Topic: Denmark Banned AstraZeneca vaccine for good (Read 308 times)

Regardless of why they banned it, Denmark I don't think is going anti-vax or anything. I haven't researched into what alternates they're exploring, but presumably they aren't just going to throw their seniors overboard and tell them they can't get the vaccine by banning the major competitors, Pfizer or J&J's. Again, I get that the data isn't statistically significant, it's just to make people "feel" safer because feelings > facts to some.

Governments given top priority to senior citizens in the vaccinations schemes in most of the countries on the other hand they are having the high chance of getting blood clots in the arteries which will lead them to cardiac arrest so instead of banning why not filter the patients with certain disease should not take such vaccines?

in my country, AstraZeneca has also been stopped from one of the vaccine recommendations...
however, from this issue, not all of the patients who had the same negative impact were injected with AZ vaccine. I personally support the decision of the Denmark government, they really want to protect its citizens.

I heard from some older friends of my parents who are above 70 years that they don't want to get vaccine because of AstraZeneca. Even though they could choose a different vaccine they don't want to get any at all. The bad press from the two vaccines AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson seem to make more people scared. We need better information about the long term effects of the vaccines.

People are afraid of might be the effect of vaccine in their body, I think its not just AZ who has this kind of effect its just that they're the most of all visible .. like blood clot, dizziness and headache etc those are but a foreign object getting inside your body and since your body is not familiar with it off course they will cause some kind of reaction. So its up to you to take the vaccine or not.

Nope.  Viral vector technology has been used for a while in gene therapy research, but never has it been used for delivering designer DNA to operate within the celular machinery under the moniker of a 'vaccine'.  It's been worked on for Ebola, Zika, etc it recent times, but never use in large scale in humans.  If you know of a 'not new' vaccine which uses the technique, let's hear it.

You might be thinking of 'live virus' which gives one an infection of a weakened virus and allows the infection to spread.  Makes you somewhat sick from the vaccine virus with the advantage being that such technology limits the need for adjuvants.  This technology has been in wide use for a long time.


Where did I say the designer DNA integrates or alters your DNA?  I didn't.  That's a strawman.  It also doesn't matter one iota.  If it's sitting in the nucleus as a plasmid spinning out mRNA it is exactly the same thing.  Probably it would be better if it did splice into a chromosome, however, since transpcription would be more controlled.

As for eading meat, you clearly need a little bit of education in the basics of physiology.  The digestive track is evolved to wipe out everything and break it down into very basic components before absorption into the body.  Even then things go first to the liver which does even more hard-core treatment.

DNA is very sensitive.  It could not take one step into the body (saved from unusual events like bits...or injections...which bypass the gut.)  As a matter of fact, the immune system goes absolutely nutso when it sees unrecognized genetic material floating around and kills it off with extreme prejudiced.  That is why it has been difficult to get the designer genetic material (mRNA or DNA) into the victim's cells.

There are so many cases in my country where people have developed blood clots and other side effects right after taking the vaccine. Before the vaccine i was very much eager to get myself vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available but now i have a lot of fear from vaccine and i will never get myself vaccinated unless a better vaccine is developed.

All that the vaccine is doing is saying to your body "protect against this thing". It's not experimental, because viral vector vaccination is not a new process. And it's not gene therapy. The AZ vaccine uses a viral vector to deliver instructions for your body to build the CV19 spike protein. That's it.

Do you eat meat? Then you're transporting foreign DNA into your body. What is the problem here? The AZ vaccine is delivered by an adenovirus. Adenoviruses are unable to integrate with or alter your DNA. That's why they're used as vectors. Also, they're modified so that they can't replicate. It's simply a delivery mechanism.

It's like receiving a parcel from Amazon. You just get the parcel, you don't fuse with the delivery driver.

Yawn.  I've been through this before.  Different technology.  Different 'platform'.

Pfizer and Moderna fabricate designer mRNA in a pot and inject that into the body and some of it works it's way into (apparently random...which could easily explain the variation in side effects) cell's cytoplasm.  The mRNA then feed into organelles known as ribosomes where they induce production of proteins.  Spike protein in this case...so they say.

AstraZeneca and J&J transport DNA into the cell's nucleus using various adenoviruses as carriers (aka 'vectors').  This designer DNA then transcribes brand new RNA which exits the nucleus into the cell's cytoplasm and you can see the rest from the above description.

Both genetic therapies seem to hijack basically random cells in the body, and in neither case do the developers seem to have much of a clue about how long the process will continue on, the fate of the reprogrammed cells, the impact of expressing spike protien on a human cell rather than on a viral body, etc, etc.  If they do, it seems to be 'trade secrets'.

You really owe it to yourself and others to at least learn the very basics of this stuff before participating in the trial or lobbying for others to do so.

I take your general point, but the data suggest (see my previous link), that the risk of blood clot from taking the vaccine is less than the risk of blood clot from catching Covid. Sure you can gamble that you won't take the vaccine and will hope to avoid Covid, too... but when the number of blood clots is so tiny, so statistically insignificant as to suggest no link at all, it's a different question.

It's impossible to determine why they banned it, given the previous history. I'm from the UK, and was against Brexit...but with the AZ vaccine the EU has behaved terribly. We had Macron inciting anti-vax hysteria in France with his comments about AZ, we had similar but lesser issues in Germany, we had bans for people over 65, then okay for older people and bans for younger people, etc... we had EU leaders claiming the vaccine was ineffective... and at the same time the EU going crazy during the supply issue, and demanding 100% of AZ vaccines stay in the EU... even though they didn't want them, they "weren't safe" and "weren't effective". Absurd. And impossible to disentangle all of this from Denmark suddenly banning it because of non-existent blood clots.

Anecdotally, just as a point of interest (a single data point does not consititute an argument), I've had the AZ vaccine. I had mild fever/chills overnight, and a bit of a headache. Within 24 hours I was back to 100%.

---
_{edit: typo}

Although I agree with what you say about Occam's razor, it seems to me that you are wrong about what you say about DNA (which would be more precisely RNA). They have not discontinued experiments with RNA, since Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also carry it.

Yeah, because dosing up millions of people, under duress, with an experimental gene therapy, then removing it from the market with millions more vials on the shelf, really fosters public confidence.

Occam's Razor suggests that they discontinued the DNA experiments because they are bad doo-doo...with much worse on the way.  Observation supports that hypothesis.

See, I don't doubt that there is perhaps some statistical insignificance of any adverse effects from the vaccine, whether it is extreme sickness or blood clots, whatever. We know the side effects are fairly well observed, things like nausea, fatigue, chills, body aches, ect. Clinicians have been very forthcoming about side effects. But, look at this from a public health perspective. If there is any doubt as to the vaccine's safety, would it cause the average citizen just to take their chance with catching COVID? Probably. Unless you are obese, more likely than not, you will survive COVID without a problem. Less than 10 percent of COVID infections result in a hospital visit, and of those hospital visits, the ones that end up in intensive care units are 80 percent of the time obese. So maybe that's why Denmark banned AstraZeneca's vaccine? Not necessary because of the threat for blood clots was large, but may just to keep public confidence in the vaccine to avoid the anti-vaxers from taking up the discussion and promoting doubt in the COVID vaccines?

     Im betting on a small correction to haooen in this vaccine's price. Just imagine how bug of a news this is. Though I feel bad for the investors if what happens to this stock is more than just a small correction, this vaccine really does deserve what came to it if you go over the flaws it has. Of course as people we only want the best specially when it comes to things being put into our bodies. It is just natural that if a choice is possible, we would choose the ones we believe are better. And that is just what denmark did. This just shows that the government in denmark really gives a damn about its people.

Hmm, so I guess this says a lot about these European countries that are willing cheap out on a vaccine. Say that Denmark is being overly cautious by banning the vaccine, and say that there really aren't blood clot issues with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Isn't the idea to convince your citizens that the vaccine is safe? Why would anyone want to get a vaccine that was banned in Denmark for potential blood clot issues?

A country cheaps out now, will just cost more in the long term.

That's good to know that both of the vaccines worked well for them. Unlike the news that were being shown about for some cases, I think it really has something to do with the person's body, strength and immune system and that's why some reaction and side effects were shown after being vaccinated.
Thanks for answering my question. 

I just read that Denmark is now trying to sell their AZ vaccines to the poor countries. How low people can go? If they are good to use, why don't they use them on themselves?

https://www.euronews.com/2021/04/15/european-countries-express-interest-in-purchasing-denmark-s-astrazeneca-vaccines

Denmark will be the first country in the EU to ban the AstraZeneca vaccine due to a) whipped-up anti-British sentiment following Brexit, and b) unscientific and erroneous conclusions based on a failure to understand data and context.

Irrelevant, surely? AZ aren't out for profit (in this instance). They are and always have been selling the vaccine at cost.

They did. Even a cursory search on Google will show you evidence of (and data from) the standard three phase trials.



Also... it appears that the risk of blood clots from having Covid is 8-10 times higher than the risk of blood clots from taking the vaccine (see below).
If you are distributing a vaccine to many millions of people, there will be plenty of deaths from all sorts of different causes. I bet some people have broken an arm or tripped over a paving slab shortly after taking the vaccine - it is irrelevant.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-15-risk-rare-blood-clotting-higher-covid-19-vaccines

Which vaccine are emphasising on, corona vaccine or blood clotting vaccine? But what I understand is that before introducing a vaccine to the society you most have adequate test which will determine if the vaccine will be use for treatment because some drugs kills be of the enzymes can't work on it or metabolized to the system, what kill people vaccine is the higher concentration of substance use for manufacturing

If you are in my country there is probably no choice as to which vaccine you are getting and also our government is incompetent that there is no vaccine rollout happening yet and the only thing that they can do given how incompetent they are is to impose another lockdown that is a total bullshit because even though there is one, the cases are still skyrocketing. I wish that my fellow countrymen will wake up and not become a slave to these false promises by these politicians and we can finally put the right people in the seat.

I don't know, didn't asked about it. She just didn't went to work for 2 days. Though, after more than 24 hours since she got vaccine, she was feeling fine already. If nothing will change, she will get second shot after 12 weeks.
While my colleague got Pfizer vaccine yesterday. He didn't felt anything and he is feeling perfectly.

In my country, we're free to choose which vaccine to get. As long as it is in the supply but I'm not yet vaccinated, I'm not one of those priorities yet.
Did they gave a timeframe for how long to monitor her after the vaccination?

shows she has a good immune system
those that react with a longer delay. like getting a fever on day 3 means their immune system is not good

so take some positives. her immune system is very good and reactive. and settled down quickly after
what you dont want is a delayed reaction and a prolonged effect

so be happy your mom is good

but anyways with the odds of a death being 1/140k-1/2.5m from a vaccine infection..
thats alot better then
a 4/1000 death risk from covid(50-64)
a 13/1000 death risk from covid(65-74)
a 32/1000 death risk from covid(75-84)
a 87/1000 death risk from covid(85+)

~10,000x-100,000x better having the vaccine than having covid

in the 3-6 ,months of mid(1k) and high(20k) participation
they did not have any amounts of blood clots outside/above the norm unvaccinated populous had
it was only a couple cases out of the 20k

in the UK vaccines there were given out to 18million, only had 30 blood clot issues. and only 7 resulting deaths
cases 1/600,000     death: 1/2.75mill

in denmark vaccines there were given out to 140,000, only 2 blood clot issues. and only 1 resulting death
cases 1/70,000    death 1/140,000

the thing to learn here..

many idiotic conspiracy theorists claim that vaccine studies dont check care or monitor.. and yea by seeing these results in public shows they do check monitor and care
yep they idiots think there is a massive coverup and no transparency... and yet these numbers are public thus debunking them

its funny.. if they didnt check with just a few dozen cases.. or if they did check.. conspiracy idiots would be outraged both times

And guess what, few other EU countries (including mine) already requested to get unused AstraZeneca vaccine from Denmark. But I'm curious to know how they are going to attract people for vaccination when there is so much negative information about this vaccine.
My mother got AstraZeneca vaccine few days ago. On the evening after she got it, her temperature get over 38°C and she got headache. But on the next days she was feeling fine already. I know it's normal symptoms after getting vaccine, but still, AstraZeneca is last vaccine that I would like to get.

Well, on the one hand, it is clear that millions of people are not dying because of the vaccine, as I have read in this forum, but on the other hand, this confirms the feeling that many of us have that there has been a great hurry to commercialize vaccines that give multimillion profits to the companies, shortening the deadlines and exempting them from responsibility. It seems that the percentage of cases are few, but I think that some states have preferred to act with caution rather than prioritize haste, especially when other vaccines are available.

I know quite a few people who have already had the vaccine and (I know that my environment is not a reliable sample) apart from the issue of cloths, it is the one that has given the most unpleasant effects.

These effects doesn't occur to everyone injected. These occurs to some maybe 1/1000 or something.

And due to the lack of time in these time of pandemic, the clinical trial was shortened to the point that there are side effects that are not foreseen.

We all know that, clinical trial for vaccine lasts for about 6 years, while the current vaccines only have a clinical trial for a year or less.

But as I said, they are tested in rodents before tested in people, it is just that there are things that was not seen due to the shortness of the trials.

AND THERE ARE STILL NO CLEAR REASONS WHY THIS ADVERSE EFFECTS OCCUR

Denmark is pretty small country and as long as their is an shortage of vaccines I am sure other countries are going to pick up any excess doses. We still don't know for which part of the population the AstraZeneca vaccine is harmful,some say for older people, others say for younger woman who use the baby pill.

I also read that the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is experiencing similar problems. I wish there were more information comparing all the different vaccines to each other.

They were supposed to test these stuff before they use it on people. They didn't. They didn't test the Biontech and modeRNA vaccines neither.

The best vaccine is the one you haven't taken yet.

What's up with blood clotting and vaccines? The Johnson and Johnson vaccine apparently had some issues with blood clots. I wonder how people are suppose to make an educated choice on the vaccine they get. The vaccine is free in most first world countries, does the country choose what vaccine you get? Do you have a choice as a citizen?

https://news.yahoo.com/denmark-permanently-discontinue-astrazeneca-vaccine-102122205.html


I wonder how that will affect the AZ shares in the stock market. It is up almost 1.5% today!