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

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/covid-vaccine-injury-claims-mount-recourse-is-lacking-those-harmed-2021-10-19/

by AndrewBissell • 5 years ago

53 62 5 years ago

I've had the influenza vaccine every year with no side effects.

3 weeks of chest pains on the 1st Pfizer (+emergency visit) and 1 week of chest pains on the 2nd Pfizer. ECG, x-ray and blood tests normal. Four different doctors: "we don't know what the side effect is, can't diagnose it, and we're seeing it quite often". Yeah that was concerning.

mullingitover7• 5 years ago

It's pretty wild that prior to vaccination, smallpox prevention was done by inoculation with actual live smallpox. That story of Washington forcing his troops to be 'vaccinated' is wrong - he exposed them to actual smallpox. Something like 1% of people receiving inoculation would develop full-blown smallpox. No vaccine courts for those folks.

There are going to be a lot of one in a million coincidences with this broad of a vaccination campaign - a lot of people who were going to develop blood clots for unrelated reasons are going to coincidentally get them after getting vaccinated. Same goes for myocarditis - vaccination can cause it in rare cases, but so can adenovirus, herpes, hepatitis, various bacteria, parasites, and fungi. There are going to be a lot of coincidences at this scale so it's important that they're carefully reviewed by the court so the covid vaccine isn't wrongly tarred, especially now when misinformation will make several laps around the world before the facts can get their pants on.

AndrewBissell8• 5 years ago

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 without comorbidities who is forced to get a Covid vaccination to attend college.

Another point of contrast is that smallpox inoculation was sterilizing and prevented the inoculated from being able to spread the disease.

mullingitover7• 5 years ago

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.

djmips• 5 years ago

Specifically inoculation against smallpox was termed variolation. It was application of the virus to the skin as opposed to infection via the air/lungs. For those curious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation

Tarsul• 5 years ago

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

user7435• 5 years ago

When I've been sick in the past I've often thought that it would be nice to have recourse against the people who infected me.

This is life though. It's not practical, moral, or enforceable.

The best thing one can do is put effort into the factors they can control—diet, exercise, avoiding unnecessary conflict to keep stress low, etc.

vnchr• 5 years ago

It’s their personal responsibility to get vaccinated if they want to avoid that outcome

proc0• 5 years ago

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.

thinkingemote• 5 years ago

They get to sacrifice a scapegoat to appease the gods which will make them feel better at living in a chaotic world.

user7435• 5 years ago

2.2M+ adverse reactions in the WHO database. Of course Google, the corporate press, and "independent fact checkers" are saying it lacks context.

Most people I know, know at least a few people that had adverse reactions already; let alone ADE or long-term consequences.

http://www.vigiaccess.org/

phonypc4• 5 years ago

The WHO essentially says it lacks context. Read the "Important points to consider" heading in your link.

Namely "VigiAccess cannot be used to infer any confirmed link between a suspected side effect and any specific medicine."

user7435• 5 years ago

What data on adverse reactions would you all accept?

native_samples3• 5 years ago

Correlation doesn't imply causation but causation always implies correlation.

The claim that national databases of reports of symptoms occurring just days after a vaccination "cannot be used to infer" anything is just obviously not true. Of course they can be used to infer things. That's the justification for collecting the data in the first place, to enable such inferences. To believe nothing can be inferred from these databases requires you to believe that almost all the reports are spurious noise. Some are spurious for sure, just like some COVID deaths aren't really deaths from COVID. But a lot won't be, especially given that it takes quite some work and dedication to file an AER, and some databases like VAERS are moderated (that's why reports turn up in huge batches).

What's happened here is that the medical establishment has decided that vaccines are going to be considered safe no matter what, but, they have the problem that in the past there were problems and thus such databases are written into law in many parts of the world (like the USA). So they're trying to convince everyone that the databases are useless and so dominated by noise no conclusions can be drawn at all, even though in the past, that wasn't true. Additionally, no evidence for this claim is presented. So people outside the establishment go looking at the reports and this freaks out TPTB, who then insist that the public shouldn't look. It's not very convincing.

mullingitover7• 5 years ago

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 debunked[1].

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/15/fac...

user7435• 5 years ago

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 anymore so where do you go?

bendauphinee• 5 years ago

Counterpoint, in my work and social circle, a group of around 50 regular contacts including several with immune issues, the worst adverse reactions that have been talked about are one had a fever for a day.

nuerow9• 5 years ago

I apologize for going out on a tangent, but I jus have to draw some attention to this quote from the article:

McFadden, 44, said she was previously healthy and needed two emergency surgeries to remove massive clots in her lungs, heart and left leg. She spent nine days in the hospital, racking up $489,153 in medical bills, she said.

Seriously, US of A. What the hell is this? How is this even possible?

agency• 5 years ago

The invisible hand guiding our healthcare system has an unfortunate tendency to reach into your pocket and leave you bankrupt.

SkyPuncher• 5 years ago

That's "the bill". Actual, negotiated insurance rates are significantly lower.

tpoacher• 5 years ago

how lower?

AuryGlenz2• 5 years ago

The estimate for the birth of our baby was over $30,000 for a normal, natural birth.

It ended up being a c-section, so I can’t wait to see what the actual total is. We don’t have a “healthcare is private” problem, we have a cost problem. Doctors, nurses, medical device companies, prescription drug makers, and everyone else get paid significantly more here than pretty much anywhere else.

Now is definitely not the time to bring up that medical professionals should be paid less though.

nuerow9• 5 years ago

We don’t have a “healthcare is private” problem, we have a cost problem.

Isn't the problem actually the lack of any public healthcare service compounded by the extensive reliance on private health insurances, which completely eliminates any competition based on cost and actually puts pressure for end-user prices to grow?

The reason why healthcare costs in the US are extremely high is not due to quality at all, but because those selling services can get away with it.

Factorium2• 5 years ago

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 forced to get vaccines? Why are children when COVID presents no risk to them?

luxuryballs• 5 years ago

my pet theory on the new push to vaccinate children is they didn’t get as many adults as they expected and need to make up for the sales so now they are marketing to children/parents

help_quanted• 5 years ago

Actually, delta is hospitalizing and killing children at a significantly increased rate relative to the initial virus.

Congress is going to hold blue chip stocks..what specious argument are you're trying to make?

grillvogel• 5 years ago

source on "significantly increased"? children are more at risk from the flu

Factorium2• 5 years ago

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

COVID deaths ages 0-17: 542, out of a total of 723,880 total COVID deaths.

0.075% of COVID deaths.

tjr3• 5 years ago

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

AndrewBissell8• 5 years ago

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.

aesh2Xa1• 5 years ago

It makes sense that wealthy and powerful people would invest in popular companies.

It makes sense that vaccine producers would be popular companies during two years of pandemic.

nuerow9• 5 years ago

It makes sense that wealthy and powerful people would invest in popular companies.

It should also be noted that even in the US, the bastion of economic liberalism and extreme capitalism, only 15% of all families own stock[1].

Also, it was reported a couple off days ago that 89% of all stock are owned by only 10% of americans[2]. So, Bill Gates owning stock is not relevant or meaningful.

Lastly, Bill Gates at most invested 55 million on BioNTech[3]. We're talking about a guy whose fortune is evaluated at around 135 BILLION dollars. To put things in perspective, this is equivalent to a guy who has $1 million investing $350 on a company. Come on.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2020/08/31/mo...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-...

[3] https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...

nuerow9• 5 years ago

Why are people with COVID antibodies from successful recovery forced to get vaccines?

"Successful recoveries" alone is not an indication that you are now immune to COVID-19 or able to handle a reinfection well. There are reported cases of reinfections, with the second COVID-19 infection being far more serious and even deadly.

Also, it has been observed that vaccination ensures a better antibody response to some variants than a prior infection.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

Even though none of the current batch of vaccines ensure perfect immunity, they all do ensure that the immune response to subsequent infections is good enough to not even warrant any additional care beyond quarantine to avoid transmitting to anyone else.

Anyone can find answers to those questions with a quick Google search. What happened to "I do my own research"?

peteradio• 5 years ago

When you get to "reported cases of" anecdotes that the researchers were specifically targeting to find you might want to consider the reduction factors involved. Or even the potential for selecting a biased dataset based on false positives.

Correct interpretation of research is more important than finding this or that paper. Kentucky study was not about antibody response so I'm not sure how you are using that to back up your assertion. Instead it was a theoretically more direct look in to patient outcomes, however follow own studies over larger populations seem to be in tension with the Kentucky result.

HelixEndeavor• 5 years ago

"reported cases" is not the same thing as "statistics show." As someone who was diagnosed with COVID in August, was out of commission for a week and a half, and recovered fully, I'll need more convincing than "this happened once, maybe even twice" to believe it's worth it to get the shot.

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

Related Stories