Thread on Apparent risks of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome diagnoses after COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-Cov-2 Infection (Nature Cardiovascular Research, 2022).

Our results identify a possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and incidence of POTS. Notwithstanding the probable low incidence of POTS after COVID-19 vaccination, particularly when compared to SARS-Cov-2 post-infection odds, which were five times higher, our results suggest that further studies are needed to investigate the incidence and etiology of POTS occurring after COVID-19 vaccination.
 
tldr if you get covid but are unvaccinated vaccine might help prevent lc. hope i got that one right.

===

Source: WebMD
Date: December 7, 2022
Author: Lisa O'Mary
URL: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/985222


Vaccines are effective against Long COVID: Study
------------------------------------------------

Getting at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine decreases the chances of having symptoms beyond 3 weeks or developing long COVID, a new analysis shows.

When compared to people who got no vaccine at all, a single dose of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or the Janssen vaccine was 29% effective at preventing long COVID. The protection was strongest (35% effective) for those who were vaccinated before being infected with the coronavirus. Post-infection vaccination also helped (27% effective).

Since the analysis 'showed a significant reduction of post-COVID-19 conditions with the vaccine even after having COVID-19, vaccine should be offered to unvaccinated individuals who have had COVID-19,' the authors wrote.

The study was published this week by Cambridge University Press in the journal Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...metaanalysis/0AD0EDEC8C9CC9DF455752E32D73147B
Researchers analyzed data for 1.6 million people from 10 studies published from December 2019 to April 2022. The studies they selected evaluated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness by comparing outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Specifically, the researchers looked at how many people had symptoms present 3 or more weeks after having COVID-19.

'The most common symptoms were fatigue or muscle weakness, muscle pain, anxiety, impaired memory, sleep difficulties, and shortness of breath,' according to a summary of the analysis.

Up to 23 million people in the United States are believed to have long COVID, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services. Among people who have been infected with COVID-19, the CDC estimates that 13.3% have symptoms for a month or longer, and 2.5% have symptoms for 3 months or longer. Long COVID was included in protections under the Americans With Disabilities Act starting in July 2021.

The study authors cautioned that their findings have limits and said that they could not evaluate the effectiveness of vaccines for long COVID among people with weakened immune systems because of a lack of data. A more standardized definition of long COVID is needed 'for research and clinical purposes,' they wrote.

--------
(c) 2022 WebMD LLC.
 
Am I right in saying that the science does not support vaccination? I've been following Dr John Campbell on youtube and watching it all unfold. There is a parliamentary debate on there claiming these mrna vaccs are a massive medical scandal.
 
No. There's plenty of evidence that vaccines reduce severity of disease and death rates.
From the sounds of it, there are a lot of problems with the vaccines that the pharmaceutical companies did not report. For example AstraZeneca knew from the trials that people were getting serious neurological problems, heart problems, and that some people were later being diagnosed with lymphoma and it was not reported. Death rates (not related to covid) in the UK and the US are higher than normal for the past two years since the vaccines were introduced.

The vaccines might have helped to reduce severity of disease and death rates directly from covid, but what are the long term effects of the vaccines going to be? We don't know yet.
 
Mr Andrew Bridgen MP, in the House of Commons earlier this week, led the discussion on adverse effects of the covid vaccines. There seemed to be only 5/6 MPs there to hear his interesting speech with relevant information on big pharma and some figures on vaccine safety and potential harms.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...47DD-A79C-4EFD10F10C2D/VaccinesPotentialHarms


If you prefer it in visual form, see Dr Campbell's utube, posted 13th Dec

 
Last edited:
Here's some data that might help:

Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 May 2022

1.Main points

  • Monthly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) have been consistently lower for all months since booster introduction in September 2021 for people who had received a third dose or booster at least 21 days ago, compared with unvaccinated people and those with just a first or second dose.

  • Before March 2022, those who had received a second vaccine dose over six months ago had higher monthly ASMRs for deaths involving COVID-19 than those who had received a second dose less than six months ago; this indicates a possible waning of protection from vaccination over time.

  • The ASMRs for first and second vaccine doses have been similar to those for unvaccinated people from March 2022 to May 2022, indicating a possible waning in protection; however, the confidence limits are wide for these groups because of lower populations in these vaccination statuses.

  • The ASMRs are not equivalent to measures of vaccine effectiveness; they account for differences in age structure and population size, but there may be other differences between the groups (particularly underlying health) that affect mortality rates.

  • Spring boosters may be present in the data if it is someone’s overall third dose but are not yet being distinguished from third doses or boosters.

  • Changes in non-COVID-19 mortality by vaccination status are largely driven by the changing composition of the vaccination status groups; this is because of the prioritisation of people who are clinically extremely vulnerable or have underlying health conditions, and differences in timing of vaccination among eligible people.

  • Non-COVID-19 mortality rates can also be affected by seasonal mortality and the healthy vaccinee effect.
More at link.

And this paper:
CCBY Open access
Research
Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study
Hippisley-Cox et al, 2021
Abstract
Objective To assess the association between covid-19 vaccines and risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic events in England among adults.

Design Self-controlled case series study using national data on covid-19 vaccination and hospital admissions.

Setting Patient level data were obtained for approximately 30 million people vaccinated in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 April 2021. Electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics, SARS-CoV-2 positive test data, and hospital admission data from the United Kingdom’s health service (NHS).

Participants 29 121 633 people were vaccinated with first doses (19 608 008 with Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and 9 513 625 with Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA)) and 1 758 095 people had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. People aged ≥16 years who had first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines and any outcome of interest were included in the study.

Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were hospital admission or death associated with thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, and arterial thromboembolism within 28 days of three exposures: first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine; first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine; and a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Secondary outcomes were subsets of the primary outcomes: cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and other rare arterial thrombotic events.

Results The study found increased risk of thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (incidence rate ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.47 at 8-14 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (5.27, 4.34 to 6.40 at 8-14 days); increased risk of venous thromboembolism after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.10, 1.02 to 1.18 at 8-14 days) and after SARS-CoV-2 infection (13.86, 12.76 to 15.05 at 8-14 days); and increased risk of arterial thromboembolism after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.06, 1.01 to 1.10 at 15-21 days) and after SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.02, 1.82 to 2.24 at 15-21 days). Secondary analyses found increased risk of CVST after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (4.01, 2.08 to 7.71 at 8-14 days), after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (3.58, 1.39 to 9.27 at 15-21 days), and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; increased risk of ischaemic stroke after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.12, 1.04 to 1.20 at 15-21 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; and increased risk of other rare arterial thrombotic events after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.21, 1.02 to 1.43 at 8-14 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

Conclusion Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population.
__________________

Those two sources of evidence seem pretty clear to me. Vaccination reduces the risk of mortality from Covid, and infection is far more dangerous than vaccination.
 
35% and 27% effective don't really amount to effective in any book. The constant need for hopium has distorted the value of words. Such low efficacy would amount to defective to the point of being taken out of circulation in most contexts.

Imagine touting a birth control method that is 33% effective. Or buying a machine that works 33% of the time. It boggles the mind.

Clearly pretty effective against severe illness, although the combination of needing constant boosters and the hopium-based need to declare the pandemic over will eventually make this nil.

But this is not effective against Long Covid, which so far is almost only ever used in this context. They don't respect it as anything else but a way to spread the hopium.
 
I agree the vaccines are far from ideal. Scientists are working to try to develop better ones. It's like flu vaccine. Nowhere near 100% effective, but they still prevent a lot of serious disease and deaths.

Serious side effects and deaths from vaccines are tragic but the alternative without vaccines is far higher rates of serious disease and death in those who catch covid while unvaccinated.

As for long covid, sadly vaccines don't prevent that either, but I think I recall correctly that we have somewhere on the forum data showing reduced rates of long covid in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated people.
 
Mr Andrew Bridgen MP in the House of Commons earlier this week led the discussion on adverse effects of the covid vaccines. There seemed to be only 5/6 MPs there to hear his interesting speech with relevant information on big pharma and some figures on vaccine safety and potential harms.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-12-13/debates/EAB2E8A2-A721-47DD-A79C-4EFD
It’s an adjournment debate these are always short. The Hansard link shows the full thing it’s not just a speech from Bridgen there’s a response from the Minister. In this case it’s Maria Caulfield (a nurse who worked on Covid wards)
 
Imagine touting a birth control method that is 33% effective.

But if there's nothing else available to heterosexuals, other than avoidance of sex? Birth control probably had that kind of effectiveness or less for millennia, but I doubt it put anyone off trying to reduce the odds of conceiving if they didn't want a pregnancy.

Same with Covid, especially when it was still killing and severely disabling large numbers of people. It was either do everything you could to shift the odds in your favour, or isolate completely.
 
Yes, the effectiveness of the current vaccines is disappointing. The CDC says the bivalent booster is around 40% effective for those age 18-49. (To find, Search 'Table 2'.) But that's a naturalistic study where I believe many of the unvaxxed had some immunity from previous infections. And they're safe so no real downside. (This is a general statement. People who've had severe adverse reactions should obviously discuss with their doctor.)
 
some people were later being diagnosed with lymphoma

I haven't looked to see if there's any published data, but interested in this because a (previously healthy) colleague developed a rapidly growing, life-threatening mediastinal lymphoma within, I think it was, two-three weeks of vaccination. Fortunately they knew the symptoms/signs of SVC obstruction and got help quickly. Their oncologist was definitive that it was secondary to the vaccination, but I don't know whether that was based on histological sampling and tumour genetics or simply history and a few other similar cases. Melted just as rapidly with steroids and excellent recovery, but quite frightening to say the least.

Obviously the COVID vaccines saved a lot of lives, but they are not without issues and there's a lot we can learn: whether it's the biology of the spike protein or the delivery technology (see Innate immune mechanisms of mRNA vaccines, Cell: Immunity, Nov 2022).

ETA: Just checked back through my messages and they would have been diagnosed three weeks after my #1 primary series, so I expect they were around the same mark, as I don't think I had dawdled about getting the vaccine once it was offered to healthcare workers here.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the effectiveness of the current vaccines is disappointing. The CDC says the bivalent booster is around 40% effective for those age 18-49. (To find, Search 'Table 2'.) But that's a naturalistic study where I believe many of the unvaxxed had some immunity from previous infections. And they're safe so no real downside. (This is a general statement. People who've had severe adverse reactions should obviously discuss with their doctor.)
The 43% effectiveness rate is an absolute one (all groups included). The CDC conducted a subanalysis by time since the last monovalent dose (Table 3) and found that the effectiveness against infection of the bivalent booster compared to people who received their last monovalent dose 8 months ago or prior, but no bivalent vaccination since, is:

- 56% (95% CI 53-58) for people aged 18-49
- 48% (45-51) for people aged 50-64
- 43% (39-46) for people aged 65 or more
 
Last edited:
Preprint from Cleveland Clinic: over 50,000 employees evaluated from the time the bivalent booster became available. Not particularly encouraging and supports the 40% vaccine effectiveness figure mentioned a few posts up-thread. Notable additional finding of an apparent and unfavourable dose-response relationship between number of prior vaccinations and subsequent infection (doesn't evaluate severity).

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine (2022, Medrxiv)

Abstract said:
Among 51011 employees, 20689 (41%) had had a previous documented episode of COVID-19, and 42064 (83%) had received at least two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. COVID-19 occurred in 2452 (5%) during the study. Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received. In multivariable analysis, the bivalent vaccinated state was independently associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, .70; 95% C.I., .61-.80), leading to an estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 30% (95% CI, 20-39%).

Screenshot 2022-12-22 at 10.29.42 AM Large.jpeg
 
The impact of pre-existing cross-reactive immunity on SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccine responses (2022, Nature Reviews Immunology)

Our analysis suggests that pre-existing cross-reactive T cells may provide some protection from COVID-19, whereas there are no data that convincingly show a role of cross-reactive antibodies in COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Similarly, [Common Cold Coronaviruses] cross-reactive CD4+ T cells that are detectable before vaccination may enhance responses to both mRNA-based and viral vector-based vaccines, whereas pre-existing cross-reactive antibody responses are enhanced by vaccination but do not themselves enhance overall vaccine antibodies titres. Despite evidence showing that cross-reactive T cells may be detrimental to the outcome of secondary infections in other virus families and that some unconventional or low-avidity conventional T cell populations may be associated with severe disease, to date there is little evidence suggesting a role for pre-existing cross-reactive T cells in exacerbating COVID-19.
 
a (previously healthy) colleague developed a rapidly growing, life-threatening mediastinal lymphoma within, I think it was, two-three weeks of vaccination. Fortunately they knew the symptoms/signs of SVC obstruction and got help quickly. Their oncologist was definitive that it was secondary to the vaccination, but I don't know whether that was based on histological sampling and tumour genetics or simply history and a few other similar cases.

Bulk symptoms from a lymphoma of three weeks duration sounds near physically impossible to me. Lymphomas can double in size in weeks but you need an awful lot of doublings from an original malignant cell to get to a kilogram of tumour.

I don't actually see how the oncologist could know whether there was a link to a vaccine, unless there is some recognised type I have nit heard of. I don't keep up with the recent output but `I would have expected to have heard about a known link to a lymphoma type.
 
Preprint from Cleveland Clinic: over 50,000 employees evaluated from the time the bivalent booster became available. Not particularly encouraging and supports the 40% vaccine effectiveness figure mentioned a few posts up-thread. Notable additional finding of an apparent and unfavourable dose-response relationship between number of prior vaccinations and subsequent infection (doesn't evaluate severity).

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine (2022, Medrxiv)



View attachment 18774
Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode
This is the time bomb that will blow up in the next few months. Thanks to constant minimization and messaging that it's over, recent booster uptake is somewhere on the order of 10-15%. 2023 could look a lot like 2020, except with no measures, no effective medication and a population weakened by too many bouts of illness. Immunity has a cost, it's not magical and infinite.

This is why telling the truth is supposed to be a principle in public health. That no one follows any of the principles says a lot about how little words mean, whether they are oaths, duties or principles.
 
Back
Top Bottom