Leaked Pfizer Documents Reveal Only 55% of Some COVID Vaccine Samples had RNA Intact Prior to European Approval Exposing Huge Quality Control Issues

Medical Kidnap ^ | 03/15/2021 | Brian Shilhavy Editor, Health Impact News

[Republican Wildcat]

AZ is listed as being a DNA vaccine - which was not approved for use in the US. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/why-the-astrazeneca-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-is-different/ar-BB1bhP1n

[semimojo]

Does the newly reported fact that Germany has now halted it, as well, make all four countries potential anti-vaxxers like FReepers on this forum are being called?

Obviously not. These countries are pausing to investigate a few reports of problems. They’re demonstrating a rational approach just as they did when they began giving the vaccinations.

Both decisions were based on science and reason which makes these countries nothing like anti-vaxxers.

[ColoCdn]

So, then, please define an anti-vaxxer for me since those who use science, like large bureaucratic governmental agencies, apparently aren’t anti-vax, but those individuals, like moms of kids for instance, who claim to use science and come to the same conclusion that there’s something wrong, are anti-vax.

[mewzilla]

An employer can require it, but long as the vaccines are approved under emergency authorization use, employees can’t be fired for refusal.

[semimojo]

...those who use science, like large bureaucratic governmental agencies, apparently aren’t anti-vax, but those individuals, like moms of kids for instance, who claim to use science and come to the same conclusion...

I think you've identified the problem. Using science and claiming to use science aren't the same thing.

These countries looked at the results of the clinical trials, evaluated the data and went through a rigorous process of review by experts in several fields. Based on the results they approved the vaccine for use. Now, some of them have paused the vaccinations while a few reports of anomalies are investigated. I'd note that the evidence we've seen looks pretty good for Astra Zeneca:

"So far across the EU and UK, there have been 15 events of DVT and 22 events of pulmonary embolism reported among those given the vaccine, based on the number of cases the Company has received as of 8 March. This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed COVID-19 vaccines."

But I don't begrudge some of these countries wanting more data.

Contrast this with the anti-vaxxers who latch onto a few anecdotal reports and the musings of a few cranks on the internet yet never produce any credible data to back up their claims.

The big difference is these countries decided to use the vaccine based on the evidence, and anti-vaxxers would choose to avoid the vaccine despite the evidence.

[ColoCdn]

So, considering that someone within my family has two genetic anomalies, Factor 5 Leyden and Protein S deficiency, would you recommend (based on your understanding of the science) that they take the Astra Zenica shot if it was available?

[semimojo]

...would you recommend (based on your understanding of the science) that they take the Astra Zenica shot if it was available?

I have no idea and you would be a fool to listen to my advice on the subject. Having said that, I'm not aware of any cautions from Astra Zeneca or any governments regarding genetic abnormalities.

What do the medical professionals who really understand these anomalies say?

[ColoCdn]

There is no guidance.
Hence, we’re left to find the best information that’s available. Even our doctors have conflicting ideas, based on assumptions from related data, and so we, apparently, must do what those moms with kids do and make the most cautious choice.
Would you say that this is being an anti-vaxxer?

[semimojo]

Would you say that this is being an anti-vaxxer?

No, not necessarily. If someone has a particular risk and the medical/scientific community is at a loss to give guidance I can understand being cautious with that person. For me it would depend on whether they were at high risk of a bad Covid outcome and what the evidence said about the risk from the genetic issues.

What's the vaccination stance of the others in the family not afflicted with the abnormality?

[ColoCdn]

That’s the interesting part, isn’t it?
Everyone inherited at least one of the anomalies.
Some two.

One had the Moderna shot without doing the homework to see if there were contraindications.

The others have now said “No way.” They are waiting for information.

Sort of like the fact that there’s no guidance on vaxxing children, pregnant mothers, or those with many other potential conditions that aren’t yet understood or researched, and may never be.

Just because they have said “No way” doesn’t place them in the broad category of anti-vaxxers. It puts them in the category of discerning consumers.

[semimojo]

Sort of like the fact that there’s no guidance on vaxxing children, pregnant mothers, or those with many other potential conditions that aren’t yet understood or researched, and may never be.

There are trials underway for children and pregnant women so we'll have definitive answers soon. The medical community is pretty clear that pregnant women should be offered the vaccine but since pregnant women are younger I could understand wanting to wait for those results.

Your "many other potential conditions" category sounds like looking for an excuse to not get the vaccine. We've vaccinated hundreds of millions of people worldwide and so far haven't seen significant issues. It's going to become harder and harder to say it's risky and still maintain credibility as an open minder consumer.

Just because they have said “No way” doesn’t place them in the broad category of anti-vaxxers. It puts them in the category of discerning consumers.

It depends who you're talking about. If it's someone who's in a category that doesn't have FDA vaccine approval yet, like children, or if you have a specific medical condition that the medical community agrees puts you at greater risk, I'd agree. If it's someone with generalized anxiety about the vaccine without a scientific or medical basis they're bordering on anti-vaxxism.

[ColoCdn]

“...so far haven’t seen significant issues”.

What, precisely, is a significant issue to you?

If a family loses a member to a pulmonary embolism or DVT it’s a significant issue to them.

How does one know about preexisting genetic anomalies, other than post-sickness or a diagnosis based on some previous familial medical episode?

[semimojo]

What, precisely, is a significant issue to you?

It would be one that goes beyond the known possible side effects and poses a significant risk to someone's health.

If a family loses a member to a pulmonary embolism or DVT it’s a significant issue to them.

True, and if we find out that's happening because of one of the vaccines it would be significant. As it stands now we don't know that's the case and it certainly isn't in the US with the FDA approved vaccines. The CDC hasn't attributed any deaths here - none - to the vaccine.

How does one know about preexisting genetic anomalies, other than post-sickness or a diagnosis based on some previous familial medical episode?

I don't know. Is there any evidence any of the vaccines would cause a problem with said anomalies?

If the question is "is it hypothetically possible that someone has an unknown condition that may be problematic with some Covid vaccine?" the answer is of course yes. But choosing to not get a vaccination based on that possibility is definitely anti-vaxx given that there's a much greater risk of getting Covid and having a bad outcome.