Covid-19 Vaccine Research, Development, Ingredients and Reactions

[Sofia]

1 hour ago, New World Explorer said:

I was thinking the same, but not sure if this will be sufficient? Need to look into it....

https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Fulltext/2021/04000/Aspirin_Use_Is_Associated_With_Decreased.2.aspx

 

It may be benefic, though the reaction it self is imune-mediated. Perhaps cortisone is more effecttive preventing the undesirable clots.

[Dustparticle]

1 hour ago, trottigy said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/23/health/johnson-vaccine-resume.html

 

15 out of 8,000,000 and 3 deaths. I understand that COVID itself causes blood clotting in rare instances too. Good to take aspirin before taking this shot, eh.

I been taken a baby aspirin for years as a blood thinner. Thanks doctor Jerry for the info.

[New World Explorer]

1 hour ago, Sofia said:

In the end it´s the immune reaction that causes the trouble not the virus it self.

Do we have any studies supporting this? (Sofia I am not picking on you, love your comments, just trying to understand the subject) 

So if not vaccined person got a virus would he die of blood clots ? (I am talking here about those rare-individual cases) 

Which is greater risk? Take a vaccine and face potential blood clots or do not take the vaccine and face the virus itself? (Rare cases discussed here only)

Edited April 25, 2021 by New World Explorer

[Sofia]

4 minutes ago, New World Explorer said:

Do we have any studies supporting this?

You are sweet! I study coronavirus for 2 decades. You can trust me

yes if you google this you find scientific back up

love your comments too

im just trying to help saying the truth because midia sometimes blurres the truth

[Sofia]

6 minutes ago, New World Explorer said:

not vaccined person got a virus would he die of blood clots ? (I am talking here about those rare-individual cases

I don’t say die....

but surely would end in ICU with severe damage caused by dramatic chain reaction of body s immune system to the coronavirus 

no doubt 

[Sofia]

8 minutes ago, New World Explorer said:

Which is greater risk? Take a vaccine and face potential blood clots or do not take the vaccine and face the virus itself?

Greater risk getting the virus in first hand without previous exposure protection

this is mostly certain

has scientific support

and makes a lot of sense 

 

but taking the vaccine is an option

the person s own choice.

 

[Sofia]

If the person s immune system reacts to the virus the wrong way leadid to a TH2 response 

macrophages are activated Creating antibodies and citoquinas that start to destroy the body

 

this is valid for the natural infection or vaccine that contains almost the intact spike protein

the mRNA vaccines have a slight different sequence so the reaction is minor.

 

but there will always be a reaction in certain bodies

only if in vaccine mode chances of survival are higher

 

[Ahuvah]

I dunno ... Im one who is in the camp of wanting to wait and see. In a perfect world I'd wait until it's  FDA  approved ... (it's FDA EUA only at this stage*) ... but if  you are in the  throes of a raging pandemic then it might be a risk worth taking. I, here in NZ, have the luxury of the pandemic being a lesser risk than any potential side effects from the vaccine. In NZ we have the Pfizer vaccine. So unless the status quo changes and it could anytime, I have time on  my side.  I have so much empathy for those of you faced with an on the spot decision. I know each of you will make the decision that is right for you.

 

* information taken from the fact sheet on the Pfizer vaccine from the FDA (US) website.  

There is no FDA approved vaccine to stop anyone from getting covid19, but what they are trying to do from my research is limit the severity of covid19, hospitalisation's and death.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Stormswift

[hatcheckgirl]

58 minutes ago, New World Explorer said:

Do we have any studies supporting this? (Sofia I am not picking on you, love your comments, just trying to understand the subject) 

So if not vaccined person got a virus would he die of blood clots ? (I am talking here about those rare-individual cases) 

Which is greater risk? Take a vaccine and face potential blood clots or do not take the vaccine and face the virus itself? (Rare cases discussed here only)

There was evidence I posted on this a few pages back (I had to look it up for the same reason). Blood clotting and low platelets happened to certain covid patients, and so it’s not the vaccines themselves (ie not a side effect of the vaccine) but your own specific immune response that produces the chain reaction mentioned by Sofia. The blood clots/strokes were being reported as causes of death from covid from the very beginning when drs realised it wasn’t “just a flu”, it was more.

 

Maybe the medical researchers can devise some way of testing for this reaction before having a non-mRNA vaccine? You don’t want to risk getting covid if you have this rare proclivity. However, the risks overall in getting the vaccine so far are very very small. 
 

Here is a pre-print Oxford University study showing a comparison between CVT in covid cases and vaccines:

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/blood-clots-up-to-10-times-more-common-with-covid (Link to research paper is in this article).

 

People who contract COVID-19 are also 100 times more likely to experience cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) than the general population, a new pre-print Oxford University study has found.
 
The research, conducted in the wake of numerous high-profile clotting cases linked to people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, found around 39 in one million people with COVID are diagnosed with CVT, compared with 0.4 per million people who had not contracted the disease.
 
CVT was also found to be more common among people who received either the Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca COVID vaccines – at a rate of between 4–5 per million – meaning people with coronavirus are between 8–10 times more likely to develop the blood clots than those who have been vaccinated against it.
 

[Ahuvah]

It becomes quite dicey either way if you have a recent or distant I guess history of blood clots.

[hatcheckgirl]

Yes, I’m afraid that’s true. Only hope is Gods Kingdom. This is a very nasty disease.

[Ahuvah]

I know Luce ... so much suffering and heartache even without covid. Love all of you who are standing firm for Jehovah in the most horrible situations. 

[Sofia]

8 hours ago, Stormswift said:

I know Luce ... so much suffering and heartache even without covid. Love all of you who are standing firm for Jehovah in the most horrible situations. 

Not to mention the long haulers like I was

Months after covid still suffering from

migraines

diziness

gi symtoms

abdominal pain

loss of balance

palpitations

extreme fatigue

taquicardia

loss of vision

loss of memory

brain fog

i went through this 12 months

now I’m ok

this virus causes a lot of suffering 😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔 

[califlorican]

14 hours ago, Stormswift said:

I dunno ... Im one who is in the camp of wanting to wait and see. In a perfect world I'd wait until it's  FDA  approved ... (it's FDA EUA only at this stage*) ... but if  you are in the  throes of a raging pandemic then it might be a risk worth taking. I, here in NZ, have the luxury of the pandemic being a lesser risk than any potential side effects from the vaccine. In NZ we have the Pfizer vaccine. So unless the status quo changes and it could anytime, I have time on  my side.  I have so much empathy for those of you faced with an on the spot decision. I know each of you will make the decision that is right for you.

 

* information taken from the fact sheet on the Pfizer vaccine from the FDA (US) website.  

There is no FDA approved vaccine to stop anyone from getting covid19, but what they are trying to do from my research is limit the severity of covid19, hospitalisation's and death.

just thought I would add an article here from research I’ve done, for those wondering the same thing about emergency use and what it means. 

www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/verify/emergency-use-authorization-fda-approval-vaccines-fact-check/65-7391e595-cee0-4a00-8468-194a6e0a21a4

 

“There are two ways to get a vaccine greenlighted by the FDA: with an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or by applying for a license through a Biologics License Application (BLA).

The only difference really between the emergency use and the licensure is that volunteers are observed for a longer period of time to see the duration of protection, and if there might be rare adverse events that occurred down the road," Dr. Schaffner said. 

 

For the EUA, it's an average of two months, but for a license, six months are required, Dr. Monto explained.

 

A spokesperson for the FDA backed that up and said they usually expect manufacturers to provide data from study participants from at least six months after vaccination when applying for a license.

 

So, between an EUA and a license, an EUA was the quicker option to get the vaccines out to save lives. Think of it as the fast-tracked version, rather than the standard one.

 

 

[califlorican]

And this recent study by the CDC is a really interesting read as well regarding vaccine effectiveness in real-world conditions: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm#contribAff

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by califlorican

[Ahuvah]

Makes me wonder if your cdc and the FDA are actually communicating with each other as the information on the FDA website says there is no FDA vaccine to stop anyone from getting covid. As I'm in NZ not sure who holds the stronger sway FDA or the CDC?

[hatcheckgirl]

3 hours ago, califlorican said:

So, between an EUA and a license, an EUA was the quicker option to get the vaccines out to save lives. Think of it as the fast-tracked version, rather than the standard one.

 

 

Further to this, TGA (Australia’s equivalent to FDA) explanation for provisional use of Covid 19 vaccination, and the process:

https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-vaccine-information-consumers-and-health-professionals#provisional

[Ahuvah]

Just another few differences between FDA and EUA ... only an FDA vaccine can be used as a subsequent booster on an annual or other basis. Second EUA vaccines can only be used short term once the threat has subsided it has to be withdrawn until trials are complete (est end of 2023 on the pfizer) before it can be used as an FDA vaccine. 

1 minute ago, hatcheckgirl said:

Further to this, TGA (Australia’s equivalent to FDA) explanation for provisional use of Covid 19 vaccination, and the process:

https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-vaccine-information-consumers-and-health-professionals#provisional

Morning my friend. 

[califlorican]

4 hours ago, Stormswift said:

Makes me wonder if your cdc and the FDA are actually communicating with each other as the information on the FDA website says there is no FDA vaccine to stop anyone from getting covid. As I'm in NZ not sure who holds the stronger sway FDA or the CDC?

I’m not sure what you mean about that. This page on the FDA website (https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/learn-more-about-covid-19-vaccines-fda) specifically states this:

 

Quote

Do the COVID-19 vaccines work?

Yes. All three FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 and related serious outcomes, including hospitalization and deaths.  The FDA thoroughly evaluated and analyzed the safety and effectiveness data for all of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines and determined that the available data for each vaccine provides clear evidence that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of each vaccine.

Or maybe you’re asking about something else, and if so I apologize for misunderstanding. 

[WilliamChew]

Anti-malaria drug, throat spray reduce Covid-19 spread in closed, crowded settings such as dorms: NUHS study

 

• The study was conducted by a team of scientists from the National University Health System
• Over 3,000 workers at Tuas South Dormitory were involved in the study
• Those who took oral hydroxychloroquine and povidone-iodine throat spray saw an infection rate of below 50 per cent
• As these medications are easily available, they are a viable preventive strategy for Covid-19, said its lead author

 

[Ahuvah]

4 hours ago, califlorican said:

I’m not sure what you mean about that. This page on the FDA website (https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/learn-more-about-covid-19-vaccines-fda) specifically states this:

 

Or maybe you’re asking about something else, and if so I apologize for misunderstanding. 

Hmm yet deeper into their site they state this... or am I reading it wrong? To see the whole document type in Pfizer vaccine fact sheet in the FDA website or on the link you have provided.

 

[califlorican]

5 minutes ago, WilliamChew said:

Anti-malaria drug, throat spray reduce Covid-19 spread in closed, crowded settings such as dorms: NUHS study

 

• The study was conducted by a team of scientists from the National University Health System
• Over 3,000 workers at Tuas South Dormitory were involved in the study
• Those who took oral hydroxychloroquine and povidone-iodine throat spray saw an infection rate of below 50 per cent
• As these medications are easily available, they are a viable preventive strategy for Covid-19, said its lead author

 

That’s really interesting. But I’m a little confused by the part where it states 

“The frequency of infection was also significantly lower in participants who used hydroxychloroquine or the throat spray, compared to Vitamin C.

The following are the infection rates for trialled medications:

Vitamin 😄 70 per cent infected (or 433 out of 619 participants)

Hydroxychloroquine: 49 per cent infected (or 212 out of 432)

Throat spray: 46 per cent infected (or 338 out of 735)

Ivermectin: 64 per cent infected (398 out of 617)

Vitamin C and zinc: 47 per cent (or 300 out of 634)

Assoc Prof Seet noted that there was a “significant absolute risk reduction” of over 20 per cent for those who took hydroxychloroquine and throat spray.

While the cluster which consumed a combination of Vitamin C and zinc also had more than 20 per cent in absolute risk reduction, there was not enough statistical evidence to prove that the difference is not just due to luck, said Assoc Prof Alex Cook from the National University of Singapore’s Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health.”

 

Maybe someone smarter than me can explain why the 20% absolute risk reduction for the throat spray is significant, but the same 20% absolute risk reduction from the vitamin C mentions there isn’t enough statistical evidence to prove the difference is not just luck. Wouldn’t both of them then not be enough evidence, considering they had similar results? I feel like I’m missing something. 

4 minutes ago, Stormswift said:

Hmm yet deeper into their site they state this... or am I reading it wrong? To see the whole document type in Pfizer vaccine fact sheet in the FDA website or on the link you have provided.

 

Yes, there is a difference between FDA-authorized and FDA-approved. I believe that goes back to the difference between emergency authorization (EUA) and the licensing?

[Ahuvah]

5 minutes ago, califlorican said:

That’s really interesting. But I’m a little confused by the part where it states 

“The frequency of infection was also significantly lower in participants who used hydroxychloroquine or the throat spray, compared to Vitamin C.

The following are the infection rates for trialled medications:

Vitamin 😄 70 per cent infected (or 433 out of 619 participants)

Hydroxychloroquine: 49 per cent infected (or 212 out of 432)

Throat spray: 46 per cent infected (or 338 out of 735)

Ivermectin: 64 per cent infected (398 out of 617)

Vitamin C and zinc: 47 per cent (or 300 out of 634)

Assoc Prof Seet noted that there was a “significant absolute risk reduction” of over 20 per cent for those who took hydroxychloroquine and throat spray.

While the cluster which consumed a combination of Vitamin C and zinc also had more than 20 per cent in absolute risk reduction, there was not enough statistical evidence to prove that the difference is not just due to luck, said Assoc Prof Alex Cook from the National University of Singapore’s Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health.”

 

Maybe someone smarter than me can explain why the 20% absolute risk reduction for the throat spray is significant, but the same 20% absolute risk reduction from the vitamin C mentions there isn’t enough statistical evidence to prove the difference is not just luck. Wouldn’t both of them then not be enough evidence, considering they had similar results? I feel like I’m missing something. 

Yes, there is a difference between FDA-authorized and FDA-approved. I believe that goes back to the difference between emergency authorization (EUA) and the licensing?

Yes Lauren exactly. As it's not completed trials it is only authorised for emergency use. If the pandemic subsides and I hope it does ... then they have to pull it from general circulation until it's fully approved.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Stormswift

[califlorican]

1 hour ago, Stormswift said:

Yes Lauren exactly. As it's not completed trials it is only authorised for emergency use. If the pandemic subsides and I hope it does ... then they have to pull it from general circulation until it's fully approved.

Sorry, I may be misunderstanding what you’re asking. You said in your comment 

Quote

the information on the FDA website says there is no FDA vaccine to stop anyone from getting covid

so I was referring to that. It didn’t mention specifically “FDA approved”. But anyway, I’ve read that the companies are planning to start the process for licensing this year, so it will hopefully not even need to be pulled from circulation before they have the licensing!

[Ahuvah]

34 minutes ago, califlorican said:

Sorry, I may be misunderstanding what you’re asking. You said in your comment 

so I was referring to that. It didn’t mention specifically “FDA approved”. But anyway, I’ve read that the companies are planning to start the process for licensing this year, so it will hopefully not even need to be pulled from circulation before they have the licensing!

Thanks for your reply Lauren .. I wasn't asking a question of anyone ... but enjoyed your replies anyway thank you my dear. We seem to be on the same page.

It says in the fact sheet there is "no'FDA-approved' vaccine to prevent covid19"

I had heard trials for Pfizer won't end until end of 2023 but the FDA site says they don't have a time line.  So I agree with you, the sooner the better.

See their answer in screens hot below. The FDA site FAQ section.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Stormswift