Would you get the vaccine for Corona Virus?
I would not... not trying to be ignorant but who knows what the heck they put in there ..
31-35, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
SW-User
@SumKindaMunster but to counter....
That is a story where the population was vaccinated against a pandemic that didn't emerge.
We are in the middle of the worst pandemic in a 100 years. So the situation is entirely different.
Also maybe there is an argument that the mass vaccination prevented the pandemic - but that's so much harder to prove
That is a story where the population was vaccinated against a pandemic that didn't emerge.
We are in the middle of the worst pandemic in a 100 years. So the situation is entirely different.
Also maybe there is an argument that the mass vaccination prevented the pandemic - but that's so much harder to prove
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@SW-User My point in posting this story is to reflect upon the panic that forced the government to push through a vaccination that:
Didn't work as well as advertised.
Was riddled with errors and ineffective.
Wasn't necessary.
We are being told that a new type of vaccine for Covid-19, that has never been tested in larger populations, hasn't been ramped up to the scale we now see, and there are no long term studies for the implications of using mRNA as a vaccination technology is the answer to the pandemic.
I'm skeptical. You should be too.
Didn't work as well as advertised.
Was riddled with errors and ineffective.
Wasn't necessary.
We are being told that a new type of vaccine for Covid-19, that has never been tested in larger populations, hasn't been ramped up to the scale we now see, and there are no long term studies for the implications of using mRNA as a vaccination technology is the answer to the pandemic.
I'm skeptical. You should be too.
@SW-User
When has that ever stopped scientists from claiming mere theory as fact?
You can see many videos of empty hospitals during this once in a century 'virus'. Hospitals aren't making money.
So now scientists and medical people will administer harmful vaccines to make people sick. Once more people start getting vaccinated, you'll see videos of people foaming at the mouth convulsed on the ground and gnashing their teeth. Kids will get autism at higher rates.
that's so much harder to prove
When has that ever stopped scientists from claiming mere theory as fact?
You can see many videos of empty hospitals during this once in a century 'virus'. Hospitals aren't making money.
So now scientists and medical people will administer harmful vaccines to make people sick. Once more people start getting vaccinated, you'll see videos of people foaming at the mouth convulsed on the ground and gnashing their teeth. Kids will get autism at higher rates.
SW-User
@Stargazer89 I don't know many scientists that state theory as fact without giving you a massive list of caveats about the limitations of the theory and that they have always a limited knowledge. In the UK briefings people like Professor Van Tamm, Professor Whitty, Sir Patrick Valance are forever saying "If", "IN time", "We don't know yet" etc. etc.
I'm fortunate I live in the UK - our hospitals don't have to make money - there are some massive advantages to a socialised healthcare system. Also ours aren't empty, occupancy figures are routinely published and we're at a much higher occupancy position of IDU and ICU beds and ventilators at this point in the winter than we normally are. Our hospitals are sadly very full of Covid patients. In my area (the worst in the UK) more than half of all ICU beds are a covid patient.
You may see these "alleged" videos - and I use that deliberately. Unless I hear and read about it in properly researched and reviewed papers I won't necessarily believe it.
Oh - the autism - can we stop that Wakefield was a fraud and his work both bogus and dangerous. I personally feel that man should have been prosecuted for manslaughter.
Read this article published 9 years ago that put that whole saga into perspective.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452
I'm fortunate I live in the UK - our hospitals don't have to make money - there are some massive advantages to a socialised healthcare system. Also ours aren't empty, occupancy figures are routinely published and we're at a much higher occupancy position of IDU and ICU beds and ventilators at this point in the winter than we normally are. Our hospitals are sadly very full of Covid patients. In my area (the worst in the UK) more than half of all ICU beds are a covid patient.
You may see these "alleged" videos - and I use that deliberately. Unless I hear and read about it in properly researched and reviewed papers I won't necessarily believe it.
Oh - the autism - can we stop that Wakefield was a fraud and his work both bogus and dangerous. I personally feel that man should have been prosecuted for manslaughter.
Read this article published 9 years ago that put that whole saga into perspective.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452
SW-User
@Stargazer89 the vaccine is free on the NHS - they aren't selling me anything under a socialised healthcare system.
Having worked in Pharmaceutical R&D for 20 years and nearly 10 years at a research led university with one of the largest medical schools in the UK the only case of real fraud, cover up and plane simply being dishonest was Wakefield and all his bogus research and papers linking autism to the MMR vaccine. Work that once exposed was then re-researches in large cohort studies by the UK MRC and shown to be utterly false. Following that so much has been tightened up especially even in ethics before you start a study now as that is where Wakefield should originally been stopped.
Having worked in Pharmaceutical R&D for 20 years and nearly 10 years at a research led university with one of the largest medical schools in the UK the only case of real fraud, cover up and plane simply being dishonest was Wakefield and all his bogus research and papers linking autism to the MMR vaccine. Work that once exposed was then re-researches in large cohort studies by the UK MRC and shown to be utterly false. Following that so much has been tightened up especially even in ethics before you start a study now as that is where Wakefield should originally been stopped.
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
@SumKindaMunster yes I remember it well.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@cherokeepatti I was too young to remember, but I read the story with mounting alarm...pandemic, government caught unaware, due to political pressure they rushed the vaccine, it was ineffective...
Absolutely something to consider and think about as we see a rushed vaccine get pushed out to people...might all be fine, but I'm just supposed to trust Pfizer??? Our government???
Sorry, been burned or seen too many people burned by misplaced trust in institutions like this.
Absolutely something to consider and think about as we see a rushed vaccine get pushed out to people...might all be fine, but I'm just supposed to trust Pfizer??? Our government???
Sorry, been burned or seen too many people burned by misplaced trust in institutions like this.
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
@SumKindaMunster That Swine flu vaccine was pushed daily by the media. I remember some people were paralyzed or partially paralyzed here after they got the vaccine
SW-User
@cherokeepatti
From UK www.nhs.uk
From UK www.nhs.uk
Swine flu vaccine 'link' to 'deadly' nerve condition
Thursday 12 July 2012
“H1N1 vaccine linked to potentially fatal nervous system condition,” is the frightening headline in the Daily Telegraph.
The story is based on research looking at whether the H1N1 ‘swine flu’ vaccine could increase the chances of people developing a neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré syndrome (an uncommon condition that in a small proportion of cases can cause paralysis). The study was an attempt to calculate whether using the H1N1 vaccine would lead to an increase in cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
The researchers found evidence of a ‘statistically significant’ increase in cases of the disease (ie it was not likely to be due to chance). However, the increase was small. The researchers estimated that for every 500,000 people vaccinated against swine flu, there would be approximately one additional case of Guillain-Barré syndrome diagnosed in the province. In addition, while Guillain-Barré syndrome can be fatal, this only occurs in around one in 20 cases. Most people with the condition make a full recovery within six to 12 months.
The Telegraph’s story is accurate but its headline is arguably needlessly alarmist. Vaccine scare stories may help to sell newspapers, but by putting people off getting vaccines they could indirectly contribute to otherwise avoidable deaths.
Most experts would argue that the potential benefits of vaccination far outweigh any potential risk.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from Laval University, the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services and other Canadian institutions. The research was funded by the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services and the Public Health Agency of Canada.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association.
Generally, the story was reported appropriately, but the Telegraph headline over-emphasised the 'potentially fatal' nature of the disorder. However, its main story did report the wide range of risk increases found and the fact that there were only a small number of cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
What kind of research was this?
This was a cohort study that examined the association between the H1N1 vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). GBS is a rare nervous system disorder, where the body’s own immune system attacks the nerves in the body (in other words, it is an 'autoimmune' condition, which rheumatoid arthritis is too). People with the disorder experience muscle weakness and altered sensation in the limbs and body. In serious cases it can lead to paralysis, including paralysis of the muscles involved in breathing. If this happens, it can be life-threatening and require the patient to be placed on a ventilator. The exact cause of the disorder is not known, but the condition is thought to result from a bacterial or viral infection that causes the patient’s immune system to attack the nerves that control sensation and movement. Approximately 80% of people with GBS recover fully. Others may experience long or life-threatening complications.
A version of the H1N1 vaccine developed during the 1970s was linked to an increase of GBS cases in the US. During the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic, a mass immunisation campaign was carried out in Quebec, Canada. Due to the previous links between the vaccine and GBS, the chief medical officer of Quebec ordered a study to monitor cases of GBS in the months following the vaccination campaign. This allowed the researchers to compare the risk of developing GBS among people who were vaccinated with the expected risk to the unvaccinated population.
Conducting a cohort study such as this allows for the identification of unexpected clusters of GBS cases above what would normally be expected. This has advantages over other methods of cluster investigations, which often rely on the initial reporting of cases before defining the populations, exposures or outcomes of interest. Defining these factors first, and then designing a study to investigate them, helps to remove bias and confounding factors from the research.
What did the research involve?
The researchers collected data during the H1N1 immunisation campaign, which targeted all residents of Quebec over six months old (approximately 7.8 million people). During the campaign, 57% of this population (4.4 million people) received the H1N1 jab.
The researchers then monitored new cases of GBS diagnosed in Quebec during the six months following the immunisation campaign. They collected data on the date that symptoms began and determined whether or not the individual with GBS had received the H1N1 jab.
The researchers then compared new cases of GBS between people who had received the jab and those who had not, and calculated the relative risk of developing GBS if given the H1N1 vaccination. They calculated this risk at four, six and eight weeks after immunisation in different patient subgroups using several different statistical methods. The researchers also determined the 'attributable risk' over a million vaccine doses, estimating the number of GBS cases that would be likely to arise for every million H1N1 jabs.
What were the basic results?
A total of 83 cases of GBS were identified during the six months after the immunisation campaign, equating to an overall GBS incidence rate of 2.3 cases per 100,000 person-years (a measure that accounts for both the number of the people in the population and their time at risk of developing the condition). Approximately 69% of individuals with GBS were men, and the median age of those affected was 49.
Of these 83 cases, 25 had been vaccinated up to eight weeks before experiencing GBS symptoms. A higher percentage of elderly people with GBS was seen in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.
When comparing new cases of GBS between the two groups, the researchers found:
A significant increase in risk of developing GBS among vaccinated individuals compared with unvaccinated individuals during the first four weeks after vaccination (relative risk 2.75, 95% confidence interval 1.63 to 4.62). This represented a small absolute difference in the rate of new GBS cases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, with 5.60 cases per 100,000 person-years in the vaccinated group during the four weeks following vaccination, compared to 1.97 per 100,000 person-years in the unvaccinated group (rate difference of 3.63 per 100,000 person-years).
Approximately 2.7 cases of GBS per 1 million vaccine doses were possibly attributable to the H1N1 jab (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 3.4); another way to think of this would be if 1 million fewer vaccines were given during the immunisation campaign, there would possibly be 2.7 fewer cases of GBS diagnosed in Quebec during the follow-up period. This excess risk was only significant for GBS cases diagnosed within the first four weeks following vaccination. The risk became non-significant when examining cases diagnosed six and eight weeks after receiving the jab.
During subgroup analysis based on age, the researchers found that the excess risk was significant only in people over the age of 60 (relative risk 2.69, 95% confidence interval 1.51 to 4.80).
Thursday 12 July 2012
“H1N1 vaccine linked to potentially fatal nervous system condition,” is the frightening headline in the Daily Telegraph.
The story is based on research looking at whether the H1N1 ‘swine flu’ vaccine could increase the chances of people developing a neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré syndrome (an uncommon condition that in a small proportion of cases can cause paralysis). The study was an attempt to calculate whether using the H1N1 vaccine would lead to an increase in cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
The researchers found evidence of a ‘statistically significant’ increase in cases of the disease (ie it was not likely to be due to chance). However, the increase was small. The researchers estimated that for every 500,000 people vaccinated against swine flu, there would be approximately one additional case of Guillain-Barré syndrome diagnosed in the province. In addition, while Guillain-Barré syndrome can be fatal, this only occurs in around one in 20 cases. Most people with the condition make a full recovery within six to 12 months.
The Telegraph’s story is accurate but its headline is arguably needlessly alarmist. Vaccine scare stories may help to sell newspapers, but by putting people off getting vaccines they could indirectly contribute to otherwise avoidable deaths.
Most experts would argue that the potential benefits of vaccination far outweigh any potential risk.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from Laval University, the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services and other Canadian institutions. The research was funded by the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services and the Public Health Agency of Canada.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association.
Generally, the story was reported appropriately, but the Telegraph headline over-emphasised the 'potentially fatal' nature of the disorder. However, its main story did report the wide range of risk increases found and the fact that there were only a small number of cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
What kind of research was this?
This was a cohort study that examined the association between the H1N1 vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). GBS is a rare nervous system disorder, where the body’s own immune system attacks the nerves in the body (in other words, it is an 'autoimmune' condition, which rheumatoid arthritis is too). People with the disorder experience muscle weakness and altered sensation in the limbs and body. In serious cases it can lead to paralysis, including paralysis of the muscles involved in breathing. If this happens, it can be life-threatening and require the patient to be placed on a ventilator. The exact cause of the disorder is not known, but the condition is thought to result from a bacterial or viral infection that causes the patient’s immune system to attack the nerves that control sensation and movement. Approximately 80% of people with GBS recover fully. Others may experience long or life-threatening complications.
A version of the H1N1 vaccine developed during the 1970s was linked to an increase of GBS cases in the US. During the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic, a mass immunisation campaign was carried out in Quebec, Canada. Due to the previous links between the vaccine and GBS, the chief medical officer of Quebec ordered a study to monitor cases of GBS in the months following the vaccination campaign. This allowed the researchers to compare the risk of developing GBS among people who were vaccinated with the expected risk to the unvaccinated population.
Conducting a cohort study such as this allows for the identification of unexpected clusters of GBS cases above what would normally be expected. This has advantages over other methods of cluster investigations, which often rely on the initial reporting of cases before defining the populations, exposures or outcomes of interest. Defining these factors first, and then designing a study to investigate them, helps to remove bias and confounding factors from the research.
What did the research involve?
The researchers collected data during the H1N1 immunisation campaign, which targeted all residents of Quebec over six months old (approximately 7.8 million people). During the campaign, 57% of this population (4.4 million people) received the H1N1 jab.
The researchers then monitored new cases of GBS diagnosed in Quebec during the six months following the immunisation campaign. They collected data on the date that symptoms began and determined whether or not the individual with GBS had received the H1N1 jab.
The researchers then compared new cases of GBS between people who had received the jab and those who had not, and calculated the relative risk of developing GBS if given the H1N1 vaccination. They calculated this risk at four, six and eight weeks after immunisation in different patient subgroups using several different statistical methods. The researchers also determined the 'attributable risk' over a million vaccine doses, estimating the number of GBS cases that would be likely to arise for every million H1N1 jabs.
What were the basic results?
A total of 83 cases of GBS were identified during the six months after the immunisation campaign, equating to an overall GBS incidence rate of 2.3 cases per 100,000 person-years (a measure that accounts for both the number of the people in the population and their time at risk of developing the condition). Approximately 69% of individuals with GBS were men, and the median age of those affected was 49.
Of these 83 cases, 25 had been vaccinated up to eight weeks before experiencing GBS symptoms. A higher percentage of elderly people with GBS was seen in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.
When comparing new cases of GBS between the two groups, the researchers found:
A significant increase in risk of developing GBS among vaccinated individuals compared with unvaccinated individuals during the first four weeks after vaccination (relative risk 2.75, 95% confidence interval 1.63 to 4.62). This represented a small absolute difference in the rate of new GBS cases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, with 5.60 cases per 100,000 person-years in the vaccinated group during the four weeks following vaccination, compared to 1.97 per 100,000 person-years in the unvaccinated group (rate difference of 3.63 per 100,000 person-years).
Approximately 2.7 cases of GBS per 1 million vaccine doses were possibly attributable to the H1N1 jab (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 3.4); another way to think of this would be if 1 million fewer vaccines were given during the immunisation campaign, there would possibly be 2.7 fewer cases of GBS diagnosed in Quebec during the follow-up period. This excess risk was only significant for GBS cases diagnosed within the first four weeks following vaccination. The risk became non-significant when examining cases diagnosed six and eight weeks after receiving the jab.
During subgroup analysis based on age, the researchers found that the excess risk was significant only in people over the age of 60 (relative risk 2.69, 95% confidence interval 1.51 to 4.80).
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@SW-User Hmm so risk a crippling disease that has no cure to hopefully stave off an infection that approximately 99% of people survive with no known side effects?
I think you are trying to reassure the other poster here, but in my book you just reinforced my position to not risk taking the vaccine for Covid 19.
I think you are trying to reassure the other poster here, but in my book you just reinforced my position to not risk taking the vaccine for Covid 19.
SW-User
@SumKindaMunster so...
We're not talking about the Coronavirus on this comment thread my response is in reply to a statement about paralysis following swine flu vaccination.
That is the context of the reply.
But to state there are no side effects from coronavirus is very wrong. Whilst as yet largely unquantified but seems that 1 in 20 covid-19 cases leads to long covid-19 which has multiple issues from fatigue through to organ damage / failure. So it has significant risk of long term life limiting symptoms.
The chance of GSD in the h1n1 is raised but estimates of risk in general population vary from 6 to 40 per million although it is more common in older people so they measure it more as 0.6 to 1.3 per 100,000 years lived.
Whilst raised your risk from complications or death from h1n1 is still much higher.
We're not talking about the Coronavirus on this comment thread my response is in reply to a statement about paralysis following swine flu vaccination.
That is the context of the reply.
But to state there are no side effects from coronavirus is very wrong. Whilst as yet largely unquantified but seems that 1 in 20 covid-19 cases leads to long covid-19 which has multiple issues from fatigue through to organ damage / failure. So it has significant risk of long term life limiting symptoms.
The chance of GSD in the h1n1 is raised but estimates of risk in general population vary from 6 to 40 per million although it is more common in older people so they measure it more as 0.6 to 1.3 per 100,000 years lived.
Whilst raised your risk from complications or death from h1n1 is still much higher.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@SW-User
Understood. However, I initiated this thread with my posting of admittedly, an anecdotal example from recent history where the media and the government botched a vaccine response to a corona virus and caused more issues due to rushing it, and due to political pressure.
I find the commonalities concerning and disturbing when we discuss the same dynamic occurring right now with the response to Covid 19.
Fair. However, the known side effects don't include an incurable disease that attacks your nerve cells, and the complications you listed aren't commonly experienced.
If you are looking at this pragmatically, and relying solely on studies that provide evidence of what you already believe, all things being equal, statistically the risk of complications are lesser from taking the vaccine.
However, would you rather risk vague, surmountable complications from a corona virus, or put your trust in and industry that routinely favors profits over health? Or governments who have botched, mishandled, and out and out completely let this pandemic spin out of control?
That's my point. Not the science. The people using the science to promote their agenda. I've seen enough to caution me from just accepting what I am being told by the Pharma industry or the government.
And yet you keep coming in here responding with studies from these same institutions thinking that this is comforting to me? Or reassuring?
They are not sir.
I understand science and I believe in it, but a scientist can be bought and paid for, just like a politician.
We're not talking about the Coronavirus on this comment thread my response is in reply to a statement about paralysis following swine flu vaccination.
That is the context of the reply.
That is the context of the reply.
Understood. However, I initiated this thread with my posting of admittedly, an anecdotal example from recent history where the media and the government botched a vaccine response to a corona virus and caused more issues due to rushing it, and due to political pressure.
I find the commonalities concerning and disturbing when we discuss the same dynamic occurring right now with the response to Covid 19.
But to state there are no side effects from coronavirus is very wrong.
Fair. However, the known side effects don't include an incurable disease that attacks your nerve cells, and the complications you listed aren't commonly experienced.
If you are looking at this pragmatically, and relying solely on studies that provide evidence of what you already believe, all things being equal, statistically the risk of complications are lesser from taking the vaccine.
However, would you rather risk vague, surmountable complications from a corona virus, or put your trust in and industry that routinely favors profits over health? Or governments who have botched, mishandled, and out and out completely let this pandemic spin out of control?
That's my point. Not the science. The people using the science to promote their agenda. I've seen enough to caution me from just accepting what I am being told by the Pharma industry or the government.
And yet you keep coming in here responding with studies from these same institutions thinking that this is comforting to me? Or reassuring?
They are not sir.
I understand science and I believe in it, but a scientist can be bought and paid for, just like a politician.
SW-User
@SumKindaMunster
I always try to have a scientific discussion not one where headlines are shouted out btw the vast majority of people who suffer with GBS make a full recovery in within a year.
My position on vaccines
https://similarworlds.com/100046-I-Have-Something-To-Say-About-Coronavirus-Covid19/3665904-My-position-on-vaccinations-I-thought-Id-lay-it
I always try to have a scientific discussion not one where headlines are shouted out btw the vast majority of people who suffer with GBS make a full recovery in within a year.
My position on vaccines
https://similarworlds.com/100046-I-Have-Something-To-Say-About-Coronavirus-Covid19/3665904-My-position-on-vaccinations-I-thought-Id-lay-it
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment