9 ms·

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

53 points by AndrewBissell 5y ago

treelovinhippie 5y 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.
mullingitover 5y 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.
- djmips 5y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation
- AndrewBissell 5y 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.
  - mullingitover 5y 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.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      You do not get a flu shot to not get killed by flu. Nobody really expects that it would be likely. You take it to not get a bad case of flu. Well, bad case of COVID-19 is worse than bad case of flu. This alone should be enough to get vaccinated but there is more: you may also develop long lasting symptoms (aka long covid) or get some more serious complication like myocarditis (more likely than from a vaccine).
    - AndrewBissell 5y ago
      What other sort of benefit is there supposed to be? The reduction in infection and transmission risk for Delta from the vaccines is marginal at best, wanes quickly, and might well be defeated completely by future variants. If we're acknowledging that the immediate risk tradeoff might be negative, these would be the first vaccines in history that people were widely expected to take on those terms.
      - nuerow 5y ago
Tarsul 5y ago
where is the recourse for those who suffer from covid due to negligence of others?
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  They get to sacrifice a scapegoat to appease the gods which will make them feel better at living in a chaotic world.
- user743 5y 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 5y ago
  It’s their personal responsibility to get vaccinated if they want to avoid that outcome
- proc0 5y 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.
user743 5y 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/ http://www.vigiaccess.org/
- bendauphinee 5y 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.
- phonypc 5y 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."
  - native_samples 5y 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.
nuerow 5y 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?
- SkyPuncher 5y ago
  That's "the bill". Actual, negotiated insurance rates are significantly lower.
  - tpoacher 5y ago
    how lower?
- Auracle 5y 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.
  - nuerow 5y 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.
    - 5y ago
Factorium 5y ago
https://investinganswers.com/articles/10-most-popular-stocks-owned-congress 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-owned-congress 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-details/biontech-announces-new-collaboration-develop-hiv-and 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?
- aesh2Xa1 5y 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.
  - nuerow 5y 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/most-americans-dont-have-a-real-stake-in-the-stock-market/?sh=672511df1154 https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2020/08/31/mo... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-americans-own-a-record-89percent-of-all-us-stocks.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-... [3] https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-details/biontech-announces-new-collaboration-develop-hiv-and/ https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...
- 5y ago

53 points by AndrewBissell 5y 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.

mullingitover 5y 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.

djmips 5y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation
AndrewBissell 5y 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.
- mullingitover 5y 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.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    You do not get a flu shot to not get killed by flu. Nobody really expects that it would be likely. You take it to not get a bad case of flu. Well, bad case of COVID-19 is worse than bad case of flu. This alone should be enough to get vaccinated but there is more: you may also develop long lasting symptoms (aka long covid) or get some more serious complication like myocarditis (more likely than from a vaccine).
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    What other sort of benefit is there supposed to be? The reduction in infection and transmission risk for Delta from the vaccines is marginal at best, wanes quickly, and might well be defeated completely by future variants. If we're acknowledging that the immediate risk tradeoff might be negative, these would be the first vaccines in history that people were widely expected to take on those terms.
    - nuerow 5y ago

Tarsul 5y ago

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

thinkingemote 5y ago
They get to sacrifice a scapegoat to appease the gods which will make them feel better at living in a chaotic world.
user743 5y 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 5y ago
It’s their personal responsibility to get vaccinated if they want to avoid that outcome
proc0 5y 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.

user743 5y 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/ http://www.vigiaccess.org/

bendauphinee 5y 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.
phonypc 5y 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."
- native_samples 5y 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.

nuerow 5y 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?

SkyPuncher 5y ago
That's "the bill". Actual, negotiated insurance rates are significantly lower.
- tpoacher 5y ago
  how lower?
Auracle 5y 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.
- nuerow 5y 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.
  - 5y ago

Factorium 5y ago

https://investinganswers.com/articles/10-most-popular-stocks-owned-congress 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-owned-congress 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-details/biontech-announces-new-collaboration-develop-hiv-and 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?

aesh2Xa1 5y 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.
- nuerow 5y 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/most-americans-dont-have-a-real-stake-in-the-stock-market/?sh=672511df1154 https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2020/08/31/mo... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-americans-own-a-record-89percent-of-all-us-stocks.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-... [3] https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-details/biontech-announces-new-collaboration-develop-hiv-and/ https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...
5y ago