Cool. Maybe Ill get my second dose sooner of the AZ....
Odds of VITT after first dose were low. They are much lower after second dose. Still unsure why there is no discussion from gov't on Covishield vs AZ having an order of magnitude different complication rate. Probably still more focussed on being culturally sensitive than paying attention to science or health. Wankers, all of them.Sure why not they told you the first shot was safe and now they say the second shot is safe if you had the first shot. It's like if you don't get food poisoning from the first bite just keep eating , You'll most likely be fine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It will also be pushed back 3 times that day
The speed with which it was developed s of little concern. That is typical, and like you send with endless money etc, it was no doubt going to develop fast. The concern is the batteries of testing, which had to be bypassed in order to get out quickly.Regarding the "Was the vaccine rushed" concerns, here's a great science based article that allays a lot of those fears and explains exactly why.
COVID-19 vaccine: How was it developed so fast?
With vaccine approvals underway, MNT spoke with medical experts about how COVID-19 vaccines were designed so quickly without compromising safety.www.medicalnewstoday.com
So, it's not exactly all as "new and untested" as many perceive. And it's also a great example of what science can do when all of a sudden theres unending billions of dollars and limitless supplies provided to the scientists.
Will Covid ever go away completely? Increasingly it's seeming unlikely. But that doesn't mean it's all for naught right now - the science continues learning and the next mountain is treatment in addition to continued vaccines. If Covid is here to stay it'll matter a whole lot less in a year or two when those who catch it anyways can just head to a pharmacy and pickup a pill that reduces the symptoms to little more than a cold, or maybe a mild flu. A few days down at worst, and you're on your way.
Well I’m still here and it’s been a few weeks now....so I knew the risk going in.Sure why not they told you the first shot was safe and now they say the second shot is safe if you had the first shot. It's like if you don't get food poisoning from the first bite just keep eating , You'll most likely be fine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Science based?? Come on PP you know we don't go in for a lot of that weird sciencey stuff here. You trying to start a fight?Regarding the "Was the vaccine rushed" concerns, here's a great science based article that allays a lot of those fears and explains exactly why.
COVID-19 vaccine: How was it developed so fast?
With vaccine approvals underway, MNT spoke with medical experts about how COVID-19 vaccines were designed so quickly without compromising safety.www.medicalnewstoday.com
So, it's not exactly all as "new and untested" as many perceive. And it's also a great example of what science can do when all of a sudden theres unending billions of dollars and limitless supplies provided to the scientists.
Will Covid ever go away completely? Increasingly it's seeming unlikely. But that doesn't mean it's all for naught right now - the science continues learning and the next mountain is treatment in addition to continued vaccines. If Covid is here to stay it'll matter a whole lot less in a year or two when those who catch it anyways can just head to a pharmacy and pickup a pill that reduces the symptoms to little more than a cold, or maybe a mild flu. A few days down at worst, and you're on your way.
Regarding the "Was the vaccine rushed" concerns, here's a great science based article that allays a lot of those fears and explains exactly why.
Out of the couple of dozen mRNA therapeutics to go to trial, name a single one that passed proper trials to determine risk factor? Just one?
Right, there isn't one, only two that got anywhere are Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID vaccines getting EUA's.
Which your article doesn't even mention. Why? Probably the same reason why they don't disclose how much advertising revenue they generate from pharmaceutical companies, and don't have proper disclosures about the site or their staff.
Interesting point @Dimitri I wonder if there is any correlation between the bad press that AZ is getting and no others are getting.
What's your definition of a proper trial?
I have zero problem with shorting trials. If the medication is not novel.
So will I take a jab of AstraZeneca's adenovirus-based vaccine, that multiple other vaccines are based on and have been previously approved? In a heart beat.
Will I take a drug or vaccine that is based on something that's never been approved, after a very short, and very flawed trial like Pfizer's mRNA shot? Not a chance.
As for bureaucracy, let's not forget why drug trials have been consistently been increased over the years. Because drug companies have pushed drugs through, that have led to disasters. Such as Thalidomide, or more recently with Pfizer, the experiment they conducted with meningitis drugs on African children.
In what way was the Pfizer trial flawed?
All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”
With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote).
There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.
Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for “important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2.” What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna’s trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for “major protocol deviation”—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)
What were these protocol deviations in Pfizer’s study, and why were there five times more participants excluded in the vaccine group? The FDA report doesn’t say, and these exclusions are difficult to even spot in Pfizer’s report and journal publication.
For one they were not only not actively testing to see if anyone catches it unlike Oxfords trial, the trial group miraculously decided if they developed symptoms they didn't need to get tested.
So Pfizer eliminated 3,410 people from their study, who developed symptoms but never got a PCR test. And they hid that from their beautifully edited study summery. If you make the opposite assumption, that without a negative PCR test, it's a positive, their vaccine's efficiency drops to a dismal 29%.
Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data - The BMJ
On 5 February 2021 we published a clarification to this piece. It is available here. Five weeks ago, when I raised questions about the results of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s covid-19 [...]More...blogs.bmj.com
29%...that’s a drastic figure likely supported by a peer reviewed journal article since it’s so incredible. Where is that?
What do you mean thought? How many million doses have they sold? A potential retraction in the future will be buried on page 20 and of no commercial consequence.The only thing that is incredible is that Pfizer thought they'd get away with it.
If Pfizer can assume no PCR test, no COVID, then one can assume the opposite. Especially since the CDC among other watchdogs are claiming colds and flus disappeared last year.
Since the data is right from the FDAs report on the vaccine, and Pfizer never published it in their report preferring to bury it, and the BMJ published it. The only thing that is incredible is that Pfizer thought they'd get away with it.