The Lemon Fool

Stompa wrote:Mine is GE3043.

Thank you.
Has anyone else got a record of a Pfizer bivalent jab on a GD serial number ? Or even earlier, e.g. GF

From my records and those of immediate family, I see serial numbers of the original Pfizer vaccine at least including the range EL through to FN.

I and OH were done on Sunday morning + flu, sore arms for two days.
Not given a card and forgot to ask which vaccine.

From what one reads, the virus is mutating so as to evade our immunity but becoming less virulent. A gradual morphing into a version of the common cold. I hope.

Went to a concert Sunday evening, a lot of oldies, none of us wearing a mask. I forgot to take mine. Altogether too casual, really.

V8

redsturgeon wrote:Just watched this and it does not make me any more likely to take the covid vax this Autumn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilGM5Oz9uGA

I to am not anti vax and had been supportive up until a few months ago but it seems to me that the risk/reward ratio has now shifted against healthy people taking the booster.

John

I've had the standard jabs so far, but also not inclined to have this Autumn's jab. Not had Covid that I'm aware but pretty certain I have had it and endured little/no symptoms as other close family members have had it with cold/flu like symptoms. One thing I have noticed is that infrequently at night time I get a heart flutter that I've not had before since having had the vaccines. For me I suspect the risk of heart condition risk outweighs the apparent risk of Covid contraction, so I've not responded to my postal invite to have the Autumn jab.

Good video/link, thanks. Feels somewhat like 1950's smoking cigarettes is good for you - pharmaceutical financial interests to best line their shareholders pockets.

redsturgeon wrote:Just watched this and it does not make me any more likely to take the covid vax this Autumn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilGM5Oz9uGA

I to am not anti vax and had been supportive up until a few months ago but it seems to me that the risk/reward ratio has now shifted against healthy people taking the booster.

"Dr Aseem Malhotra talking about his new paper on the safety and efficacy of the new mRNA vaccines"

"Dr Aseem Malhotra" ? Oh dear!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseem_Malhotra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseem_Malhotra#COVID-19

Dr. Asseem Malhotra engages in massive projection about COVID-19 “misinformation”

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2022/10/10/dr-asseem-malhotra-engages-in-massive-projection-about-covid-19-misinformation/

Projection is a common defense mechanism used by those spreading health misinformation and disinformation. Last week Dr. Asseem Malhotra published part 2 of a plan to cure “the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine”. Unsurprisingly, it was chock full of antivaccine misinformation. It’s a real “I know you are, but what am I?” exercise in disinformation.

"evidence based medicine" - Um...

There's a lot of it about.

I've accepted all jabs offered, the last being 2 weeks ago (Pfizer). Last Monday OH produced a positive test result having felt unwell the previous day. OH had 3 days feeling fairly unwell but is mostly recovered now. I got lucky (again) and had nothing more than a mild headache for a few hours. OH's parents, who are both jabbed and c. 80 years old, are quite unwell. Someone at OH's workplace has manged to get infected 4 times and has some degree of lung damage. According to what I've read recently, the 'created in a lab in China' theory seems to be gaining traction.

RC

There is little doubt that in some people the mRNA vaccines cause harm, this is not a surprise since there is little or nothing in the way of a pharmaceutical intervention that does not have the possibility of causing harm to someone.

The thing is that you need to fully understand the incidence and extent of harm caused and balance that with the benefit received. That is where I am being cautious wrt to the boosters in that I believe that we are trying to boost too wide a population at this time with little concrete evidence of the long term benefit vs potential harm.

We are no longer in the emergency situation we were in in 2020 and therefore we should take some more time and slow down on mass vaccination until more research is available.

John

1nvest wrote:pretty certain I have had it...infrequently at night time I get a heart flutter that I've not had before since having had the vaccines. For me I suspect the risk of heart condition risk outweighs the apparent risk of Covid contraction

We know that after the initial attack, Covid is primarily a vascular disease that preferentially infects heart muscle among other tissues. It sounds like this heart flutter could equally be described as not being present before you got Covid....

ReformedCharacter wrote:According to what I've read recently, the 'created in a lab in China' theory seems to be gaining traction.

You want to be really, really careful on that - it's become hugely political, what's changed "recently" is a report by US Republicans who are keen to blame China for political reasons and hence are talking up a lab leak without putting forward any evidence, and a rather dodgy paper that claimed to demonstrate evidence for engineering in the sequences whilst ignoring other "natural" viruses that have the same sequences.

We will never know for certain, and there will always be people who will seek to exploit uncertainty for political ends, but on the basis of the available evidence, Occam's razor points towards a natural origin as the least unlikely.

redsturgeon wrote:There is little doubt that in some people the mRNA vaccines cause harm, this is not a surprise since there is little or nothing in the way of a pharmaceutical intervention that does not have the possibility of causing harm to someone.

Indeed. And some people can die if they so much as come into contact with just one peanut.

redsturgeon wrote:The thing is that you need to fully understand the incidence and extent of harm caused and balance that with the benefit received. That is where I am being cautious wrt to the boosters in that I believe that we are trying to boost too wide a population at this time with little concrete evidence of the long term benefit vs potential harm.

We are no longer in the emergency situation we were in in 2020 and therefore we should take some more time and slow down on mass vaccination until more research is available.

Possibly. But shouldn't such decisions be decided by proper scientific analysis of the available data, carried out by people who really know what they are doing? Rather than by listening to the opinions of some shonky medic on YouTube.

Hallucigenia wrote:

ReformedCharacter wrote:According to what I've read recently, the 'created in a lab in China' theory seems to be gaining traction.

You want to be really, really careful on that - it's become hugely political, what's changed "recently" is a report by US Republicans who are keen to blame China for political reasons and hence are talking up a lab leak without putting forward any evidence, and a rather dodgy paper that claimed to demonstrate evidence for engineering in the sequences whilst ignoring other "natural" viruses that have the same sequences.

We will never know for certain, and there will always be people who will seek to exploit uncertainty for political ends, but on the basis of the available evidence, Occam's razor points towards a natural origin as the least unlikely.

Yes, I agree there are those who will try to make capital by spreading dodgy 'evidence'. I'm not sure I can agree with your Occam's razor conclusion though. FWIW I found this Lex Fridman interview informative, Jamie Metzl: Lab Leak Theory | Lex Fridman Podcast #247:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I

RC

XFool wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:There is little doubt that in some people the mRNA vaccines cause harm, this is not a surprise since there is little or nothing in the way of a pharmaceutical intervention that does not have the possibility of causing harm to someone.

Indeed. And some people can die if they so much as come into contact with just one peanut.

redsturgeon wrote:The thing is that you need to fully understand the incidence and extent of harm caused and balance that with the benefit received. That is where I am being cautious wrt to the boosters in that I believe that we are trying to boost too wide a population at this time with little concrete evidence of the long term benefit vs potential harm.

We are no longer in the emergency situation we were in in 2020 and therefore we should take some more time and slow down on mass vaccination until more research is available.

Possibly. But shouldn't such decisions be decided by proper scientific analysis of the available data, carried out by people who really know what they are doing? Rather than by listening to the opinions of some shonky medic on YouTube.

I don't disagree with your final point but for twenty years I worked in the pharma industry. I have a science BSc, I have written and have had scientific papers published, I am used reviewing scientific papers and understanding the evidence. Unfortunately the evidence for the latest round of mRNA boosters is thin on the ground. If you can find a substantial peer reviewed, randomised study looking at the benefits of the latest Pfizer or Moderna offerings to a person of my risk profile then I will happily look at it and make a judgement. If you can find such a study that would demonstrate that by having a booster jab this autumn I will be helping myself or helping the population as a whole, I would be happy to see it. Unfortunately I have been unable to find such evidence.



John

redsturgeon wrote:Unfortunately the evidence for the latest round of mRNA boosters is thin on the ground. If you can find a substantial peer reviewed, randomised study looking at the benefits of the latest Pfizer or Moderna offerings to a person of my risk profile then I will happily look at it and make a judgement. If you can find such a study that would demonstrate that by having a booster jab this autumn I will be helping myself or helping the population as a whole, I would be happy to see it. Unfortunately I have been unable to find such evidence.

If you accept COVID itself is a risk, particularly to older people, is still endemic and the vaccines have already been shown to be safe and effective in producing immunity - albeit of limited duration - what is so problematical about extending that protection during the winter months? Is this not what happens every year with influenza vaccination of older people? As we are not currently in a flu pandemic either, have you turned down the annual flu vaccine? Would you require reading a full randomised, peer reviewed trial every year before taking it?

I have had my annual flu vaccine as well as the latest COVID vaccine booster.

XFool wrote:If you accept COVID itself is a risk, particularly to older people, is still endemic and the vaccines have already been shown to be safe and effective in producing immunity - albeit of limited duration - what is so problematical about extending that protection during the winter months?

Can you show me where this has been shown. AIUI the vaccines are shown to lessen the severity of the infection not to produce immunity.

John

XFool wrote: As we are not currently in a flu pandemic either, have you turned down the annual flu vaccine? Would you require reading a full randomised, peer reviewed trial every year before taking it?

I have had my annual flu vaccine as well as the latest COVID vaccine booster.

I have had the flu vaccine as usual, different beast altogether with decades of safety and efficacy data.

I am not some sort of anti-vaxxer you know.

John

redsturgeon wrote:

XFool wrote:If you accept COVID itself is a risk, particularly to older people, is still endemic and the vaccines have already been shown to be safe and effective in producing immunity - albeit of limited duration - what is so problematical about extending that protection during the winter months?

Can you show me where this has been shown. AIUI the vaccines are shown to lessen the severity of the infection not to produce immunity.

I am not sure why you are asking me. From what you say you should be more qualified than I to find relevant sources. There are many available, here is a discussion taken at random: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1605

Presumably they "lessen the severity of the infection" by conferring immunity. Isn't that how vaccines work? If the vaccines did not confer some immunity - which you seem to be querying - how did they ever come to be approved in the first place? Starting to sound a bit like a conspiracy theory to me.

redsturgeon wrote:

XFool wrote: As we are not currently in a flu pandemic either, have you turned down the annual flu vaccine? Would you require reading a full randomised, peer reviewed trial every year before taking it?

I have had the flu vaccine as usual, different beast altogether with decades of safety and efficacy data.

But it is a new variety of flu vaccine each year, depending on expected viral spread. So, using your logic, you should need to see an entire new large-scale, long-term, peer reviewed trial every year. In which case that vaccine would then be irrelevant! So, no vaccines are safe to use - except possibly one with decades of experience and a very slow to mutate, stable virus? Smallpox?

XFool wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:

XFool wrote:If you accept COVID itself is a risk, particularly to older people, is still endemic and the vaccines have already been shown to be safe and effective in producing immunity - albeit of limited duration - what is so problematical about extending that protection during the winter months?

Can you show me where this has been shown. AIUI the vaccines are shown to lessen the severity of the infection not to produce immunity.

I am not sure why you are asking me. From what you say you should be more qualified than I to find relevant sources. There are many available, here is a discussion taken at random: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1605

Presumably they "lessen the severity of the infection" by conferring immunity. Isn't that how vaccines work? If the vaccines did not confer some immunity - which you seem to be querying - how did they ever come to be approved in the first place? Starting to sound a bit like a conspiracy theory to me.

OK I am guilty of using "immunity in a binary sense rather than as a continuum.

It seems to me that most people when they hear "immunity" seem think that means they are immune from getting the disease at all. Thus many are surprised that they get the vaccine and then catch covid within a week or two. That of course is different to "giving a boost" to your immune system which I would not argue against nor would I argue against evidence showing reduced severity.

Now as I have said my decision is completely personal and I have maintained that everyone needs to consider their own circumstances in order to make an informed decision. I am fit and healthy, hardly ever get a cold, have had flu twice in my life and have no co-morbidities. I have not caught covid yet, despite being exposed twice in a car for at least two hours with someone who developed covid the next day. I'd say my immune system is working pretty well, in fact the multiple challenges to my immune system from exposure may be giving my immune system the top up it requires. Who knows?

The latest omicron strains of covid have been shown to be less severe and cause fewer severe cases than past variants so the chances as me dying or being ending up in ICU with covid are vanishing small.

This means that for me the risk benefit ratio for me has swung in favour of forgoing the vaccine and letting someone in more need have my dose.

Is that OK with you?

John

XFool wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:

XFool wrote: As we are not currently in a flu pandemic either, have you turned down the annual flu vaccine? Would you require reading a full randomised, peer reviewed trial every year before taking it?

I have had the flu vaccine as usual, different beast altogether with decades of safety and efficacy data.

But it is a new variety of flu vaccine each year, depending on expected viral spread. So, using your logic, you should need to see an entire new large-scale, long-term, peer reviewed trial every year. In which case that vaccine would then be irrelevant! So, no vaccines are safe to use - except possibly one with decades of experience and a very slow to mutate, stable virus? Smallpox?

The flu vaccines are developed using tried and tested techniques and have been studied for many years. The mRNA covid vaccines were developed in a tenth of the time it normally takes to develop, test, and bring vaccines and drugs to market...that's the difference. There are widely regarded protocols in place with the FDA, the EMA and the MHRA and these protocols were suspended with the covid vaccines due to the emergency of the pandemic.

I believe there is still a case for administering the covid vaccine to specific vulnerable groups but I think careful thought needs to be given about giving it to children and young adults.

I am a great fan of vaccines of all sorts, in fact my business provides many vaccines, include the flu vaccine to patients every day. We do not administer the covid vaccine and I would have concerns about administering it on a wide basis to the general population.

John

redsturgeon wrote:

XFool wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:

XFool wrote: As we are not currently in a flu pandemic either, have you turned down the annual flu vaccine? Would you require reading a full randomised, peer reviewed trial every year before taking it?

I have had the flu vaccine as usual, different beast altogether with decades of safety and efficacy data.

But it is a new variety of flu vaccine each year, depending on expected viral spread. So, using your logic, you should need to see an entire new large-scale, long-term, peer reviewed trial every year. In which case that vaccine would then be irrelevant! So, no vaccines are safe to use - except possibly one with decades of experience and a very slow to mutate, stable virus? Smallpox?

The flu vaccines are developed using tried and tested techniques and have been studied for many years. The mRNA covid vaccines were developed in a tenth of the time it normally takes to develop, test, and bring vaccines and drugs to market...that's the difference. There are widely regarded protocols in place with the FDA, the EMA and the MHRA and these protocols were suspended with the covid vaccines due to the emergency of the pandemic.

I believe there is still a case for administering the covid vaccine to specific vulnerable groups but I think careful thought needs to be given about giving it to children and young adults.

I am a great fan of vaccines of all sorts, in fact my business provides many vaccines, include the flu vaccine to patients every day. We do not administer the covid vaccine and I would have concerns about administering it on a wide basis to the general population.

John

It's not an easy thing to compare... it's not just time taken.

The mRNA vaccines were almost as novel as the virus (with respect to use in a wide population) which is what (AFAIK) made them controversial.
I don't think that's a necessarily a "bad" thing... and I'm very pro regulation and testing even though it makes my day to day more onerous (who wants to be selling CPAPs that are silent because their foam breaks apart in to your lungs!?)

One point that has been brought up on here is the amount of time a vaccine has been in use before it can be declared "safe" to use.

I am thinking two things. Firstly, how "long" would be considered long enough to show a vaccine is demonstrably "safe"? Five years? Ten years? Twenty-five years?

Secondly, in order to establish such a long record of safe use, any vaccine would have to be in use for that length of time to be established as safe! How could this be achieved? A small test population? Use in third world countries only until known to be safe (very dubious)? Use only in particularly vulnerable population, say an older cohort? But then, what if any problems were mainly confined to a younger age group? This is far from theoretical as just such a situation seems to have arisen with the COVID vaccine.

Perhaps the only realistic way is by population self-selection?

XFool wrote:One point that has been brought up on here is the amount of time a vaccine has been in use before it can be declared "safe" to use.

I am thinking two things. Firstly, how "long" would be considered long enough to show a vaccine is demonstrably "safe"? Five years? Ten years? Twenty-five years?

Secondly, in order to establish such a long record of safe use, any vaccine would have to be in use for that length of time to be established as safe! How could this be achieved? A small test population? Use in third world countries only until known to be safe (very dubious)? Use only in particularly vulnerable population, say an older cohort? But then, what if any problems were mainly confined to a younger age group? This is far from theoretical as just such a situation seems to have arisen with the COVID vaccine.

Perhaps the only realistic way is by population self-selection?

FYI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_trial