AstraZeneca Vaccine: Total Safety? Wait seated | Science

European governments have chosen to sell their citizens the AstraZeneca vaccine full safety banner, which is curious for three reasons. First, that 100% security does not exist in our humble earthly abode, and that the rulers who aspire to it would do better to postpone it until they enjoy the certainties of eternity, since death is the only sure thing that will happen to us in life. lifetime. Second, that if there were a trick to guarantee total security, it would probably be the same in Bavaria as in Castilla y León, the same in the north as in the south of the old continent, which is kicked in by the multicolored and contradictory spectrum of the drug restrictions that have been adopted by the sovereign states of the EU. Based, by the way, on the same opinion of the same scientific body that they finance for these purposes, the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The third, and almost worse, is that governments are selling us a precautionary principle with the vaccine that they themselves have repeatedly violated over the last year. If they are so concerned about 0.001% thrombosis among AstraZeneca vaccinates, why are they not so concerned about the 1% fatality caused by SARS-CoV-2? This death toll from the coronavirus, which is a thousand times higher than that of thrombi from the vaccine, is the responsibility of the authorities, who have resisted with all their jaws to impose the restrictions, confinements and closures of activity that the epidemiologists. Now that two and a half million people have died in the world, we are going to roll up our sleeves to see if we avoid 40 thrombotic episodes. That is not worth it. It is ethically and arithmetically wrong.

If they are so concerned about 0.001% thrombosis among AstraZeneca vaccinates, why are they not so concerned about the 1% fatality caused by SARS-CoV-2?

Public managers who have decided to suspend, cut back or complicate the distribution of the British vaccine, and who have imposed a few justifiable and plainly incomprehensible age windows to receive it, and who will continue to do so until there are guarantees of total safety, can now wait sitting down. 12 years ago, in the swine flu or influenza A (2009 H1N1) pandemic crisis, public health agencies in Sweden and Finland raised an alarm about Pandemrix, a vaccine against that virus. Children who had received a dose of Pandemrix appeared to be at increased risk for narcolepsy, a chronic disorder of the sleep-wake cycles.

The incidents of narcolepsy with that vaccine were five or ten times more frequent (1 in 18,000) than those of thrombi with the current one (1 in 100,000). Regulators considered it likely that the problem lay with the adjuvant, a substance that is added to vaccines to increase their immunogenicity, or ability to induce an immune response. Twelve years later it has been ruled out that the fault lay with the adjuvant, but we still do not have conclusive evidence of the relationship between Pandemrix and narcolepsy. Do you want AstraZeneca? Come back in 12 years.

You can follow SUBJECT on Facebook, Twitter e Instagram, or sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.

Leave a Comment