|
We have yet to cross the fact that life insurance companies are refusing payouts of vaccine deaths due to the insured taked part in a 'clinical trial'
Pretty sure part-med says pilots can not take part in clinical trials, yet here we are. Keep in mind, these vaccines are not approved, they have been granted 'emergency dispensation' |
Originally Posted by helicrazi
(Post 11352446)
We have yet to cross the fact that life insurance companies are refusing payouts of vaccine deaths due to the insured taked part in a 'clinical trial'
Pretty sure part-med says pilots can not take part in clinical trials, yet here we are. Keep in mind, these vaccines are not approved, they have been granted 'emergency dispensation'
Originally Posted by helicrazi
(Post 11352439)
same webpage that you just quoted:
Don’t wait for someone else to report itIt is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. Under-reporting coupled with a decline in reporting makes it especially important to report all suspicions of adverse drug reactions to the Yellow Card Scheme. |
Originally Posted by Torquetalk
(Post 11352450)
Being vacinated with an approved vaccine is not taking part in a clinical trial. The clinical trails happen bfore the drug is approved. Obviously. Stop making stuff up for goodness sake.
The under-reporting you are referring to concerns all drugs covered by the yellow card scheme. Given mass vaccination and the heightened awareness of side effects associated with some Covid 19 vaccines, 90% under-reporting seems pretty unlikely on the face of it. Especially with serious side effects. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...id-19-vaccines |
Originally Posted by helicrazi
(Post 11352454)
Read for yourself: FDA clearly states Emergency Use
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...id-19-vaccines If you have a UK medical, the AMEs take their lead from the UK health authority about what is and isn't approved. Why are you trying so hard to make something simple complicated? https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...virus-vaccine/ |
Hc, your profile says you're UK based but you're quoting the FDA.
From the NHS site Tt linked: The COVID-19 vaccines currently approved for use in the UK are:
|
Originally Posted by helispotter
(Post 11350727)
Flying Binghi, In one of your messages you have an extract:
"The Australian government should be urgently investigating the “incredibly high” 13 per cent excess death rate in 2022, the country’s peak actuarial body says". You have a link to an apparent news item on this, but the link hardly looks mainstream. If accurate, news like that would be all over the place. Any other links? ... Australian government stats. (have a look at the blue line) |
Originally Posted by JimEli
(Post 11352568)
Allow me to assist (it's not a mainstream news oraganization, so you might be inclined to find it unreliable).
Australian government stats. (have a look at the blue line) |
Originally Posted by Robbo Jock
(Post 11352519)
Hc, your profile says you're UK based but you're quoting the FDA.
From the NHS site Tt linked: Note 'approved'. Regulation 174 is an emergency approval and states that normal regulations dont apply. |
Find the regulations here https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ne-year-review
From section 3.1 Another respondent commented that the COVID-19 vaccines authorised under R174A had subsequently been linked to a very low number of adverse events, some of which had been serious, in particular the risks of myocarditis with both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia with the AstraZeneca COVD-19 vaccine. They noted that it was not clear whether these risks would have been identified had the vaccines been authorised under the usual arrangements of a CMA. They added that it was also not clear whether, if these risks had been identified, it would have influenced decisions by the MHRA in terms of licensing, given the public health emergency and subsequent authorisation of the vaccines under a CMA. In light of these comments, it is important to note that each COVID-19 vaccine candidate was only authorised once it had met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality set by the medicines regulator, MHRA. The use of R174A did not alter this strict process and vaccines authorised via this route underwent the same rigorous quality checks as vaccines authorised under CMAs. |
Originally Posted by helicrazi
(Post 11352596)
Dig deeper: Approved under Regulation 174
Regulation 174 is an emergency approval and states that normal regulations dont apply. 100% correct its still under an emergency use authorisation category , this is to protect the vaccine manufacturers from law suits still. The lies are coming out slowly. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 11352650)
Find the regulations here https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ne-year-review
From section 3.1 they didn't make it up on the back of a fag packet and the standards required still had to be met 'Standards required' as you quote - effectively in an 'emergency' there are very few.... |
Keep digging, you are getting there. 'Standards required' as you quote - effectively in an 'emergency' there are very few.... |
From this site https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/em...thorisation-eu
EMA has recommended granting a conditional marketing authorisation for COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna to prevent Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in people from 18 years of age. This is the second COVID-19 vaccine that EMA has recommended for authorisation. EMA’s human medicines committee (CHMP) has thoroughly assessed the data on the quality, safety and efficacy of the vaccine and recommended by consensus a formal conditional marketing authorisation be granted by the European Commission. This will assure EU citizens that the vaccine meets EU standards and puts in place the safeguards, controls and obligations to underpin EU-wide vaccination campaigns. “This vaccine provides us with another tool to overcome the current emergency,” said Emer Cooke, Executive Director of EMA. “It is a testament to the efforts and commitment of all involved that we have this second positive vaccine recommendation just short of a year since the pandemic was declared by WHO. “As for all medicines, we will closely monitor data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine to ensure ongoing protection of the EU public. Our work will always be guided by the scientific evidence and our commitment to safeguard the health of EU citizens.” A very large clinical trial showed that COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna was effective at preventing COVID-19 in people from 18 years of age. |
And there seems to be plenty of information for healthcare professionals here - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicin.../EPAR/spikevax scroll down to where it details risks associated - for myocarditis it may occur in 1 in 10, 000 people...........where is the cover up?
|
and it is also a known symptom, occurring more frequently in connection with a Covid infection than as a side effect of vaccination.
Some people want certainty where there can be none. In the absence of certainty, all manner of uncertainty and ill intent is perceived. And a willingness to leap from 1 + 1 to arrive at 647 |
I am confused.
When I read a statement like this..... and it is also a known symptom, occurring more frequently in connection with a Covid infection than as a side effect of vaccination. If we are going to make statements of fact.... how about providing the rest of us with some idea where you are obtaining your information and what Date that information was made public. We know one thing for sure....over the course of the past couple of years since Covid first appeared the knowledge base has changed as Studies and Analysis of Data has been done. The newer the Reports and Data are they should be based upon more accurate information. Can we get back to what the thread is supposed to be about....Covid, Covid Vaccines, effects and side effects there of that can affect a Pilot's health, fitness, and suitability to maintain one's License and Employment? That is what I want to hear about as it is a very real issue as a few have shown by relating their own personal experiences. |
I think a pulmonary embolism would ground you:
Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has been linked to blood clotting in older individuals, according to the FDA. FDA researchers looked at data covering 17.4 million elderly Americans who received a total of 34.6 million vaccine doses between Dec. 10, 2020, and Jan. 16, 2022, and found that pulmonary embolism met the initial threshold for a statistical signal. The study was published in the journal Vaccine on Dec. 1. The FDA isn’t taking any action on the results. I think myocarditis would ground you: The FDA added a warning about the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis to fact sheets for Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 back in 2021. The warning notes that reports of adverse events following vaccination – particularly after the second dose – suggest increased risks of both types of heart inflammation. |
Wrt Myocarditis and Pericarditis. British Heart Foundation website discusses risks:
BHF: Myocarditis and Covid-19 vaccines: should you be worried? One highlight Research published in April 2022 shows that there is no greater risk of developing heart inflammation after a Covid-19 vaccine than after other common vaccines, including the flu jab. |
Originally Posted by Robbo Jock
(Post 11352887)
Wrt Myocarditis and Pericarditis. British Heart Foundation website discusses risks:
BHF: Myocarditis and Covid-19 vaccines: should you be worried? One highlight |
Originally Posted by JimEli
(Post 11352863)
I think a pulmonary embolism would ground you:
Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has been linked to blood clotting in older individuals, according to the FDA. FDA researchers looked at data covering 17.4 million elderly Americans who received a total of 34.6 million vaccine doses between Dec. 10, 2020, and Jan. 16, 2022, and found that pulmonary embolism met the initial threshold for a statistical signal. The study was published in the journal Vaccine on Dec. 1. The FDA isn’t taking any action on the results. I think myocarditis would ground you: The FDA added a warning about the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis to fact sheets for Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 back in 2021. The warning notes that reports of adverse events following vaccination – particularly after the second dose – suggest increased risks of both types of heart inflammation. You read the proviso on those 4 events too, right? They FDA did not take action because the researchers concluded the benefits of vaccination outweighed the risks in the studied population, over 65s It is ‘t saying what you would like it to. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.