Vacci-Nation [CLOSED DUE TO DISRESPECTFUL, INSULTING, POLITICAL POSTS

[JD001]

2 National Healthcare workers have reacted adversely to the vaccine..

'Two NHS staff members who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine on Tuesday – on the first day of the mass vaccination programme – suffered an allergic reaction, the NHS in England has confirmed.

Both are recovering, it is understood.

The NHS in England said all trusts involved with the vaccination programme have been informed.'

[Irace86.2.0]

I should be getting the vaccine soon per my work. I don’t know which one yet. They are going to start testing us for COVID weekly soon too.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by JD001

2 National Healthcare workers have reacted adversely to the vaccine..

'Two NHS staff members who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine on Tuesday – on the first day of the mass vaccination programme – suffered an allergic reaction, the NHS in England has confirmed.

Both are recovering, it is understood.

The NHS in England said all trusts involved with the vaccination programme have been informed.'

London — England's National Health Service warned on Wednesday that people "with a history of a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food" should not be given the COVID-19 vaccine developed by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and Germany's BioNTech.

Meh... I think its kind of silly that this has to be said.

[Wally86]

Originally Posted by Tomm

Meh... I think its kind of silly that this has to be said.

It's definitely weird. The article flat out says they tested it on 42k people with no issues but intentionally avoided testing people who've had issues with allergic reactions to vaccines.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Wally86

It's not all that rare. I test positive for TB (long story) so I can't even get the test. It's just a chest Xray and voila.

I don't test positive, I break out in hives from the "prick test" but the test itself is negative, happened on two occasions.

I had to get a medical waiver at work since it is required annually, after I refused to take it again, and they didn't want to pay for the more expensive xrays annually. I told them they could fire me if they want but I wasn't going to willingly take a test that I knew caused me to have an allergic reaction, and they had failed to document it when informed and had witnessed both times it happened.

We settled in one xray test and future years me certifying I had not been exposed. Given I'm not a front line caregiver it wasn't a big deal. This year (7 years after the above) they have now dropped the test for anyone not directly involved in patient care.

[Wally86]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I don't test positive, I break out in hives from the "prick test" but the test itself is negative, happened on two occasions.

I had to get a medical waiver at work since it is required annually, after I refused to take it again, and they didn't want to pay for the more expensive xrays annually. I told them they could fire me if they want but I wasn't going to willingly take a test that I knew caused me to have an allergic reaction, and they had failed to document it when informed and had witnessed both times it happened.

We settled one xray test and future years me certifying I had not been exposed. Given I'm not a front line caregiver it wasn't a big deal. This year (7 years after the above) they have now dropped the test for anyone not directly involved in patient care.

It shouldn't have taken all that effort and I"m shocked your previous doctor didn't record the issue.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Wally86

It's definitely weird. The article flat out says they tested it on 42k people with no issues but intentionally avoided testing people who've had issues with allergic reactions to vaccines.

Sure, but people with a "history of a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food" having reactions to the vaccine is not surprising to me. The testing phases of these things were absolutely rushed but the findings are consistent. Should we be more or less skeptical with this new information? I personally think its ab the same.

[Wally86]

Originally Posted by Tomm

Sure, but people with a "history of a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food" having reactions to the vaccine is not surprising to me. The testing phases of these things were absolutely rushed but the findings are consistent. Should we be more or less skeptical with this new information? I personally think its ab the same.

I think it means exercise caution which is probably good advice for life in general.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Wally86

I think it means exercise caution which is probably good advice for life in general.

That's fair, but if I get reactions from vaccines I wouldn't expect this one to be different buuuuut people are still eating tide pods. So my faith in common sense is diminished. Touche.

The way I read it was just like, people that have reactions to vaccines are having a reaction to the vaccine. lol

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Wally86

It shouldn't have taken all that effort and I"m shocked your previous doctor didn't record the issue.

Wasn't Dr really it was an Occupational Health clinic doing employee testing.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Wally86

It's definitely weird. The article flat out says they tested it on 42k people with no issues but intentionally avoided testing people who've had issues with allergic reactions to vaccines.

Just for reference: we give medications to people who have allergic reactions to those medications all the time because it can often be the case that people need those medications, and their allergy isn’t significant. We have had people who claim to have an allergy to epinephrine because it increased their heart rate. We have had people who say they are allergic to an antibiotic because it caused diarrhea and upset their stomach. This is a far cry from wrenching nausea, keeling over from abdominal pain, breaking out in hives or a rash, and even further from having a severe allergic reaction like angioedema or something that might cause a collapsed airway or death.

Humans can’t be used as guinea pigs where they are knowingly hurt or put in harm’s way. There is a difference between adverse effects caused by a medication that is applicable to a narrow group versus a broad group, or reactions that can be predicted and thus avoided and ones that would be hard to predict. For instance, people with known reasons to avoid vaccines because they have immuno deficiencies or reactions will be avoiding these vaccines, so there is no reason to include them in a study. They will know not to take the vaccine. Contrast that with hydroxychloroquine, as an example, where the scientists/doctors removed people from the study who had a prolonged QTc or who developed a prolonged QTc or who deteriorated and/or who moved to the ICU during the study, then later claimed there was no adverse effects, as if it was safe and only resulted in improved outcomes when this was clearly not the case. The results of the study could be applied to people in a hospital setting who are receiving multiple tests and ECGs per day at best, but the claim that it is safe would be misleading for the general population, if people started to take hydroxychloroquine as an outpatient for instance .

Circling back to this study, if the vaccine caused wide spread allergic reactions in groups that normally don’t have allergic reactions to vaccines then that would be mentioned or would cause the medication to fail clinical trials, but again, there is no point in torturing people that they already know would be tortured when their adverse effects aren’t specific to this vaccine.

Just an example to make it clear: Say scientists were testing a new Italian dish for enjoyment, but it had gluten in it so celiac people would be excluded and people with gluten sensitivities might also decide to avoid the meal, or they could eat it if they normally have mild GI symptoms like getting an intestinal sunburn (maybe one exposure isn’t the end of the world, but repeated exposures would be destructive). The fact that these groups avoided the meal and didn’t participate in the study wouldn’t change the results about whether the majority of people either enjoyed or did not enjoy the experience of eating this new Italian meal. If the scientists included them then not only would it be unethical, but it wouldn’t make sense. It would be like a celiac patient going to Olive Garden then writing a bad Yelp review that the bread and pasta gave him an adverse allergic reaction.

[spike021]

Originally Posted by Wally86

Side effects? lol

https://www.wsj.com/articles/people-...ns-11607515727

There will always be side effects. I've been asked about getting alternate flu vaccines if I'm allergic to eggs or other allergens.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Just for reference: we give medications to people who have allergic reactions to those medications all the time because it can often be the case that people need those medications, and their allergy isn’t significant.

To some degree I'm an example of this. I have an allergy to penicillin and to NSAIDs (aspirin, etc). Both of these can cause a reaction in me that is dangerous (swelling in the face, nose, throat, hives) so I don't do those because it could kill me in short order without treatment.

On the flip side I have had mild reactions, at times, to the flu shot. Fever for a short time, or probably more correctly feeling very flush, even had an issue with my vision one year (caused it to look like the back of my hand was "crawling", very odd). Still I take the shot every year because it passes, and doesn't always happen.

[spike021]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Circling back to this study, if the vaccine caused wide spread allergic reactions in groups that normally don’t have allergic reactions to vaccines then that would be mentioned or would cause the medication to fail clinical trials, but again, there is no point in torturing people that they already know would be tortured when their adverse effects aren’t specific to this vaccine.

Since we're on the topic.

I've never had an allergic reaction to medication or any vaccines (take normal flu vaccine, etc.).

But I have terrible stomach "hypersensitivity" (GI doc term, not mine) to certain foods, which causes unusual allergic reactions, usually acid reflux, terrible stomach pain, occasional nausea if it's extreme enough of an event.

So in this case are we thinking (obviously not looking for an official, medical approval here just theorizing) that this should still be fine for me or do I actually need to confirm otherwise?