Topic: Is AstraZeneca vaccine: safe or not safe? (Read 397 times)

               This astrazenica vaccine is really a hot topic here in our place. A lot of people are very reluctant in taking the shots ever since several videos talking about how bad astrazenica is for everyone and that a lot have died because of astrazenica emerged. This has even reach the primetime news here in my country. And so, even the ones who have already taken the first dose like me before hearing the news about it, are also very reluctant since the videos circulating around along with the one on the news said that it is not suitable for ages 59 and below. This means that some complications may occur after the second dose.

5-10 years is enough.

And, after the vaccine? No lockdown or threats to lockdown from the government?
Since my childhood, I've been taught that once you get the vaccine, you are immune for life. But this vaccine just sounds like an alternative medicine where its efficacy is questionable. Without skeptics, you wouldn't know if they injected a mere vitamin-C into your body and pretended to be a legit vaccine.

Holyshit, injecting something into your body should only be done with your 100% consent.

Bonus: To save the world from overpopulation, the government requires you to only have 1 kid. Without everyone comply, there will be famine, destruction, etc. so don't reproduce! It's for the sake of the earth and others.

From my personal experience I can say that the vaccine is alright. Around half of my family all got the AstraZeneca vaccine, and most of them already have the second dose. My dad had probably the strongest side effects with lying in bed for one day with fever. Everybody else including myself just had some light headaches, nothing severe.

would you wait for 5 years or 100,000 years until all side effects came to get the vaccine? imagine if all people had this thought? would have many deaths, we would have many lockdowns to contain the virus, we would have many people crying for losing relatives, the vaccines were made in a time of emergency and in my opinion they are fulfilling their role very well, I know and understand that there are risks such as any medicine or vaccine has side effects, but they are protecting us.

in my country we are using astrazeneca vaccine, my uncles have already taken the vaccine, all health people and people from the state security service have also taken the vaccine, we all have to take the vaccine and it should be mandatory


in my country i didn't see any serious cases

People should have the freedom to choose. You get it if you want it; you ditch it if you don't trust it.

That's a conclusion from a confused man. It means you should wait for more research before deciding to take it.

Sorry, I only trust empirical studies, not hypothetical or historical one. If it takes five years to get studies for long-term side effects, I'll decide it by then. Not now. FYI, so many adverse side effects from AZ in my country.

It is never ending debate that which vaccine is less effective and which one is more and which has less side effects and it will take quite long time before the results of clinical trails will be published  so  as a responsible citizen we should respect health care system of our country  &  get vaccinated at the earliest to make this globe Corona free.

... after the jab.     

Ahh yes, once again tvbcof comes out with the "Here's a scientist who (I think) says something which supports my preconceived opinions (he doesn't - more on that below), so therefore this is absolutely 100% factual. All scientists who disagree with me are still wrong, though". One day you may actually attempt to read and understand the source instead of listening to a clip deliberately snipped to make it sound like it supports the baseless nonsense of a conspiracy nut. But apparently that day is not today.

Here is the paper that guy wrote and he is referring to in that clip: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01290-3/fulltext

It says absolutely nothing about people having fewer antibodies as you claim. What it actually says is that the antibodies they have are less effective against some of the new variants, which is not in the least bit surprising and not at all the "GOTCHA PHARMA SHILLS!!1!11" you think it is.

Thank heavens since people who got the Pfizer jab have far FEWER neutralizing antibodies.  The solution?  You guessed it:  Mo boosters mo faster.

You really cannot make this shit up!

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/nwN7MxAv3kia/

I gave it the old college try to find the full context of the guy's comments, and also to see how the scientism rags and pharma shills were going to try to spin this into a good thing.  Limited success.  Maybe for comedy value franky1-n-beans can have a go at it?

All of us should get vaccinated to stop spread of corona virus, no matter if AstraZeneca is the only available vaccine in your country and you have no other choice, then go for it. In my country Sino-Vac is the only vaccine available in most of vaccination centers so i got it, although I heard a lot about its less effectiveness compared to other vaccines.

AstraZeneca is similar to J&J and Sputnik.  These are DNA manipulating technology.  In theory the mRNA ones are not, but there are some questions about this contention popping up.

VAERS is a U.S. thing and AstraZeneca was never authorized for use in the U.S..  That's my understanding.


VAERS is notorious for it's very low capture rates.  To complicate matters, the CDC who controls the database are holding back data and allowing it to trickle in months after filing (if ever.)  Maybe men are more important than women and thus get attention when they have health issues?

What's interesting is that the Open VAERS website doesn't show any deaths for AstraZeneca. It list almost 2000 each for MODERNA and PFIZER. Yet the vaccines for AstraZeneca are supposedly almost the same as the other two. Does AstraZeneca own Open VAERS?

Also, Open VAERS lists about 400 more male deaths than female. The men are ahead. I don't see any women complaining about equal rights or something.

Some people are of the view that AstraZeneca is the real and most effective vaccine. You may have a fever and in few cases, develop blood clots but those are temporary and soon you will be fine. All these indications means that the vaccine is making anti-bodies in your bodies. In other variants of vaccine, you have may not have these side effects meaning they are useless.

 For me I can not sure that safe for everyone cause I believe we have a different instructions of an body .some of as had an allergies maybe the vaccine Astrazeneca  will conflict and not suitable to that person who had an allergy so it's better to tell the Doctor that you have an allergy before you under go of vaccine.

I think it is still a better choice to have vaccine either AstraZeneca rather than having no vaccine though there have been some reports in the media about Blood clotting side effect but those case are very few and we need to remember that all Covid-19 vaccines are undergoing clinical trails and their effectiveness will be established after some time.

Although there was opposition to this vaccine at first present all vaccines have been implemented to survive covid 19. Recently there have been questions about the side effects of the astrazeneca vaccine in several european countries as a precautionary measure, several countries have suspended the astrazeneca vaccination program following allegations that the vaccine causes blood clots. However the world health organization and european medicine agencies as well as astrazeneca have insisted the vaccine is safe this vaccine has nothing to do with what is being said about blood clots.

In our country many used of vaccine one of Astrazeneca, pfizer and sinovac. Government told us all of these vaccine is safe, because they pass in Food and Drugs Administration (FDA). Some city you can choice what vaccine you like to inject, but the President told us, not to be choosy.

This is not unique to Corona Virus Vaccine, any kind of vaccine is not 100% safe, ang throughout the years, the discovery of vaccines has been revolutionary

Maybe Astrazeneca vaccine is not safe but then is there any vaccine is 100% safe ?  None , i guess.
None of the vaccine is 100% tested to be safe.

So the sum of your argument is "I thought about it, and this is my opinion". At least you are bring honest now that you have zero evidence or facts.

Just bought another 'compound' in the center of a city so there is a whole bunch of actual work to do.  The travel hassles are making it extra hard to get business stuff done.  The 'good news' for the rich people who could see this thing a mile away (because they were either part of the planning or good at analysis) is that a lot of people are getting hungry and under pressure to sell their real property.  'They' always arrange 'cycles' to facilitate extraction...like squeezing a cow's teat cyclically to allow it to re-fill...and it's relatively easy to read them and go along for the ride.  Especially if one is not ignorant of history.

Oileo is trying to play so stupid with the concept of holes in material, fractions, and statistics, that there is nothing much else to say.  The people who've eaten his shit to date are probably lost causes and without even the potential to 'get it'.  Ever.

I noticed that tvbcof hasn't answered you in a long time. He's probably embarrassed with the idea of playing nursemaid to you and the rest of the medical all the time. Anybody who thinks about it a little, knows that a mask doesn't catch all the particles. And that even a bad mask might catch a particle or two, here or there once in a while.

Wrong again. The control group were over four times more likely to wear medical masks than wear cloth masks (170 v 38). You really need to stop making it obvious you either haven't read the paper or can't understand it. It's embarrassing for you.

Also, although it might pass on the conspiracy videos you call "evidence", science really doesn't work by saying "Well, I think it's a fair bet, so it must be true".

Ahh, Schrödinger's mask. It simultaneously traps the virus while also letting it pass right through.

...coupled with relatively high rates of non-compliance by the way.  Anyway, when they were wearing a cloth mask it is a null result.  They didn't seem to have trouble finding people wearing cloth masks so it's a fair bet that much of the time that was what the control group was wearing when they felt like wearing anything.  The differential between the cloth mask vs. control and control vs. medical doesn't seem to allow it, especially in the case of ILI.

Of course there is also a difference between picking up something during a limited study period and evading a _coronavirus_ for a year until an injection is ready.  Anyone who cannot see the difference, or even entertains the notion that such a thing is practical, is not in my opinion a very realistic person (to be polite about it.)

An alternate hypothesis is that straping a rag to your mouth all day not only causes the nasty visible effects of mask-mouth, but also traps the aerosolized virus (which zip right through the masks) allowing re-infection in a cycle.  A correlary is that that might have been the whole idea since cloth masks, and near zero quality control or training, were enthusiastically welcomed by the vax pushers.

[/quote]

Again, we now have the data from Texas and Florida.  Masks don't seem to do shit for 'infection' really.  They are a political and psychological tool to keep people in a state of panic and hopelessness and prep them for the injections.

^^^ Do the tests even show the dozens of other ways that people might have adverse effects from wearing masks? You know, other than that one kind of mask might block a few of the larger droplets better than another kind of mask?

Given that the control group wore either mask, the results are perfectly in keeping with medical masks being superior to cloth masks, which is exactly what the authors concluded. Medical masks > mixed masks > cloth masks. There is absolutely no evidence to support any conjecture regarding no mask at all. Since you refuse to actually read the study, here are some direct quotes. Emphasis mine throughout:


Trying to draw any conclusions from a control group of 2 people is completely laughable, but also irrelevant since those people were excluded from the analysis anyway.

Try actually reading the paper next time.

Put on your thinking cap and see if you can follow this:  One group wears medical masks.  One group wears cloth masks.  One group wears one of cloth masks, medical masks, or nothing.  They go maskless more than the other groups.

Now, the cloth mask people had the worst outcome as far as getting sick.  Your only argument might be that the amount of time the control group people were wearing medical masks was so protective that it overcame the different and greater threat of maskless vs. cloth.  That's a stretch (if not mathematically impossible) given the relative differences in the three groups.

I would have gladly volunteered to be in the deliberately maskless group if it were 'ethical' to have such a group, but then I have a functional immune system and have not been scared shitless about a coronavirus which my chances of dying from are about 0.001%  This study was before the plandemic of course, so I'd have to adjust.  If I was working in a ward with, say, TB, then I would use a mask due to the way that particular bacteria is spread in that particular disease.  Masks do have their place...it just isn't with aerosolized virus spread over a long duration.


Congratulations on finding a bonafide error for a change.  I should have said 'medical masks'.


We are all still waiting with baited breath for the massive catastrophe you guys promised in Texas and Florida on account of their governors inviting the peeps to throw the mask in the trash and start living as humans again.  What gives?

every year is a common cold flu season.
so while you are ignorant of the excess deaths.
so while your ignorant that the symptoms are not the same as common cold/flu(no runny nose)
so while you are ignorant of the excess deaths that show the lung damage

maybe just maybe your repeated rants that include scripted buzzwords like "plandemic'.. reveals not just that you are not having an independent thought or research on the topic. but also revealing which conspiracy crapsite you are using as reference for your scripted nonsense

repeating a scripted nonsense post does not verify the nonsense as anything else but repeated nonsense

I'll debunk your nonsense for the second time, but really, you should try actually reading the study rather than just skimming the abstract and assuming it fits your narrative.

That's not what the trial shows, at all. It shows that medical masks are better than cloth masks. That's all. The control arm of people who are "free to wear what they want" as you put it only had 2 people out of 458 who wore no mask at all. I'd hardly call that "often wearing nothing at all".

N95 masks were not studied in this trial, at all. In fact, the three people who did wear a N95 were actively excluded.

It is impossible to make this claim based on this trial since there was not a "no mask" control group. You are speculating based on nothing at all.

That much is clearly evident given the above.

Cloth masks (the type most people are told to wear) are much worse at stopping infection than when people are free to wear what they want when they want and often wear nothing at all (aka 'non-compliance').

In all groups (cloth, control, and N95) the 'protection' is pretty poor at stopping jack actually.  You can lower your risk some for some things, but if you are in some sort of a 'global pandemic' from aerosolized virus for years on end, you are gunna get hit no matter what you do.

I really don't specialize in remedial reading so I cannot help you much more than that...'Doctor'.

---

Thankfully the plandemic was a fraud built mostly on the season's common cold, or something fairly non-threatening built on top of it,  Most people got it and got over it without even knowing it as is the common case.  After the several month block typical of a coronavirus lifecycle the hype was build completely on fraudulent testing and mainstream media lies and scaremongering.

'They' needed an excuse to fuck with spike protein for reasons which will become all to apparent in the coming years.  The 'gain of function' seems to be to get the spike protein a legitimate target, but as a SARS-cov-2 constituent it was, thankfully, not a big deal for most people.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.56060372

What an easy out on the digging you promised.  'Doctor'.

What a long winded way of saying "I have no evidence".

Dig all you like 'doctor'.  Your hole just gets deeper.

Good thing for fake doctors like yourself that they can state that a published paper resulting from a double-blind study says the opposite of what it actually says and an army of mouth-breathing drones will just go with it 'because doctor'.  That's the world we live in.  Kudo's for understanding the grift and executing it fairly well.

Have you finally found some evidence to back up your often-repeated-but-never-substantiated claim? Or should I go dig up that one post one made where you actually attempted to provide proof of your nonsense, only to realize the trial you linked to actually proved the exact opposite of what you thought it did?

Edit: Can't wait for a link to some conspiracy moron's bitchute vlog as "evidence".

Even in your formulation, it is not a 'slippery slope'.

For one, there is no 'disaster' in having the peeps crawl around on all fours and it might have some advantages.  Especially for the fashion knee-pad and glove industry.

For two your 'P', wearing masks or socks or whatever to 'fight against' an aerosolized coronavirus starts out stupid AF by any medical or scientific standards (except for psychological torture which is why the same techniques have been seen in places like Gitmo.)  Add on face-shields and it becomes truly clown-world from the get go.

You do perfectly reasonable thing P (wear a mask), therefore you would also do stupid thing Q (crawl around on all fours), and even more stupid thing R (convince other people to crawl around on all fours), therefore P is also stupid/we shouldn't do P.

Pretty much textbook definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Good strategy!  If your comment makes no contextual sense whatsoever, just snip the original.  Genius!

If no other option is available, why would you take the risk of AstraZeneca vaccine and get into trouble of short breathing ?  I understand that taking no vaccine can be a risk too but i would not prefer to take a dose of poison and hopes nothing happens to me for 2 weeks. Ahhhh.....

Careful you don't injure yourself on that slippery slope you built there.

If the same people who told you to 'social distance' and wear masks told you it was necessary, I have zero doubt that you would do it...or at least try to influence others to do it.

If they told you to walk on all four's to 'stay below the covid cloud' I expect that you'd be producing all kinds of data showing that it was the 'right thing' and 'obvious' and 'patriotic' and all that.  Anything to 'save granny' dontcha know.

Yes, exactly. There is risk attached to anything. Driving a car. Eating food. Walking down the road. Existing. The key to this is understanding probabilities, and then applying logic...

Around 700 people per year in the USA die from falling out of bed. Does this mean we should sleep on the floor?

Certainly it would have taken a few minutes, at least, for HCQ + zinc to react. Simple tank oxygen would have helped them last that long, rather than kill them like the ventilators did.

those oxygen deprived due to covid.. would have died without ventilators.
if you cant breath your dead in 5 minutes..
you cant be dead and also simultaneously alive to then take HQC each day after you start suffocating

..
i get it your the idiot that would shoot yourself in the foot and while bleeding to death that day. even right up to the moment of going unconscious.. your still thinking to yourself 'its ok ill just hop on down to the pharmacist... tomorrow'

goodluck with that strategy

Almost all the people that were killed with ventilators could have been saved by HCQ + zinc.

more people die due to hydroxychloroquine than from lung thrombosis via vaccine
so yea.. your the guy playing Russian roulette with more chambers in the cylinder

in vaccine case..
its a gun with 1m chambers and 5 bullets
in HCQ..
its a gun with 1m chambers and 16 bullets
in covid cases
its a gun with 1m chambers and 140,000 bullets

so least risk of death is still the vaccine

you want to play with 2 guns with 16 and 140k bullets.. but want to fake it and pretend the gun with only 5 bullets is worse..

maybe after all its not the bullet you fear nor the number of bullets(by obvious evidence you the higher risks you are wiling to take).but just the fact that its not your gun.

seems all your cries over the last year are that its not a safer gun simply because your conspiracy influencer is playing big pharma advertiser for a different company and just angry that his company is not profiting from this crisis..

are you realising that you are being used as a puppet.
seeing as you are the only one advertising pharma products in your footer

^^^ Yeah. It's like using a pistol with a few more chambers in the cylinder... to play Russian Roulette.

^ brain thombosis(stroke) is very rare in both covid and vaccine anyway
AZ/pfizer/moderna 0.004-5%
covid: 0.03-4%

but the chances of getting a lung thrombosis higher in covid.. but lower for vaccine

pfizer/moderna/az vaccine: 1.29 per million(0.001-2%)
catching covid: 140k per million (14%)

yep lung clots are by a factor of over 1000x safer via the vaccine than getting covid
yep brain clots are by a factor of over 5x safer via the vaccine. even though brain clots are low chance anyway in both covid and vaccine.
..
common sense shows that a clot caused by an infection in the lungs(covid) will harm the lungs more.. but a infection in the arm. has a very very small chance of causing harm to lung or brain

I've read this in this forum that there has been clarification and further studies in regards to blood clotting, and now, it is not used in my country for people aged 60 and above. Cause according to the studies, the clothing only generally affect people at old age.

Now, disregarding the blood clotting , the vaccine is generally good and effective though, it is just that the distrust of people is now placed, so it is definitely hard to remove that.

I myself will not accept astrazeneca as my vaccine

Safest if Elon Musk used one of his StarshpX to send them all into the sun.

AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine is a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, co-developed by the UK. It is more than 90% effective in protecting people against the causative agent of COVID-19 disease. The Astrazeneca Vaccine is a Vaccine used to protect people 18 years of age and older against COVID-19. Vaccines help the immune system of the vaccinated person to recognize and destroy the corona virus.

Denmark may have just banned the AstraZeneca vaccine just to be on the safer side, not that there was any substantive evidence that the vaccine might have been dangerous.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00762-5/fulltext


Basically, there was just a *minor* bump in the amount of blood clots reported in Denmark, and they really couldn't find any way that the vaccine conclusively caused the blood clots, so they banned it just to be safe. I get you said you would take the AstraZeneca vaccine if given no choice, but to anyone thinking about taking the vaccine and avoiding AstraZeneca, the chances are very very low you'll get some adverse affect.

There does seem to be a slightly raised risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine. Data are still being gathered, but in general show only a very small increase over the base expected level in everyday life.

The study linked to below finds instances of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) are:

Pfizer/Moderna vaccine: 4 per million
Astra Zeneca vaccine: 5 per million
catching Covid: 39 per million

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1005

... which certainly indicates that if the choice is either 1) AZ or 2) nothing and potentially catching Covid, then taking the AZ vaccine is by far the better option.


Anecdotally, I've had the AZ vaccine. Side effects were barely noticeable.

Well said. It is better to get AstraZeneca vaccine if that is the only choice but  any person  who gets it should  remain alert for 2 weeks  and immediately report to his family Physician if he feels chest pain, short breathing or extreme indigestion and muscle weakness. One thing more which is also very important that properly trained para  Medical staff should inject this vaccine. 

Of the vaccines for Covid that are available (except for the Chinese and Russian vaccines) the  AstraZeneca is the one that raises the most concerns. If I had the choice between getting the AstraZeneca vaccine and getting no vaccine, I would take the AstraZeneca vaccine. If I had a choice between AstraZeneca and another vaccine, I would get the other vaccine.

There is debate going on in the Media where safety of Astrazeneca vaccine developed in UK is being questioned and people are generally reluctant to get this vaccine. Some counties even banned it because some Blood clotting was reported in some people who were vaccinated in particular women and men below 50 years thought the percentage of such incidents is not very high..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWhoCltkyvU