Vaccine question

[dneal]

For those interested, this, apparently, is the original report in German (which I cannot read): https://gth-online.org/wp-content/up...19032021-3.pdf

It's dated 19 March 2021 and says Germany resumed administering the AZ vaccine. Of 1.6M doses, there were 13 cases of sinus or cerebral thrombosis - 12 of which were women - and they occurred 4-16 days after administration. The rest is just a bullet point list of benefits and side effects (sore arm, fever, chills, etc...)

That said, adhoc is correct that it is now being reported that Germany has suspended the use for those under 60. One of many articles.

[adhoc]

Adhoc, your persisting level of sneer is unusual. Not sure what is up with that.

Because I have never encountered someone so clearly intelligent as you that is also so stubborn in his beliefs and refuses to budge plainly on technicalities. It makes me irrationally mad and I can't help myself. If you were at least an idiot, I could have easily ignored you. I wish you and yours good health as well, of course.

Proofs, especially in medicine, are extremely hard to achieve and take time and huge sample sizes. As anyone in science, you can never discuss things in definitive language unless you have absolute proof to back it up. I am personally accountable by law if I say things I can not prove even on social media (and so are the doctors - we dragged one to court over bullshit claims about vaccines making women infertile), because of my connection to the institute I work for. But I would never publically even speculate something without already being pretty damn sure about it. Medicine also has the disadvantage of not being a hard science such as my background, maths/physics/engineering, so that complicates things even further. This is also a highly politicized topic, saying anything from a position of authority can backfire easily.

Comparing a specific group of people to general populace is deceiving. Like average wage statistics, it gives false impressions.

Confirmed papers are nice and dandy, but I can from first hand testify that we have already started selling the product I made and it took over 2 years before the patents and research pertaining the innovation were fully published. Clearly, it existed before that already.

And worst of all - I'm confident you're aware of all of this.

[grainweevil]

Many things float into my brain about all this, some of which are:

1. If you pause the vaccine use owing to the data (slightly increased rate of CVST in women under 60) then why stop men under 60 having it?
2. Saying the rate has gone up to 1 in 100,000 based solely on the data of one country and not on all the doses of AZ given worldwide is, I would have thought, questionable science.
3. Given how many more doses of AZ have been given in the UK (of which I am one, and in that problematic group no less) how come we don't seem to be reporting proportionally increased rates of CVST?
4. Just what is the data on how many of the afflicted were on contraception, which are known to increase the risk of blood clots (I've looked, but can't find).
5. This is an emergency situation, not a vaccine introduction for something for which we as a species already have a certain level of immunity, so is it the right course to halt use until investigations are complete as we would do in less critical times, or rather investigate whilst still administering? Aside from the damage done to vaccine confidence by so pausing.
6. Given that the AZ vaccine is substantially less expensive than its competitors, are we to believe that Pfizer, Moderna, and co. are all sitting on their hands and not working their socks off making very sure that the media get the "right" story about their cheaper competitor. The actual numbers here are tiny compared to the likely chance of problems if Covid-19 gets you, and yet the coverage has been intense. Try finding data on blood clots and problems with the other vaccines (and there are some) and you have to dig through mounds of hits on AZ first. Politicians, of course, are above being influenced by drug companies*, but certainly not public opinion. And health bodies are not immune from pressure from politicians, owing to naturally wishing to retain their jobs and funding.

I'm not looking for discussion, argument, demands for scientifically peer-reviewed reports, or personal insults. These are merely some of the questions that have popped into my non-scientific head, and I share them in case others' grey matter might wish to mull them over too.

* A soupçon of sarcasm may have crept in there...

[TSherbs]

...And worst of all - I'm confident you're aware of all of this.

Yes, I am aware and agree with all the rest of what you posted with this.

All I did was suggest that you qualify the word "effect" with something like *possible*, but you dug in and began suggesting that I wasn't reading enough and was being lazy and dishonest. Turns out, from this post just above, that both you and that professor/doctor who first spoke up about his three patients also used qualifying language.

I am both genuinely concerned about and interested in the efficacy and safety of all these vaccines. But I also am concerned about the influence of language and misinformation on various social media platforms, even this little corner of the internet.

[TSherbs]

Many things float into my brain about all this, some of which are:

1. If you pause the vaccine use owing to the data (slightly increased rate of CVST in women under 60) then why stop men under 60 having it?
2. Saying the rate has gone up to 1 in 100,000 based solely on the data of one country and not on all the doses of AZ given worldwide is, I would have thought, questionable science.
3. Given how many more doses of AZ have been given in the UK (of which I am one, and in that problematic group no less) how come we don't seem to be reporting proportionally increased rates of CVST?
4. Just what is the data on how many of the afflicted were on contraception, which are known to increase the risk of blood clots (I've looked, but can't find).
5. This is an emergency situation, not a vaccine introduction for something for which we as a species already have a certain level of immunity, so is it the right course to halt use until investigations are complete as we would do in less critical times, or rather investigate whilst still administering? Aside from the damage done to vaccine confidence by so pausing.
6. Given that the AZ vaccine is substantially less expensive than its competitors, are we to believe that Pfizer, Moderna, and co. are all sitting on their hands and not working their socks off making very sure that the media get the "right" story about their cheaper competitor. The actual numbers here are tiny compared to the likely chance of problems if Covid-19 gets you, and yet the coverage has been intense. Try finding data on blood clots and problems with the other vaccines (and there are some) and you have to dig through mounds of hits on AZ first. Politicians, of course, are above being influenced by drug companies*, but certainly not public opinion. And health bodies are not immune from pressure from politicians, owing to naturally wishing to retain their jobs and funding.

I'm not looking for discussion, argument, demands for scientifically peer-reviewed reports, or personal insults. These are merely some of the questions that have popped into my non-scientific head, and I share them in case others' grey matter might wish to mull them over too.

* A soupçon of sarcasm may have crept in there...

These are great questions.

[adhoc]

Many things float into my brain about all this, some of which are:

1. If you pause the vaccine use owing to the data (slightly increased rate of CVST in women under 60) then why stop men under 60 having it?
2. Saying the rate has gone up to 1 in 100,000 based solely on the data of one country and not on all the doses of AZ given worldwide is, I would have thought, questionable science.
3. Given how many more doses of AZ have been given in the UK (of which I am one, and in that problematic group no less) how come we don't seem to be reporting proportionally increased rates of CVST?
4. Just what is the data on how many of the afflicted were on contraception, which are known to increase the risk of blood clots (I've looked, but can't find).
5. This is an emergency situation, not a vaccine introduction for something for which we as a species already have a certain level of immunity, so is it the right course to halt use until investigations are complete as we would do in less critical times, or rather investigate whilst still administering? Aside from the damage done to vaccine confidence by so pausing.
6. Given that the AZ vaccine is substantially less expensive than its competitors, are we to believe that Pfizer, Moderna, and co. are all sitting on their hands and not working their socks off making very sure that the media get the "right" story about their cheaper competitor. The actual numbers here are tiny compared to the likely chance of problems if Covid-19 gets you, and yet the coverage has been intense. Try finding data on blood clots and problems with the other vaccines (and there are some) and you have to dig through mounds of hits on AZ first. Politicians, of course, are above being influenced by drug companies*, but certainly not public opinion. And health bodies are not immune from pressure from politicians, owing to naturally wishing to retain their jobs and funding.

I'm not looking for discussion, argument, demands for scientifically peer-reviewed reports, or personal insults. These are merely some of the questions that have popped into my non-scientific head, and I share them in case others' grey matter might wish to mull them over too.

* A soupçon of sarcasm may have crept in there...

Again, comparing a small group of people to larger populace is deceitful, for obvious reasons.
You didn't ask for a published paper, but I will give you one anyway. Not yet peer reviewed due to time constraints.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-362354/v1

"Conclusions. The AZD1222 vaccine is associated with development of a prothrombotic disorder that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia but which shows a different serological profile."

Currently, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis occurs at 800-1000% of the expected rate after vaccination for a specific group. If you think this is coincidental, then I don't know what to tell you.

I was also very skeptical not more than a week or two ago, and wrote this off as shenanigans due to Brexit. Vaccines are obviously a huge political topic.

[TSherbs]

[

Currently, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis occurs at 800-1000% of the expected rate after vaccination for a specific group.

Thank you for the link above. I read it all. These numbers and percents are not any where in it. Where are these numbers from? This kind of percent change sounds like moving from one case to, say, nine. What are the raw numbers of the numerator and denominator? This report is nothing about trying to determine its frequency in the population, nor is it a warning against taking the AZ vaccine. It is a suggestion for treatment of conditions if they occur.

By the way, the language of the report you posted here says that a link is "suggested" and that the resulting condition appears "associated." They do not say proven, definitive, clear. Everyone here is agreeing that a causal link is possible. You keep wanting to criticize people here; I don't know why.

[TSherbs]

Here is a summary of the AZ situation in Europe witten by an AP reporter (from today, 31 March)

https://apnews.com/article/what-do-w...44d114646faa2d

Not much new (in the science); 31 total cases reported (same number I read a few days back).

[adhoc]

UK also admitted to finding blood clots cases after vaccination today, ruling out the EU conspiracy against UK theory. They were just hiding them. They admitted to as many cases as rest of EU combined now!

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2BO6XH

TSherbs - the 8-10x number came from my educated guess based on the data I could find and extrapolations based from that. That's why it's not an accurate number.

[grainweevil]

adhoc, you've had a personal scare with your wife, and you're naturally now dead against the AZ vaccine. I understand that. But please try and dial down the hyperbole. No-one's been "hiding" figures; they couldn't count what wasn't there.

Anyway, I looked for some further details (that report is a little brief!), and apparently that's as of March 24th and it's 30 cases in 18.1 million doses, which is around 1 in 600,000, or less than 2 cases per million people.

[adhoc]

Baseline for blood clots in UK is 6.4-19.1 per million per year, depending on age group, scaled to observed time that is 0.22-0.68 per million. 2 cases per million is 294-900% increase, with upper margin representing younger women.

These are the numbers, these are the facts. This has nothing to do with my personal experience.

[grainweevil]

Talking about percentage increases in the context of single digits makes for exciting numbers, doesn't it? They all get into big percentages ever-so quickly.

[adhoc]

So now that you're proven wrong, it doesn't matter anymore?

Women aged 34-55 are 9x more likely to die from CVST 2 weeks after being vaccinated with AZ, than otherwise. There, percentage dropped, sounds better? This is the same ratio as chances for lung cancer between smokers and non smokers for crying out loud.

[lsmith42]

Anyone seen my banhammer??? I used it on myself not too long ago...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grainweevil]

Should I duck?

I do wish you'd stop editing your messages, adhoc - I get an alert for one thing and then come on here to find altogether something else. Then it got edited again - just as well, as I was a little upset.

So now that you're proven wrong, it doesn't matter anymore?

It's good for the character to be proved wrong. Could we establish what "right" you believe I've been advocating so I don't improve mine under false pretences?

Incidentally, I found an interesting paper here. Under "Risk Factors" it says young women are more likely to suffer CVST anyway. Not sure whether your baseline numbers reflected that. You also seem to be turning "cases" into "deaths", by the way, which is a bit misleading.

Meanwhile, lest we forget, lots of people are getting infected as we speak. Each one a walking, talking, mobile laboratory, anyone of whom could generate a mutation of this damn virus that's even worse than the ones we already have. Seems to me an important question to ask ourselves is just how cautious can we afford to be?

[Brilliant Bill]

I'm 75, fat and happy. Plan to keep it that way. After six weeks wait, I finally have an appointment to get shot next week. Prefer the one & done if it's a choice.

Funny, when young it was different. In Vietnam they gave us these huge yellow pills -- against malaria, they said. I'm guessing it was hydroxychloroquine. I don't know anyone who actually took them -- we threw them away, it was like a bad joke!

[adhoc]

I do wish you'd stop editing your messages, adhoc - I get an alert for one thing and then come on here to find altogether something else. Then it got edited again - just as well, as I was a little upset.

Don't be. Even if I'm a pain in the ass in this thread, I can be a nice guy, I promise.

Under "Risk Factors" it says young women are more likely to suffer CVST anyway. Not sure whether your baseline numbers reflected that. You also seem to be turning "cases" into "deaths", by the way, which is a bit misleading.

Meanwhile, lest we forget, lots of people are getting infected as we speak. Each one a walking, talking, mobile laboratory, anyone of whom could generate a mutation of this damn virus that's even worse than the ones we already have. Seems to me an important question to ask ourselves is just how cautious can we afford to be?

Yes, my numbers reflected exactly that.

There are other vaccines - safer AND more effective - on the market than AZ. It's not a choice between covid infection and AZ vaccine.

Cases indeed don't equal dead, but cvst can frequently leave people practically brain dead or having to relearn everything, including their own native language. This is a serious illness. But even then, I'm only including the rarest and deadliest cases; in UK alone, nearly 300 more common blood clots were observed in young women after vaccination alone. If anything, I have been very cautious and conservative with the numbers speaking negatively of AZ vaccine.

I'm 75, fat and happy.

Excellent, congrats. My life goal is being old, fat, and happy. Baking Christmas cookies with my grandchildren.

[grainweevil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56594189

You will no doubt pick the bits you like. I see several don't knows (don't think you'll like those) and some figures that seem to adequately indicate where the more serious illness still is.

But I've wasted enough time on this now and you won't be a sport and tell my how to improve my character, so I am done.

[TSherbs]

Anyone seen my banhammer??? I used it on myself not too long ago...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha
Word

[TSherbs]

Women aged 34-55 are 9x more likely to die from CVST 2 weeks after being vaccinated with AZ, than otherwise.

That's not accurate. No one has determined "who is more likely to die."

There appears to be increased risk, yes.