simply by not telling the people who are going to die about the adverse effects reporting systems.

Which is silly.

Also, if you're so interested in this information, why are you simply not going to get your own vaccine, but stop at the last second? Why not call doctors and ask?

This questions of your seem very performative and more geared towards pretending you're investigating something than actually doing anything.

Big Bag of Chips

@moonage do you think if someone has an adverse reaction they are not going to seek medical advice? Either from their GP, out of hours GP service, or ED?

Do you think there is some big cover up to hide "adverse reactions"

Do you believe people are being discouraged or blocked from seeking medical help/advice? Without knowing anything about the process?

An individual, GP, hospital, pretty much anyone, can report an adverse reaction to any vaccine to the Health Products Regulatory Authority. It doesn't have to be the person themselves.

Plenty of information is given on the day. And plenty of options for seeking medical attention if you have an adverse reaction. If you're too sick to seek proper medical attention, like advised, then you're probably going to be too sick to log on to a website to record that you're too sick. If you're not sick enough to seek medical attention then the "adverse reaction" is probably not "adverse" enough to be reported. The priority would be getting medical attention first, reporting the incident second.

Have you heard of anyone who had an adverse reaction who was unable to receive medical attention and unable to report the reaction because they didn't know how?/Didn't know they needed medical attention?/Were too old to find a website?

Were there any follow up emails or texts reminding people of the importance of reporting any adverse reactions and how to go about it?

I don't think so. But when booking 2nd dose and booster you are asked if you had any reaction previously.

moonage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119563314#Comment_119563314

The main problem is not that people aren't seeking and getting medical attention. It's that the system in place tends to discourage and minimise any possible links being made between the jabs and adverse reactions.

I would have expected that with the mass jabbing of the population with undertested drugs that hadn't got full approval that there would have been a very thorough, robust and transparent monitoring and reporting system in operation. Instead of the inadequate and slapdash system we, and other countries, have. 

You say: "If you're not sick enough to seek medical attention then the "adverse reaction" is probably not "adverse" enough to be reported." I don't agree with that at all. An adverse reaction is an adverse reaction and should be picked up by the system. Plus lots of people put up with an ailment and grin and bear it, especially when it's difficult to get to see a doctor.

Because of the inadequate system in place there are bound to be far more adverse reactions than officially reported.

The public were told that the jabs had been properly tested and were "safe and effective". Yeah, right.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119564600#Comment_119564600

But again, you're not talking about what adverse effects you're talking about. You're doing this on purpose.

It's either because you understand that the vast majority of these adverse effects mean things like "sore arm" or "redness". If that's the case, then that means that you've no point as these adverse effects aren't an issue.

Or you aren't saying what the effects are because you subscribe to the silly conspiracy theories and believe that these are effects like death or infertility. If thats the case, you understand that this is silly, as people won't ignore adverse effects like this.

You won't say what the adverse effects are. This shows your concern is completely facetious.

You also ignore the majority of his post. This is typical of conspiracy theorists.

He pointed out that doctors are able to report adverse effects and monitor for these specifically. Are they discouraged from reporting also? If so, how?

You also ignored the questions he asked, so I think it's fair to assume that you can't point to any examples of some one who had an adverse reaction and was unable to report it. Given the claims on the thread this last few pages, we can also take that to mean that no one did this as no one has any personal experience of such a thing.

The "Jabs" have been tested and they have been shown to be safe.

(Still weird you guys are reluctant to actually use the term "vaccines". It's like you think they're Voldemort or something.)

Big Bag of Chips

Do you have any evidence that adverse reactions, a sizeable number or tiny number, were not reported?

It's like you're hoping they weren't reported but you have no idea whether they were or not, or whether people were given information on how to or not.

You asked a question on whether people were given the information. This was answered. They were. It's up to individual people to report their symptoms, if they have them. Not up to The HSE or whoever you think should be responsible, to text, ring, email every single recipient of a vaccine to ask if they've had an adverse reaction.

A bad reaction will probably hospitalise you. Hospitals treat patients and fill in all relevant paper work. Ring your GP and local ED and ask them if someone presents with an adverse reaction to a vaccine what the procedure is. Why don't you go to a vaccination centre and ask for a copy of the information leaflet. I can only tell you my experiences. Which didn't involve actually having an adverse reaction.

moonage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119564666#Comment_119564666

"Still weird you guys are reluctant to actually use the term "vaccines". It's like you think they're Voldemort or something."

"Vaccines": I like how you put inverted commas around the word because they're not really vaccines in the traditional sense.

I used to call it needlecraft here but it's not allowed because it's sarcastic or something. Now I just call them jabs.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119564600#Comment_119564600

You are making claims about a system that you knew nothing about a few hours ago. You don’t have a clue what adverse reactions you even believe are occurring. Why would you do that?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119564826#Comment_119564826

But they are vaccines. I put the inverted commas around it to denote it was a term you are avoiding.

You've been told not to use the silly term "needlecraft" because it was ridiculous.

Why are you not using the term "vaccines"? Are you afraid that they will come and get you if you say "vaccines" out loud?

Also, you ignored the majority of my post. Why? I believe it's because you're not able to address any of the points. I will assume that this is the case if you ignore them again.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119564846#Comment_119564846

Cause he has to clutch at any straw he can.

We've gone from claims that the vaccines have been killing millions to the claim that the vaccines are causing more "redness".

moonage

"It's up to individual people to report their symptoms, if they have them. Not up to The HSE or whoever you think should be responsible, to text, ring, email every single recipient of a vaccine to ask if they've had an adverse reaction."

Come on lads. One of you must have the leaflet in a drawer that outlines the procedure for reporting adverse reactions. I'd like to see the exact wording.

Hopefully the section will be very prominent, urging people to report any adverse reactions and emphasising why it is so important to do so and how they do it either in person or online. There might also be a list of possible reactions that they should look out for.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119565112#Comment_119565112

Again this would by something you could easily find out yourself by getting out from behind your keyboard.

But you won't. Cause you don't really care that much.

Your question has been answered. You've ignored every question put to you. Why?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119564826#Comment_119564826

They are vaccines in the traditional sense. They innoculate you with an element of a virus into your immune system to trigger an immune response to that virus to protect you against the virus should you encounter it in future. They have the same limitations as any vaccine which deals with viruses that can infect the mucuous membrane of the nose. They are still vaccines.

The studies cited on the thread from Sweden and Qatar and the other studies show how the vaccine produces antibodies, and immunity and the effect this has in cases reduction and protection versus severe covid.

Other vaccines for viruses have it 'easier' in the sense that the virus needs to get into the lymph nodes or blood to start causing damage \ symptoms \ spread - and the primed immune system has far more scope to stop it before it gets to that point. These other viruses tend to mutate less.

In terms of dealing with the virus getting deeper into the respiratory system, lungs, causing systemic effects - the covid vaccines work.

So it's not that the covid vaccines don't work - it's that they are dealing with a different threat. A relatively fast mutating virus which can trigger spread by an infection of the mucuous mebrane rather than having to penetrate deep into the body's core systems.

robinph

We know that the reporting systems worked because otherwise we wouldn't have anti vaccine people pointing to the VAERs or Yellow Card data and claiming thousands or millions of deaths due to the vaccines, including for cases such as broken legs, sunburn, taking up smoking or getting pregnant for some of the more daft reactions they counted in their numbers.

We wouldn't have those kind of reports if it was difficult for medical staff to make reports.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119564850#Comment_119564850

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119512656#Comment_119512656

I presume all the epv/vaccine fanatics are the same pro drug/additive/gmo people who believe all additives, drugs. foods modified, that are approved are perfectly acceptable and will have no long term effects. Seems to be a trend that people who are more holistically orientated and more for natural food and production methods are the anti gmo,anti gmo vaccine people. King mob will be on looking for proof in 2 minutes that gmo foods kill people. Where we all sort of know yes they do kill people. Not directly but when you kill ecosystems with gmo produce you will indirectly kill people. Excess deaths will rise and we are seeing it now

moonage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119566423#Comment_119566423

There are serious problems with these passive surveillance/spontaneous reporting systems—there is vast under-reporting of adverse reactions. The Irish version is probably just as bad as the US and UK versions.

For the American VAERS from over a decade ago:

"Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported."

Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) (ahrq.gov)

For the UK Yellow card Scheme:

all spontaneous reporting schemes have a problem with numbers: the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) itself says that only 10% of serious reactions and 2 – 4% of all reactions are reported using the Yellow Card Scheme. This means that most iatrogenic [damage/disease caused by the treatment itself] morbidity goes unreported

Monitoring drug safety: is the Yellow Card Scheme struggling? - Chaplin - 2019 - Prescriber - Wiley Online Library

Fighting Tao

So what’s the conspiracy @moonage ? You seem to be trying to build one but can’t. Should people feel bad for not reporting that they had a tender arm for 24 hours after receiving the vaccine?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567205#Comment_119567205

One of your reports is from 2007 (US).

The UK report is from a decade later:

The Yellow Card Scheme has been doing well in recent years, particularly among the public, but the increase in reporting rates achieved in 2017 was wiped out in 2018.

DO you think it is reasonable to lump together the reporting of an incidence of a known side effect of an existing drug (such as aspirin causing gastric bleeding, or warfarin or diuretic complications), to the rollout of a new drug and especially the mass rollout of a new vaccine?

Because I certainly don't think so.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567036#Comment_119567036

You're back.

Have you found any evidence for your claim that the vaccines are linked to a negative effect on fertility?

Cause the last thing you posted directly stated that the was no link and I was a bit confused why you posted it.

Bit weird to come back with this rant about GMOs that has nothing to do with the topic.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567205#Comment_119567205

And again. You keep avoiding mentioning which adverse events you're referring to.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567835#Comment_119567835

Its not rocket science that a drug that effects menstrual cycle and causes excess bleeding and irregural periods even temporary is going to affect fertility. And no i'm not going to give you proof. There is lots of rersearch out there confirming this. The effect on men or children we dont know yet.

Hopefully in further vaccine trials they will study this issue as they omitted to do so in the mRNA trials.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220718/Study-suggests-COVID-19-vaccination-may-be-associated-with-short-term-changes-in-usual-menstrual-cycle-length.aspx

https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijgo.14356

I am sure now with approaching 2 years of data the long term safety effects are coming to light? Surely?

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568048#Comment_119568048

We are finding out more day by day. There is a reason why normal vaccine trials take many years to complete.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568028#Comment_119568028

Cool. So you can't show the evidence you're claiming to have that shows a link between the vaccine and lower fertility.

No such evidence exists.

The last paper you posted directly stated that such a link was refuted. Why did you post that study when you disagreed with it? Did you post it without reading it?

Concerns were raised about the possible influence of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine on women's fertility. These concerns were refuted with the publication of a number of articles as well as an official statement from The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine stating clearly that the vaccine has no negative effect on female fertility.28, 29 Therefore, even if the vaccine is associated with temporary menstrual changes, it is extremely unlikely that this has any effect on current or future fertility. This is further supported by the current study finding that among those who experienced irregular bleeding following vaccination, the occurrence of any abnormal symptom was mostly transient and resolved during the study period.

Do you agree with this statement? Did you know it existed before I quoted it to you?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568057#Comment_119568057

What long term safety effects have we found out day by day?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568057#Comment_119568057

Well that’s a statement you really should back up, or admit to nonsense. Show what is being discovered daily.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568107#Comment_119568107

Ok. So you are trying for a baby and you take a drug that effects your menstrual cycle and you have heavier bleeding. You think that will not effect your chances of conceiving? Again a small bit of common sense would be good as opposed to blanket refuting.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568125#Comment_119568125

No, I would not think that this would effect the chances of conceiving as according to the source you've repeatedly posted as if it supported your claims:

Concerns were raised about the possible influence of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine on women's fertility. These concerns were refuted with the publication of a number of articles as well as an official statement from The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine stating clearly that the vaccine has no negative effect on female fertility.28, 29 Therefore, even if the vaccine is associated with temporary menstrual changes, it is extremely unlikely that this has any effect on current or future fertility. This is further supported by the current study finding that among those who experienced irregular bleeding following vaccination, the occurrence of any abnormal symptom was mostly transient and resolved during the study period.

This is what your study said.

Do you disagree with this statement or not?

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568164#Comment_119568164

No I dont personally and it should have been studied in the trials which it was not.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568212#Comment_119568212

Ok. You disagree with that statement.

So why are you using that study to support your claim when it directly refutes and disagrees with your claim?

Be honest, did you read the study before posting it? Where you aware of that passage when you posted it?

Big Bag of Chips

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567036#Comment_119567036

Stick to discussing Covid Vaccines please. Start a new thread if you want to discuss GMO and ecosystems.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568230#Comment_119568230

My ''claim'' is that the mRNA vaccines distrubt the menstrual cycle and by default affect fertility which however transient and temporary does affect fertility. Thats basic biology.

It would be interesting to see if the GMO MRNA vaxxes affect the male reproductive system in any similiar way but with no obvious outward signs that will need further research.

323

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568048#Comment_119568048

Well. Not really. The clinical trials are scheduled to end in 2023. (Sure everyone who took these products were informed of that and freely consented to take part in these experimental tests). Expect it could be a few years before we see any medium/long term safety data published.

As, remember in the USA, Nov 2021, when the FDA were giving "Emergency Use Authorisation" to Pfizer they applied to the courts for the right to wait 55 years to process any freedom of information requests about the safety data on these products, later increased that to 75 years. Basically wanted to wait till 2096 to release all the safety data, in between we were told to just "trust the science".

That was for early on short term safety data.

Since that court request was rejected by a Federal Judge, data is being released. Some interesting reading, pretty clear why they wanted to wait 75 years to respond to queries about these "safe and effective" products.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568659#Comment_119568659

But the study you're using to make this claim states that there is no link to fertility.

So why did you post that study? I think that it's because you didn't actually ready the study beyond the headline and what you were told by the anti-vaxx source you got it from.

I will assume that because you're going with the vague, non committal hand waving of "it would be interesting to see", that you've nothing at all to suggest a link to male fertility either.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568659#Comment_119568659

Other things that affect birth rates causing them to increase are power cuts and the football World Cup. So I guess any minute temporary effect you seem to think exists due to the vaccines will be wiped out this winter.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568057#Comment_119568057

The main reason for drug trials taking a long time is funding the next round of trials. Things happened quicker for the covid vaccines because they didn't have to fight for the funding, and they ran multiple trials in parallel.

I'm certain this was all explained multiple times in this thread since the very beginning.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119569584#Comment_119569584

I didnt realise that the football world cup and power cuts caused a change in menstrual cycles and abnormal bleeding.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570073#Comment_119570073

But according to your source (which is the only one you've pointed to) " even if the vaccine is associated with temporary menstrual changes, it is extremely unlikely that this has any effect on current or future fertility. "

Do you have any other sources for your claim that didn't directly contradict you?

You should probably read them before posting this time though.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570073#Comment_119570073

Yet you still haven't shown anything to support your claim regarding fertility. The vaccines have been around long enough to have noticed any change in fertility caused by them, yet you have nothing except a report which contradicts your argument.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570451#Comment_119570451

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570130#Comment_119570130

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119569530#Comment_119569530

I think the vaccine fanatics could be compared with Donald Trump supporters. As Donald said I could shoot someone dead on the street and get away with it. There is none so blind as those who will not see.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570988#Comment_119570988

What on earth are you on about?

Notwithstanding Triump's support for vaccine development... take a random poll of Trump supporters v Biden supporters, and guaranteed anti vaxxers will be predominantly on the Trump side.

Plus, noted there is zero attempt made to respond to the evidence presented contradicting your claims.

Your posts are incoherent medically and politically.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119571027#Comment_119571027

I am speaking about the fanatisism supporters of a cause have. The vaccine fanatics have a similiar cult like believe in the power of the vax. No critisism or rebuke is allowed. If there is one offered they are in the other camp or one of the 'you guys' the anti vaxxers. The fact the vaxx has been poor to terrible is glossed over in favour of the overall cause.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568659#Comment_119568659

Did you hear what else can impact menstrual cycles? Viruses. It’s not mRNA, it’s anything that can trigger an immune response that can impact cycles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119570988#Comment_119570988

You have provided zero evidence of any unusual impacts associated with the covid vaccines. Zero, but continue to spout complete sh*te as if you are some sort of all seeing mage

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119571240#Comment_119571240

You seem remarkably unconcerned about the impacts of covid infections on pregnant women, yet have to resort to misrepresentation of studies into vaccines to express your concerns about them.

But we're the fanatics???

Look at the cases, and hospitalisations the Lancet Sweden study showed the vaccines prevented.

Look at the risk of severe covid for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

If you are reserving your judgement about vaccines that is one thing.

But anybody who says the vaccines are poor to terrible does not do so on the basis of evidence.

And you show zero awareness of the challenge a respiratory virus like covid presents for vaccines. It is the same reason why they posed such a challenge to medical services.

Facts are stubborn things, and I follow the facts.