Quote from Wyttenbach

An infection protects you factors better than any vaccine today!

Not evidenced. And it is a question I'm interested in and would like to find evidence on.

It is really not clear whether vaccines or infection protect you better in general. It depends who you are, how bad was the infection, how recently you were vaccinated, which vaccine. It also depends on whether the infection was with an old variant or the current (delta) variant.

What is clear is that vaccination adds protection to whatever you would have just from infection, and that infection alone - especially mild infection - is not great protection.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I took it once to protect my daughter. The reaction was worse that from the strongest flue of the last 60 years.

Another self-evident false statement. You are alive.

Quote from Fm1

German Researcher Concerned about Number of COVID-19 Associated Vaccine Deaths and AE in EMA Database

https://trialsitenews.com/germ…s-and-ae-in-ema-database/

Recently, a German researcher investigated, reviewed, and analyzed spontaneously reported fatalities and adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines in Europe. Conducted by Dresden-based Karla J Lehmann, this analysis probed the number of recorded adverse events and fatalities. It assessed the cardiovascular adverse events up to a specified data in European countries. The study inquired into the EudraVigilance web reports originating from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and some data from the German PEI safety system. Ms. Lehmann emphasized an “alarming” rate of COVID-19 vaccine-associated suspected side effects as well as potential deaths. The German researcher also pointed out large volumes of cardiovascular reactions associated with the databases—in many cases of a life-threatening nature. For example, what she refers to as cardiac and heart circulatory triggered deaths represented nearly a third of vaccine-related deaths associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine called Comirnaty.

The subject of COVID-19 vaccine-associated adverse events and deaths is most certainly controversial, and this recent study uploaded to preprint is no exception. She notes that in the past, with other vaccines, the level of fatalities or cardiovascular events associated with vaccines were uncommon. While few researchers delve into this controversial subject, possibly due to intense societal pressure to accept the dominant risk-reward narrative in much of the developed world, Lehmann takes the plunge, undoubtedly making herself controversial in the process.

Not Recognized Thus Far

Ms. Lehmann reminds the reader that, to date, many sizable numbers of cardiovascular adverse events and deaths aren’t accepted as necessarily causally linked, and many are overwhelmingly justified by the risks of not executing the mass vaccination program.

One exception, of course, has been for vascular and thrombotic as well as embolic side effects, which can lead to serious consequences. Lehmann declared that in these cases, “the mechanism of action suggests that downregulation of ACE2 by non-neutralized spike proteins may have cardiovascular effects.”

Vascular thrombotic/embolic events represent the second most prominent side effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. The scholar suggests that to better understand why sinus vein thrombosis and other thrombotic/embolic events are associated with AstraZeneca’s Oxford vaccine known as Vaxzervia. The author suggests that cardiovascular side effects are of real concern. Yet, systematic and rigorous study shows limitations associated with the nature of how these reports are filed, the lack of adequate recording procedure, and the lack of specific case information or ability to compare to a select population.

Discussion

First, Lehmann notes that the “EudraVigilance database is more comprehensive and differentiated compared to the German safety reports. Those vaccinated were predominantly between the ages of 18-64 years (66-81.6%). Among them, 67%-74% were women and 24%-31% men.”

She reports 525,907 total cases (about 0.2% of all vaccinations by June 5, 2021) for all vaccines and any side effects. In a table, the German author reports that 13,867 fatalities (2.64%) were recorded. Put another way, on average, “1.1 % of vaccinated persons with ADRs in Germany and 2.64T% of Europeans died in connection with ADRs.” Lehmann found that this high number represents an anomaly for any vaccine product.

Lehmann shares an average annual rate in Germany totaling 3.8 reports/day and 0.028 deaths per day for adults. The report declares, “There was a 50-133 fold increase in reported side effects in temporal relation to COVID-19 vaccinations and a 187-200 fold increase in vaccine ADR -related fatalities.”

The German author concluded that “The quantity and quality of the analyzed general side effects of COVID-19 vaccines and the specific cardiovascular side effects of Comirnaty and Vaxzervia are a matter of concern.”

Lead Research/Investigator

Karla J Lehmann

Ms. Lehmann is a specialist in pharmacology and toxicology, an author of 55 scientific publications and manual contributions, as well as numerous lectures, drug reports for initial and post-registration as well as for Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSUR).

Call to Action: TrialSite provides a link to the study.

https://osf.io/gh9u2/

Display More

I think I should just comment on these vigilant-style researchers discovering something surprising in the "report everything" databases by number only for the most popular errors:

1. noted large number of AEs - did not compare with expected background AE

2. noted large number of AEs / vaccination - compared with non-COVID vaccine AEs or previous year AEs. Thinks larger number of COVID vaccine AEs => COVID vaccines cause more AEs

This one suffers 1. (Does not even do the more subtle 2.)

COVID vaccines are known to be new and health professionals are told to report anything (which they would not do for a more established vaccine). The public also know this is a new vaccine and are more likely to report any AE.

Therefore we expect:

• Lots of AEs due to natural AEs not caused by vaccination
• Relatively more AEs than for young childhood vaccines because the natural background of AEs (heart attacks, strokes, etc) goes up exponentially with age
• Relatively more AEs (for given age demographics) than established vaccines because everything will get reported

The EU (and other) regulators sift through these reports to see whether there is anything above background and they note this - even if it is only suspected. these reports on vaccine safety are very detailed.

The difference between their work and this anti-vax oh my god I've discovered a side effect stuff is that they do a careful comparison with background rates.

One sign of a good scholar is paying attention to related work, understanding it, and building on it. otherwise you re-invent the wheel - and usually do it badly - as here.

THH

Quote from RobertBryant

My 24 yr old daughter rang me in distress two days ago..

chest tightness fever shivering she had had the AZ vaccine 6 hours prior..

I am very sorry that your daughter was distressed.

Those are the classic symptoms of an immune system fever - a very common (20%?) side effect of all the COVID vaccines, also of Flu vaccine.

You would expect it to be worse for the COVID vaccines (and it is worse) because we have no previous immunity (well some minimal T-cell from previous CVs maybe - but young people less likely that. Young people also tend to have more active immune systems). So it is a peril of being young, and worse than other vaccines because the virus is less familiar to our immune systems. Which I guess I don't need to tell you.

Your daughter's symptoms in this case were textbook normal, and as described in the pamphlet everyone gets given (NHS description below, other countries add to this that more than 1 in 10 people experience fever. Given old people tend not to, I'd reckon 1 in 5 of 24 year olds should expect it))

Side effects of the coronavirus vaccines

It’s normal to experience side effects after the vaccine. It shows the vaccine is teaching your body’s immune system how to protect itself from the disease, however not everyone gets them.

Most of these are mild and short term. They may include:

• having a painful, heavy feeling and tenderness in the arm where you had your injection
• headache or muscle ache
• joint pain
• chills
• nausea or vomiting
• feeling tired
• fever (temperature above 37.8°C).

You may also have flu-like symptoms with episodes of shivering and shaking for a day or two.

Fever after the coronavirus vaccine

It’s quite common to develop a fever after a vaccination. This normally happens within 48 hours of the vaccination and usually goes away within 48 hours.

I know many young people (18 - 23) who have had symptomatic COVID. Most are knocked out for a week, worse than Flu, and don't feel great for a few weeks after One (age 22) died. Some will have asymptomatic COVID, but in that case they have minimal immunity and will get it again.

I also know many who have had the vaccine - it knocks some of them out for 24 hours typically.

Up to 48 hours fever - due to the immune system responding - is a price worth paying.

In comparison - the rather less detailed list of Flu vaccine side effects - again from NHS

Flu vaccine side effects

Flu vaccines are very safe. All adult flu vaccines are given by injection into the muscle of the upper arm.

Most side effects are mild and only last for a day or so, such as:

• slightly raised temperature
• muscle aches
• sore arm where the needle went in – this is more likely to happen with the vaccine for people aged 65 and over

Try these tips to help reduce the discomfort:

• continue to move your arm regularly
• take a painkiller, such as paracetamol or ibuprofen – some people, including those who are pregnant, should not take ibuprofen unless a doctor recommends it

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes. The adenovirus vaccines have caused some deaths. The mRNA ones have not, as far as anyone knows.

This is tragic, but you must put it into perspective. You must compare risks to benefits. The AstraZeneca vaccines have saved more lives than they have taken. You are far more likely to die if you do not take the vaccine than if you take it. The vaccines for influenza and other diseases also have a slight risk, but the risk of not getting them is higher.

Even when the sickness is seldom fatal, and the the vaccine might kill you, the benefits may outweigh the risks. Shingles seldom kills anyone. The vaccine may or may not kill anyone -- it is unclear. It may be approximately as dangerous as the disease. That sounds like a bad deal! But I find it preferable, because shingles can make you miserable for years. I am happy to risk the slight possibility of death to avoid years of misery. For that matter, I do not mind the very slight risk incurred by driving to the grocery store or flying to Michigan.

Here are the stats, which are food for thought:

Death by shingles

https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/hcp/clinical-overview.html

• Deaths:
  • One study estimated that 96 deaths occur each year in which herpes zoster was the actual underlying cause (0.28 to 0.69 per 1 million population). Almost all the deaths occurred in elderly people or those with compromised or suppressed immune systems.

  
  

Death by shingles vaccine

https://www.precisionvaccinati…ost-licensure-safety-data

VAERS reports are classified as “serious” according to Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Section 600.80. Medical records are requested for reports of serious adverse events, including autopsy findings and death certificates for reported deaths.

CDC and FDA investigators conducted descriptive analyses of reports to VAERS involving Shingrix for the period October 20, 2017–June 30, 2018. During the analytic period, VAERS received 4,381 reports, for a rate of 136 reports per 100,000 doses distributed; among these, 130 (3.0%) were classified as serious.

For 4,167 (95.1%) reports, Shingrix was the only vaccine that had been administered.

Seven confirmed deaths after receipt of Shingrix were reported. According to records, the median decedent age was 65 years, and the interval from vaccination to death ranged from 6 hours to 6 weeks.

The cause of death in four persons was cardiovascular disease, three of whom had multiple cardiac risk factors. Two persons, both of whom were immunosuppressed, died of septic shock.

One death occurred in a woman (aged 86 years) who died subsequent to a fall.

No Shingrix-adverse event pairings met the statistical threshold for an empirical Bayesian data mining finding of a potential safety signal.

Display More

The one thing we have learnt is that mRNA vaccines just work better than other types - not surprising because the ratio of what you need (the relevant proteins) to anything else is much higher.

The critique of the spike-only COVID vaccinations is wrong. They have worked spectacularly well - better than expected. Sure, we can get broader immunity, maybe longer-lasting immunity, with gen 2 mRNA vaccines targeting more than just the spike RBD. But the choice to do that paid off. What is good for the future is that we now have proven ability to modify these relatively trouble-free vaccines to make them different or better.

The even newer tech - DNA vaccines - does not seem so great. 3 doses needed and relatively low efficacy, though high enough still to be useful.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

There was a related story on CNN. This is about a guy who got COVID in 2020. He decided not to get a vaccine now, because he thought he has acquired immunity. He came down with a terrible case. He almost died and now he is debilitated. His wife is in tears during the interview. It is heartbreaking.

He does not seem to be strongly anti-vax. I can't judge from what he said, but I don't get that vibe. He just decided he didn't need a vaccination. What a strange decision! Why would anyone NOT get a vaccination, unless they were strongly opposed?? I think any doctor would have told him that a vaccination is needed even after you get sick. It improves your immunity.

Not getting the vaccine is quite a common thing if you have had COVID already. Ironically, it is those who had COVID once very mildly who raise the least immune response then and are at most risk of a serious infection later: I'd guess those are the ones least likely (like W who thinks he was maybe infected) to get vaccinated.

We have lots of evidence that COVID + vaccine protects you better than just COVID - not so muhc on what exactly are the risks of serious disease if you have already had COVID. That would be interesting to know.

Long-term - think of it like Flu. You don't need to get vaccinated each year, but if you don't you are much more likely to die of it. Even if you have had Flu before, immunity wanes. Like COVID, the risk goes up with age but is never zero which is why the US vaccinates children. The UK, always more stingy with medical treatment, does not do this on the NHS till you are 50.

Quote from Fm1

You are right about the healthcare system In the US, political and criminal. But let's look at why and why you are wrong about the NIH, and 40 years of fauci

Limited NIH Funding For Public Health Law Research May Present Barriers To Evidence-Based Policymaking

http://publichealthlawresearch…t-barriers-evidence-based

Display More

So: NIH has limited funds and they spend very little of this on legal stuff.

Is that good or bad in terms of good use of money?

I have no idea... That also seems to me to be one of those things where they could be criticised for spending too much or too little, and the correct amount is not clear.

Quote from Fm1

Now which experts should we listen to, Collins and Fauci, architects of the 37th ranked healthcare system or the WHO............. Confusion continues to rule!!!

If you want lower COVID rates and slightly fewer people dying in US you keep the vaccines as boosters.

If you want fewer people dying in the world overall (probably not lower COVID rates because the vaccine shortfall to 100% vax is so large, booster shots will not much change it) you go for what the WHO says.

It is quite simple really...

Quote from Fm1

Collins and Fauci, architects of the 37th ranked healthcare system

FM1 - surely your political masters who are in hoc to the hospitals and insurance companies are responsible for your health system - not Fauci. You must know that most countries with more effective health systems have universal coverage as a requirement - although who pays, and how they pay, is very variable.

The US, with its non-universal coverage, scores badly for obvious reasons. In addition (less obvious) there are some perverse free market incentives to over-treat and over-charge.

One of the best ways to get an effective health system is to make it universal but put strict limits on what your health service will do. You have to resist pressure groups but overall you get a better system. Denmark does this very well, and shows a high level of satisfaction in its health provision while spending not too much. The UK also does well with NICE - which decides which medicines we can afford and bargains effectively with drug companies keeping prices down.

Anyway viewing Fauci as responsible for these major and highly political things is wrong?

Quote from Fm1

Do your own research. The best resouces are http://www.flccc.net, and the BIRD group. Then ask for it. It is likely that if you do, the prescriber will feel “off the hook”. Most of us will not deny a reasonable request for a safe medication. Ivermectin is approved by the FDA for use in humans for parasites (worms, scabies), just as yet not officially for COVID. That means it is prescribed “off-label”, as are 20% of prescriptions in the US. Around the

This shows why this guy does not understand how to evaluate the evidence that is out there! And he is counselliung people to pressure their doctors into doing something against their best judgement. On the other hand, if that leads to a full discussion with patients about rsisks and benefits that would be good. I'd recommend the paper from RE: Covid-19 News as a starting point for that discussion rather than the FLCC propaganda.

FLCC is a thoroughly biassed pressure group - not a scientific resource.

You need to look at the totality of the study data scientifically. As has been done.

Thus far it is negative. This does not mean ivermectin is known not to work - just that there is no strong positive evidence it does work.

When you find - rigorously - that the low quality studies look positive, the high quality studies look negative - that is a strong indication any effect is very small, if one exists at all. See this post and the next one for details.

One interesting (still imprecise and therefore uncertain) possibility is that ivermectin reduces hospitalisation - although not anything else. That would make sense if it acted to reduce some symptoms without changing the course of the disease. Hospitalisation is the one outcome where the size of the effect stays the same when you remove the less reliable trials. Looking at the forest diagrams you can see that it remains uncertain because the 95% markers cover no effect. But it interests me.

Whether symptomatic relief from ivermectin (and therefore fewer people with the same level of disease severity going to hospital) is a good idea I'm not sure.

Anyway - more evidence on ivermectin continues to come in, and lots of people are looking at this. The good news is that there is no clear evidence ivermectin causes harm, so those many people who are prescribed it off-label are probably not being medically disadvantaged, just as they are also probably not being medically advantaged - though if it leads them to a false sense of security it would remain disadvantageous overall.

This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comprehensive overview of the available
evidence on ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Overall, the body of
evidence suggests that ivermectin may reduce mortality, may increase symptom resolution or
improvement, may decrease hospitalizations, may increase viral clearance, and may decrease
symptomatic infection in exposed individuals. However most trials have serious methodological
limitations including lack of allocation concealment and lack of blinding, and reported results
varied significantly from striking benefits to null effects. GRADE assessment resulted in low or
very low certainty of the evidence for all the outcomes, due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and
imprecision. Visual inspection of funnel plot constructed for mortality outcome suggest possible
publication bias which rises additional concerns about the certainty of the evidence on
ivermectin’s effects.

After excluding trials with significant methodological limitations inconsistency disappeared and
results changed substantially. We found low certainty, due to imprecision, that ivermectin may
not significantly reduce mortality, nor reduce invasive mechanical ventilation, and moderate
certainty evidence that ivermectin probably does not significantly increase viral clearance or
symptom resolution or improvement. Regarding hospitalizations, results did not change
significantly suggesting that ivermectin may modestly reduce hospitalizations. However,
certainty of the evidence remained low due to very serious imprecision. It is uncertain if
Ivermectin reduces or increases symptomatic infections in exposed individuals or increases
severe adverse events as no trials classified as “low risk of bias” were identified, or the certainty
of the evidence was very low.
Our systematic review has several strengths. The search strategy was comprehensive with
explicit eligibility criteria, and no restrictions on language or publication status. We used a
validated tool for risk of bias assessment and performed a thorough assessment providing details
of trial limitations and potential significant imbalances in baseline participant characteristics. We
assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach and interpreted the results
considering absolute rather than relative effects.
Reporting was poor for a significant number of included trials. For risk of bias assessment, we
adopted a conservative approach and rated as low risk of bias only those trials for which it was
clearly reported that no significant methodological limitations existed. Hence, we may have
inappropriately classified some well executed trials as “some concerns” or “high risk of bias”

due to their suboptimal reporting methods. Although for some trials we intended to contact the
authors for clarification, most did not answer.
Multiple systematic reviews assessed ivermectin for COVID-19.[7] Most of these reviews were
already outdated at the time of writing this manuscript.[55] Only four reviews included a
substantial proportion of the studies assessed in our review.[56-59] In agreement with our
findings, all these reviews concluded that most of the studies assessing ivermectin for COVID-19
have considerable methodological limitations, and two judged the certainty of the evidence as
low to very low for all outcomes[56] or not robust enough to justify ivermectin’s use.[57] The
authors of one systematic review concluded that ivermectin “may have a role in decreasing
mortality in mildly/moderately ill COVID-19 patients” although they graded the certainty on
ivermectin’s effect on mortality as very low.[58] Bryant el at. graded the certainty of the
evidence as low or very low for all outcomes except mortality for which they report moderate
certainty in important mortality reduction. In contrast to our analysis, they reached this
conclusion by not downgrading the certainty of the evidence for inconsistency even though they
reported there was significant, not fully explained, heterogeneity in studies’ results. In addition,
for mortality outcome, they report a sensitivity analysis excluding high risk of bias studies
which, in contrast to our findings, did not result in different estimates of effect from the primary
analysis. This can be explained by the fact that the authors did not exclude a significant number
of studies with important methodological limitations, that they classified as “unclear” risk of
bias.[24]

This is the way it is. I think what people who disagree with these conclusions might do is look at GRADE approach used here and see whether it is wrongly applied - with specific examples.

Abstract

Background and purpose The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and to assess inconsistencies in results from individual studies with focus on risk of bias due to methodological limitations.

Evidence review We searched the L.OVE platform through July 6, 2021 and included randomized trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard or other active treatments. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analysis, assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and performed sensitivity analysis excluding trials with risk of bias.

Results We included 29 RCTs which enrolled 5592 cases. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low. Compared to standard of care, ivermectin may reduce mortality, may increase symptom resolution or improvement, may increase viral clearance, may reduce infections in exposed individuals and may decrease hospitalizations (Risk difference (RD) 21 fewer per 1000, 95%CI: 35 fewer to 4 more). However, after excluding trials classified as “high risk” or “some concerns” in the risk of bias assessment, most estimates of effect changed substantially: Compared to standard of care, low certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin may not significantly reduce mortality (RD 7 fewer per 1000, 95%CI: 77 fewer to 108 more) nor mechanical ventilation (RD 6 more per 1000, 95%CI: 43 fewer to 86 more), and moderate certainty evidence shows that it probably does not significantly increase symptom resolution or improvement (RD 14 more per 1000, 95%CI: 29 fewer to 71 more) nor viral clearance (RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95%CI: 84 fewer to 76 more). It is uncertain if ivermectin increases or decreases severe adverse events and symptomatic infections in exposed individuals.

Conclusions and Relevance Ivermectin may not improve clinically important outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and its effects as a prophylactic intervention in exposed individuals are uncertain. Previous reports concluding significant benefits associated with ivermectin are based on potentially biased results reported by studies with substantial methodological limitations. Further research is needed.

Multiple systematic reviews have assessed the benefits and harm of ivermectin for COVID-19
patients with inconsistent findings and conclusions.[7] Although some organizations and groups
have argued strongly in favor of implementing ivermectin for treatment and/or prevention of
COVID-19,[8] current key clinical practice guidelines recommend against its use outside the
context of clinical trials.[9-12]

Reasons for these major discrepancies are probably related to different evidence analytical and/or
interpretation approaches. Assessing the risk of bias is one of the pillars of any systematic review
and has proven to be essential for evidence interpretation in the present pandemic context where

results of studies with major methodological limitations have led to erroneous conclusions, waste
of resources and patients’ exposure to potentially harmful interventions.[3,13,14] Nevertheless,
most available systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 have not appropriately assessed
risk of bias as a potential explanation for inconsistency between trial results. Therefore, this
systematic review aims to summarize the best available evidence on ivermectin for prevention
and treatment of COVID-19 patients and explore potential explanations for heterogeneity in
RCTs results with focus on studies methodological limitations.

Scotland COVID cases are now rising sharply - while England cases are more or less flat.

What is the difference? FM1 please note Scottish weather is similar to English, on average quite a bit wetter.

The difference is Scottish schools went back last week. COVID in the UK is a disease of the young, since they are pretty well the only ones unvaccinated. (We don't allow < 16 years, and only 1 week ago allowed 16-17).

THH

PS - some here will no doubt look at that graph and be sure that the sudden rise is fueled by a lack of ivermectin - it proves beyond doubt that Scotland was successfully using ivermectin prophylaxis over the Summer but has now, due to evil machinations of pharma companies who gain money from COVID, stopped using it.

Take that one up with Nichola Sturgeon - not me!

The long-term effects of the vaccine are unknown but starting from a very very low level. The long-term effects of COVID are also unknown - but starting from a known much higher level, and frankly the uncertainty (what is long COVID?) is much scarier since we know it exists, whereas it is highly unlikely any vaccine long-term effects could exist.

Quote from Wyttenbach

CDC.txt

Once more for you some very old VAERS data from the first vaccination month.

Did you grasp your silly error that makes your figures 100x to large???

May be once you should commit your FUD!

Display More

W - you are welcome to post corrections to anything I post. I will happily agree any error I find corrected.

Claiming other make errors without detailing them is what BSers do: so if you are able to do otherwise I'd suggest you do so, and if not all can see that.

All the mild US reactions

COVID Vaccine Landing

Wrong - the vaers data is not vaccine reactions - it is chronologically correlated events happening to people who have been vaccinated. Mostly serious, not mild.

The VAERS (serious events chronologically correlated with vaccinations) data are available - nicely searchable, from CDC

How to Access VAERS Data through VAERS WONDER System | Vaccine Safety | CDC

http://www.openvaers.com is a specially formatted version of this arranged to make it seem as scary as possible. (Not sure whether it is accurate). But I'm happy to assume it is accurate, although missing information that we could gte from the real VAERS database.

Anyway, some homework for W is to work out what is the expected background number of VAERS reports in any given catagory, assuming no vaccine side effects?

I am sure he has done that work and can give us at least approximate answers. Let me say that the answers "zero" and "very small" are not acceptable, being either false or non-informative.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here a summary of all UK THH "mild" reactions....

https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports#[object%20Object]

All the mild US reactions

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/

Display More

LOL - anti-vax web sites are not the best way to get accurate info. If you read them uncritically it would explain your false statements here?

Homepage | UKColumn

In this case those reports are of thing happening to people who have been vaccinated - not of vaccine caused things.

Since some 50M people in UK have been vaccinated a lot of things happen to them. To see whether this number is above the background rate, and also what these things are, we would need more analysis. Not however something I'd expect from UkColumn, whose mission appears to be to spread false information and scare people.

UK Column: Covid conspiracy theories run wild on the channel for lockdown sceptics

At first glance the slick production looks like the work of Sky News or the BBC but this is not a conventional news channel. Brian Gerrish, a former Royal Navy…

www.thetimes.co.uk

Quote from Wyttenbach

FUD. All symptoms within 48 hours are vaccine related. Only a tiny number is background. Of course nobody counts 100% but the reported cases are also only 10%....

It is only you (and other anti-vax-lite people) who have this idea that no-one reports cardiac arrest within 48 hours of a new (COVID) vaccine injection. Of course such would be reported.

So what is the background rate of cardiac arrests?

In 2005 CVD was the underlying cause of death in 864,480 of the approximately 2.5 million total deaths in the U.S., and adults aged ≥65 years accounted for 82% of all deaths attributable to CVD (Figure 1). In terms of morbidity, an estimated 80 million Americans have at least one form of CVD, and nearly one-half of these are aged ≥60 years [3], reflecting a marked increase in the incidence and prevalence of CVD with advancing age. The prevalence of CVD, including hypertension, CHD, HF, and stroke, increases from about 40% in men and women 40-59 years of age, to 70-75% in persons 60-79 years of age, and to 79-86% among those aged 80 years or older (Figure 2) [3]. Similarly, the incidence of CVD, including CHD, HF, and stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage, increases from 4-10 per 1,000 person-years in adults aged 45-54 years to 65-75 per 1,000 person-years in adults aged 85-94 years (Figure 3) [3,4].

if we have a 48 hour window we get a background rate of 4.5 * 2/365 * 1000 per million events =

25 events per million for 45-54 year olds

up to

380 events per million for 85-94 year olds

Given the EU has roughly 116% vaccine jabs per person and has a population of 448 million the expected background number of cardiac events within 48 hours of an EU COVID vaccination is:

519 * 25 (assuming average risk is as for 45-54) = 12,975

519 * 380 (assuming average risk is as for 85-94) = 197,220

These don't look like tiny numbers to me?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

There's a simple reason why the numbers of VAERS reports have gone up (compared to the last 5 years)

Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], and other adverse events if later revised by CDC:

• Vaccine administration errors, whether or not associated with an adverse event (AE)
• Serious AEs regardless of causality. Serious AEs per FDA are defined as:

1. Death;
2. A life-threatening AE;
3. Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization;
4. A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions;
5. A congenital anomaly/birth defect;
6. An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above.

Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory SyndromeCases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death

Healthcare providers are encouraged to report to VAERS any additional clinically significant AEs following vaccination, even if they are not sure if vaccination caused the event.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Health care care providers were NOT required to make those reports before Covid19 vaccines came out. I'd guess that the most likely 'adult' vaccines pre-covid were influenza, pneumonia, shingles .. ? And most health care providers wouldn't report (eg) Appendicitis for them.

Display More

Anti-vaxers very understandably make this mistake because they know vaccines are bad, so it is their firm conviction that everyone who supports vaccination lies. They assume the notes about VAERS which say why its data cannot be used for quantitative comparisons are false - and just go ahead and do that without any understanding of why the number of reported possible AEs is so different the real number of AEs: public reported AEs depend on popular sentiment and concern, HCC AEs vary as in Alan's post.

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here we agree. But already Pfizer gen therapy induced myocarditis is 5x above background according the US military study we here once linked. 500 adverse reaction half with with live long damage among 1 mio gen therapies is way (> 10x) above background.

Yes to 5X myocarditis, but the VIM is very mild (would not normally be diagnosed as such) and nothing like normal myocoarditis, which is serious and can have long-term side effects. And 5X very very small is still very very small.

One thing - background is continuous, and 2nd vaccination is a one-off event, so you need to state over what time you are measuring background for this comparison to be meaningful. VIM occurs within a week of the vaccination since it is essentially a temporary allergic reaction in the heart muscle. It is guaranteed you gte your 5X choosing a suitable period.

No to 250 life-long damage. Only thing I can't tell you without a lot of details is which of the various anti-vax "make the numbers look bigger" tricks that numb er comes from. And given your lack of clearly linked evidence I'm not likley to do so.

Quote from Wyttenbach

For your personal illumination once look into https://www.adrreports.eu/de/search_subst.html# letter "C"

so far 20'000 cardiac disorders in the EU

Sorry - what does the EU prevalence of cardiac disorders have to do with vaccines?

Unless - you are saying every background heart attack in a vaccinated person is caused by the vaccine. That is anti-vax lie #1.