Claim: adverse reactions in Covid vaccine trials are not being recorded
- Thread starter Rory
- Start date
Rory
Closed Account
Okay, so if they'd said that in the beginning and then later said "it's still safe enough for purpose even though we've now identified a few additional rare but potentially serious side effects" is that not the same as saying: "it's not quite as safe as we initially thought"?
Guilty!
Last edited:
econ41
Senior Member
Sure. But the pragmatics of marketing to a diverse audience IMO outweigh any need to satisfy a few highly experienced and pedantic nit-pickers on an Internet Forum. I would allow them a bit of"slack" out there in the real world.
And - so far - she hasn't charged me with excessive pedantry nor stating the bleeding obvious.Guilty!
Rory
Closed Account
deirdre
Senior Member.
we could just ask this guy if he is still giving astra zeneca boosters to his teenage/young adult children or grand children. Then we would know if his definition of safe has changed.
Article: "We've had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine, but I think seeing this data now, I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very effective and safe vaccine," said Menelas Pangalos, AstraZeneca's executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development.
econ41
Senior Member
Side line issue but yesterday my wife booked both of us in for "boosters" mid January. We are both AZ recipients - got the vax around the time of the breaking news of the blood clots issue. I haven't a clue as to the AU Federal Health agency's position on AZ nor have either of us asked about which vax we will get.
deirdre
Senior Member.
see? you've got more in common with the vaccine holdouts than you'd like to think.. you all have that "eh. it won't happen to me" mentality
Mendel
Senior Member.
From the same article, we find yet another definition of safe:
"safe" := "meets FDA safety guidelines".External Quote:
The FDA never approved it, and I don't know why.
But the Health Authorities in Great Britain did, on December 30th, 2020, and that hasn't been revoked, so they thought it was safe then, and is safe now.
Rory
Closed Account
Nobody's arguing that. What you're arguing is that AstraZeneca feels its level of safety is exactly what it always was even after new information about its potentially lethal side effects has come to light.
econ41
Senior Member
I'll take that as a joke tho given the confusion in this thread that could be a risky choice. The possibly less than fully professional part of my reasoning is that - given the overall low level of risk of catching COVID in AU and even lower where I am in a rural area - the AZ blood clots issue is more significant now than it was 6 months ago when I had no priority access to alternate vaccines. Then, the counterside - which I won't even try to quantify - but now that blood clots is known I understand that both prophylactic and curative measures are improved. And, if I'm wrong it might be best if you leave me in my ignorance. I'll live with it and prove your point. Maybe I'm a closet anti-vaxer?????see? you've got more in common with the vaccine holdouts than you'd like to think.. you all have that "eh. it won't happen to me" mentality
Actually when the risks are in the order of one in several million anyone objecting should never cross a trafficked street.
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
But if we scroll down we get the definition "11. Secured, kept in custody; unable to escape.", and what's that got to do with the price of eggs in China? It's just as relevant as definition 1. Namely not at all. The vaccines are evidently not safe - none are - they will be attacked and broken down by the body they are injected into. That's quite a lot of damage, it's destruction.
The usage in question is neither 1 nor 11 but 8:
External Quote:
Mendel
Senior Member.
What I am arguing is indeed that the safety of the AZ vaccine never changed (because neither the vaccine nor the dosage or the manufacturing process changed), we simply know more about what that level of safety is than we did initially.
Even with the new knowledge, calling the vaccine "safe" is still as justified today as it was in December, both by comparing it to a placebo therapy, and by applying legal standards.
No vaccine was ever "safe" by the "no risk of physical harm" standard. (It has that in common with peanut butter sandwiches.)
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
Rory
Closed Account
Mendel
Senior Member.
Your statement suggests that AZ said something that is no longer true, my statement does not.
As far as I know, everything AZ said (with one of my interpretations of "safe", either 1) compared to placebo, or 2) per government regulations) is still true.
That quote is from Monday, and that's where we still are.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Well, one is accusing AZ of making false claims, and the other is not; to me, that's a consequence of honor and integrity.Gotcha. So we're basically splitting hairs and arguing over something completely inconsequential. Well at least I'm finally clear on that.
econ41
Senior Member
Yes. And some posts are still not defining which definition of "safe" is being discussed. It inherently requires a probability-based definition in the style of "safe enough".Gotcha. So we're basically splitting hairs and arguing over something completely inconsequential. Well at least I'm finally clear on that.
Rory
Closed Account
When?
(PS If a mod is here I wouldn't think it improper to split everything including and following the last sentence in post #57 to Rambles.)
deirdre
Senior Member.
Rory
Closed Account
That sounds like you're saying: a) you have honour and integrity; b) you have more honour and integrity than me; and c) because you have honour and integrity the things you say are bound to be accurate.
Is that what you're saying?
deirdre
Senior Member.
is "AZ" like your nickname or something?
deirdre
Senior Member.
you accused Astra Zeneca of making false claims? i missed have missed that part.
Similar threads
