Covid vaccine harm?

I have met two people, previously fit and healthy, who had bad reactions to the Covid vaccine, both were in hospital for weeks and needing physiotherapy for months afterwards, unable to work. They live in different parts of the country.
Their consultants have informed them that it was a result of the Covid vaccine and AZ are fully aware of these cases.

However, these reactions are rare and on balance it is probably better to have the vaccine than not for the majority of people.

PS. Do you understand what "licensed" means?

Normandygirl Who has ever claimed any vaccine is 100% safe and effective. And what do you understand by "effective"?

volver

^so it being an unlicensed product is absolutely relevant.^

Oh, I misread that. Sorry.

I read "irrelevant".

Because its irrelevant. 🤷🏼

So you believe that decades of regulations and protocols designed to ensure that medical products are safe should be abandoned?
Great idea, I'm sure the Pharma companies would agree with you.

so it being an unlicensed product is absolutely relevant.

Oh, I misread that. Sorry.

I read "irrelevant".

Because its irrelevant. 🤷🏼

so it being an unlicensed product is absolutely relevant.

Yep. But you brought it up and implied it meant something it doesn't

Side effects depend on your "demographic" certainly. Maybe you can point out where I said they didn't?

And finally, the mRNA vaccine triggers our own immune response to do its own thing, then it disappears. So no change there, then. It's just really clever.

volver

Just a couple of things to add to what M0nica says:

When someone says the vaccine is unlicenced, the implication is that it is untested. This is not true. Licencing only ever happens after any medication has been subject to extensive and rigorous testing, and the process of licencing can take years. It is therefore irrelevant that the vaccine is unlicenced.

Every vaccine, every medication of course, can have side effects that can be serious. Some have side effects that are not serious at all - a sore arm for 24 hours, for instance. If the vaccine has a bad effect on you its a big deal for you of course, but the risk benefit analysis swings firmly towards having the vaccine, because the risk of a significant side effect is dwarfed by the positive impacts of the vaccine in stopping you getting very ill and dying of Covid.

Long term damage is another red herring. The Covid vaccine only lasts days or weeks in your body (maybe its just hours, can't remember exactly). Then it is gone and it is your immune system that is getting the job done, prompted by the vaccine. There will be no "long term effects" because that is not how vaccines work.

Re your first point
" Licencing only ever happens after any medication has been subject to extensive and rigorous testing, and the process of licencing can take years. It is therefore irrelevant that the vaccine is unlicenced."
There are very good reasons why we have insisted on this process don't you think? An admittance that an " extensive and rigorous testing process has not taken place for this
product is not an argument in it's favour, so it being an unlicensed product is absolutely relevant.
Secondly, You are right in that all vaccines and indeed medications have side effects, but the risk/benefit evaluation depends on your demographic surely. For this particular product, we know that the risk factor for healthy under 40's is statistically higher and the benefit factor is lower as they are not likely to die from this virus. That is also a "scientifically proven" fact and some countries such as Denmark have stated that they do not recommend the vaccine for under 40's. because of this.
Thirdly,
"Long term damage is another red herring. The Covid vaccine only lasts days or weeks in your body (maybe its just hours, can't remember exactly). Then it is gone and it is your immune system that is getting the job done, prompted by the vaccine. There will be no "long term effects" because that is not how vaccines work."
Where to start with this one. What you state is true of a traditional vaccine but is not true for the MRNA vaccine.
To trigger an immune response, traditional vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, mRNA vaccines use mRNA created in a laboratory to teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies.
A traditional vaccine tricks the immune system into believing that an infection has taken place and antibodies are produced against any future infection. The MRNA vaccine alters the way our bodies respond to a virus ,so how long the original vaccine stays in the body is not relevant, as the changes made in cell response are permanent.
What are the long term effects of this? Maybe, it will be beneficial for humankind.......or maybe not.

Our fit and healthy SIL (ex team GB) had the vaccine, within days he was in hospital on a drip with a blood clot on each lung.

A few months later he was back in hospital with sepsis.

He had private treatment eventually for the blood clots as the NHS kept postponing his treatment, he could not claim on his BUPA as they said it was vaccine related.

We will not have any further vaccines.

Just a couple of things to add to what M0nica says:

When someone says the vaccine is unlicenced, the implication is that it is untested. This is not true. Licencing only ever happens after any medication has been subject to extensive and rigorous testing, and the process of licencing can take years. It is therefore irrelevant that the vaccine is unlicenced.

Every vaccine, every medication of course, can have side effects that can be serious. Some have side effects that are not serious at all - a sore arm for 24 hours, for instance. If the vaccine has a bad effect on you its a big deal for you of course, but the risk benefit analysis swings firmly towards having the vaccine, because the risk of a significant side effect is dwarfed by the positive impacts of the vaccine in stopping you getting very ill and dying of Covid.

Long term damage is another red herring. The Covid vaccine only lasts days or weeks in your body (maybe its just hours, can't remember exactly). Then it is gone and it is your immune system that is getting the job done, prompted by the vaccine. There will be no "long term effects" because that is not how vaccines work.

Normandygirl How do you explain all the extra deaths in 2020, especially the decimation of the elderly and ill?

Sorry, but it is a scientifically proven fact.

No reputable scientic source ever said that the vaccine was 100% safe ane effective. There has never been a vaccine that is 100% safe and effective.

Of course there is no 'cohesive world, peer reviewed data'. There is immense variation because different countries have used different forms of the vaccine and their vaccination programmes have been more or less cohesive.. But there is plenty of cohesive data that once the vaccination became available the incidence and severity of COVID in this country and many others dropped dramatically and that most of those who got the disease had not been vaccinated.

Three years in, and were still getting this rubbish. I'll be back after breakfast with some "scientific facts".

For all the posters claiming that the vaccine has saved million of lives, how do you know that as scientifically proven fact? There are so many factors to take into account, it would be impossible to prove one way or another. It is certainly not a " scientifically proven fact"
These statements come from the very same people that also insisted that the vaccine was 100% safe and effective. They insisted that if you got the vaccine you would not get Covid and you would not pass it on to granny. We now know these statements, even if said in good faith, were false.
I am vaccinated but not blinkered to the possibility that the risk/benefit of an unlicensed product may have done more harm than good, especially to the younger generation who were not at risk from the virus anyway. I also have to acknowledge that long term damage/benefit is still an unknown for obvious reasons.
I would never call anyone ignorant for their views around the vaccine because at the moment, as there is a lack of cohesive, world, peer reviewed data, we are all ignorant and will be for years to come.

For those who agree with the awful Bridgen this is all about confirmation bias. They believe in something close to what he says so want to believe he is right as it confirms their faith in this rhetoric.

It is nothing to do with proper scientific information.

Bridgen should be banned from Parliament for the snake oil salesman that he is.

Nanatoone, spot on, and yes, our NHS is crumbling - a far bigger worry.

I must admit I’ve had a previously healthy 50 friend die after eight weeks of covid so I might be more inclined to vaccinate. Well I would anyway, where would we be without big Pharma? Back in the olden times where a leaf or oil was the only remedy. My daughter recently had a very serious infection from a small one in her finger. It took four days to get it sorted by which time it was climbing up her arm and was black in the finger. Thank goodness for big Pharma for providing the antibiotics and pain relief she needed. Yah hoo sucks to the NHS who nearly killed her with their negligence. This country and many others has spent a fortune on this protective vaccine whilst not providing basic health care for many. There are bigger issues to be concerned about than whether pharmaceuticals get paid for developing and manufacturing medicines. I still support the NHS strikers despite my disgust at them for their recent treatment of my daughter. I know that’s down to government and not them.

I wonder if we cast our minds back to the beginning of the pandemic when there was widespread fear and no vaccine, then fast forward to the present day and how different it would be now, with millions dead and debilitated if no vaccine developed.
I guess we’d be begging for a vaccine, side effects or not.

You can’t take a simple pain killer without risk of some side effect, but modern medicine and vaccines have changed the way we live our lives, thank goodness.

Those who refuse vaccines without good reason are selfishly benefitting from the herd immunity of the vaccinated.

GrannyRose15:

'Alot of the narrative around vaccines recently has put pressure on people to have the vaccine regardless of whether they know about or are cautious about possible side effects.'

There are two aspects to this, first, the risk/benefit to an individual child - and second, the risk/benefit to everyone else, including the vulnerable.

It's nothing new, as the jab against German Measles, for instance, has always been for the second reason - to protect unborn babies.

We are all vaccinated in my family. I have always taken the advice of our GP - as I recognise her superior knowledge of the risks and benefits.

I do have a problem with ignorant people who somehow decide that they 'know better' than the accepted medical advice. Based on what exactly?

When my sons were small, the GP advised against the whooping cough vaccine (due to severe allergies and epilepsy in the family). The risk outweighed the benefit at the time.

However, a few years later, we were advised that my daughters should have the vaccine. Why? - because there were so many unvaccinated children, by then, that the benefit now outweighed the risk.

The vaccine was 'unpopular' with the public, for no logical reason - so we were worried sick for a time, just hoping they'd be ok with the jabs - and, thankfully, they were.

Thanks a lot to all the stupid, ignorant and selfish folk out there!

I presume people who are worried about clicking on links, do not click on sites that a google or any other search engine throws up when they search for information. Why did they ever risk clicking on GN before they joined?

I do know someone ( a male in their 40s) who had a very bad reaction to the vaccine and ended up in intensive care in hospital but I also know many who had no reaction at all or just minor effects. Nearly all vaccines affect some people but I see that the benefits far outweigh the risks. The male has fully recovered and interesting enough his identical twin brother didn’t have a reaction. Perhaps that particular batch he had had something wrong with it, who knows ?

Adverse reactions include having a sore arm for a day or so, which is fairly normal for many injections.

I can only say that 4 people I knew died of Covid before the vaccine was available but I don.t know anyone who has had an adverse reaction to any of the vaccines.

Daisymae

I'm not an anti vaxxer, but it's time that a benefit analysis was carried out. We are not in the same situation as 2020. I also have a friend who has never fully recovered from the booster. The population needs to be fully aware of the risks involved to enable individuals and parents to make a considered decision.

I assume you mean a scientific risk/benefit analysis rather than a cost/benefit analysis, Daisymae.

I'm sure you would agree that, for a theory to be scientific, it must be possible to prove or disprove it.

What would you expect to see, in peer-reviewed risk analysis, that would show the scientists' claims are false?

What would you expect to see in a peer-reviewed risk analysis that would show that Andrew Bridgen's claims are false?

my point also Daisymae. More information will be available as time passes.

I'm not an anti vaxxer, but it's time that a benefit analysis was carried out. We are not in the same situation as 2020. I also have a friend who has never fully recovered from the booster. The population needs to be fully aware of the risks involved to enable individuals and parents to make a considered decision.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseem_Malhotra

A "danger to public health".