The Corona Virus

[sinkov]

Methinks that OC is well versed in the medical world and has good research options and he keeps us informed, however, as with everytihng, it is a matter of personal choice as to how we react to the information.
BT ---don't shoot the messenger, he is just passing on information, the choice really is yours.

I mentioned it several days ago that you had to hang around for 15 minutes in case of allergic reaction, which was one reason I was in no hurry to have the jab, I want to see just how many have an allergic reaction before they stick that needle into me.

What is disconcerting in OC's passing on of information in post 1246, are the following two statements.

"People with a history of significant allergic reactions should not have the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid jab, regulators say."

"Both NHS workers have a history of serious allergies and carry adrenalin pens around with them."

In the light of the above it's clear those two NHS workers should not have had the jab, but they did. Carelessness or negligence ? If they can get it so wrong with their own staff, I think it might be prudent to wait until there's some evidence that they actually know what they're doing, and there is more evidence of the risk involved.

[oldcolner]

I mentioned it several days ago that you had to hang around for 15 minutes in case of allergic reaction, which was one reason I was in no hurry to have the jab, I want to see just how many have an allergic reaction before they stick that needle into me.

What is disconcerting in OC's passing on of information in post 1246, are the following two statements.

"People with a history of significant allergic reactions should not have the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid jab, regulators say."

"Both NHS workers have a history of serious allergies and carry adrenalin pens around with them."

In the light of the above it's clear those two NHS workers should not have had the jab, but they did. Carelessness or negligence ? If they can get it so wrong with their own staff, I think it might be prudent to wait until there's some evidence that they actually know what they're doing, and there is more evidence of the risk involved.

You are probably right Sinkov but the MHRA information doesn’t give any advice on contraindications or cautions apart from the 15 min wait, it clearly will say that in future. I think the trial would have excluded those with known allergic reactions, so no such reactions had occurred in the trial. It’s only taken 2 such reactions to change the advice on the product.

This happens occasionally with new medicines as some side effects may only occur in 1 in 100000 people and no trial is that big. There may be more side effects but these are all being monitored and reported, so other advice changes may occur.

In the old days it took years sometimes to identify side effects, thalidomide took from 1957 to 1961 for the disastrous effects on the foetus to be tracked back to it. They are much better at it now.

[sinkov]

In the old days it took years sometimes to identify side effects, thalidomide took from 1957 to 1961 for the disastrous effects on the foetus to be tracked back to it. They are much better at it now.

This is indeed the problem with long term side effects OC, they take a long time to become apparent.

[oldcolner]

This is indeed the problem with long term side effects OC, they take a long time to become apparent.

The thalidomide side effects were not long term, you just needed to take a dose in the first trimester and wait to term to see the deformity. What took the time was linking what might be an unusual child that could occur naturally, to the drug they took 6 months earlier. The fact that a GP would only see one such patient meant it took a while for them to realise there were large numbers of these, as most births then were at home.
Long term side effects are effects that flow from taking a drug for months or years not a single dose.

[sinkov]

The thalidomide side effects were not long term, you just needed to take a dose in the first trimester and wait to term to see the deformity. What took the time was linking what might be an unusual child that could occur naturally, to the drug they took 6 months earlier. The fact that a GP would only see one such patient meant it took a while for them to realise there were large numbers of these, as most births then were at home.
Long term side effects are effects that flow from taking a drug for months or years not a single dose.

I wasn't referring in particular to Thalidomide OC, just stating what is surely self-evident, that long term side effects take a long time to become apparent. And there's absolutely nothing that can be done about that, except wait.

But for how long, that's the question.

[Supersub6]

I wasn't referring in particular to Thalidomide OC, just stating what is surely self-evident, that long term side effects take a long time to become apparent. And there's absolutely nothing that can be done about that, except wait.

But for how long, that's the question.

I can only refer to Mike, my specialist friend, who just can't understand why they try to change medication for people when the original is working well, as in my case. As he said, they think that one of the pills I was taking could cause Type 2 Diabetes so they want to change it, however, at our age the consequences of getting diabetes are not worth bothering about.
This is my attitude to any side effects on any medicine because I have no intention of living for ever ---I may start worrying about things if I knew that I was.

[oldcolner]

I can only refer to Mike, my specialist friend, who just can't understand why they try to change medication for people when the original is working well, as in my case. As he said, they think that one of the pills I was taking could cause Type 2 Diabetes so they want to change it, however, at our age the consequences of getting diabetes are not worth bothering about.
This is my attitude to any side effects on any medicine because I have no intention of living for ever ---I may start worrying about things if I knew that I was.

I’m with you on that super, unless you get diabetes. That would be when I would consider change, but first I would get them to check whether I still needed the medicine in the first place.

[oldcolner]

I wasn't referring in particular to Thalidomide OC, just stating what is surely self-evident, that long term side effects take a long time to become apparent. And there's absolutely nothing that can be done about that, except wait.

But for how long, that's the question.

QUOTE=sinkov;39642890]I wasn't referring in particular to Thalidomide OC, just stating what is surely self-evident, that long term side effects take a long time to become apparent. And there's absolutely nothing that can be done about that, except wait.

But for how long, that's the question. [/QUOTE]

I assume you mean belated side effects - long term side effects means the side effects after taking a medicine over a long term ie years.
The real question is can you name any single dose medicine that generated side effects years later in life. Thalidomide possibly needed one dose but was usually taken for longer.
Dr Wakefield levelled accusations against MMR vaccine given to infants, but they were discredited and he was struck off.
Most immunisations are given to children unless you travel abroad.

Have you had any vaccines eg flu, meningococcal, tetanus or shingles? I’ve had them all and the annual flu vaccine.