Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

We'd know how "vanishingly rare" they were if Pfizer would actually provide the post-market studies into these types of safety flags that they committed to as part of their EUAs. Of course these studies have been pushed out another 6 months recently.

Yes it is " vanishingly rare " , and yes , those studies would be taking that long , as they are, after all , post market studies , especially as the urgency appears to be over in the US, so research is no longer for' emergency use approval" .

Can't see why you are complaining about that .

I seem to remember similar posts griping about original vaccines and the subsequent dosing schedules, despite real world data which showed the safety overall with millions of doses worldwide , and in some cases the dangers, as with AstraZeneca which was swiftly restricted .

Others complaining that these boosters did not have sufficient testing on humans .

Now the complaint is the companies " are not producing data " quickly enough.

Make up your mind what you want ... data tested on humans , under normal 3 to 6 month time frame comparisons , or more quick studies on engineered lab mice .

And if you have any real proof ....not opinion or conjecture or anecdote ...that Covid vaccines, boosters or anything else , are causing a marked and significant increase in myocarditis and pericarditis or deaths in young people , please do post it , because up to now , you haven't .

All I have seen and heard thus far is hearsay and misinformation.

Here is the situation in the UK up to November last , and even then people here were claiming otherwise ...

" As of 23 November 2022, the overall reporting rate across all age groups for myocarditis following vaccination with the monovalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was 10 reports per million doses; for pericarditis, it was 6 reports per million doses. For monovalent Moderna vaccine, the overall reporting rate for myocarditis was 14 reports per million doses; for pericarditis, it was 8 reports per million doses.

In those aged under 18 years, the reported rate for heart inflammation (myocarditis and pericarditis) was 13 per million first doses and 8 per million second doses of the monovalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine; these are lower than the reporting rates seen in young adults. There is currently insufficient data to calculate the reporting rate for third/booster doses" .

Nobody denies that vaccination carries a risk, especially to younger adult males, of developing myocarditis and pericarditis. The risks are clearly written on all the literature.

But It is just that , so far anyway , it is such a small risk compared with everyday risk of Covid infection causing the same problem but worse , as to be considered low enough to be worth the risk/ benefit ratio , even for that age group 18 to 29 year old males.

If as that poster claimed above , the doctor indeed had found it was becoming more common , there are immediate pathways of reporting what would be a severe adverse event of vaccination . And other doctors would be setting off that alarm as well , again, if that was truly the case . This triggers a review as with AstraZeneca and Janssen here and in other countries .

The British Heart Foundation don't seem to be unduly concerned!

One would think that they should be up in arms if the health of their nation were being put at risk daily .

Do you really think it would not be reported and boosters stopped , here and elsewhere even before the safety study data was out , if it was in fact causing such a severe response ?

Ok.. maybe YOU do . But that is going down a long , winding rabbit hole of CT , imo.

It is not a REASONABLE belief given our experiences thus far with our ultra cautious vaccine authority, NIAC , here in Ireland . Safety has always been uppermost on their minds .

So much so that at times , people have complained the rollout was too slow , why weren't they being given this and that vaccine like other countries, why wait for so long between doses ...you just have to look back over this thread to see those discussions and we were all impatient , myself included , at times .

Now some people are choosing whether they need a booster or not . That is their choice and we are in a better place to do that , with more immunity and a less virulent variant . But everybody needs to have facts to make their decisions . And not just sensationalist op eds from trashy news sites or poor science review fora .

Or maybe..

Let's wait for the post bivalent booster studies to complete and be published and in the absence of real data not be arguing over something that may just be another red herring . Like so many others before ..

And not to mention that the risk of myocarditis is substantially higher just after Covid

Is this a peer reviewed study?

First important thing to note is that nowhere does the study state vaccines were unsafe. It warns of a potential safety signal that is all.

So is pure anti vaxxer embellishment to make a statement of fact as to "vaccines were safe" is not true. It is your own invention, without foundation or merit. Of course an anti vaxxer shoots first and asks questions never. Only asks questions about the vaccines, never questions these studies. Your anti vax agenda here is obvious.

This seems to be just a rehash of the VAERS nonsense, with failure to take into account the context of the rollouts.

By that I suggest that when vaccines were initially rolled out, more VAERS reports were logged as this was a new medicine. This is a known effect.

Or, different batches were given to different age groups, with differing level of background medical events?

The study limitations noted:

in the present study, the SAE case history of prior COVID-19 was unknown, and specific SAE types (MedDRA system organ class etc.), demographics of SAE cases, relationships of SAEs with consecutive vaccine doses in individuals cases, temporal trends in the observed batch-dependency of SAEs, and batch-dependent effects on vaccine effectiveness, respectively, were not examined

The below article explains why this is a major limitation:

Hickey and Rancourt found (their Figure S6, [2]) that the age factor could explain all the batch differences in deaths, and that increased variability in deaths per dose was likewise consistent with increasing median age, in the USA (VAERS). It was incorrect for Schmeling et al. to conclude as they did knowing that they had excluded the age consideration.

https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=131&name=2023_07_01_does_the_analysis_of_schmeling_et_al_suggest_a_batch_dependent_safety_signal_for_the_bnt162b2_mrna_covid_19_vaccine

Incredible,

Some batches as high as 1/20 adverse effects.

Others 1/1000 - even this is too high, vaccines have been pulled for 1/10,000 adverse effects.

Yet still people on here will defend these.

The Danish study signals problems with vaccines and asks interesting questions. I think that the researchers discovered patterns that indicate issues with the Pfizer product. Those issues are most likely related to product quality in a large scale production scenario.

Ramping up production to millions and billions of units in such a short period of time was most likely achieved by outsourcing and manufacturing in multiple plants at the same time. This product required specific storage and transportation conditions, which imposed the need for distributed manufacturing. For example US received the vaccines from different plants than say Europe and so on, thus making some adverse event reporting systems not pick up the signals. Manufacturing so many vaccines in such a short period of time while maintaining the product quality is extremely difficult. Of course, any deviation from the expected specification should have been picked up by the quality control but as we know that sometime fails too.

If that is what happened the affected batches should be easily traceable to the respective plants and product quality issues could easily be confirmed. Could it be that some of the plants have failed to provide an in-spec product especially when large quantities were processed at the same time and the process became unstable? Did somebody from Pfizer not say that making the vaccine was like building the plane and flying it at the same time? Maybe it really was.

Another possibility could be that Pfizer re-formulated the vaccine to make it less and less harmful. That would imply that they knew about the inherent issues to begin with but still chose to introduce the product to the market. Highly unlikely imo.

I think that the vaccine was safe and the formula/process was stable and worked well on a small scale. It is only when the production was ramped up the issues came up to the surface and this is what the study detected.   

Of course, the authors in line with scientific epistemology cannot make definite statements and conclusions. It is to early and more research is required. Otherwise they would have not got it published. As far as I understand these are preliminary findings and the data is not fully in yet for the 'yellow line'. On top of that there are concerns about under-reporting of the events that occurred long after the vaccine injections - the more time has passed the harder it is to link the SAE with the jab. Nevertheless this work certainly signals problems with the some of the early batches of the vaccines and gives an opportunity for Pfizer and other researchers to investigate. 

As I said in the original post age was not a factor. Although not in the paper, this was confirmed by the authors after the paper was published.

In fact the green and yellow batches had a higher elderly (70+) participation than in the blue batch. Blue batches got first to younger cohorts who were deemed essential i.e. healthcare workers.

Therefore the 'plausible alternative' is not really plausible.

The authors are fairly adamant that they are right and that there were issues with some batches of the product.

I'd also argue that the families of those 579 Danes who are reported to have lost their lives because of the vaccine would consider their findings much more than "scurrilous ant vax scare mongering".

This is gas! did all the rich people get together in 2019 and put the plan in place? great co-ordination, fair play to them.

Translation: Your pretence of an 'open mind' on vaccines have been shown up for the obvious falsehood that it is. Your post history on Covid is therefore entirely relevant to demonstrating that. You were unable to find posts where you rebutted an anti vax claim made by another poster. Yet your post history is full of false or exaggerated claims about vaccine safety risks.

These are not 'personal' attacks. They directly relate to the anti vax propaganda without merit or foundation you post on this thread. Desperate attempt at the posting tactic of 'playing the victim' when your pretence is rumbled.

When you have to start pulling figures out of an anti vax grifter John Campbell Youtube video, figures which are nowhere in the study itself, it is clear the claims you have made for the study are thoroughly discredited.

Exactly, they aren't releasing this new data through seriously peer reviewed sites, but drip feeding it on a known anti vax outlet. Claims they wouldn't be able to make in a proper study. The discredit themselves with these tactics.

you mentioned 579 deaths, and of course provided zilch to back this up.

When questioned on it it became an "irrelevant matter" 🙄

Are the 579 deaths alleged by you irrelevant or not?

You then posted a video from the well known fraud Campbell who misrepresents himself as a medical doctor, he is not.

So that's the best thing you have to back this rubbish up? If so you have nothing.

Just to summarise the debate has been about whether the early batches higher SAE rates where due to older demographics (increased median age) and that if this could have skewed the data. This has been debunked straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak – by one of the authors. Any attempts to downplay the significance of that are simply pathetic.

Whatever the issue you have with the 579 deaths that were classified as SAE related, as reported in the paper, is as far as I understand not related to the above matter and thus I consider it irrelevant.

Co-author of the paper Vibeke Manniche has been debunked before on claims trying to downplay impact of covid.

https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/detektor/detektor-laegen-vibeke-manniche-vildleder-med-hjemmelavet-corona-graf?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The authors of this study have no credibility, as demonstrated by their anti vax grifting as they makes claims without foundation on Youtube etc where they start inventing new claims not even in the study.

The article was rejected by Lancet and multiple other reputable journals.

The authors of the study are tracking batches shipped- they don't even know how many doses from each batch were actually used. Differences in batches could in part be accounted for simply that some batches had more unused doses. To know that, and then to come out in public and start talking about major safety issues with vaccines is scurrilous scare mongering.

Health care workers, being familiar with the reporting systems, were encouraged during the rollout to report adverse events - even minor ones such as fatigue, headache. These are the people who are actually trained to log these reports. So there is another explanation as to why certain non-random groups being vaccinated leads to differences in events reported.

Serious questions have been raised about the study by experts, one going so far as to label it 'pseudoscience'.

I agree - The claims being made by the authors of this very dubious study on social media are pseudoscience.

https://sundhedspolitisktidsskrift-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/sundhedspolitik/7612-eksperter-dansk-forskning-af-bivirkninger-af-pfizer-vaccine-er-bevidst-vildledende-pseudovidenskab.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp