Will you take the Covid Vaccine?

[Hop]

I'm signed up for a shot next Saturday. Not sure which one I'll get yet.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[avboiler11]

4 / 3000 is huge when we're talking anaphylaxis.

It does not appear, from a cursory glance at media reporting, that a majority of the "serious allergic reactions" reported rise to the level of full-on anaphylaxis.

As a medical doctor, do you know if allergic reactions occur with other types of vaccines or are they somehow unique to the Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccine?

To be clear, I'm not saying this is 'no big deal'...but I don't believe it is quite as big a deal as some are making it out to be.

YMMV

 

[cobber]

well sure, if you react first round they can't give it again. but i thought this was fully recombinant without major allergens, and people are having first dose reactions. it's either anaphlyactoid and doing it without preformed antibodies, or there's something cross-reacting they haven't identified yet.

how many are being sensitized with first dose. hopefully not many

but this furthers my belief we should be vaccinating people at risk of dying from COVID.

So how do you know if you're sensitized?

 

[smokingman]

[FONT=&quot]As of Dec. 18, 3,150 people reported what the agency terms “Health Impact Events” after getting vaccinated.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The definition of the term is: “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional.”[/FONT]
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-usa-vaccine-cdc-idUKKBN28U002
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[smokingman]

[FONT=&amp]As of Dec. 18, 3,150 people reported what the agency terms “Health Impact Events” after getting vaccinated.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The definition of the term is: “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional.”[/FONT]
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-usa-vaccine-cdc-idUKKBN28U002

Maybe it is the polyethylene glycol(ie antifreeze)?
[FONT=&amp]Noting that he was speculating, Marks said it’s known that polyethylene glycol - a component present in both the Pfizer vaccine and one from Moderna that regulators approved earlier in the day - can be associated, uncommonly, with allergic reactions.[/FONT]

“So that could be a culprit here. And that’s why we’ll be watching very closely,” he said. “But we just don’t know at this point.”
Both vaccines have “systemic side effects,” which are “generally mild,” Systemic has come to mean nothing can be done about it at the CDC FYI. I could give other examples,but anytime they use the word systemic it means they are throwing their hands in the air and saying "Oh well".

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/...ter-1000s-negatively-affected-following-covid
​

 

[4651feeder]

With Fauci's reported claim that he personally vaccinated Santa Claus and this Texas Health Care Professional's video of getting, no wait... not getting vaccinated for the cameras, all I've got to say is the powers that be sure are clouding my decision with their lies and exaggerations.

https://wjla.com/news/coronavirus-v...gxoBPQgSYhIi_KcgZURp3FfYAzlpRfkflV_hQTxwkHoIs

 

[Jaybird1980]

With Fauci's reported claim that he personally vaccinated Santa Claus and this Texas Health Care Professional's video of getting, no wait... not getting vaccinated for the cameras, all I've got to say is the powers that be sure are clouding my decision with their lies and exaggerations.

https://wjla.com/news/coronavirus-v...gxoBPQgSYhIi_KcgZURp3FfYAzlpRfkflV_hQTxwkHoIs

I think they know that they are behind the ball on getting people to trust the vaccine, and now they are going to extremes to convince people. Our system has no clue how to responsibly gain our trust, playing clear mind games to promote something is definitely not the way to do it.

 

[Dirtebiker]

O'reilly covered this last night. Supreme court has ruled on three different cases. State can make you take it

I bet they can't...

I guarantee they can’t!

 

[JCSR]

Basically 3% of people develop complications that makes them unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional. Looks like the vaccine turns people into democrats?!?!

 

[nra4ever]

Breaking newS Santa Claus has fallen into a coma....

 

[hoosierdoc]

It does not appear, from a cursory glance at media reporting, that a majority of the "serious allergic reactions" reported rise to the level of full-on anaphylaxis.

As a medical doctor, do you know if allergic reactions occur with other types of vaccines or are they somehow unique to the Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccine?

To be clear, I'm not saying this is 'no big deal'...but I don't believe it is quite as big a deal as some are making it out to be.

YMMV

I don't deal with vaccines much, but I think usually the allergy is to a component. some are made using eggs and such. I think they were fairly confident no major allergens in these vaccines and I don't think they expected anaphylaxis.

one article said "anaphylactoid" which means something directly stimulates the allergy cascade without having a preformed antibody. I wonder if that's what's going on here. Dye for CT scans is like that.

So how do you know if you're sensitized?

you take the shot again and find out

 

[hoosierdoc]

Basically 3% of people develop complications that makes them unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional. Looks like the vaccine turns people into democrats?!?!

hah, right? I have a feeling those same 3% would not be able to work after the placebo either

BUT... a fever is common after vaccines. every employer now seems to say a fever means no work and you need covid test to return. hrm...

I am hoping to be one of the first docs to receive the vaccine and not take a selfie for social media.

anyone see that fake injection video from El Paso? Sketchy

 

[JCSR]

hah, right? I have a feeling those same 3% would not be able to work after the placebo either

BUT... a fever is common after vaccines. every employer now seems to say a fever means no work and you need covid test to return. hrm...

I am hoping to be one of the first docs to receive the vaccine and not take a selfie for social media.

anyone see that fake injection video from El Paso? Sketchy

The video where the plunger doesn't move?
BTW I'm not talking to you right now cause you ran off to Jamaica on a romantic vacation with a mod here while we were left fighting this dreaded virus.

 

[KokomoDave]

The recommended course of action is not to take the vacvine if you are allergic to any of the ingredients. I have not found a full panel of any of the ingredients anywhere. I mean full panel including preservatives and proteins.
I almost died from anaphylaxis from eating shellfish in a innocent looking dish at a carry in. Glad my buddy hit me with his own bee sting epi-pin. I have a bunch of em now. Allergic reactions are no bullstuff.

I'm not jealous either. I've heard vacations are nice!

 

[shibumiseeker]

I don't deal with vaccines much, but I think usually the allergy is to a component. some are made using eggs and such. I think they were fairly confident no major allergens in these vaccines and I don't think they expected anaphylaxis.

one article said "anaphylactoid" which means something directly stimulates the allergy cascade without having a preformed antibody. I wonder if that's what's going on here. Dye for CT scans is like that.

Considering an occasional rare person will react to normal saline, we'll always be able to find someone who is going to have a potentially serious reaction if we try enough people.

 

[smokingman]

The recommended course of action is not to take the vacvine if you are allergic to any of the ingredients. I have not found a full panel of any of the ingredients anywhere. I mean full panel including preservatives and proteins.
I almost died from anaphylaxis from eating shellfish in a innocent looking dish at a carry in. Glad my buddy hit me with his own bee sting epi-pin. I have a bunch of em now. Allergic reactions are no bullstuff.

I'm not jealous either. I've heard vacations are nice!

https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download


The FDA lists these additional ingredients as: lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2- hexyldecanoate), 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose.


SDS for polyetgylene glycol 2000 https://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en/product/msds/MDA_CHEM-821037?Origin=PDP Do not let it enter a drain because it is toxic to aquatic life...here let me inject you with some.

Acute oral toxicityLD50 Rat: > 2,000 mg/kgOECD Test Guideline 423 They of course did not test directly injecting it.



It is not a PEG(polyethylene glycol 2000) approved for use in food. 3500 is. It really is the most likely reason people are having poor reactions. It does not do well if heated rapidly(as warned on the SDS) and taking it from super cold temps to 98.6 instantly is probably not helping. 28 days to biodegrade (per sds).

https://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en/product/msds/MDA_CHEM-821037?Origin=PDP


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213219820310072
[h=1]Polyethylene Glycol–Induced Systemic Allergic Reactions (Anaphylaxis)[/h]

 

[Libertarian01]

Thalidomide wasn't approved by the FDA at that point though...

I agree, and the current vaccine(s) have NOT been approved either, under standard protocols. They have been approved under a less strenuous "emergency" protocol.

This story just came out yesterday (The CDC Just Issued New Warning About COVID Vaccine): https://www.eatthis.com/news-cdc-vaccine-anaphylaxis-warning/

These numbers of reactions are small - so far. To my thinking Thalidomide is one of the many reasons we put our drugs through all sorts of tests. If someone is dying I'll agree that giving them an experimental drug is Okay because, well, they're dying. But otherwise we should be cautious about putting things in our body that we don't fully understand.

Again, if this were MERS (with a 36% mortality rate) I would be the first in line for a vaccine that may only be 25% effective. That mortality rate, in my opinion, would justify the risk of unknown side affects from a not entirely tested vaccine. COVID? I'll wait for the standard protocols to be done.

Yes, there is a published randomized controlled trial of providing people with masks who were told to wear them versus people not given masks and not told to wear any if their own, with thousands of people in the study. Providing masks and directives to wear them did not make a significant difference in coronavirus infections. You can find it referenced in some places as the Danish mask study. HereÂ’s a link to the publication:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

I read the link and it is interesting. However, it is based upon "observational evidence." In all fairness to the study this is stated in their very first sentence. My problem is that observational studies are based upon perception. That perception is what the observer is paying attention to, and not necessarily the totality of the data available. Most of us are this way. We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear.

A meta analysis study of 11 controlled trials and 10 observational studies concluded, "Evidence from RCTs is equivocal (ambiguous) on whether face mask wearing in community settings reduces the transmission of clinically- or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections. RCTs and observational studies have found an effect on self-reported symptoms, but this may be the result of reporting bias and confounding. No relevant studies concerned SARS-CoV-2 or were undertaken in community settings in the UK."

This article further commented that, "...Clearly, in a time and age when mandatory medical interventions, including so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand-washing, and mask wearing, are increasingly being implemented and institutionalized under the auspices of the public safety, we need to let the evidence itself (and not simply fear and a desire to control) guide these public health decisions and policies. When the evidence of safety and effectiveness is lacking, or worse, when there is evidence of unsafety and ineffectiveness, it is our job to inform ourselves and others, and not consent to unethical, unlawful, or unconstitutional orders that violate our health and bodily sovereignty."

So again I return to the premise that there is no conclusive data on either side of this issue. When we are talking about implementing policy that forces people and businesses to alter their best practices we'd better be darn sure that we are doing so based upon solid, near irrefutable science. Otherwise, we are implementing policy based upon wishful thinking and that does nobody any good.

Regards,

Doug

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Apples and oranges, my friend. The main difference being that those anti-gunners are not satisfied with just simply not owning guns. They want YOU to not be able to own/carry guns as well.

If I had a friend (and I do have several that fit in this category) who said that they chose not to carry a gun because the risk was not that great and was within their acceptable range, but that they have zero problem with others doing so if they feel the need, that would be a better comparison.

If someone wants to take the vaccine, then take it. If the risks are such that you are comfortable with the vaccine, then you are the sole decision maker on that front.

I won’t be taking the vaccine until I have seen evidence that the risks are within my own personal range of acceptable risk.

My fear, however is that the powers that be will attempt to force the vaccine on me against my will. And I’m not ok with that.

Hdood,

I was responding to the "living in fear" part of your original post.

Though your reference was mild, there is a repeated theme on these topics that anyone who does the things that we are told can help prevent or reduce the spread of this virus are "living in fear". Others have made repeated inferences that the only choice is to either live life like nothing is happening, or pull a "Biden" and hide in your basement for the duration (i.e. live in fear). That "caricature" is very similar to the one the anti-gunners use.

 

[jamil]

you take the shot again and find out

 

[jamil]

I agree, and the current vaccine(s) have NOT been approved either, under standard protocols. They have been approved under a less strenuous "emergency" protocol.

This story just came out yesterday (The CDC Just Issued New Warning About COVID Vaccine): https://www.eatthis.com/news-cdc-vaccine-anaphylaxis-warning/

These numbers of reactions are small - so far. To my thinking Thalidomide is one of the many reasons we put our drugs through all sorts of tests. If someone is dying I'll agree that giving them an experimental drug is Okay because, well, they're dying. But otherwise we should be cautious about putting things in our body that we don't fully understand.

Again, if this were MERS (with a 36% mortality rate) I would be the first in line for a vaccine that may only be 25% effective. That mortality rate, in my opinion, would justify the risk of unknown side affects from a not entirely tested vaccine. COVID? I'll wait for the standard protocols to be done.



I read the link and it is interesting. However, it is based upon "observational evidence." In all fairness to the study this is stated in their very first sentence. My problem is that observational studies are based upon perception. That perception is what the observer is paying attention to, and not necessarily the totality of the data available. Most of us are this way. We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear.

A meta analysis study of 11 controlled trials and 10 observational studies concluded, "Evidence from RCTs is equivocal (ambiguous) on whether face mask wearing in community settings reduces the transmission of clinically- or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections. RCTs and observational studies have found an effect on self-reported symptoms, but this may be the result of reporting bias and confounding. No relevant studies concerned SARS-CoV-2 or were undertaken in community settings in the UK."

This article further commented that, "...Clearly, in a time and age when mandatory medical interventions, including so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand-washing, and mask wearing, are increasingly being implemented and institutionalized under the auspices of the public safety, we need to let the evidence itself (and not simply fear and a desire to control) guide these public health decisions and policies. When the evidence of safety and effectiveness is lacking, or worse, when there is evidence of unsafety and ineffectiveness, it is our job to inform ourselves and others, and not consent to unethical, unlawful, or unconstitutional orders that violate our health and bodily sovereignty."

So again I return to the premise that there is no conclusive data on either side of this issue. When we are talking about implementing policy that forces people and businesses to alter their best practices we'd better be darn sure that we are doing so based upon solid, near irrefutable science. Otherwise, we are implementing policy based upon wishful thinking and that does nobody any good.

Regards,

Doug

Agreed. But. About putting things into our bodies that we don't fully understand, the same can hold true of supplements, yet we feel like because they're "natural" they only have benefits. So perception is the decider on what we put into our bodies, not knowledge about it.