Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?

Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised? By Joseph Ladapo in the WSJ.

One remarkable aspect of the Covid-19 pandemic has been how often unpopular scientific ideas, from the lab-leak theory to the efficacy of masks, were initially dismissed, even ridiculed, only to resurface later in mainstream thinking. Differences of opinion have sometimes been rooted in disagreement over the underlying science. But the more common motivation has been political.

Another reversal in thinking may be imminent. Some scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated. But the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking — for now.

Historically, the safety of medications — including vaccines — is often not fully understood until they are deployed in large populations. …

The Vaers data for Covid-19 vaccines show an interesting pattern. Among the 310 million Covid-19 vaccines given, several adverse events are reported at high rates in the days immediately after vaccination, and then fall precipitously afterward. … Four serious adverse events follow this arc, according to data taken directly from Vaers:

  • low platelets (thrombocytopenia)
  • noninfectious myocarditis, or heart inflammation, especially for those under 30
  • deep-vein thrombosis
  • death. …

Prior research has shown that only a fraction of adverse events are reported, so the true number of cases is almost certainly higher. This tendency of underreporting is consistent with our clinical experience. …

The CDC and FDA are surely aware of these data patterns, yet neither agency has acknowledged the trend.

The implication is that the risks of a Covid-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for certain low-risk populations, such as children, young adults and people who have recovered from Covid-19. This is especially true in regions with low levels of community spread, since the likelihood of illness depends on exposure risk. …

And while you would never know it from listening to public-health officials, not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from Covid-19 vaccination. That this isn’t readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci is an indication of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.

There are, however, signs of life for scientific honesty. In May, the Norwegian Medicines Agency reviewed case files for the first 100 reported deaths of nursing-home residents who received the Pfizer vaccine. The agency concluded that the vaccine “likely” contributed to the deaths of 10 of these residents through side effects such as fever and diarrhea, and “possibly” contributed to the deaths of an additional 26. But this type of honesty is rare. And it is rare for any vaccine to be linked to deaths, so this unusual development for mRNA vaccines merits further investigation.

The battle to recover scientific honesty will be an uphill one in the U.S. Anti-Trump politics in the spring of 2020 mushroomed into social-media censorship. News reporting often lacked intellectual curiosity about the appropriateness of public-health guidelines—or why a vocal minority of scientists strongly disagreed with prevailing opinions. Scientists have advocated for or against Covid-19 therapies while having financial relationships with product manufacturers and their foundation benefactors.

Even the MSM is beginning to wake up and take notice of the obvious but politically-unhelpful-to-the-left (we need a word for that — leftbarrassing?).

Money and power trump science and reality, in the short term. And now that covid has been around for a couple of years, they are having to cede to reality.

Waiting for them to legalize then recommend IVM and HCQ, instead of those ridiculously expensive and ineffective concoctions from Big Pharma. Any year now…