[mtdjed]

Recent news indicates a CDC signal indicated a possible concern with the Pfizor booster. Several other monitors do not duplicate this finding and CDC continues to encourage continued usage of this booster. While I have absolutely no training in this area, I did want to know the significance of the "adverse event signal". The following is what I found. The 3rd paragraph seemed a bit undefined (sentence in Bold Red). Same data used but with a different methodology could not replicate.


"The signal was detected in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration involving the CDC and about a dozen health-care organizations with electronic health records on 12 million people. As part of routine monitoring for possible adverse events, officials noticed late last year that they were picking up indications of higher-than-expected stroke risk, officials said.

Among about 550,000 people 65 and older who had already been vaccinated and received a booster dose of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine, 130 people had strokes in the first three weeks after getting the shot. No deaths have been reported. That finding raised a question because it suggested that people who received the bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with Days 22 through 44 following vaccination.

The findings prompted officials to look for similar findings. CDC officials conducted a different analysis in the Vaccine Safety Datalink system, using the same data but different methodology, and were not able to replicate the finding. Officials also searched other systems, including those of Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Pfizer’s global surveillance network. Regulators in other countries, including Israel, also were consulted, but no evidence of similar findings emerged, the officials said."

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

Recent news indicates a CDC signal indicated a possible concern with the Pfizor booster. Several other monitors do not duplicate this finding and CDC continues to encourage continued usage of this booster. While I have absolutely no training in this area, I did want to know the significance of the "adverse event signal". The following is what I found. The 3rd paragraph seemed a bit undefined (sentence in Bold Red). Same data used but with a different methodology could not replicate.


"The signal was detected in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration involving the CDC and about a dozen health-care organizations with electronic health records on 12 million people. As part of routine monitoring for possible adverse events, officials noticed late last year that they were picking up indications of higher-than-expected stroke risk, officials said.

Among about 550,000 people 65 and older who had already been vaccinated and received a booster dose of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine, 130 people had strokes in the first three weeks after getting the shot. No deaths have been reported. That finding raised a question because it suggested that people who received the bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with Days 22 through 44 following vaccination.

The findings prompted officials to look for similar findings. CDC officials conducted a different analysis in the Vaccine Safety Datalink system, using the same data but different methodology, and were not able to replicate the finding. Officials also searched other systems, including those of Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Pfizer’s global surveillance network. Regulators in other countries, including Israel, also were consulted, but no evidence of similar findings emerged, the officials said."

My intent here is NOT to begin a whole "vax" "no vax" on line "argument" (that would never end), but just to comment that I fear this is only the beginning. As more data becomes available (remember "the larger the sample") and it's pouring in from other countries as well, there is going to be even much more to come. A colleague in a European country, with whom I communicate frequently, has given me a worrisome report on what they are finding in relation to various Covid formulations and data from boosters now, and asked me why our country has so little interest in aggressive data analysis. I have no idea ? Perhaps the oldest "root".... money, profit ? But, definitely am looking for more news, and possibly not what we want to hear.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

My intent here is NOT to begin a whole "vax" "no vax" on line "argument" (that would never end), but just to comment that I fear this is only the beginning. As more data becomes available (remember "the larger the sample") and it's pouring in from other countries as well, there is going to be even much more to come. A colleague in a European country, with whom I communicate frequently, has given me a worrisome report on what they are finding in relation to various Covid formulations and data from boosters now, and asked me why our country has so little interest in aggressive data analysis. I have no idea ? Perhaps the oldest "root".... money, profit ? But, definitely am looking for more news, and possibly not what we want to hear.

The CDC issues a transparent notice that it is carefully doing post marketing surveillance using multiple data sources, in this case the signal coming from a health care system with 12 million patients. They further report that they then checked for a similar signal across their other systems which include the VA, the manufacturer, and medicare data which did not confirm the concern, and that they checked with international health care agencies where such a concern has also not been seen.

But then you come here and complain that the US agencies are not looking into potential problems and their numbers are too small and you know somebody who might know something. Why don't you please get back to your colleague and ask him for the published data from a journal or a governmental agency or a news report of exactly what worrisome stuff he is privy to that is being kept secret from all of us Americans by our health care agencies who are being controlled by money.

Apparently Pfizer didn't have enough dollar power to suppress this report but you are sure that somehow they are controlling all the levers. /s

Please post here as soon as you have the report from your friend. I understand that tin foil is available at your local supermarket.

If you believe that there is not vigorous discussion and analysis in the medical literature you might want to read the latest issue of NEJM and come back and tell us about Dr. Offit's piece on the benefit of the bivalent booster.

Just a moment...

Be sure to inform yourself of Dr. Offit's job and his opinion on the value of vaccination.

[mtdjed]

I was referring to the fact that the signal that came from a study of a sample of 550,000 persons over 65 of which 130 had a stroke within 21 days of getting the booster shot. That quantity seemed to trigger an adverse effect signal. They go on to say they used the same data and analyzed with a different methodology and could not duplicate the results.

I realize that they could have used more detailed analysis such as a closer look at the age distribution etc , but if the number 130 out of 550,000 within 21 days sets off a trigger, it would seem that a better explanation would be more convincing. What would be the normal expectation of that type of stroke in a population and age of this type? Seemingly, they infer that the grouping of those strokes was within 21 days of the start date, and then perhaps not an issue. How does different methodology yield different results and why does that mitigate the initial trigger?

I was hoping not to trigger any arguments and harsh comment regarding other data offered. I think it is fair to offer other data without citing sources but my subject is the cited adverse trigger event data.

I realize that samples from other sources don't replicate the results of concern but get concerned when I see CDC stating that the analysis of subject data can't be replicated.

[Sabella]

Really you believe the government? Why did the CDC recently change the definition of a vaccine?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Sabella

Really you believe the government? Why did the CDC recently change the definition of a vaccine?

What did they change in the definition; how is the "new" definition different from the "old"?

[shut the front door]

A vaccine, by definition provides immunity. The covid shot does not. In order to keep calling it a vaccine, one must change the definition of vaccine.

[DARFAP]

Although I've had 2xModerna and a booster, I'm done. Young, healthy people, esp athletes, are suddenly dying: cardiac arrest, strokes, aortic dissections... Now even CDC is investigating Pfizer vax causing strokes. Never again for me.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by shut the front door

A vaccine, by definition provides immunity. The covid shot does not. In order to keep calling it a vaccine, one must change the definition of vaccine.

Let me fix that for you:

A vaccine, by one definition, provides immunity. No vaccines are 100% effective in providing immunity. In order to keep using the word "vaccine" in today's landscape with vaccine deniers, one must change that definition of vaccine.

[B-flat]

Originally Posted by DARFAP

Although I've had 2xModerna and a booster, I'm done. Young, healthy people, esp athletes, are suddenly dying: cardiac arrest, strokes, aortic dissections... Now even CDC is investigating Pfizer vax causing strokes. Never again for me.

Plus one here. This goes a lot deeper than any of us really know.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

The OP is an analysis of decimal dust in medical history. . .

Both the virus itself and the shots can cause blood clots / strokes in individuals with certain genetics. On one of our drives down from MA to TV, at a drink/bathroom/fuel stops, we talked with a woman relocation from NH, and several of her family relatives had blood clots after shots. Not medical data nor evidence, nor valid sample size, but the future of medicine is genetic mappings and genetic reactions. Genetics determine survivability to human natural predators. . . the apex predator is a virus. . .

The problem at the moment is reliance on medical science to fix all . . . all humans have always had medical risks from playing in the dirt Potentially Deadly Bacteria Detected in U.S. Soil for First Time - The New York Times to eating improperly prepared food. We currently live in amazing times with modern medicine, but we are all still mortal to unknown events, remember the future is uncertain, and at times more uncertain that at other times.

Everyone should really read "On Being Mortal", as the book by a Boston surgeon, Atul Gwande. . .
Amazon.com

The first part of the book is about the history of medicine and quickly people would die after being struck down in an infinite number of ways. From that you realize that we currently live in an fairy tale of successful medicine compared with all prior 1900s medical history. .. .

so back to the original post, decimal dust of life outcomes, and remember that hard wired survival behavioral human responses grossly outweigh negative events with extremely low probabilities over positive happy outcomes with very large probabilities.

[ThirdOfFive]

Ain't modern medicine wonderful?

They've invented a cure that is worse than the disease! (yeah, I know...no cure...figure of speech and all that...)

[blueash]

Originally Posted by DARFAP

Although I've had 2xModerna and a booster, I'm done. Young, healthy people, esp athletes, are suddenly dying: cardiac arrest, strokes, aortic dissections... Now even CDC is investigating Pfizer vax causing strokes. Never again for me.

Do you have any evidence, any at all, that the incidence of deaths, in athletes or others, is any different now than it has always been? Because there is no such evidence. You just are getting fed scare data from sources with an agenda to make you anti-science and anti-vaccine. Young people have always had these adverse events.

My first patient as an asst. chief resident was a 19 year old with an aortic aneurism. My daughter had a soccer player drop dead playing against her team in the 1990s. I am fairly sure these were not Covid vaccine side effects.

There is no increase in sudden deaths. There was a signal finding of increase myocarditis from the J&J vaccine about 18 months ago which is why is not a shot of choice any longer.

Certain news media talking heads have giddily produced lists of young people who have had heart problems like the Bills football player and showed you that list and claimed that all of them are victims of a shot. No data whether they did or did not get a vaccine, or when. No data on whether there are more such cases now than in the past [there are not], just a list of names. Don't be a sucker for such nonsense.

Remember that Tucker won a defamation case when the Trump appointed judge wrote:

This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” … Given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’

Remember that Hannity just testified that he never believed that the 2020 election was stolen.

If these people are your news sources look elsewhere. They are not stating actual facts and don't believe what they are telling you to believe.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by blueash

Do you have any evidence, any at all, that the incidence of deaths, in athletes or others, is any different now than it has always been?

BA, totally agree. . . . .

again, these stories are like catnip for the hard wired survival brain to be attracted to negative news to avoid that pitfall. . because the human brain developed over a thousand years without modern medicine and statistics, and the brain doesn't intuitively process very tiny negative modern probability outcomes to the trash bin. . .

instead, the cave man survival brain sends that piece of information to the top of the "stay away from this" list. . . behavioral psychology, all it very visible here on TOTV. . .

psych guy

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

So - 130 individuals out of 155,000 people who were 65 years old or older had a stroke during a 3-week period. According to the OP:

130 people had strokes in the first three weeks after getting the shot. No deaths have been reported. That finding raised a question because it suggested that people who received the bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with Days 22 through 44 following vaccination.

So which is it? Strokes, or ischemic stroke? And if ischemic stroke, which of the four types? Because if they mean a TIA, then those 155,000 65-year-old-plus folks are doing pretty good. TIAs are common in seniors, many don't even realize they've had one.

How many 65-year-old-plus Villagers have had some type of stroke - including TIAs - in the last three weeks? We have around 155,000 people living here, it should be easy to track.