COVID studies

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults

“Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest.”

“Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92).”

1,010 serious adverse events of special interest per mil vaccinated over placebo baseline for Pfizer, 1,510 per mil for Moderna, 1,250 per mil combined.

Our analysis is restricted to the randomized trial data, and does not consider data on post-authorization vaccination program impact. It does however show the need for public release of participant level trial datasets.” (Emphasis mine)

In July 2021, the FDA reported detecting four potential adverse events of interest: pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia, and disseminated intravascular coagulation following Pfizer’s vaccine based on medical claims data in older Americans. [18] Three of these four serious adverse event types would be categorized as coagulation disorders, which is the Brighton AESI category that exhibited the largest excess risk in the vaccine group in both the Pfizer and Moderna trials. FDA stated it would further investigate the findings but at the time of our writing has not issued an update.” (Emphasis mine)

"While CDC published a protocol[24] in early 2021 for using proportional reporting ratios for signal detection in the VAERS database, results from the study have not yet been reported." (Emphasis mine)

“Although our analysis is secondary, reanalyses of clinical trial data have led to the detection of adverse events well after the market entry of major drugs such as rofecoxib and rosiglitazone. [36], [37] Our analysis has an advantage over postmarketing observational studies in that the data are from blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trials vetted by the FDA, which were matched against a list of adverse events created before the availability of the clinical-trial results and designed for use in COVID-19 vaccine trials.” (Emphasis mine)

“We emphasize that our investigation is preliminary, to point to the need for more involved analysis.”

I’m not claiming that this or any other study is definitive wrt the current Covid mRNA vaccines. The study authors emphasize that their investigation is preliminary. I do think that studies like this do point to a greater risk than was originally stated and subsequently reinforced, and the need for urgent study to assess the risk.

in knowing at least a few people who had adverse side effects from the vaccine, i believe there is a risk.

it was fine for me though.

It’s absurd to attribute every sudden death of a healthy young person to Covid vaccine injury.

Any vaccination is a significant intervention in the function of the immune system. The desired response is a result of some form of stimulation to the system. It doesn’t seem odd to me to wonder what effect repeated doses will have on that response system. Six or more doses in 2 years seems like a lot to me, but I’m just an average Joe. Maybe there are many vaccines that are commonly used on large populations with such a dosing schedule and I’m unaware of them.

Cumulative effect of medical interventions is an area of study. We do not yet have the data on the cumulative effect of repeated doses, certainly no long term data. The real world trial is ongoing.

UK estimate of Number Needed to Vaccinate to prevent hospitalization

UK government estimate with many assumptions. Tables 3 and 4 have the estimates based on age, number of doses. The NNV seems pretty high compared to an overall risk of excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 1:990 for Pfizer (10.1 per 10,000 from study posted above).

Again, I’m not claiming anything definitive here. I am claiming that there are indications for concern that should be taken seriously.

Hence the [/s], and I felt the need to add it along with an explanation for why I had to add it.
Fun fact: people die or get injured and someone comes along and claims “the COVID vaccine did it.”

I was agreeing with you.

With all respect, this doesn’t seem like a particularly meaningful statement to me.

In other words, what do you mean by “significant intervention”? Significant compared to what?

For example, how does the immune response of a vaccine compare to the immune response generated by just living life throughout the day?

I see children put stuff in their mouths every day? How does that compare?

And to do this comparison, we have to put it in terms of the components that make up the immune system, and how they relate to each other. What cells are stimulated and how? How do their relations to each other change, and how do their powers and properties change?

Until you can articulate the question in those terms, it strikes me as more of an emotional worry about technology than a serious medical question.

And it seems to me this emotional worry is being exploited by various interest groups.

4 Likes

According to the best information I’ve been able to find, the immune response to vaccination is a tiny addition to the immune response from living in a normal germy environment.

1 Like

I’ve read that too, i think in response to worries about giving children multiples vaccinations.

For me, though, i really don’t understand the immune system well enough to be able to critically evaluate those claims.

Instead, it’s that i believe i understand the overall values of the people telling me these things, that they are prioritizing answers that conform with fact.

A lot of people have been convinced that the scientists giving these answers do not share their values, and so they do not trust them. While i think that’s inaccurate, i do think it’s a reasonable and meaningful concern.

The problem in my mind is when this question about the values of scientists and doctors are reframed as a (usually pseudo) scientific question. Then there is no hope of addressing it. Which frankly is probably the intent for some of the political forces spreading this fear.

It’s a meaningful concern, but a value that most of us share is “i don’t want to get hurt”. And if you look at the actions of doctors and scientists, not just their words, they have gotten more doses of vaccine than pretty much anyone else. They were cheating to get boosters before it was easy to do so.

That is a good point, and i think it is an argument that the “medical establishment” is not actively deceiving us. I suppose we see examples of this in these claims that the vaccine companies are selling us a faulty product to make money. Which they have certainly done with some drugs in the past, and which apparently they did to some degree when comparing the relative efficacy (but not safety) of these newer bivalent vaccines?

But i think there may be another argument too, that of hubris. Under this narrative, the vaccines are rather like the dinosaurs of jurassic park, and bound to get free and wreak havoc, perhaps by ruining the reproductive systems of our girls and giving our boys heart problems. And we (supposedly) see some evidence of this in the establishment’s arrogance in trying to create an engineered culture and state that forces ideas like critical race theory on all of us.

Maybe we’ve made different risk assessments based on available evidence.

I could easily retort that it isn’t me who is experiencing an emotional reaction exploited by various interest groups, but it’s you.

But I’ll stick with different risk assessments.

1 Like

The problem for me with this response is that you do not seem to have articulated a question that can be addressed with evidence.

And i have definitely had an emotional reaction to covid and covid vaccines. I am not claiming otherwise. I’m simply saying that i am addressing that worry appropriately, by recognizing my dependence on experts, instead of by mischaracterizing it as a problem of evidence.

1 Like

I was with you until this last part. Is this sarcasm?

I’m saying that is part of the narrative. I don’t personally think those claims are true. I updated the post to hopefully be less ambiguous.

Figured that was the case. You don’t generally give off crazy conspiracy vibes.

Vaccines provided the greatest benefit to those who never had covid, and those with other health conditions to be concerned about. Additional boosters provide smaller incremental benefits. I think this is all fairly well known.

At what point is there a greater risk from getting a booster compared with not getting one? The known vaccine risks still appear to be much less than getting actual covid a second time, or after a third dose.

So we then operate in a world of unknowns. I am not sure how you separate these from emotional reactions, as they are rooted in a fear or speculation. Why trust a corporate product when we have plenty of examples where their product was dangerous, or maybe there is something they just don’t know that could happen in 5 years from now? That’s not evidence.

So assuming you are healthy you took a chance and rolled the dice with covid rather than get a vaccine. The odds were always well in your favor to be just fine, so maybe not a huge gamble. Still more of a gamble than getting vaccinated, based on the evidence we do have available.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext

mRNA found in blood 28 days after injection

Once upon a time the CDC said it was just a few days. They no longer make that claim, removed from website.