Coronavirus

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris

And that’s the essence of the conspiracy theory mindset. You pick your conclusion, then make the facts fit. No matter how bonkers the results.

Chris. I was taught that in Uni by a GP, a surgeon and a neurologist in 3 separate classes 30 years ago and nothing has changed since ( I keep an eye on the literature from time to time).
It's common knowledge in the medical professions.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mick

Are you’re saying the guardian does?

Lmfao. I trust GB News a lot more than that hard lefty rag, I wouldn’t mop up cat piss with.

To be fair Mick that's the one thing it's actuall good for.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Chris. I was taught that in Uni by a GP, a surgeon and a neurologist in 3 separate classes 30 years ago and nothing has changed since ( I keep an eye on the literature from time to time).
It's common knowledge in the medical professions.

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Are you saying the guardian does?

Lmfao. I trust GB News a lot more than that hard lefty rag, I wouldn’t mop up cat piss with.

I'm talking about GB News's two investigations by Ofcom over its Covid 19 content, not The Guardian. The paper here is merely reporting an Ofcom announcement.

You read find the Ofcom story on other sources than The Guardian if you like eg https://pressgazette.co.uk/ofcom-gb-news/ https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre...ews-mark-steyn

[Ramrod]

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.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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.

The report does acknowledge the limitations of passive monitoring of side effects, namely the Yellow Card system. The strands 2 to 4 are in place to supplement the passive system. They will also enhance knowledge of the sensitivity of Yellow Card reporting to utilise what data is collected in the most meaningful way.

We now have probably the biggest cohort for any post marketing surveillance in history. We are also developing better and better tools to analyse the data gathered, cross linking vaccination records with other medical records. If the post market surveillance for the COVID vaccine scheme is not sufficient to give confidence in the products, then I would be very wary of almost any other drug on the market as in almost all cases, the monitored population will be less than seen here

Jab 4 now installed

[ Pfizer again .... ]

[heero_yuy]

Jab #4 booked for the 11th of November.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The report does acknowledge the limitations of passive monitoring of side effects, namely the Yellow Card system. The strands 2 to 4 are in place to supplement the passive system. They will also enhance knowledge of the sensitivity of Yellow Card reporting to utilise what data is collected in the most meaningful way.

We now have probably the biggest cohort for any post marketing surveillance in history. We are also developing better and better tools to analyse the data gathered, cross linking vaccination records with other medical records. If the post market surveillance for the COVID vaccine scheme is not sufficient to give confidence in the products, then I would be very wary of almost any other drug on the market as in almost all cases, the monitored population will be less than seen here

I was quite detailed about the failings of this system. The CDC followed about 10 million jabbed people so, no, we don't have the biggest cohort. (and they found significant side effects, as did the MHRA) Did you actually read what I wrote?

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I was quite detailed about the failings of this system. The CDC followed about 10 million jabbed people so, no, we don't have the biggest cohort. (and they found significant side effects, as did the MHRA) Did you actually read what I wrote?

Apologies, I wasn’t clear in what I wrote. In terms of cohort size, the standard passive post market surveillance cohort (Yellow Card for example) is the entire vaccinated population of not just the UK but the world. Regulatory bodies can and do share data.

On top of that, the Rapid Cycle Analysis discussed in that previous link actively data mines 13 million patient records in the UK.

There are of course rare incidences of serious side effects but there will always be a risk/benefit calculation performed
=================================
Edit - Found the global database of adverse drug reactions. Vigibase run from Uppsala in Sweden is the WHO run database

[tweetiepooh]

I think there are other benefits to the vaccination programme that are harder to measure. For example if those vaccinated are not going to A&E for "covid symptoms" that they don't need to turn up for because they are vaccinated and believe the vaccine will "protect them" then you reduce demand/load on A&E. (Conversely some won't turn up when they should for the same reasoning.)
Some people will feel better because they are vaccinated because they believe they will not get as sick. Mental attitude can affect physical health.
I'm sure there are other factors too.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Apologies, I wasn’t clear in what I wrote. In terms of cohort size, the standard passive post market surveillance cohort (Yellow Card for example) is the entire vaccinated population of not just the UK but the world.

, nevertheless, that's passive. The CDC actively followed about 10 million.

[Ramrod]

An interesting paper:https://insulinresistance.org/index....le/view/71/224

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

An interesting paper:https://insulinresistance.org/index....le/view/71/224

Scaremongering.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Scaremongering.

omg, he's an eminent consultant cardiologist. Besides, the official MHRA figures show "In the United Kingdom, since the vaccine roll-out there have been almost 500000 adverse event reports recorded (via the Yellow Card system) in association with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations involving over 150000 individuals. In terms of the number of reports per person (i.e. having received at least one dose), the MHRA figures show around 1 in 120 suffering a likely adverse event that is beyond mild. However, the MHRA are unclear about the rate and furthermore do not separate out the serious adverse events. Nevertheless, this level of reporting is unprecedented in the modern medical era and equals the total number of reports received in the first 40 years of the Yellow Card reporting system (for all medicines– not just vaccines) up to 2020"

Would you rather not know?!