Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#21

Post by user743 »

user743 wrote: post #20
mullingitover wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2.2M+ adverse reactions in the WHO database. That's a big stretch. Take everything on the site with a block of salt, given that that's exactly what they tell you to do : > The information on this website, therefore, does not reflect any confirmed link between a medicinal product and a side effect People have been abusing the validity of VigiAccess to make specious claims about adverse effects and it's already been…

You can't argue with anything that comes out of the corporate press. I personally think the WHO has been comprised and don't trust them, but I used data associated with them since a lot of people do trust them still. If you won't trust this data what will you trust? The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either. The censorship is so bad you can't even Google anything anym…

Also, where is the block of salt for the death rate? It was already absurdly low without factoring in everyone that got sick, recovered easily, and never reported.

Happy to have my perspective changed.

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#22

Post by AndrewBissell »

mullingitover wrote: post #16
AndrewBissell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something like 1% of people receiving inoculation would develop full-blown smallpox. No vaccine courts for those folks. They at least got the benefit of being inoculated against a virus which would have a 30% chance of killing them. This made it very likely for the inoculations to be positive risk tradeoff for all the troops who were ordered to get them. The same is not necessarily true for a healthy 19 year old wi…

> The same is not necessarily true for a healthy 19 year old without comorbidities who is forced to get a Covid vaccination to attend college. True, if you only narrowly focus on the immediate benefit to the individual there are head-spinning number of laws and rules that don't make sense in civilization.

What other sort of benefit is there supposed to be? The reduction in infection and transmission risk for Delta from the vaccines is marginal at best, wanes quickly, and might well be defeated completely by future variants. If we're acknowledging that the immediate risk tradeoff might be negative, these would be the first vaccines in history that people were widely expected to take on those terms.

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#23

Post by proc0 »

Tarsul wrote: post #4

where is the recourse for those who suffer from covid due to negligence of others?

You can still spread while vaccinated and while it may still lower the chance, it means it would be nearly impossible to prove who you were infected by. Additionally, where is the recourse for those who suffer from the adverse effects? Why are the pharma companies protected from lawsuits when they have so much profit from this? Maybe they should set the precedent here, and then we could hold those who don't take it accountable as well.

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#24

Post by tjr »

Factorium wrote: post #10

https://investinganswers.com/articles/10-most-popular-stocks... Top stock owned by members of congress - Pfizer #6 Johnson and Johnson #7 Moderna stock up 387% YoY: https://investinganswers.com/articles/10-most-popular-stocks... Bill Gates invested $55million into BioNTech in October 2019: https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det... Why are people with COVID antibodies from successful recovery for…

Novavax looks like an interesting alternative. Not quite available yet, but probably soon.

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#25

Post by AndrewBissell »

tjr wrote: post #24
Factorium wrote: post #10

https://investinganswers.com/articles/10-most-popular-stocks... Top stock owned by members of congress - Pfizer #6 Johnson and Johnson #7 Moderna stock up 387% YoY: https://investinganswers.com/articles/10-most-popular-stocks... Bill Gates invested $55million into BioNTech in October 2019: https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det... Why are people with COVID antibodies from successful recovery for…

Novavax looks like an interesting alternative. Not quite available yet, but probably soon.

There was just an announcement of major delays in production and availability relating to the supply chain problems going on. More generally, I'm skeptical that it's advisable to continue administering vaccines which target the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain.

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#26

Post by tjr »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #25
tjr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Novavax looks like an interesting alternative. Not quite available yet, but probably soon.

There was just an announcement of major delays in production and availability relating to the supply chain problems going on. More generally, I'm skeptical that it's advisable to continue administering vaccines which target the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain.

Referring to the Politico article based on the anonymous source? Not sure about that; Novavax immediately put out a release today that they are still on target to submit for approval in various countries yet this year.

Agreed, I'm not sure of the value of continuing to target the original virus, but it sounds like Novavax offers decent protection against known variants also.

More interestingly, their vaccine directly exposes you to the spike protein, rather than telling your body to fabricate it.

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#27

Post by mullingitover »

user743 wrote: post #20
mullingitover wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2.2M+ adverse reactions in the WHO database. That's a big stretch. Take everything on the site with a block of salt, given that that's exactly what they tell you to do : > The information on this website, therefore, does not reflect any confirmed link between a medicinal product and a side effect People have been abusing the validity of VigiAccess to make specious claims about adverse effects and it's already been…

You can't argue with anything that comes out of the corporate press. I personally think the WHO has been comprised and don't trust them, but I used data associated with them since a lot of people do trust them still. If you won't trust this data what will you trust? The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either. The censorship is so bad you can't even Google anything anym…

> I personally think the WHO has been comprised and don't trust them, but I used data associated with them since a lot of people do trust them still.

> If you won't trust this data what will you trust?

Peer reviewed research, for starters. This database is like VAERS, which is likewise useless and filled with garbage reports. It's not vetted for accuracy in any way, it's a dumping ground for any random report that gets submitted.

> The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either.

Because the plural of anecdote is not data.

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#28

Post by mullingitover »

user743 wrote: post #21
user743 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't argue with anything that comes out of the corporate press. I personally think the WHO has been comprised and don't trust them, but I used data associated with them since a lot of people do trust them still. If you won't trust this data what will you trust? The most trustworthy source is anecdotal but I know that's not accepted in arguments either. The censorship is so bad you can't even Google anything anym…

Also, where is the block of salt for the death rate? It was already absurdly low without factoring in everyone that got sick, recovered easily, and never reported. Happy to have my perspective changed.

If you're genuinely open to new information, I would direct your attention to excess deaths[1]. There is more likely underreporting of deaths than inflation.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#29

Post by AndrewBissell »

tjr wrote: post #26
AndrewBissell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was just an announcement of major delays in production and availability relating to the supply chain problems going on. More generally, I'm skeptical that it's advisable to continue administering vaccines which target the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain.

Referring to the Politico article based on the anonymous source? Not sure about that; Novavax immediately put out a release today that they are still on target to submit for approval in various countries yet this year. Agreed, I'm not sure of the value of continuing to target the original virus, but it sounds like Novavax offers decent protection against known variants also. More interestingly, their vaccine directly…

Yeah it definitely seems less risky than the mRNA/adenoviral-vector approach. I know a guy in the Phase 3 trials who had some really bad side effects from the shots, but they only lasted a day. Unfortunately now he's stuck because the mandates all require one of the authorized vaccines, and there's essentially no data on whether it would be safe for him to take one after Novavax.

Re: COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed

#30

Post by tjr »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #29
tjr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Referring to the Politico article based on the anonymous source? Not sure about that; Novavax immediately put out a release today that they are still on target to submit for approval in various countries yet this year. Agreed, I'm not sure of the value of continuing to target the original virus, but it sounds like Novavax offers decent protection against known variants also. More interestingly, their vaccine directly…

Yeah it definitely seems less risky than the mRNA/adenoviral-vector approach. I know a guy in the Phase 3 trials who had some really bad side effects from the shots, but they only lasted a day. Unfortunately now he's stuck because the mandates all require one of the authorized vaccines, and there's essentially no data on whether it would be safe for him to take one after Novavax.

I have heard of companies accepting Novavax trial participants as meeting the mandate requirements. Might be worth asking.

Or if he is needing a booster shot... yeah, that's a little harder right now. I think some trial participants (in England?) were approved for taking a different vaccine as a booster, but if can possibly hold out, waiting for more Novavax seems to make more sense to me.

Post reply on HN