Trigger of Rare Blood Clots In AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Found (bbc.com) 191
Long-time Slashdot reader tlhIngan writes: The AstraZeneca vaccine, one of the few approved vaccines to fight COVID-19, was under fire earlier this year for causing blood clots. While the vaccine is still approved for use, and is being used, scientists have been working hard to figure out the cause. The main trigger appears to be caused by the immune system mistakenly identifying a blood protein as part of the virus. The AstraZeneca vaccine has viral RNA embedded on a normal cold virus. Platelet factor 4, a blood protein, is attracted to the virus and sticks to it. Sometimes, the immune system thinks the protein on the virus is the virus and attacks it, causing red blood cells to clump on it, creating a blood clot. This is a positive hope in helping figure out who may be susceptible to blood clots caused by the vaccine and to offer an alternative to those allergic to components of the mRNA vaccines.
Not found at all during Phase 3? (Score:2)
The next question would be why this was not observed at all during Phase 3 trial.
Is it too rare? Or is the Phase 3 trial too small? Or the population of Phase 3 trial not diverse enough?
Re: Not found at all during Phase 3? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it wasn't 1 in 1.5m for the target population of the problem, younger women.
Re: Not found at all during Phase 3? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their phase 3 trial had 32,449 people. There would have been a 1 in 50 chance of someone dying in the trial from this condition if the death rate for the overall population is 1 in 1.5 million and both populations where intended to be representative of the normal adult population.
You're also in a state where delays cost lives. You could ramp trials up more and more, maybe once you're at a few million people a few clear signals like this one. But in that time you're delaying vaccination rates by several more months during a period where we were having 5k to 10k deaths per day between the US and Europe.
Re:Not found at all during Phase 3? (Score:5, Informative)
It has an incidence estimated in 4 in a million, thus it was not detected by the phase 3 trials, even if they had a particularly large number of participants (30,000 if I recall correctly).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is too rare. It just showed up because of a lot of vaccinations in a short time and very careful monitoring. With regular vaccination numbers, nobody would ever have noticed, because the rate at which this happens naturally and from other causes would have been a lot hogher.
Re: (Score:2)
Too rare. Same with myocarditis. It's impossible to catch very rare events in trials. But it's catching common events that you care the most about. Once a product is approved, there are surveillance systems that then look for very rare events. In the US, VAERS helps raise questions as to whether there's any possible problem areas - although as a self-report system with no curation and no distinguishing between causation vs. random events, it does not answer them on their own. Anything that looks like it mi
Re: (Score:2)
It's too rare. The phase 3s had tens of thousands of people in them. The clotting problem would have required an order of magnitude more people to detect.
Hemagglutination, which is the proper name for this phenomenon, is something that happens with lots of viruses, including influenza. We don't recognize dying from a blood clot as being a complication of the flu because it's very rare that your immune system reacts this way. We recognize it as a side effect of the AZ vaccine because we are *very* careful wi
Re: Not found at all during Phase 3? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone remember the mad cow disease (BSE)? UK was also not having it until the evidence that mad cow disease was actually the same as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? And eating infected beef could actually give you the disease...
Mad cow disease is not the same as, and does not cause Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). Mad cow disease can cause the similar but different Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) [cdc.gov].
The first known cross-species spread of BSE (at least for the 80s/90s outbreak) was to a cat, detected in 1990. The first human death from vCJD was May 1995. The UK government did not admit a causal link between BSE and vCJD until March 1996, so your main point stands.
Re: (Score:2)
There have also been reports of insufficient quality control of the AZ production process
there's an old tech rule (Score:3, Insightful)
There's an old software tech rule that I'm pretty sure comes from writer John Dvorak that he mentioned in an article of his back in the day, in the era Borland existed -
Never buy a zero
Being that the first version 1.0 and subsequent major overhauls 2.0 always have a propensity for bugs and errors.
I'm not exactly sure there's a way to unistall/remove an mRNA vaccine. I'm actually a vaccine proponent but from a scientific perspective it needs to evaluated whether a vaccine can be produced faster than the virus can mutate past the vaccine. The other question that needs to be asked is what results can be obtained by finding solutions to obesity and diabetics - the two comorbidities which causes the most hospitalizations. It might cut hospitalizations by targeting these groups for intervention. Perhaps democrats could also focus on doing something about healthcare now??
Re:there's an old tech rule (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not exactly sure there's a way to unistall/remove an mRNA vaccine.
There is not. (m)RNA gets disposed of by your body after a single use. You cannot uninstall/remove something that is not there anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not exactly sure there's a way to unistall/remove an mRNA vaccine.
There is not. (m)RNA gets disposed of by your body after a single use. You cannot uninstall/remove something that is not there anymore.
You can't uninstall/remove the immune response created by the vaccine, but that's the case with every vaccine... and, of course, the whole point of vaccination.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There is a way... you have to puree 6 to 12 carolina reaper peppers and use them as an enema. The carolina reaper is embedded with mRNA attractants that pull the mRNA vaccines out through the lining of your large colon.
I tired it and now I'm confirmed to have no traces of mRNA in my body. Do your own research, but this is a legit way to remove the mRNA vaccine from your body.
Re: (Score:2)
You are full of shit as usual. Research on mRNA vaccines was started at least as far back as 2000. They were developing ever since. It isn't as though they thought up something new and decided to try it. They had very good reasons to believe they were safe and effective, which they have proven to be except to nuthobs like yourself.
Re: there's an old tech rule (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially as the AZ vaccine is not mRNA based. Though again it was part of a program of developing a vaccine vector that could be quickly and easily customised to different diseases.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
These vaccines are not version "1.0" or even "2.0". They are the result of many iterations of vaccine research by the manufacturers, then they successfully passed phase I, II, and III regulatory trials. These vaccines are far, far, far safer than the diseases that they prevent.
You would think that nuthobs like this would figure this out for themselves after seeing hundreds of people dying every day from COVID in the news and nobody dying from the vaccines. My assumption is that fear-mongering poster is
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. This is what happens if you vaccinate huge numbers of people and monitor very carefully for side-effects: You find exceptionally rare ones. With normal vaccination rates, nobody would have ever noticed.
Or in other words: You have no clue what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Noting that in the UK/EU they where only used after being fully approved which was nearly a year ago now.
They were developed at break neck speed mostly because money and other resources where made readily available. For example in January 2020 Oxford University just made ~9 million GBP available to develop the vaccine in less than a week after asking. I can tell you now having worked in a number of UK universities over the last ~25 years normally that sort of money would take months if not years to be appro
How does the probability of this compare ... (Score:2)
... to that of side effects in other vaccines? Not a loaded question, genuinely don't know and just curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you asking about other side-effects than blood-clots? If so that's an interesting question but if you are only comparing blood-clots as a side-effect then phantomfive answers the question above by referencing the delivery mechanism of a given vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
All side effects, if there are any others.
Re: (Score:2)
Very hard question to answer. We would likely need to set a threshold for "seriousness". Basically if you check out the VAERs data posted by nonBORG, you will see a lot of the reports are headaches, nausea, swelling, redness, and related pain. It's likely very hard to compare these symptoms between the vaccines and most of these are effectively the immune system reacting and the body dealing with that. For instance, diet would affect some of these later effects such as nausea or headaches (e.g. drink more w
Re: (Score:3)
All side effects, if there are any others.
Then "very, very safe". Also, you always have to take into account effectiveness and risks of what is prevented as well. With that, these vaccines are likely in the top tier for vaccination. The mRNA ones may even be "safest ever" in an overall risk evaluation.
Re: (Score:3)
At this probability, it would be "not identified". The only reason these were identified at all is a huge number of vaccinations combined with very careful monitoring for side-effects. For any other vaccine, nobody would have noticed anything, as blood-cloths form naturally and from other reasons as well and that would have hidden the effect completely at normal vaccination rates.
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
So it goes from "very, very safe" to "extremely safe". While getting COVID still is basically on the safety-level of "crapshot".
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Take your deranged fantasies somewhere else.
Re:Not really (at all)! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and maybe get "natural" immunity for Tetanus, Polio, Rabies, and quite a few others where the vaccination is safe but the disease can, and often will, seriously maim or kill you. How can you be so incredibly stupid?
Re:Not really (at all)! (Score:4, Funny)
How can you be so incredibly stupid?
To be fair, brain damage from covid isn’t that uncommon.
Re:Not really (at all)! (Score:5, Informative)
Natural immunity is still (as it always has been, especially for corona-type viruses which mutate rapidly) far better than any vaccine.
Keep spreading the bullshit. The crops need the nutrients.
Those in the know say you're wrong [jhu.edu].
Other experts say you're wrong [utah.edu]
Vaccines 5 times better at protection than immunity [umn.edu].
Unvaccinated twice as likely to be reinfected [cdc.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Explain how they could do better before they've even discovered the new variants. How do you make a vaccine for a virus you don't know exists?
Don't bother answering, we all know you can't.
Your posts are nonsense based on misunderstanding and mischaracterisation, and the articles linked don't even back up your argument... but I doubt you really expect them to. This is just another wall of links to prove you've "dun yer research" despite being clearly incapable of drawing any kind of reasonable conclusion fro
"Trigger of Rare Blood Clots" (Score:2)
Is there a macro to change "blood clots" to "rare blood clots"?
We rarely see any reference to vaccine harms without "rare" being added - seemingly, it's automatic.
Told ya so time. (Score:2)
Told ya so time.
Let me guess... La la la your ears are covered you cant hear me.
Thought the science was settled? Apologies for FORCING people to take this? Of course not.
We had to listen to everyone saying people who wanted to wait were wrong.... Now we can't find an audience after it's determined we were right.
Typical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
During use of the first vaccine using cowpox against smallpox, the antivaxers were explaining how the vaccine would cause people to grow horns and tails. I see the antivaxers haven't progressed much in the intervening years.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like stupidity has remained stupid for decades.
That's called conflation (Score:2)
..idiot..
Re: (Score:2)
I'll trust my own immune system than you very much .. clown *facepalm* Stick to hot dog serving or whatever imaginary profession you work at ..
Whole lot of body bags stacked up where the occupant of said body bags said something akin to this, caught covid, and ended up with a toe tag in a bag.
You get to choose for yourself, sure. But, you are not free from consequences of your choices, just like any other aspect of life. Viruses don't give a fuck if you're a super-woke liberal socialist militant pro-vax do-gooder, or a racist bigot ultra-right-wing anti-vax facist asshole, or anywhere in between. You are a collection of a few billion cells that
Re: That's called conflation (Score:2)
Maybe he already had COVID. No compelling need to vaccinate if you already had it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no compelling need except for the chance of re-infection, which is non-zero [startribune.com], and can still be a miserable experience, if not a trip to the hospital (and hopefully not the basement of the hospital).
You know those mutations that have the vaccine makers saying that it could be a problem? That's because the vaccines stimulate your immune system to create antibodies for the virus based on the virus it's already seen. A sufficiently mutated version can go right past the "natural immunity" just the same as
Re: That's called conflation (Score:2)
And vaccinated people get reinfected all the time too. And vaccinated people die all the time as well. What's your point?
I welcome omicron. Highly contagious with mild symptoms? Gimme, gimme...
By the way, Israeli studies show something like 6x better protection from natural immunity. These studies are much larger than the non-peer-reviewed CDC studies that haven't made their data sources public, wherein they suggest vaccines provide better protection. The Israeli studies suffer from the fact that Israelis h
Re: (Score:2)
We also don't want to be a burden on the health services any more than necessary
Bassakwards thinking. You most likely have either dutifully paid your taxes if you live somewhere with socialized healthcare or have maintained an health insurance policy if you live here in the states. You are truly ENTITLED to consume healthcare.
The actuaries examined the risks and set rates, the insurance company or state made a bet. If the bet wrongly and you end up burning through a few million in care - that is on them. Its not as if anyone held a gun to their heads and forced them to insure you (w
Re: (Score:2)
Having health insurance or socialized medicine does not mean the hospital is a magical extra-dimensional building with unlimited capacity for treating unlimited patients. There is a finite amount of beds, doctors, nurses, and equipment to treat people, and almost every person in the hospital with covid who is unvaccinated at this point is there by choice.
Re: (Score:2)
The same morons that get an injection in their arm and then stick a tin-foil coated card sticks to their forehead because of surface tension and use that to claim that the vaccine "transforms" people (wtf?),
It's even better than that. Some are using products contained in bleach [newsweek.com] to cure themselves, or claiming some mythical being will protect them [cnn.com]. The same mythical being who watches over you day and night but hasn't bothered to stop all those Catholic priests from raping boys over the centuries.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean those crazy conspiracy theorists claiming that the new vaccines increase the risk of blood clotting? Yeah, this will prove them wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this fascination with asses is something for which you can get professional help.
Re: (Score:2)
in 2021.
See above from gtall
You know, to have any credibility you would at first have to fix your own abysmal stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
If I travel back in time, what vaccines should I get?
Sad that even now you can't answer that, years later
I was thinking at a minimum, Smallpox vaccine.
Re: You seem to be wrong. (Score:2)
Re:You seem to be wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry but that's bullshit.
mRNA is not gene editing nor is it more permanent than any other vaccine. mRNA is the intermediate step used in your cells to make proteins from DNA. In your cells, mRNA is continuously created based on DNA, which is then transferred to the "protein factories" (ribosomes) that create proteins based on the blueprint provided by mRNA. That's what the m in mRNA is about: it is a messenger that takes the blueprint from the DNA to the factory. After a few days, the mRNA will have fallen apart so there's nothing permanent about mRNA, whether created by your own body or in a vaccine factory. That's also why the storage requirements for such vaccines are extremely stringent.
So mRNA vaccines are using your body's protein factories to create proteins that with traditional vaccines would be injected directly, often as part of a different virus or a disabled virus. There's nothing permanent or scary about this. It's just a more directed approach, where traditional vaccines take more of a scrap heap challenge approach.
I believe it's easier with traditional vaccines to deliver many more proteins, making such vaccines potentially more effective against mutations. But it's also much easier to create a new mRNA-vaccine because it it much less trial and error than the scrap heap challenge approach; it's basically selecting a part of the virus DNA that creates proteins that are easily recognizable by your immune system and are essential to the virus and creating mRNA for them.
I expect many more vaccines to be replaced by mRNA vaccines in the near future, including custom individual vaccines for treating cancer, which was what mRNA vaccine manufacturers were focusing on before COVID-19 came around. We're at the beginning of a vaccine revolution and COVID-19 happened to coincide with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, and this issue with AZ helps illustrate the reason for the general trend towards vaccine simplification: the less "stuff" you're exposed to that you don't need to be exposed to for the vaccine to function, the better. Whether that's a live virus creating all sorts of NSPs as well as exposing all its viral proteins; an attenuated or dead virus that still has a lot of proteins on its virions, some of which may be associated with ADE or not with producing an effective antibody response; vector vaccine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, logic and reason is down the corridor, this here is bullshit conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
> So mRNA vaccines are using your body's protein factories to create proteins that with traditional vaccines would be injected directly
(1)
So how are the mRNA sequences "invented". Do they take someone who fought off COVID, sampled the proteins the humans created naturally and reverse engineered the mRNA.
OR
Are they just creating their own mRNA sequences and hoping they work without any side effects?
(2)
How does the body naturally regulate how many mRNAs there are in a cell? Are they distributed? And how
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing with crackpots until I respond to a reply from the crackpot, which I probably won't do. Until then, I'm just informing /. readers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well thanks for the compliments.
None of the literature you posted says anything about permanent changes or anything else that contradicts my refutation of your statements. Did you actually read beyond the tags (which include "scary" terms like "gene editing" that your rude brain might have misinterpreted)?
Re: You cited "publications." Dude, fuck off. (Score:4, Insightful)
Imbecile anti-vaxxer with a user number in excess of 9 million zeuscloud blathered:
Dr. Faucci is not a medical doctor in a traditional sense, he's just a faker, an imposter, a fraud ..like you.
Fauchi's not a medical "doctor in a traditional sense" - he's a scientist who specialises in epidemiologic medicine. He co-discovered the AIDS retrovirus, worked tirelessly to convince the American medical establishment that it was the cause of an epidemic that (among other terrible things) virtually wiped out the haemophiliac population, killed the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of gay men, and who has been the recipient of dozens of scientific and medical honors for his work over the past 40 years. He's a man who has earned the respect and trust of his peers for his scrupulous attention to detail, rigorous adherence to the scientific method, and fearless advocacy for the facts it elicits, throughout his career.
You, on the other hand, are a brain-damaged troll who mainlines QAnon disinformation, and wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it reared up and bit you in the fucking ass ...
Re: You cited "publications." Dude, fuck off. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fauchi's not a medical "doctor in a traditional sense" - he's a scientist who specialises in epidemiologic medicine.
Fauci is a doctor in the sense that he went to medical school, received a Doctor of Medicine degree (first in his class at Cornell's medical school), did a residency and was licensed to practice medicine.
I'm not sure how that differs from being "doctor in a traditional sense". AFAIK, getting a doctorate from a medical school, doing a residency and being licensed to practice is the definition of "doctor", in every sense including "traditional".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is pointless to argue with crackpots, don't know why you are doing this.
In fact by not arguing with crackpots on the topic of vaccines, we help get them out of the way faster.
Re: (Score:2)
From the first link pg. 719:
" mRNA-based delivery carries no risks associated with the integration of the nuclease into the host genome. In addition, the transient nature of the mRNA expression limits the presence of the nuclease inside the cells, reducing the risks of off-target cutting and immune response toward Cas9 protein"
In other words, the mRNA itself does not alter the host genome. Then how do the words "mRNA" and "gene editing" come in the same paragraph, you ask? mRNA can be used to encode a prote
Re:You're not sorry chump! (Score:5, Insightful)
You just posted a couple of links without citing the relevant passages, without showing that absorbed and synthesized any information in there to draw your own conclusions from that could be used to back up your claims.
It's just the typical link dump that serves to delay those who are literate a bit, until they read it themselves and then likely see that what you write is not supported by the papers. Happens like 99% out of the times it take my time to look at a paper, where the user didn't cite the important parts, and then either conflates some of the important details that shouldn't be conflated or deliberately uses equivocation to confuse people.
Such link dumps can intimidate the illiterates into believing that you know what you're talking about. And that's the most likely reason this is done frequently besides of sheer ignorance.
Now do your due diligence and cite the parts that are supposed to back up your claim before I have to look into it to prove the negative.
Re: (Score:2)
It also just occurred to me: If the Covid-19 vaccine was changing your DNA, you would not need a second shot, much less a booster shot. The effect would be permanent on the fist go.
Food for thought...
What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that most people cannot do "their own research". At least not in most fields. And microbiology and virology ain't really something you pick up over a weekend.
Oh, you mean "watch some bullshit conspiracy videos on YouTube and believe their claims without reason"? Sorry, I just can't get used to the terminology used by conspiracy nuts.
Re: (Score:3)
At first I thought you were some kook pulled in by other bad information. Then I noticed your 9-million UID, and concluded that you are, in fact, part of the machine deliberately spreading bad information.
I'll happily stack the several billion mRNA doses delivered to date, and the untold millions of lives saved as a direct result, against any of the FUD you're spewing.
Re: (Score:2)
I also had the wrong impression from the media at the beginning of the pandemic that the mRNA vaccinnes are somehow messing up with your DNA. Fortunately, I had some basic knowledge of biotechnology to understand, with a little bit of effort, that this isn't the case. Other comments explain this into more detail.
mRNA doesn't edit your DNA. Media that claim otherwise are just willingly lying or just plainly wrong. It really doesn't get any simpler. Please understand this and review your opinions. Don't get v
Re: (Score:2)
You know there's a difference between RNA and mRNA, right? It's that little m, right there. Turns out that makes it a different thing. Look it up yourself and realize that all your bullshit is just that - bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
RNA is much more than delivery, its gene editing and hence it's delivered into your body permanently
Why didn't you open with that part, that way i could have saved me reading the rest of it because no later than here I'd have known that you have no idea what you're talking about.
You could really have saved me some time here, you know?
Re:RNA more sever, on paper (absent MSM) (Score:5, Informative)
FDA: Pfizer Admits Myocarditis Risk for 5-12 Year-Olds Requires 5-Year Study (Page 11). [fda.gov]
As opposed to myocarditis from contracting covid itself [cdc.gov].
During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.
Or, you know, dying from covid [cnn.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As opposed to a vaccine that can be improved so that it no longer causes myocarditis. That really should be the goal here. If Pfizer and Moderna actually showed some initiative in examining vaccine injury cases, publicly acknowledged that there is an admittedly-rare problem with the vaccines, and worked tirelessly to improve their products, then not only would it be a great look for both corporations but it would benefit public health.
If either company is taking vaccine injury seriously, it doesn't show,
Re:RNA more sever, on paper (absent MSM) (Score:5, Informative)
1) Vaccine-associated myocarditis is not a serious condition [cdc.gov] compared to (far more common) COVID-associated myocarditis - which is in turn far from the most serious threat posted by COVID. Vaccine-associated myocarditis has a fast recovery and excellent prognosis.
2) Myocarditis is only elevated in a limited number of age groups (narrower for women, broader for men), and appears to be due to an overactive innate immune response. To which the likely answer is nothing more complicated than "lower doses in these age groups".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
myocarditis in young children is ALWAYS a serious condition. Cut the bullshit. Suggesting otherwise is a falsehood even if you are correct the risks associated with myocarditis from COVID-19 are greater.
You are also ignoring the fact that we have reasonable alternatives. If there is any part of the population that is possible to more or less isolate and prevent from contracting covid-19 its probably kids 5 and under! So the correct comparision is
risk of myocarditis via vaccine
vs
risk of covid infection wit
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. Myocarditis has an incredibly large spectrum. Most cases are never recognized.
In the presence of a viral syndrome, the diagnosis only requires an elevation of serum cardiac enzymes. How often do physicians assess for this? Almost never. Because we don't think about it and frankly don't care for mild illnesses.
How often do routine viral syndromes like a cold cause myocarditis? We don't really know because its not well studied. However, I can tell you from experience, its not unus
Re: (Score:2)
I would note that my mother has been carrying what she now calls "long flu" after suffering a viral myocarditis some 35 years ago now having nothing more than a dose of the flu.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because there isn't a large risk from the vaccine either, and children as virus carriers is a real problem?
I thought at this point we all understood that one of the HUGE parts of vaccination is its use as a public health policy tool that stops the spread of the disease to people that are vulnerable.
For instance, a double-vaccinated 70-year-old has a higher chance of infection and death (last I read) than an unvaccinated 30-year-old. That means unvaccinated children are a real health risk to their grandparen
Re: (Score:2)
You have also fallen into the fallacy of there being an binary outcome to catching COVID-19; that is you either die or recover completely.
The reality is there are thousands of children that have gone from being perfectly fit and healthy to now needing wheelchairs. Given long COVID appears to be less likely in the vaccinated then vaccinating children is now a lot more reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Me: [Links the CDC]
You: YOU'RE WRONG!
Okay then...
(Page 13 is particularly telling)
"risk of covid infection..." approaches 100% over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that paper they injected a a dose 2 orders of magnitude greater than normal straight into a vein. Not exactly a realistic scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll also note that (1) all registered drugs are followed via the registration holder's phamacovigilance system and reports to the FDA (depending on the information received the report to the FDA may be immediate, 30 day, or yearly) (2) A 5-year post-approval study requirement is the FDA's current way of saying 'we saw some interesting things in the trial data and/or the chemistry of the product we'd like to know more about'. Probably half the newer medications you are taking were approved with a 5-year st
Re: (Score:3)
Vaccine-associated myocarditis is also a much milder disease [cdc.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet there's still millions dead. I'm much happier with my .00001% chance of a problem from the vaccine (not pretending this is the real number, just using it to show scale) than the 2% fatality rate of contracting the virus, or the double-digit percentage of people that get the virus and have "long-covid" symptoms. Or, you know, die anyway down the road because of having covid - the thing this god damn article is about.
Why are you people so against a no-cost extremely-low-risk highly-effective prevent
Re: (Score:2)
I'd really love to see some statistics on how some freak accidents involving Darwin Awards fare compared to Covid vaccine complications...
Re: (Score:2)
That is because in general, people are stupid. In this particular case they do not understand that any production dependent on R&D first can only give you estimates for when things are ready and these may turn out to be wrong due to not fault of anybody. If time is tight, you still need to go with those estimates. Nobody did fool anybody here, but it takes some actual understanding to see that. Most people do not have that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There contract said reasonable best efforts. There was a production problem, in no small part due to the dithering of the EU on signing the contract. No amount of foot stamping was going to fix that.
The UK had paid AZ to set up production facilities in the UK to produce the vaccine on the condition that the first X number of doses from those new production facilities where for the UK. That seams reasonable to me and AZ where contractually unable to use doses from those facilities at the time to make up the
Re: (Score:2)
There contract said reasonable best efforts.
The contract with the UK said the same.
There was a production problem, in no small part due to the dithering of the EU on signing the contract. No amount of foot stamping was going to fix that.
The contract with the EU was signed one day before the contract with the UK.
The UK had paid AZ to set up production facilities in the UK to produce the vaccine on the condition that the first X number of doses from those new production facilities where for the UK. That seams reasonable to me and AZ where contractually unable to use doses from those facilities at the time to make up the production shortfall in the EU.
The EU paid them as well, and AstraZeneca's contract with the EU said that they could not have any impending contracts that would hinder their ability to supply the EU.
Look, I'm not a lawyer, you're probably not a lawyer, and it doesn't matter anyway. Because the difference between "AstraZeneca shaft their customers" and "AstraZeneca shaft their customers and get away with it thanks to fine p
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They reprogram your immune system to actually produce the spike proteins
Don't know how the immune system or vaccines [cdc.gov] work, do you?
I'm tired of doing your work for you when you don't really care to know the truth.
And by work, you mean deliberately lying and spreading shit because you're too stupid to know how the immune system and vaccines work.
Go away little child. The adults are talking.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point, this discovery exposes a serious problem caused by the vaccine. The immune system is confused and attacking its own body protein (platelet factor 4). Add that to the spike distributing around the body when it was supposed to be contained to the injection site (11 out of 13 nurses in the study). Could the vaccine be worse than covid?
Look at Epstein-barr virus. It produces EBNA-1 protein that messes up normal cells that aren't infected. This spike does something like that, translocat
Re: (Score:2)
Who let the anti-Science idiot in? Nothing, absolutely nothing of your claims is true. It is garbled nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, this doesn't change the fact that it's AstraZeneca who shafted them.
Re: (Score:2)
AZ didn't shaft them. There was a production problem in the facilities in the EU that lead to a short fall in doses available. The EU wanted AZ to replace those doses from facilities that the UK government had paid AZ to setup in the UK to produce vaccines with a contractual obligation that the first X number of doses out of those facilities where for the UK. After that they could do what ever they wanted with those facilities.
The EU commission didn't read the contract properly, thought it said things it di
Re: (Score:2)
Proper modulation