COVID-19

[David L]

It's estimated that worldwide only around 10% of serious adverse reactions and 2-4%  of non-serious adverse reactions are reported. Official government figures

Also a short report on the charity where (some?) of the money generated by this channel is going

[Matt2112]

So multiply that by ten, or even a hundred, and you're still at a very small fraction of 1% serious outcomes from a Covid vaccine. Straws being clutched there, it strikes me.

[David L]

So multiply that by ten, or even a hundred, and you're still at a very small fraction of 1% serious outcomes from a Covid vaccine. Straws being clutched there, it strikes me.

Just reporting the facts that not many are aware of. And I think the standout would be how this compares to other vaccines. Worth remembering too, AZ was effectively withdrawn from use

[Matt2112]

AZ fell out of favour mostly due to public (mis)perception of its risks.

Emerging alternatives then prospered (e.g. Moderna); almost as if there was something similar to market forces at work.

[David L]

AZ fell out of favour mostly due to public (mis)perception of its risks.

Emerging alternatives then prospered (e.g. Moderna); almost as if there was something similar to market forces at work.

Who's calculating the risks? No misinterpretation for these families, alas

https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p725

[Matt2112]

AZ fell out of favour mostly due to public (mis)perception of its risks.

Emerging alternatives then prospered (e.g. Moderna); almost as if there was something similar to market forces at work.

Who's calculating the risks? No misinterpretation for these families, alas

https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p725

"Dozens" are launching a legal challenge.

Come on - how many jabs were administered?  What was the net effect? 🤷🏻�♂️

[David L]

AZ fell out of favour mostly due to public (mis)perception of its risks.

Emerging alternatives then prospered (e.g. Moderna); almost as if there was something similar to market forces at work.

Who's calculating the risks? No misinterpretation for these families, alas

https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p725

"Dozens" are launching a legal challenge.

Come on - how many jabs were administered?  What was the net effect? 🤷🏻�♂️

I suspect we'll never know the answer to that but by the evidence of under reporting, it's certain to be far greater than this case implies.
Also time will tell whether there are any longer-term effects. I'm sure those affected would have like to have given informed consent.
 Not related to the AZ vaccine, of course but autopsy evidence has been found of spike-protein in heart tissue that may, or may not, turn out to be a very large red flag (I'm sure there is no need to worry ( ) but there is still a large number of excess cardiac events, many adding to the excess death toll worldwide)
Still much is unknown

[David L]

Not related to the AZ vaccine, of course but autopsy evidence has been found of spike-protein in heart tissue that may, or may not, turn out to be a very large red flag (I'm sure there is no need to worry ( ) but there is still a large number of excess cardiac events, many adding to the excess death toll worldwide)
Still much is unknown

Talking of large red flags:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

A peer-reviewed paper on an active surveillance study carried out by the Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel. The study was industry independent (important)

Brief Title: Myocardial Injury after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination

Conclusion

mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more common than previously thought, being mild and transient,
and more frequent in women versus men.

The study involved 777 participants and found that myocardial injury ocurred in 1 in 35 (2.8%) of those participants.

You may not wish to watch the following, but it might be of interest if you are contemplating having a booster (please don't let mild and transient deter you)

[Slim]

Again, negligible risk compared - for most people - to the risk of not having the booster. The paper refers specifically to the risk to "young men" - a group which except for unusually vulnerable individuals will not even be offered a booster.

It's good to see that even the adverse effects identified by this piece are mild and transient. The effects of the disease the vaccines defend against are often neither.

[David L]

Again, negligible risk compared - for most people - to the risk of not having the booster. The paper refers specifically to the risk to "young men" - a group which except for unusually vulnerable individuals will not even be offered a booster.

Unless your government is encouraging you to have it (New Zealand).

Isn't the statement above a contradiction?

When are you having yours?

[Slim]

Again, negligible risk compared - for most people - to the risk of not having the booster. The paper refers specifically to the risk to "young men" - a group which except for unusually vulnerable individuals will not even be offered a booster.

Unless your government is encouraging you to have it (New Zealand).

Isn't the statement above a contradiction?

When are you having yours?

A contradiction? Where?

I'll be having mine when it's offered in the Autumn, unless I contract COVID in the meantime and get a free immunity boost.

[David L]

Again, negligible risk compared - for most people - to the risk of not having the booster. The paper refers specifically to the risk to "young men" - a group which except for unusually vulnerable individuals will not even be offered a booster.

Unless your government is encouraging you to have it (New Zealand).

Isn't the statement above a contradiction?

When are you having yours?

A contradiction? Where?

I'll be having mine when it's offered in the Autumn, unless I contract COVID in the meantime and get a free immunity boost.

If, as you suggest, the risk/benefit analysis implies it is better, for most, to take the vaccine than not, why will it not be offered to young men? (Unlike in New Zealand (and possibly other countries) where they still appear to be actively seeking out younger people to take the vaccine......for the good of society). Would it be because the emerging facts are that the negative effects were clearly underestimated and the risk of being severely affected by the virus, if you are a young man, are negligible?


So now you appear to accept that catching Covid offers an opportunity to gain (superior) immunity to the virus. I remember when I cited my own natural immunity  (to the most pathogenic strain), you berated me for opting to not have the shot. It now seems that rather than locking ourselves away or keeping 2 metres (😆) between us, the healthy among us should have perhaps been attending 'Covid parties'.

If you do not catch Covid between now and the Autumn, may I suggest you leave the bike in the garage for a couple of days after you have the booster (I think Jonners would second that)

[Slim]

If, as you suggest, the risk/benefit analysis implies it is better, for most, to take the vaccine than not, why will it not be offered to young men? (Unlike in New Zealand (and possibly other countries) where they still appear to be actively seeking out younger people to take the vaccine......for the good of society). Would it be because the emerging facts are that the negative effects were clearly underestimated and the risk of being severely affected by the virus, if you are a young man, are negligible?

No. It won't be offered to younger people because we're at a wholly different stage in the pandemic and the risk to them, excepting people with underlying health issues, is slight. The claims doing the rounds among the tin-foilers about negative effects being underestimated do not amount to facts.

So now you appear to accept that catching Covid offers an opportunity to gain (superior) immunity to the virus. I remember when I cited my own natural immunity  (to the most pathogenic strain), you berated me for opting to not have the shot. It now seems that rather than locking ourselves away or keeping 2 metres (😆) between us, the healthy among us should have perhaps been attending 'Covid parties'.

It's well understood that catching COVID offers an immunity from the virus; whether it's inferior or superior I don't honestly know. However it also offers a substantial risk to your health that the vaccines don't. So catching it deliberately, at "covid parties" or elsewhere has two disadvantages compared to being vaccinated. Firstly it's anti-social, because it renders you likely to pass the disease on to others. Secondly it's considerably more likely to lead to serious ill health, including myocarditis, or to death than being vaccinated.

If you do not catch Covid between now and the Autumn, may I suggest you leave the bike in the garage for a couple of days after you have the booster (I think Jonners would second that)

If and when the booster programme comes round in the Autumn I suggest you leave your own bike in the garage and get yourself immunised properly (I think Stu would second that. If he could).

[David L]

No. It won't be offered to younger people because we're at a wholly different stage in the pandemic and the risk to them, excepting people with underlying health issues, is slight.

It was ever thus, of course

The claims doing the rounds among the tin-foilers about negative effects being underestimated do not amount to facts.

Well those 'claims' are official estimations so they 'should' have credibility, I'd have thought. Serious studies (like the above) that find evidence of increased incidences of harm than those reported that came from studies sponsored by manufacturers of vaccines are far less likely to display bias towards the safety of the product for commercial reasons. Nothing 'tin-foil' about that.

It's well understood that catching COVID offers an immunity from the virus; whether it's inferior or superior I don't honestly know.

It's superior.

If and when the booster programme comes round in the Autumn I suggest you leave your own bike in the garage and get yourself immunised properly (I think Stu would second that. If he could).

Not sure how I can get "immunised properly". The most the vaccine ever did was reduce the seriousness of the symptoms in those that were most at risk, especially those with other serious underlying conditions that may be exacerbated by the virus. Stu was in that category, I believe and as such may have been wise to get the jab. I hope you get the booster you have faith in and I hope we both continue to follow this issue as closely as we have up to now. It's proving to be a frank exchange of opinions and I think there will be many more developments to come. Me? I'll continue to trust my own immune system, working well so far.
Hope all here remain in good health

[David L]

Having reflected on the adversarial nature of my recent exchange here with Slim, I've decided to attempt to distil my thoughts into something more measured (especially for those that have not watched the video, ploughed through the study or have an interest). I've tried to outline what I believe to be some important points but stand to be corrected if anything is misleading.

The results of this latest study reveal something important. The elevated risk of harm to the myocardia (heart muscle) from the booster should raise concerns. The fact that 1 in 35 recipients showed heart-cell damage (via recognised blood -marker testing) would go unnoticed in most that receive the vaccine in the 'real world' scenario. The condition is described in the study as mild and transient. However, there is a time period in which athletic exertion can cause  ventricular fibrillation leading to cardiac arrest. Luckily, those in the study that were affected were protected from this possible outcome.
This adverse affect was more prevalent in women than men. Had these results been discovered before this particular vaccine was rolled-out, I think it may not have passed regulation, doctor's may have refused to endorse it or people (under informed consent) may have refused to take it. I believe this incidence of adverse reaction is unheard of in any other vaccine. Of course, if the regulator, the medical community and the MSM continue to ignore the results of studies such as this one,  the general public's consent will remain uninformed.
Science is never settled. The endeavour of the scientific community is to continue to explore what we know. Thankfully, there are those that continue to study the safety and efficacy of the current covid vaccines and the findings should  improve both parameters for future versions or those used in future pandemics.