New large multinational COVID Vaccine safety study results concerning
- Thread starter Gus is dead
- Start date
Vaccines work!
www.hhs.gov
Vaccines Protect You
Vaccines do an incredible job of protecting you from serious diseases like whooping cough and measles.\n\nHave you ever wondered how vaccines actually work? Vaccines help your immune system do its job better and faster. And that protects you from serious diseases.
The fact that the study authors applied methods suggest an association between the vaccine and multiple adverse events. Increasing risk for some events 2-6x. Myocarditis, pericarditis, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
Did you even look at it?
The only hole I can find is the fact I cant see, on first read, how they excluded these adverse events from C19 itself. Getting infected after vaccination.
Did you even look at it?
The only hole I can find is the fact I cant see, on first read, how they excluded these adverse events from C19 itself. Getting infected after vaccination.
Cool, thanks for the info. Clearly you won’t take the vaccine. Life is about choices.
While our study confirmed previously identified rare safety signals following COVID-19 vaccination and contributed evidence on several other important outcomes,
Wrong. I took all 4 original but didn't get any boosters as I contracted COVID 3x and didn't feel any additional benefit would occur from the other injections. Had a more lethal variant mutated then I would have gotten any new vaccine formulated for that one.
FYI I was one of the very first to receive the COVID Vaccine and was more than willing to get it. No regerts. If you knew me IRL you understand why I did and why I speak from authority.
Next, you seem to be inferring an anti vaccine stance that doesn't exist here.
That having been said, a deep dive into efficacy and side effects post hoc is always indicated. Any information that we learn only serves to guide further development of this or similar vaccines. But also serves to suggest that the initial hesitancy many of the public had might have been correct.
There can be opinions on the pandemic and it's response that are based on postmortem analysis. We'd be fools to not try to learn as much as possible for the next time this all occurs.
Last edited:
These rare events are potentially life threatening rare events. If you don't understand the sort of events this study looked at, that's fine, but trust me, these aren't 'I ran a fever and had a sore arm' events.
Kind like saying that wearing a motorcycle helmet is useless because the motorcycle accidents on a per ride per person basis are rare.
Outlier in what way? This pandemic was very similar to other pandemics historically.
Sure. Does that mean to you that we should discount it? Because frankly, death from COVID was the rare of the rare as well. But much was made of this for years right? Just as we needed to make COVID public health decisions on the basis of those rare events, analysis of the vaccine safety and efficacy is critical as well even though rare.
Of course not, you look at the likelihood of complications from the virus versus the vaccine and go from there
So you managed to read the whole study, analyze all the data, look for design flaws, think critically and log back on to GIAOT and post in 15 minutes? I'm guessing not....
Exactly. I agree. But so many are dismissive of anything that suggests that the vaccine had any flaws whatsoever that they aren't capable of the sort of evaluation you suggest.
Myocarditis appears to have shown up in as many as one on 100,000 cases. For those who contract COVID, it appears in perhaps four in 100,000 cases. And I believe a large percentage of serious side affects were related to vaccines that were never approved in the US.
Let's go with your figures... even if you told someone they are 4 times more likely to have the issue from the illness than they are the vaccine, shouldn't they have the right to be informed of the risks? There was a time when even suggesting there were any flaws in the vaccine at all carried social media penalties, and for doctors and nurses and other medical professionals to speak out on it, they could, and some did lose their license to practice, others were simply fired for refusing to be experimented on.
I said you won’t get the vaccine and in your first paragraph you said you won’t get the vaccine/booster, so I’m not wrong. I said nothing about the past. As I said, life is about choices, you are making your choice.
Oh gawd, not Science Direct again... That would be like Mother Jones changing their name to In Jesus Name
What are your specific criticisms of this article, and of science direct.com?
Good post.
People become personally invested in what they believe in, and as a result, they become defensive when new information comes out that shows they could have been wrong.
In some cases, people who believe government is there to protect us and take care of us naturally believe government is infallible, and can't bring themselves to admit to a broken trust, and if they do admit it, they rationalize it.
We were told many things that were lies. We were told other things based on incomplete information.
I'd say won't and didn't are a bit different. I had a lot of minor side effects from the vaccines and didn't want to endure them for little, to no benefit. The vaccines for me were just as bad as the illness. Thankfully I am healthy and didn't have any real risk of dying from COVID.
Last edited:
Well the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine is listed here in this study and the Moderna one as well.
I agree with that assessment. However, you are missing one very important detail.
Your analysis assumes that there are some people that will not get COVID. Since we basically have all had COVID now, the vaccine risk appears to be additive if this study is correct. Think about it. It may take you awhile to get the nuance I understand. You assume with your statement that there will be cases where the vaccine prevents COVID therefor one is better to get the vaccine. And that is how it was sold to start. But we now have learned that that wasnt the case. So, your thinking is in error.
Since these events are also seen with COVID as you suggest, the only flaw I can see with this study is figuring out how they excluded the chance that people got COVID after getting the vaccine within the time period studied and that is why they had these events. But maybe I missed something.
I think the vaccines were likely a good thing. Without them, who knows. But we really need to try to learn from this as we are likely to need this technology in vaccines down the line.
For me that assumption holds true,.. I have never experienced or tested positive for covid..
That seem highly unlikely. It would be interesting to test your antibodies just to verify. Id bet you had it and didnt have much symptom wise. Who knows though. You could be an outlier.
Yes, vaccines approved in the US were commingled in the results with vaccines not approved in the US, and it appears the ones not approved were responsible for a disproportionate number of side effects.
It seems to me the conclusion is that the modern vaccines were generally as safe as traditional vaccines, and certainly preferable to COVID. But further analysis is required to quantify it. I have not been a fan of CDC’s handling of the pandemic. And the vaccines certainly were not as effective as the hype. But I’ve not seen anything from legitimate sources that suggests the vaccines were dangerous, or that serious side effects occurred in any but the tiniest of cases.
Possible, but I donate blood to Red Cross and non-vaccine related covid antibodies not indicated to date...
Right?
The study evaluated >23 million "person-years" of followup, and all they state is they've "confirmed" the existing risk signals.
This multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
Ergo, nothing NEW of note was identified
And the vaccines reduced your MC risks if you get exposed to Covid, reducing the overall risk levels.
