Autoimmune conditions are little understood even now hence why they are so difficult to treat and what triggers them isn’t clear (as a chronic sufferer of one I know something of them).
The thing is there are are so many 'whataboutery' questions with different conditions that require specialist medical knowledge from a consultant. Add in a fast moving health crisis, and decisions have to be made both on a mass-level and a personal level.
So much in medical is about risk vs benefit, and (IANAD) so much seems to be based on judgement not fact & figure.
/engage Monty Python mode
My concern is autoimmune conditions being triggered in other people.
You lucky b*s*a*d, at least you have an immune system in the first place says mrs_oab... 😜😂
Rumours that the old firm game on the 2nd isnt going ahead, police down for duty that day have been removed from it.
time will tell I suppose
It states that longer term testing is not a requirement.
That is different to what you are suggesting, it is not a requirement for vaccines so as a stage it was not missed.
I was just highlighting that bit as an aside. The main focus of the letter is that the author of it at least, shares my concerns about the covid vaccines triggering an autoimmune response and that longer term testing and any licensing of vaccines should look at this specific area.
Trust me, we're as ****ed as we are with covid if in the longer term people start having adverse autoimmune responses to the vaccine.
It states that longer term testing is not a requirement.
That is different to what you are suggesting, it is not a requirement for vaccines so as a stage it was not missed.
Hmm, possibly :). But 6 years of shitting 20-30 times a day and night, not being able to leave the house even to walk the dogs in case I shit myself, having to have a mental map of every toilet facility in any area I regularly visited and to know, without thinking, which was closest and the utter terror of having to use the Tube because if the need came on there is no way I would get to a station, up and out of the stairs and to a handily placed McDonalds or Starbucks without making one hell of a mess I did at one stage think immune systems were over-rated.
Have another one with some numbers of actual autoimmune responses which may have been caused by the Covid vaccine.
Am I totally over-reacting here and note this is not Karen from Facebook at all...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8264276/
Couple of extracts:
---
We report a further case of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Our patient is a 71-year-old Caucasian female. Background history was significant for cholecystectomy 20 years previously, left total hip replacement and osteoarthritis of the knees. There were no risk factors for autoimmune disease. She was on no regular medications or supplements.
She received the Moderna mRNA vaccine on the 16th of April 2021. During the 24-hour period around vaccination she took 2 g of paracetamol. Four days post vaccination she noticed jaundice. She attended her primary carer on the 26th of April (+10 days post vaccination). Laboratory results were markedly abnormal (bilirubin 270 μmol/L, alkaline phosphatase 217 U/L, alanine aminotransferase 1,067 U/L). She was promptly referred to our hepatology services.
On physical examination she was jaundiced. Laboratory results were negative for hepatitis B, C, and E, Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus and HIV. Hepatitis A IgG was positive with a negative IgM. Smooth muscle antibody was strongly positive with a titre of 2,560 and an anti-actin pattern. Total IgG was markedly raised at 21.77 g/L. Liver ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and computer tomography pancreas protocol showed distal common bile duct dilation of 1.4 cm consistent with prior cholecystectomy.
---
---
These findings raise the question as to whether COVID-19 mRNA vaccination can, through activation of the innate immune system and subsequent non-specific activation of autoreactive lymphocytes, lead to the development of autoimmune diseases including AIH or trigger a drug-induced liver injury with features of AIH. The trigger, if any, may become more apparent over time, especially following withdrawal of immunosuppression. As with other autoimmune diseases associated with vaccines the causality or casualty factor will prove difficult to tease apart and should not distract from the overwhelming benefits of mass COVID-19 vaccination. But it does beg the question of whether or not these individuals should receive the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
---
Does and additional 7% over the 14% of children really cause us a significant issue in terms of transmission and therefore deaths?
It depends on who those 7% are
If they are all under 50, then it will have little affect upon direct deaths
If they are all over 85 then it will
Vaccinations are here:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
Double edit...
Its the 80+ age group in London where the low uptake is
(and London in general, which backs up the idea why its generally the petri dish of the UK)
Does and additional 7% over the 14% of children really cause us a significant issue in terms of transmission and therefore deaths?
Presumably it depends on distribution. Vaccination isn't spread evenly throughout the country, there are areas and communities with a much higher than average proportion of unvaccinated people. So yes, presumably in some areas it has the potential to be a significant issue.
More generally, what do people who have doubts about vaccination think would happen if everyone took the same view and refused to be vaccinated? What would the world look like?
Some good news some of the antibody treatments retain some efficacy against Omicron.( B.1.1.529 )
There are some hints about a higher than expected rate of hospitalisation among children from Omicron in SA. Again, early data, might be bollocks, but transmission might not now be the only reason to vaccinate children. If it turns out that severe illness is slightly more likely with this variant, then the risk/benefit scales may tip slightly more towards vaccination.
Am I totally over-reacting here and note this is not Karen from Facebook at all…
This is a case report on an auto-immune issue which happened shortly after vaccination, rather than a long period after the jab, which is what you have been talking about (correct me if I'm wrong). While it's right to be concerned about any adverse effect potentially caused by a vaccine, the whole point of trials is to try to identify even relatively rare events so that risks and benefits can be weighed up properly prior to approval. This process has been carried out properly.
There is no question that an mRNA could cause an autoimmune response. So can the 'traditional' vaccines, the issue here is more that you are coming out with the standard anti vax tropes of it was tested too fast which is horse shit. All of the vaccines were tested exactly to regulations, if you wish to discuss if the regulations are not correct then that is a whole other discussion that should be outside of this thread and when it comes to new technology in medicine there is definitely a discussion to be had around that.
With the mRNA vaccines though, there is longitudinal data on the delivery mechanism if not for the covid vaccines as the technology is known and has been tried. Just not in the scale we now have.
Do i think there will be changes to the adverse event details as time goes on? absolutely, all medicines have that but very very few medicines are used at the scale we have here
While it’s right to be concerned about any adverse effect potentially caused by a vaccine, the whole point of trials is to try to identify even relatively rare events so that risks and benefits can be weighed up properly prior to approval. This process has been carried out properly.
The more jabs you give someone the more chance of it triggering a response though. And who is to say that more cases will not appear the more the vaccine is used? My dad's wife (never could get used to calling her my step-mum) is a former consultant paediatrician and now a professor of anatomy and chair at a med school at one of the Paris universities. She will not have an mRNA jab for the fear of in 5-10 years there being an autoimmune response.
OK, again a minority voice but you cannot question her understanding of the science.
BTW This letter was published 8 July 2021 so this is data coming out way way after the trials and finding contraindications that were not picked up by the trials.
Why does she think that mRNA is more risky than other vaccines in wide use? As above, both are capable of producing an unwanted autoimmune response in a small number of cases. I'm still struggling to understand the proposed mechanism of an unwanted response 5-10 years after a dose.
I am merely pointing out that there is absolutely no long term data for repeated and very regular doses of the covid vaccine.
Look, there are two proposals here.
a) each dose (booster after booster) gives a tiny short-term risk of an autoimmune response. This I acknowledge, but say that, for most of those receiving boosters, the current risk of Covid is far, far, greater.
b) A single dose of mRNA vaccine can produce an autoimmune response even years later. mRNA vaccines are not a brand new tech, and I'd say that there is no existing evidence for this, and no way for vaccine testing to realistically accommodate that without running over a period of several years, which means countless extra deaths worldwide.
So can the ‘traditional’ vaccines, the issue here is more that you are coming out with the standard anti vax tropes of it was tested too fast which is horse shit.
A point of clarification if I may. I have had my two (Pfizer) jabs and I am not disputing the efficacy of the trials which were undertaken which is why I was (just about) happy to have them.
I am merely pointing out that there is absolutely no long term data for repeated and very regular doses of the covid vaccine.
Why does she think that mRNA is more risky than other vaccines in wide use? As above, both are capable of producing an unwanted autoimmune response in a small number of cases. I’m still struggling to understand the proposed mechanism of an unwanted response 5-10 years after a dose.
I will have to ask her...
Our Christmas party is cancelled for tomorrow.
Of course, those same 12 people will be gathered in a single room next Tuesday, for a meeting + secret santa exchange.
This letter was published 8 July 2021 so this is data coming out way way after the trials and finding contraindications that were not picked up by the trials.
If you have to give 8.5 billion doses for one specific adverse reaction, no trial's gonna pick that up.
I understood, but the comments about tested too fast are definitely common with anti vaxxers.
Yes you are right there is no long term data, ultimately it is up to you to decide if you feel the risk of an undefined autoimmune response in the future is greater than the potential risks from long term effects after catching covid.
Will there be long term effects from the vaccines? Possible yes, but if it is going to happen it likely would from one or 2 doses anyway.
Presumably it depends on distribution. Vaccination isn’t spread evenly throughout the country, there are areas and communities with a much higher than average proportion of unvaccinated people. So yes, presumably in some areas it has the potential to be a significant issue.
It would have an effect on specific areas but in whole population numbers presumably it wouldn't make much difference. ie. numbers in certain areas would be higher but numbers in other areas would be equally lower.
At some point we will have to get to an societally acceptable number of deaths annually. That number will be determined by when the wider public get fed up of following guidance/rules/law and just crack on. I have no idea when that will be but we even have some of the diehard Covid rule followers on this thread now saying they will choose to ignoring some guidance should it be enacted so it can't be that far off.
I can't remember who said it but the quote is "People will decide the pandemic is over, long before any governing body declares it so."
We still going on with the round/flat earth argument?
Good stuff.
Carry on...
😀
And if we were going to see lots of vaccine-driven illness in five years' time, I would expect to be seeing cases emerging in a smaller number of people now, given the sheer volume of doses delivered worldwide over the past year.
We still going on with the round/flat earth argument?
Good stuff.
We'll move on long before you are ever free from your endless, circular argument about the state of the Labour party! 🙂
Our Christmas party is cancelled for tomorrow.
Of course, those same 12 people will be gathered in a single room next Tuesday, for a meeting + secret santa exchange.
But was the party going to be in a pub / restaurant as opposed to just 12 people in an office?
If you have to give 8.5 billion doses for one specific adverse reaction, no trial’s gonna pick that up.
If you read the letter it is in response to another report of vaccine triggered autoimmune responses. And, if I might add, I was asked specifically why no experts were raising concerns about autoimmune issues and within minutes I produced two letters from what I think could be deemed experts raising exactly those concerns with field data showing there is at least some cause for concern here.
And if you read the two letters you will see there are specific reasons as to why the Covid vaccines may be triggering these responses so to dismiss my concerns outright I think is a little off. Of course I could be wrong and yes, my thinking is skewed from having nearly died from an autoimmune condition and subsequently living through 6 years of hell however given such cases are coming to the fore I do not think I am being totally outrageous in my thinking.
Good to see you constructively adding to the rather civil debate over the last 2 pages binners.
Good stuff.
Carry on...
To others - What I want to know is are we all getting het up over something that isn't really a statistical problem for the country.
ie. does a small percentage of the population being unvaccinated through choice actually significantly increase the risk to the entire population of the UK especially given we will always have about 5-10% of the population unvaccinated through age or medical reasons?
We still going on with the round/flat earth argument?
Is this a comment from the same person who accused me of making up quotes from the WHO?
would expect to be seeing cases emerging in a smaller number of people now,
According to the second letter I linked to we are. And given the case referred to was spotted by someone who clearly knew what they were looking for it is statistically likely that there will be others that have gone unnoticed.
I will highlight another passage from that letter also. Note the use of the phrase ;'growing reports':
---
There are growing reports of autoimmune diseases developing after SARS-CoV-2 infection, including Guillain-Barré syndrome and primary biliary cholangitis.3 It is speculated that SARS-CoV-2 can disturb self-tolerance and trigger autoimmune responses through cross-reactivity with host cells and that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may trigger the same response.4 , 5
---
I've heard that some of the guys above have formed a band and are about to launch their first album entitled "Vexatious Whataboutery"
It's a greatest compilation including, "Dishy Rishi", "Why don't dogs get Covid?", "I'm not an anti-vaxxer but....", "Won't someone think of my children's children?" and my old favourite "I aint wearing a mask 'cos I don't breathe thru my nose anyway"
If you read the letter it is in response to another report of vaccine triggered autoimmune responses. And, if I might add, I was asked specifically why no experts were raising concerns about autoimmune issues and within minutes I produced two letters from what I think could be deemed experts raising exactly those concerns with field data showing there is at least some cause for concern here.
From 5 months ago, yeah? I appreciate that it's an area you have specific regard for, but the link between covid and autoimmune issues seems so statistically insignificant, I remains unconvinced A - that trials would ever have picked it up, and B - that there is a provable link.
We've already passed the threshold where anyone new testing positive should be self isolating on Xmas Day. I wonder how many will bend the rules and still meet up with extended family/friends, including justifying how many have been at least double jabbed or even boostered in comparison to last Xmas. I wonder how many will ignore symptoms to attend planned Xmas gatherings, not bother even with LF tests, nevermind a PCR.
As with everything it is a risk/benefit balance.
As is frequently said, the difference between a medicine and a poison is dose.
Yes there could be long term effects, we don't know for sure but it seems to be less likely or of limited levels if that is the case.
But compared to the risk from catching the virus with waning or very low antibody levels which could cause you severe issues now and longer term, is that a balance people want to take?
Given the number of doses given vs the level of auto immune proven vaccine related adverse events you would expect it to be much higher if there were an issue as we are in unheard of realms of doses given world wide.
Trust me the levels of pharmacovigilance (follow up of adverse events following vaccination) within the companies producing the vaccine are insanely big and signals would be reported incredibly fast to the regulators. We saw that with the blood clot issues.
According to the second letter I linked to we are
That was an effect reported immediately after a jab. My quote was talking about problems which you've postulated could emerge months or years later.
I'm not sure anyone is claiming that these rare autoimmune responses shortly after the jab don't exist, or that the vaccine is risk-free. Or that they don't matter. Just that the present threat still outweighs this risk, considerably in most people. It's a difficult judgement to make in some age groups, I don't envy them.
I wonder how many will ignore symptoms to attend planned Xmas gatherings, not bother even with LF tests, nevermind a PCR.
i wonder how many will fake symptoms to get out of a day with the in-laws....
We’ve already passed the threshold where anyone new testing positive should be self isolating on Xmas Day. I wonder how many will bend the rules and still meet up with extended family/friends, including justifying how many have been at least double jabbed or even boostered in comparison to last Xmas.
I don’t see anyone doing this. Why would you?
I wonder how many will ignore symptoms to attend planned Xmas gatherings, not bother even with LF tests, nevermind a PCR.
I find this far more likely. Especially as we’re in cold/cough/flu symptoms season.
Personally, I won’t be waiting for symptoms, I’ll be testing anyway.
From 5 months ago, yeah? I appreciate that it’s an area you have specific regard for, but the link between covid and autoimmune issues seems so statistically insignificant, I remains unconvinced A – that trials would ever have picked it up, and B – that there is a provable link.
However just a few posts ago I was asked why no experts were highlighting it as a possible concern. They are. And yes, it may be turn out statistically insignificant or indeed there may be no causal link at all.
However this has been a concern of mine for some time and it looks like there *may* be some justification for that concern.
I have been accused of getting my information from anti-vaxxers on YouTube and yet these letters could not be further from that.
I have been accused of making up quotes from the WHO when I linked to the article that contained them.
And people wonder why others think they cannot have a reasoned and rational conversation about these things and some people find it impossible to accept that there are 'normal' (for want of a better word) people who have genuine concerns.
At some point we will have to get to an societally acceptable number of deaths annually. That number will be determined by when the wider public get fed up of following guidance/rules/law and just crack on. I
The problem is not that people find covid deaths 'unacceptable' per se, it's that people with covid don't conveniently just die instantly and disappear. They are hospitalised, treated, and often intubated in an ICU before dying and becoming 'a statistic'.
In doing so, they take up a huge proportion of NHS resource. As a knock on from this, other people who'd normally be treated for routine illness - including potentially fatal ones like various cancers - RTAs, other illnesses etc, potentially have their level of care compromised.
So it's not as simple as people/society simply deciding, say, 100 excess deaths per day is 'acceptable' and then just carrying on as normal, we also have to be able to cope with that level of covid deaths and still maintain a functioning health service for everything else.
All of which is blindingly obvious. If your 'acceptable' number is enough to overwhelm the NHS, what happens then? Or should people with covid just be left to die quietly at home?
Or that they don’t matter. Just that the present threat still outweighs this risk, considerably in most people. It’s a difficult judgement to make in some age groups, I don’t envy them.
And there you have in a single, considered, respectful sentence the reason I will not agree to the boy having the vaccine.
I would like to add for the record as well I wear a mask, I avoid going out as much as possible and have done for the last 2 years, I test at least before I go into the office (twice a month at most) or to restaurants, I have had Covid and followed the isolation rules to the letter.
I believe this is all real and until now I have absolutely followed the science. But, like everyone I have limits and my limit is being asked to have booster after booster (as seems likely from Whitty's comments yesterday). Other people's boundaries are ignoring any advice to cut down on socialising and other people have posted their thoughts on further restrictions around Christmas gatherings.
Doesn't make me a mad, flat earth Brexit voting anti-vax gammon lunatic. I am none of those things.
To others – What I want to know is are we all getting het up over something that isn’t really a statistical problem for the country.
Statistically yes
ie. does a small percentage of the population being unvaccinated through choice actually significantly increase the risk to the entire population of the UK especially given we will always have about 5-10% of the population unvaccinated through age or medical reasons?
2nd dose levels are around 95% for the over 50's, which is about as good as its reasonably going to get.
3rd/boosters are currently 77% (for the over 50's), but i'd expect that to raise to the above rates over the next month.
At this point, it seems like the strategy is just to jab as many people as possible, until the effects of Omicron are known.
(sure someone will have access to better data than me)
To others – What I want to know is are we all getting het up over something that isn’t really a statistical problem for the country.
If you're referring to unvaccinated kids, no one is getting het up about it.
Adults, with no medical concerns, refusing to be vaccinated, is different. They have kept the NHS stretched to breaking point for months on end (more likely to be admitted... not the only ones being admitted), while people wait for treatment for other conditions for longer and longer.
Transmission is a whole other problem... and brings the conversation back to levels of vaccination in the population required for "herd immunity"... which goes around in ever decrease circles at this point. We're sort of stuck now at "more immunity means a lower burden on health care" rather than "we can end this completely if enough people people are vaccinated"... that hope seems long gone in all countries.
But was the party going to be in a pub / restaurant as opposed to just 12 people in an office?
Bowling alley with buffet delivered to us, and I think table service drinks.
I'm now going to the pub with 2 friends instead.
Doesn’t make me a mad, flat earth Brexit voting anti-vax gammon lunatic. I am none of those things.
I think, on the whole, this discussion has been pretty respectful, because you've taken the time to actually apply logic to your position rather than just harvest and regurgitate some bollox off facebook.
I think some of us are unused to dealing with nuanced arguments because people keep popping up telling us the pandemic is over, it's only a sniffle and then getting abusive when challenged. So they tend to get slapped down fairly ruthlessly.
Questions of acceptable risk vs benefit are not easy. What seems like a lifetime ago I was posting against the introduction of 1st doses for 12-15 year olds. Didn't seem to me like the risk/benefit equation added up at that time, so I can understand where you're coming from.
The only people I get 'het up' about are those who are misleading others with misinformation.
The problem is not that people find covid deaths ‘unacceptable’ per se, it’s that people with covid don’t conveniently just die instantly and disappear. They are hospitalised, treated, and often intubated in an ICU before dying and becoming ‘a statistic’.
Yes, but 78,000 people die of smoking per year* (~200 per day) and those people will be taking up a similar amount of NHS resource.
This is seen to be an 'acceptable' amount of deaths.
Yes, we discourage it, but its not banned.
*
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/what-are-the-health-risks-of-smoking/
I wonder how many will ignore symptoms to attend planned Xmas gatherings, not bother even with LF tests, nevermind a PCR.
Loads. And I suspect even more will take a "if I don't test I can't be positive"/"nah, it's just a cold, no need to test" approach.
As this thread has proved, people will make their own risk assessments as to who they meet and where. Some will be hyper careful, other will look at the people they're meeting whilst assessing risks and make a call, some will not even think about it and just do what they wish.
Interestingly, the latter option is pretty much what government guidance says they can do at the moment...
Yes, we discourage it, but its not banned.
Except in pubs. And restaurants. And...
I think, on the whole, this discussion has been pretty respectful, because you’ve taken the time to actually apply logic to your position rather than just harvest and regurgitate some bollox off facebook.
Questions of acceptable risk vs benefit are not easy. What seems like a lifetime ago I was posting against the introduction of 1st doses for 12-15 year olds. Didn’t seem to me like the risk/benefit equation added up at that time, so I can understand where you’re coming from.
The only people I get ‘het up’ about are those who are misleading others with misinformation.
Entirely fair and my comments re: accusations etc were not aimed at you or the vast majority of people on here.
I do think though that there is a danger being pushed into a position where you feel you have to blindly accept a certain position (and again not by you) because to do otherwise attracts such scorn and nastiness it is not worth asking the question and no one should feel like that.
As you have probably gathered by now I have a very thick skin and the negative comments do not bother me but they do bother some people. Normal, sensible people being belittled for raising genuine concerns will not help us get through this one jot; quite the opposite
Yes, but 78,000 people die of smoking per year* (~200 per day) and those people will be taking up a similar amount of NHS resource.
This is seen to be an ‘acceptable’ amount of deaths.
Yes, we discourage it, but its not banned.
That analogy doesn’t really work
As an ex-smoker I’d say that we’re definitely in credit NHS-wise, rather than a drain on resources.
Most of the cost of cigs is tax (it’s now a tenner for 20 Bensons) and we tend to die quick, painful deaths and not burden the pension system much either.
Maybe we could have an additional tax for anti-vaxxers to cover the cost to the NHS they’re likely to be? A stupidity tax?
As you have probably gathered by now I have a very thick skin and the negative comments do not bother me
Oh, that's different then, no holds barred from now on... 🙂
I don't agree with your position (or at least would need a lot more evidence), but I can understand why someone rational might hold it. I can't prove you wrong (about long-term stuff), but I hope you in turn would concede that, for some people at least, accepting a theoretical but unlikely risk is necessary to counter a known, and very real present one.
