Jump to content

39 year old dies after AstraZeneca vaccine, a second dose following Sinovac


Thaiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/22/2021 at 3:15 PM, Objectivance said:

I cant speak for manufacturers outside of the US, but there the vaccine manufacturers are completely protected from any litigation, financial penalties, criminal penalties etc in the event of an adverse reaction to the emergency use shots.

To me if a manufacturer has received approval to dispense a medicine, they should be completely protected against litigation in the event of an adverse action.  Otherwise, you end up putting a huge impediment to pharmaceutical companies ever releasing a product that is for the most part hugely beneficial but some people either have a reaction or "claim" that their symptoms were a result of taking the product.  Consider even aspirin can have negative side effects.  acetaminophen (paracetamol) when taken in combination with alcohol is toxic and can be lethal  So does that mean that those drugs should be taken off the market.  If the Covid vaccines are safe and effective for lets say 99% of those taken them but 1% experience some side effects should their benefits be denied to the 99% or alternatively should the pharmaceutical companies be liable for damages because the 1% had a negative reaction to the vaccine?   There are only two things 100% guaranteed in life - death and taxes.  If you wait for a medicine, or hospital procedure that has zero risk you will die waiting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

To me if a manufacturer has received approval to dispense a medicine, they should be completely protected against litigation in the event of an adverse action.  Otherwise, you end up putting a huge impediment to pharmaceutical companies ever releasing a product that is for the most part hugely beneficial but some people either have a reaction or "claim" that their symptoms were a result of taking the product.  Consider even aspirin can have negative side effects.  acetaminophen (paracetamol) when taken in combination with alcohol is toxic and can be lethal  So does that mean that those drugs should be taken off the market.  If the Covid vaccines are safe and effective for lets say 99% of those taken them but 1% experience some side effects should their benefits be denied to the 99% or alternatively should the pharmaceutical companies be liable for damages because the 1% had a negative reaction to the vaccine?   There are only two things 100% guaranteed in life - death and taxes.  If you wait for a medicine, or hospital procedure that has zero risk you will die waiting. 

That's not the case.  Companies have always been liable for their drugs and this is to protect the patient.  Why should there be exceptions?  It ensures adequate testing is done but because  testing has not been completed on the current vaccinations and would not be completed until 2023 they have been given a get out of jail free pass.

Edited by billywillyjones
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, billywillyjones said:

That's not the case.

I did not say it was the case.  I said it should be the case.  Consider, you are a drug manufacturer and you have a drug that will "prevent HIV"  it is 98% effective but 2% of the people have some negative reactions to it.  If you make the drug company responsible for the negative reactions they have every reason not to introduce the drug even though it will help the vast majority of the people who take it.  

To me, if the various Food & Drug Agencies around the world test it, and they give it an approval to be dispensed, the drug companies should be sparred from any litigation resulting from the use of that medicine.  What you are proposing is that no drug should ever be released without being assured that it is 100% without any side effects.   What that guarantees is fewer drugs and fewer people being helped.  You would have doctors being afraid to prescribe medicines fearing that they could be sued for advising their patients to take them.  Drug companies should be liable if they knowingly withhold information to people using it about its potential side effects.   

Should Pfizer be sued because taking Viagra may lead to a prolonged erection?  Should Merck be sued for Proscar that lowers Testosterone to treat prostrate problems because it lowers ones sexual urge.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2021 at 12:58 PM, longwood50 said:

I did not say it was the case.  I said it should be the case.  Consider, you are a drug manufacturer and you have a drug that will "prevent HIV"  it is 98% effective but 2% of the people have some negative reactions to it.  If you make the drug company responsible for the negative reactions they have every reason not to introduce the drug even though it will help the vast majority of the people who take it.  

To me, if the various Food & Drug Agencies around the world test it, and they give it an approval to be dispensed, the drug companies should be sparred from any litigation resulting from the use of that medicine.  What you are proposing is that no drug should ever be released without being assured that it is 100% without any side effects.   What that guarantees is fewer drugs and fewer people being helped.  You would have doctors being afraid to prescribe medicines fearing that they could be sued for advising their patients to take them.  Drug companies should be liable if they knowingly withhold information to people using it about its potential side effects.   

Should Pfizer be sued because taking Viagra may lead to a prolonged erection?  Should Merck be sued for Proscar that lowers Testosterone to treat prostrate problems because it lowers ones sexual urge.   

that is a select example what if your drug has negative effects in 10 percent or 20 percent... there is a reason people must take liability for their actions... if anything cap awards as some can be ridiculously high but don't fail to protect the people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, billywillyjones said:

that is a select example what if your drug has negative effects in 10 percent or 20 percent

If the drug has a high percentage of people who suffered negative side effects the 'drug would not receive FDA approval"   What I am saying is if the regulatory boards deem the drug is approved for use and they require the public to be aware of "potential" side effects the drug company should not be held liable if that person experiences some negative side effects.  

To make the drug companies face litigation for every possible side effect has some very real negative consequences.  First, it means that they would be reluctant to introduce new drugs.  They have less risk if they continue to market older and perhaps less effective drugs rather than be subject to million of dollars in penalties.  Secondly, you are somehow of the mistaken belief that the drug company is somehow paying for those penalties  Wrong, The drug companies have to treat any expense including damages paid as a cost.  All costs are then priced into the drugs they sell.  So the net effect is to pass higher drug costs on to everyone to cover the damages paid to those who "may" experience side effects.  Lastly, unless you had a pattern of a drug causing repeated side effects how can you exactly establish that it is the drug that caused the persons side effects.  Example a person with high blood pressure and heart disease experiences a heart attack after taking a drug.  Now was it the drug that caused the heart attack or was the persons pre existing condition and the heart attack just coincidental with their taking the drug.   Again, if that pattern of numerous patients experiencing heart attacks following taking the drug, the FDA would pull the drug from use.  To me, a drug company should only be held liable if they knowingly withheld information on the potential side effects of a drug.  If in good faith, they tested it per FDA guidelines, showed it to be both effective and safe and the FDA certifies that, then they should be shielded from lawsuits stemming from the use of the drug.  Patients can read the label, talk to their doctor and they can make an informed choice on whether to use or not use the drug.  Limiting  drugs, medical devices, and medical procedures to only those that are 100% effective and Zero Side effects means you will have none. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

If the drug has a high percentage of people who suffered negative side effects the 'drug would not receive FDA approval"   What I am saying is if the regulatory boards deem the drug is approved for use and they require the public to be aware of "potential" side effects the drug company should not be held liable if that person experiences some negative side effects.  

To make the drug companies face litigation for every possible side effect has some very real negative consequences.  First, it means that they would be reluctant to introduce new drugs.  They have less risk if they continue to market older and perhaps less effective drugs rather than be subject to million of dollars in penalties.  Secondly, you are somehow of the mistaken belief that the drug company is somehow paying for those penalties  Wrong, The drug companies have to treat any expense including damages paid as a cost.  All costs are then priced into the drugs they sell.  So the net effect is to pass higher drug costs on to everyone to cover the damages paid to those who "may" experience side effects.  Lastly, unless you had a pattern of a drug causing repeated side effects how can you exactly establish that it is the drug that caused the persons side effects.  Example a person with high blood pressure and heart disease experiences a heart attack after taking a drug.  Now was it the drug that caused the heart attack or was the persons pre existing condition and the heart attack just coincidental with their taking the drug.   Again, if that pattern of numerous patients experiencing heart attacks following taking the drug, the FDA would pull the drug from use.  To me, a drug company should only be held liable if they knowingly withheld information on the potential side effects of a drug.  If in good faith, they tested it per FDA guidelines, showed it to be both effective and safe and the FDA certifies that, then they should be shielded from lawsuits stemming from the use of the drug.  Patients can read the label, talk to their doctor and they can make an informed choice on whether to use or not use the drug.  Limiting  drugs, medical devices, and medical procedures to only those that are 100% effective and Zero Side effects means you will have none. 

zero liability is not the answer.  It is particulary important when drugs have not gone through the normal testing channels.

Edited by billywillyjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, billywillyjones said:

zero liability is not the answer.  It is particulary important when drugs have not gone through the normal testing channels.

OK let me try one more time to explain this to you.  You are a drug company.  You have the drug tested and submit those tests to the FDA and they review the drug and approve it for use certifying it is safe and effective.  Now tell me, why the drug company should be punished for investing in a drug intended to help people and though effective and saving perhaps millions of lives, that a few people have some form of reaction to it.  Just what did the drug company do wrong to warrant being punished.  Liability is when you do something either intentionally, or negligently wrong.  Again, your unintended consequence of suing drug companies for ill effects is that it enriches lawyers, promotes nuisance suits, drives up healthcare costs, and makes drug companies reluctant to introduce new and improved drugs for fear of being sued.   If the drug company withheld information, failed to disclose possible side effects, did inadequate testing or outright lied, then I agree.  However when they do everything possible and the outcome is not perfect that is no reason to sue.  Or if you go to a hospital with a heart attack and the patient dies, do you sue his/her doctor for not getting him to go to the hospital for surgery sooner, how about the ambulance for not reviving him/her or getting to the hospital quicker, perhaps the surgical team in the emergency ward for not saving his life, or the hospital who could have had a more experienced team on with experts in cardiac surgery that could have save him.  

Nonsense.  The public should be thankful that the drug companies and their research teams came up with effective vaccines as quick as possible.  The fact is that millions may have been saved by the use of their vaccines but to somehow think that some people might not have an adverse effect because of their own preexisting medical condition, heredity, or an allergic reaction is just foolishness.   

You seem to be of the opinion that these drugs were not tested.  Yes they were.  They did not go through the normal regimen of  years of testing because of the pandemic.  It is the world health agencies including the FDA who approved them for "emergency use"  So if anyone deserves the liability it is the FDA.  Perhaps you would be happier if the vaccines were not approved for use and we had no adverse effects since the Covid vaccines would be fully tested in about 2032. 

 

Edited by longwood50
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read in the article that there is medical evidence of the connection between the vaccine and the teacher's dead. So, I recommend this journalist and people in general to be sensitive, responsible and cautious when publishing information. Even more when you are a professional in the field and what you write is supposed to be credible. The title of this article misinforms and promotes people's fears based on false claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Haposayster said:

I didn't read in the article that there is medical evidence of the connection between the vaccine and the teacher's dead. So, I recommend this journalist and people in general to be sensitive, responsible and cautious when publishing information. Even more when you are a professional in the field and what you write is supposed to be credible. The title of this article misinforms and promotes people's fears based on false claims.

> A re-post of my response in another thread : > https://thethaiger.com/talk/topic/3038-vaxxer-regrets/?do=findComment&comment=25129

Anecdotal cases will always be embraced/dismissed depending on the readers viewpoint.  That's why the Vaccine Adverse Effects reporting databases have been established.  This in order to get an 'early warning signal' that something might be wrong when too many 'co-incidental' symptoms are reported.  At this moment (and there is significant delay in reporting, as well as even more significant under-reporting)  there are already +750.000 adverse effects reports on the Eudravigilance EU site, and +500.000 on the US VAERS system.  Anybody arguing that all these are mere coincidence should have his head examined...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2021 at 12:25 PM, Chaimai said:

So I am guessing that you are more scared of the vaccine than you are of CV19.

I can understand that some people will think like that.

There are what some people consider ,naturalist . They believe in the bodies natural defenses .They go out of their way to avoid putting any meds  into their body!

They ,not all, eat only certain foods ,organic non processed foods etc!

These people imop are obsessed with this life style! I’ll go out on the limb to say “ they will avoid the vaccs ,like the plaque “ 

I m not one of these but I respect their choice! Further more it p’s me off, that some will force people to adhere to taking a drug that’s not even approved and is used as a emergency to boost ones immune system !

Im in line for the Mvacc in October!

I also get a flu shot every year! 

Edited by riclag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2021 at 6:57 AM, Haposayster said:

I didn't read in the article that there is medical evidence of the connection between the vaccine and the teacher's dead. So, I recommend this journalist and people in general to be sensitive, responsible and cautious when publishing information. Even more when you are a professional in the field and what you write is supposed to be credible. The title of this article misinforms and promotes people's fears based on false claims.

“I recommend this journalist and people in general to be sensitive, responsible and cautious when publishing information. Even more when you are a professional in the field and what you write is supposed to be credible”.

Credible you say, So that leaves out

sources say, unidentified sources!  someone close to the matter, and all of the other terms news agencies use that don’t identify who they are or what they stand for in the matter at hand!

 

Edited by riclag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

I also get a flu shot every year! 

Why?

The symptoms of the flu are the body preparing itself for a change in climate. They are a positive thing. What's the point of a flu shot? Let the body do its stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2021 at 7:54 PM, JohninDubin said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01813-2

This is from the highly respected Science Mag, Nature.

Headline: Mounting evidence suggests Sputnik COVID vaccine is safe and effective.

This was debunked that this article and that magazine is sponsort by the Ccp China in many newsoutlets worldwide! To use this is supporting the CCP Prooaganda!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Credible you say, So that leaves out

sources say, unidentified sources!  someone close to the matter, and all of the other terms news agencies use that don’t identify who they are or what they stand for in the matter at hand!

It should be like that but regrettably its not so they can publish what they want. Name names or bugger off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, snapdragon said:

Why?

The symptoms of the flu are the body preparing itself for a change in climate. They are a positive thing. What's the point of a flu shot? Let the body do its stuff.

 

Maybe so! The Dr suggested I try it because of underlying conditions

Its been  40 years since I started taking the flu vacc, I've got sick once with the flu back in 2018! 

So  I like to think it works for me !

Edited by riclag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/5/2021 at 9:23 AM, Stardust said:

This was debunked that this article and that magazine is sponsort by the Ccp China in many newsoutlets worldwide! To use this is supporting the CCP Prooaganda!

Please link the debunking.

I've just googled "does the chinese communist party "sponsor" nature magazine" and cannot find any such mention.

I also googled "is nature magazine reliable" and came up with this: "Nature was one of the world's most cited scientific journals by the Science Edition of the 2019 Journal Citation Reports (with an ascribed impact factor of 42.778), making it one of the world's most-read and most prestigious academic journals". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)

Then I googled, "is nature magazine independent", and I couldn't find anything which challenged their independence.

  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In 1976, an outbreak of the swine flu, influenza A virus subtype H1N1 at Fort Dix, New Jersey caused one death, hospitalized 13, and led to a mass immunization program. After the program began, the vaccine was associated with an increase in reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which can cause paralysis, respiratory arrest, and death. The immunization program was ended after approximately 25% of the population of the United States had been administered the vaccine. "

56 Americans died after 45 million vaccinated and they cancelled it. Today with these new mRNAs vaccines the death toll is already over 12 000 according to VAERS and they are still not cancelling...

 

 

Edited by JackIsAGoodBoy
  • Like 2
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is always a certain percentage of people who experience adverse reactions to any medicine. The fact that this person died following the taking of vaccine is concerning and definitely an autopsy should be performed to determine the precise cause or death and if the vaccine might have been a contributor to that condition.  

However you can take an aspirin and it can lead to death.  So this person could have chosen not to get the vaccine, contracted covid and died. Her chances of death from the latter occurring were far greater than taking the vaccine and it contributing to her death.  

It is also possible her death and taking the vaccine were just coincidental.   She might have taken tea in the afternoon and then died.  Does that mean the tea caused her death.  Correlation is not causation. 

image.png.f136f0e78ea6cabd3260ec571c9493cf.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people are dieing because of the Vaccines. Only nobody is reporting about it.

All people that got the vaccine are lab rat's now. Nobody knows what the vaccine is doing to your body in the long Run 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ronaldus said:

Many people are dieing because of the Vaccines. Only nobody is reporting about it.

All people that got the vaccine are lab rat's now. Nobody knows what the vaccine is doing to your body in the long Run 

 

If nobody is reporting it - how do you know.

 

I can understand that you might be scared of vaccines but just put your tin foil hat on and get back into your bunker.................grateful in the knowledge that vaccines have prevented you getting polio, TB, smallpox etc, etc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Chaimai said:

If nobody is reporting it - how do you know.

I can understand that you might be scared of vaccines but just put your tin foil hat on and get back into your bunker.................grateful in the knowledge that vaccines have prevented you getting polio, TB, smallpox etc, etc

IMO Mr Chaimai, your post is disingenuous. The reporting that the poster was referring to was MSM. Fortunately TT is a fair platform and I'm sure members are reading truths on C-19 for the first time.

If you are saying that vaccines stopped people getting "polio, TB, smallpox etc, etc" then I feel that you are simply repeating a well-trodden path that is littered with compromised narrative.

38 minutes ago, Ronaldus said:

Many people are dieing because of the Vaccines. Only nobody is reporting about it.

All people that got the vaccine are lab rat's now. Nobody knows what the vaccine is doing to your body in the long Run 

I agree about people are now the lab rats. The damage that these clot-shots are "doing to your body in the long Run" is unknown, but what is known are the deaths due to the vaxxes. An estimated 400,000/500,000 since the vaxxes began. And up to 2 million bad effects; a bad effect not being a sore are, but far worse, including heart attacks and brain bleeds.

Very succinct post Ronaldus. More please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 6:42 PM, billywillyjones said:

That's not the case.  Companies have always been liable for their drugs and this is to protect the patient.  Why should there be exceptions?  It ensures adequate testing is done but because  testing has not been completed on the current vaccinations and would not be completed until 2023 they have been given a get out of jail free pass.

 

On 7/24/2021 at 12:58 PM, longwood50 said:

I did not say it was the case.  I said it should be the case.  Consider, you are a drug manufacturer and you have a drug that will "prevent HIV"  it is 98% effective but 2% of the people have some negative reactions to it.  If you make the drug company responsible for the negative reactions they have every reason not to introduce the drug even though it will help the vast majority of the people who take it.  

To me, if the various Food & Drug Agencies around the world test it, and they give it an approval to be dispensed, the drug companies should be sparred from any litigation resulting from the use of that medicine.  What you are proposing is that no drug should ever be released without being assured that it is 100% without any side effects.   What that guarantees is fewer drugs and fewer people being helped.  You would have doctors being afraid to prescribe medicines fearing that they could be sued for advising their patients to take them.  Drug companies should be liable if they knowingly withhold information to people using it about its potential side effects.   

Should Pfizer be sued because taking Viagra may lead to a prolonged erection?  Should Merck be sued for Proscar that lowers Testosterone to treat prostrate problems because it lowers ones sexual urge.   

 

On 8/4/2021 at 7:11 AM, BlueSphinx said:

> A re-post of my response in another thread : > https://thethaiger.com/talk/topic/3038-vaxxer-regrets/?do=findComment&comment=25129

Anecdotal cases will always be embraced/dismissed depending on the readers viewpoint.  That's why the Vaccine Adverse Effects reporting databases have been established.  This in order to get an 'early warning signal' that something might be wrong when too many 'co-incidental' symptoms are reported.  At this moment (and there is significant delay in reporting, as well as even more significant under-reporting)  there are already +750.000 adverse effects reports on the Eudravigilance EU site, and +500.000 on the US VAERS system.  Anybody arguing that all these are mere coincidence should have his head examined...

Gents, I presume 🙄

If you have cancer, you may well take the risk with a medicine that has 60% chance of lengthening your lifespan in comfort with 90% chance of side effects.

The point here is that vaccines are given to healthy people that may never get sick from Covid, yet may get sick or worse from the vaccine.

The indemnity is purely there because the data were indeed incredibly good very quickly, especially from mRNA vaccines and governments wanted to use it before the tests were completed. In that case I wouldn't take responsibility as a manufacturer either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the Sinovac is about as low a quality vaccine as is available right now. I would not take it, and the Thai people should be given better options. We all know why this is the primary vaccine, and it does not bode well for the nation. 

Second, this kind of news is simply not helpful. It instills fear in people. Of course some people are going to die. They would have likely died anyway. Short of a clinical study, how can you just take random evidence of death, and use it to show the dangers of taking a vaccine? A percentage of the population dies every day. Where is the science in this kind of news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really instills fear is the constant fear mongering in all the media.  If this was 50 years ago, the virus would already be done as it would have passed through the population.  The Hong Kong Flu was much worse, but the world went on and no one gave a shat.  Locking people down and making useless face masks mandatory, only prolongs the disease, while keeping the fear up. 

 

With an IFR of 0.15%, what the hell is going on?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554

  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use