I think the relevance here is not so much to point out the failures, but that the study is evidence of the efficacy of the measures put in place elsewhere, i.e. that they saved lives.
1 Like
As you are in full “ talking tosh” mode…
Just cut and pasting numbers that you don’t understand , and from dubious studies “ 10.4 deaths per 100,000 men per year over and above their overall death risk.“
What is it you refuse to accept? Are you in denial regarding numbers of serious ADRs because it is such a small fraction of doses? Are you in some way bitter that covid mutated into a mild form and you don’t like current vaccine recommendations?
Learning from data and tuning the vaccine can
only be a positive.
Dubious because you don’t like the result or do you have evidence
On balance, I’d rather take my chances with the vaccine than the much higher and more prevalent risks with Long Covid.
2 Likes
This is a drug reaction, vaccines are not drugs
ADR = adverse drug reaction
The only people suffering ADRs were those taking horse worming pills
You better get onto swissmedic.ch, mhra.gov.uk and the fda , to bring this to their attention.
Perhaps include your Potato risk data, so they know you are clever.
Don’t really have a viewpoint either way. But (for some reason ), you quoted to highlight some things increase risk…
0.01% increase is not statistically significance
Wouldnt you prefer the data is analysed to learn and improve the vaccine (Tailored for certain peoples needs or not recommended for certain peoples medical history…for example).?
It’s not an either/or thing, nor a preference.
Vaccines are always under development but, either way, I’d still rather have the vaccine than suffer the consequences of Long Covid. Off the top of my head, I know of three people who didn’t have the vax for varying reasons who caught Covid and have developed symptoms of Long Covid. I don’t know anyone who has any health concerns due to the vaccine.
7 Likes
Prefer was not the correct word.
I thought that it would be common sense to analyse data to provide best option / advice for individual patients, based on individual needs (existing conditions ,age etc).
I havn’t seen anything proactive along these lines. It is the same story of claims , denials , idiotic conspiracies and lack of totally transparency that solves nothing, and in fact ,is now impacting uptake of long established (child) vaccination programs.
Personalized medicine in the context of vaccines is a looooooong way off for purely economic reasons. In a nutshell, personalized medicine IS expensive and makes economical sense for, say, cancers. Vaccines are by and large mass produced and make volume profit, which is why you see most of the “big pharma” moving away from vaccines over the years. Deriving a reliable biomarker to segment patients and provide them with a individualized vaccine is science fiction. Will happen, eventually, but its not an option on the table today.
Not to point out the bleeding obvious or anything but surely in the case of vaccines they have to be tailored to the invader rather than the host, no?
3 Likes
Both: Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases.
In humans we already differentiate between adults and kids - other sub-groups are likely to become important as more vaccines are developed.
2 Likes
Now the new one is MPox. What will the pharma companies bring up next to fill their pockets?
From NY Times.
Over the past three decades, routine immunizations have prevented 1.1 million deaths and saved the United States $540 billion, the C.D.C. estimated.
2 Likes
Of course, but certain vaccines could be more beneficial / recommended for certain people and not others. i.e. some people are allergic to penicillin so doctors ask this before hand.
i’m not anti-vaccine in any way, but i see no progress , no attempt to evolve /educate and zero transparency. This plays into the hands of those with crzy theories and agendas.
Penicillin is an antibiotic, not a vaccine. And I’m not certain when you talk about lack of transparency. Everything you want can be found on the internet.
2 Likes
Why do you expect this? It makes zero sense to drill people on a subject apropos of nothing. As Bowlie says, mostly the info is available online, intellectual property excepted. I think what you mean to say is that the information is perhaps not presented in such a way to appeal to the layman? Maybe this is where the vacuum of understanding is willingly filled with the simplistic but delicious material of the conspiracy theorists? “This is what they’re NOT telling you…!”
2 Likes
[quote=“ShirleyNot, post:176, topic:405”]
intellectual property excepted.
[/quote]Just to be totally transparent: Patents are published–that’s the whole point. Lots of research results regarding vaccine development, components, methods, and manufacturing are published. Do the vaccine skeptics need to be spoon-fed?
No, they need the information to be dumbed down into two-syllable words or at worst three, preferably with pictures or memes,