Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx
I guess the under reporting would be an issue if you took the Yellow Card data in isolation. However the MHRA works hard to account for the variables in the reporting system including the issue of under reporting. The MHRA discuss this here - https://www.gov.uk/government/public...y-surveillance
Under reporting is an issue but once you have a handle of when and why potential adverse reactions are not reported, you can at least correct for it to some extent. It’s not ideal but the self reporting system most regulatory bodies including the MHRA use is the ‘least worst’ option for post-market surveillance |
Thank you for that link. I was cautiously optimistic when I read the first few sections, it looks good, but then my hopes were dampened by a few things there.
It was published a year and a half ago so I thought I'd do a search on
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ to see what the MHRA had found and published. I couldn't find anything on this subject using the search terms "MHRA" & "COVID-19 vaccine safety", "Commission on Human Medicines" & "Expert Working Group" & "COVID-19 vaccine safety"
That page states that there will be "Four main strands of our proactive vigilance":
The first is that they will keep an eye on the yellow card reports....great, those are rubbish to begin with.
The second is a form of active surveillance known as ‘Rapid Cycle Analysis’. This method involves proactive, weekly analysis of a range of pre-defined events (theoretical side effects) to quickly identify safety signals. The trouble is that Pfizer and our Govt deny that there are any side effects/they can choose to only look for side effects that they know will be very rare (not the first time that kind of thing has been done)
The third is targeted active monitoring of certain groups of vaccinees. This might bear fruit. However, the CDC did a similar type of thing and it took a FOI and two court orders to get the data out of them. Their data showed 7.8% needing medical treatment for side effects and 25% not being able to work or go to school for some time after the jab. It remains to be seen whether the MHRA will find similar results. But as I said above, I've not seen anything published by them either way. There is also plenty of room to monkey about with the data as it seems to be a case control type study.
The fourth are formal epidemiological studies. Just glancing at the overview of the HPV study that is linked to I see a few problematic issues:
It relied on the yellow card system
It used estimates of vaccination coverage
That's without doing a deep dive into the full paper.....
That page finishes off with "The MHRA will operate a transparent process. On a regular basis, the MHRA will produce an up to date summary of the safety experience, including aggregate Yellow Card reports, on our website."
I clicked the link and found that they have published all the vaccine manufacturers data from the yellow card scheme:
Non lethal adverse events: 156996
Deaths:103
Remember, yellow card data is a fraction of what is actually happening.
iirc, the swine flu vaccine was pulled after something like 25 deaths.