COVID-19 vaccine warnings don’t mean it’s unsafe – it’s proof the system to report side effects is working

While the COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the U.S. have been proved to be safe and effective, recent reports of rare adverse events, or side effects, have raised concerns. On July 12, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved an update to the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine fact sheet to include an increased risk of the rare nerve condition Guillain-Barré syndrome. This follows previous reports linking the J&J vaccine with a rare blood clot.

While reports like these can be scary, they’re a sign that the vaccine safety reporting system is working. They also highlight how the relative risks of rare side effects like these need to be put into context…

A rare adverse event may take months or years to identify for a simple reason: It’s rare. For some drugs that are less commonly used, new safety data takes longer to discover because a relatively small number of patients use the drug…For cases like the COVID-19 vaccine, however, millions of people will receive the drug shortly after it’s released to the public, and new issues or patterns often emerge more quickly.

This can lead to two problems.

First, not every reported adverse event is directly related to the vaccine…Second, a plausibly identified adverse event does not necessarily make the vaccine unsafe.

In such extraordinary times as during a pandemic, it’s understandable that people may be hesitant to take on any more risk than they have to. But there are safety nets in place to monitor the COVID-19 vaccines, and they are still working as they should.

Being aware of the risks of a treatment, however rare, can help people make health decisions that work best for them…And in the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, they must be weighed against the consequences of remaining unvaccinated and letting the pandemic rage on.

Emphasis added.

3 thoughts on “COVID-19 vaccine warnings don’t mean it’s unsafe – it’s proof the system to report side effects is working

  1. Mark says:

    The article does a good job of sidestepping the fact that adverse reactions are likely under-reported. The VAERS system website is apparently awful and difficult to use, which probably doesn’t help.

    The fact is that adverse reactions and deaths for the COVID vaccines are far far in excess of any vaccines that have gone through the full safety trials. This information is available from the WHO.

    Its interesting that the non-mRNA vaccines are singled out for adverse effects when the adverse effects with mRNA vaccines are around the same numbers. Slightly less if memory serves.

    Still, the vaccines appear to be effective and chances are you will be fine. However, you are probably better off, IMHO, taking a prescribed dose of Ivermectin if you have symptoms or have a positive test. It is extremely cheap, safe and effective, your chances of serious illness will be greatly reduced and you will have a natural immunity to Covid at the end of it.

    Unfortunately Trump said the word Ivermectin, so clearly its ineffective, immoral and probably very evil.

    • eideard says:

      Sorry, but, I don’t find anything like this at the WHO site.


      BTW, you do understand that 99+% of ALL serious illness and deaths from COVID-19 are unvaccinated.

  2. Mark says:

    I am not doubting, and never have doubted, the effectiveness of the current crop of covid 19 vaccines. Effectiveness is not the same thing as safety.

    Sorry couldn’t find the WHO link. I think the finding was a sorting of the available WHO vaccine adverse effects data by Tess Lawrie, who does some statistical analysis for the WHO. I should know better than to post without links. Will email if I find it.

    The recent Guardian anti-Ivermectin article was a cracker. You can always tell that what follows will be shite when an article starts off with a disingenuous politicisation.

    “The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt…”. Never was there a more Guardian opener than that!

    Someone needs to educate Melissa Davies on how a meta-analysis works. If you take out the study called into question, and there do seem to be problems with it, the meta-analysis still shows an overwhelming effectiveness of Ivermectin, even given the wide variations on how and when the drug was administered in each of the remaining studies. Additionally, the removal of the Egyptian study actually improved the statistical effectiveness of Ivermectin as prophylaxis.

    Some extremely good real time data on the current state of ivermectin trials in the link below. There is also a wealth of information on other treatments for covid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.