Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

Incredible,

Some batches as high as 1/20 adverse effects.

Others 1/1000 - even this is too high, vaccines have been pulled for 1/10,000 adverse effects.

Yet still people on here will defend these.

The Danish study signals problems with vaccines and asks interesting questions. I think that the researchers discovered patterns that indicate issues with the Pfizer product. Those issues are most likely related to product quality in a large scale production scenario.

Ramping up production to millions and billions of units in such a short period of time was most likely achieved by outsourcing and manufacturing in multiple plants at the same time. This product required specific storage and transportation conditions, which imposed the need for distributed manufacturing. For example US received the vaccines from different plants than say Europe and so on, thus making some adverse event reporting systems not pick up the signals. Manufacturing so many vaccines in such a short period of time while maintaining the product quality is extremely difficult. Of course, any deviation from the expected specification should have been picked up by the quality control but as we know that sometime fails too.

If that is what happened the affected batches should be easily traceable to the respective plants and product quality issues could easily be confirmed. Could it be that some of the plants have failed to provide an in-spec product especially when large quantities were processed at the same time and the process became unstable? Did somebody from Pfizer not say that making the vaccine was like building the plane and flying it at the same time? Maybe it really was.

Another possibility could be that Pfizer re-formulated the vaccine to make it less and less harmful. That would imply that they knew about the inherent issues to begin with but still chose to introduce the product to the market. Highly unlikely imo.

I think that the vaccine was safe and the formula/process was stable and worked well on a small scale. It is only when the production was ramped up the issues came up to the surface and this is what the study detected.   

Of course, the authors in line with scientific epistemology cannot make definite statements and conclusions. It is to early and more research is required. Otherwise they would have not got it published. As far as I understand these are preliminary findings and the data is not fully in yet for the 'yellow line'. On top of that there are concerns about under-reporting of the events that occurred long after the vaccine injections - the more time has passed the harder it is to link the SAE with the jab. Nevertheless this work certainly signals problems with the some of the early batches of the vaccines and gives an opportunity for Pfizer and other researchers to investigate. 

As I said in the original post age was not a factor. Although not in the paper, this was confirmed by the authors after the paper was published.

In fact the green and yellow batches had a higher elderly (70+) participation than in the blue batch. Blue batches got first to younger cohorts who were deemed essential i.e. healthcare workers.

Therefore the 'plausible alternative' is not really plausible.

The authors are fairly adamant that they are right and that there were issues with some batches of the product.

I'd also argue that the families of those 579 Danes who are reported to have lost their lives because of the vaccine would consider their findings much more than "scurrilous ant vax scare mongering".

This is gas! did all the rich people get together in 2019 and put the plan in place? great co-ordination, fair play to them.

Translation: Your pretence of an 'open mind' on vaccines have been shown up for the obvious falsehood that it is. Your post history on Covid is therefore entirely relevant to demonstrating that. You were unable to find posts where you rebutted an anti vax claim made by another poster. Yet your post history is full of false or exaggerated claims about vaccine safety risks.

These are not 'personal' attacks. They directly relate to the anti vax propaganda without merit or foundation you post on this thread. Desperate attempt at the posting tactic of 'playing the victim' when your pretence is rumbled.

When you have to start pulling figures out of an anti vax grifter John Campbell Youtube video, figures which are nowhere in the study itself, it is clear the claims you have made for the study are thoroughly discredited.

Exactly, they aren't releasing this new data through seriously peer reviewed sites, but drip feeding it on a known anti vax outlet. Claims they wouldn't be able to make in a proper study. The discredit themselves with these tactics.

you mentioned 579 deaths, and of course provided zilch to back this up.

When questioned on it it became an "irrelevant matter" 🙄

Are the 579 deaths alleged by you irrelevant or not?

You then posted a video from the well known fraud Campbell who misrepresents himself as a medical doctor, he is not.

So that's the best thing you have to back this rubbish up? If so you have nothing.

Just to summarise the debate has been about whether the early batches higher SAE rates where due to older demographics (increased median age) and that if this could have skewed the data. This has been debunked straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak – by one of the authors. Any attempts to downplay the significance of that are simply pathetic.

Whatever the issue you have with the 579 deaths that were classified as SAE related, as reported in the paper, is as far as I understand not related to the above matter and thus I consider it irrelevant.

Co-author of the paper Vibeke Manniche has been debunked before on claims trying to downplay impact of covid.

https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/detektor/detektor-laegen-vibeke-manniche-vildleder-med-hjemmelavet-corona-graf?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The authors of this study have no credibility, as demonstrated by their anti vax grifting as they makes claims without foundation on Youtube etc where they start inventing new claims not even in the study.

The article was rejected by Lancet and multiple other reputable journals.

The authors of the study are tracking batches shipped- they don't even know how many doses from each batch were actually used. Differences in batches could in part be accounted for simply that some batches had more unused doses. To know that, and then to come out in public and start talking about major safety issues with vaccines is scurrilous scare mongering.

Health care workers, being familiar with the reporting systems, were encouraged during the rollout to report adverse events - even minor ones such as fatigue, headache. These are the people who are actually trained to log these reports. So there is another explanation as to why certain non-random groups being vaccinated leads to differences in events reported.

Serious questions have been raised about the study by experts, one going so far as to label it 'pseudoscience'.

I agree - The claims being made by the authors of this very dubious study on social media are pseudoscience.

https://sundhedspolitisktidsskrift-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/sundhedspolitik/7612-eksperter-dansk-forskning-af-bivirkninger-af-pfizer-vaccine-er-bevidst-vildledende-pseudovidenskab.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

There is no need to get excited about this. That is normal healthy scientific discourse. Something that went missing since 2020 and was replaced by censorship and name calling even in the scientific world. We would have been in a much better place today if this hadn’t happened.

This is in fact the article I read originally but could not find again. It is a critique of the research to which the authors responded in a constructive manner providing more information and explaining the issues. The critique mainly stems from the fact that the original data set was limited (data as of Dec 2020). This has been clarified since and more data made available. The fact that some do not agree with findings, methodologies etc. is a normal way the science progresses. New discoveries hardly ever go down without a debate and this debate is even encouraged by the authors of a said paper. Can’t see anything wrong with that. Hopefully more work will follow in other countries and we will get a better understanding of the problem. Good quality data is hard to come by in a timely manner though.

Your post is a complete nonsense of the highest order. Not that I'm surprised. You have no credentials whatsoever to provide any statements on what is or isn't a proper scientific discourse or to provide any statements with regard to who is or isn't to be considered an expert. We have established that a long way back. Those that confirm your believes are experts those who don't "anti vax grifters and covid wingnuts". Statements like that only erode your very dubious credibility even more.

If the vaccines are as safe as it is claimed, SAEs would be evenly distributed across the batches. Several of other sources reported/claimed to have found that some batches are significantly more dangerous than others.

The paper hypothesises that the SAEs were caused by defective vials (manufacturing and handling variabilities) and not by the ingredients: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8492451/

And this article discusses how bad batch of Moderna vaccine was detected but only after most of 1.2 million doses were used across America: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/18/health/ca-vaccine-lot-pause/index.html

The Danish study shows a preliminary signal that SAEs are not evenly distributed across the batches and if that was the case it would suggest that the vaccines were not as safe as we were led to believe. They have been others before them suggesting similar issues with these products. This is nothing of extraordinary considering the speed and scale at which the ramp up in production of those vaccines had to happen. If anything product quality issues would have been expected by the manufacturers.

I will also link note here there are multiple expert rebuttals to the study.

The authors behind the "Danish paper" only had access to data on when batches were shipped... They compare batches without taking into account different lengths of follow-up for reporting SAEs - small batches with 1-yr of follow-up vs big batches with 1-wk.

• Anders Hviid, Head of Epidemiology Research (SSI_AEF) https://twitter.com/anders_hviid

Rebuttal on the same Wiley platform of the factors the study did not consider:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.14050

And I will repost the expert refutations of the study from Danish media, one calling the claims made by the authors to be 'pseudoscience', and providing multiple reasons as to doubt the data shows a safety signal.

A further point of criticism goes to the number of unused vaccines and vaccine batches, which are included in the article's data basis, without it being mentioned.

https://sundhedspolitisktidsskrift-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/sundhedspolitik/7612-eksperter-dansk-forskning-af-bivirkninger-af-pfizer-vaccine-er-bevidst-vildledende-pseudovidenskab.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The study was rejected by multiple reputable journals including The Lancet.

And study itself is much more cautious in its language. But the true colours of the anti vax grifter authors is revealed in social media, where they make statements of medical disinformation without foundation. Statements you repeat here.

Noted you have failed to dispute to dispute the actual points made by multiple expert rebuttals to the study and the social media claims from the anti vax grifters. You are now reaching for any excuse to avoid engaging with them even though you had multiple opportunities to view them. Articles and a commentary published on the same Wiley platform as the original study.

Earlier you were link dumping Youtube videos and now you are disputing that the source of some of the rebutals is Twitter! Come off it.

Blatant hypocrisy and double standards desperately throwing 'shade' about competing interests when one of the authors of the study was put on official supervision in Denmark for unprofessional covid conduct. But you didn't declare that did you? Or that one of the 'authors' is married to another author? But that's not a competing interest or something you are interested in.

Your description of the CNN article was utterly false. That you have not withdrawn your false claims is proof positive you are presenting a bad faith argument. The reason why they didn't call it a bad batch was that it wasn't. You misrepresented the article contents and created the entirely deceptive and misleading impression the CNN article established it as a bad batch - when it did no such thing. So yes, impossible to have a healthy debate with bad faith arguments.

It is the same tactic the anti vax grifters have deployed here. They published a study. Then go onto social media and misrepresent new claims as if they came from the study and are established by the study.

Noted you have still failed to withdraw your utterly false misrepresentation of the CNN article contents which bears no relation to the antio vax claims you made about it.

Or engage with any of the expert rebuttals of the study itself. Still reaching for any excuse whatsoever not to because you know they demonstrate the flaws in the study and hole it below the waterline. You say you want debate but run away from it. You thought you could dump a dodgy study and use it to justify spreading anti vax disinformation (not even in the study) without challenge. That is not debate. That is dumping and running.

It is not and never has been the standard that for a study to be challenged or rebutted.

Think about it. How long does it take to get something reviewed and into a Journal?

So a garbage study could be out there and people couldn't comment on it until they found a Journal to publish it? Absolute nonsense.

The hypocrisy of your position is even more blatant when earlier you were sharing stuff from Youtube to support the claims! You couldn't make it up that just over the course of posting about one single study you would so obviously contradict yourself. What an entirely self serving bad faith argument. Its is transparent. Or prove me wrong. Withdraw every single claim you made that is not in the text of the original study.

You won't will you?

You can't even respond to basic rebuttals of the study such as size of batches, timelines of reports, how many actual doses were used, precondition status of the study population.

The study was rejected by multiple reputable Journals including the Lancet, JAMA, Archives of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine. The source is the authors themselves in the Youtube interview with covid wingnut Vibeke Manniche you dumped. Did you even watch it yourself???

The study has now been fact checked and thoroughly discredited:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/analysis-adverse-event-variation-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-batches-doesnt-indicate-safety-problems-contrary-john-campbell/

Speaking of hypocrisy. This is what you said about Campbell's video interview with Manniche: "... they aren't releasing this new data through seriously peer reviewed sites, but drip feeding it on a known anti vax outlet... ". Yet you are using this "anti vax outlet" to support your claims when it suits. You are a legend! LOL.

You have zero credibility.

I'm going to leave this discussion at that.

Except the report states no such that anywhere that the vaccines are unsafe.

More misrepresentation and anti vax medical misinformation.

What it does state is:

This increase in publicity may have contributed to increased awareness of AEFI and increased reporting of COVID-19 vaccine AEFI to WAVSS.

The fact that an adverse event occurred following immunisation is not conclusive evidence that the event was caused by a vaccine. Factors such as medical history, diagnostic testing, and other medication given near the time of vaccination must be examined to help determine the likely cause of an adverse event

I can't believe this far into the vaccine rollout the falsehood about such reports indicating the vaccines are unsafe is still being spread. It was one of the first canards to be debunked and still anti vaxxers try to spread it.

You'll have to point me to the post where it is said that vaccines worked really well. The implication is far more than a few bad batches. All I see is anti vax misinformation.

Were the batches bad or were the vaccines stored poorly in some centres/deliveries & that increased the adverse event rate?

My wife spent a few weeks in hospital after her 2nd pfizer in August 21. Her cardiologist told her that were mostly seeing younger people with side effects (e.g POTS). Maybe the later batches (that younger people received) weren't stored as well because the government was trying to fire them out as fast as possible. Something similar could have happened in Australia given the rush that they had there too.

Jesus, that is juvenile. You probably won't even have the option of getting the booster unless you're in a high risk category so nothing to concern yourself with.

I see that the HSE are offering Covid vaccines booster doses from GPs and pharmacies from 2 October to persons over 50 and those with underlying illnesses. I expect the pharmacists and GPs will be busy at first but in any case it might be better to get it closer to Christmas when some sort of wave of transmission is likely.

I presume that this is a bivalent version of the vaccine, but what is it based on? It seems there isn't really much point in giving people the original vaccine any more, but the "new" strain part of it might be helpful.

Covid certainly doing the rounds at the moment. Every second person seems to have it. I don't expect much vaccine take up in Q4. People are jaded by all the boosters. Might be a spurt of demand just before Xmas

It's being rolled out with the October flu shots afaik.

If you're eligible for it, you don't have to pay for it when going through GP/pharmacy.

In NI, where they have already started, they state they are using

• COVID-19 Pfizer BioNTech bivalent vaccine (Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.4-5)
• COVID-19 Pfizer BioNTech monovalent vaccine (Comirnaty® XBB 1.5
• COVID-19 Sanofi Pasteur vaccine (VidPrevtyn Beta®

It seems that the vaccine being used here is Pfizer Omicron variant XBB.1.5