European Medicines Agency Warns ‘Clear Link’ Between COVID Vaccine And Deadly Blood Clots In Brain

An official with the European Medicines Agency said Tuesday that there is a “clear link” between the AstraZeneca vaccine and deadly blood clots in the brain.

Marco Cavaleri, the chair of the vaccine evaluation team at the EMA, told the Italian newspaper Il Messagero that in his opinion, “we can now say it is clear that there is an association (of the brain blood clots) with the vaccine.” Cavaleri added that while he was sure that there was a “clear link” with the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots, it is still not yet known what the actual cause of the deadly brain clots is.

They’re very different vaccines, although the J&J vaccine is at least similar in function (both viral vector vaccines). For a list of ingredients, look here: https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/covid-19-vaccines

So far, no clotting issues have been seen with the J&J vaccine to my knowledge. Further, it’s important to note that while there has been a lot of work establishing a causal mechanism with the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine and blood clots, the actual effect is so minimal that you can’t distinguish between a population that’s had the vaccine and those that haven’t. In other words, you have a normal amount of blood clot issues that arise within any given group with some year to year variation. The increase in blood clotting from the AZ/Oxford vaccine does not appear to be large enough to raise the numbers outside that normal year-over-year variation.

That said, this vaccine is NOT available in the United States. They haven’t even submitted the paperwork to FDA for authorization. With three safe and effective vaccines already taking care of people in the US and a fourth on the way (Novavax), I seriously doubt FDA will ever allow the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine here.

monkeyshine wrote: “So can someone dissect this a little? What’s in the AZ vaccine that may be causing this, that is not in the Pfizer/Moderna/JnJ vaccines because apparently we’re not having this same problem.”

Here’s the real ‘dissection’ from the EMA website:

“EMA’s safety committee (PRAC) has concluded today that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as very rare side effects of Vaxzevria (formerly COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca).”

Here’s some of the causes of CVST from this website:

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/Stroke/SinusVeinThrombosis.pdf

Cerebral vein and cerebral venous sinus thromboses are blood clots that form in the veins that drain the blood from the brain called the sinuses and cerebral veins. They can lead to severe headaches, confusion, and stroke-like symptoms. They may lead to bleeding into the surrounding brain tissues. The
clots can be triggered by infections of the ear, face, or neck, by medications containing estrogen, pregnancy, or dehydration. They can also be caused by clotting disorders. Sometimes the cause is unknown

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-ema-finds-possible-link-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-low-blood

Bottom Line: More panic porn from the anti-vaxxers.

Thanks for the reply. I agree it is unlikely any new vaccines will come online here in the US. Even if FDA did green light them the market is saturated. Seek your fortunes elsewhere!

It is interesting though there seems to be some alarmism - enough to make a few countries halt the AZ vaccine or limit distribution. Maybe out of an abundance of caution. Though perhaps also some hubris or arrogance they didn’t go with Pfizer or JnJ or Moderna. Israel seems, from the headlines, to have had very little issues with Pfizer and widespread compliance.

Though of course we do see the occasional headline about some rare instances of people getting rather large rashes after vaccination. I wonder the relationship between those large blotches and potential for blood clots.

From the WSJ: “U.K. Limits AstraZeneca Covid-19 Vaccine to Over-30s Amid Blood-Clot Concerns” and
“European regulator finds link to rare blood clots but says vaccine’s benefits still outweigh risks”

“In the U.K., the government said last week that 79 severe blood-clotting cases had been reported in the U.K. out of 20 million administered doses of the vaccine. Nineteen of the people died, the regulator said Wednesday. The blood clotting is “a vanishingly rare but sadly quite serious adverse event,” said Dr. Van-Tam.”

79 cases in 20,000,000 vaccinations. That’s 0.395 per hundred thousand or less than 4 cases per million. Less than one death per million vaccinations. Most would consider that very rare.

I’d have to look more into the proposed mechanism for the blood clots to better understand it, but a skin rash is a very common allergic reaction. Often times it looks far worse than it actually is (in terms of discomfort for the patient), but sometimes it’s very uncomfortable. For smaller rashes, a topical cream can often be effective for reducing or eliminating the reaction. Sometimes a simple Benadryl can work wonders.

The pauses with the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine are appropriate while the reported issues are investigated. With any new medication, if you see something unexpected, it makes sense to pause while you look into it to ensure it isn’t a serious risk to people. From my perspective, I’d be more concerned with the fact that it seems to be pretty ineffective with the South Africa variant. If I were a country that invested heavily in getting people vaccinated with that vaccine, I’d be less concerned with the blood clot issue (which seems to be rare, not overly serious, and likely quite treatable) and more concerned with securing booster shots of something that actually works with the South Africa variant.

"those who wish to not partake in the shot are mocked and ridiculed if they voice their opinion"

Not at all. I haven't seen anyone mocked for simply stating "I don't think the COVID-19 vaccines are right for me, given my personal medical history, my assessment of my personal risk from the disease, and what I understand of the risks and unknowns of the vaccines available today."

In fact, I would 100% defend anyone who makes a statement like that. I respect their decision, even though it's different from the decision I made for myself. They have every right to make that decision. No government should be mandating they change that decision. I'm 100% against any such government mandates.

The problem is when sweeping statements are made that are factually incorrect, clearly made to incite fear and panic, or just outright absurd. For example, claiming that the vaccines sterilize people is absurd and factually incorrect. Claiming that they have Bill Gates mind control microchips in them. Claiming that they're killing people (there have been zero cases in the US or the UK where a medical examination has determined that a COVID-19 vaccine has caused a single death). Claiming that they're poison. Or just saline solution. Or that anyone who gets a COVID-19 vaccine will die as soon as they encounter any coronavirus. Or that everyone who gets one will develop autoimmune disorders. Or that they somehow re-write your DNA (into what exactly?). And on and on.

The sheer tonnage of ridiculous nonsense that gets piled on by people who hate vaccines and are willing to use fear and lies to push their agenda would sink an aircraft carrier. Worse, when you calmly and clearly explain why the claims are incorrect, you get called a shill or a liberal or any number of different childish names. Some send threatening messages about finding out where you work to get you fired (cancel culture alive and well!) Some stalk you on thread after thread talking about you - but never to you. This is the kind of behavior one has to deal with when simply countering fearmongering falsehoods with simple facts.

"It seems the scientific method is lost in all of this and it's all political at this point."

The scientific method was followed in the Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials held for each of the vaccines we have today. Out of over 200 vaccine candidates initially proposed, we have 3 that have made it through the process. We only have those 3 because President Trump fought hard to ensure that the right financial incentives were in place to have them production-ready. Those three were trialed with over 100,000 closely monitored volunteers between just the US and UK trials alone (I believe closer to 150,000 when you include J&J). The first doses were given to Phase 1 clinical trial participants March 16th 2020; over a year ago.

Still, it's entirely correct to point out we have just over a year of data and not 5 or 10 years. And if somebody doesn't feel comfortable getting any medicine that isn't at least a decade old, then they have every right to make that call. For me, Phase 3 clinical trials are pretty convincing, so I have every right to decide in favor of getting a medicine that's legally available to me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.