Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Why Did ASTRA ZENECA change name to Vaxzevria?

Posted by alexandra_k on April 15, 2021, at 19:27:49

In reply to Re: Why Did ASTRA ZENECA change name to Vaxzevria?, posted by Phillipa on April 13, 2021, at 18:36:21

The link copied but I need to disable my ad block to view it -- and I don't know how to disable / reenable it. And mostly it serves me so very very well that I don't look at things that require me to disable it...

> JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The coronavirus variant discovered in South Africa may evade the protection provided by Pfizer/BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine to some extent, a real-world data study in Israel found, though its prevalence in the country is very low and the research has not been peer reviewed.

A study with a very low sample size is more likely to be a chance finding. If you flip a fair coin 4x then you are more likely to get 75% heads than if you flip a coin 4x 4x.

I think... I think that's true. Now I'm worried. The gamblers fallacy is when you think the outcome of previous flips bias or alter the odds on the next. So... Thinking a series of heads makes tails more likely than 50%. Eep.

There could be a single family that was exposed to high viral load after their vaccination. WIth a small sample size. Or a particular community that congregates at a particular church or something. As the only source of that variant in Israel.

> The researchers cautioned, though, that the study only had a small sample size of people infected with the South African variant because of its rarity in Israel.


> Pfizer declined to comment on the Israeli study.


> They have been testing a third dose of their shot as a booster, and have said they could modify the shot to specifically address new variants if needed.

Yes. I wondered. I wonder if people who have had J&J may be invited to take a second dose of... Something. At some point. We don't know. We (some people anyway) are learning...


I am curious about why there aren't any reports of blood clots with Pfizer. I mean... Normally people get blood clots occasionally. That's something that happens. So to start with they thought the ones after AstraZenica (and maybe now Janssen / J&J) were just what happens sometimes. Nothing to do with the vaccine at all.

Then there was something to do with how they weren't really sure about the background rate. They weren't really sure how frequent or prevalent clots were to be able to say how many more of them were occurring in people who had those vaccines.

Which is weird. I am not sure the source of the confusion there.

But now... My question is: How many people with Pfizer are having blood clots? How many? None?


Pfizer discovered a 100 per cent effective prevention for blood clots? IN a vaccine form? Really? WOW!!!

Nobody is saying that (and presumably it's not plausible). So... Why isn't Pfizer reporting how many people have had blood clots after teh Pfizer vaccine?

I'm... Thinking, now, that what is being reported is just a sort of... Con-munications. To try and motivate people taking different vaccines instead of thinking one is the best. The Pfizer one was teh mRNA vaccine for the people (they are trying to associate the label of AstraZenica with that -- but no. That's Pfizer. The cheaper variant of ModeRNA).





Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1114360